- 29 Oct 2018 14:16
#14958094
I had what I think is an accurate idea as a name for my personal ideology and I'm pondering if I should include this next bit in an upcoming post about that.
A common criticism I have of the left right now is that they use what I call the "lowest common denominator" when debating. Recent examples of this include, if you want to punish felons more you are racist towards blacks (a CNN headline) which presumes that all blacks necessarily have a relationship with felons. Or, if you are offended by easy women then you are a misogynist because all women have a necessary connection to those kinds of women, which is strange because most women seem to be openly hostile towards them. Another example is how in California they got rid of a law which made intentionally giving someone HIV a felony because it was allegedly homophobic; this suggests that all homosexuals share a relationship with homosexuals who would do something like that, even though it's basically one homosexual murdering another one. The thread that ties all of these things together is that in each case, a given group is defined by its lowest common denominator. I believe this is severely reductionist in nature, regressive and counter-productive. The obvious inverse of this would be what I'm going to call the "highest common denominator" debate convention.
Instead of doing something like tying black people to felons, we would only refer to a group in the context of its best members. So if you'll forgive the banal example, for blacks we might select Martin Luther King Jr. as the "highest common denominator" for black people. In this context, if a black person is completely unable to relate to this highest common denominator at all, they should not be discussed or treated as a member of their group at all; they should be treated as an individual.
One obvious caveat here would be that high level politicians can't be used as denominators. There is simply too much alleged dirt on Obama, Hillary and Trump for that to work. Indeed, this convention would probably not work well when dealing with political parties at all but I think it has its merits in debate, even if only one side is willing to use it.
It's essentially an active version of "when they go low, we go high". So if someone tells you that in a debate over policies against terrorists that you are an Islamaphobe, you can confuse them by comparing these people to some kind of respectable, high-profile Muslim such as... uh... so if someone tells you that all Proud Boys are fascists, you can compare them to some sort of high common denominator, such as one of those accomplished ones who is working in a charity, probably brown skinned etc. Basically, try not playing the lowest common denominator game at all. Come at them from above, not below. Not that the left is debating much these days at all but this is one of a few conventions I'm considering for an ideological or dialectical framework I'm going to try posting about later on that I think summarizes and attempts to add to the vaguely established new-right dialogue.
A common criticism I have of the left right now is that they use what I call the "lowest common denominator" when debating. Recent examples of this include, if you want to punish felons more you are racist towards blacks (a CNN headline) which presumes that all blacks necessarily have a relationship with felons. Or, if you are offended by easy women then you are a misogynist because all women have a necessary connection to those kinds of women, which is strange because most women seem to be openly hostile towards them. Another example is how in California they got rid of a law which made intentionally giving someone HIV a felony because it was allegedly homophobic; this suggests that all homosexuals share a relationship with homosexuals who would do something like that, even though it's basically one homosexual murdering another one. The thread that ties all of these things together is that in each case, a given group is defined by its lowest common denominator. I believe this is severely reductionist in nature, regressive and counter-productive. The obvious inverse of this would be what I'm going to call the "highest common denominator" debate convention.
Instead of doing something like tying black people to felons, we would only refer to a group in the context of its best members. So if you'll forgive the banal example, for blacks we might select Martin Luther King Jr. as the "highest common denominator" for black people. In this context, if a black person is completely unable to relate to this highest common denominator at all, they should not be discussed or treated as a member of their group at all; they should be treated as an individual.
One obvious caveat here would be that high level politicians can't be used as denominators. There is simply too much alleged dirt on Obama, Hillary and Trump for that to work. Indeed, this convention would probably not work well when dealing with political parties at all but I think it has its merits in debate, even if only one side is willing to use it.
It's essentially an active version of "when they go low, we go high". So if someone tells you that in a debate over policies against terrorists that you are an Islamaphobe, you can confuse them by comparing these people to some kind of respectable, high-profile Muslim such as... uh... so if someone tells you that all Proud Boys are fascists, you can compare them to some sort of high common denominator, such as one of those accomplished ones who is working in a charity, probably brown skinned etc. Basically, try not playing the lowest common denominator game at all. Come at them from above, not below. Not that the left is debating much these days at all but this is one of a few conventions I'm considering for an ideological or dialectical framework I'm going to try posting about later on that I think summarizes and attempts to add to the vaguely established new-right dialogue.
Orb Team Re-Assemble!
- By Rich
- By ingliz
- By Unthinking Majority