Why are radlibs so impossible to get through to? I have a close friend who is like this, he's always so close to getting it (he has been great on Palestine to his credit) but always reverts back to NY Times brain and Democratic party shit.
In my opinion, it's Idealism vs Materialism. They see terrible injustice, and try to make sense of everything from their own framework as they believe things should be.
It very much is idealism. Liberalism is all about believing that if we want things to change hard enough, they will, and if we perform the rituals of liberalism (voting) then change will manifest. Unbelievers, who believe action causes change, rather than belief, are shunned and henpecked back into line.
They suffer from incuriosity and arrogance. They read 1/4 of a book about something once and now believe that entitles them to an intransigent opinion on a topic they absolutely don't understand at all. Not only does it entitle them, that's the only thing they're going to spend their time on: sharing and defending their wrong opinion, to the death.
At a fundamental level this is a learned behavior for what counts as discourse and it's one that ties one's own sense of identity and value to "having and sharing opinions" even when unearned. You will find this behavior among most people in the United States. Commies tend to be one exception because they have to read a lot to validly claim that name and because they can't simply absorb their opinions from the mainstream lib sources that, say, radlibs do, and must instead critically engage with media in order to maintain their positions.
The only solution is humility and education. Humility usually comes from something shaking up their worldview. Something personal or dramatic. Rarely from nicely talking to them in the marketplace of ideas. Sometimes from good dunks.
I masochistically go there to try to teach the radlibs to read theory, but it truly frustrates me sometimes.
Why are radlibs so impossible to get through to? I have a close friend who is like this, he's always so close to getting it (he has been great on Palestine to his credit) but always reverts back to NY Times brain and Democratic party shit.
In my opinion, it's Idealism vs Materialism. They see terrible injustice, and try to make sense of everything from their own framework as they believe things should be.
It very much is idealism. Liberalism is all about believing that if we want things to change hard enough, they will, and if we perform the rituals of liberalism (voting) then change will manifest. Unbelievers, who believe action causes change, rather than belief, are shunned and henpecked back into line.
They suffer from incuriosity and arrogance. They read 1/4 of a book about something once and now believe that entitles them to an intransigent opinion on a topic they absolutely don't understand at all. Not only does it entitle them, that's the only thing they're going to spend their time on: sharing and defending their wrong opinion, to the death.
At a fundamental level this is a learned behavior for what counts as discourse and it's one that ties one's own sense of identity and value to "having and sharing opinions" even when unearned. You will find this behavior among most people in the United States. Commies tend to be one exception because they have to read a lot to validly claim that name and because they can't simply absorb their opinions from the mainstream lib sources that, say, radlibs do, and must instead critically engage with media in order to maintain their positions.
The only solution is humility and education. Humility usually comes from something shaking up their worldview. Something personal or dramatic. Rarely from nicely talking to them in the marketplace of ideas. Sometimes from good dunks.