War Room Lounge v135: Accidental Meme Thread Click

[Pseudo Sane]

I didn't comment on whether it was more- prevalent among any particular group, and I wasn't discussing moral foundations. I discussed coherent worldviews, which we're more likely to encounter in a place like this than in real life (where most people do have moral foundations that guide their thinking).

Thanks for clarifying. Your original statement is ambiguous on this point, since you don't say anything about world view in that post, simply about understanding what other people think or 'getting into the heads of people who disagree with them', which could apply equally to moral intuitions or worldview. I think that on occasion you believe you are being more precise than you are in fact, which can lead to confusion.

I addressed it by saying it's not a counter to my point. He points out that conservatives tend to divide their emphasis on different moral foundations pretty evenly while liberals disregard a couple of axes that conservatives see as important. That's fine as far as it goes, but it doesn't connect with the specific discussion. Understanding a state of mind is very different from understanding ideas. Think "I can relate to someone caring about harm" (or "I can't understand anyone being particularly upset about violations of purity") vs. "I understand why people think X is harmful, even though I disagree that it is."

It certainly applies to your point as you originally formulated it. Less so now that you clarified what you meant, I suppose.

I don't think you've done much to demonstrate your central claim that conservatives can't get into the heads of people that disagree with them. To the extent that moral intuitions inform worldview, which they do, I would even argue that Haidt's research is still some evidence for the proposition that conservatives are more capable of understanding liberals than vice versa, since if you can't understand the moral intuitions which informs the worldview, the worldview itself will necessarily look less coherent.

I may be misunderstanding your position again, however; you may think that leftists suffer from a similar failure of imagination. I could certainly agree that a general inability to fully inhabit the mental space of those different from us is a general human failing, but you are making a strong claim without much evidence beyond an anecdote of people resharing a fake tweet. Finding people on all parts of the political spectrum spreading fake news is trivially easy, so you'll forgive me if I don't consider this particularly persuasive.

You can probably do a better job coming up with something. What's an issue where conservatives have a principled stance that isn't just about identity? Something that concerns me is that I think on a lot of issues, I can say the lyrics but not really sing the song. Like, I know exactly what the arguments are that rightists put forward to defend, say, Trump's attack on free speech of social media companies, but I really believe that if Twitter caved and said they'd only fact check liberals, they'd reverse those arguments, as they did on their arguments about debt and the need for interest-rate hikes. I thought Austrians were fun even though they were deluded because I really did buy that they believed their arguments, and I made a pretty deep effort to understand them myself. My interest in the exercise would be more along those lines--not just regurgitating bullshit that everyone knows is bullshit, but really understanding areas of real, sincere disagreement.

I'll have to think of a good one. There are always good old mainstays like immigration, criminal justice, abortion, free speech, or foreign affairs, but I think it might be more fun to pick a more specific issue and give your own opinion and the opinion on the issue you ascribe to your opponents.

For this to work we'd need a few people to join in, however. If enough people left and right express interest, I'm game.

 

[Lead]

Wondering if a governor gets picked as VP, how quickly will they be criticized for campaigning nationally rather than managing their state during this crisis. I wonder if that weighs somewhat on the Biden team's decisions. Looks like they only have 1-2 they are considering and like I recently mentioned, that Michigan governor may not be a great look at the moment. I'm honestly stumped who it's going to be at this point. With Klobuchar out, I'm thinking I'd want it to be Rice but I really don't know how half of these people would perform on a national stage campaign and I somewhat ding Warren and Harris already for what I saw from them in the primary. I'd really be interested to see what the spin becomes if Duckworth is picked. How do you demonize that person?

 

[Pseudo Sane]

Yup. Hence why disgust tends to be through-the-roof for conservatives, while liberals (possibly even those predisposed to responding to it acutely) are more able to identify it as vestigial and unworthy of being a serious moral influence.

(Truthfully, and consistent with Haidt's pessimism, I doubt that the converted group is very large.)

On what principled basis can we conclude that one moral intuition is 'vestigal and unworthy of being a serious moral influence'?

Isn't this just post-hoc rationalization of our own preferences as to moral intuitions?

 

[tonni]

At which point do we start banning philosophy?

 

[Trotsky]

THEY"RE NOT PERFECT OKAY

I didn't think it was too much of a stretch with the trailer park kid and the rebellious girl, but the hard gay stuff didn't make much sense. Maybe somebody else can explain that one.

Just got past the part where, in order to money launder, he inflates his business's expenses to a contractor, rather than the business's profits. I'm guessing that's the part Gandhi took issue with since it would require that the contractor to pay taxes...and then transfer the money back to them.

 

[Trotsky]

@Pseudo Sane, colorized

Replace "compromise" with "equally valid philosophies.'

 

[Trotsky]

Muh free speech!



Great example of how the left and right are equally honest and sincere about their articulation of and dedication to free speech guarantees.

 

[Pseudo Sane]

@Pseudo Sane, colorized

Replace "compromise" with "equally valid philosophies.'

No, see, the meme thread is over here:

https://forums.sherdog.com/threads/...icroaggressions.4116026/page-9#post-160731541

 

[Fawlty]

Regarding the gay subplot i too was skeptical when I first saw the relationship come to...FRUITion

However , they later explain this.
Not sure how far you two are in the series so I dont want to spoil anything

I'm finished with s3. I think the writing gets a lot better in the latest season, which was a pleasant surprise.

 

[Lord Coke]

I got my brown belt in jiu jitsu tonight.

 

[Pseudo Sane]

I never saw him abuse his authority like RR or Mick. Got a little nutty toward BarryDillon, but that's it.

The polite thing is to @ people when you besmirch them on a public forum.

 

[weed]

OH SHIT, THIS IS MY JAM

 

[Pseudo Sane]

At which point do we start banning philosophy?

I prefer the Socratic method for banning philosophers, myself.

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

I'm finished with s3. I think the writing gets a lot better in the latest season, which was a pleasant surprise.

Very few shows give me vicarious stress.

This is one of them

 

[tonni]

I prefer the Socratic method for banning philosophers, myself.

Have you ever met philosophy students? They are just as bad as the caricatures describe them, maybe worse.

 

[tonni]

Art students are awful too. Just so smug.

 

[Lead]

I got my brown belt in jiu jitsu tonight.

Well done. Were you expecting it?

 

[Sketch]

Can you put down the NPC responses and think critically for a second

Sure.

I mean for the US. And I guess other developed economies as well. I would never trust a person who hates animals. On that note, I suspect Hitler had more decency in him than Trump, McConnell, and a lot of Republicans, but I think I've said as much before.

 

[tonni]

 

[tonni]

I got my brown belt in jiu jitsu tonight.

Congratulations, we should fight irl.