People become convinced that they're "good people" and stop examining beyond that. Because clearly if they're not good people, they're bad people, and they only have bad things to say about bad people, while so many good things to say about themselves, so they must be good. There are no good or bad people - certainly not in any absolute sense. There are good and bad deeds, and the people that do them, but they can only be judged on their actions, not some innate "goodness." >
> Everyone needs to be aware that they're imperfect, and must be willing to examine whether or not something that they've done could be bad to someone else, as well as actually stopping to examine whether what they want is actually good. Because it's an easy trap to fall into, thinking that you have good intentions because you're good, and will thus only do good. It's very easy to find your way on the path to hell by never examining whether any of that lines up to reality.
Funny thing is: people on the right ànd the left will watch this and think: ah yes, that's exactly what's going on with the people who I disagree with... while it's applicable to each and everyone of us (except me, of course)
I don’t think “willful ignorance” captures 100% of this phenomenon, unless I have an erroneous internalization of the phrase. Above and beyond simply refusing to self educate, amathia seems to be the leveraging of your intellect to rationalize your already-held beliefs so that you remain “right” without actually acknowledging your ignorance
If we , the ppl of this planet, would accept that it is not just the other side of the political spectrum, who is affected by this, we would at least understand why it’s so difficult to change. (e.g. act on climate change)
A few days ago, lots and lots of Imgurians wished death upon me, cuz I wanted Ukraine to tackle corruption before joining EU. The safe space nature of Imgur breeds what this vid talks about.
You said "[Zelensky] might play a role but it’s a good role and he plays it well. I hope he knows that he has to leave if he wants Ukraine in EU. He is sadly part of the corrupt establishment. We won’t let a billionaire less pseudo democracy into EU. It took us decades to get rid of Orban and we wouldn’t let trumps US in, so we won’t let the second most corrupt country in Europe in (1st is Russia)"
I am unsure of how getting rid of Zelensky would help or why billionaires are necessary.
Read on, he is a billionaires guy. He was the figurehead of a billionaires campaign. Like Vance is of thiele. Selenskjys billionary is Kolomojskjy. No corrupted politicians pls.
Ukraine is the second most corrupt country in europa, after Russia. It is worlds more corrupt than Hungary, an Hungary was unbearably corrupt in the heart of Europe. Ukraine in this state should not be in eu.
I think most discussions these days, especially online are between opposing moral believes. If you were open to radically flip your morals because someone offered you an alternative, you have none. That's why these discussions are completely useless, or performative for the spectators at best. In discussions between people with shared moral believes (offline or, when online usually in more private spaces) when facts, observations and conclusions are shares, people are much more willing to learn
There's a difference between what I'll call axiomatic beliefs - stuff you just have to assert, like "people being happy is good" and "you can know things about the world by observing it" - factual beliefs - e.g. "JFK was shot by Lee Harvey Oswald" - and derived beliefs - e.g. "Land Value Tax would be a good policy" - which come from arguing the relationship between your axiomatic and factual beliefs. If I disagree with someone about a derived belief because we disagree on factual beliefs /1
Then that can be resolved by discussing the facts, or the methods used to derive or weight those facts. Maybe you think LVT is a bad idea because you think assigning fair values to land would be too hard to implement, we can discuss methodologies for doing so, it's a fair concern. The issue is when you disagree with someone's derived beliefs because you disagree with their axiomatic beliefs. Someone who thinks that gibletizing children is okay because they just don't consider inflicting pain /2
To be bad, or a thing to be avoided. There's no level at which you could really argue with them, because that's not something that they argued to arrive at. It's like disagreeing about whether or not 5 has a square root, because one person is using the reals and the other is using the integers. At a certain point, even if someone has all the correct facts and impregnable logic, you can still disagree with them if you have different axiomatic beliefs. 3/3
This became a trait of the left (some of it) about a decade, decade and a half, ago too. Didn’t used to be. Say something like “well maybe it’s not fair for a biological man to compete in physical sports against women” “let me explain” and wooooooo you become just barely less evil than Hitler.
Pretty sure I remember your username from other threads. I've watched others try to gently and carefully explain why the science doesn't agree with you. Link studies and meta-analyses that go into careful detail about why you're misinformed, and even summerize the findings for you when you don't read them.
And then, a few days later, you're in another thread "just asking [the same] questions". At some point, it becomes sealioning and people (rightfully) stop engaging.
This is exactly the point. You THINK you’re right, because you’re defending your tribal take. There is zero way I you give me gender surgery and make it fair for me to wrestle biological woman my age. Add this fucking righteousness to it, and it’s exactly what’s being described. And, nothing, has been “gentle
You, on the other hand, refuse to read any of the scientific literature. Instead, you just go online and preemptively whinge about people calling you out on your bullshit.
Also, you know people can see your comment history, yeah? You rarely engage with the polite folks. You're not looking to learn.
Have you read that abstract? It doesn’t say what you’re suggesting it does. It certainly DOES say the issues needs a lot more research and discussion. Which has been my take all along. I do competitive archery and for some reason they do it by men and woman, even though that’s silly (the strength needed is eagle obtained by healthy men or woman) and because it’s a male dominated sport good female archers compete against like 2-3 woman while men are groups of like 40-50.
All the woman hate it, and the men think it’s silly - but it stays the rule. That’s a sport that nobody should give a damn about men or woman or trans or anything. On the other hand high school boys set better times than ALL TIME woman Olympic scores in the 100 meter dash like regularly. Maybe we should have a discussion about that one with trans athletes.
It's definitely not just billionaires and MAGA. A ton of people left of MAGA are just as guilty of this sort of thing even if they may have stumbled or lucked into better overall views. If you do not make a genuine effort to deconstruct and rebuild your existing views or if you prioritize proving your viewpoint is correct over understanding someone else's argument, you are guilty of what's being described.
The problem is when you do it enough, you end up with a very small "tribe" because people care more about the things they dislike than the things they like. It only takes one or two contrary opinions for someone to decide you're not on their team any more, even if, for example, you've voted the same way as them your whole life.
You're not wrong. Even just stating a nuanced version of the position everyone is otherwise agreeing with can get you booted out when people are trying to use zeal as an indicator of group membership. I get it to a point because people are tired of "polite" fascists trying to slip heinous ideas into conversations, but there's a point where paranoia is eroding our own ability to engage in the intellectual exercise that is necessary to refine and strengthen our own perspectives and understanding.
Right. It's the prioritization of doctrine over principles. For example, in the moral landscape, someone who wants legal immigration to be easier while also deporting violent criminals is far closer to an "open borders" type person, but the doctrinal political outlook will put them into the same political category as those who want to put kids in cages and hunt immigrants with rifles from helicopters.
You know, I don't agree with that, and here's this 12 page dissertation that I've recorded as a 5-part YouTube series explaining why this only applies to my enemies. (/s, painful as it is to feel the need to say so)
He's exactly right. Thinking further, let's say I successfully built an identity as a permantently curious person, I pride myself on my ability to discard opinions and beliefs once disproven. Let's further assume I'm not full of shit and actually manage to do that and actually want to understand.
Still, I find myself in tribalism opposed to people I deem ignorant. And it's extremely hard to give the "ignorant" the benefit of the doubt, tribalism in humans is extremely powerful. 1/2
Tribalism is deeply, DEEPLY ingrained into human society. It exists in every facet of our lives, everywhere we go. It has for ages. That sort of pervasiveness is tough to overcome. So try not to beat yourself up too much over it. The best you can do is try to recognize when it's happening, stop, and mentally reset if you can. You don't have to be perfect. Nobody is. But you do have to try.
In this scenario, for all enlightening and resoning and thinking and learning, I still turn out to be an arrogant tool, who struggles to see others for their humanity and complex inner worlds, just because they say stuff that I think is fucking dumb. 2/2
On the same token, there are absolutely opinions and positions that are objectively wrong on their face. This exact idea, that ALL arguments merit the careful examination and possible reconstruction of your own outlook, is what Sealions exploit in order to mire down genuine discourse.
The world is not flat. Vaccines do not cause autism. Ivermectin doesn't cure COVID. Trans rights are human rights.
i have enough struggle learning my own complex inner world and those i find agreeable. i do wish to expand and understand that which i dont. or event cant. but in trying to understand those who i will never get i often find someone who rarely wants to give. occasionally its the type that cant or wont politely for various reasons. others its someone who i cant tell if they are unable because they ONLY want to talk and wont listen. or honestly sometimes more frustratingly. the type that might >
> feel they have been "challenged" into a corner and to to shift to another topic till the discussion becomes and impossible to untangle web of topics. something i aware I'm not wholly immune to myself whether it be simple meandering of complex issues or occasional fallacy.
it might be incorrect in its own way but with this ive come to my own conclusion of imperfection. i do my best with the limited patience i have, and if someone argues in clear bad faith, or frankly is unwilling to have a >
> dialogue. then i do my best do disengage. even poor experiences can be used to expand and learn from but i am finite. i think its healthy too allow ourselves imperfection even at our best for the sake of our sanity.
as oft attributed to voltaire, "perfect is the enemy of good." do your best to be good
Huor
Luckily I'm one of the "vanishingly small" minority of people who only speak the truth. Y'all are ig'nint!
Navrodel
People become convinced that they're "good people" and stop examining beyond that. Because clearly if they're not good people, they're bad people, and they only have bad things to say about bad people, while so many good things to say about themselves, so they must be good.
There are no good or bad people - certainly not in any absolute sense. There are good and bad deeds, and the people that do them, but they can only be judged on their actions, not some innate "goodness." >
Navrodel
> Everyone needs to be aware that they're imperfect, and must be willing to examine whether or not something that they've done could be bad to someone else, as well as actually stopping to examine whether what they want is actually good.
Because it's an easy trap to fall into, thinking that you have good intentions because you're good, and will thus only do good.
It's very easy to find your way on the path to hell by never examining whether any of that lines up to reality.
WhyTellMeWhyTellMeWhyShouldICare
Funny thing is: people on the right ànd the left will watch this and think: ah yes, that's exactly what's going on with the people who I disagree with... while it's applicable to each and everyone of us (except me, of course)
laurapede83
Nowadays we spell it t-r-u-m-p or m-a-g-a.
Thorketil
Unfortunately, this phenomenon goes far beyond MAGA. You can encounter people with this attitude everywhere.
imjustheretoholdyourhandwhenyoudie
You can tell which one people are when they are wrong about something. We’re all both sometimes but you really want to minimize the confirmation bias.
Grapeape2000
I like to go through the exercise of thinking "what if I'm wrong"
CorgisButtsDriveMeNuts
Nice
Any source?
CaldariBob
In English, we call that "willful ignorance". Same connotations.
cansado
I don’t think “willful ignorance” captures 100% of this phenomenon, unless I have an erroneous internalization of the phrase. Above and beyond simply refusing to self educate, amathia seems to be the leveraging of your intellect to rationalize your already-held beliefs so that you remain “right” without actually acknowledging your ignorance
DukeofKMS
If we , the ppl of this planet, would accept that it is not just the other side of the political spectrum, who is affected by this, we would at least understand why it’s so difficult to change. (e.g. act on climate change)
DukeofKMS
A few days ago, lots and lots of Imgurians wished death upon me, cuz I wanted Ukraine to tackle corruption before joining EU. The safe space nature of Imgur breeds what this vid talks about.
MrAcurite
You said "[Zelensky] might play a role but it’s a good role and he plays it well. I hope he knows that he has to leave if he wants Ukraine in EU. He is sadly part of the corrupt establishment. We won’t let a billionaire less pseudo democracy into EU. It took us decades to get rid of Orban and we wouldn’t let trumps US in, so we won’t let the second most corrupt country in Europe in (1st is Russia)"
I am unsure of how getting rid of Zelensky would help or why billionaires are necessary.
DukeofKMS
Read on, he is a billionaires guy. He was the figurehead of a billionaires campaign. Like Vance is of thiele. Selenskjys billionary is Kolomojskjy. No corrupted politicians pls.
