"I didn't express myself very well. I had news yesterday that one of my best and oldest friends just died; I've known her over 20 years and spoke to her only a few weeks ago,"
Oh, I'm really sorry for your loss Chris.
No, my opening line isn't about being "externally forced" into binaries. It's simply noting that people like them and that…
"I didn't express myself very well. I had news yesterday that one of my best and oldest friends just died; I've known her over 20 years and spoke to her only a few weeks ago,"
Oh, I'm really sorry for your loss Chris.
No, my opening line isn't about being "externally forced" into binaries. It's simply noting that people like them and that they're almost always a terrible (or at least limited and inaccurate) way of looking at the world. One of the reasons why discourse is in such a mess is that some people can't (or won't) think outside of them. But nuance and complexity and intelligent discourse requires recognising that very few things are "black and white".
Again, I disagree that *most* Republicans are rabid bigots. I think that this is an incredibly simplistic and sensationalist way of looking at millions of people that doesn't do your intelligence justice. But one thing I have noticed, both on the left and the right, is that people's willingness to express empathy for somebody depends on what concessions they think that empathy might require to their political or philosophical position.
Sitting behind a screen, behind some anonymous avatar, it's easy to say thoughtless, callous things about, say, Tamir Rice, that they wouldn't dream of saying about a boy in their community that they knew. And they're especially motivated to do that if the implications of their empathy would be that they should have a sane conversation about the Second Amendment, say. It's easy to talk about human life in a heartless, mechanical way when separated from the implications.
Consider even how we talk about war or COVID or human rights violations on the other side of the world. Even those of us who care about these things talk in a way that doesn't truly respect the lives of the people affected. Because it can't. Would the people who supported the Afghanistan withdrawal be willing look at an Afghan women in the eye and say that enough money and time has been spent trying to help her? Would those who thought Allied forces should stay be willing to look a young soldier in the eyes and tell them to go risk their life?
It's impossible to give each side the weight it deserves. So these conversations become philosophical debates that would sound monstrous to the people actually living with the consequences. This is just one example of why it's not a simple black/white, right/wrong issue.
So yes, I know that some people use "who gets to decide" or "it's not one or the other" to stifle debate. But I don't. So I'm not sure why you keep reminding me of what these people do. The fact that people arguing in bad-faith use an argument doesn't necessarily mean that the argument itself is rotten to its core.
"I didn't express myself very well. I had news yesterday that one of my best and oldest friends just died; I've known her over 20 years and spoke to her only a few weeks ago,"
Oh, I'm really sorry for your loss Chris.
No, my opening line isn't about being "externally forced" into binaries. It's simply noting that people like them and that they're almost always a terrible (or at least limited and inaccurate) way of looking at the world. One of the reasons why discourse is in such a mess is that some people can't (or won't) think outside of them. But nuance and complexity and intelligent discourse requires recognising that very few things are "black and white".
Again, I disagree that *most* Republicans are rabid bigots. I think that this is an incredibly simplistic and sensationalist way of looking at millions of people that doesn't do your intelligence justice. But one thing I have noticed, both on the left and the right, is that people's willingness to express empathy for somebody depends on what concessions they think that empathy might require to their political or philosophical position.
Sitting behind a screen, behind some anonymous avatar, it's easy to say thoughtless, callous things about, say, Tamir Rice, that they wouldn't dream of saying about a boy in their community that they knew. And they're especially motivated to do that if the implications of their empathy would be that they should have a sane conversation about the Second Amendment, say. It's easy to talk about human life in a heartless, mechanical way when separated from the implications.
Consider even how we talk about war or COVID or human rights violations on the other side of the world. Even those of us who care about these things talk in a way that doesn't truly respect the lives of the people affected. Because it can't. Would the people who supported the Afghanistan withdrawal be willing look at an Afghan women in the eye and say that enough money and time has been spent trying to help her? Would those who thought Allied forces should stay be willing to look a young soldier in the eyes and tell them to go risk their life?
It's impossible to give each side the weight it deserves. So these conversations become philosophical debates that would sound monstrous to the people actually living with the consequences. This is just one example of why it's not a simple black/white, right/wrong issue.
So yes, I know that some people use "who gets to decide" or "it's not one or the other" to stifle debate. But I don't. So I'm not sure why you keep reminding me of what these people do. The fact that people arguing in bad-faith use an argument doesn't necessarily mean that the argument itself is rotten to its core.