It's a good piece, but I feel like it's too little - it covers relatively well-trodden ground about principles, but doesn't touch on the gap between ideals and actions. We already know that, on a...
It's a good piece, but I feel like it's too little - it covers relatively well-trodden ground about principles, but doesn't touch on the gap between ideals and actions.
We already know that, on a lot of issues, there's more to unite people than divide them. We already understand that there are a few underlying moral imperatives that generally differ between liberal and conservative thinking. We already know that it's both important and possible to have respectful discussions across these divides, but that the issues are generally framed in exactly the wrong way to facilitate that. All of this is crucial, but not new.
What I'm far more interested in is the dissonance between principle and action. Jackson Cooter is described as an intelligent, strongly ethical man - yet he says he would have voted for a known cheat, liar, and conman had he been able. I'm no doubt revealing my own biases, much as I try to be objective, but that is my understanding of Trump from matters of factual public record. He's the example from the article, but the same concept could be applied across many situations playing out across the globe.
My concern is this: all the philosophical debate and hard-fought common ground in the world is meaningless if people are willing to vote for candidates who do nothing to uphold their stated principles, and the evidence suggests that they absolutely are. I desperately hope I'm not, but it's quite possible that I'm even guilty of this myself. So what now?
Most conservatives and many centrists see Clinton as just as much a cheat, liar and conman as Trump. For someone like Jackson, the decision to vote Trump over Clinton probably comes down to issues...
Exemplary
Most conservatives and many centrists see Clinton as just as much a cheat, liar and conman as Trump. For someone like Jackson, the decision to vote Trump over Clinton probably comes down to issues like gun control and abortion, not how honest or trustworthy a candidate is. For example, Jackson states he is pro-life, anti-abortion. "In response to a question from Chris Wallace about late-term abortion at the third presidential debate in 2016, [Clinton] took a hard line and said, 'I do not think the United States government should be stepping in and making those most personal of decisions.'” This clearly goes against the stated principles of Jackson and is probably a main selling point of not wanting to vote for Clinton. One of the main reasons why the GOP retains their power is framing these issues as an "us vs them" where liberals are trying to kill babies up until they are actually born, or are for open borders with no checks on immigration, etc.
This goes back to us needing to actually listen to what is being said rather than "what we say he's saying." Go into almost any thread on social media discussing politics or watch MSNBC or Fox News and it's full of people screaming that the other side is <insert extreme position here>. That's what gets the page clicks and views. The drama and outrage are what divide us and charge us full of emotion, driving us to want to give our input or like a comment that supports our own views. The cycle of outrage then continues.
I think one of the most important parts of this article is when Mandery states "In my entire career, I’ve never seen a classroom conversation degenerate into the kind of ad hominem attacks that are rampant on social media and cable news.
Professors Sandel, Gilligan, and Graham said they’d never seen it either. We can teach people to distinguish unreasonable arguments from reasonable arguments with which they disagree and, where differences are unresolvable, how to disagree reasonably. And yet we don’t do it."
Does that opinion reflect reality, though? I'm no great fan of Clinton, and I would still argue that it does not - but I'm very open to discussion if you disagree. That raises an interesting...
Most conservatives and many centrists see Clinton as just as much a cheat, liar and conman as Trump.
Does that opinion reflect reality, though? I'm no great fan of Clinton, and I would still argue that it does not - but I'm very open to discussion if you disagree.
For someone like Jackson, the decision to vote Trump over Clinton probably comes down to issues like gun control and abortion, not how honest or trustworthy a candidate is.
That raises an interesting point, actually - the morality of a person single-issue voting for someone they personally consider to be a bad candidate on most other issues. Perhaps I'm considering Jackson to be a Trump supporter when in fact he would be a reluctant Trump voter.
The drama and outrage are what divide us and charge us full of emotion, driving us to want to give our input or like a comment that supports our own views. The cycle of outrage then continues.
I do understand this, and I think it's very important, as is the section you quoted below about reasonable disagreement. A more reasonable and respectful political climate would be a very positive thing, but my concern remains: would it be enough?
Maybe the answer is yes, maybe winding back the tribalism on all sides would allow people to better critically assess their own preferred candidates. I'm still not convinced, though - history suggests that some pretty awful people can still garner the support of otherwise moral and reasonable people.
Reality is not what they are looking at though. Look at how quickly conservative media points to illegal or shady things any liberal does, while remaining silent when it's a Republican. For the...
Does that opinion reflect reality, though?
Reality is not what they are looking at though. Look at how quickly conservative media points to illegal or shady things any liberal does, while remaining silent when it's a Republican. For the vast majority of them, they are not interested in "Fake News" because they know better.
I have no idea whether Jackson is a supporter or a reluctant voter, but when the end result is the same does it really matter? He and most others that still pick Trump for whatever the reason are still voting Trump. They aren't interested in whatever policies or ideals other candidates stand for if their pet issue is one they disagree on. As I mentioned in my comment to mike10010100, they are voting to keep America "Christian" not to make lives of others better.
In today's society I don't think we will achieve respectful political discourse because the us vs them divide is what keeps the GOP in power. If they started conceding that most progressive policies would help the vast majority of their base, they would likely lose that base. But they focus on attacks and reinterpret what the "others" say to drive home fear and mistrust. Without that, they lose almost all their power.
There may be unknown principles in play, either in something they're not telling you or in something they aren't telling themselves. Not exactly the best sort of tack to change minds to say "I...
My concern is this: all the philosophical debate and hard-fought common ground in the world is meaningless if people are willing to vote for candidates who do nothing to uphold their stated principles, and the evidence suggests that they absolutely are.
There may be unknown principles in play, either in something they're not telling you or in something they aren't telling themselves. Not exactly the best sort of tack to change minds to say "I know your position better than you do," so that might not be the thing to lead with. Especially if for him, Trump was a less than ideal candidate, but more emblematic of a rejection of Clinton era government, offered more on paper freedoms than the Democratic offering, or he was voting a wall into office.
But you might a better handle on it with positive and negative freedom theory, in that Trump may offer maximum freedoms to Jordan and Jordan looking individuals, in reality it's at the cost of other people who aren't very Jordan at all. So you got to choose between maximum horded freedoms for few, which is anarchy, or maximum distributed freedoms for all, which is probably a little more socialist than the unrestricted free market system we have.
The unknown principle is emotional irrationality, mainly surrounding, as you point out, selfish tendencies. So long as supporting Trump gets them more stuff, then that's what they're going to choose.
The unknown principle is emotional irrationality, mainly surrounding, as you point out, selfish tendencies. So long as supporting Trump gets them more stuff, then that's what they're going to choose.
That is the case for the rich republicans, but the poor ones are getting screwed by the republicans just as much as the rest of us. The emotional irrationality comes down to how the information is...
So long as supporting Trump gets them more stuff, then that's what they're going to choose.
That is the case for the rich republicans, but the poor ones are getting screwed by the republicans just as much as the rest of us. The emotional irrationality comes down to how the information is presented to them. The Bible belt is overwhelmingly Republican because the they are pandered as the group that is trying to keep this country Christian. They drive home a fear of "Godless liberals" that accept sins like homosexuality, abortion, etc. The illegal immigrants are the ones that are responsible for drugs, crime and lack of social services because they are already criminals for coming here illegally so why wouldn't they be guilty of worse? It's similar to how the mafia is glorified while gangs are demonized. The mafia go to church so they are still respectable, but the gangs are degenerate drug users/dealers. That's why socialism is so bad, because socialists are commies, commies are atheists and atheists are going to bring about the destruction of good Christian values.