DukeofKMS
Ukraine is the second most corrupt country in europa, after Russia. It is worlds more corrupt than Hungary, an Hungary was unbearably corrupt in the heart of Europe. Ukraine in this state should not be in eu.
Maraxus
I think most discussions these days, especially online are between opposing moral believes. If you were open to radically flip your morals because someone offered you an alternative, you have none. That's why these discussions are completely useless, or performative for the spectators at best. In discussions between people with shared moral believes (offline or, when online usually in more private spaces) when facts, observations and conclusions are shares, people are much more willing to learn
MrAcurite
There's a difference between what I'll call axiomatic beliefs - stuff you just have to assert, like "people being happy is good" and "you can know things about the world by observing it" - factual beliefs - e.g. "JFK was shot by Lee Harvey Oswald" - and derived beliefs - e.g. "Land Value Tax would be a good policy" - which come from arguing the relationship between your axiomatic and factual beliefs. If I disagree with someone about a derived belief because we disagree on factual beliefs /1
MrAcurite
Then that can be resolved by discussing the facts, or the methods used to derive or weight those facts. Maybe you think LVT is a bad idea because you think assigning fair values to land would be too hard to implement, we can discuss methodologies for doing so, it's a fair concern. The issue is when you disagree with someone's derived beliefs because you disagree with their axiomatic beliefs. Someone who thinks that gibletizing children is okay because they just don't consider inflicting pain /2
MrAcurite
To be bad, or a thing to be avoided. There's no level at which you could really argue with them, because that's not something that they argued to arrive at. It's like disagreeing about whether or not 5 has a square root, because one person is using the reals and the other is using the integers. At a certain point, even if someone has all the correct facts and impregnable logic, you can still disagree with them if you have different axiomatic beliefs. 3/3
MrAcurite
Addendum; I forget why this was originally a response to @Maraxus, or where I was originally going with this. So... there you go.
Imjurbro
This became a trait of the left (some of it) about a decade, decade and a half, ago too. Didn’t used to be. Say something like “well maybe it’s not fair for a biological man to compete in physical sports against women” “let me explain” and wooooooo you become just barely less evil than Hitler.
LoudBirb
Pretty sure I remember your username from other threads. I've watched others try to gently and carefully explain why the science doesn't agree with you. Link studies and meta-analyses that go into careful detail about why you're misinformed, and even summerize the findings for you when you don't read them.
And then, a few days later, you're in another thread "just asking [the same] questions". At some point, it becomes sealioning and people (rightfully) stop engaging.
Imjurbro
This is exactly the point. You THINK you’re right, because you’re defending your tribal take. There is zero way I you give me gender surgery and make it fair for me to wrestle biological woman my age. Add this fucking righteousness to it, and it’s exactly what’s being described. And, nothing, has been “gentle
LoudBirb
I don't think it, I know it. And it has nothing to do with tribalism and everything to do with scientific studies analyzing this exact subject:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10641525/
You, on the other hand, refuse to read any of the scientific literature. Instead, you just go online and preemptively whinge about people calling you out on your bullshit.
Also, you know people can see your comment history, yeah? You rarely engage with the polite folks. You're not looking to learn.
Imjurbro
Have you read that abstract? It doesn’t say what you’re suggesting it does. It certainly DOES say the issues needs a lot more research and discussion. Which has been my take all along. I do competitive archery and for some reason they do it by men and woman, even though that’s silly (the strength needed is eagle obtained by healthy men or woman) and because it’s a male dominated sport good female archers compete against like 2-3 woman while men are groups of like 40-50.
Imjurbro
All the woman hate it, and the men think it’s silly - but it stays the rule. That’s a sport that nobody should give a damn about men or woman or trans or anything. On the other hand high school boys set better times than ALL TIME woman Olympic scores in the 100 meter dash like regularly. Maybe we should have a discussion about that one with trans athletes.
mksu
It's definitely not just billionaires and MAGA. A ton of people left of MAGA are just as guilty of this sort of thing even if they may have stumbled or lucked into better overall views. If you do not make a genuine effort to deconstruct and rebuild your existing views or if you prioritize proving your viewpoint is correct over understanding someone else's argument, you are guilty of what's being described.
DevilsAdvocat
yep, was about to comment on how comically yet painfully ironic and tone deaf the title of this post is..
Eldis
Here we go with the bothsides again.
Fuck off.
mksu
You're doing the thing.
causality
The problem is when you do it enough, you end up with a very small "tribe" because people care more about the things they dislike than the things they like. It only takes one or two contrary opinions for someone to decide you're not on their team any more, even if, for example, you've voted the same way as them your whole life.
mksu
You're not wrong. Even just stating a nuanced version of the position everyone is otherwise agreeing with can get you booted out when people are trying to use zeal as an indicator of group membership. I get it to a point because people are tired of "polite" fascists trying to slip heinous ideas into conversations, but there's a point where paranoia is eroding our own ability to engage in the intellectual exercise that is necessary to refine and strengthen our own perspectives and understanding.
causality
Right. It's the prioritization of doctrine over principles. For example, in the moral landscape, someone who wants legal immigration to be easier while also deporting violent criminals is far closer to an "open borders" type person, but the doctrinal political outlook will put them into the same political category as those who want to put kids in cages and hunt immigrants with rifles from helicopters.
ChazzK
You know, I don't agree with that, and here's this 12 page dissertation that I've recorded as a 5-part YouTube series explaining why this only applies to my enemies.
(/s, painful as it is to feel the need to say so)
Blunderwriter
Does it have ads? 'cause I aint watching no fuckin' ads!!
Blunderwriter
:P or /S or any other if that was not gleefully understood...meh...shrug...and all that.
ItsMoreComplicatedThanThis
He's exactly right. Thinking further, let's say I successfully built an identity as a permantently curious person, I pride myself on my ability to discard opinions and beliefs once disproven. Let's further assume I'm not full of shit and actually manage to do that and actually want to understand.
Still, I find myself in tribalism opposed to people I deem ignorant. And it's extremely hard to give the "ignorant" the benefit of the doubt, tribalism in humans is extremely powerful. 1/2
unluckyandbored
Tribalism is deeply, DEEPLY ingrained into human society. It exists in every facet of our lives, everywhere we go. It has for ages. That sort of pervasiveness is tough to overcome. So try not to beat yourself up too much over it. The best you can do is try to recognize when it's happening, stop, and mentally reset if you can. You don't have to be perfect. Nobody is. But you do have to try.
ItsMoreComplicatedThanThis
<3
ItsMoreComplicatedThanThis
In this scenario, for all enlightening and resoning and thinking and learning, I still turn out to be an arrogant tool, who struggles to see others for their humanity and complex inner worlds, just because they say stuff that I think is fucking dumb. 2/2
LoudBirb
On the same token, there are absolutely opinions and positions that are objectively wrong on their face. This exact idea, that ALL arguments merit the careful examination and possible reconstruction of your own outlook, is what Sealions exploit in order to mire down genuine discourse.
The world is not flat. Vaccines do not cause autism. Ivermectin doesn't cure COVID. Trans rights are human rights.
shigetsu
i have enough struggle learning my own complex inner world and those i find agreeable. i do wish to expand and understand that which i dont. or event cant. but in trying to understand those who i will never get i often find someone who rarely wants to give. occasionally its the type that cant or wont politely for various reasons. others its someone who i cant tell if they are unable because they ONLY want to talk and wont listen. or honestly sometimes more frustratingly. the type that might >
shigetsu
> feel they have been "challenged" into a corner and to to shift to another topic till the discussion becomes and impossible to untangle web of topics. something i aware I'm not wholly immune to myself whether it be simple meandering of complex issues or occasional fallacy.
it might be incorrect in its own way but with this ive come to my own conclusion of imperfection. i do my best with the limited patience i have, and if someone argues in clear bad faith, or frankly is unwilling to have a >
shigetsu
> dialogue. then i do my best do disengage. even poor experiences can be used to expand and learn from but i am finite. i think its healthy too allow ourselves imperfection even at our best for the sake of our sanity.
as oft attributed to voltaire, "perfect is the enemy of good." do your best to be good