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

Personal experiences bridge moral and political divides better than facts

pnas.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 175 posts

Re: Personal experiences bridge moral and political divides better than facts

#111

Post by mlthoughts2018 »

Damorian wrote: post #89
mlthoughts2018 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am sorry you feel this way, and I hope you will find a way past the biases that are preventing you from accepting the facts.

And I'll say the same to anyone who supports BLM, that's my point.

That’s not much of a point. It’s really just you being on the demonstrably wrong side of actual facts, but acting like your extreme and indefensible take deserves equal validity or ontological status as a “right” belief, but it completely and unequivocally doesn’t.

You wouldn’t be saying this stuff to BLM supporters, only an echo chamber filled with your non-fact-based alternate world. There’s a complete difference of kind between what you’re saying and actual reality, one that can’t be overcome or mitigated at all just by your own gainsaying. Your stance just is, factually, invalid, and you calling the opposite stance invalid as if it’s just two sides of some coin is likewise just invalid all the way down.

Re: Personal experiences bridge moral and political divides better than facts

#112

Post by kortilla »

mlthoughts2018 wrote: post #107
throwawayboise wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why can't it simply be left unchecked? Why is it so important to you that Bob believe what you believe?

In many cases, there is direct, tangible existential crisis at stake when aggregated across all the individual disagreements. The rise of modern white supremacy, fascism, insurrection, environmental devastation, harm and denial of basic rights to trans people, and so on. If in every individual case, you leave it unchecked and figure “whatever, they can just believe whatever they want, who cares” then it adds up to ri…

> to the point now where it really, actually is true that “mundane” day to day problems for people actually tie in to serious existential problems that have to be collectively dealt with.

The only thing this applies to is global warming. It is not an existential threat for Bob to think there was election fraud during the Trump election anymore than Ted the Bernie supporter to think the election was stolen from him twice.

Spreading the idea that the US government can afford to give $1200/mo UBI to each of its citizens by simply taxing the rich is more dangerous to the stability of the government/economy than some dipshit thinking the earth is flat.

Finally, as for climate change, we have the facts and people don’t care. They didn’t care in 2002, they didn’t care in 2012, and they didn’t care in November. At this point, convincing Bob has not worked, and frankly it doesn’t matter because it’s not a problem that can be solved through individual actions.

The solution is to legislatively fix it with intelligent people from both sides of political spectrum if it needs to have staying power (ala cap and trade). Or, if the Democratic Party is very confident in not losing the majority in the next 8 years or so, just ram a non-market approach down everyone’s throat (ala oil/coal bans) and call it good.

There are way too many people who still take the Bible/Koran /whatever seriously to clutch onto the notion that correcting people with facts is going to actually fix anything.

Re: Personal experiences bridge moral and political divides better than facts

#113

Post by ndiscussion »

austincheney wrote: post #69
dantheman wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't forget the media lied throughout that time too; let us not forget the craziness of satanic ritual abuse, or the lies that led to the vietnam war, etc... The media and the government routinely mislead the public, look at in 2019 the intentional confusion of blackmarket thc vapes and tobacco vaping. Or more recently, the use of human trafficking. To claim there was sometime in the past where the news was good and…

> Don't forget the media lied The significance of that varies by person. If you need social reinforcement to validate your interpretation of information the media lying is certainly significant, but then if you are more reliant upon social reinforcement you aren't acting on original interpretations of the information anyways. In other words this argument is moot.

I think it's still an argument, because in the real world, over 90% of the population is absolute cattle that do as they are told.

This upsets the 10% very much.

Re: Personal experiences bridge moral and political divides better than facts

#114

Post by Damorian »

mlthoughts2018 wrote: post #111
Damorian wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And I'll say the same to anyone who supports BLM, that's my point.

That’s not much of a point. It’s really just you being on the demonstrably wrong side of actual facts, but acting like your extreme and indefensible take deserves equal validity or ontological status as a “right” belief, but it completely and unequivocally doesn’t. You wouldn’t be saying this stuff to BLM supporters, only an echo chamber filled with your non-fact-based alternate world. There’s a complete difference o…

I hope you understand how unreasonable you sound to me. You're telling me that what I both saw and experienced, with verified fact and video evidence, isn't real. Your conviction that you know more about me and my life, than me, and your insistence on how invalid it is, makes you sound, frankly, like some sort of political zealot.

I tend not to waste my time convincing other people of things to this degree. I will share my experience, but beyond that, it would be unreasonable for me to tell someone else that their experience isn't even real, which is what you're doing.

Re: Personal experiences bridge moral and political divides better than facts

#115

Post by wl »

mlthoughts2018 wrote: post #111
Damorian wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And I'll say the same to anyone who supports BLM, that's my point.

That’s not much of a point. It’s really just you being on the demonstrably wrong side of actual facts, but acting like your extreme and indefensible take deserves equal validity or ontological status as a “right” belief, but it completely and unequivocally doesn’t. You wouldn’t be saying this stuff to BLM supporters, only an echo chamber filled with your non-fact-based alternate world. There’s a complete difference o…

It's only demonstrably wrong if you're going to insist on the very literal "almost none of the BLM protests involved violence" and ignore that that statement, in isolation, is rather misleading. Sure, most of the protests were peaceful. But when they weren't, it was was very bad.

