This is essentially the common argument binary thinkers have with "nuance" thinkers. Basically that nuance and understanding have an inverse relationship. Of course that's untrue. The difference between those two outlooks is temperament and worldview. People in the middle tend to see valid points on both sides of the argument. If you're firmly on one team though, you tend not to acknowledge the valid points of the other. ETA: I do acknowledge the point that sometimes nuances which are irrelevant are brought up as a form of virtue signaling.
Here's a binary statement I think you won't agree with: All Trumpers are terrorists. How do you like that? But, the truth is, some Trumpers are terrorists. Not all. Not even most. Not even many. A few. An insignificant number compared to Antifa terrorists, where nearly all are terrorists. Nuance understands that. And that's an important rebuttal to the claim that all Trumpers are terrorists.
If nuance is arbitrarily giving equal weight to all sides, and not just dividing the important and relevant things that are true and false, then you're right that that kind of nuance is not understanding. But can you tell the difference? If you're thinking about it in binary, binary good, nuance bad, always. So I'm even bringing nuanced perspective into the discussion about nuance.
I agree with pretty much all of that. But I understand that not everyone has the same priorities, which again are temperamental and worldview. And of course worldview will get in the way of consistent thinking. My SIL, for example, thinks that the economy was bad under Trump and Biden will make it better. Of course that's nonsense. But then she's a binary thinker. I don't think she's capable of acknowledging that the economy was good.
I'd bet you that CJ does not think of climate change in the binary terms you used to describe his belief.
Here's a binary statement I think you won't agree with: All Trumpers are terrorists. How do you like that? But, the truth is, some Trumpers are terrorists. Not all. Not even most. Not even many. A few. An insignificant number compared to Antifa terrorists, where nearly all are terrorists. Nuance understands that. And that's an important rebuttal to the claim that all Trumpers are terrorists.
If nuance is arbitrarily giving equal weight to all sides, and not just dividing the important and relevant things that are true and false, then you're right that that kind of nuance is not understanding. But can you tell the difference? If you're thinking about it in binary, binary good, nuance bad, always. So I'm even bringing nuanced perspective into the discussion about nuance.
So I really have a tough time figuring out what could be valued more than booming markets, record low unemployment (esp. among minorities), China knocked onto their back foot, the US a net exporter of fossil fuels and the attendant low energy costs and the return of manufacturing jobs (which now I am again reading MSM articles insisting they're not coming back, when we know they could be)
I agree with pretty much all of that. But I understand that not everyone has the same priorities, which again are temperamental and worldview. And of course worldview will get in the way of consistent thinking. My SIL, for example, thinks that the economy was bad under Trump and Biden will make it better. Of course that's nonsense. But then she's a binary thinker. I don't think she's capable of acknowledging that the economy was good.
Again, believing what the left generally believes about climate change isn't necessarily "woke". You can believe climate change is the most important issue because "science", or you can believe it because you have an ideological proclivity to believe it is oppressive to minorities. The former view isn't woke, it's just people believing what the experts tell them, the latter is almost a religious sort of belief about the DIE principle, (Diversity, Inclusion, Equity).I can't see Kut being driven by green concerns, so have to postulate it is related to race/equity v equality - which is about as woke as it gets
CampingJosh I can see being driven by green issues, so rejoining the Paris accords and crippling our economy and jacking our domestic energy costs to stop 0.2° of warming while the CCP doesn't even have reducing coal generation in it's latest five year plan and isn't even required to slow the rate of increase of its emissions until 2035 (because it is a 'developing' country, you know). Climate change is also pretty woke
I'd bet you that CJ does not think of climate change in the binary terms you used to describe his belief.
I think this explains a lot about side takers. Kut picked team never-trump. And regardless of the inconsistent ways he might deployI just see people who don't like Trump and developed a rationale to support it after the fact. I mean, come on - Kut belabored the idea that Trump was a dangerous authoritarian, but so far with what Xiden is pulling - not a word. Consistent? I think not
If the nuance is relevant, it's worth stating. If you say black people are "x", and it's relevant to note that it's an unfair characterization, that IS understanding. Are are you saying nuance never has a place? Because that's what it seems like you're saying.But even those two are crystal clear in where they're coming from, relative to the 'Not all [subgroup under discussion] are [trait under discussion]' dance. Some of those folks seem all over all sides of an issue depending on what day you read their posting
I merely speculated that nuance and understanding have an inverse relationship
Last edited: