Recently Steven Crowder (who has lately come into controversy for many reasons) made fun of Mattel for releasing a Down syndrome Barbie. This, he seemed to think, was wokeness. Many of his own followers were not convinced. They argued that a Down Syndrome Barbie might reduce the likelihood of fetuses with Down syndrome being aborted. Children with Down syndrome might be comforted by playing with this doll. For them, making this doll wasn’t wokeness, it was compassion.
I'm pretty sure this is not the first time I'm posting here to tell you I find your preoccupation with conservatives weirdly selective - you'll find the exact same sort of Andrews and Cedrics among "progressives".
But this time, it's especially relevant, because the universal character of the [elite asshole] / [myopic but fundamentally decent commoner] divide is exactly what makes inter-tribal conversion so hard. I mean, in principle, you're entirely correct about how political persuasion should be done. In practice, conservative Cedrics don't align with conservative Andrews because they haven't been persuaded about the superiority of progressive policies. (They in fact often support those policies if given a chance in a direct vote.) They align with conservative Andrews because the alternative is progressive Andrews, and progressive Andrews aren't really trying to hide their hatred for conservative Cedrics, arguably they cannot hide it, because demonizing conservative Cedrics is their go-to trick to keep progressive Cedrics aligned with themselves. A left that stands a chance of reaching Cedrics will first have to cleave the current "left" in two and credibly distance itself from its Andrews.
Interesting, so if I read this right, would talking to Cedrics about a "return to normalcy" be the right tactic? "The U.S. was just fine before Roe v. Wade was overturned, don't know why we have to keep rocking the boat" or something like that.
As much as I hate it, yes. The "adults back in the room" rhetoric worked wonders on suburban voters for this very reason.
They want a president that *feels* presidential, speaks calmly, does not say anything unbecoming on pussy-grabbing, can sugarcoat cruelty and sociopathy and be oh-so-contrite about the ugly necessities of the moment etc.
Huh. It's been almost 30 years since I read The Bell Curve, but didn't they conclude that Asians - ~60% of the world population - are generally smarter than whites? That seems like an uncomfortable platform for, ah, white supremacy.
Alas, no. The data about Jewish achievements didn't do much to stop the Nazis either. If they can convince themselves that they're superior to everyone else *except that one group whom they already see as a pernicious foreign enemy*, that just gives them a dragon to fight. They don't need to view Asians as intellectually inferior, because they can instead twist their supposed genetic 'superiority' into framing them as, essentially, scary aliens who put their weird unnatural intelligence to inscrutable amoral purposes (which probably involve stealing our jobs and women, natch).
I believe you might have a good point. It is not just humans, but all species, that need a certain degree of stability. So there is always a striving that tomorrow will not be the same as today, but at the same time not change startling to the point of creating confusion or instability.
Contrast that conservative thought (essentially, or traditionally) want to make tomorrow the same as yesterday, but in doing so they often increase the existing instability by trying to disallow, or slow down change. (That's not necessarily true, but is essentially the book concept of conservatism to maintain stability by the status quo), where on the other hand, liberalism essentially seeks to address the causes of today's instability--many that you mention, homelessness, etc) but again this creates instability in the existing stability of those who feel more stable today and are not seeking tomorrow to be that much different. Both want to address the current instability and the question of how to do it creates a conflict that creates an unstable consequence. So the question becomes how to reach a more stable community without creating a new instability within the community.
And you might have presented some interesting positions that might address how to reach those who fear the instability currently being felt but are uncertain between the options of liberal and conservation. The next question might be, and you are on a pathway to seek the answer in many ways to both the necessary need for stability and the changes that occur that destabilize that is neither liberal, nor conservative? Is there a way to eliminate conflict without increasing conflict?
