The Unvaxinated = the Taliban

[Dill]

(09-07-2021, 07:51 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: What are you talking about?  I just did.

Perhaps I misunderstood what you were providing examples of. Or perhaps we disagree on what an example is.

Here I how I understood your argument from post #53, starting with the first paragraph, where you lay out what I take to be the
issue which requires examples.

(09-01-2021, 01:17 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You're not saying anything new here.  I don't think there was anyone who didn't understand what your stated objective was.  The problem is you don't understand how your stated goal and reality do not intersect, at all.  You say you may make such comparisons with good intentions, and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that this is the case.  However, the real world ramifications of such comparisons are radically different then your stated goal.  They do not increase understanding and they absolutely increase division and demonization.  When one's actions cause a polar opposite results to that intended it would behoove said person to reexamine said practice and analyze why such unintended results were achieved.

In the above, you seem to be addressing my claim that scholarship on authoritarian regimes should inform public discussion, especially during a time when a major party is taking an authoritarian turn.* Despite my "good intentions," attempts to thus inform US political discussion have "real world ramifications. . . radically different from [my] stated goal."  "Different" in the sense they DO NOT increase understanding.    I got that right, right? If not, then what have I misunderstood?

From the above I assumed that your counter-claim is based upon some "real world" experience of the issue at hand. I.e., You have observed efforts to infuse scholarship on authoritarian regimes and how they have backfired, increasing "division" rather than "understanding."  

So from that paragraph, I'm expecting you to lay out observations, examples, data, on efforts to thus inform public discussion which have NOT increased understanding but HAVE increased division. 

But then you seem to shift topics, speaking of criminal justice advocates, whose good intentions backfire, despite you (we?) telling them "exactly what happened would happen and why."  That IS what you are doing below, right?

(09-01-2021, 01:17 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: . . . I work, especially within the past few years, with a lot of academics and advocates interested in criminal justice reform.  They largely, with some notable exceptions, have good intentions and genuinely want to make things better.  The problem, and it always, always comes up, is that they have zero real world experience of how their proposed ideas will actually impact society in the real world.  When they get the opposite result or their stated goal they always react with bewilderment, despite our informing them that exactly what happened would happen and why.  To state it in one sentence, they understand theory, they do not understand people.

I guess the first point to make here is--that is not an "example" of scholarship on authoritarian regimes having the opposite of its intended effect. It looks, rather, to be an non-specific example (if there can be such a thing) of how "leftists" get it wrong because they rely on theories and don't know people. A different topic, a different issue. 

Even if you are trying to link these different issues by analogy, saying that informing public discussion with scholarship on authoritarian regimes is just another example of "leftists" or "theorists" getting it wrong, this doesn't really do the job. First, if you are trying to argue my analogy, this is too vague to secure your point. Unless you can link me to some specific law with evidence you personally warned people, it goes south, then you are just asking me to take your word that your knowledge of "people" was thus vindicated over "theory." The "example" is your opinion about something that happens at your work place. Second, as I note in a pevious post, what about the times "theorists" get it right and laws have their intended effect? The failure of Smoot Hawley does not argue against any and all regulation of trade.

It is a very far leap, even by analogy, from your legal theorists whose ideas directly impact laws and police practice, to scholars participating in public debate. 

In short, this is NOT an EXAMPLE of scholarship on authoritarian politics increasing division and debate. As noted in my response, if you don't have links to protesters and angry Fox commentators and legislators ready to enact laws silencing the scholars inflammatory speech, then you do not have the examples or evidence you claim to have. 

The only real world example offered so far of "divisive" scholarship is your own personal sensibility, which finds this scholarship inflammatory and not enlightening. And that too is not coupled to specific examples of the scholarship you find offensive. You have only provided a couple to Tweets which are manifestly NOT scholarly attempts to inform. That's not what I mean by scholarship, right? So that is no what I am arguing for.

