(draft) some levels of tolerance in the SSC sense 1. actively supporting/defending outgroups weird habits 2. paying Outgroup no mind 3. avoiding Outgroup when possible 4. taking actions likely to harm Outgroup (negligent) 5. taking actions likely to harm Outgroup (malice)
-
-
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 -
-
-
You are advocating for a nuanced approach in 2020. Good luck.
-
if for no ones good but my own
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
i think people put a lot of weight on that, particularly people in outgroups
-
American political history in terms of outgroup participation is a long-term, heroic effort to move from 5 to about an optimistic 3
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
the issue is people who A) insist that any outgroup-harming action is, at worst, morally neutral and B) insist that anyone who thinks differently actually supports the outgroup.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
oh hey, woah woah, we got a "the perfect is the enemy of the good" guy over here ~all of your fellow American compatriots
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
2/3 seems to me like the ideal state of affairs. But I dislike all people, and prefer to pay no mind or avoid even the ingroup.
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.