Ezra Klein: Charlie Kirk was practicing politics the right way

[Chesterton]

yeah, but so what?

So they are illogical and wrong.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

It doesn't matter. It's quite an organic process. People realise that the sky hasn't fallen and that all the doom and gloom scenarios were just so much hot air. There'll be extremes on both sides: 'We demand this! They shall not have that!' but in the middle ground, where we live with the vast majority of society, it all becomes the norm.

The same is happening with trans. The 'men in women's sport' and 'sex changes for young children' comprise a tiny portion of the problem.

Perhaps it's different in Australia, but I don't perceive there being much a middle ground over here on the issue at the moment.

We still have certain states that declare themselves to be "Trans Refuge" states (like Minnesota, home of Gov. Walz who signed the bill for it), where if a minor travels to Minnesota to receive affirming treatment, and the parents try to get them back, the state of Minnesota will refuse to do so, and bars state courts from complying with requests from authorities in other states. (which seems like it flies in the face of the full faith & credit clause of the constitution, but that's a different aspect)

"Middle ground" positions seem to exist only briefly, and then get pushed over into the "right wing" category by progressives.

I would be an example of that.

In the context of this topic.

My position was/is:
There are two genders
There are some people who have a dysphoria in which they feel like they were born in the wrong body
I'll be polite and address them as the opposite gender if it's clear that that's how they're trying to identify
They can use whichever bathroom they want, I'm not concerned about where people poop
Special considerations do need to be made for changing facilities and sports
Minors shouldn't be undergoing these kinds of treatments
Clinical due diligence needs to be exercised to make sure we're separating the "fad" component from actual cases of gender dysphoria, there shouldn't be such a thing as a "fast tracked transition" (socially or medically)

That was my position before, and that's still my position.

My position would've been considered "centrist" (or even a touch center-left) in 2016. But it's been perpetual moving of the goalposts ever since then and now my position gets labelled as "right wing regressive" by the same people today.

Look how much the pronoun rules changed

It went from
"You have to respect which of the two sets of pronouns they want to go by based on which of the two genders they identify with"
to
"Well, actually, there could be more than two, so you'll need to ask people which set they prefer"
to
"Actually, you can't use the word preferred pronouns anymore" ('preferred' is offensive, because it implies it's a choice Ze/Zir is who they are)
to
"Pronouns can change frequently, so you'll need to regularly ask people what their pronouns are"


That was another key distinction between the movements advocating for sexual orientation vs. gender identity.

I don't recall ever being asked at a work conference to introduce myself with (or wear a nametag or Zoom meeting notation advertising) my sexual proclivities.

 

[zippy2006]

Popularity is not the test for correctness, even tho it maps to reality better than fringe views, more often than not.

But who has said that popularity is the test for correctness?

I dont hold that.

You hold these two things:

• Mainstream views should not be given more respect than fringe views.
• Mainstream views are more likely to be correct than fringe views.

And you are telling me that you reject this premise:

• Views which are more likely to be correct should not be given more respect than views which are less likely to be correct.

Now it looks like you are simply contradicting yourself in rejecting the premise I laid out. You want to reject it because it is irrational, and yet the views which you have assented to logically entail the irrational premise. So you're in a pickle.

Youre agreeing precisely with what I already said. Here it is again: But i am good with applying the force of the state against specific limited categories of speech, like we already do with various laws.

But you're missing the point. You say that, "His main violation was murdering a peaceful person," and yet you think force can sometimes be applied against peaceful persons. This is why your account isn't very fundamental, and is not fully consistent. Beyond that, I asked you what Robinson did wrong at the most fundamental level, and you answered by telling what his "main violation" was. It's not clear that this even attempts to answer the question.

 

[Bradskii]

Perhaps it's different in Australia...

It's not that much different. Life goes on as normal and people aren't that involved with extreme positions. They only serve to fill in a headline.

 

[durangodawood]

You hold these two things:

• Mainstream views should not be given more respect than fringe views.

Not on the basis of popularity. Yes on the basis of passing tests against reality.

• Mainstream views are more likely to be correct than fringe views.

Yes.

And you are telling me that you reject this premise:

• Views which are more likely to be correct should not be given more respect than views which are less likely to be correct.