(09-01-2021, 01:17 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: How does this tie into you and your Nazi/Taliban comparisons?**  You state you make them to draw attention to what you believe are alarming trends in our country/democracy.  You attempt to highlight behavior you believe to be analogous to that exhibited by these awful groups with the intention of ensuring we never go down the same road.  The problem is, and will always be with such comparisons, is that the average person doesn't get the nuance, they see "X" group they don't like is comparable to Nazis/Taliban.  Most people don't want to engage in deep thought about ideological differences, they're in group "A" and the people they disagree with are in group "B".  When someone makes an argument comparing group "B" with Nazis or Taliban the only thing they internalize is group "B" are Nazis or Taliban.  I've provided two very obvious examples from major public figures in this thread, and digging up numerous other examples would be childishly simple.

The bolded may be true of some US citizens, and it may be true of many or most of those supporting authoritarian politics. 

But what evidence is there that "the average person" can't understand such comparisons well enough to learn something from them? And why should the average person be be "inflammed" by them? You can't just ASSERT that average persons are thus limited and then call that an "example."

Two quick points: 1) you are not offering "examples" here. An example would be a specific, actual person or group, whose statements or actions illustrate your point. Sans that, you are just ASSERTING there are such limited average people. I don't dispute that there are such, but see no reason why their limitation should be paternally catered to at the expense of those who can understand comparisons.

2) This line of argument presumes you know what is best for "the average person," what s/he does or does not need to know. This breaks with a foundational principle of liberal democracy--and the Enlightment--namely that citizens can learn and think for themselves, without the church or state paternally guarding ideas FOR them.  If that is NOT the case then popular sovereignty is a serious mistake. 

You might call this paragraph a very general explanation. But an explanation is not the same as an example. You have not presented anyone other than yourself who is "inflammed" or "divided" by informative scholarship, nor have you given a good reason as to why such inflammation, if you could provide examples beyond yourself, should regulate public debate. 

We don't silence Dr. Fauci or the CDC because what they say "inflames" and "divides." Why must we in this case? 

(09-01-2021, 01:17 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: So, seeing as your stated goal is rarely, if ever, achieved in large numbers and your exact opposite intention is much more like the default interpretation than an aberration one must conclude that such comparisons, well intentioned on your part though they may be, are inherently destructive, polarizing and inflammatory.  I could end with a statement about the road to hell and all, but I trust you, and anyone else reading, get the point.

The bolded proceeds as if you have just demonstrated, specifically, that my "stated goal" of informing public debate with scholarship on authoritarian regimes is rarely achieved.  But where did you do that? What was your measure?

You now write as if you have proved there is some "default interpretion" though you have offered nothing more than your previous (unsupported) speculation about the limitations of "the average person."

I have just NOT been shown the destruction you say is occurring in the wake of the abovementioned scholarly information. I don't even see much response to the Tweets you referred to ino ther posts.  So you have not provided the three most needed elements of your argument:

1) specific examples of scholarship (e.g., a book, an interview with a historian or social scientist) which has led to "inflammation and division," exemplified by actual people reacting specifically to said book or interview. What you don't need is more highly general speculation about theorists who don't know "people" and the limited intellect of "the average person." 

2) and a rationale for why democratic principles of informed public debate and the presumption of citizen competence don't apply in this case. If you are not arguing they should apply in others as well (e.g., COVID information or climate change), then why in this case, where there is similar national danger,

3) or if you think there is no danger, no authoritarian turn in US politics to justify scholarly intervention, then you need lay out a case for that as well. No danger, then no need. But that is a risky argument to take as Republicans set up laws in swing states which can throw a "contested" election to the decision of a Republican legislator, composed of party members loyal to a leader who sought to overturn a legitimate election.

Without some satisfaction of these requirements, you are not resting your case on any concrete, specific evidence, just general and personal speculation about "destructive" effects which cannot even be found with a simple Google search.*** If you do think you have the required evidence/examples, I'd be happy to hear them; if not, then I am content if you leave your case unmade.

*"Scholarship" excludes things like reducutio ad Hitlerums, instances of Godwin's Law, political caricature, and Michael Moore tweets.
**A side note: I have argued twice that Trump doesn't fit the definition of a fascist--yet. I suppose that could be considered a "Nazi comparison"--but I don't see why it would "inflame" or "divide." 
***Well, you might find something like this--liberals complaining about Fox's frequent Hitler comparisons. But that supports no objection to scholarly information.https://fair.org/home/fox-news-is-outraged-by-nazi-analogies-and-other-big-lies/