10 ms·

Would you be okay if your child married a neo-Nazi who believed strongly in the white nation's victory in the coming race-war? Because that's politics. I woul

by mapt 11y ago

Would you be okay if your child married a neo-Nazi who believed strongly in the white nation's victory in the coming race-war? Because that's politics. I wouldn't let someone like that near my children at Christmas because of potential memetic contagion, much less enjoy having a conversation with them. Lesser degrees of disagreement are lesser degrees of disagreement, but political positions are personal beliefs about the philosophy of how we cooperate with each other and what we should be doing, not simply different teams to root for at the big game every four years.

tsycho 11y ago
Not sure if you meant it this way, but the insight that I drew from your comment was: When we think that either A or B are not super important beliefs, or we are observing from such a distance that the differences between A and B seem small, then we feel the people are narrow minded and prejudiced if they strongly hold on to their belief and are openly discriminatory against the other. However, when we personally and strongly think that one of the beliefs is completely evil or unacceptable, then we feel that the distinction is justified and that it's okay to not just oppose it, but also feel confident enough to do so openly and with pride. TLDR; It's much easier to be non-discriminatory if we (or our belief system) don't (doesn't) have any skin in the game.
philh 11y ago
> Would you be okay if your child married a neo-Nazi who believed strongly in the white nation's victory in the coming race-war? I would probably be unhappy about that. But - as you say, lesser degrees of disagreement are lesser degrees of disagreement. I don't think that it's always making politics too personal, to be upset about the political opinions of your child's spouse. I do think that if those political opinions are held by ~50% of the country, then that does seem to be making politics too personal.
Amezarak 11y ago
> Because that's politics. I wouldn't let someone like that near my children at Christmas because of potential memetic contagion, much less enjoy having a conversation with them. I find this comment interesting. I think that most people, or perhaps most people just a few years ago, tolerated such ideas because they knew they didn't stand a chance in the battleground of ideas; you didn't have to worry about your children picking it up because it was so obviously wrong. This, on the other hand, implies that ideas can be so dangerous people (especially children? only children?) must avoid exposure to them lest they be swayed.
randcraw 11y ago
Neither US political party is Nazi. The unthinking demonization of 'the enemy' lies at the heart of this problem. Clearly too many of us have become fond of identifying ourselves through membership in Party X. Shaping my world view around a political agenda by wholeheartedly embracing their entire platform is unnatural and illogical. But to take the next step and label nonparty folk as unbelievers and infidels creates a problem that's impossible to fix through rational discussion, much less leading to the design of workable policy. At best it's bad policy. But party-based exclusion really isn't politics. It's just gangsterism.

by mapt 11y ago

tsycho 11y ago

Not sure if you meant it this way, but the insight that I drew from your comment was: When we think that either A or B are not super important beliefs, or we are observing from such a distance that the differences between A and B seem small, then we feel the people are narrow minded and prejudiced if they strongly hold on to their belief and are openly discriminatory against the other. However, when we personally and strongly think that one of the beliefs is completely evil or unacceptable, then we feel that the distinction is justified and that it's okay to not just oppose it, but also feel confident enough to do so openly and with pride. TLDR; It's much easier to be non-discriminatory if we (or our belief system) don't (doesn't) have any skin in the game.

philh 11y ago

> Would you be okay if your child married a neo-Nazi who believed strongly in the white nation's victory in the coming race-war? I would probably be unhappy about that. But - as you say, lesser degrees of disagreement are lesser degrees of disagreement. I don't think that it's always making politics too personal, to be upset about the political opinions of your child's spouse. I do think that if those political opinions are held by ~50% of the country, then that does seem to be making politics too personal.

Amezarak 11y ago

> Because that's politics. I wouldn't let someone like that near my children at Christmas because of potential memetic contagion, much less enjoy having a conversation with them. I find this comment interesting. I think that most people, or perhaps most people just a few years ago, tolerated such ideas because they knew they didn't stand a chance in the battleground of ideas; you didn't have to worry about your children picking it up because it was so obviously wrong. This, on the other hand, implies that ideas can be so dangerous people (especially children? only children?) must avoid exposure to them lest they be swayed.

randcraw 11y ago

Neither US political party is Nazi. The unthinking demonization of 'the enemy' lies at the heart of this problem. Clearly too many of us have become fond of identifying ourselves through membership in Party X. Shaping my world view around a political agenda by wholeheartedly embracing their entire platform is unnatural and illogical. But to take the next step and label nonparty folk as unbelievers and infidels creates a problem that's impossible to fix through rational discussion, much less leading to the design of workable policy. At best it's bad policy. But party-based exclusion really isn't politics. It's just gangsterism.