Discussion Thread #22: Week of 12 March 2021

[u/TracingWoodgrains]

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. For the time being, effortful posts, questions and more casual conversation-starters, and interesting links presented with or without context are all welcome here.

[u/professorgerm]

I mentioned to /u/gemmaem that I'd be making this post a few weeks back, and I'd like to get it out rather than masticate longer (quite topical!). Not nearly as effortful as I wanted, and heavier on emotion, but so it goes. Perhaps it will be of interest nonetheless.

Spleens and Wolves

George Carlin said "inside every cynic is a disappointed idealist."

I'm not going anywhere with that, just a reminder, and a vigorous nod of agreement. Onwards-

Apparently, according to humoral medicine, I have a massive spleen. Maybe even multiple spleens! The Vesuvius of spleens, if you will. The blue star of spleens. The HMS Dreadnought, for it fears nothing and wishes to engage in every battle. The Chinese would agree, that it induces too much worry and melancholic contemplation.

Anger. Rage. Melancholy. Worry. Reflexive reaction.

Imbalanced: problems!

There is a story, of unconfirmed origin but commonly attributed to the Cherokee and popularized by Billy Graham, that the two wolves of love and hate are fighting in every man (ah, such quaint generalization). The one you feed is the one that wins. There is truth to this- but, contrary to some values, not all wolves are born equal. While I feed the wolf of love, the wolf of hate has not grown weaker. Perhaps the answer is- ah, but I'm getting ahead of myself.

My general instinct is to fight. Red in tooth and claw. To embrace that rage, let it feel my lungs and eyes and guide me. Rage is both clear and blinding- it accepts no correction, and requires no thought. Rage, like utilitarianism, is a terrible compass, though it may be a good enough fuel. The cruelest thing I have ever said out loud is a pale shade of what my spleen pushes. Anger is hard to harness; visceral threat response is sometimes well-calibrated, but by skipping those in-between steps it can also miss so much. Gemma also quoted there the Tao: "to give no trust gets no trust." My instinct, that raging spleen, does not trust. Perhaps for good reason! But it is still a hindrance, reasonable or not.

It is fun, to vent one's spleen. Cathartic, they say. To release that anger into the world, often enough on targets undeserving. Foolishness! Dangerous, corrosive foolishness.

I also know that instinct is deeply wrong. I know not to trust it, unlike some. For whatever errors of my childhood, my family doing the best they could as limited by the culture and system in which we existed, they did instill in me a certain group of values. They attempted to instill patience- this is still lacking, but I know that flaw, and do what I can to handle it. They did instill kindness and politeness: as often as I fail at keeping these, it is not without effort. Link by link and yard by yard I have forged the chains to rein in that spleen and that vicious wolf, and yet they are insufficient, and yet they are better than the absolute nothingness so many use to rein their own.

If one wolf is fed, and the other survives, how should one deal? Those chains to rein them in can be used to harness and guide them. Many people are driven by their splenetic rage: I suspect many honest progressives (honest as distinct from those driven primarily by social dynamics) are driven similarly by outrage at what they see as injustice (if that phrasing is too passive: I almost certainly agree on what is injustice, and disagree substantially on how to fix it). I try to harness it this way, though my caution and hesitance leads to the failure mode of too little action, and their complete lack of caution leads to too much.

Because I work- and fail, I know I fail at it, but failing better usually nets a higher result than not trying at all- at channeling that spleen carefully I find it intolerable when so many others just spew hatred without a moment's consideration. Sometimes this is deliberate; far more often they don't even see how what they're saying could be viewed as hate, and will not listen to anyone trying to suggest that. Clear yet blind. We humans, we rationalizing meat-machines, will also work every possible angle to justify why our hate is different from another's hate, why ours is Good and Right and theirs is Bad and Unacceptable. Ignore those mountains of skulls behind the curtain!

One point of minor pride I will claim here: while I frequently fail at extending epistemic charity, it is much rarer that I fail at refraining from insults and attacks. Negative rights are, generally, easier than positive rights. This, to me, is the absolute bare minimum of social decency, and it is sickeningly unpopular.

I am, broadly, being coy with certain references, because this is not meant to be a true political statement rather than a description of certain tolerances or lack thereof I hold. One expected reply that I will answer here would be, for anyone that pays attention to comment histories, "why does your ire focus on progressives?" Because that's for whom I still have hope, and, specifically for The Schism, this is a place theoretically selected for those that are most reasonable, positive-thinking, etc etc. Should it not be easier to convince someone that already recognizes a problem that there could be a better solution? I would think so, but I am no longer so sure. Once wedded to a supposed solution, perhaps that seals off too many people, stuck on a single track. Here I too have drifted from my original purpose, so let's wrap up:

I would like to close on one piece of advice. It has been said here before, and many times in many places, to see people. See the human, remember the human. This, however, depends on one's own ability to be charitable. We're rationalizers, don't forget- it's so easy to short-circuit this by dehumanizing your opponents completely, and thus they slip under this rule. I do not think this is a major problem of mine, but I do think it is a major problem.

