Groupthink and tribalism in the Progressive Left

Post Reply New Topic

But they have no right to drown out your voice either.

The problem in contemporary discourse is that almost nobody can handle opinions that conflict with their own. Everyone has forgotten that not agreeing is the whole point of discourse. Echo chambers accomplish nothing.

A: Irrational
B: Rational
X: Tends to use "activity" to improve the social status of the group
Y: Tends to use actual achievements to improve social status of the group

My theory is: A has a higher degree of coincidence with X; B has a higher degree of coincidence with Y.
Therefore, the fact that the irrational voice is louder is the actual phenomenon. Although right-wing propaganda amplifies this phenomenon, it does exist.
B/Y spends more time on achieving real-world achievements, so it is harder to steal the voice from A/X. This is an energy allocation dilemma.

If I do engage in less publicity on related topics than they do, it's only natural that their voices drown me out.

On the other hand, special opinions are more newsworthy for any medium.

I don't think tribalism and groupthink are exclusively left wing behaviors, but the left isn't as "freethinking" as they like to fancy themselves. For example, if you're a progressive in most categories, but conservative in categories like gun ownership, people would eagerly jump at the chance to tear you down. The right has done this to Tomi Lahren, who came out as pro-choice, a tenet of the left of which conservatives abhor. Nobody aligns perfectly with party lines and I think this surrendering of our collective faculties to a tribunal of sociopaths does us no favors.

"He who shouts loudest wins."
There is a hell of a lot of that nonsense in this here world, pardner.

Depends on how you define what a serious left-wing political activist is. You could easily fall into a No True Scotsman. I'm sure they all consider themselves serious. Take for instance Linda Sarsour; an anti-Semite with ties to hate groups who was involved in the Woman's March.

Young white men can't speak their mind or share on social media and have to walk on eggshells lest they get canceled,

I think the qualifier "young" is unnecessary. A more worthy qualifier to add is "heterosexual".

Agreed, but the progressive left has certainly lost support from younger white cis-males who make up a significant proportion of the swinging voters who these days are swinging more toward conservative

To whatever extent there are more progressives today who say ill-thought-out things, another factor is the decline of message board forums (like Wrong Planet), due to the rise of massive major social media like Facebook and Twitter.

On social media, users can block anyone they disagree with, and are encouraged to do so as a way of keeping the peace. On most message board forums, on the other hand, users can block other users from sending them private messages but NOT from posting in a public discussion.

If people can block other people from seeing or responding to their public posts, this naturally creates bubbles of people who all agree with each other, and who therefore feel free to make ill-thought-out remarks without being challenged. This, in my opinion, probably results in people putting a lot less thought into their expressed political views than they would if they were posting in a place like WP's PPR section.

A powerful myth has been carefully cultivated in our nation: The left wants to promote diversity. This canard has become so entrenched in American culture that it goes almost unchallenged.

Yes, the left talks a lot about diversity, especially in academia. On any college campus, you will be bombarded with talk of diversity. Academic vice presidents are often paid in excess of $200,000 a year to promote “diversity.” It’s tightly woven into the fabric of campus life. Anyone who doesn’t join in the diversity frenzy is considered a potential bigot who must be ostracized.

The left is obsessed with diversity but only when it comes to categories they care about: race, color, ethnicity, and the myriad LGBTQIA categories. The left shows no interest in political or ideological diversity. Their strident emphasis on other forms of diversity exposes their hypocrisy. Conservatives, on the other hand, might care about equality of opportunity but they don't care about diversity, either. Unlike the left, however, at least they don't pretend to.

When was the last time you heard a college VP in charge of “diversity and inclusion” insist on getting more political diversity on campus? Have you ever heard a prominent Democrat in Congress insist that any college receiving federal funds be required to promote political and ideological diversity on campus?

It’s not just academia that is perpetrating this diversity lie: It has been meticulously woven tightly into the fabric of American culture.

Without political and ideological diversity, the rest is virtually meaningless. You can’t claim to promote diversity but insist on only one set of political ideas. You can’t claim to value diversity then demand that students be given “safe spaces” to hide them from a diversity of ideas. You can’t claim to believe in diversity while at the same time promoting groupthink and living in an ideological bubble. MSNBC can’t claim to value diversity and then only book guests on their programs who share that network’s political outlook. To be fair, this also includes conservative outlets like Fox News which similarly show no tolerance for a diversity of ideas. Hollywood can’t claim to love diversity while simultaneously ostracizing any actor or producer who doesn’t share in their “woke” ideology. When it comes to politics the left wants dogma, not diversity.

It’s time to expose the diversity lie and demand that our nation embrace a diversity of ideas. That is indispensable to our nation’s civic health. It will lead to more robust debate on important issues of public policy and produce more informed and educated citizens. America needs her citizens to be critical thinkers, not just followers of the crowd. Promoting political and ideological diversity will strengthen our fragile democracy. It’s time to embrace real diversity — a diversity of ideas.

In his Inaugural address, President Joe Biden promised to enact “an ambitious whole-of-government equity agenda.” That initiative included an Executive Order that deliberately elided the distinctions between equality of opportunity (a goal most Americans support) and equity (which focuses on equality of outcomes and is far more controversial).

More than one year later, this equity agenda has grown like kudzu throughout the federal government, raising questions about its necessity as a matter of practical governance as well as future Americans’ ability to undo ideologically motivated bureaucratic policies.

Consider the U.S. State Department. In April last year, Secretary of State Antony Blinken announced the creation of a new position: Chief Diversity and Inclusion Officer. In announcing the appointment of Ambassador Gina Abercrombie-Winstanley to the role, Blinken said, “As President Biden has made clear, prioritizing diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility is also a national security imperative.” He added: “Promoting diversity and inclusion is the job of every single member of this department. It’s mission-critical. It demands that each and every one of us reflects on our actions and asks: What more could I have done in the past to make this place more inclusive and respectful toward people who are different from me? What more can I do now?”

Blinken lamented his own department’s historical failure to do just that. “There’s a hallway in Mahogany Row on the seventh floor that leads to my office,” he mused. “It’s lined with portraits of former secretaries dating back to Thomas Jefferson. It’s hard not to notice that almost every one of the secretaries along that hallway is a white man.”

Blinken, a white man himself, could have embraced DEI principles by refusing the job of Secretary of State and suggesting a more inclusive candidate to Biden.

Blinken also wants to make sure that his employees’ professional success, including opportunities for promotions and the salary increases that come with them, are now tied to falling in line with Biden’s equity agenda.

In the Foreign Service, for example, promotion is now explicitly tied to demonstrating fealty to and promoting DEI principles.

Writing in the Foreign Service Journal this month, Kim McClure, who works in the State Department’s DEIA (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility) office, complained that existing DEI efforts were not being embraced enthusiastically enough by employees.

She then puts employees on notice that “the only way to shift this paradigm and the value placed on this work was to create a dedicated core precept (the criteria by which State FS employees are evaluated for promotion) focused on advancing DEIA within the institution.”

In other words: Embrace the equity agenda or you won’t get promoted. The new regulations ensure that DEI work “is no longer peripheral, voluntary or relegated to those with the least influence in the institution, as this work will now be required for all and will be compensated—both with promotions and awards like Senior Performance Pay.” As the announcement of the changes noted, “To succeed, everyone from entry-level officers to section and division chiefs and office directors, as well as those leading front offices, will need to engage. And the only way to ensure this is to tie forwarding the DEIA mission to promotions and performance for both the Civil Service and the Foreign Service.

Compulsory commitment to DEI principles is not only becoming entrenched bureaucratic practice at the State Department. Many universities have been requiring DEI statements from potential new hires. An increasing number are now making such statements a requirement for tenure.

It’s not just professors up for tenure, either. A former librarian at UVA described the kinds of statements she was made to acknowledge as true during mandatory DEI training:

I understand how white privilege, and white cultural values and norms, are infused into formal expectations and workplace culture as well as informal, unwritten rules for success.

I recognize the full breadth of unearned white privileges that white people receive in society and in organizations.

I continuously use a Race lens to self-reflect and examine my behaviors, thoughts, feelings, biases, and attitudes as well as my impact on others.

As former Yale Law School dean Anthony Kronman has noted, “Diversity in this sense is not an academic value. Its origin and aspiration are political. The demand for ever-greater diversity in higher education is a political campaign masquerading as an educational ideal.”

Even if faculty would rather not engage in such DEI litmus testing but merely play along to avoid the risk of being denied tenure, by acquiescing they are tacitly endorsing the idea that ideological extortion is a legitimate part of the hiring and advancement process.

That makes it harder to combat, both on campus and throughout the federal government. Which is precisely the point.

In Wieman v. Updegraff the 1950s- era U.S. Supreme Court case that declared anti-communist loyalty oath legislation in Oklahoma a violation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Justice Hugo Black observed, “Test oaths are notorious tools of tyranny. When used to shackle the mind they are, or at least they should be, unspeakably odious to a free people.” It appears we need to re-learn that lesson today.

Promoting diversity is a liberal myth
This guest essay reflects the views of Timothy Rosen, an attorney and an adjunct assistant professor at Queens College where he teaches courses in law and ethics

Behind a paywall

What, specifically, has Linda Sarsour said or done that you deem to be "anti-Semitic" (i.e. anti-Jewish), as distinct from just strongly anti-Zionist? And specifically what "hate groups" does she have ties to?

A: Irrational
B: Rational
X: Tends to use "activity" to improve the social status of the group
Y: Tends to use actual achievements to improve social status of the group

My theory is: A has a higher degree of coincidence with X; B has a higher degree of coincidence with Y.
Therefore, the fact that the irrational voice is louder is the actual phenomenon. Although right-wing propaganda amplifies this phenomenon, it does exist.
B/Y spends more time on achieving real-world achievements, so it is harder to steal the voice from A/X. This is an energy allocation dilemma.

If I do engage in less publicity on related topics than they do, it's only natural that their voices drown me out.

On the other hand, special opinions are more newsworthy for any medium.