6 ms·

_Everyone_ has an ideology that overrides logic for many topics. Indeed. Both sides of the political spectrum have this! As a person who values truth and knowl

_Everyone_ has an ideology that overrides logic for many topics. Indeed. Both sides of the political spectrum have this! As a person who values truth and knowledge, let me warn my fellow people: Beware of jingoistic and tribalistic claims that reality has a [political-descriptor-here] bias. No human being is free of the need for a little self doubt and introspection. No ideology can act as an oracle, and ideologies which have made that claim throughout history have acted against the truth and even given rise to tragedy and atrocity. If you have reached the point where you believe your opponents are somehow lesser than you are, and that you no longer need to convince but instead must coerce their cooperation, you need to take a step back and beware. No belief system, philosophy, or intellectual movement is so clued into ultimate truth, that its adherents can afford to cease questioning themselves. It's precisely those groups of people who cease questioning themselves and suppress the questions from others who are most at risk of becoming history's villains. (One of my most disilusioned days was when I saw fellow atheists wearing their atheism like an arm band, using it as a pretext to declare their superiority over fellow human beings, and intoning it like some sort of religious creed. Everyone was wasting time preaching to the choir, and as I was at a musical gathering and just wanted to play music, I called it out. Then I watched them turn on me.) (Both sides of the political spectrum deny science for ideology. They just deny different parts of science. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkdIB03RdBg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkdIB03RdBg )

