[gedpeck]

Be curious. Be courteous and respectful. Be a normal, nice goddamn human to human across the table from you.

In general I wholeheartedly agree. But if the person in front of you has done or advocated for things that cause harm or is themself a horrible person then I disagree.

[hnthrowaway6543]

> But if the person in front of you has done or advocated for things that cause harm or is themself a horrible person then I disagree.

the current conflict in the middle east shows why this doesn't work in the long run.

despite what a generation that grew up consuming Marvel films was led to believe, not every conflict is a clearly defined superhero-vs-supervillain, good-vs-evil affair. eventually, you will be the one who, according to some, is advocating for things that cause harm and is considered a horrible person.

[beardedwizard]

Very underrated comment. Right and wrong are largely a function of culture, not universal law.

[sbarre]

I dunno man.. When someone advocates for treating another person as "not human" or wants to deny them basic human rights, that's universally wrong in my book.

[nathan_compton]

I think talking about whether it is universally wrong or not is a distraction. It is sufficient to simply _not like it_ without having to get the universe (which almost certainly doesn't care, at least not enough to step in and do something about it) involved.

Personally, I am a moral skeptic - I don't really believe that moral truths exist in the same way that physical truths exist. For me, the only questions are what kind of world do I want to live and and what power do I have to make the world that way?

[yread]

dehumanization of the other side is one of the most used tools of war propaganda of all sides. Just look at people in the west joking about orcs

[gedpeck]

But if someone acts inhuman then it’s justified. Russia’s war crimes are well documented and they started the war. When you are the baddies then expect to be called so.

[foxglacier]

You're still in the goodies-vs-baddies mindset. Western media pushes people into that way of thinking but it's the Marvel level view and is wrong. Also, look at all the people who think Russia is the baddies for starting that war, but Israel is the baddies despite not starting its war. That's an arbitrary standard people invented to justify their simply goodie-baddie view. If you apply a different standard to every war, then it's not really a standard, is it?

[yread]

Wait are we still in the thread discussing that it's childish to call one side baddies?

[kelnos]

But that's still too simplistic. It's certainly not fair to say that every single Russian (or non-Russian!) soldier who is or has been in Ukraine is a "baddie". Some are trapped by their circumstances to fight in a war they don't believe in and don't agree with.

It's easy to say, "well then they should refuse to fight", but you are not that person, and you don't know their struggles or what they feel they are capable of doing.

I think it's reasonable to say that Putin and his war-mongering crones are baddies, but you just said "Russia" and "they started the war". Lumping all people together like that is how we dehumanize people and fail to find common ground that can improve everyone's situation.

[beardedwizard]

I won't argue that, but there are cultures out there that disagree - so how can it be universal?

[sbarre]

I see lots of people getting hung up on the word "universally" so maybe that was the wrong choice (and also the least relevant part of my sentence but whatever).

I should have just said "wrong", plain and simple.

[j2kun]

What "culture" says it's okay to treat humans as if they are animals?

[ModernMech]

MAGA culture. Often frames people they don't like as "vermin", and it sets up a permission structure to cause violence against them by labeling them as diseased or inherently criminal.

[beardedwizard]

Whoever it is you think is out there doing it and promoting it. That's why we have phrases like "a culture of harassment", "a culture if lies", etc.

The point is things that appear as universal absolutes are not the same for everyone.

[Wolfenstein98k]

You're already doing it.

There are legitimate arguments on both sides of these issues.

Couching the Outgroup's opinion on X as "erasing" or "killing" or "dehumanising" just precludes understanding.

Religious conservatives do this with abortion for instance. Is it constructive to say that Freedom of Choice advocates actually "support murdering babies"? Does it help, or is it just in-group signalling?

[gopher_space]

> Right and wrong are largely a function of culture, not universal law.

Sure, but then you're handwaving away questions about why cultures align along similar axioms.

[hnthrowaway6543]

[flagged]

[gedpeck]

according to gedpeck, nearly everyone in Africa and Asia, and every single practicing Muslim, is a horrible person...

I said no such thing.

[mantas]

Do they? Different cultures have widely different axioms. E.g. compare Islam and Christianity. Not to begin with cultures far away geographically from each other.

[gedpeck]

Most definitely. Each person decides for themselves where the lines are drawn.

[jrflowers]

It only “doesn’t work” if your goal is to appear morally impeccable to everyone.

If instead of this worrying you

> you will be the one who, according to some, is advocating for things that cause harm and is considered a horrible person.

you have a set of morals that centers something more or different than theoretical other people’s opinions, your example of the current “conflict in the Middle East” is still a good example just not for the reason you stated. It is a perfectly valid ethical position to think that genocide is bad and that people that advocate for genocide are also bad. To pivot to “actually the Really Bad Thing would be if you said that and someone somewhere disagreed with you” is weird and hollow.

