a very small number>P(intolerance of homosexuality will destroy civilization)>P(intolerance of homosexuality will save civilization)>10^-30
But some people would disagree with me.
I wasn’t actually trying to imply that we shouldn’t tolerate homosexuality—I hope this was clear, otherwise I need to work on communicating unambiguously. I was trying to make the meta point that right-wing opinions don’t have to be powered by hate, but perhaps they often are because people can’t separate emotions and logic.
I wasn’t actually trying to imply that we shouldn’t tolerate homosexuality—I hope this was clear, otherwise I need to work on communicating unambiguously.
This was clear, yes. No worries!
I was trying to make the meta point that right-wing opinions don’t have to be powered by hate, but perhaps they often are because people can’t separate emotions and logic.
It is certainly possible that, in the territory, homosexuality is an existential threat. I believe the Westboro Baptists have a model that describes such a case, to name a famous example. A person who believes that the evidence favors such a territory is morally obliged to take anti-gay positions, assuming that they value human life at all. in other words, yes, there’s a utilitarian calculation that justifies homophobia in certain conditions.
But if I’m not mistaken, the intersection of ‘evidence-based skeptical belief system’ and ‘believes that homosexuality is an existential threat’ is quite small (partially because the former is a smallish group, partially because the latter is rare within that group, partially because most of the models in which homosexuality is an existential threat tend to invoke a wrathful God). But that’s an empirical claim, not a political stance.
Since we’re asking a political question, rather than exploring the theoretical limits of human belief systems, it’s fair to talk about coalitions and social forces. In that domain, to the extent that there are empirical claims being made at all, it’s clear that the political influence aligned with and opposed to the gay rights movement is almost entirely a matter of motivated cognition.
To generalize out from the homosexuality example, I think it’s trivially true that utilitarian calculations could put you in the position to support or oppose any number of things on the basis of existential threats. I mean, maybe it turns out that we’re all doomed unless we systematically exterminate all cephalopods or something. But even if that were true, then the political forces that motivated many people to unite behind the cause of squid-stomping would not resemble a convincing utilitarian argument. So, if you’re asking what causes anti-squid hysteria to be a politically relevant force, rather than a rare and somewhat surprising idea that you occasionally find on the fringes of the rationalosphere, then utilitarianism isn’t really an explanation.
If you’re looking for a reason to think that any given person with otherwise abhorrent politics might, actually, be a decent human- yes, you can get there. But if you’re looking for a reason why those politics exist, then this kind of calculation will fall short.
It is certainly possible that, in the territory, homosexuality is an existential threat. I believe the Westboro Baptists have a model that describes such a case, to name a famous example.
I don’t think they do. They believe in a all powerful God. From that perspective thinking of existential threats doesn’t make much sense. They mainly oppose homosexuality because they think God wants them to oppose homosexuality.
Maybe the squid need to be stomped on to stop them from morphing into Cthulhu, or other tentacle monsters?
Now, there may be various reasons why people would want to stomp on squid. Some may actually believe that the squid will turn into tentacle monsters, but its also possible that many simply hate squid without knowing why. Some argue that in our evolutionary environment, those tribes who did not stop on squid were more likely to be wiped out by tentacle monsters, and so people evolved to want to stomp on squid. Their hatred of squid serves a purpose, even though they don’t know what it is.
Others say that just because this stomping was adaptive back then, doesn’t mean it will be adaptive now. With modern technology we can defend ourselves from the tentacle monsters, subdue, harness and domesticate them.
Some disagree, and say that the Deep Ones are not our enemies, and the people that hate squid only do so because the Elder Gods tell them to, and yet they ignore the possibility that the Elder Gods are the real threat.
Yet more people say that this talk of tentacle monsters is silly and people just want to exterminate squid because they think tentacles are disgusting.
Have you actually seen people claiming to hate freedom?
It makes sense if you’re talking about some specific understanding of it, e.g. free-market policies or gun rights, but for someone to declare themselves anti-freedom as a concept… Nope, it doesn’t map to anything I’ve ever witnessed.
No, I mean people sometimes accuse leftists of holding positions motivated by hate. It’s more common for this accusation to be made against right-wing positions (which is what the grandparent was talking about), but I don’t think the reverse is all that rare.
Oh. Okay; misinterpreted. I can reasonably imagine someone actually hating all those things except for freedom, because, except for freedom, all of them can be someone’s outgroup. But I was thinking, maybe Caue actually encountered the odd one out, and I was wondering how they were like. (Support for slavery, gulags, and totalitarianism? The world is large and people are diverse.)
I can reasonably imagine someone actually hating all those things except for freedom
Hating freedom is pretty easy. Imagine yourself a religious fundamentalist where you know what is right. God pointed out the straight path to you and you should walk it—any “freedom” is just machinations of Satan/Shaitan/demons/etc. to try to get you off the straight path mandated by God.
