Originally Posted by Derid
as if the people who dislike Obama's ACA agenda and people who live by Alex Jones are by necessity birds of a feather.


Yes, I would say this idea is actually central to this piece. Fox's narrative does in fact overlap with the Alex Jones set far too often these days - and this same propaganda tactic used wrt Parkland is applied wholesale across the their criticisms of the left.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/fox-news-mainstreams-conspiracy-theory-about-parkland-students

Originally Posted by Derid
So, because Plinker advocates for a particular position that many people find reasonable, this is evidence of the piece author's neologism?


Yes, and again I think this is a central idea. There is an incredible amount of *money* coming from the likes of the Koch brothers, propping up these figureheads with some liberal tendencies willing to say these taglines which could be distorted to justify the positions of the right and especially the alt right. By and large I believe these people would be completely unknown otherwise. They are willing to allow their personas to be distorted in this way for money or "personal branding" or whatever. Pinker's nuclear example is, I think, the author's attempt to ease into this subject. Rubin, Peterson and Weinstein etc are more to the point relevant to this discussion.

The money amplifies this noise to the point where, now, here we are debating the noise.

Originally Posted by Derid
A specific 'student activist group' might not have more influence than a sitting president, but the idea that shutting out, unjustifiably smearing, and physically attacking people with whom you disagree is not only acceptable but proper conduct is FAR FAR FAR more dangerous than a dozen Trumps. Trump is a tumor, where that idea is cancer itself.


Again central to the point. The idea that small groups of students equates to a metastasized cancer on the whole of politics (while simultaneously ignoring actual measurable political power) is, itself, the cancer.

Originally Posted by Derid
Quote
Reactionary centrists often enter into political debates with the presumption that they should always be cool, level-headed, and respectful. And that’s nice, but politics is a very contentious field precisely because it’s how we resolve otherwise unresolvable conflicts. Further, a lot of reactionary centrists are part of a chattering class in publishing and academia that views respectful discussion as the central goal of politics rather than the building or use of power, the granting of rights, or the distribution of resources and wealth. Thus, they work overtime to elevate the views of what they consider moderate or reasonable voices on the right, even though those voices have very little power in policymaking. And they give far too much credit to actual powerful political actors on the right for being reasonable when they’re actually quite extreme.


Yes, means do not matter - only purported ends. /s


I suggest that you are missing the point here about how this relates to "Reactionary centrists think politics is about positions, not actions," even though earlier you agreed, and how power dynamics are important, and further how giving platform to noise is not just free speech but empowerment.

For example, it isn't to say that we should deny the ideology of the Milos of the world from being shared at Berkeley, but it is absolutely fundamental to our democracy that a reasonable society, after analyzing his bankroll and unstated agenda, use those metrics to determine an appropriate platform. I would say that beaming it directly into millions of households is not the appropriate platform in this example, and yet it happens every day.

To then distort that concept into "intolerance" is simply dishonest and an extension of the agenda.

By the way, I think the author is muddying the language of "intolerance" throughout the piece, but the above comment is part of the point I believe he's trying to make with that word - if this makes one "intolerant," then we should be.

[Linked Image]