Why Politics is Splitting Families and Friends Apart
I want to preface this by saying that it seems weird, that we can have empathy towards enemies that we are in war with, but at the same time have close family members yell over the dinner table about politics. We can understand that many soldiers have families on both sides of a war, and they fight to protect them. Perhaps resources are scarce and there is only enough for one side to survive. However in our current political climate, we seem to have two increasingly radical sides in the same country, the same household, with some even having forecast a new civil war. A civil debate seems to be getting ever rarer (other than on the philosophy forum, of course). Where does this lack of empathy for the other side stem from?
So the purpose of this discussion is to discuss the fundamental reasons for why these debates are difficult (or impossible) to come to an understanding or compromise to, and how we might be able to implement changes in our own lives for the better. We can address specific issues like abortion, transgenders, etc. however I'd like to keep the discussion from being about which side is right or wrong and focus purely on the lack of understanding and compromise between them.
To start, I believe that people tend to speak in differing languages without realizing it. For example, in the abortion debate, we can characterize one side to be people who believe that women's rights includes the ability to get an abortion, while the other side can be described as people who believe abortion is comparable to murder. While they may both speak "English," even at this stage they differ in defining abortion. One means, a right that is natural for women, while the other means, some form of murder. This difference in the language stems from how the term "life" is defined by both sides, where one believes that the fetus being aborted is not a life yet, and the other believes the fetus in question should be considered a life. So I believe that the abortion debate boils down to a simple question of "when does human life start?" This question I think is much less explosive and easier to talk about, but the fundamental differences in the language we use prevents us from coming to this stage.
Admittedly this doesn't take into account policies put in place that may aggravate the problem.
What do you guys think? Is a difference in language an accurate way to perceive this divide?
So the purpose of this discussion is to discuss the fundamental reasons for why these debates are difficult (or impossible) to come to an understanding or compromise to, and how we might be able to implement changes in our own lives for the better. We can address specific issues like abortion, transgenders, etc. however I'd like to keep the discussion from being about which side is right or wrong and focus purely on the lack of understanding and compromise between them.
To start, I believe that people tend to speak in differing languages without realizing it. For example, in the abortion debate, we can characterize one side to be people who believe that women's rights includes the ability to get an abortion, while the other side can be described as people who believe abortion is comparable to murder. While they may both speak "English," even at this stage they differ in defining abortion. One means, a right that is natural for women, while the other means, some form of murder. This difference in the language stems from how the term "life" is defined by both sides, where one believes that the fetus being aborted is not a life yet, and the other believes the fetus in question should be considered a life. So I believe that the abortion debate boils down to a simple question of "when does human life start?" This question I think is much less explosive and easier to talk about, but the fundamental differences in the language we use prevents us from coming to this stage.
Admittedly this doesn't take into account policies put in place that may aggravate the problem.
What do you guys think? Is a difference in language an accurate way to perceive this divide?
Comments (125)
Perhaps it is all about polarisation, and a tendency to see the other as the enemy. I think that the psychoanalyst makes a useful point in speaking about the paranoid schizoid position, as a development in the way we make splits in order to defend our position and this probably becomes apparent in groups, with projection of hostility onto the perceived others.
So what you are saying is that in a group setting, there is an effect like a paranoid schizoid would have, where we make delusions about the other side?
No, I am not referring to the diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia at all. I apologise, because I didn't explain what I meant at all. Melanie Klein spoke of two stages of development in infancy, in the child's relationship with the mother and the anxieties relating to her. It forms the basis for projective processes in other relationships in life. It may come into play in groups, especially in how we defend ourselves and our points of view.
Are you involved with these "explosive misunderstandings" with your own family, friends, and acquaintances? How do you behave? Do you participate in the vituperation or are you a voice for calm and understanding? If you participate in the melee, why? What does it feel like?
I'm not too familiar with these concepts. If I understand correctly, you are suggesting that the reason for the polarization might be like a baby that is stuck in the paranoid schizoid position, where the "bad" other group and the "good" current group is split? So we might be missing something we need to go into the depressive position?
My experience has been generally mild, although sometimes it definitely gets passionate. I think the more explosive instances is when my partner and I would have an argument, Maybe we got on each other's nerves and decided to confront the other about it.
However I haven't had nearly as much for political topics, funnily enough. I don't support vituperation, because a defensive person is not an informative person. If you aren't trying to learn about the other person, I see no reason to talk about such topics.
How about you?
I am a recreational thinker and I'm pretty competitive, so at times in the past I've been a... minor-league jerk. I've become more even-tempered as I've gotten older. The forum has had a lot to do with that. I am a strong liberal and I get involved in political discussions on the "American Conservative." It's a website and magazine I strongly recommend. This past 6 months has been ugly. As I'm sure you know, there is bitter anger on both sides.
I found I could have civil, sometimes friendly, discussions with strong supporters of President Trump, even though it felt like we lived in two different worlds. We were able to find common ground on some issues even though we didn't move on the primary ones. It's almost as much fun trying to calm an angry shouting match as it is to call someone a "dick."
So:
It is almost always completely in your power not to get involved in bad arguments. If you do, it's your fault.
The list of tips is very cool. Yeah I think we may forget that a conversation gone wrong is just as much our fault as the other as any conversation is like a dance with the other.
I don't think I was that competitive per se although I understand it. I was interested in how I could be wrong and there is big satisfaction in not being wrong. I was known to be a provocateur around the 2016 election in my circle because there were many topics in which I was curious about how my friends can believe what I thought was indubitably wrong. So my conversations centered around trying to pry into the inner workings of the other, which while not quite explosive, may have been just as uncomfortable.
Perhaps the divide we feel in politics is just a lack of manners we have as a whole in a conversation and debate. So that brings up another question: Are we losing our ability to be civil?
No ‘putting words into the mouths of others’ - an all too common experience. Some people get so riled up they only ever hear exactly what they expect to hear regardless of what is being said to them. If that happens it is usually best to ‘bail’ as stated by someone else above.
I assume those two had different enough views on a contentious issue to warrant such care in their discussion. Ideally we would all do that in every conversation as time permits.
Quoting I like sushi
Is this something we just have to give up and leave for? Is there no other choice but to let someone like that to polarize further? What is it that makes talking to them so futile?
Judging the mood and temperature of the discussion is something we do get better at with time and experience. Some react well to conflict and others just dig in. Given the OP is about family members I’m assuming these people know each other well enough to be reasonable. With strangers more care and caution is required.
Either way, breathing space is necessary. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try another approach.
Whether people moved to be with people whose thinking was congruent, or whether after moving their thinking changed to become congruent with their neighbors, I don't know. The movement of white people to the suburbs was completed maybe... 40 years ago, or more. By the mid-80s, there were some very strong conservative trends in the suburbs. Strong liberal trends have been present in urban areas since the 70s.
So, it's no surprise that family members shift to opposite sides of the debate table, depending on their circumstances. All of my conservative family members are rural. They are politically, religiously, and socially conservative. All my urban friends are liberal in the same ways, pretty much. Education doesn't account for this as well as geography does. Neither does economic status.
I do not get very far talking politics with very conservative people, especially blood relatives.
