Westboro Baptist would be the one right-wing example that goes for theater and garish signs. They share the urgency about something extremely serious and yet widely ignored.
As an evangelical myself, the funny thing is, we believed some of the same things technically as Westboro, but most Christians lack the kind of psychology that wants to do that sort of thing. Street evangelism is the furthest some go.
I think that left-wingers are undergoing a psychology of religious conversion effectively.
Interestingly, the Phelps family are Democrats, and they probably perform their theatrics mostly for the LOLz rather than to express any genuine convictions. But this should in no way be seen as a confirmation of anything in today's horrible Blog article
You see less protests on the right because the media is not sympathetic to protests on the right, so there is little benefit. As a case in point, in the late 80s and early 90's "Operation Rescue" was an organized pro-life activist protest movement. Pro-life protesters blocked the doors of abortion clinics with their bodies, preventing entry. These were very controversial protests, with abortion clinics and pro-choice groups claiming that the protesters caused violence and property damage, while the pro-life protest groups claimed they were peaceful but often attacked by police and counter-protesters.
Certainly the movement had a lot in common with left wing protests, such as sit-ins or blocking traffic or taking over events and the like. The main difference is that in the case of Operation Rescue the media coverage was almost universally negative. When a left wing group blocks a road, they can expect to get a lot of sympathetic media attention and get the word out. When Operation Rescue blocked abortion clinic doors, they got headlines describing them as militant, exteme, aggressive, and violent. The articles were full of sympathetic quotes form abortion clinic employees and pro-choice activists testifying as to how they were victimized by the protesters. In essence, the protests gave their opponents an opportunity to spread awareness, and the media coverage made their own side look barbaric. I'm not saying there was a media conspiracy or anything; there didn't have to be. Most journalists were pro-choice, with no incentive to cover the protests sympathetically.
As for the protesters, they were arrested en masse and for the most part the justice system threw the book at them. In 1994 the Supreme Court ruled that abortion clinics could use RICO, a 1970s anti-organized crime law, to sue Operation Rescue protesters. Under RICO they could sue for triple monetary damages and prison sentences of up to 20 years for individual protesters. As one fairly typical example, a pastor named Randy Alcorn who participated in the protest (and was arrested multiple times as a result) was sued under the RICO law, and was required to pay the abortion clinic he protested $8.2 million in damages. They garnished his wages, so in order to pay the clinic as little money as possible Alcorn quit his job and has worked at minimum wage ever since. Alcorn was not an unusual example.
Then in 1994 Congress passed the FACE act which made it a federal offense to use physical obstruction to interfere with any person obtaining an abortion. First time non-violent violators face up to six months in prison and $10,000 in fines, with up to 18 months in prison or $25,000 in fines for repeat non-violent violations. Operation Rescue was pretty much dead in the water after that.
In other words, when the right wing protests the way the left wing protests, they do not get any benefit from media coverage, they go to jail, and they get sued under the same rules that apply to mobsters. That's why you see less of it: the consequences are far harsher than for left wing protesters.
Thousands of left wing protestors were jailed due to actions in 2020 alone. There's actually a whole database that's run by the Prosecution Project, available here:
The fact that it takes destruction on the scale of a category 2 hurricane for violent leftists to face any consequences whatsoever (how many leftists arrested in 2020 faced consequences anywhere close to that of taking an unguided tour of the capitol in 2021?) does not make the point you seem to think it makes.
I don't disagree that left wing protesters get jailed. I may have spent too much time focusing on how the justice system came down on Operation Rescue, because the larger point is that when left wing protesters get jailed they have a decent chance of "raising awareness" by getting some sympathetic or even neutral media coverage. When right wing protesters get jailed it almost always leads to negative media coverage and raising awareness for their political opponents instead. This is because very few journalists are on the right: in 1982 only 18% of journalists identified as Republicans, compared to twice as many who identified as Democrats, and today only 3.4% of journalists identify as Republicans (https://www.theamericanjournalist.org/post/american-journalist-findings). So right wing protesters get the negatives of getting arrested, without the positives of raising awareness and earning sympathy or support for their cause.
This may be changing though, as legacy media is less and less important and independent journalism is rising in prominence. We'll see I guess.
Another factor is that conservatives are generally not sympathetic to disruptive protests in general (Republicans are generally the "law and order" party, after all), so when right wing protesters are causing disruptions left wing politicians can often get the support of right wing politicians to crack down on them: thus things like the FACE act. Also, until fairly recently more judges were left wing than right wing (I think that still may be the case when it comes to lower courts, but I'm not sure), so you got more situations like abortion protesters getting ruled as racketeers by the Supreme Court. That has also changed, so the conditions may be right for a possible resurgence of right wing disruptive protest.
Right. Authorities punish right wing protests and ignore or even reward left wing protests. Many left wing protestors even end up with huge state payouts.
Just some thoughts about the example of "throwing soup on famous paintings":
When I heard about that for the first time, I thought it was the most moronic counter-productive thing, but I have come to change my mind about it.
First of all, they didn't throw soup on any painting, they threw soup at glass.
But the thing that made me change my mind was an interview of the protestors in a TV show (the most popular and also the most shitty TV show in France). On the set, they were accused of "deserving their cause" and only arouse hate for their movement. They were asked "why didn't they go through normal means of revendications, like petitions, and non-disrupting protests". The answer was: "Well we did all of that. Why didn't you invite us then?"
I suppose there is a parallel with the animal holocaust. Many carnist will say that vocal activists are dESServing ThEir cAUSe as soon as they encounter any cognitive dissonance. According to them, a good vegan is a vegan who hides their veganism. Like sure, this is what will help the animals the most... (I've personally been accused of that so many times since I started being vocal, yet I've done so much more than when I was silent. Weird...)
I also think the left likes to think of themselves as part of a Whig history-like narrative where all the correct people from history textbooks (e.g. the Civil Rights movement) engaged in protests to get what they want. Notice how there's been a narrative recently that student protests are always correct. https://reason.com/volokh/2024/04/26/student-movements-are-often-wrong/
I liked the article and agree with it, but wanted to add that I think the activist right is more similar in style to the activist left than many realize. The right's most common justification for spreading falsehoods about immigrants ("they're eating the dogs", "they're bringing rapists", etc) is that the media and the left ignored immigration for many years when the right was more respectable. To them Trump's bombastic rhetoric (now imitated by many others) is bringing attention to an important issue: immigrants are bad for the country they move to. in this way of thinking, small lies told about individual immigrants and groups of immigrants pale in comparison to and are justified by the big lies the left and the media tell (implied to be "immigrants are good for the country they move to").
Loudly lying isn't the same as throwing soup on a painting, but both produce outrage and consequently attention. Both seem to stem from a worldview that "X is a very important issue not getting the attention it deserves and it's ok to do somewhat bad things with the goal of getting people to pay attention to X". I used to be mildly in favor of such a worldview, but like Matt Iglesias (ironically), I've become more skeptical of it.
Great article. Not sure about the theatre correlation though, thats probably just political activism in general (just look at James O’Keefe’s embarrassing antics)
I definitely think we’ll be seeing more off-putting rightist protests. Anecdotally, there’s a guy and his wife who come and stand outside my high school with a big sign reading “SODOMY IS SIN” because we have I think a couple rainbow flags in the window. He’s been around before, written some angry emails to the principal—but this is the first year he’s doing this.
As the MAGAs deal more in grand conspiratorial narratives (just like lefties have been doing, especially since 2008), I’m sure we’ll see more SODOMY guys and Jan 6–inspired events.
Another right-wing protest that I haven't seen anyone mention yet were the different protests regarding COVID mandates, many of which involved parading around with guns in front of state capitols and one of which involved blockading downtown Ottowa with trucks.
There was another protest a few years earlier about a statue in Charlottesville, which involved tiki torches and the chant "Jews will not replace us."
I like Yglesias's commentary. It is always careful, never simplistic, and open to revision. He doesn't deserve this!
Progressivism in the United States grows out of Protestantism. Protest -- literally making a show of your beliefs -- is in the label. The righteous are justified by faith alone. There is no way to know if you are part of the Elect, but visible indicators may include public displays of righteous living, devotion, and moral and philanthropic conduct. (Work as hard as possible, but the Other should always receive the proceeds.) Activism is a way to confirm your election. It is a visible sign that you are chosen by God, that history moves in one direction, and you are on the Right Side of it. This gets unconsciously carried over to the secular and political realms when Protestants go atheist.
