HonoriaWinchester
No bio...
User ID: 3468
HonoriaWinchester
8hr ago
My parents were/are liberals/progressives. I was raised that the most important part of that was freedom of speech; that "We on the left do not blacklist" (the implication behind that statement, the specter of McCarthyism, was felt to go without saying).
OTOH, my grandparents were Rockefeller Republicans who referred to FDR as "that man in the White House."
As for me, I "turned FDR's picture to the wall" in 2016, and I was literally (for the literal meaning of literally) shaking when I did so. (Suggested that vote to my husband too, but who knows if he did it of course, ballots are and should remain secret.)
So hey I followed my family's tradition of switching "sides" I guess? :D
But also: You can see why.
In my (sub)culture, "the culture of freedom of speech" includes the idea that it's every citizen's right and duty to express their sincere opinion so that the marketplace of ideas can include it. "We" (as a society and polity) can't do our best if we aren't aware of all possible perspectives and ideas! (So I agree with the OP there, and I'm glad to see yo uinspired by the same sentiment.) Similarly, in my subculture it's every citizen's right and duty to improve on ("steelman") ideas they find in said marketplace, if they see ways to do so. It's also every citizen's right and duty to meet argument with argument rather than silencing tactic, because if you allow silencing tactics (or other "debaters' tricks" for that matter) then the marketplace of ideas no longer selects for truth. After all, in "the culture of freedom of speech" (inherited from the British Parliament, after all), the point of freedom of speech is to have an effective marketplace of ideas to guide the government. It's just that in the USA the government is [supposed to be] the people (rather than the monarch).
But also I react to the OP with, "Where have you been? It's already expensive to dangerous." I was first defenestrated 15 years ago (in what in retrospect was an aftershock of Racefail '09). Lost my online home, had people threatening to track me down and physically attack me, no one did and I can never know if my opsec was good enough or if they just didn't try very hard...that time. More recently, people have been arrested for defending their homes from riots. (The process should not be the punishment, but these days, it is.)
But also
I am asking you ("you" as in "people like Nelson"; you, Hoffmeister, may not be included) to make a serious commitment to put these disagreements to one side if you're really serious about wanting to end the cancel-mobs more urgently than you want to defeat progressivism at the object-level.
Well, now I have offspring. And many of both my family and my in-laws tend toward the "socially awkward nerd" type. So any daughter of ours would seem to have especial vulnerability to ROGD, based on how those who seem to have experienced it tend to describe it. A relative of mine married someone whose kids from their first marriage included a natal female who seems to have fit the ROGD profile and who no longer speaks with them. Another relative seemed to flirt with ROGD for a while before returning to a more liberal-feminist, "Why are there so few girls in [insert one of her interests here]?" perspective. (Must ask her parents how they did it! :/) And another married someone who later appeared to fit the AGP profile (complete with military background), and who, when their wife died, transitioned and abandoned their minor children. (I came along on a visit to them once. They spent most of the visit droning on about their many different guns.) So yeah right now actually...well, it's something I'd have to think about.
Still, I don't expect to ever give up my culturally ingrained support for freedom of speech, so I'm happy to make common cause with whoever else supports freedom of speech, regardless of our object-level political positions. Hi there comrade! :)
But I wonder about the viability of this movement. I mean, that's what "we" used to be. "We" got defeated by "the woke movement" so...how will "Reform Progressivism" be different?
HonoriaWinchester
9hr ago
The only one that could plausibly contradict what I said is "political correctness", maybe was used self-descriptively back in 90's, but that was before my time.
Yes, I remember it being used as a self-deprecating joke by liberals like my parents in the '80s and '90s. I think it was used seriously among Maoists before that. The joke form carried the message "Of course we're not so illiberal as the old Maoists who would've used this sincerely."
I had written this:
@ArjinFerman said
"Social Justice" may have been the self a descriptive term that progressives used, but "Social Justice Warrior" was always derisive.
Yes, but it used to be within-group derisive, meaning "cares more about their image than about social justice [and it's assumed we all agree it should be the other way around]."
