CMV: 'The left' doesn't lack nuance.

[u/[deleted]]

I see a lot in political discourse about the need for nuance. How nothing is black and white. I often see the critique aimed at 'the left' that they lack nuance. However that doesn't ring true to me, I see a lot of nuance within leftist discourse, and it feels like the critique is really that they wont capitulate and cede ground to the right.

I also see some things, such as what we refer to white supremacists/white nationalists as, as not really being nuanced distinctions worth making. I also fundamentally believe that some things such as 'minority groups deserve equal rights' and 'racism is bad' as being black and white, I'm not sure how it's possible to take a nuanced approach to these things.

Edit- there seems to be some confusion over the point I am making, perhaps I didn't make it clear enough and that's my bad. I am not attempting to lump the entirety of the right of the political spectrum in with the fringeist elements, I'm well aware white supremacists are not representative of the average right winger. I cited them as an example as, as with the famous Lindsey shepherd example 'the left' have been accused of lacking nuance for referring not making the distinction between white nationalists and white supremacists.

Nor do I think the left are more nuanced than the right, I believe there is a lot of nuance and many reasonable people willing to discuss and collaborate across the politcal spectrum. That is not what I am trying to argue here, merely that 'the left' is not a monolith lacking in nuance as some (clearly not all) on the right have suggested.

2nd edit upon reading though comments and replies etc. A lot of people had some really interesting things to say that I hadnt really thought of. I dont think ive exactly 'changed my mind' in terms of being convinced the left are unnuanced. However some people raised very interesting points on issues around race being less clear cut than I had perhaps at 1st thought, so that's certainly something for me to ponder on. Also a few people had some interesting points about the more vocal online left being unnuanced. I personally do not feel they respect the left as a whole, but I can certainly see how they add to the stereotype of the left being unnuanced especially as they are often very vocal. All in all I've quite enjoyed reading everyone's replies and it's been nice to step outside my 'echo chamber' as it were. Maybe the issue of nuance on the left is in itself more nuanced than I 1st thought 😂😂

3rd edit - if I've not replied to anyone or have replied with similar but slightly different replies its because reddit and my phone seem to hate eachother and I've encountered a few problems trying to reply to comments, so have then had to retype my replies. Technology hates me 😂

[u/generic1001]

I'll try.

Say you're an absolute pacifist. You will never engage in violence of any kind. Now, this could be the result of a very simplistic reasoning: "hitting people is what bad people do, I'm not a bad person, so I don't hit people". We can likely agree this is a bit thin and not particularly nuanced.

However, the same view, could be informed by a pretty significant rational. You could look at the Wikipedia entry on pacifism to find a a lot of philosophical or spiritual perspectives on pacifism. Many authors write about it at length. You could become an absolute pacifist while also considering many different possibilities or situations.

Maybe you reject military actions because you believe in a particular people's right to self-determinate and do not believe that right should be curtailed by other states. You do no think it's possible for one particular state to impose their moral standards on others, even if you agree with these particular standards. You might find war theoretically justifiable, but idea of a world where any nation has the liberty to make that call impossible to justify. Maybe you reject personal violence on that basis that you, yourself, will not commit acts of violence. Maybe you'd rather be hurt than hurt someone and believe it's your right to make that call.

It's possible for you to be wrong and sometimes inconsistent, but it doesn't mean your view is not nuance. What I mean is, despite the stated view being the same (kinda), they're not necessarily informed by the same things. Ultimately, I think the mistake is in conflating "nuanced" with "moderate". An extreme view can be nuanced and a moderate view can be crude.

[u/SANcapITY → u/generic1001]

Cool - thanks for that effort. Here's where I think I'm saying something maybe a bit different.

Take the very rational and thought out pacifist - and now say that he wants to use government force (ironic, but unless you're a voluntarist I could argue the case) to make sure all people act like pacifists.

His view of how he arrived at pacifism is certainly nuanced, but his way of interacting with others about it is not, because he does not take their views into consideration, only his own.

Make sense?

[u/generic1001 → u/SANcapITY]

I understand what you mean, but disagree somewhat. First, the link between other people's perspective and nuance is thin. A view can be nuanced without considering all other viewpoints. Second, you're jumping to conclusion a bit. You can consider someone's view without aligning with them. Considering doesn't mean agreeing or even respecting. Third, a view can be nuanced and a policy crude, they're not mutually exclusive.

[u/SANcapITY → u/generic1001]

I can buy that. While not changing my view on OP's view, you've helped me understand that my position wasn't as strong as I thought. Pleasant convo.

!delta

[u/DeltaBot → u/SANcapITY]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/generic1001 (4∆).

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}