• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Understanding the Liberal Mindset

steenkh said:
You generalise too much. It is possible to think differently about some Muslims/poor/whatever who are not exploiting you, and those Muslims/poor/whatever who try to exploit you. You don't have to be a sucker in order to show compassion and empathy.
Click to expand...
But...but...empathy is for suckers...
 
Trausti said:
Concepts and implications of altruism bias and pathological altruism
Click to expand...
Interesting, article. people can make decisions with bad consequences despite good intentions. Sometimes because of incomplete knowledge, in particular knowledge they 'deny', because of pre-conceived prejudices. A number of examples given come from what in the US would be regarded as the right, e.g.

Teenagers in the United States become pregnant, contract sexually transmitted diseases, and have abortions at much higher rates than teenagers in most other industrialized countries. However, the most effective, scientifically proven approaches to reducing teen pregnancy are often ignored. As psychologist Timothy Wilson noted in summarizing the many problematic efforts in this area: “The fact that policy makers learned so little from past research—at huge human and financial cost—is made even more mind-boggling by being such a familiar story. Too often, policy makers follow common sense instead of scientific data when deciding how to solve social and behavioral problems”
Click to expand...
This is where prejudice e.g. HPV vaccine protects against an STD so might encourage sex before marriage so must be a bad thing comes up against 'facts' that HPV does not increase sexual activity in adolescents, but does prevent cervical cancer that might be caused by having sex with your husband. Sex ed does not encourage teen sex.
 
acbytesla said:
There is nothing suicidal about empathy. The understanding that we are all in this together. That everything isn't a zero sum game. That kindness and civility is important. In 50 years of being involved in politics I have only seen a few occasions where Republicans actually promoted any policies that were empathetic to anyone other than the wealthy.

If after WW2, rebuilding Europe and Japan to the degree that the US did wasn't based on empathy I don't know what is. If creating the GI Bill and sending soldiers to college wasn't empathetic I don't know what is. America treated POWs far better than any other country during WW2. If that wasn't based on empathy, I don't know what is.

And NONE of these acts were suicidal. Neither is helping the poor, the infirm, the immigrant, or minorities. My experience in life is that selfishness offers only short term gains. But selflessness pays dividends for life.
Click to expand...
Objectively this isn't true. Lowest mortality of PoW were if they're held by the British. Several studies suggest the British (and Canadians) treated PoW better than the US.
 
Last edited:
Susheel said:
Maybe conservatives being racist, sexist, homophobic isn't rally a stereotype and a fact.
Click to expand...
I don't even know what a conservative is anymore. Today's Republicans do not resemble in the slightest old school conservative philosophy.of Republicans of the 1950s, 1960s and early 1970s. Conservatives were pro choice at that time. They didn't care about one's sexuality. Ever hear of Log Cabin Republicans? They wouldn't be for reckless tax cuts. That began to change in 1980 when Ronald Reagan created a coalition with the batcrap crazy religious nuts. Reagan combined fiscal recklessness with his deal with GConservatives. The Republicans have been ona dishonest downward slide ever since.

Trump's conservatives are not conservatives. MAGA isn't conservative. It's fascist.
 
Planigale said:
Objectively this isn't true. Lowest mortality of PoW were if they're held by the British. Several studies suggest the British (and Canadians) treated PoW better than the US.
Click to expand...
Simply not true. Canada's WW2 POW camps were likely equal to American ones. But not Britain.
 
My mother was teenage girl during wwii. Lived within walking distance of a POW camp, southern Arkansas. She traded fresh veggies with the inmates in exchange for hand-crafted items the Italian inmates had made. She could go right up to the fence* and dealt with them. Guards leaned on the tower rails and checked out the cute girl. Very low stress.

*One course of wire, no "kill zone".
 
smartcooky said:
Liberal Progressives (Lib-Progs) consider themselves as the bastions of Social Justice. They claim to believe in each individual's right to an autonomous, self-directed life, free from restrictions. They claim to believe in freedom of speech, arguing that is it an important part of challenging existing ideas and finding truth. Lib-Progs have an absoluteness about their mindset. They are utterly convinced they are always the good guys, that they are the final arbiter of right and wrong, and that anyone who doesn't think the way they do are the bad guys. They are also utterly convinced that they, and only they, know what's best for society. They operate on the basis of the "victim v oppressor framework" which views social dynamics via a sort of "binary" consisting of the powerful groups (the oppressors) versus the marginalized groups (the victims). In the Lib-Prog world, everyone but them is either one or the other - everyone is either a victim or an oppressor, and the Lib-Progs are here equalize everyone and make everything alright. They are fantasists, the ultimate expression of idealism. These are indeed lofty ideals, but sadly, the reality of the Liberal Progressive mindset is somewhat different from their stated ideals.

Their claim to believe in each individual's rights falls flat when it comes to any right that doesn't comport their mindset.
Their claim to believe in free speech only applies to speech they like. Speech they don't like must be restricted, and its speaker punished.

There is nothing that demonstrates how the Lib-Prog mindset works (and exposes its deep flaws) better than their relationship with Israel and the Palestinian Arabs in Gaza and the West Bank. British Commentator Melanie Phillips currently writes on social issues for The Times and The Jerusalem Post from a socially conservative perspective.

(Lib-Progs will dutifully obey their echo-chambers and dismiss her as a far-right racist without ever reading anything she has written or hearing anything she has to say)

There is a transcript below the link for those who are allergic to YouTube videos.


TRANSCRIPT​
The Western liberal mind conceives of itself as being good because it's Liberal. The Western liberal tells him or herself "I'm a good person because I'm Liberal - I'm Liberal because I'm a good person" which means that I believe in things like the Brotherhood of Man,
Edited by jimbob: 
snipped for rule 4
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, the problem you have on the right is a paucity of intellectual thinkers. The only one I can think of in recent years that might qualify is Alan Sked. I went to see him at an event in Central London some years ago and unlike most knee-jerk right wingers, he was able to articulate and express himself clearly and logically. Sked, as most will know was one of early founder of UKIP, based on 'anti-federalism', referring to the EU.

Following the 2014 European elections, he further criticised UKIP as "Frankenstein's monster" and said that he intended to stand against the Labour leader Ed Miliband in the 2015 general election. He also described his former UKIP colleague Nigel Farage as a "dim-witted racist".<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Sked#cite_note-stuart-10"><span>[</span>10<span>]</span></a>

In an article dated 21 October 2015 for The National Interest, Sked wrote the following regarding Nigel Farage and the state of UKIP under his leadership,

After I stepped down to return to academic life, however, the party came under control of a preposterous mountebank named Nigel Farage, who reoriented it to the far right. The clause about a lack of prejudices was abolished and all sorts of nasty statements were made against blacks, Muslims and gays. Former members of the National Front were allowed to work for the party or become candidates. The party itself has deliquesced into a cult around Farage, whose electoral failure in 2015 has made him an object of scorn in the media and prompted his financial backers to desert him. Farage has become a convenient figure with which to frighten moderate voters about the consequences of fulfilling my party’s original mission—withdrawal from the European Union.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Sked#cite_note-11"><span>[</span>11<span>]</span></a> WIKI
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Whilst Sked at this event seemed to know and understand his stuff and could argue his case, sadly the bulk of the audience, UKIP supporters, were of the rough and ready boot-boy types with short-legged jeans and mutton chop sideboards - I wondered whether I was at a Noddy Holder convention at one point - and seemed more interested in being one of the lads. Given I stood up to ask Sked a couple of challenging questions about why he was anti-EU, after the event, my then boyfriend having taken one look at the intimidating mob, one of whom approached us outside*, grabbed my hand and said, 'We'd better...RUN!'**

* Having said that, he seemed friendly enough.

** The only other time he said that was after a Millwall game.

The point here, albeit based on n = a small number, most people on the right seem to have a problem with reasoning. One of my relatives used to smugly state, 'Trump is right' or 'Putin is a great man', yet when asked for reasons, looked astonished that anyone expected reasoning. It just was.

So yeah, there's your problem. It's not quid pro quo. Right-wingers lack intellect and I say that not unkindly as Sked is a rare exception that shows it can be possible.
 
Planigale said:
Objectively this isn't true. Lowest mortality of PoW were if they're held by the British. Several studies suggest the British (and Canadians) treated PoW better than the US.
Click to expand...
... and also, because the Japanese treated its own POW's notoriously - and unspeakably - badly, it is almost impossible to point out how badly the US treated the Japanese who lived in the US at the time, who were rounded up into internment camps.
 
Vixen said:
... and also, because the Japanese treated its own POW's notoriously - and unspeakably - badly, it is almost impossible to point out how badly the US treated the Japanese who lived in the US at the time, who were rounded up into internment camps.
Click to expand...
Or by handing German prisoners over to the Russians after the fall of Germany. Not my problem anymore is not good treatment.
 
Vixen said:
... and also, because the Japanese treated its own POW's notoriously - and unspeakably - badly, it is almost impossible to point out how badly the US treated the Japanese who lived in the US at the time, who were rounded up into internment camps.
Click to expand...
The mortality rate for the interned Issei was lower than that of the general US public. I guess you could count Montana as cruel and usual. However, the barrage of threats against Issei and Nisei living in California were not to be disregarded.
 
427 Cobra said:
I find it fascinating that the people that routinely label all conservatives as racist, sexist, homophobic, etc., get upset when someone applies labels and stereotypes on them.
Click to expand...
Maybe conservatives should put some effort into not validating those stereotypes. I'm not the one who made Elon do a Nazi salute on stage, nor am I the one who appointed him in charge of carving up the federal government after he did it. I'm not the one who praised Hitler in a racist group chat, nor am I the one who made the vice president defend such behavior.
 
acbytesla said:
I don't even know what a conservative is anymore. Today's Republicans do not resemble in the slightest old school conservative philosophy.of Republicans of the 1950s, 1960s and early 1970s. Conservatives were pro choice at that time. They didn't care about one's sexuality. Ever hear of Log Cabin Republicans? They wouldn't be for reckless tax cuts. That began to change in 1980 when Ronald Reagan created a coalition with the batcrap crazy religious nuts. Reagan combined fiscal recklessness with his deal with GConservatives. The Republicans have been ona dishonest downward slide ever since.

Trump's conservatives are not conservatives. MAGA isn't conservative. It's fascist.
Click to expand...

i think it’s fair to say that maga pandered to the racists and evangelicals and the fascists. outside of the anti vax left i’m not sure that a significant portion of them came from liberals though, a lot of conservatives that turned alt right and extremists imo

and that was of course a strategy engineered by steve bannon and the tech wannabe oligarchs like thiel and musk. still the same people, just brain rotted by social media. and i think plenty of conservatives were bottled up fascists waiting for permission to let it out too

in any case, if we say maga aren’t conservatives, then where did conservatives go? seem to have been maga adjacent for a number of years and now almost disappeared off the face of the earth. watched their ideology be snatched from them by christian nazis without a peep. or cheered because a lib was being owned and that was more important than doing the right thing or believing in what you say. and still do
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
They are utterly convinced they are always the good guys, that they are the final arbiter of right and wrong, and that anyone who doesn't think the way they do are the bad guys. They are also utterly convinced that they, and only they, know what's best for society
Click to expand...
I'm sure this seemed profound when you first typed it up, but it's utterly banal. Everyone considers themselves the good guys, and those opposed to them the bad guys. Nobody goes around thinking, "Yup, I'm evil, and I sure hope the good people opposed to me succeed in stopping my dastardly plans."
 
acbytesla said:
I don't even know what a conservative is anymore. Today's Republicans do not resemble in the slightest old school conservative philosophy.of Republicans of the 1950s, 1960s and early 1970s. Conservatives were pro choice at that time. They didn't care about one's sexuality. Ever hear of Log Cabin Republicans? They wouldn't be for reckless tax cuts. That began to change in 1980 when Ronald Reagan created a coalition with the batcrap crazy religious nuts. Reagan combined fiscal recklessness with his deal with GConservatives. The Republicans have been ona dishonest downward slide ever since.

