4 ms·

For those curious, I'd recommend looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence or https://en.wikipe

For those curious, I'd recommend looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance. Sometimes, right and wrong isn't always obvious. To know one from another may require effort and thought. Often times, the truth is somewhere in the middle, and so we develop instincts that ensure we can take a step back and not immediately point fingers. That's good; most of us don't think of ourselves as political idiots, where any dog whistle will make us jump through hoops, raging at some invisible enemy. But there are times when the truth clearly falls much more on one side than the other. And in those times, saying "well I thought both parties were wrong, but it turns out that one was and is right" can be a rather scary prospect! But I think it's better to be a little embarrassed than to run away from the world's problems.

ogre_magi 9y ago
We probably don't share the same values, and would not be able to reach consensus on the "right side." This is an acceptable and unavoidable situation that technocrats need to learn to live with. People will want different outcomes, and will have different moral matrices. People on the left and right will each disagree with the other side's characterization of their politician's sins. Edit: Just want to note that the parent comment was substantially edited in ways that might make this comment seem weird.
- root_axis 9y ago
  People on both sides pretty much share the same values; social issues are a big exception, but the crux of the disagreement between the right and left very often comes down to a disagreement about facts on the ground (e.g. lowering taxes on the rich creates jobs, net-neutrality harms customers and innovation, a minimally regulated market provides better and cheaper healthcare than single-payer, human behavior has no or negligible impact on climate etc)
  - Veelox 9y ago
    >People on both sides pretty much share the same values Sorry but I think you are significantly mistaken. To give two examples of statements that are common from each side. "Homosexuality is sinful" and "All white people are racist." The two sides are so far apart that when someone makes one of those statements they feel they are making an obvious non-controversial statement but it is offensive to the other side.* This is because each side is so far apart they cannot even agree on what words mean. Combine this with the ease at which someone can become offended and it makes discussion almost impossible. *I can either or both statements if requested.
    - root_axis 9y ago
      As I already said: social issues are a big exception, but research shows that social issues are very low on the totem-pole relative to facts based issues. Additionally, I don't think either statement is very common, those examples illustrate extreme individuals that are motivated by hate rather than by a disagreement about particular values. Ironically, your example illustrates my point pretty well since the black community tends to vote for liberal politicians even though they share religious and traditional values with conservatives. The reason for this is a disagreement about which policies are effective not about values, and we saw this play out in the 2016 election when Trump specifically addressed black voters with promises of more jobs, better education, and lower crime rates in black communities.
haberman 9y ago
> Sometimes, right and wrong isn't always obvious. To know one from another may require effort and thought. The problem is that much of the progressive movement is convinced that not only do they have all the right answers, but that their conclusions are not up for debate. To even open up a dialogue on transgender issues (for example) is considered harmful, violent, toxic, hateful. This happens over and over, but here is this week's example: http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/heres-the-full-recording-of-wilfrid-laurier-reprimanding-lindsay-shepherd-for-showing-a-jordan-peterson-video http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/heres-the-full-recording... I disagree with the right on almost everything, but the left has serious problems that it needs to work out before it can claim to be the party of truth.

ogre_magi 9y ago

We probably don't share the same values, and would not be able to reach consensus on the "right side." This is an acceptable and unavoidable situation that technocrats need to learn to live with. People will want different outcomes, and will have different moral matrices. People on the left and right will each disagree with the other side's characterization of their politician's sins. Edit: Just want to note that the parent comment was substantially edited in ways that might make this comment seem weird.

root_axis 9y ago
People on both sides pretty much share the same values; social issues are a big exception, but the crux of the disagreement between the right and left very often comes down to a disagreement about facts on the ground (e.g. lowering taxes on the rich creates jobs, net-neutrality harms customers and innovation, a minimally regulated market provides better and cheaper healthcare than single-payer, human behavior has no or negligible impact on climate etc)
- Veelox 9y ago
  >People on both sides pretty much share the same values Sorry but I think you are significantly mistaken. To give two examples of statements that are common from each side. "Homosexuality is sinful" and "All white people are racist." The two sides are so far apart that when someone makes one of those statements they feel they are making an obvious non-controversial statement but it is offensive to the other side.* This is because each side is so far apart they cannot even agree on what words mean. Combine this with the ease at which someone can become offended and it makes discussion almost impossible. *I can either or both statements if requested.
  - root_axis 9y ago
    As I already said: social issues are a big exception, but research shows that social issues are very low on the totem-pole relative to facts based issues. Additionally, I don't think either statement is very common, those examples illustrate extreme individuals that are motivated by hate rather than by a disagreement about particular values. Ironically, your example illustrates my point pretty well since the black community tends to vote for liberal politicians even though they share religious and traditional values with conservatives. The reason for this is a disagreement about which policies are effective not about values, and we saw this play out in the 2016 election when Trump specifically addressed black voters with promises of more jobs, better education, and lower crime rates in black communities.

haberman 9y ago

> Sometimes, right and wrong isn't always obvious. To know one from another may require effort and thought. The problem is that much of the progressive movement is convinced that not only do they have all the right answers, but that their conclusions are not up for debate. To even open up a dialogue on transgender issues (for example) is considered harmful, violent, toxic, hateful. This happens over and over, but here is this week's example: http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/heres-the-full-recording-of-wilfrid-laurier-reprimanding-lindsay-shepherd-for-showing-a-jordan-peterson-video http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/heres-the-full-recording... I disagree with the right on almost everything, but the left has serious problems that it needs to work out before it can claim to be the party of truth.