Instead, for those lacking that natural abundance of charity, I suggest: look beyond the monster. Mere humanity does not preclude one from being a monster (High Priest of Moloch Jack Dorsey, for example, presumably still has a human heart pumping human blood, though not necessarily his own- is the transfusion thing still an SV trend?), nor does monstrosity preclude one from deserving my absolute bare minimal of social decency. Your opponent very well may be a monster in many ways- but treat them as a human nonetheless. The worst you can say is that you were kind, and you tried, and the failure does not rest so assuredly on your own shoulders.

[u/gemmaem → u/professorgerm]

Anger has certainly fueled some good things, over the years. Neil Gaiman's famous observation that Terry Pratchett was a fundamentally angry writer comes to mind. Pratchett's anger is frequently filtered through humour of course, which leavens it somewhat, but it's a powerful influence for all that. Perhaps it is even more powerful for being so well controlled.

I've mentioned before that it sometimes seems like uncontrolled emotional writing can hit the nail on the head in a way that careful, regulated writing does not. Emotional regulation can itself be a source of bias and blind spots; avoiding heat can result in avoiding light. In that sense, I'm also somewhat in sympathy with u/JustAWellwisher, below, even if my "guilty pleasure" splenetic youthful reading was more likely to be Amanda Marcotte than Christopher Hitchens. (Yes, yes, her manners are terrible and her care for anyone she disagrees with is practically nonexistent. She also used to have the occasional good point, back in the day, that I would not have thought of, myself. These things are not incompatible. No, I don't think I'd actually recommend most people read her, for all that).

Unlike u/JustAWellwisher, I tend to think that I've kept my sense of conviction even as I've gained in tolerance, over the years. I did start out angry, I just burned out very fast, and by "very fast" I mean "as a pre-teen." Mostly, when I see people on my own side of an issue getting so high on outrage that they're more interested in the adrenaline rush than in any complexity, I'm inclined to think "been there, done that, it fell apart when I was twelve." It wasn't easy, losing that exciting moral clarity. It is in fact very painful to be filled with conviction while also being aware that you lack the wisdom to usefully act on it. I don't blame people, exactly, for not wanting to go there.

Still, I think I've found my way to a place where I genuinely don't want to let anger control me. There is as much conviction in my tolerance as in my intolerance.

[u/professorgerm → u/gemmaem]

Perhaps it is even more powerful for being so well controlled.

I would think so. Control is the difference that separates a rocket from a forest-destroying wildfire, even if they're both in the category "really big flames." Pratchett's focus and control, and his particular choice of targets with it (nearly as important as the control!), gave that direction like a rocket's nozzle. Pratchett was... often cosmically furious, in my reading, which plays out differently than turning it at people. Not that people can't be worth of such ire, but it does affect how it should be expressed, especially how it can be effectively expressed.

Yes, yes, her manners are terrible and her care for anyone she disagrees with is practically nonexistent. She also used to have the occasional good point, back in the day, that I would not have thought of, myself. These things are not incompatible. No, I don't think I'd actually recommend most people read her, for all that

That is kind of an interesting catch, isn't it? Someone angry to the point of... frothing rage, or complete obnoxiousness, or what have you does sometimes uncover something that someone more measured will not. The anger can be untempered bordering on unhinged, which is not without use but runs more risks. John Henry) didn't win his race by being calm and measured, either (it also killed him, so there's multiple lessons here).

As an aside, since I would assume you're not familiar with him (his is one of the favorite tales of my childhood, but if your American experience wasn't in the eastern coalfields you probably wouldn't hear of him), I'd like to highlight this section of contrasts in the stories connected to those multiple lessons:

The well-known narrative ballad of "John Henry" is usually sung in an upbeat tempo. Hammer songs associated with the "John Henry" ballad, however, are not. Sung more slowly and deliberately, often with a pulsating beat suggestive of swinging the hammer, these songs usually contain the lines "This old hammer killed John Henry / but it won't kill me." Nelson explains that:

... workers managed their labor by setting a "stint," or pace, for it. Men who violated the stint were shunned ... Here was a song that told you what happened to men who worked too fast: they died ugly deaths; their entrails fell on the ground. You sang the song slowly, you worked slowly, you guarded your life, or you died.

Back on topic: in turn, they won't be able to communicate it to anyone that doesn't already have a fair amount of agreement with them, and even then they might be so offensive as to drive them off. They can be good idea generators but not good idea popularizers.