I was living in Downtown Chicago during the two major BLM protests that went violent last year. From my window, I saw people shooting out windows, starting fires, and looting. Even if it were a moot point to call 911, it didn't matter because you'd get a busy signal if you tried calling. Businesses I frequented, including the coolest camera shop I've ever seen, were destroyed. In the days following these riots, it took 45 minutes to an hour to enter my neighborhood because of National Guard checkpoints. The grocery stores and pharmacies were closed because their windows were smashed in, they were looted, and they were generally smashed to hell. And local BLM organizers infamously defended their actions as the "cry of the unheard" and the looting as "reparations."

I've read accounts similar to my own from people in Seattle and Minneapolis.

I get that some opponents of BLM want to use these riots to discredit what the movement stands for. But BLM proponents shouldn't try to gas light me and others who were victims of these demonstrations in defense. They were horrific. People died.

Re: Personal experiences bridge moral and political divides better than facts

#116

Post by mlthoughts2018 »

kortilla wrote: post #112
mlthoughts2018 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In many cases, there is direct, tangible existential crisis at stake when aggregated across all the individual disagreements. The rise of modern white supremacy, fascism, insurrection, environmental devastation, harm and denial of basic rights to trans people, and so on. If in every individual case, you leave it unchecked and figure “whatever, they can just believe whatever they want, who cares” then it adds up to ri…

> to the point now where it really, actually is true that “mundane” day to day problems for people actually tie in to serious existential problems that have to be collectively dealt with. The only thing this applies to is global warming. It is not an existential threat for Bob to think there was election fraud during the Trump election anymore than Ted the Bernie supporter to think the election was stolen from him tw…

I do think the current rise of anti-truth fascism forking out of the Republican party is an extremely serious existential threat to the US. It does matter to challenge every false claim of a stolen election.

Re: Personal experiences bridge moral and political divides better than facts

#117

Post by mlthoughts2018 »

Damorian wrote: post #114
mlthoughts2018 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not much of a point. It’s really just you being on the demonstrably wrong side of actual facts, but acting like your extreme and indefensible take deserves equal validity or ontological status as a “right” belief, but it completely and unequivocally doesn’t. You wouldn’t be saying this stuff to BLM supporters, only an echo chamber filled with your non-fact-based alternate world. There’s a complete difference o…

I hope you understand how unreasonable you sound to me. You're telling me that what I both saw and experienced, with verified fact and video evidence, isn't real . Your conviction that you know more about me and my life, than me, and your insistence on how invalid it is, makes you sound, frankly, like some sort of political zealot. I tend not to waste my time convincing other people of things to this degree. I will s…

What you are saying is simply not ok. If your take away of your experience led you to believe BLM is responsible for significant violence, that is a manifestation of problems with you and your beliefs, not an accurate fact-based conclusion drawn from a legitimate interpretation of the BLM movement or any experience of BLM protests. You saying that I sound unreasonable by not letting your shit slide doesn’t change anything. You can say that. You can cling to racism-based biased refusal to accept the facts or accept your stated understanding of your experience is wrong and unduly biased, but it does not make what you’re saying any more legitimate or worthy of respect. What you are saying is just unacceptably wrong - it really is, really - in a way where you cannot just say, “well I believe different” and have that be treated like it’s valid or on equal footing.

You are starting off from a position so irredeemably far from acceptable fact-based reality, that for you to say my response sounds unreasonable is completely unsurprising and carries no weight.

It might sting to have your attachment to what you think is an acceptable interpretation of your experience called out for the unreasonable anti-BLM bias that it is. Oh well, the anti-BLM fantasy stuff is not OK, not going to slide.

Re: Personal experiences bridge moral and political divides better than facts

#118

Post by space_rock »

hashkb wrote: post #72
auggierose wrote: post #71

A personal experience is a fact. It is a fact we can be pretty sure of, and we know the context of that fact. Obviously, once we extrapolate from that experienced fact, it becomes bias. A fact that is not a personal experience is difficult to trust. Even if I trust the source of that fact, I am often not sure if I understand the fact properly. Anyone who has ever tried to understand a math theorem might relate. It is…

Eyewitness testimony is a personal experience that's been well proven to be poorly correlated with others' personal experience of the same event. You may be redefining "fact".

Please tell me where you get your input if not from personal experience? Logical fallacy to say because interpretation of sensory inputs is not perfect therefore we are bind and know nothing about the world

Re: Personal experiences bridge moral and political divides better than facts

#119

Post by space_rock »

offtop5 wrote: post #23

Actually when it comes to personal experiences, and human to human offline interaction I've just noticed I don't need to agree with everyone. I have liberal friends, conservative friends. I've dated liberals and I've dated conservatives. Well I still vote, I'm not nearly as political as I used to be. I don't use social media ( including online dating) , if only because I found people to be insanely mean. I don't want…

I would just not take your own and others political opinions too seriously. Most ideologies and political opinions are just broad, highly speculative, poorly informed guesses about the best way a government should run a country. Stick to things you actually have personally experience and are an expert in to have more serious opinions about

Re: Personal experiences bridge moral and political divides better than facts

#120

Post by space_rock »

This is because people are rational. Things you personally observe are your only source of fundamental information. You are an expert in very few things and one of them is the things you observe. I'm glad people understand this intuitively

Political opinions are broad highly speculative guesses about subjects you're not an expert in

Post reply on HN