Conservative Identity Politics: The Bait and Switch

[Shadowferal]

If I disagree with everyone does that mean I'm a tribe of one?

[Felya]

If I disagree with everyone does that mean I'm a tribe of one?

That depends, is it the loneliest?



Or are you an army?

[Polyxo]

I'm impressed how big Dan grew a big, cushiony, bushy black beard to help him with falling of that bull, and then lost it again for his closeup shots.

[Shalcker]

This is a disingenuous argument... having an unpopular opinion, does not define tribalism.

Engaging with opinion based on it's popularity rather then on it's merits is part and parcel of tribalism though.

[Felya]

Engaging with opinion based on it's popularity rather then on it's merits is part and parcel of tribalism though.

That would mean the person claiming it’s tribalism, that’s actually being tribal. True...

[Endus]

Engaging with opinion based on it's popularity rather then on it's merits is part and parcel of tribalism though.

Coolio.

Each of us that took issue with that particular opinion attacked it for its lack of merit, however. And none of us were part of any collective group to begin with.

This "tribalism" argument is pretty much just a literal conspiracy theory, used to try and deflect taking accountability for the validity of ones' argument.

[Felya]

This "tribalism" argument is pretty much just a literal conspiracy theory, used to try and deflect taking accountability for the validity of ones' argument.

Here is a video... The crime he committed? The horrible thing he did? Prove that fake healers and psychics are grifters... The 5k the host screams about, was an offer to any psychic or supernatural healer, to show an ability, that James Randi couldn’t replicate.



That’s the audience and the host, being pissed that the conspiracy is being exposed. That’s... tribalism... they don’t want to know the truth...

[PosPosPos]

This is a disingenuous argument... having an unpopular opinion, does not define tribalism. This is an argument used by every conspiracy theorist. Personally, I relentlessly respond to even people who have me on ignore. Because, every single member of the pile, is like handing me a soap box. If I understand the point I am making, the more scrutiny it sees, the better I look defeating every single one.

Think about the difference between what you call piling on... and someone holding a sign... “prove me wrong”...

If everyone says humans need air to breathe, water to drink and food to eat, it's tribalism in @tehdang 's book too I guess.

Nihilists smh.

- - - Updated - - -

I disagree with his take on ideas, but can clearly see the current pile-on is pure tribalism. He’s from the wrong tribe, thus the slew of posts. I include your post when I say this.

He and I can disagree on relative values on traditionalism and culture and not do the idiotic label-and-dismiss game.

Sorry, you are saying you pointing out he's wrong isn't tribalism, but everyone else doing the exact same thing is tribalism?

What makes you the sole exception? That you are a nihilist so downright dumb takes like this fit your persona?

[Shalcker]

Coolio.

Each of us that took issue with that particular opinion attacked it for its lack of merit, however. And none of us were part of any collective group to begin with.

This "tribalism" argument is pretty much just a literal conspiracy theory, used to try and deflect taking accountability for the validity of ones' argument.

Aren't your claims

It doesn't take "tribalism" for the majority of people to reject that kind of horseshit. Nor is it tribalism to reject its validity, when we can all determine how nonsensical it is based on its own obvious lack of merit.

And

I mean, ignoring people's lived experiences, particularly of minority groups', is just nakedly bigoted. And pushing the views of the majority as a political norm instead, which is explicitly identity politics.

inherently contradictory?

[Felya]

Nihilists smh.

Nihilism without hedonism, is pointless... break out the booze and let’s keep dancing...

[Endus]

Aren't your claims

And

inherently contradictory?

I'm baffled to figure out how you could possibly think they are. About the only way it seems to do so is if you think objective reality doesn't exist. Given that the first quote is talking about how most people can recognize obvious flim-flam because of its internal lack of merit, and the latter was talking about enforcing a majority belief system as a political norm.

[Shalcker]

I'm baffled to figure out how you could possibly think they are. About the only way it seems to do so is if you think objective reality doesn't exist. Given that the first quote is talking about how most people can recognize obvious flim-flam because of its internal lack of merit, and the latter was talking about enforcing a majority belief system as a political norm.

"Majority of people being able to recognize obvious flim-flam" is done through heuristics that are often indistinguishable from tribal beliefs; so as far as i see first part does "require" it. Eventually you'll run out of your own sphere of competence and have to fall back to belief.

Like half of US being stuck in "masks are harmful" vs other half "masks are essential", neither really engaging in serious weighting of evidence for or against their position, but both sides often hard at work to affirm their position as the only right one.

From outside "obvious internal lack of merit" as tribal "we hate them, therefore they are obviously wrong in everything" is indistinguishable from "we have considered their positions and arguments, made solid counter-arguments, and are unwilling to engage in their further consideration considering matter settled" - especially if you don't present counter-arguments, just assert that their wrongnessis is obvious and majority agrees (even though "same" majority can espouse harmful beliefs as far as minorities are concerned).

Why appeal to majority at all in either direction?

[Edge-]

Like half of US being stuck in "masks are harmful" vs other half "masks are essential", neither really engaging in serious weighting of evidence for or against their position, but both sides often hard at work to affirm their position as the only right one.

Man is this not remotely true. Most folks wearing masks are doing so because like, that's what the repeated line from almost every health organization and expert that doesn't believe that demon sperm makes you sterile has been saying for a year. And there's extensive documentation and studies to back it up. And while not everyone may have engaged fully with the research, they don't have to. They just have to listen to the advice of their doctors or health organizations.

There is one right position here. You're pretending that they're both equal when they're not. This is nonsense.

[Endus]

"Majority of people being able to recognize obvious flim-flam" is done through heuristics that are often indistinguishable from tribal beliefs

Naw. You're denying the existence of objective reality, wholesale, here.

Like half of US being stuck in "masks are harmful" vs other half "masks are essential", neither really engaging in serious weighting of evidence for or against their position, but both sides often hard at work to affirm their position as the only right one.

This is just obviously untrue. Only one of those sides has any merit to it, any evidence or reason behind its position. The "masks are harmful" folks are just belligerent jackwads who either don't care who gets hurt by their actions, or actively reject basic reality because they are so blindly, unthinkingly partisan and have chosen to make "wearing a mask during a pandemic" into a political issue.

Here's a tip; that this is basically only present in the USA is a clear indication that it's an individual failure of each of those anti-maskers, not some determinably valid position.

From outside "obvious internal lack of merit" as tribal "we hate them, therefore they are obviously wrong in everything" is indistinguishable from "we have considered their positions and arguments, made solid counter-arguments, and are unwilling to engage in their further consideration considering matter settled" - especially if you don't present counter-arguments, just assert that their wrongnessis is obvious and majority agrees (even though "same" majority can espouse harmful beliefs as far as minorities are concerned).

Those arguments have been presented, you're just ignoring them and engaging in willful ignorance.

It has fuck-all to do with "tribalism"; you just want to pretend, falsely, that both sides have validity and it's just a matter of opinion. That's not the case.

Why appeal to majority at all in either direction?

No part of my post up there made any appeal to any majority. The second references such an appeal, but only to reject it on that specific basis.

[Shalcker]

Man is this not remotely true. Most folks wearing masks are doing so because like, that's what the repeated line from almost every health organization and expert that doesn't believe that demon sperm makes you sterile has been saying for a year. And there's extensive documentation and studies to back it up. And while not everyone may have engaged fully with the research, they don't have to. They just have to listen to the advice of their doctors or health organizations.

If they "don't have to" that's belief system. You trust that others did their research and follow. Your choice of trusted people can be tribal.

...just like anti-maskers - they trust their officials/friends/acquaintances did their research or they follow someone who did.

There is one right position here. You're pretending that they're both equal when they're not. This is nonsense.

WHO (initially) said that masks didn't have sufficient evidence backing their use for a reason - and that reason wasn't only lack of personal protection for essential medical workers.

[Shadowferal]

If we could cut off all travel between states there wouldn't be any argument about wearing masks. Of course there likely wouldn't be any red states left...when all is daid and done.

[Edge-]

Here's a tip; that this is basically only present in the USA is a clear indication that it's an individual failure of each of those anti-maskers, not some determinably valid position.

Because I imagine this will come up: It has spread beyond the US, though numbers remain much lower than they are in the US...due in large part to these conspiracies and misinformation being "exported" by the very people promoting it online.

- - - Updated - - -

If they "don't have to" that's belief system. You trust that others did their research and follow.

Yes, exactly. When I get into an airplane, I don't need to "do my research" to understand and trust the engineering in the plane. I don't need to have gone through flight training to trust the pilot is probably certified and not going to kill us. I trust that the air traffic controllers will also not cause our plane to crash into another.

What kinda world do you live in where literally nobody can apparently be trusted and you need to do everything yourself?

...just like anti-maskers - they trust their officials/friends/acquaintances did their research or they follow someone who did.

"The televangelist said Covid was a hoax" isn't the same as, "This infectious disease specialist and virologist with a combined century of research and experience say it's real and we should wear masks."

You're pretending that because someone thinks that another person/group is credible that they are credible. That's not the case and is some nihilistic bullshit.

WHO (initially) said that masks didn't have sufficient evidence backing their use for a reason - and that reason wasn't only lack of personal protection for essential medical workers.

Link it, because I'm curious about what timeframe you're talking about here.

Is it this from January, when we still knew little about the virus, stating that masks alone weren't sufficient to provide protection and that other measures like handwashing etc.

Note: Insufficient doesn't mean "useless", it means that masks alone aren't a cure-all.

[Shalcker]

Yes, exactly. When I get into an airplane, I don't need to "do my research" to understand and trust the engineering in the plane. I don't need to have gone through flight training to trust the pilot is probably certified and not going to kill us. I trust that the air traffic controllers will also not cause our plane to crash into another.

And opponents trust their politicians/doctors/friends to tell what is best for them. Exact same thing.

What kinda world do you live in where literally nobody can apparently be trusted and you need to do everything yourself?

You don't need to; it's enough to acknowledge that it is conviction supported more by belief rather then verifiable facts (unless you can check those facts personally).

And as such, might be false - or true in limited circumstances (that might be lost in transit from guidance source to you) rather then universally. Not something to be assumed by default, but also not to be seen as inconceivable possibility.

You're pretending that because someone thinks that another person/group is credible that they are credible. That's not the case and is some nihilistic bullshit.

Where do i pretend that? I'm just saying that "appeal to majority" doesn't work when clearly majority can be wrong, one way or another.

No matter if they "trust science" or quacks (and it's not like everyone from general public can differentiate between them either).

Link it, because I'm curious about what timeframe you're talking about here.

Here is discussion of guidance update from june.

The WHO had previously recommended against the wearing of medical masks by the general public given the global PPE shortage. It had been reluctant to advocate for wider usage of non-medical masks by healthy people given the lack of data available at the time.

Also worth checking review of March guidance. (Finally, WHO concludes that “Cloth masks are not recommended under any circumstance.” This warning is perhaps based on the results of a trial comparing cloth masks with medical masks for healthcare staff in high risk hospital settings in Vietnam, which cautioned against recommending them for healthcare workers.)

Is it this from January, when we still knew little about the virus, stating that masks alone weren't sufficient to provide protection and that other measures like handwashing etc.

Handwashing does basically nothing for Covid; as far as i'm aware there has been no examples of transmissions through this vector.

[Edge-]

And opponents trust their politicians/doctors/friends to tell what is best for them. Exact same thing.

Yeah, I'm not going to go down the rabbit hole of, "Just because some lunatic believes Alex Jones telling him the water turn the frogs and him gay, that's equally as valid as the opinion of an expert in the field with decades of work".

Because it's not, and any attempt to frame those arguments as remotely equivalent is dishonest as fuck.

You don't need to; it's enough to acknowledge that it is conviction supported more by belief rather then verifiable facts (unless you can check those facts personally).

Again, not true. I don't need to be able to personally verify, for example, that the Polio vaccine factually works. It's not a belief. It's not faith. You seem to be mistaking "faith" for "fact", and despite both words starting with "fa" they are not synonyms.

Where do i pretend that? I'm just saying that "appeal to majority" doesn't work when clearly majority can be wrong, one way or another.

Not at all. Because they're also not a majority.

No matter if they "trust science" or quacks (and it's not like everyone from general public can differentiate between them either).

Anyone with functional brain cells can tell the difference between, say an infectious disease specialist with a half a century of experience carefully framing his words and using scientific language...to a lady who claims demon sperm causes serility.

Here is discussion of guidance update from june.

The WHO had previously recommended against the wearing of medical masks by the general public given the global PPE shortage. It had been reluctant to advocate for wider usage of non-medical masks by healthy people given the lack of data available at the time.

...yes? I mean, since January 2020 they were recommending mask wearing as part of a comprehensive strategy. There was a brief period in the spring when PPE was painfully short and the general consensus was that given the insanely high risk of medical professionals treating covid patients, that prioritizing PPE for them over average folks was the wisest course of action.

There's no confusion or anything else. They've been consistent and never downplayed the importance of masks, only the exclusive use of masks as a protective measures while acknowledging that the data on it wasn't yet sufficient to conclude that because...it wasn't. They were still just learning about the virus along with the rest of us. They never initially said it should be for medical workers.

Handwashing does basically nothing for Covid; as far as i'm aware there has been no examples of transmissions through this vector.

Yeah, this is a lie. It's effective - https://www.sciencefocus.com/news/co...d-of-covid-19/

And while the data continues to suggest the risk of transmission that way is low - https://www.sciencefocus.com/news/co...d-of-covid-19/

Like...is washing your hands that bad? Is protecting yourself from other surface-transfered germs and viruses that could weaken your immune system and make you more susceptible to severe covid reactions if you catch it from the air...bad?

These are bad faith arguments and we're veering off-topic, but it's amusing how this kinda unintentionally gets at some of the themes of phony arguments. Most rest on, "Here's some simple, low-effort, common sense advice. But it might not be the silver bullet, they're always wrong about everything and we can't trust 'em!"

[Shalcker]

Yeah, I'm not going to go down the rabbit hole of, "Just because some lunatic believes Alex Jones telling him the water turn the frogs and him gay, that's equally as valid as the opinion of an expert in the field with decades of work".

There is no "equally" - why would you trust Alex Jones if he isn't part of "your tribe"? No, such trust is inherently unequal.

You almost always double-check "outsiders" (like you just did with WHO guidance question - even though everyone should be broadly aware how it changed with time), and you only check "your own" if they somehow seem to contradict your pre-existing beliefs (and if you had none then you often just trust them to be right by default - even when they aren't experts).

It is also not impossible to see two experts with "decades of work" holding opposite opinions - especially when for article in newspaper those opinions are stripped from nuance and inherent assumptions those decades of work create.

Because it's not, and any attempt to frame those arguments as remotely equivalent is dishonest as fuck.

Stop framing it like that then.

Again, not true. I don't need to be able to personally verify, for example, that the Polio vaccine factually works. It's not a belief. It's not faith. You seem to be mistaking "faith" for "fact", and despite both words starting with "fa" they are not synonyms.

Don't need for what exactly?

To decide wherever you should be vaccinated with it personally? "Since it worked before it'll probably work now too" can be seen as generally conservative position.

Or as part of "vaccines work in general through well-known mechanism, therefore this vaccine must also work"? Which can fail with some new vaccines for some subpopulations like we're seeing with AZ version in Europe; sometimes there can be manufacturing/sourcing problems too for specific batches.

Not at all. Because they're also not a majority.

Are you implying that majority is always right? Otherwise i'm not sure why you're replying to "majority can be wrong" with this.

Anyone with functional brain cells can tell the difference between, say an infectious disease specialist with a half a century of experience carefully framing his words and using scientific language...to a lady who claims demon sperm causes serility.

That isn't how it often works in practice - quacks use "scientific language" too. "Uses scientific language -> right" is quite faulty heuristic.

Specialization also can lead "infectious disease specialist" not necessarily meaning "personal virus protection equipment specialist" despite being used as such (he could just used best protection all those years).

...yes? I mean, since January 2020 they were recommending mask wearing as part of a comprehensive strategy. There was a brief period in the spring when PPE was painfully short and the general consensus was that given the insanely high risk of medical professionals treating covid patients, that prioritizing PPE for them over average folks was the wisest course of action.

There's no confusion or anything else. They've been consistent and never downplayed the importance of masks, only the exclusive use of masks as a protective measures while acknowledging that the data on it wasn't yet sufficient to conclude that because...it wasn't. They were still just learning about the virus along with the rest of us. They never initially said it should be for medical workers.

Never downplayed importance of proper medical masks in medical settings. Form-fit, air-tight (with air only going through filters), properly worn.

Which isn't how masks are used by general population (and where Repub/Dem schism goes). Cloth masks were questioned from angles like "holes too big, virus particles might still get through as supported by studies", as well as sometimes from (probably unwarranted) "false sense of security" angle (better then nothing, but not significantly so).

Yeah, this is a lie. It's effective - https://www.sciencefocus.com/news/co...d-of-covid-19/

You're using article from a year ago that talks not about "wherever you can easily get infected through hands" (which was my "does nothing" was implying - spread of it) but "wherever virus on your hand would get destroyed if you washed them" (which it certainly would).

Understanding of this infection vector, just like with face masks, also changed over time
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00251-4.

Still, even in June 2020 WHO said "Despite consistent evidence as to SARS-CoV-2 contamination of surfaces and the survival of the virus on certain surfaces, there are no specific reports which have directly demonstrated fomite transmission." ; and as far as i'm aware, no such reports had surfaced to this day.

Like...is washing your hands that bad? Is protecting yourself from other surface-transfered germs and viruses that could weaken your immune system and make you more susceptible to severe covid reactions if you catch it from the air...bad?

Where did i say "guarding against it is bad"? It is simply unsupported by existing evidence as significant concern compared to aerosol droplets - more of a theoretical possibility.