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.
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'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 deploy
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.
Last edited:
.
Although I wholeheartedly agree with the 70's. I listen to 92.3 WTTS exclusively, if that gives you an idea of what my musical tastes are.