American Protestantism is Puritanical. As Santayana once remarked, a Puritan believes three things: sin exists, sin deserves to be punished, and it is beautiful that sin should be punished. I can say more prosaically, looking from the inside rather than the outside of what was once Mainline Protestantism (full fedora now), that Puritanical behavior (politically correct, woke, and whatever the next iteration is) is too often a hypocritical exercise where one punches down on a perceived weak target in a humorless, self-serving way. It can even be bullying, terrorism, and destruction for its own sake under the air of do-gooderism -- look at the history of the 1500s to Antifa today. It isn't exclusive to the left but is its core animating spirit -- the northeast is the most progressive for a reason. There is also substantial cultural overlap with Judaism and its concept of Chosenness.
I generally prefer liberal policies. It is just good to know where the witch-burner mentality comes from before we start speculating about mutational load, imagining deep state conspiracies, blaming "cultural Marxists" for brainwashing the kids, and whatnot. If anything, the obnoxious moralism, with its coded language, signals to others mutual belonging to a certain social stratum, like wearing a specific brand of watch. There is an element of hypocrisy to this stuff that Ellis Island Americans don't always detect.
Closer study of right wing protest is warranted here. I think this argument can only be made when judging "theatrics" as a somewhat feminine-coded act. Right wing protest is often highly theatrical, but it is not in the same way as left wing protest is theatrical. Strongman performance, prominent flag bearing and insignia, and historical cosplay are notable features of Western right wing protest. There are political reasons why some may balk at such descriptions of these features, but a performance-based analysis leaves little room for doubt. The degree to which one finds certain features off putting is also politically coded. Soup on a painting is no more or less theatrical than pork stapled to a temple door. The acceptability or offputtingness of someone waving a Palestinian flag vs an American flag will vary significantly depending on one's political views. Donald Trump is one of history's most theatrical world leaders, and his rallies a potent symbol of political theater. A fuller analysis requires us to see that forms (and perceptions) of performance are not universal, but instead politically dependent.
I think your claim that right wingers don't engage in as many protests is fairly anecdotal. March for Life, Westboro Baptist Church, and Charlottesville all come to mind. Some more data might be needed here to validate either side.
I also would probably push back on your reasoning that the right doesn't engage in bizarre protests just because they protest less. I think the reason they don't engage in such protests is because most of their "existential threats" border closely to conspiracy (per the example you mentioned of Haitian immigrants) and thus don't have enough substantial truth value to warrant violent commitment. In areas where it's a bit more grey, such as abortion, radical demonstrations are more apparent. Put bluntly, the conservative position will always have less existential threats because it is always favoring people in power.
Yglesias seems to be associated with the Niskanen center is id'd as moderate. They, however, seem to be in complete disagreement with his take on natural gas. There are even lot of reasons to think gas may be worse than coal but really the alternative to gas is at least more solar and batteries where cost has been and continues to plummet.
Yglesias scored with his book advocating 1 billion Americans. The rationale being we need masses to compete with China and India. He's not coming across as a 1st class thinker. Where did he get his claim to influence?
In the context of climate protests specifically, I think the "crazy" performative stuff (AKA all the orange paint) is basically the best move at this point. Without writing a whole essay on it, my view is basically that given the other options don't seem to work, we might as well try the crazy stuff - what's the worst that can happen, people don't take CC seriously? They already don't take it seriously, and we're approaching (or maybe even past) the point where we can fix the problem. Very much a hail mary.
Going on stage and yelling at Yglesias is definitely not productive, and those people are idiots. But I have a soft spot in my heart for someone who looks at the, like, decades of failing to get people to *actually* take CC seriously, grabs a bucket of orange paint, and decides to try something different. It's hard to argue they aren't getting their message out - they've gotten insane amounts of publicity, even if it's mostly negative.
I think it's necessary to study the art of persuasion much harder. I've never been approached by anyone via any route trying g to persuade me climate change is a real problem. At the same time, the transition to non co2 means of getting things done is hard to miss. Anybody besides scientists and engineers have any idea how to speed it up? What do the orange paint people suggest?
