4 ms·

Refusing to hold people accountable enables the rule breakers. You have to decide which party is actually telling more damaging lies, taking more damaging actio

Refusing to hold people accountable enables the rule breakers. You have to decide which party is actually telling more damaging lies, taking more damaging actions, or doing more good, and act accordingly. Because some person who votes for Democrats somewhere said vaccines turn people into alligators doesn't balance out the strong majority of the Republican Party who deny anthropogenic climate change, or at least oppose doing anything about it. Democrats advocating covid measures of limited efficacy aren't balanced out by Republicans saying whether or not to be a disease vector is a personal choice. Flawed opinions are not all of equal import. Representatives of a political party are not all of equal import. You have to actually evaluate the evidence and act accordingly, even if this puts you on the outs with friends, family, and co-workers. This all being said, I think the prime driver of partisanship is not analyses of truth or impact but social connections. People are afraid to be exiled from the community they depend on -- their friends, family, co-workers, co-religionists, doctor, grocer, plumber, etc. Just as you can tell a lie more convincingly if you believe it, you can simulate partisan allegiance best by enacting it. If you are going to be ridden out of town on a rail if you are thought to have voted for a Democrat/Republican, then it isn't sufficient to say you voted as the mob prefers; you have to do it. The mob knows this. That's what the Second Amendment has come to be about: having guns to scare your neighbors over to your side. Better to be with the bully than against him.

zepto 5y ago
Or, you could just not base your thinking on choosing a side which is ‘the lesser of two evils’ to be your savior, and recognize that the behaviors are a problem rather than the team.
- DFHippie 5y ago
  It seems you are expressing two ideas which are in conflict. The "lesser of two evils" argument is precisely about choosing "behavior" (really results or goals) over choosing a team. But I'll give it a go anyway. I am assuming you have to vote or abstain from voting. Then your choice is whether you are trying to achieve changes in the world or achieve a certain self image. If you are trying to achieve changes in the world, and the decision is close, you throw your weight behind the better side. If you are trying to achieve a certain self image, you vote for your ideal candidate whatever is at stake and whatever the balance between the two candidates that have an actual chance of gaining power. Or you abstain and remain unsullied by whatever evil taints each candidate.
  - zepto 5y ago
    Voting behavior is quite distinct from commenting online, or identifying with a particular side. Why are you talking about voting now? As for ‘the lesser of two evils’: > You have to decide which party is actually telling more damaging lies, taking more damaging actions, or doing more good, and act accordingly. This is you telling us we have to make that choice.
    - DFHippie 5y ago
      Yes, you have to make that choice. That was my point: choose better over worse. The "more damaging lies" part is just trying not to be too rosy-eyed about any particular party. Your choices are imperfect, but that's the world we live in. ETA In case it was unclear, I think political behavior aimed at your self image is vanity and thus self-defeating. Even if your chief goal is thinking better of yourself or getting others to think better of you, forsaking a choice to do good for the world at large in the interest of your own vanity will not achieve your goal. If you want a better image, you should still choose better over worse, not pretty and pointless over ugly and effective.
      - zepto 5y ago
        It’s clear what you think, it’s just not relevant to the comment you replied to. When you vote, you are forced to make a choice between parties. Nothing forces you to identify with a side when it comes to discussing who is anti-science or not.

zepto 5y ago

Or, you could just not base your thinking on choosing a side which is ‘the lesser of two evils’ to be your savior, and recognize that the behaviors are a problem rather than the team.

DFHippie 5y ago
It seems you are expressing two ideas which are in conflict. The "lesser of two evils" argument is precisely about choosing "behavior" (really results or goals) over choosing a team. But I'll give it a go anyway. I am assuming you have to vote or abstain from voting. Then your choice is whether you are trying to achieve changes in the world or achieve a certain self image. If you are trying to achieve changes in the world, and the decision is close, you throw your weight behind the better side. If you are trying to achieve a certain self image, you vote for your ideal candidate whatever is at stake and whatever the balance between the two candidates that have an actual chance of gaining power. Or you abstain and remain unsullied by whatever evil taints each candidate.
- zepto 5y ago
  Voting behavior is quite distinct from commenting online, or identifying with a particular side. Why are you talking about voting now? As for ‘the lesser of two evils’: > You have to decide which party is actually telling more damaging lies, taking more damaging actions, or doing more good, and act accordingly. This is you telling us we have to make that choice.
  - DFHippie 5y ago
    Yes, you have to make that choice. That was my point: choose better over worse. The "more damaging lies" part is just trying not to be too rosy-eyed about any particular party. Your choices are imperfect, but that's the world we live in. ETA In case it was unclear, I think political behavior aimed at your self image is vanity and thus self-defeating. Even if your chief goal is thinking better of yourself or getting others to think better of you, forsaking a choice to do good for the world at large in the interest of your own vanity will not achieve your goal. If you want a better image, you should still choose better over worse, not pretty and pointless over ugly and effective.
    - zepto 5y ago
      It’s clear what you think, it’s just not relevant to the comment you replied to. When you vote, you are forced to make a choice between parties. Nothing forces you to identify with a side when it comes to discussing who is anti-science or not.