Perhaps not that rare, dependent upon where you live and who you mix with. But in my experience, the left tries to frame everything as heroic rebels vs the evil empire, with an almost complete refusal to discuss or consider actual policies.
Oh, that’s quite close to my experience as well. Any disagreement about policies is actually a smokescreen—people only oppose leftist policies because they benefit from the status quo, you see, but they will invent anything to avoid admitting that (including, I gather, the entire field of Economics).
So, do you think this reflects some intrinsic property of {left|right}-wing opinions or do you think this reflects the attitudes of your social circle?
Probably both. My social circle is very left wing, but when I occasionally read newspapers, the arguments against the right wing seem to be ad hominem “your politicians are evil” while the arguments against the left seem to be “your policies are stupid”.
Well, if you believe your opponents are mistaken, then rational debate seems like a sensible response. If you believe your opponents are evil, then hatred seems like a more reasonable response. So, I’d say that the left’s hate is more motivated by their view of the world, rather then their being hateful people per se.
If you believe your opponents are evil, then hatred seems like a more reasonable response. So, I’d say that the left’s hate is more motivated by their view of the world, rather then their being hateful people per se.
I don’t think the direction of causation is obvious. If you start as a hateful person, you would naturally begin to believe that you opponents are evil pretty fast.
Sure, the causality could be in either direction, but my impression is that they are not inherently hateful.
I know people who believe that the countries’ defence should be handled by people meditating and sending out telepathic waves of love so that no-one wants to invade. Delusional? Yes. Hateful? No.
I used to get annoyed at the stupidity and hate of SJWs. But just because they shout the loudest doesn’t make them representitive of the left as a whole. Maybe the left acts more hateful on average, because they can get away with it.
But just because they shout the loudest doesn’t make them representitive of the left as a whole.
True, what makes them functional representative of the left as a whole is that no one else on the left is willing to stand up to them, and thus the rest of the left ends up following their lead.
I am not sure that reducing large swathes of political thinking to “average” or “representative” is useful—both the left and the right have some reasonable people and some foaming at the mouth batshit crazy people. Even if you could detect some difference in the averages, it is overwhelmed by the within-group variation.
Well, personally I think:
a very small number>P(intolerance of homosexuality will destroy civilization)>P(intolerance of homosexuality will save civilization)>10^-30
But some people would disagree with me.
I wasn’t actually trying to imply that we shouldn’t tolerate homosexuality—I hope this was clear, otherwise I need to work on communicating unambiguously. I was trying to make the meta point that right-wing opinions don’t have to be powered by hate, but perhaps they often are because people can’t separate emotions and logic.
This was clear, yes. No worries!
It is certainly possible that, in the territory, homosexuality is an existential threat. I believe the Westboro Baptists have a model that describes such a case, to name a famous example. A person who believes that the evidence favors such a territory is morally obliged to take anti-gay positions, assuming that they value human life at all. in other words, yes, there’s a utilitarian calculation that justifies homophobia in certain conditions.
But if I’m not mistaken, the intersection of ‘evidence-based skeptical belief system’ and ‘believes that homosexuality is an existential threat’ is quite small (partially because the former is a smallish group, partially because the latter is rare within that group, partially because most of the models in which homosexuality is an existential threat tend to invoke a wrathful God). But that’s an empirical claim, not a political stance.
Since we’re asking a political question, rather than exploring the theoretical limits of human belief systems, it’s fair to talk about coalitions and social forces. In that domain, to the extent that there are empirical claims being made at all, it’s clear that the political influence aligned with and opposed to the gay rights movement is almost entirely a matter of motivated cognition.
To generalize out from the homosexuality example, I think it’s trivially true that utilitarian calculations could put you in the position to support or oppose any number of things on the basis of existential threats. I mean, maybe it turns out that we’re all doomed unless we systematically exterminate all cephalopods or something. But even if that were true, then the political forces that motivated many people to unite behind the cause of squid-stomping would not resemble a convincing utilitarian argument. So, if you’re asking what causes anti-squid hysteria to be a politically relevant force, rather than a rare and somewhat surprising idea that you occasionally find on the fringes of the rationalosphere, then utilitarianism isn’t really an explanation.
If you’re looking for a reason to think that any given person with otherwise abhorrent politics might, actually, be a decent human- yes, you can get there. But if you’re looking for a reason why those politics exist, then this kind of calculation will fall short.
I don’t think they do. They believe in a all powerful God. From that perspective thinking of existential threats doesn’t make much sense. They mainly oppose homosexuality because they think God wants them to oppose homosexuality.
Maybe the squid need to be stomped on to stop them from morphing into Cthulhu, or other tentacle monsters?
