To me it means disingenuous attempts to change the social structure for malicious goals, and useful idiot tools with their minds tied in knots of the people who are doing it.
I disagree with the notion of “useful idiots”. My study of rhetoric indicates these people are rarely idiots. They likely understand their actions to some degree, even if not fully, and accept the uncertainty.
It’s a common misconception that Hitler manipulated otherwise upstanding German citizens into committing genocide through his charismatic leadership. However, antisemitism and scapegoating of Jews existed in Germany before Hitler’s political rise. Concerns about national decline already resided in the German psyche. Similarly, Trump did not originate the homophobia, racism, and violent rhetoric accompanying his ascent to power. In both cases, the leaders and public held pre-existing prejudiced beliefs that enabled their movements.
How does being “woke” relate to this? Many sincerely believe changing society’s structure is desirable and actively pursue it. It would be difficult to prove those seeking social change are inherently malicious. They are useful to the cause because they genuinely believe in it. Unless directly told otherwise by a woke proponent, one cannot reasonably conclude their moral goals are nefarious. This explains why reading partisan news often mischaracterizes progressive views. Commentary disagreeing with other perspectives frequently misrepresents them, outside of academic discourse.
More broadly, overcoming polarization requires acknowledging people genuinely hold different beliefs. Some currently hype a race war, convincing themselves I want them dead. In contrast, I do not want anyone dead. I oppose capital punishment. However, without communication, they will never know how much I wish their lives were as safe and abundant as mine. Overcoming their beliefs requires exploring being wrong. Instead, they will persist in believing I am a useful idiot aiming to destroy Western civilization.
People hold ideas you do not comprehend. The immature reaction is to dismiss them as useful idiots under a spell. The intellectually honest response is to understand why they believe as they do. As Aristotle stated:
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
I think you’re probably right they aren’t idiots, well most of them anyway, there are idiots in this world and no political ideology has a monopoly on them. But I do think they’re tools; they want to see change in the world, and they’ve been convinced to want a certain set of changes by some smooth talkers. I don’t think the people that formulate and articulate these sets of ideas to their followers are being honest about their end goals. This goes for just about every political ideology out there, but the predominant political force stirring trouble right now is the woke one so that’s the one I focus on.
I don’t think trans rights is about trans rights, that critical race theory is about equity, that UBI is about opportunity or leveling the playing field, that reducing energy production is about saving the planet. I think the adherent masses to these ideas do, I don’t think the academics that come up with this stuff or the politicians that shill it believe that for a second. They’re Tooheys and Fagins.
I try to understand ideologies I disagree with on their own terms, and I don’t assume those I disagree with are lying or manipulating. I take them at face value and try to understand their reasoning.
For example, from my perspective, banning books on critical race theory seems unrelated to parental rights. But parental rights activists see a direct connection. They believe restricting exposure to certain ideas protects parents’ rights to direct their children’s education.
For instance, the pledge from Moms for Liberty indicates they aim to defend parental rights. But how does banning books honor those rights? How does restricting classroom discussions on gender and sexuality expand parental authority? What specifically in critical race theory undermines parents?
To them, these bans fulfill their pledge. Limiting children’s exposure to these concepts is protecting parents’ rights in their view. Relating their actions to their stated goals is an important way to understand their perspective.
However, their conception of parental rights seems to only apply to those who agree with them. It is not universal. So it appears to be more about privilege for some rather than rights for all. Many parents want their children to have informed conversations about gender, sexuality, and America’s complex moral history. So while Moms for Liberty claims to support parental rights, their selective application of those rights shows they are more interested in rhetoric and control.
After evaluating their stance from their perspective, I can now say they are being dishonest about their true aims.
In general, I try to understand all views from their own framework, even if I disagree. I assume good faith and take positions at face value. Only after working to comprehend the reasoning behind a stance do I then assess if it is manipulative or deceptive. This process applies equally to those I agree and disagree with on various issues.
What’s your process? How did you come to the conclusion that trans rights, CRT, and UBI aren’t about the things they say they are and the politicians and academics that shill for them are…Tooheys and Fagins? (I’m not sure what that means, but I suspect liars and manipulators?)
They’re characters from books anthropomorphizing very unscrupulous archetypes. You should look them up and read about them, they’re fantastically designed characters.
My process is to look at outcomes and techniques. If techniques to further an ideological goal involve dishonesty and disingenuousness I then deduce that the purveyors of those ideologies are unscrupulous people. If outcomes are awful and especially if they try to hide those bad outcomes then I presume that they don’t care how what they want affects people. So for example, sex education and birth control among religious conservatives, you have both disingenuous discussion and bad outcomes. Or the countless young women who have ruined their lives by cutting their breasts off as teenage girls convinced they’re boys. Same markers.
To me it means disingenuous attempts to change the social structure for malicious goals, and useful idiot tools with their minds tied in knots of the people who are doing it.
I disagree with the notion of “useful idiots”. My study of rhetoric indicates these people are rarely idiots. They likely understand their actions to some degree, even if not fully, and accept the uncertainty.
It’s a common misconception that Hitler manipulated otherwise upstanding German citizens into committing genocide through his charismatic leadership. However, antisemitism and scapegoating of Jews existed in Germany before Hitler’s political rise. Concerns about national decline already resided in the German psyche. Similarly, Trump did not originate the homophobia, racism, and violent rhetoric accompanying his ascent to power. In both cases, the leaders and public held pre-existing prejudiced beliefs that enabled their movements.
How does being “woke” relate to this? Many sincerely believe changing society’s structure is desirable and actively pursue it. It would be difficult to prove those seeking social change are inherently malicious. They are useful to the cause because they genuinely believe in it. Unless directly told otherwise by a woke proponent, one cannot reasonably conclude their moral goals are nefarious. This explains why reading partisan news often mischaracterizes progressive views. Commentary disagreeing with other perspectives frequently misrepresents them, outside of academic discourse.
More broadly, overcoming polarization requires acknowledging people genuinely hold different beliefs. Some currently hype a race war, convincing themselves I want them dead. In contrast, I do not want anyone dead. I oppose capital punishment. However, without communication, they will never know how much I wish their lives were as safe and abundant as mine. Overcoming their beliefs requires exploring being wrong. Instead, they will persist in believing I am a useful idiot aiming to destroy Western civilization.
People hold ideas you do not comprehend. The immature reaction is to dismiss them as useful idiots under a spell. The intellectually honest response is to understand why they believe as they do. As Aristotle stated:
Wow, real discussion!
I think you’re probably right they aren’t idiots, well most of them anyway, there are idiots in this world and no political ideology has a monopoly on them. But I do think they’re tools; they want to see change in the world, and they’ve been convinced to want a certain set of changes by some smooth talkers. I don’t think the people that formulate and articulate these sets of ideas to their followers are being honest about their end goals. This goes for just about every political ideology out there, but the predominant political force stirring trouble right now is the woke one so that’s the one I focus on.
I don’t think trans rights is about trans rights, that critical race theory is about equity, that UBI is about opportunity or leveling the playing field, that reducing energy production is about saving the planet. I think the adherent masses to these ideas do, I don’t think the academics that come up with this stuff or the politicians that shill it believe that for a second. They’re Tooheys and Fagins.
I try to understand ideologies I disagree with on their own terms, and I don’t assume those I disagree with are lying or manipulating. I take them at face value and try to understand their reasoning.
For example, from my perspective, banning books on critical race theory seems unrelated to parental rights. But parental rights activists see a direct connection. They believe restricting exposure to certain ideas protects parents’ rights to direct their children’s education.
For instance, the pledge from Moms for Liberty indicates they aim to defend parental rights. But how does banning books honor those rights? How does restricting classroom discussions on gender and sexuality expand parental authority? What specifically in critical race theory undermines parents?
To them, these bans fulfill their pledge. Limiting children’s exposure to these concepts is protecting parents’ rights in their view. Relating their actions to their stated goals is an important way to understand their perspective.
However, their conception of parental rights seems to only apply to those who agree with them. It is not universal. So it appears to be more about privilege for some rather than rights for all. Many parents want their children to have informed conversations about gender, sexuality, and America’s complex moral history. So while Moms for Liberty claims to support parental rights, their selective application of those rights shows they are more interested in rhetoric and control.
After evaluating their stance from their perspective, I can now say they are being dishonest about their true aims.
In general, I try to understand all views from their own framework, even if I disagree. I assume good faith and take positions at face value. Only after working to comprehend the reasoning behind a stance do I then assess if it is manipulative or deceptive. This process applies equally to those I agree and disagree with on various issues.
What’s your process? How did you come to the conclusion that trans rights, CRT, and UBI aren’t about the things they say they are and the politicians and academics that shill for them are…Tooheys and Fagins? (I’m not sure what that means, but I suspect liars and manipulators?)
They’re characters from books anthropomorphizing very unscrupulous archetypes. You should look them up and read about them, they’re fantastically designed characters.
My process is to look at outcomes and techniques. If techniques to further an ideological goal involve dishonesty and disingenuousness I then deduce that the purveyors of those ideologies are unscrupulous people. If outcomes are awful and especially if they try to hide those bad outcomes then I presume that they don’t care how what they want affects people. So for example, sex education and birth control among religious conservatives, you have both disingenuous discussion and bad outcomes. Or the countless young women who have ruined their lives by cutting their breasts off as teenage girls convinced they’re boys. Same markers.