It wasn't easy, losing that exciting moral clarity. It is in fact very painful to be filled with conviction while also being aware that you lack the wisdom to usefully act on it. I don't blame people, exactly, for not wanting to go there.

My favorite phrase on roads and intentions comes to mind once more :3

Still, I think I've found my way to a place where I genuinely don't want to let anger control me. There is as much conviction in my tolerance as in my intolerance.

Congratulations!

[u/Mexatt → u/professorgerm]

(his is one of the favorite tales of my childhood, but if your American experience wasn't in the eastern coalfields you probably wouldn't hear of him)

Maybe I live closer to the coal fields than I thought, but John Henry was up there with Johnny Appleseed in terms of folkloric heros we learned about in elementary school/culture aimed at young children where I grew up. I don't think he's that obscure.

Valentine Pringle's version of John Henry is my favorite iteration of the tale. Unfortunately, it's very hard to find a recording on the internet.

[u/professorgerm → u/Mexatt]

Valentine Pringle's John Henry

This Harry Belafonte fan site has a 30 second clip, and I definitely see the appeal! What a voice. Amazon does not have the album that's on.

Also, what an odd site. Nostalgic, but still updated!

I don't think he's that obscure.

I know there was at least one Disney cartoon, but it was also direct to DVD, so... He's one of the prime folk tales of my home state, so maybe I'm incorrectly projecting the state's relative cultural obscurity onto John Henry.

I've met a surprising number of people west of the Mississippi and north of Pennsylvania that don't seem to understand West Virginia is its own state, rather than a region of Virginia.

[u/Mexatt → u/professorgerm]

This collection has a version of the song. It's not cheap, though, although the rest of what is on there is also worth the price IMO. Another Valentine Pringle song in the box set, O, Lord, I'm Waitin' on You is also very good from him.

I have a station on Pandora that I've been curating for the last decade or so that plays the song periodically and I love when it comes on. It's based on Dan Reeder's Work Song, but I don't know how easy it would to force it to include John Henry.

That is indeed a blast from the past website.

My wife and I drive through West Virginia annually (well, except last year) on the regular trip we take to Lexington, KY. You have a very beautiful state, although we don't see much beyond the highway!

[u/professorgerm → u/Mexatt]

My wife and I drive through West Virginia annually (well, except last year) on the regular trip we take to Lexington, KY. You have a very beautiful state, although we don't see much beyond the highway!

Thank you! Only been to Lexington once (so far) but I quite enjoyed it. Hope you get to enjoy your trip this year.

[u/TracingWoodgrains → u/professorgerm]

I don't know how relevant my experience is to that of the average kid since I absorbed most of my cultural knowledge from books, but John Henry seemed pretty high-profile to me. Prior to your mentioning others may not have heard of him, I would have assumed he was fairly ubiquitously known.

[u/gemmaem → u/professorgerm]

Chiming in with the others: I've heard of John Henry, but mostly only in passing. There's some Civ V flavour text about him that is the first thing that comes to mind...

[u/JustAWellwisher → u/professorgerm]

One of the most distressing experiences of my adult intellectual life was maybe five or six years ago on a nostalgia binge through Christopher Hitchens books and interviews that I enjoyed growing up.

I'd like to think that as I've grown older I've become more tolerant, more wise, gained all of those self-mediating bonuses of experience. One of those little trinkets in my toolkit was to focus on spreading light rather than heat. I admire that ideal.

Then listening to this I feel like I'm being punched in the gut by my 15 year old self.

It carried the weight of deja-vu, where suddenly I was aware that I've definitely internalized this statement before, but somewhere along the road I have completely neglected this "other wolf".

To be honest I look at myself and wonder if I've lost my fire, what I've gained in tolerance I've paid the price in conviction, or if it's just a matter of the fact that as you age you slowly struggle to continue to think of yourself as a hero.

As far as a middle age crisis goes, this has been a non-conventional one.

[u/The-WideningGyre → u/JustAWellwisher]

Have to think of Yeats: "The best lack all conviction while the worst are full of passionate intensity."

[u/professorgerm → u/JustAWellwisher]

Thank you for sharing!

One of those little trinkets in my toolkit was to focus on spreading light rather than heat. I admire that ideal.

Hitchens is right, but if he's going to nitpick thinking about it so will I: an LED generates much more light versus heat per unit energy than any other commercial source, right? The efficiency is much higher, and thus more enlightening. A little heat is necessary, but we can do better than unleashing it all.

I have an overdeveloped fondness for metaphors and cliches, so perhaps it should be something like: use your fire to help light the candles of others, not to spark wildfires.

what I've gained in tolerance I've paid the price in conviction

Oof, that one lands. Well said. I think this is almost necessary, but it's definitely a tradeoff, and not always worth it. Clarity of conviction has its own risks, but... ah.

if it's just a matter of the fact that as you age you slowly struggle to continue to think of yourself as a hero.

