"There’s bigotry among any large group of people, since bigotry is an intersection of emotional reactivity and group generalizations that are somewhat necessary for our social interaction in a world of limited information."
I appreciate that you called this out because it's an unrealistic thing to expect the absence of.
An outstanding article, Mr. Mills! It needs to be read by every American wherever they sit on the political spectrum I myself am not a conservative. I am a Rockefeller Republican who is actually quite liberal on social issues. But I couldn’t agree with James more! The GOP have long been portrayed as bigots as have conservatives in general. Is it the case there are people who are legitimately racist, homophobic and transphobic within and there are extreme fringes of the Republican Party that are? Yes. But they don’t represent the vast majority of Republicans nor the party overall. To be sure, the right’s position on the issues is always misrepresented by the bias mainstream media. Republicans aren’t pro-life because they hate women, they’re pro-life because they want to protect the life of the fetus. Republicans aren’t for banning gender-affirming care for minors because they’re their transphobic but because the science behind it is dubious at best and because children can’t really consent to it and furthermore, it will cause irreversible damage to their bodies. Republicans support border security not out of racism towards black, brown and yellow people or fear of foreigners but because they don’t want our country to take on my immigration than it can handle. Many, many people of color, women, LGBT people, and Muslims support the GOP. I can’t think of a Republican President in modern times who hasn’t been called a racist. Never mind that Richard Nixon desegregated most southern schools and started the first affirmative action program, Gerald Ford was staunchly for civil rights and racial integration throughout his career, Ronald Reagan made MLK Day a national holiday, reauthorized the Voting Rights Act, expanded the Fair Housing Bill, and granted thousands of illegal immigrants amnesty. Not to mention the black middle class expanded under Reagan and black and Latino youth unemployment dropped significantly during his time in office. Bush, Sr. voted for the Fair Housing Bill as a congressman. As President, Bush signed the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Hate Crime Statistics Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1991, and appointed Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court and appointed Colin Powell as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, George W. Bush hired more women and minorities to work in his administration than any previous President, and Donald Trump signed the First Step Act, opened over 9,000 opportunity zones, achieved record low unemployment for blacks, Latinos, Asians, Native Americans, and disabled people, the Women’s Entrepreneurship Act, the Women, Peace, and Freedom Act, the Autism CARES Act, had a Jewish son-in-law working with him in the White House, and appointed Ben Carson as HUD Secretary and several gay men to office such as Richard Grenell who was his Director of National Intelligence. Furthermore, the Southern Strategy is a myth. The South went Republican for reasons entirely unrelated to racism.
If you can convince yourself that your opponents are morally deficient and that this deficiency lies at the ROOT of their opposition you can dismiss all of their claims and ideas prior to investigation. On many issues (most?) that is the operating strategy of the Right.
Works just as well, maybe better.
The assertions made in this piece seem to boil down to “the Left keeps pushing a radical agenda and the Right is simply giving reasonable pushback”. There is no mention of the radical right’s agenda, nor its recent successes with the assistance of a Christo-nationalist House Speaker and a theocratic SCOTUS majority.
Just because there are OTHER bad ideas out there which aren't addressed in this article, or conservatives are doing similar things, doesn't mean this article is incorrect or in bad faith. I'm not a conservative and this article isn't written as a defense of the GOP or conservatives. It's written as a criticism of a pervasive logical fallacy on the Left.
The fallacy isn't that they are labelling their opponents morally deficient or calling them racist or bigoted or whatever. You can find equivalencies on the Right (as I've written about). The fallacy is that these arguments crowd out almost ALL of the REAL arguments that conservatives often make, such that progressives will actually believe that bills in the legislature against males in women's sports or gender modification surgeries for minors are purely motivated by transphobia (to use one example). Most commentators and articles I encounter NEVER actually address the real arguments I encounter in conservative spaces for these pieces of legislation. Not only do I rarely encounter explicit transphobia on the Right-I rarely encounter an honest treatment of conservative positions on the left! Basically never. No proponent of the bills are ever quoted, no studies or facts are ever cited. The bills = transphobia. end of story.