Trump's conservatives are not conservatives. MAGA isn't conservative. It's fascist.
Click to expand...
All of that is also an oversimplification and is about a time when folks on the left were also calling conservatives fascists.

That being said, MAGA is quite radical and thus not conservative. But much like painting progressives with as broad a brush as the OP, Painting MAGA as all fascists misses the mark in a lot of cases. Sure, many are, legitimately fascist. Many are not. RFK, whatever you think of him, not a fascist. Once Trump is out of the picture the inherent conflicts among MAGA will explode into a thousand little bits. Just look at Vance's playing footsy with Candace Owens and the right's reaction to Tucker Carlson these days. The Heritage Foundation is basically imploding over it.
 
I am willing to let former MAGA leave the ranks of the dedicated maggats that can't let go of the hate spewed during its peak.
Not entirely forgiven but leave them space to relearn a few real world values through the struggles poor Americans face now.
They got screwed by trump and soon the rich will get screwed too as thier turn comes.

It's hard enough, but now with a new reality of far less government aid and fewer jobs, higher costs and all they don't need another kick in the shin.

They will fill the rifts that tear Maga apart to a point it cannot be as it was again.
 
dirtywick said:
i think it’s fair to say that maga pandered to the racists and evangelicals and the fascists. outside of the anti vax left i’m not sure that a significant portion of them came from liberals though, a lot of conservatives that turned alt right and extremists imo

and that was of course a strategy engineered by steve bannon and the tech wannabe oligarchs like thiel and musk. still the same people, just brain rotted by social media. and i think plenty of conservatives were bottled up fascists waiting for permission to let it out too

in any case, if we say maga aren’t conservatives, then where did conservatives go? seem to have been maga adjacent for a number of years and now almost disappeared off the face of the earth. watched their ideology be snatched from them by christian nazis without a peep. or cheered because a lib was being owned and that was more important than doing the right thing or believing in what you say. and still do
Click to expand...
They didn't go anywhere. Some might have changed parties and others just went along. My point is what is labeled as conservative today has changed dramatically. It may have happened incrementally, but it definitely happened.
 
ahhell said:
All of that is also an oversimplification and is about a time when folks on the left were also calling conservatives fascists.

That being said, MAGA is quite radical and thus not conservative. But much like painting progressives with as broad a brush as the OP, Painting MAGA as all fascists misses the mark in a lot of cases. Sure, many are, legitimately fascist. Many are not. RFK, whatever you think of him, not a fascist. Once Trump is out of the picture the inherent conflicts among MAGA will explode into a thousand little bits. Just look at Vance's playing footsy with Candace Owens and the right's reaction to Tucker Carlson these days. The Heritage Foundation is basically imploding over it.
Click to expand...
Let's be truthful. Nobody speaks for all progressives. As Will Roger's is famous for saying. "I don't belong to an organized political party. I'm a Democrat."
 
I Am The Scum said:
I'm sure this seemed profound when you first typed it up, but it's utterly banal. Everyone considers themselves the good guys, and those opposed to them the bad guys. Nobody goes around thinking, "Yup, I'm evil, and I sure hope the good people opposed to me succeed in stopping my dastardly plans."
Click to expand...
One hates to contradict but....

 
acbytesla said:
Let's be truthful. Nobody speaks for all progressives. As Will Roger's is famous for saying. "I don't belong to an organized political party. I'm a Democrat."
Click to expand...
To be fair, it's true of most ideological groupings. Even with MAGA, Trump does sort of, but much like the bible, various MAGA folks can interpret Trump's nonsense in all sorts of ways. And as soon as Trumps out of the picture or even sooner, MAGA will splinter. They'll end up like the various US communist parties. There've been a dozen or so mostly based on every split in the USSR or between the USSR and some other nations communist party led to a split among the American Commies.
 
