4 ms·

> When such divergences emerge around the world, they almost always result in political schisms. In the U.S., we have a group (or collection of groups) that be

> When such divergences emerge around the world, they almost always result in political schisms. In the U.S., we have a group (or collection of groups) that believes it has a divine mission to impose its fundamental values on everyone else, and that lying and cheating are justified in the service of that mission. Speaking for myself and a lot of others, that's a valid basis for us to mistrust that group. But what valid basis does that group of zealots have for mistrusting the rest of us? One might reasonably suspect that it's merely that we won't knuckle under to how they think everyone should live their lives — in which case, why should we treat their ukases any differently than those of, say, Iranian ayatollahs?

rayiner 3y ago
> In the U.S., we have a group (or collection of groups) that believes it has a divine mission to impose its fundamental values on everyone else, and that lying and cheating are justified in the service of that mission. Speaking for myself and a lot of others, that's a valid basis for us to mistrust that group. But what valid basis does that group of zealots have for mistrusting the rest of us? There is no such thing as neutrality as to values, where "you do what you want and I do what I want." A society is a collective effort and necessarily reflects some set of values. A society built on individual choice and self-determination as core values ends up looking like San Francisco or New York City. You can't create Tokyo or Mayberry with those values. Government can't paper over differences in people's perception of what's a good life or what kind of society they want to live in, because ultimately it's the government's job to make those things happen. And secularists are just as zealous about their core values as evangelical Christians are about theirs. Values that are important in the Muslim country where I come from, for example, are undermined every day in the secular blue state where I live. > why should we treat their ukases any differently than those of, say, Iranian ayatollahs? That is how you treat them, and you don't hide it well at all, and that's why they don't trust you.
- dctoedt 3y ago
  > A society built on individual choice and self-determination as core values ends up looking like San Francisco or New York City. You can't create Tokyo or Mayberry with those values. Leaving aside that Mayberry is a fantasy, SF and NYC look pretty good compared to, say, Dhaka or Tehran, and they stack up reasonably well against Tokyo. Plus: You're focusing on a snapshot, when in fact it's a movie — I'd venture that the individualist-but-cooperative mindset is considerably more adaptive over the long term. > Values that are important in the Muslim country where I come from, for example, are undermined every day in the secular blue state where I live. So? The reverse is also true: Values that are important to people like me are undermined every day in that same country; does that mean we should change our values? Saying "yes, you should change your values because theirs are just better" is pretty presumptuous, no? > That is how you treat them, and you don't hide it well at all, and that's why they don't trust you. You haven't answered my question: Why should we privilege the dictates of "Christian" fundamentalists over those of Islamic fundamentalists — and why should we privilege either over our own values? If Alice doesn't trust Bob merely because Bob insists on having his own values and prefers not to live according to Alice's, then that's Alice's problem — and if Alice tries to force Bob to adopt her values, then she should expect, let's just say, vigorous opposition.
  - rayiner 3y ago
    > Leaving aside that Mayberry is a fantasy, SF and NYC look pretty good compared to, say, Dhaka or Tehran, and they stack up reasonably well against Tokyo. I’d chose Salt Lake City (American Tehran)—and quite possibly real Tehran—over NYC and SF any day. > Plus: You're focusing on a snapshot, when in fact it's a movie — I'd venture that the individualist-but-cooperative mindset is considerably more adaptive over the long term In what respect? Economically? Possibly. But does it make people happier? The christian America I immigrated to seemed happier and more thriving than secular post-modern America I live in. > You haven't answered my question: Why should we privilege the dictates of "Christian" fundamentalists over those of Islamic fundamentalists — and why should we privilege either over our own values? My point is that you won’t. You’ll build a society that reflects your values—one that looks more like San Francisco than Salt Lake City. Your decisions on everything from welfare policy to education will reflect those values. And then those of us who would rather live in Salt Lake City will have to live in that society you’ve created. When I’m 55 and getting pictures of some dog instead of grandchildren, I’m not going to agree that your value neutrality allowed both of us to live in our preferred kind of society. That is the root of the current lack of trust. You can share a government when you disagree about means. You can’t share a government when you disagree about ends. Reagan and Carter disagreed sharply about policy, but they basically subscribed to the same religion and shared an idea of what a good society looks like. That’s no longer true.
    - tptacek 3y ago
      I’d chose [...] quite possibly real Tehran—over NYC and SF any day. No you wouldn't.
    - dctoedt 3y ago
      > And then those of us who would rather live in Salt Lake City will have to live in that society you’ve created. That's the price you pay for living in a continental society where you're outvoted by people who (broadly) prefer SF and NYC to SLC. BTW, unless SLC has changed bigly since the mid-1970s when I spent a few months in that region (and time off in SLC), I wouldn't characterize it as American Tehran.
    - 3y ago

rayiner 3y ago

> In the U.S., we have a group (or collection of groups) that believes it has a divine mission to impose its fundamental values on everyone else, and that lying and cheating are justified in the service of that mission. Speaking for myself and a lot of others, that's a valid basis for us to mistrust that group. But what valid basis does that group of zealots have for mistrusting the rest of us? There is no such thing as neutrality as to values, where "you do what you want and I do what I want." A society is a collective effort and necessarily reflects some set of values. A society built on individual choice and self-determination as core values ends up looking like San Francisco or New York City. You can't create Tokyo or Mayberry with those values. Government can't paper over differences in people's perception of what's a good life or what kind of society they want to live in, because ultimately it's the government's job to make those things happen. And secularists are just as zealous about their core values as evangelical Christians are about theirs. Values that are important in the Muslim country where I come from, for example, are undermined every day in the secular blue state where I live. > why should we treat their ukases any differently than those of, say, Iranian ayatollahs? That is how you treat them, and you don't hide it well at all, and that's why they don't trust you.

dctoedt 3y ago
> A society built on individual choice and self-determination as core values ends up looking like San Francisco or New York City. You can't create Tokyo or Mayberry with those values. Leaving aside that Mayberry is a fantasy, SF and NYC look pretty good compared to, say, Dhaka or Tehran, and they stack up reasonably well against Tokyo. Plus: You're focusing on a snapshot, when in fact it's a movie — I'd venture that the individualist-but-cooperative mindset is considerably more adaptive over the long term. > Values that are important in the Muslim country where I come from, for example, are undermined every day in the secular blue state where I live. So? The reverse is also true: Values that are important to people like me are undermined every day in that same country; does that mean we should change our values? Saying "yes, you should change your values because theirs are just better" is pretty presumptuous, no? > That is how you treat them, and you don't hide it well at all, and that's why they don't trust you. You haven't answered my question: Why should we privilege the dictates of "Christian" fundamentalists over those of Islamic fundamentalists — and why should we privilege either over our own values? If Alice doesn't trust Bob merely because Bob insists on having his own values and prefers not to live according to Alice's, then that's Alice's problem — and if Alice tries to force Bob to adopt her values, then she should expect, let's just say, vigorous opposition.
- rayiner 3y ago
  > Leaving aside that Mayberry is a fantasy, SF and NYC look pretty good compared to, say, Dhaka or Tehran, and they stack up reasonably well against Tokyo. I’d chose Salt Lake City (American Tehran)—and quite possibly real Tehran—over NYC and SF any day. > Plus: You're focusing on a snapshot, when in fact it's a movie — I'd venture that the individualist-but-cooperative mindset is considerably more adaptive over the long term In what respect? Economically? Possibly. But does it make people happier? The christian America I immigrated to seemed happier and more thriving than secular post-modern America I live in. > You haven't answered my question: Why should we privilege the dictates of "Christian" fundamentalists over those of Islamic fundamentalists — and why should we privilege either over our own values? My point is that you won’t. You’ll build a society that reflects your values—one that looks more like San Francisco than Salt Lake City. Your decisions on everything from welfare policy to education will reflect those values. And then those of us who would rather live in Salt Lake City will have to live in that society you’ve created. When I’m 55 and getting pictures of some dog instead of grandchildren, I’m not going to agree that your value neutrality allowed both of us to live in our preferred kind of society. That is the root of the current lack of trust. You can share a government when you disagree about means. You can’t share a government when you disagree about ends. Reagan and Carter disagreed sharply about policy, but they basically subscribed to the same religion and shared an idea of what a good society looks like. That’s no longer true.
  - tptacek 3y ago
    I’d chose [...] quite possibly real Tehran—over NYC and SF any day. No you wouldn't.
  - dctoedt 3y ago
    > And then those of us who would rather live in Salt Lake City will have to live in that society you’ve created. That's the price you pay for living in a continental society where you're outvoted by people who (broadly) prefer SF and NYC to SLC. BTW, unless SLC has changed bigly since the mid-1970s when I spent a few months in that region (and time off in SLC), I wouldn't characterize it as American Tehran.
  - 3y ago