Our Culture of Contempt

On the left side of the political spectrum, It's not a single phenomena though, I think you can break it down into two camps on the left: 1. older-school globalist liberals. Probably older, supported the Clintons, ect. These people seem to have traditionally looked down on the right as backward, uneducated "basket of deplorables" or whatever. Plays into the ivory tower liberal stereotype. 2. New-school farther left. Probably younger, fans of AOC et al. They'd also be likely to look down their noses, but in more of a moral superiority perspective.

I think the condescension of #1 goes back decades and has already borne its fruit in (at least to a degree) the political situation we find ourselves in today. I worry that group # 2 hasn't learned those lessons and is proving that they'll just repeat the same mistakes. Unless they self-destruct arguing about Israel, which totally mystifies me.

That said... so much of what comes out of the right is complete and utter bullshit. From the massive propaganda machine that is fox, to infowars, to tiny hyper-racist subreddits — there's a lot of noise to separate from the signal that might be a valid, reasonable conservative argument.

With that in mind, sometimes I wonder if we don't need a bit more contempt.

Maybe if the type of outright hate speech the mainstream right seems to support was not acceptable, that would open the floor for some actual conversation.

To summarize: I wish that democrats and the left weren't been so quick to dismiss legitimate concerns from everyone outside of NYC and SF (hyperbolic, I know). But it's right wing (and especially religiously-motivated) politics that have completely skewered our politics and media.

Saying "fuck that and fuck you" to anyone who supports that system is a reasonable reaction, in my opinion.

But where does that leave us? I don't know.

1. Don't allow yourself to slide easily or prematurely into contempt. We do it too often these days.

2. Disagree better. You can disagree, but make your case and engage in the responses. Rhetoric has a place but it's being overused.

But compassion/empathy for the vulnerable/weak is not the only virtue. There is often a trade-off between compassion and other virtues (e.g. competence, discipline, protection of one's interests), and it's not always the case that choosing compassion is right pragmatically or in principle.

Compassion can also be pathological, and have harmful effects, if excessive or applied unintelligently. That's where the smothering mother motif comes from in stories and myths. Sometimes you need to hold people to account, to deter irresponsibility, for the greater good of society and even the individual who is being denied compassion. Too much compassion can and will be exploited by the unprincipled. Compassion above all else is not a sound principle around which to organize society.

This is what people dislike about the modern left, when it makes the assumption that the intentions of its political opponents are bad just because they disagree on methodology. There are conservatives who genuinely want to build a just, equitable society where everyone can flourish, and believe that strong welfare problems go against this by making people dependent on handouts. There are conservatives who genuinely believe the best way to achieve a flourishing, happy society is by following the tenants of some religion. There are conservatives who believe a just, fair society is one in which people are rewarded in accordance to how others value their work (how much other people are willing to pay them). Two people can want the same outcome but widely differ in belief about the best way to achieve it; assuming that your counterparty has bad intentions just because they disagree on the best way to achieve something or have a different definition of a word like "fair" does not lead to healthy discourse.