Live data from Hacker News

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

dynomight.net

311–320 of 388 posts

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

#311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

At the bottom of the intersection between moral philosophy and politics is a firm foundation: "Most of us believe X and it doesn't matter if you disagree because we're willing to use force if you don't comply." Nobody wrings their hands that a murderer doesn't share the unprovable moral axioms of those who oppose murder. If a somebody refuses to comply with the anti-murder laws, then force is is used to stop him. Pro…

That's more the realm of law. Morals can exist outside of force, it's just that communities tend to form around common morals, and if you go against the moral grain you will be sowing dissonance in your area, possibly to the point where you'd want to move out (i.e. too alienated).

I would argue a great many locales in the USA are full of moral dissonance, and this is one of the major things holding us back from having strong communities.

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

#312
post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And Protestants weren’t against abortion until recently, because they defined themselves as against Catholicism. Did they really have to have an official position when the state said it was illegal?

Protestants aren't pretty fractured but a number of groups even fairly conservative ones(like southern Baptist convention) didn't care or were pro choice. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/ukju68/in_19...

You're using the past tense, but even today they're fractured. 24% of white evangelical protestants are pro-choice; 60% of white (not evangelical) protestants are pro choice, and 66% of black protestants are pro-choice.

If we narrow consideration to just white evangelical protestants, a 24% / 74% split is clearly a strong trend against abortion. Even so, 1 in 4 is by no means rare.

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/public-opini...

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

#314

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…

The underlying issue is that online political or social discourse isn't so much as discourse as much as the virtual form of people trying to fit in socially - people use political/social issues to signal what kind of person they are (or more accurately, what kind of person they want everyone else to think they are), in order to feel like they are part of a community.

Once you understand the online social media through this lens, everything is easily explained, from how people converse and decide to ostracize people who don't agree right from the get go, to how websites are designed to drive user engagement.

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

#315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We do have a simple method, in amending the Constitution, but that’s been incredibly difficult to do for pretty much the entire history of the United States. For an issue like this one, it’s basically impossible. The true simple solution would have been to codify the right to an abortion in federal law, as candidate Obama promised to do but President Obama failed to even attempt. Recently I’ve been introduced to the…

Your hypothetical doesn't make much sense to me because it assumes Obama had more power than he did- Obama wasn't elected king of America. You need 60 votes in the senate to pass anything unless you eliminate the filibuster (the so called nuclear option). Obama had 60 Democrats exactly which means if even a single Democrat was willing to vote against a federal right to abortion law Obama couldn't have done it.

Democrats controlled the House and Senate from 2009 to 2011. They could have passed it then without even needing to eliminate the filibuster. But they didn’t even try.

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

#316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I agree! If only everyone did. :)

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

#317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The likelihood of any amendment passing on any matter whatsoever seems about as close to zero as anything in the US political landscape. It's even smaller for one regarding abortion.

In 1850, would a 13th Amendment seem likely? We live in interesting times, much could change very quickly.

If there's a civil war, then obviously I'd expect quite a lot of changes.

Absent that, not so much.

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

#318
post #215
post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we were debating at what term we should allow abortions until then I think there is room for discussion. But the extreme position of "no abortions at all at any term" I'm simply uninterested in discussion. It's not that I don't understand their thinking. I simply do not agree and thus do not care to discuss or debate it. Here is the thing, the majority of people who actually reason and think about these topics hav…

Well see that's the thing. What makes killing a human murder? I'm of the opinion that the human mind is what makes a human more valuable than a lower animal. Killing a cloned body with no cerebrum wouldn't be murder. I'm forced to concede, however, that that belief doesn't give me a reason that newborns should be more protected than fetuses as it takes months for infants to begin demonstrating consciousness and memor…

I think "What makes killing a human murder" is the wrong path to go down when it comes to arguments for/against abortion. It's so politically charged and yet impossible to clearly discuss in any significant detail, thus the situation we find ourselves in.

I think it's better to just accept that abortion is prematurely terminating a life and thus the primary consideration should be the cost the parents and/or society can pay. Can society afford the cost of raising unwanted children and of the cycle of abuse that often comes along? and similarly, can society afford the cost of the lifestyle that makes people choose abortion to focus on other things? These things are much easier to discuss. As a 'bonus' this framework also handles the justification for countries which have legal abortion except with restrictions like barring abortions after sex determination.

There seems to be a large agreement that abortion within the first trimester is acceptable, so I think that while it's terrible that it has to happen, society on average currently puts the line between the first and second trimesters for where the costs of both sides balance out, such that even if the fetus could be teleported into an artificial womb, an unconditional abortion should be acceptable. I think the artificial womb point only works if it also somehow erases society's burden of raising the child.

I used to think that "abortion is rarely a happy decision but is still sometimes necessary" was the consensus position so it was pretty odd to me when I first became aware of the state of debate over it in the US.

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

#319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Religion is like a firewall keeping logic out based on old rules and whitelists.

You know followers of "religion" invented empiricism (and logic and rhetoric, etc.), right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Bacon

And nazis literally invented rockets science that allowed us to explore solar system. So whats Your point? Because clearly you are not seeing that people are not rational but rather rationalizing. Which sometimes leads them to invent useful things like empiricism, and other times things that are not so useful (ideologies, religions etc)

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

#320
post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally I use it because it’s descriptive. Hard lines being drawn, people unwilling to even talk with others based on ideological labels, economic sanctions against ‘offenders’, propaganda clearly targeted at specific identifiable groups used to raise funds and attack the ‘other’ side, fear and loathing/us vs them. I have an aunt who for economic reasons moved to what she called ‘Trump country’, and she legitimate…

> Hard lines being drawn, people unwilling to even talk with others based on ideological labels, economic sanctions against ‘offenders’, propaganda clearly targeted at specific identifiable groups used to raise funds and attack the ‘other’ side, fear and loathing/us vs them. You're describing today's conservatives. Liberals seem to be always willing to entertain the discussion of basically anything . It's sort of a c…

Clearly you’ve never tried to talk to someone on the liberal side about if what they want will actually work or produce an outcome that is desirable for the rest of the population! Hah.

SF is a prime example of when someone can use reason and argument and ‘helping others’ to convince people to do things that just don’t actually work.

Conservatives definitely have a bent that most intellectuals and folks in tech find offensive, and for reasons that are often due to fundamental differences in worldview and environment.

But a lot of the rational arguments for things going on right now, for those who have actual experience in the real world, are bullshit if you start challenging the assumptions. But that is hard, be will get you nailed. And frankly, no one like that is going to try to do that right now because it isn’t even about rationality. It’s a different set of beliefs and feelings with attached justifications.

But, any sizable group of people randomly selected will have similar differences. The reason we have social rules, is people have found over time when to talk and not talk about certain topics ,because for a society to function, we need to agree to some common ground and not actively antagonize each other over these fundamental differences.

Because you can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into, and very, very few people have actually reasoned themselves into much of anything.

No amount of talking is likely to change anyones mind about these things.

For instance, I believe that the best way to resolve a problem is to talk openly about it, directly discuss the range of impacts this problem will have, discuss our own capabilities and successes/failures in resolving the problem openly, and then prioritize it against other open problems and likely risks.

That makes me great for engineering leadership it turns out. Near as I can tell, also emergency response.

It apparently makes me absolutely terrifying to a decent swath of the population, especially when they are screwing up and don’t know how to stop.

So I’ve learned that I need to not do this to certain people if I want them to not run away screaming. It also means I’ve learned some people are useful to partner with and some people are radioactive bad to do so with.

And in a society, especially a country so diverse and over such an area, that means picking which fights to have, and dialing back the rhetoric, but that requires both sides to do that.

If one side won’t, then it is a war. No one can maintain sensible boundaries with appeasement - which is fundamentally different than compromise.

Post reply on HN