8 ms·

I struggle with this. Where I live, it's harder nowadays to compartmentalize how someone votes from their core values. What we used to call "politics" now enc

I struggle with this. Where I live, it's harder nowadays to compartmentalize how someone votes from their core values. What we used to call "politics" now encompasses some fundamental aspects of how we observe and process our daily lives.

mkozlows 1mo ago
It always did, we just had the norm that in a liberal democracy, we put that to the side for our dealings with people. Same thing as religion -- a huge deal that shapes people's values and attitudes about the most core aspects of life -- and there was a norm of "no politics or religion" in polite conversation.
RussianBot9580 1mo ago
It might help to realize that this is a uniquely American affliction. People almost anywhere else simply don't consider politics (or race or gender for that matter) to be nearly as important. This would then let you see your neighbors as people. What you claim are core values are nothing of the sort. They are misconceptions invented by your in-group to dehumanize the out-group. In reality people's core values are: their kids, their health, love, belonging, a sense of purpose. The rest is just a puppet master hijacking these core values for organizing a crowd.
- PaulDavisThe1st 1mo ago
  Counterpoint: what you want to claim are core values are actually window dressing to hide how people see the out-group. Who doesn't "love their kids" or fall in love, or want a sense of belonging (ok, a few), or a sense of purpose (ok, a few more). These are not statements about anyone's core values, they're statements about what it is to be human. Core values are about how you treat people who are NOT close to you, how you believe limited resources should be allocated, how and by whom you think decisions should be made, what the relationship between individuals and society ought to be, and specifically between individuals and government.
  - RussianBot9580 28d ago
    That also sounds nice on the surface - but has the same problem. Political positions disguised as core human values. Allow me to explain. You say "values like how you treat people who are NOT close to you". Which is really code for "people who like open immigration policies are virtuous and people who oppose them are bad and/or less intelligent". But once you drill down to details - the picture changes. This kind of sentiment is used to drum up support for very specific pieces of very questionable legislation. Why should a specific ethnic group with a large and powerful diaspora get a free pass to ignore immigration laws, but other ethnic groups get the book? How is this about being virtuous and treating people NOT close to you equally? Well, you aren't allowed to ask these questions - you don't want to be a part of the dumb racist outgroup, do you?
    - jdauriemma 28d ago
      That's a narrower framing than I had in mind for my original comment. My whole point is that "politics" has transcended any single issue and has become indicative of a much broader world view. Sure, if you zoom in on any policy question you'll find plenty of places where reasonable people can honestly disagree. But that's not the way our political system functions.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 28d ago
      You're reading things into what I wrote that are not there. I have not suggested that any particular stance towards people who are not close to you is virtuous. What I wrote is not "code for" anything. If your core values are the there should no border controls at all, those are your core values. If your core values are that we should very tightly controlled borders, those are your core values. If your core values are that we should let in more Norwegians and less Bangladeshis, or vice versa, then those are your core values. My point wasn't that a particular set of core values are virtuous, it was that core values are not things like "loving my kids".
      - RussianBot9580 27d ago
        Well - what's a core value? I'd say that if you can remove a value and still stay "you" then that value wasn't really core. By that definition maybe even "loving my kids" wouldn't pass the test, as Viktor Frankl explains better than anyone could. As for immigration, it is no accident that anti-immigrant rhetoric is on the rise precisely when the economy is doing poorly. When there were enough resources to go around - there wasn't nearly as much reason to oppose immigration. Which means that "my family is financially secure" is a much more core value for most people than being open to the world (even if they'll never admit it).
TimTheTinker 1mo ago
> What we used to call "politics" now encompasses some fundamental aspects That's less true IRL if you just talk to people and be personable. There's something about seeing someone face to face and chatting that helps you intuitively understand you have a lot in common with them (or not) - and regardless of their political opinions either way. I find that the sorts of life choices people make and the character they have as a result is a far better discriminator of what they actually have in common (or don't) with others.
- jdauriemma 29d ago
  I do talk to people. A lot. I live in a politically mixed area, a lean-red town in a solid-blue US state. Most people keep their "political" leanings to themselves but it doesn't take very long to get a clue. I'm thinking of one friend-of-a-friend with whom I interact fairly frequently. I know their views on current events not because they've said anything directly to me but they're active on Facebook and other friends have shown me some posts. What do I do? Pretend it doesn't bother me that they have chosen to advance causes that I believe are actively undermining our society? Right now I'm polite to them. But I feel like it's dishonest on some level.
  - TimTheTinker 29d ago
    Speaking from my own moral compass - I don't think there's a moral obligation to bring up politics with people I know with whom I disagree. They have their opinion, I have mine. I think that's even true when a horrible ideology is gripping a nation. The Bolsheviks and Red Guards were not to be reasoned with by neighbors in their heyday. "The wise man sees trouble coming and hides himself."
    - TimTheTinker 27d ago
      I'm reconsidering here - there's a long distance between "someone believes in a harmful ideology" and "someone is an informant". So yes - there's ample room to talk with people. "He who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save a soul from death and cover a multitude of sins" (James)

mkozlows 1mo ago

It always did, we just had the norm that in a liberal democracy, we put that to the side for our dealings with people. Same thing as religion -- a huge deal that shapes people's values and attitudes about the most core aspects of life -- and there was a norm of "no politics or religion" in polite conversation.

