So I came across an older post and I thought it would be interesting to contrast how I thought back in 2019 almost 5 years ago with how I feel now about stuff. This was an interesting article from what I had some small shifts in perspective, and I wanna compare how I think now to how I thought then.
So yes, I'm still alive, and may or may not be posting more now that we're entering 2020 election season and I'm a bit more interested in what's going on in with the future of the country, and feel like we can actually get into substantive issues again that advance progressive causes. The last 2 years have been a mess, and a have been a massive cringefest for me in general. Not just on the republican side, but the democratic side. Things are finally starting to improve, with Nancy Pelosi actually standing up to Donald Trump over the wall, and Alexandria Ocasio Cortez changing the culture of the democratic party, and the 2020 primary candidates appearing to be closer to Bernie Sanders so far then Hillary Clinton, but beyond that, things have been a mess, and I would say that while my views have not shifted MUCH since 2016-2017, there are some subtle differences
That's how I'd view my changes since, although post 2020 is probably a bit more substantial for me.
The fact is, I was pretty disaffected by politics in 2017 and 2018. I was disgusted by Bernie losing, then Hillary losing, then the "not my president" crap, then the dems going full mccarthyism because they didnt wanna admit they genuinely lost. Honestly, the dems' behavior early in trump's term didn't age well. Questioning election results and undermining their legitimacy? Yeah, not a good look. I might admit primaries are "rigged" in implicit biased ways, but the dems had no excuse in 2016 and they went into the copium hard.
Social issues: not much changed, but more skeptical of the social justice movement
Yeah, that trend only continued. if anything, let me just say it, screw the social justice movement. I've fully broke with those guys. I recognize that I have serious worldview differences with them, and now I just see them as radical nutcases that I dont like dealing with. While yes, we still technically, want the same thing 85% of the time, their fanaticism toward the concept kinda spoils them to me. So I guess my core views havent changed but my perception of these movements has. I've simply broken from them and went in a different direction based on my humanist perspective.
I hate delving into these kinds of issues, but I feel like I'm forced to, because it's all most people have been willing to talk about the last 2 years. My core convictions haven't changed on this issue, but my opinion of some aspects of the social justice movement have soured a bit. By social justice movement, I dont mean all moves toward social justice, but specifically, the social justice warriors I mentioned previously. Now, don't get me wrong. Im STILL for social justice, still want equality of races, genders, but honestly, the people, man. You cannot express opinions on these subjects that dissent from their standpoint without being accused of being a racist, sexist, or bigot. Privilege shaming is used a lot, and they use empathy in order to manipulate people. You're not just expected to have socially progressive positions, you're expected to loudly and obnoxiously share your socially progressive positions all the time, and failure to do so or make those your number one priority get you shamed. They will call you "selfish", because it's like "how dare I decide my economic well being and not wanting people to be in poverty is more important than racial and feminist issues?" Not that those issues aren't important, but let's be honest, people in politics are attracted to different causes, and some people have pet causes they put over others. And that's okay. Not everyone is going to discuss universal healthcare or basic income as their top priorities. Likewise, not everyone is gonna prioritize eliminating racism and feminism. Not everyone is gonna focus on green policies that end global warming. People have different concerns, and what matters in the end is that we're all on the same side. That we can come together, with our unique causes, and cobble together a comprehensive progressive platform that addresses all of these issues, with all of us contributing to it.
Yep. This schism has just since continued. You can clearly see I took what was going on here and I expanded on it. Back then I was still trying to be conciliatory but at this point I'm just full on "yeah screw those guys". I'm full on centrist on social issues. Which is still pretty progressive. I just dont do the circlejerk stuff.
But therein lies the problem. This isn't a reciprocal relationship, and hasn't been since 2015 or so. The social justice warrior crowd has been perfectly happy to say, you know what, screw universal healthcare, screw economic progressivism, you HAVE to support the democrats or else. They expect me to be fully on board with them, but they're not fully on board with me. Mainly because they've been trying to appeal to the Howard Schultz types who are now freaking out the party is moving left and threatening to leave themselves. They're perfectly happy to get on board with social justice as long as they can screw over lefties and keep their taxes low and their business priorities front and center. But they do so at the expense of progressive economic issues. My real opponent here isn't the social justice types. I'm perfectly willing to work with them and agree with them in principle. There is no real conflict in views, just a conflict in tone and attitude. My problem, is with the centrists allied with them who have had a choke hold on the democratic party for far too long. As long as those two groups are working together, don't expect me to be on the same side. Politics is about coalition building. I'm perfectly willing to work with these people on mutually beneficial goals. Heck I outlined my ideas on that a few years ago.
