[jonhohle]

I've been thinking _a lot_ about this recently and how to communicate this in a loving way because I think it's critically important to understand that people have differing priorities that aren't necessarily morally wrong, just different.

Jonathan Haidt's TED talks[0] are a good starting point. Getting people from both sides of an argument to see others as humans, neighbors, partners and how different perspectives add value.

Miyazaki comes to mind quite a bit. For the most part the "villains" in his movies are easy to empathize with and the protagonists learn about their goals and view points and work within those to solve the problem they originally set out to solve. I'd like to think people within a country are more like Ashitaka, San, and Lady Eboshi than Luke Skywalker and Emperor Palpatine.

My own personal conviction would like to see more constructive action from everybody. I don't consider threatening people, screaming at others, demeaning them, or name calling constructive. I think if more people found thing they thought could make _any_ impact, and went and helped real people, a lot more would be done than by lamenting the current state of the universe. And unless you need help, don't talk about it, don't expect anything in return, and don't put down others for not thinking the areas you choose to focus on aren't as important as the areas they've chosen to focus on.

0 - https://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind , https://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_can_a_divided_ameri...

[mlevental]

I don't believe in this kind of moral relativism - my intent was not to relativise but to explain. You can believe you're moral and be immoral. I don't believe in vitriol only because it is ineffectual - I don't care if some regressive's feelings are hurt. I think power needs to be wrested from the conservative class - that means more progressives in law schools, in b schools, on judiciaries, in office, on boards.

[jonhohle]

I don't believe in moral relativism either, however, what you believe is moral and just is likely different from what I believe is moral and just. I'm sure I'm right (except where I'm wrong ;-) and I'm sure you believe you're right. If we differ, I believe one of us is wrong.

However, when we come to such an impasse, I'd prefer to acknowledge it, respect one another, and come to a common solution. What common things do opposing groups have in common and how can that be built on?

With the knowledge that I'm stepping into the deep end: many conservatives are convinced that life starts at conception and believe abortion is equivalent to murder. How would you react if your government was legally permitting selective death of a class of people who could not defend themselves?

Another group of people are convinced that separating children from families detained at the border is equivalent to putting them in concentration camps. How would you react if your government was allowing a class of people to be detained without charge?

For whatever reason, it seems many people choose to think one is OK and not the other (sure, there's nuance), but in both cases the outraged party has complete conviction that their view is correct and logical justification for why.

Calling the other group regressive, libtard, or any other demeaning name and showing disgust for them rather than understanding the perspective that their coming from makes it easier to treat the other with disrespect and dismiss their views no matter how sane or logical they may be. Both political cultures have deep contradictions. I see the current political climate as not dissimilar from Cowboys vs. Packers fans. Flip flop on issues all you want, as long as it means winning.

It may not seem like it, but there are very good and culturally healthy reasons to have conservative and progressive viewpoints. I say this outside of a political context.

[mlevental]

>no matter how sane or logical they may be

this presumes all perspectives are equally as sane/logical. that's not the case: any group of people can choose to believe anything they'd like and structure their politics around those beliefs. that doesn't mean they're legitimate beliefs or politics.

i can understand why someone might believe the earth is flat and why that's a value for them, or why climate change isn't real and that's a value. that doesn't mean i'm going to try to compromise with either of these political identities.

[jonhohle]

I don’t need to accept that the earth is flat to fight for increased government transparency (something flat earthers would be interested in). I don’t need to deny climate change to find other benefits to promote more efficient energy use.

I think most people would agree that the US healthcare system is overly-expensive, complicated, and excludes a vulnerable portion of the population. That doesn’t mean the right solution is federal health insurance or even single payer.

tl;dr I don’t need to change someone else’s beliefs to work towards mutually beneficial goals.

[mlevental]

>I don’t need to accept that the earth is flat to fight for increased government transparency (something flat earthers would be interested in)

can you show me anything (other than your most charitable interpretation of the realization of that political identity) that suggests this is what they want?

>I don’t need to deny climate change to find other benefits to promote more efficient energy use.

can you explain to me why we should operate this way? sure i can come up with all sorts of alternative explanations for why environmentally friendly energy sources are good (solar jobs blah blah blah) that might be more amenable to climate-change deniers but why does it have to be this way?

how about anti-vaxxers and the like? how about birthers? how about sovereign-citizens? how many different narratives do i need to construct in order to get buy-in for something that's rigorously verified and people are simply obdurate with respect to? is the reason that that's how it is now because certain groups have as much power as they do?

>I don’t need to change someone else’s beliefs to work towards mutually beneficial goals.

there are people with whom you do not have common cause. or maybe not you. but there are certainly peoples that are marginalized to such an extent that they do not have common cause with any in power. should they being playing these creative games as well?

[jonhohle]

I’ve only spent a small amount of time reading about the motivations of flat earthers, but IIRC, the best I could come up with was TPTB hiding the truth from the populace. It seemed like a lot of effort to me for little benefit, but there are areas where I think we would all benefit from odd things the government has done. The others are mostly the same - distrust in government - something the left seems to be embracing whilst out of power.

In many of those cases, flat earth, birther, sovereign citizen - there is no obvious impact to me except maybe some Minor annoyance. I could see an argument for anti-vaxxers potentially being dangerous, but people should have control over what goes into their own bodies - and from what I know about them, it’s not the vaccine that’s largely a concern, but the other stuff which may or may not come with it.

Charity (and charitable interpretation) is a big portion of it. In many cases people have fears that aren’t being addressed and want to protect themselves and their families. In some cases there may be mental health issues that predispose certain types of thinking. But ultimately, we’re all humans with differing priorities. If another group is making a good faith attempt at pursuing their priorities, treating eahcother fairly and with respect should be the default.

If someone threatens to harm me or my family based on our differing beliefs, affiliations, or priorities, it only makes forward progress difficult. Based on my own family, I prefer to think communication is a more likely issue than 50% of the population being wrong and stupid.