Garfield As Metaphor For Reactionary Thought
April 6, 2020 6:48 AM Subscribe
Continuing his series on the Alt-Right Playbook, Ian Danskin of Innuendo Studios discusses how reactionary thinking views social problems and issues - as facts of life (like Mondays) that are based on personal choice, not interconnected systems, and how that positioning leads to both rejection of arguments for mitigation and a push to use the law to punish those who do not follow the "right" way to live. (SLYT)
As with his other videos, a transcript and footnotes are provided on Danskin's Tumblr.
As with his other videos, a transcript and footnotes are provided on Danskin's Tumblr.
Hm. This was interesting to watch but, like most things about the culture divide, felt like the interpretation of conservatives would not be agreed upon by the conservatives themselves. I'd love to see an analysis that is co-authored by folks across the political spectrum.
When I am at my most reactionary, most anxious, I slip into black and white thinking, and "should" thinking. I've got a page in my notebook called my Anxiety Toolkit, and one line is about checking for black and white thinking.
But I don't comprehend the jump between moral absolutism, and believing that morality is about punishment. They mention that this punishment focus is popular in christianity and christian athiesm. In cultures that do not stem from the christian tradition, do their reactionary politics also focus on punishment?
posted by rebent at 7:40 AM on April 6, 2020 [2 favorites]
When I am at my most reactionary, most anxious, I slip into black and white thinking, and "should" thinking. I've got a page in my notebook called my Anxiety Toolkit, and one line is about checking for black and white thinking.
But I don't comprehend the jump between moral absolutism, and believing that morality is about punishment. They mention that this punishment focus is popular in christianity and christian athiesm. In cultures that do not stem from the christian tradition, do their reactionary politics also focus on punishment?
posted by rebent at 7:40 AM on April 6, 2020 [2 favorites]
This was interesting to watch but, like most things about the culture divide, felt like the interpretation of conservatives would not be agreed upon by the conservatives themselves. I'd love to see an analysis that is co-authored by folks across the political spectrum.
Why? If you think that Danskin's position is flawed, then point out the flaws - but the argument that his assessment of reactionary conservatism is wrong because reactionary conservatives wouldn't agree with it regardless of how correct his assessment is overall is part of how we got where we are today.
But I don't comprehend the jump between moral absolutism, and believing that morality is about punishment.
As Danskin points out, this is a perversion of moral thought, pushed by political leaders to gin up support.
posted by NoxAeternum at 7:59 AM on April 6, 2020 [11 favorites]
Why? If you think that Danskin's position is flawed, then point out the flaws - but the argument that his assessment of reactionary conservatism is wrong because reactionary conservatives wouldn't agree with it regardless of how correct his assessment is overall is part of how we got where we are today.
But I don't comprehend the jump between moral absolutism, and believing that morality is about punishment.
As Danskin points out, this is a perversion of moral thought, pushed by political leaders to gin up support.
posted by NoxAeternum at 7:59 AM on April 6, 2020 [11 favorites]
It's interesting that the speaker says "And, once you see the conservative view of laws and customs as mapping a path we are meant to walk and punishing deviation, you start to see why we have a Religious Right but not so much a Religious Left." when this whole thing is basically a sermon for the left. It starts out setting up a strawman the way a preacher might describe some hypothetical unbeliever and then spends the rest of the, let's call it speech, attacking this hypothetical viewpoint. It jumps from point to point using abbreviated arguments that are already understood by the faithful, overall being a statement of left orthodoxy and call to continue believing.
Also the immediately following "It describes a world drenched in sin that cannot be cleansed from the inside, but walk the path and you might save yourself. Punish those who stray and you might save them as well.", well if that doesn't describe the anxiety the left expects privileged people to feel, like white guilt, then I don't know what does.
This isn't to be all both-sidesist or whatever, clearly conservative positions and policies result in a lot more actual harm to people than liberal ones. I generally agree with the substantive beliefs given. It's just interesting how un-self-aware this specific presentation is, at least to me.
posted by bright flowers at 8:04 AM on April 6, 2020 [3 favorites]
Also the immediately following "It describes a world drenched in sin that cannot be cleansed from the inside, but walk the path and you might save yourself. Punish those who stray and you might save them as well.", well if that doesn't describe the anxiety the left expects privileged people to feel, like white guilt, then I don't know what does.
This isn't to be all both-sidesist or whatever, clearly conservative positions and policies result in a lot more actual harm to people than liberal ones. I generally agree with the substantive beliefs given. It's just interesting how un-self-aware this specific presentation is, at least to me.
posted by bright flowers at 8:04 AM on April 6, 2020 [3 favorites]
I recall in one of the earlier Alt-Right Playbook threads, we did have a conservative who disagreed with the description of what conservatives believe, but when the thread drilled down, it turned out that they did actually believe that and didn't realise it.
posted by Merus at 8:04 AM on April 6, 2020 [10 favorites]
posted by Merus at 8:04 AM on April 6, 2020 [10 favorites]
Also the immediately following "It describes a world drenched in sin that cannot be cleansed from the inside, but walk the path and you might save yourself. Punish those who stray and you might save them as well.", well if that doesn't describe the anxiety the left expects privileged people to feel, like white guilt, then I don't know what does.
Then you misunderstand how the left views privilege, or are trying to fit it into a paradigm pushed by the right. The point the left makes with privilege is that it hurts people, and you're not supposed to hurt others. Furthermore, as Danskin points out in the video, the "drenched in sin" argument is meant to dismiss societal context, whereas the whole argument on privilege is that it is a societal construct, and needs to be handled in a societal manner (though that does include individual action such as examining one's own privilege.)
The point isn't to make people anxious, it's to get them to see how their own actions can hurt other people and to be cognizant of that potential for harm. Much of the anxiety I see with people confronting privilege has to do with them running headfirst into the realization that they aren't as good as they thought, and grappling with the disconnect between "you're not supposed to hurt people" and "society tells me that this behavior is 'okay'."
As for the piece "speaking to the choir", that's the intended audience. The purpose of the Alt-Right Playbook is to explain to left wing individuals the strategies the alt-right uses to both recruit and push their worldview into the mainstream. Furthermore, he does back it up with research, so if you want to argue that he's setting up a strawman, I'm going to have to ask for some proof there.
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:04 AM on April 6, 2020 [18 favorites]
Then you misunderstand how the left views privilege, or are trying to fit it into a paradigm pushed by the right. The point the left makes with privilege is that it hurts people, and you're not supposed to hurt others. Furthermore, as Danskin points out in the video, the "drenched in sin" argument is meant to dismiss societal context, whereas the whole argument on privilege is that it is a societal construct, and needs to be handled in a societal manner (though that does include individual action such as examining one's own privilege.)
The point isn't to make people anxious, it's to get them to see how their own actions can hurt other people and to be cognizant of that potential for harm. Much of the anxiety I see with people confronting privilege has to do with them running headfirst into the realization that they aren't as good as they thought, and grappling with the disconnect between "you're not supposed to hurt people" and "society tells me that this behavior is 'okay'."
As for the piece "speaking to the choir", that's the intended audience. The purpose of the Alt-Right Playbook is to explain to left wing individuals the strategies the alt-right uses to both recruit and push their worldview into the mainstream. Furthermore, he does back it up with research, so if you want to argue that he's setting up a strawman, I'm going to have to ask for some proof there.
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:04 AM on April 6, 2020 [18 favorites]
There definitely is such a thing as punishingly rigid left orthodoxy, but it is not currently dominating our government, nor is it materially similar to conservative orthodoxy beyond its rigidity.
posted by grumpybear69 at 9:09 AM on April 6, 2020 [11 favorites]
posted by grumpybear69 at 9:09 AM on April 6, 2020 [11 favorites]
the best definition of conservatives I've come across recently comes from the kind of stories they embrace. Specifically, how those stories end. If the story concludes with the destruction/annihilation of chaos and a return to the old order -- they love it. But if it concludes with the destruction (reconciling?) of chaos and a move toward a new order -- well, that sounds way too much like a definition of progress.
and then there's someone like me who tends to love it when a story finds a way to compellingly end in ... uncertainty, ambiguity, madness even. David Lynch, take a bow.
posted by philip-random at 9:23 AM on April 6, 2020 [5 favorites]
and then there's someone like me who tends to love it when a story finds a way to compellingly end in ... uncertainty, ambiguity, madness even. David Lynch, take a bow.
posted by philip-random at 9:23 AM on April 6, 2020 [5 favorites]
Then you misunderstand how the left views privilege, or are trying to fit it into a paradigm pushed by the right. The point the left makes with privilege is that it hurts people, and you're not supposed to hurt others.
This is a complicated thing (and maybe getting a little off topic) because you're right about what it's supposed to be and also there are people who pretty clearly do approach the issue like they are trying to absolve themselves of an original sin (and not surprisingly that attitude is generally a drag on efforts to actually address inequalities).
posted by atoxyl at 9:23 AM on April 6, 2020 [3 favorites]
This is a complicated thing (and maybe getting a little off topic) because you're right about what it's supposed to be and also there are people who pretty clearly do approach the issue like they are trying to absolve themselves of an original sin (and not surprisingly that attitude is generally a drag on efforts to actually address inequalities).
posted by atoxyl at 9:23 AM on April 6, 2020 [3 favorites]
well if that doesn't describe the anxiety the left expects privileged people to feel, like white guilt, then I don't know what does.
I highly recommend Danskin's earlier "Angry Jack" series for a discussion of why this is not an accurate understanding of "the left" (in general - of course individuals vary).
posted by eviemath at 9:36 AM on April 6, 2020 [7 favorites]
I highly recommend Danskin's earlier "Angry Jack" series for a discussion of why this is not an accurate understanding of "the left" (in general - of course individuals vary).
posted by eviemath at 9:36 AM on April 6, 2020 [7 favorites]
NoxAeternum: I think you're confusing the practice with the theory. In theory privilege is a societal construct but in practice, for someone with privilege trying to do better, it's a daily process of struggle, self-interrogation, education, and anxiety. This isn't accidental either, you can look at any related thread on MetaFilter and find constant exhortations for privileged people to do better, be better, listen more. Jeremy Scahill wrote "The best white people can do is recognize we're recovering racists. We're born into a system that tells us we rule." That's "recovering," not "recovered", a never ending process.
Christian guilt works similarly. In theory it's pretty simple, in Mark, Jesus said love God above all and love your neighbor like yourself. In John, Jesus tells the accused woman to go and sin no more. In practice though, for many people, it's a nonstop process of making sure you're doing and believing and reading and thinking the right things all the time.
I'm generally skeptical of any claim that some big group of people believes some specific thing. When it's a group I'm a member of, it's often not true, or not the whole story. There's some space of course for saying "this is what people in this specific 4chan group believe, based on their manifesto" but saying this is what "conservatives" believe, well, I don't know. Often not true or not the whole story would be my guess.
posted by bright flowers at 9:43 AM on April 6, 2020 [5 favorites]
Christian guilt works similarly. In theory it's pretty simple, in Mark, Jesus said love God above all and love your neighbor like yourself. In John, Jesus tells the accused woman to go and sin no more. In practice though, for many people, it's a nonstop process of making sure you're doing and believing and reading and thinking the right things all the time.
I'm generally skeptical of any claim that some big group of people believes some specific thing. When it's a group I'm a member of, it's often not true, or not the whole story. There's some space of course for saying "this is what people in this specific 4chan group believe, based on their manifesto" but saying this is what "conservatives" believe, well, I don't know. Often not true or not the whole story would be my guess.
posted by bright flowers at 9:43 AM on April 6, 2020 [5 favorites]
I remember in fourth grade, Mr. Vanderlaan, just the best damned all-around teacher a kid could hope for. He was very direct and dry but he instilled in me a love of "connections" - I think he was the last of the true "liberal arts" style educators in public education. He hated the divisions in coursework because "poetry can be math, latin can be poetry, algebra can be art... etc."
To find an educator like him... well, you'd need to perhaps find a Great Books teacher for little kids or something.
Anyway, he used a kind of socratic method of teaching where he'd trick us into reaching the correct conclusions by sharing wrong, but linguistically plausible answers.
He broke my brain once.
He said, "let's say I'm shooting baskets on the basketball court. What are the odds that I'll score a basket?"
And we said, "Well, how good are you at basketball? Are we shooting from the paint? We need more information."
"WRONG!" he shouted. "I either make the shot or I don't. The odds are 50/50."
This single lesson taught me that many, many people are just using words as place-holders for critical thinking in order to win arguments.
It is always a similar feeling, arguing with reactionaries. There's no room for nuance and the default setting is this defensive response, to shout WRONG, or FALSE, like Dwight Shrute and follow it up with data that doesn't correlate to reality.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 9:45 AM on April 6, 2020 [10 favorites]
To find an educator like him... well, you'd need to perhaps find a Great Books teacher for little kids or something.
Anyway, he used a kind of socratic method of teaching where he'd trick us into reaching the correct conclusions by sharing wrong, but linguistically plausible answers.
He broke my brain once.
He said, "let's say I'm shooting baskets on the basketball court. What are the odds that I'll score a basket?"
And we said, "Well, how good are you at basketball? Are we shooting from the paint? We need more information."
"WRONG!" he shouted. "I either make the shot or I don't. The odds are 50/50."
This single lesson taught me that many, many people are just using words as place-holders for critical thinking in order to win arguments.
It is always a similar feeling, arguing with reactionaries. There's no room for nuance and the default setting is this defensive response, to shout WRONG, or FALSE, like Dwight Shrute and follow it up with data that doesn't correlate to reality.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 9:45 AM on April 6, 2020 [10 favorites]
It's pretty funny that in these comments so far, on the one hand you have people dismissing concerns that this video is setting up strawmen or attacking a definition of conservatism that conservatives wouldn't necessarily use for their own beliefs, and on the other you have (several of the same) people strenuously arguing that a depiction of liberal beliefs offered above is a strawman and/or not the definition of liberal beliefs that liberals themselves would use.
posted by star gentle uterus at 10:28 AM on April 6, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by star gentle uterus at 10:28 AM on April 6, 2020 [2 favorites]
I'm generally skeptical of any claim that some big group of people believes some specific thing.
I'm going to blow your mind: almost every single person on earth believes that the sun will rise tomorrow.
Almost every Christian believes that Christ is one aspect of a triune God.
Almost every single chess player thinks board games are not inherently un-respectable.
Almost every single military officer thinks committing violence is a moral act under some circumstances.
There are true-enough-to-be-useful generalizations about people available to us.
posted by PMdixon at 10:34 AM on April 6, 2020 [7 favorites]
I'm going to blow your mind: almost every single person on earth believes that the sun will rise tomorrow.
Almost every Christian believes that Christ is one aspect of a triune God.
Almost every single chess player thinks board games are not inherently un-respectable.
Almost every single military officer thinks committing violence is a moral act under some circumstances.
There are true-enough-to-be-useful generalizations about people available to us.
posted by PMdixon at 10:34 AM on April 6, 2020 [7 favorites]
"WRONG!" he shouted. "I either make the shot or I don't. The odds are 50/50."
Really, the original "Socratic method" isn't much better in its exclusion of alternatives and heavy use of dubious binary dilemmas.
posted by thelonius at 10:42 AM on April 6, 2020 [2 favorites]
Really, the original "Socratic method" isn't much better in its exclusion of alternatives and heavy use of dubious binary dilemmas.
posted by thelonius at 10:42 AM on April 6, 2020 [2 favorites]
well, let's see - his "conservative" argument against health care first addresses the difficulties in reforming it and the possibility that someone might pay more for less options - this is a viewpoint that can be found out there, but i notice that there's no real attempt to rebut it - nor is there one to correlate that opinion with some kind of self-righteous good vs evil worldview
and then he finalizes the "conservative" argument by asking if democrats want to live forever?
that's a pure strawman - i've never heard anyone ask that in an argument about health care
next we go to gun control - and the final argument is "why should responsible gun owners be restricted for the crimes of those who commit mass shootings"? (perhaps some conservatives would say punished - but that's rhetoric and not a necessary part of the argument)
note that no real rebuttal has been made
my verdict from a previous post stands - he does not know how to make a real argument for anything and he does not know how to rebut a real argument if he happens to quote one
oh, on preview, i do not believe the sun will rise tomorrow - i believe the earth will rotate so i will be able to see the sun, if it's not cloudy
posted by pyramid termite at 10:45 AM on April 6, 2020 [6 favorites]
and then he finalizes the "conservative" argument by asking if democrats want to live forever?
that's a pure strawman - i've never heard anyone ask that in an argument about health care
next we go to gun control - and the final argument is "why should responsible gun owners be restricted for the crimes of those who commit mass shootings"? (perhaps some conservatives would say punished - but that's rhetoric and not a necessary part of the argument)
note that no real rebuttal has been made
my verdict from a previous post stands - he does not know how to make a real argument for anything and he does not know how to rebut a real argument if he happens to quote one
oh, on preview, i do not believe the sun will rise tomorrow - i believe the earth will rotate so i will be able to see the sun, if it's not cloudy
posted by pyramid termite at 10:45 AM on April 6, 2020 [6 favorites]
Really, the original "Socratic method" isn't much better in its exclusion of alternatives and heavy use of dubious binary dilemmas.
Socrates claimed not to know the answers to the questions he was asking. Whether or not that was true, the same can't generally be said of many of the most ardent champions of his method, and their questions just fence the garden path to whatever conclusion they'd like to impose on you.
posted by mhoye at 10:50 AM on April 6, 2020 [8 favorites]
Socrates claimed not to know the answers to the questions he was asking. Whether or not that was true, the same can't generally be said of many of the most ardent champions of his method, and their questions just fence the garden path to whatever conclusion they'd like to impose on you.
posted by mhoye at 10:50 AM on April 6, 2020 [8 favorites]
also, there's something very dangerous in arguing that all conservatives believe this or that about evil and how it should interact with society and politics
some of these people simply believe they should be on top and will do anything, profess anything to make sure that it stays that way - but you'll hardly ever hear them say that
posted by pyramid termite at 10:54 AM on April 6, 2020 [1 favorite]
some of these people simply believe they should be on top and will do anything, profess anything to make sure that it stays that way - but you'll hardly ever hear them say that
posted by pyramid termite at 10:54 AM on April 6, 2020 [1 favorite]
Almost every Christian believes that Christ is one aspect of a triune God.
by Christian, do you mean people who belong to Christian churches, attend mass or whatever? Because I'm pretty sure that more than a few of them are into it out of habit, community participation etc as opposed to genuine belief God (certainly the Christian God). Various family members come to mind.
posted by philip-random at 11:00 AM on April 6, 2020
by Christian, do you mean people who belong to Christian churches, attend mass or whatever? Because I'm pretty sure that more than a few of them are into it out of habit, community participation etc as opposed to genuine belief God (certainly the Christian God). Various family members come to mind.
posted by philip-random at 11:00 AM on April 6, 2020
PMdixon: There are true-enough-to-be-useful generalizations about people available to us.
Then the question is how true, and useful for what? Some things can be partially true and still useful, such as some statistical probability justifying certain actions. Other things can be entirely true and effectively useless, such as people believing the sun will rise. Yet other things are arguably true but only questionably useful, such as the ambiguous claim, which you didn't make, to be clear, that people in the military support violence.
So to refine my earlier statement, I'll say I'm skeptical of any claim that some big group of people believes some specific thing if that's the jumping off point for some diatribe, especially if it's more important for the purpose of the thing that the claim sounds true to the listeners than that it actually is true, in reality.
posted by bright flowers at 11:21 AM on April 6, 2020 [1 favorite]
Then the question is how true, and useful for what? Some things can be partially true and still useful, such as some statistical probability justifying certain actions. Other things can be entirely true and effectively useless, such as people believing the sun will rise. Yet other things are arguably true but only questionably useful, such as the ambiguous claim, which you didn't make, to be clear, that people in the military support violence.
So to refine my earlier statement, I'll say I'm skeptical of any claim that some big group of people believes some specific thing if that's the jumping off point for some diatribe, especially if it's more important for the purpose of the thing that the claim sounds true to the listeners than that it actually is true, in reality.
posted by bright flowers at 11:21 AM on April 6, 2020 [1 favorite]
Then the question is how true, and useful for what? Some things can be partially true and still useful, such as some statistical probability justifying certain actions
You're the one who said it wasn't true, you tell me what sense of true you were using.
posted by PMdixon at 11:59 AM on April 6, 2020 [2 favorites]
You're the one who said it wasn't true, you tell me what sense of true you were using.
posted by PMdixon at 11:59 AM on April 6, 2020 [2 favorites]
and then he finalizes the "conservative" argument by asking if democrats want to live forever?
that's a pure strawman - i've never heard anyone ask that in an argument about health care
Danskin gives an example of this from Fox News in the drop down. The same goes for "you can't regulate evil", quoting now-former TN governor Matt Bevin's response to the Las Vegas mass shooting.
He anticipated people saying that "those examples are unrealistic, " and gave public examples of those exact arguments being promulgated by conservatives in mainstream media. Furthermore, the point of the video series is not to give rebuttals to specific conservative arguments, but to discuss the worldviews and rhetorical strategies that bring forth said arguments (hence the title of the series being "The Alt-Right Playbook".)
by Christian, do you mean people who belong to Christian churches, attend mass or whatever? Because I'm pretty sure that more than a few of them are into it out of habit, community participation etc as opposed to genuine belief God (certainly the Christian God).
Believing in the triune God is literally part of the definition of being Christian. Even if your faith is more out of habit than anything else, saying that you are nominally Christian means that you're on board with the idea of a God in three parts.
posted by NoxAeternum at 1:05 PM on April 6, 2020 [5 favorites]
that's a pure strawman - i've never heard anyone ask that in an argument about health care
Danskin gives an example of this from Fox News in the drop down. The same goes for "you can't regulate evil", quoting now-former TN governor Matt Bevin's response to the Las Vegas mass shooting.
He anticipated people saying that "those examples are unrealistic, " and gave public examples of those exact arguments being promulgated by conservatives in mainstream media. Furthermore, the point of the video series is not to give rebuttals to specific conservative arguments, but to discuss the worldviews and rhetorical strategies that bring forth said arguments (hence the title of the series being "The Alt-Right Playbook".)
by Christian, do you mean people who belong to Christian churches, attend mass or whatever? Because I'm pretty sure that more than a few of them are into it out of habit, community participation etc as opposed to genuine belief God (certainly the Christian God).
Believing in the triune God is literally part of the definition of being Christian. Even if your faith is more out of habit than anything else, saying that you are nominally Christian means that you're on board with the idea of a God in three parts.
posted by NoxAeternum at 1:05 PM on April 6, 2020 [5 favorites]
Christian means that you're on board with the idea of a God in three parts
Mormons would disagree with you. They believe these are three distinct entities.
posted by Everyone Expects The Spanish Influenza at 1:14 PM on April 6, 2020 [2 favorites]
Mormons would disagree with you. They believe these are three distinct entities.
posted by Everyone Expects The Spanish Influenza at 1:14 PM on April 6, 2020 [2 favorites]
PMdixon: You're the one who said it wasn't true, you tell me what sense of true you were using.
