[FRIAM] aftermath

[Steve Smith]

Glen -

Great analysis of crypto-* and the distinction between innocent and
deliberate conflation of isms.

I suppose I believe/suspect that most of us (and them if there is any
distinction) are a mix of both.   We adopt postures that "seem like a
good idea at the time" and then have to try to hold those postures when
the context around us shifts enough that they become awkward.  In my
experience there is usually a "gradual awakening" about how
uncomfortable those postures might be(coming) and recognizing
opportunities for (un)gracefully shifting one's balance into a new, more
comfortable/appropriate posture.  I could personal anecdote my way
through dozens of examples for myself and those nearby, but I trust
others will have their own experiences with this.

I'm reminded of (some of) Bill Viola's "slow-video" art installations... 

- Steve


On 11/25/20 9:50 AM, uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ wrote:
> Well, crypto-* is different from people who don't really understand the categories. With my friend's hard right uncle who shocked me by claiming he was "more libertarian", I suspect he had someone who called themselves that and he liked the conversation(s) they had *or* has done some shallow reading on what it meant ... maybe listened to Rand Paul or somesuch. He's not crypto-right. He just doesn't understand the categories.
>
> A crypto-* actively asserts they are whatever their cover is. They *encrypt* what they are. So a crypto-righty who claims to be a libertarian will actively deny that libertarians believe there are appropriate roles for the state. They may allow the military, but disallow any other state function. Whether their assertions are *lies*, where they're hiding their true beliefs on purpose, or simply delusional or embedded in confirmation bias or whatever, isn't that important. But they actively work against any persuasion or data.
>
> An innocent righty will succumb after you explain what libertarianism actually is: the attempt to optimize for maximal liberty, including the right to do heroin, the right to engage prostitutes, the right to health care, the right to be taken seriously even when wearing a tutu, etc. A crypto-righty's prejudice against heroin addicts and tutu-wearing philosophers will show up subtly. An innocent righty's prejudices will be obvious.
>
> One of the reasons I'm drawn to the neoreaction elites is that they *do* seem to understand libertarianism and still reject it in favor of more rigid command and control structures like monarchies and dictatorships. They don't really hide their fascist tendencies. They try to proffer fascism in its more pure sense, as a valid (however unsound) ideal. So while my answer to your explicit question is "no, crypto-*'s cannot be persuaded with patience and data" an non-encrypted-* can be persuaded with patience and data. You just have to play their game for long enough to actually persuade them ... and retain your sanity in the process.
>
> But to go back to the BREATHE act, programs like universal health care and basic income *are* libertarian if they end up maximizing liberty. Of course, whether they do or not is and should be subject to test and criticism.
>
> On 11/24/20 1:26 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
>>> The trick is you have to separate the actual libertarians from the ones who *call* themselves "libertarians". And then you have to argue patiently, with data, over and over again, until they finally see the need for the state in that context. It's exhausting and I don't blame you if you usually give up before reaching that point.
>> I acknowledge your distinction between Libertarian(tm)s and the more
>> pure-to-conception version (though I don't know any of the latter except
>> from "just-so" anecdotes told mostly by the former who don't realize how
>> transparent they are).  I'm also reminded of the They Might Be Giants 
>> verse in a song: "I know politics bore you, you and your racist
>> friend"...   it takes on more significance every time I try to speak in
>> depth with a crypto-racist (or crypto-classist, or crypto- anythingist)
>> who uses one thing to obscure another thing that prevents/excusing them
>> from engaging in a meaningful/thoughtful conversation/thoughts.   Maybe,
>> as you say, it just takes more patience and data, even with them?