weberc2 8y ago
You're getting downvoted, but I can't tell why. Maybe you've offended both sides by contending that their side is as guilty as the other of ideological reasoning?! :) EDIT: Wow, someone downvoted me literally ~2 seconds after I posted. Good work, Quickdraw!
- stcredzero 8y ago
  You're getting downvoted, but I can't tell why. Maybe you've offended both sides by contending that their side is as guilty as the other of ideological reasoning?! :) There is a big part of online society for whom such jingoistic tribalism is thought of as some sort of virtuous, intellectually worthy exercise. I find this highly disturbing. If one is interested in finding the truth, then self doubt and the willingness to ask questions is paramount! It's precisely that "you're either with us, or against us" mentality which is a hallmark of the tyrants and the enemies of reason. It's precisely that mindset that burned witches and imprisoned Galileo. It's precisely that mindset that gives rise to ideological reasoning. EDIT: Wow, someone downvoted me literally ~2 seconds after I posted. Good work, Quickdraw! It seems like some group of activists has tried to come in to Hacker News and use it to push their agenda. I, for one, do not appreciate their attempts to push their agenda by creating fear of being labeled an "-ist."
  - p1necone 8y ago
    >>> It seems like some group of activists has tried to come in to Hacker News and use it to push their agenda. I, for one, do not appreciate their attempts to push their agenda by creating fear of being labeled an "-ist." Was the irony here intentional? ;)
    - stcredzero 8y ago
      Was the irony here intentional? ;) I've been around here since 2007, and I'm even on the leaderboard. There has indeed been a sharp change around here, starting slowly in 2014 and more quickly starting in 2016. This sort of outrage-mongering and "you're with us or you're against us, or we'll smear you" anti-intellectual mentality on HN is something new that's come in from outside.
- vkou 8y ago
  I imagine that they were downvoted for mentioning "Both sides." It is correct in this case, but in other contexts, it is also a common bit of fallacious reasoning, used to draw false equivalences.
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    It's not a fallacy in the case where something does happen to apply to both sides. As far as I am concerned, "both sides" in any debate are human beings, subject to human foibles.
  - p1necone 8y ago
    I groan every time I hear someone say "both sides", as if it's just not possible for there to be a simple right answer sometimes. Remember "teach the controversy"? Edit: not to say that pointing out that "both sides" have some sort of mistake is never valid, it's just that almost every time I see the argument it's from someone akin to a flat earther, or climate change denier, or an anti-evolutionist, who really doesn't have the facts on their side. And it's incredibly frustrating that they just expect me to respect their opinions just as much as I would respect someone who's talking points hadn't been debunked over and over already.
    - weberc2 8y ago
      I agree, but I think “both sides” has merit when one side is trying to position themselves as champions of reason across the board. It simply isn’t true for any major political ideology (in America, anyway).
      - freshhawk 8y ago
        But you can use reason to work out that if people with different subjective values use perfect reason to choose their political opinions they will often end up disagreeing. So it isn't true for anyone (in this universe, anyway).
    - pl1234 8y ago
      most people here turn flat-earther level stupid when it comes to evolution applied to humans. They don't fully believe in evolution. They are often the same people who will make fun of flat-earthers. To anyone aware of racial realities, this forum looks like a flat-earth society
- anigbrowl 8y ago
  I'm guessing it was the both sides thing, which assumes a binary opposition as a starting premise when many issues are multidimensional. The downvotes on your own comment may be because one of the HN guidelines discourages commenting about voting patterns.
  - weberc2 8y ago
    The issues are multifaceted but our society is largely and increasingly divided in two. I would love for it not to be, but my aspirations alone don’t change reality. And I thought the fact that the downvote was there as soon as I posted was the remarkable bit, not that I was downvoted at all.
    - freshhawk 8y ago
      But the biggest not-a-trump-tweet political story of the last year is the massive shift of american politics into left-wing, centrist and right-wing groups as the effect of Trump getting elected ripples through both parties. Saying this during an era that looks like it will be partly remembered as when the american binary political divide ended seems very odd to me. American society is largely and increasingly not well modeled by 2 clusters of opinion.
      - stcredzero 8y ago
        I really hope you're correct about a centrist group forming. One of the huge distortions of American politics, is that the center isn't explicitly represented, though that's the actual politics that runs everything. American society is largely and increasingly not well modeled by 2 clusters of opinion. I've seen studies and polls indicating that there are two diverging clusters of opinions and positions, with the left part moving further left, and the right clump moving more slowly right.
- freshhawk 8y ago
  Could be because "My values/beliefs are the ideology free centre and everyone else is ideological" is the most common and boring ideology in North America. Even the idea that politics involves "2 sides" or that this is a useful way to model things is an obvious ideological statement. Pointing this out gets old, at this point jokes about how someone always says this and betrays their complete misunderstanding of the entire concept is old. And since you know this ideology and you know what works and what doesn't when trying to get someone to confront un-examined ideological commitments ... you just downvote and move on.
fabianhjr 8y ago
> Both sides What both sides? (Two? most compasses, that are already reductionist, have many more quadrants)
- aaronbrethorst 8y ago
  It looks like everyone above you in this comment thread is talking about U.S. politics, which is polarized between two political parties, Democrats and Republicans. As long as the United States continues to use first-past-the-post voting schemes to determine the winners in electoral contests, we will continue to have a two party system (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law) Hence "both sides."
  - atoav 8y ago
    I’d argue that also a centrist has an ideology. Or a non voter. The division between left and right is tempting, but ultimately fails to remind us, that most people don’t really fit into that concept of two sides ideologically
    - stcredzero 8y ago
      I’d argue that also a centrist has an ideology. I'm a left-leaning centrist whose attention has shifted more towards a 2nd political axis of Anti-Authoritarianism.
jacquesm 8y ago
> Both sides of the political spectrum That's a bit of ideology all by itself. The idea that there are only two sides is faulty.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  Note that in context, I'm talking about "both sides of any argument," so I'm deliberately using an abstraction. As for the political spectrum, I'd argue that in 2019, you have to use a 2-axis square at the very least, with the 2nd axis representing Authoritarianism/Anti-Authoritarianism. I just left that detail out for the time being.
watwut 8y ago
Believe that all sides are always equal is ideology on itself and harmful one at that, because it prevents you to take action when there is real danger around. Democracy is ideology and nazism is ideology and communism is ideology and all three are subject to biases. They are not the same nor equal in their consequences.
- mcv 8y ago
  That's the thing. Nearly everything is an ideology, but that doesn't mean everything is equally valid or equally wrong. But we need to get out of the tribalism and dogma that often comes with any ideology, belief system, -ism or simple opinion, and consider the more tangible ideas, actions and policies instead. Lately I've tried to avoid talking about -isms. Doesn't always work, because everybody talks about them, and I'm certainly deeply committed to a couple of -isms. But they tend to become both hollow labels and collections of dogma. "Socialism" is an obvious one that I often see abused. People oppose for example universal health care because they consider it socialist, and because socialist Russia/Venezuela was/is bad, universal health care must be bad. It's a stupid way to argue, but surprisingly common. The same is also true of "capitalism" of course. It can mean either the concentration of wealth in the hands of a small elite, or the free market. And even "free market" means different things to different people. Better to let go of the dogmas and labels and talk about the results we want, while looking critically at what actually works and what doesn't.
  - watwut 8y ago
    Communist russia was much more then just healthcare or public schools. And it did not got to the violence and oppression by having healthcare or public schools. Complete conflation of socialism, its variants (including democratic ones) and communism did not happened by random either. Refusing to use names in this situation wont eliminate peoples fear, it will merely make it impossible to talk about what they are afraid of. Good sounding ideas can go real bad and it is good to learn from history. And I think that one of lessons of Russia history is that if people who are violent before gaining power or openly celebrate violence, they will be violent after. Maybe it would be worth to talk also about Russia history and ideologies that affected it as they were.
XorNot 8y ago
Oh look a YouTube video to a talking head. I wonder what ideologies he thinks are ignoring science? Maybe an interesting perspective on differences in town-planning outcomes, or a critique of economic schools compared to real world measurements...nope! Of course he has a lot of opinions on feminism, homosexuality and for some reason seems to have a lot of trouble imagining himself discussing these topics without offending people.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  Oh look a YouTube video to a talking head. A professor of evolutionary biology. I wonder what ideologies he thinks are ignoring science? The left likes to deny social science, biology, and psychology which contradicts its narrative. The right denies climate science, mostly by misstating science and for tribal reasons. Maybe an interesting perspective on differences in town-planning outcomes, or a critique of economic schools compared to real world measurements...nope! Your assertion that this proves something is quite vacuous, as his commentary is mostly aimed at evolutionary biology, which is denied by the left for political reasons, and climate science, which is denied by the right for political reasons. Of course he has a lot of opinions on feminism, homosexuality and for some reason seems to have a lot of trouble imagining himself discussing these topics without offending people. Because he faces lots of underhanded authoritarian tactics for merely talking about scientific truth. He's a Lebanese Jew whose family had to flee deadly religious persecution, who is regularly called a "white supremacist" or Nazi by dishonest people who just want to push a political agenda by sneering and name-calling. It's high time people started calling out such dishonest smearing tactics and such authoritarian mindsets. What we need in 2019 is discourse and facts, not coercion and smearing.
- antidesitter 8y ago
  Your comment is very snarky and unsubstantive. Refer to the main article of this thread.