Yep. That's the thing. It ISNT a reciprocal relationship. They dont care about my priorities. And I dont care about theirs all that much either. And since we cant find common ground and work with each other due to their fanaticism for their ideology, I'm fine with just telling these guys to screw off.
I will say that I've come to realize one thing though. These guys arent just centrists. Some of them are also leftists. And by leftists, I mean socialists/commies. And they gatekeep and purity test libs a lot.
If anything that's another shift I've made. Back in 2019 I still was full on "bernie bro". And now I kinda realize a lot of those guys are also extremists who share an overlapping ideology with these guys and yeah. I'm just a bog standard liberal with more left wing (BUT NOT QUITE SOCIALIST!) economic ideas.
In 2019 i still saw the centrists as my main issue on the left and saw social justice politics being used manipulatively by those folks. Now I feel more like a centrist as I end up dealing with "leftists" thinkimg im a bad person because im not 100% pro palestine. So yeah, i guess I have shifted.
And I kinda realize i cant work these these nuts. They're too fanatical half the time and their leftie brainrot makes them just go full stupid on issues i care about.
Anyway, back to the social justice warriors. The problem with these guys, beyond their apparent affinity with siding with centrist democrats, is the fact that they are a hive mind. it's almost like a cult of caring. They expect everyone to turn off their rational brains and just be in solidarity with various causes with no dissent. I find it creepy and manipulative. And they are being manipulated by the neoliberals in my opinion via the democratic party and two party system. It's fine to have empathy. You kind of need it to be able to understand how your ideas affect others. It's another thing to be ruled by it to the point you miss the big picture and discourage dissenting opinions.These guys are getting to be too much of a hive mind that witch hunts anyone who does any perceived sleight against them. And that's a problem.
Thats ironically how I discovered this article. I was looking for my posts on empathy and the "cult of caring" type people (mostly in reference to the pro palestine weirdos) and yeah, I was considering sharing some of my stuff with a lib who was full on "youre a bad person because you dont have empathy like I do."
Ironically, I will say this though. It's not just centrists. Leftists are just as bad. Postmodernism is like a mental disease on the left. It affects libs and leftists alike. And I often feel like im in a weird place with the left because the ideological basis for my views is just so much different than these guys.
I literally came over to the left through the atheist movement in 2012. Secular humanism is what ultimately shaped my perspective. Ideals like reason, evidence, rational thinking, and freedom of thought. I didn't go to the left to deal with this empathy circlejerk crap. I ALWAYS hated that crap. Rush limbaugh used to make fun of leftists for doing that stuff back in the day when i was a conservative and i ate that crap up because the way he described it sounded strawmanny and ridiculous.
Then I realized it was a strawman and became a leftie, then i realized that gee maybe it isnt and now im more critical again.
Again, totally love social justice, and I will once again reiterate to anyone who is even thinking of pulling the racism/sexism/privileged card that you can be for social justice without being an SJW, and that I'm for social justice, but not social justice warriors. One is a set of ideas, the other is a group of loud, obnoxious people. Please get that straight to understand my position there.
I will say Ive cooled on social justice as a concept, at least how its applied. Although this might be a rhetorical difference rather than a substantive difference in policy.
Again, I've soured HARD on these guys since 2016. It started back then and more recently I'm just full on not aligned with them at all but instead embrace a much more liberal outlook on the matter. My views are parallel to theirs, but not theirs, if that makes any sense at all.
The thing is, I highly value my independence and freedom of thought. I left religion and conservatism 7 years ago and set myself on a course of developing opinions based on reason, evidence, and various academic theories. I'm not perfect, but I try. What I will not do is shut down my rational thinking centers to conform to a group behaving as a hive mind, that is potentially being manipulated by a group of rich people who use their politics to divide and conquer the democratic party.
