Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction • Hacker News Board

Re: Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction

#51

Post by specialist » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 3:51 AM UTC

clairity wrote: post #22

hirundo wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think of the abortion issue as like a necker cube. You can view the optical illusion as extending inward or outward. But it is difficult to see it both ways. You could easily see it as flat, but then you aren't really seeing it at all. Partisans may object "but in the abortion case it is objectively extending inward and the other perspective is the optical illusion". But that objectivity is a moral illusion.

remember that the abortion issue, as a matter of law, is about the state's interests in the body. it does not litigate religious or social mores, but most of the "debate" is of this latter type. i personally agree with the recent supreme court ruling that abortion rights shouldn't rest on privacy protections, but rather on a robust reading of the constitution that bodily autonomy is a fundamental right above and beyo…

Adopting the reactionary, revanchist rhetoric which the southern plantation owners used to justify their continued subjugation of others, contrary to the will of the majority, is the opposite of being "independent".

Re: Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction

#52

Post by elil17 » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 3:52 AM UTC

clairity wrote: post #20

notriddle wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't just partisan "sides." It's also sides of specific legal questions. I don't think "just stop picking a side regarding abortion, gun ownership, or gay marriage" is a reasonable solution. These are political wedge issues, but they are also legal questions with answers that can affect your daily life. Of course you want it to go a certain way!

no, stop thinking of sides at all, and especially don't start with a side first. start with reasoned first principles (the constitution is a good start) and continue to reason your way to a position on any given issue that is consistent with those first principles, sides be damned. the only reason you pay attention to sides is identifying with and wanting to defend a side in the first place. don't worry about defendi…

Okay, the constitution is as far from “first principles” as you can possibly get. Totally arbitrary. If that’s what you value, that’s fine, but it is not more logical than someone else’s view.

If you really do start from first principles (I think “utilitarianism” might be a better example of something that would be a first principle), and you find out that one side of an issue is good and the other is evil, or even if you find out that one political party is a good bit morally better than the other, you’re now back to picking sides. Because picking the right side of a morally important issue is a moral imperative to most people.

Re: Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction

#53

Post by elil17 » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 3:54 AM UTC

tremon wrote: post #27

NoraCodes wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the only reason you pay attention to sides is identify with and wanting to defend a side in the first place True! For example, I inherently have a bias towards wanting LGBTQ people to have the right to participate in society through marriage, anti-discrimination laws, etc because I'm LGBTQ. I suspect a lot of black people have a bias towards wanting anti-discrimination legislation so they don't get discriminated ag…

In a way, yes, that's problematic, because what you're saying is that those people are still not arguing for equal rights for all based on principle: their sole objective is arguing for more rights for themselves, which is still an adversarial position to take and in the long run will do nothing to prevent the tribalistic nature of public discourse.

Aren’t the people arguing against their rights the ones causing a problem? Everyone looking out for themselves is supposed to lead to at least a half-decent outcome - kind of the idea behind the “free market.”

Re: Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction

#54

Post by causality0 » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 3:55 AM UTC

karaterobot wrote: post #8

Before making moral evaluations, it's really useful to look at these situations, and try to automatically reverse the "polarity" of the actors involved. If you see people doing something and you think they're on your side, imagine a similar scenario in which people are taking the same actions for a cause you are violently opposed to, or on behalf of a group you find deplorable. And vice versa. This helps reduce the c…

Rationalists should strive to cultivate a deep suspicion of any statement that appeals to their emotions, especially self-satisfaction or outrage.

Re: Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction

#55

Post by defrost » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 4:15 AM UTC

niknoble wrote: post #49

guelo wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

What he means is that there is vastly more pressure on people to align with the Democratic party than the Republican party. It's hard to imagine that anyone would disagree with this in good faith. It was already true ten years ago, and the amount of pressure has increased by an order of magnitude in the last two years. Thanks to social media, the effect goes well beyond America, and the Democratic Party of the United…

> the Democratic Party of the United States effectively sets the tone for all political discussions in Europe and many in Asia.