RussianBot9580 1mo ago

It might help to realize that this is a uniquely American affliction. People almost anywhere else simply don't consider politics (or race or gender for that matter) to be nearly as important. This would then let you see your neighbors as people. What you claim are core values are nothing of the sort. They are misconceptions invented by your in-group to dehumanize the out-group. In reality people's core values are: their kids, their health, love, belonging, a sense of purpose. The rest is just a puppet master hijacking these core values for organizing a crowd.

PaulDavisThe1st 1mo ago
Counterpoint: what you want to claim are core values are actually window dressing to hide how people see the out-group. Who doesn't "love their kids" or fall in love, or want a sense of belonging (ok, a few), or a sense of purpose (ok, a few more). These are not statements about anyone's core values, they're statements about what it is to be human. Core values are about how you treat people who are NOT close to you, how you believe limited resources should be allocated, how and by whom you think decisions should be made, what the relationship between individuals and society ought to be, and specifically between individuals and government.
- RussianBot9580 28d ago
  That also sounds nice on the surface - but has the same problem. Political positions disguised as core human values. Allow me to explain. You say "values like how you treat people who are NOT close to you". Which is really code for "people who like open immigration policies are virtuous and people who oppose them are bad and/or less intelligent". But once you drill down to details - the picture changes. This kind of sentiment is used to drum up support for very specific pieces of very questionable legislation. Why should a specific ethnic group with a large and powerful diaspora get a free pass to ignore immigration laws, but other ethnic groups get the book? How is this about being virtuous and treating people NOT close to you equally? Well, you aren't allowed to ask these questions - you don't want to be a part of the dumb racist outgroup, do you?
  - jdauriemma 28d ago
    That's a narrower framing than I had in mind for my original comment. My whole point is that "politics" has transcended any single issue and has become indicative of a much broader world view. Sure, if you zoom in on any policy question you'll find plenty of places where reasonable people can honestly disagree. But that's not the way our political system functions.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 28d ago
    You're reading things into what I wrote that are not there. I have not suggested that any particular stance towards people who are not close to you is virtuous. What I wrote is not "code for" anything. If your core values are the there should no border controls at all, those are your core values. If your core values are that we should very tightly controlled borders, those are your core values. If your core values are that we should let in more Norwegians and less Bangladeshis, or vice versa, then those are your core values. My point wasn't that a particular set of core values are virtuous, it was that core values are not things like "loving my kids".
    - RussianBot9580 27d ago
      Well - what's a core value? I'd say that if you can remove a value and still stay "you" then that value wasn't really core. By that definition maybe even "loving my kids" wouldn't pass the test, as Viktor Frankl explains better than anyone could. As for immigration, it is no accident that anti-immigrant rhetoric is on the rise precisely when the economy is doing poorly. When there were enough resources to go around - there wasn't nearly as much reason to oppose immigration. Which means that "my family is financially secure" is a much more core value for most people than being open to the world (even if they'll never admit it).

TimTheTinker 1mo ago

> What we used to call "politics" now encompasses some fundamental aspects That's less true IRL if you just talk to people and be personable. There's something about seeing someone face to face and chatting that helps you intuitively understand you have a lot in common with them (or not) - and regardless of their political opinions either way. I find that the sorts of life choices people make and the character they have as a result is a far better discriminator of what they actually have in common (or don't) with others.

jdauriemma 29d ago
I do talk to people. A lot. I live in a politically mixed area, a lean-red town in a solid-blue US state. Most people keep their "political" leanings to themselves but it doesn't take very long to get a clue. I'm thinking of one friend-of-a-friend with whom I interact fairly frequently. I know their views on current events not because they've said anything directly to me but they're active on Facebook and other friends have shown me some posts. What do I do? Pretend it doesn't bother me that they have chosen to advance causes that I believe are actively undermining our society? Right now I'm polite to them. But I feel like it's dishonest on some level.
- TimTheTinker 29d ago
  Speaking from my own moral compass - I don't think there's a moral obligation to bring up politics with people I know with whom I disagree. They have their opinion, I have mine. I think that's even true when a horrible ideology is gripping a nation. The Bolsheviks and Red Guards were not to be reasoned with by neighbors in their heyday. "The wise man sees trouble coming and hides himself."
  - TimTheTinker 27d ago
    I'm reconsidering here - there's a long distance between "someone believes in a harmful ideology" and "someone is an informant". So yes - there's ample room to talk with people. "He who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save a soul from death and cover a multitude of sins" (James)