And we can see how that has developed. I just referenced this above, explaining the worldview difference. As it turned out the worldview difference actually mattered in the end.
Economics: slightly more socialist, otherwise nothing has changed
Yeah I've probably backtracked on this one. I see where I was coming from. I read a lot of leftist stuff between 2016 and 2020 and it did impact my views at the time. But then post 2020, I ended up shifting back the other way. The thing is, logistically, im not really sure socialism is really a good idea, I dont see it as the end all be all of the economy, and I think it's toxic as a concept anyway. While there are some things in this section worth discussing and responding to, all in all, I've kinda been thinking about stuff and I really realize that it's not capitalism per se that i hate, it's just wage slavery. And in light of my inherently libertarian views, I do think markets, properly practiced, do produce better outcomes for people than socialism would. Markets respect individuals and their freedom, assuming proper safeguards are chosen. I've kind of shifted in the direction of phillippe van parijs' "real freedom for all" in which yes, capitalism does give more freedom than socialism, BUT, we need a UBI to actually make it work.
I have shifted a bit on economics in the last 2 years. If you recall, around then I was investigating the concept of democratic socialism. Not the same kind of socialism that most people are afraid of by the way, a far more moderate variety that tends to revolve around reform rather than revolution, decentralization rather than centralization, democracy rather than tyranny, and libertarianism rather than authoritarianism. That said I have worked some of that in my views the last two years. On top of supporting just social democratic policy that regulates and compensates for capitalism's flaws, I now support worker cooperatives within a market economy. Yes, I did say I still support markets, you can put your pitchforks down. I support worker owned businesses within a market system. You can call this a version of democratic socialism or market socialism.
I mean Im not really OPPOSED to market socialism. I just dont think it matters either way and i tend to deemphasize and shy away from it. I dont care either way who owns the means of production. It's not central to my approach to the economy. I find the whole capitalist socialist divide to be an antiquated of looking at things and dont think it's the biggest question we should be asking. Id rather focus on liberating people from having to work.
Socialists dont get that. heck socialists take work for granted and overemphasize economic democracy as an end all be all. Even worse, a lot of socialists go a lot further than I have here. Many of them are inherently anti market when i talk to them and have clear ideological differences with me.
As I said Im fairly neutral on "market socialism" but I've come to realize most socialists arent just market socialists. They're nuts and basically want the government to take over industry directly, which is something I never would have supported. Just as I soured on SJWs over conflicting worldviews, ive also soured on leftists.
I feel like this is a necessary step in expanding my ideology. Say in the future we automate all of the jobs, and we compensate with this for basic income. Okay, where do we get the money? From the people who own the means of production, the business owners. Okay, as we know that requires MASSIVE taxation. How do we accomplish that? By taxing businesses at exorbitant rates. But wait, if we do that, won't the rich just hide their money and go overseas? Dang it, they got us there. How do we solve this? We solve this by broadening the ownership of businesses. If workers own the businesses, you're not gonna have a handful of rich people moving the wealth overseas. Because they will also own the wealth. When their jobs are automated, they won't be let go and told to find another one or starve, they will own the business and share in its profits. We can still have UBI, universal healthcare, etc. This is still NECESSARY in my opinion, but honestly, the only way we can truly get to a post work world is one where ownership of businesses are shared by the people who work at them. Note this is different from the STATE owning businesses which happens in the communist dystopia everyone fears.
Again, you can clearly see my shift to socialism was clearly an attempt to BOLSTER my ideology, rather than replace it. Most socialists are in opposition of my ideology. I recently was called a right winger by one for advocating for what i advocate for because i supported "cutting welfare" and giving people a UBI. Again, as long as socialists want expansive government programs that dont give liberty to the users of said programs, they run the risk of making the same mistakes as communist regimes in the past, or at least the mistakes of welfarists. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. And when you stick to old ideologies youre doomed to repeat it.
