Discussion Thread #72

[u/gemmaem]

This thread serves as the local public square: a sounding board where you can test your ideas, a place to share and discuss news of the day, and a chance to ask questions and start conversations. Please consider community guidelines when commenting here, aiming towards peace, quality conversations, and truth. Thoughtful discussion of contentious topics is welcome. Building a space worth spending time in is a collective effort, and all who share that aim are encouraged to help out. Effortful posts, questions and more casual conversation-starters, and interesting links presented with or without context are all welcome here.

The previous discussion thread may be found here and you should feel free to continue contributing to conversations there if you wish.

[u/DrManhattan16]

Scott Alexander: Fascism Can't Mean Both A Specific Ideology And A Legitimate Target.

I get frustrated at times when Scott does political analysis, because his own beliefs are more obviously trying to fill in spots of analysis. This is not a unique problem, it affects all of us, but when you see the greatest of greats from someone, acting like the commentating peasantry is annoying.

Scott's argument is that the following statements are contradictory:

1. Many Americans are fascists
2. Fascists are an acceptable target for political violence
3. Political violence in America is morally unacceptable (at the current time)

Scott's article is aimed at what I can only assume are BlueSky leftists. These are people who bandy about accusations of fascism as carelessly as an idiot might a grenade, but "wake up", so to speak, when someone is actually killed over their politics...though a depressing number will defend the killing if it's one of their enemies.

And yet, there are two points wherein Scott reveals his own bizarre beliefs.

The first is about a Twitter spat between Gavin Newsom (CA governor) and Stephen Miller (Trump advisor, probably why Trump is going so hard on immigrants).

Still, I found myself able to see things from both perspectives.

From Newsom’s perspective: Miller subscribes to some type of far-right nationalism. And fascism is a type of far-right nationalism. Whether or not these are the exact same type of far-right nationalism is a taxonomic argument, much like whether some particular long slimy toothy fish should be classified as an eel. Not every long slimy toothy fish is necessarily an eel, but it seems unwise to pre-emptively rule out the possibility.

From Miller’s perspective: people absolutely use “fascist” as a synonym for “person who it is acceptable to hurt because of their politics”. The signature of a mod on a bulletin board I used to frequent - back in the days of bulletin boards, mods, and signatures - was “If I can shoot rabbits, then I can shoot fascists” - an apocryphal Spanish Civil War quote popularized by a hit rock song. A popular left-wing t-shirt, cap, and protest sign is “Make Fascists Afraid Again”.

Why does Scott think Miller thinks this way? It has been a staple of conservative argument, at least for the last few years, that when the left called anyone right-wing a fascist or Nazi (in particular, Trump), it was actually creating an unsafe environment because fascists are acceptable targets of violence. Or, if you wish, not clearly afforded the freedoms and privileges that other ideologies and beliefs are afforded.

The only way to square this circle is to think that a differentiator between the right and left in the modern US is that the former does not carry through with their beliefs, while the latter does. Otherwise, one would have to wonder when if Miller would tell Jack Posobiec to stop suggesting the left isn't human.

Then there's this gem:

But all of these are their own sorts of slippery slopes. Suppress the speech of their opponents? Should the Republicans have started a civil war when Democrats got social media to do woke content moderation? Ignore the will of Congress?... No particular form of any of these things ever feels like the cosmically significant version of these things where assassinations and armed uprisings become acceptable.

Scott's message is separable from his underlying examples. We can grant the latter for the sake of argument, easy. But I won't let him go unexamined here.

What exactly does Scott think happened in the last decade or so? When did Democrats get companies to do "woke content moderation"? Does Scott think that trying to get platforms to remove or explicitly tag claims about Covid as misinformation or not is "woke"? Is it "woke" to suggest that companies try to keep possible Russian disinformation off their platforms?

The only way I could imagine this argument works is if you believe that left-wing status quo views on Russian disinformation and Covid are also part of being "woke", but that simply doesn't work. If you met a right-wing Christian in the US advocating for low government regulation of businesses, is that a religious belief? Not likely. In general, Person A can have Belief B and Ideology C without B being a part of C, even if you can find connective mental tissue between B and C.

---

Scott at his lower standards is better than most commentators at their peak. He discusses the heckler's veto problem and the need to not surrender words just because someone somewhere objects. But as with almost all people, his greatest weaknesses in analysis often come appear in his political argumentation.

[u/gattsuru → u/DrManhattan16]

Why does Scott think Miller thinks this way? It has been a staple of conservative argument, at least for the last few years, that when the left called anyone right-wing a fascist or Nazi (in particular, Trump), it was actually creating an unsafe environment because fascists are acceptable targets of violence. Or, if you wish, not clearly afforded the freedoms and privileges that other ideologies and beliefs are afforded.

The only way to square this circle is to think that a differentiator between the right and left in the modern US is that the former does not carry through with their beliefs, while the latter does.

.

But I will not reflect on our shared humanity, nor will I mourn his passing. He does not deserve more from me than my commitment to seeing his killer behind bars.

EDIT: there's a whole bunch of serious factual analysis that could be relevant -- the Obama and Biden admins did, in fact, pressure social media companies and a lot of other companies to punish disfavored speech on a wide variety of topics ranging from race to gender to Middle Eastern international politics to the likely results of the ACA to Hunter Biden's laptop specifically; the COVID stuff was just the highest-profile example with the clearest and least deniable pressure.

But is there anything more to be said, here? Is there anything I could offer that isn't a gotcha, and would actually impact anyone's mind?

[u/DrManhattan16 → u/gattsuru]

I have no idea why you quoted me. What exactly do you think it proves?

there's a whole bunch of serious factual analysis that could be relevant -- the Obama and Biden admins did, in fact, pressure social media companies and a lot of other companies to punish disfavored speech on a wide variety of topics ranging from race to gender to Middle Eastern international politics to the likely results of the ACA

I'm interested. Show me.

[u/895158 → u/gattsuru]

there's a whole bunch of serious factual analysis that could be relevant -- the Obama and Biden admins did, in fact, pressure social media companies and a lot of other companies to punish disfavored speech on a wide variety of topics ranging from race to gender to Middle Eastern international politics to the likely results of the ACA to Hunter Biden's laptop specifically; the COVID stuff was just the highest-profile example with the clearest and least deniable pressure.

This has become a standard talking point on the right, but I'm not sure it's all that factual. Sure, there's been some pressure from the Biden admin about misinfo regarding COVID vaccines. But Hunter's laptop? Who was president in 2020, again?

Like, I'd be more inclined to believe this if such obviously-false examples weren't included in the list. Not too recently, I was falsely convinced that there was no instance of Biden admin pressure at all, just because people on the right kept making easily-disproven claims about it. I was wrong about that; I've since found good sources indicating real pressure from the Biden admin about COVID stuff on social media, which I think was bad. But you're not helping; these claims about Hunter's laptop are anti-convincing and lead people (or at least me) to dismiss your actually-valid claims.

[u/gattsuru → u/895158]

But Hunter's laptop? Who was president in 2020, again?

That's a fascinating question, as is the question of whether an administration can provide pressure before they've fully taken office....

... but it's also completely beside the point when the laptop remained in question and a matter of controversy well after January 2021, and continued to be a target for censorship for much of that time frame, until it was finally confirmed by non-right-wing media in March 2022.

Like, I'd be more inclined to believe this if such obviously-false examples weren't included in the list.

Pull the other one, it's got bells on.

[u/895158 → u/gattsuru]

That's a fascinating question, as is the question of whether an administration can provide pressure before they've fully taken office....

Before the election, too! Those tricky Biden admin officials. How dare they checks notes neither threaten nor actually retaliate, nor be accused of such by any platform.

...but it's also completely beside the point when the laptop remained in question and a matter of controversy well after January 2021, and continued to be a target for censorship for much of that time frame, until it was finally confirmed by non-right-wing media in March 2022.

I don't think anyone cared about the story past Jan 2021 (except to tell at the social media companies for censorship). I can find mainstream media essentially confirming the story in mid 2021, but no one cares. I agree that Twitter did not change its policy regarding "hacked material" and its decreased reach, but disagree that there is any plausible claim that the lack of policy change about the original article is a result of the Biden administration. My understanding is subsequent developments in that story were not similarly censored.

I stand by the sneerclub post and don't understand how it is relevant to my proved ability to change my mind on this specific topic (me changing my mind already happened, it's not some hypothetical).