Clarity and Obfuscation of Goals of Principles: Another Discussion of "Both Sides"

[Jarhyn]

Recently in a hyperbolic whinge thread concerning trans rights (that is not what this is about, merely provenance of the previous conversation), a particular white supremacist actually, in a stunning display of honesty, revealed their real fears about stepping to were the left says we ought be standing.

Essentially, the accusation took the form of, "you ask for an inch, but you will seek a mile!"

At first this confused me, mostly because I have, since I stepped into these forums, rejected the concepts of "overton window" and "one step at a time", mostly because for me, and I assume others on the left, we do not negotiate on those terms. We have taken the time to figure out where we ought be, and built this on principles.

Further, nothing we ask for are built on anything but our principles, and we put the principles out into the world for all to see. As what we want is a function of those principles it is, at least to me, entirely pointless to ignore their implications. I have thus never shied away from just stating where I think human rights ought go, often several steps ahead of whatever the current drama is. Hell, I think we need to pick up legislation yesterday to guarantee non-human personhood and "living being rights" for "artificial" neural networks in general, and edge case species as well.

There is no need to make that secret, mostly because ethics and morality already support it. There's no widespread "uh...." reaction to these things.

This confused me right up to the moment I realized that the only context this makes sense is if the person asking the question finds this a likely or useful tactic, one they don't trust others to not use only because they are familiar with it's use from the inside.

This only strikes me as likely if the principles of the person asking are in some way obscured, or the person asking knows that there will be negative reactions to where they think society ought end up. Usually this kind of objectionable goal, however, must be very objectionable indeed of someone needs to be tricked to end up there.

So this creates a dichotomy: one where one side seeks social change on the basis of sound and publicly unobjectionable principles, and where the other side seeks social change on the basis of hidden and socially objectionable principles to trick people into going where they wouldn't normally. Further, it implies that the second party, due to their familiarity with the technique, will think that because they find the strategy unobjectionable and use it, that anyone would. But that's the difference... We don't have to.

I will always be open with my vision of society and the future. In fact I totally supported the GoP attempts to remove marriage and replace it with Civil Unions for All.

The fact is, it's safe for me to ask for exactly what I want from society, because I don't ask society to hate people.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Well, they assume you're not entirely sincere. Since they would not be.

IFF the right had 'Medicare for All' in their platform, there would be a list of people they would not support getting Medicare, despite the 'for all' part of the plank. Hippies, immigrants, feminists, communists....
But it's not their plank, it's our plank. So they approach a 'debate' by suggesting, "If that ever comes true, then Medicare will also take care of the alt-Right, Nazis, Proud Boys, Trump Voters. Do you want YOUR taxes going to Trump Voters?"

This reveals how they would expect THEIR version of such a program to be curtailed, to be withheld from people they disagree with. Better not to have it if you can't keep it out of the hands of the undesirables.

But of course, OUR answer is, "I said 'for All,' you sniveling idiot. I meant 'for All.' Same way i support free speech for all (knowing that many idiots are unclear about what Free Speech actually fucking is). Or rights to an attorney. To due process. To not having the 82nd Airborne billeted in their living room. Little things we all should enjoy, equally.

Because clearly, I and those in my Venn circle, think very differently from those on the other side of the dotted line.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Yep. In the case of the right wingers (here, and in the US at large in particular), much of their objections are based on projection of their own motives/personality onto the other.

For instance, they are absolutely convinced that if we help poor people in the slightest, those poor people will simply take advantage of the system and never want to work, because they would take advantage of the system and link it for all it's worth if given the opportunity.

They know (those enough self-realization) they are lying, so they assume everyone is. etc.