= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
brazil84 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)
What in the world are you talking about? You are aware, I hope, that "progressive" is a euphemism for "left-wing"? The example of left-wing anti-Semitism shows that a reduction in anti-Semitism is not in conformance with modern progressive political views.
Yes.
Well how do you know there has been a reduction in anti-Semitism? You seem to agree that anti-Semitic progressives will generally not express their anti-Semitism by expressly stating they hate Jews or by engaging in pogroms. Instead they are more indirect about it.
You can observe that Jews have an easier time getting jobs in industries that used to discriminate against them, that Jews tend not to get lynched any more, etc.
That doesn't mean anything, since, by hypotheses, progressive anti-Semitism manifests itself in different ways.
Let me ask you this:
If someone is against policies which prohibit job discrimination on the basis of religion, would you guess that such a person generally subscribes to progressive viewpoints or not?
By hypothesis, progressive anti-Semitism is verbalized in different ways. The things I described weren't verbal.
If someone loudly says "I am against policies which prohibit discrimination on the basis of religon" I would assume he subscribes to progressive viewpoints. Actually doing it would be pretty much neutral, at least in the context of Jews.
That's an interesting distinction. Let's break things down. First of all, do you agree that a significant part of the reason there is less discrimination against Jews (at least in the United States), is because society has become less tolerant of discrimination on the basis of race, religion, age, etc.?
Actually doing what? All I asked about was the hypothetical person's beliefs.
Just so we are clear, you are saying that if a person is against policies which prohibit job discrimination on the basis of religion, it gives you little or no information on the probabilities that he holds modern progressive political views?
There are several factors which operate in different directions for Jews. There's a larger increase in tolerance among the left and a smaller increase in tolerance among the right which is progressive and is for religion in general, but there's also a decrease in tolerance among the left and an increase among the right specifically for Jews. Add them together and the results are still positive for both the left and the right, but can no longer be called progressive
Policies which prohibit discrimination on the basis of religion in general are associated with progressive views. Policies which specifically prohibit discrimination against Jews but not religion in general aren't.
Umm, does that mean "yes" or "no"?
Ok let's make this a little more concrete with an example: A WASPY country-club is having an internal debate over whether to admit Jews to membership. One club member takes the position that the country club should let Jews join; another members states that the club should continue to exclude Jews. According to you, this information tells you little or nothing about which of the two members is more likely to have progressive political views. Right?
ETA: By the way, if you object that membership in such a country club affects the chances that one will have modern progressive political views, you can imagine that it's two members of the community who may or may not belong to the country club. One believes that the club should start admitting Jews; one believes that the club should continue to exclude Jews.
It means "yes according to what you literally said, no according to what you'd have to mean for what you're asking to make any sense".
The reduction in discrimination against Jews has a progressive component and an anti-progressive component. So literally speaking, a "significant part of the reason there is less discrimination" is progressive. But the whole thing is not.
Since you have specified that the club is WASPy, you are no longer asking whether someone would approve of discrimination against Jews, you're asking if they would approve of discrimination against Jews and in favor of white Christians--a subcategory of that. It is entirely plausible that that subcategory of discrimination is more supported by the right, while discrimination against Jews in general is not
Also, the question asks if P(not progressive|discrimination) is large. Even if this is true, it would not imply that P(discrimination|not progressive) is large.
I didn't ask about the whole thing -- I asked about a "significant part." But anyway, let's do this: Please tell me the three most prominent American industries over the last 50-years in the United States where (1) there has been a reduction in employment discrimination against Jewish people; and (2) the reduction was primarily anti-progressive in terms of its' "component."
So are you saying that reduction of discrimination against Jews in favor of White Christians probably is, for the most part, consistent with modern progressive political views?
And even if that were true, it wouldn't matter. Because the real question is which is more consistent with modern progressive political views -- continuing to keep Jews out of the country club or letting them in. I take it you concede that it's the latter?
That not the only relevant question. Let's say someone named Rothschild runs for a congress primary. There are people from whom that's enough to choose to vote against that person. Those people aren't necessarily politically on the right.
Even when I personally wouldn't call it anti-semitism there are plenty of people on the left who want to boycot Israel economically after the example of South Africa. On the other hand someone like Mencius Moldbug is quite all right with Israel.
Political correctness leads to a lot of things not being said and the historical reasons for why someone might be take a political position are complicated.
I'm not sure that "Rothschild" is the best example here since the name is far more evocative of extreme wealth than of religion. But let's suppose that someone named "Shapiro" or "Cohen" is running for Congress. Would that automatically disqualify him for people on the Left? For the most part, I would say "clearly not." If he supports the traditional Leftist positions, it won't be a problem.
And a desire to boycott Israel is indeed consistent with modern progressive politics, agreed?
Given the prevalence of what Scott Alexander calls object-level thinking, I'd guess people against banning discrimination on the basis of religion are less likely to be progressivist than the rest of population in regions where said discrimination is more commonly in favour of believers against atheists than vice versa, and more likely elsewhere.
That may be so, but my question is more of a practical one than a theoretical one. I'm asking about the West in the 20th century, with an emphasis on the United States.
I don't think the West, or even the United States, is as homogeneous as you appear to imply.
Turns out that believers and atheists are discriminated against in the US, presumably by different people.
I wasn't trying to imply such . . . I was just looking for a concrete answer to my question.
With that in mind, what's your answer to the question? If you are told that there is an American who opposes policies which prohibit job discrimination on the basis of religion, would it make you more likely or less likely (or the same) to believe that such person holds progressive political views?
I dunno -- averaged over all of the US, probably more likely, but I'm not sure.