4 ms·

Traditional anthropological ingroups and outgroups are defined by "random" characteristics: ethnicity, language, religion, dress, etc. Many previous well-known

Traditional anthropological ingroups and outgroups are defined by "random" characteristics: ethnicity, language, religion, dress, etc. Many previous well-known essays and studies have pointed out that the primary difference between Blue and Red is that they perceive ethics (not just ingroup traditions/taboos/etc. and folkways) differently. In the modern day, if not the past, we can tolerate outgroups that have different taboos (eating shellfish), have different mandatory standards of politeness (bowing, formal versus informal address to seniors and strangers), etc. In the modern day we have narrowed down the set of things where it is acceptable to take the high moral ground on differences. It's no longer ok to hate (or even disapprove) on the basis of differences in ethnicity, language, religion, etc. But there are still other morals; for most Reds it's acceptable to disapprove various things that have become unacceptable to disapprove to Blues, and both parties regard the other side as immoral on those points. I fault the current article for not taking into account those past essays and studies.

convexfunction 11y ago
Whether or not a thing falls under the domain of "morality" is a function of many arguments--it depends on the thing itself, as well as who, where, and when you are. Do you really think that historically, people who hated their outgroup had the thought "outgroup is bad because they have slightly different folkways and speak another language" in their heads? It always gets cast as an issue of morality. Always. You identify the outgroup by their folkways and language (we're no different there), but it always get rationalized as some irreconcilable difference in something that's extremely important ("morality").
- DougMerritt 11y ago
  You are in violent agreement with what I said. I rewrote it several times before posting to make sure that I didn't fall into that trap. I basically said that the number of things considered acceptable to be moral about has decreased, and that the current set is different between Blues and Reds. > always gets cast as an issue of morality. Always. That is a laughable overstatement. There are always some people who are happy to hate without any rationalization for it. You're merely talking about the times that people stop and rationalize it.

convexfunction 11y ago

Whether or not a thing falls under the domain of "morality" is a function of many arguments--it depends on the thing itself, as well as who, where, and when you are. Do you really think that historically, people who hated their outgroup had the thought "outgroup is bad because they have slightly different folkways and speak another language" in their heads? It always gets cast as an issue of morality. Always. You identify the outgroup by their folkways and language (we're no different there), but it always get rationalized as some irreconcilable difference in something that's extremely important ("morality").

DougMerritt 11y ago
You are in violent agreement with what I said. I rewrote it several times before posting to make sure that I didn't fall into that trap. I basically said that the number of things considered acceptable to be moral about has decreased, and that the current set is different between Blues and Reds. > always gets cast as an issue of morality. Always. That is a laughable overstatement. There are always some people who are happy to hate without any rationalization for it. You're merely talking about the times that people stop and rationalize it.