“The truly wise know that everything is morally equivalent, except for the pursuit of unbounded approval which is Good for some reason, and believing otherwise is the same thing as getting your morals from comic book movies” isn’t a coherent or defensible moral position. The Marvel movie comparison is a thought terminating cliche.

[foxglacier]

[flagged]

[jrflowers]

[flagged]

[KPGv2]

> There is no ethical requirement, upon seeing something happen in the real world, to entertain a series of hypotheticals so tedious and exhaustive that you have to throw your hands up and declare all things to be equally good and bad. That’s a weird habit!

Yeah, and this is the crux of many philosophies, most notably small-l libertarianism, where it seems like the chief appeal is that it's a simple set of axioms that can be followed to their logical conclusions for any moral question with minimal thought and maximal aesthetic "symmetry" and therefore beauty. It's easy to reason about, and therefore it's good.

It extends quite trivially from that to the so-called effective altruism, which relies on a fundamental assumption that a unit of good done to strangers on the other side of the globe is morally equivalent to a unit of good done to your neighbors. It's beautiful and therefore it's good.

It's the moral equivalent of imagining a spherical cow.

Morality is what you do in practice, not what you invent in your head. Treating him only as a literary figure, the reason Jesus is appealing to so many is not because he said "do unto others" and stopped. It's because he actually fed the poor, advocated for social justice, lifted up the injured, spoke truth to power, and gave his life for others.

[foxglacier]

No it's because genocide is too simple and poorly defined a concept to apply appropriately to every situation. It's just the result of people trying to generalize from a few specific events that happened in the past which they already decided were bad for some other reason and ended up creating the label genocide to describe them.

Look at the disagreement people have over whether Israel or Hamas committed genocide in this current war. People can't even agree on the meaning of the word as it applies there. It's a novel situation that doesn't fit the mold of what this word was invented for. Are civilians really civilians if they're complicit in the fighting as in Gaza? Are they really civilians if they've done or are still doing compulsory military service as in Israel? It's just an attempt to draw a line in the sand so people will agree what's bad.

[KPGv2]

> People can't even agree on the meaning of the word as it applies there.

The fact that your average Joe can't explain it is as material as your average Joe being unable to write a Bash script is to computer science not being a real thing.

Essentially everyone on Earth except Israelis and religious sycophants agree what Israel has done is genocide. It is ludicrous to suggest Hamas has conducted a genocide against Israel because then you'd have to say that slaves in the US conducted a genocide against slave owners.

[Suppafly]

>In general I wholeheartedly agree. But if the person in front of you has done or advocated for things that cause harm or is themself a horrible person then I disagree.

I feel like the parent comment is pretending to be deep and meaningful but is really just rehashing the 'both sides are the same' argument with a side of 'everyone is entitled to their own opinion'. It's nice to say that we should judge everyone for who they are, but if who they are is a vocal member of a group that wants to hurt other people, that's all we need to know to judge them. Pretending otherwise is silly.

[ethbr1]

The difference is between judging an individual for what they themselves say vs what identities you associate with them (or even those they associate with themselves).

[Suppafly]

>or even those they associate with themselves

I see no problem judging someone for the identities that they choose to associate themselves with.

[ethbr1]

Over and above their works and words?

[Suppafly]

Their associations are their works and words. You can't just handwave that stuff away as being irrelevant because you like the parts of their works and words that don't touch on anything you deem to be an association.

[ethbr1]

I know people of the political party I tend to disagree with who are saints and dedicate the majority of their time to others.

I know people of the political party I tend to agree with who are insufferable selfish pricks and treat others terribly.

Works and words aren't always associations.

[mecsred]

Then you don't agree at all. Every single adult in the world has "done or advocated for things that cause harm". It's inescapable.

[gedpeck]

Great harm then? I’m not morally obligated to to treat Putin with respect. Most people agree that there are people who are so reprehensible that they don’t deserve respect.

[haswell]

There are obvious bad/evil actors in the world. When people talk about engaging with other humans respectfully, they're generally not referring to the Putins of the world.

And it's pretty rare to have so much clarity about a person to know they're in the "obviously reprehensible" bucket.

I'm not saying this is what you're doing, but I often see people argue like this:

1. There are obviously bad actors in the world

2. Nobody would argue those bad actors should be given respect

3. So I won't respect people I come across who disagree with me

The fallacy is in the jump from 2 to 3, and the assumption that the existence of bad actors means the person I'm interacting with right now is one of them. The vast majority of people aren't Putin, nor can they be judged so quickly/clearly. And setting aside whether or not someone like that deserves respect, there's also a clear difference between respecting someone for who they are vs. behaving in a respectful manner out of self-preservation. The latter may ultimately keep you alive.

