3 ms·

> It's an interesting trend that conservatives & libertarians will respect people who hold different opinions, but if a liberal meets someone who holds a differ

> It's an interesting trend that conservatives & libertarians will respect people who hold different opinions, but if a liberal meets someone who holds a differing opinion, they vilify them for it. Oh, come on! Seriously? Is this the level of discourse we're reduced to? (EDIT: Just as a counter-example, Senator McCain.)

civilian 10y ago
Ahhhhh okay, I was too bait-y there. Sorry, and the right does it too. So here's the problem in it's essence. 1. Person A strongly believes that a policy will help the nation/world 2. Person B disagrees with the policy. 3. Person A calls Person B repugnant for not wanting to help the world! But we're lost something here. Person B doesn't hate the world, they don't want to burn it down. They have a different model of the world. So either they think that we have different priorities, they think that the policy uninformed and will have unintended side-effects. Like, in the 1970s, when we had gas shortages? The US initiated price controls. Because they said: "hey, you shouldn't have to pay a lot of gas!". But I would've been against that. Do I want people to pay high prices for gas? No! But I think that the side-effects of price control (namely, that you're going to cause long lines, and possibly start a dangerous black market) is worse than having high gas prices. Futhermore, having high gas prices will incentivize prospecting, or it will incentivize oil companies to increase supply in other ways.
- lomnakkus 10y ago
  Not sure what you're doing with the 1970s analogy there, but I think you might be describing the Principal Agent problem, except maybe in an "externalized" form. (See below.) Unfortunately, we people have an unfortunate tendency to attribute disagreements to "we're just not like them" and agreements to "we're exactly like them". (Tribalism rules IOW, but just on the basis of having the same opinion rather than Geography.). Even if most of the people on the Internets don't literally hate the people who have opposing opinions, they'll usually say that they do (again, on the Internets), leading to further fueling of the emotions/hatred of the "other".

civilian 10y ago

Ahhhhh okay, I was too bait-y there. Sorry, and the right does it too. So here's the problem in it's essence. 1. Person A strongly believes that a policy will help the nation/world 2. Person B disagrees with the policy. 3. Person A calls Person B repugnant for not wanting to help the world! But we're lost something here. Person B doesn't hate the world, they don't want to burn it down. They have a different model of the world. So either they think that we have different priorities, they think that the policy uninformed and will have unintended side-effects. Like, in the 1970s, when we had gas shortages? The US initiated price controls. Because they said: "hey, you shouldn't have to pay a lot of gas!". But I would've been against that. Do I want people to pay high prices for gas? No! But I think that the side-effects of price control (namely, that you're going to cause long lines, and possibly start a dangerous black market) is worse than having high gas prices. Futhermore, having high gas prices will incentivize prospecting, or it will incentivize oil companies to increase supply in other ways.

lomnakkus 10y ago
Not sure what you're doing with the 1970s analogy there, but I think you might be describing the Principal Agent problem, except maybe in an "externalized" form. (See below.) Unfortunately, we people have an unfortunate tendency to attribute disagreements to "we're just not like them" and agreements to "we're exactly like them". (Tribalism rules IOW, but just on the basis of having the same opinion rather than Geography.). Even if most of the people on the Internets don't literally hate the people who have opposing opinions, they'll usually say that they do (again, on the Internets), leading to further fueling of the emotions/hatred of the "other".