Ezra Klein: Charlie Kirk was practicing politics the right way

zippy2006 said:

So one should not give an opinion which is held by 90% of the population a millimeter more respect than an opinion which is held by 1% of the population? Should scientific consensus be given no more respect than conspiracy theories? Put away your emotional knee-jerk reactions for a moment and let your reason guide.

Click to expand...

If youre not disposed to the effort of reasoning or empathy, then, yeah its best to go with the flow. As for scientific consensus, its backstopped by demonstrable evidence.

zippy2006 said:

You don't seem to appreciate what we are discussing. Instead you are aiming to wildly contradict whatever you can, like a boxer with no plan.

Click to expand...

Well you have a few different problems going on here. But to the heart of the post you linked to, your main error, imo, is that the mainstream Overton window should be some privileged position, a refuge from murder more so that say a 5% or 1% position.

zippy2006 said:

Take the question yourself that Klein and I have attempted to answer: What did Tyler Robinson do wrong, at the most fundamental level? Try to answer that question instead of just randomly contradicting your interlocutor. Try to think through the issue at stake instead of reducing everything I say to the most ridiculous interpretation possible.

Click to expand...

His main violation was murdering a peaceful person.

ThatRobGuy said:

Ultimately, public opinion ended up organically changing on that, in part, due to the fact that the "ask" was much smaller.

"Let us get married, don't assault us, and no housing and employment discrimination"

That's a much less intrusive ask than what the modern Trans activists are asking for...

And it drifts into the concept of "positive vs. negative rights" that's been discussed on here before.

Negative rights oblige inaction and deal in concepts that are non-rivalrous and non-excludable (for example, it's not as if there are only a finite amount of marriage licenses, and a gay couple getting one is removing a license from the pool that a straight couple now can't get). Speech is probably the most basic example of the concept, as you having free speech doesn't limit my ability to have free speech.


Whereas positive rights deal in the zero-sum game realm, and oblige action or require someone else to give something up.

Click to expand...

What are you required to give up? The right to have all children sexualized as binary whether they are or not?

ThatRobGuy said:

The entities who were trying to enforce new pronoun rules and suggest that rules needed to be changed to allow for biological males to compete in women's leagues, and use women's changing facilities.

Click to expand...

Does the US have a binding language council like Island and France? If US discrimination laws work even slightly similarly to swedish, they are probably the major driving factor for entities to use an inclusive pronoun policy.

When it comes to trans people competing in sports, isn't it now that the rules are changing to explicitly deny trans people's participation in the gender category they would like to compete in? In international athletics sex tests were discontinued in 1992, I think. They are now making a comeback.

ThatRobGuy said:

While the "by next month" was a big of "exaggeration for effect" (similar to if a person says "I need this done 5 minutes ago" to highlight urgency).

Click to expand...

What was the effect you were hoping you would achieve?

ThatRobGuy said:

Large-scale activism in the name of "inclusion" started to get a lot of national visibility by the early to mid 2010s. By the mid-late 2010s we saw states turning that into policy.


Things like rules suggesting that people have to abstain from slurs are very different than rules themed after "you have to let me do what I want, and if you question it, that's discrimination"

Click to expand...

I guess this quote also is an exaggeration for effect? Discrimination laws usually disallows someone being differently treated because of some protected characteristic. They rarely (perhaps never?) give someone carte blanche for all or any actions.

ThatRobGuy said:

Well, if there's a female athlete, and they get bumped off the track team for a person who's male but claims they're a woman, that person is certainly giving something up...

Click to expand...

But that's been put an end to and it was always something of a straw man anyway, since Title IX always allowed reasonable physical restrictions in public schools and the leagues were pretty much free to do what they liked about it..

ThatRobGuy said:

If I own a company, and I'm being forced to implement new policies, that's certainly not a "non-imposition".

Click to expand...

Happens to companies all the time. Would you argue against the 40 hour work week on that basis? That actually cost companies money.

ThatRobGuy said:

And ultimately, a lot of people are being forced to give up speech/expression out of fear of professional retaliation.

Click to expand...

Not any more. But I never really had a dog in that fight. Blue collar workers don't have to tolerate that kind of social pressure.

ThatRobGuy said:

Largely because it's all being done in the name of "this is settled science, no room for debate, gender is not binary, people can change their genders with fluidity, and this is the gold standard approach, end of discussion"

Click to expand...