I don't think I said that. I said it was interesting that the speaker said there could be a religious right but not religious left when overall the piece felt like a sermon on the left.
posted by bright flowers at 1:16 PM on April 6, 2020
I don't think I said that. I said it was interesting that the speaker said there could be a religious right but not religious left when overall the piece felt like a sermon on the left.
posted by bright flowers at 1:16 PM on April 6, 2020
next we go to gun control - and the final argument is "why should responsible gun owners be restricted for the crimes of those who commit mass shootings"? (perhaps some conservatives would say punished - but that's rhetoric and not a necessary part of the argument)
note that no real rebuttal has been made
That's the point of the entire video! That argument stems from a base assumption that actions can be simplified to a black and white punishment or reward. Of course, that specific argument isn't going to be refuted in the same way that the "WRONG! I have a 50/50 chance to make the basket" argument doesn't need to be specifically refuted. The assumptions that it rests on aren't accurate.
posted by fnerg at 1:18 PM on April 6, 2020 [4 favorites]
note that no real rebuttal has been made
That's the point of the entire video! That argument stems from a base assumption that actions can be simplified to a black and white punishment or reward. Of course, that specific argument isn't going to be refuted in the same way that the "WRONG! I have a 50/50 chance to make the basket" argument doesn't need to be specifically refuted. The assumptions that it rests on aren't accurate.
posted by fnerg at 1:18 PM on April 6, 2020 [4 favorites]
I understood I'm generally skeptical of any claim that some big group of people believes some specific thing. When it's a group I'm a member of, it's often not true, or not the whole story. to be applicable to the description of conservatives provided in the FPP. If I am incorrect, I apologize.
posted by PMdixon at 1:32 PM on April 6, 2020
posted by PMdixon at 1:32 PM on April 6, 2020
I'm not trying to words-lawyer this too much but my broad take is that the speaker is setting up "Guy from Payroll" as a straw conservative in the same way that a straw liberal might be described as someone who wants to take your money and give it to people who are too lazy to look for work. Like, that's maybe technically true, in a very limited sense, if you ignore a ton of context, but is only really useful as a jumping off point to get people mad and receptive to the rest of the speech. Arguing about whether that claim is actually true is wrestling with the pig and misses the broader context of the message's purpose.
posted by bright flowers at 1:55 PM on April 6, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by bright flowers at 1:55 PM on April 6, 2020 [2 favorites]
I'm not trying to words-lawyer this too much but my broad take is that the speaker is setting up "Guy from Payroll" as a straw conservative in the same way that a straw liberal might be described as someone who wants to take your money and give it to people who are too lazy to look for work.
Which is why Danskin gives actual real world examples of the arguments that Guy From Payroll uses - to show that yes, these are things that conservatives do, in fact, publicly argue. The reason why your straw liberal is a strawman is because there is no liberal arguing for that position - its a false position set up to avoid addressing the actual positions liberals hold. But when someone puts actual arguments promulgated by conservatives with significant positions in the conservative sphere into their rhetorical placeholder - that's not a strawman.
posted by NoxAeternum at 2:11 PM on April 6, 2020 [5 favorites]
Which is why Danskin gives actual real world examples of the arguments that Guy From Payroll uses - to show that yes, these are things that conservatives do, in fact, publicly argue. The reason why your straw liberal is a strawman is because there is no liberal arguing for that position - its a false position set up to avoid addressing the actual positions liberals hold. But when someone puts actual arguments promulgated by conservatives with significant positions in the conservative sphere into their rhetorical placeholder - that's not a strawman.
posted by NoxAeternum at 2:11 PM on April 6, 2020 [5 favorites]
straw liberal might be described as someone who wants to take your money and give it to people who are too lazy to look for work.