Still, past me wasnt entirely WRONG here. I meant well. I figured changing the ownership structure would be a protectionist measure against capital flight and the like. But Im not really convinced this is a huge issue. Because at least in my lifetime, I dont see work not being a thing any more. This is a problem for future generations. In my own lifetime, if my ideas get traction at all, basically im satisfied just compromising with the existing structure of work to give people more liberty. I dont see the wholesale elimination of jobs or work on a scale to trigger the kinds of scenarios that caused me to think about socialism as happening any time soon. There will always be work and jobs, even if we do shift away from being as gung ho as we are now. UBI will therefore exist as a complement to existing capitalism. And I do not actively seek its replacement.
What happens in the future, IF we decide to eliminate all or most work (which is admittedly a dream of mine) is not my concern. I will be dead. That is for future generations to figure out. And maybe future me if I end up reincarnating back here. I just wanna get UBI and other priorities going within the existing system. I don't seek to change it.
So how do we accomplish this? Well, Germany has something called codetermination where the board of directors are partially elected by workers. Their version still allowed for private control even among the largest businesses, but if we made a version that is more aggressive, we could accomplish majority worker control for large businesses while still allowing small scale startups and entrepreneurship to create new wealth and incentivize people to create new businesses.
It's not a bad idea, once again, I just dont emphasize it.
I think this fills a necessary hole in my ideology that was previously unaddressed, and it seems like a fitting and necessary evolution from my views 2 years ago.
Not really necessary. I was thinking WAAAAY too far ahead.
Foreign policy: much more skeptical of interventionism
Oh boy, this did not age well, this is where the cringe starts.
Like, rereading this section, I went full "DAE America bad?" mode, and I've since shifted on that. I mean I think there comes a time in anyone's life, if they are fairly morally and intellectually developed, where they grapple with the dark sides of our history. And that's fine. We're not perfect. But sometimes people go DAE America bad?
But then, and this is where I've gone since then, you kinda shift...back. Like with me, there's two opposing forces within me that constantly check each other and lead to me having the relatively moderate but still very progressive views I have. In sociology, there are three major schools of thought: conflict theory, functionalism, symbolic interactionism. The third one isnt super relevant here as it's mostly like subjective stuff that doesnt really click with me. Helpful for sociologists wanting to understand other cultures, but for me developing my intellectual views, I pass on it. So the two forces are conflict theory, and functionalism. COnflict theory is leftism. It's the whole "everything is a product of the rich and the powerful oppressing everything else". It is literally the basis for marxism and postmodernism's entire perspective. But keep in mind what I always say, while these perspectives are academically useful, they're not all the world has to offer and you gotta know when to turn that crap off. What separates me from leftists is that fact. They cant turn it off. it is their entire worldview. And they just become so one dimensional and in lala land that they really just lose touch with reality. How do I keep in touch with reality? by balancing that perspective with functionalism.
Structural functionalism is an inherently conservative perspective. It is a school of thought that looks at the way the world is, and argues "well it has to be this way because XYZ". Basically it's based on stage 4 kohlberg's theory of morality level thought. Basically, things are the way they are because it provides some benefit to society. THings might even HAVE to be that way in order to function and we cant just change things without possibly breaking something.
And you can see how conservatives have the opposite problem. They reject conflict theory, but their entire theory, AT BEST is "but but, the world has to be EXACTLY this way".
For me, the two schools of thought bounce back and forth in my head like those angels and demons on peoples' shoulders in cartoons. I think, ok, so things are the way they are because X, but is that true? What if the rich are ripping us off? Then I consider that, and I'm like, okay, yeah, this is unfair. But then i go back and I'm like, okay, how do we fix this? So I come up with policy ideas that solve the problem, and then I kinda have to come up with an idea that I can at least convince myself that it actually would work. Conservatives are often overly cautious, believing any change would bring disaster and we are at the end of history where any future change is bad. But then leftists are overzealous with changing things, acting like everything is some conspiracy by some rich and powerful group looking to oppress everyone else.
Sometimes the truth is somewhere in between. And I've since overcorrected from my 2019 ideas on foreign policy.
The fact is, im the reluctant imperialist. I dont really like that we end up controlling the world and being world police, but i kinda look at what the world would likely look like if we didn't and the alternatives terrify me. So I end up playing the geopolitical game from a relatively conservative realpolitik perspective, simply to defend my own country's core ideology and way of life.