In my memory it was around Gamergate that the pro-social justice quit using it that way (because Gamergaters were).
but hadn't yet posted it and more comments came in.
The Doonesbury use isn't purely positive, it's the (what I would call) "traditional meaning" (that I described above). Your link is to a compilation introduction which mentions "Rev. Scot Sloan, social justice warrior." Here's Scot Sloan:
"Reverend Scot Sloan's the name. Perhaps you read about me in 'Look' [Magazine]. I'm the fighting young priest who can talk to the young."
Guy introduces himself with his press clippings. He cares more about his image than actual social justice. That's (the old meaning I remember for) an SJW.
You're making me nostalgic for my childhood here. :/ In the '80s liberal bubble I grew up in, people like that were seen as "obviously grifting or at least on an ego trip" but treated with amused tolerance, "hey they are officially on our side"--see also the portrayal of Richard Henry Lee in 1776. My dad similarly always referenced Jesse Jackson in that way, with amused tolerance (and in Jackson's case even affection). Still, it's not something you'd really set out to be; an SJW in that subculture was a figure of fun, not someone respected. Another example would be Gilderoy Lockhart.
HonoriaWinchester
13d ago
Do not delay normal developmental milestones, even if you think there's a good reason for it. If you are homeschooling a boy, he needs to be working for a non-family member and in sports the whole time(girls can usually handle most of the things these accomplish for themselves if allowed to).
I wasn't even homeschooled and I arguably couldn't despite being a girl, so... (I would argue this was because I already had CPTSD from my school experience, but that's just like my opinion man.)
I agree with Throwaway05 that it's hard and getting harder. I'm homeschooling nevertheless. So I'd be interested to hear more about this. What do you mean by "normal developmental milestones"? What would you expect a girl to want to be allowed to do that would handle this? Imagining a girl who couldn't necessarily handle this on her own, what should be done for her? (The same things? What sports? Or...?)
HonoriaWinchester
13d ago
Elementary math curriculum: Math with Confidence. Inexpensive (just buy the teacher's guide and workbook, most other needed items can be scrounged from around the house), less busywork than usual, test students got high achievement test scores, can be game-like in a fun way. Not as game-like as Beast Academy (my family has a "that's so game-like we can't take it seriously or spend much time on it" reaction to Beast Academy, but others enjoy it--so that's another option).
Youtube (early elementary): Numberblocks. Doctor John. Brain Candy TV. SciShow Kids.
Good luck!
Well...they are part of a culture which, as Freddie de Boer has pointed out, assumes that the right answer is obvious (see point 6) and that the majority already agrees with them (here I'm thinking of his old "We Are All Already Decided" from https://fredrikdeboer.com/2014/04/29/bingo-cards-go-both-ways/ ...which has been deleted and excluded from archive.org BUT I HAVE THE LINK GUYS :D). ISTM even just the first assumption ("the right answer is obvious") would lead its adherents to assume that most people of course agree with them, that there's no way very many people could actually disagree, that the few who do disagree are so evil as to be incomprehensible--so why bother to try?--and so small in number as to be safely ignored. (And can be dismissed as "a basket of deplorables." I mean. I'm a deplorable myself but I do wince in sympathetic understanding of the thought process that led her to that statement.)
But also I'd point out that "weak in theory of mind" is traditionally a core symptom of specifically autism, not "generally lacking neurological development."
"External locus of control as a[nother] possible cause of weak theory of mind"? Not something I've heard of before but an interesting hypothesis.
Can you think of an example of a person who has recognized the need to develop a coherent theory of mind, but seems to have been unable to as a result of external locus of control? (You mentioned Scott; can you think of a Scott post that exemplifies this? Here I saw his handling of the NYT thing as evidence of especially good ToM / social skill...) I'm having a vague memory of someone giving an example that sounds similar (years ago elsewhere on the internet), but in that case I believe the person in the example had NVLD (lower nonverbal than verbal IQ, autism-adjacent) rather than external locus of control.
More options
Context Copy link