I have to say, I’m genuinely surprised to see who here wound up reading the most posts over the past year.
Haha!
I don’t recognize the second most reader at all.
The loss from ignoring an idea because you’ve already dismissed the opponent for irrelevant reasons can be very high. All people are very stupid on average and the only means we’ve found around this is to have a bunch of people all propose ideas and use some mechanism to filter out the bad ones.
The loss from hearing out ideas from people with nothing to contribute is very small. Very bad ideas usually have very apparent flaws and cost very little to evaluate and dismiss. The danger from very bad ideas isn’t their existence, but when they have been forced on people in some way, because better ideas have been rejected or somehow excluded from discussion.
Therefore, we should have a very strong bias in favor of hearing things out rather than premature dismissal, or worse, excluding people that have been deemed to have bad ideas. This is the exact opposite of a knee-jerk reaction.
Today I learned:
And this learning is dredging up bad memories from undergrad.
Nobody is, of course, proposing any form of that.
I will however stipulate that the desire to “hear things out” ought to be constrained to things that have, in fact, already been heard out. Some amount of re-hearing is required to keep people caught up, but this should’t allow bad ideas to forever take up oxygen that could be expended on newer unheard ideas.
I’ve noticed on Tinder some people will specify they can’t have people of either liberal or conservative, and moderate stance in their circle or lives. This has to do with dating and politics so its not completely concentric so to speak. However as someone who generally pushes themselves to see all arguments in as unbiased a manner as possible before making a decision I’ve noticed this type of proclaimed thinking, OP. I don’t know that everyone’s turned that way in their stance forever
I’m in a similar group. There’s a folk music fan group I’m in. Some people in it are really into social justice music, like Joan Baez and Woody Guthrie. Other people are Charles Manson followers and think we need to revitalize his movement and all join a compound like his.
My frustration comes with the intolerance of the first group toward the second group. They refuse any compromise with the Manson followers. They won’t stop to acknowledge Manson’s musical skills, and they just keep name-calling: “murderer,” they say about Manson, and “cultist,” they say about anyone who thinks we should all move into a compound and practice his tenets.
I just don’t understand why it’s got to be so polarized. If the Joan Baez fans really believe in peace and love and understanding, why can’t they be more civil to the people who want to go on killing sprees against celebrities that don’t show sufficient respect to Manson?
I know you’re not completely serious but, like, do you know people who are fans of Charles Manson’s music? My Dad always points out that Niel Young was (is?) a fan but other than Young and other Haight/Ashbury people who knew him personally, I assumed nobody really listened to his music.
Years ago I looked it up on YouTube and remember thinking it was not that great lyrically, and terrible quality.
~Max
My problem is not the “partial rights” part, which as you say, is complex and additionally not the same for every question.
My problem is that people who claim that they are being “offered” partial rights by everyone who partakes in liberal democracy, even those who are trying as hard as they can to change from within the system.
If you have only partial control of the government, you can’t just change the world by decree. The voters can’t say “both sides bad, so may as well not cast a meaningful vote.” It would be another story if one ideologically united party who wanted to at least move the needle in the direction you wanted did have a firm grip on power for a significant amount of time and still did not make any progress toward the goal you were seeking. Then that argument would make some sense (albeit not total sense, if the other large party would be even worse.)
But not being able to make meaningful reform from within a liberal democracy when you do not have full political control does not falsify the hypothesis that you nonetheless still genuinely want that meaningful reform.
The Nazis, Communists, anti abortion people, everyone is using the same purity and victimization tools. Go back and read them.
The underlying facts can be wrong, but all of these movements are pulling from the same purity and passion toolbox.
I mean, there are plenty of people who say, “I don’t care for his music, and sure, he shouldn’t have murdered Sharon Tate, but what’s with the Manson Derangement Syndrome? You’re acting like he murdered everyone, not just one person, and he didn’t even get away with it. Mostly I like him because he’s promoting peace and love, and those are values I believe in, even if I wish he’d tone down some of the musical stylings.”
Why can’t the Baez fans find some common ground with him? Why they gotta be so polarized?
Not only that, he was always unfailingly polite.
With a whopping 11 replies, I’m not sure how you missed them!
IMHO, a big factor is that people think that “understand” means “support.”
You can understand why Nazis feel the way they do, without supporting them. But nowadays if someone says, “Let’s try to understand Nazis better,” it gets backlash, as if somehow it means “Let’s move ourselves closer to the Nazi position.”
Nowadays?
~Max
But there’s nothing new to be discovered here. Why are some people Nazis? Because they’re profoundly damaged and lashing out, because they’re idiots cosplaying because they think it’s fun to piss off others, because it’s all they’ve been taught, or some combination or variation. There’s no mystery here. No policy or mass message that will turn Nazis into tolerant people. Aside from very rare individuals like Darryl Davis who have the time, patience, and wherewithal to reach out on an individual basis, and general good public policy that eases suffering and hardship, nothing can be done except to move on without them.
I have switched to using “comprehend” for that reason. I can comprehend the views, aims, and behaviors of e.g. Putin, radical rightists, animal rights vegans, anarchist True Believers, or … even as I do not support their views in the slightest.
IMO the confusion you mention stems from one of the legit dictionary definitions of “understand” being “have empathy for”.
Plenty of people in Nazi Germany were not actually Nazis. Excluding the actual Nazis and the persecuted sectors. Some of those had been in leadership positions, town mayors and such, and were deposed when the Nazis came to power. After the war, those people regained power. So in that sense the populace could recover. The problem was having a strong enough center to keep Nazis out of power in the first place.
I think we have two opposite problems. Blind followers are one problem. People who solely align with one side and will follow the leader no matter what. We are seeing that now on the Republican side. Trump is capitalizing on this for his own purposes because he knows the willingness to resist is weak.
The other side is excessive purity tests. When we fought the fascists in WWII, we aligned with the communists to do so. This alignment did not last, but it was the right thing to do at the time. Fighting the war was also the right thing to do even though our country was not perfect. We still had Jim Crow. We still did the Japanese internment camps. Some will go so far as to say that dropping the atomic bombs was wrong, which is something that I flat out disagree with then and now.
Blind following causes problems. “Everyone else is a monster but I’m pure and above it all” also causes problems.
This misunderstanding, again, is exactly what I’m objecting to.
On its face, with no other context, “let’s understand what XYZ is saying” is an unassailably reasonable position.
But we have context on the Nazis. This is neither a new movement nor a particularly mysterious one. We know what their ideology is. An entire book called Mein Kampf was written about it plus a good deal of other literature. There’s no mystery about what they intended in practice, because they did it in practice, and it resulted in the most horrendous mass murder in history.
For this reason, when someone says “Let’s try to understand the Nazis better”, it must mean that either the speaker is profoundly stupid, or that they’re angling toward giving the same well-known murderous ideas yet another bite at the apple, or they’re playing some sort of game.
We don’t need to re-hear every stupid and murderous idea in history. Some ideas have already been heard enough, and we as a society need to move on.