[gedpeck]

Herein lies the crux of the matter in my view. The jump from 2 to 3. When Bob Dole ran for President I wholeheartedly agreed with the position about being respectful to those you disagree with. Politics was still normal in the U.S. at that time. But now we in the U.S. elected a known rapist. A felon and a con man. He can’t run a charity in New York due to his misdeeds. He lusts after his own daughter. We have entered into an era where supporters of one party’s President deserve the assumption of being terrible people.

Now obviously there are many people who disagree with the above. But this is how I see things and I act accordingly. The call for civility comes from those who hold terrible beliefs. We are well into the Paradox of Tolerance situation in the U.S.

[haswell]

To me, the issue boils down to pragmatism and utility.

It’s just human psychology; people tend not to change their minds when someone screams at them and otherwise disrespects them. If the goal is to move society in any particular direction, that requires some degree of successful communication, and throwing respect out the window directly counteracts the goal. If the goal is just to hold some moral high ground for the sake of it, that’s a pointless goal if it doesn’t lead to any underlying change.

Collectively, we don’t need to change the minds of obviously evil people, but we do need to influence the population that can vote them into or out of power. I just don’t see that ever happening if your outlook on life is this extreme:

> We have entered into an era where supporters of one party’s President deserve the assumption of being terrible people

I know many people have convinced themselves that this is true, but this ultimately boils down to the question: so what then is the goal? To push these people deeper into their bubbles?

At some point one has to ask how much of the problem is being directly created by this “they’re all terrible people so I won’t even talk to them” mindset.

[gedpeck]

My personal view is as follows. American society has reached a point of no return. Something has to give before a new equilibrium has been found. As an extreme example look to Nazi Germany. The repugnant views that were normal in 1939 Germany weren’t normal in 1960 Germany. A similar (though far less extreme) change will happen in the U.S.

I have no desire to change anyone’s mind about their political views. Anyone who supports a known rapist and felon and who openly takes bribes can not be convinced of anything. I don’t engage in political discussions with such people. There is no consistency in their beliefs so no meaningful discusion can be had.

For me, my desire is secession. The country needs to beak up. This is an extreme view but will likely be increasingly held by people with similar political beliefs as mine.

[hnthrowaway6543]

"over 50% of the country i live in are irredeemably terrible people" is obviously hyperbole -- if it were true, the onus would be on you to start taking action against those terrible people. but my guess is you don't actually think they're so terrible, because you're still working your 9-5 for your terrible-person boss, getting paid like every other schmuck, and you're happy to let those irredeemably terrible people deliver your DoorDash, teach your children at public school, and keep your electricity and water running.

[KPGv2]

> my guess is you don't actually think they're so terrible, because you're still working your 9-5 for your terrible-person boss

"You continue to labor in order to feed yourself rather than suicide-bombing your neighbors, so therefore you're lying" is a HELL of a take.

[gedpeck]

"over 50% of the country i live in are irredeemably terrible people"

A large majority of the people did not vote for Donald Trump.

but my guess is you don't actually think they're so terrible,

People who support Donald Trump are, in general, terrible people. They aren’t evil people doing evil things so why would I have an obligation to take action against them?

It is a fact of life that we all must live amongst people who we think are terrible human beings. Of course I haven’t the slightest idea what a person’s views are for almost everyone I interact with. I give everyone the assumption that they deserve respect until proven otherwise.

Given the context of the thread it’s ironic that you don’t seem to understand what it means to give the assumption of respect to people. I think you edited your disparaging remarks to me. It was hilarious to read those remarks given the context of the discussion at hand. Feel free to put them back. I don’t mind them.

[ethbr1]

> The call for civility comes from those who hold terrible beliefs.

Oof, that's a lot of assumption.

[foxglacier]

Do you not see how you're part of the problem? You're applying cherry-picked standards that just happen to match what Trump did because you'd already been brainwashed to hate him and his supporters. What if you judge presidents by how many deaths they cause in wars instead of what dirty jokes they made? Wouldn't that be more meaningful measure of badness? No because you're cherry-picking to support your pre-existing hatred that you were driven to by the news and social media.

[gedpeck]

Cherry picked facts? Ha. Being a rapist is a cherry picked fact?

The difference between me and you is that I consistently apply my morals and ethics. I don’t support rapists and bribe takers for President. I didn’t support Clinton when it became clear what he did and I don’t support Trump. Have a higher standard for yourself. Don’t support bad people.

I do judge George W. Bush for the deaths he caused. Obama too.

[snowfarthing]

Do you realize the exact same things can be said about the President we had for the last four years?

It's really hard to worry about your own guy being a scumbag, when the opposition supports a scumbag too (and then lies about it).