Now, there may be various reasons why people would want to stomp on squid. Some may actually believe that the squid will turn into tentacle monsters, but its also possible that many simply hate squid without knowing why. Some argue that in our evolutionary environment, those tribes who did not stop on squid were more likely to be wiped out by tentacle monsters, and so people evolved to want to stomp on squid. Their hatred of squid serves a purpose, even though they don’t know what it is.
Others say that just because this stomping was adaptive back then, doesn’t mean it will be adaptive now. With modern technology we can defend ourselves from the tentacle monsters, subdue, harness and domesticate them.
Some disagree, and say that the Deep Ones are not our enemies, and the people that hate squid only do so because the Elder Gods tell them to, and yet they ignore the possibility that the Elder Gods are the real threat.
Yet more people say that this talk of tentacle monsters is silly and people just want to exterminate squid because they think tentacles are disgusting.
LOL
Has it occurred to you to ask the question whether left-wing opinions have to be powered by hate?
I very rarely hear anyone say that left-wing opinions are powered by hate. Its not a question that comes up. The converse comes up very frequently.
I frequently read that left-wing opinions are powered by hate. Most recently here: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/417155/wisconsins-shame-i-thought-it-was-home-invasion-david-french
It’s not that rare.
Consider accusations of hate against: Israel/Jews; straight cis white men; Christians; America; Freedom; rich people...
Have you actually seen people claiming to hate freedom?
It makes sense if you’re talking about some specific understanding of it, e.g. free-market policies or gun rights, but for someone to declare themselves anti-freedom as a concept… Nope, it doesn’t map to anything I’ve ever witnessed.
?
No, I mean people sometimes accuse leftists of holding positions motivated by hate. It’s more common for this accusation to be made against right-wing positions (which is what the grandparent was talking about), but I don’t think the reverse is all that rare.
Oh. Okay; misinterpreted. I can reasonably imagine someone actually hating all those things except for freedom, because, except for freedom, all of them can be someone’s outgroup. But I was thinking, maybe Caue actually encountered the odd one out, and I was wondering how they were like. (Support for slavery, gulags, and totalitarianism? The world is large and people are diverse.)
Hating freedom is pretty easy. Imagine yourself a religious fundamentalist where you know what is right. God pointed out the straight path to you and you should walk it—any “freedom” is just machinations of Satan/Shaitan/demons/etc. to try to get you off the straight path mandated by God.
Perhaps not that rare, dependent upon where you live and who you mix with. But in my experience, the left tries to frame everything as heroic rebels vs the evil empire, with an almost complete refusal to discuss or consider actual policies.
Oh, that’s quite close to my experience as well. Any disagreement about policies is actually a smokescreen—people only oppose leftist policies because they benefit from the status quo, you see, but they will invent anything to avoid admitting that (including, I gather, the entire field of Economics).
Do they not hate the evil empire?
They certainly do hate something, and they believe that the something is an evil empire.
Whether they hate a real evil empire, that is the question which separates left from right.
There is an name for such people...
So, do you think this reflects some intrinsic property of {left|right}-wing opinions or do you think this reflects the attitudes of your social circle?
Probably both. My social circle is very left wing, but when I occasionally read newspapers, the arguments against the right wing seem to be ad hominem “your politicians are evil” while the arguments against the left seem to be “your policies are stupid”.
Which of these two stereotypes sounds like its coming from someone who hates his opponent?
The first. The second sounds more condescending than hatred.
Unless you mean do I hate left wing people, in which case the answer is no, I’m just kinda exasperated with the style of debate.
That’s my point, i.e., the left sure sounds like it’s motivated by hate.
Well, if you believe your opponents are mistaken, then rational debate seems like a sensible response. If you believe your opponents are evil, then hatred seems like a more reasonable response. So, I’d say that the left’s hate is more motivated by their view of the world, rather then their being hateful people per se.
I don’t think the direction of causation is obvious. If you start as a hateful person, you would naturally begin to believe that you opponents are evil pretty fast.
Sure, the causality could be in either direction, but my impression is that they are not inherently hateful.
I know people who believe that the countries’ defence should be handled by people meditating and sending out telepathic waves of love so that no-one wants to invade. Delusional? Yes. Hateful? No.
Your social circle, probably not. Something like the left twittersphere? Oh, boy. How do they feel about Sarah Palin, for example? Or Scott Walker?
I used to get annoyed at the stupidity and hate of SJWs. But just because they shout the loudest doesn’t make them representitive of the left as a whole. Maybe the left acts more hateful on average, because they can get away with it.
True, what makes them functional representative of the left as a whole is that no one else on the left is willing to stand up to them, and thus the rest of the left ends up following their lead.
Good point about being able to get away with it.
I am not sure that reducing large swathes of political thinking to “average” or “representative” is useful—both the left and the right have some reasonable people and some foaming at the mouth batshit crazy people. Even if you could detect some difference in the averages, it is overwhelmed by the within-group variation.