I think setting actions of various factions according to this scheme is likely to be useful in evaluating certain contemporary group behaviors
-
-
Show this thread
-
While I support (1) when possible group relations at (2) and (3) are vastly preferable to those at (4) and (5) and I wish people would put more weight on the notion of second-bests and on /relatively/ good outcomes
Show this thread -
Trying to force (1) by progressively more coercive means is I think likely to backfire in the long or even medium term. I think you only get their from bottom up dynamics, trying to force it from the top probably fosters mutual resentment
Show this thread -
And when there are genuine and insoluble disputes between groups (1) is likely impossible in any case. Inna final analysis (2) and (3) are pretty good compared to the set of likely alternatives.
Show this thread -
New conversation -
-
-
How is drawing attention to an outgroup's weird habits going to accomplish anything other than making people more aware that the outgroup is weird?
-
You defend, to your in-group, the behaviors of the outgroup that are already recognized as weird, off-putting, tribal-affiliative. But defend is more like "explain away the weirdness" by creating parallels between weird outgroup behaviors and celebrated in-group behaviors
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Always 5 for French Canadians
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
this is a finer-grained spectrum of allies analysis (active ally / passive ally / neutral / passive opponent / active opponent)
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.