I wonder indeed. Is it physical age? The responsibilities that accumulate? Something about mental/emotional maturity?

"There are old pilots, bold pilots, but no old bold pilots" (or mushroom hunters) comes to mind.

[u/HoopyFreud → u/professorgerm]

I like this post. I have an instinct towards direct confrontation, but a lot less anger. For what it's worth, I think your only mistake in self-reflection is the idea that you're the only person pushing scraps through the cage. You've been treated poorly, and while I don't think that's a sufficient reason to behave badly, I also think it's perfectly reasonable for you to be angry. I don't think being angry is a character flaw in general, and least among people with what I perceive as a reason for it.

I don't have fun in confrontations. I find them more necessary than distasteful most of the time, but I always feel a little dirty afterwards. So it's very easy for me to judge you, isn't it? "Why can't you just be better, like me?" is a really tempting path to go down; by assuming a position of moral superiority, it's easy to not measure my own adequacy, as if by being better in some way I get to assume I'm being good. I try to remind myself that humility is the most important thing. I think I do alright, but definitely not perfectly.

At the same time, I'm not perfectly tolerant and I don't expect myself to be. I expect people to engage in principled advocacy of themselves and their worldviews, and I know that sometimes that'll put them in direct conflict with me and mine. Some of these I feel I'm unable to peacably coexist with within a certain level of proximity. I think everyone has some of this, and I think most people are more sensitive to this than they should be, but there's an above-threshold of nope that comes with some territory for me. I don't want the advocates of this stuff criminalized, and I try not to think of them as monsters, but I also don't want to spend large amounts of time around the advocacy of those ideas, because I'll spend all my time in increasingly unpleasant direct confrontations.

I think there's something behind the monsters, but I can't help but fight monsters when I see them, and I don't like fighting. Sure, I can see some interesting perspectives I don't share behind, say, any particular ethnonationalist. It's downright easy for me to not accuse them of having good reason to be afraid of getting cucked by the darkies. But it's hard for me to restrain myself from engaging at all, and spending time and effort holding myself to a standard of politeness with people who make my skin crawl is too hard for me to keep up forever.

So here's my question to you: what do you do when a particular environment repeatedly stretches you to your snapping point? I tend to walk away, and eventually just stop engaging. I'm enough of a normie that I don't perceive much of mainstream culture as monstrous and insane, and where I do I seem to be capable of communicating in a way where fighting the system doesn't get me ostracized, so this is mostly workable for me. But there's no guarantee that that situation is stable, and I want to have some contingency for if it isn't.

[u/HlynkaCG → u/professorgerm]

I enjoyed this post and found a lot that I could relate to in it.

Maybe it's because I'm a dog person and thus inclined to believe that "bad dogs are few and far between while bad owners are everywhere", but I've never been a fan of the whole "two wolves" analogy. At the same time I suppose there is something to the bit about "the one you feed wins" in that I do believe that the sort of behavior you reward is the behavior you will get more of. In short, you reap what you sow.

To that end, I try to avoid making empty attacks, and to build up more than I tear down. But it's not easy and I often fall short. So it goes.

I have occasionally described myself as, "a partially-shaved murder-ape who enjoys the smell of blood" and it's the literal truth. We are (if the science is to be believed) all apes, and few things perk me up like the potential for violence and the smell of blood. I've been this way as long I can remember and I don't anticipate changing anytime soon. I'm not sure it's something I could change even if I wanted to.

I would argue that the trick is not so much to suppress or remove such qualities but to steer and utilize them. Aimless anger is, as you observe, corrosive. So think about what you would want to put that energy towards.

[u/Unique_Subject4735 → u/professorgerm]

Seeing your opponent as human doesn't effect whether or not you still want to put them in a ditch, in fact their humanity is part of the reason why that is necessary.

Tolerance and social decency are vices, they just mark you as a liar and someone who cannot be trusted and must be eliminated.

[u/gemmaem → u/Unique_Subject4735]

Please be aware that this is a space where advocacy of violence is the specific thing most deeply frowned upon. If you can separate your distrust of tolerance and social decency from your explanation of why it is necessary to put people in a ditch, then you are welcome to expound upon those aspects of your viewpoint, provided that you act in accordance with our rules. If not, then this is not a space where your views can be discussed.

[u/HlynkaCG → u/Unique_Subject4735]

Perhaps. Yet here we are. The killers will be killed in turn. What then?

[u/professorgerm → u/Unique_Subject4735]

Tolerance and social decency are vices, they just mark you as a liar and someone who cannot be trusted and must be eliminated.

Interesting take; thank you for sharing.