Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

dynomight.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 388 posts

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

#81

Post by daenz »

There's another tactic that you could list under the "strategic model" so that it becomes like the "outlier model": misrepresent how many people actually hold the opposing view. For example, with abortion, by the way it's presented on social media, you would think it's a men vs women topic. But as recently as 2019[0], of pro-lifers, women were the majority. And pro-lifers are nearly half of the population.

But if you were to gauge the sizes of the groups based on MSM and social media, you would think pro-lifers were much smaller of a group, and dominated by men. This is a strategy to convert the other side into the "outlier model" so that it is justified to not make any attempt to hear them. This strategy appears to be super effective... of amplifying some causes and downplaying other causes, so much so, that it should have its own category in the models section.

0. https://news.gallup.com/poll/244709/pro-choice-pro-life-2018...

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

#82

Post by unyttigfjelltol »

mikece wrote: post #12

This blog post touches on a topic with far-reaching consequences that I think a lot of people are missing because they are focusing only on the question of abortion, and that is PRIVACY. In a nutshell, Roe makes abortion legal by guaranteeing the privacy of a woman to make that decision with her doctor. If Roe is overturned then it's this assumption of privacy which will have been vacated... and once it is I suspect…

The timing is notable, coming on the heels of an emphatic conservative critique of compelled vaccination. For the first time in memory the right side of the aisle has been arguing for bodily autonomy and the left for the state's right to compel people to accept medical treatment over objection (or even an extended form of home-confinement). It's the first time in memory I have some hope the different sides of the debate might see common ground.

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

#83

Post by sjostrom7 »

corrral wrote: post #35
MockObject wrote: post #17

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…

I (100% pro-choice) think they just get bored with hammering on the bodily autonomy aspect, so they start making posts about what the bible "really" says about abortion and other weak, as you say, arguments. I really think they get tired of saying the same thing over and over, even though it's important. I know I do.

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

#84

Post by dgb23 »

colordrops wrote: post #36
xg15 wrote: post #28

> There’s a certain phenomenon I often wonder about, one that only seems to occur with culture war topics. I mean, the term "culture war" itself is part of the "conservative" vocabulary in that issue. So I can see why the whole thing is not easy.

That's your own characterization, and not universal. I've personally seen the term more often in non-conservative forums and circles. Not that it matters to your point, which I get and agree with.

They probably meant historically. If I remember correctly it was coined as a part of a wider strategy decades ago. Of course, it is a catchy term and is being used widely now.

Similarly the term political correctness was initially a term used in jest by the left I think.

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

#85

Post by h2odragon »

hutzlibu wrote: post #41
h2odragon wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are you saying a parent should be able to kill a 12 year old? Yes, that is the correct reading. Note: This is an extreme statement to prompt discussion, not a deeply held belief that everyone must share. It's not that I don't feel this way; but i feel more strongly that this is a question that shows the limits of what the state can do.

" but i feel more strongly that this is a question that shows the limits of what the state can do" No, it just shows how extreme your property thinking is. A child is the property of their parents and they should be able to do with it, what they want? Even kill them, as it is their property? Nope. Those times have passed. And even in savage times, where this might have been more common, there was certainly social bac…

For the record; i do not advocate "people as property".

However, where the state holds us responsible for the actions of those living creatures in our care, the state does treat them (and us) as property.

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

#86

Post by ouid »

ironmagma wrote: post #76
ouid wrote: 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.

different starting points can yield different results without producing a fundamental problem. It's like the score in a video game. But it is bad if a starting point can yield any result, or a result and its negation, at that point you provably might as well believe anything.

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

#87

Post by MockObject »

daenz wrote: post #81

There's another tactic that you could list under the "strategic model" so that it becomes like the "outlier model": misrepresent how many people actually hold the opposing view. For example, with abortion, by the way it's presented on social media, you would think it's a men vs women topic. But as recently as 2019[0], of pro-lifers, women were the majority. And pro-lifers are nearly half of the population. But if you…

> For example, with abortion, by the way it's presented on social media, you would think it's a men vs women topic.

Because one of the most common talking points is that "they just want to control women's bodies".

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

#88

Post by lazide »

corrral wrote: post #35
MockObject wrote: post #17

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…

One thing I’ve come to realize over the years - words are rarely about what they seem on the surface or their contents, but almost always:

1) trying to convince or manipulate someone else or themselves to their benefit, either to agree with them (which feels good), or do something they want (which feels good)

2) self awareness, especially on self mental health, is in extremely short supply.

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

#89

Post by havblue »

blueberrychpstx wrote: post #10

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.

You understood the point though. Abortion is a third rail political topic so for most unenlightened people on either side of the issue, there is no middle ground.

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

#90

Post by ranger207 »

There's a bunch of people saying that it isn't traitorous to understand your opponent, but boy do people make you feel like it is. People like their strawmen because it reinforces the collective groupthink of their tribe, and anything that possibly humanizes the opponent also weakens the argument that your side is objectively correct. If you're interested in finding the truth then understanding your opponent is a critical step in finding the truth, but if you're interested in belonging to your tribe then understanding your opponent is anathema. Don't forget, you are not immune to propaganda, and you are not immune to tribalism, even if you know that you are not immune to either.

My solution to fostering cooperation is to switch to a voting system other than first past the post, so that political parties can be elected that are too small to have a majority on their own and must cooperate to govern, but that's just my opinion and I'm not sure it'll work at this point

Post reply on HN