3 ms·

Has it occurred to you that the people who feel rage fundamentally understand the situation, and you may be undereducated in this area? What do you think are th

Has it occurred to you that the people who feel rage fundamentally understand the situation, and you may be undereducated in this area? What do you think are the root causes of that “senseless partisan drive”? I’d suggest starting with Rick Perlman’s book “Nixonland” if you’re interested.

InTheArena 2y ago
As a Historian (and a German historian in particular) - I've spent a reasonable amount of time educating myself on the nature of fascism and in particular the break down of democracies (Wiemar, France, and also the erosion of civil liberties during the great depression in the United States). I have also been a delegate to both the RNC and the DNC at a state level. This is not a appeal to authority, but rather a honest response to your request for my education level. IMHO, The root cause of the "senseless partisan drive" is the fact that he founding fathers could not come up with a way to restrict parties (they called them "interests") and left them unchecked. This is a constant "sin" of the American political system, and is a key reason Slavery survived as long as it did, why separate but equal became the law of the land, why America shot itself in the foot several time with the Banks of America and why we are looking at the wrong side of history now. The parties now act to destroy each other as their prime directive, rather then to better the country. I liken this to Wiemar Germany, where the increasing radicalization of both the Nazis and the Communists led to political instability and eventual violence that destroyed the government. That erosion of democratic norms, as well as the "other side must be destroyed for us to survive" messaging is the true threat, IMHO. I would strongly suggest Richard Evan's three part history on Nazi history to understand Fascism. Don't worry, you can still hate and worry about Trump and think he is the next coming of Hitler afterwords - it will just be for better reasons.
concordDance 2y ago
Given the two of you probably have different models of reality, perhaps you two can try and figure out which is correct by seeing which model gives better predictions? So try to come up with some sort of future observation that can be made where you think the other person's model would give a different answer to yours about what you would be able to objectively observe. What do you reckon?
- vlovich123 2y ago
  Over what time scale, how do we agree on facts, and how do we evaluate things that require a common value system to determine whether the facts are good or bad?
  - concordDance 2y ago
    The idea would be that the two of them collaboratively agree on some observable prediction they differ on. E.g. level of officially reported government spending in 4 years time or gdp growth rate next year or number of plane crashes next year or what have you. Just some observable metric. If they literally can't come up with a single observable predictive difference then the predictive aspects of their models are actually equivalent and they are only narratively different and don't "really disagree". Like Copenhagen interpretation vs many worlds.
    - vlovich123 2y ago
      Many things don't have quantifiable metrics like that. For example, is USA still a democracy in 4 years? Are people more or less free?. You know, important questions that aren't just economic numbers. Even semi-quantifiable stuff like "are Americans better educated" is debatable on many topics if you can't agree on truth. Oh, and that GDP growth rate number? That relies on a lot of trust as to who's doing the reporting. For example, many people don't believe China's reported GDP numbers. What makes you think the USA doesn't devolve to such a distrust as well.
      - concordDance 2y ago
        If they affect your life they can be observed. If "democracy" is just metaphysics then it's irrelevant. But if it has actual tangible effects such as "can you vote?", "can you protest the government?", "is the leader of the opposition arrested?", "do most people think they live in a democracy?", "how popular is new legislation compared to previous years?", etc... Then you can make predictions about it and test them! You can even do local predictions if both can agree, such as "will the combined incomes of my family be higher or lower in 4 years time?" as low coupling proxies for gdp. (Ideally one would use probabilities for loosely linked proxies like that and use the probability differences the two theories assign to give bits of evidence to one over the other, so you'd want many many such proxies, ideally uncorrelated ones)
diggan 2y ago
> Has it occurred to you that the people who feel rage fundamentally understand the situation, and you may be undereducated in this area? Regardless of how justified the rage is or not, being very emotional about things usually have one of two effects on people A) people gets taken aback by someone's strong emotions or B) people get inspired/taking with the emotion, even feeling that emotion stronger themselves. Sometimes also C) they don't really care either way. What probably isn't helpful, is calling someone is "undereducated" when they're clearly saying that they're person (A), and just because they may or may not agree with you (although parent didn't even clearly say they disagree, just that they're "taken aback" a bit). Some people are calm regardless of what's going on around them, even if the world would be on fire, they'd try to describe what's going on around them with careful words and consideration. It isn't wrong or right, just like the people who feel rage and very emotional aren't wrong or right, it's just a showcase how we're different. But we should aim to at least understand each other, not by trying to provoke, instigate or look down on others, but by asking questions to clarify and to better understand.
elorm 2y ago
You're doing the exact same thing he is addressing in that statement above. He's not belittling anyone's rage, he's speaking about people who incite others to feel the rage with them. Now let's turn your question around. Has it occurred to you that the people who feel rage fundamentally misunderstand the situation and are completely undereducated in this area, and are only fuelled by sensationalism and Media manipulation? And then I suggest you go read Dirty Politics by Kathleen Hall Jamieson if you're interested, because that's what people who want to sound more intelligent than the other half of the conversation always do. How does it help anyone?
jtrn 2y ago
Has it occurred to you that nothing is more powerful for coming up with intellectual arguments than a strong driving emotion? Yes, rage might be the appropriate and response given the situation. But it’s often true that it starts with an emotion, and then people just argue from there. Even while being wrong. Just look at all the people with contradictory opinions in history, both with strong, emotional rage, and and equally certain of their connection. Throwing the fact that people actually has a tendency to want to be angry.
normalaccess 2y ago
Rage is the fuel of the internet, but it’s fundamentally useless when it comes to seeking truth. Social media platforms are engineered to maximize engagement, and the most engaging emotion is anger. This isn’t accidental—outrage drives clicks, shares, and ad revenue. The internet has long been called a “hate machine,” and there’s plenty of truth to that. This creates an environment where misinformation and emotional appeals spread faster than facts. When discussing complex, non-trivial topics, logic and reason are the only tools that can cut through the noise. But in a system designed to reward outrage, those tools are often drowned out. I highly recommend Sam Vaknin's talk about Social Media toxicity. Sources: Outrage is the most profitable emotion https://www.cityam.com/outrage-most-profitable-emotion-so-advertisers-trying-make/ https://www.cityam.com/outrage-most-profitable-emotion-so-ad... Sam Vaknin: The TRUE Toxicity of Social Media Revealed - Interview by Richard Grannon https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o58mFU004hg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o58mFU004hg

