I'm not sure how to clarify my thoughts on this one without going into my own personal rules of thumb.
For example - I don't know anyone who wakes up in the morning and says "I'm going to be an evil person today". Seems sort of self-evident when you put it like that, but the implications are deep. That means, for example, that climate-change deniers are not saying to themselves "I'm going to pretend that climate change is not an issue so that I can make money, and screw everyone else!"
Any counter-argument that assumes they are greedy and deliberately lying will not be very effective, since it doesn't match their own experience as to why they believe what they do, and why the people they know came to the same conclusions. You can call them names all you want, but you're pretty much just preaching to the choir, and maybe even doing some virtue signaling or trying to overwhelm the opposition with a show of strength. You are not persuading anyone to change sides, and you're not really engaging in debate.
Given my own experiences (with conservative and liberal relatives of various stripes), I would say they are sincere in their beliefs and are not malicious or deliberately hurtful.
If everyone is trying to do the right thing - in their own minds at least - and aren't trying to screw everyone else over, then why do we have such wildly different opinions on things?
That's where it gets complicated, of course. Some of it has to do with our tendency to confuse what's good for us with what's good for everyone. Some of it has to do with life experiences, and the lack of familiarity with what life is like for those are different (i.e. living in a bubble. How can someone who is rich, and surrounded by rich people, understand what life is like for those who are poor? And vice versa, but we generally aren't as concerned with that.)
And then there are those who, for whatever reason, have learned to justify less than ideal behavior. There are people who deliberately lie, cheat, and steal. I doubt they think of it that way themselves, though. Like the con-artist's code, they find a way of making it seem like everyone else deserves what they get.
Finally, there are those who believe that the ends justify the means. The ones who don't see themselves winning in an open and honest market of ideas (either because they believe their opponents won't let them, or because they believe people are too dumb to know what's good for them) and basically will justify doing whatever it takes to win in the face of it. These are, in some ways, the most dangerous ones. You see it with terrorists, who believe murder and violence is justified if it leads to their honorable goal (anarchy, Catholic rule, Islamic Caliphate, etc.)
Yet that same mentality can be used to justify less violent acts. Like spreading misleading information. Conducting a character assassination. Manipulating public opinion with twitter bots, paid internet trolls, or a well-placed person in the media industry.
I don't know how often political adversaries have convinced themselves of their arguments first (and are simply spreading things they believe in, as well), versus cynically manipulating people with arguments they don't personally believe. IMHO the former fits in with human biases of one sort or another, whereas the second is more problematic.
For example - I don't know anyone who wakes up in the morning and says "I'm going to be an evil person today". Seems sort of self-evident when you put it like that, but the implications are deep. That means, for example, that climate-change deniers are not saying to themselves "I'm going to pretend that climate change is not an issue so that I can make money, and screw everyone else!"
Any counter-argument that assumes they are greedy and deliberately lying will not be very effective, since it doesn't match their own experience as to why they believe what they do, and why the people they know came to the same conclusions. You can call them names all you want, but you're pretty much just preaching to the choir, and maybe even doing some virtue signaling or trying to overwhelm the opposition with a show of strength. You are not persuading anyone to change sides, and you're not really engaging in debate.
Given my own experiences (with conservative and liberal relatives of various stripes), I would say they are sincere in their beliefs and are not malicious or deliberately hurtful.
If everyone is trying to do the right thing - in their own minds at least - and aren't trying to screw everyone else over, then why do we have such wildly different opinions on things?
That's where it gets complicated, of course. Some of it has to do with our tendency to confuse what's good for us with what's good for everyone. Some of it has to do with life experiences, and the lack of familiarity with what life is like for those are different (i.e. living in a bubble. How can someone who is rich, and surrounded by rich people, understand what life is like for those who are poor? And vice versa, but we generally aren't as concerned with that.)
And then there are those who, for whatever reason, have learned to justify less than ideal behavior. There are people who deliberately lie, cheat, and steal. I doubt they think of it that way themselves, though. Like the con-artist's code, they find a way of making it seem like everyone else deserves what they get.
Finally, there are those who believe that the ends justify the means. The ones who don't see themselves winning in an open and honest market of ideas (either because they believe their opponents won't let them, or because they believe people are too dumb to know what's good for them) and basically will justify doing whatever it takes to win in the face of it. These are, in some ways, the most dangerous ones. You see it with terrorists, who believe murder and violence is justified if it leads to their honorable goal (anarchy, Catholic rule, Islamic Caliphate, etc.)
Yet that same mentality can be used to justify less violent acts. Like spreading misleading information. Conducting a character assassination. Manipulating public opinion with twitter bots, paid internet trolls, or a well-placed person in the media industry.
I don't know how often political adversaries have convinced themselves of their arguments first (and are simply spreading things they believe in, as well), versus cynically manipulating people with arguments they don't personally believe. IMHO the former fits in with human biases of one sort or another, whereas the second is more problematic.
No comments:
Post a Comment