I could spout off a bunch of labels that mostly fit me but that's not very interesting, now is it? the more important part is how my current politics are in many ways much more true to my values and long term consistent beliefs than some I've had prior, namely proglib ones
---
RT @LittleKeegs0
I'm very curious to hear from folks why they've changed to different ideologies over time. Did your ethics change? Did you get new evidence, ne…
https://twitter.com/LittleKeegs0/status/1401046102888128514

growing up I was the prototypical Randian libertarian, albeit w/ a more prosocial bent than many of that ilk; but over time, I "learned" & got a bit woke. nothing too crazy, but I'd earnestly discuss feminism and intersectionality, taking the rhetoric-dense ideas at face value

I'd try & convince people of how feminism is good actually (parts of it are), of how privilege was meaningful (in certain ways, it is), how implicit bias affects us all (this is what rationalism is about), I'd write off the excesses of the movement as an asshole minority (it is)

I wasn't exactly blind to the inherent contradictions in what some on the same side would say, but I'd more or less cherrypick the parts I agreed with, and ignore the rest as not representative

but over time, this got harder, as the movement radicalized, and the fault lines grew

suddenly (in my view) I was expected to not ask certain questions, to accept certain dogma as truth, pushed to turn a blind eye to logical contradictions & incompatibilities w/ reality

I still wanted to "be a good guy", but it became increasingly hard

ofc, this wasnt at all new

the more polarized the atmosphere got, the harder the dogma was pushed, and the less I could ignore the obvious flaws, the tensions between what I was told to believe and the principles i cared about, those of meritocracy, objectivity, individual autonomy, of valuing Truth first

I was, admittedly, rather naive & didn't know how to play the metagame in these discussions; I'd earnestly tackle the contradictions and try to work them out, trying to walk the line between practicality and idealism. this made my very well-meaning counterparties rather mad at me

the discursive atmosphere had intensified where anything that wasn't an obvious signal of alignment was interpreted as a defection; you're questioning the practicality of a pro-equity policy? what are you, racist?

this made me rather frustrated, as I was interested in the truth

in many ways I was lucky to have a strong preexisting philosophical foundation and set of convictions; as such, I was only ever on the periphery of the movement ideologically, never fully bought in. I'd use the ideas and push for the goals, but never adopted it as a personality

many of my close friends were not so lucky; they dove headfirst into it, were pulled in by their v political girlfriends, walked into it cluelessly, only looking at the stated goals, and not the methods

it was disheartening, to say the least, to watch my v smart friends go crazy

I say crazy on purpose, not to insult them, but to impart just how divorced from reality many of these views can get; when you're expected to simultaneously believe mutually incompatible things, and not even so much as hint at their contradictions... it has a psychic toll on you

I'd love to point to one moment as the breaking point, but there wasn't one, really. more of a slow disillusionment w/ the movement and its methods, it's ideological excesses, how totalizing it was, demanding complete ideological capture

but the process was self-reinforcing

the moment you'd start questioning any dogma, you'd get massive pushback and vitriol, further alienating you and giving you mental and emotional distance, which in turn would give you even more perspective on its ideological flaws

at a certain point, you have to choose sanity