Only to the degree of watercooler gossip ala "have you seen what those crazy partisan bicameral central north americans are up to now?"

Re: Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction

#56

Post by giraffe_lady » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 4:28 AM UTC

causality0 wrote: post #54

karaterobot wrote: post #8

Before making moral evaluations, it's really useful to look at these situations, and try to automatically reverse the "polarity" of the actors involved. If you see people doing something and you think they're on your side, imagine a similar scenario in which people are taking the same actions for a cause you are violently opposed to, or on behalf of a group you find deplorable. And vice versa. This helps reduce the c…

Rationalists should strive to cultivate a deep suspicion of any statement that appeals to their emotions, especially self-satisfaction or outrage.

I've never heard of the rationalists, is this a line from their creed or something?

Re: Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction

#57

Post by dane-pgp » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 5:13 AM UTC

clairity wrote: post #31

krapp wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>remember that the abortion issue, as a matter of law, is about the state's interests in the body. it does not litigate religious or social mores, but most of the "debate" is of this latter type. It seems specious to claim this when the states' interests in the body in this regard (as well as gay marriage and any other rights formerly predicated on the right to privacy asserted in Roe) are based on conservative Chris…

there's a whole body of political science literature that would heartily debate that stance. at most, political discourse and religious discourse grew up together and influenced each other, but to say one is based on the other is a rhetorical diversion at best. gay marriage shouldn't be predicated on privacy either. two people want equal protection under the law as any other two people who have enjoined their lives t…

> reproduction is not a state concern

But population growth rate (or decline) is absolutely a concern of the state, and reproduction is a significant contributor to that. In fact, one could argue that if a state has an interest in providing health care (including things like contraception) then it must have an interest in reproduction too.

Re: Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction

#58

Post by watwut » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 5:47 AM UTC

clairity wrote: post #25

karaterobot wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you've got an opinion on some issue, especially a strong one, then you're on a side, and there is an 'other'. Be careful not to conflate a sense of your own independence with a sense of your own lack of biases or immunity to human irrationality.

no, you don't have to think in sides. you can have a position and discuss your position with others. you don't have to think of them as your enemy, but rather your conversation partner, someone who can help you expand your perspective and perhaps even change your mind.

But practically, this is simply not true and the more important debate the less it is true.

Simple historical example: slaveholder says Frederic Dougles should be slave. Douglas does not want to be whipped nor slave again. They are enemies, full stop. Not partners. Same examples exist with any other country history.

Simple current example: Take the model abortion legislative currently proposed. It literally says that raped 10 years old must give birth regardless of threat to her health.

These people are not partners. They are in fact threats and if they win, actual raped kids will he harmed.

Re: Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction

#59

Post by watwut » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 5:55 AM UTC

clairity wrote: post #31

krapp wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>remember that the abortion issue, as a matter of law, is about the state's interests in the body. it does not litigate religious or social mores, but most of the "debate" is of this latter type. It seems specious to claim this when the states' interests in the body in this regard (as well as gay marriage and any other rights formerly predicated on the right to privacy asserted in Roe) are based on conservative Chris…

there's a whole body of political science literature that would heartily debate that stance. at most, political discourse and religious discourse grew up together and influenced each other, but to say one is based on the other is a rhetorical diversion at best. gay marriage shouldn't be predicated on privacy either. two people want equal protection under the law as any other two people who have enjoined their lives t…

> reproduction is not a state concern

Supreme Court just made it state one, instead of keeping the decision on doctors and pregnants.

Re: Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction

#60

Post by watwut » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 5:56 AM UTC

niknoble wrote: post #50

dibujante wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gonna stay out of gab, thanks: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FYr3HYCWAAE6A6T?format=jpg&name=...

And Gab's rivals use their megaphones to say less-than-flattering things about white people, men, etc. You're not going to escape bias or vitriol by sticking to one echo chamber. Not in this cultural climate, at least.

Less then flattering is weak sauce, comparatively.