Progressives are in a unique position to do this because they control most news outlets and cable television channels and magazines. Journalists at the main outlets in the U.S. appear to be voting for Harris at around a 9:1 ratio. I don't think I've ever encountered a pro-Trump story on CNN or a pro-Trump editorial in the WaPo of the NYT. It's not about what is right or correct. The reality is that these companies do not represent mainstream America in their attitudes or coverage.
That is why the converse CAN'T apply. NO ONE could avoid the arguments for green energy or police reform or the Ukraine war. There are certainly conservatives who use ad hominem attacks and assume bad intent on the part of the Left but they are not dominant in any sector of society. Are they? Give me one! The Left has majority control over universities, the legacy media, Hollywood, corporate culture, etc. whereas the ideas of the Right must usually be sought out. That assymetry means that logical fallacies on the Left are far more consequential. Even if the Right was doing what I identified (mischaracterizing their opponents by ignoring their real motivations to make debate easier) the issue would still be mostly a Progressive one... because they hold an inordinate share of cultural power.
To debate this give me:
(1) one sector of society with a large degree of influence on people's political or cultural debates which is mostly controlled by conservatives
(2) one story or issue where the real motivations and beliefs of the Left have been ignored by most commentators to make criticism easier for the Right
I can name dozens of examples of each and THAT is the problem I'm identifying. Can you?
Just for fun, find me a few popular articles or YouTube videos or news stories where the conservative arguments (on the issue of 'anti-LGTBQ' legislation) are honestly represented and addressed. There are probably thousands of potential candidates to choose from. I bet you can't find even 3. I'm curious though!
You are 100% correct and it is something I and other conservatives notice all the time. Liberal and progressive folk won't actually engage our arguments and (due to their near media and entertainment hegemony) aren't very aware of them.
While I would like to address all of your points one by one, I have a job and things that need to be done.
However, I will shoot one of the many fish in your barrel:
“NO ONE could avoid the arguments for green energy or police reform or the Ukraine war. There are certainly conservatives who use ad hominem attacks and assume bad intent on the part of the Left but they are not dominant in any sector of society. Are they? Give me one!”
There is a huge DOMINANT right wing media structure that does just that. Let me give you several:
Fox, OAN, NewsMax, RSBN, etc plus Elon’s Xitter, Rogan, Carlson, Alex Jones, ad nauseum
'Tim' (above) epitomises the smug sanctimony that is eroding the patience of ordinary liberals. I recognise all his arguments because I too used to use them. One has to climb out from under that rock to see the landscape as it is.
I would never deny the rightwing ecosphere's influence. That's irrelevant to my piece. They're not so influential that they can completely ignore the arguments of one half of the political spectrum while still influencing the major stakeholders of society. If they are (in one area or one one issue) I would love to hear about it.
Major stakeholders in society? What are you talking about?
Let me give you one example of influence. Let’s talk about Elon Musk. Here is a man who is both an influencer and a stakeholder. He advances misinformation all day long on his very influential platform, while completely ignoring 1/2 of the political spectrum’s arguments.
I take no issue with your thesis that reasonable thought leaders on the right don’t receive the attention they deserve. But this is primarily due to the fact that they are being drowned out by the lunatics, with the enthusiastic support of the right wing power structure. I rarely hear a good faith argument from the right on any major media, left or right.
Anyway, I’ve wasted far too much time on this silly little rabbit hole. Good luck with your campaign, whatever it is.
Major stakeholders in society: the well-educated, property-owning, rich and powerful people in the US. Bankers, doctors, lawyers, professors, directors, journalists. This group IS the power structure. It tends to be fairly progressive (it’s the third most supportive demographic bloc for Harris) and it tends to consume progressive media. For obvious reasons the attitudes of these people are more influential than those of cashiers and plumbers and they overwhelmingly consume Left-wing media. My essay wasn’t about the media exclusive of everything else and naming a bunch of influential conservatives wouldn’t even begin to address this point but THAT is what I mean by ‘major stakeholders’. This is a distinct and privileged class with common interests and outlook. On some level I think every American knows that, although they might sometimes pretend not to.
I said SECTOR of society... not company or 'ecosystem'. There are large (and quickly growing) Rightwing media companies but they still lack the larger cultural influence of the legacy media. The media is NOT controlled by the Right. It's just no longer completely controlled by the Left. Professors, bureaucrats, lawyers, (the power structure) are still tied-in viewpoint and viewing habits-to old media. This is changing increasingly quickly but it's changing from a status quo that I've already described and which you seem to have implicitly acknowledged.
Those media organization tend to recent because they sprang up to fill a market void-namely reporting and coverage which reflects America's ideological diversity (or, one under-represented part of it). Because of that they ENDLESSLY grapple with the arguments of the Left. They can't avoid it! It's practically their main function in many cases.
This isn't an argument about rightwing ideas or media. This is a claim about a pervasive trend ON THE LEFT of ignoring the real character of opponents and their arguments. As I said, the same thing surely happens on the Right but the Right doesn't control publishing or universities or streaming services (etc., etc....we'd be here all day-THESE are sectors of society/the economy). My death blow to your claim is the trans example. Coverage is actually improving but I still find that 90% of the articles and specials I read/see completely ignore the actual arguments of gender realists. If you don't believe that's happening go see for yourself. If you don't think that kind of pervasive misrepresentation is a problem then continue to consume those news stories which support and insulate you biases. It won't be that way forever. As you already noted, heterodox media is insurgent. Why do you think that is?
If you want to spend all day navel gazing about the media, have at it, my friend. I don’t see your concerns as being particularly worrisome.
The media is essentially irrelevant anymore. Everybody insulates themselves in their own bubbles
People of good faith go out and look for cogent arguments and actual verifiable facts. If the Right is failing to advance these, they either lack them, or they lack a viable information dissemination infrastructure. In today’s technological climate, there’s no excuse for that.
Nobody is stopping them just because CNN and MSNBC are woke.
Anyway, gotta go… Things to do. Good luck with this particular ax you’re grinding. I don’t really see the point
(2) one story or issue where the real motivations and beliefs of the Left have been ignored by most commentators to make criticism easier for the Right
You’re kidding with this, right? Let’s take abortion, for example. Who’s going around telling everybody in the country that Democrats are murdering babies at birth in the name of reproductive rights? Hint: it’s the most influential person on the right
Second example: gun control. An overwhelming majority of this country would like to see some common sense laws regarding firearms.
All I hear from the right is that the left wants to take your guns
Thus, I declare that your argument is not in good faith
I think you've missed my point altogether. MOST COMMENTATORS are not ignoring reproductive arguments by the Left. MOST COMMENTATORS are to the Left of the general public when it comes to arguments about gun control. MOST COMMENTATORS (most journalists, most professors, most writers, most bankers, most lawyers) are liberal or progressive. If you look at some of those professions you'll find 80-90% voting for Harris. These are the people ignoring liberal talking points?
You're saying that Rightwing media figures and politicians are making unfair and ad hominem attacks against their opponents. I agree. MY POINT IS THAT THIS IS HAPPENING ON THE LEFT.
The issue is that the Left wields enormously more cultural influence. All of the professional classes and institutions I've mentioned repeatedly now (to be met by 'Joe Rogan' or Tim Poole. Even if Joe Rogan WAS a conservative-which he is not-his reach barely equals the trillions of dollars and millions of graduates of our university system. And that's just getting started. This was never an essay about the media. I sense that you're just seizing onto those examples because there ARE notable rightwing media figures (not Rogan, but plenty more). Where are the conservatives agendas in corporate training though? Law schools? Federal agencies? Elite universities? Hollywood studios? Where are the conservative departments at the college level? There's easily a dozen leftwing ones. Forget media man. I will grant your point for the sake of argument (I actually couldn't tell you what the media breakdown is right now although, again, THE MEDIA CONSUMED BY WEALTHY AND POWERFUL PEOPLE IS OVERWHELMINGLY PROGRESSIVE. I have to put things in caps to have them addressed it seems). I'll grant it: The Left no longer dominates media. I'm not talking about the media specifically. I'm talking about ALL sense-making institutions and mediums of communication in our society.
The funny thing about a 'whataboutism' (example: sure, the Left might be mischaracterizing conservative ideas but the Right is doing it to the left too!) is that (1) it dodges the actual topic (2) it kind of concedes the point. This article was about THE MYTH OF THE BIGOTED REPUBLICAN. Are there other myths out there? Other fallacies? Other instances of mischaracterization made by many people, including conservatives? Sure. That doesn't invalidate my point, though.
Considering that these two sides are (in many ways) OPPOSED and considering that they have vastly asymmetric levels of cultural power (a point which you've barely begun to erode with mentions of FOX News) it makes sense that they would be focused on differently and separately.
My arguments are not 'in bad faith' (I don't think you know what that means) because they are all sincere and explicable (now explained) and not some backdoor effort to support conservatives. I'm not one of those. I am beginning to believe that you actually DON'T disagree with the central message, since most of your points amount to 'Right-wingers are doing it too!' Who gives a shit? Write an essay about it. If you allow that the Left often mischaracterizes their opponents and ignores their true arguments then we agree. If you don't why the hell haven't you said anything about that yet?
Sheesh bro. I’ll grant that your arguments might not be in bad faith. It might be that you just cling your inaccurate premises, if not demonstrably false assertions. E.g. most commentators are to the left of the public on gun control? It is to laugh.
If you think the power structure in this culture is overwhelmingly leftist, you are sadly mistaken
Let’s talk about the federalist Society that has pretty much captured our judicial system
Let’s talk about corporations who pay lip service to so-called “woke agendas “while their priority is to privatize profits, while socializing externalities.
Let’s talk about media and Hollywood which has the same financial agenda and doesn’t really give an F about what they’re saying as long as it keeps the money pouring in.
You sound like somebody who is just butt hurt over the culture wars.
And Joe Rogan is not conservative? I’ll grant you that he’s not very bright, but the ideas that he advances certainly seem to have a lot of appeal in conservative circles, especially among cryptobro and MMA types, to name merely a few toxic elements in his audience.
Gotta go. I’ve got no more time to shoot the fish.
I never said the Right is giving reasonable pushback. In many cases they are not. I think you missed the point. Intellectual honesty and consideration might be evenly distributed. Cultural influence is not.
"There’s bigotry among any large group of people, since bigotry is an intersection of emotional reactivity and group generalizations that are somewhat necessary for our social interaction in a world of limited information."
I appreciate that you called this out because it's an unrealistic thing to expect the absence of.
An outstanding article, Mr. Mills! It needs to be read by every American wherever they sit on the political spectrum I myself am not a conservative. I am a Rockefeller Republican who is actually quite liberal on social issues. But I couldn’t agree with James more! The GOP have long been portrayed as bigots as have conservatives in general. Is it the case there are people who are legitimately racist, homophobic and transphobic within and there are extreme fringes of the Republican Party that are? Yes. But they don’t represent the vast majority of Republicans nor the party overall. To be sure, the right’s position on the issues is always misrepresented by the bias mainstream media. Republicans aren’t pro-life because they hate women, they’re pro-life because they want to protect the life of the fetus. Republicans aren’t for banning gender-affirming care for minors because they’re their transphobic but because the science behind it is dubious at best and because children can’t really consent to it and furthermore, it will cause irreversible damage to their bodies. Republicans support border security not out of racism towards black, brown and yellow people or fear of foreigners but because they don’t want our country to take on my immigration than it can handle. Many, many people of color, women, LGBT people, and Muslims support the GOP. I can’t think of a Republican President in modern times who hasn’t been called a racist. Never mind that Richard Nixon desegregated most southern schools and started the first affirmative action program, Gerald Ford was staunchly for civil rights and racial integration throughout his career, Ronald Reagan made MLK Day a national holiday, reauthorized the Voting Rights Act, expanded the Fair Housing Bill, and granted thousands of illegal immigrants amnesty. Not to mention the black middle class expanded under Reagan and black and Latino youth unemployment dropped significantly during his time in office. Bush, Sr. voted for the Fair Housing Bill as a congressman. As President, Bush signed the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Hate Crime Statistics Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1991, and appointed Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court and appointed Colin Powell as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, George W. Bush hired more women and minorities to work in his administration than any previous President, and Donald Trump signed the First Step Act, opened over 9,000 opportunity zones, achieved record low unemployment for blacks, Latinos, Asians, Native Americans, and disabled people, the Women’s Entrepreneurship Act, the Women, Peace, and Freedom Act, the Autism CARES Act, had a Jewish son-in-law working with him in the White House, and appointed Ben Carson as HUD Secretary and several gay men to office such as Richard Grenell who was his Director of National Intelligence. Furthermore, the Southern Strategy is a myth. The South went Republican for reasons entirely unrelated to racism.
Try this out:
If you can convince yourself that your opponents are morally deficient and that this deficiency lies at the ROOT of their opposition you can dismiss all of their claims and ideas prior to investigation. On many issues (most?) that is the operating strategy of the Right.
Works just as well, maybe better.
The assertions made in this piece seem to boil down to “the Left keeps pushing a radical agenda and the Right is simply giving reasonable pushback”. There is no mention of the radical right’s agenda, nor its recent successes with the assistance of a Christo-nationalist House Speaker and a theocratic SCOTUS majority.
This entire argument is in bad faith.
Just because there are OTHER bad ideas out there which aren't addressed in this article, or conservatives are doing similar things, doesn't mean this article is incorrect or in bad faith. I'm not a conservative and this article isn't written as a defense of the GOP or conservatives. It's written as a criticism of a pervasive logical fallacy on the Left.
The fallacy isn't that they are labelling their opponents morally deficient or calling them racist or bigoted or whatever. You can find equivalencies on the Right (as I've written about). The fallacy is that these arguments crowd out almost ALL of the REAL arguments that conservatives often make, such that progressives will actually believe that bills in the legislature against males in women's sports or gender modification surgeries for minors are purely motivated by transphobia (to use one example). Most commentators and articles I encounter NEVER actually address the real arguments I encounter in conservative spaces for these pieces of legislation. Not only do I rarely encounter explicit transphobia on the Right-I rarely encounter an honest treatment of conservative positions on the left! Basically never. No proponent of the bills are ever quoted, no studies or facts are ever cited. The bills = transphobia. end of story.
Progressives are in a unique position to do this because they control most news outlets and cable television channels and magazines. Journalists at the main outlets in the U.S. appear to be voting for Harris at around a 9:1 ratio. I don't think I've ever encountered a pro-Trump story on CNN or a pro-Trump editorial in the WaPo of the NYT. It's not about what is right or correct. The reality is that these companies do not represent mainstream America in their attitudes or coverage.
That is why the converse CAN'T apply. NO ONE could avoid the arguments for green energy or police reform or the Ukraine war. There are certainly conservatives who use ad hominem attacks and assume bad intent on the part of the Left but they are not dominant in any sector of society. Are they? Give me one! The Left has majority control over universities, the legacy media, Hollywood, corporate culture, etc. whereas the ideas of the Right must usually be sought out. That assymetry means that logical fallacies on the Left are far more consequential. Even if the Right was doing what I identified (mischaracterizing their opponents by ignoring their real motivations to make debate easier) the issue would still be mostly a Progressive one... because they hold an inordinate share of cultural power.
To debate this give me:
(1) one sector of society with a large degree of influence on people's political or cultural debates which is mostly controlled by conservatives
(2) one story or issue where the real motivations and beliefs of the Left have been ignored by most commentators to make criticism easier for the Right
I can name dozens of examples of each and THAT is the problem I'm identifying. Can you?
Just for fun, find me a few popular articles or YouTube videos or news stories where the conservative arguments (on the issue of 'anti-LGTBQ' legislation) are honestly represented and addressed. There are probably thousands of potential candidates to choose from. I bet you can't find even 3. I'm curious though!
You are 100% correct and it is something I and other conservatives notice all the time. Liberal and progressive folk won't actually engage our arguments and (due to their near media and entertainment hegemony) aren't very aware of them.
While I would like to address all of your points one by one, I have a job and things that need to be done.
However, I will shoot one of the many fish in your barrel:
“NO ONE could avoid the arguments for green energy or police reform or the Ukraine war. There are certainly conservatives who use ad hominem attacks and assume bad intent on the part of the Left but they are not dominant in any sector of society. Are they? Give me one!”
There is a huge DOMINANT right wing media structure that does just that. Let me give you several:
Fox, OAN, NewsMax, RSBN, etc plus Elon’s Xitter, Rogan, Carlson, Alex Jones, ad nauseum
'Tim' (above) epitomises the smug sanctimony that is eroding the patience of ordinary liberals. I recognise all his arguments because I too used to use them. One has to climb out from under that rock to see the landscape as it is.