What? Liberals do argue for this all the time. I as a liberal am fine if someone breaks down my position to this. The finer points are "some money" and the number of people actually "too lazy to look for work" is pretty small, and that most people don't work for other reasons than laziness. Universal basic income requirements do not exclude the lazy.
posted by The_Vegetables at 2:21 PM on April 6, 2020 [6 favorites]
What? Liberals do argue for this all the time. I as a liberal am fine if someone breaks down my position to this. The finer points are "some money" and the number of people actually "too lazy to look for work" is pretty small, and that most people don't work for other reasons than laziness. Universal basic income requirements do not exclude the lazy.
posted by The_Vegetables at 2:21 PM on April 6, 2020 [6 favorites]
I would say that not addressing those points is a 'strawman' liberal position, as if the liberal assumption is that no one in the entire world is lazy or taking advantage of the system.
posted by The_Vegetables at 2:25 PM on April 6, 2020
posted by The_Vegetables at 2:25 PM on April 6, 2020
Mormons would disagree with you. They believe these are three distinct entities.
And then a hefty chunk of Christians would say that Mormons aren't really "Christians", shortly before turning and pointing at each other with the same sectarian division.
posted by FatherDagon at 2:32 PM on April 6, 2020 [2 favorites]
And then a hefty chunk of Christians would say that Mormons aren't really "Christians", shortly before turning and pointing at each other with the same sectarian division.
posted by FatherDagon at 2:32 PM on April 6, 2020 [2 favorites]
#emo-philips-joke.gif
posted by PMdixon at 4:02 PM on April 6, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by PMdixon at 4:02 PM on April 6, 2020 [2 favorites]
the innuendo studios vids in my opinion are not best used as philosophical teachings or grand theories about what *all* conservatives or even all Western reactionaries (in the post 2016 idiom) believe. rather, they are best seen as practical, applied rhetorical guides in how to oppose reactionary political tactics, and they are very accurate and well-researched as that. if anyone is hurt by the way the rightwing tactics being dissected there are portrayed, then they should ask themselves why these tactics are so prevalent among the right. all's fair in politics, at least the sort of politics the ascendant right wing is practicing and forcing us to rebuff.
posted by wibari at 12:04 AM on April 7, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by wibari at 12:04 AM on April 7, 2020 [3 favorites]
Oh, it's been a while since I've looked at his channel. Glad to see he is still making content. Now I have some catching up to do.
posted by MrBobaFett at 5:15 AM on April 9, 2020
posted by MrBobaFett at 5:15 AM on April 9, 2020
The_Vegetables: I don't think most liberal policies have the goal of creating a system for abuse or for funding the lazy. Sure there are lazy people and some of them will benefit from the programs, but that's a minor side-effect and the negatives are so small that it's not worth spending time trying to exclude them.
It's like, yes welfare fraud happens but at such low rates and the social benefits of welfare are good so there is no reason to try and complicate welfare programs to make it harder for both the legitimate recipients and the fraudsters.
posted by MrBobaFett at 5:21 AM on April 9, 2020
It's like, yes welfare fraud happens but at such low rates and the social benefits of welfare are good so there is no reason to try and complicate welfare programs to make it harder for both the legitimate recipients and the fraudsters.
posted by MrBobaFett at 5:21 AM on April 9, 2020
It's almost as if "anybody too lazy to get a job shouldn't get any benefits" is a black/white argument that "guy from payroll" would make because it ignores any systemic context!
posted by crashlanding at 1:37 PM on April 9, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by crashlanding at 1:37 PM on April 9, 2020 [2 favorites]
« Older Mom’s Bourbon Chocolate Cake | Monday morning cute Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Also: grumpybearbride mentioned hating Mondays today. That does not normally happen. Kismet?
posted by grumpybear69 at 7:23 AM on April 6, 2020 [1 favorite]