Right & Left Liberalism vs Culture

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Rational Gaze wrote:
I don’t recognise this characterisation of liberalism.[/quote]

Most wouldn’t. And, I suspect it’s because a specific political party comes to mind when they see “liberalism.” Uh-uh, way off. [/quote]

Sloth, seriously consider the possibility that this author is defining the terms of the debate to suit his argument. Whether or not he makes valid points is almost irrelevant once you see the enormous effort that he puts into crafting a believable yet purely fictional world within which to pontificate.

22

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

Because he provides no evidence to back up any of these claims:[/quote]

I hate to break it to you - that isn’t a straw man.

These are observations and related to political philosophy, not a quantitaive study. These are his observations as to what is happening. Anyone is free to suggest his observation is wrong, but it isn’t “wrong” on the basis that he doesn’t have a statistical analysis substantiating it. Apples and oranges.

What you describe as “punditry” is observational writing. Much of it sucks, but not for the reasons you state. There are no wild assumptions in his piece - they might be wrong, but they aren’t ludicrous nor in need of double-blind surveys and regression analyses.

23

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

This is the starting point from which he builds his entire argument… an (as far as it is presented) entirely baseless claim about the psychology of an ideology at best. At its worst, it’s a claim about the psychology of a large portion of our population.

Either way, he better have some serious fucking research to back this up, or he’s just spitting in the wind. [/quote]

This misses the point entirely. And it suggests a false idea - that anyone who discusses cultural and political phenomena without stacks of quantitative “research” is speaking without any credibility on the topics. That is, of course, absurd.

24

Thunder,

You are correct. Not providing evidence to support his claims is nat by definition a straw man argument.

The larger point I am trying to make is that he makes broad claims about the intentions and psychology of a chunk of the population. Then, he argue against these assumptions… a straw man… he is arguing against a position that he hasn’t proven exists.

25

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

This is the starting point from which he builds his entire argument… an (as far as it is presented) entirely baseless claim about the psychology of an ideology at best. At its worst, it’s a claim about the psychology of a large portion of our population.

Either way, he better have some serious fucking research to back this up, or he’s just spitting in the wind. [/quote]

This misses the point entirely. And it suggests a false idea - that anyone who discusses cultural and political phenomena without stacks of quantitative “research” is speaking without any credibility on the topics. That is, of course, absurd.[/quote]

We can certainly agree to disagree on this.

I would ask you to consider, though, the possibility that our political discourse would be elevated considerably if we demanded more evidence to back up these type of assumptions.

I also think that the problem has partly to do with it being an assumption as opposed to a concluding argument. If he provided some examples, some excerpts, quotes, etc… built a case, then came to this conclusion, it would be more credible. As it stands, he presents an assumption of significant weight to warrant some proof. Then, he builds off of it as if it is fact.

26

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

I would ask you to consider, though, the possibility that our political discourse would be elevated considerably if we demanded more evidence to back up these type of assumptions. [/quote]

I’ll start with the first bit you qouted:

Liberalism begins by claiming to be neutral among personal ends and choices, indifferent to the ultimate purposes of individuals so long as those purposes do not come into violent conflict.

This is an observation about a political philosophy. You can’t prove it - it’s a observational discourse on an “ism” and an opinion. It’s not something you can much prove it through psychological statistics. If he’s wrong about Liberalism, that’s fine, someone who thinks he’s wrong merely has to say why based on their observation and a better discourse on the political philosophy.

But the fact that he starts out with observational assumptions doesn’t moot his argument.If he is wrong about Liberalism, say why.

27

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

I would ask you to consider, though, the possibility that our political discourse would be elevated considerably if we demanded more evidence to back up these type of assumptions. [/quote]

I’ll start with the first bit you qouted:

Liberalism begins by claiming to be neutral among personal ends and choices, indifferent to the ultimate purposes of individuals so long as those purposes do not come into violent conflict.

This is an observation about a political philosophy. You can’t prove it - it’s a observational discourse on an “ism” and an opinion. It’s not something you can much prove it through psychological statistics. If he’s wrong about Liberalism, that’s fine, someone who thinks he’s wrong merely has to say why based on their observation and a better discourse on the political philosophy.

But the fact that he starts out with observational assumptions doesn’t moot his argument.If he is wrong about Liberalism, say why.[/quote]

Like I said: too much speculation for my taste. Then, he proceeds to treat his speculation as if it’s fact, in support of further speculation.

Anyone is welcome to inform their political perspective with stuff like this, but it’s pure garbage to me.

Substitute your name for “liberalism”:

Thunderbolt begins by claiming to be neutral among personal ends and choices, indifferent to the ultimate purposes of individuals so long as those purposes do not come into violent conflict.

And, then ask yourself if it would even be worth engaging a debate that begins with such an assumption… taking into account the next 500 words of argument and development of position off of this assumption.

