4 ms·

I’ve found that most people I speak to can’t accept that most issues are complex shades of gray. It’s all our team or their team based on whatever news channel

I’ve found that most people I speak to can’t accept that most issues are complex shades of gray. It’s all our team or their team based on whatever news channel they subscribe to. No one takes time to dig below the surface and think for themselves.

seebetter 6y ago
And in reality, we’re really more alike than we realize. It’s just the political parties and media have financalized everything. American politics is more just crony wealth transfers to vying corporate factions. We’re all victims to an undefined enemy but we’re fighting ourselves.
- humanrebar 6y ago
  The parties are fairly weak to be honest. Otherwise, Trump wouldn't have been nominated in the first place and Sanders wouldn't have had two strong runs at the presidency. The voters are self-incentivized to break off into factions. I think what has been slowly changing and coming to a head is that the checks and balances in the American system have been eroded and calcified. When everything is all or nothing and mechanisms for compromise stop being used (i.e. legislation, policy diversity across states), then everything is a Big Deal.
Hnrobert42 6y ago
I think this is a natural, human tendency. Us vs. them. Tribalism. That sort of thing.
- formercoder 6y ago
  Certainly. I even catch myself doing it too. I’ve had to develop a kind of framework for considering political issues to avoid it: What’s best for me? What’s best for my family? What’s best for my community? What’s best for my country? What’s best for the planet? Often these questions have contradicting answers. However once I think through them, I can at least begin to structure an opinion.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - mStreamTeam 6y ago
    I find it more concerning how quickly people forget the past. In 2016 BLM was responsible for a mass shooting in Dallas and most people I know already forgot this fact. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_shooting_of_Dallas_police_officers https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_shooting_of_Dallas_poli...
    - sammorrowdrums 6y ago
      Your phrasing is misleading. BLM isn't responsible. A veteran sympathetic to the cause went on a shooting spree granted, but I don't know how you get from that to "BLM was responsible"
      - abduhl 6y ago
        You cannot on one hand claim that BLM is an organic, grass roots, and completely headless organization while at the same time disclaiming someone as a member of the supposed unorganized organization composed entirely of people who self identify as BLM members.
        Fellshard 6y ago
        There's a similar vein of argumentation that occurs with Antifa: everyone understands that there isn't a formal organization, but anyone who points out grassroots affiliation is dishonestly accused of claiming there is a formal organization, and can therefore be credibly debunked. It's highly dishonest stuff.
        sammorrowdrums 6y ago
        That logic isn't correct. Take for counter example Christians, a group of largely self identifying "members of an organisation". It doesn't logically follow that if a self-identifying Christian shoots a lot of people that "Christianity is responsible" either. That lacks nuance, of course groups of individuals that self-identify as part of a group can act as individuals and as a group, and it's often unclear externally which actions are attributable to a group and which are attributable to individuals or sub-groups. It's simply impossible to be definitive with incomplete information, reductionist and I can't see the merit in basing a position in the presumption that all actions are of the whole.
- AlexTWithBeard 6y ago
  It's a natural tendency for dangerous world. People generally don't want to go into the conflict. But when they are cornered they begin so seek cover within their flock. So when an average Joe is told that silence is violence and he is guilty beyond any repair just because he's drinking beer in his backyard instead of fighting for the good cause, the Joe becomes defensive. And since he's not a master of rhetorics, he just takes the "fuck you all" attitude and goes back to his beer - now all wound up and grumpy. EDIT: punctuation fixes
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
phkahler 6y ago
>> I’ve found that most people I speak to can’t accept that most issues are complex shades of gray. My own speculation on that. Shades of gray take effort to understand, and may not have clean simple answers. People may be too lazy, or not confident in dealing with complexity, or not smart enough, or something else so they refuse to engage with it. What I find odd is that so many who avoid the subtlety and complexity are really eager to tout their lame one-sided opinions, even as the world is falling apart and demands better than that... or maybe because its falling apart?
- save_ferris 6y ago
