True. There is always an ideological justification. (Doesn’t mean ideology is the *cause* of atrocities. Just that if you are gonna commit an atrocity, best if you justify it ideologically.) https://twitter.com/MillJS3/status/1162162451477127171 …
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @Moshe_Hoffman
This whole signaling/post-hoc justificationism strike me as being non explanatory. It’s like Freud saying ‘Your mama’.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mizroba
Umm, how so? You don’t think everyone always justifies? You don’t think there is a benefit to doing so? And that this is a better explanation for many beliefs than random priors or private info? (Also I didn’t say signaling. That’s very different.)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Moshe_Hoffman
This ‘explains’ every single behavior and case closed. It’s like saying magic did it. ‘...magic is only a word, not an answer. In itself, magic is a word which explains nothing.’ An act can be justified in many ways afterward. Are what justifications people choose random?
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @mizroba
No. The justifications are not random. They appear to be the best case that can be made to reconcile behavior w/ desirable values. (Eg best way to justify slavery? It ain’t that bad. They aren’t capable of self-rule...)
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Moshe_Hoffman
I’m confused. What would you recommend me to read on the subject of post-hoc rationalism and justificationism being a better explanation of a phenomenon than people’s beliefs and ideologies?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
The Rationalizing Voter was good iirc. It’s at least a good lit map.
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.