28

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
Substitute your name for “liberalism”:

Thunderbolt begins by claiming to be neutral among personal ends and choices, indifferent to the ultimate purposes of individuals so long as those purposes do not come into violent conflict.

[/quote]

I guess I’m not seeing the controversy, substituting liberalism back in. What am I missing? I can’t even begin to count how many times I’ve read, right here, “So long as coercion (violent) isn’t involved, what business of it is yours?”

“Liberalism begins by claiming to be neutral among personal ends and choices, indifferent to the ultimate purposes of individuals so long as those purposes do not come into violent conflict.”

29

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

Like I said: too much speculation for my taste. Then, he proceeds to treat his speculation as if it’s fact, in support of further speculation.[/quote]

No, it isn’t speculation, it’s an argument.

If the assumption is wrong, that is a point for counterargument and someone can make it.

Just as in another thread, you asserted that corporations have duties to society outside of merely maximzing shareholder value. Well, you offer no proof of this contention. Yet, you still assert the argument and then build from there.

But there is study or research “proving” such a thing, that corporations have these duties. Nor does the debate over it require “proof” for the arguments (on either side), and neither side has it in any event. It’s a debate, it’s rhetoric.

If you are right (here), then you should offer no further comment in the “Business Ethics” thread so you can be consistent.

30

[quote]Sloth wrote:

What am I missing? I can’t even begin to count how many times I’ve read, right here, “So long as coercion (violent) isn’t involved, what business of it is yours?”[/quote]

Btw, this states it perfectly. If I were writing this piece, my observation would, in fact, be that this Liberalism’s main tenet is “So long as coercion (violent) isn’t involved, what business of it is yours?”

Why? Exactly the reason you state - from the mouths of people who purport to believe in this “ism” I hear this tenet over and over and over. Especially here.

31

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

Like I said: too much speculation for my taste. Then, he proceeds to treat his speculation as if it’s fact, in support of further speculation.[/quote]

No, it isn’t speculation, it’s an argument.

If the assumption is wrong, that is a point for counterargument and someone can make it.

Just as in another thread, you asserted that corporations have duties to society outside of merely maximzing shareholder value. Well, you offer no proof of this contention. Yet, you still assert the argument and then build from there.

But there is study or research “proving” such a thing, that corporations have these duties. Nor does the debate over it require “proof” for the arguments (on either side), and neither side has it in any event. It’s a debate, it’s rhetoric.

If you are right (here), then you should offer no further comment in the “Business Ethics” thread so you can be consistent.[/quote]

I can see your point, but you are missing some pretty big elements.

  1. In the thread on business ethics, I rendered an opinion. Then when prompted, I offered supporting arguments. In this author’s talk, he rendered an opinion. Then, he treated that opinion as determined fact to pontificate further.

If he had offered the opinion, and then spent the next 500 words supporting that opinion, it would be entirely different. As it is, the 500 words after his initial opinion are increasingly insubstantial.

Both assertions, his and mine, carry enough implications that they warrant some attempt at proof. In my instance, I’m writing on a discussion board where it is assumed I will be challenged. If I were to follow a correlative of his strategy, I would respond to all challenges with something along the lines of “they also owe a duty to all puppies outside of maximizing shareholder profits, because of the duty they owe to society.”

My arguments would appear absurd and would likely be ignored.

In the instance of a speech or an opinion essay, the author has an understood duty to substantiate any claim that would meet with contention in conversation. The usefulness and credibility of his work is directly correlated to how well he does this.

32

there IS an diffuse political ideology which IS “indifferent to the ultimate purposes of individuals so long as those purposes do not come into violent conflict”.

and it’s quite prevalent in the West these days.

we can call it “liberalism” or call it another name. it doesn’t matter much.

33

[quote]kamui wrote:
there IS an diffuse political ideology which IS “indifferent to the ultimate purposes of individuals so long as those purposes do not come into violent conflict”.

and it’s quite prevalent in the West these days.

we can call it “liberalism” or call it another name. it doesn’t matter much. [/quote]

I actually do not disagree.

However, I find it to be so far-reaching in its implications that the type of cursory application of blame in this piece should be vigorously challenged.

34

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

In the instance of a speech or an opinion essay, the author has an understood duty to substantiate any claim that would meet with contention in conversation. [/quote]

This beggars belief. One read of the New York Times editorial page (which expressly limits its authors to a certain number of words) renders this absurd notion…absurd. If what you say was even remotely true, there wouldn’t ever be a speech or opinion essay - instead of ever getting to a point, you’d spend countless hours with disclaimers.

And more besides, the kinds of “proof” you demand to even make a basic observation renders the point of persuasive argumentation stillborn - and, at any rate, the kind of stuff you insist on are the stuff of rebuttals.

Setting aside that this author’s view of Liberalism is not an unsubstantiated idea out of nowhere, your “exacting” standard simply defies common sense in the world of exchanging ideas. And, you don’t even observe this standard yourself.