C'mon man! Just the other day you posted that Huemerless Jim Crow Manifesto, and now this MAGAlomaniacal extremism? If you're gonna turn your Blog into a right-wing propaganda mill, then you could could at least toss in some fun SIA/coin-flipping/Monty Hall arguments to keep it entertaining
The title contained "Left-wing" and "Offputting". That's MAGA enough for me, especially given the last article, a book review of what appeared to be research from the David Duke Institute for Public Policy
Is MAGA to you just the 85-90% of the country that isn’t on board with progressivism? Like someone could be against that stuff and hate and oppose Trumpism, but they’re still MAGA to you?
Favoring the MAGA platform over the progressive platform on any single issue probably puts your legacy in a precarious position. Consider that Huemer dude from the last article. Evidently he's "Pro Po Po" in several specific cases. For all I know, his positions were clear and well-structured. Thing is, it probably won't matter. Imagine we found a particularly elegant argument written by a caveman praising the value of clubbing females and dragging them to your cave. No matter how good the argument was, we'd reject it outright because the conclusion is just too incommensurable with our modern way of thinking. Now, you might say that future generations will likewise consider progressives barbaric. This is a fair point, but I suspect they will say of the progressives, "Yes, they're crazy too, but at least they're our kind of crazy." It would be like us finding a caveman argument that said instead of clubbing females, you should spike their drinks with poppy juice. Not quite up to our modern standards, but at least that's quasi acceptable
What a strange way of thinking. When reasoning about any issue, I’ve never given an inkling of thought to “What will future generations think of me here?”. It won’t matter one bit to my life, I don’t expect them to think of me anyway, and I have no reason to believe the future is so rosy that the average person then will be more enlightened than me.
Well, true enough. But we could also view the hypothetical future generations from the caveman analogy as just a proxy for a "much more enlightened society". We could just as easily contemplate the most ideal and enlightened society we could imagine, and then ask ourselves questions like, "How might these people reason about this issue?", "What position on this issue would put our current society on the best path to becoming that ideal society?", etc
Westboro Baptist would be the one right-wing example that goes for theater and garish signs. They share the urgency about something extremely serious and yet widely ignored.
As an evangelical myself, the funny thing is, we believed some of the same things technically as Westboro, but most Christians lack the kind of psychology that wants to do that sort of thing. Street evangelism is the furthest some go.
I think that left-wingers are undergoing a psychology of religious conversion effectively.
Interestingly, the Phelps family are Democrats, and they probably perform their theatrics mostly for the LOLz rather than to express any genuine convictions. But this should in no way be seen as a confirmation of anything in today's horrible Blog article
You see less protests on the right because the media is not sympathetic to protests on the right, so there is little benefit. As a case in point, in the late 80s and early 90's "Operation Rescue" was an organized pro-life activist protest movement. Pro-life protesters blocked the doors of abortion clinics with their bodies, preventing entry. These were very controversial protests, with abortion clinics and pro-choice groups claiming that the protesters caused violence and property damage, while the pro-life protest groups claimed they were peaceful but often attacked by police and counter-protesters.
Certainly the movement had a lot in common with left wing protests, such as sit-ins or blocking traffic or taking over events and the like. The main difference is that in the case of Operation Rescue the media coverage was almost universally negative. When a left wing group blocks a road, they can expect to get a lot of sympathetic media attention and get the word out. When Operation Rescue blocked abortion clinic doors, they got headlines describing them as militant, exteme, aggressive, and violent. The articles were full of sympathetic quotes form abortion clinic employees and pro-choice activists testifying as to how they were victimized by the protesters. In essence, the protests gave their opponents an opportunity to spread awareness, and the media coverage made their own side look barbaric. I'm not saying there was a media conspiracy or anything; there didn't have to be. Most journalists were pro-choice, with no incentive to cover the protests sympathetically.
As for the protesters, they were arrested en masse and for the most part the justice system threw the book at them. In 1994 the Supreme Court ruled that abortion clinics could use RICO, a 1970s anti-organized crime law, to sue Operation Rescue protesters. Under RICO they could sue for triple monetary damages and prison sentences of up to 20 years for individual protesters. As one fairly typical example, a pastor named Randy Alcorn who participated in the protest (and was arrested multiple times as a result) was sued under the RICO law, and was required to pay the abortion clinic he protested $8.2 million in damages. They garnished his wages, so in order to pay the clinic as little money as possible Alcorn quit his job and has worked at minimum wage ever since. Alcorn was not an unusual example.
Then in 1994 Congress passed the FACE act which made it a federal offense to use physical obstruction to interfere with any person obtaining an abortion. First time non-violent violators face up to six months in prison and $10,000 in fines, with up to 18 months in prison or $25,000 in fines for repeat non-violent violations. Operation Rescue was pretty much dead in the water after that.
In other words, when the right wing protests the way the left wing protests, they do not get any benefit from media coverage, they go to jail, and they get sued under the same rules that apply to mobsters. That's why you see less of it: the consequences are far harsher than for left wing protesters.
Thousands of left wing protestors were jailed due to actions in 2020 alone. There's actually a whole database that's run by the Prosecution Project, available here:
https://theprosecutionproject.org/2020/12/22/tracking-federal-cases-related-to-summer-protests-riots-uprisings/
The fact that it takes destruction on the scale of a category 2 hurricane for violent leftists to face any consequences whatsoever (how many leftists arrested in 2020 faced consequences anywhere close to that of taking an unguided tour of the capitol in 2021?) does not make the point you seem to think it makes.
I don't disagree that left wing protesters get jailed. I may have spent too much time focusing on how the justice system came down on Operation Rescue, because the larger point is that when left wing protesters get jailed they have a decent chance of "raising awareness" by getting some sympathetic or even neutral media coverage. When right wing protesters get jailed it almost always leads to negative media coverage and raising awareness for their political opponents instead. This is because very few journalists are on the right: in 1982 only 18% of journalists identified as Republicans, compared to twice as many who identified as Democrats, and today only 3.4% of journalists identify as Republicans (https://www.theamericanjournalist.org/post/american-journalist-findings). So right wing protesters get the negatives of getting arrested, without the positives of raising awareness and earning sympathy or support for their cause.
This may be changing though, as legacy media is less and less important and independent journalism is rising in prominence. We'll see I guess.
Another factor is that conservatives are generally not sympathetic to disruptive protests in general (Republicans are generally the "law and order" party, after all), so when right wing protesters are causing disruptions left wing politicians can often get the support of right wing politicians to crack down on them: thus things like the FACE act. Also, until fairly recently more judges were left wing than right wing (I think that still may be the case when it comes to lower courts, but I'm not sure), so you got more situations like abortion protesters getting ruled as racketeers by the Supreme Court. That has also changed, so the conditions may be right for a possible resurgence of right wing disruptive protest.
Right. Authorities punish right wing protests and ignore or even reward left wing protests. Many left wing protestors even end up with huge state payouts.
Just some thoughts about the example of "throwing soup on famous paintings":
When I heard about that for the first time, I thought it was the most moronic counter-productive thing, but I have come to change my mind about it.
First of all, they didn't throw soup on any painting, they threw soup at glass.
But the thing that made me change my mind was an interview of the protestors in a TV show (the most popular and also the most shitty TV show in France). On the set, they were accused of "deserving their cause" and only arouse hate for their movement. They were asked "why didn't they go through normal means of revendications, like petitions, and non-disrupting protests". The answer was: "Well we did all of that. Why didn't you invite us then?"
I suppose there is a parallel with the animal holocaust. Many carnist will say that vocal activists are dESServing ThEir cAUSe as soon as they encounter any cognitive dissonance. According to them, a good vegan is a vegan who hides their veganism. Like sure, this is what will help the animals the most... (I've personally been accused of that so many times since I started being vocal, yet I've done so much more than when I was silent. Weird...)
The left protests more because they care more about politics. See "Liberals Read, Conservatives Watch TV." https://www.richardhanania.com/p/liberals-read-conservatives-watch?s=r&utm_campaign=posts-open-in-app&triedRedirect=true
I also think the left likes to think of themselves as part of a Whig history-like narrative where all the correct people from history textbooks (e.g. the Civil Rights movement) engaged in protests to get what they want. Notice how there's been a narrative recently that student protests are always correct. https://reason.com/volokh/2024/04/26/student-movements-are-often-wrong/
I liked the article and agree with it, but wanted to add that I think the activist right is more similar in style to the activist left than many realize. The right's most common justification for spreading falsehoods about immigrants ("they're eating the dogs", "they're bringing rapists", etc) is that the media and the left ignored immigration for many years when the right was more respectable. To them Trump's bombastic rhetoric (now imitated by many others) is bringing attention to an important issue: immigrants are bad for the country they move to. in this way of thinking, small lies told about individual immigrants and groups of immigrants pale in comparison to and are justified by the big lies the left and the media tell (implied to be "immigrants are good for the country they move to").
Loudly lying isn't the same as throwing soup on a painting, but both produce outrage and consequently attention. Both seem to stem from a worldview that "X is a very important issue not getting the attention it deserves and it's ok to do somewhat bad things with the goal of getting people to pay attention to X". I used to be mildly in favor of such a worldview, but like Matt Iglesias (ironically), I've become more skeptical of it.
Great article. Not sure about the theatre correlation though, thats probably just political activism in general (just look at James O’Keefe’s embarrassing antics)
I definitely think we’ll be seeing more off-putting rightist protests. Anecdotally, there’s a guy and his wife who come and stand outside my high school with a big sign reading “SODOMY IS SIN” because we have I think a couple rainbow flags in the window. He’s been around before, written some angry emails to the principal—but this is the first year he’s doing this.
As the MAGAs deal more in grand conspiratorial narratives (just like lefties have been doing, especially since 2008), I’m sure we’ll see more SODOMY guys and Jan 6–inspired events.
Another right-wing protest that I haven't seen anyone mention yet were the different protests regarding COVID mandates, many of which involved parading around with guns in front of state capitols and one of which involved blockading downtown Ottowa with trucks.
There was another protest a few years earlier about a statue in Charlottesville, which involved tiki torches and the chant "Jews will not replace us."
I like Yglesias's commentary. It is always careful, never simplistic, and open to revision. He doesn't deserve this!
Progressivism in the United States grows out of Protestantism. Protest -- literally making a show of your beliefs -- is in the label. The righteous are justified by faith alone. There is no way to know if you are part of the Elect, but visible indicators may include public displays of righteous living, devotion, and moral and philanthropic conduct. (Work as hard as possible, but the Other should always receive the proceeds.) Activism is a way to confirm your election. It is a visible sign that you are chosen by God, that history moves in one direction, and you are on the Right Side of it. This gets unconsciously carried over to the secular and political realms when Protestants go atheist.
American Protestantism is Puritanical. As Santayana once remarked, a Puritan believes three things: sin exists, sin deserves to be punished, and it is beautiful that sin should be punished. I can say more prosaically, looking from the inside rather than the outside of what was once Mainline Protestantism (full fedora now), that Puritanical behavior (politically correct, woke, and whatever the next iteration is) is too often a hypocritical exercise where one punches down on a perceived weak target in a humorless, self-serving way. It can even be bullying, terrorism, and destruction for its own sake under the air of do-gooderism -- look at the history of the 1500s to Antifa today. It isn't exclusive to the left but is its core animating spirit -- the northeast is the most progressive for a reason. There is also substantial cultural overlap with Judaism and its concept of Chosenness.
I generally prefer liberal policies. It is just good to know where the witch-burner mentality comes from before we start speculating about mutational load, imagining deep state conspiracies, blaming "cultural Marxists" for brainwashing the kids, and whatnot. If anything, the obnoxious moralism, with its coded language, signals to others mutual belonging to a certain social stratum, like wearing a specific brand of watch. There is an element of hypocrisy to this stuff that Ellis Island Americans don't always detect.
Closer study of right wing protest is warranted here. I think this argument can only be made when judging "theatrics" as a somewhat feminine-coded act. Right wing protest is often highly theatrical, but it is not in the same way as left wing protest is theatrical. Strongman performance, prominent flag bearing and insignia, and historical cosplay are notable features of Western right wing protest. There are political reasons why some may balk at such descriptions of these features, but a performance-based analysis leaves little room for doubt. The degree to which one finds certain features off putting is also politically coded. Soup on a painting is no more or less theatrical than pork stapled to a temple door. The acceptability or offputtingness of someone waving a Palestinian flag vs an American flag will vary significantly depending on one's political views. Donald Trump is one of history's most theatrical world leaders, and his rallies a potent symbol of political theater. A fuller analysis requires us to see that forms (and perceptions) of performance are not universal, but instead politically dependent.
I think your claim that right wingers don't engage in as many protests is fairly anecdotal. March for Life, Westboro Baptist Church, and Charlottesville all come to mind. Some more data might be needed here to validate either side.