  I think a lot of it has to do with how we look at history and how we remember and tell stories, fictional and non-fictional. Most people remember the winners and losers of history, but many don’t dig into the nuance of it for various reasons. It’s easier for those who support the winners to ignore the finer details because said winners aren’t perfect. Abraham Lincoln is a perfect example of this. While he was instrumental in freeing the slaves, he also believed that they were not as intellectually capable as whites and made that pretty clear in some of his speeches. One could argue that his position was the more progressive of his time, but still falls very, very short of what we consider to be acceptable thinking today. There’s always shades of gray in history. Every good president did things that many would find appalling. Most movies depict very clear good and evil, and we enjoy them because they’re easy to consume.
- SergeAx 6y ago
  To have more or less objective judgement one has to be well unaffected by the topic's outcome. Try to argue about future of some random company and then buy or short it's stock and argue again.
bnralt 6y ago
It's unsettling. It seems like there is an increasing number of people who simply adopt the narrative for their team, and assume all others do the same. Anyone who disagrees with that narrative must be a member of the opposite team. If presented with evidence that goes against their narrative, the response is usually that it doesn't matter. If they completely flip to the opposite position on an issue, the response is often that both their earlier position was correct and that their new position is also correct.
- jlokier 6y ago
  > If they completely flip to the opposite position on an issue, the response is often that both their earlier position was correct and that their new position is also correct. A wonderful thing about nuance is that this is often ok. Sometimes, their actual earlier position and new position are consistent. But will anyone listen if they try to explain why? Usually not.
laurent92 6y ago
The problem is, marxism progresses extremely well in shades of gray, where everything they claim sounds logical (“Are you NOT against police violence?”). But when you wake up it’s too late, and they are shooting Trump supporters at point blank on the street without trial (I’m not projecting, it happened this week), which is all but shades of gray. That’s why some people say “it’s all gray” and right wingers try to pull it into “there is crime and innocence with a clear line in between, there is male and female, there is good and bad.” Right wing also tries to show the end-game, which passes as complete nutcrack conspiracy theory (remember the supposed “grand remplacement” in Europe), until one day: “We (Muslims) are more numerous than Christians, leave the country if you don’t like it” (again, not fantasizing here, it’s a real speech from this week in Lyon) or more clearly: “Whites, this dirty race” (chapter president of a student union, Lille, France). I tend to view ideologies as evolutionary: Those that survived today win by either being extremely complex and good at being insidious, others win by being simple and blunt. But what we’d all like is, no ideology. Which is difficult when 1/3 of the world would happily fund billions to destroy America.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
threatofrain 6y ago
If someone suggests that they think in morally gray manner, doesn't it signal to everyone around them that they're morally suspicious? >"Do you think it's alright that police are getting killed?" > "Well, let's think about the details, as the situation can be complex or even gray..." You might say this is a stupid and sparse example, but well, let's think about it... for many people instinctual morality is their primary way of relating to the world. If you suggest you have an intellectual and distinctive approach to morality, what does that mean? Does that moral distinction mean moral superiority, arrogance, or moral alienation?
- AlexTWithBeard 6y ago
  Sure. Let's think about it: - could it have been prevented? At what cost? - what are the other options? I wish, but often the alternative to people suffering is even more people suffering - once the shit happened, how do we mitigate the situation?
- formercoder 6y ago
  I’m talking more about making moral judgements without adequate information or analysis. I’m not saying that morality is not absolute.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- wonder_er 6y ago
  Heh. This was a brilliant comment. The others who have responded to your comment have unconsciously proven the truth of what you're suggesting. They are 'well-actually'-ing your question, which proves that they don't have don't have an instinctive 'of course it is wrong that police are being killed' reaction, which now eliminates credibility with the group they're hoping to influence. I think MLK would have said "of course it's not alright that police are getting killed." He would have followed up with a salient point about police brutality, of course.
lallysingh 6y ago
People don't like complexity. They want heroes and villains. If the heroes are also nearby (like their local police station) and villains are far away (like Portland), it's far more comfortable.

seebetter 6y ago

And in reality, we’re really more alike than we realize. It’s just the political parties and media have financalized everything. American politics is more just crony wealth transfers to vying corporate factions. We’re all victims to an undefined enemy but we’re fighting ourselves.

humanrebar 6y ago
The parties are fairly weak to be honest. Otherwise, Trump wouldn't have been nominated in the first place and Sanders wouldn't have had two strong runs at the presidency. The voters are self-incentivized to break off into factions. I think what has been slowly changing and coming to a head is that the checks and balances in the American system have been eroded and calcified. When everything is all or nothing and mechanisms for compromise stop being used (i.e. legislation, policy diversity across states), then everything is a Big Deal.

Hnrobert42 6y ago

I think this is a natural, human tendency. Us vs. them. Tribalism. That sort of thing.

formercoder 6y ago
Certainly. I even catch myself doing it too. I’ve had to develop a kind of framework for considering political issues to avoid it: What’s best for me? What’s best for my family? What’s best for my community? What’s best for my country? What’s best for the planet? Often these questions have contradicting answers. However once I think through them, I can at least begin to structure an opinion.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- mStreamTeam 6y ago
  I find it more concerning how quickly people forget the past. In 2016 BLM was responsible for a mass shooting in Dallas and most people I know already forgot this fact. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_shooting_of_Dallas_police_officers https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_shooting_of_Dallas_poli...
  - sammorrowdrums 6y ago
    Your phrasing is misleading. BLM isn't responsible. A veteran sympathetic to the cause went on a shooting spree granted, but I don't know how you get from that to "BLM was responsible"
    - abduhl 6y ago
      You cannot on one hand claim that BLM is an organic, grass roots, and completely headless organization while at the same time disclaiming someone as a member of the supposed unorganized organization composed entirely of people who self identify as BLM members.
      - Fellshard 6y ago
        There's a similar vein of argumentation that occurs with Antifa: everyone understands that there isn't a formal organization, but anyone who points out grassroots affiliation is dishonestly accused of claiming there is a formal organization, and can therefore be credibly debunked. It's highly dishonest stuff.
      - sammorrowdrums 6y ago
        That logic isn't correct. Take for counter example Christians, a group of largely self identifying "members of an organisation". It doesn't logically follow that if a self-identifying Christian shoots a lot of people that "Christianity is responsible" either. That lacks nuance, of course groups of individuals that self-identify as part of a group can act as individuals and as a group, and it's often unclear externally which actions are attributable to a group and which are attributable to individuals or sub-groups. It's simply impossible to be definitive with incomplete information, reductionist and I can't see the merit in basing a position in the presumption that all actions are of the whole.
AlexTWithBeard 6y ago
It's a natural tendency for dangerous world. People generally don't want to go into the conflict. But when they are cornered they begin so seek cover within their flock. So when an average Joe is told that silence is violence and he is guilty beyond any repair just because he's drinking beer in his backyard instead of fighting for the good cause, the Joe becomes defensive. And since he's not a master of rhetorics, he just takes the "fuck you all" attitude and goes back to his beer - now all wound up and grumpy. EDIT: punctuation fixes
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

phkahler 6y ago

>> I’ve found that most people I speak to can’t accept that most issues are complex shades of gray. My own speculation on that. Shades of gray take effort to understand, and may not have clean simple answers. People may be too lazy, or not confident in dealing with complexity, or not smart enough, or something else so they refuse to engage with it. What I find odd is that so many who avoid the subtlety and complexity are really eager to tout their lame one-sided opinions, even as the world is falling apart and demands better than that... or maybe because its falling apart?

save_ferris 6y ago
I think a lot of it has to do with how we look at history and how we remember and tell stories, fictional and non-fictional. Most people remember the winners and losers of history, but many don’t dig into the nuance of it for various reasons. It’s easier for those who support the winners to ignore the finer details because said winners aren’t perfect. Abraham Lincoln is a perfect example of this. While he was instrumental in freeing the slaves, he also believed that they were not as intellectually capable as whites and made that pretty clear in some of his speeches. One could argue that his position was the more progressive of his time, but still falls very, very short of what we consider to be acceptable thinking today. There’s always shades of gray in history. Every good president did things that many would find appalling. Most movies depict very clear good and evil, and we enjoy them because they’re easy to consume.
SergeAx 6y ago
To have more or less objective judgement one has to be well unaffected by the topic's outcome. Try to argue about future of some random company and then buy or short it's stock and argue again.

bnralt 6y ago

It's unsettling. It seems like there is an increasing number of people who simply adopt the narrative for their team, and assume all others do the same. Anyone who disagrees with that narrative must be a member of the opposite team. If presented with evidence that goes against their narrative, the response is usually that it doesn't matter. If they completely flip to the opposite position on an issue, the response is often that both their earlier position was correct and that their new position is also correct.

jlokier 6y ago
> If they completely flip to the opposite position on an issue, the response is often that both their earlier position was correct and that their new position is also correct. A wonderful thing about nuance is that this is often ok. Sometimes, their actual earlier position and new position are consistent. But will anyone listen if they try to explain why? Usually not.

laurent92 6y ago

The problem is, marxism progresses extremely well in shades of gray, where everything they claim sounds logical (“Are you NOT against police violence?”). But when you wake up it’s too late, and they are shooting Trump supporters at point blank on the street without trial (I’m not projecting, it happened this week), which is all but shades of gray. That’s why some people say “it’s all gray” and right wingers try to pull it into “there is crime and innocence with a clear line in between, there is male and female, there is good and bad.” Right wing also tries to show the end-game, which passes as complete nutcrack conspiracy theory (remember the supposed “grand remplacement” in Europe), until one day: “We (Muslims) are more numerous than Christians, leave the country if you don’t like it” (again, not fantasizing here, it’s a real speech from this week in Lyon) or more clearly: “Whites, this dirty race” (chapter president of a student union, Lille, France). I tend to view ideologies as evolutionary: Those that survived today win by either being extremely complex and good at being insidious, others win by being simple and blunt. But what we’d all like is, no ideology. Which is difficult when 1/3 of the world would happily fund billions to destroy America.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

threatofrain 6y ago

If someone suggests that they think in morally gray manner, doesn't it signal to everyone around them that they're morally suspicious? >"Do you think it's alright that police are getting killed?" > "Well, let's think about the details, as the situation can be complex or even gray..." You might say this is a stupid and sparse example, but well, let's think about it... for many people instinctual morality is their primary way of relating to the world. If you suggest you have an intellectual and distinctive approach to morality, what does that mean? Does that moral distinction mean moral superiority, arrogance, or moral alienation?

AlexTWithBeard 6y ago
Sure. Let's think about it: - could it have been prevented? At what cost? - what are the other options? I wish, but often the alternative to people suffering is even more people suffering - once the shit happened, how do we mitigate the situation?
formercoder 6y ago
I’m talking more about making moral judgements without adequate information or analysis. I’m not saying that morality is not absolute.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
wonder_er 6y ago
Heh. This was a brilliant comment. The others who have responded to your comment have unconsciously proven the truth of what you're suggesting. They are 'well-actually'-ing your question, which proves that they don't have don't have an instinctive 'of course it is wrong that police are being killed' reaction, which now eliminates credibility with the group they're hoping to influence. I think MLK would have said "of course it's not alright that police are getting killed." He would have followed up with a salient point about police brutality, of course.

lallysingh 6y ago

People don't like complexity. They want heroes and villains. If the heroes are also nearby (like their local police station) and villains are far away (like Portland), it's far more comfortable.