I don't know that you're all that far apart with Maria. I disagree with some of what she said about the dangers of wokeism but I doubt she and I would fight too much if we sat down for coffee. I don't think one necessarily *should* change being 'liberal' or 'conservative'. Both are very broad, encompassing ideologies encompassing many di…
I don't know that you're all that far apart with Maria. I disagree with some of what she said about the dangers of wokeism but I doubt she and I would fight too much if we sat down for coffee. I don't think one necessarily *should* change being 'liberal' or 'conservative'. Both are very broad, encompassing ideologies encompassing many different ideas and values and policies, not all of them bad. Jonathan Haidt argues that liberals and conservatives can work together to bring out the best in both ideas, and they temper each other's tendency toward going too extreme. Like the welfare state: I believe in the need of a taxpayer-paid social safety net for people who are down on their luck, and who didn't do as well as others in the birth lottery, but it shouldn't be something you rely on and don't work, which is what conservatives worry about and liberals pooh-pooh. And I say, "Exhibit A illustrating the conservative concern is living across the hall from me." Wonderful lady, but she's got mental health issues within her control to deal with and she hasn't, and she's admitted she'd rather just continue to be taken care of by the entities who are doing so now. I don't think she's lazy, I think she'd like to have a different life but doesn't pursue it for a lot of different fears that are understandable, but not excusable.
So to talk about erasing poverty by just throwing money at it isn't the answer, as some liberals would have it, nor is it 'pulling yourself up by your bootstraps' without help from others as the Reagan-style conservatives held it. We need to help some folks with their own bootstraps, for a time anyway, but structure the safety net in such a way that people are encouraged, and pushed, to get off it unless they have *genuine* debilitating mental health issues they can't just decide to deal with.
The real problem we face is we become too married to our ideas and ideologies and don't want to hear anything that contradicts them. Often it's not wanting to admit to ourselves we were wrong about something, or it somehow offends our self-image (like challenging victimhood narratives).
I'd like to see people become less hardcore <whatever label> and treat their ideology more like a salad bar - take what works for you and leave the rest, but be mindful that what you consume and retain should be *healthy* for you and those around you.
"I don't know that you're all that far apart with Maria."
My key issue, as with a depressing number of people I come across online, is just the fixed mindset. I don't mind disagreeing with people. Obviously. But I find it really frustrating when people cling to their positions out of stubbornness.
As I said to Maria, my views are a mix of (centre-)left, (centre-)right and centre, I don't object to conservatism in and of itself at all. And I agree with Haidt about liberals and conservatives being able to work together. In fact, they need each other to temper each other's worst instincts.
One of the things I've learned from being a part of Braver Angels about many conservatives is that they see right through the deployment of tools like empathy & "help me to understand" type language as being basically just softer ways of trying to show how wrong they are and to change their minds. The implicit idea being that the conservative outlook is toxic and if only conservatives are listened to with empathy, then they will change for the supposed better. When what many conservatives actually want is to be genuinely heard and genuinely debated with, rather than "listened to" and therefore condescended to.
I see a little of that, but very little. Yes there are some rural conservatives who believe, accurately, that urban elites are indeed looking down at them. And frankly there is a lot to look down on, but that's an aside; they do have legitimate grievances at not being taken seriously.
But far more common among conservatives is the attitude that they should get everything they want, and with no delays, That their every position should immediately be realized as the law of the land and that any disagreement excuses violence. And they don't understand that so many of their positions are preposterous and intolerant.
True, but I find many on the left who believe the same. Which is why I'm becoming disaffected with the Democrats. Too much nazi-like rock-solid belief in one's own convictions with zero critical analysis. And as for violence, I was wondering this morning whether new lynch mobs might emerge not on the right, but within LGBTQ and esp trans since it's crystal-clear it's okay to threaten women with violence and fantasize about ways to kill them online, and whether eventually that normalizing language will turn into violence. The left is *always* willing to throw women under the bus and although it fancies itself the less violent wing, I always think, 'Yeah, uh, for *now*'.
