Moral philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre
This popped up recently. Maybe me explaining myself helps put the situation in better context. This is about me calling America's authoritarian radical right fascist or Christofascist, partly in response to recent political events.
Comment: I understand the frustration you feel about the state of politics in America, but you are doing the same thing as the people you are criticizing, narrowly defining millions of Americans because you disagree with their politics.
My response: You've hit a nerve here and I want to air this out.
I've though long and hard about this. Thought about it over the last 6 years at least. I understand your argument. Until the last few days, that reasoning kept me in check most of that time, despite my misgivings about holding back. But the radical tyrant side has gone too far. I am not doing the same thing as the people I criticize. One has to compare tactics, rhetoric and intent. My side, if that's what it is, is not the same as the other.
In my opinion, and under current circumstances and facts, that reasoning poses a false equivalence. I am warning about an undeniable rise in (i) a virulent, bigoted Christian theocracy (Christian nationalism), and (ii) a virulent, cruel brass knuckles capitalist plutocracy, both of which are solidly against, or reject, democracy, civil liberties, compromise and inconvenient fact, true truth and sound reasoning.
In my opinion, me calling out the radical right on the basis of facts, true truths and sound reasoning is not the factual or moral equivalent of America's authoritarian radical right slandering the hell out of everyone and everything that stands in opposition to the monstrous corrupt tyranny the radicals are openly trying to establish at the expense of our democracy and civil liberties.
On the other side, we have a torrent of lies, crackpottery and slanders-based vitriol aimed at the forces of pro-democracy and pro-truth. I've compiled a list of some of the lies and filth the pro-tryanny/theocracy forces routinely accuse the pro-democracy forces of being or doing:
1. teaching CRT and indoctrination of public school and university students with false, rewritten history such as land being stolen or taken by force from American Indians, and (ii) alleged but false effects of systemic racism on minorities
2. gender fluidity indoctrination of public school students, especially young children in grade and middle school, but also in high school
3. ruthless reliance on divisive, identity politics that divides, polarizes and disinforms society and damages democracy
4. blaming the right for ruthless divisive, identity politics that divides, polarizes and disinforms society and damages democracy
5. being too subjective and easy about public school grades, especially for non-White students
6. unfair and/or unconstitutional affirmative action in college admissions, with admissions based on self-described representations instead of actual, demonstrated merit
7. etc.
.
.
12. ridiculous, unfounded alarmism about climate change and its causes based mostly on flawed or fabricated data, unreliable science and corrupt, lying scientists
.
.
22. support for Antifa and violent protest in support of socialism or communism
That is how the pro-tyranny-theocracy forces see the pro-democracy forces. How much truth do you think is in it? I don't see much truth in most of it myself despite having looked real hard for the fact and logic basis for those alleged bad traits and actions. But most of the radical right sees it as rock solid, undeniable, unspun fact and truth.
1. So, here is what I wrote in the 1st paragraph of this blog post:
Exactly what is wrong with those definitions? What makes them too narrow? What, if any, facts contradict my descriptions of those groups? My intent was to describe groups accurately, not too broadly or too narrowly. I am open to reasonable criticism, especially fact-based criticism. What did I get wrong here?
2. What are the politics I disagree with? That's in my comments above. For clarity, I strongly oppose:
1. theocratic and secular tyranny, e.g., corrupt capitalist plutocracy, Christian nationalist theocracy
2. intolerance, bigotry and racism, which is plentiful and openly supported by Christian nationalist dogma and the laws that Christian nationalist legislators and judges are trying to impose on America right now
3. politics unreasonably and indefensibly based on too many lies and slanders, too much deceit, irrational emotional manipulation and flawed partisan motivated reasoning, e.g., crackpottery
4. politics grounded in too much bad faith and ill will
I support:
1. religious freedom outside of government
2. separation of church and state
3. solidly evidence and reason-based politics (no, that does not mean I oppose personal morals, biases, etc.)
4. pluralist and tolerant democracy with reasonable compromise
5. civil liberties
6. politics mostly grounded in good will and good faith
I've though long and hard about this. Thought about it over the last 6 years at least. I understand your argument. Until the last few days, that reasoning kept me in check most of that time, despite my misgivings about holding back. But the radical tyrant side has gone too far. I am not doing the same thing as the people I criticize. One has to compare tactics, rhetoric and intent. My side, if that's what it is, is not the same as the other.
In my opinion, and under current circumstances and facts, that reasoning poses a false equivalence. I am warning about an undeniable rise in (i) a virulent, bigoted Christian theocracy (Christian nationalism), and (ii) a virulent, cruel brass knuckles capitalist plutocracy, both of which are solidly against, or reject, democracy, civil liberties, compromise and inconvenient fact, true truth and sound reasoning.
In my opinion, me calling out the radical right on the basis of facts, true truths and sound reasoning is not the factual or moral equivalent of America's authoritarian radical right slandering the hell out of everyone and everything that stands in opposition to the monstrous corrupt tyranny the radicals are openly trying to establish at the expense of our democracy and civil liberties.
On the other side, we have a torrent of lies, crackpottery and slanders-based vitriol aimed at the forces of pro-democracy and pro-truth. I've compiled a list of some of the lies and filth the pro-tryanny/theocracy forces routinely accuse the pro-democracy forces of being or doing:
1. teaching CRT and indoctrination of public school and university students with false, rewritten history such as land being stolen or taken by force from American Indians, and (ii) alleged but false effects of systemic racism on minorities
2. gender fluidity indoctrination of public school students, especially young children in grade and middle school, but also in high school
3. ruthless reliance on divisive, identity politics that divides, polarizes and disinforms society and damages democracy
4. blaming the right for ruthless divisive, identity politics that divides, polarizes and disinforms society and damages democracy
5. being too subjective and easy about public school grades, especially for non-White students
6. unfair and/or unconstitutional affirmative action in college admissions, with admissions based on self-described representations instead of actual, demonstrated merit
7. etc.
.
.
12. ridiculous, unfounded alarmism about climate change and its causes based mostly on flawed or fabricated data, unreliable science and corrupt, lying scientists
.
.
22. support for Antifa and violent protest in support of socialism or communism
That is how the pro-tyranny-theocracy forces see the pro-democracy forces. How much truth do you think is in it? I don't see much truth in most of it myself despite having looked real hard for the fact and logic basis for those alleged bad traits and actions. But most of the radical right sees it as rock solid, undeniable, unspun fact and truth.
.... narrowly defining millions of Americans because you disagree with their politics.I very much want to respond to that. I define or describe groups of people as I see them based on facts, true truths and sound reasoning, including differences between rhetoric, actions and factual circumstance-based intent. I define sound reasoning as reasonably defensible thinking in accord with facts, true truths, logic and personal biases, morals, interests, social situation and etc. For me, empirical facts are facts, not lies. Flawed partisan motivated reasoning is not sound reasoning, it is mostly (~90%) dark free speech (deceptive, divisive and/or emotionally manipulative propaganda).
1. So, here is what I wrote in the 1st paragraph of this blog post:
Most Republican Party elites (~95% ?) are full blown American-style fascist tyrants (Christian nationalist zealots and/or brutal brass knuckles capitalists). Most of the Republican rank and file (~85% ?) are either (i) full blown American-style fascist tyrant supporters, or (ii) horribly duped and manipulated into a false belief that they are innocent, terribly persecuted pro-democracy patriots valiantly defending democracy, the rule of law, civil liberties, mom, the flag, apple pie, inconvenient truth, etc.What I did there was define by qualifying two different groups of radical right American authoritarians and how they differed or are the same. I specified how many people were excluded from being in those groups. I never once used the word all to describe GOP elites or rank and file because there will be some exceptions among members of all significant political groups.
Exactly what is wrong with those definitions? What makes them too narrow? What, if any, facts contradict my descriptions of those groups? My intent was to describe groups accurately, not too broadly or too narrowly. I am open to reasonable criticism, especially fact-based criticism. What did I get wrong here?
2. What are the politics I disagree with? That's in my comments above. For clarity, I strongly oppose:
1. theocratic and secular tyranny, e.g., corrupt capitalist plutocracy, Christian nationalist theocracy
2. intolerance, bigotry and racism, which is plentiful and openly supported by Christian nationalist dogma and the laws that Christian nationalist legislators and judges are trying to impose on America right now
3. politics unreasonably and indefensibly based on too many lies and slanders, too much deceit, irrational emotional manipulation and flawed partisan motivated reasoning, e.g., crackpottery
4. politics grounded in too much bad faith and ill will
I support:
1. religious freedom outside of government
2. separation of church and state
3. solidly evidence and reason-based politics (no, that does not mean I oppose personal morals, biases, etc.)
4. pluralist and tolerant democracy with reasonable compromise
5. civil liberties
6. politics mostly grounded in good will and good faith
Q: Is it unreasonable, unwarranted and/or counterproductive for me to call those who support radical right elites and policies fascist, American fascist, Christofascist or the like, or all of is this just too much navel gazing?
No comments:
Post a Comment