Methods to keep politically grounded/to not become a partisan hack?

[Curved_Sw0rd]

A topic I've been wanting to explore for a while but I've been putting it off for... well, no good reason. The purpose of this thread is to explore exercises that make one better at debating politics without just becoming a robot that regurgitates talking points or hissing and screaming or what have you. All the better if one can have fun and actually learn something while doing so.

Actual healthy debate is incredibly important, and seems to be becoming much rarer, though that could be the fact the loudest voices are the ones heard most easily.

Thing is, I'm not exactly an expert on this sort of thing. I'm aware of Steelmanning, of building an opposing argument up instead of offering a weak strawman, and I do believe it's good practice to assume the person you're talking to isn't an idiot, as much as one might like them to be.

I'd love to hear other methods, and ideas that I might have missed.

 

[Emperor Tippy]

Consume sources from all sides of the political spectrum, accepting all the while that they all are biased.

Think critically about what you consume, and remember who said what before.

Oh yes, and you should probably start with the assumption that the New York Times, CNN, and MSNBC are lying through their teeth on anything that touches on politics and/or Trump. Always look for other sources to confirm (or refute) their claims; because they flatly lie on a consistent basis.

Fox slants the truth, CNN makes up the "truth".

 

[Deleted member]

Yes. the first and most critical thing is to keep reading sources you know are biased for the other side. I'm always reading Atlantic articles, New Republic articles, NYTs articles, heck, even Vox articles. I probably consume more of them than I do of conservative media, because I'm already conservative and know the fundamentals of conservative belief, which is, well, something that doesn't change as fast, whereas I want to be constantly appraised of what the latest thing is from the other side of the spectrum, which often fluctuates.

 

[Deleted member 88]

I read socialist stuff, actually fairly frequently. Both to keep abreast of what the other side is saying, and to get analysis you won't get in the mainstream.

The WSWS actually is insightful and is pleasurable to read, and they don't cause my blood pressure to rise(most of the time).

 

[Doomsought]

Base your values on universal principles rather than loyalty. You only become a partisan hack when you are willing to sacrifice all other principles for loyalty.

 

[Curved_Sw0rd]

Yes. the first and most critical thing is to keep reading sources you know are biased for the other side. I'm always reading Atlantic articles, New Republic articles, NYTs articles, heck, even Vox articles. I probably consume more of them than I do of conservative media, because I'm already conservative and know the fundamentals of conservative belief, which is, well, something that doesn't change as fast, whereas I want to be constantly appraised of what the latest thing is from the other side of the spectrum, which often fluctuates.

In your estimation, what outlets are best for determining what the core concerns of the Left are? As everyone has issues and concepts that near and dear to one's heart. I myself have a lot of love for Freedom of Speech, Gun Rights, and a healthy sense of Nationalism. These issues are important to me, but I know they aren't important, if not outright rejected, by my opponents. And I recognize that I need to keep calm and not take it as a personal attack on myself when these things are argued against.

But it's recognizing the core values of the other guy, which are likely just as important to them, if not moreso, I feel I need to be aware of. Without that awareness, dialog is... well, very difficult.

 

[LordsFire]

There's one critical element that you need before anything else.

Truth must be your highest value.

It can be tied with one or two other things for highest, but if you value other things more than the Truth, you will start lying to yourself to justify those things.

What Doomsought said about loyalty also has a lot of relevance; that tends to be a particular thing people give up Truth for.

 

[Deleted member]

In your estimation, what outlets are best for determining what the core concerns of the Left are? As everyone has issues and concepts that near and dear to one's heart. I myself have a lot of love for Freedom of Speech, Gun Rights, and a healthy sense of Nationalism. These issues are important to me, but I know they aren't important, if not outright rejected, by my opponents. And I recognize that I need to keep calm and not take it as a personal attack on myself when these things are argued against.

But it's recognizing the core values of the other guy, which are likely just as important to them, if not moreso, I feel I need to be aware of. Without that awareness, dialog is... well, very difficult.

Vox -- Probably most representative of the extreme SJW left.
The Atlantic -- Intellectual platform which sees some dissent from the Clintonistas, but in a controlled fashion. Call it the "Elizabeth Warren paper".
Slate -- Extreme SJW-ism repackaged to be palatable for the technocratic elite. Totally unreadable, but sometimes funny.
New Republic -- Before 2014 or so they were the Clintonista standard-bearers, but the view has become more diverse since a reorg.

 

[Unhappy Anchovy]

In your estimation, what outlets are best for determining what the core concerns of the Left are?

'The Left' is a pretty large and diverse faction. My suggestions would be:

New York Times and Washington Post: The establishment papers. If they publish something, it's probably respectable, and very few on the left will get angry at you for believing it. They have aspirations to, if not objectivity, at least authority, so averaging out the NYT and WaPo views on an issue will probably tell you the consensus left-wing establishment position. Note that you do need to average out the views: both these papers retain some right-leaning columnists (e.g. Ross Douthat or David Brooks at the NYT).

Vox: The king of 'explainer' journalism. Vox's aim is to be well-informed and trustworthy, and they have a technocratic, data-driven bias overall. They do have progressive values in the social sphere as well, but it's still a bit of an establishment bias: they're not revolutionaries or radicals. I think if you want a longer, more detailed explanation of the mainstream left perspective on something, Vox will provide that in more depth than the NYT.

Slate and The Intercept: A bit like Vox, but with less rigour. This isn't to say they're always wrong, and they can be worth reading, but they won't be as thorough. These probably give you a better look at the mind of the left but with less of an establishment bias. So, for instance, the NYT and WaPo were hesitant to publish the Tara Reade allegations, whereas The Intercept was one of the first major outlets to run with it.

The Atlantic: More centre-left, I think, with a more effective commitment to publishing diverse voices. They will occasionally publish oddball or even centre-right-ish takes, even if the overall balance is left. Remember that they were the one that was going to hire Kevin Williamson before retreating due to controversy, so they have at least some desire to publish a wider range of voices, and as it is they still publish people like Conor Friedersdorf. It's not perfect, but of the outlets I mention here, it's probably my favourite personally, and it does publish some interesting stories.

Current Affairs and Jacobin. These are the socialist/communist papers. They have significantly lower respectability, but are probably the best outlets to read if you want to understand millennial socialism. These are the sites to go to if you want to know what the 'Bernie Bros' or the former Occupy Wall Street crowd are thinking. Expect a lot of denunciations of capitalism, of neoliberalism, of 'liberals' more generally, and of the Democratic party establishment. These papers are also more openly revolutionary, wishing for massive changes to the existing political and economic system.

 

[Deleted member 88]

I recommend the WSWS. Go there if you want genuine Marxist analysis of modern events.

Just ignore their articles on Roman Polansky, their stanning for that man is beyond atrocious and stupid.

 

[Husky_Khan]

I don't think I've ever had trouble finding liberal, especially liberal establishment viewpoints on current affairs (ya know if they actually cover them). It's usually the inverse that's far more difficult to find, especially nowadays with how pervasive liberal/left leaning viewpoints just dominate the news media.

 

[Deleted member 88]

Marxist.com is another Trotskyite site for anyone looking for the orthodox Marxist perspective.

 

[Emperor Tippy]

You should also differentiate based on nation.

That tracks much less with right/left valence. It also provides different perspectives, and thanks to America being the best nation around; it gets lots of coverage in foreign media.

 

[Doomsought]

You should also differentiate based on nation.

That tracks much less with right/left valence. It also provides different perspectives, and thanks to America being the best nation around; it gets lots of coverage in foreign media.

Yes, left vs right just means old vs new.
The american tradition starts with enlightenment era classical liberalism/ libertarian-ism, while the European tradition is founded in Royalty.

 

[Deleted member 88]

The left well the modern left goes back to 1789. Or 1848.

 

[Unhappy Anchovy]

I was tempted to cite The Guardian as well, or perhaps Jezebel if you're curious for feminist hot takes. Unfortunately I'm not as familiar with some of those.

 

[Deleted member 88]

Or the Root for some of the most shameless racial conflict mongering this side of the 1890s.

The guardian is sensible so long as it’s not editorials.

 

[CarlManvers2019]

Anybody here ever read The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress?

Moon Libertarians(albeit it was mentioned that they even included Stalinists amongst them)forming a Political Party or similar ended up with them becoming way more increasingly....intrusive in people’s affairs as the protagonist noted before thinking that it’d be good to just immigrate to an Earth his body isn’t suited for

An AnCap or even AnCom Political party is a compromise that can lead to more possible hypocrisies

Principles over Loyalty is hard, given that to begin with we can even say we’re still following our principles as we break them by redefining some stuff

NAP? Non-Aggression-Principle? Well, guess what, people telling me to something I consider offensive is what I consider a violation and since we somehow voted in a limited government I propose we ban “X”

They’re not “hurting anyone” this Strip Club IS hurting people by spreading “immorality” ban it. Those porn mags too, they may hurt people as well. How? Well kids may see them and adults who see them become more immoral and can somehow hurt people

Also, loyalty to parties or groupthink is a thing....people may just follow the rest of the mob

It’s easy to say you’re Pro-Freedom of Speech and Pro-Free Market until you start hearing things you don’t like or hear content and watching products you consider to be dangerous.

THEN you start contemplating violating your principles “just this once” again and again

 

[Abhorsen]

Anybody here ever read The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress?

Moon Libertarians(albeit it was mentioned that they even included Stalinists amongst them)forming a Political Party or similar ended up with them becoming way more increasingly....intrusive in people’s affairs as the protagonist noted before thinking that it’d be good to just immigrate to an Earth his body isn’t suited for

An AnCap or even AnCom Political party is a compromise that can lead to more possible hypocrisies

Principles over Loyalty is hard, given that to begin with we can even say we’re still following our principles as we break them by redefining some stuff

NAP? Non-Aggression-Principle? Well, guess what, people telling me to something I consider offensive is what I consider a violation and since we somehow voted in a limited government I propose we ban “X”

They’re not “hurting anyone” this Strip Club IS hurting people by spreading “immorality” ban it. Those porn mags too, they may hurt people as well. How? Well kids may see them and adults who see them become more immoral and can somehow hurt people

Also, loyalty to parties or groupthink is a thing....people may just follow the rest of the mob

It’s easy to say you’re Pro-Freedom of Speech and Pro-Free Market until you start hearing things you don’t like or hear content and watching products you consider to be dangerous.

THEN you start contemplating violating your principles “just this once” again and again

This is off topic. Completely off topic.

Anyway, what keeps me centered is actually talking to righties that I disagree with. They scare the crap out of me sometimes. More often, I just disagree with them. It's not so much reading different sides, but instead keeping a critical distance from the source you are reading/listening to, and critique it in your head as you listen to it.

 

[Curved_Sw0rd]

Apologies for taking so long to get back to this thread and engage with you all. Forgetfulness and laziness working together make for a very distracted me.

Anyway... To bring the topic of reading news from all sides of the spectrum up, what articles are est to focus on? And should I be reading between the lines, looking for patterns in what the individual sites focus on? A cursory glance at Vox shows they pay a lot of attention to the working class, though I don't know if that's unique in the news world or just me attributing something.

Mostly my intake is Quillette and the occasional Styx video, though both have been limited as of late.