I do reject that.

Now it looks like you are simply contradicting yourself in rejecting the premise I laid out. You want to reject it because it is irrational, and yet the views which you have assented to logically entail the irrational premise. So you're in a pickle.

Popularity is the wrong test for a proposition, even tho theres a correlation with correctness. Testing against reality otoh is the right test, and its available, and it reduces false positives a lot better that testing against popularity. If popularity was the only tool in the box, then ok, its better than nothing for assigning respect. Thankfully we have better tools!

Pickle avoided.

But you're missing the point. You say that, "His main violation was murdering a peaceful person," and yet you think force can sometimes be applied against peaceful persons.

Force of law is different than force of bullets. It has a well established non-violent path and can be applied to non violent law breakers. Of course if they resist force of law with their own violence, then that escalation can be opposed with violence.

This is why your account isn't very fundamental, and is not fully consistent. Beyond that, I asked you what Robinson did wrong at the most fundamental level, and you answered by telling what his "main violation" was. It's not clear that this even attempts to answer the question.

Murdering a peaceful person is not "fundamental" enough? I mean, in the Christian view its literally one the the basic commandments. You will have to somehow be much more specific about what youre asking me for.

 

[zippy2006]

Popularity is the wrong test for a proposition, even tho theres a correlation with correctness. Testing against reality otoh is the right test, and its available, and it reduces false positives a lot better that testing against popularity. If popularity was the only tool in the box, then ok, its better than nothing for assigning respect. Thankfully we have better tools!

But you continue to engage in strawmen. The question was never whether "popularity is the only tool in the box." It was always whether a mainstream view deserves more respect—ceteris paribus—than a fringe view. Why not consider the real question instead of manufacturing a fake one?

You hold these two things:

• Mainstream views should not be given more respect than fringe views...

Not on the basis of popularity. Yes on the basis of passing tests against reality.

So you are saying:

• Mainstream views should not be given more respect than fringe views on the basis of popularity.
• Mainstream views should be given more respect than fringe views on the basis of "passing tests against reality."

Now if the only thing we know about the concept of a mainstream view, considered in itself, is that it is more popular, then obviously it better "passes tests against reality" precisely because of its popularity. The center of the Overton window is "more likely to be correct" than the extremes precisely because it is more popular. That is what the center of the Overton window means, i.e. "more popular."

So if you think mainstream views are more likely to be correct than fringe views, and this fact is not due to popularity, then what do you say it is due to? What else does "mainstream view" connote other than that it is popular?

Force of law is different than force of bullets.

Actually the force of the state (and law) has everything to do with bullets. All of the preliminary force derives its efficacy from the fact that, when push comes to shove, the state commands coercive lethal force.

Of course if they resist force of law with their own violence, then that escalation can be opposed with violence.

The problem with your philosophy is that it separates violence into some kind of hermetically sealed compartment. Violence is continuous with other forms of coercion. Indeed, when the state arrests and imprisons you, this is a violent act. They are forcing you to do what is against your will; they are physically coercing you. So if someone "resists arrest" they are not initiating violence, but rather are responding to a violent act with a violent act. A chain like, "Durangoda sold drugs; the police try to arrest him; Durangoda resists arrest by knocking a police officer unconscious," contains no black-and-white delineation between the second step and the third step. It is perfectly plausible to argue that the violence begins at step 2 with the attempted arrest and jailing. The ultimate point here is that the curious (classical) liberal insistence that violence is only acceptable in response to violence is clearly false. Violence is constantly justifiable in response to non-violent acts, and this is why it is superficial to claim that Robinson's error was simply responding to a non-violent act with a violent act. That moral rule is extremely culturally relative to our own place and time.

Murdering a peaceful person is not "fundamental" enough? I mean, in the Christian view its literally one the the basic commandments.

But it's not. Christianity, Judaism, and most all moral authorities do not talk about "peaceful." They talk about "innocent."

 

[durangodawood]

But you continue to engage in strawmen. The question was never whether "popularity is the only tool in the box." It was always whether a mainstream view deserves more respect—ceteris paribus—than a fringe view. Why not consider the real question instead of manufacturing a fake one?

