tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post5084606595707277359..comments2023-11-22T01:14:54.298-08:00Comments on amor mundi: South Dakota May Legalize the Murder of Healthcare Providers in Part Because We Who Are Pro-Choice Aren't Fighting This Fight on Its Actual TermsDale Carricohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02811055279887722298noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-8876257500850012242011-02-22T14:09:08.738-08:002011-02-22T14:09:08.738-08:00Doesn't the metaphor of "switching frames...Doesn't the metaphor of "switching frames of reference" you mobilize here rely for its force on the implicit recognition of a world susceptible of actually warrantable descriptions, which you then disavow in analogizing all convictions, however warranted, as cult-like? <br /><br />You are right to point out that all conviction corrals the believer into communities of belief with a yield of both pleasures and pressures that are more addictive than argumentative, and that respect for argument demands vigilance to these. <br /><br />But this is hardly the only consideration that matters to those who would be reasonable, and in some conflicts -- one that arrays the environmentalist against the corporate funded climate-change denialist, the harm-reduction family planning or drug policy maker against the Christianist moralist, the civil libertarian and antigay or white racist bigot -- the comparable <i>force</i> of their conviction and the emotional/moral support they get from their fellows is scarcely more important than the actual substance that distinguishes them, both in terms of the actual propositional content of their belief, and the matter of the demonstrable relation of their different beliefs to the demonstrable criteria that warrant scientific beliefs as best on offer or criteria that warrant ethical beliefs as equitable-in-diversity or political/policy beliefs as optimally efficacious as constrained by equitability-in-diversity.<br /><br />There are plenty of conflicts in which I am the first to insist -- as you are here, if I am reading you aright -- that we need to identify imaginatively with the point of view of interlocutors the better to learn from them and reconcile with them, but there are also times when one has to choose sides and when to refrain from so doing is no different from choosing the side with which one is substantially least sympathetic in fact.Dale Carricohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02811055279887722298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-41887133793883312922011-02-22T12:57:29.779-08:002011-02-22T12:57:29.779-08:00Dale wrote:
> [T]rying to propose fact-based h...Dale wrote:<br /><br />> [T]rying to propose fact-based harm-reduction policy<br />> prescriptions. . . [that] require effort and education to understand. . .<br />> puts you in a surreal position of disadvantage. . .<br />> [and] in addition to this already difficult task you are required<br />> to pretend that your opponents are being reasonable when in fact<br />> they are just lying or fulminating or simply don't have the<br />> slightest idea what they are talking about. . .<br /><br />Yes. But:<br /><br />1) You and I both know that mutual recognition of "facts"<br />requires a shared frame of reference that often doesn't<br />exist between ideologues of the left and right (on matters<br />from abortion and homosexuality to public funding of<br />health care to foreign policy).<br /><br />2) It is nevertheless possible to recognize a coherent<br />frame of reference which one does not inhabit oneself.<br />Even folks on the right can do this, though they're<br />liable to call their reconstruction of the foreign frame<br />"evil". "decadent", "destructive", "effete"<br />or just plain "stupid", while when the left-wing<br />folks do it they'll use descriptions like "idiotic greed",<br />"ugly racism", or "incredibly ignorant".<br /><br />3) Both sides repackage what they're hearing from the<br />other side according to their own model of the other<br />side's frame of reference ("yes, of course that's what<br />they'd say").<br /><br />Actually switching frames of reference is a life-changing<br />experience. It's like leaving a cult. Frequently (especially<br />if it means abandoning a religion) it means cutting oneself<br />off from parents and siblings, erstwhile friends, even<br />spouse and children. How this sort of thing comes about<br />seems to me to have little to do with ordinary "political<br />discourse". Going to school, having unrestricted access to<br />books, the Web (and YouTube) seems to catalyze the transition<br />for some people once it's started, but the seeds of<br />change seem to come from somewhere else.<br /><br />Yes, **after** such a personality-shattering experience<br />it's possible to "hear" heretofore unassimilable<br />"facts".<br /><br />It's a strange thing. There are some interesting stories<br />on YouTube (from ex-Mormons, ex-Scientologists, and the<br />like, or people from conservative religious backgrounds<br />who have had to face their own, or a child's, homosexuality).<br />There's one gay male couple (with two adopted children) on<br />YouTube, one of whom is a cop (and he looks and talks like<br />a cop, too!) -- a big, beefy guy from a conservative religious<br />family who excelled at sports to please his father (who<br />has had nothing to do with him since he came out), and who once<br />denied his sexual orientation to the point of getting a<br />girl pregnant in high school. In one video, this guy describes<br />himself as a "recovering Republican". I had to smile at<br />that. But that's the kind of crucible it takes to change<br />people, it seems to me. Homosexuality (absolutely not being able<br />to conform, no matter what) is one sort of crucible. Experience<br />in war can be another. E.g., George Orwell's disillusionment<br />with the Communist Party as a result of his experiences in the<br />Spanish Civil War. Or Gordon Livingston's ("Too Soon Old, Too Late<br />Smart") disillusionment in American foreign policy as a result<br />of serving in Viet Nam (after graduating from West Point).<br /><br />But most folks, most of the time, are just comfortably singing<br />along with the choir, well insulated from the discords coming<br />from the band next door.jimfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04975754342950063440noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-25175664917818742332011-02-19T12:10:53.089-08:002011-02-19T12:10:53.089-08:00I know what you're talking about, but I think ...I know what you're talking about, but I think you're overgeneralizing in this comment. Sure, there's always some determinable why in play, but with many of these issues on the right wing side that "why" really does just amount to straightforward ignorance or idiotic greed or incredibly ugly racism and there is no way to address the reality of the politics that is not vulnerable to the superficial ascription to the left of the accusation of "stereotypical shouting across the barricades" precisely because the reality is brutally stereotypical. In such circumstances, trying to propose fact-based harm-reduction policy prescriptions on drug policy, law enforcement, gun regulation, immigration reform, tax policy, addressing climate change, sex education and family planning, infrastructure investment, and so on actually puts you in a surreal position of disadvantage wherein you are not only struggling to advocate for outcomes and mechanisms that require effort and education to understand, which often depend on counter-intuitive insights and knowledges (national budgets aren't the same family budgets, abortions happen less often when abortions and other family planning services become more available, there are some public goods that governments demonstrably provide better than private enterprise does and vice versa, and so on), but in addition to this already difficult task you are required to pretend that your opponents are being reasonable when in fact they are just lying or fulminating or simply don't have the slightest idea what they are talking about and are flinging simplistic slogans and distraction around because to call them out on what they are doing exposes you to the charge that you are being unfair and unreasonable to describe the reality that they are being unfair and unreasonable. Frankly, it's bullshit, and only evil and stupidity ever benefit from the charade.Dale Carricohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02811055279887722298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-35684116632095218162011-02-17T09:49:09.659-08:002011-02-17T09:49:09.659-08:00> > I don't even know why this is even a...> > I don't even know why this is even an issue.<br />><br />> This is true of so many issues in the United States -- from<br />> evolution, drug policy, capital punishment, taxation,<br />> gun control, climate change, infrastructure, militarism,<br />> so much more<br /><br />Of course we all know **why** these things are issues.<br />We may not agree with the people who make them issues (I<br />certainly don't), but it's naive (or worse, fatuous)<br />to pretend that one can't see **why** they're issues.<br /><br />It also does no good politically (IMHO) either actually<br />not to understand "the other side" or to **pretend** not to<br />understand them.<br /><br />All it leads to is stereotyped shouting across the barricades.<br />Something like what Orwell called "duckspeak" (in 1984's<br />"Newspeak") -- just sloganeering that might as well be a<br />recording; the words bounce off both sides.jimfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04975754342950063440noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-55429654253725238972011-02-16T06:10:43.768-08:002011-02-16T06:10:43.768-08:00I don't even know why this is even an issue.
...<i>I don't even know why this is even an issue.</i><br /><br />This is true of so many issues in the United States -- from evolution, drug policy, capital punishment, taxation, gun control, climate change, infrastructure, militarism, so much more -- almost always because of the lies of Republicans, it is frankly difficult to remain conscientious or even sane in this slaughterhouse. <br /><br />I can't help but think of Auden:<br />Some think they're strong,<br />Some think they're smart,<br />Like butterflies they're torn apart.<br />America can break your heart.Dale Carricohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02811055279887722298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-88531928309338058832011-02-16T05:56:51.586-08:002011-02-16T05:56:51.586-08:00I don't even know why this is even an issue. I...I don't even know why this is even an issue. It seems like a strategy for hateful, racist people to enjoy a false sense of moral superiority and moral outrage.jollyspaniardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10999141103840765243noreply@blogger.com