4 ms·

I see it in the smartest people I know. I live in the Netherlands but I have a "CNN addicted" colleague. And I like to tease her and say things like: "You know

I see it in the smartest people I know. I live in the Netherlands but I have a "CNN addicted" colleague. And I like to tease her and say things like: "You know people want to carry guns so the government does not have a monopoly on violence, so when you feel like you got a leader (as you do now [this was Trump era]) that really does not have the consent of the governed anymore, you may not be powerless." Sure, society changed, we can have a dialogue.." And it would just end with her almost frothing at the mouth about how she could never have dinner with a Republican. And than I would think that she is so intelligent, and a scientist, imagine how bad it is back in her home country. Or, maybe it has nothing to do with intelligence. Maybe it was also her way to feel even smarter, obviously there are so many stupid people that just don't see how it is. It's fascinating. And I see the echoes in Dutch colleagues as well, although they are not so worried about their country going to hell, so they are less emotional.

jfengel 6y ago
I won't froth, but I won't have dinner with a Republican either. Their last Presidential candidate was deliberately insulting. We're not just talking about a media figure or fringe candidate, but a person they actually voted for. I came to this conclusion before 2016; 2016 merely marks the point where it became so obvious that no reasonable person could deny it. Even if they didn't pull the lever for him, he was merely the most prominent example of an explicit, deliberate divisiveness that has become party policy. I don't believe that I can constructively discuss the differences between their values and mine in that environment. Indeed, it feels like I'm being deliberately distracted when they try -- "Here, let us rationally discuss the issues, but regardless of what you say I'm going to go back and vote for the most poisonous candidate on offer". I believe I've put in sufficient effort over the past few decades to say, validly, "It's not me, it's you." Rather than spend their time talking fruitlessly with me, I would rather they spent their time convincing their colleagues that their vilification of me is absurd and unhelpful. They can learn everything they need to know to support that from reading everything else I write; nothing I say specifically to them is going to provide them any insight into why they have become so wrapped up in vitriol. I feel that every time I have taken a step towards them, they've taken a step further away. So I'm done. I don't believe that's "frothing". I believe that's a rational reaction to the state of things. It's unfortunate, but it would be irrational to continue to do the same things I've always done and expect different results. ADDENDUM: This applies even without talking politics. It strikes me as tantamount to "Will you dine with me if I promise not to insult you this time?" I don't enjoy talking politics even under better circumstances, in part because the vitriol has gotten so unpleasant that I believe I'm being deliberately driven out. I won't put that aside and pretend that things are OK.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- wegs2 6y ago
  I'll have dinner with virtually anyone, and I'll try to understand them. I also have a lot of historical books, including one written by a genocidal dictator who killed a lot of my countrymen. I try to understand him too. If you're expecting to convince people, it sounds like you're putting in the wrong effort. The goal of a conversation is understanding, not agreement. "Here, let us rationally discuss the issues, but regardless of what you say I'm going to go back and vote for [their candidate]" is exactly how a conversation ought to go. If your expectation is different, it's not them. It's you. If I fly to Japan, my goal is to understand Japanese culture. My goal isn't to Americanize it. And vice-versa. It's no different here. You're not going to successfully impose your values on other people. "If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the results of a hundred battles" - Sun Tzu
  - jfengel 6y ago
    The problem, I believe, is that there is no effort being made to understand me. My side is very fond of publishing books and articles about how they think and what their values are (cf Jonathan Haidt, Thomas Frank, etc). I've never seen a similar effort from the other side. I'm not as optimistic as Sun Tzu about my ability to win simply by understanding. Perhaps it works in a physical combat, where every human being has a physical limit that can be overcome. In a political system, there are no limits: a vote is a vote, and if they wish to vote in ways that harm me, I cannot change that by any effort, regardless of what I understand. If efforts to demonize me are sufficiently effective, nothing I understand will help me. And I believe we've reached that point. I can only implore people to understand me, and failing that, protect myself as best I can. That includes not wasting time on dinners with people who wish me harm. I will not enjoy them. Nor will it produce anything of value. I haven't flown anywhere. It's as incumbent on them to adapt to me as it is for me to adapt to them. This is my country too, and if they're treating me as a hostile foreigner trying to impose his ways on them, it will not end well.
- teekert 6y ago
fighterpilot 6y ago
It's biologically rooted tribal hatred, which is probably mostly independent of intelligence. Smart people might be able to reason about why they feel that hatred but can't reason the hatred away.

jfengel 6y ago

I won't froth, but I won't have dinner with a Republican either. Their last Presidential candidate was deliberately insulting. We're not just talking about a media figure or fringe candidate, but a person they actually voted for. I came to this conclusion before 2016; 2016 merely marks the point where it became so obvious that no reasonable person could deny it. Even if they didn't pull the lever for him, he was merely the most prominent example of an explicit, deliberate divisiveness that has become party policy. I don't believe that I can constructively discuss the differences between their values and mine in that environment. Indeed, it feels like I'm being deliberately distracted when they try -- "Here, let us rationally discuss the issues, but regardless of what you say I'm going to go back and vote for the most poisonous candidate on offer". I believe I've put in sufficient effort over the past few decades to say, validly, "It's not me, it's you." Rather than spend their time talking fruitlessly with me, I would rather they spent their time convincing their colleagues that their vilification of me is absurd and unhelpful. They can learn everything they need to know to support that from reading everything else I write; nothing I say specifically to them is going to provide them any insight into why they have become so wrapped up in vitriol. I feel that every time I have taken a step towards them, they've taken a step further away. So I'm done. I don't believe that's "frothing". I believe that's a rational reaction to the state of things. It's unfortunate, but it would be irrational to continue to do the same things I've always done and expect different results. ADDENDUM: This applies even without talking politics. It strikes me as tantamount to "Will you dine with me if I promise not to insult you this time?" I don't enjoy talking politics even under better circumstances, in part because the vitriol has gotten so unpleasant that I believe I'm being deliberately driven out. I won't put that aside and pretend that things are OK.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
wegs2 6y ago
I'll have dinner with virtually anyone, and I'll try to understand them. I also have a lot of historical books, including one written by a genocidal dictator who killed a lot of my countrymen. I try to understand him too. If you're expecting to convince people, it sounds like you're putting in the wrong effort. The goal of a conversation is understanding, not agreement. "Here, let us rationally discuss the issues, but regardless of what you say I'm going to go back and vote for [their candidate]" is exactly how a conversation ought to go. If your expectation is different, it's not them. It's you. If I fly to Japan, my goal is to understand Japanese culture. My goal isn't to Americanize it. And vice-versa. It's no different here. You're not going to successfully impose your values on other people. "If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the results of a hundred battles" - Sun Tzu
- jfengel 6y ago
  The problem, I believe, is that there is no effort being made to understand me. My side is very fond of publishing books and articles about how they think and what their values are (cf Jonathan Haidt, Thomas Frank, etc). I've never seen a similar effort from the other side. I'm not as optimistic as Sun Tzu about my ability to win simply by understanding. Perhaps it works in a physical combat, where every human being has a physical limit that can be overcome. In a political system, there are no limits: a vote is a vote, and if they wish to vote in ways that harm me, I cannot change that by any effort, regardless of what I understand. If efforts to demonize me are sufficiently effective, nothing I understand will help me. And I believe we've reached that point. I can only implore people to understand me, and failing that, protect myself as best I can. That includes not wasting time on dinners with people who wish me harm. I will not enjoy them. Nor will it produce anything of value. I haven't flown anywhere. It's as incumbent on them to adapt to me as it is for me to adapt to them. This is my country too, and if they're treating me as a hostile foreigner trying to impose his ways on them, it will not end well.
teekert 6y ago

fighterpilot 6y ago

It's biologically rooted tribal hatred, which is probably mostly independent of intelligence. Smart people might be able to reason about why they feel that hatred but can't reason the hatred away.