Live data from Hacker News

Why is it traitorous to understand the people you disagree with?

dynomight.net

71–80 of 388 posts

Re: Why is it traitorous to understand the people you disagree with?

#71

Titles like this irk me. It clearly isn’t It should be something more like: “how has general discourse become so polluted and toxified in its perceptions for it to appear that the following statement yields any factuality” … I guess that doesn’t quite have the same ring to it though.

It has often come across that way online (Twitter or forum threads). Anyone explaining (even if they say it is to help explain, not to agree with) or trying to understand the opposing sides perspective is almost the same as espousing it, and espousing it is worth brigading someone or attacking them.

It’s a ‘group purity’/‘rank discipline’ thing humans do when they feel threatened.

You’ll see plenty of folks now going after anyone claiming they are ‘apolitical’ or moderate/not on a side.

It results in folks having to pick sides publicly, but often the folks who agree with the opposition being silenced and often just voting the way they feel in quieter ways, while pretending to go along. de-facto boycotts (with no explanations), voting certain ways (Trump, whatever) without telling anyone they did it, etc.

the only people willing to stand up and espouse it publicly are those that feel they can profit off those unwilling to say it themselves or for whom due to mental defect or wealth or whatever they feel invulnerable to backlash.

I’ve personally seen groups in person do the same, but it takes somewhat extreme circumstances or toxic cultures.

I think it’s a reflex that comes out of the us vs them and ideological splintering inherent from a culture war. Which is what is happening in the US.

Broadly, it’s rural vs urban values colliding, and rural communities feeling the effects of severe brain drain and decreasing populations and wealth.

With the large shift of folks from the cities to more remote areas from Covid + Remote work, I expect it won’t go as well longer term either as a lot of the echo chamber online seems to think. There will be mixing, but people tend to get more conservative after awhile in those areas too.

Just like the 70’s with free love and hippies transitioned into the 80’s being about money money and more conservative politics, times are a changing.

Re: Why is it traitorous to understand the people you disagree with?

#72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well yes, but as much as I am a proponent of both the right to privacy and abortion, the latter doesn't really follow from the former. Just because one has a right to privacy, it doesn't follow that everything done in private is legal. Nor is abortion necessarily private - one could declare one is going to have one, or one could be visibly pregnant and then get an abortion. It would be a bizarre law if abortion was l…

>Just because one has a right to privacy, it doesn't follow that everything done in private is legal. No one, anywhere, has ever argued that the right to privacy means everything done in private is legal. That is not even remotely close to what the debate is about. You have constructed an impressively bad strawman.

Could you help me understand how the purported strawman diverges from the actual legal argumentation? It sounds like the article is making the case that this equivocation is eerily close to the actual jurisprudential reason.

Re: Why is it traitorous to understand the people you disagree with?

#73
post #53

Morality and law both work like mathematics. This means that my beliefs are constructed, and once I have a construction, the only in bounds way to convince me to change my mind about them is to show me that my beliefs are inconsistent. Moreover, understanding someone who has already demonstrated an inconsistent belief system is easy. They believe X because they believe something and its negation, and at least one of…

> Morality and law both work like mathematics.

This is something only engineers are able to believe.

Re: Why is it traitorous to understand the people you disagree with?

#74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

Is it? I strongly disagree with such a position. But it seems clear to me that many such people: 1. Believe that the foetus is alive (and often also that it is human) 2. Believe that life is sacred or otherwise precious. 3. Believe that the foetus's right to life outweighs the mother's right the self-determine use of her body. I can understand how one can have a thought process like that even if I think it's wrong in…

People certainly do believe these things and I don’t know if it’s even something they can be “logically” wrong about. Where they are factually wrong is that they think they’re traditional but these are fully modern ideas.

The actual Jewish tradition is against several of those; the actual Christian tradition may be for them, but the idea that you should actually read the Bible, know what an official position is, or do anything yourself outside of talking to a priest is a modern invention of Protestantism. And Protestants weren’t against abortion until recently, because they defined themselves as against Catholicism.

Re: Why is it traitorous to understand the people you disagree with?

#75
post #35

It is frustrating. I am on one side of the abortion debate, but I understand the other side, yet I have no success in even explaining it to my side.

I'm pro-choice, but from what I can tell, the pro-choicers who are eager to post about it on the Internet have no clue whatsoever about the actual positions of the people they're arguing against. They're also weirdly-big fans of very weak pro-choice arguments. It's really frustrating. Attempts to explain the other side, or to knock down bad arguments from "my" side so better ones can replace them, are indeed often me…

This has been my experience as well. I found myself arguing against the awful logic of my own side, more than the other side at all.

Re: Why is it traitorous to understand the people you disagree with?

#76
post #53

Morality and law both work like mathematics. This means that my beliefs are constructed, and once I have a construction, the only in bounds way to convince me to change my mind about them is to show me that my beliefs are inconsistent. Moreover, understanding someone who has already demonstrated an inconsistent belief system is easy. They believe X because they believe something and its negation, and at least one of…

Generally agree and find the same.

However, I would argue moral philosophy is inherently built on unprovable axioms. The criticism "used to justify whatever they want" is actually a necessary feature to morality, because the whole point of morals is that not everyone shares your morals. If they were shared by everyone, they would just be objective truths.

Re: Why is it traitorous to understand the people you disagree with?

#77
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Show me someone who is pregnant from rape and I'll show you 100 couples who eagerly want to adopt the baby.

And I'll show you 400k children -currently- in the foster care system, unadopted.

This suggests there is a simple solution for the abortion debate that will satisfy the (claimed) intentions of both side: Abortion should remain legal until there are zero unadopted children in the foster care system (for more than a year), and the outcomes for children who have been adopted are at least as good as those raised by their natural parents.

Re: Why is it traitorous to understand the people you disagree with?

#78
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Show me someone who is pregnant from rape and I'll show you 100 couples who eagerly want to adopt the baby.

Are you arguing for more rape?

I think he's arguing that the rape victim needs to suffer 9 more months of trauma.

Re: Why is it traitorous to understand the people you disagree with?

#79
post #53

Morality and law both work like mathematics. This means that my beliefs are constructed, and once I have a construction, the only in bounds way to convince me to change my mind about them is to show me that my beliefs are inconsistent. Moreover, understanding someone who has already demonstrated an inconsistent belief system is easy. They believe X because they believe something and its negation, and at least one of…

To add to this, _everyone_ has some kind of inconsistent belief system. It's fairly simple to determine this, when people get defensive it's almost certainly based on something incongruous between their beliefs and actions, or possibly broaches a belief they hold to be true, but are unable to demonstrate why it's true. Therefore causing defensive behavior when challenged.

I.E., very few people get upset if you say "the sky is not blue", as this is non-threatening to their beliefs and they can verify the truth themselves.

But state "your political position X is based on this specific false premise of Y", if someone holds this position strongly but cannot justify it will often trigger an emotional and often irrational defense.

Re: Why is it traitorous to understand the people you disagree with?

#80
post #53

Morality and law both work like mathematics. This means that my beliefs are constructed, and once I have a construction, the only in bounds way to convince me to change my mind about them is to show me that my beliefs are inconsistent. Moreover, understanding someone who has already demonstrated an inconsistent belief system is easy. They believe X because they believe something and its negation, and at least one of…

> Morality and law both work like mathematics. This is something only engineers are able to believe.

Not true at all. It's something philosophers and mathematicians have explored.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlQaP4c_Jxk

Post reply on HN