The Righteousness Fix • Hacker News Board

Re: The Righteousness Fix

#171

Post by edmcnulty101 » Tue, Jan 11, 2022, 9:42 PM UTC

glial wrote: post #79

edmcnulty101 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The labels applied to liberals here are ones with positive connotations, and the labels applied to conservatives have negative ones. One could choose other labels that make for a different obvious outcome. I thought the exact same thing. I don't think people even realize when they're being rightous.

Connotations aren't universal. I think "pure" or even "authority" could be argued to have positive connotations in certain contexts and to certain people.

fairness and caring for others have zero negative connotations.

those are universally respected and well received attributes across time, culture, and space.

purity and authority have many negative connotations. I don't even need to say them.

I feel like it's disingenuous of you to claim otherwise.

Re: The Righteousness Fix

#172

Post by jimbokun » Tue, Jan 11, 2022, 10:17 PM UTC

giraffe_lady wrote: post #168

jimbokun wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it has to be a change to the culture. Many of us have been shocked at the sudden rejection of Classical Liberalism. Preference for free exchange of ideas, objectivity, debate, judging arguments without regard to who is making the argument. I think those of us who were engaged in that intellectual world, never realized that most people are not invested in these values. So now that everyone has the capability t…

It's not that I reject those values per se in their intended, theoretical sense. I don't find them a sufficiently nuanced tool when applied to the world, and so reject any framework that depends wholly on them. For example: * None of us are making objective judgements about an argument without considering how the speaker affects us. If you believe you're above this, your evaluations are similarly tainted, just as som…

Yes, your comment is exactly part of the problem I am talking about.

You write long sentences and use sophisticated vocabulary, but what you are saying is that the truth or value of a belief or an idea depends on the person speaking or writing it. Not on the quality of the belief or idea itself. This is sophisticated tribalism.

"I don't really want to debate any of these specifically so won't engage further on them."

Of course. Because truth or challenging your own preconceptions are not important to you. Just reinforcing your alliance to your self perceived tribe.

Re: The Righteousness Fix

#173

Post by calebm » Tue, Jan 11, 2022, 10:32 PM UTC

welshwelsh wrote: post #119

cwoolfe wrote: post #115

This is the natural consequence of killing God, as Nietzsche observed. Without an objective basis, there's no objective truth about what's valuable, right, or good. But we desperately want to be right, so we ignore what God says is right and invent our own version. "For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness." - The apostle Paul's le…

But was there ever an objective basis? No two believers could ever agree on what God wants, even back when Jesus was alive. Because God is nothing but an invention of man, what God thinks is merely a reflection of what each individual person thinks. Even if you go off a text like the Bible, there is no objective interpretation of what it means. >has zero pride, was so humble Jesus literally claimed to be the son of G…

I actually believe Jesus came to show us that we are all one with God. When people said he was blaspheming, his response was not "I'm a one-of-a-kind god/man combo"... instead, he said: "“Is it not written in your Law, I said, you are gods’? If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken—"

For some reason, churches don't seem to talk about this.

I am, and so are you.

Re: The Righteousness Fix

#174

Post by giraffe_lady » Tue, Jan 11, 2022, 10:48 PM UTC

jimbokun wrote: post #172

giraffe_lady wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not that I reject those values per se in their intended, theoretical sense. I don't find them a sufficiently nuanced tool when applied to the world, and so reject any framework that depends wholly on them. For example: * None of us are making objective judgements about an argument without considering how the speaker affects us. If you believe you're above this, your evaluations are similarly tainted, just as som…

Yes, your comment is exactly part of the problem I am talking about. You write long sentences and use sophisticated vocabulary, but what you are saying is that the truth or value of a belief or an idea depends on the person speaking or writing it. Not on the quality of the belief or idea itself. This is sophisticated tribalism. "I don't really want to debate any of these specifically so won't engage further on them."…

You said you were shocked by people rejecting classical liberalism. I offered some of the reasons I've rejected classical liberalism.

I don't think it's possible to evaluate an idea purely on its own merits, without considering the people forming, executing, and effected by it. I don't think it would be meaningful if you could.

That may be irreconcilable with your worldview! That doesn't give you a view into my mind or soul and tell me what is or isn't important to me. It's possibly that I don't value what you consider to be The Truth.

Honestly the idea that there even is anything resembling a single objective truth on complex issues is a lot of my fucking problem with liberalism right there.

I'm not trying to say that some people's ideas should matter more than others. I am saying that that is already true in the structure of the world and that we have a responsibility to acknowledge and account for that.

