I try to understand ideologies I disagree with on their own terms, and I don’t assume those I disagree with are lying or manipulating. I take them at face value and try to understand their reasoning.
For example, from my perspective, banning books on critical race theory seems unrelated to parental rights. But parental rights activists see a direct connection. They believe restricting exposure to certain ideas protects parents’ rights to direct their children’s education.
For instance, the pledge from Moms for Liberty indicates they aim to defend parental rights. But how does banning books honor those rights? How does restricting classroom discussions on gender and sexuality expand parental authority? What specifically in critical race theory undermines parents?
To them, these bans fulfill their pledge. Limiting children’s exposure to these concepts is protecting parents’ rights in their view. Relating their actions to their stated goals is an important way to understand their perspective.
However, their conception of parental rights seems to only apply to those who agree with them. It is not universal. So it appears to be more about privilege for some rather than rights for all. Many parents want their children to have informed conversations about gender, sexuality, and America’s complex moral history. So while Moms for Liberty claims to support parental rights, their selective application of those rights shows they are more interested in rhetoric and control.
After evaluating their stance from their perspective, I can now say they are being dishonest about their true aims.
In general, I try to understand all views from their own framework, even if I disagree. I assume good faith and take positions at face value. Only after working to comprehend the reasoning behind a stance do I then assess if it is manipulative or deceptive. This process applies equally to those I agree and disagree with on various issues.
What’s your process? How did you come to the conclusion that trans rights, CRT, and UBI aren’t about the things they say they are and the politicians and academics that shill for them are…Tooheys and Fagins? (I’m not sure what that means, but I suspect liars and manipulators?)
They’re characters from books anthropomorphizing very unscrupulous archetypes. You should look them up and read about them, they’re fantastically designed characters.
My process is to look at outcomes and techniques. If techniques to further an ideological goal involve dishonesty and disingenuousness I then deduce that the purveyors of those ideologies are unscrupulous people. If outcomes are awful and especially if they try to hide those bad outcomes then I presume that they don’t care how what they want affects people. So for example, sex education and birth control among religious conservatives, you have both disingenuous discussion and bad outcomes. Or the countless young women who have ruined their lives by cutting their breasts off as teenage girls convinced they’re boys. Same markers.
I try to understand ideologies I disagree with on their own terms, and I don’t assume those I disagree with are lying or manipulating. I take them at face value and try to understand their reasoning.
For example, from my perspective, banning books on critical race theory seems unrelated to parental rights. But parental rights activists see a direct connection. They believe restricting exposure to certain ideas protects parents’ rights to direct their children’s education.
For instance, the pledge from Moms for Liberty indicates they aim to defend parental rights. But how does banning books honor those rights? How does restricting classroom discussions on gender and sexuality expand parental authority? What specifically in critical race theory undermines parents?
To them, these bans fulfill their pledge. Limiting children’s exposure to these concepts is protecting parents’ rights in their view. Relating their actions to their stated goals is an important way to understand their perspective.
However, their conception of parental rights seems to only apply to those who agree with them. It is not universal. So it appears to be more about privilege for some rather than rights for all. Many parents want their children to have informed conversations about gender, sexuality, and America’s complex moral history. So while Moms for Liberty claims to support parental rights, their selective application of those rights shows they are more interested in rhetoric and control.
After evaluating their stance from their perspective, I can now say they are being dishonest about their true aims.
In general, I try to understand all views from their own framework, even if I disagree. I assume good faith and take positions at face value. Only after working to comprehend the reasoning behind a stance do I then assess if it is manipulative or deceptive. This process applies equally to those I agree and disagree with on various issues.
What’s your process? How did you come to the conclusion that trans rights, CRT, and UBI aren’t about the things they say they are and the politicians and academics that shill for them are…Tooheys and Fagins? (I’m not sure what that means, but I suspect liars and manipulators?)
They’re characters from books anthropomorphizing very unscrupulous archetypes. You should look them up and read about them, they’re fantastically designed characters.
My process is to look at outcomes and techniques. If techniques to further an ideological goal involve dishonesty and disingenuousness I then deduce that the purveyors of those ideologies are unscrupulous people. If outcomes are awful and especially if they try to hide those bad outcomes then I presume that they don’t care how what they want affects people. So for example, sex education and birth control among religious conservatives, you have both disingenuous discussion and bad outcomes. Or the countless young women who have ruined their lives by cutting their breasts off as teenage girls convinced they’re boys. Same markers.