I also would probably push back on your reasoning that the right doesn't engage in bizarre protests just because they protest less. I think the reason they don't engage in such protests is because most of their "existential threats" border closely to conspiracy (per the example you mentioned of Haitian immigrants) and thus don't have enough substantial truth value to warrant violent commitment. In areas where it's a bit more grey, such as abortion, radical demonstrations are more apparent. Put bluntly, the conservative position will always have less existential threats because it is always favoring people in power.
The only thing that you got wrong about this is neglecting to mention that Matt’s high school bullied sent back his lunch money *with interest.*
Yglesias seems to be associated with the Niskanen center is id'd as moderate. They, however, seem to be in complete disagreement with his take on natural gas. There are even lot of reasons to think gas may be worse than coal but really the alternative to gas is at least more solar and batteries where cost has been and continues to plummet.
Yglesias scored with his book advocating 1 billion Americans. The rationale being we need masses to compete with China and India. He's not coming across as a 1st class thinker. Where did he get his claim to influence?
In the context of climate protests specifically, I think the "crazy" performative stuff (AKA all the orange paint) is basically the best move at this point. Without writing a whole essay on it, my view is basically that given the other options don't seem to work, we might as well try the crazy stuff - what's the worst that can happen, people don't take CC seriously? They already don't take it seriously, and we're approaching (or maybe even past) the point where we can fix the problem. Very much a hail mary.
Going on stage and yelling at Yglesias is definitely not productive, and those people are idiots. But I have a soft spot in my heart for someone who looks at the, like, decades of failing to get people to *actually* take CC seriously, grabs a bucket of orange paint, and decides to try something different. It's hard to argue they aren't getting their message out - they've gotten insane amounts of publicity, even if it's mostly negative.
I think it's necessary to study the art of persuasion much harder. I've never been approached by anyone via any route trying g to persuade me climate change is a real problem. At the same time, the transition to non co2 means of getting things done is hard to miss. Anybody besides scientists and engineers have any idea how to speed it up? What do the orange paint people suggest?
They're a cult. Rational humans are exceedingly rare.
C'mon man! Just the other day you posted that Huemerless Jim Crow Manifesto, and now this MAGAlomaniacal extremism? If you're gonna turn your Blog into a right-wing propaganda mill, then you could could at least toss in some fun SIA/coin-flipping/Monty Hall arguments to keep it entertaining
This piece didn't seem extreme to me, nor did it seem to have a MAGA mentality. What parts of this article did you feel manifested those attributes?
The title contained "Left-wing" and "Offputting". That's MAGA enough for me, especially given the last article, a book review of what appeared to be research from the David Duke Institute for Public Policy
Is MAGA to you just the 85-90% of the country that isn’t on board with progressivism? Like someone could be against that stuff and hate and oppose Trumpism, but they’re still MAGA to you?
Favoring the MAGA platform over the progressive platform on any single issue probably puts your legacy in a precarious position. Consider that Huemer dude from the last article. Evidently he's "Pro Po Po" in several specific cases. For all I know, his positions were clear and well-structured. Thing is, it probably won't matter. Imagine we found a particularly elegant argument written by a caveman praising the value of clubbing females and dragging them to your cave. No matter how good the argument was, we'd reject it outright because the conclusion is just too incommensurable with our modern way of thinking. Now, you might say that future generations will likewise consider progressives barbaric. This is a fair point, but I suspect they will say of the progressives, "Yes, they're crazy too, but at least they're our kind of crazy." It would be like us finding a caveman argument that said instead of clubbing females, you should spike their drinks with poppy juice. Not quite up to our modern standards, but at least that's quasi acceptable
What a strange way of thinking. When reasoning about any issue, I’ve never given an inkling of thought to “What will future generations think of me here?”. It won’t matter one bit to my life, I don’t expect them to think of me anyway, and I have no reason to believe the future is so rosy that the average person then will be more enlightened than me.
Well, true enough. But we could also view the hypothetical future generations from the caveman analogy as just a proxy for a "much more enlightened society". We could just as easily contemplate the most ideal and enlightened society we could imagine, and then ask ourselves questions like, "How might these people reason about this issue?", "What position on this issue would put our current society on the best path to becoming that ideal society?", etc