Greg Ellis reads The Psychology of Progressive Hostility, Matthew Blackwell’s essay about why progressives are more hostile than conservatives when their beliefs are challenged. It was published in Quillette on 10th March 2018.
Published on May 23, 2019
The Psychology of Progressive Hostility by Matthew Blackwell
Matthew Blackwell is correct about progressive reactions to criticism of progressive beliefs. To the progressive mind these beliefs are true almost by definition and therefore not to be questioned. There is clearly no need to defend them by argument. That conservatives criticize them is simply an illustration of their ignorance of the proper use language. Ignorant speakers obviously do not deserve a platform and just as clearly must be shutdown.
Is there a way of getting these narrated articles as a podcast feed? I have the Quillette podcast as a podcast feed, but cannod find a feed URL for these.
(And these are great, btw.)
Whilst he speaks a lot of truth about the far left SJW tendency and their unwillingness to consider views outside their bubble, the potrayal of conservatives as reasonable open minded people is almost comical. We’re talking about a political movement that spent 8 years attacking a moderate centrist as a ‘socialist’, and on any number of issues over the decades from divorce to gay rights to advancing gender equality to taking climate change seriously, have routinely portrayed reforms to address injustices or alter policies no matter how moderate in apocalyptic terms as attempts to bring down civilisation an usher communism.
I have no doubt there are many conservatives for whom that isn’t true, just as there remain many on the left who pride themselves on being open minded, but Ben Shapiro’s laughable attack on a (quite clearly on the centre right) BBC journalist for doing his job should stop anyone reasonable think that myopic tribalism is just a problem for the left.
Hey everyone, I just found the SJW!
“We’re talking about a political movement that spent 8 years attacking a moderate centrist as a ‘socialist’, and on any number of issues over the decades from divorce to gay rights to advancing gender equality to taking climate change seriously, have routinely portrayed reforms to address injustices or alter policies no matter how moderate in apocalyptic terms as attempts to bring down civilisation an usher communism.”
I’m curious, by what measure would President Obama be considered a ‘moderate centrist’? According to most online tools I fall within a single deviation of center (whether left or right varies) and Obama’s preferred policies were significantly left of mine. The Obamacare mandate in particular was a severe stretch of constitutional authority in the attempt to “socialise” the cost of health insurance, with an attendant government-run restructuring of a large portion of our economy. Socialism may indeed be a spectrum, but that was certainly a shift significantly leftward of capitalism.
“No fault” divorce has created a toxic culture of economically stressed single mothers and dad-deprived children, so it’s certainly failed to live up to claims of benefiting either. “Gay rights” has, as predicted, swiftly gone from “live and let live” / “who I screw has nothing to do with you” to public boycotts and protracted legal battles targeting Christians and their businesses. “Advancing gender equality”? Of opportunity, or of outcomes? American “progressives” seem to be rather upset that the more egalitarian a society becomes, the greater the biological differences in interests expresses itself. I. E. Women will never be 50% represented in tech any more than men will be 50% represented in nursing, there are simply more women who enjoy helping people and more men who enjoy tinkering with things and any attempt to force such percentages would require coercing people of both genders into fields that they find less satisfaction in. Quillette.com has many fine articles on the science underlying that topic.
“Taking climate change seriously “. Oh, we do. We have seriously examined the “evidence” and found it seriously wanting. Alarmism on that topic can be filled on the same stack as “the impending ice age”, acid rain, holes in the ozone, “the population bomb”, peak oil, and “the coming water wars”. I find it amusing that it’s the secularists making most of the doomsday prophecies these days, but I note that remarkably few of these same doomsayers have sold their beachfront property and moved inland yet.
“reforms to address injustices” Isn’t it funny how no matter what policy change is being pushed, its advocates call it “reform”? That term must focus test well. Bluntly, in those cases where injustice has been demonstrated to the persuasion of a sufficient majority, those measures pass. Where no such sufficiently persuasive case has been made that an injustice actually exists, it hasn’t. So AFAICT, conservatives HAVE supported needed Reforms when they were warranted and opposed them when they weren’t.
“alter policies no matter how moderate” That’s another term that must focus test well, “moderate”. I do not think it means what you think it means. That’s what pretty much all the previous policies underlying the current status quo were called when they passed too, “moderate”. So, by definition, the people “conserving” those policies from further change MUST be “moderates”, mustn’t they, and the people trying to change them CANNOT be “moderates”, now can they? After all, you’re all not trying to move them toward the center, you’re all trying to move them AWAY from the “bipartisan” center. Should a bad idea that ought be rejected in its entirety be accepted instead merely because the other side offers to implement it incrementally? You can pull up the research yourself, Republicans haven’t been moving much in their positions for quite a while, it’s the democrats who have drastically shifted far left away from the moderates. At this point, that I can post Obama quotes and get called “far right” over it isn’t proof that he was ever a moderate, but merely that your entire Overton window has left-shifted so far and fast that even much of the center-Left aren’t in it anymore (hence the rise of the IDW). Bill Clinton was the last Democrat President to actually govern as a moderate and much of his policies are now to the right of Donald Trump’s, so quite frankly it’s the leftists who need to get out of the way of “moderate reforms” moving policy rightwards, which is to say back toward the center.
“Gay rights” has, as predicted, swiftly gone from “live and let live” / “who I screw has nothing to do with you” to public boycotts and protracted legal battles targeting Christians and their businesses.“
I completely agree that the harassment and targeting of that Christian bakery was unjustified and obnoxious but I fail to see why my fiancé and I should not be allowed to get married because people, who are not me, are assholes. My right to marry my partner of 10 years is just as valid as a Christian’s right to not attend the wedding. We can oppose the ridiculous harassment campaigns of LGBT activists together, but not if you decide to arbitrarily lump me and people like me into the same category as extremist activists and use that to justify destroying my marriage. Why punish me for the actions of others? I would never punish you for the actions of bad Christians.
Do you live in the United States?? If so, I believe you DO have the right to marry your fiancé. You should not, however, have the right to ruin someone for refusing to bake your wedding cake.
Well stated.
“….I fail to see why my fiancé and I should not be allowed to get married because people, who are not me, are assholes.”
Ad hominem comments are a reflection of the user.