weberc2 8y ago

You're getting downvoted, but I can't tell why. Maybe you've offended both sides by contending that their side is as guilty as the other of ideological reasoning?! :) EDIT: Wow, someone downvoted me literally ~2 seconds after I posted. Good work, Quickdraw!

stcredzero 8y ago
You're getting downvoted, but I can't tell why. Maybe you've offended both sides by contending that their side is as guilty as the other of ideological reasoning?! :) There is a big part of online society for whom such jingoistic tribalism is thought of as some sort of virtuous, intellectually worthy exercise. I find this highly disturbing. If one is interested in finding the truth, then self doubt and the willingness to ask questions is paramount! It's precisely that "you're either with us, or against us" mentality which is a hallmark of the tyrants and the enemies of reason. It's precisely that mindset that burned witches and imprisoned Galileo. It's precisely that mindset that gives rise to ideological reasoning. EDIT: Wow, someone downvoted me literally ~2 seconds after I posted. Good work, Quickdraw! It seems like some group of activists has tried to come in to Hacker News and use it to push their agenda. I, for one, do not appreciate their attempts to push their agenda by creating fear of being labeled an "-ist."
- p1necone 8y ago
  >>> It seems like some group of activists has tried to come in to Hacker News and use it to push their agenda. I, for one, do not appreciate their attempts to push their agenda by creating fear of being labeled an "-ist." Was the irony here intentional? ;)
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    Was the irony here intentional? ;) I've been around here since 2007, and I'm even on the leaderboard. There has indeed been a sharp change around here, starting slowly in 2014 and more quickly starting in 2016. This sort of outrage-mongering and "you're with us or you're against us, or we'll smear you" anti-intellectual mentality on HN is something new that's come in from outside.
vkou 8y ago
I imagine that they were downvoted for mentioning "Both sides." It is correct in this case, but in other contexts, it is also a common bit of fallacious reasoning, used to draw false equivalences.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  It's not a fallacy in the case where something does happen to apply to both sides. As far as I am concerned, "both sides" in any debate are human beings, subject to human foibles.
- p1necone 8y ago
  I groan every time I hear someone say "both sides", as if it's just not possible for there to be a simple right answer sometimes. Remember "teach the controversy"? Edit: not to say that pointing out that "both sides" have some sort of mistake is never valid, it's just that almost every time I see the argument it's from someone akin to a flat earther, or climate change denier, or an anti-evolutionist, who really doesn't have the facts on their side. And it's incredibly frustrating that they just expect me to respect their opinions just as much as I would respect someone who's talking points hadn't been debunked over and over already.
  - weberc2 8y ago
    I agree, but I think “both sides” has merit when one side is trying to position themselves as champions of reason across the board. It simply isn’t true for any major political ideology (in America, anyway).
    - freshhawk 8y ago
      But you can use reason to work out that if people with different subjective values use perfect reason to choose their political opinions they will often end up disagreeing. So it isn't true for anyone (in this universe, anyway).
  - pl1234 8y ago
    most people here turn flat-earther level stupid when it comes to evolution applied to humans. They don't fully believe in evolution. They are often the same people who will make fun of flat-earthers. To anyone aware of racial realities, this forum looks like a flat-earth society
anigbrowl 8y ago
I'm guessing it was the both sides thing, which assumes a binary opposition as a starting premise when many issues are multidimensional. The downvotes on your own comment may be because one of the HN guidelines discourages commenting about voting patterns.
- weberc2 8y ago
  The issues are multifaceted but our society is largely and increasingly divided in two. I would love for it not to be, but my aspirations alone don’t change reality. And I thought the fact that the downvote was there as soon as I posted was the remarkable bit, not that I was downvoted at all.
  - freshhawk 8y ago
    But the biggest not-a-trump-tweet political story of the last year is the massive shift of american politics into left-wing, centrist and right-wing groups as the effect of Trump getting elected ripples through both parties. Saying this during an era that looks like it will be partly remembered as when the american binary political divide ended seems very odd to me. American society is largely and increasingly not well modeled by 2 clusters of opinion.
    - stcredzero 8y ago
      I really hope you're correct about a centrist group forming. One of the huge distortions of American politics, is that the center isn't explicitly represented, though that's the actual politics that runs everything. American society is largely and increasingly not well modeled by 2 clusters of opinion. I've seen studies and polls indicating that there are two diverging clusters of opinions and positions, with the left part moving further left, and the right clump moving more slowly right.
freshhawk 8y ago
Could be because "My values/beliefs are the ideology free centre and everyone else is ideological" is the most common and boring ideology in North America. Even the idea that politics involves "2 sides" or that this is a useful way to model things is an obvious ideological statement. Pointing this out gets old, at this point jokes about how someone always says this and betrays their complete misunderstanding of the entire concept is old. And since you know this ideology and you know what works and what doesn't when trying to get someone to confront un-examined ideological commitments ... you just downvote and move on.

fabianhjr 8y ago

> Both sides What both sides? (Two? most compasses, that are already reductionist, have many more quadrants)

aaronbrethorst 8y ago
It looks like everyone above you in this comment thread is talking about U.S. politics, which is polarized between two political parties, Democrats and Republicans. As long as the United States continues to use first-past-the-post voting schemes to determine the winners in electoral contests, we will continue to have a two party system (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law) Hence "both sides."
- atoav 8y ago
  I’d argue that also a centrist has an ideology. Or a non voter. The division between left and right is tempting, but ultimately fails to remind us, that most people don’t really fit into that concept of two sides ideologically
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    I’d argue that also a centrist has an ideology. I'm a left-leaning centrist whose attention has shifted more towards a 2nd political axis of Anti-Authoritarianism.

jacquesm 8y ago

> Both sides of the political spectrum That's a bit of ideology all by itself. The idea that there are only two sides is faulty.

stcredzero 8y ago
Note that in context, I'm talking about "both sides of any argument," so I'm deliberately using an abstraction. As for the political spectrum, I'd argue that in 2019, you have to use a 2-axis square at the very least, with the 2nd axis representing Authoritarianism/Anti-Authoritarianism. I just left that detail out for the time being.

watwut 8y ago

Believe that all sides are always equal is ideology on itself and harmful one at that, because it prevents you to take action when there is real danger around. Democracy is ideology and nazism is ideology and communism is ideology and all three are subject to biases. They are not the same nor equal in their consequences.

mcv 8y ago
That's the thing. Nearly everything is an ideology, but that doesn't mean everything is equally valid or equally wrong. But we need to get out of the tribalism and dogma that often comes with any ideology, belief system, -ism or simple opinion, and consider the more tangible ideas, actions and policies instead. Lately I've tried to avoid talking about -isms. Doesn't always work, because everybody talks about them, and I'm certainly deeply committed to a couple of -isms. But they tend to become both hollow labels and collections of dogma. "Socialism" is an obvious one that I often see abused. People oppose for example universal health care because they consider it socialist, and because socialist Russia/Venezuela was/is bad, universal health care must be bad. It's a stupid way to argue, but surprisingly common. The same is also true of "capitalism" of course. It can mean either the concentration of wealth in the hands of a small elite, or the free market. And even "free market" means different things to different people. Better to let go of the dogmas and labels and talk about the results we want, while looking critically at what actually works and what doesn't.
- watwut 8y ago
  Communist russia was much more then just healthcare or public schools. And it did not got to the violence and oppression by having healthcare or public schools. Complete conflation of socialism, its variants (including democratic ones) and communism did not happened by random either. Refusing to use names in this situation wont eliminate peoples fear, it will merely make it impossible to talk about what they are afraid of. Good sounding ideas can go real bad and it is good to learn from history. And I think that one of lessons of Russia history is that if people who are violent before gaining power or openly celebrate violence, they will be violent after. Maybe it would be worth to talk also about Russia history and ideologies that affected it as they were.

XorNot 8y ago

Oh look a YouTube video to a talking head. I wonder what ideologies he thinks are ignoring science? Maybe an interesting perspective on differences in town-planning outcomes, or a critique of economic schools compared to real world measurements...nope! Of course he has a lot of opinions on feminism, homosexuality and for some reason seems to have a lot of trouble imagining himself discussing these topics without offending people.

stcredzero 8y ago
Oh look a YouTube video to a talking head. A professor of evolutionary biology. I wonder what ideologies he thinks are ignoring science? The left likes to deny social science, biology, and psychology which contradicts its narrative. The right denies climate science, mostly by misstating science and for tribal reasons. Maybe an interesting perspective on differences in town-planning outcomes, or a critique of economic schools compared to real world measurements...nope! Your assertion that this proves something is quite vacuous, as his commentary is mostly aimed at evolutionary biology, which is denied by the left for political reasons, and climate science, which is denied by the right for political reasons. Of course he has a lot of opinions on feminism, homosexuality and for some reason seems to have a lot of trouble imagining himself discussing these topics without offending people. Because he faces lots of underhanded authoritarian tactics for merely talking about scientific truth. He's a Lebanese Jew whose family had to flee deadly religious persecution, who is regularly called a "white supremacist" or Nazi by dishonest people who just want to push a political agenda by sneering and name-calling. It's high time people started calling out such dishonest smearing tactics and such authoritarian mindsets. What we need in 2019 is discourse and facts, not coercion and smearing.
antidesitter 8y ago
Your comment is very snarky and unsubstantive. Refer to the main article of this thread.