I don't know that you're all that far apart with Maria. I disagree with some of what she said about the dangers of wokeism but I doubt she and I would fight too much if we sat down for coffee. I don't think one necessarily *should* change being 'liberal' or 'conservative'. Both are very broad, encompassing ideologies encompassing many different ideas and values and policies, not all of them bad. Jonathan Haidt argues that liberals and conservatives can work together to bring out the best in both ideas, and they temper each other's tendency toward going too extreme. Like the welfare state: I believe in the need of a taxpayer-paid social safety net for people who are down on their luck, and who didn't do as well as others in the birth lottery, but it shouldn't be something you rely on and don't work, which is what conservatives worry about and liberals pooh-pooh. And I say, "Exhibit A illustrating the conservative concern is living across the hall from me." Wonderful lady, but she's got mental health issues within her control to deal with and she hasn't, and she's admitted she'd rather just continue to be taken care of by the entities who are doing so now. I don't think she's lazy, I think she'd like to have a different life but doesn't pursue it for a lot of different fears that are understandable, but not excusable.
So to talk about erasing poverty by just throwing money at it isn't the answer, as some liberals would have it, nor is it 'pulling yourself up by your bootstraps' without help from others as the Reagan-style conservatives held it. We need to help some folks with their own bootstraps, for a time anyway, but structure the safety net in such a way that people are encouraged, and pushed, to get off it unless they have *genuine* debilitating mental health issues they can't just decide to deal with.
The real problem we face is we become too married to our ideas and ideologies and don't want to hear anything that contradicts them. Often it's not wanting to admit to ourselves we were wrong about something, or it somehow offends our self-image (like challenging victimhood narratives).
I'd like to see people become less hardcore <whatever label> and treat their ideology more like a salad bar - take what works for you and leave the rest, but be mindful that what you consume and retain should be *healthy* for you and those around you.
"I don't know that you're all that far apart with Maria."
My key issue, as with a depressing number of people I come across online, is just the fixed mindset. I don't mind disagreeing with people. Obviously. But I find it really frustrating when people cling to their positions out of stubbornness.
As I said to Maria, my views are a mix of (centre-)left, (centre-)right and centre, I don't object to conservatism in and of itself at all. And I agree with Haidt about liberals and conservatives being able to work together. In fact, they need each other to temper each other's worst instincts.
One of the things I've learned from being a part of Braver Angels about many conservatives is that they see right through the deployment of tools like empathy & "help me to understand" type language as being basically just softer ways of trying to show how wrong they are and to change their minds. The implicit idea being that the conservative outlook is toxic and if only conservatives are listened to with empathy, then they will change for the supposed better. When what many conservatives actually want is to be genuinely heard and genuinely debated with, rather than "listened to" and therefore condescended to.
I see a little of that, but very little. Yes there are some rural conservatives who believe, accurately, that urban elites are indeed looking down at them. And frankly there is a lot to look down on, but that's an aside; they do have legitimate grievances at not being taken seriously.
But far more common among conservatives is the attitude that they should get everything they want, and with no delays, That their every position should immediately be realized as the law of the land and that any disagreement excuses violence. And they don't understand that so many of their positions are preposterous and intolerant.
Which is why people look down at them.
True, but I find many on the left who believe the same. Which is why I'm becoming disaffected with the Democrats. Too much nazi-like rock-solid belief in one's own convictions with zero critical analysis. And as for violence, I was wondering this morning whether new lynch mobs might emerge not on the right, but within LGBTQ and esp trans since it's crystal-clear it's okay to threaten women with violence and fantasize about ways to kill them online, and whether eventually that normalizing language will turn into violence. The left is *always* willing to throw women under the bus and although it fancies itself the less violent wing, I always think, 'Yeah, uh, for *now*'.