@wolftune we can take a fatalist position that the boat is doomed, and do and say nothing. We can raise the alarm while paddling towards the abyss with everyone else, in which case our message rings hollow. We can raise the alarm without paddling, in which case we're just making noise. What are we asking everyone to do? If we back-paddle while raising the alarm, our message is more likely to be taken seriously, and we're modelling what needs to be done. @rbe_expert@Adoxographer@Adoxographer
@wolftune this is the situation activists find ourselves in, whether the issue is #ClimateChange or #DataFarming. In the scenario the boat represents industrial civilization, or the internet, and the other 99 people represent everyone we care about. We can jump out of the boat, but everyone else going over the waterfall is still going to affect us. @rbe_expert@Adoxographer@Adoxographer
@wolftune There are 100 people paddling a boat towards the top of a waterfall. One person realizes the danger, and raises the alarm. Do they stop paddling? Do they start back-paddling against the other 99? Or do they keep paddling towards the danger, while loudly yelling "we all need to stop paddling into danger"? @rbe_expert@Adoxographer@Adoxographer
Curiously, this episode of Team Human is perhaps the first one in which I found myself really disagreeing with some of Doug's big picture political claims, and wondering if that's just because we see the world through different political lenses (I'm an anarchist, Doug is a sort of social democrat liberal), or whether it could be because my thinking has been bent by Operation Infektion. Can't wait to watch the docos and think about this more.
If that's the case, does that mean that state socialists who defend the regimes of Lenin and Mao are not authoritarians, or that they are not part of the left? @lynnesbian
@Wolf480pl > the evolutionary origins of the phenomenon...
This proposition is a good example of the 19th century colonialism that underlies the use of the term "tribalism". It assumes that war between tribes in the "natural" state of human existence, and that "civilization" is a process of overcoming war through abandoning tribal living. I suggest you read some of the critiques of this assumption that draw on the anthropological literature, for example: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/war-scholar-critiques-new-study-of-roots-of-violence/ @mike_hales
@Wolf480pl I didn't think you did ;) Just clarifying. This usage of "tribalism" comes to us from classical liberalism, mainly via the discourse of what I call "propertarians" (right-wing liberals who tend to call themselves "libertarians" but IMHO are *not*). I'm not telling you not to use the term (that's entirely up to you), but I think it's important to be aware of the background. I find "partisanship" to be a more ... neutral term. There might be better terms available. @mike_hales
@policeinchains > being left in some issues and being right in others, is not a fault of left right paradigm.
True. But a person with this mix of views would be inconsistent and confused, eg supporting women's liberation while being anti-abortion. What the detailed research done by the #PoliticalCompass group shows is that it's possible to be an economically left-wing social conservative, or an economically right-wing social liberal, without any such inconsistency or confusion. @lynnesbian
What does that mean? How do you know? Do you adopt whatever beliefs you are told "fit on the left"? If so, by whom? Or do the beliefs you already happen to hold align with everything "the left" believes? If so, again, who is the authority of what that does and doesn't include? @lynnesbian
@Meachamus_Prime > Why are those who are claiming to promote social freedom and economic restriction so readily willing to be anti-Semitic?
I don't think it's possible to have a productive conversation about this without carefully defining "social freedom", "economic restriction", and "anti-Semitic". Without agreeing on such definitions (if only for the purposes of the discussion) all we can do is lob slogans and talking points at each other. @policeinchains@lynnesbian
@Wolf480pl no. I chose the word "partisan" for a reason. I really dislike the use of the word "tribalism" in this context. It's part of a 19th century white supremacist discourse, which presumes that people living in small, sustainable, direct-democratic communities are "savages", and people living in huge, authoritarian societies that can only sustain themselves through constant expansion (military of otherwise) are "civilized". @mike_hales
@policeinchains you can believe that if you prefer, but neither political history nor a careful observations of contemporary politics supports this. In the last 30 years we've seen heaps of economically right-wing parties with liberal social views (this is what "neo-liberal" means), and parties with leftist economic policy and conservative social views. @lynnesbian
@lynnesbian I'm sorry that you are offended by normal English words like "political" or "economic". But I'm afraid that's your problem, not mine. @policeinchains