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

231–240 of 388 posts

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

#231

Post by adastra22 »

sjostrom7 wrote: post #83
corrral wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Bodily autonomy is still ignoring the pro-lifer position though, who would argue “what about the baby’s rights?”

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

#232

Post by ouid »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #185
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…

> the only in bounds way to convince me to change my mind about them is to show me that my beliefs are inconsistent Have you not examined your beliefs at all? No 100% consistent belief system has even been invented, because the different principles that allow advanced society to exist conflict with each other - duty to the collective, freedom, equality, etc. Should the tolerant, tolerate people who are Nazis? Should…

It's trivially easy to create a consistent belief system. Simply have no beliefs. The mutually exclusive properties are consistency and completeness (although these can be mutually satisfied in certain limited circumstances not likely to be relevant here).

You can have no belief at all about abortion. In that case, you are free to choose one as an axiom, although you are also free to not choose. If you choose a belief about abortion as an axiom and the result is that you end up believing both a thing and its negation, then you will need to abandon one of the necessary premises for that construction.

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

#233

Post by drewcoo »

RobertRoberts wrote: post #178
timoth3y wrote: post #68

The answer to the question in the title is contained in the title. For a number of reasons, we seem to have reached the point where hyperbolic, emotional statements get attention and calm, rational discussion is ignored. A world where everyone is trying to position themselves as the persecuted, besieged voice of reason defending simple truth against irrational attractors, does not leave much room for common ground. I…

Here is Milton Friedman discussing a politically charged topic with Bernie Sanders in a very civil manner. (though Bernie doesn't speak much) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sElz_P6QsZo (ignore the inflammatory title and intro screen) Civility and decorum are what is missing today. And if it was taught in our schools today, and valued in society at large, maybe it we could still have debates like this.

> Civility and decorum are what is missing today.

That's what got us Joe Biden, who mostly has the same policies as Donald Trump, is a democrat who has always been a lot like a pretty conservative republican, but says nice things and only sniffs girls' hair instead of grabbing by the _____. Downvote for that if you like but the lesser of two appalling characters is still appalling.

What's missing is a deeper understanding of issues, a willingness to understand not the other side but all sides of an issue, and a recognition that meeting in the middle is deciding not to decide. We need brains, backbones, and a willingness to avoid partisanship.

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

#234

Post by mdp2021 »

RobertRoberts wrote: post #178
timoth3y wrote: post #68

The answer to the question in the title is contained in the title. For a number of reasons, we seem to have reached the point where hyperbolic, emotional statements get attention and calm, rational discussion is ignored. A world where everyone is trying to position themselves as the persecuted, besieged voice of reason defending simple truth against irrational attractors, does not leave much room for common ground. I…

Here is Milton Friedman discussing a politically charged topic with Bernie Sanders in a very civil manner. (though Bernie doesn't speak much) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sElz_P6QsZo (ignore the inflammatory title and intro screen) Civility and decorum are what is missing today. And if it was taught in our schools today, and valued in society at large, maybe it we could still have debates like this.

> Civility and decorum ... taught in our schools today

"Education" means "leading", think "as if hand in hand, in time": it is a matter (in this case) of transmission through /example/ - not of passing information. Then, you can bring awareness to it: and awareness raising passes through showing that one way is higher and the other is low.

You must live that example.

The rarer the example, the greater the evidence of a social crisis. Some noticed, the crisis in higher culture is surely a damage, but it is that in the common culture of pyramidal society (the brother, the teacher etc.) that is mining the texture.

> maybe... we could still have debates like this

Some people are getting warier, as if in the terms legendarily attributed to Mark Twain: "Don’t argue with a fool, or the listener will say there is a pair of you". To debate, you need adequate interlocutors - if Umberto Eco imagined discussing with a six years old (a "new modern possibility"), he wanted the different credentials to be patent.

But actually, the matter has never been that simple. I have recently seen the initial part of the "Gore Vidal vs William Buckley" movie, Best of Enemies (Gordon; Neville, 2015) and I found the first debate immediately embarrassing.

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

#235

Post by FooBarBizBazz »

AftHurrahWinch wrote: post #227
FooBarBizBazz wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The phrase "your rapist's baby" is linguistically a bit like "the time traveler's wife": The wife is not a person; she is chattel belonging to the (male) time traveler. Likewise with this hypothetical baby: It has no identity of its own. That we believe we can justly inflict capital punishment on a rapist's child is also interesting. You know, there was once another Supreme Court case where individual rights (namely,…

> the people most disproportionately impacted by restrictive abortion rules are women of color. If Republicans were ruthless consequentialists, this is exactly the person whose abortion rights they would not want to restrict. Maybe! Or, maybe: "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not…

> numerous and economically precarious out-group.

Keeping a large group of people oppressed is incredibly dangerous; it's bound to blow up in your face. The Spartans did not last.

You're better off expanding the in-group.

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

#236

Post by RobertRoberts »

daenz wrote: post #201
RobertRoberts wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is Milton Friedman discussing a politically charged topic with Bernie Sanders in a very civil manner. (though Bernie doesn't speak much) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sElz_P6QsZo (ignore the inflammatory title and intro screen) Civility and decorum are what is missing today. And if it was taught in our schools today, and valued in society at large, maybe it we could still have debates like this.

That looks absolutely nothing like a young Bernie Sanders, but there seems to be multiple places online claiming it is him.

That is interesting, an image search for "young bernie sanders" does bring up a distinctly different looking face. (one compares him to Jemaine Clement)

Thank you for point this out.

But, it still is an example of civil discourse. Another is Friedman arguing (civil, but a little more tense) with a young Michael Moore. (they do talk past each other a little)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bb7Fi8I-qOk (ignore inflammatory title/intro again)

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

#237

Post by wbsss4412 »

alkaloid wrote: post #202
riskable wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the extremism from the abortion-supporting side Can you post some examples? I know the anti-choice crowd has a history of assassination, arson, bombings, death threats, kidnappings , harassment/stalking, and vandalism... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence Note that Wikipedia doesn't seem to have a "pro-choice violence" page and searching around I couldn't find much beyond some vandalism.

Quoted post unavailable.

There are all kinds of abortion restrictions in the US. [0]

Even roe allowed for restrictions after the second trimester. The operative case law now allows any restrictions that don’t impose an “undue burden”.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_abortion_restrictions...

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

#238

Post by happytoexplain »

dj_mc_merlin wrote: post #57

I do not know what I expected when I clicked on the comments section. I think the author makes some really good points about human psychology & game theory, and the fact that people are immediately riled up by his statements only serves to prove him right. You can only understand people when you're clear-headed, i.e. your "rational you" is the one in control. With these issues, people have either natural or nurtured…

Are people "riled up", or merely disagreeing with him (in full or in part)?

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

#239

Post by robonerd »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #150

> Given this disagreement, it’s not entirely obvious to me that we should resolve it through the Supreme Court rather than having people debate with each other and vote for legislators who will pass laws that reflect their views. This misunderstands the role of a Constitution. One of the central points of a Constitution is to mark certain things off-limits to democracy. People cannot debate with each other and vote f…

If Congress could get an amendment passed to the effect of "Abortion is a right", then the issue of how SCOTUS interprets the privacy argument becomes moot.

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

#240

Post by [deleted] »

ironmagma wrote: post #143
dj_mc_merlin wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're conflating the philosophy of mathematics with describing the entirety of philosophy (or even just morality) using mathematics. I cannot claim to understand philosophy but I can claim to understand law, and it is _not_ like mathematics. Human discretion is paramount to the system, and laws are written in such a way that humans reinterpret them afterwards, as influenced by their own cultural and social b…

I missed the reference to "law" in the parent comment. I won't attempt to tackle that except to say, we humans are machines as well, and just because we are hard to predict doesn't mean we don't generally behave according to some rules. Our laws are generally informed by the cultures the judges grew up in, for example, so any court rulings will be mostly a result of that and the ethics set down by the prevailing mora…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN