Zarm wrote:Not only do we not discuss issues anymore, preferring to shut down or even threaten opposing viewpoints into silence, but in most issues, one side has just sort of claimed moral high ground status, and a frightening number of business-owners and public policies go along with enforcing it, choking off debate and making any discussion nigh0impossible for fear of the stick that the prevailing side wields to silence dissent.
And again, I'd say that this has always been true, not least of all the "one side has... claimed moral high ground status" aspect. I mean, Jerry Falwell literally named his organization "The Moral Majority."
True- but I don't think the majority of businesses and public-policy-makers just rolled with it because he did so. That's what I feel like has changed in this last decade or two; people made the claims all the time. But now, people make the claims and, without question, some invisible cultural force declares them the instant winner for simply making the claim, and begins to enforce that victory with censure and threat and accusations of bigotry/ignorance/malfeasance/unpatriotism that have become the new baseline.
Basically, the claimants used to have the burden of proof that their moral high ground was actually morally and logically correct. Nowadays, it feels like the claim is considered the proof, and the burden of proof suddenly shifts to any dissenters. (Heck, I think it's the feeling of that exact phenomenon during the majority of the last decade, and resentful backlash against it, that put Donald Trump in the White House).Added in 5 minutes 55 seconds:
Zarm wrote:I don't think that's entirely accurate, though; because 'hateful people' are defined, via circular logic, as those with differing opinions. 'You can't disagree about X without being hateful' is reframed as 'Supporting hateful people is functionally equivalent to being hateful,' but 'hateful people' are still 'those who disagree about X.'
I disagree about the mechanism behind what we both agree is a problem. The starting point here is, "These specific officials support policies that hurt people." The unfortunate tendency is then to lump together an entire platform, to say, "Anyone who gets behind these people, and therefore any who gets behind anyone associated with these people, is hateful." But it doesn't begin
with demonizing disagreement itself.
But I don't think we're gonna get on the same page on this one.
I think we're talking about two different things, in that case. (I think we're both trying to be vague enough to avoid a real-world political argument erupting, and in this case, that vagueness is working against us). I'm not talking about any particular officials, but more a general 'I treat anyone who has a different view as hateful because any differing view is hateful. If you argue with me or hold a different view, it can only be born of hatred.' A sort of assumption of bad faith combined with an automatic assumption that any differing viewpoint can only come from a place of hatred. (That, and its sibling-phenomenon seen heaviest on college campuses, where the very having of a differing opinion from the majority is treated as an act of hatred that must not get a chance to speak, much less make a case for its POV).
I think what you're talking about is more along the line of 'All Person-Y supporters are fanatics and bigots!' and 'Anyone takign person-Y's side in this debate could only be doing so because of their agenda'-style bad-faith politics in Washington?