[gedpeck]

Biden hasn’t been convicted of felonies. He’s not an adjudicated rapist. He doesn’t refer to his daughter as a nice piece of ass. He isn’t banned from running a charity. He hasn’t bribed any porn stars. He hasn’t accepted $30 billion in bribes. He hasn’t taken secret documents to illegally keep in his bathroom. He hasn’t met with Putin alone without an interpreter or any other U.S. official present. He hasn’t made fun of a reporter’s disability. He didn’t appoint his son-in-law to be an advisor who then accepted bribes from Saudi Arabia. He hasn’t engaged in Twitter feuds with 15 year old kids from Sweden. He didn’t threaten to withhold disaster aid to states that didn’t vote for him.

Nothing I’ve said against Trump is about his politics. He, as a person, is narcissistic, self centered, selfish, boorish, infantile, incurious, lustful, and greedy. He’s a despicable person and those who support him are terrible people.

[tombert]

No, I don't really think you're right about this.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. That's a right I wouldn't take away form them even if I could.

They are not entitled to me being nice to them. Fuck that; if they advocate for something that I think is harmful, then I'm not going to be "respectful" to them.

My grandmother in no uncertain terms said that my wife should be deported. She doesn't have any power deport my wife, so she wouldn't fall into the "bad actor" in your definition, but she's made her opinion clear on that.

I could swallow my pride, roll my eyes, and ignore the horrible racist shit she says, but why exactly? The whole point of free speech is the ability to criticize bad ideas, and sometimes that's going to involve hurting a Republican's feelings.

[mecsred]

Sure I can support that. The difficulty as always comes with the grey area in defining "great". There are truly reprehensible people in the world, but they're the exception not the norm. I see you did address that in your comment with "in general" so I was a bit strong in my wording, but I do believe the in general case covers >99.99% of people.

[femiagbabiaka]

It’s like.. incredibly escapable. Nihilism makes for a weak argument

[AlexandrB]

Moral hubris - where one believes all of one's positions are morally correct - is the shortest path to becoming a monster.

[femiagbabiaka]

Stupid and vapid. Tech is already full to the brim with people with zero moral convictions aside from the things that get them paid. Those are the real monsters

[AlexandrB]

At least someone being paid to make your life worse can often also be paid to stop. I'm more afraid of someone convinced that they're saving the world as they destroy it instead.

[femiagbabiaka]

Why are you writing in the tone of a Christoper Nolan movie? These hypotheticals have literally nothing to do with real life.

[CivBase]

What constitutes "harm"? Is hurting someone's feelings harm? Is misinformation harm? How do you determine intention? To what extent does intention matter? How do circumstances impact the answers to these questions?

When your creed is basically "I only hate bad people", you have given yourself permission to hate anyone and feel righteously justified about it. And you'll never feel the need to empathize because bad people always deserve whatever bad things happen to them.

You don't need to love everyone unconditionally, but clearly more neuance is needed.

[gedpeck]

What constitutes "harm"? Is hurting someone's feelings harm? Is misinformation harm? How do you determine intention? To what extent does intention matter? How do circumstances impact the answers to these questions?

I know the answers to these questions…for me. Each person decides for themselves where the lines are drawn. It has always been this way.

[yibg]

My challenge is I can’t even tell if me and someone else are seeing the same facts. Take trump for example. Policies etc I may disagree on but I can see why someone else would support them.

As a person, looking at everything he says and does I can only conclude that he’s a narcissist that only cares about himself. But then there are a lot of trump supporters that are convinced he cares about them and the country. What am I missing that we can come to such dramatically different conclusions?

[ethbr1]

Fair, but in our current times using someone's identity as a justification to act like an asshole to them is a sith's whisper.

We all have our less enlightened moments. Better we not afford ourselves easy intellectual justifications for being our worst selves.

As the quip goes: the greatest evils are perpetrated by those most assured of their own righteousness.

Edit: Or in video form. Beginning summary: "brick suit guy" was apparently an extremely aggressive heckler of the media at Trump rallies. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fRSIv7alUZ8&t=95s

[gedpeck]

In normal times I would agree with you. At present in the U.S. I’d not agree with this sentiment. People who support electing a known racist, thief, con man, and felon are deserving of ridicule and ire. They don’t deserve respect in my opinion.

When the politics of a nation shift so far in one direction we get into a situation where supporters of that shift don’t deserve respect. Stalinist Soviet Union is an extreme example of this.

[ethbr1]

So what lengths do you think you're justified going to against individuals you disagree with?

And how do you feel about them feeling the same about you?

Mutual righteous hostility is why ethnic and religious wars simmer forever, because there's always a convenient justification for acting violently towards others (and them towards you).

[gedpeck]

… justified going to against individuals you disagree with?

I don’t do anything at this time. But I understand why there are those who do have vitriol for supporters of a rapist who lusts after his own daughter. There are times when a nation’s society fractures as the social cohesion evaporates. We are beginning to be in such a time in the U.S. Well, it appears that way to me. Only time will tell.