5 ms·

The more I learn, and the more versed I become with society, the harder and harder it becomes to see what is "good" and what is "bad". The most confident I eve

The more I learn, and the more versed I become with society, the harder and harder it becomes to see what is "good" and what is "bad". The most confident I ever was that I was "obviously correct" was when I was 20.

ragequittah 3mo ago
This reads somewhat like the older I get the less morals I have. If you have a hard time seeing the wild amount of bad in the world right now you're probably profiting from it in some way.
- jolmg 3mo ago
  Or you lack perspective. Also, it's not about not being able to see any bad, but some things that obviously seemed correct, stop seeming so obvious. Reminds me of that clip where a man in some TV show gets slapped by the woman host and he slaps her back. Then a bunch of men from the audience come to beat him up. It's one thing to have the moral "never hit a woman" and "protect women", but if women abuse these views to mistreat and humiliate others without consequence, that doesn't seem right either. It doesn't seem right for the men to have beat him up for defending himself. They thought they were being moral, but they weren't. Sometimes moral views can require nuance. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4akMaeZ0-k&t=58 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4akMaeZ0-k&t=58
  - andrewflnr 3mo ago
    Speaking of perspective and nuance: violent self defense is justified to defend one's safety. But a slap by, let's be honest, a relatively physically weak person is not a credible threat to safety. It's just an insult. On the other hand, physical abuse of women by men is much more common and dangerous, and there's a utilitarian argument that society should treat it more harshly. Not saying the guys beating up the other guy were moral, but it's easy to argue they were closer.
  - ragequittah 3mo ago
    That is a good example actually. The reason women are typically not as harshly criticized for hitting men is that they are almost certainly physically weaker. It's also the reason why men typically feel safe with a woman walking behind them in a dark alley while the other way around it's terrifying. That's not to say we shouldn't criticize the woman for hitting the man, just that men have the onus to show more restraint in such a situation. Now for all we know the woman was physically stronger than the man in the instance you're speaking of (doubtful) and hitting her back wasn't that big a deal or even deserved. But as a societal norm we should be dissuading men from hitting women even if they're hit first otherwise you might often get a major injury in exchange for a minor sting. And it's a FAFO situation when you break these norms. But I find it hard to see the nuance in much of the political nonsense going on right now (which is what I thought you were speaking of). Mass surveillance that doesn't seem to offer any security in return? Obviously bad. Things like measles, the screwworm, and cyclospora coming back due to political posturing or just plain ignorance? Obviously bad. Again I don't see how you could possibly be on the fence about a lot of the politics going on right now unless it's benefiting you in some way. Not all politics mind you, I'm sure you can find some nuggets of good in there somewhere too. But if you're having a tough time determining the bad things currently as prices for everything are rising and the world is in constant turmoil I want whatever drugs you're taking.
inigyou 3mo ago
Be careful. Some actors are deliberately muddying the waters of good and bad. For example, vaccines are pretty good, but some groups want you to be unsure if they're good or bad.
- Cyph0n 3mo ago
  Precisely. Bad actors desire complexity because it leads to indifference. The “good” side therefore needs to fight that complexity with simplicity and empathy. “Unions can be corrupt” or “You don’t need unions to get your voice heard” is the kind of rhetoric that leads to disinterest in unions over the years.
  - jolmg 3mo ago
    It can go both ways. Bad actors can simplify because it leads to indifference, by way of generalizations. "black" = "bad", "illegal immigrant" = "gang member". It's how racism works. > The “good” side therefore needs to fight that complexity with simplicity and empathy. Empathy, yes. Simplicity doesn't normally lead to empathy; complexity does.
    - inigyou 3mo ago
      [flagged]
      - consensus1 3mo ago
        [flagged]
        jolmg 3mo ago
        Political extremes will be extreme. Centrists can hold both.
        inigyou 3mo ago
        AFAIK this generally isn't true. About the centrists, I mean. Most self-identified centrists are just moderate right-wingers.

ragequittah 3mo ago

This reads somewhat like the older I get the less morals I have. If you have a hard time seeing the wild amount of bad in the world right now you're probably profiting from it in some way.

jolmg 3mo ago
Or you lack perspective. Also, it's not about not being able to see any bad, but some things that obviously seemed correct, stop seeming so obvious. Reminds me of that clip where a man in some TV show gets slapped by the woman host and he slaps her back. Then a bunch of men from the audience come to beat him up. It's one thing to have the moral "never hit a woman" and "protect women", but if women abuse these views to mistreat and humiliate others without consequence, that doesn't seem right either. It doesn't seem right for the men to have beat him up for defending himself. They thought they were being moral, but they weren't. Sometimes moral views can require nuance. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4akMaeZ0-k&t=58 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4akMaeZ0-k&t=58
- andrewflnr 3mo ago
  Speaking of perspective and nuance: violent self defense is justified to defend one's safety. But a slap by, let's be honest, a relatively physically weak person is not a credible threat to safety. It's just an insult. On the other hand, physical abuse of women by men is much more common and dangerous, and there's a utilitarian argument that society should treat it more harshly. Not saying the guys beating up the other guy were moral, but it's easy to argue they were closer.
- ragequittah 3mo ago
  That is a good example actually. The reason women are typically not as harshly criticized for hitting men is that they are almost certainly physically weaker. It's also the reason why men typically feel safe with a woman walking behind them in a dark alley while the other way around it's terrifying. That's not to say we shouldn't criticize the woman for hitting the man, just that men have the onus to show more restraint in such a situation. Now for all we know the woman was physically stronger than the man in the instance you're speaking of (doubtful) and hitting her back wasn't that big a deal or even deserved. But as a societal norm we should be dissuading men from hitting women even if they're hit first otherwise you might often get a major injury in exchange for a minor sting. And it's a FAFO situation when you break these norms. But I find it hard to see the nuance in much of the political nonsense going on right now (which is what I thought you were speaking of). Mass surveillance that doesn't seem to offer any security in return? Obviously bad. Things like measles, the screwworm, and cyclospora coming back due to political posturing or just plain ignorance? Obviously bad. Again I don't see how you could possibly be on the fence about a lot of the politics going on right now unless it's benefiting you in some way. Not all politics mind you, I'm sure you can find some nuggets of good in there somewhere too. But if you're having a tough time determining the bad things currently as prices for everything are rising and the world is in constant turmoil I want whatever drugs you're taking.

inigyou 3mo ago

Be careful. Some actors are deliberately muddying the waters of good and bad. For example, vaccines are pretty good, but some groups want you to be unsure if they're good or bad.

Cyph0n 3mo ago
Precisely. Bad actors desire complexity because it leads to indifference. The “good” side therefore needs to fight that complexity with simplicity and empathy. “Unions can be corrupt” or “You don’t need unions to get your voice heard” is the kind of rhetoric that leads to disinterest in unions over the years.
- jolmg 3mo ago
  It can go both ways. Bad actors can simplify because it leads to indifference, by way of generalizations. "black" = "bad", "illegal immigrant" = "gang member". It's how racism works. > The “good” side therefore needs to fight that complexity with simplicity and empathy. Empathy, yes. Simplicity doesn't normally lead to empathy; complexity does.
  - inigyou 3mo ago
    [flagged]
    - consensus1 3mo ago
      [flagged]
      - jolmg 3mo ago
        Political extremes will be extreme. Centrists can hold both.
        inigyou 3mo ago
        AFAIK this generally isn't true. About the centrists, I mean. Most self-identified centrists are just moderate right-wingers.