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

361–370 of 388 posts

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

#361

Post by adastra22 »

sjostrom7 wrote: post #358
adastra22 wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great job. Now take it the other extreme: is it okay to kill a baby that had already been born, but was still attached by the umbilical cord? It’s still, technically, part of the mother’s body at that point.

That's kind of silly. The easiest way to free the one frees the other. We all just want to go about our lives within being forced by law to sacrifice our rights to our bodies.

So there’s someone to free at all? Then there is an issue of personhood here that you’re ignoring when it is inconvenient. Maybe for you bodily autonomy is more important than the personhood of a developing baby. But that IS a moral determination, a choice of your value system, and it is entirely reasonable for others to disagree on moral terms, making this hardly a clear cut issue.

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

#362

Post by _gabe_ »

dotnet00 wrote: post #356
_gabe_ wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think "What makes killing a human murder" is the wrong path to go down when it comes to arguments for/against abortion. I guess since this is your opinion I can't say it's wrong, but I can strongly suggest that this opinion is wrong. Is abortion the killing of a child? If it is not then why does a state like California have laws written about double homicide that say: > defines murder as the unlawful killing of a…

By saying that it's the wrong path, I'm not trying to deny that it's a human (or at least a potential human) being killed, what I'm saying is that asking that question isn't too relevant to the issue. I think that California treats killing a pregnant woman as double homicide to make it a harsher punishment rather than the other way around. >Put another way, would you tell a mother grieving for her miscarriage that sh…

When I re-read your comment a second time I can see what your intent was a lot better. In this case it looks like we do agree and you raise a lot of good points. I do wonder whether we need to ask the question whether the cost is on society for raising the child though. Why can't we promote safe sex more? And if two consenting adults decide to not use condoms or any other birth control, should the impetus be on them instead of society in general (condom failures and other birth control mishaps aside)? But that's a separate argument and not part of what we were talking about here.

I think reading through a lot of these other comments definitely got to me, and put me in a negative emotional state by the time I got to your comment. But after a couple hours, and re-reading your comments it seems like you're taking a well balanced approach, and I think that I could learn a thing or two from that :)

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

#363

Post by RobertRoberts »

guerrilla wrote: post #189
RobertRoberts wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was pointing out _one_ simple idea (that everyone has _something_ inconsistent) not a broad brush about everything and everyone is inconsistent.

> when people get defensive it's almost certainly based on something incongruous between their beliefs and actions This is what I showed to be false in my previous comment.

This applies to only the topic of discussion you are having with that person (ie, a singular event in time) therefore it's _one_ idea with inconsistency.

I know this is a subtle distinction, but it was my actual point.

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

#364

Post by guerrilla »

RobertRoberts wrote: post #363
guerrilla wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> when people get defensive it's almost certainly based on something incongruous between their beliefs and actions This is what I showed to be false in my previous comment.

This applies to only the topic of discussion you are having with that person (ie, a singular event in time) therefore it's _one_ idea with inconsistency. I know this is a subtle distinction, but it was my actual point.

I don't understand what you mean, starting with "this." Can you explain?

I'm saying the following is false in all discussions, that's all:

> when people get defensive it's almost certainly based on something incongruous between their beliefs and actions

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

#365

Post by sjostrom7 »

adastra22 wrote: post #361
sjostrom7 wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's kind of silly. The easiest way to free the one frees the other. We all just want to go about our lives within being forced by law to sacrifice our rights to our bodies.

So there’s someone to free at all? Then there is an issue of personhood here that you’re ignoring when it is inconvenient. Maybe for you bodily autonomy is more important than the personhood of a developing baby. But that IS a moral determination, a choice of your value system, and it is entirely reasonable for others to disagree on moral terms, making this hardly a clear cut issue.

Ok, I agree there, folks will always be at odds re:personhood and the morality of terminating a pregnancy. That's why I don't even bother with "it's a clump of cells" anymore regardless of my beliefs - it's a moot point in the face of our own rights over our own bodies. Codifying one "person"s rights as more important than another is wrong. Using the law to force anyone to suffer bodily harm for the sake of anyone else, even in a case of life or death, is wrong.

My thing with the hypothetical kid needing a kidney wasn't that a parent refusing to donate would be a good person, it was that by principle of law it would be immoral to force them to do it. That was taking the "pro-life" perspective all the way to "it's a whole-ass person" and showing that the concept of bodily autonomy still protects the parent, even if you don't agree with what they do. I don't mind if you think I'm a monster for getting an abortion, I just want to ensure that that choice is there for those who want or need it.

I get that it's a really intense issue for a lot of people, but all I wish is that folks didn't feel like whether someone else carries their pregnancy to term is a criticism of what they've done or want to do. It's truly not. I know for myself I have a list a mile long of reasons I would never carry or raise a child; some are personal and some aren't, but I am still happy when my loved ones welcome a new member into their family.

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

#366

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

njharman wrote: post #219
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…

> One of the central points of a Constitution is to mark certain things off-limits to democracy. This only applied to federal portion of "democracy" until the 14th amendment which added restricting the states re Bill of Rights. 14th wasn't adopted until 1868. I don't think it's that central. > The Due Process Clause prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without a f…

> This only applied to federal portion of "democracy" until the 14th amendment

Just occured to me ... this just isn't the case for state constitutions. They serve the precise same role: marking out what is off-limits to "regular" democratic processes. To the extent that state and federal constitutions do not agree, there's some space for conflict and litigation there (or at least, there was), but the principle of A constitution (vs. "The Constitution") remains the same.