I used to talk to what was maybe--back in the day --Cedric /Andrew hybrids. Mostly because I would run across people saying awful things & I would wonder if they really meant those things...I don't think these are very stable categories even if there are a bunch if sociopathic thought leaders & that is a stable personality type...I was surprised to see how Cedrics get radicalized...Maybe it is a calculation about how they know for SURE that if the Andrews take over everything will be fine for them but if we continue with normal moral decency they might not come out a winner--and it's too hard to figure out what the endgame is (it's actually as good or better for a lot of Cedrics but the reasons are complicated because they don't see how Andrews are working for a very small faction) --They trust the Andrews but won't trust anyone different from themselves. This actually means you are correct in the long run because making things better through unions,,etc. is one way to break the spell of the Andrews but it's a very long and difficult project and there's a lot working against it. Anyway, I will always talk to people because as freaked out as Andrews make me it doesn't really leech over into my views about any specific individual I encounter...but you don't generally reach people so easily because people's minds have a lot of levels. The way people become deradicalized is pretty mysterious too but it definitely happens, and people tend to be a lot happier if they're Cedrics because it's cognitively easier to wish everyone well and not be afraid of the scary other all the time.
Wokeness is excess compassion (keyword: excess) which leads to entitlement, and to activism that denies in many cases physical reality (although I guess all sorts of activism share that to some degree). The Down Barbie is not excessive nor reality defying.
I guess what I'm trying to add is that not all Andrews will behave like your example.
Although your tips are spot on to talk to anybody about anything, not just to Cedrics about convert them to the left.
"I can’t vouch for its accuracy, but if it is accurate, I suspect a lot of people in the upper left quadrant- economically a bit to the ‘left’, socially to the right, are Cedrics ."
You should look at xeno's reinterpretation of the chart:
I also wonder what you think about my anti-wokeness policy list piece -since I have converted to Christianity, I think it is a bit too extreme, but it is, I think, typical of flatback Schmittian democrats.
> Cedric looks around the world and things seem scary to him. Unlike Cedric he doesn’t see all of this stuff as an eternal struggle
Typo, second "Cedric" should be "Andrew".
I'm pretty sure this is not the first time I'm posting here to tell you I find your preoccupation with conservatives weirdly selective - you'll find the exact same sort of Andrews and Cedrics among "progressives".
But this time, it's especially relevant, because the universal character of the [elite asshole] / [myopic but fundamentally decent commoner] divide is exactly what makes inter-tribal conversion so hard. I mean, in principle, you're entirely correct about how political persuasion should be done. In practice, conservative Cedrics don't align with conservative Andrews because they haven't been persuaded about the superiority of progressive policies. (They in fact often support those policies if given a chance in a direct vote.) They align with conservative Andrews because the alternative is progressive Andrews, and progressive Andrews aren't really trying to hide their hatred for conservative Cedrics, arguably they cannot hide it, because demonizing conservative Cedrics is their go-to trick to keep progressive Cedrics aligned with themselves. A left that stands a chance of reaching Cedrics will first have to cleave the current "left" in two and credibly distance itself from its Andrews.
Interesting, so if I read this right, would talking to Cedrics about a "return to normalcy" be the right tactic? "The U.S. was just fine before Roe v. Wade was overturned, don't know why we have to keep rocking the boat" or something like that.
As much as I hate it, yes. The "adults back in the room" rhetoric worked wonders on suburban voters for this very reason.
They want a president that *feels* presidential, speaks calmly, does not say anything unbecoming on pussy-grabbing, can sugarcoat cruelty and sociopathy and be oh-so-contrite about the ugly necessities of the moment etc.
Huh. It's been almost 30 years since I read The Bell Curve, but didn't they conclude that Asians - ~60% of the world population - are generally smarter than whites? That seems like an uncomfortable platform for, ah, white supremacy.
Alas, no. The data about Jewish achievements didn't do much to stop the Nazis either. If they can convince themselves that they're superior to everyone else *except that one group whom they already see as a pernicious foreign enemy*, that just gives them a dragon to fight. They don't need to view Asians as intellectually inferior, because they can instead twist their supposed genetic 'superiority' into framing them as, essentially, scary aliens who put their weird unnatural intelligence to inscrutable amoral purposes (which probably involve stealing our jobs and women, natch).
