j r: This may seem like a pedantic point, but it’s important to make a distinction between some guy arguing for throwing the poor out on the street and someone arguing for moving education to a total voucher system. Is the latter still a radical proposal? Yes, but so is a UBI or a nationalization of the banks or, at this point, even single-payer government run healthcare. But you probably wouldn’t ask Democrats to banish anyone making those proposals from their ranks for the purpose of holding the center.
Mr Kelly seems to be taking it as axiomatic that the Republicans should be "small-c" conservatives. If you believe that, it really doesn't matter that the norms for the Democratic Party might be different. I don't know how much of the piece I really agree with[1], but I don't see any terribly good reason for the parties to just be mirror images of each other, and if that means there's some asymmetry in how they react to fringe-y policy proposals, so be it.
My running theory is that the right watched jealously as the left got mileage out of its own operationalizing of “the personal is political” and eventually raised its own army and entered the fray of the culture wars. The nature of war is that it generally doesn’t end until one side wins or both sides come to accommodation.
The culture wars are metaphorical wars, not real ones. If Chris Hayes and Rachel Maddow keep on being smug on MSNBC, well, so what? Likewise with the clickbait garbage.[2]
[1] For one, it's not impossible Trump wins, and even if he loses, losses can be more or less catastrophic.
[2] I admit that it's very hard to resist the impulse to say, "Hey, this person who's a third tier Salon contributor/county GOP chair in Idaho/Twitter dingbat with 37 followers said something amazingly stupid. Since nobody has ever said something amazingly stupid before, we should all go pay lots of attention to it!"
I think the modesty norms implicit in both the wearing of headscarves and this Catholic school's stated dress code are somewhere between "daft" and "harmful", but it's not like they're unpopular.
Good question! You seemed to think it would open the door for similar criticism of Muslim schools with dress codes of their own upthread.
Which, like, that door is open already. Every one of these doors is open, has been open from time immemorial, and really can't be closed, nor would I want to close them.
I mean, you don't seem to think that what the high school did sets a dangerous precedent, but you do seem think that what Sam is doing could set a dangerous precedent. That seems obviously self-contradictory to me, since what Sam did is actually a considerably milder form of the same kind of thing.
If that's not what you think, perhaps you could try stating your position more plainly.
So why is it no big deal when Bishop McDevitt High School does it to Aniya Wolf, but somehow "letting a genie out of a bottle" when Sam Wilkinson does it to Bishop McDevitt High School?
We can cross that bridge when we come to it. They decided to capriciously single out Ms King for exclusion in order to demonstrate their love to her; surely they won't complain when we show how much we love them by doing the exact same thing.
It seems painfully silly to argue that it's bad for Sam to use social consequences to enforce his norms in order to defend the school using social consequences to enforce its norms. It's turtles all the way down.
Jaybird:
We need to change the Catholics to have them be more like us. If they won’t do it willingly, we need to explore the acceptable methods of coercion to make them be more like us.
Let's start by kicking them out of social functions we hold for violating alleged rules about what they're required to wear!
I guess I don’t read Freddie as saying ‘compromise is bad’ so much as saying being a self righteous scold about vocabulary and cultural signals makes it harder to build a coalition capable of implementing the types of policies you listed above (or at least something better than what we have).
I think I'd find his stance a lot more compelling if he didn't spend so much of that piece (and other pieces of his that I've read) being a self-righteous scold about vocabulary and cultural signals.
Regardless of whether a Syria-style revolution could happen here, I think it's a gimme that a Syria-style revolution actually happening here would be pretty much the exact opposite of "good".
I think his essay would be a lot more persuasive if it were shorter, but for all its excess length, he's barely able to name actual policy failures. It's, perhaps not so ironically, all about cultural and tribal posing, with the actual objections boiling down to things like not specifically supporting single payer healthcare, as if that's the only way to actually get good universal care.
I think that if you're making a slippery slope argument against something (like SSM), it's hardly convincing if the thing at the bottom isn't bad. Otherwise, why would anyone care to make any sacrifices at all to stay off of the slope?
But broadening the definition of what is considered discrimination against gays was a concern of anti-SSM folks so doing just that would at least partially confirm their fear.
I just don't see why I should pay their fear that people might disagree with them, and say so, any credence at all. If this really was their "slippery slope" all along, it just further supports my existing belief that they never had a reasonable objection in the first place.
I don't think individuals are doing anything wrong by arguing (without, I add, recourse to the courts) that their church is doing something discriminatory. It's not even clear to me why their argument is wrong in and of itself, as opposed to wrong as a justification for government meddling in the affairs of a religious organization.
I read the linked article, and if it said the couple was planning on suing the Archdiocese, or anybody else for that matter, I missed it. It did say they were holding a press conference, but I'm trying to figure out what slippery slope a press conference would send us hurtling down.
If they sue over this, my understanding is that they would (and should) lose. In the absence of a suit, though, what's the problem?
According to the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation's website, the original class of fellows, in 1981, included no fewer than four poets, one essayist, and a writer of "fiction or non-fiction". The foundation itself began awarding grants under pressure from J. Roderick MacArthur, who was one of the members of the founding board, as well as John and Catherine MacArthur's son, and his presence on the board was stipulated by John T. MacArthur's will.
Other than that, you're totally right about everything. I'm sure the guy who's been dead almost forty years has strong opinions on this subject!
I don’t even have to stipulate that it is; I know this is why I can do these things. I guess my point is that, in my opinion, this is a dangerous mindset and attitude to cultivate in people.
I agree, in that I think cultivating the mindset and attitude that having privilege is a personal failing or character flaw is actually really dumb and dangerous and bad.
To engage with it on its own terms, even if you fail to pull back and spend time enjoying your life, you will still have your white and class privilege, you'll just be privileged and miserable.
I only ask, apparently with no foundation on which to ask, that there be balance. Spending most of our lives living the life we so ardently are fighting for and spend less of it arguing for it. Does that make sense? It barely makes sense in my head.
On the contrary, I think it makes perfect sense and is absolutely something you are justified in wanting and in doing.
I can only tolerate so much guilt that has, seemingly unconsciously, seeped into my mind from all this talk of rights, justice, and fairness. My sympathy reaches beyond itself and turns into a sort of weird masochism that makes it seem as if I should feel bad that I am not spending every waking moment fighting for others…
Some people call this impulse, or at least something very similar to it, scrupulosity, and it sounds like it really sucks. I don't actually have any great advice for how to deal with it.
All I can say is that you aren't alone in feeling that way, and that it's entirely legitimate to carve out some space and time for yourself to keep yourself mentally, physically and (if relevant) spiritually healthy. Also, I am lukewarm about "privilege theory" myself, but to the extent it's useful, I think it's gotta be taken as descriptive rather than normative.
And to your point, yes, I can spend a day with friends, read books, and contemplate life, but somehow (and this has happened to me more than once) this is always twisted to look like I can only do these things because of white and class privilege.
OK. Stipulate that it is.
So what? I'm not asking a rhetorical question here.
I just worry that attaching one’s self to some type of cause or movement, while inevitable, isn’t the end to life in any sense.
It sounds like it isn't for you, but for some people, for better or worse, that really is what they want out of life, and is a key part of finding happiness.
And some people juggle geese.
I feel as though we are cultivating an attitude today that requires one be for or against something; a near-constant grasping for something more or better.
I'm sure it happens some of the time, but I also expect that it's easy to get a distorted view because you notice that there's political activism around pretty much any sort of issue, great or small. But that doesn't mean that all (or any) of those activists are engaged with every issue, since you're not going to see all the people who aren't wrapped up in the activism around any given controversy.
I dunno. I think part of the solution is probably going to be sitting down and actually admiring a real forest from time to time.
Someone is always going to be eager to politicize any give thing, sure. It's not clear why you feel obligated to engage with them, though, unless, maybe, you're on a college campus.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “How To Fix a Broken Elephant: A Recipe for Electoral Health In Six Incredibly Difficult Steps”
Mr Kelly seems to be taking it as axiomatic that the Republicans should be "small-c" conservatives. If you believe that, it really doesn't matter that the norms for the Democratic Party might be different. I don't know how much of the piece I really agree with[1], but I don't see any terribly good reason for the parties to just be mirror images of each other, and if that means there's some asymmetry in how they react to fringe-y policy proposals, so be it.