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

#367

Post by xboxnolifes »

hutzlibu wrote: post #188
h2odragon wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Only if you define property in a different way. Property can be sold for example. Children not, even though this happens underground.

Not all property is legal to be sold (see: drug possession vs distribution). Thus, it being illegal to sell children does not imply they are not property.

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

#368

Post by dotnet00 »

_gabe_ wrote: post #362
dotnet00 wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By saying that it's the wrong path, I'm not trying to deny that it's a human (or at least a potential human) being killed, what I'm saying is that asking that question isn't too relevant to the issue. I think that California treats killing a pregnant woman as double homicide to make it a harsher punishment rather than the other way around. >Put another way, would you tell a mother grieving for her miscarriage that sh…

When I re-read your comment a second time I can see what your intent was a lot better. In this case it looks like we do agree and you raise a lot of good points. I do wonder whether we need to ask the question whether the cost is on society for raising the child though. Why can't we promote safe sex more? And if two consenting adults decide to not use condoms or any other birth control, should the impetus be on them…

I'm certainly in favor of promoting more safe sex (I would go as far as to say that this should be an important part of any abortion legalization policy) and I generally do agree that consenting adults should be responsible if they don't use protection. But the issue to me is that often it ends up also punishing the child, and while aborting the child is also a punishment for the child, I think it's the more acceptable solution since I don't really see a societal and cultural push (especially from the people generally pushing for an abortion ban) for alternative solutions for raising children not wanted by their parents.

After all, no matter how much we teach safe sex, some people will still make mistakes and often pro-lifers treat having to raise the child as a fitting punishment for the parents, which obviously isn't all that respectful of the child's life either.

And yes, I can understand getting into that mindset, which is why I generally avoid these discussions (on reddit for example) :)

It gets pretty frustrating to see people emotionally arguing for extreme positions without attempting to at least understand the other position's emotions.

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

#369

Post by Clubber »

riskable wrote: post #274
Clubber wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Liberals seem to be always willing to entertain the discussion of basically anything. It's sort of a core tenet of liberalism... Open discussion and debate. I'm not sure that is true anymore. Liberals have extremist wings (like Antifa) just like conservatives do. People making liberal arguments now spew the same venom that only conservative groups did 10 years ago. At least in my experience. I think part of the prob…

> Liberals have extremist wings (like Antifa) just like conservatives do. OK where's the anti-fascist extremism here in the US (which is the relevant region of this discussion) that's shutting down discussions ? If you look at Wikipedia's extensive (but non-exhaustive) page about Terrorism in the United States there's just a single entry for an Antifa activist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_St…

>page about Terrorism

I said extremist wings, not terrorist. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you are defending left wing extremism by pointing out that there is more right wing extremism. I don't dispute that there is more right wing extremism, but you seem to be ignoring left wing extremism. I'm of the opinion that extremism and violence for any cause is unjust.

>There's not really, "both sides" here. Today's conservatives (aka "the right") seem to have a monopoly on violence as well as "shutting down discussion"

Only if you completely ignore the actions of one side. There were quite a few left wing extremist actions in 2020 during the BLM/police brutality protests, including rioting, arson, and CHAZ. You might believe in what they are fighting for (as do I) but I certainly don't condone some of the tactics employed.

>Today's conservatives (aka "the right") seem to have a monopoly on violence as well as "shutting down discussion" of various topics...

As I pointed out, they certainly don't have a monopoly on violence, unless you are intentionally ignoring it. You might want to check your biases and understand that extremism on either side stands to destabilize our civilization and push us into barbarism. You shouldn't excuse or ignore either.

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

#370

Post by native_samples »

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…

Yeah it's disappointing that the comments are so dominated by his example rather than his greater point. Especially so for people outside the USA for whom Roe v Wade is irrelevant but tribalism isn't.

It's worth considering that this problem isn't necessarily symmetrical around the centre of the political axis. There have been experiments done on this that show conservatives understand the left far better than the other way around. They come up with a large set of "How much do you agree with on a scale of 1-10" type questions on political topics. Then they recruit people from across the political spectrum (self rated) and split them into four groups. Two groups are asked to fill out the survey in the usual way, directly about their own opinions. The other two are asked to answer the survey as they imagine someone from the other side would answer. Then the answers are lined up to see how good each group was at predicting the answers of the other. The results are always the same: conservatives can play 'pretend leftie' much better than the other way around.

I'm always quite suspicious of social science these days but the methodology in this type of experiment seems simple enough that there can't be much hiding in it, except maybe, the exact nature of the questions used. This experiment has been replicated however.

This provides empirical support for what has probably been the real world experience of many of us, that people on the right are much more willing to interact with and be exposed to left wing views than the reverse. Example: I've encountered people in the past who threw tantrums at work because they discovered that someone else was reading right wing news websites (in their own time). The idea of a conservative person going to HR and filing complaints about other employees because they read the Guardian is laughable, and it's not because the Guardian is somehow better or more moral than other newspapers (very much not so). People on the left are just drastically more afraid than normal people of exposure to non-left wing thought, and this problem gets worse the further left you go. This is also why communist countries always rely heavily on censorship and speech control.

Unfortunately the experiments can't illuminate why this effect exists, only proving that it does. The rest is in the realm of speculation. They do leave one clue though: the left wing participants usually fail to predict right wing responses because they're picking answers much more extreme than those people actually hold.

Post reply on HN