Ezra Klein: Charlie Kirk was practicing politics the right way

[ThatRobGuy]

Why are all the laden terms (I'm thinking about force, unrealistic and circumnavigating) only present in the second alternative? This looks like textbook example of prejudicial language. If you really are trying to present a moderate position I would say that you are failing?

"Big social changes take time, and you're not going to be able to completely upend something as ingrained as perceptions about gender by next month -- and if you try use entertainment and the education system to speed up the process, parents are going to dig their heels in even more" isn't prejudicial, it's an acknowledgement of reality

 

[BCP1928]

But is there not a difference between exposure via the arts vs. leveraging institutions to force it through in an unrealistic timeline and circumnavigating the adults to promote and idea to their kids? (that latter is where people really take it personally)

Attempting to accelerate change by leveraging the old Comenius philosophy of "allow me to teach a child until they're 7, and I will show you the man" has not been well-received.

That's where I see a major distinction between the earlier forms of gay advocacy vs. the modern forms of LGBTQ activism.

For the former, it was focused on changing the minds of other adults (which takes longer), but when achieved, they'll teach it to their own children and there won't be any perceptions of usurping.

vs

"These adults aren't going to change their minds in a time table that suits us, so we'll just go around them get the arts and academia institutions to promulgate our views to the kids who are much more easily persuaded -- then it won't matter what their parents think"



To use a religious comparison (I know neither of us is religious, but just pretend)

If I was Catholic and you were Hindu
A) I can try to convince you to (which will be much more difficult -- adults don't budge as easily)...but if I succeeded, you'd eventually teach it to your kid and there wouldn't be much of a conflict.
vs
B) I can convince your kid to be on my side (which would be much easier), but now, you're understandably put-off by that because you feel like you're in competition with a stranger for which values are going to be instilled in your kid.

You must have very little confidence in your ability to instill values in your kid.

 

[BCP1928]

"Big social changes take time, and you're not going to be able to completely upend something as ingrained as perceptions about gender by next month -- and if you try use entertainment and the education system to speed up the process, parents are going to dig their heels in even more" isn't prejudicial, it's an acknowledgement of reality

No, it's just paranoid fear of an LGBT "conspiracy." Broadcasters put a show on the air because they think it will make them money. Period. Creators of the show may be trying to promote certain values but if enough people stop watching the show it won't stay on the air.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

"Big social changes take time, and you're not going to be able to completely upend something as ingrained as perceptions about gender by next month -- and if you try use entertainment and the education system to speed up the process, parents are going to dig their heels in even more" isn't prejudicial, it's an acknowledgement of reality

Who is demanding it to be done next month? Does the schools really put any other demands on the students than that they should treat their fellow student and teachers the same regardless of gender identity or sexuality? No disparaging remarks or slurs, everybody need to be prepared to cooperate with each other. Isn't that why most laws determining acceptable interactions with people depending on sexuality or with gender non-conforming expressions and identities are anti-discriminatory laws?

 

[durangodawood]

But is there not a difference between exposure via the arts vs. leveraging institutions to force it through in an unrealistic timeline and circumnavigating the adults to promote and idea to their kids? (that latter is where people really take it personally)

Attempting to accelerate change by leveraging the old Comenius philosophy of "allow me to teach a child until they're 7, and I will show you the man" has not been well-received.

That's where I see a major distinction between the earlier forms of gay advocacy vs. the modern forms of LGBTQ activism.

For the former, it was focused on changing the minds of other adults (which takes longer), but when achieved, they'll teach it to their own children and there won't be any perceptions of usurping.

vs

"These adults aren't going to change their minds in a time table that suits us, so we'll just go around them get the arts and academia institutions to promulgate our views to the kids who are much more easily persuaded -- then it won't matter what their parents think"



To use a religious comparison (I know neither of us is religious, but just pretend)

If I was Catholic and you were Hindu
A) I can try to convince you to (which will be much more difficult -- adults don't budge as easily)...but if I succeeded, you'd eventually teach it to your kid and there wouldn't be much of a conflict.
vs
B) I can convince your kid to be on my side (which would be much easier), but now, you're understandably put-off by that because you feel like you're in competition with a stranger for which values are going to be instilled in your kid.

For sure I understand why some parents (and of course some people simply disposed to playing ideological group think games) would want to boycott Netflix. I can picture the same reaction from other parents way back when Sesame Street started to have such a conspicuously (some might correctly say "forced") racially diverse cast.

(I should add that the whole discussion might be getting away from whats actually in this show. People said its "sexualized". But maybe theres no sex shown or even sex themes? I dont even know, and hardly anyone else seems to either. Maybe I'll watch an episode. Or maybe not. Doesnt sound like my thing exactly.)

 

[zippy2006]

Kirk was on the far right.

Thanks for proving my point. It's very similar to saying, "Kirk was Hitler, and that's why he had to die." Perhaps he would have to die if he were Hitler, but the claim that Kirk was Hitler is just a lie.

 

[BCP1928]

Thanks for proving my point. It's very similar to saying, "Kirk was Hitler, and that's why he had to die." Perhaps he would have to die if he were Hitler, but the claim that Kirk was Hitler is just a lie.

Kirk was connected to Seven Mountains. I don't know anybody further right than that.

 

[zippy2006]

The backlash occurs when activist entities try (and succeed) in getting institutional allies to try to ram through those shifts forcibly to try to accelerate the process.

Yes, and people think murdering a non-extremist is necessary when those activist entities succeed in convincing them that the non-extremist is an extremist.

I've heard a number of folks on the left say things like, "I'm usually against political violence, but Kirk was a Trump supporter." The logical implication is that over half of the population (or else the voters) need to die because they supported Trump. Inflammatory rhetoric leads to these absurdities.

Presumably you define "organic" as peoples thinking evolving on its own without exposure to relevant arts and news media presenting the issues and consequences for those affected..... aka "accelerating".

But I dont think that ever happens. People dont change their views absent exposure to the lives of affected people.

You can think of it objectively by thinking of the cultural Overton window versus the Overton window of various subcultures. Within the cultural Overton window it is not impermissible to say that men cannot become women and get pregnant. Within the Overton window of some subcultures it is impermissible to say that men cannot become women and get pregnant, and you will be punished severely for saying such a thing.

But then it will happen that someone from that subculture will move into the broader culture and attempt to severely punish someone who says that men cannot become women and get pregnant. That is where the equivocation or "artificial tinkering" with the Overton window occurs, and obviously some cases are more culpable than others. The deviousness and culpability of the tinkering increases in proportion to one's knowledge that their claim is distorting the Overton window. For example, "Trump is Hitler" is a pretty wild transgression of this principle I am proposing. This tinkering amounts to lying and claiming that someone's act transgresses cultural norms when it doesn't; or claiming that someone's act transgresses cultural norms to an extent that it does not; because you want punitive harm to come to that individual.

 

[zippy2006]

Broadcasters put a show on the air because they think it will make them money. Period. Creators of the show may be trying to promote certain values but if enough people stop watching the show it won't stay on the air.

It seems like you're apt to deny the existence of "community organizers."

 

[BCP1928]

It seems like you're apt to deny the existence of "community organizers."

No, I do not deny the existence of "community organizers." They are exercising their rights of free speech and free association.

 

[zippy2006]

No, I do not deny the existence of "community organizers." They are exercising their rights of free speech and free association.

But if you accept the existence of community organizers, then I don't think you can put it all down to moneymaking and capitalism. It's not an "LGBT conspiracy," it's a social movement that is public, in the open, and one which is not centered on moneymaking except as a means. There is simply no good reason to think that Netflix must be unaffected by such a movement.

 

[BCP1928]

But if you accept the existence of community organizers, then I don't think you can put it all down to moneymaking and capitalism. It's not an "LGBT conspiracy," it's a social movement that is public, in the open, and one which is not centered on moneymaking except as a means. There is simply no good reason to think that Netflix must be unaffected by such a movement.

No, Netflix is motivated by moneymaking. They go along with "community organizing" if it will make them money. If it doesn't make them any money they will stop going along with it. Can I remind you of Budweiser Brewing Company? Are they still running their Dylan Mulvaney ads out of devotion to the LGBT "agenda?"

 

[zippy2006]

No, Netflix is motivated by moneymaking.

Lol, k. So that's the dogma. "Moneymaking and nothing else!"

Can I remind you of Budweiser Brewing Company? Are they still running their Dylan Mulvaney ads out of devotion to the LGBT "agenda?"

If Budweiser was only interested in moneymaking they would never have run that ad in the first place. Believe it or not, the ad was not motivated by moneymaking. That an enormous loss of money caused them to pull the ad does not mean that moneymaking is the only motive.

 

[BCP1928]

Lol, k. So that's the dogma. "Moneymaking and nothing else!"


If Budweiser was only interested in moneymaking they would never have run that ad in the first place. Believe it or not, the ad was not motivated by moneymaking. That an enormous loss of money caused them to pull the ad does not mean that moneymaking is the only motive.

So Netflix and Bud are part of the LGBT conspiracy?

 

[durangodawood]

You can think of it objectively by thinking of the cultural Overton window versus the Overton window of various subcultures. Within the cultural Overton window it is not impermissible to say that men cannot become women and get pregnant. Within the Overton window of some subcultures it is impermissible to say that men cannot become women and get pregnant, and you will be punished severely for saying such a thing.

This is a little hard to get my head around as the Overton window is defined in terms of mainstream acceptability. But now youre saying subcultures have one too. I mean, obviously subcultures have certain ideological guardrails. But calling that an Overton window really muddies the original sense of the term.

But then it will happen that someone from that subculture will move into the broader culture and attempt to severely punish someone who says that men cannot become women and get pregnant. That is where the equivocation or "artificial tinkering" with the Overton window occurs, and obviously some cases are more culpable than others. The deviousness and culpability of the tinkering increases in proportion to one's knowledge that their claim is distorting the Overton window. For example, "Trump is Hitler" is a pretty wild transgression of this principle I am proposing. This tinkering amounts to lying and claiming that someone's act transgresses cultural norms when it doesn't; or claiming that someone's act transgresses cultural norms to an extent that it does not; because you want punitive harm to come to that individual.

With the "Hitler" thing, people like JD Vance and others really wanted to cut Trump deep. So while Trump absolutely is drawn to some of the anti-republican techniques and rhetoric the Nazis employed - he is not a genocidal maniac. But calling him "Hitler" subtly loads him with all that "evil" baggage he doesnt deserve. So I think youd have to be much more careful with this comparison than sound bites allow for. Im sure some people are deliberately careless about this.

 

[zippy2006]

So Netflix and Bud are part of the LGBT conspiracy?

Your idea that there is no LGBT lobby is itself a "conspiracy theory", i.e. a really, really stupid idea.

 

[zippy2006]

This is a little hard to get my head around as the Overton window is defined in terms of mainstream acceptability. But now youre saying subcultures have one too. I mean, obviously subcultures have certain ideological guardrails. But calling that an Overton window really muddies the original sense of the term.

So you are unable to follow the argument because you can't understand what it would mean to talk about the Overton window of a subculture? Even the original usage admits of various localities of government, which will each have different Overton windows (local, state, federal, for example).

I don't see that it muddies it at all, given that the concept of an Overton window has to do with the spectrum of what is perceived as acceptable or unacceptable discourse. That concept is useful regardless of the dataset or group it quantifies over. What is being muddied if we remain clear about when we are talking about the subculture and when we are talking about the broader culture?

 

[durangodawood]

So you are unable to follow the argument because you can't understand what it would mean to talk about the Overton window of a subculture? Even the original usage admits of various localities of government, which will each have different Overton windows (local, state, federal, for example).

I don't see that it muddies it at all, given that the concept of an Overton window has to do with the spectrum of what is perceived as acceptable or unacceptable discourse. That concept is useful regardless of the dataset or group it quantifies over. What is being muddied if we remain clear about when we are talking about the subculture and when we are talking about the broader culture?

Ok, so the mainstream of a non mainstream subculture. (We could even do the 2nd derivative).

I read your 2nd pp like 3 times and Im still not confident I know what you were getting at. Dishonestly applying non main Overton expectations to the mainstream? I dont see how one could get away with that. The mainstream could just dismiss you. They have the money, after all.

 

[BCP1928]

Your idea that there is no LGBT lobby is itself a "conspiracy theory", i.e. a really, really stupid idea.

The question is, are Netflix and Bud a part of it? You have to pay lobbyists, you have to give them something--even activists have to eat. How much did Bud get paid to knowingly (according to you) run a losing ad campaign?

 

[zippy2006]

I read your 2nd pp like 3 times and Im still not confident I know what you were getting at. Dishonestly applying non main Overton expectations to the mainstream? I dont see how one could get away with that. The mainstream could just dismiss you. They have the money, after all.

Question: What happens when enough people claim that some person is a fascist Hitlerian threat (because their subculture deems that sort of claim appropriate) even though within the broader culture the person is well within the pale of common opinion?

Answer: Charlie Kirk ends up with a bullet in his neck that is engraved with sayings such as, "Hey fascist! Catch!"

The point is that when many lies are told about what is acceptable and what is unacceptable, some will believe the lies. A truthful person will treat a common opinion with the respect that a common opinion deserves, and will not pretend that a common opinion is an extreme opinion that must be met with violence. A liar will treat a common opinion as if it is an extreme opinion in order to cause harm to the person promoting it. For all of human history violence is justified against the outsider, and so if you can convince enough people that someone is an outsider ("extremist") then violence will follow of its own accord.