35

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Sloth and Thunderbolt23: I apologize for the smugness of my last post. I get the gist of this thing and I agree to a point, but I’m not sure that I would say liberalism in a political sense is what has caused this affliction to society.

You two should check out a book I just read called “Why We Hate Us” by Richard Meyer. He gets into this very thing, but it doesn’t read nearly as dryly. It’s really good, and it’s pretty short which is nice because he really pounds home the point and it gets a little repetitive toward the end. The first chapter kind of reads like a rant, but beyond that it’s very interesting. You’ll like it.[/quote]

Oh, appreciate the suggestion. It does look like something I’d be interested in.

36

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

In the instance of a speech or an opinion essay, the author has an understood duty to substantiate any claim that would meet with contention in conversation. [/quote]

This beggars belief. One read of the New York Times editorial page (which expressly limits its authors to a certain number of words) renders this absurd notion…absurd. If what you say was even remotely true, there wouldn’t ever be a speech or opinion essay - instead of ever getting to a point, you’d spend countless hours with disclaimers.

And more besides, the kinds of “proof” you demand to even make a basic observation renders the point of persuasive argumentation stillborn - and, at any rate, the kind of stuff you insist on are the stuff of rebuttals.

Setting aside that this author’s view of Liberalism is not an unsubstantiated idea out of nowhere, your “exacting” standard simply defies common sense in the world of exchanging ideas. And, you don’t even observe this standard yourself.[/quote]

  1. I’m not sure I’ve voiced my support for the NYT editorial standards anywhere.

  2. Perhaps what we could use as a society is more deliberation and less pontification.

  3. What kind of “proof” do I demand? I’ve only stated here an opinion that this author falls far short of what I deem credible.

  4. Where exactly is this author’s view substantiated? Other than in a cacophony of similar opinions.

  5. I would argue that I do, in fact, adhere to a higher evidentiary standard… you yourself have criticized me roundly on this.

37

I have a couple of questions for those that agree with this editorial:

  1. As a matter of principle, do you belileve the government should be more or less hands on when it comes to regulating the lives of its citizens?

  2. Do you believe the role of government goes beyond protecting people from one another to protecting people from themselves?

If you answered “less hands on” to #1 and yes to #2, please reconcile the apparent discrepancy.

38

I really want to jump in this thread, but with morning cardio coming up, then work, then family obligations, I don’t have the time. But a few quick points.

1st, thanks for an interesting thread. It’s nice to read something that started a discussion and wasn’t inherently “stupid” or “partisan” as is most of the things written here on PWI.

2nd, this has remained amazingly civil. Thanks for that.

3rd, I often appreciate hearing sloths opinion and TB’s “clarification”* of that opinion. So thank you both for sticking around to help us godless fools :wink: *for lack of a better word.

Now off for coffee and cardio.

39

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

  1. I’m not sure I’ve voiced my support for the NYT editorial standards anywhere.[/quote]

That isn’t the point - the point is people can have informed discourse without the standard of proof you prefer. People still understand meanings and learn things, even if editorials aren’t begun with treatises outlining evidence for certain political assumptions (which no one would bother reading anyway, including you).

The editorial was pretty darn deliberative and pretty heady. It isn’t “pontificating” just because you happen to disagree.

You mean other than Liberals themselves agreeing with this basic principle as part of their Liberalism? If he’s wrong, no problem, explain why.

But this is apples and oranges. I get a suspicion that if your political inclinations were with the assumptions and ideas of the piece, we wouldn’t be hearing such a fuss over it from you. I could be wrong about that, but I’d surmise if it were an article that assumed the corporations owed duties to society and then used that point as a jumping off point to talk about other things (minus the annotated “proof” of the original assumption), I doubt we’d be hearing you demanding “some fucking research” or else the guy would be “spitting into the wind.”

You also said this:

So, okay - challenge it vigorously then.

40

[quote]forlife wrote:
I have a couple of questions for those that agree with this editorial:

  1. As a matter of principle, do you belileve the government should be more or less hands on when it comes to regulating the lives of its citizens?

  2. Do you believe the role of government goes beyond protecting people from one another to protecting people from themselves?

If you answered “less hands on” to #1 and yes to #2, please reconcile the apparent discrepancy.[/quote]

It’s a bit of a false choice because someone could believe that the government should more hands on with respect to some things and less hands when it comes to others.

And with respect to #2, a person could believe that in certain instances the government should protect people from themselves, but only under circumstances. What comes to mind is a belief that people should be pretty darn free to do most of what they want to do, but that government shouldn’t legalize the use of certain drugs, which is not terribly uncommon.

Finally, the people inclined to see the world in such stark “yes or no” terms are likely libertarians, and it is pretty unlikely they would answer “less hands” to #1 and “yes” to #2.