3 ms·

The issue is that the "outraged crowd" has a habit to assume they have the moral highground and start forcing changes to rules/habits/processes/... even when th

by IMTDb 8y ago

The issue is that the "outraged crowd" has a habit to assume they have the moral highground and start forcing changes to rules/habits/processes/... even when their views are shared by far less than 50% of the population. For those who do not agree with those changes, it becomes pretty important to actually be vocal about it, otherwise the "outraged" will assume that you are totally on board with their views. And since they are very quick to try to marginalize you by avoiding a healthy debate and quickly associating you with the worse of humanity, the easiest (and sometimes only) way to "win" is just to show that no, you are no nazi for believing $OPINION, because a lots of people believe that if you ask them. So by all means be vocal about your opionions wether you are outraged and want to see society change, or you aren't and find some views blown out of proportion. This is the only way to actually measure if the majority of the population wants stuff to change. And that's how democracy works - which everyone should respect.

shrimp_emoji 8y ago
>The issue is that the "outraged crowd" has a habit to assume they have the moral highground and start forcing changes to rules/habits/processes/... even when their views are shared by far less than 50% of the population. I don't think the majority of the population has views worthy of "the moral highground". Most of humanity isn't very nice; just look at the world. We're mostly riding inertial culture from the past and evolutionary optimizations which we mutate only slightly as time passes. I also think they should be pressured toward more enlightened worldviews because those worldviews are still better whether or not they have majority subscription. >And since they are very quick to try to marginalize you by avoiding a healthy debate and quickly associating you with the worse of humanity Yep. It's sad. This causes a lot of cognitive dissonance and alienation. I think a major reason for it is that the literal nazis, today, are rarely blunt. They use dog whistling, memes, and implication that gives plausible deniability and a way to elide accusations or deplatforming. A heuristic, then, that many people grab to adapt to that is assuming the meta of what someone seems to be saying. This is pretty sound (never accepts a nazi) but not at all complete (rejects many non-nazis). >So by all means be vocal about your opionions wether you are outraged and want to see society change, or you aren't and find some views blown out of proportion. This is the only way to actually measure if the majority of the population wants stuff to change. And that's how democracy works - which everyone should respect. I think you'd be wrong to assume that everyone has equal expression in society. Just look at the nazis, for example. So our measuring technique is dysfunctional. I also think that, even if that wasn't the case, this isn't the best way to reach positive social change. I think the majority of the world is very sexist, for example, and therefore don't want meaningful societal changes that level the sexual playing field (a clever, diplomatic way to put this is a philosophical objection, like "we should have equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome"). Does that mean that maintaining the sexist status quo is the best moral thing to do? I don't think so. And that's for positive change; what if the majority votes for negative change? I can't respect that just because the majority wills it any more than the nazis respect the mainstream's censure of their ideology.

by IMTDb 8y ago

shrimp_emoji 8y ago

>The issue is that the "outraged crowd" has a habit to assume they have the moral highground and start forcing changes to rules/habits/processes/... even when their views are shared by far less than 50% of the population. I don't think the majority of the population has views worthy of "the moral highground". Most of humanity isn't very nice; just look at the world. We're mostly riding inertial culture from the past and evolutionary optimizations which we mutate only slightly as time passes. I also think they should be pressured toward more enlightened worldviews because those worldviews are still better whether or not they have majority subscription. >And since they are very quick to try to marginalize you by avoiding a healthy debate and quickly associating you with the worse of humanity Yep. It's sad. This causes a lot of cognitive dissonance and alienation. I think a major reason for it is that the literal nazis, today, are rarely blunt. They use dog whistling, memes, and implication that gives plausible deniability and a way to elide accusations or deplatforming. A heuristic, then, that many people grab to adapt to that is assuming the meta of what someone seems to be saying. This is pretty sound (never accepts a nazi) but not at all complete (rejects many non-nazis). >So by all means be vocal about your opionions wether you are outraged and want to see society change, or you aren't and find some views blown out of proportion. This is the only way to actually measure if the majority of the population wants stuff to change. And that's how democracy works - which everyone should respect. I think you'd be wrong to assume that everyone has equal expression in society. Just look at the nazis, for example. So our measuring technique is dysfunctional. I also think that, even if that wasn't the case, this isn't the best way to reach positive social change. I think the majority of the world is very sexist, for example, and therefore don't want meaningful societal changes that level the sexual playing field (a clever, diplomatic way to put this is a philosophical objection, like "we should have equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome"). Does that mean that maintaining the sexist status quo is the best moral thing to do? I don't think so. And that's for positive change; what if the majority votes for negative change? I can't respect that just because the majority wills it any more than the nazis respect the mainstream's censure of their ideology.