InTheArena 2y ago

As a Historian (and a German historian in particular) - I've spent a reasonable amount of time educating myself on the nature of fascism and in particular the break down of democracies (Wiemar, France, and also the erosion of civil liberties during the great depression in the United States). I have also been a delegate to both the RNC and the DNC at a state level. This is not a appeal to authority, but rather a honest response to your request for my education level. IMHO, The root cause of the "senseless partisan drive" is the fact that he founding fathers could not come up with a way to restrict parties (they called them "interests") and left them unchecked. This is a constant "sin" of the American political system, and is a key reason Slavery survived as long as it did, why separate but equal became the law of the land, why America shot itself in the foot several time with the Banks of America and why we are looking at the wrong side of history now. The parties now act to destroy each other as their prime directive, rather then to better the country. I liken this to Wiemar Germany, where the increasing radicalization of both the Nazis and the Communists led to political instability and eventual violence that destroyed the government. That erosion of democratic norms, as well as the "other side must be destroyed for us to survive" messaging is the true threat, IMHO. I would strongly suggest Richard Evan's three part history on Nazi history to understand Fascism. Don't worry, you can still hate and worry about Trump and think he is the next coming of Hitler afterwords - it will just be for better reasons.

concordDance 2y ago

Given the two of you probably have different models of reality, perhaps you two can try and figure out which is correct by seeing which model gives better predictions? So try to come up with some sort of future observation that can be made where you think the other person's model would give a different answer to yours about what you would be able to objectively observe. What do you reckon?