In their eyes, it's not selfishness, but rather selflessness. They are willing to suffer and sacrifice for the glory of God and to make sure their children will be brought up in a society that loves and worships God (Jews and Muslims don't count because they don't believe in Jesus). It's why so many still support Trump and the GOP, because they are putting forward laws to stop abortion, keep LGBT people in the closet and appointing judges that understand good ol' boys will be boys, they just need a little help finding Jesus now and again.
Education. Unfortunately, America’s education system has been stripped down to encourage the situation we are now in. The younger we can get people to start thinking rather than parroting, the...
Education. Unfortunately, America’s education system has been stripped down to encourage the situation we are now in. The younger we can get people to start thinking rather than parroting, the better off we will be.
Life after Hate is probably your best resource on how to sort out getting out of white nationalism in particular. An extremely important bit is that people have to want to get out. Being...
Life after Hate is probably your best resource on how to sort out getting out of white nationalism in particular. An extremely important bit is that people have to want to get out. Being hatefilled and spiteful and fearful is tiring, and a lot of people who get out are burnt out on being in such an emotional state for extended periods of time, but wanting to get out is important, you can't force it.
The role of selfishness in democracy seems more ambiguous than that? In other circumstances we sometimes criticize people for voting against their own self-interest.
The role of selfishness in democracy seems more ambiguous than that? In other circumstances we sometimes criticize people for voting against their own self-interest.
Yes, and "I think you're just being selfish" isn't really impactful criticism from an outside party. Maybe thought experiments like "how would you go about getting the most freedom for the most...
Yes, and "I think you're just being selfish" isn't really impactful criticism from an outside party. Maybe thought experiments like "how would you go about getting the most freedom for the most people" would have better results. If they're being antagonistic then by all means they're aren't worth your time, but if you could plant a seed, something might happen.
While certainly some people would answer with this, the prevalence of helping others being a near universal virtue makes me think that this would not be the most common answer. Besides, even if it...
While certainly some people would answer with this, the prevalence of helping others being a near universal virtue makes me think that this would not be the most common answer.
Besides, even if it was uncommon for someone to want the most people to have the most amount of freedom, I'd argue that changing some minds is better than declaring the ability to change any minds impossible and giving up on the concept.
This was an interesting article, although the author seemed to buy into conservative talking points about the idea that "liberals want to censor ideas they don't like." People often want to...
This was an interesting article, although the author seemed to buy into conservative talking points about the idea that "liberals want to censor ideas they don't like." People often want to portray it as a debate over free speech when the question from the perspective of people who are "against the first amendment" is actually whether harm would be done by platforming xenophobic alt-right figures. Still, it was interesting to see the general concept of looking at things sincerely from the opposite point of view.
Sit back and watch as they becomes that person who threw somebody under the bus in an Ethics class. Assuming that it can't be gamed by agreeing with someone who wants to withdraw from the class,...
Sit back and watch as they becomes that person who threw somebody under the bus in an Ethics class. Assuming that it can't be gamed by agreeing with someone who wants to withdraw from the class, that is an asshole move and you are burning your first bridge right at the start of the semester.
But there's no chance he would actually award the F to someone else, right? So, given that there's no chance it's actually going to happen the student has nothing to lose.
But there's no chance he would actually award the F to someone else, right?
So, given that there's no chance it's actually going to happen the student has nothing to lose.
It's a good piece, but I feel like it's too little - it covers relatively well-trodden ground about principles, but doesn't touch on the gap between ideals and actions.
We already know that, on a lot of issues, there's more to unite people than divide them. We already understand that there are a few underlying moral imperatives that generally differ between liberal and conservative thinking. We already know that it's both important and possible to have respectful discussions across these divides, but that the issues are generally framed in exactly the wrong way to facilitate that. All of this is crucial, but not new.