Liberal democracy isnt perfect. But it's the best we got. And the best way forward is to work with that, and also reform that. Keep in mind, in my secular moral perspective, there is no objective morality. The only thing stopping us from killing each other is a mutual desire to not want to die. It's the concept of the social contract. The idea that humans band together and form societies as a survival strategy against an amoral state of nature. It is my secular humanist mind's attempt to come up with a moral system that works and produces good results.
But....the rest of the world doesnt share our values. Russia and china are authoritarian states, and many eastern states that are not world powers are regressive and religious in nature. Like Hamas. One of the reasons i just cant take hamas seriously is because i just see the barbarians in civ 6. Life under a group like that is nasty, brutish, and short, as hobbes would say. For all the talk of westerners being oppressive, i do buy the idea that israel is, at least, a liberal democracy. A relatively flawed one, but one nevertheless.
Which puts me at odds with leftist thought. Because again, they cant turn off their oppressor-oppressed dynamic in their ideology. It's their ENTIRE worldview. And postmodernists often have an anti western bias in their perspective due to that aspect of their worldview where they believe and embrace moral subjectivity to a point that they think that way of life is arguably equal to ours. They are the ultimate moral relativists, at least when it comes to a culture seen as non western and underprivileged.
Which I personally see kind of stupid. But I digress.
But yeah, that's what ultimately shifted me back to a more centrist or even center right perspective on foreign policy. Again, it's being informed by secular humanism, rather than some sort of conflict based approach. I combine the conservative and leftist elements in my worldview to create one that's perfectly balanced. I consider what both have to say on a particular question before coming to a perspective. I do this because as an ex conservative, the last thing I want to do is be one of those leftists who is all emotions and lives in their own little world. I want to be for ideas THAT WORK. I want to be the one who says, yes, a better world IS possible, and THIS IS HOW YOU GET THERE.
And sadly, as part of my worldview, I have to defend and expand on the western way of life. We're not perfect, but we're better than most, and reform is better than revolution.
So, in becoming more socialist, I've also come to the point where I think US foreign policy isn't just bad for the US, it's bad for the world. I read a book recently called "A People's History of the United States" by Howard Zinn. It's a book about the history of the US from a socialist perspective. And let's be honest, when I read this, I have to wonder, are we the baddies? We get involved in foreign wars not really for good reasons, but to expand our own interests. We act in an imperialistic way not caring about people on a humanitarian level like we claim to, but we get involved to expand our access to natural resources.
Yeah, you can see what I mean. "Are we the bad guys?" Now I'm more like "oh, we kinda have to act this way at least somewhat", although I would still agree with the idea that the US has always been an oligarchy and that it uses things like racial politics to keep the lower classes divided. I dont want the working class united in a marxist way, as I said, i reject "leftism", but I would like to see people wake up and take on special interests and change the world for the better IN WAYS THAT WORK.
This isn't to say said book is always right. It is heavily biased and leaves out more noble motives for our behavior, and tends to see us in the worst possible light possible. But it does make me think and makes me far more critical of our interventionism across the world. I am all for us using our military to defend ourselves and our allies from potential, but I am coming down far harder on the concept of regime change and interventionism than I previously did.
Yeah the book was interesting but very biased. To offer a functionalist counterbalance though, I'd consider "warrior politics" by robert kaplan, which I read in an ethics class in grad school. That book argues that a country has to look at for its own interests first, and has to engage in machiaveillian style measures in doing so. Obviously, the truth is in between those extremes, and both perspectives need to be considered before we can actually have a sane foreign policy. Given world events since 2019 like the russian invasion of ukraine and october 7th in israel, ive shifted more toward the warrior politics realpolitik perspective.
Another area in which I have shifted on foreign policy is my opinion of patriotism. Much like with my grievances against parts of the social justice movement, it's come to my attention that often times appeals to patriotism are used to suppress discussion and rational thought. Howard Zinn's book discussed how back during World War I, people were arrested and jailed for daring speak out against the draft. I find this to be scary. I also find the concept of Mccarthyism scary in which people with certain views are deemed unamerican and witch hunted. Speaking of McCarthyism, the democrats seem to be doing a lot of it these days. To them, anyone who doesn't toe their party line, whether on the left, or on the right, is with Russia. Trump is with Russia, Jill Stein is with Russia, "Bernie bros" are with Russia, if you're not with them, you're with Russia.Yeah no. To once again preserve my independence of thought, I'm gonna flat out say those appeals don't work on me. You can be critical of the democrats, or even the country, without being aligned with a foreign power. You should not be pressured to change legitimately held positions, because of a threat by a foreign power. This is tribalism intended to oppose freedom of thought and should be vigorously opposed.
I mean, I still dont like the "american civil religion" people and the flag wavers. I dont like cracking down on people in the name of national security (even if i understand the functionalist rationale behind it). But I come to realize that yeah, america aint perfect, but we aint bad either. Like, sure, we can have some discussion of our flaws without being like the "hate america" left, right? Again, its balance. Understanding both perspectives, learning from both of them, but not just going full brain rot on one or the other.
Honestly, my views of patriotism are closer to Al Franken's:
We love America just as much as they do. But in a different way. You see, they love America like a 4-year-old loves his mommy. Liberals love America like grown-ups. To a 4-year-old, everything Mommy does is wonderful and anyone who criticizes Mommy is bad. Grown-up love means actually understanding what you love, taking the good with the bad and helping your loved one grow. Love takes attention and work and is the best thing in the world. That’s why we liberals want America to do the right thing. We know America is the hope of the world, and we love it and want it to do well.
Yeah, basically this.
I don't buy into mindless symbolism and "America is always right" rhetoric. I support freedom of thought, rational discussion, and being free to criticize the country or organizations with it without being accused of being some "useful idiot" to Russia. Rather, I support identifying issues with our country as is, and fixing them, to make us better. This is true patriotism. What the democrats want seems to be closer to mindless jingoism.
Sure. But I also dont buy into the "everything america/the west does is evil and wrong" people either.
Like, again, BALANCE. Understand both, learn from both, dont full embrace either though. Both perspectives are important. Leftists question and criticize the way things are. Functionalists explain why they should be that way. You need BOTH.
Overall: Still the same person more or less, just slightly evolved
My views have been relatively stable since 2014 or so. I have mostly evolved since then not in my core convictions by in responding to major events and letting my internal moral compass evolve and build on my previously established views. I have become, arguably, slightly more left wing. I take political compass now and am closer to -7, -7 rather than -6, -6 like I was in 2016. But ultimately, my views haven't changed much, it's more that the world around me has changed and I've acquired more information and I've been forced to adapt to it. So going forward, expect more of the same more or less.
I would still say I largely have the same overall political worldview as I did since 2014. But yeah, just as between 2015-2019 I kinda embraced the more leftist side of it, in 2020-2023, I've kinda swung a bit back to acknowledge the more conservative/functionalist side of it.
I took a political compass today just to see how I scored, I'm more like -4.75/-6.5 or something now. So slightly more economically conservative, but just as libertarian. That makes sense. I've really gone harder on the more indepentarian/social libertarian perspective of being pro UBI but capitalist. On social issues I've shifted a bit more toward rejecting both conservatism and leftism and embracing a rather milquetoast liberalism. And my whole "balance, you need both" thing is going on there too. Both conservatives and leftists sometimes have a point, but both are oh so hopelessly wrong because they're both extremists that dont understand nuance.
And foreign policy Im more conservative I'd say, but again, all of this stems from that humanist worldview. My worldview was never informed fully by leftist ethics. It's actually informed by a combination of leftist and conservative ethics that balance each other out to some form of reformist liberalism. This seems contradictory to many, but it makes perfect sense for me. Both sides have value, but both are also wrong on a lot. You need a balanced perspective with nuance to get it all.
I guess I always realized that, but i never articulated it until now. And I think it needs saying so one can understand where I've evolved since.
So yeah. Am I still the same person? More or less. But I have evolved a bit since then and you can see where the logic I was developing back then is either in a more advanced form now, and in some cases I backtracked from the more leftist shifts I was making back then to adopting something closer to what i had in 2014 or so in the first place.
No comments:
Post a Comment