|
|
|
|
|
by notacoward
1626 days ago
|
|
Perhaps it's not explicit in the context provided, but Haidt was talking about priorities. Most people believe in all things on the list. The question is which way they'll decide when they encounter a conflict between two (or more) of these values. Which one do they preserve, and which do they suspend? It's the literal definition of a moral dilemma, and people have been pondering these questions for thousands of years. The only "bubble" is the one where someone has never encountered this idea before, and jumps from suspension of a value (in the face of a higher moral imperative) to its absolute negation. |
|
Sounds like unscientific terms used to demonize an large group by choosing favorable characteristics for one group and unfavorable characteristics for another.
Conservatives do it also by characterizing liberals as emotional and irrational and bleeding heart and impractical and incompetent furry avocado toast eaters.
I don't know how accurate these labels are for large groups of tens of millions of people.
Sounds like the kind of thing people want to hear to feel a moral superiority over a group that they differ from, exactly what the article describes.
It's like saying all Arabs have terroristic tendencies.
I would love to see Book sales of that specific book broken down by political region.