Page 257 of 418 FirstFirst ... 157207247255256257258259267307357 ... LastLast
Results 2,561 to 2,570 of 4172

Thread: The OT thread V1

  1. #2561
    Insider AndrewTheWookie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Central Coast, CA
    Posts
    374
    The paradox of tolerance:

    Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.
    I don't know, fly casual

  2. #2562
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,581
    Fuck politics.

  3. #2563
    Insider
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,182
    I think a big problem is that there's a focus on principles, and this widens the bipartisan divide. I was having this conversation with a friend yesterday, but my basic argument is that almost all political issues exist along some continuum, and that a reasonable expectation is for society to dynamically move policy along those issue continua as relevant data becomes available.

    A brief psychological primer: the opposition between liberal and conservative worldviews is ideally a check and balance system. An early society might have conservative taboos against straying too far from the established geography of the village. At an individual level, this is probably, and by probably I mean statistically, good advice. However, a society needs to be engaging with chaos, with new frontiers, with new information, in order to progress. The term "Progressive" is a lionization of the by-now unfortunately pejorative "Liberal". In my opinion, the inexorable march of progress is all about the tension created between these 2 psychological tendencies.

    A real issue emerges when we group identify in such a tribal manner that we can't recognize intermediate solutions. Right now there's no cogent conversation between the 2 sides. There is a rhetorical trend towards all or nothing solutions.

    Unfortunately, psychology does rather terrible with nuanced models of probabilistic prediction. Loss aversion and all or nothing heuristics, as well as the emotional appeal of anecdote can lead to decision making that's irrational for a society.

    Libertarian thought is one area where I find a lot of smart people falling prey to the draw of first-pass logic. "Maximal freedom, without impinging on the freedom of others" seems like a reasonable way to structure beliefs. But, when we look at practical applications, nuance creeps back in.

    Drug legislation is a favored example here - shouldn't cannabis be legal, based on the research? I think there are some issues with it, but it certainly isn't worse than alcohol! Opioids and strong stimulants, on the other hand, are so physically addictive that I think it's trivial to argue that their very consumption reduces the freedom of the user. So, we can draw an evidence based line in the sand, because we weren't so married to our principles in the first place.

    "Freedom of Speech" is another such topic. Our founding fathers couldn't imagine the information velocity of our world. We can agree that incendiary speech is not protected, so already the illusion of principle is shattered. Where to draw the line is murky. It will be litigated. It should be litigated. Only by exploring the boundaries can reasonable lines be drawn.

    Advocating for judgement on a case by case basis can be extended to individuals as well. There will always be Bayesian priors assigned to people based on the groups they occupy. Sometimes, the utilization of an evidence driven prior will lead to better predictive performance, with an acceptable cost to liberty. Sometimes the cost to liberty will be too great.

    The development of a successful society is a constantly updating gradient descent problem. Occasionally, revolution creates rapid upheaval, overshoots equilibrium, and results in undesirable 2nd order consequences. The extreme bipartisanship that's present in the current US domestic politics is both stagnant from a policy standpoint, and vitriolically charged. Both sides literally claim the other side is infested by traitorous criminals. This reactionary clinging to principles is not only embarrassing, but is in a systems sense, only metastable. In a colloquial sense, it's brittle. The rise of nationalism on a global scale is troubling. My hope is that at some level it's a correction to exploitative globalism, but much of it seems to be fear-based and othering at an emotional level.
    "So you've done this before?"
    "Oh, hell no. But I think it's gonna work."

  4. #2564
    Insider
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,182
    Huh. That got long.
    "So you've done this before?"
    "Oh, hell no. But I think it's gonna work."

  5. #2565
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    But it was well thought out and paced. Your writing and responses lately have been rather more thoughtful, and reminds me to be less off the cuff and confrontive.

    I have been going through Haidt lately, since his Moral Values and insight into Tribalism is remarkably relevant now.

    You seem familiar with his work.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  6. #2566
    interesting post lurker, and i agree.

    i think we've gotten so tribal that the other side is no longer human. and i admit i fall into the same category. i don't know how to reach a true trump supporter, and i've tried so much to be able to, but i just can't. i don't know how to tell someone they should care about another human being's welfare. or i can't figure out how they can maintain such mental dissonance as to elect a serial sexual predator to the white house, from the party that claims the moral high ground. i don't know how to reach these people.

    but i think the dehumanization of our politics started long before this. this is just a manifestation of 20+ years of this. there was an era when the politicians of the country ate dinner with each other, even though they were in different parties. back room deals are so dirty right now, but that is how democracy works, you have to give your representatives enough philosophical room to make deals, to keep the country working, and to keep the lights on.

    i think it really started, with clinton. somehow, reagans heir, and cold war hero HW bush lost to a pretty sleazy guy from arkansas. i think it hit republicans so hard, they kinda have not actually recovered. the true nasty era of politics started then, with the opposition to clinton, lead by the likes of gingirch, manifested by starr and ultimately the impeachment of clinton. that was when the dehumanization really started i think. democrats had little choice when W was elected but to play a similar game, and the anti has been higher with every election. obama was another huge blow to republicans, who couldn't understand how a black kid from chicago could get elected, and they went into pure meltdown mode.

    and then republicans broke the government. they refused to hold hearings for obama's supreme court nominee, an absolutely unprecedented move, and then in another insane move, didn't respect the democratic filabuster for even a week, before changing the rules and confirming trumps. playing nasty, breaking the rules and changing the rules to win only works until you have no more rule of law.

    democracy only works when we act like human beings to one another. it falls apart in less than a generation if respect for the opposition isn't there. and we are watching that happen in our country right now.

    i admit i am as guilty of it with trump voters as anyone. but i literally have no idea how to reach such people. i just don't know.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  7. #2567
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    i don't know how to tell someone they should care about another human being's welfare.
    Well, the problem is apparent right there.

    They do care. A lot. I promise. My wife cares a lot about people, and volunteers, but she is a conservative and voted for Trump (I supported Johnson myself.) Same with a lot of my co-workers and friends. Conservatives are very caring people. They donate time and money at a higher rate than progressives to also.

    If you start with the premise that they don't, then you end up approaching the problem incorrectly each time. Your assumption of their morals and positions means you can't start with not offending them immediately then.

    The difference is in HOW to promote another persons welfare. And that is where the sides look at the other and go "Don't you care?!"
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  8. #2568
    Quote Originally Posted by pbjosh View Post
    Well, the problem is apparent right there.

    They do care. A lot. I promise. My wife cares a lot about people, and volunteers, but she is a conservative and voted for Trump (I supported Johnson myself.) Same with a lot of my co-workers and friends. Conservatives are very caring people.

    If you start with the premise that they don't, then you end up approaching the problem incorrectly each time. Your assumption of their morals and positions means you can't start with not offending them immediately then.

    The difference is in HOW to promote another persons welfare. And that is where the sides look at the other and go "Don't you care?!"
    how is it caring to kick folks who have cancer off there health insurance exactly?

    how is it caring to kick children who have not committed a crime, who were taken here by there parents before they could talk, out of the country?

    im sorry, caring is not a hurrah word with many meanings. purposefully doing shitty things that hurts others welfare and effects both the length and quality of there lives, is not caring.



    you know i can believe this for arguments like minimum wage or something, but what trump and his supporters are applauding, isn't just another way to try solve the same problem .... its simply inhuman.

    FYI, because of republican inaction, 9 million children were recently kicked off insurance. do tell, how is that "caring"
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  9. #2569
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    Here are a couple bits from Jonathan Haidt. He is very in touch, almost pre-cognitively so, with the current morals here in the US.

    Start with his 2008 TED Talk. Follow with a very clear discussion on the current events.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vs41JrnGaxc

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-_Az5nZBBM

    It is very close to what Lurker is saying, but it puts in the tendons holding it all together with a basic foundation on Moral Values.

    He has been on lots of interviews and discussions and is very, very good. If nothing else, you can at least understand WHY.

    Brilliant and a must watch.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  10. #2570
    another lovely talking point after vegas "mass shootings are simply the price of freedom"

    how caring is that?

    im no "take your guns" liberal, im a gun owner myself. i believe we can both make our country safer, and have personal gun ownership, but simply stating that 500 people shot in one incident is just the price of your hobby ... is pretty uncaring.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •