Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Sep 06, 2023 4:02 pm
Beyond the narrow focus of your extremism, here's a broader list...
What I want to point out is a further comment on what I had said previously: We will not listen to each other; we regard the *other* person's ideas as corrupt and as you say "extremist", and inevitably each and every conversation results in the same impasse -- month after month and year after year!
I am not asking that this change mind you. What I do say is that in relation to the problems of The Culture Wars -- and these conflicts are deeply tied up with culture war ideas -- that my own opinion has been and is to better understand the *opposition*. To read first-hand their accounts of their concerns. So, some pages back Lacewing you seemed to indicate that I have myself fallen short of the mark you believe is the right one, am I right?
Why would I waste time researching the reasons WHY someone is an unbalanced extremist? That's not going to bring about change... just as you have not accomplished with him. I don't need to use your approach in order to recognize such a thing and point it out. There are truths and blindness from all points of view. It is idiotic to suggest that it's all 'one way' for one side, and all 'another way' for the other side. You've (also) been resistant to this obvious nature of balance, so perhaps you should go do some more research beyond your skewed views.
What I want to say is the following: Today, now, the general views that were understood to be Liberal (classic Liberalism) have now been supplanted by views that can only be described as *extremist* (at least in relation). Here is a possible observation that I am not sure will sit well with you: Your own views are not 'classically Liberal" (in the sense I describe) but have been influenced by extremist views.
In order to understand what I am suggesting here, and the issue is that people close their minds to hearing suggestions they feel come from a radical, extremist camp, you would need to better understand this paragraph written by Immanuel:
IC Wrote: That is, until you read Hegel, Marx and Marcuse. Then you see why the Left thinks they're actually doing "the right thing" by destroying all of these. It's a complicated theory, but it involves two main things: first, the belief that history is itself a kind of "god-like" force that is inevitably progressing us toward an idealized conception of the future, but which is impeded by any form of the status quo -- so that all existing institutions, rules, authorities, laws, morals, agreements, etc. are impediments to our progress toward glorious liberation in the future; and second, the belief that history is properly driven forward by necessary dialectically-ordered power-conflicts, and by the shattering of the status quo, in all cases.
Do I expect that you, Lacewing, will undertake a rather demanding project of reading (that will take a year or more at least)? No. I don't think that will happen. Yet there must be some reason why you (and why all of us) are here.
I can only explain my reasons: in the course of the last year it has been to read as widely as I can. You cannot fairly tell me that my views are *extremist* (or skewed) because, at the very least, I have read on both sides of the issue. In regard to Marxism, 'wokism', Critical Theory, religion, sexuality, feminism, traditional gender roles and much else.
So from my perspective, and when I read you, I notice a person stuck in her own tendentious opinions that do not seem to move much.
Is this an invitation to fight? No. It is an invitation to
communicate.
Wizard does not come across as *extremist*, in fact he comes across as
Centrist.
IC has extremist religious views, that I certainly agree with, but his views of Marxism and Socialism are also quite
Centrist.
How is it then that when you hear some of these ideas -- take James Lindsay as a benchmark (who IC refers to and quotes and who I do too from time to time) -- how is it that your *hear* these ideas as *extremist* when (in Lindsay's case) he is tryting to define and redefine a Liberal centrist orientation?
Lacewing wrote: Why would I waste time researching the reasons WHY someone is an unbalanced extremist? That's not going to bring about change... just as you have not accomplished with him. I don't need to use your approach in order to recognize such a thing and point it out. There are truths and blindness from all points of view. It is idiotic to suggest that it's all 'one way' for one side, and all 'another way' for the other side. You've (also) been resistant to this obvious nature of balance, so perhaps you should go do some more research beyond your skewed views.
Well my first attempt at an answer is to say that what you interpret as radical extremism is not that at all!
You imply that you have a *balanced perspective* -- but are you sure of that? How do you know?
I do not think IC needs 'changing' -- and I say this because I have myself read a good amount of the material he refers to -- but rather the ideas he puts forward can only be fairly understood if you get familiar with the idea-bases of those writers. So it is not a question of *changing* it is a question of understanding. And that takes time and energy. And also confronting one's on internal resistance.
I don't need to use your approach in order to recognize such a thing and point it out.
You may not, but I say *one indeed does*.
There are truths and blindness from all points of view.
It is a meaningless statement. It isn't even a truism. One has to be specific and refer to specific things.
It is idiotic to suggest that it's all 'one way' for one side, and all 'another way' for the other side.
It sound good to say that, doesn't it? It would appear to be so. Except that when some issues are actually examined and one must make choices. The statement you make is far too broad.
But if the conversation has to do with the ideological distortions of Marxist thought and its ideological activism -- there I certainly will say that that thought needs to be carefully and critically examined. There is something nefarious in it. It is not *partly good* and then *partly bad* it is generally bad and
generally destructive. On what basis do I make that assessment? That is the issue, right? To become familiar enough with each idea set to be able to say something genuinely accurate about it.
Returning to the topic of banning of books,
here is a list of the titles that today are being contested.
Removing certain titles from grade-school libraries, or advocating that some ideas and titles are too controversial for that age-group -- that is different from Nazi style book banning, or Communist book banning.
I can understand why numerous of the 50 titles there are understood by some parents as being problematic for their kids
in a public school setting.