The culture wars are metaphorical wars, not real ones. If Chris Hayes and Rachel Maddow keep on being smug on MSNBC, well, so what? Likewise with the clickbait garbage.[2]
[1] For one, it's not impossible Trump wins, and even if he loses, losses can be more or less catastrophic.
[2] I admit that it's very hard to resist the impulse to say, "Hey, this person who's a third tier Salon contributor/county GOP chair in Idaho/Twitter dingbat with 37 followers said something amazingly stupid. Since nobody has ever said something amazingly stupid before, we should all go pay lots of attention to it!"
On “A Wolf In A Penguin’s Clothing”
Sometimes that works. Sometimes it doesn't.
My guess is there will still be significant minorities of Americans engaged in this kind of silliness 100 years from now. Such is life.
"
This.
I think the modesty norms implicit in both the wearing of headscarves and this Catholic school's stated dress code are somewhere between "daft" and "harmful", but it's not like they're unpopular.
"
A monoculture fixes this problem.
I don't see a problem that needs fixing.
"
Dangerous? To whom?
Good question! You seemed to think it would open the door for similar criticism of Muslim schools with dress codes of their own upthread.
Which, like, that door is open already. Every one of these doors is open, has been open from time immemorial, and really can't be closed, nor would I want to close them.
"
What do you mean “no big deal”?
I mean, you don't seem to think that what the high school did sets a dangerous precedent, but you do seem think that what Sam is doing could set a dangerous precedent. That seems obviously self-contradictory to me, since what Sam did is actually a considerably milder form of the same kind of thing.
If that's not what you think, perhaps you could try stating your position more plainly.
"
I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to get out of this exchange.
"
So why is it no big deal when Bishop McDevitt High School does it to Aniya Wolf, but somehow "letting a genie out of a bottle" when Sam Wilkinson does it to Bishop McDevitt High School?
"
We can cross that bridge when we come to it. They decided to capriciously single out Ms King for exclusion in order to demonstrate their love to her; surely they won't complain when we show how much we love them by doing the exact same thing.
It seems painfully silly to argue that it's bad for Sam to use social consequences to enforce his norms in order to defend the school using social consequences to enforce its norms. It's turtles all the way down.
"
Let's start by kicking them out of social functions we hold for violating alleged rules about what they're required to wear!
On “our nightmare | Fredrik deBoer”
I guess I don’t read Freddie as saying ‘compromise is bad’ so much as saying being a self righteous scold about vocabulary and cultural signals makes it harder to build a coalition capable of implementing the types of policies you listed above (or at least something better than what we have).
I think I'd find his stance a lot more compelling if he didn't spend so much of that piece (and other pieces of his that I've read) being a self-righteous scold about vocabulary and cultural signals.
On “Donald Trump’s plan to make the GOP convention must-see TV.”
Actual footage of what happened to my irony meter.
On “our nightmare | Fredrik deBoer”
Regardless of whether a Syria-style revolution could happen here, I think it's a gimme that a Syria-style revolution actually happening here would be pretty much the exact opposite of "good".
"
I think his essay would be a lot more persuasive if it were shorter, but for all its excess length, he's barely able to name actual policy failures. It's, perhaps not so ironically, all about cultural and tribal posing, with the actual objections boiling down to things like not specifically supporting single payer healthcare, as if that's the only way to actually get good universal care.
On “Is This The Slippery Slope?”
Well, my objection is that, as far as I can tell, nobody has actually sued anybody. Conflating "arguing for" and "suing for" is, IMO, very unhelpful.
"
@kazzy
I think that if you're making a slippery slope argument against something (like SSM), it's hardly convincing if the thing at the bottom isn't bad. Otherwise, why would anyone care to make any sacrifices at all to stay off of the slope?
"
But broadening the definition of what is considered discrimination against gays was a concern of anti-SSM folks so doing just that would at least partially confirm their fear.
I just don't see why I should pay their fear that people might disagree with them, and say so, any credence at all. If this really was their "slippery slope" all along, it just further supports my existing belief that they never had a reasonable objection in the first place.
"
I don't think individuals are doing anything wrong by arguing (without, I add, recourse to the courts) that their church is doing something discriminatory. It's not even clear to me why their argument is wrong in and of itself, as opposed to wrong as a justification for government meddling in the affairs of a religious organization.
"
I read the linked article, and if it said the couple was planning on suing the Archdiocese, or anybody else for that matter, I missed it. It did say they were holding a press conference, but I'm trying to figure out what slippery slope a press conference would send us hurtling down.
If they sue over this, my understanding is that they would (and should) lose. In the absence of a suit, though, what's the problem?
On “Morning Ed: Europe {2016.05.12.Th}”
According to the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation's website, the original class of fellows, in 1981, included no fewer than four poets, one essayist, and a writer of "fiction or non-fiction". The foundation itself began awarding grants under pressure from J. Roderick MacArthur, who was one of the members of the founding board, as well as John and Catherine MacArthur's son, and his presence on the board was stipulated by John T. MacArthur's will.
Other than that, you're totally right about everything. I'm sure the guy who's been dead almost forty years has strong opinions on this subject!
On “Hinges & Doubts: Musings on Social Justice & Activism”
I don’t even have to stipulate that it is; I know this is why I can do these things. I guess my point is that, in my opinion, this is a dangerous mindset and attitude to cultivate in people.
I agree, in that I think cultivating the mindset and attitude that having privilege is a personal failing or character flaw is actually really dumb and dangerous and bad.
To engage with it on its own terms, even if you fail to pull back and spend time enjoying your life, you will still have your white and class privilege, you'll just be privileged and miserable.
I only ask, apparently with no foundation on which to ask, that there be balance. Spending most of our lives living the life we so ardently are fighting for and spend less of it arguing for it. Does that make sense? It barely makes sense in my head.
On the contrary, I think it makes perfect sense and is absolutely something you are justified in wanting and in doing.
"
I can only tolerate so much guilt that has, seemingly unconsciously, seeped into my mind from all this talk of rights, justice, and fairness. My sympathy reaches beyond itself and turns into a sort of weird masochism that makes it seem as if I should feel bad that I am not spending every waking moment fighting for others…
Some people call this impulse, or at least something very similar to it, scrupulosity, and it sounds like it really sucks. I don't actually have any great advice for how to deal with it.
All I can say is that you aren't alone in feeling that way, and that it's entirely legitimate to carve out some space and time for yourself to keep yourself mentally, physically and (if relevant) spiritually healthy. Also, I am lukewarm about "privilege theory" myself, but to the extent it's useful, I think it's gotta be taken as descriptive rather than normative.
"
And to your point, yes, I can spend a day with friends, read books, and contemplate life, but somehow (and this has happened to me more than once) this is always twisted to look like I can only do these things because of white and class privilege.
OK. Stipulate that it is.
So what? I'm not asking a rhetorical question here.
"
I just worry that attaching one’s self to some type of cause or movement, while inevitable, isn’t the end to life in any sense.
It sounds like it isn't for you, but for some people, for better or worse, that really is what they want out of life, and is a key part of finding happiness.
And some people juggle geese.
I feel as though we are cultivating an attitude today that requires one be for or against something; a near-constant grasping for something more or better.
I'm sure it happens some of the time, but I also expect that it's easy to get a distorted view because you notice that there's political activism around pretty much any sort of issue, great or small. But that doesn't mean that all (or any) of those activists are engaged with every issue, since you're not going to see all the people who aren't wrapped up in the activism around any given controversy.
"
I dunno. I think part of the solution is probably going to be sitting down and actually admiring a real forest from time to time.
Someone is always going to be eager to politicize any give thing, sure. It's not clear why you feel obligated to engage with them, though, unless, maybe, you're on a college campus.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.