Politics and politicians do not have empathy. So don’t expect empathy from something that never had it. They divide people and family because these are so ignorant to get angry due to other has a different point of view. It sounds so wacky splitting families and friends apart just for the leviathan.
Politicians do not have ideology. They just have it in campaign. Afterwards, do not expect so much. But some people (sadly) see them as their saviours.
Politicians only use emotion not knowledge. So I guess this is why a lot of people is faced because of them.
The family and friends was a contrast I wanted to make to enemies of war. It would make much more sense to hate enemies of war, and less scuffles with family and friends But here it seems like much more that the opposite is true. But I wouldn't mind exploring this topic beyond just family and friends either.
Quoting I like sushi
I guess that's fair enough. We get hot headed but a bit of time to cool off can change the result the next time you engage in a conversation
I lean slightly conservative as a libertarian and I personally might prefer a slightly rural environment, not because the people who live there might think the same way I do. Rather because I'm a bit of an introvert, and I feel like I would appreciate the quiet atmosphere away from the busy cities. Perhaps the more you lean conservative, the more you tend to feel that way.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Do you believe that your family members' conservative views are due to their environmental upbringing? Do you think these environments create echo chambers where people radicalize?
I agree that politics doesn't have empathy, but politicians are still people. They have their own ideology they work off, which isn't to say it can't be a corrupt one. You can run for office too if you wanted to try to change things with your own hands, for example. I bet you might face a lot of temptations and hardships, but I doubt you would say you had no empathy then.
Quoting javi2541997
Maybe you have a good point there, in that politicians may have an incentive to keep the conversation about emotion rather than anything else, although naming all politicians is probably too broad of a stroke. Is this radicalization that we see in our friends, families, and beyond something that was deliberately sought after? Maybe I'm getting too conspiratorial, but perhaps there is a force in politics that seek radicalization.
Yes. They are people as us but not normal citizens. Keep in mind that before getting the power all of those politicians had previously to win “primaries” between them to choose a leader which will make the direction of the political party. Inside this situation there is a lot of toxicity and cheats. All of those who don’t want bear this situation end up leaving or criticising the system. Instead of convincing people with rhetorics they use a formula of how powerful they can be and somehow this is attractive for voters. Remember Thomas Hobbes: Homo homini lupus
Quoting FlaccidDoor
You are not conspiratorial. You are right. They are only know how to use emotions because there are lot of ignorant people with low paid jobs who are really easy to persuade them. If I say “Foreigners are taking your jobs” I am obviously lying. But somehow this argument gives hope to all of those rubbish citizens who never made something interest in their lives but watching junk TV. They feel better and “different” when their politicians tell them despite they are trash somehow are “better” than immigrants.
No. It's a difference in stances. It is to be expected that people holding different stances cannot be friends or form a harmonious family.
IOW, it's not (bad) discussion of politics that tears families and friendships apart. It's that discussion of politics reveals the irreconcilable differences that are there between the people, and which have possibly been there from the start of the relationship.
Sometimes, though, I've found that sincere interest in another's way of seeing things will open up a conversation, even if it's with someone I have strong, important disagreements with.
Do you believe that these toxicity and cheats you mention, are enough to deter any honest or good-willed person trying to get into office? I want to believe that there are strong and good-willed people who are determined enough to go through despite the hardships.
Quoting javi2541997
So I'm not really sure, other than that you seem to have a much more pessimistic view of society than I do. Am I right to say that you see politicians and the "ignorant people" as a puppeteer/puppet relationship? Politicians pull on the 'strings' of pathos to control the puppet that is those people. How do you prevent yourself from being one of the puppets, or know you aren't one?
Interesting! So the shock of realizing the differences in our opinions are what tears people apart. That seems similar to what was mentioned previously about the paranoid schizoid position. The person that was "good" now is revealed to be partly "bad" through an irreconcilable difference in opinion.
However the philosophy forum is filled with people with just that, but even seem to be happy to continue butting heads for exactly that reason. If a community exists with only irreconcilable differences in opinion to bring them together, I don't see how they can't be accepted by friends or family.
Perhaps they are like differences in physical characteristics like race or gender. Nonnegotiable, but can be looked past or accepted to still be friends.
Unfortunately most people around the dinner table have not, they are usually reacting to emotive arguments and moral gut feelings. I've found people can feel so strongly that it's almost impossible for them to test out their arguments and the topic itself on a cold rational plane. Anyone attempting to do so with them will be met with anger. People have a tendency to think that anything that comes out your mouth is an absolute statement. So these individual languages of people reach further than just theoretical or rational questions, there is a strong emotional element there which often ties in with a whole bunch of things. Basically people aren't just discussing an opinion they thought out in a cold rational way, but rather theyre discussing (in often a very covert way) their past experiences, associations they've made through these past experiences, their emotions towards a subject, and the emotive arguments they've heard from other around them throughout life.
When you take the example of abortion, you have two very emotive arguments. Both of them have very extreme consequences, it's basically murder Vs women's rights. Therefore instead of a discussion about abortion in itself, the argument turns immediately to murder Vs rights. These two arguments are so strongly attached to what is at gut level wrong and right, that it becomes impossible to actually discuss the issues surrounding abortion. It is very easy for politicians or whoever to take a topic like abortion and say 'murder!' and have people running around like headless chickens.
Essentially people want simple explanations for difficult subjects, often people are either too lazy, too overwhelmed, or just too stupid to want to even sift through all the different perspectives, issues, consequences, connections, positives, negatives and grey areas that such topics demand. Creating a balanced and throughout out opinion takes a lot of thinking, many people are intelligent enough to be able to think like this, but not all of them know how to.
Like someone said here, if people are open to understanding others perspective, it's usually a lot easier. Unfortunately when arguments are reduced down to 'MURDER Vs RIGHTS' that's less likely to happen.
I suppose a part of radicalization is just that. A loss of interest in the other side's way of seeing things. That seems pretty bad though, since that would make radicalization a positive feedback loop.
I guess we live in different countries and this is why we have different perception of politicians. At least in my homeland they don't anything properly to do but divide the society and being corrupts.
You say how we can know we are not the puppet ones. Easy. When you are not the politician. Every politician is somehow a puppet. It is true that some of them can end up controlling a lot of power and that stuff... But they are not free at all to take their own decisions. It is impossible.
The leviathan is always observing from the shadows...
I believe it was Jordan Peterson who I heard describe emotions as a low resolution "conclusion" to what should be done for situation where rational thought is inadept. For example, if you see someone destroying your property for a reason unrevealed to you or can't comprehend, rational thought isn't useful in this situation. Rather you would probably work off of an emotion of anger and which tells you to remove that person making you mad.
I can see what you are trying to say with the emotive arguments. I wonder if those can be thought of as a low resolution words, describing too little in reality for what they're meant to convey. So when they are used, we feel like we should be understood but when we inevitably aren't, we get upset.
Perhaps for some reason then, people are more likely to use emotive arguments than before causing the perceived increase in radicalization. My first guess to the reason why is the increased participation of politics in general (at least in the US), so people who aren't used to debating are joining for the first time in record numbers.
Unfortunately, politics has taken on the role of religion in the West.
In order for Western politics to function properly, you need a robust debate between the progressives who see the need for change and conservatives who would like to preserve what they feel works.