ahhell said:
To be fair, it's true of most ideological groupings. Even with MAGA, Trump does sort of, but much like the bible, various MAGA folks can interpret Trump's nonsense in all sorts of ways. And as soon as Trumps out of the picture or even sooner, MAGA will splinter. They'll end up like the various US communist parties. There've been a dozen or so mostly based on every split in the USSR or between the USSR and some other nations communist party led to a split among the American Commies.
Click to expand...
I agree with your general assessment. (At least I'm hopeful you're right.) Trump supporters are mostly lemmings.
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
Liberal Progressives (Lib-Progs) consider themselves as the bastions of Social Justice. They claim to believe in each individual's right to an autonomous, self-directed life, free from restrictions. They claim to believe in freedom of speech, arguing that is it an important part of challenging existing ideas and finding truth. Lib-Progs have an absoluteness about their mindset. They are utterly convinced they are always the good guys, that they are the final arbiter of right and wrong, and that anyone who doesn't think the way they do are the bad guys. They are also utterly convinced that they, and only they, know what's best for society. They operate on the basis of the "victim v oppressor framework" which views social dynamics via a sort of "binary" consisting of the powerful groups (the oppressors) versus the marginalized groups (the victims). In the Lib-Prog world, everyone but them is either one or the other - everyone is either a victim or an oppressor, and the Lib-Progs are here equalize everyone and make everything alright. They are fantasists, the ultimate expression of idealism. These are indeed lofty ideals, but sadly, the reality of the Liberal Progressive mindset is somewhat different from their stated ideals.

Their claim to believe in each individual's rights falls flat when it comes to any right that doesn't comport their mindset.
Their claim to believe in free speech only applies to speech they like. Speech they don't like must be restricted, and its speaker punished.

There is nothing that demonstrates how the Lib-Prog mindset works (and exposes its deep flaws) better than their relationship with Israel and the Palestinian Arabs in Gaza and the West Bank. British Commentator Melanie Phillips currently writes on social issues for The Times and The Jerusalem Post from a socially conservative perspective.

(Lib-Progs will dutifully obey their echo-chambers and dismiss her as a far-right racist without ever reading anything she has written or hearing anything she has to say)

There is a transcript below the link for those who are allergic to YouTube videos.


TRANSCRIPT​
The Western liberal mind conceives of itself as being good because it's Liberal. The Western liberal tells him or herself "I'm a good person because I'm Liberal - I'm Liberal because I'm a good person" which means that I believe in things like the Brotherhood of Man,
Edited by jimbob: 
snipped for rule 4
Click to expand...
So you're creenrawling because people take your nonsense for what it is, and your awful political ideology has been proven to be an utter failure (for about the hundredth time at this stage).

No skin off my nose lad, but for your own sake, look at plank in your own eye before trying to pick the mote out of others.

PS posting the witterings of a failed far right politician are not going to get you far in a reality based arena.
 
Last edited:
arthwollipot said:
I've been seeing this argument a lot recently:


It seems to be the latest low blow in the culture war, and I've thought about it a fair bit.

I've come to the conclusion over the course of my now 56 years on this planet that compassion and empathy for others is a moral good. Human rights are a moral good. Kindness to those less fortunate is a moral good. Those people who don't recognise this, who don't show kindness, empathy, and compassion to all human beings, are not morally good people. They cannot be. There are some things that good people can disagree on, but this isn't one of them.

I think this is a truth that is as close to being objective as any truth can be: all human lives have intrinsic value. All human beings by virtue of their existence deserve a baseline level of respect. If someone cannot respect them for their existence alone, then that person is not a morally good person.

I'm sorry if this moral stance of mine makes anyone uncomfortable. And I'm sorry that you have to frame it as "anyone who doesn't think like me is a bad guy". I don't think that is particularly fair or thoughtful. It shows neither empathy nor kindness. It is antagonistic and aggressive. I don't want to fight anyone, and I would rather that they did not pick fights with me. We can't make the world a better place for everyone's children if we're always picking fights.

So yes, to a certain extent I think that the quote above is basically correct, though I think it is articulated in a way that is intended to provoke discord and distrust. I would like to help people become more morally good, as I think that too is a moral good, but I can't while they're being deliberately provocative.
Click to expand...
Is a moral good, selectively applied, still moral? Is it still good?

I see a lot of misanthropy on this forum, from the left, directed at the right. You* express hatred for those on the right who don't express empathy to your satisfaction, but the moment someone votes differently from you, all that empathy goes out the window. People transform before your eyes, from human beings making flawed choices, into subhuman monsters who deserve everything their oppressors do to them, and deserve none of the moral goods you have in store for the real humans who agree with you.

*The rhetorical you*, obvs.
 
The problem with speaking of generalities, they can only generally be true and there will always be exceptions. So, best to define who you mean when using them. Just saying, "They believe...." is unlikely to start a productive conversation.

Any trait or belief or what not that we use to define progressives are likely to result half a dozen progressive saying, that's not true but at least one saying, I'm a progressive and that's true! It's the abolish the police problem. No matter how many folks on the left say, "we don't really mean get rid of all the police we mean......." There is always going to be that guy in the back yelling, "Yes we do!"
 
angrysoba said:
Can something be good even if it is not perfect? Yes, of course. If you are talking about a moral good then it is surely both moral and good by definition. It is right there in the words you are using.
Click to expand...
To go with the ur-example, consider Nazis.

Lots of empathy and compassion for the Master Race, zero empathy and compassion for the International Jew. Where's the moral good in privileging one group and oppressing another, on the basis of race?

I'd argue that empathy and compassion applied without prejudice is a moral good. I'd say that empathy and compassion that reserved for some and denied to others is not, on the basis of race or politics or religion, is not.
 
Last edited:
I'm increasingly feeling that the liberal / conservative divide is far less important than that between those who view others equally and seek better outcomes for all, and those who seek advantage for themselves and / or their peer group at the expense of those they see as other. Whether they choose left or right wing ideology is simply a matter of preferred means. Some of the nicest people I know have political opinions that differ quite radically from mine, and are kind and generous people. They make just as good neighbours as people who agree with both my politics and my ethics.

Dave
 
ahhell said:
The problem with speaking of generalities, they can only generally be true and there will always be exceptions. So, best to define who you mean when using them. Just saying, "They believe...." is unlikely to start a productive conversation.

Any trait or belief or what not that we use to define progressives are likely to result half a dozen progressive saying, that's not true but at least one saying, I'm a progressive and that's true! It's the abolish the police problem. No matter how many folks on the left say, "we don't really mean get rid of all the police we mean......." There is always going to be that guy in the back yelling, "Yes we do!"
Click to expand...

i agree, it’s one of the dangers of saying “no one believes…” because someone will find someone else saying exactly that. and they may not even be a progressive or conservative, just anyone saying it is good enough.

but that’s individuals. a group’s ideology is more clear. for example, if i were to say maga is racist, and an individual identifies as maga and isn’t racist, it doesn’t really matter when you start pulling out the examples of racist ideology becoming racist policy. that’s really more that individuals internal struggle to square up with, identifying with harmful ideologies, rather than the responsibility of the claimant to include language allowing for exceptions for outliers. it’s just too pedantic for me to do it otherwise

sometimes that means i’ve offended people inadvertently, which is my own internal struggle to deal with.
 
theprestige said:
Is a moral good, selectively applied, still moral? Is it still good?

I see a lot of misanthropy on this forum, from the left, directed at the right. You* express hatred for those on the right who don't express empathy to your satisfaction, but the moment someone votes differently from you, all that empathy goes out the window. People transform before your eyes, from human beings making flawed choices, into subhuman monsters who deserve everything their oppressors do to them, and deserve none of the moral goods you have in store for the real humans who agree with you.