Well, yeah; that's what intelligence is *for*.
I believe you might have a good point. It is not just humans, but all species, that need a certain degree of stability. So there is always a striving that tomorrow will not be the same as today, but at the same time not change startling to the point of creating confusion or instability.
Contrast that conservative thought (essentially, or traditionally) want to make tomorrow the same as yesterday, but in doing so they often increase the existing instability by trying to disallow, or slow down change. (That's not necessarily true, but is essentially the book concept of conservatism to maintain stability by the status quo), where on the other hand, liberalism essentially seeks to address the causes of today's instability--many that you mention, homelessness, etc) but again this creates instability in the existing stability of those who feel more stable today and are not seeking tomorrow to be that much different. Both want to address the current instability and the question of how to do it creates a conflict that creates an unstable consequence. So the question becomes how to reach a more stable community without creating a new instability within the community.
And you might have presented some interesting positions that might address how to reach those who fear the instability currently being felt but are uncertain between the options of liberal and conservation. The next question might be, and you are on a pathway to seek the answer in many ways to both the necessary need for stability and the changes that occur that destabilize that is neither liberal, nor conservative? Is there a way to eliminate conflict without increasing conflict?
> The second thing is class structure. Andrew may very well identify with being a worker- with doing good honest work for society.
I wonder if this is a typo. The paragraph seems to read more sensibly if you swap "Cedric" for "Andrew".
I used to talk to what was maybe--back in the day --Cedric /Andrew hybrids. Mostly because I would run across people saying awful things & I would wonder if they really meant those things...I don't think these are very stable categories even if there are a bunch if sociopathic thought leaders & that is a stable personality type...I was surprised to see how Cedrics get radicalized...Maybe it is a calculation about how they know for SURE that if the Andrews take over everything will be fine for them but if we continue with normal moral decency they might not come out a winner--and it's too hard to figure out what the endgame is (it's actually as good or better for a lot of Cedrics but the reasons are complicated because they don't see how Andrews are working for a very small faction) --They trust the Andrews but won't trust anyone different from themselves. This actually means you are correct in the long run because making things better through unions,,etc. is one way to break the spell of the Andrews but it's a very long and difficult project and there's a lot working against it. Anyway, I will always talk to people because as freaked out as Andrews make me it doesn't really leech over into my views about any specific individual I encounter...but you don't generally reach people so easily because people's minds have a lot of levels. The way people become deradicalized is pretty mysterious too but it definitely happens, and people tend to be a lot happier if they're Cedrics because it's cognitively easier to wish everyone well and not be afraid of the scary other all the time.
Wokeness is excess compassion (keyword: excess) which leads to entitlement, and to activism that denies in many cases physical reality (although I guess all sorts of activism share that to some degree). The Down Barbie is not excessive nor reality defying.
I guess what I'm trying to add is that not all Andrews will behave like your example.
Although your tips are spot on to talk to anybody about anything, not just to Cedrics about convert them to the left.
"I can’t vouch for its accuracy, but if it is accurate, I suspect a lot of people in the upper left quadrant- economically a bit to the ‘left’, socially to the right, are Cedrics ."
You should look at xeno's reinterpretation of the chart:
https://medium.com/@xenocryptsite/revisiting-the-famous-2016-economic-views-vs-social-views-scatterplot-55016c1b8888
My quiz (which has a foreign policy score) is pretty good:
https://enopoletus.github.io/quiz/
I also wonder what you think about my anti-wokeness policy list piece -since I have converted to Christianity, I think it is a bit too extreme, but it is, I think, typical of flatback Schmittian democrats.
https://eharding.substack.com/p/so-you-want-to-fight-wokeness
I still stand by my "mystery of American power" article:
https://eharding.substack.com/p/the-mystery-of-american-power