[TheCleric]

I think this goes to something I’ve been seeing a lot of lately. People will hold an opinion for emotional reasons instead of logical reasons, and those speaking to them will get frustrated trying to “logic” them out of it (evidence, studies, facts, etc). It doesn’t work because they came to the opinion first and veneered it with logic afterwards. If you tear down the logic, the emotional substructure is still there. I have no idea how to solve this. The only people who have abandoned emotional beliefs I’ve seen have to come to that realization on their own.

[appreciatorBus]

IMO this describes the author of the article. They have an emotional discomfort with various inequities & inequalities which drive their advocacy of UBI & other measures and they aren't interested reason, arguments or logic. The guy has been obsessed with UBI since he was 15, no one is going to talk him out of it, no matter how bad the evidence is.

[globalnode]

>emotional discomfort with various inequities & inequalities

you say it like thats a bad thing

[appreciatorBus]

Not at all.

Feeling emotional discomfort with inequities and inequalities is a common human trait, probably nearly universal.

But there’s no reason to suspect that that discomfort is a good guide toward solutions that help more than harm.

That sort of facile engagement with the problem is what gives us disastrous ideologies like communism.

[card_zero]

Potential confusion of valid moral arguments with emotional arguments, though.

I mean, one might conceptually bundle together practicality, pragmatism, and logic, and then say that caring about anything or having any principles or values is emotional and illogical. (This also gives us disastrous ideologies like communism, and may also be used to force favorite ideas because they're "scientific".)

[globalnode]

what dont you like about communism? do you even know? not a huge fan of extremism personally im just curious on your take.

[itsdrewmiller]

The article itself seems quite reasonable - why do you say the author isn’t interested in logic?

[PopAlongKid]

>something I’ve been seeing a lot of lately

It's not only recent, according to this quote from 300 years ago.

Jonathan Swift — 'It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.'

[m463]

I think there are a bunch of uncomfortable gut reactions that people just "conveniently leave out" of the argument.

Stuff like "why should I pay for this", or "why should they get to be lazy while I work" or "I don't feel like I should work as hard"

So they find other arguments, in a doth-protest-too-much-other-logic-arguments way.

[dboreham]

This is in general how the human brain works. Unfortunately.

[AnimalMuppet]

I had a friend who was a Christian evangelist to cult members. He said that they would be a cult member as long as they wanted to be a cult member. The only way was to move them to the place where they didn't want to be in the cult anymore.

The way he did it was to preach their cult's doctrine to them. "OK, according to your church's teaching, here's the requirements for you to be saved. How are you doing? Are you going to make it? How much harder are you going to have to work in order to make it? Will even working harder be enough to get you there?" When the weight of what their belief system actually demanded of them sunk in, some of them didn't want to be in the cult anymore.

Some of them. A few. Not many. But some.

[locopati]

your friend was trying to get them out of one cult and into another?

[xtiansimon]

Just a small digression on the singular notion of “emotional reasons”.

One can be dispassionate and distant from one’s beliefs and still difficult to convince, because we all harbor some forms of _private reasoning_ about how the world works. If I have strong personal beliefs, they may be gathered from experience of decades. Not going to easily change my world view.

Add maybe a few _false beliefs_ for the xtra complication? (Not even considering the paradox of lying).

Finally, the emotional spin appears as _cynical reasoning_, that toxic mix of anger and resentment. The logic-warrior who ventures here is brave indeed.

[globalnode]

We'll never have a ubi in a opportunistic greed based economy. How are you going to convince "mr i want all the resources" that they should share for the wellbeing of other people (and indirectly for the benefit of themselves but they dont look that far)? its about the foundations our economic systems are built on.

edit: oh and without sounding too conspiratorial hopefully... how are you going to control a populace that isnt desperate, downtrodden and uneducated... /end conspiracy

[bigyabai]

You're describing the tragedy of the commons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

I don't personally advocate for UBI, but I'll counter your question with another question; how are individuals supposed to have class mobility in an economy where the majority of transactions are speculative? The traditional "work hard and retire eventually" mindset is not going to last forever. Today's workers are paying yesterday's pensioners.

[globalnode]

A ubi based economy would require more protectionism from govt of finite resources and perhaps even a carrot based incentive system to get people to do less desirable activities. I dont think a ubi economy would have to be entirely flat in terms of wealth, there should always be incentives for people who want more. I'd rather have more sharing of a protected commons than a few oligarchs having it all to themselves.