*The rhetorical you*, obvs.
Click to expand...

but how often do your voting choices really come into the conversation? if i can guess them correctly by reading your words and opinions, it’s not your voting preferences that’s doing the transforming. i almost never see people stating their voting choices, i see people accusing others of supporting this or that, but that’s based on assumptions gleaned from the way you express yourself

edit

in fact, the best example is probably the poster that claims to be a socially liberal centrist that only participates in discussions on lame wedge issue distractions from a right wing viewpoint that always gets mad no one believes they’re a liberal centrist
 
Last edited:
dirtywick said:
i agree, it’s one of the dangers of saying “no one believes…” because someone will find someone else saying exactly that. and they may not even be a progressive or conservative, just anyone saying it is good enough.

but that’s individuals. a group’s ideology is more clear. for example, if i were to say maga is racist, and an individual identifies as maga and isn’t racist, it doesn’t really matter when you start pulling out the examples of racist ideology becoming racist policy. that’s really more that individuals internal struggle to square up with, identifying with harmful ideologies, rather than the responsibility of the claimant to include language allowing for exceptions for outliers. it’s just too pedantic for me to do it otherwise

sometimes that means i’ve offended people inadvertently, which is my own internal struggle to deal with.
Click to expand...
There's the problem though. If you want to get the guy who votes maga to stop voting maga and you start with maga is racist, well, that's not going to help. There's some good evidence that the way to change folks minds is by starting by getting them to see you as being on there side. That doesn't mean you have to become MAGA, but find the things with the individual you can agree on first.

There's that Black guy that had converted a bunch of Klansmen. That's all he did, become friends with Klansmen and eventually they figure out how stupid racism is.

en.wikipedia.org

Daryl Davis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
dirtywick said:
but how often do your voting choices really come into the conversation? if i can guess them correctly by reading your words and opinions, it’s not your voting preferences that’s doing the transforming. i almost never see people stating their voting choices, i see people accusing others of supporting this or that, but that’s based on assumptions gleaned from the way you express yourself

edit

in fact, the best example is probably the poster that claims to be a socially liberal centrist that only participates in discussions on lame wedge issue distractions from a right wing viewpoint that always gets mad no one believes they’re a liberal centrist
Click to expand...
I'm not referring to incivility directed at people on this forum. I'm referring to the misanthropic, dehumanizing, merciless rhetoric referring to anyone and everyone suspected of voting the other way.
 
ahhell said:
There's the problem though. If you want to get the guy who votes maga to stop voting maga and you start with maga is racist, well, that's not going to help. There's some good evidence that the way to change folks minds is by starting by getting them to see you as being on there side. That doesn't mean you have to become MAGA, but find the things with the individual you can agree on first.

There's that Black guy that had converted a bunch of Klansmen. That's all he did, become friends with Klansmen and eventually they figure out how stupid racism is.

en.wikipedia.org

Daryl Davis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...
Yes. The way to get a Trump voter to your side is to equate him to the KKK. Brilliant.
 
theprestige said:
To go with the ur-example, consider Nazis.

Lots of empathy and compassion for the Master Race, zero empathy and compassion for the International Jew. Where's the moral good in privileging one group and oppressing another, on the basis of race?

I'd argue that empathy and compassion applied without prejudice is a moral good. I'd say that empathy and compassion that reserved for some and denied to others is not, on the basis of race or politics or religion, is not.
Click to expand...
The compassion for the Master Race is the good bit, no? Assuming that is actually compassion and empathy. It would be even worse to make things bad for everybody. Hitler apparently loved dogs as well and was supposedly a vegetarian, but we don’t say those things are bad purely because Hitler did it. That would be pure Godwin!

The bad bit is the dehumanization and extermination of the Jews, the disabled, the homosexuals and the Roma, the invasion of neighbours and plunging the world into a catastrophic war which killed millions. That’s usually what negative comparisons to the Nazis are meant to invoke.

So apart from an attempt to say liberals are really Nazis, which your clumsy analogy appears to attempt, you could just say that sure, it is good to have empathy with members of your tribe, but it is only really a principle if it goes beyond that.

However, confusingly, smartcooky and others seem to be arguing that the empathy for non-tribal members is the problem!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom