4 ms·

A useful concept might be John Rawls‘ "comprehensive doctrine": a belief system that covers a wide range of values and ideas, providing a framework for understa

A useful concept might be John Rawls‘ "comprehensive doctrine": a belief system that covers a wide range of values and ideas, providing a framework for understanding the world and guiding one’s behaviour. Rawls did not just apply this definition to traditional religions but also to ideologies such as communism. I think it’s not hard to think of modern examples. The point is that a liberal pluralistic society needs to learn to accommodate people with different worldviews. A key part of that is getting people to understand that their own worldview is subjective, and that other worldviews are possible and acceptable.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
rjbwork 3y ago
>The point is that a liberal pluralistic society needs to learn to accommodate people with different worldviews. A key part of that is getting people to understand that their own worldview is subjective, and that other worldviews are possible and acceptable. Yes, however that liberal pluralistic society can't abide incompatible hegemonic worldviews, as they will seek to destroy that liberal pluralistic society using the very mechanisms that make it viable - freedom of speech, equality, a belief in freedom, value of diversity, etc. Look at what people like Mike Johnson believe about politics and society. Look at project 2025. These are people who are so absolutely convinced of their worldview and societal ideal (an ideal compatible with a liberal pluralistic society) that they will use and abuse all levers of power available to them to forcibly foist that worldview upon the rest of us.
geephroh 3y ago
The reference to Rawls's work is really spot-on. > The point is that a liberal pluralistic society needs to learn to accommodate people with different worldviews. A key part of that is getting people to understand that their own worldview is subjective, and that other worldviews are possible and acceptable. And, to state the obvious, this is specifically why the "outrage engagement economy" incentive models that drive almost all of our at-scale communications channels (Twitter, TikTok, YouTube, FoxNews) are inherently dangerous to that liberal pluralistic society. For all of the lip service that these players pay to values like, "civic discourse" and "the town square," they only exist by subdividing their users into "affinity groups," and then pushing them content that triggers maximum emotional response and affirmation of group identity. The platforms don't simply reinforce commitment to particular worldviews; over the last few decades, we have seen them create worldviews to increase user engagement and ad revenue.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

rjbwork 3y ago

>The point is that a liberal pluralistic society needs to learn to accommodate people with different worldviews. A key part of that is getting people to understand that their own worldview is subjective, and that other worldviews are possible and acceptable. Yes, however that liberal pluralistic society can't abide incompatible hegemonic worldviews, as they will seek to destroy that liberal pluralistic society using the very mechanisms that make it viable - freedom of speech, equality, a belief in freedom, value of diversity, etc. Look at what people like Mike Johnson believe about politics and society. Look at project 2025. These are people who are so absolutely convinced of their worldview and societal ideal (an ideal compatible with a liberal pluralistic society) that they will use and abuse all levers of power available to them to forcibly foist that worldview upon the rest of us.

geephroh 3y ago

The reference to Rawls's work is really spot-on. > The point is that a liberal pluralistic society needs to learn to accommodate people with different worldviews. A key part of that is getting people to understand that their own worldview is subjective, and that other worldviews are possible and acceptable. And, to state the obvious, this is specifically why the "outrage engagement economy" incentive models that drive almost all of our at-scale communications channels (Twitter, TikTok, YouTube, FoxNews) are inherently dangerous to that liberal pluralistic society. For all of the lip service that these players pay to values like, "civic discourse" and "the town square," they only exist by subdividing their users into "affinity groups," and then pushing them content that triggers maximum emotional response and affirmation of group identity. The platforms don't simply reinforce commitment to particular worldviews; over the last few decades, we have seen them create worldviews to increase user engagement and ad revenue.