Because the "real" question has a fake restriction: ceteris paribus. That Latin bit is not the situation at hand. We do have better tools. If something severely diminished my capacity for observation, reason, empathy, etc - if I was a moron (or just understandably lazy) - then yeah it might be best to defer to popular opinion as a matter of policy.

So you are saying:

• Mainstream views should not be given more respect than fringe views on the basis of popularity.
• Mainstream views should be given more respect than fringe views on the basis of "passing tests against reality."

Now if the only thing we know about the concept of a mainstream view, considered in itself, is that it is more popular, then obviously it better "passes tests against reality" precisely because of its popularity.....

Same objection. If the only thing we know is..... Well, it isnt the only thing we know, typically. I can see exceptions to this tho. Say you travel to a foreign land for a week and they have certain mainstream behaviors you find objectionable. Probably best to go with the flow and at least not object, even if you might not participate. It could well take take more time and effort that you have available to sort it all out if you hadnt considered it prior. Theres probably many analogous scenarios where the reality test is infeasible in the moment, and you play the odds of deferring to the mainstream.

So if you think mainstream views are more likely to be correct than fringe views, and this fact is not due to popularity, then what do you say it is due to? What else does "mainstream view" connote other than that it is popular?

Really wrong views tend to cause chaos and societal failure if they get mainstream. Mainstream views typically have to stand the test of time, at least well enough for the society to limp along - tho that is not a terrifically high bar.

Actually the force of the state (and law) has everything to do with bullets. All of the preliminary force derives its efficacy from the fact that, when push comes to shove, the state commands coercive lethal force.

The problem with your philosophy is that it separates violence into some kind of hermetically sealed compartment. Violence is continuous with other forms of coercion. Indeed, when the state arrests and imprisons you, this is a violent act. They are forcing you to do what is against your will; they are physically coercing you. So if someone "resists arrest" they are not initiating violence, but rather are responding to a violent act with a violent act. A chain like, "Durangoda sold drugs; the police try to arrest him; Durangoda resists arrest by knocking a police officer unconscious," contains no black-and-white delineation between the second step and the third step. It is perfectly plausible to argue that the violence begins at step 2 with the attempted arrest and jailing. The ultimate point here is that the curious (classical) liberal insistence that violence is only acceptable in response to violence is clearly false. Violence is constantly justifiable in response to non-violent acts, and this is why it is superficial to claim that Robinson's error was simply responding to a non-violent act with a violent act. That moral rule is extremely culturally relative to our own place and time.

But it's not. Christianity, Judaism, and most all moral authorities do not talk about "peaceful." They talk about "innocent."

Thats a fair analysis, I think. By "innocent" do you mean just not guilty of any crimes? Since you brought up the Christian view, you dont mean Christian-innocent do you, like unstained by sin?

 

[zippy2006]

Because the "real" question has a fake restriction: ceteris paribus.

How is "ceteris paribus" a fake restriction?

That Latin bit is not the situation at hand.

It definitely is. My comment about "one millimeter" was to the point, and of course caused you to check yourself a bit.

We do have better tools.

And if the strawman were real then someone would have said that there is no better tool than the Overton window for determining the truth of a view. It's really not a surprise that no one has said that, is it?

Same objection. If the only thing we know is..... Well, it isnt the only thing we know, typically.

It definitely is when we are comparing mainstream views to fringe views and drawing conclusions, which is precisely what we are doing. When we compare mainstream views to fringe views the only thing we know about the views is that they are either mainstream or fringe.

Mainstream views typically have to stand the test of time, at least well enough for the society to limp along

So you are claiming that mainstream views are not more likely to be correct because they are popular, but rather because they "have to stand the test of time."

I would rather say that they are central to the societal project, and will therefore be more crucial to the ongoing survival of the society. They really don't have to stand the test of time. Ten years after the U.S. was founded there were all sorts of mainstream views that neither had stood the test of time nor had to stand the test of time. A view in the center of the Overton window is associated with the stability of the society in question. A view at the extreme is associated with the instability of the society in question. For reasons of health a society's Overton window must transition slowly and smoothly. If someone is going around killing people for mainstream views, that person and their acts are deeply contrary to the stability of the society in question. That's the point. "Never meet non-violent acts with violent acts" is a maxim that won't hold up with any reliability. "Never kill someone because they hold a mainstream view" is a much more time-tested maxim. A society should especially fear the person that does that.

Thats a fair analysis, I think.

Okay, great. I'll take it.

By "innocent" do you mean just not guilty of any crimes? Since you brought up the Christian view, you dont mean Christian-innocent do you, like unstained by sin?

Just the dictionary definition. "Not guilty of crimes" is fine for the legal context. The basic idea behind, "Do no harm the innocent," is that you cannot intentionally harm those who have done nothing wrong.

 

[durangodawood]

How is "ceteris paribus" a fake restriction?

Because there always loads of other conditions available besides "are these views mainstream or fringe?"

I mean, mainly, theres the actual content of the views. Why remove that from consideration? it seems absurd frankly. Having the content of the views, you can look deeper than their popularity level and check them against reality.

I'll get to the rest later hopefully....

 

[zippy2006]

Because there always loads of other conditions available besides "are these views mainstream or fringe?"

So what?

If we were talking about the effect that drag has on airspeed velocity, would you say, "Oh, but drag isn't the only variable. So why are we even talking about it? It's a fake variable."

We are talking about the Overton window. No one said that the Overton window is the only thing one can talk about. But it is the thing we are talking about. You are basically saying, "Oh but there's other things we could talk about therefore everything you are saying about the Overton window is unimportant and 'fake'."

What is your rejoinder even supposed to be? That by employing some sort of robust epistemology and attaining certainty about when a view is true or false we will be able to better assess the nature of Kirk's murder? It's as though you're forgetting the entire context of our discussion.

I asked you to provide the more important consideration, and you basically said that one should not use violence against someone who is peaceful/non-violent. I've pointed out why that is a less important consideration.

 

[BCP1928]

Perhaps it's different in Australia, but I don't perceive there being much a middle ground over here on the issue at the moment.

We still have certain states that declare themselves to be "Trans Refuge" states (like Minnesota, home of Gov. Walz who signed the bill for it), where if a minor travels to Minnesota to receive affirming treatment, and the parents try to get them back, the state of Minnesota will refuse to do so, and bars state courts from complying with requests from authorities in other states. (which seems like it flies in the face of the full faith & credit clause of the constitution, but that's a different aspect)

"Middle ground" positions seem to exist only briefly, and then get pushed over into the "right wing" category by progressives.

I would be an example of that.

In the context of this topic.

My position was/is:
There are two genders
There are some people who have a dysphoria in which they feel like they were born in the wrong body
I'll be polite and address them as the opposite gender if it's clear that that's how they're trying to identify
They can use whichever bathroom they want, I'm not concerned about where people poop
Special considerations do need to be made for changing facilities and sports
Minors shouldn't be undergoing these kinds of treatments
Clinical due diligence needs to be exercised to make sure we're separating the "fad" component from actual cases of gender dysphoria, there shouldn't be such a thing as a "fast tracked transition" (socially or medically)

That was my position before, and that's still my position.

My position would've been considered "centrist" (or even a touch center-left) in 2016. But it's been perpetual moving of the goalposts ever since then and now my position gets labelled as "right wing regressive" by the same people today.

No, your position is merely inaccurate. Most trans-gender individuals are not gender dysphoric, nor are they"faddists" although I am sure some exist.

Look how much the pronoun rules changed

It went from
"You have to respect which of the two sets of pronouns they want to go by based on which of the two genders they identify with"
to
"Well, actually, there could be more than two, so you'll need to ask people which set they prefer"
to
"Actually, you can't use the word preferred pronouns anymore" ('preferred' is offensive, because it implies it's a choice Ze/Zir is who they are)
to
"Pronouns can change frequently, so you'll need to regularly ask people what their pronouns are"

Where did this occur? What kind of workplaces?

That was another key distinction between the movements advocating for sexual orientation vs. gender identity.

I don't recall ever being asked at a work conference to introduce myself with (or wear a nametag or Zoom meeting notation advertising) my sexual proclivities.

No, one does not generally include such information on name tags. I suppose you could put "Friend of Dorothy" under your name.