Re: The Righteousness Fix

#175

Post by kirse » Tue, Jan 11, 2022, 11:35 PM UTC

dang wrote: post #143

cwoolfe wrote: post #115

This is the natural consequence of killing God, as Nietzsche observed. Without an objective basis, there's no objective truth about what's valuable, right, or good. But we desperately want to be right, so we ignore what God says is right and invent our own version. "For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness." - The apostle Paul's le…

Please don't take HN threads into generic religious arguments. They lead to religious flamewars, which are particularly bad threads for HN. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Please don't take HN threads into generic religious arguments. They lead to religious flamewars

Or they don't, as demonstrated by the results of this thread. Further, where was your commentary on this large thread then? Is there some sort of distinction between "spiritual" and "religious" that HN commenters are not aware of?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29700445

Your selective enforcement of a non-existent rule in the guidelines regarding religious discussions makes me question if you just don't personally like the content above. Of course any conversation about "righteousness" will likely delve straight into morality, philosophy, religion, etc.

Maybe you ought to take the HN guidelines into account and "Assume good faith" on behalf of the parent commenter who was contributing directly in line with the topic of the posted article

>> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

Re: The Righteousness Fix

#176

Post by notacoward » Tue, Jan 11, 2022, 11:51 PM UTC

edmcnulty101 wrote: post #170

notacoward wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps it's not explicit in the context provided, but Haidt was talking about priorities . Most people believe in all things on the list. The question is which way they'll decide when they encounter a conflict between two (or more) of these values. Which one do they preserve, and which do they suspend? It's the literal definition of a moral dilemma, and people have been pondering these questions for thousands of yea…

What's the science behind claiming that conservatives prefer authority over fairness or caring for others? Sounds like unscientific terms used to demonize an large group by choosing favorable characteristics for one group and unfavorable characteristics for another. Conservatives do it also by characterizing liberals as emotional and irrational and bleeding heart and impractical and incompetent furry avocado toast ea…

> What's the science behind claiming that conservatives prefer authority over fairness or caring for others?

https://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2020/novemb...

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/conservative-and-...

That's just a quick sample. I could spam this discussion with links until the cows come home, but I won't. It's pretty well-known stuff really, and it shouldn't even be surprising. Wouldn't it be weird if such differences in priorities didn't exist, or ran contrary to the obvious and deep antipathy between adherents of those two quasi-religions? Maybe some people are uncomfortable with such results placing them in a category inconsistent with their self-image, but that dissonance is best handled via introspection instead of aggression.

Re: The Righteousness Fix

#177

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Jan 11, 2022, 11:56 PM UTC

edmcnulty101 wrote: post #171

glial wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Connotations aren't universal. I think "pure" or even "authority" could be argued to have positive connotations in certain contexts and to certain people.

fairness and caring for others have zero negative connotations. those are universally respected and well received attributes across time, culture, and space. purity and authority have many negative connotations. I don't even need to say them. I feel like it's disingenuous of you to claim otherwise.

[deleted]

Re: The Righteousness Fix

#178

Post by notacoward » Wed, Jan 12, 2022, 12:44 AM UTC

edmcnulty101 wrote: post #171

glial wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Connotations aren't universal. I think "pure" or even "authority" could be argued to have positive connotations in certain contexts and to certain people.

fairness and caring for others have zero negative connotations. those are universally respected and well received attributes across time, culture, and space. purity and authority have many negative connotations. I don't even need to say them. I feel like it's disingenuous of you to claim otherwise.

> fairness and caring for others have zero negative connotations

Nobody has ever accused another of letting sentimentality or "heartstring stuff" interfere with long-term/greater good? A whole lot of "law and order" or "pure reason" types from time immemorial stand as counterexamples.

> purity and authority have many negative connotations

Also many positive ones. You think evangelicals don't prize purity above some of these other values? You think all the "strong leader" rhetoric doesn't play on people placing authority pretty high in the moral pecking order? Are people evil for being amenable to those manipulations? Who's demonizing now?

What you perceive as positive or negative connotations reflects your beliefs. Don't attack others for what you put there.

Re: The Righteousness Fix

#179

Post by JackFr » Wed, Jan 12, 2022, 2:14 AM UTC

edmcnulty101 wrote: post #160

JackFr wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect you’re making more implicit assumptions than you realize. Also your snarky, facile dismissal of religion makes the idea of constructive engagement with you seem unlikely. I think you missed the point.

Please tell me where there was snark or dismissal of religion? Talk about missing the point.

Do you believe “invisible man in the sky” is an accurate representation of of the beliefs of billions of people?

I read that as snarky. Maybe I am too cynical.

Re: The Righteousness Fix

#180

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Jan 12, 2022, 3:22 AM UTC

edmcnulty101 wrote: post #171

glial wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Connotations aren't universal. I think "pure" or even "authority" could be argued to have positive connotations in certain contexts and to certain people.

fairness and caring for others have zero negative connotations. those are universally respected and well received attributes across time, culture, and space. purity and authority have many negative connotations. I don't even need to say them. I feel like it's disingenuous of you to claim otherwise.

[deleted]