Conversation

If you think that people who vote for the political figure you disagree with must necessarily be psychopaths, complete buffoons, idiots, brainwashed, whiny, or angrily selfish, then you should seriously reconsider like, all of your beliefs in everything

100

716

Aella

@Aella_Girl

Feb 13, 2020

Because you're ascribing *morality* to your beliefs; you're focusing on the depravity of the opposition and the holiness of your own tribe. In principle, you're no better than the religious, those who go to war, and those who justified slavery

140

Aella

@Aella_Girl

Feb 13, 2020

you are utterly failing to understand that someone's brain and experience can be constructed in such a way that the opposing policies actually seem like a good, loving, helpful thing for humanity that satisfies thier deepest values. Your politics has destroyed your compassion.

155

Replying to

Isn't this thread sliding in that very direction?

Replying to

I'm not ascribing corrupt morality to anybody who fails to be compassionate; I'm just equating them to the people they hate.

Replying to

and

‘You are the same as those who justified slavery' *is* you condemning them (I fucking hope!!!)

Replying to

and

I'm saying that the methods these people are using do not, in principle, differentiate them from people who fell into other horrific belief systems, and that we should have beliefs built on principles that would actually prevent us from the other things we judge.

Replying to

and

For example, when I was religious I realized I needed to apply a type of reasoning to my own religion that would evict me from my religion if my religion was wrong, if I were to expect other people to leave their religions because their religions were wrong.

Replying to

and

What are any real world examples of people actually doing this? I may think a rich libertarian who doesn't want to pay any tax is morally corrupt, and condemn them. Maybe they genuinely believe that it's more moral, maybe it's just a convenient excuse, but like...

Replying to

and

How is that the same? They don't think poor people should receive healthcare if they can't afford it and I think... They should be condemned and not given a choice. How have I 'done the same thing I'm accusing them of doing'?

Replying to

and

?? It's a different value system. If you have a poor person who needs a wound stitched, is it justified to point a gun at a nearby doctor and force them to stitch the wound? This question balances your value of helping others vs. freedom and agency.

7:04 AM · Feb 13, 2020

Replying to

and

The people who are "anti poor people healthcare" aren't actually against poor people healthcare on principle; they're against it *when it trades off against other important things they value*, and that you probably also value too, just *less*.

Show replies

Replying to

and

Sure, and the best answers to those questions is a fundamental part of politics. Even in that hypothetical, there are obviously wrong answers, like shooting the doctor in the head because he initially said no. So we strike that off and keep going.

Replying to

and

Playing devil's advocate--if my wife was bleeding to death from said wound and I took her to a hospital and the docs all said "10k up front plus a policy that will cover the rest or you can drive somewhere else" if I have a gun, it's getting pointed at them and may well get fired