What I'm far more interested in is the dissonance between principle and action. Jackson Cooter is described as an intelligent, strongly ethical man - yet he says he would have voted for a known cheat, liar, and conman had he been able. I'm no doubt revealing my own biases, much as I try to be objective, but that is my understanding of Trump from matters of factual public record. He's the example from the article, but the same concept could be applied across many situations playing out across the globe.
My concern is this: all the philosophical debate and hard-fought common ground in the world is meaningless if people are willing to vote for candidates who do nothing to uphold their stated principles, and the evidence suggests that they absolutely are. I desperately hope I'm not, but it's quite possible that I'm even guilty of this myself. So what now?
Most conservatives and many centrists see Clinton as just as much a cheat, liar and conman as Trump. For someone like Jackson, the decision to vote Trump over Clinton probably comes down to issues like gun control and abortion, not how honest or trustworthy a candidate is. For example, Jackson states he is pro-life, anti-abortion. "In response to a question from Chris Wallace about late-term abortion at the third presidential debate in 2016, [Clinton] took a hard line and said, 'I do not think the United States government should be stepping in and making those most personal of decisions.'” This clearly goes against the stated principles of Jackson and is probably a main selling point of not wanting to vote for Clinton. One of the main reasons why the GOP retains their power is framing these issues as an "us vs them" where liberals are trying to kill babies up until they are actually born, or are for open borders with no checks on immigration, etc.
This goes back to us needing to actually listen to what is being said rather than "what we say he's saying." Go into almost any thread on social media discussing politics or watch MSNBC or Fox News and it's full of people screaming that the other side is <insert extreme position here>. That's what gets the page clicks and views. The drama and outrage are what divide us and charge us full of emotion, driving us to want to give our input or like a comment that supports our own views. The cycle of outrage then continues.
I think one of the most important parts of this article is when Mandery states "In my entire career, I’ve never seen a classroom conversation degenerate into the kind of ad hominem attacks that are rampant on social media and cable news.
Professors Sandel, Gilligan, and Graham said they’d never seen it either. We can teach people to distinguish unreasonable arguments from reasonable arguments with which they disagree and, where differences are unresolvable, how to disagree reasonably. And yet we don’t do it."
Does that opinion reflect reality, though? I'm no great fan of Clinton, and I would still argue that it does not - but I'm very open to discussion if you disagree.
That raises an interesting point, actually - the morality of a person single-issue voting for someone they personally consider to be a bad candidate on most other issues. Perhaps I'm considering Jackson to be a Trump supporter when in fact he would be a reluctant Trump voter.
I do understand this, and I think it's very important, as is the section you quoted below about reasonable disagreement. A more reasonable and respectful political climate would be a very positive thing, but my concern remains: would it be enough?
Maybe the answer is yes, maybe winding back the tribalism on all sides would allow people to better critically assess their own preferred candidates. I'm still not convinced, though - history suggests that some pretty awful people can still garner the support of otherwise moral and reasonable people.
Reality is not what they are looking at though. Look at how quickly conservative media points to illegal or shady things any liberal does, while remaining silent when it's a Republican. For the vast majority of them, they are not interested in "Fake News" because they know better.
I have no idea whether Jackson is a supporter or a reluctant voter, but when the end result is the same does it really matter? He and most others that still pick Trump for whatever the reason are still voting Trump. They aren't interested in whatever policies or ideals other candidates stand for if their pet issue is one they disagree on. As I mentioned in my comment to mike10010100, they are voting to keep America "Christian" not to make lives of others better.
In today's society I don't think we will achieve respectful political discourse because the us vs them divide is what keeps the GOP in power. If they started conceding that most progressive policies would help the vast majority of their base, they would likely lose that base. But they focus on attacks and reinterpret what the "others" say to drive home fear and mistrust. Without that, they lose almost all their power.
There may be unknown principles in play, either in something they're not telling you or in something they aren't telling themselves. Not exactly the best sort of tack to change minds to say "I know your position better than you do," so that might not be the thing to lead with. Especially if for him, Trump was a less than ideal candidate, but more emblematic of a rejection of Clinton era government, offered more on paper freedoms than the Democratic offering, or he was voting a wall into office.
But you might a better handle on it with positive and negative freedom theory, in that Trump may offer maximum freedoms to Jordan and Jordan looking individuals, in reality it's at the cost of other people who aren't very Jordan at all. So you got to choose between maximum horded freedoms for few, which is anarchy, or maximum distributed freedoms for all, which is probably a little more socialist than the unrestricted free market system we have.
The unknown principle is emotional irrationality, mainly surrounding, as you point out, selfish tendencies. So long as supporting Trump gets them more stuff, then that's what they're going to choose.
That is the case for the rich republicans, but the poor ones are getting screwed by the republicans just as much as the rest of us. The emotional irrationality comes down to how the information is presented to them. The Bible belt is overwhelmingly Republican because the they are pandered as the group that is trying to keep this country Christian. They drive home a fear of "Godless liberals" that accept sins like homosexuality, abortion, etc. The illegal immigrants are the ones that are responsible for drugs, crime and lack of social services because they are already criminals for coming here illegally so why wouldn't they be guilty of worse? It's similar to how the mafia is glorified while gangs are demonized. The mafia go to church so they are still respectable, but the gangs are degenerate drug users/dealers. That's why socialism is so bad, because socialists are commies, commies are atheists and atheists are going to bring about the destruction of good Christian values.
In their eyes, it's not selfishness, but rather selflessness. They are willing to suffer and sacrifice for the glory of God and to make sure their children will be brought up in a society that loves and worships God (Jews and Muslims don't count because they don't believe in Jesus). It's why so many still support Trump and the GOP, because they are putting forward laws to stop abortion, keep LGBT people in the closet and appointing judges that understand good ol' boys will be boys, they just need a little help finding Jesus now and again.
So how do you deprogram a cultist?
Education. Unfortunately, America’s education system has been stripped down to encourage the situation we are now in. The younger we can get people to start thinking rather than parroting, the better off we will be.
Life after Hate is probably your best resource on how to sort out getting out of white nationalism in particular. An extremely important bit is that people have to want to get out. Being hatefilled and spiteful and fearful is tiring, and a lot of people who get out are burnt out on being in such an emotional state for extended periods of time, but wanting to get out is important, you can't force it.
The role of selfishness in democracy seems more ambiguous than that? In other circumstances we sometimes criticize people for voting against their own self-interest.
Yes, and "I think you're just being selfish" isn't really impactful criticism from an outside party. Maybe thought experiments like "how would you go about getting the most freedom for the most people" would have better results. If they're being antagonistic then by all means they're aren't worth your time, but if you could plant a seed, something might happen.
Yes, but the end result is the same: they answer with "why do I want the most people to have the most freedom? I've got my freedom".
While certainly some people would answer with this, the prevalence of helping others being a near universal virtue makes me think that this would not be the most common answer.
Besides, even if it was uncommon for someone to want the most people to have the most amount of freedom, I'd argue that changing some minds is better than declaring the ability to change any minds impossible and giving up on the concept.
This was an interesting article, although the author seemed to buy into conservative talking points about the idea that "liberals want to censor ideas they don't like." People often want to portray it as a debate over free speech when the question from the perspective of people who are "against the first amendment" is actually whether harm would be done by platforming xenophobic alt-right figures. Still, it was interesting to see the general concept of looking at things sincerely from the opposite point of view.
What's he going to do when someone takes him up on this offer, and then gives a clear and cogent reason for doing so?
Sit back and watch as they becomes that person who threw somebody under the bus in an Ethics class. Assuming that it can't be gamed by agreeing with someone who wants to withdraw from the class, that is an asshole move and you are burning your first bridge right at the start of the semester.
But there's no chance he would actually award the F to someone else, right?
So, given that there's no chance it's actually going to happen the student has nothing to lose.