There's a subtype he doesn't mention but I think deserves notice and is especially pertinent to today's environment. That is, the conventionally-minded who is convinced they are die-hard independently-minded.
People like this come across by chance doctrine which appeal to a special part of themself, be it religious, political, or social doctrine. They hardily embrace the newfound doctrine and denounce others as having fundamentally the wrong framework of thinking. They come across like-minded people and make blanket statements against their detractors and constantly reformulate the perception of their ideology to be in the right.
In one sense, they believe themselves to be highly individualistic because they go against what they perceive to be the overall grain of society. This lends them conviction.
But in reality, their beliefs are not actually contrarian or minority beliefs, and these people would never had nurtured these beliefs or had the courage to actually publicly express them without the implicit support of some large chunk of society.
I believe this to be the reality today. So many people are deluded in thinking they are the small, under-represented, minority, oppressed group when they actually function as the oppressors to people who are sincerely independently-minded.
And when one who is independently-minded sees another who is deluded they are independently-minded, but in reality is aggressively-conventional, we cannot help but notice the hypocrisy.
I think the example of the students of the Princeton professor is very similar to this subtype:
> I sometimes ask students what their position on slavery would have been had they been white and living in the South before abolition. Guess what? They all would have been abolitionists! They all would have bravely spoken out against slavery, and worked tirelessly against it.
Most people, myself included, like to believe that they are independently-minded. Given that most people aren't independently-minded, most people are wrong.
I don't share many of the views in Paul's essay, but there was one point he made with which I emphatically agree: like Paul, I too believe anyone who disagrees with me is just too small-minded to understand my argument.
They may just have a different system of axiomatic beliefs and are stuck in their own inconsistent state (per godels incompleteness theorem). I actually think most 'disagreements' fall into this fundamental 'human condition' so to speak.
Invoking Godel to assert that people have inconsistencies in their personal beliefs is like using a DNA test to determine whether an animal is an elephant or not - technically correct, but absurd overkill for the task at hand.
> There is a subtype that is especially pertinent... the conventionally-minded who is convinced they are die-hard independently-minded.
> I believe this to be the reality today. So many people are deluded in thinking they are the small, under-represented, minority, oppressed group when they actually function as the oppressors to people who are sincerely independently-minded.
This right here is the fundamental undercurrent of what's happening is society.
One of the topics that PG mentions is heresy. The topic of discussing things that a group feels shouldn't be discussed. I wish he went into more detail about it, because if you do it flushes out some interesting ideas.
Heresy exists in two important directions. Heresy against people in power, and heresy against people without power. Upwards heresy, and downwards heresy.
Upwards heresy usually is quashed, ignored or mocked. People without power performing heresy are "dealt with" by those with power. Either they are made to pay an immediate cost, or their view/opinion is not allowed to make it into the collective mainstream conversation. It gets labeled as wrong, inappropriate or simply dismissed. Most of the time you don't even hear about it because those without power have little recourse to elevate the visibility of the retaliatory actions. People with power define what heresy is - and it's defined to be the things they object to.
Downward heresy (people in power performing it) is usually entirely invisible. The people without power who are the "targets" of it have no relative power to respond to it. They don't have enough sway in the system to object to it, to call it out. If they did, they would face large repercussions by those in power that committed it. Because people with power usually can dictate what is acceptable discourse, downward heresy is usually deemed acceptable. As well, they use the term heresy to effect more power. To limit what groups can and can't do. Imagine the church using the term heresy to limit what followers can do to avoid competition religions, or to justify wars by accusing other groups of heresy.
Where things become interesting is where people without relative power gain a bit to the point they are able to call a subset of things committed by those in power as heresy. They can call out downard heresy. Here is where things blow up. The group accustomed to defining what is acceptable and not, no longer fully controls that, but they still have enough power, or influence to raise a storm when it happens. They will immediately turn to using any any all methods they have to shout how unfair it is that they can't think these thoughts, or utter these phrases. While they make thing this, of course this isn't truly the case. They enforce heresy rules all the time, but noone questions it when they do it - it just accepted as a normal part of society. The problem is that a group they deem without power, or with lesser power is holding influence over them. And that is what they can't stand. This is the group in power claiming to be oppressed. This is the majority claiming to not be. This is what causes friction in society, as it is a group with power revolting at the idea that a group with less power can affect them.
A Christian in the US is not under-represented (compared to non-Christians). And yet I hear so much of this claim recently. A man in this country, is not oppressed (in comparison to women). A heterosexual isn't oppressed. I'm a member of multiple groups above, and yet know this to be true.
Those groups (and others) can still face extreme difficulties. And live lives waaaay worse than members of other groups - but the idea that they are a under-represented oppressed group is flat out wrong.
The friction you hear is that these are groups with power, don't really don't like the fact that members of other groups in these same dimensions have some amount of power to now call out things that aren't ok. In general these dominant power groups have never had anyone other group have any influence over what they can and can't do, while they have help enormous amounts of power over what the other groups in these dimensions are able to do and the consequences they are subject to. As the saying goes, if you're always used to being over someone, being equal feels unfair.
The most notable part, is that the only type of heresy that PG writes about is the third of these. The least interesting of them all.
Yeah, the idea that the American past was some better home to more open public discourse is obviously false on the face of it. The voices of minority groups are barely present in the history books, because they were barely present in the public discussion of the time.
Look at the national anthem (adopted by the government in 1931) or pledge of allegiance (adopted by the government in 1942). The people who get offended by others not standing during them would hardly identify their own reaction as "political correctness," and yet... is it a good thing that the government adopted a "pledge" or proscribes expected behavior during a song?
That's the "free speech" past we think we want to go back to?
We forget about the right-in-your-face "political correctness" and "rightthink" demonstrations of the past, since we didn't live through them, and just accept them as-is.
The free speech past in US is far more recent than either of those examples. Even when it comes to legal matters, I would point at Brandenburg v. Ohio as the starting point.
> That is, the conventionally-minded who is convinced they are die-hard independently-minded.
I do not see as sub-type. Aggressively-conventionally minded most assuredly think of them as independent minded.
Other than that I agree with you. These type of people make statement equivalent of 'Earth revolve around the sun' in 21st century. And then their circle-jerk jumps in, claiming what a 'brave' and 'stunning' position they have taken.
Yes. Both staunch Republicans and Democrats portray themselves as always being on the back foot, being attacked, and on the verge of losing control from the other party due to some contentious and highly important issue. Each side portrays themself as their views originating from reason (independence of thinking) and the other side as excreted out of ideology (convention).
I've heard this sentiment expressed. The limits of rationality, reason, and scientific process is a whole topic worth exploring even if just for the philosophic value, but right now, discourse, within the framework of rationality and reason is the best tool society has to solve its problems. There's nothing else. Violence clearly isn't the tool. Nor is emotional reflex. Nor is anecdotal thinking. Nothing else scales and has the capability to tackle the sophistication of society-wide problems.
I think your argument makes sense. It fits well with my experiences with "MAGAers" and "SJWs". I also think this style of politics is here to stay, as it is the dominate strategy. America has a fracturing hegemony: there is no longer a single universally shared set of basic beliefs. Because we no longer share the same basic beliefs, disagreements are now less likely to be due to logical validity and more likely due to unshared premises. This means the way of politics I think we'd all prefer, of arguing logically from shared core beliefs, will be less useful, making the alternative, arguing emotionally about premises, more effective. I think people "come[ing] across by chance doctrine which appeal to a special part of themself, be it religious, political, or social doctrine" is this effect in action.
Though, some criticisms of what you said:
1. It can depend on surroundings. A leftoid will rightly feel like an independent mind in a conservative area and a rightoid will rightly feel like an independent mind in a liberal area.
2. Your logic can misidentify skeptics as traditionalists. It is easy to misconstrue a progressively minded skeptic as a conservative because they criticize most currently popular progressive issues.
On a personal note: as a progressively minded skeptic, in my experiences with society, coworkers, friends, significant others, and family, I feel I have increasingly been lumped in as a "deplorable conservative." I have felt this cultural shift coming for many years now, when "SJWs" (I know this hits a sour note with many liberals, but I don't know how else to succinctly categorize these people) first started cropping up in the spaces I frequented:
0. The removal of Christmas celebration from my elementary school
1. Atheism+
2. My school's official hackathon group (was taken over by left leaning people who said you cannot form teams based on peoples' programming ability)
3. My school's official programming FB group banning "spicy" posts (an example being one where people were arguing failing fizzbuzz is an acceptable way to decide someone is not a programmer)
4. My school via the coed programming fraternity- it was a place full of people involved in 2 and 3
5. The wider programming community (donglegate, stallman's cancellation, linus and sarah sharp controversy, github and meritocracy, redis CoC controversy, etc)
6. Gamergate (specifically attempts to politically pressure games to alter their stories and design to suit audiences that aren't the typical customer).
7. Politics that are safely expressable at work without having a meet 'n greet with HR. Very, very far left ideas are routinely plastered at work, and political "courageous conversations" meetings expect exclusively uncourageous mainstream ideas.
8. Politics that are safely expressable with acquaintances, friends, and family without risk of being excommunicated.
9. For brevity, I exclude many others.
Thankfully, the latest batch of ideas (abolish police, abolish suburbs, abolish capital gains) have such a large impact that it has finally given me a hill worth dying on, and I feel free to non-anonymously express, with all the snark of a twitter checkmark, that these ideas blow ass. If that skepticism makes me an oppressor, then I embrace being one. I suppose I do deserve some credit for not being silent, since that would be violence.
At some point ideology meets reality and that's when things begin to crumble.
If we construct society and organizations as if merit is not a highly important parameter in achievement, wealth, and success - and instead rely on cosmetics, as if this were inconsequential, then we'll see erosion in all factors which deem a nation or organization successful.
Totally agree. It's unfortunate though that evaluating merit is so dependent on culture. To me, proving what is and isn't merited feels very similar to proving which programming language should be selected for a project. Except for some very rare scenarios you will find yourself dealing with soft reasoning, and the arguments you construct will depend on the audience you are trying to convince. Perhaps this is a problem of my own, but along this vein I find myself producing different proposal documents depending on whether I will be presenting to a developer, manager, or 3rd party team.
My belief in there being some major cultural influence on people's reasoning of the connection of their ideology to reality is what gives me some sympathy and belief in arguments from people I almost always disagree with, namely proponents of fixes to systemic * ism. I typically disagree with them on the definition of systemic * ism and the correct fix to the systemic * ism. I believe (with some evidence) the inputs to the system produce the disparity to a much larger extent than the individual components of the system being * ist and as such I believe we should work to correct the inputs rather than altering the components. And when people do propose changing components of the system, I find it does often come at the cost of beneficial things like merit. I think that the people proposing these ideas don't necessarily dislike the ideas the system is based on, but rather than have a dislike of some transitively caused property of the system, propose the most obvious fix to it, and then fail to consider further than first order effects of their change (ex: removing merit resulting in lower quality output). And this is why I consider myself a skeptical progressive: I think the cause of fixing systemic * ism is good, but I think the currently proposed solutions are damaging.
I think people who believe everyone who disagrees with them are deplorable would be surprised at the results of sitting down and talking with them. Perhaps the internet is just a bad medium for this.
> Thankfully, the latest batch of ideas (abolish police, abolish suburbs, abolish capital gains) have such a large impact that it has finally given me a hill worth dying on
Who's seriously calling to "abolish suburbs"? It's easy to stand up against ideas no one is advocating for - that's called a straw man.
YIMBYs I guess. People who want to be able to live near work without paying millions for the privelege, people who want to be able to use public transit, people who don't like subsidizing others' desire to drive and park everywhere, people who think coffee shops should be allowed to be built within walking distance of their homes.
This is called “ending subsidies for suburbs” or “ensuring affordable access to housing” or “promoting livable neighborhoods” or even “removing onerous regulations preventing development in our nations most productive urban areas”. That’s very different than “abolish the suburbs”, which makes it sound like you’re going to ban single family homes.
It doesn't ban single family homes, but it would ban communities composed exclusively of single family homes. Whether it is called "abolish suburbs" or "promoting livable neighborhoods," once the veil is pierced, it will be interpreted the same. You are right though that "abolish the suburbs" is more rhetorical than fact.
Why is it wrong? I am reading from his own platform.
Biden's plan specifically calls for ending state and local policies that allow "exclusionary zoning" and cites the "Home Act." Looking into the Home Act, "exclusionary zoning" refers to "single-family zoning" as "exclusionary zoning."
> As President, Biden will enact legislation requiring any state receiving federal dollars through the Community Development Block Grants or Surface Transportation Block Grants to develop a strategy for inclusionary zoning, as proposed in the HOME Act of 2019 by Majority Whip Clyburn and Senator Cory Booker. Biden will also invest $300 million in Local Housing Policy Grants to give states and localities the technical assistance and planning support they need to eliminate exclusionary zoning policies and other local regulations that contribute to sprawl.
Neither of those eliminate single family zoning for locations that want to keep them.
It requires communities that receive certain subsidies (community development block grants and surface transportation block grants) to make a plan to address inclusionary zoning. That's also not ending single family zoning; if you want to keep your existing zoning you can, you just can't get subsidized by the federal government to do it.
Also it doesn't even come close to "abolish suburbs". Curious if you still think that was an accurate characterization?
I'll stand by it, but I admit my argument is weaker than needed to match the rhetoric.
I don't think the proposal directly bans suburbs, but I think it may transitively. I wouldn't expect there to be a single state that doesn't receive federal dollars for community development. And if the state receives any dollars at all, per this proposal they are required to move towards bans on "exclusionary zoning" aka "single family zoning." So if a state wants to ensure federal funds for communities and allow for single family zoned suburbs, there seems to be a conflict. Because I believe every state would be interested in doing both (subsidizing poorer communities and permitting suburban communities), it worries me greatly that this bill will effectively ban suburbs.
I would absolutely remove my characterization of this bill as abolishing suburbs if the bill only applied to states that use federal funds to subsidize the creation of suburbs. I would still have a problem with it, but it would be very minor.
> And if the state receives any dollars at all, per this proposal they are required to move towards bans on "exclusionary zoning"
No, they aren't required to “move toward bans” on anything. They are to move toward inclusive land use by some combination of zoning policy and other regulation. And it's only CDBG recipients that have to do this, which are often local governments. Rich suburbs probably aren't competing for CDBG grants in the first place, and wouldn't have to do anything.
The specific examples in the act of policies which can meet the requirement, and many of the examples are consistent with single-family zoning.
[Edit] the specific line from Biden's plan that included "states" which gave me the initial idea this policy applies to states rather than individual communities. "Biden will enact legislation requiring any state receiving federal dollars through the Community Development Block Grants or Surface Transportation Block Grants to develop a strategy for inclusionary zoning"
I will continue researching nonetheless. It may just be misleading copy.
> I would absolutely remove my characterization of this bill as abolishing suburbs if the bill only applied to states that use federal funds to subsidize the creation of suburbs.
That would be all of them. The federal government explicitly subsidized the creation of suburbs after WWII though FHA and VA insured loans (as in, this was their literal intended purpose). In some cases they even directly hired builders to construct suburban towns wholesale (e.g. Levittown and Daly City)[1].
You know, I find this conversation pretty ironic in the context of this thread. It's clear you haven't researched this issue at all but are willing to announce fairly strong opinions about it based on nothing more than an obvious mischaracterization by the president.
I realize all states do this, but your response does not address my intended point. That's my fault, I will improve my point.
1. My reading of the proposal, and the reason I dislike the proposal: if a state uses federal funds for any community development project, some forcing function will cause them to stop single family zoning. This jeopardizes single family zoning in all states, since it has tied funding to all community development spending rather than specifically to federal funds going to single family zoning. Even if a state stops directing federal funds to single family zoned communities, they are still encouraged to not create single family zoned communities.
2. A proposal I would be more comfortable with: if a state uses federal funds specifically to fund single family funded communities, they must move toward ending single family zoning. States can continue receiving federal funds as long as they don't spend them on single family zoned communities.
[edit follows]
> You know, I find this conversation pretty ironic in the context of this thread. It's clear you haven't researched this issue at all but are willing to announce fairly strong opinions about it based on nothing more than an obvious mischaracterization by the president.
Disagree it is ironic, disagree it is clear I haven't researched it, but I agree I am shameless in announcing my strong opinions. Hopefully my clarification above gives you something clearer to bite into.
> if a state uses federal funds for any community development project, some forcing function will cause them to stop single family zoning.
This is specifically about two types of grants (not all federal funds for community development) and it does not require the elimination of single family zoning.
> federal funds going to single family zoning
What does it mean for funds to "go to" single family zoning? CDB grants are largely allocated to specific cites and counties already and the portion that is given to states is mostly spent on projects in urban areas[1].
> if a state uses federal funds specifically to fund single family funded communities, they must move toward ending single family zoning. States can continue receiving federal funds as long as they don't spend them on single family zoned communities.
The actual proposal is weaker than your proposal since there is no requirement to move towards ending single family zoning.
> Disagree it is ironic, disagree it is clear I haven't researched it
The conversation has moved from "abolish suburbs" to "a proposal to require certain cites to make a plan to implement policies that reduce barriers to housing development". So either you were being disingenuous originally or hadn't researched the topic. It's also the exact sort of emotionally charged rhetoric you were decrying earlier.
Biden; the wording is unfortunately sourced from a Trump talking point, but it flows well with the other two "abolitions," and Biden's actual proposed policy would have that effect. Some things in the policy that constitute its "abolition":
1. Ending of single family zoning [1][2]. A suburb by definition is single family zoned. I think Americans should be free to produce communities that live in a manner they desire- and if this is single-family zoned, so be it.
2. Fighting sprawl. Biden wants to implement policy that prevents and disincentivizes sprawl. A suburb is by definition not dense. People should be able to live in sprawl if they want to.
We've already ended single family zoning in California!
In most of the bay area, people live in sprawl who do not want to, because people are not allowed to live in dense housing with first floor retail if they want to. Should they be allowed to do that?
Yes! California should be free to do what Californians want, but California's desires are not necessarily aligned with the rest of the nation's desires. Each part of the nation should be free to do what that part wants. And yes, this is a potentially unachievable ideal, but we should still strive for it when possible.
People like this come across by chance doctrine which appeal to a special part of themself, be it religious, political, or social doctrine. They hardily embrace the newfound doctrine and denounce others as having fundamentally the wrong framework of thinking. They come across like-minded people and make blanket statements against their detractors and constantly reformulate the perception of their ideology to be in the right.
In one sense, they believe themselves to be highly individualistic because they go against what they perceive to be the overall grain of society. This lends them conviction.
But in reality, their beliefs are not actually contrarian or minority beliefs, and these people would never had nurtured these beliefs or had the courage to actually publicly express them without the implicit support of some large chunk of society.
I believe this to be the reality today. So many people are deluded in thinking they are the small, under-represented, minority, oppressed group when they actually function as the oppressors to people who are sincerely independently-minded.
And when one who is independently-minded sees another who is deluded they are independently-minded, but in reality is aggressively-conventional, we cannot help but notice the hypocrisy.