At differing times, each of these strategies is the more efficacious path so the purpose of the political debate is to figure out which course makes the most sense with that particular issue at that particular time. It is not that one side is always right and the other is always wrong, but that's the way the true believers see it.
Politics needs to be returned to the secular realm and away from groups who believe that their way has been handed down from (not God) but from the gods of moral superiority.
If you believe that your way is The Way, you're wrong. Each situation requires careful consideration and sometimes changing policy this way makes the most sense, and sometimes changing it that way makes the most sense. After all, the United States did not become the most powerful nation in the world by always making the wrong decisions.
Interestingly, we are going to see what happens when one side controls all three branches of government. If the catastrophe unfolding at our southern boarder portends coming events, people are going to beg for balance in politics once again.
I live in the US and politics here can be summed up as everyone saying, "my politicians are the heroes and yours are the supervillains."
I see what you mean about politicians being puppets. There are a lot of rules, codes and people you need to abide by in order to stay in your position. Perhaps you see them kind of like parasites in a way, where they harm the system they attach to, but they need to do so in order to survive.
I'm curious then how you characterize the "ignorant people with low paid jobs" you mentioned. You talk about them rather harshly but what differentiates you and other enlightened people from them?
So you see zeal as the main proponent to why conversation between the two sides seems to be degenerating. I agree that dogmatism is the wrong creed to standby. How do you think people even got religious about it? Perhaps our schools, in an attempt stay away from religion just ended up becoming a new one? Can we prevent it? Maybe by exclusively having the political elites have the discussion.
Quoting synthesis
Or do we have to bite the bullet and wait until something terribly bad happens to wake ourselves up every time?
I'm not sure I would call them low resolution though I understand what you are saying. Emotional responses are very useful, they can be used as signposts to broader issues though they don't necessarily work on their own as conclusions. If something deeply effects me emotionally I know there is something wrong, it's now my place to analyse what that is. The example of acting angrily to someone destroying your property is useful, though when it comes to abortion people are reacting to the automatic 'murder!' or 'rights!" conclusions, the emotional reaction to these two things is somewhat akin to hearing someone say they're going to destroy your property despite the two examples not being the same. People definitely feel some kind of moral ownership over ideas such as murder, their emotional reactions to murder (disconnected from the wider issue of abortion) are very deep and personal. People react often as if you have personally insulted them (or destroyed their property!) When it comes to such issues..
However like I said the emotive argument of murder is disconnected from the complex and broader issue that is meant to be discussed (abortion). So yes, they can definitely be 'low resolution' words, especially used by politicians. Like you said these buzzwords are important in radicalisation, they override any rational discussion.
And yes of course people have different emotional reactions to certain words, the emotional experience of them is subjective so talking through buzzwords is not going to have any kind of universal understanding
We live in the capitlism era. This means having money or at least a decent salary can provide you enter in the culture circle (books, theaters, universities, etc...)
Imagine having a low paid job like 700 euros or even less per month working in a boring job that nobody wants but the low qualification ones. When these citizens come back home they do not have time to question anything because their time is wasted (sadly) paying the bills. So when these populists politicians randomly appear in their lives is like a resurrection. They start not feeling that bad despite their mediocrity.
note: It is true that there are people with high income whose behaviour is similar to those. This situation is even worse
It is interesting also that such people working low paid jobs generally feel ignored by government. That feeling of being ignored and shoved aside can be easily taken advantage of. They can usually get on board with any politician who notices and speaks to/for them. Whatever other policies that politician has these people will adopt them, they are just happy to be noticed and to adopt the belief that following this politician will make their futures better than they are at the present.
Hey - Same as it ever was. It's been particularly bad recently, but it's one of the things humans do.
Absolutely politics is much like religion in the west. There is a lot of emphasis on belief rather practical solution. In the US especially presidents are at an almost godlike status, the founding fathers faces are even carved into rock (I cannot remember the name of this thing) much like sculptures in church's or temples. It is interesting how the 'American way' or whatever you'd like to call it is seen as good and right though there are very loose ideas that hold it together, such as freedom. Therefore it leaves a lot up to interpretation, similar to have Christianity and Islam are centered around one holy book but there are numerous factions that have split from eachother because of their different interpretations. This can leave people confused as they know the core ideas of such religion, but they don't know how to go about putting them into use. Therefore any politician can argue any way as long as the end result is this intangible 'freedom' idea. Centering everything on such a broad idea can get people used to painting over details in favour of simplified ideologies or words. Again there is a lot of emotional power behind these words, they require a lot of belief.
That's a loop you can break at any time. It's almost completely in your hands. You can either 1) figure out a way to lower the temperature or 2) change the subject or leave.
You perfectly explained it here. A clever governor is who makes advantage of those who are not admitted in high society. It is a social paradox because the low paid jobs will do anything but give their lives to promote the leviathan despite probably they will end up abandoned by the State.
This is why it is filthy how governments take advantage from so ignorant people.
Absolutely. This behaviour is promoted at every level of life, especially during education unfortunately, which has been designed specifically to ready people for the work force, think less critically and creatively, and accept the hierarchy as correct. So people turn out ignorant, a product of these governments who know that people will support anything not to be ignored. It's an engineered weakness.
I'm going to completely ignore your appeal against taking sides; and acknowledge from the outset that I am vehemently opposed to political correctness. One problem with it - gone almost unnoticed, was exemplified by responses to the death of Sarah Everard.
There was a determination from the outset to make a politically correct "women's issue" of the case. At first, it was about women walking home late at night. But as the case unfolded, the professional complainers have been wrongfooted twice by the circumstances of the case.
I suspect they will be wrong again when all the circumstances are known. In much the same way that George Floyd created the circumstances in which he died, first by acting criminally, and secondly by violently resisting arrest, I imagine Sarah Everard too, played an active role in creating the circumstances in which she died.
That's not to say either of them deserved to die; but rather what has been shown is that there are politically correct activists, just waiting for a tragedy to adopt, to use to further their narrative. And how can that possibly be sincere? I think it's a self aggrandising, virtue signalling power game - and it's dangerous, not least in that facts are buried for the sake of the PC narrative.
Environmental determinism? Could be -- something about cows, pastures, rolling hills, Minnesota weather... I'd say we all started out in the middle of the political road and then differentiated. The brothers lived in cities and became liberal, except for the one who lived in Colorado Springs (military town) who became a Trump man before Trump was a thing. The 4 sisters stayed in the small town and became more conservative in one of MN's congressional district that has always been Republican.
I think long-term social environment is extremely influential. We stay in places where we find like kind and then we become more that way. Or, we don't like where we are and move--and we don't have to go a long ways. The liberal core of the metro Twin Cities area has a radius of 10 miles. Outside the circle it's pretty much all conservative. This pattern holds in all of the large metropolitan areas of the country.
It is also the case that the political parties have shifted rightward. The Republican Party was once considerably more liberal, having a large wing of fiscal-conservative/social liberal members. They were driven out in the 60s and 70s. By 1980 it was Ronald Reagan. The Democratic Party also shifted to the right. After all, ending welfare-as-we-know-it happened under Bill Clinton, a Democrat.
A lot of the rightward shift has been driven from the top of society, by people most of us never associate with.
As for my leftward shift, it was driven by association too--liberal gay men, some socialist friends, and the like, and living in a liberal city.
It is inconsiderate to ignore an explicit specification for the discussion clearly expressed in the original post. It's also against the rules of the forum.
Very true.
Also, being poor means living on the edge of small disasters which can happen at any time. One's life is precarious. Constant threat makes one more cautious, more likely to respond well to political promises of "the good old days" when people imagined life was better.
George Floyd has been elevated to local sainthood, but here is a man with a string of criminal convictions, drug addiction, and petty crime--of the sort he was engaged in at the time of his final arrest. He wasn't resisting arrest so extreme that a fatality should have been expected. What the role of the fentanyl is on behavior, not sure. Probably not beneficial.
Quoting T Clark
I disagree. I think seeking to proscribe the manner and scope of a discussion is bad form - which is why I brought attention to it. I have nothing to say about making peace with politically correct activists, but I can at least explain why I despise them - which is, in my view, a positive contribution to the overall discussion.
The moderators sometimes take a dim view of ignoring the rules so transparently. We'll see.
They feel the same way about you. That's how we got to this place. If we ever want to get out of it, we have to try something different.
I'm a liberal Democrat. Even so, I know it's true that I share most values with people I disagree with politically.
I wouldn't say the emotive argument is completely disconnected from the rational deconstruction of the problem. As you said, at minimum it's usually a signpost but continuing off the abortion debate I would argue that it is intertwined much more deeply.
So it's women's right Vs murder. One side is acting off the emotive argument that women's rights should not be trampled (not this specific right, but in general). The other is acting off the emotive argument of murder (in general) is wrong. Neither side disagrees with the other's emotive argument by itself. Neither side believes that a mother's convenience is a priority over a new life or women should not have rights (or at least not a significant enough number of them do). What I'm trying to get at, I think, is that they are trying to rationalize their emotive arguments, using their emotive arguments as base, if that makes any sense.
Say I'm a proabortion person
Let's further assume that my emotive argument is: trampling women's rights is bad (so expanding it must be good)
That as a starting point, we attempt to rationalize it like:
Expanding women's rights is good, so fighting for this is a good thing
It's not a life until it's first heart beat/birth/etc.
You can't kill what isn't a life
etc. etc.
Thus I'm right
Sides in what? It's a phoney war - pursued beyond all sense of reason. I'm not choosing sides in a phoney war. I despise politically correct activists, and yet continue to treat people as individuals regardless of skin colour or gender.
What rule, exactly?
The American Way is (was?) an extremely important part of being American. Perhaps best characterized by Hollywood in John Wayne and Clint Eastwood western movies, being American was about individualism and an incredible sense of positivity, a spirit that attracted tens of millions of emigrants over the past two centuries.
It is the attempted re-writing of this history of great achievement with the mantle of victim-hood that has caused a great deal of the America's contemporary problems (along with massive systemic political and corporate corruption). Americans are very proud of what this country has been able to achieve but this does not mean that we are not willing to air out our dirty laundry and strive to move things forward. This 20's are going to be a difficult but very necessary catharsis for the U.S.
The ugly side of this country revealed itself when destiny decided it was time to assume global leadership after WWII. The elite took this as their opportunity to abandon the moral high-ground and do what elite have done for millennia, i.e., lie, cheat, and steal to their heart's content.
Very nice TC. Respect and common ground go a long way.
The subject of politics seems to be a hate generator. I decided long ago that much politics is a faith-based belief system and there is almost no sense in debating people with strong views. They are rarely held rationally. Find common ground or talk about movies.
We seem to be living in a culture war and society is becoming increasingly angry and combative and tribal. The internet and the ability to live in bubbles has surely been a problem. An Australian Aboriginal activist I know once said that bigotry and hatred isn't more prevalent today than it was 50 years ago, it is just better organized.
As long as you believe that what you are saying is worth ignoring what I asked I personally don't mind. I think everyone here is aware enough to refrain from rage baiting and getting baited. However I do think getting too lopsided in the analysis of contentious events is counterproductive towards what I made this discussion for.
True. We live in an era where a huge number of citizens use their income just to pay the house and bills. Around a 50 or 60 % of the salary is attached to a precarious life. It is sad because it looks like reading philosophy or going to theatres is the modern privilege.
I wish one day we can change this context. It remembers somehow the past times in Rome with slaves. It sounds like a metaphor
At the risk of repeating myself, they feel the same way about you.
Awww shucks.
Quoting Tom Storm
And, given the internet and all the associated media, more visible.
I don't accept I have an obligation to colour within the lines you draw - unless you think your comprehension is so definitive, no-one could possibly have anything to add. I read your post, and I'm responding to it in the only way I can.
I am honest, when I tell you I have no interest in making peace with political correctness. Indeed, given its postmodern rejection of values, and a neo marxian preoccupation with power for power's sake, I'm suspicious of the suggestion we should seek to make peace with this dogma. My question would be, how do we eradicate it? It's wrongheaded in a dozen different ways; and leads people - for instance, to ignore the Covid lockdown to protest against the mere fact this woman - Sarah Everard, was killed.
Such behaviour is a direct consequence of the unreasonableness of the overall politically correct narrative. Same with black lies matter. They think their politically correct righteousness is license to dismiss all other concerns! This kind of behaviour is in my view, symptomatic of the obsessive/compulsive psychology fostered by politically correct ideology - and it should be treated as threat to mental health.
That's true in a sense. I already have a predetermined conclusion I want to reach, which is: I think that we can be better than to allow ourselves to fight endlessly on these contentious issues. However I don't think that's what you meant by choosing sides.
If you think I'm using a "strategy," let me go back to the abortion issue as an example. To start, I'm a libertarian male. I don't feel any moral need to back either side, because it's women's rights. I'm not saying it's irrelevant to me but it's not my most pressing concern either. Additionally, I think what differentiates humans from animals is our ability to reason and choose choices what our instinct cannot. Thus, I don't think people are 'human' until they have the ability to understand and exercise their will. Some adults, much less fetuses fit this description for me, and murdering them is not far removed from slaughtering livestock.
In conclusion, I don't care about which side ends up making the policies. However I don't think it's fun that these debates are starting and ending with just emotions and assumptions of self righteousness.
I don't think you understand what I meant. I said go ahead. I am offended if you're comparing my suggestion for the direction of this discussion with political correctness. If you want to take this discussion in that direction, that's fine.
With that said, you're bringing up too many differing points at once to address meaningfully.
Quoting counterpunch
What is postmodernism in the context that you're using? Why is it bad? What makes neo-marx ideas particularly bad and why does this have anything to do in relation to this discussion as a whole?
Quoting counterpunch
I'm assuming you're speaking hyperbolically, but name the 12 reasons if I'm incorrect. I don't even know who Sarah Everard is. Even if I did, I think I would appreciate a brief explanation as to what it is and why I should care about her death in particular.
Quoting counterpunch
Again, too much to address. It gives me the impression that you are rage baiting and don't want to actually have a discussion about your views.
Maybe a good place to start is, political correctness. You said it was postmodernistic and neo-marxian, but is also comparable to my appeal for the scope of this discussion. I don't like political correctness either, and I'm curious if you thought I was postmodernistic or neomarxian, and if so, why?
Do you think this acts as a catalyst for the polarization of people, and people would be more inclined to talk with each other otherwise?
What's the reason you are able to be so confident in your knowledge?
At least for the climate change argument, I think very few people argue this as it is. The problem arises though, when climate change is used synonymously with global warming. I remember a statistic that I believe Bill Nye talked about, which stated that 99% or something of climate change experts believe in global warming and climate change. This text is misleading, as climate change can mean more than just global warming. Scientists who believe in global cooling, warming and cooling, or just isn't sure other than that climate changes is also included.
It's fairly easy to find research papers that suggests the possibility of global cooling, although they are met with swift academic opposition from what I've seen. The main argument centered the unreliability of data that considers less than 2 or 3 decades of data. Not too much, but I think global temperatures started to be recorded from about the 1950s. So the most comprehensive study would have at most around 70 years of data. Better but not significant enough to be able to disprove the 2 or 3 decades based research mentioned earlier by itself.
So climate change experts are still plenty busy arguing about it. What makes your knowledge objective?
This is echt Jordan B Peterson. I'm not trying to be a dick but can you make the connection between those ideas? I don't think postmodernism or neo-Marxism (whatever that is) exists in this way. A postmodern rejection of values does not align with the notion that postmodernists often hold critical Marxist views of culture. These are not a rejection of values. Marxism is redolent with values and positions.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2016/jun/03/hillary-clinton/yes-donald-trump-did-call-climate-change-chinese-h/
This is the kind of crap I'm talking about, not some nuanced discussion about how much humans are to blame. Those kinds of conservatives haven't lost their minds. I'm talking about the ones who think climate change involves a secret cabal of scientists all fudging numbers to get that sweet sweet grant money. And also, Alex Jones, Qanon, #releasethekraken, #clintonbodycount, etc.
I thought we were addressing Trump supporters. Whether Trump said that or not our presidents say a lot of things that aren't representational of their voter base. I'm going to assume you're a Biden supporter so I might as well use him as an example.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-voter-fraud-organization-video-gaffe (there's a video)
When Biden explicitly says that there is a large voter fraud organization for both his and Obama's administration, I think it shows some merit to be dubious about how true the words these people speak, especially if we're going to let one like this slide.
The Clinton body count is an interesting one. I haven't looked too deep into it, but I haven't heard the deaths mentioned in the memes yet to be untrue. It's just a list of a bunch of weird ways people died and/or abnormally how the deaths were handled during the Clinton administration. Couple that with a statistic (that I'm not sure is correct) that the Clinton administration had an abnormally high amount of deaths relating to important figures, I can understand how it seems suspicious.
Anyway, I still don't understand where your confidence is coming from about so many different topics. Are you just confident that you are smarter than the "Trump supporters?"
I was referencing "people in general", not you in particular. For "people in general" acting as if they were deliberating is a strategy, because most people's thinking (maybe everyone's) is, to a significant extent, shaped by their biases and steered by their emotions. When I hear a comment on Planned Parenthood, I have a positive knee-jerk response. I am biased in favor of the work they do (family planning, for instance, and yes, providing abortions).
As a gay male, abortion and family planning have never been a relevant issue to me, either. I've long had an interest in the Kinsey Institute, the Guttmacher Institute, a batch of gay organizations, AIDS research, and various other loosely connected groups, like PP. I don't know where all of my biases come from, but they are there. Experience, peer influence, work--stuff like that, I suppose. Maybe all the demonstrating by conservative Catholics against Planned Parenthood had something to do with my positive view of them.
At least for me, anyway, when I hear about the issues of the day my knee-jerk response is pretty quick. Not always -- Every now and then I do stop to consider and sometimes change my mind.
Thank you very much. Yet somehow I sense that being likened to a brilliant public speaker, successful academic and clinical psychologist - isn't intended as a compliment on your end. Well, I will take it as a compliment nonetheless.
I can make the connection between neo Marxism, post modernism, critical theory and political correctness; yes, they are all related. It would be a work of some number of volumes to describe the development of these philosophies and compare and contrast their ideas. Let us be much more shallow, and simply describe what actually happened.
Communism failed, and Marxists needed another chicken to pluck. The white working class majority refused to cast off their chains and hand absolute power to the Commies! So the Commies cast around and discovered a rich untapped vein of resentment to exploit, in identity politics. It wasn't entirely dissimilar to the resentment of the working classes that Marxist sought to exploit, but still, as you suggest, quite a leap philosophically speaking. They needed a stepping stone, and post modernism provides that stepping stone precisely because it rejects such trivialities as truth and morality as socially constructed.
The aim of political correctness is not peace, harmony or social progress. That's a pretence that post modernism doesn't object to, because - on what possible basis could they object? That it's not true? Truth is relative! Because it's immoral? Morality is relative! Post modernism is the perfect vehicle for neo Marxism because such questions are moot.
Power is, and always has been the aim of Marxism; and so political correctness is a concerted attack against the "white male patriarchy" of Western civilisation; which is to say, the bourgeoise, with the white working class proles suffering the philosophical and political equivalent of collateral damage. That's why the white working class voted for brexit and Trump; because they are despised by the left. And if you don't believe me; read "Despised" by Paul Embery.
Quoting counterpunch
Yep - that's pretty much the standard critique. I heard it many times before and you'd done a good job keeping it succinct. I would probably not use the term 'Commies' as it cheapens your point and makes it look resentful rather than objective. I also think you need to strengthen the point about Marxist resentment - it feels a bit thin. Why are they resentful?
I can't say if Peterson is right on this. I don't think I see overwhelming evidence for it but I grant you it has a low resolution coherence.
My own view is that many of the people who self-identify as Marxists are not interested in social change or class. Or Marxism. I'm also not sure they want power to any higher degree that most Tories. It's interesting to speculate.
Quoting FlaccidDoor
You joined the forum 2 days ago and have made a grand total of 31 posts. It's difficult to get an impression of what you believe just yet; and maybe after you've been here a while, that will change anyway. So, ask me again this time next year and I may have an answer for you.
I'm glad you're not upset by me colouring outside the lines, but my thing is truth. I'm a straight shooter, and I'm not going to pretend I can make peace with political correctness bigots and bullies. If they persist, then I will oppose them. It's not difficult. They tell stupid lies; like the way they make out that the West invented slavery - when we know for a fact it existed since ancient Egypt and beyond, all around the world, until the West put an end to it.
The fact these lefties don't understand that slavery is the inherent to the human condition, and it's only an insistence on freedom that allows for freedom - as they howl against the fairest, most humane and successful civilisations ever built, is fast becoming a prime motivation. I cannot imagine how this narrative plays out around the world, but don't imagine it endears us to others all that much.
Quoting FlaccidDoor
I do, yes - I think political correctness intends to cause resentment, which it then exploits as evidence for the need for more political correctness, and it's stifling our very human-ness. Talking to other people is now a formal affair; where all the niceties have to be observed lest someone - horror of horrors, might take offence! That could lead to a twitter mobbing, and people out to destroy your life, cost you your job, your home, wife and kids, everything - and they don't care. They are vile. Their dogma is false, and I'm glad you're not one of them - because I can't make my peace with it.
Thank you for teaching me the word "echt" - which I was unaware means "authentic and typical." I get what you mean about the anxiousness, but I like Peterson's style of public speaking. He reminds me of a Professor I had who taught Rawl's A Theory of Justice - which, rather like Peterson's narrative, is an expansive idea. I loved that class, but a lot of my fellow students hated it - precisely because it's so expansive, and draws upon huge and diverse fields of knowledge. I love how it all relates.
That said, I'm not nearly as religious as Peterson. I'm a philosopher of science, and view religion from the outside as the philosophy and politics of primitive people. I accept that religion is of huge significance to society, but in my philosophy, more as a central coordinating mechanism - that has cemented civilisation over thousands of years. Storehouse of folksy wisdom, sure. But logos?
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." John 1:1.
Does he mean science? Because science (at its best) is true knowledge of Creation; and so must be the word of God deciphered by man. Otherwise, how do the hierarchical social structures of a risk of lobsters apply to humankind - other than by accepting evolution, accepting science in general, and on that basis concluding that religion was invented to allow hunter gatherer tribes to join together in a single social group - by all believing in the same God, and the same moral laws. Instead, I think Peterson is a genuine believer - and maddeningly, makes no effort to reconcile these antithetical narratives, while depending on both religion and science for his arguments!
2016? Probably. 2020? Yes. Now? Without a doubt. I don't see the appeal of the Trump con. I could not get fleeced by him. I think you have to be kind of dumb to fall for his shtick in the first place and really dumb to fall for it twice. My experience with Trump supporters has been: they can't do nuance, they think they're bigger victims than minorities, they believe ridiculous things, and they don't like "demographic change", and when you drill down on that, "demographic change"="country getting browner", and they're a lot more racist than the population at large.
There's that toy, the 'echt-a-sketch" -- police use it to make authentic drawings of suspects.
Quoting counterpunch
True enough, if the several great religions (Hindu, Buddhist, the 3 Abrahamic faiths) didn't originate with primitives, they were certainly picked up by them. The relatively small group of people who were critical in forming the great religions were probably sophisticated creative types. Just my guess.
As for Quoting counterpunch
I don't think that one can actually reconcile them; one lays them down side by side--separate, not equal, one not advancing the other. I am no longer a believer, but I took my moral core from Christianity. Way too late to renovate that part of the castle. I look to science too. Science though wasn't intended to provide moral or ethical guidance. Guidance doesn't have to come from religion, but it's the handiest source for most people.
It's sort of like the paradox of Christ -- fully man, fully god. You have to have faith to deal with it. Science doesn't care and has nothing to say about it. So, go with science in the 99.999% of situations where faith doesn't help.
That's only because they're not allowed to round up the typical suspects anymore!
Quoting Bitter Crank
The first artefacts that display a truly human mode of abstract conceptual thought - cave painting, burial of the dead, jewellery, improved tools etc, date back around 50,000 years - so there was a very long time between the occurrence of intellectual intelligence in homo sapiens, and the formation of the first societies. If, as I suspect - religion was necessary to the formation of the first multi-tribal societies - it's older than most people realise; older than the first known civilisations, which only date back around 12-15,000 years. That's not a long time really. Sufficient for the development of writing and the recording of what until then, had been an oral tradition.
Quoting Bitter Crank
As usual, your colloquial reasonableness is at odds with my philosophical extremism; but I think religion and science can, and ought to have been reconciled - when Galileo presented Dialogue on the Two Chief World Systems, the Church should have embraced and Sainted the man, rather than dragging him into court and threatening him with torture to force him to recant.
"Hurrah" they might have exclaimed - "Galileo has discovered the means to decode the word of God made manifest in Creation" - and the world would be very different today. The human species would not, I imagine, be threatened with extinction had science been granted moral authority as the means to discover truths of Creation. Instead, science was decried as heresy, and reduced in status to a whore to government and industry; used to create nuclear weapons and climate change. Truth is a moral and ethical virtue - that bridges the is/ought divide. Separate, non overlapping magisteria - they ain't.
Always on the lookout for new words - "echt." One of those words that sounds like it aught to mean something cool, but actually means something normal. It almost has that guttural German sound you make at the back of your throat. My favorite voice sound.
Thanks.
I feel like I understood what you meant. I am strategically acting in a way to lead this discussion to conclude "people can be civil about these contentious topics" because that is my bias, my goal. My intention was to demonstrate that a position that is not inherently hostile to yours exists in these contentious topics. Yes I am self centered, but that doesn't necessarily mean I am trying to belittle your position or even trying to prove you wrong in the topic, but merely trying to convince you that conversation isn't futile.
Ok so your basis to call your knowledge "objective" seems to only be that Trump supporters are inherently wrong. I apologize in advance if I'm wrong because we're going a bit rough here, but when you say "The election was not stolen, climate change is not a hoax, Q-anon is a bunch of nonsense, Sandy Hook really happened, Hillary Clinton is not a murderer, etc" the only apparent reason I understand, for you to believe you are right, is that you believe that the other side is just wrong. In other words, you don't actually have the expertise on these topics to be able to draw out the validity of said claims, but rather you're just content to call the other side wrong and convince yourself right.
Again, forgive me if I'm wrong, but you haven't given me much to work off of to conclude differently. However if my assertions have any truth in them, I want to ask: did you learn anything new from what I described about climate change, Joe Biden speaking or the Clinton body count?
If I said I was a Trump supporter will that change how you receive what I said? Will that change your conclusion about Trump supporters? What if I said I was a Joe Biden supporter who actually just wanted to test you? Will that change how you receive what I said? Are you really as objective as you say you are?
My gripe is that you claim to be smarter than 74 million people (the amount of people who voted Trump in 2020) on multiple topics which is a big claim. Those are 74 million people of differing backgrounds and experiences. To me, this seems similar to saying something like, "Those [insert race] is so stupid. They are all the same and wrong about everything."
Bertrand Russel said it best: “In a democracy it is necessary that people should learn to endure having their sentiments outraged”. We should be able to talk about these things but we get caught up in the pathos of it.
But I am optimistic. I see these as the growing pains of an ever-expanding freedom in speech and thought. People now have access to information unlike any time in history, and also many means by which to express their views. If we can come to grips with this, perhaps after a generation or two, we’ll have both the freedom and the thick skin required to handle it.
They absolutely can be civil. A civil discussion between a Trump lover and a Trump loather probably won't result in changed positions, but if they can at least get to what it is about Trump (or any other politician, political issue, religious question... all sorts of things) that they love or loathe, that would be good.
And if "civil" isn't possible (sometimes it isn't) then one just has to leave it alone--the other
er civil approach.
Quoting FlaccidDoor
Mea culpas are not in order. You've started a good thread and you are tending to it. Looking forward to more good topics from you.
I'm actually a big fan of Jordan Peterson as well. I grew up in a rather religious family, and he helped me bridge the gap I held between the world of the sciences and religion. I view them to be one in the same thing now, so what you said confuses me a bit.
What is science if not a religion that follows a bible written by countless scientists and praises a God that is the progression of knowledge?
I guess where I mainly disagree is the part where you say you "view religion from the outside," but I think that's impossible because you cannot not be religious.
Thank you. It's really fun talking to competent thinkers from a wide variety of perspectives. I've only joined 2 days ago and I've had a blast so far.
Do you believe that freedom of speech and thought is increasing? I feel that many, at least in the US would disagree. Perhaps you meant in accordance with our ability to distribute information. Like our freedom of speech increases with more methods of transferring information.
So you believe that the perceived polarization of people in politics is a result of this sudden and drastic increase in our freedom of speech? We are hurt more easily because of the sheer amount of things that can hurt us we are exposed to has increased and we just have to hold out until we are used to the barrage again?
I would ask instead; what is religion if not the presumption by primitive peoples, of truths about reality, in lieu of actual truths that were only later discovered by science?
Because to my mind, the explanation for the fact we have the knowledge and technology to address climate change, but don't apply it; the explanation for nuclear weapons, burning forests and oceans full of plastic - is that we didn't switch out those presumed truths, when actual truths emerged.
Instead, we made science a heresy; depriving it of the natural authority associated with truth, and rendering it subject to religious, political and economic ideological ends. We developed and applied technology ideologically, without regard to the overall picture of reality science describes.
The overall picture remained ideological - and Peterson suggests, it is impossible to move beyond the frame of that ideological picture. I don't accept that. My understanding is not so culturally defined that I cannot see beyond the frame of a picture painted by ignorant savages! Peterson wants to believe that - I think, because he genuinely believes in God; which is why he needs to clarify his position on the antipathy between religion and science.
During the Vietnam War, lots of families had lots of arguments about the premises of the war (domino theory), about the intentions of North Vietnam, about the effects the war was having on the troops, the policies of Presidents Johnson and Nixon, or about patriotism. Ronald Reagan was a lightning rod for arguments.
Family is one of the places where children (and parents) can stake out claims for what they believe, or what they don't believe, as the case may be, then defend the territory. Family argument is the cradle of opinion making, and learning the skills to have and deploy opinions.
Better to learn how to argue than to learn how to shut up.
One place where I found common ground with Trump supporters was an agreement that, given the fact that almost half of American's doubted the legitimacy of the election, it would make sense to have an even-handed investigation. It's not that I have any doubt that the election was fair and legal, it's that I want to acknowledge the beliefs of those I disagree with. Whatever the cost of an investigation is nothing compared with the possibility of reducing the level of anger.
Quoting Bitter Crank
My family is terrible. We all agree on everything. Our arguments are all about who can be more liberal. I tend to be the most conservative person in the room. I'll say something conciliatory about supporters of President Trump and I get beaten to a figurative pulp.
If you are coming from the position Q-anon *might* be right, or Sandy Hook *might* have been a false flag operation, the discussion ends here. The moon might be made of green cheese. But it's not, and Q-anon is nonsense.
Do you actually think Q-anon might be right??? Do you actually entertain that as a possibility?
As well you should, being the most conservative person in the room!:lol:
"More liberal than thou" liberals can be vicious, vituperative vipers.
Well the thing is that science does not purport to speak any truths. I'm assuming by "actual truths" you meant scientific theories. I define scientific theories to be explanations for phenomenons based off of observational evidence. These theories, might as well be true in the practical sense, because if you see the same thing happen 1000 times, there's no reason to assume that it will be different the 1001st time either.
However science, is always open to its theories to be disproved and replaced by a new, better fitting one. It facilitates the natural selection of ideas, so the ideas that are left are very reliable. But a reliable theory, is not the equivalent to the "actual truth." It is on the presumption that a larger amount of evidence equals a more reliable conclusion.
I don't know even who Q-anon is. I was just saying that you don't seem to have the proper reasons to be able to say that, what you listed previously was objectively true.
Though rather than your reason to believe you are "objectively" true being that Trump supporters has to always be wrong, now changed to be that Q-anon has to always be wrong here.
Calling another side wrong does not move you any closer to the truth.
Are you an American?
Yes?
Do you think it's possible Trump actually won the election?
I've heard of them, but I don't know enough to speak anything of them. This discussion is about why people are increasingly losing their ability to converse about politics, not about the right or wrong about any specific issues per se. Why do you imply that I'm not allowed to start this political thread, and why is Q-anon that important?
I don't think it was a smart idea that the doubt cast for the election results by millions of people was ignored. Not because the election was fraudulent, but because it leaves the doubt stay on the people's minds.
I will be back again in a few hours.
- The election was not stolen
- Q-anon is bullshit
- Hillary Clinton is not a murderer
- Climate change is not a hoax
- Obama was an American citizen
- Sandy Hook really happened
- Masks work
And on and on.
So, to sum up, no, I'm not wrong about any of the above, it's all bullshit, and I don't want to have anything to do with the people who are stupid/crazy enough to believe that stuff.
Is it a theory that the earth orbits the sun? Or is that the truth? And is that truth contrary to about half a dozen Biblical passages that claim "the earth fixed in the heavens"?
That's what I mean by:
Quoting counterpunch
If you think there's a better word than truth that I can use, please - suggest it. We both know that science does not claim absolute truth; and that officially, all scientific conclusions are provisional - for the possibility of further evidence.
But are you saying then, that science has got nothing right? Maybe it hasn't. Maybe all this is an illusion - and you and I are in fact, both brain in jars being fed sensory data we mistake for reality.
But the more likely explanation is it's true that the earth orbits the sun, and it's true that water is two parts hydrogen to one part oxygen, and that I was using the term truth colloquially - because there isn't another word that adequately conveys the epistemological complexities of scientific investigation.
So, as your objection to unavoidable terminology doesn't invalidate everything else I said in my post, can you respond to it properly now?
Actually, my brother's Trump supporting South Carolinian parents in law are the most conservative when everyone is there. At our last reunion, someone allowed my outspoken liberal sister and daughter to sit next to them. It was painful and inconsiderate. My sister often doesn't think before she speaks. Actually, she does. That's probably the problem.
I don't understand. I don't think I even came close to comparing you to Trump supporters, nor did I claim you might be ignorant of Q-anon. If I said anything close to comparing you to Trump supporters, it was when I mentioned a self destructive quote from Joe Biden. However I find it hard to believe that it's disagreeable.
Quoting FlaccidDoor
Perhaps this is what you're talking about, when I accused you of being the equivalent of a racist. I meant this to say that you are generalizing a large demographic to fit a narrow narrative for you to feel superior, like a bigoted racist might (understand that I believe race is a genetic factor too broad and too minor to affect any intellectual debate)
I have no clue where you might've thought that I was criticizing your knowledge about "Q-anon." I sincerely don't care and I thought it was a meme, much less anything of value.
Quoting RogueAI
So this is the thing. You haven't said anything that "sums up" to showing that you are not wrong about any of the above. You never actually talked about the contents of the topics you mentioned. You've only talked about what you imagined your political opponents thought of it.
Perhaps this is the very rage bait I was talking about. I will refrain from responding if I feel that we are making no progress about this topic.
You compare having opinions to claiming stakes over a territory. Do you believe that learning how to argue, even if it might cross another's territory is more worthwhile than to just learning how to shut up?
In other words, what do you think is the final destination for peoples with differing opinions?
I find that to be very funny, not to make fun of you, but it reminds me of my childhood. My family was Christian, and our family would have songs, bible lectures and prayers twice a week. The songs were fun enough, but the other two bored me out of my mind because I either couldn't understand it or I frankly disagreed with it. I was jealous of people who could be more zealous than me, because they spent their time in lecture and prayer in an almost orgasmic joy.
I'm not completely sure what made me think back to this from what you mentioned. Maybe it's the pain that we want to be blissfully unaware of the criticisms of our beliefs, but something inside us doesn't allow that. I know that whenever I chose to disagree, they would beat me down with "Christ's love."
Yes it is a theory, but perhaps I should change the framing of my argument. Have you ever been in a spaceship, and watched the sun, moon and earth move in relationship of each other, until you learned that it was in orbit? No? but you believe in the words of the scientists who calculated that you should? Obviously the concept of orbit is not just a result of basement dwelling scientists, but my point is, you have faith in the words of the literature those scientists produced, even though you have no experience to support that belief.
So, in my eyes you have faith, much like a Christian has faith in their God. Your faith may be placed into something more concrete than God in your eyes, but in the end you have faith in your own God nonetheless.
Quoting counterpunch
I said that the "truth" should be called reliable ideas, if not just scientific theories, however, in practice, they can be close to "truths." There's little reason to think about events that only happen .001% of the time in real life after all. Claiming that science is too humble to boast about absolute truth though, is very different from saying that it is worthless.
I'm curious. Did your sister and your South Carolinian parents hate the experience? or was everyone else who had to deal with it the most hateful of the situation? I know when I had political conversation in my circle, while it may not have been explosive, I feel like my friends were those most distraught by it, with the mere thought of politics determining if the night was a failure or not.
That said, this only if one takes it seriously enough but I suggest we cut ourselves some slack and take heed of the advice, "don't take life too seriously."
That is an intriguing idea. I have a hard time thinking of anything that is worth taking more seriously than life. If we don't take life seriously, can we take anything seriously? Conversely, if we can't take anything more seriously than life, can we take life any less seriously?
So I guess my question is, what do you mean "don't take life seriously?" Should I be considering suicide more (joking)?
Are you mad?
Quoting FlaccidDoor
It depend on what you mean by spaceship. Is not earth a spaceship? I have been on earth, and able to deduce by the movement of the planets - that the sun does not rise, but that earth moves in relation to the sun. I have done this - practically, to my intellectual satisfaction. By the same measure, I know the earth is round, and that water, induced by electric current, yields oxygen and hydrogen that are combustible. I have done these experiments. Are they not, thus, true? I think you're being silly, over the definition of the word; true.
Quoting FlaccidDoor
Quoting FlaccidDoor
Are you aware, that's the precise number of arrest related deaths of black people in America? Yet I imagine, you - as a committed leftie anti-science bigot, think that's somehow significant when talking about the death of black people as a proportion of arrests, yet cite the same number as something that would otherwise go unnoticed. Fucking lefty anti-science bigots!
I should apoologise, for responding whilst drunk, but ... I'm drunk! I still believe the same things. Science is true. And you're a fucking idiot if you don't recognise that cleaving to science is our best shot at any kind of future. I'm sorry. I should log off for six to eight hours. I'm currently unqualified to comment.
But people at a forum like this typically are not friends or family. We're not a community.
Discussing issues in a philosophical-ish manner is not conducive to friendship.
There's a saying: "You shouldn't discuss politics or religion in polite society." I add philosophy to the other two. Such discussion makes society impolite.
Uh?
I wanted to qualify the statement "don't take life too seriously" but I just left it as it was for effect. My point is those who complain about cognitive dissonance maybe committing the grave mistake of assuming the world is self-consistent. There's no evidence for that I'm afraid and in fact all the evidence seems to point in the opposite direction. I guess a much harsher response to those who want to seek and destroy all inconsistencies in their worldview would be "that's the way it (the world) is. live with it!"
Do you really need me to go over the Sandy Hook shooting to convince you it's not a "false flag" operation? No, you don't. Good day.
Was I hacked?
My sister and my brother's parents-in-law were not talking to each other. My sister was just expressing her opinion forcefully to the whole table. They just sat there in silence. I think it probably bothered my brother most. I think he was humiliated.
I was raised as a Methodist, although my mother wasn't as devout as your family sounds. I have very vivid memories of sitting in the pews when I was about five, listening to the sermon and feeling like I was going to explode. I was a very high-energy child and I had no patience. Sitting still for that long was very painful.
Quoting FlaccidDoor
That happens to me all the time. I usually find that, even though it might not seem directly on-subject, it shares the tone or mood of the subject being discussed. That can be helpful, even if it isn't a perfect match.
I guess you got me there. My argument really only works for theories you haven't confirmed for yourself, but instead put faith in, simply for its name in science. People do not have the time or capacity to be able to prove all scientific "truths" for themselves, but in practice have to put faith in scientists conducting the research and critically reviewing them: an act that, if time were to permit, should be done by each of us, to our satisfaction.
Quoting counterpunch
Understandable. I have an alcoholic side myself, however I would put aside your assumptions for my political leaning. In the same discussion I think I have someone accusing me of being a pro-Trump or pro Q-anon or something of the sort.
That's true. This community probably would disagree to the notion of being friends, and much less family. However if a community can exist with only disagreements to hold it together, why can't it simply exist in friends and family? I personally feel like friends or at least family is far from polite society.
So you're confident in your knowledge in Sandy Hook! I was going to address it but I ran out of time earlier. Unfortunately I'm clueless to this event but I'd be happy to hear out an explanation of why this is relevant.
However I don't think a convincing perspective over Sandy Hook changes the argument over the other topics you mentioned. I suppose you feel that i'm trying to convince you that having your opinions about politics is wrong. I really couldn't care less who you voted for or your political leanings were. Thus I don't care if you're actually right or wrong on these subjects. What I'm trying to say though, is that you seem to have a zealous faith in either the sources of information your getting on these, or some magical power that makes your political opponents automatically wrong.
How do you have such strong faith in your opinions? I always find myself skeptical and I can't relate.
I guess it turned out to be a one sided speech than any conversation. That's unfortunate.
Quoting T Clark
I want to clarify that my family didn't actually beat me in the name of Christ's love. Rather if and when I showed doubt over some religious claim, it felt like the conversation was just drowned out by it.
You remind me of a character in an anime I'm watching. I enjoy it.
No, what "holds a philosophy discussion forum together" is a measure of commitment by its members to a very specific tradition of discussing things in a specific way.
Sure, friends and esp. family sometimes are not "polite society", but they are not intended to be a philosophy discussion forum and don't serve that purpose.
Holding you to it!
I agree that people on this forum tend to have a way of discussing that practical conversations in life lack. So you're saying without that, conversation without politics is always divisive and negative? So you're asserting that only the philosophy forum is an exception to the divisive effects of political conversations?
How did you get to that from what I was saying?
No, but it seems to be one of the few venues where the divisive effects of political conversations seem to have minimum effect on the social coherence between the people. But again, a philosophy discussion forum is a very specific kind of community, one that is specifically intended to accomodate those divisive effects. Whereas other communities normally aren't.
Sorry I meant conversation about politic, not without.
Quoting baker
I agree that the philosophy forum should be treated as an exception where the divisive effects aren't as pronounced. Maybe it's because people talk in a different language format that facilitates rational discussions better or that we go into a conversation expecting the difference of opinion.
Ah vhe! You mean no more Alcibiades stumbling into Plato’s Symposium?...what a shame...what a loss!