Jeezus, another insufferable MAGAt. It’s like playing Whack-A-Mole blocking you pests
To debate this give me:
(1) one sector of society with a large degree of influence on people's political or cultural debates which is mostly controlled by conservatives
Same deal. The right wing ecosphere is quite large and influential. To deny this is being either disingenuous or ignorant, willfully or otherwise.
I would never deny the rightwing ecosphere's influence. That's irrelevant to my piece. They're not so influential that they can completely ignore the arguments of one half of the political spectrum while still influencing the major stakeholders of society. If they are (in one area or one one issue) I would love to hear about it.
Dude, you’re killing me
Major stakeholders in society? What are you talking about?
Let me give you one example of influence. Let’s talk about Elon Musk. Here is a man who is both an influencer and a stakeholder. He advances misinformation all day long on his very influential platform, while completely ignoring 1/2 of the political spectrum’s arguments.
I take no issue with your thesis that reasonable thought leaders on the right don’t receive the attention they deserve. But this is primarily due to the fact that they are being drowned out by the lunatics, with the enthusiastic support of the right wing power structure. I rarely hear a good faith argument from the right on any major media, left or right.
Anyway, I’ve wasted far too much time on this silly little rabbit hole. Good luck with your campaign, whatever it is.
Major stakeholders in society: the well-educated, property-owning, rich and powerful people in the US. Bankers, doctors, lawyers, professors, directors, journalists. This group IS the power structure. It tends to be fairly progressive (it’s the third most supportive demographic bloc for Harris) and it tends to consume progressive media. For obvious reasons the attitudes of these people are more influential than those of cashiers and plumbers and they overwhelmingly consume Left-wing media. My essay wasn’t about the media exclusive of everything else and naming a bunch of influential conservatives wouldn’t even begin to address this point but THAT is what I mean by ‘major stakeholders’. This is a distinct and privileged class with common interests and outlook. On some level I think every American knows that, although they might sometimes pretend not to.
I noticed you ignored all of my dispositives...
I said SECTOR of society... not company or 'ecosystem'. There are large (and quickly growing) Rightwing media companies but they still lack the larger cultural influence of the legacy media. The media is NOT controlled by the Right. It's just no longer completely controlled by the Left. Professors, bureaucrats, lawyers, (the power structure) are still tied-in viewpoint and viewing habits-to old media. This is changing increasingly quickly but it's changing from a status quo that I've already described and which you seem to have implicitly acknowledged.
Those media organization tend to recent because they sprang up to fill a market void-namely reporting and coverage which reflects America's ideological diversity (or, one under-represented part of it). Because of that they ENDLESSLY grapple with the arguments of the Left. They can't avoid it! It's practically their main function in many cases.
This isn't an argument about rightwing ideas or media. This is a claim about a pervasive trend ON THE LEFT of ignoring the real character of opponents and their arguments. As I said, the same thing surely happens on the Right but the Right doesn't control publishing or universities or streaming services (etc., etc....we'd be here all day-THESE are sectors of society/the economy). My death blow to your claim is the trans example. Coverage is actually improving but I still find that 90% of the articles and specials I read/see completely ignore the actual arguments of gender realists. If you don't believe that's happening go see for yourself. If you don't think that kind of pervasive misrepresentation is a problem then continue to consume those news stories which support and insulate you biases. It won't be that way forever. As you already noted, heterodox media is insurgent. Why do you think that is?
If you want to spend all day navel gazing about the media, have at it, my friend. I don’t see your concerns as being particularly worrisome.
The media is essentially irrelevant anymore. Everybody insulates themselves in their own bubbles
People of good faith go out and look for cogent arguments and actual verifiable facts. If the Right is failing to advance these, they either lack them, or they lack a viable information dissemination infrastructure. In today’s technological climate, there’s no excuse for that.
Nobody is stopping them just because CNN and MSNBC are woke.
Anyway, gotta go… Things to do. Good luck with this particular ax you’re grinding. I don’t really see the point
(2) one story or issue where the real motivations and beliefs of the Left have been ignored by most commentators to make criticism easier for the Right
You’re kidding with this, right? Let’s take abortion, for example. Who’s going around telling everybody in the country that Democrats are murdering babies at birth in the name of reproductive rights? Hint: it’s the most influential person on the right
Second example: gun control. An overwhelming majority of this country would like to see some common sense laws regarding firearms.
All I hear from the right is that the left wants to take your guns
Thus, I declare that your argument is not in good faith
I think you've missed my point altogether. MOST COMMENTATORS are not ignoring reproductive arguments by the Left. MOST COMMENTATORS are to the Left of the general public when it comes to arguments about gun control. MOST COMMENTATORS (most journalists, most professors, most writers, most bankers, most lawyers) are liberal or progressive. If you look at some of those professions you'll find 80-90% voting for Harris. These are the people ignoring liberal talking points?
You're saying that Rightwing media figures and politicians are making unfair and ad hominem attacks against their opponents. I agree. MY POINT IS THAT THIS IS HAPPENING ON THE LEFT.
The issue is that the Left wields enormously more cultural influence. All of the professional classes and institutions I've mentioned repeatedly now (to be met by 'Joe Rogan' or Tim Poole. Even if Joe Rogan WAS a conservative-which he is not-his reach barely equals the trillions of dollars and millions of graduates of our university system. And that's just getting started. This was never an essay about the media. I sense that you're just seizing onto those examples because there ARE notable rightwing media figures (not Rogan, but plenty more). Where are the conservatives agendas in corporate training though? Law schools? Federal agencies? Elite universities? Hollywood studios? Where are the conservative departments at the college level? There's easily a dozen leftwing ones. Forget media man. I will grant your point for the sake of argument (I actually couldn't tell you what the media breakdown is right now although, again, THE MEDIA CONSUMED BY WEALTHY AND POWERFUL PEOPLE IS OVERWHELMINGLY PROGRESSIVE. I have to put things in caps to have them addressed it seems). I'll grant it: The Left no longer dominates media. I'm not talking about the media specifically. I'm talking about ALL sense-making institutions and mediums of communication in our society.
The funny thing about a 'whataboutism' (example: sure, the Left might be mischaracterizing conservative ideas but the Right is doing it to the left too!) is that (1) it dodges the actual topic (2) it kind of concedes the point. This article was about THE MYTH OF THE BIGOTED REPUBLICAN. Are there other myths out there? Other fallacies? Other instances of mischaracterization made by many people, including conservatives? Sure. That doesn't invalidate my point, though.
Considering that these two sides are (in many ways) OPPOSED and considering that they have vastly asymmetric levels of cultural power (a point which you've barely begun to erode with mentions of FOX News) it makes sense that they would be focused on differently and separately.
My arguments are not 'in bad faith' (I don't think you know what that means) because they are all sincere and explicable (now explained) and not some backdoor effort to support conservatives. I'm not one of those. I am beginning to believe that you actually DON'T disagree with the central message, since most of your points amount to 'Right-wingers are doing it too!' Who gives a shit? Write an essay about it. If you allow that the Left often mischaracterizes their opponents and ignores their true arguments then we agree. If you don't why the hell haven't you said anything about that yet?
Sheesh bro. I’ll grant that your arguments might not be in bad faith. It might be that you just cling your inaccurate premises, if not demonstrably false assertions. E.g. most commentators are to the left of the public on gun control? It is to laugh.
If you think the power structure in this culture is overwhelmingly leftist, you are sadly mistaken
Let’s talk about the federalist Society that has pretty much captured our judicial system
Let’s talk about corporations who pay lip service to so-called “woke agendas “while their priority is to privatize profits, while socializing externalities.
Let’s talk about media and Hollywood which has the same financial agenda and doesn’t really give an F about what they’re saying as long as it keeps the money pouring in.
You sound like somebody who is just butt hurt over the culture wars.
And Joe Rogan is not conservative? I’ll grant you that he’s not very bright, but the ideas that he advances certainly seem to have a lot of appeal in conservative circles, especially among cryptobro and MMA types, to name merely a few toxic elements in his audience.
Gotta go. I’ve got no more time to shoot the fish.
I never said the Right is giving reasonable pushback. In many cases they are not. I think you missed the point. Intellectual honesty and consideration might be evenly distributed. Cultural influence is not.
https://jmpolemic.substack.com/p/our-flailing-elites?r=1neg52