vlovich123 2y ago
Over what time scale, how do we agree on facts, and how do we evaluate things that require a common value system to determine whether the facts are good or bad?
- concordDance 2y ago
  The idea would be that the two of them collaboratively agree on some observable prediction they differ on. E.g. level of officially reported government spending in 4 years time or gdp growth rate next year or number of plane crashes next year or what have you. Just some observable metric. If they literally can't come up with a single observable predictive difference then the predictive aspects of their models are actually equivalent and they are only narratively different and don't "really disagree". Like Copenhagen interpretation vs many worlds.
  - vlovich123 2y ago
    Many things don't have quantifiable metrics like that. For example, is USA still a democracy in 4 years? Are people more or less free?. You know, important questions that aren't just economic numbers. Even semi-quantifiable stuff like "are Americans better educated" is debatable on many topics if you can't agree on truth. Oh, and that GDP growth rate number? That relies on a lot of trust as to who's doing the reporting. For example, many people don't believe China's reported GDP numbers. What makes you think the USA doesn't devolve to such a distrust as well.
    - concordDance 2y ago
      If they affect your life they can be observed. If "democracy" is just metaphysics then it's irrelevant. But if it has actual tangible effects such as "can you vote?", "can you protest the government?", "is the leader of the opposition arrested?", "do most people think they live in a democracy?", "how popular is new legislation compared to previous years?", etc... Then you can make predictions about it and test them! You can even do local predictions if both can agree, such as "will the combined incomes of my family be higher or lower in 4 years time?" as low coupling proxies for gdp. (Ideally one would use probabilities for loosely linked proxies like that and use the probability differences the two theories assign to give bits of evidence to one over the other, so you'd want many many such proxies, ideally uncorrelated ones)

diggan 2y ago

> Has it occurred to you that the people who feel rage fundamentally understand the situation, and you may be undereducated in this area? Regardless of how justified the rage is or not, being very emotional about things usually have one of two effects on people A) people gets taken aback by someone's strong emotions or B) people get inspired/taking with the emotion, even feeling that emotion stronger themselves. Sometimes also C) they don't really care either way. What probably isn't helpful, is calling someone is "undereducated" when they're clearly saying that they're person (A), and just because they may or may not agree with you (although parent didn't even clearly say they disagree, just that they're "taken aback" a bit). Some people are calm regardless of what's going on around them, even if the world would be on fire, they'd try to describe what's going on around them with careful words and consideration. It isn't wrong or right, just like the people who feel rage and very emotional aren't wrong or right, it's just a showcase how we're different. But we should aim to at least understand each other, not by trying to provoke, instigate or look down on others, but by asking questions to clarify and to better understand.

elorm 2y ago

You're doing the exact same thing he is addressing in that statement above. He's not belittling anyone's rage, he's speaking about people who incite others to feel the rage with them. Now let's turn your question around. Has it occurred to you that the people who feel rage fundamentally misunderstand the situation and are completely undereducated in this area, and are only fuelled by sensationalism and Media manipulation? And then I suggest you go read Dirty Politics by Kathleen Hall Jamieson if you're interested, because that's what people who want to sound more intelligent than the other half of the conversation always do. How does it help anyone?

jtrn 2y ago

Has it occurred to you that nothing is more powerful for coming up with intellectual arguments than a strong driving emotion? Yes, rage might be the appropriate and response given the situation. But it’s often true that it starts with an emotion, and then people just argue from there. Even while being wrong. Just look at all the people with contradictory opinions in history, both with strong, emotional rage, and and equally certain of their connection. Throwing the fact that people actually has a tendency to want to be angry.

normalaccess 2y ago

Rage is the fuel of the internet, but it’s fundamentally useless when it comes to seeking truth. Social media platforms are engineered to maximize engagement, and the most engaging emotion is anger. This isn’t accidental—outrage drives clicks, shares, and ad revenue. The internet has long been called a “hate machine,” and there’s plenty of truth to that. This creates an environment where misinformation and emotional appeals spread faster than facts. When discussing complex, non-trivial topics, logic and reason are the only tools that can cut through the noise. But in a system designed to reward outrage, those tools are often drowned out. I highly recommend Sam Vaknin's talk about Social Media toxicity. Sources: Outrage is the most profitable emotion https://www.cityam.com/outrage-most-profitable-emotion-so-advertisers-trying-make/ https://www.cityam.com/outrage-most-profitable-emotion-so-ad... Sam Vaknin: The TRUE Toxicity of Social Media Revealed - Interview by Richard Grannon https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o58mFU004hg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o58mFU004hg