4 ms·

> What is important is maintaining the institutions that have been wildly successful in mediating conflict between diverse groups As another commenter remarked

by Udik 8y ago

> What is important is maintaining the institutions that have been wildly successful in mediating conflict between diverse groups As another commenter remarked as well, there is no point in maintaining mediating institutions if you're not ready to accept the fact that a mediation is a fair resolution between opposing perspectives and needs. In other words, if you have no empathy for the others, any mediation is unfair, and any institution promoting it is essentially flawed.

rayiner 8y ago
Accepting the results of mediating instructions doesn’t require empathy, it requires a deference to rules-based process and a commitment to be bound. To use the US as an example, our social empathy has never been higher, whereas our commitment to mediating institutions is at historic lows. (Especially to the highly empathetic left, our mediating institutions have become mere means to ends.)
- jessaustin 8y ago
  To the left's chagrin, the rightists have mostly come around to this way of thinking as well. All is not lost. We can always replace old institutions with newer ones. Previously we got the news from large news-media firms. Now we know that we should ignore those firms if the topic is of any interest to the military-industrial complex. There are now independent journalists on youtube etc. to show us e.g. that there is no food crisis in Venezuela even if CNN can't stop itself from telling that lie.
  - rayiner 8y ago
    > We can always replace old institutions with newer ones. Can you? We’ve become a country of factions and echo chambers, and our new “institutions” (Facebook, YouTube journalists, podcasters) reflect that. Institutions are easy to tear down, hard to rebuild.
- Udik 8y ago
  > our social empathy has never been higher Ha. Well, that's the opposite of what I think the article is trying to say: social empathy is at its highest for those who are on your side, those you agree with, for your friends. But it's zero for your enemies: depending on which side you're on, think of your empathy towards Trump, or Clinton, or Weinstein, or the "social justice warriors". So it's "selective empathy". The selective empathy might be at its highest, but empathy in general seems to have declined. Maybe to the point you don't even think anymore it should be included in a measure of "empathy". > a deference to rules-based process and a commitment to be bound Sorry if I stress that again, but why would you commit to be bound if these institutions are meant to mediate between you and somebody you have no empathy for, somebody who is absolutely wrong, somebody you hate? To give you an extreme example of what I mean, would you accept to be bound by the decisions of an institution that is dedicated to finding a middle ground between you and child rapists? Or would you say that since any middle ground with child rapists is unacceptable, the institution's itself unacceptable?

by Udik 8y ago

rayiner 8y ago

Accepting the results of mediating instructions doesn’t require empathy, it requires a deference to rules-based process and a commitment to be bound. To use the US as an example, our social empathy has never been higher, whereas our commitment to mediating institutions is at historic lows. (Especially to the highly empathetic left, our mediating institutions have become mere means to ends.)

jessaustin 8y ago
To the left's chagrin, the rightists have mostly come around to this way of thinking as well. All is not lost. We can always replace old institutions with newer ones. Previously we got the news from large news-media firms. Now we know that we should ignore those firms if the topic is of any interest to the military-industrial complex. There are now independent journalists on youtube etc. to show us e.g. that there is no food crisis in Venezuela even if CNN can't stop itself from telling that lie.
- rayiner 8y ago
  > We can always replace old institutions with newer ones. Can you? We’ve become a country of factions and echo chambers, and our new “institutions” (Facebook, YouTube journalists, podcasters) reflect that. Institutions are easy to tear down, hard to rebuild.
Udik 8y ago
> our social empathy has never been higher Ha. Well, that's the opposite of what I think the article is trying to say: social empathy is at its highest for those who are on your side, those you agree with, for your friends. But it's zero for your enemies: depending on which side you're on, think of your empathy towards Trump, or Clinton, or Weinstein, or the "social justice warriors". So it's "selective empathy". The selective empathy might be at its highest, but empathy in general seems to have declined. Maybe to the point you don't even think anymore it should be included in a measure of "empathy". > a deference to rules-based process and a commitment to be bound Sorry if I stress that again, but why would you commit to be bound if these institutions are meant to mediate between you and somebody you have no empathy for, somebody who is absolutely wrong, somebody you hate? To give you an extreme example of what I mean, would you accept to be bound by the decisions of an institution that is dedicated to finding a middle ground between you and child rapists? Or would you say that since any middle ground with child rapists is unacceptable, the institution's itself unacceptable?