Gender never was binary. As far as anyone can tell there have always been trans people. What the larger society does about it has varied and is subject to change. Some societies accept them openly, some don't.

durangodawood said:

But to the heart of the post you linked to, your main error, imo, is that the mainstream Overton window should be some privileged position, a refuge from murder more so that say a 5% or 1% position.

Click to expand...

Yep, that's my position. Mainstream views should be given more respect than extreme views. Your position is that every view must be given the exact same level of respect, regardless of where it sits on the Overton window.

Another way to see the error of your position is to note that burden of proof is determined precisely by reference to the Overton window, and this itself is proof that the mainstream view commands more respect than fringe views. (Atheists often claim that the burden of proof is on the "positive claim," but that is uncontroversially incorrect.)

durangodawood said:

His main violation was murdering a peaceful person.

Click to expand...

Okay, thanks. The reason this isn't as fundamental as my account is because "peaceful" turns out to be an equivocal word. Does it mean someone who is merely speaking and not advocating physical violence? But then no one who is merely speaking and not advocating physical violence could ever be forcibly opposed or murdered. This includes someone who is advocating via their speech segregation, or slavery, or sexual trafficking (without violence), etc. The key is that violence is not the only evil, and the idea that one should never oppose non-violent evils with violence is not very strong, especially outside of liberal democracies.

In the U.S. we hold that one should never forcibly oppose speech. But this isn't a very fundamental reason given that most cultures throughout history would not attend to it. The reason I gave is more fundamental because it is not as culturally idiosyncratic. All cultures recognize the problem with taking extreme actions against a mainstream view, even if they don't use the language of "Overton window."

zippy2006 said:

Yep, that's my position. Mainstream views should be given more respect than extreme views. Your position is that every view must be given the exact same level of respect, regardless of where it sits on the Overton window.

Click to expand...

Did I say every position deserves equal respect? I thought I was clear multiple times here that opinions deserve respect proportional to their congruence with reality (and Id add: good reasoning). That definitely doesnt entitle every opinion to equal respect. This often cuts against extreme views, and once in a while against mainstream ones.

zippy2006 said:

Another way to see the error of your position is to note that burden of proof is determined precisely by reference to the Overton window, and this itself is proof that the mainstream view commands more respect than fringe views. (Atheists often claim that the burden of proof is on the "positive claim," but that is uncontroversially incorrect.)

Click to expand...

I did note that mainstream views are more likely to be correct that fringe ones. And Im fine with giving the burden of proof to upstart views. That doesnt cut against my position in any way. Its still about congruence with reality.

zippy2006 said:

Okay, thanks. The reason this isn't as fundamental as my account is because "peaceful" turns out to be an equivocal word. Does it mean someone who is merely speaking and not advocating physical violence? But then no one who is merely speaking and not advocating physical violence could ever be forcibly opposed or murdered. This includes someone who is advocating via their speech segregation, or slavery, or sexual trafficking (without violence), etc. The key is that violence is not the only evil, and the idea that one should never oppose non-violent evils with violence is not very strong, especially outside of liberal democracies.

In the U.S. we hold that one should never forcibly oppose speech. But this isn't a very fundamental reason given that most cultures throughout history would not attend to it. The reason I gave is more fundamental because it is not as culturally idiosyncratic. All cultures recognize the problem with taking extreme actions against a mainstream view, even if they don't use the language of "Overton window."

Click to expand...

Im sticking with the idea that countering any speech with murder is a terrible idea and would open the door to chaos. But i am good with applying the force of the state against specific limited categories of speech, like we already do with various laws.

I suppose at some point miscreants can cross a line from speech into violent action against others. At that point I think violence as a self defense response is valid.

durangodawood said:

Did I say every position deserves equal respect? I thought I was clear multiple times here that opinions deserve respect proportional to their congruence with reality (and Id add: good reasoning).

Click to expand...

But we are talking about respect deserved in relation to the Overton window. You think every position deserves equal respect in relation to the Overton window. That's the point.

durangodawood said:

I did note that mainstream views are more likely to be correct that fringe ones. And Im fine with giving the burden of proof to upstart views. That doesnt cut against my position in any way.

Click to expand...

It surely does cut against your position, unless you commit to the premise that, "Views which are more likely to be correct should not be given more respect than views which are less likely to be correct." That would be an irrational premise to hold.

durangodawood said:

Im sticking with the idea that countering any speech with murder is a terrible idea and would open the door to chaos. But i am good with applying the force of the state against specific limited categories of speech, like we already do with various laws.

I suppose at some point miscreants can cross a line from speech into violent action against others. At that point I think violence as a self defense response is valid.

Click to expand...

But that's what I mean about the equivocal use of violence/peace. Presumably you think that if there is a foreign individual whose speech is causing the U.S. significant problems, the U.S. could assassinate that person. Or at least that it would be very understandable.

Else, think about the fact that the U.S. does not favor free speech absolutism. That idea is a sophistry. Certain forms of speech are illegal, such as inciting speech. The ideas that inciting speech isn't real speech, or that speech can never be violent and therefore inciting speech isn't speech, are political sophistries. Inciting speech is speech, and it is prohibited because of the evil effect it causes. The prohibition against inciting speech is a great example of speech that is not respected because it is outside of the Overton window (as illegal things will tend to always be outside the Overton window).

Stopped_lurking said:

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?

Click to expand...

The problem is that there is a naive and unprincipled prejudice in favor of anti-discrimination. The premise of the left is that discrimination is always wrong, and that is a confused premise.

For example:

• If discrimination is always wrong then we should not discriminate between men and women, whether in sports, shelters, bathrooms, etc. (whether or not anyone is identifying as trans).
• If discrimination is always wrong then we should not discriminate between a citizen and a foreigner; or between legal and illegal immigrants.
• If discrimination is always wrong then we should not discriminate between a wealthy person and a poor person. Both should have equal access to the same healthcare, jobs, housing, cars, etc.

The naive preference for anti-discrimination is reduced to absurdities rather quickly. In the case of pronouns it becomes even more absurd, given that both sides are simply arguing for different forms of discrimination. The notion that the left favors an anti-discrimination stance on pronouns is a sophistry. The left favors discriminating between parties based on self-identification. They want to say that we should discriminate in favor of what someone self-identifies as, giving that pronoun discriminatory preference.

Long story short, it would be as easy for humans to stop discriminating as it would be for humans to stop breathing. Discrimination is not per se evil, and those who constantly demand social change on the basis of anti-discrimination are employing invalid reasoning, either unintentionally or intentionally, in order to get what they want. The remedy is to abandon the naive premise and to begin engaging in substantive debates over when discrimination is good and permissible, and when it is bad and impermissible. More generally, "All discrimination is wrong," is a symptom of two poisonous streams that are killing Western culture: black-and-white thinking, and egalitarianism taken to an irrational extreme.

zippy2006 said:

The problem is that there is a naive and unprincipled prejudice in favor of anti-discrimination. The premise of the left is that discrimination is always wrong, and that is a confused premise.

For example:

• If discrimination is always wrong then we should not discriminate between men and women, whether in sports, shelters, bathrooms, etc. (whether or not anyone is identifying as trans).
• If discrimination is always wrong then we should not discriminate between a citizen and a foreigner; or between legal and illegal immigrants.
• If discrimination is always wrong then we should not discriminate between a wealthy person and a poor person. Both should have equal access to the same healthcare, jobs, housing, cars, etc.

The naive preference for anti-discrimination is reduced to absurdities rather quickly. In the case of pronouns it becomes even more absurd, given that both sides are simply arguing for different forms of discrimination. The notion that the left favors an anti-discrimination stance on pronouns is a sophistry. The left favors discriminating between parties based on self-identification. They want to say that we should discriminate in favor of what someone self-identifies as, giving that pronoun discriminatory preference.

Long story short, it would be as easy for humans to stop discriminating as it would be for humans to stop breathing. Discrimination is not per se evil, and those who constantly demand social change on the basis of anti-discrimination are employing invalid reasoning, either unintentionally or intentionally, in order to get what they want. The remedy is to abandon the naive premise and to begin engaging in substantive debates over when discrimination is good and permissible, and when it is bad and impermissible. More generally, "All discrimination is wrong," is a symptom of two poisonous streams that are killing Western culture: black-and-white thinking, and egalitarianism taken to an irrational extreme.

Click to expand...

Aren't you using discrimination differently from how lawmakers use it. From where I sit, laws are put in place to limit discriminating based on specific characteristics such as sex, ethnicity, religion and gender identity. So I'm not saying that people should stop discriminate in the broad sense but in the context of anti-discrimination laws. I've not argued that all discrimination, in the sense of separating people based on any criteria is wrong.

This is a good example of the phenomenon I outlined:

Stopped_lurking said:

When it comes to trans people competing in sports, isn't it now that the rules are changing to explicitly deny trans people's participation in the gender category they would like to compete in? In international athletics sex tests were discontinued in 1992, I think. They are now making a comeback.

Click to expand...

Your tacit premise is that novel forms of discrimination are being erected. But this is incorrect. Anyone who uses the words, "Men's and women's sports," has already discriminated between human beings based on the categories 'men' and 'women'. In fact the whole reason we segregate men from women in sport in the first place is because the competitive nature upon which sport is premised favors segregating people into groups of similar athletic ability, and with the advent of feminism we wanted to create an environment where females could compete among themselves without having to compete with the athletically superior males. Chapelle's bit in response to the WNBA players demanding equal pay with NBA players highlights the logic concisely (link - censored language warning). Note too that the rejoinder that the separation enjoined on sports has to do with gender rather than sex makes no sense given that sex is precisely the reason men are athletically superior and women are athletically inferior.

It is true that implicit strictures must be made explicit when they are being violated, and I think that's all that is happening with women's sports and other similar issues.

-----

Stopped_lurking said:

Aren't you using discrimination differently from how lawmakers use it. From where I sit, laws are put in place to limit discriminating based on specific characteristics such as sex, ethnicity, religion and gender identity.

Click to expand...

How would you say lawmakers use the term differently than I described? The whole question here asks which anti-discriminatory laws should exist and which anti-discriminatory laws should not exist; which anti-discriminatory laws are good and which anti-discriminatory laws are bad. The legal issue is not qualitatively different than the cultural issue. A big part of the problem is that the left wants to enshrine their "all discrimination is bad" approach into law (and into university bylaws, and into HR policy, etc.).

zippy2006 said:

Anyone who uses the words, "Men's and women's sports," has already discriminated between human beings based on the categories 'men' and 'women'.

Click to expand...

From Etymonline:

trans-​

Besides its use in numerous English words taken from Latin words with this prefix, it is used to some extent as an English formative .... It is commonly used in its literal sense, but also as implying complete change, as in transfigure, transform, etc. [Century Dictionary]​

Click to expand...

So you see, Leftists can't even use the word "trans" without contradicting themselves. The word "trans" inherently implies that there is something to cross. As always, their logic pwns itself.

zippy2006 said:

This is a good example of the phenomenon I outlined:


Your tacit premise is that novel forms of discrimination are being erected. But this is incorrect. Anyone who uses the words, "Men's and women's sports," has already discriminated between human beings based on the categories 'men' and 'women'. In fact the whole reason we segregate men from women in sport in the first place is because the competitive nature upon which sport is premised favors segregating people into groups of similar athletic ability, and with the advent of feminism we wanted to create an environment where females could compete among themselves without having to compete with the athletically superior males. Chapelle's bit in response to the WNBA players demanding equal pay with NBA players highlights the logic concisely (link - censored language warning). Note too that the rejoinder that the separation enjoined on sports has to do with gender rather than sex makes no sense given that sex is precisely the reason men are athletically superior and women are athletically inferior.

Click to expand...

What does this have to do with what I wrote? The new rule changes are done not at the bequest of trans athletes but to pander to those that see trans people competing with those of their self-identified gender as problematic, at least in athletics. I just responded to the statement that it was trans people trying to change the rules, while that is not true from what I know. When sex tests stopped in 1992 it was not because of trans competitors.

zippy2006 said:

It is true that implicit strictures must be made explicit when they are being violated, and I think that's all that is happening with women's sports and other similar issues.

-----


How would you say lawmakers use the term differently than I described? The whole question here asks which anti-discriminatory laws should exist and which anti-discriminatory laws should not exist; which anti-discriminatory laws are good and which anti-discriminatory laws are bad. The legal issue is not qualitatively different than the cultural issue. A big part of the problem is that the left wants to enshrine their "all discrimination is bad" approach into law (and into university bylaws, and into HR policy, etc.).

Click to expand...

They say some discrimination is against the law, not discrimination in general. Anti-discrimination laws does not forbid discrimination in general do they?

If there are laws on the books, entities are going to be acting to minimise their exposure to lawsuits by implementing what they think is prudent policies. To from that draw the conclusion that these entities are invested in the outcome seem to me be unwarranted.

If someone disagree with the legislature just go and vote.

Chesterton said:

From Etymonline:

trans-​

word-forming element meaning "across, beyond, through, on the other side of; go beyond," from Latin trans (prep.) "across, over, beyond," perhaps originally present participle of a verb *trare-, meaning "to cross," from PIE *tra-, variant of root *tere- (2) "cross over, pass through, overcome" [Watkins].​

In chemical use indicating "a compound in which two characteristic groups are situated on opposite sides of an axis of a molecule" [Flood].​

So you see, Leftists can't even use the word "trans" without contradicting themselves. The word "trans" inherently implies that there is something to cross. As always, their logic pwns itself.

Click to expand...

Or go through, but so what?

BCP1928 said:

Or go through, but so what?

Click to expand...

The word is a recognition that two things are different things. A ≠ B. If I transport something to another place, that place is by definition a different place.

zippy2006 said:

But we are talking about respect deserved in relation to the Overton window. You think every position deserves equal respect in relation to the Overton window. That's the point.

Click to expand...

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

zippy2006 said:

It surely does cut against your position, unless you commit to the premise that, "Views which are more likely to be correct should not be given more respect than views which are less likely to be correct." That would be an irrational premise to hold.

Click to expand...

I dont hold that. But I judge likelihood of correctness based on congruence with reality, not popularity. Yes theres a comfortable degree of correlation to popularity. But popularity doesnt cause opinions to be right. If you let popularity lead, you are vulnerable to believing wrong but popular things, which do crop up now and again.

zippy2006 said:

But that's what I mean about the equivocal use of violence/peace. Presumably you think that if there is a foreign individual whose speech is causing the U.S. significant problems, the U.S. could assassinate that person. Or at least that it would be very understandable.

Click to expand...

I dont believe its morally permissible to assassinate foreign leaders just for bad things they say. Its only permissible in something like a just war framework, imo

zippy2006 said:

Else, think about the fact that the U.S. does not favor free speech absolutism. That idea is a sophistry. Certain forms of speech are illegal, such as inciting speech. The ideas that inciting speech isn't real speech, or that speech can never be violent and therefore inciting speech isn't speech, are political sophistries. Inciting speech is speech, and it is prohibited because of the evil effect it causes. The prohibition against inciting speech is a great example of speech that is not respected because it is outside of the Overton window (as illegal things will tend to always be outside the Overton window).

Click to expand...

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.

That does not however permit the state to summarily execute speech law violators, nor for vigilantes to murder them of their own accord.

Stopped_lurking said:

What does this have to do with what I wrote? The new rule changes are done not at the bequest of trans athletes but to pander to those that see trans people competing with those of their self-identified gender as problematic, at least in athletics. I just responded to the statement that it was trans people trying to change the rules, while that is not true from what I know. When sex tests stopped in 1992 it was not because of trans competitors.

Click to expand...

Again, your tacit premise is that novel rule-changing is coming from the right, and that's what it has to do with what you wrote. Your idea that it is the right and not the left that is trying to change the status quo is incorrect. Sports have been segregated between males and females for a long time, and anyone who understands what sport is understands why this segregation should occur. That is the status quo. Now we have a new group (trans) that wants to deviate from that status quo and disregard the nature of competitive sport. They are precisely the ones "trying to change the rules." It is not a new rule that biological males are not allowed to play in female sporting leagues, and this remains true even if such a rule must be made explicit in light of new challenges.

Stopped_lurking said:

They say some discrimination is against the law, not discrimination in general. Anti-discrimination laws does not forbid discrimination in general do they?

Click to expand...

Again, there is nothing special about law. No one is disputing the fact that existing laws must be navigated. That is part of the point of arguing over whether some form of discrimination should be illegal. If we make bad law which outlaws a just and good form of discrimination, we will have to navigate that bad law for years to come. The post of yours I replied to was not primarily about law, but rather about school policies:

Stopped_lurking said:

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.

Click to expand...

You were saying, "It isn't unreasonable to demand that students and teachers be treated the same regardless of gender identity or sexuality." The point is that it is unreasonable given that people will construe that demand as requiring, for example, that biological males are able to compete in female sporting leagues.

I haven't generally made points vis-a-vis your own positions, given that I don't know exactly what they are. I have made points against "the left." I don't know whether you agree or disagree with the points I've made, but part of my point is that your notion that it is not unreasonable to demand non-discrimination falls into the broader naivete I am trying to illustrate. You are assuming via petitio principii that it must be good that zero discrimination occurs along the lines of gender identity or sexuality, and that is a symptom of the broader problem I have been trying to illustrate.