= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Eugine_Nier comments on Stranger Than History - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (329)
That's a tricky question because modern progressive political views are opposed to religion. And religion is a large source of irrationality. So most examples are going to happen to match modern progressive political views just because of that, even though they're not measured by their agreement with modern progressive political views.
The first example that comes to mind is a decline in anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism 1) is irrational and 2) because of left-wing opposition to Israel and the West and support of third world Arab states, is not necessarily reduced by modern progressive political views.
Another example is how a lot more people have realized that central planning doesn't work. An example where things have become less rational since the 1900's is the current irrational belief that race and gender don't correlate with anything significant.
...enough to stop treating people as individuals
Taboo "treating people as individuals".
Also, how would you count things like Affirmative Action and especially the Disparate Impact Doctrine?
I would count them ss relevant to the US only.
Someone once told me that Obama must be dumber than GWB because he is black. That is what treating someone as an individual isn't.
I admit that I encounter people who make a big deal of how edgy and contrarian they are for speaking out about innate differences in the face of the stifling politically correct consensus that race and sex don't matter at all. It's pretty amazing how they seem to be everywhere, given the supposedly universal consensus rejecting and supressing such edgy, contrarian views.
Have you seen any of these people on mainstream fora? The reason these people seem so common is that you're per-filtering your internet browsing to sites that strongly value truth.
OTOH the stifling consensus isn't stifling teh Webz
Depends on which website you're talking about.
As far as I can tell, the far left position on sex is that most of the stereotypical sex differences are exaggerated, and most of the genuine differences are more the result of socialization rather than biology. I don't encounter anyone who goes further than that; I've never encountered anyone who would replace either "most" with an "all," or who would replace the "more" with an "entirely," in the case of sex, and I encounter a lot of people who are pretty far left (being fairly far left myself these days). The situation with race is a little different; some people would replace the second "most" with an "all," and the second "more" with an "entirely." But then, the evidence is also different with respect to race. People who think there's just no difference at all in the case of sex I only encounter as straw characters in conservative rants.
And anyone who suggests they might be caused by biology is an EVIL SEXIST who must be suppressed.
True, in the sense that I don't think any leftists are insane enough to claim that differences in genitals and breasts are the result of socialization, but then again I don't hang out with the SJ crowd.
I see these people in my everyday life all the time. I think that the edge internet contrarians don't realize their views are held as common sense by fairly large sections of the population.
Oh, I'm sure a lot of people (or at least their system I's) have noticed the forbidden facts we describe (in part because some of them are blinkingly obvious unless one is actively trying not to see them), whether they're willing to say them anywhere semi-public is another issue.
I suspect there are many fewer such people in places where said edge internet contrarians live (e.g. New England or the Bay Area) than elsewhere.
(I've never been to New England nor to the Bay Area, so take this with a huge grain of salt.)
I see quite a lot of them on Facebook, some of whom are outraged by some ‘news’ on Italian analogues of The Onion without even realizing they're satire so they hardly “strongly value truth”.
The public controversy about James Watson remarks on African intelligence happened fairly recently. To me that controversy indicates that the ideas are at least a bit edgy.
When you say "encounter," are you talking about internet postings? Private conversations in real life? Television commentators? Newspaper op-ed pieces?
Mostly the first two. I don't watch much TV news or read many newspapers any more.
Would you mind linking to a couple of these internet postings so I can get a better handle on what you are saying? TIA.
Since you haven't provided examples of your observations, I will add that I suspect you are subconsciously exaggerating your case quite a bit. But I'm happy to look.
Really? Does that "everywhere" includes managerial positions in companies and various institutions? Are these people responsible for hiring anyone, by any chance?
Or let's even put it this way. Given the current legal and political climate and the habits of EEOC, do you think it's a good idea for a company to promote to a position of responsibility someone who publicly asserts that sex and race differences are significant?