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.
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.