For all of the author's bloviating and self-congratulating navel gazing, the article manages to largely overlook values, the only mention of them being to dismissively reduce them to irrational tribalism.
In truth, values and ethics are fundamental to effectively discussing politics. After all, all political decisions are ultimately about how we want to shape the world that we as humans live in. There can be no agreement about economic policy without a shared understanding of the ultimate goal of an economy. No agreement about foreign relations without a shared understanding of the role of nations as representatives for groups of humans, and how we believe one group of humans should interact with another group of humans through the lens of nations.
For the last 20 years at least, the leadership of the two main political parties in the US have largely invested in messaging around the values that they represent. The policies are different too, but over time we've gone from a world where there were at least some cases where the two parties had different policies for how to reach the same goals, and into a world where the parties policies are aiming to realize fundamentally different visions of the world, based on fundamentally different values.
In this world, asking "who did you vote for" isn't a matter of tribalism, but it is a (good) proxy for asking someone "what are your values". If you discover that someone has completely different values from you, then discussing policy isn't going to be useful anyway, because there's no way you'll agree on a single policy when you have different fundamental values.
I consider this type of thinking to be a form of tribalism because you're essentially saying there are two tribes. Each tribe has specific values.
A person's values are not a dichotomy (i.e. republican or democrat). You simply cannot put people into two buckets that define their overarching moral compass.
A person can be transphobic but support abortion so they have always voted Democrat...or hate everything about Republican values except they got burned by Obamacare so they vote Republican. There is virtually an infinite level of nuance that can be a deciding factor in why someone votes for someone.
> person can be transphobic but support abortion so they have always voted Democrat
The term you're looking for is political coherence, i.e. the degree to which you can predict a person's views based on knowing their view on one issue. Political elites tend to be highly coherent. If you know a Congressperson's views on guns, you probably know them on abortion and corporate taxes.
In the real world, however, votes tend not to be politically coherent. Instead, what we see in a hyperpartisan polity, is that a diverse set of views collapses after an issue achieves partisan identity status. Talking about a thing through a partisan lens is what causes the partisan collapse. Hence the effects of mass and then social media on the quality of our discussions.
(And I agree with OP that the author's "I'm above politics" stance is naively immature.)
Coherence might not the word you're looking for. The policies of political parties and groups are born out of historical circumstances and the diverse coalitions they represent. Political elites are "coherent" in the sense that you can expect them to consistently follow the party line, and thus infer all of their views just by knowing one of their views.
The party line, i.e. platform of the Democratic and Republican parties, or any other large political party in the world, is, by itself, nothing coherent though. Many of their policies and claims do not make any more sense besides each other than they would make against each other. Realignments on issues are pretty common across the world. What is left-wing in one part of the world at one point of time might be rightist across space and time.
> transphobic but support abortion so they have always voted Democrat
This is the NYT if you want a high-profile example of this existing in the real world.
I worked with a guy who was a goldmine of odd but sincerely held political opinions that subverted the usual narratives. He was (I guess still is) gay but believed that trans people shouldn't serve in the military because he saw that they didn't get the treatment they needed. He wanted everyone to have guns as a protection against crooked cops-- he was from a small town. He was against single-payer healthcare because he thought the government would use it as a political weapon. He was was in theory anti-union because he thought union benefits should just be turned into labor protections for everyone instead of just being for union jobs and supported them only as a stopgap. He was pro-solar/wind and had an electric car not for any environmental reason but because he didn't want to be reliant on the greedy power company.
To me that just sounds like someone who arrives at his political views by thinking rather than blindly adopting whatever his peers believe. It's only odd because it's (sadly) rare these days.
> the parties policies are aiming to realize fundamentally different visions of the world, based on fundamentally different values
This is an incorrect and cynical statement. I understand why you feel this way (for one thing, it's the exact type of language coming out of many of each party's idealists) but it's simply false.
One party supports gun rights while the other supports gun control. Those aren't values. Democrats want to pursue safety from guns. Republicans want to pursue safety from tyranny. Both sides care about personal safety.
Abortion rights is about personal liberty. Gun rights are also about personal liberty. Both sides care about personal liberty.
The competing talking points aren't always conveniently about the same issue though. For Democrats their border policies are about compassion and human rights. For Republicans their border policies are about domestic prosperity.
Do Republicans care about human rights? Yes. Do Democrats care about domestic prosperity? Yes. To pretend otherwise is to willfully push apart the tribes in your own mind, and to trivialize the perspective of the opposition.
The real problem is the one you are contributing to: the unwillingness to empathize. Empathy is the only way to come to a compromise. With a little empathy you might even find that you have to compromise less because you might actually convince someone of your argument, for once.
Imho opinion, what you are describing are republicans of the past. As parent says, there used to be shared values. Two of the shared valued were peaceful transition of power and respect for the rule of law / division of power between executive, legislative and judiciary.
Imho the values of MAGA republicans are clearly distinct from GWB republicans (even if it may be precisely the same voters). Specifically the two values described above are no longer shared values.
I believe there are more, but for the two values above we have irrevocable proof.
> what you are describing are republicans of the past
I know it seems that way but it has always seemed that way. Republicans talk about Democrats of the past (southern Democrats). Democrats talk about Republicans of the past (Lincoln). This feeling isn't new.
> Two of the shared valued were peaceful transition of power and respect for the rule of law / division of power between executive, legislative and judiciary.
Re: peaceful transition of power the Republicans insist (whether true or not) that January 6th was peaceful. The value is still there. Re: the rule of law, Republicans claim they are abiding by the law. (Are they not?) The value is still there. Division of power is certainly coming under question with the actions of DOGE, but I don't think the mere existence of DOGE is evidence that Republicans don't value the division of power. Some of these things aren't immediately obvious to everyone, especially if they are determined to be legal (whether we like the law or not).
We must resist the urge to demonize and dehumanize the opposition. That is exactly what is happening: even with our comments and upvotes we are collectively deciding that the opposition is out of their minds and are increasingly a foe to be vanquished. That is, frankly, stupidity of the masses.
If someone changes and begins to continually insists that something plainly untrue is true, does that mean that they possibly still have the values they used to? How long do you continue defending the "well, maybe..." case?
Throw out the Jan 6th example, it's now ancient history. As a party, Republicans are, at this very instant, claiming that judges are acting illegally for... using their constitutionally mandated legal powers. Simultaneously, but separately, the party apparatus is repeating on a daily basis a new conspiracy theory that the judges they don't like are being controlled by some nefarious power.
And it's a very, very well established playbook. We have many examples of countries that dismantled their systems of transition of power and division of power starting with the courts. It's a move that could pretty much make it into a "For Dummies" book.
"The value is still there." I can't see it. But maybe I'm too focused on judging on the entire scope of action and speech, rather than a very narrow bit of speech that isn't at all reflected in actions.
While you broadly make a great point, there are psychological dimensions to take into consideration. Some people's personalities are more inclined toward tribalistic thinking and will extend their capacity for empathy only toward their own in-group, while others are capable of expanding the "in-group" to include all of humanity. So while it may be true to say that Republicans care about human rights, it is more accurate to say they care about their OWN human rights, and not the rights of people outside their in-group.
If you want to remove the political labeling from this statement, about 30% of the population "thinks" (or, rather, does not think, but acts) this way, and it is important to realize that the motivating factor differs between them and the other type of human, who cares about people in the abstract.
The modern Trump controlled Republican party is not a party that cares about personal liberties. It is a fascist, authoritarian project that is toying with straight up Nazism. They are explicitly pulling from the Nazi playbook in their language and strategy of attack on the rule of law. Someone who supports that party is supporting a completely different set of values from someone who opposes it.
That said, that party is also backed by a powerful and effective propaganda machine that has successfully pulled the wool over many people's eyes such that they don't fully realize what it is they are supporting.
Doesn't matter what the left said previously, what matters is that the Trump Administration is behaving in an autocratic manner. Godwin's law has been abused online since forever, but you can just draw a comparison with Putin's ascent to autocratic rule in Russia.
> In this world, asking "who did you vote for" isn't a matter of tribalism, but it is a (good) proxy for asking someone "what are your values".
I strongly disagree. In this duopoly of a political system, most people on both sides are just picking the lesser of two evils. Meanwhile, we are creating an alarmingly decisive political society by choosing not to associate with those who vote differently than us. Perhaps most importantly, we lose the opportunity to actually shift the political positions of others (and ourselves) by not engaging in healthy and non-judgmental political discussions with our friends and neighbors, ultimately increasing polarization even further.
Not everyone is voting based on their valuesâsome are simply voting their wallets or the special interests they align with. Someone who is pro-choice, pro-LGBT, and pro-immigration may very well vote Republican because they work in the US Automotive industry, and so do their friends and families and people who they care most about. It doesnât necessarily mean their core values are different than yours, but instead maybe simply just their priorities.
> pro-choice, pro-LGBT, and pro-immigration may very well vote Republican because they work in the US Automotive industry, and so do their friends and families and people who they care most about.
What you care most about is a statement of values.
Sure but if you're so reductionist then you'd also be arguing that slaves were making a statement about their values and how they viewed slavery because the majority didn't immediately escape or die trying. It would be disingenuous to say or even imply from that statement that their value system was pro slavery though.
I would say that the partial counterpoint to that is, for most people their values are also largely tribe based, in that their values are not purely fixed, but rather tend to adapt to loosely track the tribal consensus. Very few are the ones willing to stick to their convictions under pressure.
There are clearly some (many?) shared average axiomatic values that seem to be common between very different cultures/religions (although individuals vary much more significantly), but it's much easier to obsess on the places we differ.
Where I strongly disagree is the idea that groups with different fundamental values can't necessarily find common policy ground. A good example is Basic Income, where you can find agreement between groups on opposite sides that both embrace the idea, but for very different value-driven reasons. In many cases, you can also agree to disagree, and just keep your collective hands out of it (eg. separation of religion and state).
> For the last 20 years at least, the leadership of the two main political parties in the US have largely invested in messaging around the values that they represent.
The largest two U.S. parties have been heavily minmaxing the propaganda they release to divide districts on the most effective issues they can convert into election wins. Their values are "get elected to office" but the propaganda can't be so straightforward because there aren't a lot of voters who are easily converted by that directness.
Voters have values; political parties and candidates have propaganda. Game theoretically the winning move is to compete on comparative advantage of an issue within a voting district; because (for example) Democratic voters are split on the death penalty it's a very useless propaganda point for the party as a whole [0]; sticking to one side or the other would lose more elections than it would win. Note that this is very different from ranking the importance of values and focusing on the most impactful to real people; the (implicit) hope is that by focusing on effective propaganda issues then some values may be preserved through the election process. In practice politicians also horse-trade for future party political capital in preference to espoused values.
One fundamental problem is that without a parliamentary style of government where coalitions are required to form a functioning legislature the usefulness of values in elections is greatly diminished. If I may say, the Republican party has done the best at shedding the illusion and explicitly transferring power to the party itself to enforce the values held by one man, which is the ultimate game-theoretically strong position for a political party. Disconnecting the ultimate value-judged outcomes of elections from the political machinations that win them has been incredibly damaging to democracy.
I think the assumption that political parties represent two completely distinct sets of values is overly simplistic. In reality, there's a significant amount of overlap between themâwhat often differs is the style of messaging and the framing of ideas.
Personally, I find it hard to fully identify with either the left or the right. I share beliefs and values from both sides, depending on the issue. This makes it difficult to adopt a clear-cut political label, and I think that's true for many people.
Politics today often feels more like a battle of narratives than a clash of core principles / values.
People frequently have a gap between their values and their politics, and talking about both can reveal the cognitive dissonance.
If they engage with politics as tribalism, and you talk to them about a policy their tribe implemented that conflicts with their values, this is useful.
> I reject this idea, someone voting for the "least worst candidate" does not wholly endorse everything they stand for
The thing about values is that they don't just capture the notion of what we thing is right or wrong, but also which things we value over other things. In an extreme case, two people can agree on 10 out of 10 different ideals or ethical stances and still have different values and support different parties because of how they rank those things.
In that case who you think is the "least worst" is also a reflection of values, as is declaring both sides to be the same, or opting out altogether. They all represent both what things you value and how much you value them.
> In that case who you think is the "least worst" is also a reflection of values
perceived values -- if someone has the same values and rankings as you, but was exposed to different information, then with this logic you'll never be able to find out or flip them
as I said to the other commenter, basically all comes down to "are you open to the chance you're wrong"
you could view that chance as low as 0.001%, but it shouldn't be 0
Besides, there's a ton of easy ways to beat 50/50 odds without explicitly asking who they voted for. You can ask whether they graduated from college, and that will get you to something like 55/45 or 60/40. If they're white and they did not graduate from college, or if they're not white and they did graduate from college, your odds of guessing right are something like 2:1.
Studies have also found (somewhat weak) correlations between some of the Big Five personality traits and political identification: people who score highly on conscientiousness are more likely to be right-leaning, while people who score highly on openness to experience are more likely to be left-leaning.
My original comment is challenging whether "p then q" is valid in the first place by asking if the inverse would be true as a thought experiment. (Neither is true IMO)
Just because someone has certain values doesn't mean they vote a certain way.
Just because they vote a certain way doesn't mean they have certain values.
"p" (who you voted for) and "q" (your values) are largely independent for a large percentage of voters.
My point is that the validity and soundness of the inverse proposition has no bearing on the validity and soundness of the original proposition, so youâve proposed a meaningless experiment.
I also think that your hypothesis that voting and values are not connected is false, but thatâs a separate issue.
I understand your point and I agree with it. I didn't respond to it directly because it wasn't contributing to the discussion at hand. But I agree with your point that an inverse proposition doesn't always hold!
The hypothesis is that knowing a person's voting activity helps one to predict that individual's values. I don't think the parent is claiming that the values that might be revealed by a 10 minute conversation are a predictor for voting activity. I think there's a distinction, since people can - and, in my perspective, often do - misrepresent or misidentify their true values in their conversations with strangers. I am assuming that people act on their true values, not necessarily those that they advertise, when they fill out ballots.
The is a really good, IMO, Saturday Night Live skit about this where the contestants try to guess Republican or not of various people. Some of the bits do a great job of pointing out how some of the values people claim to believe in are only applied selectivity when it benefits their side.
I was talking to a very drunk Republican girl the other day. We were having a small argument about why we would send medical support to Africa for AIDS. Her argument was something about fixing America first (I was also drunk).
I asked if she regretted her vote for Trump after several people she knew lost their government contracting jobs, and she said "No, fuck that guy, I didn't vote for him."
That's why I love claiming to be a third-party voter so much. It breaks their brains and their response informs whether or not they are worthy of my respect.
> In truth, values and ethics are fundamental to effectively discussing politics.
People generally haven't formed strong opinions on most issues, and defer to party or a leader they like for the remaining. They'll still happily argue about it for the post part, unfortunately.
You can see this effect after some elections where people "fall in line" with their party's new presidential candidate on some issue.
> The policies are different too, but over time we've gone from a world where there were at least some cases where the two parties had different policies for how to reach the same goals, and into a world where the parties policies are aiming to realize fundamentally different visions of the world, based on fundamentally different values.
What difference do the parties have? They are both the 'corporate party' maximizing shareholder profit at all costs including killing brown people overseas or murdering Americans at home if they cant pay for healthcare.
"The Righteous Mind" by Jonathan Haidt is another, more nuanced (and complicated), but extremely interesting take on the subject of how values drive political affiliation.
Framing has always been used in political debate just to target certain values; what may have changed (or not) is as a deliberate tactic to keep people divided: folks who do not speak the same language cannot communicate.
On a lot of issues, I think 80% of folks are in 80% of agreement, but the partisans (whether politicians or activists) are framing the issue to prevent that consensus, because the partisans want something in the 20% that 80% of folks don't agree with.
This makes 0 sense. Democrat and Republican "values", to the extent they are even real, no way represent the full spectrum of values one can have.
Further, the Democratic party has a 27% approval rating and the Republican party had like 47% and I bet its falling. So even within your narrow framework this is a bad proxy because both are clearly unpopular.
The two sides dont actually have different values, they have small wedge issues that unscrupulous individuals/groups over-exaggerate for their own gain. Im center left but still see myself in Trump supporters, were basically the same people who basically want to live our lives
> to realize fundamentally different visions of the world, based on fundamentally different values
I think your use of the word "world" is telling.
Trump, the Republicans, and the global right are focused on their citizens.
The Democrats and the global left are more focused on the world and their role in it.
It's no longer just two approaches on how we can have the strongest economy. Each party has a weighting for how much to consider every issue across the world.
For example, there are people who would be happy with less growth, lower income, but more action on climate change.
> For the last 20 years at least, the leadership of the two main political parties in the US have largely invested in messaging around the values that they represent.
Except that the "values" each promotes are often inconsistent with other "values" they promote, sometimes to the point of absurd irrationality, e.g. marijuana vs tobacco or alcohol.
And other "values" are completely independent, but correlate so highly that "tribalism" is a much better explainer, e.g. abortion and guns.
> and into a world where the parties policies are aiming to realize fundamentally different visions of the world, based on fundamentally different values.
That's not new.
On a very high level, the two major parties do want everyone to be healthy, wealthy and wise -- the issue is that they disagree on what those words mean, and what should be sacrificed (and by whom) to achieve it, which means the two major parties have always had very different visions of the future.
> If you discover that someone has completely different values from you, then discussing policy isn't going to be useful anyway, because there's no way you'll agree on a single policy when you have different fundamental values.
And that right there is a call to tribalism: Don't bother with Those People, They Have Different Values, They Aren't Like Us.
> Don't bother with Those People, They Have Different Values, They Aren't Like Us
I didn't say that you shouldn't bother with people. I said that discussing _policy_ is not useful if you don't agree on _values_. It's the wrong level of abstraction. To put it in a plain analogy: discussing the best route to get to your destination isn't useful if you don't agree on where you are going.
If you want to engage with someone with different values, then the values are where you need to start. If you want to engage with someone on the best way to get somewhere, you need to start by making sure you both agree on where you want to go.
> In this world, asking "who did you vote for" isn't a matter of tribalism, but it is a (good) proxy for asking someone "what are your values".
Only if you ascertain the (inverse of the) mapping of values -> vote correctly, and it's definitively not what the parties or the tribes themselves profess.
For myself [0], I sympathize with many of the issues Trump ran on while finding most of the Democratic platform cloying and hollow. But I value effective policy, being accountable to intellectual criticism, and a generally open society far far more. (And at this point in my life, a healthy dose of straight up actual conservatism, too!)
[0] and while it might seem needlessly inflammatory to include this here, I think it's unavoidable that people are going to be trying to read partisan implications from abstract comments regardless.
> it is a (good) proxy for asking someone "what are your values". If you discover that someone has completely different values from you
No, itâs a prejudice. People have a very short analysis and are generally not ready for their beliefs to be discussed.
Most people believe the definition of left is âgoodâ and right is âbadâ. Like, they literally believe this is how people identify their side. âOh yes youâre rightwing, thatâs because you donât mind being selfish, self-serving, evil even. Thatâs your conception of the world.â
Not at all. Iâm social, therefore I am right-wing. I care about womenâs rights, therefore I am right-wing. I want poor people to get help, therefore I am right-wing. The left wing has a pro-immigration âat all costâ policy and it means women are raped. Itâs systematic and part of what authors arenât jailed for. The left has a pro-poor policy and therefore poverty develops while leftwing electoralites have unsanctioned lavish parties with the commonsâ money (lavish parties ala Weinstein for which metoo stories surface a dozen years later).
Leftists canât fathom that I have literally the same pro-women anti-poverty values as they have. If anything, leftists judge (and pre-emptively sanction!) people on prejudice.
I'm not a leftist. Your leader and his allies are a danger to democracy. I don't get this from the Democratic Party, or ANTIFA, or Bernie Sanders. I get it from paying attention to what Trump and his administration have been doing.
Values are largely posturing. Push comes to shove most people don't really care about what they say they care about. Tribal heuristics of trust are way more important.
The crucial question is what is "politics"? Are personalities politics? No. Are parties? No. Are inflammatory issues about race, sex or gender or political correctness or immigration? No!
Here is politics:
Are common American citizens able to afford and obtain reasonable health care?
Are common Americans paid a living wage? Can one person earn enough to have a family?
Do our children have a reasonable opportunity to grow, have a productive life and have a family if they want one?
Is the financial situation getting better for Americans or is the difference between earnings and expenditures growing larger. (Hint do we use code words like 'inflation' instead of calling it like it is).
A functioning democracy requires that the common people are enable to formulate and enact laws that they believe are in their best interests. Do the majority of the laws enacted in all the states meet this requirement?
A functioning democracy requires that the common people are able to use the law and courts to right wrongs. Are the common people able to use/afford access to the courts when wrongs are committed.
Do the common news media act as a forum for the common concerns and issues of the People. (Here's looking at you NYT).
Cuo Bono? If the laws passed are not in the interests of the People, and the courts are not accessible by People, who benefits? If the news media are not a forum for the interests of the People, whose interests do they represent. (Here's looking at you Jeff Bezos).
If advertising funds our primary sources of news, whose interests are represented.
Those are simply things you should discuss with your friends. They are questions not answers. This is not rocket science.
These are real problems. But they are also loaded questions, if someone asked me these at a party I would view them as looking for confirmation, and not seeking truth. There's nothing wrong with that, but the author's goal is curiosity and truth seeking, and I'm skeptical that most of these questions align with that goal.
The ironic thing to me is that the author essentially makes this the main point right from the get go:
> The insidious nature of this question comes from the false representation as earnest, intellectual discourse. Many who ask it may truly believe theyâre engaging earnestly, but their responses quickly reveal an angle more akin to religious police.
As you point out, nearly all of talkingtab's questions are loaded. At the very least, talkingtab essentially says outright what they expect the "correct" answer to be, e.g I'm baffled why talkingtab seems to think "inflation" is a "code word". I speak English, and inflation is "telling it like it is" based on the simple definition of the word.
As another example, for this question:
> Are common Americans paid a living wage? Can one person earn enough to have a family?
What happens if a response is "No, I don't believe that cashiers at McDonald's deserve to be paid a 'living wage', because I don't believe that job is intended to support a family on its own"? To emphasize, I'm not saying what the "right" answer is, but I do believe reasonable people can disagree over what constitutes a living wage and which jobs deserve to be paid it.
If anything, talkingtab's post just highlights to me the author's specific point about political "tribes" vs political views, and if anything has convinced me more that the author's view is spot on here.
My read is that talkingtabâs agenda here is to focus the conversation on what politics is. Rather than being this thing you discuss with people (or not) itâs about injustice against the majority. So why does that get brought up? Because with the OP itâs easy to end up concluding that politics to the average person is something you choose to idly or deliberately or max-brainpower chatter with other people about. Then it can be easily thought that itâs just about differing policy positions. But talkingtab is saying that itâs more confrontational than that.
So why are the questions âloadedâ? Because as you can see with your own eyes, they have their own political agenda. Part of politics is defining what the the agenda should beâand what should be considered political.
As you can imagine, people who think they are arguing or fighting on behalf of people making a living wage etc. want to put that message out there. They are not discussing abstract concepts or competing in some open-mindedness competition or some rationality contest. It matters to them.
> If anything, talkingtab's post just highlights to me the author's specific point about political "tribes" vs political views, and if anything has convinced me more that the author's view is spot on here.
You are even more convinced. Yet there is nothing here that suggests that talkingtab is tribal in the sense of what the OP is talking about. None. Is this received opinion or opinion born from studying like a monk for 10 years? You donât know.
You also say that talkingtab is presenting what the âcorrectâ answer is. Yes, according to them. Again, is it really tribalism? Or is it conviction as well as the polemic tone of the whole comment? And having conviction doesnât mean that you cannot conceive of people having other opinions, or being intellectually unable to present counter-arguments to their own position. Again, no proof of tribalism is presented.
And this focus on tribalism presupposes that the end goal is to find your tone. Alternatively you can look at their arguments. Maybe they want to change the flaws they perceive in the world.
The strawmanning of arguments from both sides is so intense that most people lay in a bed composed entirely of strawman arguments. I firmly blame the media above all for this, but individuals carry a burden to for not trying to remake their bed.
It took me 15 years to to remake my bed into somewhat rational arguments, and still I find lots of hay in there. Generally both sides, or all sides really, want the same things and disagree on how to get there. And the truth is there is almost never an obvious or clear way to get there. It's fractal pros and cons all the way down.
> but individuals carry a burden to for not trying to remake their bed
In what way? I turn on Fox sometimes and it's not that it's slanted, but it's just a stream of lies and BS. I've watched a bunch of Trump's speeches and in addition to being incoherent, he says the same lies and BS all the way down. Yesterday's tariff speech was a great example.
I don't consider myself progressive (though the MAGA right would think me so), but where do I go to try and 'remake [my] bed'?
I think what's meant is that you need to be open to changing your opinion and manner of approach to things. To stay with the analogy: when you "remake" your bed and it ends up the same, chances are that you didn't try to improve on its design.
By turning on Fox sometimes (provided it's not your main source) you might already not fall into the category of people not trying to remake their bed.
Wait, we're designing bedding now? Not just remaking our beds? What a strained analogy that when you 'remake' your bed and it's the 'same' (why would it be different?) then you didn't improve the design?? Even more shocking is that you ran with this as opposed to realizing that these were warning signs that either your fundamental argument is ridiculous, or your analogy is.
Well, the first thing is to realize CNN is also just a stream of lies and BS. Every media news organization in the world has become (they always were?) pure garbage.
Listening to first-hand sources is the way, I guess, but also remembering they can be lying as well, so be vigilant.
It's true, because all the upper levels of ALL large media organizations have been infiltrated by big-moneyed conservatives.
CNN and NBC weren't always as bad as they are now, but their descent has been obvious and dramatic.
Some of them still employ democrats to some minimal extent, such as Jamelle Bouie at the NYT, but that's merely subterfuge, lest their bent be glaringly obvious.
If someone can name a large organization that is an exception to my first paragraph, I would be happy to learn of them.
> Generally both sides, or all sides really, want the same things and disagree on how to get there.
No, that is just not true. For example, do you think Putin and his supporters wanted a functioning democracy in Russia and independent Ukraine? No, they wanted someone functioning as a dictator to restore Russia's cold war territory and influence, and they wanted to undermine western democracies that stood in their way.
History does not support your claim that everyone wants the same things. Some people want power and strong man to take over the government. We see that with the Trump administration. The religious conservatives want to use that to make America a Christian nation. The billionaire libertarians want to use it to deregulate their industries and run the government like a corporation. And Trump wants to act unilaterally to bring about his vision of being seen as some great figure. They have illiberal aims.
I'm speaking about the collectives, not the individuals. There are always deranged individuals and some of them, many of them, manage to get in power. But the ideological collectives all have pretty much the same core goals. Needs met, population happy.
What's your threshold where an "individual" becomes a "collective"? Certainly billionaire libertarians, religious conservatives, Putin and his supporters and the Trump administration (along with the judges he's appointed, the people in congress and state governments who ran on his platform and the 10s of millions of Americans who voted for them) are not individuals...
They also very obviously want different things compared to others.
Shy of a few fringe groups, I am not aware of any large suffering & death collectives. Every large collective is trying to achieve a better life for it's adherents, and is always welcoming to those who want to join. Christains might see living is the light of Jesus as the ideal life, and while not for everyone, you should at least be able to understand why they feel that way (as opposed to a religion of self inflicted torture).
Remember the goal here is not to become sympathetic to Trump, or Putin, or Sanders, or Netanyahu, or Islam. The goal is to have an accurate understanding of them, so that when you form arguments against them, you are actually attacking bedrock and not just straw.
> Christains might see living is the light of Jesus as the ideal life, and while not for everyone, you should at least be able to understand why they feel that way (as opposed to a religion of self inflicted torture).
Yes, but also we've seen how they've behaved in the past when they had vast political power in Europe. And we see what the goals of the Heritage Foundation is with Project 2025. There have always been a decent number of conservative Christians who want prayer, the bible and ten commandments in school. Who don't want legal abortion or gay marriage. And the more power they have, the more they would restrict. They also tend to believe in a lot of conspiracy theories, like the Democratic Party being controlled by satanists and communists, who have also infiltrated the "Deep State".
So you can imagine how those beliefs play out with enough political power.
politics, especially international geopolitics is a zero-sum game. The game of competition for limited resources and markets. Because resources are limited, the pie is fixed, and this makes it zero sum game.
Although there is a way to frame political alliances as a win-win when two parties increase their share at a cost of some other third party losing theirs.
Because of that, the arguments will always be straw-man, because people want to win resources, not to argue in good faith.
Any political issue can be framed in terms of zero sum game, if you look at the whole picture
This is incorrect. There are few physical resources that we have reached the limit of, such that one entityâs gain is necessarily anotherâs loss. There are also a great many things of value that arenât simply raw resources, for which the pie will never be fixed, because the pie is made by humans and can be made bigger or smaller.
This zero-sum narrative is only true in a world of no growth, where all resources are being fully utilized to maximum effect. That is very far from the world we live in, where there is enormous room for additional extraction, creation, and efficient utilization of resources.
the zero sum will always be true because of the fundamental law of physics: Law of preservation of energy.
Everything in the economy thats worth producing/consuming costs energy and labor. Energy and labor is not free.
You may be conflating win-win with debt-based growth, where economy can grow at the cost of running fiscal deficit and accumulating debt. Sure the economy and market can grow, but the debt will also grow and the inflation will cancel out the nominal growth
yes, the only way to increase economy without stealing from someone else is technological advancement and efficiency improvements (which amounts to R&D spend = $$$$)
I guess I can interpret the strongest form of your argument to suggest that resources and markets have a specific level of economically relevant supply at any specific time, which I suppose is an empirical claim thatâs true. I feel like recent daysâ trade policy earthquakes might operate along a similar line of reasoning: thereâs only so much, âtheyâveâ been getting better off, which means theyâve been âtakingâ from the US, so the US is taking back.
In the same sense itâs true that there are only so many bushels of seed corn left after the winter. At the moment, we can squabble over how to divide the fixed supply. I could take all the corn, eat half, keep the rest for myself to plant this season. Or, if Iâve already got enough to plant all my land, and youâve got more land and nothing else to do, I could invest some of my leftover corn with you and we can all have double the harvest in a few months⌠when the supply will have dramatically expanded, assuming I donât treat it as a zero-sum game right now. Or I could focus on âwinningâ right now, and weâll both be poorer after the harvest than we would have been otherwise.
While I agree that you could frame most any political issue in zero-sum terms, I feel like the blind spot is the same: it tallies the score based on assumptions fixed in time, and it takes a pessimistic view of cooperative potential, of humansâ power to influence the constraints themselves.
the zero sum will always be true because of the fundamental law of physics: Law of preservation of energy / Law of preservation of matter.
Everything in the economy thats worth producing/consuming costs energy and labor. Energy and labor is not free.
Any free lunch one can have in the economy is only possible in nominal terms, when your economy/market grows, but your sovereign debt and fiscal deficit also grows and in real terms, after inflation there is no real growth.
if you look at the core, the bottom of the economics it is just pure physics: The flow and exchange of energy and materials, labor and capital. The fight is over a distribution of the flows between various factions
That's not how economics works. The pie is not fixed, it tends to grow over time as there's more trade between countries and their economies get bigger. The global economic pie has increased a massive amount over the past century.
the trade has increased because jobs have been offshored, corporations have been running labor cost arbitrage and making a profit from a difference in labor cost in US vs elsewhere
And as with most arbitrages, costs have lowered as a result. It means a piece of technology with thousands of individual parts can be in your hand for $200. Labor efficiency differences have resulted in an explosion of value-for-dollar for the American consumer.
They thought "Well, I guess this makes me one of those people for whom "Not talking about politics with Friends" becomes a core tenent to my personal philosophy."
The original argument put forth by capitalists was that unionized workers were effectively engaging in economic sabotage by striking and blockading factories.
That said the Pinkertons were basically mercenaries akin to organized crime, so probably viewed things in terms of might makes right.
They are both real problems and loaded questions. Okay. Ostensibly the point of politics is to solve problems that people have. That will lead to people putting forth what they think the problems are. We simply donât have time to theorize every concievable potential problem and then, one by one, painstakingly (with our minds wide open like an open brain surgery) consider whether they are in fact problems that people have.
All of these pointed questions can also be disputed.
Then lead them to the understanding that both parties are right-wing? (support the current economic system, support mass-murdering brown people overseas, support embezzling for personal gain as long as they don't get caught, etc)
Those are good questions for sure and could lead to some interesting discussions, but (and maybe my generally left-leaning bias is showing by saying this) they're questions that are in many ways self-evident. For example, it's hard to argue that health care should only be affordable for the rich and that everyone else should just die in the streets.
There's other issues that are much less clear and, in my experience, more likely to shift from discussions and debates into strife and arguments:
- Should private citizens be allowed to own firearms? Should they be allowed to carry them on the streets?
- What do we do about meth and opiates on our streets? What do we do about the associated property and violent interpersonal crime?
- Should we start building more nuclear power plants to cut down on our greenhouse gas emissions?
And locally:
- The city is expanding to the west. What should this neighbourhood look like?
These, I believe, are squarely in the realm of "politics" and unless you're having the discussion in an ideological bubble are likely to be much hotter-button issues.
There's a lot of nuance in the healthcare access and affordability issue. In developed countries at least there's a pretty broad consensus that if someone is having a medical emergency then they should receive treatment regardless of ability to pay. But beyond that it gets sticky and there are hard choices that no one likes to discuss. Resources are finite but demand is effectively infinite, so one way or another there has to be some form of rationing. Like if a poor patient is dying of cancer and a drug could extend their life by 3 months at a cost of $100K then should society be obligated to pay? This is inherently a political question with no obvious correct answer.
"healthcare should be for everyone" is a great claim to make. but then the question is implementation. how will you get rid of the current system and replace it with a more equitable one?
people are generally hesitant to make changes unless things are really bad. i like to think of this in terms of chemical bonds - people are bonded to their current systems, and wont break those bonds unless they are under enough stress that bond breakage is favorable. and once you start arguing for destruction of the current system, the morality gets fuzzy. do you support accelerationism, or a more gradual change?
and then once you are in the weeds of implementing a fairer healthcare system, things are just genuinely terrible. i am very uninvolved in the healthcare system, but you need organizational structures, supply chain, etc. someone somewhere will probably try and be selfish about things which will make everything harder. structures will have to be built to deal with legal minutia. and meanwhile there are all these other preexisting systems used to the former system that struggle to make the switch instantaneously?
every question is complicated and awful once you think about implementation. nothing is ever self evident. imo!
> "healthcare should be for everyone" is a great claim to make. but then the question is implementation. how will you get rid of the current system and replace it with a more equitable one?
And as importantly, what does "more equitable" or "fairer" mean? More broadly, how do people define "better"?
In the US, a major issue is that The D and The R have radically different ideas of what those words mean, even though they agree on the high level objectives like "healthcare should be for everyone".
- should private citizens be able to own their own property? Or should the government jump in an take what they think is "fair" so they can redistribute it to others?
> Iâd be surprised if any significant portion of the population thought owning stuff a problem.
Except for Real Estate...there's a not-insignificant group of people who thing that the idea of owning multiple homes and renting them out should not be allowed.
> The crucial question is what is "politics"? Are personalities politics? No. Are parties? No. Are inflammatory issues about race, sex or gender or political correctness or immigration? No!
I don't personally agree with how quick you are able to write those things off as not being political. Would you mind providing a bit more explanation of how you are able to arrive at such confident No's?
Perhaps you consider political to be an intrinsic quality of a thing rather than a descriptor of how a thing is used/intended? I fall into the latter camp, and thus am very open to consider almost anything and everything political. Much like art.
> Are common American citizens able to afford and obtain reasonable health care?
"Should common American citizens" ... is a question.
This already implies a country's citizens having access to health care without financial barriers is a good idea already :)
[Note that I'm in the EU, I have access to affordable health care by default and I like it that way. But I don't think everyone in the US thinks like that. Or even understands what it means.]
It is same thing with higher ed. Everyone should have college degree . Now even without everyone having it but just 3-4 times then before means there are tons of graduates without jobs, low paying jobs commensurate to years in education and heavy load of debt.
The question from start had to be Should everyone get a college degree?
Define all kinds of privilege/benefits as rights. And then move on to ask innocent questions as Is even asking for our rights politics?
"Should common American citizens" ... is a question
"How should..." is the really important and interesting question. Even when everybody answers yes, which most people do, to the "should" question they will often completely disagree on the "how should" question.
Literally none of this is politics, its governance. Politics is the human word for the chimplike "who gets to be the boss" games we play. No matter how well your society is running there will always be politics, put 20 people on a tropical island with no problems and 4 weeks later half of em will want to kill the other half - thats politics
> The crucial question is what is "politics"? Are personalities politics? No. Are parties? No. Are inflammatory issues about race, sex or gender or political correctness or immigration? No!
What an easy answer when you not part of the disadvantaged demographic. Some problems apply almost exclusively to a single demographic. Not asking the cultural questions is like thinking that segregation was perfectly okay because everyone had access to everything you'd need. Just not in the small space.
Urban problems are not rural problems even when they look like the same problem. Why there is a food desert in Nowhere, SomeState is not going to be anything like the reason there is a good desert in Urbanville, Somestate. So while everyone definitely deserves the ability to acquire food pretending that subgroups don't exist means you can't actually solve their struggle. If you apply a blanket solution it doesn't help everyone.
It is beyond disingenuous to pretend that different kinds of people don't feel the impact of culture and regulation differently and in ways they either can't themselves or can't at all change. To take that stance, shows that one is on the default demographic that is always considered before anyone else.
> It is beyond disingenuous to pretend that different kinds of people don't feel the impact of culture and regulation differently
But that is why you shouldn't talk about it at parties, because people experience it so differently it is likely to lead to conflict and bad times.
Saying you need to talk about it since it is important is like teaching math at parties because it is important, it will just irritate people since they are there to enjoy themselves not get lectured.
Unlike your math example, if serious harm or death is at stake, I don't mind if it leads to conflict and bad times. Avoidance because "it might be a bad time", to me, feels like a lack of appreciation for what is at stake in these conversations.
Great post, I agree with all your points regarding what is politics except that a functioning democracy should rely on common people, I think it should rely on the valuable people.
Common man democracy just lowers the decision making process to majority of idiots of the country that are easily manipulated. Worse yet, in its current form, it essentially causes the flip flopping mess because of the lack of long term vision and focus, something the common man doesn't want to deal with.
One man one vote in general makes no sense either. Why should a homeless or fresh immigrant's vote have the same impact as someone that has lived and paid taxes in a country for decades? How about...you get a vote weight equal to the amount of investment/taxes you have made in that country over the course of your life. Provide more for the community, have more to lose, get more say on policy.
Give incentive to the society value providers to remain and society detractors to leave.
Add to this that the current Democracy system is fundamentally flawed, most of those systems are exploitable anyway, it makes zero sense to change things up when a great leader is doing well. Having an arbitrary rule that they must step down because they can only serve for x time makes no sense. If it ain't broke don't fix it. Same goes the other way, where bad leaders can remain in power using war mechanisms.
The core problems today with society is not the left right or whatever, it's that people are lazy, selfish, manipulative, different, it's hard to find a system that works that can make everyone happy.
Are you willing to risk personal death or decrease your value for the greater good of the nation as a leader or citizen? That's the standard that all citizens and especially politicians should be held to. There are examples of this in the past, usually when a revolution happens. One might say it's happening in the US right now.
For certain one solution would be to remove people as much as possible from the equation, remove all incentive to abuse the system. The dictatorship and laws of a country should provide negative motivation for someone to cheat and should reward people providing value to society.
It's not easy, no matter how well a system is designed, people will find a way to cheat it, Bitcoin is a great example of this, not accounting for the banking industry buying the ecosystem and shitcoins diluting the entire system.
AI is not there yet, I don't think it ever could be, it's been trained on existing flawed ideas which have been further gimped in the interest of 'security'. It has no original thought, can't even draw a full glass of wine.
>A functioning democracy requires that the common people are able to use the law and courts to right wrongs. Are the common people able to use/afford access to the courts when wrongs are committed.
Having recently been completely railroaded and betrayed by the court system I can tell you. No. I literally had all my evidence thrown out with no explanation from the Judge other than "I don't think this is relevant" in regards to several different topics that I had made an organized report on. Meanwhile the corporate defense provided unorganized meaningless piles of documentation that would takes months to go over and it was left as "evidence" I do mean meaningless, several hundred pages were literally blank white pages submitted as evidence. I guess the crappy software they use to do discovery generated lots of white space in between snippits of info.
The court had decided before the trial that by default a person is wrong and a corporation is right.
Every group of people is a political unit and anything that affects decision making is political. Your office is a political unit, your family is a political unit, etc.
So if a racial issue is affecting the decisions we make then yes itâs political.
The problem is the property political class, which includes both parties a-la Gore Vidal, seeks to dismiss, gaslight, and distract from these problems and instead make them pseudo-wedge issues or political footballs. One side is stuck on remaking reality as a shared, fantastical mirage, and the other complains about the delusion with stern words but agrees to it anyhow. Neither is concerned with addressing the core problem: big money buying all 3 branches of govt, and John McCain found that out the hard way that ethics don't win votes because enough Americans' manufactured consent to condone lawlessness, authoritarianism, radical deregulation, and privatization.
Either a Constitutional Convention 2.0 needs to happen to undo the damage like the repeal of the Tillman Act and the disastrous Citizens' United, or Americans needs to voluntarily do away with popularity contests by instead picking public administrators with limited power by sortition from amongst professional societies for a limited term of say 4 years once.
> The crucial question is what is "politics"? ⌠Are inflammatory issues about race, sex or gender or political correctness or immigration? No!
When people talk about privilege, this is it - being able to dictate which issues are âpolitics,â and being able to dismiss my rights as ânot politics.â
Do I have a right to work? To live? To own property? To marry the one I love? To have sex with the people Iâm attracted to? To raise a child with my partner? To choose my own identity and to live my own life?
A white cishet man takes all those rights for granted - why shouldnât I? Why should my struggle to obtain those same rights be dismissed as âinflammatory issues about sex or gender or political correctnessâ and therefore ânot politics?â
Are you married? Would you like to be? Do you ever worry about how youâll be treated when you go to work, or make a purchase at the store? Whatâs it like to go grocery shopping, or car shopping, or touring places to live? Whatâs it like apply to and interview for jobs? Does you boss look like you? How do your parents feel about you? How do your neighbors greet you when they see you? Whatâs your relationship like with your landlord?
Youâre really telling me that none of that is worth âpolitickingâ over?
that attitude is exactly why things are not going well right now - because we are pretending that of we look away, equality and justice will take care of itself.
I start talking about my wifeâs work. Thatâs just personal family stuff, right? Not if thereâs someone there whoâs a hardcore women-should-stay-home sort.
Or maybe everyone is ok with women having jobs, but my wifeâs work has been substantially impacted by the recent DOGE nonsense. Something as simple as âshe has to go to the office on Mondayâ becomes political if thereâs a Trump supporter present.
Letâs just talk shit about our cars. Oops, what brand of car you own is now political.
âMy parents are going to come visitâ sorry, turns out that the ability of foreigners to enter the country without fear of being detained for weeks for no good reason is political.
There are a lot of questions that are upstream of yours. Or at least, that illustrate why your questions are aggressively framed in a specific ideological directions and it's possible to frame them in the other direction.
If common American citizens can't afford health care, do other American citizens have an obligation to provide it? There is a word for a system where people are obligated to provide their labor to others. Does that word apply to a system where everyone gets free healthcare?
Do common Americans provide enough value to earn the wages they make now, especially the ones making a legislatively mandated minimum wage? How many fewer can actually earn an arbitrary increased number? Do people deserve things they didn't earn? What's the non-mystical explanation for that, if so?
Why aren't we having children? They can't have a productive life without having a life.
Is the difference between earnings and expenditures growing larger because Americans are unwilling to pay one another? If we are, why is that? (Actually I'll cheat a little on this one and provide a correct answer: the entire increased gap here is explained by housing. So the questions becomes: why aren't Americans willing to let strangers live closer to them? Might there be some risk or self-interest there? Are people obligated to act against their interests? Why, how, and by whom are they obligated?)
Which is better, democracy or a stable and prosperous society? Might they be mutually exclusive? What's holy about the popular vote, especially for morons? Even if we keep democracy, does a functional democracy require some form of IQ tests as a condition of the franchise?
Is the purpose of courts to write wrongs or interpret the law? Does separation of powers require courts to refrain from writing wrongs if the legislature has passed laws that are wrong? If not, does the lack of separation of powers place any limit at all on the courts' ability to right wrongs? How about when the courts are controlled by people whose concept of wrong is different than yours? Doesn't a functioning democracy require the concept of right and wrong to be decided by what are literally called the political branches, the legislative and executive?
Are the news media obligated to produce content in the interests of the people? Are you then obligated to produce content in the interests of the people? What's the difference between you writing in a public forum and a journalist? If there is a difference, should you therefore not enjoy freedom of the press? What if you, say, advocate for the courts to ignore separation of powers to do what is right? What if we the people decide that is not in our interests? How will you be punished for this transgression?
In actuality, I would probably give the same answers to many of these questions that you would. But the point is that there is no "just asking questions, man". Questions have premises and assumptions. If you, like me, don't like the ones in this question set, don't assume people will be comfortable if you're just askin' yours. I wouldn't be. And if people are all comfortable with you just askin' yours, ask yourself whether you have friends or conformation bias with echo chamber.
âHello friend, thanks so much for coming over. I just wanted to start by asking you what do you think are the preconditions for having a functioning democracyâ
Politics is simply figuring out whoâs on your team. Itâs why our current billionaires are so big on immigration and divisive rhetoric. Small groups have used this tactic for thousands of years to rule over larger groups.
In a good society you would know and have a favorable view of our wealthiest (kings in all but name) people. They wouldnât be afraid and hide their wealth (Bezos, musk, etc are not the top) because there wouldnât be an immoral wealth gap.
On top of that if you strictly want avoid political topics, be aware that there are forces who profit from making topics "political" that probably shouldn't be.
So when someone else decides which topics are politicized and you want to avoid political discussions â congrats you just let others decide about which topics you are willing to discuss.
My opinion is that most topics have a political dimension anyways, also because most topics have a economic dimension. Or phrased differently: Everything is political.
When discussing politics with friends the "how" is probably much more important than the "if". Most people do not have a vetted political opinion, they just have a strong vibe that they can't really reason about. They aligned with some sources and read/watch news they like to hear and that forms their image of the world. They never really tried to form a logically coherent worldview that is backed by facts instead of pre-filtered annecdotes that may or may not have happened in that way.
With this as the starting point a healthy political discourse isn't possible. You can't argue against someones vibes.
But that doesn't mean good/interesting political discourse isn't possible. It just means that if someone lets the politicians turn them into a vibe-based party-before-issue follower that uncritically believes most of what politicians say, they can no longer think or discuss the topics that impact them with others on a reasonable level. And this is why topics get politicized in the first way.
And no-one is immune to this, especially not you guys over there with that two-party system. But we all need to remember that towing the line of a political party means they no longer represent us, but we represent them. Mental flexibility translates to voter agency and our democracies hinge on voters being well informed and not throwing their agency away.
TL;DR: Not discussing politics and blindly towing the party line is like throwing your own agency away.
(Article starts off be asserting that they don't talk politics with friends then proceeds to describe how to talk politics with friends?)
Friends are people you should support and build up. You shouldn't try to make them feel bad by winning arguments with them. That said- a healthy society is only possible if individuals can exchange ideas about how to run things and then act collectively (aka "politics"). Sometimes people will have different interests and priorities, that lead to them having different ideas about stuff- most of the time this is totally fine.
This basically comes down to respect and communication skills- but for god's sake people- keep on talking about "politics"!
For me, "avoid being dogmatic yourself" is failing to bring home one very important point to avoid being dogmatic: understand that you are equally susceptible from the mistakes/misunderstandings that you blame others for.
An example in this article is the following part
> my angle ... becomes that of opposing their tribalism. Unfortunately ... most people just view me as the opposite of their own tribe
But this part totally fails self-reflection: it talks about your "conservative friends" and your "liberal friends". They are labelled "conservative" or "liberal". How does the author know that the interlocutor did not act exactly like the author: the interlocutor brought a subject, from their point of view their position on it where pretty neutral and sensible, the author reacts by playing the devil's advocate. They therefore see the author as the "conservative" or "liberal" person, and if they follow the author's strategy, they will play the devil's advocate. And then, THE AUTHOR fails to realize they don't actually care about the conclusion.
The lazy answer is: I'm smarter than them, I can tell when it's the case or not. Or: the subject I bring are not political, they are just common sense and sensible position, but they sometimes bring something I disagree with, and this is not common sense and sensible position.
In both case, it's weak and does not acknowledge the possibilities that you may have done the same mistakes as them from time to time (either classifying a "moderate" as "far" just because they were doing the devil's advocate, or presenting opinions that are not "trivially moderate" from the eyes of your interlocutor). It's a detail, but because of that, I'm not sure the author is as "non dogmatic" as they think they are: they are saying what everybody is saying. The large majority of people don't say "I'm dogmatic and my opinions are crazy" (if they believe their opinions are crazy, then it means they don't believe in their opinions and it is not really their opinions).
Absolutely. While I am a person who would avoid politics in most contexts myself, I couldn't help but feel uncomfortable with this attitude in this write up.
If you see others as being "insufficiently equipped" to handle nuance, "because it's hard" or "because they are too resistant" is a judgement I prefer not to pass on others.
> "Because if a desire to seek truth isn't there"
Who defines the truth? As much as I understand there is a need to draw a line somewhere, I also believe that everyone has a right to their truth. And that's my truth. I let everyone have their perspective and don't see a need to impose mine or look down upon them if they don't agree to mine, this included :)
I think of truth like Ď. Some people say its 3, others 3.14, others 3.1415
There is a trade off between energy expended vs accuracy needed vs accurately communicating, but the de-referenced concept is not a matter of human perspective. Coordinating truth is why we have standards and protocols to build on.
If everyone has their own truth, then how could you know that to be the case? You'd have to appeal to something outside of "your truth" to make that judgement. Meaning, if it were even possible (or coherent) for there to be such a thing as "your truth", then you couldn't know it to be the case. It simply would be "the truth" as far as you are concerned. You can't step outside yourself. There is no "objective POV".
These sorts of claims are as incoherent as the equally intellectually jejune skeptical positions ("there is no truth" or "we cannot know the truth" or variations thereof). It's rare to see anyone outside of first year philosophy students make them.
Why can't you just say we have disagreements about what the truth is?
The footnote is basically saying "I can tell when it's the case or not", which is in fact exactly my problem. That is not the answer that I'm expecting from someone who has self-reflection.
For example: "understand my argument" is assuming that the argument is obviously correct. When someone presents to you an incorrect argument, 1) this person thinks the argument is correct (otherwise they will not present that argument), 2) you will not answer by saying "I've understood", you will argue. From their point of view, you are the one failing to understand. Now the question is: how many time this person was you? How many time you presented a bad argument and then blamed the interlocutor for "not understanding" when they don't accept a faulty argument?
Same with "circular reasoning or rhetorical trick": when I disagree, it is always very easy to convince myself that there is a problem in the interlocutor logic. Especially if I failed to understand or misunderstood the argument. I would even say that for all discussions that are not trivial, there are always elements that can be seen as circular or rhetorical trick.
Iâm having a real hard time with this one lately.
The major mistake/misunderstanding I see now is thinking that a stupid, vindictive asshole who failed upwards would be a good person to run the country.
I donât think Iâm susceptible to that. Iâve never viewed anyone the way a lot of these people view Donald Trump. I canât imagine I ever will. Is it a failure of imagination or is something really different between us?
Trump may be a bad leader but he'd still be just one type of bad leader. I'm not trying to fully relativize Trump either, they're not all equally bad.
I agree with Slavoj Zizek's take on Trump's appeal and why a lot of criticism of him seems to either have no effect or increases his fan appeal: As a general rule, people relate to others by identifying with their weaknesses, not only or not even primarily with their strengths. You aren't susceptible to his appeal because you're of a different class or background which has different sets of strengths/weaknesses which make it hard for you to relate to Trump.
The weaknesses Trump has - his stubborn ignorance, his impulsiveness, his might-makes-right mentality and disdain for rules, his vindictiveness - are deeply shared with his fans. They will forgive his sins because it is their sins too. For example when Trump is attacked for an impulsive comment, they relate to the risk that they could also be cancelled for some comment that is seen as racist or sexist or something. His policy framework is made of the kind of simple ideas you'll find in a pub, I once heard Trump described as "the average guy from Queens" and it made a lot of sense to me. "Nobody knew healthcare was so complicated", "We're going to build a wall".
I belong more to a white collar, professional class. I probably have a blindspot on the weaknesses and sins more endemic to my group, ones that I share with the figures I find appealing. If I had to guess I'd say it's something like an ideological/theoretical zeal, bureaucratic dysfunction, and an exclusionary judginess. When a politician unveils some theoretically elegant project and it largely fails and runs over budget and gets mired in bureaucratic hell, I'm maybe too quick to forgive that as it's a relatable sin.
It is a problem that some many people thinks that a presidential election is to vote for the guy they relate to and not a competent manager. I guess they are so used to vote for the prom king and the reality tv show candidate that they don't realise that the point is not to vote for the person they like.
Similarly, it is worrisome that people vote for what will profit the most for them instead of what is the more just and fair (sometimes even voting against your own profit). It leads to stupid situations, for example where idiots are for protectionist measures whatever the consequences on other countries, but at the same time are angry when people in another country are voting for protectionist measures that affect theirs negatively. It is quite clear with the Trump supporter: they are furious if someone else treats them like they treat others, and seems to not even realise the absurdity.
It is really hard to live in a society with people like that: it just creates lose-lose situations for everyone.
In short, people like the dumb jerk because they are also dumb jerks? I can't say I disagree, but I don't think that's what cauch's comment was going for.
I find the most productive political discussions are about history. Most people donât know any history at all, so a willingness to discuss the reason we have the Third Amendment, or the lasting effects of King Leopoldâs dominion in Africa, or the Peleponnesian War, makes for a good discussion, and the distance makes people less emotionally tied to their positions and more willing to accept nuance. If we find we disagree, this also gives us social cover to pretend the topic isnât intensely relevant to the present day.
Maybe the long peace within the US changed things, but in most countries and especially in Europe discussing history in a room with more than 2 nationalities is a good recipe to sow dissent.
Good point. I live in the US and I wouldnât start with the American civil war. Talk about other peopleâs history. Iâll trade you the American Civil War for the Franco Prussian War.
I mean it is a good filter to understand someone with. When I moved from the midwest to the south as a teenager and learned there are still plenty of people that were unhappy the south lost the civil war and want to remedy that you begin to understand there are some people that are deeply entrenched in their views and you have to make a judgement on how much time you're going to spend dealing with that.
I think entrenchment is a description of both sides, has neither I really willing to budge. I think the critical I think the critical criteria is how much you have to deal with it at all. Is it an interesting conversation that you can have once in awhile, or something that gets inserted into every conversation.
I think the civil war is interesting and nuanced topic to interrogate once in awhile, and can usually find some points of agreement with most people.
The legal, moral, and philosophical questions around it are fascinating. For example, how do you reconcile people's right to self-determination with a desire to carry out abhorrent actions. Historically speaking, the civil war and failures of reconstruction are probably the single most defining aspect of modern American political life.
> learned there are still plenty of people that were unhappy the south lost the civil war and want to remedy that
Did you peel that back to the next layer? Did they want to reintroduce slavery? Or did they want independence from a distant government?
I knew folks in the South who thought some of the craziest racist things and probably would've been OK with slavery (I did hear them promote segregation).
At the same time, the vast majority folks I knew who defended the Civil War or wanted secession didn't want slavery or segregation, but local (and often less) government. Did they misunderstand the role of slavery in the Southern secession? Usually. Does that change their _current intent_? No.
The latter group (which was much larger) should be engaged with on the issue of local government and secession, especially in the context of folks in Blue States who've been rattling about secession under Trump.
Some of the best convos I've had are with ideologues, it just requires authentic empathy and effort, which means letting go of moral presuppositions and being willing to really listen to them without injecting your own judgments & opinions. If people subconsciously think you're trying to do that, it'll trigger their defense mechanisms and the convo will instantly shut down (or devolve into chaos).
People love to talk about what they think is important, but NOT when they think they're being setup or playing into someone else's hand.
People tend to moderate themselves and compromise a lot more in real conversations.
It's like all those videos of dogs barking angrily at each other through a closed gate, then suddenly becoming quiet and peaceful, their whole body language changing, when the gate is opened.
I really donât care. And honestly people Iâll tend to be socializing with are at least somewhat similar in political opinions. Just not interested in discussing political outrages at a social gathering.
If you insist on talking politics when the host or other guests donât want to youâre a rude idiot.
Better than ruining real life relationships over politics. The only important impact most people have over politics is when they vote. Discussing politics has massive downsides and trivial benefits.
There might be very little alignment of political opinions within one's circle of friends, and any discussion would turn into an unpleasant discussion with the risk of ending the group of friends forever.
For most people, very few friendships form with an expectation of political agreement: activists met at a common protest or campaign, generic regulars of a popular political party or union, old style secret societies, and so on.
I think people can aim to meet politically aligned people at non-political events/places. I met most of my friends in venues that "members of the opposite tribe" just don't frequent. And I feel like it goes for both sides.
Yeah. There are exceptions. People can also have multiple circles. And it's not as if political opinions within a group are really uniform. But there does tend to be a certain degree of uniformity within many groups of friends.
Are you speaking from experience when you say discussing politics has massive downsides for your real life relationships? And if so, may I ask what happened?
Of course they are, people get angry when they have to rationalize why they want to genocide some group of people different from them in mixed company.
What is the point of discussing politics? (not rhetorical). What physical changes in the world do you expect afterwards? You won't undo indoctrination. It just upsets people.
You canât talk politics without first overcoming tribalism, so I suggest you start there, since in the US that is sadly the state of things.
If you start by talking about which sports team is better you will also cause these reactions. But politics should not be sports. Itâs harmless to support a sports team that makes bad choices. Politics has real impact on peopleâs lives. Itâs important to have exit criteria for alignments and affiliations with groups, to the extent theyâre necessary.
> What physical changes in the world do you expect afterwards?
Just like voting, it has no effect in the small. You discuss to form and exchange opinions and ideas that become part of the whole. The benefits are in the aggregates. Thus itâs important that it has some other incentive. Where Iâm from itâs not very tribalist, so we get the pleasure from thinking and discussing problems even without having an expectation that it will change policy. That wouldnât work in the US outside very specific groups that understand the rules of engagement and the point of the game. But the discussions themselves are similar in vibe to board games or puzzles, that itâs somewhat fun even though itâs entirely useless (in the small).
This gets more complicated when you replace "friend" with "spouse" (/partner) because there comes up the problem of consensuality in unavoidably unpleasant unavoidable decision-making..
I believe having a partner with directly opposing political views is unsustainable. Partners with adjacent political views may be manageable, or even preferable to a fully aligned one, but those with directly opposing views are a constant source of drama and tension in your life. Political views often reflect deeply held values and beliefs.
Then so be it, if your views keep you from finding a partner then maybe you should start thinking about compromise rather than falling deeper into extremism.
But, this is also why one political party in the US tends to vote against things like no fault divorce and other questionable policies regarding womens rights.
>> those with directly opposing views are a constant source of drama and tension in your life
I don't think this is true at all. The vast majority of people largely ignore politics, cast their vote, and move on with their lives. It's completely fine to have different political views if you both act like normal reasonable people. We see a lot of the 'kick, scream, and cry' types on both side in the media. In the real world, most people have more important things to be getting on with.
> It's completely fine to have different political views if you both act like normal reasonable people.
Yes, this is true, you can have different political views and still be friends/lovers/partners/whatver.
What parent said though was "directly opposing political views", which I'd also agree with is inviting trouble, as it'll leak out in constant tensions and frictions. Simple things like "We shouldn't drive as much as we currently do" can lead to heavy argumentation if the underlying reasoning cannot be understood by both parties.
In real life, people might not speak about parties or political figures, but their everyday actions are driven by their values and beliefs, which also ends up reflected by who they vote for. Politics is everywhere, even where people don't speak of it directly.
I wouldn't consider this a political view. It's a lifestyle choice based on personal beliefs. Two people can be fully behind the idea we need to do something about climate change and have different ideas on how that should be done. And I think that's part of the problem in recent times - instead of politics being about the big ideas and how a country is run it's become about small personal choices. If a person has heavy arguments with a partner about how much/little they drive I would say they've got an issue with a need to control others, rather than just a strong political opinion.
> Two people can be fully behind the idea we need to do something about climate change and have different ideas on how that should be done
I'm not sure if you purposefully ignore what I wrote directly after what you quoted, "if the underlying reasoning cannot be understood by both parties". If a partner would discuss things like this in real life, I'd say this partner might have an issue with discussing in good faith with others.
My point was that it'll lead to friction if you disagree about what "big ideas" are worthwhile to try to implement or not.
>Partly because women's rights have become so politicised.
What is the womans suffrage movement?
I may be extrapolating on a single statement too far, but I do feel that you are missing a huge chunk of history regarding all the rights women (at least regarding the US) did not have.
Womans rights have been political for the last 200 years if not longer.
The other being that once women have largescale representation in the workforce, can open bank accounts and credit cards on their own, and can support themselves financially, one of the key pressures to marry is removed. Once there was no fault divorce and women did not need to prove why they needed to divorce, one of the key pressures to stay married is removed.
And that's just what they'll openly admit to! Rest assured, they would absolutely not stop at no-fault divorce. They would undo all of the progress you mentioned, and likely more.
As the gender gap in voting patterns widens, denying rights to women goes from not only being an ideological project of the right but a political project as well. "We will win more elections if women have less social power" is not a good situation to be in.
I am the opposite of surprised. How else are terrible, low-quality men going to trap women into a life of unpaid home labor if they can control their own finances, reproduction, and choice to enter or leave a marriage.
It could also be the opposite causality. Because people aren't getting into intimate relationships as much (looking out for each other, caring deeply about an individual of the opposite gender), the two groups are naturally diverging into preferring "what's best for ME".
I think the political split between genders is MUCH stronger for singles. It's kind of a trap actually.
Rest assured: Those 33% of women who say abortion should be "Illegal in all/most cases," would instantly carve out an exception for themselves if their own lives or livelihoods were in jeopardy from a pregnancy.
That would only be true if words weren't perverted for political leverage. Sexist used to mean "women can't do that" now sexist means "a woman experienced an unpleasant thing, and it carries more significance because of her gender, and if you dare dispute this you can expect to be cancelled".
How about âwomen canât get certain medical proceduresâ? Or âwomen canât voteâ? Multiple prominent Republicans have floated reducing or eliminating womenâs right to vote.
That doesn't contradict what he said though, he didn't say the old sexists are no longer called sexist, he said the definition had expanded to cover many more than before.
Why even say it then? What's the point of countering "Well, the definition has expanded so much", when the thing you're talking about conforms to the old definition?
I said it because it's a dirty trick used by one side to make people think there's a crisis. When are you going to declare the problem solved? When every single living breathing human being conforms to your world view? Your argument is that someone, somewhere, said something terrible. Why even say it then? If course some people out of 8bn will have extremist views or utterances. Is that really a surprise?
Marrying purely for "love" and ignoring core values, mindset compatibility, what they want in life and so on is a recipe for disaster, or at least some deep regrets down the line. I haven't seen nor heard about a single success story a decade or two down the line. Whom to marry is probably the most important decision in our lives. One of reasons why marrying early is too risky - people still massively change till at least 25-30, it cal still work but chances are smaller.
Its a typical junior mistake to marry for love/lust and not think a bit on top of that, in this case I blame parents who don't have some hard talks with their kids explaining them not-so-rosy parts of adult existence. Like initial enormous physical attraction wanes over time, kids crush most of remaining, and what still remains are 2 people and how they treat relationship and each other with that lust tuned down eventually to 0, under various, often not so nice situations. But our parent's generation didn't figure it all out, in contrary the amount of actually nice relationships in higher ages ain't that high.
I didn't have such prep talk neither, nor do I know anybody who had, and had to figure it all on my own via rough trials and failures till finally figuring myself and women out, and then happy marriage (so far, hard knock on the wood). Its like expecting everybody to be sophisticated engineer, learning them to count on fingers and throwing them out and good luck, I am sure you'll figure it out eventually. Some do, some don't. Most don't I'd say.
> Whom to marry is probably the most important decision in our lives.
That's putting way too much pressure on it. Find someone you feel like you could spend the rest of your life with? Marry them, see what happens. If you get a divorce, so be it, it's not the end of the world and there is plenty of others out there, even if you're "damaged goods" or whatever your worry is.
I feel like the pressure people put around marriage it what makes it so damaging in the first place, people feeling like they have to marry in the first place, or if they're married, they need to try to stick together more than some couple who isn't married, and so on.
Just make a decision and learn from your mistakes in case you fuck up, it really isn't more complicated than that.
I'm going to assume you're a man and probably have a little less experience here than the average woman does.
This said, I am a man too, but a large part of my career was supporting lawyers and court systems, including family court systems.
Choosing the wrong partner is one of the biggest risks you take in your life, especially for a woman. This is one of those things that can easily lead to you being bankrupt with nothing. This can lead to you being abused or raped. You can end up with a child that you did not want to have. You can end up dead.
With states pushing to revoke things like no fault divorce (and women being the primary initiators of divorce) it's not hard see the traps women lived in the past coming back.
Then add the strongly religious connotations marriage has in the US and you quickly see why this is a rollercoaster that emotions and politics are not going to be removed from.
> That's putting way too much pressure on it. Find someone you feel like you could spend the rest of your life with? Marry them, see what happens. If you get a divorce, so be it, it's not the end of the world
This is quite bad advice, because divorce can be devastating financially.
I don't believe that political views used to be narrow, I believe the political views you were allowed to actually express were much more narrow and everything else was repressed.
Really depends on the region. There's lots of opinions/ideas/directions/parties in many countries with lots of overlap. In the US... I'm not sure how relationships, that actually talk about things, can survive if partners have different party preferences.
Being friends with someone doesn't mean we both should agree on everything. It also doesn't mean we should try to avoid discussing whatever. If we agree on something, good. If someone is changing his opinion bases on a talk and arguments, good. If not, also good.
I am friend with someone because I like that someone and I enjoy meeting him and talking to him, doing things together.
That doesn't mean agreeing on everything. And doesn't mean being afraid of speaking.
If someone quits, being my friend because we have different opinions on X, so be it. I am not like that. I won't break a friendship because someone thinks differently.
I'll provide an opposing viewpoint. In the last 10 years, I've lost friendships and family because people in my life have voted for candidates that stripped rights away from women, minorities, etc.
Having a vast difference between opinions is fine, but some of their decisions are fundamentally against my core beliefs and have done literal harm to many people I know.
For that reason, terminating family and friendships has been absolutely worth it for me.
Until we can live in a world where fundamental rights are protected and respected, we have no common ground, and it's pointless to tiptoe around these insanely harmful beliefs while maintaining a facade of friendship.
I think essentially tolerating other peoples opinions and trying to understand where they are coming from is more useful than applying purity tests to your friends and family.
Iâm pretty sure that they werenât voting for those candidates for the express purpose of stripping away those rights and there were other policies and values that they were voting for.
Iâll be honest that Iâm Jewish and certain posts about Palestine where friends or non Jewish family have specifically expressed values that I find anti-myself I have completely cut out of my life. (not all beliefs about pro Palestine are anti-semetic, but most are) But I believe that most views at the party level are just different priorities or different view points and tolerance is necessary, because they are not directly in conflict.
> Iâm pretty sure that they werenât voting for those candidates for the express purpose of stripping away those rights and there were other policies and values that they were voting for.
I thought the GOP was pretty clear throughout the election cycle, from President to local office, that their desired world can only come to be through a drastic restructuring of the Constitutional status quo ante.
I donât know that âI only voted for (e.g.) tax cuts, everything else is collateral damage and Iâm not culpable for it,â is a defensible moral stance.
First you try to argue tolerance and understanding, and then you say that "most pro-Palestine views are antisemitic" and that you cut off all contact with people who hold those views. Your hypocrisy is astounding and you should be embarrassed.
What I was suggesting was to be tolerant of more general views like choosing a political party or candidate and large complicated things, and reserve intolerance for actual directed hatred.
> Iâm pretty sure that they werenât voting for those candidates for the express purpose of stripping away those rights and there were other policies and values that they were voting for.
Voting for a party explicitly demonstrates at least acceptance of if not outright support for its platform. You don't get to absolve yourself of support for kicking puppies because the FooBar party also includes a modest tax cut in its policy agenda that you really want.
It doesn't matter if the opposing party advocates for raising taxes or even eating kittens.
That's true even if realistically, there are no other parties capable of winning. You can support a third party, abstain out of protest, or even begin a grass-roots campaign to start yet another party. You can even try changing the FooBar party from within, so long as you don't vote for them until sufficient change has occurred.
Voting for a party explicitly demonstrates at least acceptance of if not outright support for its platform. You don't get to absolve yourself of support for kicking puppies because the FooBar party also includes a modest tax cut in its policy agenda that you really want.
Virtually no independent thinker is going to support either major party's platform, for the simple reason that both parties have a collection of inconsistent policies that are an incoherent ideological mishmash. Therefore you do not so much vote FOR a party as you instead hold your nose and vote AGAINST the other one.
Sure, but in the US, the choices right now are between a party that you might not fully agree with, and a party whose explicit platform is to strip fundamental rights away from women, LGBTQ people, and other minorities, all while dismantling the basic structures of democracy in order to guarantee their hold on power for as long as possible.
When you vote for a party, you may not fully agree with all their policies, but you are stating that the drawbacks are acceptable compromises. When you vote for FooBar, you might not want puppies to be kicked, but you consider it a tradeoff worth making if it gets you that tax cut.
If you are looking at the political landscape of the US as an independent thinker, and are questioning whether abandoning the principles of human rights and liberal democracy are a tradeoff worth making, then I really question whether your thoughts are really as independent as you would like to believe.
> and a party whose explicit platform is to strip fundamental rights away from women, LGBTQ people, and other minorities, all while dismantling the basic structures of democracy in order to guarantee their hold on power for as long as possible.
This certainly might be what you believe their platform amounts to. But it is most certainly not their explicit platform. Accuse people of what they actually have done, not what you believe their actions to be logically equivalent to. Otherwise there can't actually be a reasonable discussion, because you're giving off heat rather than light.
This is their explicit platform. Trump's presidential campaign officially ran on the basis of "Agenda 47", which clearly sets out their goals and aims. It includes dismantling the basic structures of democracy (in the form of heavy expansion of executive powers), and reducing access to healthcare for women and LGBTQ people. We have already seen evidence of the above, as well as events like the new administration arresting protestors without due process.
I think your point is that Project 2025 is not Trump's explicit platform, which is correct (although this doesn't affect my statement which was about his explicit platform). However, if it looks, walks, and talks like a duck, we also need to be willing to call it a duck. Project 2025 goes significantly above and beyond Agenda 47, the group behind it explicitly endorse Trump, and many of Project 2025's authors are involved in the Trump administration. Being an "independent thinker" does not mean accepting what both sides say at face value, it means looking at people's behaviour and drawing judgements based on that.
Actions speaker louder than words. It might not be their platform, but it's what they're doing. If you see your party taking action to strip away rights from LGBTQ groups, immigrants, women and you still support them, then I don't know what else to say.
According to polls, slightly more women voted for Trump in 2024 than in 2020 and significantly more minorities voted for Trump in 2024 than in 2020 (https://www.nbcwashington.com/decision-2024/2024-voter-turno...). One party energetically claims to be on the side of the oppressed but the oppressed don't exactly seem to be flocking to be on the side of that party. Makes you think, doesn't it?
The Democrats cannot win as long as there's a substantial faction inside it unwilling to face the reality of what voters actually think instead of what they want to tell the voters to think.
You are giving a fully partisan version from one side, while ignoring the partisan view from the other. Not entirely your fault correctly stating what the other side thinks, in terms that the other side will agree with, is an extremely hard task. It sounds like it should be simple. But getting it right requires getting past our cognitive biases that the other side is wrong, which make it hard to actually see what they are seeing.
Here is a Republican take that is about as biased as your take on Republicans. "Democrats are fully infected by the woke mind virus, destroying merit in favor of DEI, promoting antisemitism in support of Hamas terrorism, and suppressing free speech in favor of totalitarian control."
Both partisan perspective have some truth, and a lot that is false. For example, while it is true that Trump represents a threat to democracy, threatening democracy is not part of the Republican party's explicit platform. Conversely, while it is true that there has been a sharp rise in antisemitism on the left, most of that really is antizionism. (That said, if you try to make Palestine free from sea to sea, where will over 7 million Jewish refugees go? You're unlikely to be more lucky than Hitler was in the 1930s in finding a country who is willing to accept them. What happens then?)
This is a fundamental difference with how people on the (American) left and people on the right view politics. Those on the right frequently vote based on a single or a few issues, ignoring the rest of the platform that may be unpalatable. While those on the left frequently view voting as an endorsement of the whole person. Any unwanted policy tends to be a turn off. It's why you say "you don't get to absolve yourself of support for kicking puppies" while the right does just that. You would be better served understanding the values and motivations of your opposition rather than projecting your values onto them and judging them based on a strawman.
I would've probably agreed with this point 10 or 15 years ago. Someone saying "I would've liked universal healthcare, but lower taxes are more important to me" has an understandable position. I might not agree with their choice, but I can respect their decision.
However, these days the American political landscape looks a lot different. I understand having priorities, but if someone believes that a magical make-eggs-be-cheaper plan should have a higher priority than their friend (i.e., me) having basic human rights, why would I want to be friends with them? It doesn't matter if they personally agree with the politician's strip-their-friend-of-basic-rights plans or not, the fact that it isn't a priority to them at all says enough.
In the US there are no federal antidiscrimination protections for LGBT people except in employment through Bostock (and conveniently, Trump's EEOC has stopped pursuing these cases). You can be evicted from your home for being gay but not for being black or Christian.
Access to gender affirming care for trans minors is banned in more than half of US states. The very same medicines are allowed to be given to cis minors.
In 13 US states bathroom bills prevent trans people from comfortably existing outside of their homes for more than a few hours at a time.
It has only been 22 years since sodomy laws were found unconstitutional. It has only been 10 years since gay marriage was legalized nationwide. Thomas wrote in his Dobbs concurrence that Lawrence should be revisited. Several state legislatures have passed resolutions calling for Obergefell to be overturned.
While less of a "basic right", the Trump administration has banned trans people from serving in the military. Visibility of gay or trans characters in media available for minors is also regularly threatened. Products for trans people sold at stores like Target have led to bomb threats.
> Access to gender affirming care for trans minors is banned in more than half of US states. The very same medicines are allowed to be given to cis minors.
The Cass report conclusions and recommendations should be listened to, it was a way better and more thorough study than the Netherlands study that begat all of the "gender clinics" in the US and elsewhere. https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20250310143...
> In 13 US states bathroom bills prevent trans people from comfortably existing outside of their homes for more than a few hours at a time.
As far as bathrooms, i feel uncomfortable in public restrooms. I don't know what the rate of people that feel uncomfortable in public restrooms, but those of us that do find family or single occupant restrooms, and know what places have those. No one wants to piss in a literal trough, i could be wrong.
I don't consider sodomy a basic human right, but i could be argued with, i guess.
I don't see what "bomb threats" have to do with human rights, in this context. Is there a human right to have products available at Target? If everyone boycotted Target (like they did with Bud Light), is that a violation of human rights, too?
I am unsure why people keep deleting their replies. It is possible to have a reasoned discussion about inflammatory topics.
This is how things often goes. "Oh those aren't actually rights."
You can think this, I suppose. But let me tell you that a very large number of LGBT people do consider these things to be questions of their basic rights.
i'm willing to listen to arguments about why any of those are basic rights. I am unsure about the housing, so i didn't mention it. Upon a quick check, Bostock prevents renters from being evicted or otherwise un-housed merely for being LGBT. Unless i see actual writing that shows there is a literal directive to ignore complaints, i cannot just accept your words. top results for eviction of LGBT sort of news is about people "behind on rent." If i don't pay rent for 2 months, i'll also get an eviction notice (sometimes called a pay or quit.)
there's groups of people that think all kinds of things are "basic rights" but it doesn't mean they are. I could say nothing is a "basic right" since any example you can give is violated globally. Maybe some stuff should be globally truly basic rights. But i am willing to listen to arguments that any of these things are a basic right as it stands.
just a for instance: Sodomy. saying it's a human right implies that sexual intercourse is a basic human right. I am unsure if you really want to make this argument.
Bostock applies to Title 7. The reasoning is that discrimination based on sexuality or gender identity is sex discrimination, which can be applied to other laws like the FHA but this is not established federally and the Trump administration is currently in legal fights explicitly in opposition to this position. So I do not think that it is fair to say that Bostock prevents renters from being evicted based on their gender identity or sexuality.
And I do think the ability to have consenting and private intercourse without being imprisoned is a human right. I did not expect that this would be controversial.
If you're talking about employment (which the EEOC appears to cover) - i've been fired for not cutting my hair short enough. I've been fired for refusing to wear a tie for a cubicle job. In the US, employment is at-will, generally. If that's what you have an issue with, then let's talk about that. Even if the issue is with hiring discrimination of any kind, i can get behind that, too.
And there's a subtle, yet perceivable difference between what you said, "sodomy laws" and your statement now about "consenting and private intercourse." i also notice you didn't mention "between adults."
I don't really want to have a side-channel discussion, here. The employment vs housing statements, you either had a typo, or it was a red herring, i am unsure. I feel like this is devolving, perhaps of my own fault, into a god of the gaps argument.
My original comment regarding the EEOC was about the impotence of Bostock in modern federal courts because the EEOC is dropping cases of Title 7 workplace discrimination brought by LGBT people. Although the US generally has at-will employment, there are certain reasons for firing people that are prohibited by law.
The discussion of housing is separate from that and is instead a point about the fact that LGBT people do not have federal protections in this domain. I thought that my post was very clear. LGBT people do not have any federal protections in many domains (housing for example). They have protections in some domains (employment, via Bostock) and even that is backsliding because of the EEOC's changing behavior.
Only adults can consent. The sodomy laws struck down in Lawrence were about consenting and private intercourse, both in general and in the very specific case of Mr. Lawrence.
I am extremely uninterested in any discussion that smacks of painting gay people and their relationships as in any way related to child rape.
Does it matter what drives someone to vote for a candidate if the outcome is all the same? It feels like we're discussing manslaughter vs. first degree murder. I don't want to be friends with someone who takes the life of someone else and doesn't feel remorse for it.
Maybe it's a good theoretical exercise, but life is too short for me to appreciate the various reasons that might drive someone to become an asshole.
I totally get where you're coming from. But regardless of their reason for voting for a candidate, if the net effect is that 150m+ women lost rights and other horrible outcomes, it's the same as endorsing it.
Looking at exit pool demographics might help if you're struggling to have any empathy for a Trump voter. They are largely working class and undereducated and astonishingly diverse for a republican candidate in recent memory.
There's an amazing ability for people to not believe Trump is going to do the things he says. See Venezuelan immigrants getting screwed over or the recent tariffs.
> than applying purity tests to your friends and family
It's more about watching people pivot towards unquestionable evil. "Empathy is a sin" is such a deep, dark line in the sand. I'm not going to just stand there and watch you cross it.
I think there is value in trying to understand the other "tribe". If for nothing else, then for practical reasons in figuring out how to defeat the other tribe at the next encounter.
I also think especially in today's political environment, political beliefs at least partially reflect an individual's core values. In some cases I may not want to associate with people that have fundamentally opposing core values to my own. For example this guy's interviews with his parents: https://www.tiktok.com/@thenecessaryconversation
> Iâm pretty sure that they werenât voting for those candidates for the express purpose of stripping away those rights and there were other policies and values that they were voting for
I don't know, man. If they're really your friends, those should be non-negotiable.
Didn't these friends and family essentially apply purity tests to us?
I've cut off my aunt who still claims the 2020 election was stolen. The data I worked with to support fragile communities was removed/altered in the transition (CDC Social Vulnerability Index). I've already lost my job in the federal purge. I have a [former] coworker who was born intersexed that cannot be legally recognized by the government. I'll likely lose my right to marry due to my aunt's beliefs. My boyfriend will likely lose access to lifesaving medication with cuts to funding. My grandma is paying for hospice care with social security and claiming Trump is fixing the country. I'm renewing my passport; several friends have already left the country.
> Iâm pretty sure that they werenât voting for those candidates for the express purpose of stripping away those rights and there were other policies and values that they were voting for.
I'm sure there were people who voted for the Republican party in the last USA election for purely economic reasons. However, "anti-woke" policies were absolutely the most important issue for a lot of people. Just this week the attorney general in my state posted an "April Fool's Day Joke" where the "joke" was him standing next to a LGBT flag.
Most views on Palestine are just different priorities or different viewpoints too. You can equally say that not all support for Trump is rooted in misogyny and xenophobia, but most is. Perhaps you should not recommend that other people engage in such tolerance when you wonât.
> Iâm pretty sure that they werenât voting for those candidates for the express purpose of stripping away those rights and there were other policies and values that they were voting for.
In some markets, about one third of the entire Trump campaign advertising was fear-mongering about how dangerous LGBTQ people are. They wouldn't have spent so much on this if they didn't think it was a uniquely important to their constituents.
I think you're unequivocally wrong if you don't think that Conservatives in the US are above voting for a single issue.
I don't know enough about the Palestine/Israel conflict to be able to make an informed opinion on it, so I won't comment on that.
> I don't know enough about the Palestine/Israel conflict to be able to make an informed opinion on it, so I won't comment on that.
Wise, given the guilt & political climate. But, see also:
Progressive except Palestine (also known as PEP) is a phrase that refers to organizations or individuals who describe themselves politically as progressive, liberal, or left-wing but who do not express pro-Palestinian sentiment or do not comment on the IsraeliâPalestinian conflict.
The issue is that I feel like there's an awful lot of opinions on this, and it's difficult for me to find objective information on this stuff.
I tend to be pretty progressive, so it's probable I would be more on the Palestine side, but I try not to express strong opinions on things that I haven't done at least a cursory amount of research on, and I also don't really want to be labeled an antisemite or racist or anything like that.
> Iâm pretty sure that they werenât voting for those candidates for the express purpose of stripping away those rights and there were other policies and values that they were voting for.
Well, Alabama outlawed abortion except for life of the mother. A federal judge had to rule that the state can't prosecute doctors and reproductive health organizations for helping patients travel out of the state to obtain abortions. The Project 2025 plan is for the Republican controlled Congress to at some point pass the most restrictive federal abortion law they can get away with.
That is stripping away the rights of women to choose. There are many religious conservatives who support this.
That's one possible framing. But from their perspective, they are defending the lives of innocents from those who wish to do them harm. If one accepts their framing of the issue, that's a righteous cause indeed. Why is your framing accurate, and theirs inaccurate?
You're doing what so many people do in the abortion debate, and begging the question. You can't simply sidestep deep differences of opinion on moral issues by declaring your position to be right and theirs wrong. It's wilful ignorance of a whole lot of nuance that exists on this topic, nuance that must be engaged with if one wishes to be effective in having a discussion.
Their framing needs to acknowledge that the fetus is part of the mother's body, not an independent life, and that child birth has risks. Thus the autonomy of the mother over her own body has to be part of the discussion. Their framing can't depend on a soul entering at conception, or God/their sacred scripture telling them abortion is murder. That's not a rational or legal basis for compelling other people who don't believe that way.
If they want to enter a scientific discussion on viability and neural development for when to start placing limits on abortion, and how making victims of rape or incest carry to term is ethical, then we can have a meaningful discussion.
Otherwise, they can feel free to go have their own theocratic community in the wilderness where they don't choose to have abortion. Also known as Alabama these days, unfortunately for those stuck wandering the wilderness with them.
> I think essentially tolerating other peoples opinions and trying to understand where they are coming from is more useful than applying purity tests to your friends and family.
Most of the time this is just being an enabler, who excuses, makes up rationales and blames "the other side" for not being nice enough to extremists. Especially when we talk with about fascist close groups. People who say this achieve only limitations on the opposition to extremists. They rarely or never manage to move extremist into the center.
> Iâm pretty sure that they werenât voting for those candidates for the express purpose of stripping away those rights and there were other policies and values that they were voting for.
Why are you so sure? There are plenty of conservatives who openly talk about it. It is not being tolerant when you decide that no one is allowed to do that observation. You are not being neutral here, you are biasing the discussion toward the extremism when you do it.
> Iâm pretty sure that they werenât voting for those candidates for the express purpose of stripping away those rights and there were other policies and values that they were voting for.
Sure. But this is that age-old meme: You know those people (most people?) in 1930s Germany who supported the Nazi party but they perhaps weren't really for annexations and genocide. You know what they call those people? Nazis.
People who voted for Trump are responsible for the fate of Ukraine, the demise of Nato, the fallout with Canada and Mexico, the inevitable inflation and economic turmoil of tariffs etc. And that's of course even if they only voted for Trump because they hold "traditional republican values", or because of single issues like gun rights, migration or taxes.
> tolerance is necessary
Tolerance stops at intolerance. You can never tolerate intolerance. Apart from that, politics also relies on a few fundamental things like the reliance on facts and experts, and respect for the rule of law. Obviously you can't ever tolerate "politics" which starts to tamper with either of these. Luckily I can keep a tribe which consists of people who agree with this, which can vote for any party in my parliament, and is 98% of the population. I'd hate to be in the US though where the tribes cut down the middle of the population.
I actually agree, I don't think people should merely dismiss differences on issues that strike at core values -- I think it's okay to cut friends/family off on huge differences in values. I have actually done this to both left and right-leaning friends.
But what I'm arguing is that most people do not actually come to these values by way of thinking, but rather by blindly adopting them en masse from their chosen tribe.
And when they choose not to be open to the possibility they might be wrong, then they have a religion, not a intellectually-driven view.
This is okay if acknowledged imo, as per this sentence in the piece:
"If someone is self-aware enough to consciously acknowledge their choice to remain in the bubble, thatâs totally fair. I respect it like Iâd respect anyone who chooses to participate in a more traditional religion. My issue is when this view is falsely passed off as an intellectually-driven one."
I can appreciate comparing these immovable political stances to a "religion".
One thing I've noticed, as people get more entrenched in their viewpoint, is that they stop accepting the possibility that they're wrong, and this flawed thinking starts to extend to the wildest corners of their position.
"Well, if I'm right about the person, the person is right about everything too. And anyone who disagrees with me is therefore wrong about EVERYTHING."
It's a very shallow viewpoint, and some people just refuse to accept that they're wrong sometimes.
One way people keep themselves in bubbles is by dismissing counter opinions as being tribal or trendy. Some opinions may appear that way because the people that have them seem similar. But it could also be due to them having similar backgrounds that led them to those opinions. For example, most doctors believe in vaccines, but that's not group think, it's based in evidence that they have studied. From the outside, it might seem like group think.
My method to discern between beliefs with intellectual backing and those from the community is by presenting them with some bizarro counterargument. If they copy/paste specific phrases and keywords, it's from the community. If they engage with the argument and refute it, then they have given them proper thought.
> For example, most doctors believe in vaccines, but that's not group think, it's based in evidence that they have studied. From the outside, it might seem like group think.
I'm willing to bet that in most cases, that is groupthink. It's hard to tell, because the conclusion is identical to one based on evidence, so you can't infer from the opinion whether it's groupthink or not.
Sometimes you can tell by how someone holds a belief. Defensiveness, unwillingness to consider ways in which their chosen belief is not 100% wholly good, or shouting someone down are evidence of groupthink. For example: if someone brings up that in the past some inactive virus vaccines contained live viruses and a doctor claims that it never happened and could never happen, that's either groupthink or just a doctor sick of arguing with uninformed patients who has given up bothering with explaining the intellectual basis of his beliefs.
My personal suspicion is that the 1% don't exist, that everyone's opinions and beliefs are a mishmash of tribalism and intellectual conclusions, it's just that the balance is very different in different people. I try very hard to make my stances intellectually based and evidence-driven, yet I continually discover that more and more of my deeply held policy positions aren't as clear cut and the real world is more nuanced than I thought.
It's not like nuance is a binary thing (by definition!)
If you remove yourself from a group, how will they change their minds without a dissenting opinion? I had to do it myself eventually, for my own sanity, but I believe this is still a real problem I am no longer addressing among my loved ones.
In my case, my goal isn't to change anyone's mind. It's to preserve sanity -- I can't in good faith "pretend" to get along and have normal conversations when people are actively engaging in behavior that directly harms myself and others.
People proudly voting for parties and policies that demonise trans people, of which I know many. I cannot be your friend in good conscience if you're willing to destroy the lives of my other friends.
No it isnât. When people see the anti trans party winning elections they see that as permission to bully trans people. The vote directly leads to abuse.
Being told that you have to follow the same rules as everyone else for e.g. spaces designated to be used solely by the opposite sex, doesn't seem so bad.
I don't believe you're asking this question in good faith, but there are many, many attempts at erasing them from public existence: https://translegislation.com/
I don't think they're arguing in a good faith with you.
"âNever believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.â
This is an oversimplified strawman argument. Biological sex is a complex subject. The cultural understanding of sex is complex. If I has a man take my 2 year old daughter to the men's room is that a bad thing? (For the record I don't have any children)
I don't think anyone is arguing that you should be barred from taking your hypothetical two-year-old daughter into the men's bathroom if the need arises. That's really not the issue.
but I thought "Being told that you have to follow the same rules as everyone else for e.g. spaces designated to be used solely by the opposite sex, doesn't seem so bad."?
I'm jealous of you. I've got a limited number of family members and friends and find it difficult to get more of either. I don't think I'm in a position to burn them on politics so I'll just have to take them as they are.
+1. I had to cut a lot of people out of my life after seeing the Democrats' response to October 7th. I cannot be friends with anybody who votes for candidates that support exterminating Jews.
+1. I'm cutting people out of my life who think it's justified to harass families on the street or write Nazi symbols on their property because they happen to be riding in a particular brand of car. Fascism/Nazism should not be tolerated.
The question then becomes how to convert a member of a tribe to ones own correct tribe. It's a very tough question to answer.
It's like spycraft during the cold war. A double agent must pass as being in both tribes for the good of their country. They literally isolate themselves from their homelands tribe to embed themselves in another. They are forever changed. They can't go back. In other words: to change another changes oneself too. It weakens ones own group identity.
Almost all people would never want to risk their identity to change another person for the good of their group. It's very risky and very painful.
Another way that the article suggests is to let people change themselves.
Lol. "Liberal" people create an echo chamber by eliminate opposing opinions and then are surprised that people elect far-right candidates.
> Until we can live in a world where fundamental rights are protected and respected
It wasn't hiding from uncomfortable things, opinions and people, that created the world where you can even think about women or minority rights, or even know how to write to express your opnions.
So this approach will not create the world you described.
indeed. This kind of attitude is contrary to what is needed to produce the sort of world desired.
The conceptualization of what fundamental even means is very much subjective, so posing such a condition to dialogue is, in principle, the negation of possibility of improvement on either side.
this is the core kernel of what a tribe even is in my opinion: pose a subjective condition, divide people based on it.
The subtle art of not giving a f** had a great chapter on the importance of deciding your values, that is, what's important to you. The parent advice clearly stated what's important: living in a world where fundamental rights are protected and respected.
Clearly defined values are fine until we get more specific though. What values? Whose responsibility? And what's holding is back from achieving what we want even if our party is in charge? Is it a matter of excluding people who disagree with us? More money? Or is the utopian vision we're attempting not presently achievable?
So is an agreement on fundamental rights for everyone what you want to live your life on? Or do you have other priorities in the meantime where you can agree with people on more immediate matters?
I don't have friends for the sake of "having friends". I choose the people I want to hang out with because I enjoy their company and like/respect them. Being around them makes me happy.
Similarly, people I dislike (rude or mean people, for example) make me unhappy when I'm around them. Cutting them out of my life is a net benefit there too, because I'm happier without them.
Not every opinion deserves the same level of tolerance, respect or acceptance. If someone I know starts goose-stepping Iâm not going to write it off a âjust a difference in opinion.â
The other comment I made here was flagged, though it very clearly doesn't have anything in violation of the rules. It's clear that people here are using flagging to try to censor opinions they don't like.
Elsewhere in this thread I've said that you can have non-judgemental, solicitous conversations with anyone, just to learn how they feel or think about something.
But I agree with parent that it's perfectly justifiable to draw lines that limit potential relationships. You're not obligated to welcome everyone or tolerate views in others that have unbearable consequences for yourself. Vote with your feet.
I haven't talked to my grandmother since Trump won the first time in 2016.
It wasn't just that she voted for him, but the fact that she actively supported all of his policies around immigration, including mass deportations that would have included my wife (who was on DACA at the time). She has also said some extremely disturbing stuff about what should happen to gay people that I don't even know that I can post without breaking some form of TOS, which would be horrible already, but slightly worse to me because my sister is gay.
It's easy to say "just be neutral and don't talk about politics around her", but there are some issues with that.
First, you don't know my grandmother; no matter how much I try and avoid any political subject she will keep bringing it up. She will divert a conversation about my job as a software engineer to somehow a rant about how Mexicans are stealing American jobs (this actually happened). I could just roll my eyes and bite my tongue, but this brings me to my next point:
Second, neutrality isn't neutral. I don't really know who started this myth that somehow avoiding the subject is "not taking a side", it's just a lazy way to endorse the status quo. If I keep trying to be amicable with people who actively want my wife to be deported, then that's sort of signaling to my wife that I don't give a shit about what happens to her. I don't want to signal that, because it's not true. At that point, my only option is to either stop talking to my grandmother or talk to her and constantly push back she says something racist or horrible, which isn't productive.
Before you give me shit over this, all of you do this. You all draw the line somewhere. You probably all draw it at different points than I do, but you absolutely do draw the line. If your best friend suddenly joined the Klan and became the Grand Wizard, you probably wouldn't continue being friends with them, even if you could avoid talking politics, because that would signal that you're ok with their racism. You also probably wouldn't be friends with Jeffrey Dahmer even if you could avoid the whole "killing and eating people" topic.
As it stands, I don't really feel bad for cutting her off. I absolutely do not make a concession for age on this. If you're going to live as a grownup in 2025 then it's not wrong to judge someone by 2025 standards. I don't give a fuck what the world was like when you grew up, you have to live in the world as it is now.
Maybe try understanding that expecting everyone to hold their nose and vote for the dog shit alternative "opposition" candidates provided is not a good litmus test for friendship either.
And I say this with all sincerity: I'm also disappointed in my friends continually voting for Democratic candidates after Obama, as it's clear the DNC will do nothing as long as they can rely on these votes. They put up losing and awful candidates while supposedly our democracy depends on it.
If I were to cut them off as friends for being part of the problem, that sounds unreasonable right?
Why does it sound unreasonable? If it's problem that affects you deeply enough, if you sincerely believe that they're a core part of that problem, then I don't see why the person you replied to would be opposed to it.
Have they eaten two plates of food and enjoyed two drinks and then announced, âIâm a proud republican and support Trump 1000%?â Because thatâs what weâre getting and weâre banning neighbors and friends weâve had for 25 years over it.
I guess I just don't see "tribalism". I know it's a popular description though for the divisiveness we find ourselves in politically.
But I consider the things important to me, the beliefs, the issues: and they, all of them, align with a progressive, left-leaning ideology. I'm not just glomming on to everything one "tribe" or another stands for ... one group actually reflects everything I believe. (I think I could split a few hairs here and there, but we're still talking perhaps 95% alignment.)
But I don't think that is too surprising. Others, smarter than me, have gone into great detail about the underpinnings of left-leaning or right-leaning world views in people. Fear of change, empathy ... a number of ideas have been put forth. By this reasoning it naturally follows that those of a certain "personality" will also share common beliefs, ideologies.
The implication instead seems to be that unless you are somewhere in the middle of the spectrum you must be "tribal". That feels dismissive.
My thought is that if someone aligns exactly with X political ideology, they arenât really thinking for themselves and are just adopting whatever their tribal group believes about X subject. I see this all the time - collections of beliefs that otherwise have nothing to do with each other, but are adopted by the same people because âthatâs what X group thinks about it.â This is very rarely a conscious thing.
This becomes even more obvious when you look at how these collections of beliefs have changed over time, which to me just shows how they arenât based on any fundamental intrinsic personality traits but are trendy and groupthink-based. Ditto for geographic differences.
So I donât think being a centrist implies one is not tribal, rather that the degree to which your beliefs on a variety of issues align with the âdefaultâ of a group implies how tribal you are.
In other words, a politically thoughtful and independent person probably has a basket of opinions that donât fit into neat left or right, liberal or conservative, etc. categories.
Maybe one counter indication of tribalism is how often you disagree with your "tribe". I'm fairly left leaning too, but I also find myself disagreeing with a lot of left leaning policies or talking points. Maybe that's a good sign.
Arguing with leftists all the time is the sure sign that you're a leftist.
(seriously, this is a significant asymmetry between the two that has been there for at least a century. There isn't one lockstep leftism, there's thousands of micro factions arguing about most things)
the right is good at presenting a facade of cohesion. those differences are better-hidden from view until the common enemies of the right are destroyed and they need to begin eating each other.
It's only a good sign if they're able to speak out, and aren't terrified of expressing their dissent in public.
Both the left and the right seem captured by a small minority of radicals, using social media echo chambers/purity spirals to shut down often-quite-reasonable disagreement. And we're clearly past the point at which we can just ignore 'social media politics', given how much it seems to have led to the current state of things in the US.
At the risk of sounding pessimistic, and as someone who also identifies himself as leftist: If the end result is voting between black/white binary choices, and that act of voting is itself one of the most important self-expression, does the fact that I disagree with them in a few points matter?
> and that act of voting is itself one of the most important self-expression
That's what lobbyists want you to believe, at least. It makes their job a lot easier if they are the only ones carrying out democracy.
You need to select someone trustworthy enough to not botch your message, sure, but usually all political parties put up people who are trustworthy enough. What is much more important is your expression to the hired after they are on the job. That is the only way they are going to know what you are thinking. They are not mind readers, surprisingly.
But this isn't a board game that you can quit and go home. You are subject to your government rules regardless of if you participate or not. So it is probably better to try and get political representation that you agree with 60% of the time, rather than one you agree with 5% of the time.
Even better is to try and get a democracy than to live life by the whims of a dictator. Getting to choose your favourite dictator is of little consolation.
This essay feels shallow and dismissive to me. The sentiment is that you can't be a smart, independent thinker whilst going too far left or right. As with many of his essays, my take is that PG - who lives a highly privileged life - is basing this opinion on the caricature of reality that he gleans from the media and internet forums. It's easy to think what he thinks when the only representation you see of the far left is mindless "woke"ism.
Firstly, does he think that Marx was dumb? And leading left-wing figures like AOC, Sanders, Varoufakis, Zinn, or Zizek? No, for all you might disagree with them, they're smart and independent. They did not acquire their opinions in bulk. I even admit that right-wing figures like Shapiro, Bannon etc... are smart and independent, even though I think they're snakes.
Secondly, the essay overstates the degree of uniformity within the far left and right. Have you not seen the animosity between anarchists and Trotskyites? They only agree insofar as believing we can do better than capitalism. And those on the far right who have a global free market ideology will be at odds with those who want to restrict movement and apply protectionist tariffs.
[EDITED TO ADD] Thirdly, he presupposes that the distinction between right and left is purely one of logical competence. This is captured by him saying "both sides are equally wrong". But personal values also drive the polarisation. Those on the right tend to highly value tradition, loyalty, and family. Those on the left tend to highly value universal welfare and the environment. It's not really possible to label these "right" or "wrong", they are expressions of our fundamental desires for ourselves and the world. If you start from different axioms, you'll tend to get different corollaries even if perfect logic is applied.
It's the technocratic or perhaps "enlightened centrist" tribe. There's similar vibe in the post, and even though there's some introspection about the author's own tribe, he doesn't seem to question whether his political thinking could be tribal.
It's indeed typical for this tribe to off-hand dismiss thinking that they deem somehow "ideological" without even really trying to figure out what the thinking is. Also a lot of self-congratulation, exceptionalism and motivated reasoning is exhibited, but these are typical features of any tribe.
Ye sure the third point is a attempt to differentiate left and right on a fundamental level.
If I were to do that, I would say something like "pull the ladder up behind you or tear it down before you" with a comical touch. I don't think it is possible to keep such descriptions short or stringent.
>In other words, a politically thoughtful and independent person probably has a basket of opinions that donât fit into neat left or right, liberal or conservative, etc. categories.
That doesn't stop them from voting a straight red or blue ticket every time if that's what they've been indoctrinated to do.
We've all encountered some old man who by all accounts should be a republican. They own a small business, have conservative social views, like their guns, minimize taxes, etc, etc. But they vote a straight blue ticket because that's what they learned to do back in the 1960s. And on the other side is the stereotypical southern white woman who believes in every social thing the democratic party has but still votes red because she was raised in a religious household and came of age during the peak of the right's lean toward peddling to christians.
> But they vote a straight blue ticket because that's what they learned to do back in the 1960s.
and
> but still votes red because she was raised in a religious household and came of age during the peak of the right's lean toward peddling to christians.
There's no explanation for why the old man votes "blue" other than he learned it in the 60s. OTOH, the woman votes "red" because "she was raised in a religious household" and started voting when The Right was "peddling to christians".
"peddling" -- that's a pretty negative term.
I don't know if it's ironic or demonstrative that an article about how difficult it can be to have political conversations produces a comment thread with such biased viewpoints.
Sure, but to be fair, weâre talking about political discussions and not strictly voting behavior. It seems like a given to me that most voting behavior is only a vague approximation of what people actually think and want.
At the risk of sounding very arrogant, I've found this incredibly obvious even when I was just 18 years old. Decades have passed, plenty of my beliefs have changed, but this one hasn't.
The chance that one "ideology", whether it's liberalism, conservatism, anarchism , fascism or any-ism is always the right answer to every single societal question, is 0. It's comparable to the idea of exactly 1 of the (tens of) thousands of religions being the true one, correct in everything, with all of the others being wrong.
And this extends to politics. Where I'm from, the political landscape is very different from the US, with at least 5+ different parties that support different policies in various ways. At the same time, it's similar - there isn't a single one that approaches things on a case-by-case basis, each of them being ideology-based.
> So I donât think being a centrist implies one is not tribal, rather that the degree to which your beliefs on a variety of issues align with the âdefaultâ of a group implies how tribal you are.
Absolutely, "centrism" is an ideology in itself. This is also why the usage of the word "moderate" in the article and by PG is very unfortunate. That word too comes with a whole lot of baggage, and saying that independent thought leads to one being "moderate" in the way that most people think of that word, is straight up wrong. We need a different word, but I'm not great at coining those. "pragmatic" is the best one I can come up with. I can feel a "pragmatism is an ideology!" coming, but "the ideology of not looking at things from an ideological perspective" is entirely different from anything else. I'm sure the bright minds here can give better words.
> In other words, a politically thoughtful and independent person probably has a basket of opinions that donât fit into neat left or right, liberal or conservative, etc. categories.
Very much so. And as the article points out, this is unfortunately a very lonely experience, so it's completely logical that most don't opt for this, instead choosing the warmth of a dogmatic community.
Funny that you say pragmatic, because thatâs exactly the word I tend to use when describing my own political beliefs. The best that I have come up with is âpragmatic with a propensity forâŚâ and a few sub-categories that more accurately define what Iâd like to see politically happen.
For example - preventionism. It seems to me that many issues could be avoided or eliminated entirely if we tried to prevent them from happening in the first place, rather than choosing between two actions, both with unavoidable negative consequences.
Another is aesthetics. For some reason, the simple desire to make public spaces more beautiful is not really a policy position adopted by any political group, at least in a primary way.
And so maybe the solution is an issue-based political system in which votes and resources go toward specific issues and not parties. (Or work toward eliminating those issues in the first place.)
Some states such as California have a non-partisan ballot proposition where citizens can vote directly on issues. It generally works fine, although it's not clear whether the net impact has really been positive.
On the one hand it defeated affirmative action repeatedly in one of the most left wing states, on the other proposition 13 created a class of landed gentry and permanently screwed the stateâs tax base.
Youâve hit the nail on the head. The platforms of political parties are amalgamations of specific interests and agendas, and not necessarily a cohesive world view born of an aligned set of principles. Most (all) political parties have positions that conflict logically, spiritually, or practically. Yes, that includes your preferred party on the right or left.
So anyone whoâs views align perfectly with a party are probably just parroting what theyâve heard because no sensible individual would arrive at that set of values naturally on their own; it would - and does - take some serious mental gymnastics to hold these contradictory values in your head.
You're correct. Most people's views (i.e. moderates) are ideologically inconsistent with party-line. The loud X/bsky types refuse to decouple, and will double down even if the facts are wrong. Mind you on social media blue-tribe is much further left than the Democratic party.
The technical terms for the first few in that list are sexism, ageism and racism. While it is true people do that, it is considered a bad idea because it doesn't capture reality in a productive and meaningful way. And doesn't seem relevant to keiferski's comment.
The aim should be that people have to voluntarily associate with their tribe. It might be the hermit tribe where all the hermits sign up to be alone together.
Right but thatâs because there are more micro interests on the left. Itâs still tribal though. If I start to bring up deregulation of building housing, there will be a strong immediate backlash by certain factions on the left. I see it more that there is little room for discussion, within these different groups there are only binary options and if you are with them on all talking points, well you are the enemy.
> If I start to bring up deregulation of building housing, there will be a strong immediate backlash by certain factions on the left.
I do suspect that if you what the deregulation actually meant to both left and right people you'd find two (probably overlapping) camps aligned on NIMBY and Housing prices go up as your largest groups.
Structural and safety engineers regardless of political affiliation will tell you why deregulation of some standards is a bad idea.
I once read an interesting article that said in multipolar political systems, coalitions between opinion groups happen after the election; whereas in two-party systems, the coalition forms before the election.
So you get people who think taxation is theft allied with people who Back The Blue. You get people who think life is so sacred abortion should be banned allied with people who'd like to see an AR-15 under every pillow. You get people who think nazi flags and the N word are free speech, allied with people who think books with gay and trans characters should be banned.
And personally I'm pro-environment and think nuclear power has a part to play; I think we should help the homeless by increasing the housing supply and letting builders do their thing; that the police should exist but need substantial reform to stamp out corruption and brutality; and that women's issues like abortion and trans women in abuse shelters should be decided by women, not men like me. But I'm in a political coalition with people who think nuclear power is bad, that we need rent control, that we should defund the police, and so on.
In an electoral system with proportional representation, largely unrelated views would all be different parties, no party would have a majority, and after the election they'd form alliances to build a ruling coalition.
But because of America's electoral system, someone has to take all those views, duct-tape them together and call it a consistent political ideology.
This is a very interesting take, and I agree with your perspective.
I think the "anti-woke" messaging was a particularly effective example, because in reality this means completely different things to many voters (some of those contradictory).
Your nuclear position is interesting, and has become significantly more common over the last decade I feel. Personally, I disagree-- In my view, nuclear power is not on a trajectory where it is ever gonna be competitive (levelized cost) with renewable power. This will lead to renewables "ruining" electricity spot prices whenever they are available which is very bad for nuclear power economics. Nuclear power also shares basically the same drawback with renewables that it wants to be paired with peaker plants for dispatchability (instead of operating in load-following mode itself), but renewables basically just do it cheaper.
At this point, it would basically take a miracle for me to believe in nuclear power again (a very cheap, safe, simple, clean, quick-to-build reactor design) but I don't see this happening any time soon (and honestly the exact same argument applies to fusion power even more strongly-- I think that is an interesting research direction that will never find major a application in power generation).
I will concede however that nuclear power that was built 10-30 years ago (before renewables were really competitive) was and is helpful to reduce CO2 emissions.
Not even the loudest voices. Biden said "fund the police" at a State of the Union address. The people with the most power and influence within the left wing of US politics are not in support of defunding the police.
> that women's issues like abortion and trans women in abuse shelters should be decided by women, not men like me.
This got me wondering... Thinking in reverse, are there any issues that you think should be decided by men only?
Underlying your thought, seems to be the idea that some people should be excluded from certain political/ideological conversations.
Whereas for me, I see all people as individuals, each with a right to their opinions. Ie, I wouldn't start from a point of separation as this bakes in special interests, sexism, racism, etc.
>This got me wondering... Thinking in reverse, are there any issues that you think should be decided by men only?
Military conscription and field duties would be an example I can think of.
For example, in my European country we have mandatory conscription for men over 17 but there was a referendum a while ago if this should still be kept, and it was funny that women also got to vote on whether men get conscripted or not lol. And guess what, most women (and boomers) voted in favor of the mandatory conscription of young males by quite a margin and unsurprisingly the only ones who voted against but got outvoted, were the young men.
Yes this discriminates, but your example illustrates the exact reverse way to what I meant. Being subject to conscription is like a negative right/loss of rights - men are being forced to potentially put their lives on the line. Can you think of a female equivalent where females are ordered by the government to put themselves in harm's way?
In both cases it seems like the discrimination is not in favour of men. Apparently men ought not to get a say in "women's issues", but it is also right that men be forced to put their lives on the line.
If that is correct, it is the case that men have less rights.
They answered your question "are there any issues that you think should be decided by men only?"
In this sentence, you are looking at different parts of the equation depending on case 1 and 2:
> Apparently men ought not to get a say in "women's issues", but it is also right that men be forced to put their lives on the line.
No, in the first case it could be argued that men shouldn't have a say, and in the second it could be argued that women shouldn't have a say. In the first case women are (potentially/allegedly) negative affected, in the second (young) men.
> Can you think of a female equivalent where females are ordered by the government to put themselves in harm's way?
Anti-Abortion laws in the US would be such an example.
If absolute gender equality is what we're after, I think the premise is flawed form the start.
Men have less rights by nature/biology because they are expendable (women are the reproductory bottleneck of the species) and they are the only gender with the physique optimized for physical fighting and hard labor, hence the famous line "women and children first".
We can say it's unfair and imbalanced but that's not gonna change biology and the status quo when push comes to shove and an enemy invades or a natural disaster hits and human meat is needed for the grinder, hence why there's no sympathy towards men and why much less societal help available to men in need (men have 10x the suicide and homelessness rates than women).
Men and women can never be equal in absolute terms outside an utopia of peace and prosperity, because evolutionary biology and gender dysmorphia has engineered our bodies to be good at completely different tasks meant to complement each other in order to ensure the survival and procreation of the tribe/species.
> If absolute gender equality is what we're after, I think the premise is flawed form the start.
I thought we were talking about some sort of equality. Re the OP, who mentioned that they wouldn't participate in certain "women's issues", I couldn't think of an equivalent example where women shouldn't participate in "men's issues". That fact alone strikes me as unequal - it can't be that one sex (or race, or whatever other distinction) should have rights in law, that others don't have. Such a circumstance would an example of creating inequality, which I think is the antithesis of the OP's point.
These questions are not straightforward. Presumably we don't want to initiate or institutionalise inequality.
The graph in the article of "what the political spectrum actually is" where independent thought was only found in the middle was so funny to me that I had to do a double take. Maybe this is a joke or April Fool's prank or something?
I read the article quickly so maybe I'm misreading it but if that graph is serious it really undermines his position as a thoughtful moderate to me. But maybe he really does believe that everyone on the left and the right only has groupthink. I agree with you that it's definitely not all tribalism
European here. I'm on the left, but I don't hang out much with people from the left: they're really often driven by ideology and cannot for the life of them come up with working political plans to push the needle. They're completely rejecting the complexity of compromise and gradual change towards the ideal, convinced that any act that isn't absolute is a betrayal of their values.
Sure I mean a lot of people on every political leaning don't have practical policies but that's besides the point (people can even have bad independent thoughts so impractical policies aren't inherently relevant). The graph isn't even "often people who disagree with me are tribal" it's "literally only some people near me ideologically are independent thinkers".
Edit: this is the graph, everything outside of a group of moderates is 100% on the "groupthink" side of the graph. It's an inherently condescending way to look at people who you disagree with and a disservice to your point if you're trying to get people to listen to each other.
https://images.spr.so/cdn-cgi/imagedelivery/j42No7y-dcokJuNg...
I think you're taking the graph way too literally.
The Republicans and Democrats are both coalitions made up of many different groups, and their policies are constantly shifting depending on which individuals get elected and which of those sub-groups hold more power, as well as due to different sub-groups shifting allegiances.
It's statistically almost impossible that someone would agree 100% with the platform of the Republicans or Democrats at any given moment. Even if you just pretend there are exactly two stances on a given issue (R or D) you'd still be looking at like 2^1000 different possible outcomes (for 1,000 different issues). The more perfectly someone claims to align to one party, the more likely it is that they're doing so out of tribalism than because they actually matched the exact one-in-a-zillion set of opinions.
The graph isn't "agrees with Republican" and "agrees with Democrat" as the axis (I also would say you can agree with people and still be a free thinker, viewing positions as independent doesn't really make sense, there's underlying ideology that heavily correlates them but all of this is besides the point). The idea that the far left is agreeing dogmatically with the democratic platform is clearly factually incorrect to anyone who has met people actually on the far left (they rarely even agree with other people on the far left) and a similar thing can be said about the far right.
The really obvious example of this is look how much of a thorn in the side of the Republican Congressional leadership the far right has been. Agreeing rigidly with a party will not put you at the edge of the graphs at all (for most parties globally it would put you somewhere in the middle)
The graph X axis could just as well have been labelled "agrees with Republicans" and "agrees with Democrats"; perhaps it would've been clearer that way. But really, any polarization axis would've worked.
The ideal graph would have two opposing labels dynamically generated according to the beliefs of the reader to be along a polarization axis for which the reader exists in the middle.
It's not just that the axes are wrong, there's a fundamental problem with the idea of the graph in an article about considering viewpoints and overcoming tribalism. Fundamentally the author put a graph in the article about tribalism and not considering other views where only people close to him ideologically are "free thinkers" (it's especially weird since "free thinkers" are congregated where most people are). You can sorta see this problem with the rest of the article, there are a lot of claims about how other people think badly and how he thinks is good. This is his perogative but it makes the article deeply insular and not really about how to understand and reason with other people.
It's particularly frustrating to me since from my experience I think both sides thinking he is farther away ideologically than he is is from then is from this tendency. I have the opposite problem, people generally think I'm much closer ideologically than I am even though I'm uncompromising in my principles (I'm very far left and even a vegan, which is anathema to many people). I've found if I listen to people and, more importantly, am willing to understand and speak to their values the more my experience is the exact opposite of the writer's. People's political views are often irrational but also they are driven by a diverse set of underlying ideologies and values and if you think "independent thought" is going to cluster in particular spot in an ideological spectrum and everyone else is just subject to groupthink (but you aren't somehow) then of course talking to other people who aren't ideologically close to you is going to be miserable.
Even more so when you see how quickly these coalitions will shift their beliefs or take on new beliefs when theyâre signaled to do so by leaders of the coalition.
You often see this in real time during political conversations (both online and offline). Someone will say, âNo one on my side ever said X, thatâs a vicious smear perpetrated by the other side.â Someone will response with an example of a prominent leader on their side saying X. The first person will suddenly do a 180, and start explaining why X is just a commonsense position and itâs silly for anyone to be offended by it.
AI's ability to sift through text is almost to the point of being able to pick out these idiots so they can be ignored.
We're not too far off from a future where anyone can mouse over their username and a browser extension will tell them whether the username they are mousing over is consistent in their beliefs or if they're a flip flopping POS shill for whatever color party they're peddling the policy of.
I think you're talking about a subtly different thing. OP was simply saying "it's very possible to be a rational independent thinker and yet be non-centrist". What you're saying is "a lot of people I've met who are more left than me are impractical".
Relating to your point, I would add something based on my experience in the UK. In the last 30 years we've twice had a Labour leader elected. Both times campaigning as a hard-nosed centre-left pragmatist, and with some on the left echoing similar sentiments about compromise and pushing the needle.
Blair admittedly did some good stuff - Lords reform and minimum wage. But he also introduced and then tripled university fees, greatly expanded private initiatives in the public sector, and engaged in an activist interventionist foreign policy culminating in the invasion of Iraq. These are changes whose ill effects we're still reeling from as a country.
Starmer is looking to shape up very similarly, from his U-turns on private school charitable status, tuition fees and the two-child cap, to his reluctance to condemn the Gazan genocide and cuts to disability allowance.
Was it better to have these as prime minister Vs the conservative candidate? Yes, probably. Can they really be said to be pushing the needle? I doubt it.
Not saying that our right is much better. Their top "virtue" seems to be competent campaigning & hard work in pursuit of political power. (Which, obviously, worked for them.) Vs. our left seems too busy holding low-effort ideological purity beauty contests to particularly care about being in power.
I've heard that some of the brighter voters, who voted for Democrats due to "Trump is the worst choice" arguments, are waking up to just how low-functioning the Dem's are. Not saying that that'll do any good - but it's nice to hear.
> They're completely rejecting the complexity of compromise and gradual change towards the ideal, convinced that any act that isn't absolute is a betrayal of their values.
Interestingly enough, this also describes a member of the Trump Party (formerly known as the Republican Party).
I should probably generate a new one or just remove since it appears to have sent this message to multiple people
But yeah I don't think it's entirely tribalism, but I do largely agree with PG's essay, though I'd understand a contesting of his statement that "the left and right are equally wrong about half the time"
But which is it? Do you agree with Graham's essay and your own graph, or do you disagree?
It sounds like you believe in the graph, but don't want to turn people off. Just own your belief.
FWIW I think you should disagree with Graham's essay and your own graph. Saying that "left" and "right" were both 50% wrong is like saying the same about "federalist" and "anti-federalist". Even if the sides are 50% wrong, the free thinkers would be widely distributed.
Ironically this seems like an example of the tribalism my essay is about -- I agree with his essay, but only partially agree with the graph
I think the hump could be slightly shifted left or right, but the points on the graph are the averages of an individual's entire collection of views
I don't believe an independent thinker would come up with a set of views that perfectly match the left or right's doctrine since at least some of those views are somewhat arbitrary -- in that sense I agree with him
There are also centrist doctrines. Even explicit ones like the radical centrism.
A major problem is trying to project a hugely multifaceted phenomenon like political outlook into one, or even few, dimensions. And then even discretizing the one dimension. And then categorizing (other) people's thinking or ideologies into these.
Another problem is assuming that there is some universal "optimal" or even good policy. Instead there can be even fundamentally contradicting interests or goals between e.g., dare I say, classes which can lead to well informed
I'm not claiming you don't appreciate these, but the conclusions to me seem to require such problematic assumptions. The intent is likely something like trying to simplify complex phenomena into something manageable (i.e. an ideology), but these tend to be very leaky abstractions.
I think the issue might stem from the fact that (as I read it) the essay is talking about "for the people who are moderate (in the middle of the left/right axis), some are distributed higher on your graph, while some are lower". Which says nothing about "for the people who are distributed higher on the graph, how many are in the middle of the left/right axis". Your graph makes explicit an answer to the second question which the essay avoids. (There is a bit of an implication in the last two paragraphs, but PG is explicit it's only about people he knows).
In the essay, the "unintentional moderate" is defined as someone who holds all kinds of views, some from the far left, some from the far right, some from the middle - but by chance the average of their views makes them a moderate.
I had to go looking for that, because the graph doesn't show that at all. I think the graph is a bad take on the ideas in Paul Graham's article.
I read that I think he means it is tribal thinking if you have a desire to convince instead of search for truth in a curious way.
I didnt read that people on the left or the right are always tribal. But yeah, its easy to go that way when you are not able to see the truth in opposite viewpoints.
What he means is that according to the graph if you call yourself an "independent thinker" then you can't be an extremist. You are automatically a centrist. All the dots on the "independent thinker" half are all centrist. None are left or right. An interesting bias that he's admitting to. Made me roll my eyes and stop reading right there, and just skim the rest for all the "independent thinker" tropes.
If you want to feel superior and virtue signal, just label yourself an "independent thinker." It's so easy.
It's not uncommon for people who decide they have "discovered" the "real political spectrum" by simply adding a new axis to the traditional left-right spectrum to coincidentally idealize one pole on that new axis, viewing all variation on the left-right axis as indicative of distraction from what is important.
Asserting that people varying on the left-right spectrum also cluster around the anti-ideal pole of the idealized axis while everyone closer to the ideal pole clusters around the left-right center is not as common, but reflects the same cognitive bias, though it is particularly amusing when that axis independent thought (ideal) vs. groupthink (anti-ideal), such that freethinkers are asserted to by ideological uniform even outside of the shared commit to "free" thought, while sheepish adherents of groupthink are more ideologically diverse.
(And, yes, that graph is deadly serious -- as well as, IMO, hilariously wrong [0] -- and fairly central to the theme of the post.)
It's even more funny that this "free thinker" is decrying tribalist groupthink, asserting (as already discussed) that free thought exists only in an extremely narrow band in the center of the left-right axis, and talking about how they can't talk politics with anyone outside their group and are "desperate for like-minded folk". The lack of self-awareness is...palpable.
It's even more funny that all the ideas he embraces and purports to have trouble finding people he agrees with are the standard doctrines of the rationalist/EA/longermist faction that is so popular in the tech/AI space (and the conceit of being uniquely free thinking is also common to the faction.)
[0] Actual free thinkers are, IME, distributed widely -- not necessarily evenly, but certainly not clustered in one spot -- across both the left-right axis and a number of other political axes [1][2], such as the authoritarian-libertarian axis, so both the distribution shown and the assertion that the "real" political spectrum is two dimensional with only freethought vs. groupthink added to the classic left-right axis are incorrect.
[1] For a number of reasons, including both differences in life experiences and thus perceived probabilities on various factual propositions, but also on fundamental values which life experiences may impact, but not in a deductive manner, because you can't reason to "ought" from "is".
[2] Free thinkers do differ from groupthinkers in that their positions in the multidimensional space of political values are likely not to fall into the clusters of established tribes, but to have some views typical of one tribe while other others fall out of that tribes typical space (and possibly even into the space of an opposing tribe.) But there are enough different tribes
I should probably generate a new one or just remove since it appears to have sent this message to multiple people
But yeah I don't think it's entirely tribalism, but I do largely agree with PG's essay, though I'd understand a contesting of his statement that 'the left and right are equally wrong about half the time'"
One quality of âtribalâ that I think gets overlooked is that those that are part of a âtribeâ are not willing to be wrong.
I feel like those that are more in the middle - in addition to be âaccidentally in the middleâ as pg says â theyâre open to hearing the other side, and even open to being wrong.
Those that I know that I might define as âtribalâ â and that goes for either side â are certainly not open to being wrong, and not even really open to listening to the other side â even a rational discussion.
Some may pretend to listen and maybe even engage in a discussion, but only out of being polite, not out of genuine, open curiosity.
The most visible example of tribalism is when groups fail to update their ideas and beliefs as facts start to come in. You can't escape the religious parallel.
This occurs clear across the political spectrum, but a standout example is record-breaking levels of immigration in European countries like Sweden and Germany. Instead of realizing the policy failure and acting to fix it, the line becomes "it was the right thing to do, it was just done poorly."
It's natural to internalise the groups we belong to. In other words they become me. Or my identity is formed by the group.
When social scientists say something is socially constructed that's approaching this.
It's hard to see oneself apart from the group one belongs to. In fact to separate oneself causes real pain. In the article it says that people don't want to look outside their tribe; I would say that people shouldn't even think about looking outside as it will cause trauma. It would literally cause psychological identity wounds.
By definition, reason can only take you so far in politics, as itâs the arena in which decisions must be made without complete information. No matter how well reasoned your arguments, no matter how well informed you are, youâre still going to resist switching allegiances. So, imo, politics is just about 99% loyalty.
Looking at it from a left-right one-dimensional space, the middle would be the non-tribal choice. The political spectrum is however not a one-dimensional space, and countries with multiple political parties, with center parties, can demonstrate that well in polls and self tests. It is perfectly possible for a single individual to be in 50% agreement with every single political party, from left, center and right, agreeing to the individual policies from each party that they find to be correct and disagreeing with policies they disagree with.
As it happens, if I personally looks to what is important to me, I find that from the extremest left to the extremest right, the best political party get 60% support and the worst get 40% support. They all have some policies that I strongly support, and some policies that are terrible, and the middle of the gang is exactly the same.
To take an example. I am in strong support of the green party when it comes to train and bike infrastructure, fishing policies, eliminating lead in hunting ammunition, getting rid of invasive species, and banning heavy fuel oil in shipping. I strongly disagree with their support of using natural gas as a transactional fuel in the energy grid in hopes of green hydrogen (a pipe dream), and their dismantling of nuclear power. I also strongly disagree with their political attempts to mix in the war in Gaza with environmentalism, as if taking up the flag for either side in that war has any relevance in nation/local politics on what is almost the other side of the world. That is one political party out of 8 that my country has, and the story is similar with all the rest.
Looking at this as a non-American. American politics is seems very much tribe minded as an outsider,left vs right. And where someone stands largely can tell you about their views on a lot of other things. At least that's how it is portrayed in media. I know in practice a lot of people are more nuanced.
Most countries have sometimes up to 10 political parties and what party/ies someone supports often does not say much about their views on different social issues. In the USA
it seems you can't want a secure border and civil rights for minority groups.
I think there sadly exists an overlay in a lot of politics, basically tribalism, but I think the better phrasing is "teams" as in "team sports".
You don't like a team for an ideological reason, usually physical closeness or some other arbitrary connection.
For many, the team is the extent at which they analyze politics. You see this when conservatives will reference historical events in terms of the name of the political party. For example, it's relatively common to see someone say "Oh the Democrats are bad because during the Civil war they were on the side of slavery". Their analysis doesn't include the actual policy or ideology at hand, it's simply the team "Democrats". It doesn't matter to them if the flavor of policies that the early 20th century dems supported are similar or even the same as the policies modern Republicans support. Only the team.
I think there exists multiple layers of "tribalism" or "team sports" in politics that effects people differently. The bottom layer is sadly "<Name of party> good, <name of other party> bad". I think at some point we must acknowledge that some people are simply stupid. If they think making an argument based on the politics of a party 100 years ago is convincing, they might just not have the facilities for critical thinking.
A lot of those people are now @-ing grok on twitter to explain even the simplest of jokes.
Is it really likely that an intelligent person like yourself could hold 95% intellectual alignment with one of the two lowest common denominators (largest pluralities) in a country on complex political topics? Consider how much each party's platform has changed in the last 20 years, and how much more they will change in the next 20. I would say it's more likely that someone like yourself is quite intelligent and creative and is instead unaware of those deeply ingrained tribal instincts.
Media in the US, especially now via incessant social media feeds, fuels this. It showers us with information showing how the "other side" is bad. So you can have a correct opinion that the other tribe is bad without any quantitative metrics to compare how bad it is compared to your tribe, which is also very bad.
Btw, regarding the basic personality traits thing. I found this paper very interesting [0]. Sort of refutes the "conservatives lack empathy and fear change" angle. On average, I suspect most liberals and conservatives have very similar averages across most personality traits and are mostly just a product of their environment.
I think the claim is that a lot of people stick with the tribe regardless of how closely it matches their world views. It might be dismissive but it resonates. I've seen people keep voting for the same parties even when the policies have shifted very significantly.
Since you are left leaning, presumably American, a good example is the Republicans. The current policies and values of the Republicans seem to be very different than let's say those of 20 years ago. But you don't see a lot of movement, i.e. you don't really see people saying because your actions of policies changed I'm going to re-evaluate my support for you. Maybe the other team is now closer to my world views. It's a lot more common that people just keep voting for their camp or team. I'm sure there are studies, this is very anecdotal. There are also many e.g. single issue voters, they only care about a single issue and nothing else.
Independent thinkers, who dive deep into issues, who challenge beliefs, who weigh multiple issues and considerations, who potentially shift their position when the goal posts have moved or they've evaluated new information, are rare. It's much easier to stay in an echo chamber/team/tribe. We see this all the time, another example is the pandemic. It's lack of nuance.
You see this in the political discourse. Instead of debating things of substance it's more of a rally around the team approach. You're never going to see in-depth discussion/analysis on tax policies, or security policies. Anything that doesn't meet your world view is automatically discredited whether it has merit or not, It's going to be they bad we good/polarizing/conspiracies etc. This pushes people farther apart and I think it also pushes policies farther apart. Maybe sometimes it is that simple but plenty of times it's not.
A lot of this is due to the failure of the American political system: there is simply no room for a third party. A lot of people don't want to vote for "their" party, it's merely a strategic vote in an attempt to keep the worse of two evil out of power.
If you vote for a third-party candidate, you might just as well not have voted at all. The parties will only genuinely start caring about policy when that gets fixed, and voters will only start looking into politics when there is more than one option on their side of the aisle.
There is room for third parties, but it's a hard road and in my lifetime, I've not seen any parties really try to take the road.
You've got to get your party organized at all levels and running candidates in most contests. Everyone seems to want to run a Presidential candidate, but if you're going to run only one election, it should be one you have a chance of winning. A lot of federal office holders previously held state or local office. If you want to seriously contest federal offices, you need to have candidates with elected experience. So, start with local districts, city council/mayorship, maybe county offices. From there, work towards state office. Then you can pick up some house seats, and eventually senate seats too. When the time is right, maybe try some of your seasoned politicians for President.
Thing is you donât even need a deep dive. Some things sound fishy. Some things are obvious political spin. This alone should stop people from identifying with any party.
world views change with time and parties lead&follow the process at the same time.
that will be shown strongly in a locked 2 party system like the usa has.
you say it is strange that not more people switch camps, but this is not accidental, an extreme amount of effort and resources are spent to maintain this.
> align with a progressive, left-leaning ideology.
Cooperation and scalability are two objectively good principles that our species can apply effectively... if and only if there is a genuine desire for cooperative, scalable, positive outcomes.
If social/political discourse has degraded to the point that cooperative, scalable, positive outcomes are off the table, look to those who have taken control of the discourse. Propaganda undermines language itself.
The difference between destructive behavior and constructive behaviour... has a bias.
I think it refers to people, who I have run into quite a lot, who when faced with a new fact about politics or the behaviour of politicians, back the team over the idea.
Like if you were to say consider yourself a progressive. I would consider you a progressive, unless you for instance, supported something incredibly conservative that was performed by a "Good Guy" politician on your team.
For instance, we used to have this chap Daniel Andrews. Who was for better or worse, a mild progressive. He took a very hard stance on Covid related issues. Progressives, backed the man regardless. Conservatives criticised his every move. However, his own human rights review, found that he had violated the human rights of citizens in certain circumstances.
If you mention this to his critics, it reinforces their team. But if you mention this (incredibly obvious good faith criticism) to his supporters, not only does it reinforce their team, but they immediately seek to identify you as someone on the other team. A "crazy anti lockdown conservative" or similar. - That for me is the essence of tribalism.
To be fair I think this is a symptom of social media rather than just political awareness.
Quite a few people who have been vociferously pro-EU and in favour of their protectionism, tariffs and non-tariff trade barriers have been going crazy over the US imposing tariffs, even though the US rates are far lower than the EU's.
A similar group has historically been strongly against government corruption but recently have been attacking efforts to uncover and stop corruption in the US Federal government.
> even though the US rates are far lower than the EU's
What does "far lower" mean to you? Can you give examples? Because to me, the view "Trumps tariffs are only matching what foreign nations already do" is just factually wrong.
Personally, I just think blanket tariffs as a significant form of government income is highly detrimental, from a foreign policy perspective (=> alienates allies, encourages retaliation), as a tax-substitute (because it's basically a regressive "tax-the-rich-less" scheme, which, given meteorically rising wealth inequality, is the last thing we need) and also for economic development (because there is neither the workforce, nor the actual desire, to build up low-margin manufacturing in the US-- making those products 30% more expensive is not gonna change that meaningfully).
> A similar group has historically been strongly against government corruption but recently have been attacking efforts to uncover and stop corruption in the US Federal government.
I don't have a lot of beef in this, personally, but if you're talking about doge:
I just have to look at their website, and what I see are numbers that don't add up at all, containing a lot of cuts for purely policy reasons, wrapped in highly partisan messaging.
I'd be strongly against that even if they advocated for wheelchair accessibility and gay rights on their twitter, or w/e.
Corruption, to me, is if you buy influence on government policy by spending money on officials, and that is exactly what I see under Trump.
Both of these are basically strawman arguments - there are legitimate, non-tribal reasons to be against the actions taken re: tariffs and the purported anti-corruption tasks. For example, a person can be strongly against government corruption but also be strongly against the current efforts/methods being used for a multitude of reasons. And similar for tariffs. (Not having those debates here, just pointing out that I don't believe those examples hold up.)
> I'm not just glomming on to everything one "tribe" or another stands for ... one group actually reflects everything I believe.
I don't think that's unreasonable, but if you're in the US, you should really re-evaluate if this is true just because there are several significant issues over which the parties have flipped over the past few decades (and more if you go back further).
Obviously you didn't specify a party, but as one example: In the 1990s, the left wing party was where the free speech absolutists were. If you were a big "free speech" enthusiast back then and you still are now, then great! If your views have changed, that's fine, too, but there should be alarm bells going off in your head that your views changed along with the tribe.
Always remember that internet conversations are carried by a small group of antisocial losers, and a most of media articles complaining about society are specifically targeting that small but loud group.
An average person has a lot more in common with you than with the imaginary protagonist of this blogpost, who is really smart and wants to show that everyone else is really dumb.
Like other normal people, I discuss politics with friends; both with the ones I mostly agree with and the ones I mostly disagree with. We need to understand game theory and military strategy to have a useful conversation.
just by being able to understand why you believe what you believe, for each individual view
center-ish is not a requirement, but a correlation -- rarely will someone independently come up with views that 100% match the somewhat-arbitrary positions of the left or right
Tribalism is part metaphor, part euphemism. What itâs really getting at is cult behavior. Agreeing with someone on a lot of things isnât tribal and isnât cult.
The actual problems of âtribalismâ are exactly those of cults: worship of a leader or ideology, zero tolerance for criticism, cutting you off from other support networks, conspiracies, narratives of doom, promises of salvation, framing enemies as degenerates and deplorables, claiming exclusive ownership of truth and moralityâŚ
If you think these beleifs are inherent in the temperament of people, that doesnt explain the change of these beliefs over time. Progressive, left leaning ideology had different stances 20 years ago, let alone 50 years or in China or India.
Sometimes this is easier to see from the outside. For example, if the conservative right all independently arrived at the same conclusion based on personality, isnt it strange how the consensus all moves together and changes over time
Martin Luther King was pretty clear what he thought of "the middle":
> I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to 'order' than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice
Sounds like a kind of dumb thing to criticize, then. Picking the side of Martin Luther King Jr. on civil rights isâŚuhâŚkind of a difficult position to argue against.
It's an example of when "not being tribal" is wrong, because one side wanted to keep denying civil rights to a group of people. The correct side was to protest and put pressure on the system. Take the war in Ukraine. There isn't a middle ground between resisting Russian aggression for Ukrainians and fighting back. You either resist, or you get conquered. Not all issues and situations have some happy middle ground where both sides are equal parts wrong/right.
The person receiving the pointy end of a spear doesn't much care whether you explicitly chose to stab him or whether you stabbed him because you are following your tribe.
> The implication instead seems to be that unless you are somewhere in the middle of the spectrum you must be "tribal". That feels dismissive.
It's not about where you are on the spectrum. I know neoliberal moderate Democrats, people who would have voted for George H.W. Bush in 1988, who are more tribal about current U.S. politics than any socialist I've met. What makes it unpleasant to talk politics with them is a combination of two things: the narrow set of answers they're willing to accept on every topic, and the anger and suspicion they broadcast at anyone who says anything else. For example, they have an acceptable set of answers for why Trump won in 2024 (racism and sexism) and if you suggest any other contributing factors (like arrogance, elitism, and various screw-ups in the Democratic party) then you must be on the other side, blaming the victims and making excuses for Trump supporters. You can say a dozen things morally condemning Trump and the Republican Party and then make one strategic criticism of the Democrats, and they'll look at you like maybe they can't ever trust you anymore. They'll parade their emotional distress and look at you sideways if you don't have the energy to mirror it. All this without being especially politically informed, politically engaged, or politically radical, or caring if anybody else is informed, engaged, or radical -- they judge themselves and others purely by fervor and narrowness.
> You can say a dozen things morally condemning Trump and the Republican Party and then make one strategic criticism of the Democrats, and they'll look at you like maybe they can't ever trust you anymore.
I think some of this is a consequence of a decade or so of bad faith "wolf in sheep's clothing" online discourse.
I remember way back before Trump's first term, before GamerGate, before the alt-right when people would "joke" about racist and neonazi stuff on 4chan and elsewhere. It was framed as "We're just kidding around because it's fun to be edgy. It's ironic. Obviously, we're not really racist neonazis." People, mostly teens, took the bait and thought it was all in good fun but over time those ideas sunk in and actually stuck.
The next thing you know, we've got white supremacists parading in broad daylight.
If you poke around the dark (and these days not so dark) corners of the Internet, you can literally find people with toxic fringe beliefs discussing how to subtlely soften up their targets with seemingly innocent "just asking questions" when the ultimate goal is to (1) obscure which tribe they are actually a member of and (2) persuade people over to their tribe without them realizing it.
When you're in an environment where people like that do actually exist and participate in discourse, it's reasonable to wonder if the person you're talking to really does share your beliefs or not.
How are those two situations remotely similar? A criticism of the Democratic Party should not be seen as a morally reprehensible "joke" that you have to walk back like "ha ha, just kidding, I would never criticize the party."
The idea that the Democratic Party is a flawed, mundane institution full of fallible people who make mistakes is not a toxic idea that we need to keep out of the discourse lest it "sink in and actually stick." It's more like medicine that the party is trying to administer to itself with one hand while the other hand tries to bat it away.
I think one of the distinguishing characteristics of tribalism is the inability to have low-stakes conversations about politics. To somebody who is deep in tribalism, every private ephemeral one-to-one conversation they have is a vital battle which very well may decide the fate of the world, so their vigilance and inflamed passion entirely justified and rational. Being a part of the tribe ruins their humility, the tribe is important, they are wed to the tribe, any political discussion they have is on behave of the tribe, and therefore very important. Alliance with the tribe confers importance to themselves and they thereby lose their humility. They lose the ability to recognize that the conversation isn't actually important, that they can relax and treat the other person like a human rather than a faceless representative of the enemy who they have a vital responsibility to defeat.
You are right that you don't take part in tribalism, because you first have a value structure and then you looked critically at the political landscape and found where you have the largest overlap.
But tribalism is absolutely an issue in the modern age with huge swathes of population falling into social media echo chambers. People first find their tribe, and then they define their own personality by the views of that tribe, not the other way around.
Just look at all the people spewing "own the libs" or "maga fucktards". A significant portion of the population doesn't vote based on rational analysis, but by being part of a crowd. They don't even care or know what they vote for, as long as they are sticking it to people they perceive as enemies.
I think this is basically the terminal/minimum of the modern social network algo optimization. Everything is maximally polarized, nobody is willing to engage in good faith discussion with people who hold different views. Everyone has a known enemy and known allies and they can be fed what they like to hear and thus continue being addicted.
The United States especially is having a face to face with tribalism - if you live here and you don't see it you are basically blind.
We have parents posting that they are glad their child is dead instead of getting the measles vaccine, an entire pandemic that was ignored and downplayed, an election denied.
These are all simple examples of tribalism - choosing the tribe over ones own self interest and well being. Most sane people don't offer their children up to Baal.
I think tribalism is being thought of as a pejorative when it isnât. It merely is a phenomenon. What you describe above about yourself is pure tribalism of how you identify with the liberal tribe and could never even picture yourself as a member of other tribe. This is no different to me than a rabbi or priest talking about the tenets of their faith and how that leaves them no option but to be a member of that religion due to the moral underpinnings of those tenets that they believe in.
Tribal politics happen when we take these various tribes in our society and essentially blind them to their biases to the point where they canât imagine at all why someone would even be in that other tribe. A complete loss of critical thinking ability emerges once it becomes us and them and not some of us and others of us, one species, no tribes, many ideas.
Do you actually believe all liberals are good and can do no evil? Do you actually believe all conservatives are cartoonishly evil idiots? Iâd hope you could see the nuance but your description makes it seem like there is one way but the highway. And the reflexive counter argument from the liberals is âbut racismâ but then again, explain the phenomenon of the black or latino Trump supporter? Clearly there is more nuance going on in what is sensible to people than what we can gleam out of the black and white painted descriptions from the thought leaders in our tribe.
Just in the last election cycle, we saw tribal Democratic voters try and silence those protesting the Biden administration and then immediately go "we have always been at war with Eurasia" and do the exact same thing for Kamala.
And MAGA goes beyond being tribal: by any objective measure, it's a cult.
Plus you see an awful lot of people who will criticize one side for doing one thing while supporting the other side for doing the exact same thing. Obama, for example, was the Deporter-in-Chief (~3 million deported), Biden continued the Trump policy of using Title 42 to deny asylum claims and Kamala proposed building the very same border wall that all Democrats protested when Trump proposed it in 2020.
I'm a leftist and any leftist will have seen so many liberals who love progressive aesthetics but turn into a jack-booted fascist the second you want to address any of the underlying economic issues. For example, tell people "house prices need to come down" to solve any number of issues such as homelessness and see how they react.
> The implication instead seems to be that unless you are somewhere in the middle of the spectrum you must be "tribal". That feels dismissive.
On this, I 100% agree. There are several reasons why:
1. Intellectual laziness. People think they're "above the fray" by bothsidesing everything;
2. Ignorance. This is particularly an issue for Democratic voters in the US. Both Democrats and Republicans are neoliberals. US foreign policy is bipartisan. Full-throated support for capitalism is bipartisan. But a large segment of Democrats tell themselves they're good people for wearing a pride pin while at the same time thinking homeless people should die in the stree; or
3. Deception. This is particularly the case for Republicans who will try and center their positions by appealing to "common sense" and label Democrats, who are a center-right party, as "the far Left" or "the radical Left".
So, yes, people do use "tribalism" as an epithet to silence legitimate criticisim but there is also tribalism.
> After seven years in San Diego, my wife and I have decided to uproot our family and move to the Bay Area. While there were many factors (a new job opportunity, family), a significant reason was finding a community of truth-seeking people.
Funny. The lack of truth-seeking and truth-telling is one of the chief reasons I moved away from the Bay Area.
You'll find unquestioning dogmatism everywhere you go unfortunately.
For what it's worth, the odds for rationally evaluating political ideas tend to go up around folks that have gone to universities that are known for some decent level of intellectual rigor.
Still not great though, some of the most dogmatic people I've met in my life were professors and undergrads. But those that were the opposite more than made up for that.
A while back I realized that most news stations have a clear bias and eventually started to dive deeper on stories I was interested in.
I try to look into the source material when possible and found time and time again that the 'news' either left out key details or completely misrepresented the source material.
I never bring up politics, but friends will often repeat news stories and occasionally I'll bring up key facts that weren't reported on.
This has never changed anyone's opinion. Usually all it does is make the other person upset or they bring up another story to reaffirm their currently held belief.
Thankfully my relationships are strong enough that I haven't lost any friends over this, but it's incredibly isolating. Feels like brainwashing on a massive scale.
That's not to say that the news isn't to be trusted at all, some things are as reported. But, often times this isn't the case and it's more important than ever to think critically and not take news stories at face value. The division is mostly manufactured and I believe at our core most of us want the same things.
I'm 52. For me, there was a time when it was considered impolite to talk about sex, religion and politics. Then it became super fun when done with open/questioning/rational/critical minds, and a lot of progress in my own thinking was achieved from the usually non-threatening but lively debates and fights among friends and family for ideas. Then it shifted in the last ten or fifteen years. When social media started having friends of friends, the tribalism kicked in. It was explained very well in a talk between Maria Ressa and Jon Stewart. She is brilliant, and well worth listening to. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsHoX9ZpA_M
Everything is because of increasing wealth inequality, it is the root cause of almost every societal problem. It was easier to have non-threatening debates because everyone felt more secure. When people are stressed and afraid, the debates arenât just intellectual exercises but things that could mean the loss of real opportunities in their lives. This is a trend that has been going on for a very long time, Pikkety showed mathematically that itâs easier to make money when you already have money and this runaway process is nearing an extreme.
I firmly believe that if wealth distribution today was the same as it was in the 70s-90s, the culture wars would be significantly dampened or non existent. If people could still buy homes, afford to have kids and healthcare, we would all be able to talk about religion, sex, and politics without this extreme tribalism. Itâs happening because there are way more âlosersâ in the economic game now, itâs become a life or death issue, and people are looking for who to blame.
I largely agree. Recently I'm somewhat minded to think the issue is actually about the huge expansion of the rentier class. The problem began with the adoption of neoliberalism and the mainstreaming of the idea that you could reasonably "earn" money by simply having money. Prior classical and Keynesian thought railed against such rent seeking and sought to eliminate it as a parasitic drag on the economy.
Since the decision was made post GFC to bail out the banks and protect capital over the normal person that just wanted a house to live in, the position of the rentiers has been consolidated hugely. We have Rachel Reeves thinking we in the UK can build a growth strategy on the back of financial services (which generally means "rent-extraction services"). A rational system would separate the GDP from the real economy from the income from rent extraction, and seek to eliminate the latter.
To the common man, they see themselves working longer and harder than they used to and getting a smaller and smaller slice of the pie. It turns out when your real outputs have to support a sizeable portion of the population who have dedicated their lives to the art of rent extraction to live like kings, you don't see much of the gain.
I have many contemporaries that have gone into finance. A vast pool of intellectual capability, shuffling money around playing zero sum games, and ultimately protected from loss by the power of the state.
> It was easier to have non-threatening debates because everyone felt more secure. When people are stressed and afraid, the debates arenât just intellectual exercises but things that could mean the loss of real opportunities in their lives.
Youâre right that people feel less secure, but that doesnât mean that they are correct when they feel that.
By pretty much any measure, I believe that people in 2025 are far more secure than they were in 1975, 1985 or 1995.
All of these can be more elastic. See: zoning reform and prices in blue cities vs red cities, single-payer healthcare in every developed country other than the US. Inequality is not the distinguishing factor.
> Then it shifted in the last ten or fifteen years. When social media started having friends of friends, the tribalism kicked in. It was explained very well in a talk between Maria Ressa and Jon Stewart.
Very much this. The world has changed. It used to be that assuming
other people have a low capacity for political reason was itself a
"political position" - namely elitism. Folks like Orwell come from a
long, long tradition of the educated and socially astute working
class. Social media turned the joy of everyday political banter,
rational scepticism, and good-natured disputation into a bourgeois
pissing contest with seemingly life-or-death stakes.
> but lively debates and fights among friends and family for ideas
The missing ingredient is "intellectual honesty". It used to be the case that when you talked to people on the right they would
- refer to events that actually happened and true statements about the world
- accept them in the context of wider events (although there's always been a risk of making policy from one exeptional incident)
- make an argument that followed logically from those
This did end up in duelling statistics and arguments over what mattered, but that's a reasonable place for discussion. Nowadays it's much deeper into making wild arguments from conspiracy theories with no or highly questionable evidence. Pizzagate. Birtherism. And so on.
> By far, relationships determine the happiness of ones life, and relationships are not beholden to truth. In fact, they are very commonly built on the opposite. Whether a boss' reprimands are deserved or not, employees bond over a common enemy. Entire groups form on the basis of beliefs, false or otherwise. We have a word for this: âreligion".
> Despite organized religion dropping in attendance, religious patterns of behavior are still everywhere, just adapted to a secular world. Health, exercise, politics, work, self-improvement -- these are all things I've seen friends employ their religious muscle into, across all spectrums and political aisles. And as we get older, I'm seeing more and more of my supposedly-secular friends engage in such behavior.
I have a hypothesis that all humans are compelled to indulge in a certain amount of magical thinking. We seem to be hard-wired to believe there is more underlying metaphysical order and pattern to the universe than there actually is.
I presume this is evolutionarily advantageous because it's better to assume you have more agency and ability to predict than you actually do. Over-assuming leads to occasional disappointment and frustration when things don't work out, but under-assuming leads to having less impact than you actually could have.
If that hypothesis is true, then probably the best thing for society is to provide cultural structures that let us indulge than impulse in non-harmful ways, instead of, say, giving it to religions that also tell us to murder gay people.
Sort of like how sports function as a safe pressure release valve for the compulsion towards competition and violence.
> If that hypothesis is true, then probably the best thing for society is to provide cultural structures that let us indulge than impulse in non-harmful ways, instead of, say, giving it to religions that also tell us to murder gay people.
I agree with this take a lot, and actually tried to imagine what Religion 2.0 could be based on this premise
I can strongly sympathize. The image with the squares and circles hit home hard, from an early age, it's been pretty lonely. Depending on your environment it can be super hard to find others part of the 1%, so you really need to treasure them when you do find them.
One point of criticism:
The usage of the word "moderate". It seems PG's article is the one to blame here. The word "moderate" when used about politics means something to people in English. And given that meaning, saying that independent thought leads to one being "moderate", is straight up wrong. What the article is really talking about is that independent thought leads to a set of beliefs that is unlikely to be a very good fit for any particular ideology, and therefore, political party. That's true! But that's not "moderate". That's.. diverse, pragmatic, non-ideological. Those words aren't ideal either, but "moderate" is definitely not it.
The 99%/1% is also greatly overstated in a way. Firstly, it's definitely dependent on locale, culture, subculture, environment, as the writer already says themselves. More importantly, if you manage to somehow get people 1:1 in an environment where they feel safe, it turns out that many actually aren't that tribal/ideological after all, and they do actually have beliefs that span different mainstream tribes. But then that conversation finishes, and they go back to being a tribe member.
I'm pretty sure there's plenty of experiments that directly show the above. That when you give people policy choices that are non-obvious (e.g. they've never thought about), and then make them vote on them, they'll often vote against their tribe. But if you'd beforehand tell them which tribe voted which way, they'll always vote with the tribe.
I find it easy to discuss politics with friends. The hard part is listening, being open to persuasion yourself. Walzing into a discussion believing the other ones are stupid people with simple arguments rooted in misunderstandings â yeah, that won't fly.
You can smell it in the article. it's right there. The author thinks he's intellectually superior and arrived at his opinion though a pure intellectual pursuit, where the stupid conversation partners can't follow.
I completely understand how you're not having fruitful discussions.
I think one of biggest problems the American voter has is two fold: 1. We have turned politicians into celebrities/heroes. ALL politicians are just like most of us: they are flawed and incomplete individuals who desperately try to hide their flaws. (Under normal circumstances, this isn't so bad. However, to be an elected official with all that power, it's fraud at the very least.
2. Once elected, we refuse to hold the politicians we elected to almost any accountability. (This is very hard to do, no doubt, because of the way the laws have been manipulated to stop this very accountability.)
As for religion in politics: I'm a devoted Christian who is sane enough to know that not everyone will believe the same as I do. I have one vote on election day, to manipulate other people's vote by having my candidate changing laws to thwart the constitution is theft and immoral. (As difficult as it is to say, Christians today should read 2 Peter Ch2, taking it to heart. Stop only glossing over the cheerful faith verses and start reading the one's that call for accountability.)
I like it. There's an easier answer to "why don't people move from tribe to view". It's because it's painful to question one's own beliefs, and that's how that change happens. In fact such a move appears masochistic to many, since it almost never pays to undermine loyalty in favor of principle.
I hypothesize that we're seeing the influence of the legal system on the public turbo-charged by Citizens United money. An attorney is paid to be a "zealous advocate" for their client. This means never spending effort on anything that might be against the client's interest. Self-reflection is stochastically against their interest, so why even risk it? Considering alternative views might be against your interest, so why risk it? Therefore, in this new zeitgeist, such behavior is not just perverse and painful, but even unethical and wrong.
The problem, of course, is that for this system of adversarial argument you need an impartial judge. In theory that would be the public, but it turns out flooding people's minds with unethical lawyer screed 24x7 turns more people into lawyers, not judges. "The world is changed. I feel it in the water. I feel it in the earth. I smell it in the air. Much that once was is lost, for none now live who remember it." This could very well refer to the value of dignity, honor, integrity, fairness in debate, respect for one's opponents. These are always under assault, but in the last 10 years they have been decimated to the point people don't remember they ever held sway and young people don't know what politics was like when they did.
Challenging your own viewpoints is not just hard, it's downright dangerous. You can really lose your sense of identity and question your own morals if you are not well-grounded. It's much easier to dig your heels in and try to limit your self-reflection to be more "safe". (I still think you should question your viewpoints, but I don't blame people for being a little afraid.)
This is especially true if you have a history of being somewhat cruel to people on the basis of a conclusion you're not really 100% sure you agree with anymore. Now if you question it, you have a lot of guilt to contend with.
OTOH, I am the kind of person who feels great joy in discovering that I have been wrong about something, I have learned something better, and I have deepened my understanding. It could be about anything. Challenging my viewpoints is very enjoyable.
It surprises me that most people don't seem to feel that way and I struggle to understand why. Apparently, people often feel angry and alienated by the truth. I think that never makes sense, but I've learned to accept that people simply feel threatened by the truth sometimes and I can't usually convince them otherwise.
I feel this way too, it's in one of the footnotes actually
"[8] Few things give me greater joy than a discovery-ridden conversation with smart friends, and this is only enhanced if I learn something I previously believed to be true is actually wrong. Seriously, come prove some core belief I have as wrong and you will quite literally make my week."
You have to be wrong to learn. Sure it can be frustrating to try to make or do something difficult. But you've never done it before, of course you're not going to know all the correct answers! It just makes it all the more sweet when you do make progress and start to know more about a subject.
I generally agree, but some views wind up being pretty central to one's identity. It's easy to give up a viewpoint where the stakes are very low, but the stakes can potentially be very, very high (on a personal level.)
I would say as I've gotten older, I've actually tried to be a little more grounded in my beliefs. Our political world is so crazy, that I think sometimes, it can even be hard being committed to basic kindergarten morality. "Look at all these bad people doing bad things and being successful, maybe I should do bad things to be more successful" is a challenge to your viewpoints that is worth cutting off at the roots.
I suppose, but there is no such thing as objective morality, it's all subjective. Thatâs not to say people shouldnât feel guilt or hesitate when evaluating their past actions, but we often act based on the best framework we had at the time.
Morality evolves, both personally and culturally, and trying to hold a static identity in the face of that change just leads to more internal conflict. Itâs uncomfortable, yeah, but clinging to certainty for safetyâs sake can be more corrosive in the long run.
I totally disagree. "Shattering" one's identity (which is a completely fictional idea, only existing inside one's head) is essential for finding one's place in the universe.
Failure to adopt an accurate perspective of one's place in the universe is the greatest source of human anxiety.
Plus, if you can't discuss something like politics with people, are they really your friends at all? Not very good ones at least...
They become too entangled with identity. The advantage of holding one's identity loosely, and attributing it one's actions, is it facilitates changing one's mind about certain things, or updating beliefs in increments.
.. "we will need writers who remember freedom" Ursula Le Guin
Both of our best ways at getting to the truth - Journalism and Science - rely on entertaining and following all sorts of contradictory ideas and then comparing them with observed reality.
Universities in particular need to be physically safe spaces, where ideas of every kind can be mercilessly attacked.
An interesting blog post that would probably do well to look into something like Rob Kegan's theories of adult development [0] and looking up some stats on how many people fit into each category. People actually categorise fairly well into a model where ~66% of the population simply don't understand the concept of independent thought and rely heavily on social signalling to work out what is true.
That model explains an absurd number of social dynamics and a big chunk of politics - which is mostly people with a high level of adult development socially signalling to the masses what they are meant to be doing.
The important observation is that it isn't intellectual honesty that is the problem or truth-seeking the solution. It is actually whether someone is capable of identifying that truth != popular opinion. People who form their opinions by social osmosis can still be intellectually honest if they land in the right sort of community, but they fall apart under social pressure.
Political discussions for me are like programming. I enjoy them because I like finding bugs in people's logic like I do in programming.
I find a lot of people's political arguments wouldn't compile because of basic logic errors, and I try to point this out. But not many people are interested in this kind of analysis, they instead prefer the tribalist point-scoring like the OP mentions.
I dream of a world where political debates can be syntax-checked. I'm sure you could do it with AI today.
But in the end its all about feelings.
I can't describe how many times I will just go along with someone's passionate ranting on something I disagree with and egg them along because its makes them happy. This is tribalism. I will disagree with the group, and if you saw me you'd think I was the strongest supporter, but I actually vehemently disagree with everything.
There are very few people it's worth having a real discussion with these days.
I don't change my opinion of people for what they think, but it's very rare to find people who reciprocate this.
Thoughtful perspective on the social risks of political discussions. However, respectfully engaging with differing viewpoints is valuable for personal and societal growth. Perhaps focusing discussions on understanding each other's underlying values and experiences, rather than specific political positions, could lead to more productive conversations.
Sometimes you have to fightš, but other times engaging with an open mind² really is the most efficient strategy. Shouting at the opposition only cements them in their own thinking; to change minds you have to understand and engage them where theyâre at. And yes, this is way easier said than done and can be quite frustrating.
š You probably wonât convince a fascist dictator to change their ways by appealing to their better nature, and it would take too long while irreperable damage is being done.
² Even if the other side believes in something appallingly hateful.
This can be done, carefully, through in-person conversations. I think it may be nearly impossible on social media, whose primary purpose seems to be to enforce group identity.
This. I try to meet everyone where they are when entering into political discussions. Iâve learned a lot from people as a result of this and â Iâd like to think â have successfully communicated an understanding of my own perspectives. Being able to sit down and talk to someone you disagree with is so important and I feel it is something we have gradually lost over time.
The perspective of the article is completely delusional. The idea that the author thinks they are above the petty "tribe" politics and have based their views on rationality and scientific evidence is complete bollocks.
The author has less self-awareness that the classic "I voted for the guy everyone else is voting for" guy. At least the later has a hint of consciousness about his own limitations.
Every ideology under the sun thinks they are based on objective truth. In reality our political views are shaped by the friends we have, our family, our upbringing, our social class, the media we consume, the experiences we made, our deep core vales and so much more. Most of it is not even conscious.
If you think you are above it all, you are just deluding yours. You just enjoy being in the enlightened centrist tribe or whatever.
Not choosing a stance is also choosing stance. If you see injustice and decide to stay neutral you decided to side with the oppressor.
In the end it is up to you to decide which tribe you want to belong. Do you want to march with those that fight for human dignity and social progress or those that want to oppress the many for the benefit of the few. Or do you want to sit by the sidelines while other people are striped of their human rights?
I'll just add one thing I learned: what people do is way more important than what they say or what their politics is.
I now find it much more practical to focus on things we can agree on and actually do something about in the real world and try to build from that.
Generic political debates are not very actionable and they are risky for social reasons mentioned in the article, so I think they are largely a waste of time with negative externalities.
Work, raise kids, vote to let women die rather than remove an already-dead fetus--yeah, sorry, people dying does kinda matter to me, actually, and I don't think that's crazy or can be dismissed as "tribalism".
I have often observed something about how we build software; I just realized that my observations are of a more fundamental human problem.
First, people are not good at defining problems. They may describe the problem that they want to solve in terms of an outcome, but often times the outcome that they want also includes some aspect that benefits them personally that is separate from the problem that they are describing.
Second, people are not good at separating problem from implementation. in fact, people are horrible at this. I think people have a very difficult time envisioning that the problem and the existing solution implementation (which itself might be making the problem worse) are separate things. so most people rarely consider and often actively oppose, radically different solutions.
In the political sphere, ideology Influences how one frames the problem that one wants to solve, and limits the universe of acceptable solutions. This exemplifies the two points that I raised above.
For example, when talking about healthcare policy, the two main âsidesâ in the US, both have ideologies that define outcomes in terms of consumer access to medical services, and which constrain allowable implementations to something that resembles insurance, with key differences being about who pays and what is covered and how much coverage one gets.
Just for the purposes of elaborating on my premise, I would point out that not all healthcare delivery systems in the world are designed around the insurance model, And that such a model includes vested interests, regulatory capture, and often incentivizes many participants to optimize in ways that donât forward the implicit goal of making more people more healthy.
Please donât reply with your opinions on my imperfect example; I donât want to have a healthcare policy discussion. I just wanted to provide an example my main points about how humans approach political problem-solving.
> Second, people are not good at separating problem from implementation. in fact, people are horrible at this. I think people have a very difficult time envisioning that the problem and the existing solution implementation (which itself might be making the problem worse) are separate things. so most people rarely consider and often actively oppose, radically different solutions.
I'm bouncing back and forth on this. One thing I've learned over nearly two decades of programming, is that problems often are not separate from implementation - the one often defines or shapes the other to a large degree. Moreover, often enough it's not worth it to aim for clean separation - that's the road to becoming an "architecture astronaut".
I've also noticed this generalizes outside of programming. The key insight being, when people accuse "techies" of being "know-it-alls" and coming up with simplistic solutions (or my pet peeve of a term, "technological solutions to social problems"), what they're complaining about is generalizations - the kind you get when you focus on the abstract problem and forget about implementation details. This is particularly notable when one then tries to transfer a general solution/framework from one problem space to another, because whether or not it applies is largely determined by implementation details.
An example: understanding exponential growth and connecting it with basic virology is good. Applying that model to virological problems is okay - but the devil's in the details. Transferring that model to something else by means of analogy? Well, that very much depends on which assumptions you borrowed from virology, and it's helpful to be aware of those assumptions (implementation details) in the first place.
Seen plenty of that on every side of argument during COVID.
People aren't good at defining problems when it comes to political views because - as far as I can tell - nearly everyone has zero interest in actually solving the issue, or putting in work to do so.
They want someone else to do the hard work and play Monday morning quarterback. To extend the sportsball metaphor, the football team is doing the actual work and they're just spectators rooting for their team.
No one wants to do work without being compensated, and virtually no one is being compensated to actually solve these problems. Politicians are there to get re-elected first and anything else second. Charitable organizations pay little to nothing, and get the kind of personnel that are OK with that.
At this point, there's so much tribalism wrapped around policy issues that it might be impossible to get anyone to try to objectively solve the issue. And all too often, there is no viable way to A/B test the solution and people have to hope that their solution works best, which is... Not a great way to get great results.
I hear this soooo often. If you can't talk to friends about your honest opinions without being respectful to one another and also being willing to listen to their reasoning and opinions, what kind of friendship is that?
>Most people don't have political views, they have political tribes
Agree with this. Also, I do believe most people are appallingly stupid (I might not not be an exception either), cruel and easy to manipulate, and as a result are incapable of making rational decisions that benefit society as a whole. I try to never ever discuss politics with anyone, it's one of the most damaging and useless activities there is.
Usually, interactions with people on (arguably) political issues just leave me stupefied - no, I don't think people born in certain geographical locations are subhuman because of decisions of their current government; no, I don't hate nor wish death and suffering to anyone; no, I don't think the war is necessary and I don't want anyone to be blown to bits by a drone; no, I don't think artificial lines on a map ("countries") define who is wrong and who is right and worth throwing your only life away for; no, I don't think decisions of the government reflect the opinion of the entire population of that country; yes, I do think people I disagree with are real human beings with capabilities of sense, emotion, and thought just like I am; and the list goes on and on. Anyway, most people have a very different idea on the aforementioned examples.
I don't care about the replies, just wanted to offload this filth off my head somewhat.
That's some US cultural thing, i think. Possibly because you only have two real political options.
If we're philosophising, the isolated suburb life style precludes having a friend group and forces humans - because they need to belong - into tribal allegiances towards larger groups: political, sports fans, some church, Rust, "AI"...
Curious how many comments say "it's not about tribalism, it's just the other side is evil". Ctrl+f for this very word on the page yields interesting results.
Not me! (My comment is currently just above yours). We have all been victimized by the information space which has been polluted by increasingly unhinged vitriol, itself funded by Citizens United money and amplified by novel internet platforms. It is not a coincidence that virtually all pundits are lawyers, and PR firms probably have a lot of them too. They know how to zealously advocate for a client, and have applied those skills to the public sphere. It's worse than that, because outside of a courtroom they can lie, distort, and fabricate at will for their clients, with no judge to scold them. The average human adult cannot stew in this poison for a decade and not be harmed by it. My heart goes out to all those who's egos have been inflated, who's feelings of hatred and ill-will encouraged, not because they chose it, but because it's impossible to get away from it.
Is it tribalism to say Hitler is evil? Recognizing a universal negative isn't tribalism. The view that all things are equal and nothing matters is more so of the nihilist tribe.
Okay, I Ctrl+F'ed for "evil" and found... nobody calling anyone else evil (actions, not people, were described as evil by one commenter--the rest were discussing ethics in the abstract, not describing anyone or any action as evil).
But let me present a possibility: what if one side really is doing evil things? If you were transported to literal Nazi Germany or the Stalinist USSR, where millions of people were being murdered by one party, would it be "tribalism" to call that party's actions evil? Or would it be an accurate description of murdering millions of people?
Obviously we aren't at the point of "murdering millions of people" in the US yet, but I suspect a lot of this "enlightened centrism" which presents both sides as somehow just equally valid viewpoints would happily go all the way to watching millions get murdered and still not be willing to call evil by its name.
> Okay, I Ctrl+F'ed for "evil" and found... nobody calling anyone else evil (actions, not people, were described as evil by one commenter--the rest were discussing ethics in the abstract, not describing anyone or any action as evil).
I was mainly referring to dialogs like the one below. Not quite abstract.
>> I think essentially tolerating other peoples opinions and trying to understand where they are coming from is more useful than applying purity tests to your friends and family.
> It's more about watching people pivot towards unquestionable evil. "Empathy is a sin" is such a deep, dark line in the sand. I'm not going to just stand there and watch you cross it.
> But let me present a possibility: what if one side really is doing evil things? If you were transported to literal Nazi Germany or the Stalinist USSR, where millions of people were being murdered by one party, would it be "tribalism" to call that party's actions evil?
Amazing example. If you got magically transported to the "literal Nazi Germany" you would discover that the popular opinion at the time was to call "evil" the communists and the jews. If you spend a long time calling someone "evil" you gradually stop seeing them as people. This is how later on you don't notice when they're relocated into ditches and furnaces. Inhumane treatment doesn't raise the alarm when applied to non-humans. Check for instance what this SS veteran has to say [1].
Tribalism is not whether you're allowed or not to call people evil. Tribalism is calling people evil not because they did something evil, but because they belong to the wrong group or sympathize with it.
The original post does not advocate for "enlightened centrism", furthermore centrists are as prone to tribalism as anybody else. Applying blanket judgement is a very natural thing to do because it saves a hell lot of time and energy. Why argue about all the topics, why argue about all the individuals when you can just divide people in tribes and decide who's evil at the tribe level. Everyone does it to some extent. However if you overdo it, you may indeed find yourself in Nazi Germany.
The "What [the political spectrum] Actually Is" graph shows more independent thinkers to be unintentional moderates. The chart is a claim that independence leads to moderation. I deny that. The most independently minded thinkers I know frequently drift off into extremes where most tribes dare not tread. The tribalists are so moderate in comparison that I would turn that christmas tree upside down.
Extreme views seem to scale most with education. Those highly decoupled from either tribe can be educated as well, but does seem more common with those less politically engaged. I am optimistic about the resurgence of an "abundance" agenda pushed by center-left Liberals.
> The most independently minded thinkers I know frequently drift off into extremes where most tribes dare not tread.
>> be able to understand and empathize with the various (and often opposing) groups involved in a topic
Interestingly, I have seen Elon (DOGE) and others outside of politics (that mega-church leader) telling the public (dare I say, their followers) that one of the main problems with America is empathy, and that we need to _stop_ empathizing with others.
Interesting. From what I've seen, the lack of empathy is the root of most of the political problems in the US.
If people put the welfare of others first, for example, taxpayer funded universal healthcare wouldn't even be something that was debated, it would be implemented with as much fuss as we have over painting lane markers on streets. But Americans care less for their fellow American than most other countries out there it seems.
How would removing what little empathy that there is improve matters?
To them, removing empathy allows doing âwhat needs to be done,â like sending undesirables to a desolate work camp in a foreign country without any legal recourse.
When did discussing politics with your community become a bad thing? In fact that's the primary place you should talk politics, share new ideas and hone your views. If more people did this they wouldn't be getting radicalized by online bots.
Discussing politics was fine up until John stewart era.
His comedy is about playing an out of context short clip, make funny face, cheap insult, and laugh track.
But how that plays out in political discussions is that 1 side wont have discussions and just repeats cheap insults. Which results in Trump getting into power.
Better yet, this 1 side who cant discuss politics then constantly hides away. Leaving their viewpoint unexpressed and further losing position.
Basically it argues the most moral thing in a democracy is to do nothing at all. You simply can never make a truly well informed decision over such a complex system, not even with several lifetimes of dedicated work towards it.
Generally speaking I don't take anyone's political opinion seriously unless they have read and have a cogent response to this paper. I'll gladly just let them yap away and think I agree with them, regardless of my actual views. It's sort of like not taking philosophers seriously unless they've considered the question of solipsism first.
> It's sort of like not taking philosophers seriously unless they've considered the question of solipsism first.
Solipsism only makes sense if you completely reject the concept of objective reality. It's mostly sophistry. The lack of being able to prove that reality exists beyond your own perceptions is not sufficient to prove that it does not, nor to make that assertion. See also "Simulation Theory".
I find it astonishing that anyone would ask this. The only time I've ever been asked this question has been by pollsters. In my social circle, anyway, the taboo on this question is very strong.
It's not that shocking. It makes a really good short hand question to find out where someone is politically. You could spend ten hours discussing what the perfect immigration system looks like or you could ask who they voted for and get a baseline to go off of. The question only removes nuance if you stop right after.
Well, in my group, there's no taboo on telling people your political opinions and voting behavior, only on asking (because it's nobody else's business unless you choose to make it so). So in practice, I know the political stances of most in my social circle.
It's a good point but the flip side is not every point in time is 1932 Germany.
How do we keep a democracy where ideas we don't agree with can still be implemented if there's a majority (assuming minority rights are protected reasonably well) while at the same time ensuring we don't end up with democracy being used as a tool to get a totalitarian regime.
For a more recent example we can look maybe at TĂźrkiye.
Preventing ideas that are still within the boundary of a democracy from being implemented is not democracy either.
The US e.g. has a Supreme Court and a constitution. Presumably as long as that court is functional and the constitution is applied then all is good?
Unfortunately I'm not familiar enough with Germany's fall into fascism and whether there was some sort of watershed moment where it was clear that something was broken and could still have been remediated.
> Unfortunately I'm not familiar enough with Germany's fall into fascism and whether there was some sort of watershed moment where it was clear that something was broken and could still have been remediated.
Fascism is an easy sell when it's immediately preceded by the Weimar Republic.
On one hand, it feels like this question is a lot more relevant than ever. It's easier to ignore politics when each side doesn't see the other as an existential threat to their way of life.
Like it would be easy not to ask someone's religion when there isn't a 35% chance they're going to say "extremist martyr".
But I don't ask this question if I don't think I know the answer already, and I only ask it with people I think I can have a conversation with.
In my friend group it's clear as day: either you voted to kill and deport other people in the friend group or you didn't. Pretty obvious the group would like to know if you're secretly interested in their demise.
If youâre sure you already know what other people think, I guess thereâs not much point in asking them their opinions? Youâre not going to listen to their answers anyway.
All you really want to know is what category to put them in.
But I guess for prioritizing the happiness of the friend group, some amount of ignorance is needed if someone in the group is ultimately going to model the world on "they kill and deport or they don't" given enough information to make that declaration, and eventually a person on the other side is encountered?
I understand that some things can be more important than just having fun though, down to personal values.
"To be ignorant" sounds like a moral failing on its face, but I feel it is increasingly becoming required in some circumstances with the explosive amount of information available to subscribe to nowadays.
I'm talking more about not bringing up politics to avoid giving too much information to people who will make up their own conclusions based on those facts and aren't amenable to change. And choosing not to bring up politics for the purpose of figuring out who out of the friend group is the selfish asshole.
> I think there are two main reasons, the first being the sheer intellectual difficulty of crafting an informed political view leads people to tribalism out of convenience.
What's the difference between tribalism and deferring to experts on complex subjects, e.g. climate change? I have a deep skepticism of people who think they can personally reason through any complex topic from first principles. It shows a lack of humility and self-awareness. Nobody has the time to build that kind of expertise in every domain, and there is wisdom in deferring to the hard won experience of others. But the type to think they can reason through everything seems like the type to call this "tribal politics."
People do not change opinions because someone told them to. It has to be a result of a narrative with personal experiences. Which is why FAFO is still a big thing.
Hence, any effort trying to convince friends that blue is not green it is not gonna work. Sorry.
> a congregation member asking "you believe in god, right?"
That's a very good analogy.
For some, believing in god or not doesn't matter much and they'll go to church mostly to make friends and be part of a community.
For others, being expected (or not) to believe in God is a no go, and losing friends/family holding these expectations will be a price to pay.
We all have our boundaries, and disagreements on some specific topics will be out of them. Cutting friends/family with incompatible stances is just one instance of that IMHO, be it political, religious or anything else that matters enough.
Maybe. Killing or stealing for a reason doesn't make the action morally good, just less morally bad than the outcome it was intended to prevent. I've never heard the first parenting example.
> And even with all this knowledge, can you empathize with both sides of common issues -- the poor renter vs struggling landlord? The tired worker vs underwater business owner? Rich vs poor, immigrant vs legacy, parent vs child -- the list goes on
To me having just two sides is a uniquely American way of thinking.
Between the renter and landlord there's the homeowner, between the tired worker and business owner there's the public sector/NGO/huge corporation worker/freelancer, rich and poor are relative terms which lie on a scale anyway.
Conflicts that actually have only two parties involved are rare and the very first thing one should do to be able to talk politics, is give up on the notion.
This paints a very binary picture. Either you are in or out. Part of this tribe, or this other tribe (ignorantly or not). The article seems to imply that people can't have opinions on political policies unless they are fully informed on not only global affairs but also philosophy and psychology.
I think reality is different - I don't think there are any absolutes that require "knowledge" of e.g. philosophy to get the "right" answer in politics. Instead the right answer (at least in western democracies) is what the people want, even if they are not fully informed.
I view it very much akin to trial by jury - there are highly informed and experienced judges, barristers, solicitors etc but ultimately it is down to the laymen in the jury to make a decision that they see as just. They might reach the "wrong" decision from the perspective of people who are fully informed on the legal processes and the law of the land etc, but that doesn't matter because it is the jury that makes the decision.
So it is for the electorate too.
I have no experience of voting in the US but it appears that a two-party system really stokes the "us Vs them" vibes. The only alternative you have is to totally switch sides. At least in European democracies there is often a plurality of parties to vote for. I've personally moved between the main 3 parties (and there are probably at least another 1 or 2 other minority parties that have different trajectories...) in the UK as my personal situation has changed over the years, and I think that is a very normal thing here.
Agreed, this article feels like ego stroking. Especially with language like "truth seeking". It creates this fantasy that there is this level of consciousness that we can evolve to where we achieve complete knowledge of all subjects. There is a reason we have a democracy with multiple groups and multiple departments. Because no one person has all the answers or is right. We all bring our unique experiences and expertise together to create a better whole. At least that's the idea.
I would note that trial by jury means a jury of your peers is being forced to become informed on a subject [if parties are arguing the facts of the case in good faith].
They are then rendering a judgement [in good faith].
On the facts of the case yes. But they are not expected to become experts in case law or legal precedent and history and philosophy etc.
When I have had to do jury service we have explicitly been told not to research anything about the case outside of the court room. Everything the jury bases their decisions on should only be what was discussed in the court room, and on your own lived experience.
I think there should be a new rule that any time someone writes an article bragging about how he'sâ a badass independent thinker just like Paul Graham and Eliezer Yudkowsky, he must in the same article identify his major disagreements with Paul Graham and Elizer Yudkowsky. Because to me the authors of these articles seem exactly as tribal as mainstream political and religious groups, they just care about different things. Yeah, I shouldn't be able to guess your views on sex from your views on taxes, but I also shouldn't be able to guess your views on wokeness from your views on AI safety. Yet I can make both predictions with about equal accuracy.
â I have yet to see an article like this written by a woman.
I believe in the future we will see a much more pronounced split between people who prefer reality to those who prefer un-reality.
Un-reality is the mediated, constructed "reality" that can be conjured up and perpetuated through mediums such as the Internet. It needs constant effort behind it to keep it going because it isn't tethered to actual experience. Un-reality is things like the hyper-partisan views on things that seem like they change on a whim, or extremist views on gender relations. It requires a tribalistic level of affiliation. It is something that has evolved to prize self-perpetuation (e.g. memes) over the views it claims to espouse. (This pattern of growth at all costs also occurs in other contexts, such as business.)
Reality, on the other hand, is the messy, boring, uncontrollable and unmediated thing we experience as humans. It is harder to transmit online because it isn't something that is easily swallowed, but it has a universal appeal to us as we recognize humanity in it. Reality has much bigger downs and ups than un-reality does, that's what makes us want to escape it sometimes. It also has really crappy truths and circumstances in it; there's no respawns or undo.
In some sense, this split already exists: fans of un-reality we often label as too online, implying that they prefer online life to actual life. I believe the biggest difference here lies in the preference for mediated vs unmediated interactions.
Who is "both" tribes? Why can there be only two? And why do you not think the parent is talking about both of those tribes compared to more moderate, less terminally-online people?
I think it's somewhat funny that two of the images in this blog post, the two signs, and the miner, are commonly used to mock faux intellectualism and a feeling of moral superiority.
I don't think it's a coincidence, but it also doesn't necessarily undermine their utility. In fact, I think a lot of images that are also used in a mocking context get there because they wind up being overused and over applied, in part because they're actually really good.
Another example of an illustration I like that is somewhat derided is the classic equity vs equality cartoon with the boxes[1]. I say this in spite of the fact that I generally find myself identifying more with equality as a baseline, and the simple reason is it's a good illustration of the potential pitfalls of overindexing on equality.
IMO It's all in how you use them. It's hard to avoid that useful metaphors/analogies often become overused and cliche.
I think it's ok to be hypocritical and have friends with different vastly political beliefs, in the end relationships; friendships, lovers, etc are not usually an outcome of rational behavior, so I don't mind having friends who are politically different because it's the unconscious connection that brought us together.
Politics arenât the outcome of rational behavior either. The strongest belief systems that people have are instilled in them at a young age. Also, people can change.
Politics is more regional than any other single factor. Like religion.
You're highly unlikely to grow up Protestant in Israel just like you're highly unlikely to going to grow up with liberal views in Tennessee.
Second to geography is demographic. You're unlikely to support DEI if you're surrounded by 90% white people all the time, and you're unlikely to decry globalism after you've been exposed to large cities and dense population centers for a long time.
> you're highly unlikely to going to grow up with liberal views in Tennessee
Don't pretend like Nashville doesn't exist. It's very much rural very homogeneous areas versus more urban and diverse areas. It's much easier to label entire demographics as The Enemy and then vote to elect someone to attack The Enemy when you've literally never met The Enemy and just rely on what your news stations of choice tell you. Who The Enemy is changes. It's been women's suffrage and and civil rights. It's been "Mexicans" and Arabs and Gays and now Trans folk. But conservatives will literally always have The Enemy to rally against.
Growing up in more diverse areas means you're more likely to have met a Muslim who doesn't want to "kill or convert you" or a trans person who just wants to live a normal life in the best way they can, or a DACA recipient just trying to make a life in the only place they have ever known as home. Knowing these people builds empathy for outgroups. The key trait conservatives seem to lack. More they seem incapable of comprehending it. So "liberals" can't support "illegal immigrants" because they actually want the best outcome for people. That's a concept conservatives can't comprehend. So it must be that liberals support them for all the "illegal voting" that "illegal immigrants" are doing. Never mind that these people cannot vote. Never mind that if these people could vote, they are far more religious and far more likely to ascribe to the conservative social political agenda. It makes absolutely no sense that "liberals" support "illegal immigrants" to capture their votes. But that's a hard fact to conservatives.
In the country where I live, the problem is that it became much of a religious question. People feel like one candidate represents values different than mine, and that by not aligning with them, I'm not an ally. I don't have friends with such different values, but managing family has become a big problem during these times. It's very hard, for example, hearing your mother-in-law defending a change in the constitution that would forbid women to have an abortion, even when raped and at any time of pregnancy, when you have a small daughter. That person is actively trying to make the world a horrible place for my family, according to my values and honestly any sane person.
Cut a "rationalist centrist moderate" and a fascist who doesn't want to get cancelled because he still needs VC funding and Linkedin connections bleeds.
US politics has been increasingly polarized into positions congruent with facts and policy and our traditional ideals, and positions associated with a general stance of grievance, with an insistent selfishness, with anti-empathy, anti-intellectualism, with "palingenetic ultranationalism". This has been a test of your ideals, of your humanity. It wasn't very hard.
Yes, there is often a lot of nuanced truth in the middle of any argument. But less now, in politics, than in a long, long time. Only a very particular sort of person walks into a liberated Auschwitz and starts shouting "Both sides are too extreme and I'm better than them!" from the rooftops.
Speaking as somebody who spent a lot of time there: A lot of the tropes in the "rationalist" community are inherently conservative-pointing, and it's a general prerequisite for participating there that you have a coherent base of progressive terminal ideals and an attitude suited towards introspection and iteration of your beliefs. Because otherwise you go from zero to Nietzschean ubermensch to Nazi ubermensch to Musk/Thiel brownshirt in no time, having weaponized everything present there to support your priors and idly expand your confidence.
It wasnât always like this. I remember when you could be pro-gun and pro-environmentâand still have thoughtful, respectful conversations with people who held different beliefs.
Today, if youâre not fully aligned with every talking point of a political party, youâre instantly labeled either a fascist or a communist. And sometimes it borders on absurd: the moment party leadership shifts its stance, the whole tribe flips with it. It wasnât that long ago that Republicans staunchly opposed tariffs. Now? Theyâre all in.
My question is:
What changed?
When did we become so tribalâand why?
From what I've seen, tribalism is core to innate human nature. It's always been there, and until human nature can be edited like a spreadsheet, it always will be.
What's changed now is how visible it's become and how much easier it is to mass organize people and split up into echo chambers that favor a specific viewpoint.
Before, people were not well organized. The internet has been a revolution in spreading views and allowing like minded people to hang out together. Turns out that's not always for the best. But there's no going back. It's only going to get worse until something happens that unites people more than it divides them.
IMO it was technology allowing more viewpoints to be expressed. First with more than 3 TV stations, then of course the internet. Before that transition, everyone was mostly part of one tribe, because mass media was mostly homogeneous. After, it was increasingly easy to find tribes that fit your exact viewpoints, and reject other sources of information
> It wasnât that long ago that Republicans staunchly opposed tariffs. Now? Theyâre all in.
Which Republicans are we talking? The old guard that held leadership positions for decades, making the decisions while most of the public weren't invested? Or the new guard that hijacked the Republican party after the population started getting invested after recent events?
Every "conservative" I know is in favor of protectionism, and tariffs are a strong manifestation of that. Don't conflate the get-what-you-get leadership, and the disenfranchised voterbase for having been the same people.
And most of the conservatives I know that are actually politically-aware are critical of both. For many reasons. Bush for his wars and the Patriot Act, and Reagan for his anti-2A policies and eternal blue-ification of California.
Large scale divergence in the two human moralities: social morality (rules for people around us to protect the community, largely coded liberal) and personal morality (moral intuitions for how to keep you and your immediate family safe). The two have become at odds with each other so everyone feels intensely and uncompromisingly threatened by those who ascribe more to the other, leading to two groups that can no longer even 'treat with the enemy' much less collaborate on their mutual preservation. This was aided along by a whole lot of largely unchecked fearmongering because it turns out that that sells views, clicks, and ratings.
(and possibly also a general dumbification of everything due to bad education combined with lowering social standards for who is allowed to have a public voice and be take seriously; confusingly thus was one of the points of a standard of decorum, because it served as a filter on who was intelligent enough to be a thought leader.)
People were always tribal. You just call out a group to be evil. And it takes just a little bit of propaganda and people will ignore any rational arguments and start harassing a group.
Witch-hunts (last conviction in Europe was 1944), jews, communists, americans, non-americans, all sorts of religious groups, ... history is full of that.
One thing that changed recently is that nowadays propaganda is very organized and well funded. I also think there was a pretty calm period for a few decades (but only in certain regions of the planet). In the cold war period the tribes were very fixed and the evil was always far away, so locally not much happened.
Further, I mute and unfollow aggressively any family or friends that just constantly post political news/rants etc from Facebook and other social media platforms.
My personal strategies...
1. I try to be indirect on what I think and just describe why some people think one opinion versus another. So I try not to convince people.
2. I try to stick to "is this going to work?" Style arguments when I do state my opinion. I acknowledge when my preferred party does or says something I disagree with.
3. I avoid getting bogged down with "do you agree with x y z??" Controversies that may be anecdotal and I'm not opinionated or familiar with. So I try not to argue the outage of the day.
This generally keeps me from arguing with relatives and in-laws, and on this site. So usually I can discuss differences without things going crazy.
One thing I definitely don't do anymore is discuss politics with any friends or family ONLINE.
It's just not worth it. Publish or tweet something if you have something to say and want to reach a lot of people. Talking to ONE person and risking your relationship has a lousy cost/benefit ratio.
How do you avoid the pain of someone expressing a particularly hurtful political opinion (i.e. entire class of ppl should die) if you don't filter relationships by political beliefs?
I generally keep people's political opinions at arms length, as some relationships are worth the pain or lack of depth. But it has caused unforseen pain at times, and hurts when relations from different spheres interact negatively.
By interacting with the positive aspects of the person and ignoring or disengaging from the political opinions I don't like. If they want to kill jews or whatever, they have the right to that opinion, doesn't bother me so long as I'm not obliged to partake. I might engage the view but if neither of us are benefitting from the conversation there is no point in continuing down that particular path.
There are opinions which should cause one to seriously consider ending their friendship. I would hope âwanting to kill Jewsâ is on pretty much everyoneâs list.
It seems to me that the bad qualities of a person that would cause them to embrace genocide should be evident long before you get into a friendship that you would need to end.
F.ex. one of my most altruistic and charitable friends is a Trump supporter
She's run a Christmas time charity for 10 years, solely out of the goodness of her heart, to ensure that families in our community who are struggling get what they need for a happier holiday in tough times.
It's a non-trivial 6 months of work, between making prizes for donation-driving lotteries, attending events and promoting, and then finding the most cost-effective deals for the families.
So I choose to say "She's a better person than most I know, in some ways, and disagrees with me in others. Worth friendship."
Hmm, sounds about right. I still feel like being around people when they express such radical beliefs reflects poorly on me and hurts me in some unexplainable way.
When challenging such beliefs I find some are hyperbole or a side effect of group-think. Rarely are they genuine, but when they are it's the most worrying. And that's usually when I stop engaging that line of thought.
Whatâs the endgame to this approach? Seems to me, folks with genocidal thoughts and feelings would find more positive reinforcement amongst themselves and less negative reinforcement everywhere else. Not great for the âgenocide is badâ theory.
The negative reinforcement is supposed to be when they actually attempt to unlawfully kill others, a 9mm bullet goes through their head. Until then, they have the right to their opinion.
It's hard to imagine isolating them from counter points is going to mitigate their position.
I think there are ways a friend can be toxic without threatening death. This friend may encourage you to isolate from your jewish friends, or explicitly make your jewish friends feel unwelcome by saying slurs while in group settings. This friend is explicitly making you in the position where you have to isolate your own friend groups from each other to "keep the peace", i.e. you are forced to do the labor, instead of them, to handle the harm they are causing.
Like we all know a guy who we can't keep around because he keeps saying unhinged stuff, or creeps on any women, or whatever it is he does that ruins it for everyone else.
So I think it's more nuanced than just refusing to cut off heinous viewpoints. It's also how this person injects this view in your existing friend ecosystem.
I enjoy debating politics in the way that others enjoy playing chess or a friendly game of bowling. But when the other party gets wrapped around the axle, I don't debate with them anymore. Unfortunately, most seem to be in the latter camp.
I can agree with parts of this article, but I believe it's missing a large part of the puzzle.
The author implicitly assumes that the constraints of our society are fixed and that it's therefore possible to determine which political systems are objectively better or worse. We should be doing that research (like astronomers trying to determine how the universe works) instead of religiously supporting ideological positions.
I fundamentally disagree with that assumption. I think we behave the way we do in large part due to the ideological principles we were raised with. This can be confirmed by observing various closed-off societies sometimes operating on principles that seem completely bonkers to most of us.
If you teach people capitalism/socialism, you build a capitalistic/socialistic system. It's impossible to live inside that system and objectively determine whether it's good or bad, let alone better or worse than other systems.
So in that context, I believe following an ideology is _not_ the opposite of thinking for yourself, as the author puts it. It is a conscious decision based on morality. You decide what your values are and you find a political option that aligns with them.
To be clear, that's still a very imperfect decision to make, many things can go wrong from that point on and I believe this is where the author is correct in many ways. We should reason about it constantly to make sure we're actually doing what we want to be doing and not just blindly repeating things.
> It's impossible to live inside that system and objectively determine whether it's good or bad, let alone better or worse than other systems.
I mean, if someone says "Let's pollute the rivers!" and another person says "Let's not pollute the rivers!", that's a pretty clear cut objectively good and bad position. Or "Let's put people in prison if they jaywalk.", etc.
That's not to say there are no positions that have a clear cut good or bad outcome that can be measured beforehand. For example, putting a tax on sugary drinks. Maybe it will work, maybe it won't, but you have no way of being sure beforehand, because you can't A/B test reality and the complexity of the system is such that you can't accurately predict human behavior at a large scale.
But the existence of positions that don't have a clear answer that can be determined ahead of time doesn't mean there's no objective way to determine whether it's good or bad, just that we don't have the tooling to do so at this point in time.
I agree that "tribalism" exists. I'd add that sometimes political disagreements are actually differences in morality. And there is no way you can persuade someone to change their moral beliefs. Everyone accepts their moral beliefs as "axioms". But I still believe it's worth discussing politics in order to learn what kind of person someone is and their morality.
"Unbiased" aggregators like Ground News, MSM, and the right blogosphere like Joe Rogan are doing their best to normalize dragging the Overton window to the right with haste. Progressives have a handful of obscure, disconnected, largely-unknown reputable sources with a wasteland of as many or more former progressives and once-promising journalist and journalist-adjacent personalities.
To have an informed view on any given issue, one needs to:
1. understand economics, game theory, philosophy, sales, business, military strategy, geopolitics, sociology, history, and more
2. be able to understand and empathize with the various (and often opposing) groups involved in a topic
3. detect and ignore their own bias
1) is a lot of work. Just finding out what's going on is hard. Partly because news-gathering organizations are far more thinly staffed than they used to be. There aren't enough reporters out there digging, which is hard work. There are too many pundits and influencers blithering. Read the output of some news outlet, cross out "opinion" items and stories based on press releases or press conferences, and there's not much left. The Economist, the Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, the New York Times, and Reuters still have people who dig for facts. Beyond that, reporters are thin on the ground.
If you can only read one thing, read the Economist for a year. Each week they cover some country in detail, and over a year, most of the world gets a close look. (Although at the moment, their China coverage is weak, because their reporters were kicked out of China for doing too much digging.)
Background is necessary. Many pundits seem to lack much of a sense of history. Currently, understanding the runups to WWI and WWII is very useful. Understand what Putin is talking about when he references Catherine the Great and Peter the Great. Geography matters. Look at Ukraine in Google Earth and see that most of the current fighting is over flat farmland and small towns, much like Iowa. Look at Taiwan and realize how narrow and exposed an island it is. There's no room to retreat after an invasion, unlike Ukraine.
As for empathy, there's a huge split in America between the areas above and below 700 people per square mile. Above 1,500 per square mile, almost always blue. Below 400 per square mile, almost always red.[1] This effect dwarfs race, religion, ideology, or income level. It's very striking and not well recognized in public discourse.
There's a minimum viable population density below which small towns stop working as self-supporting entities.
(On the ground, this shows up as empty storefronts on Main Street and a closed high school.)
On bias, there are many people in the US whose lot has been slowly getting worse for decades now. That's the underlying source of most US political problems.
I was really enjoying the article until I realized there is zero attribution to the book _Thinking in Bets_, which IMO this is obviously heavily influenced by.
> [13] Not a reference to the book, which I havenât read â this is just a phrase I use
Seems to me an unwillingness to cite / give proper attribution to Annie Duke and the book, which is super weird? At any rate Iâd highly recommend the book.
Author thinks they are the lone person stuck in the middle between two tribes, but actually they are part of a third tribe that fallaciously believes that it is possible to write better policy, if only we took the time to study reality more and listen to more people and apply more reason etc. In short, Author distinguishes between the two established tribes (in which people make a very limited emotional engagement with the issues) and their tribe (in which people make a stronger emotional engagement). This is a fallacy because:
* It is not reasonable to expect most people to make strong emotional investments into voting choices that have little direct effect on their lives, and indeed we have a representative democracy rather than a direct democracy to recognize that reality
* Reality is far, far more complicated than can be summarized in journalism or articles; many researchers spend their entire careers attempting to learn deeply about *one* area, let alone many areas; much pertinent information is non-public. Policies that are effective in one community are completely counter-productive in another. Believing that you are The Exception and that you Know The Right Way To Run The Country because you "do your research" is the height of hubris.
People will seek out good leadership. People will switch leaders when their current leadership fails to make them happy. Good leaders defer to experts, each in their own domain, who may make imperfect decisions and other mistakes but nonetheless make well-intentioned efforts to improve over time and pass on their knowledge so that future generations can learn from their mistakes. All else is natural variance due to human imperfection.
You should however discuss politics with close friends -- they probably got close to you because you both share a worldview or they like hearing your worldview (even if it differs from yours).
Closeness means more sharing. That always comes with risks and rewards.
Tribalism really is the thing one has to individually overcome in order to gain some perspective, then maybe adhere to free thinking, before blooming as a free doer.
For me, it always was a voluntarily long and sinuous and silly and lonely path. It had to be.
An uncertain path as well, and one that was totally worth all the trouble it brought my way.
And as seducing as it is, the reality of crossing path with fellow free thinking/doing individuals always felt like falling for some other tribe.
Because in the end, that's what we do. While not following, we often become leaders of followers. How could it be otherwise is the only question left to answer.
This article seems to be saying that religions are tribal by nature because it's made up of humans, and humans are tribal by nature -- ok fair enough. But the subtext I'm getting is that people in religions are less self-aware of it than the author or the people they admire.
People being more interested in comfortable beliefs rather than true beliefs has always been a concern throughout Biblical history. But that doesn't mean it never went unchallenged.
For instance, regardless of what you think of the Bible, it's interesting that Isaiah has the following to say to Judah (emphasis mine) because it shows an ever-present problem with human nature.
For they are a rebellious people, lying children, children unwilling to hear the instruction of the Lord;
*who say to the seers, âDo not see,â and to the prophets, âDo not prophesy to us what is right; speak to us smooth things, prophesy illusionsâ*
And before someone responds with a de jure objection to say that "the instruction of the Lord" is not looking for truth, I just want to make it clear that that is out of the scope of my point. My point is that, de facto, in the context, a religious text is agreeing that it is bad to "tribe-up and truth-out."
Lastly, on a personal note, as a human Christian, I think I have the same biases to groupthink as any other person because I am human. But because Christianity has a reputation, I have found that throughout my life, I've had to work harder to really test (not validate) my beliefs because I am constantly being challenged and, ironically, often ended up more informed about both my beliefs and my interlocutors' beliefs.
Actually I think people in traditional organized religions like Christianity are on the whole more self-aware than secular people who fall into the same religious behavior in random topics, because they acknowledge the "faith" component.
Sort of summarized by the sentence here:
"If someone is self-aware enough to consciously acknowledge their choice to remain in the bubble, thatâs totally fair. I respect it like Iâd respect anyone who chooses to participate in a more traditional religion. My issue is when this view is falsely passed off as an intellectually-driven one."
politics (and the truth itself) have always been tribal. People discussed things and disagreed in public and that's how they managed to slightly influence each other.
Avoiding to discuss politics is cowardly. It distances people from each other because they maintain a fake facade, and they express their true selves and beliefs only online.
I think the groupthink and independent thought axes need to be flipped. Way more toeing the party line and groupthink near the center. The more fringe you get the more independent thought there is. It might be crazy and wrong but it's not groupthink.
One thing I didn't see mentioned, and maybe this is part of being tribal, but politics is often not about the positions you take, but about the game theory of how you stay in power, and convince a group of people about the positions you take.
One thing I hate about the trump administration, and maybe all politics is fundamentally like this, is you can't really disagree with them. You can't really disagree with them because it's really hard to figure out what position they're taking. I find it makes discussing things with family really difficult. I can intellectually agree that "A nation should protect it's borders" and have a nuanced perspective on how much immigration is the right amount, but then I'm never going to square that with what the politicians are actually doing, right? We can't have a nuanced conversation with what the right immigration policy is, when the administration is deporting people without due process, or when the current administration says the problem with immigration is that Joe Biden let judges run wild in 2019.
I personally think this is the right approach, where you can assign probabilities to the unknowns (the "thinking in bets" section)
Because then the discussions/research switch toward data and evidence, with the results downstream of those
Overall when people can agree "I understand stance 1 if the data says X, or stance 2 if the data says Y", and then all the energy goes into the data analysis, I consider that a successful conversation
I have friends all over the political spectrum. I've read political philosophy ranging from Hegel, Marx, Foucault, Butler, Crenshaw, Gentile, Locke, Rawls, Friedman, Mises, Rand, ect.. I find myself actively engaging in political discussion frequently with these friends. The only friend I've stopped talking over politics were black block during the antifa riots. I viewed his actions as ultimately misguided and dangerous. I ultimately forgave him and now we are friends who actively debate policy in good faith.
It's easy to spot political tribalism - just reference the comments here. They ultimately misrepresent, and have never tried to understand, their opposition's political position. It's kind of sad because it allows them to be manipulated by propaganda and political powers much like my antifa friend.
> It's easy to spot political tribalism - just reference the comments here. They ultimately misrepresent, and have never tried to understand, their opposition's political position.
Can you explain the Trump administration's political aims this term? Because this sounds very much like both sides are the same, and I'm not seeing that at all with what Trump and Elon are trying to accomplish.
We often reach for black and white thinking which makes political discussions difficult. Both sides do it, and it stunts our empathy for why people vote the way they do.
There are horrible consequences and people are suffering, totally. So then what? How do we get others to understand the impacts and start to change their mind?
The article is titled Why I don't discuss politics with friends but it doesn't explain the why? Unless I missed it. It seems to just talk about the challenges.
Why don't you discuss politics with friends? Are you worried about loss of friends? Do the conversations ruin your day? Do you feel alienated?
Depending on the why, there's different points I'd argue for or against the reasoning. Without that piece, it's kind of hard to discuss the premise of the article without just guessing its implications.
This sentence was intended as that answer, but I guess it wasn't clear enough:
"And this is fundamentally why I don't discuss politics with friends.
It's not that I don't want or am scared of opposing views (in fact the opposite is true[8]), but rather because of how common othersâ desire to "remain in the bubble" is."
I actually am willing to risk alienation to find people that enjoy this sort of discussion-based discovery as much as I do, but found most people I encounter don't actually want that -- so I try and respect what seems to be the average opinion.
> Most people don't want to graduate from tribalism.
Even if you personally want to, others will still judge you based on it. And honestly, there's often enough people out there for you to pick a social circle that aligns with your own interests at least on fundamental issues.
As for the people that you don't choose to be around, e.g. at work, probably read the room first.
I actively practice not discussing politics but intentionally being member of groups of different political affiliation.
I can only encourage everybody to do the same.
People usually know if you are a âfilthy liberalâ or a âcloset fascistâ anyways and my experience shows that just knowing you will draw them away from the political extremes.
> Bay Area ⌠finding a community of truth-seeking people
I donât know if I would entirely classify the Bay Area as truth seeking people. Itâs eclectic but it definitely felt just as polarizing as living in other parts of the country, but perhaps itâs better defined as moving to live with more like minded people.
This is "both-sides-ism" of the worst sort. It's exactly the sort of navel-gazey pablum that gives technical people a bad name.
The author doesn't recognize that it's not "politics" today. Politics is disagreeing on how to fund road improvements. When one party wants to dismantle the state, remove protections for marginalized groups, disavow alliances, engage in absurd imperialism, and flagrantly disregard the rule of law, we're not talking about mere "politics" anymore.
This is "both-sides-ism" of the worst sort. And it gives one the impression that the author is fine being friends with people who hole absolutely horrible beliefs, as long as he doesn't have to know about them.
I lived in China in the early-2000s, and one of the things I noticed is that no one ever talked about any sort of politics. Never. It was weird at first, as political discussion is so ingrained in the culture (in the US). Even just regular smalltalk, like, "How's it going, Bob? / It'd be a lot better if the city council would pull their heads out of their asses and fix these potholes!" - there was nothing like that.
I asked a few local friends about it, and got two basic explanations:
1. What's the point? No one is empowered to change anything, so why bother talking about it at all?
2. You can get in big trouble for saying the wrong thing in public.
The weirder thing I noticed is that I kinda enjoyed it. It was nice to not hear a bunch of bitching about the government (not saying the government shouldn't be criticized - it should; just saying it was nice to be completely removed from it for a time).
Not sure if it's still like this in China; I haven't been there in years, but yeah, this was really strange to me when I lived there.
I do think that a scary thing is that if there's a descent into fascism, how many people will hardly notice, or maybe even enjoy it. There was a quote I heard on this American life recently, that went:
"Life under autocracy can be terrifying, as it already is in the United States for immigrants and trans people. But those of us with experience can tell you that most of the time, for most people, it's not frightening. It is stultifying. It's boring. It feels like trying to see and breathe under water â because you are submerged in bad ideas, being discussed badly, being reflected in bad journalism and, eventually, in bad literature and bad movies."
I have been in countries like that and I've found they were quite open to talking to me about it, since I was obviously a foreigner much less likely to snitch on them than even their family or friends. Buy a beer for someone in a dictatorial country and I pretty much guarantee you they will open up in private.
I actually ask my friends what they think and don't judge them for it. Everyone has some way to build up their belief and it's interesting to listen to these.
They often have horrible reasoning but I don't try to talk them out of it, just nod, polite comment, move on.
A good discussion. I've personally thought of political adherence similar to football teams. Fans are fans. That's it.
Escaping that tribalism or fandom is important, but you need to hold fast to your own sense of morality along the way.
Applying your own sense of right/wrong to political arguments and policies is a useful way to cut through the noise and distraction that accompanies political discourse.
im a nuance enjoyer when it comes to politics too but i wouldnt say i know adequate amounts about economics, politics, game theory, etc. i might know slightly more about my preferred fields than the average person, but im still woefully incompetent. so im always hesitant to lay judgement. especially because politics is such a complex system. its difficult to make the probabilities the author speaks of unless you make a bunch of assumptions. which is terrible and miserable. things get even worse when you think about things at a global vs local political level, which are just completely different in dynamics.
i hate rationalists because it's like. you cant logically reason your way out of this one buddy. the system is far too complex for rationalism to work. sometimes its easier to just align with the groupthink and focus on other things you deem more important. hanging out with friends vs spending all day in your room teaching yourself about tribal relations in central africa so you can have your own unique opinions on us foreign policy.
I feel like "tribal relations in central Africa" is a defeatist exaggeration of the requisite nuance necessary to engage meaningfully with socioeconomic power dynamics in one's own society. It's an extremist viewpoint, and unworthy of a "nuance enjoyer."
Remember the Pareto Principle! The principal aspect of Central African Politics is probably, still, colonialism/imperialism and the game of Hungry, Hungry Hippos played between US/Russia/China.
Do you really need to grok the unique reactions to neo-colonialism in every affected African, South American, and Asian country to form a principled, independent outlook?
I had quick scan of the comments but I didn't see anybody else make the point, so here is my 2c.
I believe the problem is the two party systems and how our government is set up, people vote for one tribe or the other. There is no _value_ to being educated on individual issues because ultimately you simply have to choose between 2 people who are affiliated with a party.
How awesome would it be if individuals could vote on specific issues, perhaps only after proving they have a working knowledge of the subject matter.
Completely agree and it is an oversimplification when you graph people on even a 2-dimensional axis.
In reality we all have beliefs that are formed by our "in groups". People have groups beliefs formed from their religion, work, hobbies, study, and internet consumption. These all form our views and then get flattened to a 2-party system.
Unfortunately people can now form their identity solely on a political identity primarily due to social media.
I think you're right, it is harder to discuss politics as widely as we once did.
That said, what do you think of money changing what is left/right and group/individual? The outcome of Citizens United to allow obscured spending to create seeming grass roots efforts on any topic that the monied want very effectively moving opinions.
Itâs super sad that the political establishment has managed to polarize people so much that a rational discussion about very important issues is not possible anymore for a lot of people. Itâs a dream come true for unscrupulous politicians and oligarchs who can do whatever they want as long their propaganda is strong enough.
I think its a side-effect of depoliticization by neoliberal reform from the 80s onward in the western liberal democracies. Everything has already been privatized and financialized, technocratic decision making has taken over. People are increasingly hurt by this system, but there is no political conceptualization of where that hurt is coming from. So people are galvanized into impotent political camps where they can hysterically scream about gay people, abortion, immigrants, guns or whatever.
I would be very curious to know what people here even consider "rational debate", probably a bunch of centrist takes on gay people, abortion, immigrants, guns or whatever would be my guess.
Maybe tribalism is ok in some respects, and maybe we should increase it.
For example, it would be fine if the people in the other tribe to do what they want - as long as when the taxes becomes too high, the beaurocracy stifling, the crime rampant, and they have to deal with issues they assumed other people would sacrifice for in order for them to feel good - as long as when it inevitably breaks down, they don't come to MY area learning nothing and try to replicate what they left.
I'm looking forward to going back to the days when political disagreements were more along the lines of 'I think __TAX__ should be x%, rather than x+y%'
I'll never forget calling Yang a tool in a group of math nerds back around 2019. Instantly outgrouped. I don't think this alone caused our friendship to crumble, but the fact that we couldn't discuss actual policy makes me tend to agree with this post.
I'm not even sure what politics is anymore. I'm largely not on social media, so I am generally late to what's taboo or a hot button topic, like Tesla automobiles and SpaceX, or anything else connected to a billionaire.
In 2025, but before the Tesla burnings made the news, I was having some chitchat about possibly purchasing a Tesla as my next car, at which point, I got a tirade of anger mentioning words like "Nazi", "fascism" and so on. I was completely taken aback.
I realize we Americans are probably undergoing the results of some adversarial nation-state psychological operations[1], but we really need to chill out.
1. Coincidentally, most of my social media "usage" is identifying sock puppet accounts and their adversarial psyops campaigns.
The big issue is a lot of people will believe what they want to believe. Most folks are not scientists - they start by assuming their conclusions and will choose the soothing moral and emotional rhetoric over evidence.
Trying to see the world objectively puts you in a category of outliers. The people you become friends with due to proximity in everyday life will not be outliers.
Most people are unaware of how small that outlier group is.
Like there's an even bigger group of people who think they're scientific and unbiased and impartial but they actually aren't. That group is more likely the group you and I are in.
The group of actual objective people is so small that you may never meet a single person like this in your lifetime. That person may even be autistic.
Part of being scientific is realising that you can't be completely unbiased and impartial, but you can be thorough, systematic, rigorous and informed by evidence rather than soundbites.
Some questions don't have definite answers, it's the sophistication of the analysis that counts.
For what it's worth, the situation in the US right now is largely fine. It's hard to appreciate what the reality on the ground is like if all one sees is the media (which stirs up trouble because that makes them money) or terminally online Doom posters (a lot of the commenters on any social media site). But for the average person, life is going on as normal. Some people like things the administration is doing and some dislike them, but most people don't feel the need to make it the central feature of their lives.
In my experience the (now ancient) Sequences are not of much use in learning how to change your mind. With only a cursory background in psychology, his advice tends to consist of generic platitudes. Not much practical application.
Iâd recommend a short course in mindfulness instead, at whatever point in the spectrum between science and mysticism youâre comfortable with.
Is this an American thing? No one has ever in my life asked me "Who did you vote for?"
I have had plenty of people behave in a way that made it clear they assumed I agreed with them on political matters/issues that would have us voting the same way (sometimes correctly, sometimes incorrectly) but I have never been asked this question. Is it common or is it a contrivance in service of the article?
My experience may not be representative, but I think it's very uncommon to outright ask "who did you vote for" in the US. It's more common (although many people still find it impolite or inappropriate in many situations) for someone to bring up an issue that is important to them and that strongly suggests a preference for one of our two viable political parties.
The only scenario where I believe people might directly ask "Who did you vote for?" is screening for dating. I don't know exactly how common it is, but I've heard multiple anecdotes about that being asked on dating apps or first dates, because they're not interested in dating someone who voted for Trump.
Prior to Trump it wasn't really a thing, because both parties were still following the law and maintaining a functioning democracy, so people could date across party lines and just agree-to-disagree about taxes or whatever.
Politics dictates so much of daily life, at every level, that it's important to be able to have conversations about it. It's frankly self-righteous to see yourself as the one person with nuanced opinions in a crowd of simpletons, and while I do think that politics in many liberal democracies has become more polarized, you'll never restore nuanced debate or good-faith disagreement in political discussions by just avoiding the topic.
I'm not advocating for politics being the only thing you talk about with your friends, but if you and your friends are able to have useful discussions about the impact of some policies over others, can have constructive disagreements over reasonable political discourse, and can identify larger problematic trends in politics, a lot of good can come of that.
> Politics dictates so much of daily life, at every level,
Thatâs weird because you can live life of total ignorance of whatâs happening in the news. Lobbying and marketing make you think things are important that arenât.
> Thatâs weird because you can live life of total ignorance of whatâs happening in the news.
Being unaware of politics, just like being unaware of biology or physics, doesn't reduce or disprove the degree to which it impacts your life, it just recuces your understanding.
Only if you believe PR and material published by NGOs is equivalent to political understanding.
Itâs a nice thought. But itâs kind of like thinking you will become an athlete by watching ESPN talk shows. Or maybe even hoping to learn about physics by watching the Big Bang theory. You might pick up some new words, but Itâs two levels removed from the real thing.
Of course, but I think people tend to overestimate the amount politics, especially federal politics actually impact their lives.
Spending hours a day worrying and reading about cancer risk and fatalities increases your understanding, but it certainly isn't healthy or proportional.
Ideally, one should select friends that are respectful of other's opinions. Certainly, one shouldn't keep someone close who isn't.
But with family and acquaintances, it's not worth getting into. Except when someone isn't being respectful. Then I will certainly speak up and ask why they aren't respecting someone's right to think for themselves.
I don't have a problem with my dad's view that taxes should be low or that we should be responsible with the environment. I don't have a problem with his view that over-regulation is a danger. I don't have a problem with my dad's opinion that capitalism is great, even with my disagreement.
I have a problem with the fact that my dad votes for people who do not do those things, and then gets upset when people point that out to him.
He told me that "I think people just need to have more patience with each other and accept our differences" as a moral to a story he told about being a manager to trans and non-binary folks. IMO it's 100% the right take, and he holds no negative feelings for any trans people or nonbinary people.
Then he votes for the anti-trans candidate.
How do you square that circle?
The reality is that I know my dad's voting history (we have talked about politics) and my dad is not an idealist or a pragmatist or conservative or liberal.
I don't know your dad, maybe he doesn't see that candidate as "anti-trans"?
If you think that some group has unfair benefits you can vouch for stripping those benefits without seeing yourself as "anti". Your drive is not hatred but fairness. You can be misguided but that's a different question.
If you think church must pay taxes, it doesn't make you anti-church. If you want to reduce police funding it doesn't make you anti-police. If you want stricter control of guns that doesn't make you anti-guns.
The whole "anti" split is indeed a sing of the tribalism which in US takes a binary form. You're either with us or against us.
Doesn't a lot of it come down to having to choose between only two parties?
It's unlikely that most people will agree with all the positions of a party, so they choose the one who most closely aligns with their highest priority issues.
Perhaps trans policy is just a lower priority issue for your dad. His voting may be illogical based on your priorities, but may be the rational choice based on his ranking of issues.
I don't think I ever make the only-nuanced-opinion claim, the claim I'm making here is many people don't want to have useful discussions, they just want to proselytize
I actually say there are reasons to persevere and encourage debate if it's not just trying to "win":
"However, one reason to persevere is to find the 1% of people that also want to see the world as it is. Aka, finding your own community of anti-tribalists."
"Few things give me greater joy than a discovery-ridden conversation with smart friends, and this is only enhanced if I learn something I previously believed to be true is actually wrong. Seriously, come prove some core belief I have as wrong and you will quite literally make my week."
For all of the author's bloviating and self-congratulating navel gazing, the article manages to largely overlook values, the only mention of them being to dismissively reduce them to irrational tribalism.
In truth, values and ethics are fundamental to effectively discussing politics. After all, all political decisions are ultimately about how we want to shape the world that we as humans live in. There can be no agreement about economic policy without a shared understanding of the ultimate goal of an economy. No agreement about foreign relations without a shared understanding of the role of nations as representatives for groups of humans, and how we believe one group of humans should interact with another group of humans through the lens of nations.
For the last 20 years at least, the leadership of the two main political parties in the US have largely invested in messaging around the values that they represent. The policies are different too, but over time we've gone from a world where there were at least some cases where the two parties had different policies for how to reach the same goals, and into a world where the parties policies are aiming to realize fundamentally different visions of the world, based on fundamentally different values.
In this world, asking "who did you vote for" isn't a matter of tribalism, but it is a (good) proxy for asking someone "what are your values". If you discover that someone has completely different values from you, then discussing policy isn't going to be useful anyway, because there's no way you'll agree on a single policy when you have different fundamental values.
I consider this type of thinking to be a form of tribalism because you're essentially saying there are two tribes. Each tribe has specific values.
A person's values are not a dichotomy (i.e. republican or democrat). You simply cannot put people into two buckets that define their overarching moral compass.
A person can be transphobic but support abortion so they have always voted Democrat...or hate everything about Republican values except they got burned by Obamacare so they vote Republican. There is virtually an infinite level of nuance that can be a deciding factor in why someone votes for someone.
> person can be transphobic but support abortion so they have always voted Democrat
The term you're looking for is political coherence, i.e. the degree to which you can predict a person's views based on knowing their view on one issue. Political elites tend to be highly coherent. If you know a Congressperson's views on guns, you probably know them on abortion and corporate taxes.
In the real world, however, votes tend not to be politically coherent. Instead, what we see in a hyperpartisan polity, is that a diverse set of views collapses after an issue achieves partisan identity status. Talking about a thing through a partisan lens is what causes the partisan collapse. Hence the effects of mass and then social media on the quality of our discussions.
(And I agree with OP that the author's "I'm above politics" stance is naively immature.)
> Political elites tend to be highly coherent
Coherence might not the word you're looking for. The policies of political parties and groups are born out of historical circumstances and the diverse coalitions they represent. Political elites are "coherent" in the sense that you can expect them to consistently follow the party line, and thus infer all of their views just by knowing one of their views.
The party line, i.e. platform of the Democratic and Republican parties, or any other large political party in the world, is, by itself, nothing coherent though. Many of their policies and claims do not make any more sense besides each other than they would make against each other. Realignments on issues are pretty common across the world. What is left-wing in one part of the world at one point of time might be rightist across space and time.
This is a difference in the subject of coherence.
Logical coherence refers to the variation and predictive power of the reasoning.
Coherence can also be used to describe the variability and predictability of positions or states themselves.
If you measure the characteristics of some photons in a coherent laser, you know what the other photons are doing. They are predictable using a model.
Logic is a poor predictive model for politics. Tribe identification is a strong predictive model for politics
> transphobic but support abortion so they have always voted Democrat
This is the NYT if you want a high-profile example of this existing in the real world.
I worked with a guy who was a goldmine of odd but sincerely held political opinions that subverted the usual narratives. He was (I guess still is) gay but believed that trans people shouldn't serve in the military because he saw that they didn't get the treatment they needed. He wanted everyone to have guns as a protection against crooked cops-- he was from a small town. He was against single-payer healthcare because he thought the government would use it as a political weapon. He was was in theory anti-union because he thought union benefits should just be turned into labor protections for everyone instead of just being for union jobs and supported them only as a stopgap. He was pro-solar/wind and had an electric car not for any environmental reason but because he didn't want to be reliant on the greedy power company.
To me that just sounds like someone who arrives at his political views by thinking rather than blindly adopting whatever his peers believe. It's only odd because it's (sadly) rare these days.
Realpolitiks...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realpolitik
i mean, his views don't sound too odd. he sounds like a communist who's got a dim view of reform or socialism as a means to communism.
Tribalism is just bad sociology, that's where the nuance is missing.
> the parties policies are aiming to realize fundamentally different visions of the world, based on fundamentally different values
This is an incorrect and cynical statement. I understand why you feel this way (for one thing, it's the exact type of language coming out of many of each party's idealists) but it's simply false.
One party supports gun rights while the other supports gun control. Those aren't values. Democrats want to pursue safety from guns. Republicans want to pursue safety from tyranny. Both sides care about personal safety.
Abortion rights is about personal liberty. Gun rights are also about personal liberty. Both sides care about personal liberty.
The competing talking points aren't always conveniently about the same issue though. For Democrats their border policies are about compassion and human rights. For Republicans their border policies are about domestic prosperity.
Do Republicans care about human rights? Yes. Do Democrats care about domestic prosperity? Yes. To pretend otherwise is to willfully push apart the tribes in your own mind, and to trivialize the perspective of the opposition.
The real problem is the one you are contributing to: the unwillingness to empathize. Empathy is the only way to come to a compromise. With a little empathy you might even find that you have to compromise less because you might actually convince someone of your argument, for once.
Imho opinion, what you are describing are republicans of the past. As parent says, there used to be shared values. Two of the shared valued were peaceful transition of power and respect for the rule of law / division of power between executive, legislative and judiciary.
Imho the values of MAGA republicans are clearly distinct from GWB republicans (even if it may be precisely the same voters). Specifically the two values described above are no longer shared values.
I believe there are more, but for the two values above we have irrevocable proof.
> what you are describing are republicans of the past
I know it seems that way but it has always seemed that way. Republicans talk about Democrats of the past (southern Democrats). Democrats talk about Republicans of the past (Lincoln). This feeling isn't new.
> Two of the shared valued were peaceful transition of power and respect for the rule of law / division of power between executive, legislative and judiciary.
Re: peaceful transition of power the Republicans insist (whether true or not) that January 6th was peaceful. The value is still there. Re: the rule of law, Republicans claim they are abiding by the law. (Are they not?) The value is still there. Division of power is certainly coming under question with the actions of DOGE, but I don't think the mere existence of DOGE is evidence that Republicans don't value the division of power. Some of these things aren't immediately obvious to everyone, especially if they are determined to be legal (whether we like the law or not).
We must resist the urge to demonize and dehumanize the opposition. That is exactly what is happening: even with our comments and upvotes we are collectively deciding that the opposition is out of their minds and are increasingly a foe to be vanquished. That is, frankly, stupidity of the masses.
If someone changes and begins to continually insists that something plainly untrue is true, does that mean that they possibly still have the values they used to? How long do you continue defending the "well, maybe..." case?
Throw out the Jan 6th example, it's now ancient history. As a party, Republicans are, at this very instant, claiming that judges are acting illegally for... using their constitutionally mandated legal powers. Simultaneously, but separately, the party apparatus is repeating on a daily basis a new conspiracy theory that the judges they don't like are being controlled by some nefarious power.
And it's a very, very well established playbook. We have many examples of countries that dismantled their systems of transition of power and division of power starting with the courts. It's a move that could pretty much make it into a "For Dummies" book.
"The value is still there." I can't see it. But maybe I'm too focused on judging on the entire scope of action and speech, rather than a very narrow bit of speech that isn't at all reflected in actions.
While you broadly make a great point, there are psychological dimensions to take into consideration. Some people's personalities are more inclined toward tribalistic thinking and will extend their capacity for empathy only toward their own in-group, while others are capable of expanding the "in-group" to include all of humanity. So while it may be true to say that Republicans care about human rights, it is more accurate to say they care about their OWN human rights, and not the rights of people outside their in-group.
If you want to remove the political labeling from this statement, about 30% of the population "thinks" (or, rather, does not think, but acts) this way, and it is important to realize that the motivating factor differs between them and the other type of human, who cares about people in the abstract.
Abortion rights is about religion-as clear a difference in values as one can have.
bingo!
This was true a decade ago. It is no longer true.
The modern Trump controlled Republican party is not a party that cares about personal liberties. It is a fascist, authoritarian project that is toying with straight up Nazism. They are explicitly pulling from the Nazi playbook in their language and strategy of attack on the rule of law. Someone who supports that party is supporting a completely different set of values from someone who opposes it.
That said, that party is also backed by a powerful and effective propaganda machine that has successfully pulled the wool over many people's eyes such that they don't fully realize what it is they are supporting.
The left has called every Republican presidential candidate a Nazi/fascist/authoritarian since Ronald Reagan.
this is far too broad of a generalization. just like it would be too broad of a generalization to declare all conservatives to be maga.
if weâre to believe trump he declares people to be âextreme leftistsâ who are clearly not even leftists.
so i find it highly unlikely that the entirety of âthe leftâ called every republican presidential candidate these things.
Doesn't matter what the left said previously, what matters is that the Trump Administration is behaving in an autocratic manner. Godwin's law has been abused online since forever, but you can just draw a comparison with Putin's ascent to autocratic rule in Russia.
> In this world, asking "who did you vote for" isn't a matter of tribalism, but it is a (good) proxy for asking someone "what are your values".
I strongly disagree. In this duopoly of a political system, most people on both sides are just picking the lesser of two evils. Meanwhile, we are creating an alarmingly decisive political society by choosing not to associate with those who vote differently than us. Perhaps most importantly, we lose the opportunity to actually shift the political positions of others (and ourselves) by not engaging in healthy and non-judgmental political discussions with our friends and neighbors, ultimately increasing polarization even further.
Not everyone is voting based on their valuesâsome are simply voting their wallets or the special interests they align with. Someone who is pro-choice, pro-LGBT, and pro-immigration may very well vote Republican because they work in the US Automotive industry, and so do their friends and families and people who they care most about. It doesnât necessarily mean their core values are different than yours, but instead maybe simply just their priorities.
> pro-choice, pro-LGBT, and pro-immigration may very well vote Republican because they work in the US Automotive industry, and so do their friends and families and people who they care most about.
What you care most about is a statement of values.
Sure but if you're so reductionist then you'd also be arguing that slaves were making a statement about their values and how they viewed slavery because the majority didn't immediately escape or die trying. It would be disingenuous to say or even imply from that statement that their value system was pro slavery though.
I would say that the partial counterpoint to that is, for most people their values are also largely tribe based, in that their values are not purely fixed, but rather tend to adapt to loosely track the tribal consensus. Very few are the ones willing to stick to their convictions under pressure.
There are clearly some (many?) shared average axiomatic values that seem to be common between very different cultures/religions (although individuals vary much more significantly), but it's much easier to obsess on the places we differ.
Where I strongly disagree is the idea that groups with different fundamental values can't necessarily find common policy ground. A good example is Basic Income, where you can find agreement between groups on opposite sides that both embrace the idea, but for very different value-driven reasons. In many cases, you can also agree to disagree, and just keep your collective hands out of it (eg. separation of religion and state).
> For the last 20 years at least, the leadership of the two main political parties in the US have largely invested in messaging around the values that they represent.
The largest two U.S. parties have been heavily minmaxing the propaganda they release to divide districts on the most effective issues they can convert into election wins. Their values are "get elected to office" but the propaganda can't be so straightforward because there aren't a lot of voters who are easily converted by that directness.
Voters have values; political parties and candidates have propaganda. Game theoretically the winning move is to compete on comparative advantage of an issue within a voting district; because (for example) Democratic voters are split on the death penalty it's a very useless propaganda point for the party as a whole [0]; sticking to one side or the other would lose more elections than it would win. Note that this is very different from ranking the importance of values and focusing on the most impactful to real people; the (implicit) hope is that by focusing on effective propaganda issues then some values may be preserved through the election process. In practice politicians also horse-trade for future party political capital in preference to espoused values.
One fundamental problem is that without a parliamentary style of government where coalitions are required to form a functioning legislature the usefulness of values in elections is greatly diminished. If I may say, the Republican party has done the best at shedding the illusion and explicitly transferring power to the party itself to enforce the values held by one man, which is the ultimate game-theoretically strong position for a political party. Disconnecting the ultimate value-judged outcomes of elections from the political machinations that win them has been incredibly damaging to democracy.
[0] https://www.salon.com/2024/08/31/the-end-of-the-abolition-er...
I think the assumption that political parties represent two completely distinct sets of values is overly simplistic. In reality, there's a significant amount of overlap between themâwhat often differs is the style of messaging and the framing of ideas.
Personally, I find it hard to fully identify with either the left or the right. I share beliefs and values from both sides, depending on the issue. This makes it difficult to adopt a clear-cut political label, and I think that's true for many people.
Politics today often feels more like a battle of narratives than a clash of core principles / values.
p.s. my perspective is non-US one.
I reject this idea, someone voting for the "least worst candidate" does not wholly endorse everything they stand for
As someone said in this thread, in the US two-party system, coalitions are formed before the vote vs after in other countries
The whole purpose of this piece is to precisely encourage pointed discussion about values directly and skip the proxying
"someone voting for the "least worst candidate" does not wholly endorse everything they stand for"
yes but somebody voting for the "most worst candidate" is not somebody who's values should be trusted
and if someone opposite the aisle from you believes the same thing about you, there's zero chance to flip them
with direct discussion about values, it's possible
basically all comes down to "are you open to the chance you're wrong"
you could view that chance as low as 0.001%, but it shouldn't be 0
People frequently have a gap between their values and their politics, and talking about both can reveal the cognitive dissonance.
If they engage with politics as tribalism, and you talk to them about a policy their tribe implemented that conflicts with their values, this is useful.
The very idea of âleast worstâ is very subjective. In their eyes, if they disagree with you, it is whoâs values should not be trusted.
> I reject this idea, someone voting for the "least worst candidate" does not wholly endorse everything they stand for
The thing about values is that they don't just capture the notion of what we thing is right or wrong, but also which things we value over other things. In an extreme case, two people can agree on 10 out of 10 different ideals or ethical stances and still have different values and support different parties because of how they rank those things.
In that case who you think is the "least worst" is also a reflection of values, as is declaring both sides to be the same, or opting out altogether. They all represent both what things you value and how much you value them.
> In that case who you think is the "least worst" is also a reflection of values
perceived values -- if someone has the same values and rankings as you, but was exposed to different information, then with this logic you'll never be able to find out or flip them
as I said to the other commenter, basically all comes down to "are you open to the chance you're wrong"
you could view that chance as low as 0.001%, but it shouldn't be 0
> leadership of the two main political parties in the US have largely invested in messaging around the values that they represent
I'd say they invest in messaging around the values they want voters to believe they represent.
i.e., marketing and ensuing reality diverge regularly with politicians, regardless of affiliation.
> "who did you vote for" isn't a matter of tribalism, but it is a (good) proxy for asking someone "what are your values"
You should test this hypothesis by talking to someone for 10 minutes, then guessing who they voted for.
My hypothesis is you wouldn't do better than 50/50.
"If p then q" does not imply "If q then p."
Besides, there's a ton of easy ways to beat 50/50 odds without explicitly asking who they voted for. You can ask whether they graduated from college, and that will get you to something like 55/45 or 60/40. If they're white and they did not graduate from college, or if they're not white and they did graduate from college, your odds of guessing right are something like 2:1.
Studies have also found (somewhat weak) correlations between some of the Big Five personality traits and political identification: people who score highly on conscientiousness are more likely to be right-leaning, while people who score highly on openness to experience are more likely to be left-leaning.
> "If p then q" does not imply "If q then p."
My original comment is challenging whether "p then q" is valid in the first place by asking if the inverse would be true as a thought experiment. (Neither is true IMO)
Just because someone has certain values doesn't mean they vote a certain way.
Just because they vote a certain way doesn't mean they have certain values.
"p" (who you voted for) and "q" (your values) are largely independent for a large percentage of voters.
My point is that the validity and soundness of the inverse proposition has no bearing on the validity and soundness of the original proposition, so youâve proposed a meaningless experiment.
I also think that your hypothesis that voting and values are not connected is false, but thatâs a separate issue.
I understand your point and I agree with it. I didn't respond to it directly because it wasn't contributing to the discussion at hand. But I agree with your point that an inverse proposition doesn't always hold!
The hypothesis is that knowing a person's voting activity helps one to predict that individual's values. I don't think the parent is claiming that the values that might be revealed by a 10 minute conversation are a predictor for voting activity. I think there's a distinction, since people can - and, in my perspective, often do - misrepresent or misidentify their true values in their conversations with strangers. I am assuming that people act on their true values, not necessarily those that they advertise, when they fill out ballots.
The is a really good, IMO, Saturday Night Live skit about this where the contestants try to guess Republican or not of various people. Some of the bits do a great job of pointing out how some of the values people claim to believe in are only applied selectivity when it benefits their side.
I was talking to a very drunk Republican girl the other day. We were having a small argument about why we would send medical support to Africa for AIDS. Her argument was something about fixing America first (I was also drunk).
I asked if she regretted her vote for Trump after several people she knew lost their government contracting jobs, and she said "No, fuck that guy, I didn't vote for him."
That's why I love claiming to be a third-party voter so much. It breaks their brains and their response informs whether or not they are worthy of my respect.
> In truth, values and ethics are fundamental to effectively discussing politics.
People generally haven't formed strong opinions on most issues, and defer to party or a leader they like for the remaining. They'll still happily argue about it for the post part, unfortunately.
You can see this effect after some elections where people "fall in line" with their party's new presidential candidate on some issue.
> People generally haven't formed strong opinions on most issues, and defer to party or a leader they like for the remaining.
I call this "politics as religion".
Remember you cannot reason someone out of a position they never reasoned themselves into. Route around the damage and make them irrelevant.
> The policies are different too, but over time we've gone from a world where there were at least some cases where the two parties had different policies for how to reach the same goals, and into a world where the parties policies are aiming to realize fundamentally different visions of the world, based on fundamentally different values.
What difference do the parties have? They are both the 'corporate party' maximizing shareholder profit at all costs including killing brown people overseas or murdering Americans at home if they cant pay for healthcare.
Even the language that the different parties use is targeted at certain sets of values; Arnold Kling wrote this short book on the subject ("The Three Languages of Politics"): https://cdn.cato.org/libertarianismdotorg/books/ThreeLanguag...
"The Righteous Mind" by Jonathan Haidt is another, more nuanced (and complicated), but extremely interesting take on the subject of how values drive political affiliation.
Framing has always been used in political debate just to target certain values; what may have changed (or not) is as a deliberate tactic to keep people divided: folks who do not speak the same language cannot communicate.
On a lot of issues, I think 80% of folks are in 80% of agreement, but the partisans (whether politicians or activists) are framing the issue to prevent that consensus, because the partisans want something in the 20% that 80% of folks don't agree with.
Kling and Haidt would agree with your respective paragraphs, though they do add a lot of color, and their books are worth reading.
I've listened to Haidt speak about it and his book is in my tall stack to read; I don't think I'd heard of King but I grabbed the PDF. Thank you.
This makes 0 sense. Democrat and Republican "values", to the extent they are even real, no way represent the full spectrum of values one can have.
Further, the Democratic party has a 27% approval rating and the Republican party had like 47% and I bet its falling. So even within your narrow framework this is a bad proxy because both are clearly unpopular.
The two sides dont actually have different values, they have small wedge issues that unscrupulous individuals/groups over-exaggerate for their own gain. Im center left but still see myself in Trump supporters, were basically the same people who basically want to live our lives
> to realize fundamentally different visions of the world, based on fundamentally different values
I think your use of the word "world" is telling.
Trump, the Republicans, and the global right are focused on their citizens.
The Democrats and the global left are more focused on the world and their role in it.
It's no longer just two approaches on how we can have the strongest economy. Each party has a weighting for how much to consider every issue across the world.
For example, there are people who would be happy with less growth, lower income, but more action on climate change.
Your need to insult the author proved his point.
> For the last 20 years at least, the leadership of the two main political parties in the US have largely invested in messaging around the values that they represent.
Except that the "values" each promotes are often inconsistent with other "values" they promote, sometimes to the point of absurd irrationality, e.g. marijuana vs tobacco or alcohol.
And other "values" are completely independent, but correlate so highly that "tribalism" is a much better explainer, e.g. abortion and guns.
> and into a world where the parties policies are aiming to realize fundamentally different visions of the world, based on fundamentally different values.
That's not new.
On a very high level, the two major parties do want everyone to be healthy, wealthy and wise -- the issue is that they disagree on what those words mean, and what should be sacrificed (and by whom) to achieve it, which means the two major parties have always had very different visions of the future.
> If you discover that someone has completely different values from you, then discussing policy isn't going to be useful anyway, because there's no way you'll agree on a single policy when you have different fundamental values.
And that right there is a call to tribalism: Don't bother with Those People, They Have Different Values, They Aren't Like Us.
> Don't bother with Those People, They Have Different Values, They Aren't Like Us
I didn't say that you shouldn't bother with people. I said that discussing _policy_ is not useful if you don't agree on _values_. It's the wrong level of abstraction. To put it in a plain analogy: discussing the best route to get to your destination isn't useful if you don't agree on where you are going.
If you want to engage with someone with different values, then the values are where you need to start. If you want to engage with someone on the best way to get somewhere, you need to start by making sure you both agree on where you want to go.
> In this world, asking "who did you vote for" isn't a matter of tribalism, but it is a (good) proxy for asking someone "what are your values".
Only if you ascertain the (inverse of the) mapping of values -> vote correctly, and it's definitively not what the parties or the tribes themselves profess.
For myself [0], I sympathize with many of the issues Trump ran on while finding most of the Democratic platform cloying and hollow. But I value effective policy, being accountable to intellectual criticism, and a generally open society far far more. (And at this point in my life, a healthy dose of straight up actual conservatism, too!)
[0] and while it might seem needlessly inflammatory to include this here, I think it's unavoidable that people are going to be trying to read partisan implications from abstract comments regardless.
> it is a (good) proxy for asking someone "what are your values". If you discover that someone has completely different values from you
No, itâs a prejudice. People have a very short analysis and are generally not ready for their beliefs to be discussed.
Most people believe the definition of left is âgoodâ and right is âbadâ. Like, they literally believe this is how people identify their side. âOh yes youâre rightwing, thatâs because you donât mind being selfish, self-serving, evil even. Thatâs your conception of the world.â
Not at all. Iâm social, therefore I am right-wing. I care about womenâs rights, therefore I am right-wing. I want poor people to get help, therefore I am right-wing. The left wing has a pro-immigration âat all costâ policy and it means women are raped. Itâs systematic and part of what authors arenât jailed for. The left has a pro-poor policy and therefore poverty develops while leftwing electoralites have unsanctioned lavish parties with the commonsâ money (lavish parties ala Weinstein for which metoo stories surface a dozen years later).
Leftists canât fathom that I have literally the same pro-women anti-poverty values as they have. If anything, leftists judge (and pre-emptively sanction!) people on prejudice.
You kinda seem selfish, self-serving - evil, even.
I'm not a leftist. Your leader and his allies are a danger to democracy. I don't get this from the Democratic Party, or ANTIFA, or Bernie Sanders. I get it from paying attention to what Trump and his administration have been doing.
Values are largely posturing. Push comes to shove most people don't really care about what they say they care about. Tribal heuristics of trust are way more important.
The crucial question is what is "politics"? Are personalities politics? No. Are parties? No. Are inflammatory issues about race, sex or gender or political correctness or immigration? No!
Here is politics:
Are common American citizens able to afford and obtain reasonable health care?
Are common Americans paid a living wage? Can one person earn enough to have a family?
Do our children have a reasonable opportunity to grow, have a productive life and have a family if they want one?
Is the financial situation getting better for Americans or is the difference between earnings and expenditures growing larger. (Hint do we use code words like 'inflation' instead of calling it like it is).
A functioning democracy requires that the common people are enable to formulate and enact laws that they believe are in their best interests. Do the majority of the laws enacted in all the states meet this requirement?
A functioning democracy requires that the common people are able to use the law and courts to right wrongs. Are the common people able to use/afford access to the courts when wrongs are committed.
Do the common news media act as a forum for the common concerns and issues of the People. (Here's looking at you NYT).
Cuo Bono? If the laws passed are not in the interests of the People, and the courts are not accessible by People, who benefits? If the news media are not a forum for the interests of the People, whose interests do they represent. (Here's looking at you Jeff Bezos).
If advertising funds our primary sources of news, whose interests are represented.
Those are simply things you should discuss with your friends. They are questions not answers. This is not rocket science.
These are real problems. But they are also loaded questions, if someone asked me these at a party I would view them as looking for confirmation, and not seeking truth. There's nothing wrong with that, but the author's goal is curiosity and truth seeking, and I'm skeptical that most of these questions align with that goal.
The ironic thing to me is that the author essentially makes this the main point right from the get go:
> The insidious nature of this question comes from the false representation as earnest, intellectual discourse. Many who ask it may truly believe theyâre engaging earnestly, but their responses quickly reveal an angle more akin to religious police.
As you point out, nearly all of talkingtab's questions are loaded. At the very least, talkingtab essentially says outright what they expect the "correct" answer to be, e.g I'm baffled why talkingtab seems to think "inflation" is a "code word". I speak English, and inflation is "telling it like it is" based on the simple definition of the word.
As another example, for this question:
> Are common Americans paid a living wage? Can one person earn enough to have a family?
What happens if a response is "No, I don't believe that cashiers at McDonald's deserve to be paid a 'living wage', because I don't believe that job is intended to support a family on its own"? To emphasize, I'm not saying what the "right" answer is, but I do believe reasonable people can disagree over what constitutes a living wage and which jobs deserve to be paid it.
If anything, talkingtab's post just highlights to me the author's specific point about political "tribes" vs political views, and if anything has convinced me more that the author's view is spot on here.
> the author essentially makes this the main point right from the get go
Then find better friends. The author is essentially complaining about the quality of his friends.
Ah, yes, those pesky humans and their cognitive biases...
My read is that talkingtabâs agenda here is to focus the conversation on what politics is. Rather than being this thing you discuss with people (or not) itâs about injustice against the majority. So why does that get brought up? Because with the OP itâs easy to end up concluding that politics to the average person is something you choose to idly or deliberately or max-brainpower chatter with other people about. Then it can be easily thought that itâs just about differing policy positions. But talkingtab is saying that itâs more confrontational than that.
So why are the questions âloadedâ? Because as you can see with your own eyes, they have their own political agenda. Part of politics is defining what the the agenda should beâand what should be considered political.
As you can imagine, people who think they are arguing or fighting on behalf of people making a living wage etc. want to put that message out there. They are not discussing abstract concepts or competing in some open-mindedness competition or some rationality contest. It matters to them.
> If anything, talkingtab's post just highlights to me the author's specific point about political "tribes" vs political views, and if anything has convinced me more that the author's view is spot on here.
You are even more convinced. Yet there is nothing here that suggests that talkingtab is tribal in the sense of what the OP is talking about. None. Is this received opinion or opinion born from studying like a monk for 10 years? You donât know.
You also say that talkingtab is presenting what the âcorrectâ answer is. Yes, according to them. Again, is it really tribalism? Or is it conviction as well as the polemic tone of the whole comment? And having conviction doesnât mean that you cannot conceive of people having other opinions, or being intellectually unable to present counter-arguments to their own position. Again, no proof of tribalism is presented.
And this focus on tribalism presupposes that the end goal is to find your tone. Alternatively you can look at their arguments. Maybe they want to change the flaws they perceive in the world.
The strawmanning of arguments from both sides is so intense that most people lay in a bed composed entirely of strawman arguments. I firmly blame the media above all for this, but individuals carry a burden to for not trying to remake their bed.
It took me 15 years to to remake my bed into somewhat rational arguments, and still I find lots of hay in there. Generally both sides, or all sides really, want the same things and disagree on how to get there. And the truth is there is almost never an obvious or clear way to get there. It's fractal pros and cons all the way down.
> but individuals carry a burden to for not trying to remake their bed
In what way? I turn on Fox sometimes and it's not that it's slanted, but it's just a stream of lies and BS. I've watched a bunch of Trump's speeches and in addition to being incoherent, he says the same lies and BS all the way down. Yesterday's tariff speech was a great example.
I don't consider myself progressive (though the MAGA right would think me so), but where do I go to try and 'remake [my] bed'?
I think what's meant is that you need to be open to changing your opinion and manner of approach to things. To stay with the analogy: when you "remake" your bed and it ends up the same, chances are that you didn't try to improve on its design.
By turning on Fox sometimes (provided it's not your main source) you might already not fall into the category of people not trying to remake their bed.
Wait, we're designing bedding now? Not just remaking our beds? What a strained analogy that when you 'remake' your bed and it's the 'same' (why would it be different?) then you didn't improve the design?? Even more shocking is that you ran with this as opposed to realizing that these were warning signs that either your fundamental argument is ridiculous, or your analogy is.
Well, the first thing is to realize CNN is also just a stream of lies and BS. Every media news organization in the world has become (they always were?) pure garbage.
Listening to first-hand sources is the way, I guess, but also remembering they can be lying as well, so be vigilant.
It's true, because all the upper levels of ALL large media organizations have been infiltrated by big-moneyed conservatives.
CNN and NBC weren't always as bad as they are now, but their descent has been obvious and dramatic.
Some of them still employ democrats to some minimal extent, such as Jamelle Bouie at the NYT, but that's merely subterfuge, lest their bent be glaringly obvious.
If someone can name a large organization that is an exception to my first paragraph, I would be happy to learn of them.
CNN has always been propaganda
https://youtu.be/rWtwjDhgN3Q
https://youtu.be/NlcSiYulhos
> Generally both sides, or all sides really, want the same things and disagree on how to get there.
No, that is just not true. For example, do you think Putin and his supporters wanted a functioning democracy in Russia and independent Ukraine? No, they wanted someone functioning as a dictator to restore Russia's cold war territory and influence, and they wanted to undermine western democracies that stood in their way.
History does not support your claim that everyone wants the same things. Some people want power and strong man to take over the government. We see that with the Trump administration. The religious conservatives want to use that to make America a Christian nation. The billionaire libertarians want to use it to deregulate their industries and run the government like a corporation. And Trump wants to act unilaterally to bring about his vision of being seen as some great figure. They have illiberal aims.
I'm speaking about the collectives, not the individuals. There are always deranged individuals and some of them, many of them, manage to get in power. But the ideological collectives all have pretty much the same core goals. Needs met, population happy.
What's your threshold where an "individual" becomes a "collective"? Certainly billionaire libertarians, religious conservatives, Putin and his supporters and the Trump administration (along with the judges he's appointed, the people in congress and state governments who ran on his platform and the 10s of millions of Americans who voted for them) are not individuals...
They also very obviously want different things compared to others.
Shy of a few fringe groups, I am not aware of any large suffering & death collectives. Every large collective is trying to achieve a better life for it's adherents, and is always welcoming to those who want to join. Christains might see living is the light of Jesus as the ideal life, and while not for everyone, you should at least be able to understand why they feel that way (as opposed to a religion of self inflicted torture).
Remember the goal here is not to become sympathetic to Trump, or Putin, or Sanders, or Netanyahu, or Islam. The goal is to have an accurate understanding of them, so that when you form arguments against them, you are actually attacking bedrock and not just straw.
> Christains might see living is the light of Jesus as the ideal life, and while not for everyone, you should at least be able to understand why they feel that way (as opposed to a religion of self inflicted torture).
Yes, but also we've seen how they've behaved in the past when they had vast political power in Europe. And we see what the goals of the Heritage Foundation is with Project 2025. There have always been a decent number of conservative Christians who want prayer, the bible and ten commandments in school. Who don't want legal abortion or gay marriage. And the more power they have, the more they would restrict. They also tend to believe in a lot of conspiracy theories, like the Democratic Party being controlled by satanists and communists, who have also infiltrated the "Deep State".
So you can imagine how those beliefs play out with enough political power.
politics, especially international geopolitics is a zero-sum game. The game of competition for limited resources and markets. Because resources are limited, the pie is fixed, and this makes it zero sum game.
Although there is a way to frame political alliances as a win-win when two parties increase their share at a cost of some other third party losing theirs.
Because of that, the arguments will always be straw-man, because people want to win resources, not to argue in good faith.
Any political issue can be framed in terms of zero sum game, if you look at the whole picture
This is incorrect. There are few physical resources that we have reached the limit of, such that one entityâs gain is necessarily anotherâs loss. There are also a great many things of value that arenât simply raw resources, for which the pie will never be fixed, because the pie is made by humans and can be made bigger or smaller.
This zero-sum narrative is only true in a world of no growth, where all resources are being fully utilized to maximum effect. That is very far from the world we live in, where there is enormous room for additional extraction, creation, and efficient utilization of resources.
the zero sum will always be true because of the fundamental law of physics: Law of preservation of energy.
Everything in the economy thats worth producing/consuming costs energy and labor. Energy and labor is not free.
You may be conflating win-win with debt-based growth, where economy can grow at the cost of running fiscal deficit and accumulating debt. Sure the economy and market can grow, but the debt will also grow and the inflation will cancel out the nominal growth
We use about 1 part in 10000 of the sun's energy deposit on earth... No, we are _really_ far away from preservation of energy being a limiting problem
yes, the only way to increase economy without stealing from someone else is technological advancement and efficiency improvements (which amounts to R&D spend = $$$$)
I guess I can interpret the strongest form of your argument to suggest that resources and markets have a specific level of economically relevant supply at any specific time, which I suppose is an empirical claim thatâs true. I feel like recent daysâ trade policy earthquakes might operate along a similar line of reasoning: thereâs only so much, âtheyâveâ been getting better off, which means theyâve been âtakingâ from the US, so the US is taking back.
In the same sense itâs true that there are only so many bushels of seed corn left after the winter. At the moment, we can squabble over how to divide the fixed supply. I could take all the corn, eat half, keep the rest for myself to plant this season. Or, if Iâve already got enough to plant all my land, and youâve got more land and nothing else to do, I could invest some of my leftover corn with you and we can all have double the harvest in a few months⌠when the supply will have dramatically expanded, assuming I donât treat it as a zero-sum game right now. Or I could focus on âwinningâ right now, and weâll both be poorer after the harvest than we would have been otherwise.
While I agree that you could frame most any political issue in zero-sum terms, I feel like the blind spot is the same: it tallies the score based on assumptions fixed in time, and it takes a pessimistic view of cooperative potential, of humansâ power to influence the constraints themselves.
the zero sum will always be true because of the fundamental law of physics: Law of preservation of energy / Law of preservation of matter.
Everything in the economy thats worth producing/consuming costs energy and labor. Energy and labor is not free.
Any free lunch one can have in the economy is only possible in nominal terms, when your economy/market grows, but your sovereign debt and fiscal deficit also grows and in real terms, after inflation there is no real growth.
if you look at the core, the bottom of the economics it is just pure physics: The flow and exchange of energy and materials, labor and capital. The fight is over a distribution of the flows between various factions
That's not how economics works. The pie is not fixed, it tends to grow over time as there's more trade between countries and their economies get bigger. The global economic pie has increased a massive amount over the past century.
the trade has increased because jobs have been offshored, corporations have been running labor cost arbitrage and making a profit from a difference in labor cost in US vs elsewhere
And as with most arbitrages, costs have lowered as a result. It means a piece of technology with thousands of individual parts can be in your hand for $200. Labor efficiency differences have resulted in an explosion of value-for-dollar for the American consumer.
I always wondered, what those Pinkerton man thought, when they attacked union members with machine guns for their masters in the guilded age.
They thought "Well, I guess this makes me one of those people for whom "Not talking about politics with Friends" becomes a core tenent to my personal philosophy."
They thought that the union members were criminals.
Without the ability to realize that it's politics that defines what a criminal is.
Unfortunately they're thinking the same thing today.
The original argument put forth by capitalists was that unionized workers were effectively engaging in economic sabotage by striking and blockading factories.
That said the Pinkertons were basically mercenaries akin to organized crime, so probably viewed things in terms of might makes right.
They are both real problems and loaded questions. Okay. Ostensibly the point of politics is to solve problems that people have. That will lead to people putting forth what they think the problems are. We simply donât have time to theorize every concievable potential problem and then, one by one, painstakingly (with our minds wide open like an open brain surgery) consider whether they are in fact problems that people have.
All of these pointed questions can also be disputed.
Actually they make great conversion. Preface with, âWhy is neither party talking aboutâŚâ and youâll find that most people agree.
Then lead them to the understanding that both parties are right-wing? (support the current economic system, support mass-murdering brown people overseas, support embezzling for personal gain as long as they don't get caught, etc)
> support embezzling for personal gain as long as they don't get caught
If you think this is a strictly right-wing characteristic you are hopelessly partisan.
Notice that I said both parties do it.
Those are good questions for sure and could lead to some interesting discussions, but (and maybe my generally left-leaning bias is showing by saying this) they're questions that are in many ways self-evident. For example, it's hard to argue that health care should only be affordable for the rich and that everyone else should just die in the streets.
There's other issues that are much less clear and, in my experience, more likely to shift from discussions and debates into strife and arguments:
- Should private citizens be allowed to own firearms? Should they be allowed to carry them on the streets?
- What do we do about meth and opiates on our streets? What do we do about the associated property and violent interpersonal crime?
- Should we start building more nuclear power plants to cut down on our greenhouse gas emissions?
And locally:
- The city is expanding to the west. What should this neighbourhood look like?
These, I believe, are squarely in the realm of "politics" and unless you're having the discussion in an ideological bubble are likely to be much hotter-button issues.
There's a lot of nuance in the healthcare access and affordability issue. In developed countries at least there's a pretty broad consensus that if someone is having a medical emergency then they should receive treatment regardless of ability to pay. But beyond that it gets sticky and there are hard choices that no one likes to discuss. Resources are finite but demand is effectively infinite, so one way or another there has to be some form of rationing. Like if a poor patient is dying of cancer and a drug could extend their life by 3 months at a cost of $100K then should society be obligated to pay? This is inherently a political question with no obvious correct answer.
"healthcare should be for everyone" is a great claim to make. but then the question is implementation. how will you get rid of the current system and replace it with a more equitable one? people are generally hesitant to make changes unless things are really bad. i like to think of this in terms of chemical bonds - people are bonded to their current systems, and wont break those bonds unless they are under enough stress that bond breakage is favorable. and once you start arguing for destruction of the current system, the morality gets fuzzy. do you support accelerationism, or a more gradual change? and then once you are in the weeds of implementing a fairer healthcare system, things are just genuinely terrible. i am very uninvolved in the healthcare system, but you need organizational structures, supply chain, etc. someone somewhere will probably try and be selfish about things which will make everything harder. structures will have to be built to deal with legal minutia. and meanwhile there are all these other preexisting systems used to the former system that struggle to make the switch instantaneously? every question is complicated and awful once you think about implementation. nothing is ever self evident. imo!
> "healthcare should be for everyone" is a great claim to make. but then the question is implementation. how will you get rid of the current system and replace it with a more equitable one?
And as importantly, what does "more equitable" or "fairer" mean? More broadly, how do people define "better"?
In the US, a major issue is that The D and The R have radically different ideas of what those words mean, even though they agree on the high level objectives like "healthcare should be for everyone".
- should private citizens be able to own their own property? Or should the government jump in an take what they think is "fair" so they can redistribute it to others?
Is this a trick question about tax or an âare you a communist?â question?
Outside the extremes edge cases (billionaires), Iâd be surprised if any significant portion of the population thought owning stuff a problem.
> Iâd be surprised if any significant portion of the population thought owning stuff a problem.
Except for Real Estate...there's a not-insignificant group of people who thing that the idea of owning multiple homes and renting them out should not be allowed.
> The crucial question is what is "politics"? Are personalities politics? No. Are parties? No. Are inflammatory issues about race, sex or gender or political correctness or immigration? No!
I don't personally agree with how quick you are able to write those things off as not being political. Would you mind providing a bit more explanation of how you are able to arrive at such confident No's?
Perhaps you consider political to be an intrinsic quality of a thing rather than a descriptor of how a thing is used/intended? I fall into the latter camp, and thus am very open to consider almost anything and everything political. Much like art.
> Are common American citizens able to afford and obtain reasonable health care?
"Should common American citizens" ... is a question.
This already implies a country's citizens having access to health care without financial barriers is a good idea already :)
[Note that I'm in the EU, I have access to affordable health care by default and I like it that way. But I don't think everyone in the US thinks like that. Or even understands what it means.]
Agree.
It is same thing with higher ed. Everyone should have college degree . Now even without everyone having it but just 3-4 times then before means there are tons of graduates without jobs, low paying jobs commensurate to years in education and heavy load of debt.
The question from start had to be Should everyone get a college degree?
Define all kinds of privilege/benefits as rights. And then move on to ask innocent questions as Is even asking for our rights politics?
Uh oh. Last paragraph is leading :)
"Should common American citizens" ... is a question
"How should..." is the really important and interesting question. Even when everybody answers yes, which most people do, to the "should" question they will often completely disagree on the "how should" question.
Literally none of this is politics, its governance. Politics is the human word for the chimplike "who gets to be the boss" games we play. No matter how well your society is running there will always be politics, put 20 people on a tropical island with no problems and 4 weeks later half of em will want to kill the other half - thats politics
> The crucial question is what is "politics"? Are personalities politics? No. Are parties? No. Are inflammatory issues about race, sex or gender or political correctness or immigration? No!
What an easy answer when you not part of the disadvantaged demographic. Some problems apply almost exclusively to a single demographic. Not asking the cultural questions is like thinking that segregation was perfectly okay because everyone had access to everything you'd need. Just not in the small space.
Urban problems are not rural problems even when they look like the same problem. Why there is a food desert in Nowhere, SomeState is not going to be anything like the reason there is a good desert in Urbanville, Somestate. So while everyone definitely deserves the ability to acquire food pretending that subgroups don't exist means you can't actually solve their struggle. If you apply a blanket solution it doesn't help everyone.
It is beyond disingenuous to pretend that different kinds of people don't feel the impact of culture and regulation differently and in ways they either can't themselves or can't at all change. To take that stance, shows that one is on the default demographic that is always considered before anyone else.
> It is beyond disingenuous to pretend that different kinds of people don't feel the impact of culture and regulation differently
But that is why you shouldn't talk about it at parties, because people experience it so differently it is likely to lead to conflict and bad times.
Saying you need to talk about it since it is important is like teaching math at parties because it is important, it will just irritate people since they are there to enjoy themselves not get lectured.
Unlike your math example, if serious harm or death is at stake, I don't mind if it leads to conflict and bad times. Avoidance because "it might be a bad time", to me, feels like a lack of appreciation for what is at stake in these conversations.
Great post, I agree with all your points regarding what is politics except that a functioning democracy should rely on common people, I think it should rely on the valuable people.
Common man democracy just lowers the decision making process to majority of idiots of the country that are easily manipulated. Worse yet, in its current form, it essentially causes the flip flopping mess because of the lack of long term vision and focus, something the common man doesn't want to deal with.
One man one vote in general makes no sense either. Why should a homeless or fresh immigrant's vote have the same impact as someone that has lived and paid taxes in a country for decades? How about...you get a vote weight equal to the amount of investment/taxes you have made in that country over the course of your life. Provide more for the community, have more to lose, get more say on policy.
Give incentive to the society value providers to remain and society detractors to leave.
Add to this that the current Democracy system is fundamentally flawed, most of those systems are exploitable anyway, it makes zero sense to change things up when a great leader is doing well. Having an arbitrary rule that they must step down because they can only serve for x time makes no sense. If it ain't broke don't fix it. Same goes the other way, where bad leaders can remain in power using war mechanisms.
The core problems today with society is not the left right or whatever, it's that people are lazy, selfish, manipulative, different, it's hard to find a system that works that can make everyone happy.
Are you willing to risk personal death or decrease your value for the greater good of the nation as a leader or citizen? That's the standard that all citizens and especially politicians should be held to. There are examples of this in the past, usually when a revolution happens. One might say it's happening in the US right now.
For certain one solution would be to remove people as much as possible from the equation, remove all incentive to abuse the system. The dictatorship and laws of a country should provide negative motivation for someone to cheat and should reward people providing value to society.
It's not easy, no matter how well a system is designed, people will find a way to cheat it, Bitcoin is a great example of this, not accounting for the banking industry buying the ecosystem and shitcoins diluting the entire system.
AI is not there yet, I don't think it ever could be, it's been trained on existing flawed ideas which have been further gimped in the interest of 'security'. It has no original thought, can't even draw a full glass of wine.
>A functioning democracy requires that the common people are able to use the law and courts to right wrongs. Are the common people able to use/afford access to the courts when wrongs are committed.
Having recently been completely railroaded and betrayed by the court system I can tell you. No. I literally had all my evidence thrown out with no explanation from the Judge other than "I don't think this is relevant" in regards to several different topics that I had made an organized report on. Meanwhile the corporate defense provided unorganized meaningless piles of documentation that would takes months to go over and it was left as "evidence" I do mean meaningless, several hundred pages were literally blank white pages submitted as evidence. I guess the crappy software they use to do discovery generated lots of white space in between snippits of info.
The court had decided before the trial that by default a person is wrong and a corporation is right.
Politics is decision making in groups.
Every group of people is a political unit and anything that affects decision making is political. Your office is a political unit, your family is a political unit, etc.
So if a racial issue is affecting the decisions we make then yes itâs political.
The problem is the property political class, which includes both parties a-la Gore Vidal, seeks to dismiss, gaslight, and distract from these problems and instead make them pseudo-wedge issues or political footballs. One side is stuck on remaking reality as a shared, fantastical mirage, and the other complains about the delusion with stern words but agrees to it anyhow. Neither is concerned with addressing the core problem: big money buying all 3 branches of govt, and John McCain found that out the hard way that ethics don't win votes because enough Americans' manufactured consent to condone lawlessness, authoritarianism, radical deregulation, and privatization.
Either a Constitutional Convention 2.0 needs to happen to undo the damage like the repeal of the Tillman Act and the disastrous Citizens' United, or Americans needs to voluntarily do away with popularity contests by instead picking public administrators with limited power by sortition from amongst professional societies for a limited term of say 4 years once.
> The crucial question is what is "politics"? ⌠Are inflammatory issues about race, sex or gender or political correctness or immigration? No!
When people talk about privilege, this is it - being able to dictate which issues are âpolitics,â and being able to dismiss my rights as ânot politics.â
Do I have a right to work? To live? To own property? To marry the one I love? To have sex with the people Iâm attracted to? To raise a child with my partner? To choose my own identity and to live my own life?
A white cishet man takes all those rights for granted - why shouldnât I? Why should my struggle to obtain those same rights be dismissed as âinflammatory issues about sex or gender or political correctnessâ and therefore ânot politics?â
Are you married? Would you like to be? Do you ever worry about how youâll be treated when you go to work, or make a purchase at the store? Whatâs it like to go grocery shopping, or car shopping, or touring places to live? Whatâs it like apply to and interview for jobs? Does you boss look like you? How do your parents feel about you? How do your neighbors greet you when they see you? Whatâs your relationship like with your landlord?
Youâre really telling me that none of that is worth âpolitickingâ over?
that attitude is exactly why things are not going well right now - because we are pretending that of we look away, equality and justice will take care of itself.
âWhat is politicsâ is entirely contextual.
I start talking about my wifeâs work. Thatâs just personal family stuff, right? Not if thereâs someone there whoâs a hardcore women-should-stay-home sort.
Or maybe everyone is ok with women having jobs, but my wifeâs work has been substantially impacted by the recent DOGE nonsense. Something as simple as âshe has to go to the office on Mondayâ becomes political if thereâs a Trump supporter present.
Letâs just talk shit about our cars. Oops, what brand of car you own is now political.
âMy parents are going to come visitâ sorry, turns out that the ability of foreigners to enter the country without fear of being detained for weeks for no good reason is political.
There are a lot of questions that are upstream of yours. Or at least, that illustrate why your questions are aggressively framed in a specific ideological directions and it's possible to frame them in the other direction.
If common American citizens can't afford health care, do other American citizens have an obligation to provide it? There is a word for a system where people are obligated to provide their labor to others. Does that word apply to a system where everyone gets free healthcare?
Do common Americans provide enough value to earn the wages they make now, especially the ones making a legislatively mandated minimum wage? How many fewer can actually earn an arbitrary increased number? Do people deserve things they didn't earn? What's the non-mystical explanation for that, if so?
Why aren't we having children? They can't have a productive life without having a life.
Is the difference between earnings and expenditures growing larger because Americans are unwilling to pay one another? If we are, why is that? (Actually I'll cheat a little on this one and provide a correct answer: the entire increased gap here is explained by housing. So the questions becomes: why aren't Americans willing to let strangers live closer to them? Might there be some risk or self-interest there? Are people obligated to act against their interests? Why, how, and by whom are they obligated?)
Which is better, democracy or a stable and prosperous society? Might they be mutually exclusive? What's holy about the popular vote, especially for morons? Even if we keep democracy, does a functional democracy require some form of IQ tests as a condition of the franchise?
Is the purpose of courts to write wrongs or interpret the law? Does separation of powers require courts to refrain from writing wrongs if the legislature has passed laws that are wrong? If not, does the lack of separation of powers place any limit at all on the courts' ability to right wrongs? How about when the courts are controlled by people whose concept of wrong is different than yours? Doesn't a functioning democracy require the concept of right and wrong to be decided by what are literally called the political branches, the legislative and executive?
Are the news media obligated to produce content in the interests of the people? Are you then obligated to produce content in the interests of the people? What's the difference between you writing in a public forum and a journalist? If there is a difference, should you therefore not enjoy freedom of the press? What if you, say, advocate for the courts to ignore separation of powers to do what is right? What if we the people decide that is not in our interests? How will you be punished for this transgression?
In actuality, I would probably give the same answers to many of these questions that you would. But the point is that there is no "just asking questions, man". Questions have premises and assumptions. If you, like me, don't like the ones in this question set, don't assume people will be comfortable if you're just askin' yours. I wouldn't be. And if people are all comfortable with you just askin' yours, ask yourself whether you have friends or conformation bias with echo chamber.
âHello friend, thanks so much for coming over. I just wanted to start by asking you what do you think are the preconditions for having a functioning democracyâ
Politics is simply figuring out whoâs on your team. Itâs why our current billionaires are so big on immigration and divisive rhetoric. Small groups have used this tactic for thousands of years to rule over larger groups.
In a good society you would know and have a favorable view of our wealthiest (kings in all but name) people. They wouldnât be afraid and hide their wealth (Bezos, musk, etc are not the top) because there wouldnât be an immoral wealth gap.
On top of that if you strictly want avoid political topics, be aware that there are forces who profit from making topics "political" that probably shouldn't be.
So when someone else decides which topics are politicized and you want to avoid political discussions â congrats you just let others decide about which topics you are willing to discuss.
My opinion is that most topics have a political dimension anyways, also because most topics have a economic dimension. Or phrased differently: Everything is political.
When discussing politics with friends the "how" is probably much more important than the "if". Most people do not have a vetted political opinion, they just have a strong vibe that they can't really reason about. They aligned with some sources and read/watch news they like to hear and that forms their image of the world. They never really tried to form a logically coherent worldview that is backed by facts instead of pre-filtered annecdotes that may or may not have happened in that way.
With this as the starting point a healthy political discourse isn't possible. You can't argue against someones vibes.
But that doesn't mean good/interesting political discourse isn't possible. It just means that if someone lets the politicians turn them into a vibe-based party-before-issue follower that uncritically believes most of what politicians say, they can no longer think or discuss the topics that impact them with others on a reasonable level. And this is why topics get politicized in the first way.
And no-one is immune to this, especially not you guys over there with that two-party system. But we all need to remember that towing the line of a political party means they no longer represent us, but we represent them. Mental flexibility translates to voter agency and our democracies hinge on voters being well informed and not throwing their agency away.
TL;DR: Not discussing politics and blindly towing the party line is like throwing your own agency away.
(Article starts off be asserting that they don't talk politics with friends then proceeds to describe how to talk politics with friends?)
Friends are people you should support and build up. You shouldn't try to make them feel bad by winning arguments with them. That said- a healthy society is only possible if individuals can exchange ideas about how to run things and then act collectively (aka "politics"). Sometimes people will have different interests and priorities, that lead to them having different ideas about stuff- most of the time this is totally fine.
This basically comes down to respect and communication skills- but for god's sake people- keep on talking about "politics"!
yep the purpose of the essay was to:
1) show the situations in which politics can't be discussed productively (dogmatic ideologies)
2) show how to avoid being dogmatic yourself
I absolutely encourage people to discuss politics productively
For me, "avoid being dogmatic yourself" is failing to bring home one very important point to avoid being dogmatic: understand that you are equally susceptible from the mistakes/misunderstandings that you blame others for.
An example in this article is the following part
> my angle ... becomes that of opposing their tribalism. Unfortunately ... most people just view me as the opposite of their own tribe
But this part totally fails self-reflection: it talks about your "conservative friends" and your "liberal friends". They are labelled "conservative" or "liberal". How does the author know that the interlocutor did not act exactly like the author: the interlocutor brought a subject, from their point of view their position on it where pretty neutral and sensible, the author reacts by playing the devil's advocate. They therefore see the author as the "conservative" or "liberal" person, and if they follow the author's strategy, they will play the devil's advocate. And then, THE AUTHOR fails to realize they don't actually care about the conclusion.
The lazy answer is: I'm smarter than them, I can tell when it's the case or not. Or: the subject I bring are not political, they are just common sense and sensible position, but they sometimes bring something I disagree with, and this is not common sense and sensible position.
In both case, it's weak and does not acknowledge the possibilities that you may have done the same mistakes as them from time to time (either classifying a "moderate" as "far" just because they were doing the devil's advocate, or presenting opinions that are not "trivially moderate" from the eyes of your interlocutor). It's a detail, but because of that, I'm not sure the author is as "non dogmatic" as they think they are: they are saying what everybody is saying. The large majority of people don't say "I'm dogmatic and my opinions are crazy" (if they believe their opinions are crazy, then it means they don't believe in their opinions and it is not really their opinions).
Absolutely. While I am a person who would avoid politics in most contexts myself, I couldn't help but feel uncomfortable with this attitude in this write up.
If you see others as being "insufficiently equipped" to handle nuance, "because it's hard" or "because they are too resistant" is a judgement I prefer not to pass on others.
> "Because if a desire to seek truth isn't there"
Who defines the truth? As much as I understand there is a need to draw a line somewhere, I also believe that everyone has a right to their truth. And that's my truth. I let everyone have their perspective and don't see a need to impose mine or look down upon them if they don't agree to mine, this included :)
People are entitled to their perspective of course, but it is a hindrance to discussion when people conflate their perspective with truth.
I think of truth like Ď. Some people say its 3, others 3.14, others 3.1415
There is a trade off between energy expended vs accuracy needed vs accurately communicating, but the de-referenced concept is not a matter of human perspective. Coordinating truth is why we have standards and protocols to build on.
If everyone has their own truth, then how could you know that to be the case? You'd have to appeal to something outside of "your truth" to make that judgement. Meaning, if it were even possible (or coherent) for there to be such a thing as "your truth", then you couldn't know it to be the case. It simply would be "the truth" as far as you are concerned. You can't step outside yourself. There is no "objective POV".
These sorts of claims are as incoherent as the equally intellectually jejune skeptical positions ("there is no truth" or "we cannot know the truth" or variations thereof). It's rare to see anyone outside of first year philosophy students make them.
Why can't you just say we have disagreements about what the truth is?
this is actually in the footnotes and addressed by the "thinking in bets" section
"[9] Fully understanding I can be the one in the wrong -- however, when this is the case, the person explaining is usually able to:
understand my argument convey their disagreement in good faith without circular reasoning or rhetorical tricks"
"There's a 40% chance this succeeds because of A, 25% chance of B, 10% of X, and 5% something we haven't thought of"
The footnote is basically saying "I can tell when it's the case or not", which is in fact exactly my problem. That is not the answer that I'm expecting from someone who has self-reflection.
For example: "understand my argument" is assuming that the argument is obviously correct. When someone presents to you an incorrect argument, 1) this person thinks the argument is correct (otherwise they will not present that argument), 2) you will not answer by saying "I've understood", you will argue. From their point of view, you are the one failing to understand. Now the question is: how many time this person was you? How many time you presented a bad argument and then blamed the interlocutor for "not understanding" when they don't accept a faulty argument?
Same with "circular reasoning or rhetorical trick": when I disagree, it is always very easy to convince myself that there is a problem in the interlocutor logic. Especially if I failed to understand or misunderstood the argument. I would even say that for all discussions that are not trivial, there are always elements that can be seen as circular or rhetorical trick.
Iâm having a real hard time with this one lately.
The major mistake/misunderstanding I see now is thinking that a stupid, vindictive asshole who failed upwards would be a good person to run the country.
I donât think Iâm susceptible to that. Iâve never viewed anyone the way a lot of these people view Donald Trump. I canât imagine I ever will. Is it a failure of imagination or is something really different between us?
Trump may be a bad leader but he'd still be just one type of bad leader. I'm not trying to fully relativize Trump either, they're not all equally bad.
I agree with Slavoj Zizek's take on Trump's appeal and why a lot of criticism of him seems to either have no effect or increases his fan appeal: As a general rule, people relate to others by identifying with their weaknesses, not only or not even primarily with their strengths. You aren't susceptible to his appeal because you're of a different class or background which has different sets of strengths/weaknesses which make it hard for you to relate to Trump.
The weaknesses Trump has - his stubborn ignorance, his impulsiveness, his might-makes-right mentality and disdain for rules, his vindictiveness - are deeply shared with his fans. They will forgive his sins because it is their sins too. For example when Trump is attacked for an impulsive comment, they relate to the risk that they could also be cancelled for some comment that is seen as racist or sexist or something. His policy framework is made of the kind of simple ideas you'll find in a pub, I once heard Trump described as "the average guy from Queens" and it made a lot of sense to me. "Nobody knew healthcare was so complicated", "We're going to build a wall".
I belong more to a white collar, professional class. I probably have a blindspot on the weaknesses and sins more endemic to my group, ones that I share with the figures I find appealing. If I had to guess I'd say it's something like an ideological/theoretical zeal, bureaucratic dysfunction, and an exclusionary judginess. When a politician unveils some theoretically elegant project and it largely fails and runs over budget and gets mired in bureaucratic hell, I'm maybe too quick to forgive that as it's a relatable sin.
It is a problem that some many people thinks that a presidential election is to vote for the guy they relate to and not a competent manager. I guess they are so used to vote for the prom king and the reality tv show candidate that they don't realise that the point is not to vote for the person they like.
Similarly, it is worrisome that people vote for what will profit the most for them instead of what is the more just and fair (sometimes even voting against your own profit). It leads to stupid situations, for example where idiots are for protectionist measures whatever the consequences on other countries, but at the same time are angry when people in another country are voting for protectionist measures that affect theirs negatively. It is quite clear with the Trump supporter: they are furious if someone else treats them like they treat others, and seems to not even realise the absurdity.
It is really hard to live in a society with people like that: it just creates lose-lose situations for everyone.
In short, people like the dumb jerk because they are also dumb jerks? I can't say I disagree, but I don't think that's what cauch's comment was going for.
I find the most productive political discussions are about history. Most people donât know any history at all, so a willingness to discuss the reason we have the Third Amendment, or the lasting effects of King Leopoldâs dominion in Africa, or the Peleponnesian War, makes for a good discussion, and the distance makes people less emotionally tied to their positions and more willing to accept nuance. If we find we disagree, this also gives us social cover to pretend the topic isnât intensely relevant to the present day.
Maybe the long peace within the US changed things, but in most countries and especially in Europe discussing history in a room with more than 2 nationalities is a good recipe to sow dissent.
Good point. I live in the US and I wouldnât start with the American civil war. Talk about other peopleâs history. Iâll trade you the American Civil War for the Franco Prussian War.
The American Civil War is a great place to start. You can very quickly assess where somebodyâs head is at and move on quickly.
That depends on what your purpose is having a conversation is in the first place
I mean it is a good filter to understand someone with. When I moved from the midwest to the south as a teenager and learned there are still plenty of people that were unhappy the south lost the civil war and want to remedy that you begin to understand there are some people that are deeply entrenched in their views and you have to make a judgement on how much time you're going to spend dealing with that.
I think entrenchment is a description of both sides, has neither I really willing to budge. I think the critical I think the critical criteria is how much you have to deal with it at all. Is it an interesting conversation that you can have once in awhile, or something that gets inserted into every conversation.
I think the civil war is interesting and nuanced topic to interrogate once in awhile, and can usually find some points of agreement with most people.
The legal, moral, and philosophical questions around it are fascinating. For example, how do you reconcile people's right to self-determination with a desire to carry out abhorrent actions. Historically speaking, the civil war and failures of reconstruction are probably the single most defining aspect of modern American political life.
> learned there are still plenty of people that were unhappy the south lost the civil war and want to remedy that
Did you peel that back to the next layer? Did they want to reintroduce slavery? Or did they want independence from a distant government?
I knew folks in the South who thought some of the craziest racist things and probably would've been OK with slavery (I did hear them promote segregation).
At the same time, the vast majority folks I knew who defended the Civil War or wanted secession didn't want slavery or segregation, but local (and often less) government. Did they misunderstand the role of slavery in the Southern secession? Usually. Does that change their _current intent_? No.
The latter group (which was much larger) should be engaged with on the issue of local government and secession, especially in the context of folks in Blue States who've been rattling about secession under Trump.
Also, present day politics is in many cases determined by history.
Exactly! What makes history relevant is that we are still living in it.
Some of the best convos I've had are with ideologues, it just requires authentic empathy and effort, which means letting go of moral presuppositions and being willing to really listen to them without injecting your own judgments & opinions. If people subconsciously think you're trying to do that, it'll trigger their defense mechanisms and the convo will instantly shut down (or devolve into chaos).
People love to talk about what they think is important, but NOT when they think they're being setup or playing into someone else's hand.
Not the best title if thatâs your message
Well, I know a lot of people in the US who simply don't want to discuss politics at social events these days.
Which means the only input they get is ever polarised extreme feeds online, from social media algorithms and straight up paid adverts.
No, it can also mean they get too much extreme input from the people in reality.
There are lot's of people who won't stop, when you push the wrong button (speaking a wrong word).
People tend to moderate themselves and compromise a lot more in real conversations.
It's like all those videos of dogs barking angrily at each other through a closed gate, then suddenly becoming quiet and peaceful, their whole body language changing, when the gate is opened.
For sure people are more restrained in real life, than online, but the consequences can also be more severe if extreme positions meet offline.
I really donât care. And honestly people Iâll tend to be socializing with are at least somewhat similar in political opinions. Just not interested in discussing political outrages at a social gathering.
If you insist on talking politics when the host or other guests donât want to youâre a rude idiot.
Your country really needs more political parties.
Better than ruining real life relationships over politics. The only important impact most people have over politics is when they vote. Discussing politics has massive downsides and trivial benefits.
There might be very little alignment of political opinions within one's circle of friends, and any discussion would turn into an unpleasant discussion with the risk of ending the group of friends forever.
For most people, very few friendships form with an expectation of political agreement: activists met at a common protest or campaign, generic regulars of a popular political party or union, old style secret societies, and so on.
I think people can aim to meet politically aligned people at non-political events/places. I met most of my friends in venues that "members of the opposite tribe" just don't frequent. And I feel like it goes for both sides.
Yeah. There are exceptions. People can also have multiple circles. And it's not as if political opinions within a group are really uniform. But there does tend to be a certain degree of uniformity within many groups of friends.
Are you speaking from experience when you say discussing politics has massive downsides for your real life relationships? And if so, may I ask what happened?
that's always been the case, politics and religion are taboo
Of course they are, people get angry when they have to rationalize why they want to genocide some group of people different from them in mixed company.
It was a good essay- thanks for writing it :)
I've sent you a line on LinkedIn.
What is the point of discussing politics? (not rhetorical). What physical changes in the world do you expect afterwards? You won't undo indoctrination. It just upsets people.
You canât talk politics without first overcoming tribalism, so I suggest you start there, since in the US that is sadly the state of things.
If you start by talking about which sports team is better you will also cause these reactions. But politics should not be sports. Itâs harmless to support a sports team that makes bad choices. Politics has real impact on peopleâs lives. Itâs important to have exit criteria for alignments and affiliations with groups, to the extent theyâre necessary.
> What physical changes in the world do you expect afterwards?
Just like voting, it has no effect in the small. You discuss to form and exchange opinions and ideas that become part of the whole. The benefits are in the aggregates. Thus itâs important that it has some other incentive. Where Iâm from itâs not very tribalist, so we get the pleasure from thinking and discussing problems even without having an expectation that it will change policy. That wouldnât work in the US outside very specific groups that understand the rules of engagement and the point of the game. But the discussions themselves are similar in vibe to board games or puzzles, that itâs somewhat fun even though itâs entirely useless (in the small).
This gets more complicated when you replace "friend" with "spouse" (/partner) because there comes up the problem of consensuality in unavoidably unpleasant unavoidable decision-making..
(Assuming one marries for "love")
I believe having a partner with directly opposing political views is unsustainable. Partners with adjacent political views may be manageable, or even preferable to a fully aligned one, but those with directly opposing views are a constant source of drama and tension in your life. Political views often reflect deeply held values and beliefs.
Political views can change over time though. It can be unsustainable in the way of "one or both people moderates their political views".
That will leave a large group of people without any partners, since men and women vote very differently.
Then so be it, if your views keep you from finding a partner then maybe you should start thinking about compromise rather than falling deeper into extremism.
But, this is also why one political party in the US tends to vote against things like no fault divorce and other questionable policies regarding womens rights.
>> those with directly opposing views are a constant source of drama and tension in your life
I don't think this is true at all. The vast majority of people largely ignore politics, cast their vote, and move on with their lives. It's completely fine to have different political views if you both act like normal reasonable people. We see a lot of the 'kick, scream, and cry' types on both side in the media. In the real world, most people have more important things to be getting on with.
> It's completely fine to have different political views if you both act like normal reasonable people.
Yes, this is true, you can have different political views and still be friends/lovers/partners/whatver.
What parent said though was "directly opposing political views", which I'd also agree with is inviting trouble, as it'll leak out in constant tensions and frictions. Simple things like "We shouldn't drive as much as we currently do" can lead to heavy argumentation if the underlying reasoning cannot be understood by both parties.
In real life, people might not speak about parties or political figures, but their everyday actions are driven by their values and beliefs, which also ends up reflected by who they vote for. Politics is everywhere, even where people don't speak of it directly.
>> We shouldn't drive as much as we can do
I wouldn't consider this a political view. It's a lifestyle choice based on personal beliefs. Two people can be fully behind the idea we need to do something about climate change and have different ideas on how that should be done. And I think that's part of the problem in recent times - instead of politics being about the big ideas and how a country is run it's become about small personal choices. If a person has heavy arguments with a partner about how much/little they drive I would say they've got an issue with a need to control others, rather than just a strong political opinion.
> Two people can be fully behind the idea we need to do something about climate change and have different ideas on how that should be done
I'm not sure if you purposefully ignore what I wrote directly after what you quoted, "if the underlying reasoning cannot be understood by both parties". If a partner would discuss things like this in real life, I'd say this partner might have an issue with discussing in good faith with others.
My point was that it'll lead to friction if you disagree about what "big ideas" are worthwhile to try to implement or not.
Note that various surveys report young women and young men diverging a lot more politically. Partly because women's rights have become so politicised.
>Partly because women's rights have become so politicised.
What is the womans suffrage movement?
I may be extrapolating on a single statement too far, but I do feel that you are missing a huge chunk of history regarding all the rights women (at least regarding the US) did not have.
Womans rights have been political for the last 200 years if not longer.
This trend is certainly one aspect of the explanation for the decline in the number of long-term relationships.
The other being that once women have largescale representation in the workforce, can open bank accounts and credit cards on their own, and can support themselves financially, one of the key pressures to marry is removed. Once there was no fault divorce and women did not need to prove why they needed to divorce, one of the key pressures to stay married is removed.
That happened a long time ago though, much much longer ago than the number of relationships started to drop, so its unrelated.
Perhaps important, republicans from state lawmakers up to the VP are interested in repealing no fault divorce laws.
And that's just what they'll openly admit to! Rest assured, they would absolutely not stop at no-fault divorce. They would undo all of the progress you mentioned, and likely more.
As the gender gap in voting patterns widens, denying rights to women goes from not only being an ideological project of the right but a political project as well. "We will win more elections if women have less social power" is not a good situation to be in.
I am the opposite of surprised. How else are terrible, low-quality men going to trap women into a life of unpaid home labor if they can control their own finances, reproduction, and choice to enter or leave a marriage.
It could also be the opposite causality. Because people aren't getting into intimate relationships as much (looking out for each other, caring deeply about an individual of the opposite gender), the two groups are naturally diverging into preferring "what's best for ME".
I think the political split between genders is MUCH stronger for singles. It's kind of a trap actually.
Also white/black, straight/gay, poor/wealthy etc.
We can find hundreds of dividing lines if we insist.
What do you mean by womenâs rights? The difference in support for abortion by sex is trivial. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/public-opini...
Probably not abortion. While rights never happen in a vacuum, it is usually framed as a matter of fetus rights.
How about a woman's right to equal employment opportunity? 67% of women are in favour of DEI, while most men (57%) take the opposing view. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/poll-american...
The primary political parties are definitely catering to those sides.
Seeing a 3 point difference in the support for abortion between men and women is *wild* to me.
Rest assured: Those 33% of women who say abortion should be "Illegal in all/most cases," would instantly carve out an exception for themselves if their own lives or livelihoods were in jeopardy from a pregnancy.
Ah yes, one sex is diverging to the other side because they are wrong on MY pet issue. (This is not grounded in reality)
> Partly because women's rights have become so politicised.
That's a hand-wavy way of saying that a core pillar of one of your parties is to take away the rights of an entire gender.
Imagine describing 1940s Germany and saying "Ethnicity has become so politicized these days. I'm just interested in nationalizing the auto industry"
That would only be true if words weren't perverted for political leverage. Sexist used to mean "women can't do that" now sexist means "a woman experienced an unpleasant thing, and it carries more significance because of her gender, and if you dare dispute this you can expect to be cancelled".
How about âwomen canât get certain medical proceduresâ? Or âwomen canât voteâ? Multiple prominent Republicans have floated reducing or eliminating womenâs right to vote.
I don't know if you're a news buff, but they're actually actively saying "women can't do that".
That doesn't contradict what he said though, he didn't say the old sexists are no longer called sexist, he said the definition had expanded to cover many more than before.
Why even say it then? What's the point of countering "Well, the definition has expanded so much", when the thing you're talking about conforms to the old definition?
I said it because it's a dirty trick used by one side to make people think there's a crisis. When are you going to declare the problem solved? When every single living breathing human being conforms to your world view? Your argument is that someone, somewhere, said something terrible. Why even say it then? If course some people out of 8bn will have extremist views or utterances. Is that really a surprise?
Marrying purely for "love" and ignoring core values, mindset compatibility, what they want in life and so on is a recipe for disaster, or at least some deep regrets down the line. I haven't seen nor heard about a single success story a decade or two down the line. Whom to marry is probably the most important decision in our lives. One of reasons why marrying early is too risky - people still massively change till at least 25-30, it cal still work but chances are smaller.
Its a typical junior mistake to marry for love/lust and not think a bit on top of that, in this case I blame parents who don't have some hard talks with their kids explaining them not-so-rosy parts of adult existence. Like initial enormous physical attraction wanes over time, kids crush most of remaining, and what still remains are 2 people and how they treat relationship and each other with that lust tuned down eventually to 0, under various, often not so nice situations. But our parent's generation didn't figure it all out, in contrary the amount of actually nice relationships in higher ages ain't that high.
I didn't have such prep talk neither, nor do I know anybody who had, and had to figure it all on my own via rough trials and failures till finally figuring myself and women out, and then happy marriage (so far, hard knock on the wood). Its like expecting everybody to be sophisticated engineer, learning them to count on fingers and throwing them out and good luck, I am sure you'll figure it out eventually. Some do, some don't. Most don't I'd say.
> Whom to marry is probably the most important decision in our lives.
That's putting way too much pressure on it. Find someone you feel like you could spend the rest of your life with? Marry them, see what happens. If you get a divorce, so be it, it's not the end of the world and there is plenty of others out there, even if you're "damaged goods" or whatever your worry is.
I feel like the pressure people put around marriage it what makes it so damaging in the first place, people feeling like they have to marry in the first place, or if they're married, they need to try to stick together more than some couple who isn't married, and so on.
Just make a decision and learn from your mistakes in case you fuck up, it really isn't more complicated than that.
I'm going to assume you're a man and probably have a little less experience here than the average woman does.
This said, I am a man too, but a large part of my career was supporting lawyers and court systems, including family court systems.
Choosing the wrong partner is one of the biggest risks you take in your life, especially for a woman. This is one of those things that can easily lead to you being bankrupt with nothing. This can lead to you being abused or raped. You can end up with a child that you did not want to have. You can end up dead.
With states pushing to revoke things like no fault divorce (and women being the primary initiators of divorce) it's not hard see the traps women lived in the past coming back.
Then add the strongly religious connotations marriage has in the US and you quickly see why this is a rollercoaster that emotions and politics are not going to be removed from.
> That's putting way too much pressure on it. Find someone you feel like you could spend the rest of your life with? Marry them, see what happens. If you get a divorce, so be it, it's not the end of the world
This is quite bad advice, because divorce can be devastating financially.
This is the sort of thing they should teach in schools. English literature is a good venue for it.
Politics feels like an integral part of finding a partner nowadays. Which makes senseâvalues are important to agree upon.
The width of the spectrum of political views for 65% of people used to be relatively narrow.
That's increasingly not the case.
Capitalism "Choice is good!"
Politics "Not like that, not like that!"
I don't believe that political views used to be narrow, I believe the political views you were allowed to actually express were much more narrow and everything else was repressed.
Really depends on the region. There's lots of opinions/ideas/directions/parties in many countries with lots of overlap. In the US... I'm not sure how relationships, that actually talk about things, can survive if partners have different party preferences.
Being friends with someone doesn't mean we both should agree on everything. It also doesn't mean we should try to avoid discussing whatever. If we agree on something, good. If someone is changing his opinion bases on a talk and arguments, good. If not, also good.
I am friend with someone because I like that someone and I enjoy meeting him and talking to him, doing things together.
That doesn't mean agreeing on everything. And doesn't mean being afraid of speaking.
If someone quits, being my friend because we have different opinions on X, so be it. I am not like that. I won't break a friendship because someone thinks differently.
I'll provide an opposing viewpoint. In the last 10 years, I've lost friendships and family because people in my life have voted for candidates that stripped rights away from women, minorities, etc.
Having a vast difference between opinions is fine, but some of their decisions are fundamentally against my core beliefs and have done literal harm to many people I know.
For that reason, terminating family and friendships has been absolutely worth it for me.
Until we can live in a world where fundamental rights are protected and respected, we have no common ground, and it's pointless to tiptoe around these insanely harmful beliefs while maintaining a facade of friendship.
I think essentially tolerating other peoples opinions and trying to understand where they are coming from is more useful than applying purity tests to your friends and family.
Iâm pretty sure that they werenât voting for those candidates for the express purpose of stripping away those rights and there were other policies and values that they were voting for.
Iâll be honest that Iâm Jewish and certain posts about Palestine where friends or non Jewish family have specifically expressed values that I find anti-myself I have completely cut out of my life. (not all beliefs about pro Palestine are anti-semetic, but most are) But I believe that most views at the party level are just different priorities or different view points and tolerance is necessary, because they are not directly in conflict.
> Iâm pretty sure that they werenât voting for those candidates for the express purpose of stripping away those rights and there were other policies and values that they were voting for.
I thought the GOP was pretty clear throughout the election cycle, from President to local office, that their desired world can only come to be through a drastic restructuring of the Constitutional status quo ante.
I donât know that âI only voted for (e.g.) tax cuts, everything else is collateral damage and Iâm not culpable for it,â is a defensible moral stance.
First you try to argue tolerance and understanding, and then you say that "most pro-Palestine views are antisemitic" and that you cut off all contact with people who hold those views. Your hypocrisy is astounding and you should be embarrassed.
What I was suggesting was to be tolerant of more general views like choosing a political party or candidate and large complicated things, and reserve intolerance for actual directed hatred.
Yes that's why he called you a hypocrite.
> Iâm pretty sure that they werenât voting for those candidates for the express purpose of stripping away those rights and there were other policies and values that they were voting for.
Voting for a party explicitly demonstrates at least acceptance of if not outright support for its platform. You don't get to absolve yourself of support for kicking puppies because the FooBar party also includes a modest tax cut in its policy agenda that you really want.
It doesn't matter if the opposing party advocates for raising taxes or even eating kittens.
That's true even if realistically, there are no other parties capable of winning. You can support a third party, abstain out of protest, or even begin a grass-roots campaign to start yet another party. You can even try changing the FooBar party from within, so long as you don't vote for them until sufficient change has occurred.
Voting for a party explicitly demonstrates at least acceptance of if not outright support for its platform. You don't get to absolve yourself of support for kicking puppies because the FooBar party also includes a modest tax cut in its policy agenda that you really want.
Virtually no independent thinker is going to support either major party's platform, for the simple reason that both parties have a collection of inconsistent policies that are an incoherent ideological mishmash. Therefore you do not so much vote FOR a party as you instead hold your nose and vote AGAINST the other one.
Sure, but in the US, the choices right now are between a party that you might not fully agree with, and a party whose explicit platform is to strip fundamental rights away from women, LGBTQ people, and other minorities, all while dismantling the basic structures of democracy in order to guarantee their hold on power for as long as possible.
When you vote for a party, you may not fully agree with all their policies, but you are stating that the drawbacks are acceptable compromises. When you vote for FooBar, you might not want puppies to be kicked, but you consider it a tradeoff worth making if it gets you that tax cut.
If you are looking at the political landscape of the US as an independent thinker, and are questioning whether abandoning the principles of human rights and liberal democracy are a tradeoff worth making, then I really question whether your thoughts are really as independent as you would like to believe.
> and a party whose explicit platform is to strip fundamental rights away from women, LGBTQ people, and other minorities, all while dismantling the basic structures of democracy in order to guarantee their hold on power for as long as possible.
This certainly might be what you believe their platform amounts to. But it is most certainly not their explicit platform. Accuse people of what they actually have done, not what you believe their actions to be logically equivalent to. Otherwise there can't actually be a reasonable discussion, because you're giving off heat rather than light.
This is their explicit platform. Trump's presidential campaign officially ran on the basis of "Agenda 47", which clearly sets out their goals and aims. It includes dismantling the basic structures of democracy (in the form of heavy expansion of executive powers), and reducing access to healthcare for women and LGBTQ people. We have already seen evidence of the above, as well as events like the new administration arresting protestors without due process.
I think your point is that Project 2025 is not Trump's explicit platform, which is correct (although this doesn't affect my statement which was about his explicit platform). However, if it looks, walks, and talks like a duck, we also need to be willing to call it a duck. Project 2025 goes significantly above and beyond Agenda 47, the group behind it explicitly endorse Trump, and many of Project 2025's authors are involved in the Trump administration. Being an "independent thinker" does not mean accepting what both sides say at face value, it means looking at people's behaviour and drawing judgements based on that.
Actions speaker louder than words. It might not be their platform, but it's what they're doing. If you see your party taking action to strip away rights from LGBTQ groups, immigrants, women and you still support them, then I don't know what else to say.
This is the problem with a two-party system. It makes every citizen either complicit in the worst party or the second-worst party.
You can't hold who they voted for against people in a two-party system. There just isn't enough choice.
> "...women, ... and other minorities..."
According to polls, slightly more women voted for Trump in 2024 than in 2020 and significantly more minorities voted for Trump in 2024 than in 2020 (https://www.nbcwashington.com/decision-2024/2024-voter-turno...). One party energetically claims to be on the side of the oppressed but the oppressed don't exactly seem to be flocking to be on the side of that party. Makes you think, doesn't it?
The Democrats cannot win as long as there's a substantial faction inside it unwilling to face the reality of what voters actually think instead of what they want to tell the voters to think.
You are giving a fully partisan version from one side, while ignoring the partisan view from the other. Not entirely your fault correctly stating what the other side thinks, in terms that the other side will agree with, is an extremely hard task. It sounds like it should be simple. But getting it right requires getting past our cognitive biases that the other side is wrong, which make it hard to actually see what they are seeing.
Here is a Republican take that is about as biased as your take on Republicans. "Democrats are fully infected by the woke mind virus, destroying merit in favor of DEI, promoting antisemitism in support of Hamas terrorism, and suppressing free speech in favor of totalitarian control."
Both partisan perspective have some truth, and a lot that is false. For example, while it is true that Trump represents a threat to democracy, threatening democracy is not part of the Republican party's explicit platform. Conversely, while it is true that there has been a sharp rise in antisemitism on the left, most of that really is antizionism. (That said, if you try to make Palestine free from sea to sea, where will over 7 million Jewish refugees go? You're unlikely to be more lucky than Hitler was in the 1930s in finding a country who is willing to accept them. What happens then?)
I disagree, but I think moral purity is a less ethical way of living than practical action - best exemplified by the story of the Good Samaritan.
Similarly to âsilence is complicity.â Refusing to oppose a party by choosing the other is indicating acceptance of what they will do.
This is a fundamental difference with how people on the (American) left and people on the right view politics. Those on the right frequently vote based on a single or a few issues, ignoring the rest of the platform that may be unpalatable. While those on the left frequently view voting as an endorsement of the whole person. Any unwanted policy tends to be a turn off. It's why you say "you don't get to absolve yourself of support for kicking puppies" while the right does just that. You would be better served understanding the values and motivations of your opposition rather than projecting your values onto them and judging them based on a strawman.
I would've probably agreed with this point 10 or 15 years ago. Someone saying "I would've liked universal healthcare, but lower taxes are more important to me" has an understandable position. I might not agree with their choice, but I can respect their decision.
However, these days the American political landscape looks a lot different. I understand having priorities, but if someone believes that a magical make-eggs-be-cheaper plan should have a higher priority than their friend (i.e., me) having basic human rights, why would I want to be friends with them? It doesn't matter if they personally agree with the politician's strip-their-friend-of-basic-rights plans or not, the fact that it isn't a priority to them at all says enough.
What basic rights do I have that you don't, and where are these codified?
In the US there are no federal antidiscrimination protections for LGBT people except in employment through Bostock (and conveniently, Trump's EEOC has stopped pursuing these cases). You can be evicted from your home for being gay but not for being black or Christian.
Access to gender affirming care for trans minors is banned in more than half of US states. The very same medicines are allowed to be given to cis minors.
In 13 US states bathroom bills prevent trans people from comfortably existing outside of their homes for more than a few hours at a time.
It has only been 22 years since sodomy laws were found unconstitutional. It has only been 10 years since gay marriage was legalized nationwide. Thomas wrote in his Dobbs concurrence that Lawrence should be revisited. Several state legislatures have passed resolutions calling for Obergefell to be overturned.
While less of a "basic right", the Trump administration has banned trans people from serving in the military. Visibility of gay or trans characters in media available for minors is also regularly threatened. Products for trans people sold at stores like Target have led to bomb threats.
> Access to gender affirming care for trans minors is banned in more than half of US states. The very same medicines are allowed to be given to cis minors.
The Cass report conclusions and recommendations should be listened to, it was a way better and more thorough study than the Netherlands study that begat all of the "gender clinics" in the US and elsewhere. https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20250310143...
> In 13 US states bathroom bills prevent trans people from comfortably existing outside of their homes for more than a few hours at a time.
As far as bathrooms, i feel uncomfortable in public restrooms. I don't know what the rate of people that feel uncomfortable in public restrooms, but those of us that do find family or single occupant restrooms, and know what places have those. No one wants to piss in a literal trough, i could be wrong.
I don't consider sodomy a basic human right, but i could be argued with, i guess.
I don't see what "bomb threats" have to do with human rights, in this context. Is there a human right to have products available at Target? If everyone boycotted Target (like they did with Bud Light), is that a violation of human rights, too?
I am unsure why people keep deleting their replies. It is possible to have a reasoned discussion about inflammatory topics.
This is how things often goes. "Oh those aren't actually rights."
You can think this, I suppose. But let me tell you that a very large number of LGBT people do consider these things to be questions of their basic rights.
i'm willing to listen to arguments about why any of those are basic rights. I am unsure about the housing, so i didn't mention it. Upon a quick check, Bostock prevents renters from being evicted or otherwise un-housed merely for being LGBT. Unless i see actual writing that shows there is a literal directive to ignore complaints, i cannot just accept your words. top results for eviction of LGBT sort of news is about people "behind on rent." If i don't pay rent for 2 months, i'll also get an eviction notice (sometimes called a pay or quit.)
there's groups of people that think all kinds of things are "basic rights" but it doesn't mean they are. I could say nothing is a "basic right" since any example you can give is violated globally. Maybe some stuff should be globally truly basic rights. But i am willing to listen to arguments that any of these things are a basic right as it stands.
just a for instance: Sodomy. saying it's a human right implies that sexual intercourse is a basic human right. I am unsure if you really want to make this argument.
Bostock applies to Title 7. The reasoning is that discrimination based on sexuality or gender identity is sex discrimination, which can be applied to other laws like the FHA but this is not established federally and the Trump administration is currently in legal fights explicitly in opposition to this position. So I do not think that it is fair to say that Bostock prevents renters from being evicted based on their gender identity or sexuality.
[Here](https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/removing-gender-ideology-and-r...) is an EEOC's "literal directive" pulling back on relevant cases. If you want specific cases then [this article](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/eeoc-transgender-discrimination...) references specific ongoing cases that have been dropped by the EEOC.
And I do think the ability to have consenting and private intercourse without being imprisoned is a human right. I did not expect that this would be controversial.
the eeoc link doesn't mention housing or "rent." https://www.findlaw.com/lgbtq-law/housing-discrimination-pro... this says that HUD and DoJ handle those cases.
If you're talking about employment (which the EEOC appears to cover) - i've been fired for not cutting my hair short enough. I've been fired for refusing to wear a tie for a cubicle job. In the US, employment is at-will, generally. If that's what you have an issue with, then let's talk about that. Even if the issue is with hiring discrimination of any kind, i can get behind that, too.
And there's a subtle, yet perceivable difference between what you said, "sodomy laws" and your statement now about "consenting and private intercourse." i also notice you didn't mention "between adults."
I don't really want to have a side-channel discussion, here. The employment vs housing statements, you either had a typo, or it was a red herring, i am unsure. I feel like this is devolving, perhaps of my own fault, into a god of the gaps argument.
My original comment regarding the EEOC was about the impotence of Bostock in modern federal courts because the EEOC is dropping cases of Title 7 workplace discrimination brought by LGBT people. Although the US generally has at-will employment, there are certain reasons for firing people that are prohibited by law.
The discussion of housing is separate from that and is instead a point about the fact that LGBT people do not have federal protections in this domain. I thought that my post was very clear. LGBT people do not have any federal protections in many domains (housing for example). They have protections in some domains (employment, via Bostock) and even that is backsliding because of the EEOC's changing behavior.
Only adults can consent. The sodomy laws struck down in Lawrence were about consenting and private intercourse, both in general and in the very specific case of Mr. Lawrence.
I am extremely uninterested in any discussion that smacks of painting gay people and their relationships as in any way related to child rape.
Does it matter what drives someone to vote for a candidate if the outcome is all the same? It feels like we're discussing manslaughter vs. first degree murder. I don't want to be friends with someone who takes the life of someone else and doesn't feel remorse for it.
Maybe it's a good theoretical exercise, but life is too short for me to appreciate the various reasons that might drive someone to become an asshole.
I totally get where you're coming from. But regardless of their reason for voting for a candidate, if the net effect is that 150m+ women lost rights and other horrible outcomes, it's the same as endorsing it.
It's not though.
Looking at exit pool demographics might help if you're struggling to have any empathy for a Trump voter. They are largely working class and undereducated and astonishingly diverse for a republican candidate in recent memory.
There's an amazing ability for people to not believe Trump is going to do the things he says. See Venezuelan immigrants getting screwed over or the recent tariffs.
But.. You're going against your own principles here, you can't say that purity test bad and then have a purity test yourself.
Your purity tests are bad. Their purity tests are righteous.
Aha, thank you so much, I understand now.
I really should read the philosophical school of "me good, you bad" it sounds so convenient.
> than applying purity tests to your friends and family
It's more about watching people pivot towards unquestionable evil. "Empathy is a sin" is such a deep, dark line in the sand. I'm not going to just stand there and watch you cross it.
I think there is value in trying to understand the other "tribe". If for nothing else, then for practical reasons in figuring out how to defeat the other tribe at the next encounter.
I also think especially in today's political environment, political beliefs at least partially reflect an individual's core values. In some cases I may not want to associate with people that have fundamentally opposing core values to my own. For example this guy's interviews with his parents: https://www.tiktok.com/@thenecessaryconversation
> Iâm pretty sure that they werenât voting for those candidates for the express purpose of stripping away those rights and there were other policies and values that they were voting for
I don't know, man. If they're really your friends, those should be non-negotiable.
Didn't these friends and family essentially apply purity tests to us?
I've cut off my aunt who still claims the 2020 election was stolen. The data I worked with to support fragile communities was removed/altered in the transition (CDC Social Vulnerability Index). I've already lost my job in the federal purge. I have a [former] coworker who was born intersexed that cannot be legally recognized by the government. I'll likely lose my right to marry due to my aunt's beliefs. My boyfriend will likely lose access to lifesaving medication with cuts to funding. My grandma is paying for hospice care with social security and claiming Trump is fixing the country. I'm renewing my passport; several friends have already left the country.
> Iâm pretty sure that they werenât voting for those candidates for the express purpose of stripping away those rights and there were other policies and values that they were voting for.
I'm sure there were people who voted for the Republican party in the last USA election for purely economic reasons. However, "anti-woke" policies were absolutely the most important issue for a lot of people. Just this week the attorney general in my state posted an "April Fool's Day Joke" where the "joke" was him standing next to a LGBT flag.
Most views on Palestine are just different priorities or different viewpoints too. You can equally say that not all support for Trump is rooted in misogyny and xenophobia, but most is. Perhaps you should not recommend that other people engage in such tolerance when you wonât.
> Iâm pretty sure that they werenât voting for those candidates for the express purpose of stripping away those rights and there were other policies and values that they were voting for.
In some markets, about one third of the entire Trump campaign advertising was fear-mongering about how dangerous LGBTQ people are. They wouldn't have spent so much on this if they didn't think it was a uniquely important to their constituents.
I think you're unequivocally wrong if you don't think that Conservatives in the US are above voting for a single issue.
I don't know enough about the Palestine/Israel conflict to be able to make an informed opinion on it, so I won't comment on that.
> I don't know enough about the Palestine/Israel conflict to be able to make an informed opinion on it, so I won't comment on that.
Wise, given the guilt & political climate. But, see also:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_except_PalestineThe issue is that I feel like there's an awful lot of opinions on this, and it's difficult for me to find objective information on this stuff.
I tend to be pretty progressive, so it's probable I would be more on the Palestine side, but I try not to express strong opinions on things that I haven't done at least a cursory amount of research on, and I also don't really want to be labeled an antisemite or racist or anything like that.
> Iâm pretty sure that they werenât voting for those candidates for the express purpose of stripping away those rights and there were other policies and values that they were voting for.
Well, Alabama outlawed abortion except for life of the mother. A federal judge had to rule that the state can't prosecute doctors and reproductive health organizations for helping patients travel out of the state to obtain abortions. The Project 2025 plan is for the Republican controlled Congress to at some point pass the most restrictive federal abortion law they can get away with.
That is stripping away the rights of women to choose. There are many religious conservatives who support this.
That's one possible framing. But from their perspective, they are defending the lives of innocents from those who wish to do them harm. If one accepts their framing of the issue, that's a righteous cause indeed. Why is your framing accurate, and theirs inaccurate?
You're doing what so many people do in the abortion debate, and begging the question. You can't simply sidestep deep differences of opinion on moral issues by declaring your position to be right and theirs wrong. It's wilful ignorance of a whole lot of nuance that exists on this topic, nuance that must be engaged with if one wishes to be effective in having a discussion.
Their framing needs to acknowledge that the fetus is part of the mother's body, not an independent life, and that child birth has risks. Thus the autonomy of the mother over her own body has to be part of the discussion. Their framing can't depend on a soul entering at conception, or God/their sacred scripture telling them abortion is murder. That's not a rational or legal basis for compelling other people who don't believe that way.
If they want to enter a scientific discussion on viability and neural development for when to start placing limits on abortion, and how making victims of rape or incest carry to term is ethical, then we can have a meaningful discussion.
Otherwise, they can feel free to go have their own theocratic community in the wilderness where they don't choose to have abortion. Also known as Alabama these days, unfortunately for those stuck wandering the wilderness with them.
> I think essentially tolerating other peoples opinions and trying to understand where they are coming from is more useful than applying purity tests to your friends and family.
Most of the time this is just being an enabler, who excuses, makes up rationales and blames "the other side" for not being nice enough to extremists. Especially when we talk with about fascist close groups. People who say this achieve only limitations on the opposition to extremists. They rarely or never manage to move extremist into the center.
> Iâm pretty sure that they werenât voting for those candidates for the express purpose of stripping away those rights and there were other policies and values that they were voting for.
Why are you so sure? There are plenty of conservatives who openly talk about it. It is not being tolerant when you decide that no one is allowed to do that observation. You are not being neutral here, you are biasing the discussion toward the extremism when you do it.
> Iâm pretty sure that they werenât voting for those candidates for the express purpose of stripping away those rights and there were other policies and values that they were voting for.
Sure. But this is that age-old meme: You know those people (most people?) in 1930s Germany who supported the Nazi party but they perhaps weren't really for annexations and genocide. You know what they call those people? Nazis.
People who voted for Trump are responsible for the fate of Ukraine, the demise of Nato, the fallout with Canada and Mexico, the inevitable inflation and economic turmoil of tariffs etc. And that's of course even if they only voted for Trump because they hold "traditional republican values", or because of single issues like gun rights, migration or taxes.
> tolerance is necessary
Tolerance stops at intolerance. You can never tolerate intolerance. Apart from that, politics also relies on a few fundamental things like the reliance on facts and experts, and respect for the rule of law. Obviously you can't ever tolerate "politics" which starts to tamper with either of these. Luckily I can keep a tribe which consists of people who agree with this, which can vote for any party in my parliament, and is 98% of the population. I'd hate to be in the US though where the tribes cut down the middle of the population.
I actually agree, I don't think people should merely dismiss differences on issues that strike at core values -- I think it's okay to cut friends/family off on huge differences in values. I have actually done this to both left and right-leaning friends.
But what I'm arguing is that most people do not actually come to these values by way of thinking, but rather by blindly adopting them en masse from their chosen tribe.
And when they choose not to be open to the possibility they might be wrong, then they have a religion, not a intellectually-driven view.
This is okay if acknowledged imo, as per this sentence in the piece:
"If someone is self-aware enough to consciously acknowledge their choice to remain in the bubble, thatâs totally fair. I respect it like Iâd respect anyone who chooses to participate in a more traditional religion. My issue is when this view is falsely passed off as an intellectually-driven one."
I can appreciate comparing these immovable political stances to a "religion".
One thing I've noticed, as people get more entrenched in their viewpoint, is that they stop accepting the possibility that they're wrong, and this flawed thinking starts to extend to the wildest corners of their position.
"Well, if I'm right about the person, the person is right about everything too. And anyone who disagrees with me is therefore wrong about EVERYTHING."
It's a very shallow viewpoint, and some people just refuse to accept that they're wrong sometimes.
One way people keep themselves in bubbles is by dismissing counter opinions as being tribal or trendy. Some opinions may appear that way because the people that have them seem similar. But it could also be due to them having similar backgrounds that led them to those opinions. For example, most doctors believe in vaccines, but that's not group think, it's based in evidence that they have studied. From the outside, it might seem like group think.
My method to discern between beliefs with intellectual backing and those from the community is by presenting them with some bizarro counterargument. If they copy/paste specific phrases and keywords, it's from the community. If they engage with the argument and refute it, then they have given them proper thought.
correct, but then those individuals could explain those views
popularity is not the same as tribal, tribal implies a blind following -- when individuals cannot explain why they believe something
> For example, most doctors believe in vaccines, but that's not group think, it's based in evidence that they have studied. From the outside, it might seem like group think.
I'm willing to bet that in most cases, that is groupthink. It's hard to tell, because the conclusion is identical to one based on evidence, so you can't infer from the opinion whether it's groupthink or not.
Sometimes you can tell by how someone holds a belief. Defensiveness, unwillingness to consider ways in which their chosen belief is not 100% wholly good, or shouting someone down are evidence of groupthink. For example: if someone brings up that in the past some inactive virus vaccines contained live viruses and a doctor claims that it never happened and could never happen, that's either groupthink or just a doctor sick of arguing with uninformed patients who has given up bothering with explaining the intellectual basis of his beliefs.
My personal suspicion is that the 1% don't exist, that everyone's opinions and beliefs are a mishmash of tribalism and intellectual conclusions, it's just that the balance is very different in different people. I try very hard to make my stances intellectually based and evidence-driven, yet I continually discover that more and more of my deeply held policy positions aren't as clear cut and the real world is more nuanced than I thought.
It's not like nuance is a binary thing (by definition!)
Ah, for some reason, this is the comment that reminded me specifically of Nietzche's Master-Slave Morality[1].
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master%E2%80%93slave_morality
If you remove yourself from a group, how will they change their minds without a dissenting opinion? I had to do it myself eventually, for my own sanity, but I believe this is still a real problem I am no longer addressing among my loved ones.
In my case, my goal isn't to change anyone's mind. It's to preserve sanity -- I can't in good faith "pretend" to get along and have normal conversations when people are actively engaging in behavior that directly harms myself and others.
Could you give an example of behavior that "directly" harmed yourself or others which caused you to sever ties?
Politics is almost always indirect, usually with multiple levels of indirection.
People proudly voting for parties and policies that demonise trans people, of which I know many. I cannot be your friend in good conscience if you're willing to destroy the lives of my other friends.
That is, by definition, indirect. So that doesn't qualify as "directly harming" anyone, even if your analysis of those policies is otherwise accurate.
No it isnât. When people see the anti trans party winning elections they see that as permission to bully trans people. The vote directly leads to abuse.
How are their lives being destroyed?
Being told that you have to follow the same rules as everyone else for e.g. spaces designated to be used solely by the opposite sex, doesn't seem so bad.
I don't believe you're asking this question in good faith, but there are many, many attempts at erasing them from public existence: https://translegislation.com/
Please define "erasing them from public existence". Provide concrete actions that are actively being taken, not vague concepts of "bad things".
I would recommend clicking on the link and scrolling down.
Not answering question.
I did. It's almost nothing but intentionally obtuse terms that mask the actual issues being discussed.
For example, what exactly is "gender-affirming care"? Because I suspect that includes giving life-altering drugs to young children.
Gender-affirming care is good and needed to protect kids.
A lot of people strongly believe this to be true. However, the evidence does not support this.
I don't think they're arguing in a good faith with you.
"âNever believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.â
This is an oversimplified strawman argument. Biological sex is a complex subject. The cultural understanding of sex is complex. If I has a man take my 2 year old daughter to the men's room is that a bad thing? (For the record I don't have any children)
I don't think anyone is arguing that you should be barred from taking your hypothetical two-year-old daughter into the men's bathroom if the need arises. That's really not the issue.
but I thought "Being told that you have to follow the same rules as everyone else for e.g. spaces designated to be used solely by the opposite sex, doesn't seem so bad."?
Perhaps think on that a bit more then. Consider for example that female-only spaces don't exclude women who are pregnant with male babies.
I am bi, my "friends" would hate LGBT people, constantly talk how we're pedophiles and so on, and kept voting for parties against equal rights.
So, basically, you believe that everyone who doesn't strictly adhere to your own ideologies is insane.
You're pretty much the exact kind of person that the article talks about.
I'm jealous of you. I've got a limited number of family members and friends and find it difficult to get more of either. I don't think I'm in a position to burn them on politics so I'll just have to take them as they are.
Wow. This is well put. Thanks. I wonder how those so quick to write others off will reflect on it at the end of life.
+1. I had to cut a lot of people out of my life after seeing the Democrats' response to October 7th. I cannot be friends with anybody who votes for candidates that support exterminating Jews.
+1. I'm cutting people out of my life who think it's justified to harass families on the street or write Nazi symbols on their property because they happen to be riding in a particular brand of car. Fascism/Nazism should not be tolerated.
I agree thatâs why Musk should driven out of society
The question then becomes how to convert a member of a tribe to ones own correct tribe. It's a very tough question to answer.
It's like spycraft during the cold war. A double agent must pass as being in both tribes for the good of their country. They literally isolate themselves from their homelands tribe to embed themselves in another. They are forever changed. They can't go back. In other words: to change another changes oneself too. It weakens ones own group identity.
Almost all people would never want to risk their identity to change another person for the good of their group. It's very risky and very painful.
Another way that the article suggests is to let people change themselves.
Lol. "Liberal" people create an echo chamber by eliminate opposing opinions and then are surprised that people elect far-right candidates.
> Until we can live in a world where fundamental rights are protected and respected
It wasn't hiding from uncomfortable things, opinions and people, that created the world where you can even think about women or minority rights, or even know how to write to express your opnions. So this approach will not create the world you described.
indeed. This kind of attitude is contrary to what is needed to produce the sort of world desired.
The conceptualization of what fundamental even means is very much subjective, so posing such a condition to dialogue is, in principle, the negation of possibility of improvement on either side.
this is the core kernel of what a tribe even is in my opinion: pose a subjective condition, divide people based on it.
The subtle art of not giving a f** had a great chapter on the importance of deciding your values, that is, what's important to you. The parent advice clearly stated what's important: living in a world where fundamental rights are protected and respected.
Clearly defined values are fine until we get more specific though. What values? Whose responsibility? And what's holding is back from achieving what we want even if our party is in charge? Is it a matter of excluding people who disagree with us? More money? Or is the utopian vision we're attempting not presently achievable?
So is an agreement on fundamental rights for everyone what you want to live your life on? Or do you have other priorities in the meantime where you can agree with people on more immediate matters?
How does having less friends actually benefit you though? It just seems dumb, because presumably you were friends for some reason.
I don't see how cutting them out creates a positive. It's like "Javy thinks men can become women", now I have one less person to play disc golf with.
What's the point of that? People can have different opinions, it's not their only character trait.
I don't have friends for the sake of "having friends". I choose the people I want to hang out with because I enjoy their company and like/respect them. Being around them makes me happy.
Similarly, people I dislike (rude or mean people, for example) make me unhappy when I'm around them. Cutting them out of my life is a net benefit there too, because I'm happier without them.
> how does having less friends benefit you?
Quality over quantity for a start.
> people can have different opinions
Not every opinion deserves the same level of tolerance, respect or acceptance. If someone I know starts goose-stepping Iâm not going to write it off a âjust a difference in opinion.â
The other comment I made here was flagged, though it very clearly doesn't have anything in violation of the rules. It's clear that people here are using flagging to try to censor opinions they don't like.
Elsewhere in this thread I've said that you can have non-judgemental, solicitous conversations with anyone, just to learn how they feel or think about something.
But I agree with parent that it's perfectly justifiable to draw lines that limit potential relationships. You're not obligated to welcome everyone or tolerate views in others that have unbearable consequences for yourself. Vote with your feet.
I haven't talked to my grandmother since Trump won the first time in 2016.
It wasn't just that she voted for him, but the fact that she actively supported all of his policies around immigration, including mass deportations that would have included my wife (who was on DACA at the time). She has also said some extremely disturbing stuff about what should happen to gay people that I don't even know that I can post without breaking some form of TOS, which would be horrible already, but slightly worse to me because my sister is gay.
It's easy to say "just be neutral and don't talk about politics around her", but there are some issues with that.
First, you don't know my grandmother; no matter how much I try and avoid any political subject she will keep bringing it up. She will divert a conversation about my job as a software engineer to somehow a rant about how Mexicans are stealing American jobs (this actually happened). I could just roll my eyes and bite my tongue, but this brings me to my next point:
Second, neutrality isn't neutral. I don't really know who started this myth that somehow avoiding the subject is "not taking a side", it's just a lazy way to endorse the status quo. If I keep trying to be amicable with people who actively want my wife to be deported, then that's sort of signaling to my wife that I don't give a shit about what happens to her. I don't want to signal that, because it's not true. At that point, my only option is to either stop talking to my grandmother or talk to her and constantly push back she says something racist or horrible, which isn't productive.
Before you give me shit over this, all of you do this. You all draw the line somewhere. You probably all draw it at different points than I do, but you absolutely do draw the line. If your best friend suddenly joined the Klan and became the Grand Wizard, you probably wouldn't continue being friends with them, even if you could avoid talking politics, because that would signal that you're ok with their racism. You also probably wouldn't be friends with Jeffrey Dahmer even if you could avoid the whole "killing and eating people" topic.
As it stands, I don't really feel bad for cutting her off. I absolutely do not make a concession for age on this. If you're going to live as a grownup in 2025 then it's not wrong to judge someone by 2025 standards. I don't give a fuck what the world was like when you grew up, you have to live in the world as it is now.
Maybe try understanding that expecting everyone to hold their nose and vote for the dog shit alternative "opposition" candidates provided is not a good litmus test for friendship either.
And I say this with all sincerity: I'm also disappointed in my friends continually voting for Democratic candidates after Obama, as it's clear the DNC will do nothing as long as they can rely on these votes. They put up losing and awful candidates while supposedly our democracy depends on it.
If I were to cut them off as friends for being part of the problem, that sounds unreasonable right?
Why does it sound unreasonable? If it's problem that affects you deeply enough, if you sincerely believe that they're a core part of that problem, then I don't see why the person you replied to would be opposed to it.
Have they eaten two plates of food and enjoyed two drinks and then announced, âIâm a proud republican and support Trump 1000%?â Because thatâs what weâre getting and weâre banning neighbors and friends weâve had for 25 years over it.
I guess I just don't see "tribalism". I know it's a popular description though for the divisiveness we find ourselves in politically.
But I consider the things important to me, the beliefs, the issues: and they, all of them, align with a progressive, left-leaning ideology. I'm not just glomming on to everything one "tribe" or another stands for ... one group actually reflects everything I believe. (I think I could split a few hairs here and there, but we're still talking perhaps 95% alignment.)
But I don't think that is too surprising. Others, smarter than me, have gone into great detail about the underpinnings of left-leaning or right-leaning world views in people. Fear of change, empathy ... a number of ideas have been put forth. By this reasoning it naturally follows that those of a certain "personality" will also share common beliefs, ideologies.
The implication instead seems to be that unless you are somewhere in the middle of the spectrum you must be "tribal". That feels dismissive.
My thought is that if someone aligns exactly with X political ideology, they arenât really thinking for themselves and are just adopting whatever their tribal group believes about X subject. I see this all the time - collections of beliefs that otherwise have nothing to do with each other, but are adopted by the same people because âthatâs what X group thinks about it.â This is very rarely a conscious thing.
This becomes even more obvious when you look at how these collections of beliefs have changed over time, which to me just shows how they arenât based on any fundamental intrinsic personality traits but are trendy and groupthink-based. Ditto for geographic differences.
So I donât think being a centrist implies one is not tribal, rather that the degree to which your beliefs on a variety of issues align with the âdefaultâ of a group implies how tribal you are.
In other words, a politically thoughtful and independent person probably has a basket of opinions that donât fit into neat left or right, liberal or conservative, etc. categories.
Maybe one counter indication of tribalism is how often you disagree with your "tribe". I'm fairly left leaning too, but I also find myself disagreeing with a lot of left leaning policies or talking points. Maybe that's a good sign.
Arguing with leftists all the time is the sure sign that you're a leftist.
(seriously, this is a significant asymmetry between the two that has been there for at least a century. There isn't one lockstep leftism, there's thousands of micro factions arguing about most things)
why do you think the political right is any different?
the right is good at presenting a facade of cohesion. those differences are better-hidden from view until the common enemies of the right are destroyed and they need to begin eating each other.
It's only a good sign if they're able to speak out, and aren't terrified of expressing their dissent in public.
Both the left and the right seem captured by a small minority of radicals, using social media echo chambers/purity spirals to shut down often-quite-reasonable disagreement. And we're clearly past the point at which we can just ignore 'social media politics', given how much it seems to have led to the current state of things in the US.
At the risk of sounding pessimistic, and as someone who also identifies himself as leftist: If the end result is voting between black/white binary choices, and that act of voting is itself one of the most important self-expression, does the fact that I disagree with them in a few points matter?
> and that act of voting is itself one of the most important self-expression
That's what lobbyists want you to believe, at least. It makes their job a lot easier if they are the only ones carrying out democracy.
You need to select someone trustworthy enough to not botch your message, sure, but usually all political parties put up people who are trustworthy enough. What is much more important is your expression to the hired after they are on the job. That is the only way they are going to know what you are thinking. They are not mind readers, surprisingly.
>does the fact that I disagree with them in a few points matter?
Perhaps not, but you're also lending legitimacy to a system that is abusing you.
But this isn't a board game that you can quit and go home. You are subject to your government rules regardless of if you participate or not. So it is probably better to try and get political representation that you agree with 60% of the time, rather than one you agree with 5% of the time.
Even better is to try and get a democracy than to live life by the whims of a dictator. Getting to choose your favourite dictator is of little consolation.
this is exactly it, from here: https://www.paulgraham.com/mod.html
This essay feels shallow and dismissive to me. The sentiment is that you can't be a smart, independent thinker whilst going too far left or right. As with many of his essays, my take is that PG - who lives a highly privileged life - is basing this opinion on the caricature of reality that he gleans from the media and internet forums. It's easy to think what he thinks when the only representation you see of the far left is mindless "woke"ism.
Firstly, does he think that Marx was dumb? And leading left-wing figures like AOC, Sanders, Varoufakis, Zinn, or Zizek? No, for all you might disagree with them, they're smart and independent. They did not acquire their opinions in bulk. I even admit that right-wing figures like Shapiro, Bannon etc... are smart and independent, even though I think they're snakes.
Secondly, the essay overstates the degree of uniformity within the far left and right. Have you not seen the animosity between anarchists and Trotskyites? They only agree insofar as believing we can do better than capitalism. And those on the far right who have a global free market ideology will be at odds with those who want to restrict movement and apply protectionist tariffs.
[EDITED TO ADD] Thirdly, he presupposes that the distinction between right and left is purely one of logical competence. This is captured by him saying "both sides are equally wrong". But personal values also drive the polarisation. Those on the right tend to highly value tradition, loyalty, and family. Those on the left tend to highly value universal welfare and the environment. It's not really possible to label these "right" or "wrong", they are expressions of our fundamental desires for ourselves and the world. If you start from different axioms, you'll tend to get different corollaries even if perfect logic is applied.
It's the technocratic or perhaps "enlightened centrist" tribe. There's similar vibe in the post, and even though there's some introspection about the author's own tribe, he doesn't seem to question whether his political thinking could be tribal.
It's indeed typical for this tribe to off-hand dismiss thinking that they deem somehow "ideological" without even really trying to figure out what the thinking is. Also a lot of self-congratulation, exceptionalism and motivated reasoning is exhibited, but these are typical features of any tribe.
You are describing the problem of getting a picture of a party or movement from media and without interacting with them.
That could explain the second issue I describe. Maybe the first. But I do not think he has such an excuse for the third.
Ye sure the third point is a attempt to differentiate left and right on a fundamental level.
If I were to do that, I would say something like "pull the ladder up behind you or tear it down before you" with a comical touch. I don't think it is possible to keep such descriptions short or stringent.
>In other words, a politically thoughtful and independent person probably has a basket of opinions that donât fit into neat left or right, liberal or conservative, etc. categories.
That doesn't stop them from voting a straight red or blue ticket every time if that's what they've been indoctrinated to do.
We've all encountered some old man who by all accounts should be a republican. They own a small business, have conservative social views, like their guns, minimize taxes, etc, etc. But they vote a straight blue ticket because that's what they learned to do back in the 1960s. And on the other side is the stereotypical southern white woman who believes in every social thing the democratic party has but still votes red because she was raised in a religious household and came of age during the peak of the right's lean toward peddling to christians.
This is such a great contrast:
> But they vote a straight blue ticket because that's what they learned to do back in the 1960s.
and
> but still votes red because she was raised in a religious household and came of age during the peak of the right's lean toward peddling to christians.
There's no explanation for why the old man votes "blue" other than he learned it in the 60s. OTOH, the woman votes "red" because "she was raised in a religious household" and started voting when The Right was "peddling to christians".
"peddling" -- that's a pretty negative term.
I don't know if it's ironic or demonstrative that an article about how difficult it can be to have political conversations produces a comment thread with such biased viewpoints.
Sure, but to be fair, weâre talking about political discussions and not strictly voting behavior. It seems like a given to me that most voting behavior is only a vague approximation of what people actually think and want.
At the risk of sounding very arrogant, I've found this incredibly obvious even when I was just 18 years old. Decades have passed, plenty of my beliefs have changed, but this one hasn't.
The chance that one "ideology", whether it's liberalism, conservatism, anarchism , fascism or any-ism is always the right answer to every single societal question, is 0. It's comparable to the idea of exactly 1 of the (tens of) thousands of religions being the true one, correct in everything, with all of the others being wrong.
And this extends to politics. Where I'm from, the political landscape is very different from the US, with at least 5+ different parties that support different policies in various ways. At the same time, it's similar - there isn't a single one that approaches things on a case-by-case basis, each of them being ideology-based.
> So I donât think being a centrist implies one is not tribal, rather that the degree to which your beliefs on a variety of issues align with the âdefaultâ of a group implies how tribal you are.
Absolutely, "centrism" is an ideology in itself. This is also why the usage of the word "moderate" in the article and by PG is very unfortunate. That word too comes with a whole lot of baggage, and saying that independent thought leads to one being "moderate" in the way that most people think of that word, is straight up wrong. We need a different word, but I'm not great at coining those. "pragmatic" is the best one I can come up with. I can feel a "pragmatism is an ideology!" coming, but "the ideology of not looking at things from an ideological perspective" is entirely different from anything else. I'm sure the bright minds here can give better words.
> In other words, a politically thoughtful and independent person probably has a basket of opinions that donât fit into neat left or right, liberal or conservative, etc. categories.
Very much so. And as the article points out, this is unfortunately a very lonely experience, so it's completely logical that most don't opt for this, instead choosing the warmth of a dogmatic community.
Funny that you say pragmatic, because thatâs exactly the word I tend to use when describing my own political beliefs. The best that I have come up with is âpragmatic with a propensity forâŚâ and a few sub-categories that more accurately define what Iâd like to see politically happen.
For example - preventionism. It seems to me that many issues could be avoided or eliminated entirely if we tried to prevent them from happening in the first place, rather than choosing between two actions, both with unavoidable negative consequences.
Another is aesthetics. For some reason, the simple desire to make public spaces more beautiful is not really a policy position adopted by any political group, at least in a primary way.
And so maybe the solution is an issue-based political system in which votes and resources go toward specific issues and not parties. (Or work toward eliminating those issues in the first place.)
Some states such as California have a non-partisan ballot proposition where citizens can vote directly on issues. It generally works fine, although it's not clear whether the net impact has really been positive.
On the one hand it defeated affirmative action repeatedly in one of the most left wing states, on the other proposition 13 created a class of landed gentry and permanently screwed the stateâs tax base.
PG has two different terms for it in his essay: unintentional moderates vs intentional moderates
https://www.paulgraham.com/mod.html
That's what represents the two circled areas in the graph, though I realize if people don't have that context it could be confusing
added an explanation to clear things up
fwiw, I don't think that's arrogant, I've met plenty of high schoolers that understand this concept
> saying that independent thought leads to one being "moderate" in the way that most people think of that word, is straight up wrong
Agreed. Independent thought usually leads to one being moderate when that person is already living a comfortable life.
Youâve hit the nail on the head. The platforms of political parties are amalgamations of specific interests and agendas, and not necessarily a cohesive world view born of an aligned set of principles. Most (all) political parties have positions that conflict logically, spiritually, or practically. Yes, that includes your preferred party on the right or left.
So anyone whoâs views align perfectly with a party are probably just parroting what theyâve heard because no sensible individual would arrive at that set of values naturally on their own; it would - and does - take some serious mental gymnastics to hold these contradictory values in your head.
You're correct. Most people's views (i.e. moderates) are ideologically inconsistent with party-line. The loud X/bsky types refuse to decouple, and will double down even if the facts are wrong. Mind you on social media blue-tribe is much further left than the Democratic party.
You don't have to consider yourself part of a tribe. Others will consider you anyway.
You are a man or a woman, young or old, Asian, White, Black, Latino, straight, gay, rich, poor slim, fat, etc.
The technical terms for the first few in that list are sexism, ageism and racism. While it is true people do that, it is considered a bad idea because it doesn't capture reality in a productive and meaningful way. And doesn't seem relevant to keiferski's comment.
The aim should be that people have to voluntarily associate with their tribe. It might be the hermit tribe where all the hermits sign up to be alone together.
To be fair, I've rarely seen a group fighting itself more than the progressive left. If tribalism truly exists, it exists mostly on the right.
Right but thatâs because there are more micro interests on the left. Itâs still tribal though. If I start to bring up deregulation of building housing, there will be a strong immediate backlash by certain factions on the left. I see it more that there is little room for discussion, within these different groups there are only binary options and if you are with them on all talking points, well you are the enemy.
> If I start to bring up deregulation of building housing, there will be a strong immediate backlash by certain factions on the left.
I do suspect that if you what the deregulation actually meant to both left and right people you'd find two (probably overlapping) camps aligned on NIMBY and Housing prices go up as your largest groups.
Structural and safety engineers regardless of political affiliation will tell you why deregulation of some standards is a bad idea.
Emotional investment is a subtly different issue to package-deal opinions.
I once read an interesting article that said in multipolar political systems, coalitions between opinion groups happen after the election; whereas in two-party systems, the coalition forms before the election.
So you get people who think taxation is theft allied with people who Back The Blue. You get people who think life is so sacred abortion should be banned allied with people who'd like to see an AR-15 under every pillow. You get people who think nazi flags and the N word are free speech, allied with people who think books with gay and trans characters should be banned.
And personally I'm pro-environment and think nuclear power has a part to play; I think we should help the homeless by increasing the housing supply and letting builders do their thing; that the police should exist but need substantial reform to stamp out corruption and brutality; and that women's issues like abortion and trans women in abuse shelters should be decided by women, not men like me. But I'm in a political coalition with people who think nuclear power is bad, that we need rent control, that we should defund the police, and so on.
In an electoral system with proportional representation, largely unrelated views would all be different parties, no party would have a majority, and after the election they'd form alliances to build a ruling coalition.
But because of America's electoral system, someone has to take all those views, duct-tape them together and call it a consistent political ideology.
This is a very interesting take, and I agree with your perspective.
I think the "anti-woke" messaging was a particularly effective example, because in reality this means completely different things to many voters (some of those contradictory).
Your nuclear position is interesting, and has become significantly more common over the last decade I feel. Personally, I disagree-- In my view, nuclear power is not on a trajectory where it is ever gonna be competitive (levelized cost) with renewable power. This will lead to renewables "ruining" electricity spot prices whenever they are available which is very bad for nuclear power economics. Nuclear power also shares basically the same drawback with renewables that it wants to be paired with peaker plants for dispatchability (instead of operating in load-following mode itself), but renewables basically just do it cheaper.
At this point, it would basically take a miracle for me to believe in nuclear power again (a very cheap, safe, simple, clean, quick-to-build reactor design) but I don't see this happening any time soon (and honestly the exact same argument applies to fusion power even more strongly-- I think that is an interesting research direction that will never find major a application in power generation).
I will concede however that nuclear power that was built 10-30 years ago (before renewables were really competitive) was and is helpful to reduce CO2 emissions.
> But I'm in a political coalition with people who think nuclear power is bad, that we need rent control, that we should defund the police, and so on.
I don't think that's true though. I think you're just listening to the loudest voices.
Not even the loudest voices. Biden said "fund the police" at a State of the Union address. The people with the most power and influence within the left wing of US politics are not in support of defunding the police.
> that women's issues like abortion and trans women in abuse shelters should be decided by women, not men like me.
This got me wondering... Thinking in reverse, are there any issues that you think should be decided by men only?
Underlying your thought, seems to be the idea that some people should be excluded from certain political/ideological conversations.
Whereas for me, I see all people as individuals, each with a right to their opinions. Ie, I wouldn't start from a point of separation as this bakes in special interests, sexism, racism, etc.
> This got me wondering... Thinking in reverse, are there any issues that you think should be decided by men only?
Access to viagra?
>This got me wondering... Thinking in reverse, are there any issues that you think should be decided by men only?
Military conscription and field duties would be an example I can think of.
For example, in my European country we have mandatory conscription for men over 17 but there was a referendum a while ago if this should still be kept, and it was funny that women also got to vote on whether men get conscripted or not lol. And guess what, most women (and boomers) voted in favor of the mandatory conscription of young males by quite a margin and unsurprisingly the only ones who voted against but got outvoted, were the young men.
Yes this discriminates, but your example illustrates the exact reverse way to what I meant. Being subject to conscription is like a negative right/loss of rights - men are being forced to potentially put their lives on the line. Can you think of a female equivalent where females are ordered by the government to put themselves in harm's way?
In both cases it seems like the discrimination is not in favour of men. Apparently men ought not to get a say in "women's issues", but it is also right that men be forced to put their lives on the line.
If that is correct, it is the case that men have less rights.
They answered your question "are there any issues that you think should be decided by men only?"
In this sentence, you are looking at different parts of the equation depending on case 1 and 2:
> Apparently men ought not to get a say in "women's issues", but it is also right that men be forced to put their lives on the line.
No, in the first case it could be argued that men shouldn't have a say, and in the second it could be argued that women shouldn't have a say. In the first case women are (potentially/allegedly) negative affected, in the second (young) men.
> Can you think of a female equivalent where females are ordered by the government to put themselves in harm's way?
Anti-Abortion laws in the US would be such an example.
If absolute gender equality is what we're after, I think the premise is flawed form the start.
Men have less rights by nature/biology because they are expendable (women are the reproductory bottleneck of the species) and they are the only gender with the physique optimized for physical fighting and hard labor, hence the famous line "women and children first".
We can say it's unfair and imbalanced but that's not gonna change biology and the status quo when push comes to shove and an enemy invades or a natural disaster hits and human meat is needed for the grinder, hence why there's no sympathy towards men and why much less societal help available to men in need (men have 10x the suicide and homelessness rates than women).
Men and women can never be equal in absolute terms outside an utopia of peace and prosperity, because evolutionary biology and gender dysmorphia has engineered our bodies to be good at completely different tasks meant to complement each other in order to ensure the survival and procreation of the tribe/species.
> If absolute gender equality is what we're after, I think the premise is flawed form the start.
I thought we were talking about some sort of equality. Re the OP, who mentioned that they wouldn't participate in certain "women's issues", I couldn't think of an equivalent example where women shouldn't participate in "men's issues". That fact alone strikes me as unequal - it can't be that one sex (or race, or whatever other distinction) should have rights in law, that others don't have. Such a circumstance would an example of creating inequality, which I think is the antithesis of the OP's point.
These questions are not straightforward. Presumably we don't want to initiate or institutionalise inequality.
this is probably my favorite comment on this post so far, super interesting
if you can find the article I'd love to read it
The graph in the article of "what the political spectrum actually is" where independent thought was only found in the middle was so funny to me that I had to do a double take. Maybe this is a joke or April Fool's prank or something?
I read the article quickly so maybe I'm misreading it but if that graph is serious it really undermines his position as a thoughtful moderate to me. But maybe he really does believe that everyone on the left and the right only has groupthink. I agree with you that it's definitely not all tribalism
European here. I'm on the left, but I don't hang out much with people from the left: they're really often driven by ideology and cannot for the life of them come up with working political plans to push the needle. They're completely rejecting the complexity of compromise and gradual change towards the ideal, convinced that any act that isn't absolute is a betrayal of their values.
Sure I mean a lot of people on every political leaning don't have practical policies but that's besides the point (people can even have bad independent thoughts so impractical policies aren't inherently relevant). The graph isn't even "often people who disagree with me are tribal" it's "literally only some people near me ideologically are independent thinkers".
Edit: this is the graph, everything outside of a group of moderates is 100% on the "groupthink" side of the graph. It's an inherently condescending way to look at people who you disagree with and a disservice to your point if you're trying to get people to listen to each other. https://images.spr.so/cdn-cgi/imagedelivery/j42No7y-dcokJuNg...
I think you're taking the graph way too literally.
The Republicans and Democrats are both coalitions made up of many different groups, and their policies are constantly shifting depending on which individuals get elected and which of those sub-groups hold more power, as well as due to different sub-groups shifting allegiances.
It's statistically almost impossible that someone would agree 100% with the platform of the Republicans or Democrats at any given moment. Even if you just pretend there are exactly two stances on a given issue (R or D) you'd still be looking at like 2^1000 different possible outcomes (for 1,000 different issues). The more perfectly someone claims to align to one party, the more likely it is that they're doing so out of tribalism than because they actually matched the exact one-in-a-zillion set of opinions.
The graph isn't "agrees with Republican" and "agrees with Democrat" as the axis (I also would say you can agree with people and still be a free thinker, viewing positions as independent doesn't really make sense, there's underlying ideology that heavily correlates them but all of this is besides the point). The idea that the far left is agreeing dogmatically with the democratic platform is clearly factually incorrect to anyone who has met people actually on the far left (they rarely even agree with other people on the far left) and a similar thing can be said about the far right.
The really obvious example of this is look how much of a thorn in the side of the Republican Congressional leadership the far right has been. Agreeing rigidly with a party will not put you at the edge of the graphs at all (for most parties globally it would put you somewhere in the middle)
The graph X axis could just as well have been labelled "agrees with Republicans" and "agrees with Democrats"; perhaps it would've been clearer that way. But really, any polarization axis would've worked.
The ideal graph would have two opposing labels dynamically generated according to the beliefs of the reader to be along a polarization axis for which the reader exists in the middle.
It's not just that the axes are wrong, there's a fundamental problem with the idea of the graph in an article about considering viewpoints and overcoming tribalism. Fundamentally the author put a graph in the article about tribalism and not considering other views where only people close to him ideologically are "free thinkers" (it's especially weird since "free thinkers" are congregated where most people are). You can sorta see this problem with the rest of the article, there are a lot of claims about how other people think badly and how he thinks is good. This is his perogative but it makes the article deeply insular and not really about how to understand and reason with other people.
It's particularly frustrating to me since from my experience I think both sides thinking he is farther away ideologically than he is is from then is from this tendency. I have the opposite problem, people generally think I'm much closer ideologically than I am even though I'm uncompromising in my principles (I'm very far left and even a vegan, which is anathema to many people). I've found if I listen to people and, more importantly, am willing to understand and speak to their values the more my experience is the exact opposite of the writer's. People's political views are often irrational but also they are driven by a diverse set of underlying ideologies and values and if you think "independent thought" is going to cluster in particular spot in an ideological spectrum and everyone else is just subject to groupthink (but you aren't somehow) then of course talking to other people who aren't ideologically close to you is going to be miserable.
Even more so when you see how quickly these coalitions will shift their beliefs or take on new beliefs when theyâre signaled to do so by leaders of the coalition.
You often see this in real time during political conversations (both online and offline). Someone will say, âNo one on my side ever said X, thatâs a vicious smear perpetrated by the other side.â Someone will response with an example of a prominent leader on their side saying X. The first person will suddenly do a 180, and start explaining why X is just a commonsense position and itâs silly for anyone to be offended by it.
AI's ability to sift through text is almost to the point of being able to pick out these idiots so they can be ignored.
We're not too far off from a future where anyone can mouse over their username and a browser extension will tell them whether the username they are mousing over is consistent in their beliefs or if they're a flip flopping POS shill for whatever color party they're peddling the policy of.
This is why I don't talk politics with anybody I respect. It would quickly make me a misanthrope.
This. 100%
Same behaviour, or should we call it helplessness, can be witnessed in democrats responses since this whole thing went into round 2.
I'm shocked on how little actionable and constructive goals are part of the "conversation".
I think you're talking about a subtly different thing. OP was simply saying "it's very possible to be a rational independent thinker and yet be non-centrist". What you're saying is "a lot of people I've met who are more left than me are impractical".
Relating to your point, I would add something based on my experience in the UK. In the last 30 years we've twice had a Labour leader elected. Both times campaigning as a hard-nosed centre-left pragmatist, and with some on the left echoing similar sentiments about compromise and pushing the needle.
Blair admittedly did some good stuff - Lords reform and minimum wage. But he also introduced and then tripled university fees, greatly expanded private initiatives in the public sector, and engaged in an activist interventionist foreign policy culminating in the invasion of Iraq. These are changes whose ill effects we're still reeling from as a country.
Starmer is looking to shape up very similarly, from his U-turns on private school charitable status, tuition fees and the two-child cap, to his reluctance to condemn the Gazan genocide and cuts to disability allowance.
Was it better to have these as prime minister Vs the conservative candidate? Yes, probably. Can they really be said to be pushing the needle? I doubt it.
American here. Otherwise, fairly similar.
Not saying that our right is much better. Their top "virtue" seems to be competent campaigning & hard work in pursuit of political power. (Which, obviously, worked for them.) Vs. our left seems too busy holding low-effort ideological purity beauty contests to particularly care about being in power.
I've heard that some of the brighter voters, who voted for Democrats due to "Trump is the worst choice" arguments, are waking up to just how low-functioning the Dem's are. Not saying that that'll do any good - but it's nice to hear.
> They're completely rejecting the complexity of compromise and gradual change towards the ideal, convinced that any act that isn't absolute is a betrayal of their values.
Interestingly enough, this also describes a member of the Trump Party (formerly known as the Republican Party).
it was meant as a visual specifically for Paul Graham's article here: https://www.paulgraham.com/mod.html
I should probably generate a new one or just remove since it appears to have sent this message to multiple people
But yeah I don't think it's entirely tribalism, but I do largely agree with PG's essay, though I'd understand a contesting of his statement that "the left and right are equally wrong about half the time"
But which is it? Do you agree with Graham's essay and your own graph, or do you disagree?
It sounds like you believe in the graph, but don't want to turn people off. Just own your belief.
FWIW I think you should disagree with Graham's essay and your own graph. Saying that "left" and "right" were both 50% wrong is like saying the same about "federalist" and "anti-federalist". Even if the sides are 50% wrong, the free thinkers would be widely distributed.
Ironically this seems like an example of the tribalism my essay is about -- I agree with his essay, but only partially agree with the graph
I think the hump could be slightly shifted left or right, but the points on the graph are the averages of an individual's entire collection of views
I don't believe an independent thinker would come up with a set of views that perfectly match the left or right's doctrine since at least some of those views are somewhat arbitrary -- in that sense I agree with him
There are also centrist doctrines. Even explicit ones like the radical centrism.
A major problem is trying to project a hugely multifaceted phenomenon like political outlook into one, or even few, dimensions. And then even discretizing the one dimension. And then categorizing (other) people's thinking or ideologies into these.
Another problem is assuming that there is some universal "optimal" or even good policy. Instead there can be even fundamentally contradicting interests or goals between e.g., dare I say, classes which can lead to well informed
I'm not claiming you don't appreciate these, but the conclusions to me seem to require such problematic assumptions. The intent is likely something like trying to simplify complex phenomena into something manageable (i.e. an ideology), but these tend to be very leaky abstractions.
I think the issue might stem from the fact that (as I read it) the essay is talking about "for the people who are moderate (in the middle of the left/right axis), some are distributed higher on your graph, while some are lower". Which says nothing about "for the people who are distributed higher on the graph, how many are in the middle of the left/right axis". Your graph makes explicit an answer to the second question which the essay avoids. (There is a bit of an implication in the last two paragraphs, but PG is explicit it's only about people he knows).
You even say so in your essay. I'd say an issue is people picking up on the graph but ignoring what you wrote.
I don't think the graph agrees with the essay.
In the essay, the "unintentional moderate" is defined as someone who holds all kinds of views, some from the far left, some from the far right, some from the middle - but by chance the average of their views makes them a moderate.
I had to go looking for that, because the graph doesn't show that at all. I think the graph is a bad take on the ideas in Paul Graham's article.
I read that I think he means it is tribal thinking if you have a desire to convince instead of search for truth in a curious way.
I didnt read that people on the left or the right are always tribal. But yeah, its easy to go that way when you are not able to see the truth in opposite viewpoints.
Yes, you're misreading it. Independent thought vs. groupthink is the vertical axis.
What he means is that according to the graph if you call yourself an "independent thinker" then you can't be an extremist. You are automatically a centrist. All the dots on the "independent thinker" half are all centrist. None are left or right. An interesting bias that he's admitting to. Made me roll my eyes and stop reading right there, and just skim the rest for all the "independent thinker" tropes.
If you want to feel superior and virtue signal, just label yourself an "independent thinker." It's so easy.
It's common in tribalism to see ones own tribe as rational and the other tribes as groupthink.
We can see this in discussions about misinformation today. "Brainwashed masses" is a tribal concept about a tribe.
Yes, that also struck me as nonsensical.
If he were really trying to demonstrate a 2d Gaussian, it would instead be a circle or elipse of points with highest density at the origin.
perhaps in the end he was not
It's not uncommon for people who decide they have "discovered" the "real political spectrum" by simply adding a new axis to the traditional left-right spectrum to coincidentally idealize one pole on that new axis, viewing all variation on the left-right axis as indicative of distraction from what is important.
Asserting that people varying on the left-right spectrum also cluster around the anti-ideal pole of the idealized axis while everyone closer to the ideal pole clusters around the left-right center is not as common, but reflects the same cognitive bias, though it is particularly amusing when that axis independent thought (ideal) vs. groupthink (anti-ideal), such that freethinkers are asserted to by ideological uniform even outside of the shared commit to "free" thought, while sheepish adherents of groupthink are more ideologically diverse.
(And, yes, that graph is deadly serious -- as well as, IMO, hilariously wrong [0] -- and fairly central to the theme of the post.)
It's even more funny that this "free thinker" is decrying tribalist groupthink, asserting (as already discussed) that free thought exists only in an extremely narrow band in the center of the left-right axis, and talking about how they can't talk politics with anyone outside their group and are "desperate for like-minded folk". The lack of self-awareness is...palpable.
It's even more funny that all the ideas he embraces and purports to have trouble finding people he agrees with are the standard doctrines of the rationalist/EA/longermist faction that is so popular in the tech/AI space (and the conceit of being uniquely free thinking is also common to the faction.)
[0] Actual free thinkers are, IME, distributed widely -- not necessarily evenly, but certainly not clustered in one spot -- across both the left-right axis and a number of other political axes [1][2], such as the authoritarian-libertarian axis, so both the distribution shown and the assertion that the "real" political spectrum is two dimensional with only freethought vs. groupthink added to the classic left-right axis are incorrect.
[1] For a number of reasons, including both differences in life experiences and thus perceived probabilities on various factual propositions, but also on fundamental values which life experiences may impact, but not in a deductive manner, because you can't reason to "ought" from "is".
[2] Free thinkers do differ from groupthinkers in that their positions in the multidimensional space of political values are likely not to fall into the clusters of established tribes, but to have some views typical of one tribe while other others fall out of that tribes typical space (and possibly even into the space of an opposing tribe.) But there are enough different tribes
posting my explanation of the graph from another comment here
"it was meant as a visual specifically for Paul Graham's article here: https://www.paulgraham.com/mod.html
I should probably generate a new one or just remove since it appears to have sent this message to multiple people
But yeah I don't think it's entirely tribalism, but I do largely agree with PG's essay, though I'd understand a contesting of his statement that 'the left and right are equally wrong about half the time'"
One quality of âtribalâ that I think gets overlooked is that those that are part of a âtribeâ are not willing to be wrong.
I feel like those that are more in the middle - in addition to be âaccidentally in the middleâ as pg says â theyâre open to hearing the other side, and even open to being wrong.
Those that I know that I might define as âtribalâ â and that goes for either side â are certainly not open to being wrong, and not even really open to listening to the other side â even a rational discussion.
Some may pretend to listen and maybe even engage in a discussion, but only out of being polite, not out of genuine, open curiosity.
The most visible example of tribalism is when groups fail to update their ideas and beliefs as facts start to come in. You can't escape the religious parallel.
This occurs clear across the political spectrum, but a standout example is record-breaking levels of immigration in European countries like Sweden and Germany. Instead of realizing the policy failure and acting to fix it, the line becomes "it was the right thing to do, it was just done poorly."
It's natural to internalise the groups we belong to. In other words they become me. Or my identity is formed by the group.
When social scientists say something is socially constructed that's approaching this.
It's hard to see oneself apart from the group one belongs to. In fact to separate oneself causes real pain. In the article it says that people don't want to look outside their tribe; I would say that people shouldn't even think about looking outside as it will cause trauma. It would literally cause psychological identity wounds.
One aspect of politics is this pain avoidance.
By definition, reason can only take you so far in politics, as itâs the arena in which decisions must be made without complete information. No matter how well reasoned your arguments, no matter how well informed you are, youâre still going to resist switching allegiances. So, imo, politics is just about 99% loyalty.
Looking at it from a left-right one-dimensional space, the middle would be the non-tribal choice. The political spectrum is however not a one-dimensional space, and countries with multiple political parties, with center parties, can demonstrate that well in polls and self tests. It is perfectly possible for a single individual to be in 50% agreement with every single political party, from left, center and right, agreeing to the individual policies from each party that they find to be correct and disagreeing with policies they disagree with.
As it happens, if I personally looks to what is important to me, I find that from the extremest left to the extremest right, the best political party get 60% support and the worst get 40% support. They all have some policies that I strongly support, and some policies that are terrible, and the middle of the gang is exactly the same.
To take an example. I am in strong support of the green party when it comes to train and bike infrastructure, fishing policies, eliminating lead in hunting ammunition, getting rid of invasive species, and banning heavy fuel oil in shipping. I strongly disagree with their support of using natural gas as a transactional fuel in the energy grid in hopes of green hydrogen (a pipe dream), and their dismantling of nuclear power. I also strongly disagree with their political attempts to mix in the war in Gaza with environmentalism, as if taking up the flag for either side in that war has any relevance in nation/local politics on what is almost the other side of the world. That is one political party out of 8 that my country has, and the story is similar with all the rest.
Looking at this as a non-American. American politics is seems very much tribe minded as an outsider,left vs right. And where someone stands largely can tell you about their views on a lot of other things. At least that's how it is portrayed in media. I know in practice a lot of people are more nuanced.
Most countries have sometimes up to 10 political parties and what party/ies someone supports often does not say much about their views on different social issues. In the USA it seems you can't want a secure border and civil rights for minority groups.
I think there sadly exists an overlay in a lot of politics, basically tribalism, but I think the better phrasing is "teams" as in "team sports".
You don't like a team for an ideological reason, usually physical closeness or some other arbitrary connection.
For many, the team is the extent at which they analyze politics. You see this when conservatives will reference historical events in terms of the name of the political party. For example, it's relatively common to see someone say "Oh the Democrats are bad because during the Civil war they were on the side of slavery". Their analysis doesn't include the actual policy or ideology at hand, it's simply the team "Democrats". It doesn't matter to them if the flavor of policies that the early 20th century dems supported are similar or even the same as the policies modern Republicans support. Only the team.
I think there exists multiple layers of "tribalism" or "team sports" in politics that effects people differently. The bottom layer is sadly "<Name of party> good, <name of other party> bad". I think at some point we must acknowledge that some people are simply stupid. If they think making an argument based on the politics of a party 100 years ago is convincing, they might just not have the facilities for critical thinking.
A lot of those people are now @-ing grok on twitter to explain even the simplest of jokes.
Thanks, I came here to say the same. Sports fandom is the better metaphor.
Itâs lazy participation.
Is it really likely that an intelligent person like yourself could hold 95% intellectual alignment with one of the two lowest common denominators (largest pluralities) in a country on complex political topics? Consider how much each party's platform has changed in the last 20 years, and how much more they will change in the next 20. I would say it's more likely that someone like yourself is quite intelligent and creative and is instead unaware of those deeply ingrained tribal instincts.
Media in the US, especially now via incessant social media feeds, fuels this. It showers us with information showing how the "other side" is bad. So you can have a correct opinion that the other tribe is bad without any quantitative metrics to compare how bad it is compared to your tribe, which is also very bad.
Btw, regarding the basic personality traits thing. I found this paper very interesting [0]. Sort of refutes the "conservatives lack empathy and fear change" angle. On average, I suspect most liberals and conservatives have very similar averages across most personality traits and are mostly just a product of their environment.
[0] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34429211/#:~:text=Our%20meta...
I think the claim is that a lot of people stick with the tribe regardless of how closely it matches their world views. It might be dismissive but it resonates. I've seen people keep voting for the same parties even when the policies have shifted very significantly.
Since you are left leaning, presumably American, a good example is the Republicans. The current policies and values of the Republicans seem to be very different than let's say those of 20 years ago. But you don't see a lot of movement, i.e. you don't really see people saying because your actions of policies changed I'm going to re-evaluate my support for you. Maybe the other team is now closer to my world views. It's a lot more common that people just keep voting for their camp or team. I'm sure there are studies, this is very anecdotal. There are also many e.g. single issue voters, they only care about a single issue and nothing else.
Independent thinkers, who dive deep into issues, who challenge beliefs, who weigh multiple issues and considerations, who potentially shift their position when the goal posts have moved or they've evaluated new information, are rare. It's much easier to stay in an echo chamber/team/tribe. We see this all the time, another example is the pandemic. It's lack of nuance.
You see this in the political discourse. Instead of debating things of substance it's more of a rally around the team approach. You're never going to see in-depth discussion/analysis on tax policies, or security policies. Anything that doesn't meet your world view is automatically discredited whether it has merit or not, It's going to be they bad we good/polarizing/conspiracies etc. This pushes people farther apart and I think it also pushes policies farther apart. Maybe sometimes it is that simple but plenty of times it's not.
A lot of this is due to the failure of the American political system: there is simply no room for a third party. A lot of people don't want to vote for "their" party, it's merely a strategic vote in an attempt to keep the worse of two evil out of power.
If you vote for a third-party candidate, you might just as well not have voted at all. The parties will only genuinely start caring about policy when that gets fixed, and voters will only start looking into politics when there is more than one option on their side of the aisle.
There is room for third parties, but it's a hard road and in my lifetime, I've not seen any parties really try to take the road.
You've got to get your party organized at all levels and running candidates in most contests. Everyone seems to want to run a Presidential candidate, but if you're going to run only one election, it should be one you have a chance of winning. A lot of federal office holders previously held state or local office. If you want to seriously contest federal offices, you need to have candidates with elected experience. So, start with local districts, city council/mayorship, maybe county offices. From there, work towards state office. Then you can pick up some house seats, and eventually senate seats too. When the time is right, maybe try some of your seasoned politicians for President.
Thing is you donât even need a deep dive. Some things sound fishy. Some things are obvious political spin. This alone should stop people from identifying with any party.
world views change with time and parties lead&follow the process at the same time.
that will be shown strongly in a locked 2 party system like the usa has.
you say it is strange that not more people switch camps, but this is not accidental, an extreme amount of effort and resources are spent to maintain this.
exactly
> one group actually reflects everything I believe
If you swap âgroupâ for âreligion,â this is how I feel about Catholicism. Make of that what you will.
> align with a progressive, left-leaning ideology.
Cooperation and scalability are two objectively good principles that our species can apply effectively... if and only if there is a genuine desire for cooperative, scalable, positive outcomes.
If social/political discourse has degraded to the point that cooperative, scalable, positive outcomes are off the table, look to those who have taken control of the discourse. Propaganda undermines language itself.
The difference between destructive behavior and constructive behaviour... has a bias.
I think it refers to people, who I have run into quite a lot, who when faced with a new fact about politics or the behaviour of politicians, back the team over the idea.
Like if you were to say consider yourself a progressive. I would consider you a progressive, unless you for instance, supported something incredibly conservative that was performed by a "Good Guy" politician on your team.
For instance, we used to have this chap Daniel Andrews. Who was for better or worse, a mild progressive. He took a very hard stance on Covid related issues. Progressives, backed the man regardless. Conservatives criticised his every move. However, his own human rights review, found that he had violated the human rights of citizens in certain circumstances.
If you mention this to his critics, it reinforces their team. But if you mention this (incredibly obvious good faith criticism) to his supporters, not only does it reinforce their team, but they immediately seek to identify you as someone on the other team. A "crazy anti lockdown conservative" or similar. - That for me is the essence of tribalism.
To be fair I think this is a symptom of social media rather than just political awareness.
I've seen another example over the last few days.
Quite a few people who have been vociferously pro-EU and in favour of their protectionism, tariffs and non-tariff trade barriers have been going crazy over the US imposing tariffs, even though the US rates are far lower than the EU's.
A similar group has historically been strongly against government corruption but recently have been attacking efforts to uncover and stop corruption in the US Federal government.
> even though the US rates are far lower than the EU's
What does "far lower" mean to you? Can you give examples? Because to me, the view "Trumps tariffs are only matching what foreign nations already do" is just factually wrong.
Personally, I just think blanket tariffs as a significant form of government income is highly detrimental, from a foreign policy perspective (=> alienates allies, encourages retaliation), as a tax-substitute (because it's basically a regressive "tax-the-rich-less" scheme, which, given meteorically rising wealth inequality, is the last thing we need) and also for economic development (because there is neither the workforce, nor the actual desire, to build up low-margin manufacturing in the US-- making those products 30% more expensive is not gonna change that meaningfully).
> A similar group has historically been strongly against government corruption but recently have been attacking efforts to uncover and stop corruption in the US Federal government.
I don't have a lot of beef in this, personally, but if you're talking about doge:
I just have to look at their website, and what I see are numbers that don't add up at all, containing a lot of cuts for purely policy reasons, wrapped in highly partisan messaging.
I'd be strongly against that even if they advocated for wheelchair accessibility and gay rights on their twitter, or w/e.
Corruption, to me, is if you buy influence on government policy by spending money on officials, and that is exactly what I see under Trump.
> efforts to uncover and stop corruption in the US Federal government.
Unserious. The big cheques in Wisconsin don't count? The presidential cryptocurrency?
You uh seem to have consumed some tribal coolaid lmao.
Both of these are basically strawman arguments - there are legitimate, non-tribal reasons to be against the actions taken re: tariffs and the purported anti-corruption tasks. For example, a person can be strongly against government corruption but also be strongly against the current efforts/methods being used for a multitude of reasons. And similar for tariffs. (Not having those debates here, just pointing out that I don't believe those examples hold up.)
agreed -- I also think social media exacerbated this
> I'm not just glomming on to everything one "tribe" or another stands for ... one group actually reflects everything I believe.
I don't think that's unreasonable, but if you're in the US, you should really re-evaluate if this is true just because there are several significant issues over which the parties have flipped over the past few decades (and more if you go back further).
Obviously you didn't specify a party, but as one example: In the 1990s, the left wing party was where the free speech absolutists were. If you were a big "free speech" enthusiast back then and you still are now, then great! If your views have changed, that's fine, too, but there should be alarm bells going off in your head that your views changed along with the tribe.
Always remember that internet conversations are carried by a small group of antisocial losers, and a most of media articles complaining about society are specifically targeting that small but loud group.
An average person has a lot more in common with you than with the imaginary protagonist of this blogpost, who is really smart and wants to show that everyone else is really dumb.
Like other normal people, I discuss politics with friends; both with the ones I mostly agree with and the ones I mostly disagree with. We need to understand game theory and military strategy to have a useful conversation.
>By this reasoning it naturally follows that those of a certain "personality" will also share common beliefs, ideologies
Is this not borne out in your own life experience? Because it sure is in mine.
In the US, you vote for one party or the other. It reduces to tribalism, so why do the extra work to get to the reductive result?
How do you avoid being "tribal" if you are not centerish?
just by being able to understand why you believe what you believe, for each individual view
center-ish is not a requirement, but a correlation -- rarely will someone independently come up with views that 100% match the somewhat-arbitrary positions of the left or right
And what if "middle" is a tribe too ;)
Tribalism is part metaphor, part euphemism. What itâs really getting at is cult behavior. Agreeing with someone on a lot of things isnât tribal and isnât cult.
The actual problems of âtribalismâ are exactly those of cults: worship of a leader or ideology, zero tolerance for criticism, cutting you off from other support networks, conspiracies, narratives of doom, promises of salvation, framing enemies as degenerates and deplorables, claiming exclusive ownership of truth and moralityâŚ
Red and blue alike have cult wings.
Tribalism is just really bad pop-sociology, by people who can't be arsed to read and do their homework on a vast subject matter.
If you think these beleifs are inherent in the temperament of people, that doesnt explain the change of these beliefs over time. Progressive, left leaning ideology had different stances 20 years ago, let alone 50 years or in China or India.
Sometimes this is easier to see from the outside. For example, if the conservative right all independently arrived at the same conclusion based on personality, isnt it strange how the consensus all moves together and changes over time
My impressions were they meant values and you meant policies.
I think you are probably right.
If you find people with shared values, and follow their changing policies, That still seems like tribal behavior to me.
>Others, smarter than me, have gone into great detail about the underpinnings of left-leaning or right-leaning world views in people.
People also change. Until 25 maybe 30,I was left leaning in many issues.
Now I am mostly right aligned.
Martin Luther King was pretty clear what he thought of "the middle":
> I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to 'order' than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice
I think holding political opinions on the basis of what a famous (historical) person feels about them is sort of the thing being criticized here.
Sounds like a kind of dumb thing to criticize, then. Picking the side of Martin Luther King Jr. on civil rights isâŚuhâŚkind of a difficult position to argue against.
Yet, huge swaths of the US electorate to this day oppose Martin Luther King Jr.'s goals, message, methods, and outcomes.
It's an example of when "not being tribal" is wrong, because one side wanted to keep denying civil rights to a group of people. The correct side was to protest and put pressure on the system. Take the war in Ukraine. There isn't a middle ground between resisting Russian aggression for Ukrainians and fighting back. You either resist, or you get conquered. Not all issues and situations have some happy middle ground where both sides are equal parts wrong/right.
you can be "not tribal" and still protest/put pressure on the system, has nothing to do with being moderate
tribalism refers to how you get your beliefs, not what you do with them
yep, this is the "intentional" moderate which I also classify as tribal
distinctly different from the "accidental" moderate who could harbor indignation against racial prejudice as one of their views
https://www.paulgraham.com/mod.html
The person receiving the pointy end of a spear doesn't much care whether you explicitly chose to stab him or whether you stabbed him because you are following your tribe.
> The implication instead seems to be that unless you are somewhere in the middle of the spectrum you must be "tribal". That feels dismissive.
It's not about where you are on the spectrum. I know neoliberal moderate Democrats, people who would have voted for George H.W. Bush in 1988, who are more tribal about current U.S. politics than any socialist I've met. What makes it unpleasant to talk politics with them is a combination of two things: the narrow set of answers they're willing to accept on every topic, and the anger and suspicion they broadcast at anyone who says anything else. For example, they have an acceptable set of answers for why Trump won in 2024 (racism and sexism) and if you suggest any other contributing factors (like arrogance, elitism, and various screw-ups in the Democratic party) then you must be on the other side, blaming the victims and making excuses for Trump supporters. You can say a dozen things morally condemning Trump and the Republican Party and then make one strategic criticism of the Democrats, and they'll look at you like maybe they can't ever trust you anymore. They'll parade their emotional distress and look at you sideways if you don't have the energy to mirror it. All this without being especially politically informed, politically engaged, or politically radical, or caring if anybody else is informed, engaged, or radical -- they judge themselves and others purely by fervor and narrowness.
> You can say a dozen things morally condemning Trump and the Republican Party and then make one strategic criticism of the Democrats, and they'll look at you like maybe they can't ever trust you anymore.
I think some of this is a consequence of a decade or so of bad faith "wolf in sheep's clothing" online discourse.
I remember way back before Trump's first term, before GamerGate, before the alt-right when people would "joke" about racist and neonazi stuff on 4chan and elsewhere. It was framed as "We're just kidding around because it's fun to be edgy. It's ironic. Obviously, we're not really racist neonazis." People, mostly teens, took the bait and thought it was all in good fun but over time those ideas sunk in and actually stuck.
The next thing you know, we've got white supremacists parading in broad daylight.
If you poke around the dark (and these days not so dark) corners of the Internet, you can literally find people with toxic fringe beliefs discussing how to subtlely soften up their targets with seemingly innocent "just asking questions" when the ultimate goal is to (1) obscure which tribe they are actually a member of and (2) persuade people over to their tribe without them realizing it.
When you're in an environment where people like that do actually exist and participate in discourse, it's reasonable to wonder if the person you're talking to really does share your beliefs or not.
How are those two situations remotely similar? A criticism of the Democratic Party should not be seen as a morally reprehensible "joke" that you have to walk back like "ha ha, just kidding, I would never criticize the party."
The idea that the Democratic Party is a flawed, mundane institution full of fallible people who make mistakes is not a toxic idea that we need to keep out of the discourse lest it "sink in and actually stick." It's more like medicine that the party is trying to administer to itself with one hand while the other hand tries to bat it away.
yep, this is exactly it -- it's not where you end up, it's the inability to separate from a group
there are tribalists on the left, right, and in the middle
I think one of the distinguishing characteristics of tribalism is the inability to have low-stakes conversations about politics. To somebody who is deep in tribalism, every private ephemeral one-to-one conversation they have is a vital battle which very well may decide the fate of the world, so their vigilance and inflamed passion entirely justified and rational. Being a part of the tribe ruins their humility, the tribe is important, they are wed to the tribe, any political discussion they have is on behave of the tribe, and therefore very important. Alliance with the tribe confers importance to themselves and they thereby lose their humility. They lose the ability to recognize that the conversation isn't actually important, that they can relax and treat the other person like a human rather than a faceless representative of the enemy who they have a vital responsibility to defeat.
You are right that you don't take part in tribalism, because you first have a value structure and then you looked critically at the political landscape and found where you have the largest overlap.
But tribalism is absolutely an issue in the modern age with huge swathes of population falling into social media echo chambers. People first find their tribe, and then they define their own personality by the views of that tribe, not the other way around.
Just look at all the people spewing "own the libs" or "maga fucktards". A significant portion of the population doesn't vote based on rational analysis, but by being part of a crowd. They don't even care or know what they vote for, as long as they are sticking it to people they perceive as enemies.
I think this is basically the terminal/minimum of the modern social network algo optimization. Everything is maximally polarized, nobody is willing to engage in good faith discussion with people who hold different views. Everyone has a known enemy and known allies and they can be fed what they like to hear and thus continue being addicted.
I don't know how to get out of this :(
The United States especially is having a face to face with tribalism - if you live here and you don't see it you are basically blind.
We have parents posting that they are glad their child is dead instead of getting the measles vaccine, an entire pandemic that was ignored and downplayed, an election denied.
These are all simple examples of tribalism - choosing the tribe over ones own self interest and well being. Most sane people don't offer their children up to Baal.
I think tribalism is being thought of as a pejorative when it isnât. It merely is a phenomenon. What you describe above about yourself is pure tribalism of how you identify with the liberal tribe and could never even picture yourself as a member of other tribe. This is no different to me than a rabbi or priest talking about the tenets of their faith and how that leaves them no option but to be a member of that religion due to the moral underpinnings of those tenets that they believe in.
Tribal politics happen when we take these various tribes in our society and essentially blind them to their biases to the point where they canât imagine at all why someone would even be in that other tribe. A complete loss of critical thinking ability emerges once it becomes us and them and not some of us and others of us, one species, no tribes, many ideas.
Do you actually believe all liberals are good and can do no evil? Do you actually believe all conservatives are cartoonishly evil idiots? Iâd hope you could see the nuance but your description makes it seem like there is one way but the highway. And the reflexive counter argument from the liberals is âbut racismâ but then again, explain the phenomenon of the black or latino Trump supporter? Clearly there is more nuance going on in what is sensible to people than what we can gleam out of the black and white painted descriptions from the thought leaders in our tribe.
Just in the last election cycle, we saw tribal Democratic voters try and silence those protesting the Biden administration and then immediately go "we have always been at war with Eurasia" and do the exact same thing for Kamala.
And MAGA goes beyond being tribal: by any objective measure, it's a cult.
Plus you see an awful lot of people who will criticize one side for doing one thing while supporting the other side for doing the exact same thing. Obama, for example, was the Deporter-in-Chief (~3 million deported), Biden continued the Trump policy of using Title 42 to deny asylum claims and Kamala proposed building the very same border wall that all Democrats protested when Trump proposed it in 2020.
I'm a leftist and any leftist will have seen so many liberals who love progressive aesthetics but turn into a jack-booted fascist the second you want to address any of the underlying economic issues. For example, tell people "house prices need to come down" to solve any number of issues such as homelessness and see how they react.
> The implication instead seems to be that unless you are somewhere in the middle of the spectrum you must be "tribal". That feels dismissive.
On this, I 100% agree. There are several reasons why:
1. Intellectual laziness. People think they're "above the fray" by bothsidesing everything;
2. Ignorance. This is particularly an issue for Democratic voters in the US. Both Democrats and Republicans are neoliberals. US foreign policy is bipartisan. Full-throated support for capitalism is bipartisan. But a large segment of Democrats tell themselves they're good people for wearing a pride pin while at the same time thinking homeless people should die in the stree; or
3. Deception. This is particularly the case for Republicans who will try and center their positions by appealing to "common sense" and label Democrats, who are a center-right party, as "the far Left" or "the radical Left".
So, yes, people do use "tribalism" as an epithet to silence legitimate criticisim but there is also tribalism.
> After seven years in San Diego, my wife and I have decided to uproot our family and move to the Bay Area. While there were many factors (a new job opportunity, family), a significant reason was finding a community of truth-seeking people.
Funny. The lack of truth-seeking and truth-telling is one of the chief reasons I moved away from the Bay Area.
You'll find unquestioning dogmatism everywhere you go unfortunately.
For what it's worth, the odds for rationally evaluating political ideas tend to go up around folks that have gone to universities that are known for some decent level of intellectual rigor.
Still not great though, some of the most dogmatic people I've met in my life were professors and undergrads. But those that were the opposite more than made up for that.
It sounds like you're describing what I know as trait openness?
Discussion of new ideas is an "openness" thing.
Funnily enough personality traits are a strong predictor for political preference. Personality traits are also a predictor of career choices.
You can't say that and then not share where you moved to. Now I'm curious. I don't live in the Bay Area so not defending it in any way.
curious where you moved?
I completely understand it could not have what we're looking for, which is why this was only one component among larger ones (family + new job)
This hits too close to home.
A while back I realized that most news stations have a clear bias and eventually started to dive deeper on stories I was interested in.
I try to look into the source material when possible and found time and time again that the 'news' either left out key details or completely misrepresented the source material.
I never bring up politics, but friends will often repeat news stories and occasionally I'll bring up key facts that weren't reported on.
This has never changed anyone's opinion. Usually all it does is make the other person upset or they bring up another story to reaffirm their currently held belief.
Thankfully my relationships are strong enough that I haven't lost any friends over this, but it's incredibly isolating. Feels like brainwashing on a massive scale.
That's not to say that the news isn't to be trusted at all, some things are as reported. But, often times this isn't the case and it's more important than ever to think critically and not take news stories at face value. The division is mostly manufactured and I believe at our core most of us want the same things.
I'm 52. For me, there was a time when it was considered impolite to talk about sex, religion and politics. Then it became super fun when done with open/questioning/rational/critical minds, and a lot of progress in my own thinking was achieved from the usually non-threatening but lively debates and fights among friends and family for ideas. Then it shifted in the last ten or fifteen years. When social media started having friends of friends, the tribalism kicked in. It was explained very well in a talk between Maria Ressa and Jon Stewart. She is brilliant, and well worth listening to. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsHoX9ZpA_M
Everything is because of increasing wealth inequality, it is the root cause of almost every societal problem. It was easier to have non-threatening debates because everyone felt more secure. When people are stressed and afraid, the debates arenât just intellectual exercises but things that could mean the loss of real opportunities in their lives. This is a trend that has been going on for a very long time, Pikkety showed mathematically that itâs easier to make money when you already have money and this runaway process is nearing an extreme.
I firmly believe that if wealth distribution today was the same as it was in the 70s-90s, the culture wars would be significantly dampened or non existent. If people could still buy homes, afford to have kids and healthcare, we would all be able to talk about religion, sex, and politics without this extreme tribalism. Itâs happening because there are way more âlosersâ in the economic game now, itâs become a life or death issue, and people are looking for who to blame.
I largely agree. Recently I'm somewhat minded to think the issue is actually about the huge expansion of the rentier class. The problem began with the adoption of neoliberalism and the mainstreaming of the idea that you could reasonably "earn" money by simply having money. Prior classical and Keynesian thought railed against such rent seeking and sought to eliminate it as a parasitic drag on the economy.
Since the decision was made post GFC to bail out the banks and protect capital over the normal person that just wanted a house to live in, the position of the rentiers has been consolidated hugely. We have Rachel Reeves thinking we in the UK can build a growth strategy on the back of financial services (which generally means "rent-extraction services"). A rational system would separate the GDP from the real economy from the income from rent extraction, and seek to eliminate the latter.
To the common man, they see themselves working longer and harder than they used to and getting a smaller and smaller slice of the pie. It turns out when your real outputs have to support a sizeable portion of the population who have dedicated their lives to the art of rent extraction to live like kings, you don't see much of the gain.
I have many contemporaries that have gone into finance. A vast pool of intellectual capability, shuffling money around playing zero sum games, and ultimately protected from loss by the power of the state.
> It was easier to have non-threatening debates because everyone felt more secure. When people are stressed and afraid, the debates arenât just intellectual exercises but things that could mean the loss of real opportunities in their lives.
Youâre right that people feel less secure, but that doesnât mean that they are correct when they feel that.
By pretty much any measure, I believe that people in 2025 are far more secure than they were in 1975, 1985 or 1995.
affordability & inflation & services =/= wealth inequality
It roughly does for inelastic goods like housing, education, and healthcare
All of these can be more elastic. See: zoning reform and prices in blue cities vs red cities, single-payer healthcare in every developed country other than the US. Inequality is not the distinguishing factor.
Agree social media is a big problem. It lets people live in an imaginary reality echo chamber.
However in the real world and 1:1 you can still have good discussions with smart people who disagree with you. And we need to have those.
> Then it shifted in the last ten or fifteen years. When social media started having friends of friends, the tribalism kicked in. It was explained very well in a talk between Maria Ressa and Jon Stewart.
Also by Jon Stewart on Crossfire in 2004: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE&t=310s
The critique about what passes for debate is as apt today as it was then.
yeah I actually also enjoy it when the other party is more interested in learning than winning
will check this out, thanks for reading!
Very much this. The world has changed. It used to be that assuming other people have a low capacity for political reason was itself a "political position" - namely elitism. Folks like Orwell come from a long, long tradition of the educated and socially astute working class. Social media turned the joy of everyday political banter, rational scepticism, and good-natured disputation into a bourgeois pissing contest with seemingly life-or-death stakes.
> but lively debates and fights among friends and family for ideas
The missing ingredient is "intellectual honesty". It used to be the case that when you talked to people on the right they would
This did end up in duelling statistics and arguments over what mattered, but that's a reasonable place for discussion. Nowadays it's much deeper into making wild arguments from conspiracy theories with no or highly questionable evidence. Pizzagate. Birtherism. And so on.> By far, relationships determine the happiness of ones life, and relationships are not beholden to truth. In fact, they are very commonly built on the opposite. Whether a boss' reprimands are deserved or not, employees bond over a common enemy. Entire groups form on the basis of beliefs, false or otherwise. We have a word for this: âreligion".
> Despite organized religion dropping in attendance, religious patterns of behavior are still everywhere, just adapted to a secular world. Health, exercise, politics, work, self-improvement -- these are all things I've seen friends employ their religious muscle into, across all spectrums and political aisles. And as we get older, I'm seeing more and more of my supposedly-secular friends engage in such behavior.
I have a hypothesis that all humans are compelled to indulge in a certain amount of magical thinking. We seem to be hard-wired to believe there is more underlying metaphysical order and pattern to the universe than there actually is.
I presume this is evolutionarily advantageous because it's better to assume you have more agency and ability to predict than you actually do. Over-assuming leads to occasional disappointment and frustration when things don't work out, but under-assuming leads to having less impact than you actually could have.
If that hypothesis is true, then probably the best thing for society is to provide cultural structures that let us indulge than impulse in non-harmful ways, instead of, say, giving it to religions that also tell us to murder gay people.
Sort of like how sports function as a safe pressure release valve for the compulsion towards competition and violence.
> If that hypothesis is true, then probably the best thing for society is to provide cultural structures that let us indulge than impulse in non-harmful ways, instead of, say, giving it to religions that also tell us to murder gay people.
I agree with this take a lot, and actually tried to imagine what Religion 2.0 could be based on this premise
I can strongly sympathize. The image with the squares and circles hit home hard, from an early age, it's been pretty lonely. Depending on your environment it can be super hard to find others part of the 1%, so you really need to treasure them when you do find them.
One point of criticism:
The usage of the word "moderate". It seems PG's article is the one to blame here. The word "moderate" when used about politics means something to people in English. And given that meaning, saying that independent thought leads to one being "moderate", is straight up wrong. What the article is really talking about is that independent thought leads to a set of beliefs that is unlikely to be a very good fit for any particular ideology, and therefore, political party. That's true! But that's not "moderate". That's.. diverse, pragmatic, non-ideological. Those words aren't ideal either, but "moderate" is definitely not it.
The 99%/1% is also greatly overstated in a way. Firstly, it's definitely dependent on locale, culture, subculture, environment, as the writer already says themselves. More importantly, if you manage to somehow get people 1:1 in an environment where they feel safe, it turns out that many actually aren't that tribal/ideological after all, and they do actually have beliefs that span different mainstream tribes. But then that conversation finishes, and they go back to being a tribe member.
I'm pretty sure there's plenty of experiments that directly show the above. That when you give people policy choices that are non-obvious (e.g. they've never thought about), and then make them vote on them, they'll often vote against their tribe. But if you'd beforehand tell them which tribe voted which way, they'll always vote with the tribe.
There's a specific explanation saying that that's not what it's saying
I find it easy to discuss politics with friends. The hard part is listening, being open to persuasion yourself. Walzing into a discussion believing the other ones are stupid people with simple arguments rooted in misunderstandings â yeah, that won't fly.
You can smell it in the article. it's right there. The author thinks he's intellectually superior and arrived at his opinion though a pure intellectual pursuit, where the stupid conversation partners can't follow.
I completely understand how you're not having fruitful discussions.
I think one of biggest problems the American voter has is two fold: 1. We have turned politicians into celebrities/heroes. ALL politicians are just like most of us: they are flawed and incomplete individuals who desperately try to hide their flaws. (Under normal circumstances, this isn't so bad. However, to be an elected official with all that power, it's fraud at the very least.
2. Once elected, we refuse to hold the politicians we elected to almost any accountability. (This is very hard to do, no doubt, because of the way the laws have been manipulated to stop this very accountability.)
As for religion in politics: I'm a devoted Christian who is sane enough to know that not everyone will believe the same as I do. I have one vote on election day, to manipulate other people's vote by having my candidate changing laws to thwart the constitution is theft and immoral. (As difficult as it is to say, Christians today should read 2 Peter Ch2, taking it to heart. Stop only glossing over the cheerful faith verses and start reading the one's that call for accountability.)
I like it. There's an easier answer to "why don't people move from tribe to view". It's because it's painful to question one's own beliefs, and that's how that change happens. In fact such a move appears masochistic to many, since it almost never pays to undermine loyalty in favor of principle.
I hypothesize that we're seeing the influence of the legal system on the public turbo-charged by Citizens United money. An attorney is paid to be a "zealous advocate" for their client. This means never spending effort on anything that might be against the client's interest. Self-reflection is stochastically against their interest, so why even risk it? Considering alternative views might be against your interest, so why risk it? Therefore, in this new zeitgeist, such behavior is not just perverse and painful, but even unethical and wrong.
The problem, of course, is that for this system of adversarial argument you need an impartial judge. In theory that would be the public, but it turns out flooding people's minds with unethical lawyer screed 24x7 turns more people into lawyers, not judges. "The world is changed. I feel it in the water. I feel it in the earth. I smell it in the air. Much that once was is lost, for none now live who remember it." This could very well refer to the value of dignity, honor, integrity, fairness in debate, respect for one's opponents. These are always under assault, but in the last 10 years they have been decimated to the point people don't remember they ever held sway and young people don't know what politics was like when they did.
Challenging your own viewpoints is not just hard, it's downright dangerous. You can really lose your sense of identity and question your own morals if you are not well-grounded. It's much easier to dig your heels in and try to limit your self-reflection to be more "safe". (I still think you should question your viewpoints, but I don't blame people for being a little afraid.)
This is especially true if you have a history of being somewhat cruel to people on the basis of a conclusion you're not really 100% sure you agree with anymore. Now if you question it, you have a lot of guilt to contend with.
OTOH, I am the kind of person who feels great joy in discovering that I have been wrong about something, I have learned something better, and I have deepened my understanding. It could be about anything. Challenging my viewpoints is very enjoyable.
It surprises me that most people don't seem to feel that way and I struggle to understand why. Apparently, people often feel angry and alienated by the truth. I think that never makes sense, but I've learned to accept that people simply feel threatened by the truth sometimes and I can't usually convince them otherwise.
I feel this way too, it's in one of the footnotes actually
"[8] Few things give me greater joy than a discovery-ridden conversation with smart friends, and this is only enhanced if I learn something I previously believed to be true is actually wrong. Seriously, come prove some core belief I have as wrong and you will quite literally make my week."
Thanks for reading!
Thanks for writing! This is a very well written essay that I need to read repeatedly.
Ty! I wrote it for myself / to send people to when we encounter the same conversation loop haha
You have to be wrong to learn. Sure it can be frustrating to try to make or do something difficult. But you've never done it before, of course you're not going to know all the correct answers! It just makes it all the more sweet when you do make progress and start to know more about a subject.
I generally agree, but some views wind up being pretty central to one's identity. It's easy to give up a viewpoint where the stakes are very low, but the stakes can potentially be very, very high (on a personal level.)
I would say as I've gotten older, I've actually tried to be a little more grounded in my beliefs. Our political world is so crazy, that I think sometimes, it can even be hard being committed to basic kindergarten morality. "Look at all these bad people doing bad things and being successful, maybe I should do bad things to be more successful" is a challenge to your viewpoints that is worth cutting off at the roots.
I suppose, but there is no such thing as objective morality, it's all subjective. Thatâs not to say people shouldnât feel guilt or hesitate when evaluating their past actions, but we often act based on the best framework we had at the time.
Morality evolves, both personally and culturally, and trying to hold a static identity in the face of that change just leads to more internal conflict. Itâs uncomfortable, yeah, but clinging to certainty for safetyâs sake can be more corrosive in the long run.
Yep agree with this a lot, identity-shattering is dangerous indeed
I totally disagree. "Shattering" one's identity (which is a completely fictional idea, only existing inside one's head) is essential for finding one's place in the universe.
Failure to adopt an accurate perspective of one's place in the universe is the greatest source of human anxiety.
Plus, if you can't discuss something like politics with people, are they really your friends at all? Not very good ones at least...
Sorry I should clarify, I personally agree with you and share your opinion on shattering identifies being a positive
But I understand why someone may not want to I guess
"since it almost never pays to undermine loyalty in favor of principle"
nailed it imo, thanks for reading!
They become too entangled with identity. The advantage of holding one's identity loosely, and attributing it one's actions, is it facilitates changing one's mind about certain things, or updating beliefs in increments.
.. "we will need writers who remember freedom" Ursula Le Guin
Both of our best ways at getting to the truth - Journalism and Science - rely on entertaining and following all sorts of contradictory ideas and then comparing them with observed reality.
Universities in particular need to be physically safe spaces, where ideas of every kind can be mercilessly attacked.
We are losing what took so long to build.
An interesting blog post that would probably do well to look into something like Rob Kegan's theories of adult development [0] and looking up some stats on how many people fit into each category. People actually categorise fairly well into a model where ~66% of the population simply don't understand the concept of independent thought and rely heavily on social signalling to work out what is true.
That model explains an absurd number of social dynamics and a big chunk of politics - which is mostly people with a high level of adult development socially signalling to the masses what they are meant to be doing.
The important observation is that it isn't intellectual honesty that is the problem or truth-seeking the solution. It is actually whether someone is capable of identifying that truth != popular opinion. People who form their opinions by social osmosis can still be intellectually honest if they land in the right sort of community, but they fall apart under social pressure.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kegan#The_Evolving_Self
Political discussions for me are like programming. I enjoy them because I like finding bugs in people's logic like I do in programming.
I find a lot of people's political arguments wouldn't compile because of basic logic errors, and I try to point this out. But not many people are interested in this kind of analysis, they instead prefer the tribalist point-scoring like the OP mentions.
I dream of a world where political debates can be syntax-checked. I'm sure you could do it with AI today.
But in the end its all about feelings.
I can't describe how many times I will just go along with someone's passionate ranting on something I disagree with and egg them along because its makes them happy. This is tribalism. I will disagree with the group, and if you saw me you'd think I was the strongest supporter, but I actually vehemently disagree with everything.
There are very few people it's worth having a real discussion with these days.
I don't change my opinion of people for what they think, but it's very rare to find people who reciprocate this.
Thoughtful perspective on the social risks of political discussions. However, respectfully engaging with differing viewpoints is valuable for personal and societal growth. Perhaps focusing discussions on understanding each other's underlying values and experiences, rather than specific political positions, could lead to more productive conversations.
I have no reason to "respectfully engage" with beliefs like 'trans people should all be put in jail' (https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/texa...) or 'kill all the Jews' (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/nazis-r...).
On the flip side, one black man has reformed hundreds of KKK members through conversation alone.
https://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/544861933/how-one-man-convinc...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accidental_Courtesy:_Daryl_Dav...
Sometimes you have to fightš, but other times engaging with an open mind² really is the most efficient strategy. Shouting at the opposition only cements them in their own thinking; to change minds you have to understand and engage them where theyâre at. And yes, this is way easier said than done and can be quite frustrating.
š You probably wonât convince a fascist dictator to change their ways by appealing to their better nature, and it would take too long while irreperable damage is being done.
² Even if the other side believes in something appallingly hateful.
This can be done, carefully, through in-person conversations. I think it may be nearly impossible on social media, whose primary purpose seems to be to enforce group identity.
This. I try to meet everyone where they are when entering into political discussions. Iâve learned a lot from people as a result of this and â Iâd like to think â have successfully communicated an understanding of my own perspectives. Being able to sit down and talk to someone you disagree with is so important and I feel it is something we have gradually lost over time.
The perspective of the article is completely delusional. The idea that the author thinks they are above the petty "tribe" politics and have based their views on rationality and scientific evidence is complete bollocks.
The author has less self-awareness that the classic "I voted for the guy everyone else is voting for" guy. At least the later has a hint of consciousness about his own limitations.
Every ideology under the sun thinks they are based on objective truth. In reality our political views are shaped by the friends we have, our family, our upbringing, our social class, the media we consume, the experiences we made, our deep core vales and so much more. Most of it is not even conscious.
If you think you are above it all, you are just deluding yours. You just enjoy being in the enlightened centrist tribe or whatever.
Not choosing a stance is also choosing stance. If you see injustice and decide to stay neutral you decided to side with the oppressor.
In the end it is up to you to decide which tribe you want to belong. Do you want to march with those that fight for human dignity and social progress or those that want to oppress the many for the benefit of the few. Or do you want to sit by the sidelines while other people are striped of their human rights?
I'll just add one thing I learned: what people do is way more important than what they say or what their politics is.
I now find it much more practical to focus on things we can agree on and actually do something about in the real world and try to build from that.
Generic political debates are not very actionable and they are risky for social reasons mentioned in the article, so I think they are largely a waste of time with negative externalities.
I like this, but what we do, is vote. Between work and kids there is no more time âto doâ. I donate to UNICEF but thatâs it.
Work and raising kids are important activities that are a great way to take the measure of a person.
What more do you really need to look at?
Work, raise kids, vote to let women die rather than remove an already-dead fetus--yeah, sorry, people dying does kinda matter to me, actually, and I don't think that's crazy or can be dismissed as "tribalism".
I have often observed something about how we build software; I just realized that my observations are of a more fundamental human problem.
First, people are not good at defining problems. They may describe the problem that they want to solve in terms of an outcome, but often times the outcome that they want also includes some aspect that benefits them personally that is separate from the problem that they are describing.
Second, people are not good at separating problem from implementation. in fact, people are horrible at this. I think people have a very difficult time envisioning that the problem and the existing solution implementation (which itself might be making the problem worse) are separate things. so most people rarely consider and often actively oppose, radically different solutions.
In the political sphere, ideology Influences how one frames the problem that one wants to solve, and limits the universe of acceptable solutions. This exemplifies the two points that I raised above.
For example, when talking about healthcare policy, the two main âsidesâ in the US, both have ideologies that define outcomes in terms of consumer access to medical services, and which constrain allowable implementations to something that resembles insurance, with key differences being about who pays and what is covered and how much coverage one gets.
Just for the purposes of elaborating on my premise, I would point out that not all healthcare delivery systems in the world are designed around the insurance model, And that such a model includes vested interests, regulatory capture, and often incentivizes many participants to optimize in ways that donât forward the implicit goal of making more people more healthy.
Please donât reply with your opinions on my imperfect example; I donât want to have a healthcare policy discussion. I just wanted to provide an example my main points about how humans approach political problem-solving.
> Second, people are not good at separating problem from implementation. in fact, people are horrible at this. I think people have a very difficult time envisioning that the problem and the existing solution implementation (which itself might be making the problem worse) are separate things. so most people rarely consider and often actively oppose, radically different solutions.
I'm bouncing back and forth on this. One thing I've learned over nearly two decades of programming, is that problems often are not separate from implementation - the one often defines or shapes the other to a large degree. Moreover, often enough it's not worth it to aim for clean separation - that's the road to becoming an "architecture astronaut".
I've also noticed this generalizes outside of programming. The key insight being, when people accuse "techies" of being "know-it-alls" and coming up with simplistic solutions (or my pet peeve of a term, "technological solutions to social problems"), what they're complaining about is generalizations - the kind you get when you focus on the abstract problem and forget about implementation details. This is particularly notable when one then tries to transfer a general solution/framework from one problem space to another, because whether or not it applies is largely determined by implementation details.
An example: understanding exponential growth and connecting it with basic virology is good. Applying that model to virological problems is okay - but the devil's in the details. Transferring that model to something else by means of analogy? Well, that very much depends on which assumptions you borrowed from virology, and it's helpful to be aware of those assumptions (implementation details) in the first place.
Seen plenty of that on every side of argument during COVID.
People aren't good at defining problems when it comes to political views because - as far as I can tell - nearly everyone has zero interest in actually solving the issue, or putting in work to do so.
They want someone else to do the hard work and play Monday morning quarterback. To extend the sportsball metaphor, the football team is doing the actual work and they're just spectators rooting for their team.
No one wants to do work without being compensated, and virtually no one is being compensated to actually solve these problems. Politicians are there to get re-elected first and anything else second. Charitable organizations pay little to nothing, and get the kind of personnel that are OK with that.
At this point, there's so much tribalism wrapped around policy issues that it might be impossible to get anyone to try to objectively solve the issue. And all too often, there is no viable way to A/B test the solution and people have to hope that their solution works best, which is... Not a great way to get great results.
I hear this soooo often. If you can't talk to friends about your honest opinions without being respectful to one another and also being willing to listen to their reasoning and opinions, what kind of friendship is that?
>Most people don't have political views, they have political tribes
Agree with this. Also, I do believe most people are appallingly stupid (I might not not be an exception either), cruel and easy to manipulate, and as a result are incapable of making rational decisions that benefit society as a whole. I try to never ever discuss politics with anyone, it's one of the most damaging and useless activities there is.
Usually, interactions with people on (arguably) political issues just leave me stupefied - no, I don't think people born in certain geographical locations are subhuman because of decisions of their current government; no, I don't hate nor wish death and suffering to anyone; no, I don't think the war is necessary and I don't want anyone to be blown to bits by a drone; no, I don't think artificial lines on a map ("countries") define who is wrong and who is right and worth throwing your only life away for; no, I don't think decisions of the government reflect the opinion of the entire population of that country; yes, I do think people I disagree with are real human beings with capabilities of sense, emotion, and thought just like I am; and the list goes on and on. Anyway, most people have a very different idea on the aforementioned examples. I don't care about the replies, just wanted to offload this filth off my head somewhat.
If you don't talk politics with friends, who are you going to talk to about that?
Probably nobody.
Who will win the elections then? The forces whose supporters do talk politics with friends.
> Who will win the elections then? The forces whose supporters do talk politics with friends.
Well.. who go around reinforcing team allegiances, not people who talk politics. That's a pretty big distinction imo.
That's some US cultural thing, i think. Possibly because you only have two real political options.
If we're philosophising, the isolated suburb life style precludes having a friend group and forces humans - because they need to belong - into tribal allegiances towards larger groups: political, sports fans, some church, Rust, "AI"...
It's a human thing. In Rome it was chariot teams. Suburbia isn't to blame.
Curious how many comments say "it's not about tribalism, it's just the other side is evil". Ctrl+f for this very word on the page yields interesting results.
Not me! (My comment is currently just above yours). We have all been victimized by the information space which has been polluted by increasingly unhinged vitriol, itself funded by Citizens United money and amplified by novel internet platforms. It is not a coincidence that virtually all pundits are lawyers, and PR firms probably have a lot of them too. They know how to zealously advocate for a client, and have applied those skills to the public sphere. It's worse than that, because outside of a courtroom they can lie, distort, and fabricate at will for their clients, with no judge to scold them. The average human adult cannot stew in this poison for a decade and not be harmed by it. My heart goes out to all those who's egos have been inflated, who's feelings of hatred and ill-will encouraged, not because they chose it, but because it's impossible to get away from it.
Way more than anyone should be comfortable with.
Looks through thread
Tribalism and purity tests abound.
Is it tribalism to say Hitler is evil? Recognizing a universal negative isn't tribalism. The view that all things are equal and nothing matters is more so of the nihilist tribe.
Saying that Hitler is evil is not tribalism, it's the exact opposite:
1) you're judging an individual and not a group
2) you're judging him for what he did not for who he was
It's disappointing to see.
Okay, I Ctrl+F'ed for "evil" and found... nobody calling anyone else evil (actions, not people, were described as evil by one commenter--the rest were discussing ethics in the abstract, not describing anyone or any action as evil).
But let me present a possibility: what if one side really is doing evil things? If you were transported to literal Nazi Germany or the Stalinist USSR, where millions of people were being murdered by one party, would it be "tribalism" to call that party's actions evil? Or would it be an accurate description of murdering millions of people?
Obviously we aren't at the point of "murdering millions of people" in the US yet, but I suspect a lot of this "enlightened centrism" which presents both sides as somehow just equally valid viewpoints would happily go all the way to watching millions get murdered and still not be willing to call evil by its name.
> Okay, I Ctrl+F'ed for "evil" and found... nobody calling anyone else evil (actions, not people, were described as evil by one commenter--the rest were discussing ethics in the abstract, not describing anyone or any action as evil).
I was mainly referring to dialogs like the one below. Not quite abstract.
> But let me present a possibility: what if one side really is doing evil things? If you were transported to literal Nazi Germany or the Stalinist USSR, where millions of people were being murdered by one party, would it be "tribalism" to call that party's actions evil?Amazing example. If you got magically transported to the "literal Nazi Germany" you would discover that the popular opinion at the time was to call "evil" the communists and the jews. If you spend a long time calling someone "evil" you gradually stop seeing them as people. This is how later on you don't notice when they're relocated into ditches and furnaces. Inhumane treatment doesn't raise the alarm when applied to non-humans. Check for instance what this SS veteran has to say [1].
Tribalism is not whether you're allowed or not to call people evil. Tribalism is calling people evil not because they did something evil, but because they belong to the wrong group or sympathize with it.
The original post does not advocate for "enlightened centrism", furthermore centrists are as prone to tribalism as anybody else. Applying blanket judgement is a very natural thing to do because it saves a hell lot of time and energy. Why argue about all the topics, why argue about all the individuals when you can just divide people in tribes and decide who's evil at the tribe level. Everyone does it to some extent. However if you overdo it, you may indeed find yourself in Nazi Germany.
[1] https://youtu.be/G6lN_VVaqdA?t=2811
The "What [the political spectrum] Actually Is" graph shows more independent thinkers to be unintentional moderates. The chart is a claim that independence leads to moderation. I deny that. The most independently minded thinkers I know frequently drift off into extremes where most tribes dare not tread. The tribalists are so moderate in comparison that I would turn that christmas tree upside down.
this was based off Paul Graham's piece: https://www.paulgraham.com/mod.html
where individual views may hit extremes, but the average of those views will be in the middle for independent thinkers
his essay explains it better, though I do agree there should be some dots on either end and up high
Extreme views seem to scale most with education. Those highly decoupled from either tribe can be educated as well, but does seem more common with those less politically engaged. I am optimistic about the resurgence of an "abundance" agenda pushed by center-left Liberals.
> The most independently minded thinkers I know frequently drift off into extremes where most tribes dare not tread.
They've found another tribe.
>> be able to understand and empathize with the various (and often opposing) groups involved in a topic
Interestingly, I have seen Elon (DOGE) and others outside of politics (that mega-church leader) telling the public (dare I say, their followers) that one of the main problems with America is empathy, and that we need to _stop_ empathizing with others.
Interesting. From what I've seen, the lack of empathy is the root of most of the political problems in the US.
If people put the welfare of others first, for example, taxpayer funded universal healthcare wouldn't even be something that was debated, it would be implemented with as much fuss as we have over painting lane markers on streets. But Americans care less for their fellow American than most other countries out there it seems.
How would removing what little empathy that there is improve matters?
To them, removing empathy allows doing âwhat needs to be done,â like sending undesirables to a desolate work camp in a foreign country without any legal recourse.
See also: âthe sin of empathy.â https://www.reddit.com/r/SaltLakeCity/comments/1i942hf/ogden...
Peel apart the layers and at the root of it all is white male supremacy â by any means necessary.
When did discussing politics with your community become a bad thing? In fact that's the primary place you should talk politics, share new ideas and hone your views. If more people did this they wouldn't be getting radicalized by online bots.
Discussing politics was fine up until John stewart era.
His comedy is about playing an out of context short clip, make funny face, cheap insult, and laugh track.
But how that plays out in political discussions is that 1 side wont have discussions and just repeats cheap insults. Which results in Trump getting into power.
Better yet, this 1 side who cant discuss politics then constantly hides away. Leaving their viewpoint unexpressed and further losing position.
Ah, another apt time to mention one of my favorite papers, Michael Huemer's In Praise of Passivity. https://spot.colorado.edu/~huemer/papers/passivity.htm
Basically it argues the most moral thing in a democracy is to do nothing at all. You simply can never make a truly well informed decision over such a complex system, not even with several lifetimes of dedicated work towards it.
Generally speaking I don't take anyone's political opinion seriously unless they have read and have a cogent response to this paper. I'll gladly just let them yap away and think I agree with them, regardless of my actual views. It's sort of like not taking philosophers seriously unless they've considered the question of solipsism first.
"Things are hard, so don't try"?
Seems like it's just advocating for cowardice hiding behind moral grandstanding.
> It's sort of like not taking philosophers seriously unless they've considered the question of solipsism first.
Solipsism only makes sense if you completely reject the concept of objective reality. It's mostly sophistry. The lack of being able to prove that reality exists beyond your own perceptions is not sufficient to prove that it does not, nor to make that assertion. See also "Simulation Theory".
> when someone asks "who did you vote for"
I find it astonishing that anyone would ask this. The only time I've ever been asked this question has been by pollsters. In my social circle, anyway, the taboo on this question is very strong.
It's not that shocking. It makes a really good short hand question to find out where someone is politically. You could spend ten hours discussing what the perfect immigration system looks like or you could ask who they voted for and get a baseline to go off of. The question only removes nuance if you stop right after.
Thanks for reading!
Yeah it seems there is less of a taboo among my friends, despite a strong tilt in one political direction.
I suspect this is because most people assume everyone shares the same opinion in our state
Well, in my group, there's no taboo on telling people your political opinions and voting behavior, only on asking (because it's nobody else's business unless you choose to make it so). So in practice, I know the political stances of most in my social circle.
Most people in the majority, you mean?
yes, I believe so
I sometimes grin and say "it's a secret ballot" and how they react to that can be revealing.
A friend lamented in 2016 "If I vote for X I'll lose my friends. If I vote for Y I'll upset my family."
I reminded the voter of the secret ballot and the ability to just lie.
"Tell them what you think they want to hear", was my advice
https://youtu.be/DXY_8cJlGMc
I just try and imagine people having this debate in 1932 Germany.
It's a good point but the flip side is not every point in time is 1932 Germany.
How do we keep a democracy where ideas we don't agree with can still be implemented if there's a majority (assuming minority rights are protected reasonably well) while at the same time ensuring we don't end up with democracy being used as a tool to get a totalitarian regime.
For a more recent example we can look maybe at TĂźrkiye.
Preventing ideas that are still within the boundary of a democracy from being implemented is not democracy either.
The US e.g. has a Supreme Court and a constitution. Presumably as long as that court is functional and the constitution is applied then all is good?
Unfortunately I'm not familiar enough with Germany's fall into fascism and whether there was some sort of watershed moment where it was clear that something was broken and could still have been remediated.
>The US e.g. has a Supreme Court and a constitution. Presumably as long as that court is functional and the constitution is applied then all is good?
Have we got some news for you
> Unfortunately I'm not familiar enough with Germany's fall into fascism and whether there was some sort of watershed moment where it was clear that something was broken and could still have been remediated.
Fascism is an easy sell when it's immediately preceded by the Weimar Republic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weAopdKILLw
On one hand, it feels like this question is a lot more relevant than ever. It's easier to ignore politics when each side doesn't see the other as an existential threat to their way of life.
Like it would be easy not to ask someone's religion when there isn't a 35% chance they're going to say "extremist martyr".
But I don't ask this question if I don't think I know the answer already, and I only ask it with people I think I can have a conversation with.
In my friend group it's clear as day: either you voted to kill and deport other people in the friend group or you didn't. Pretty obvious the group would like to know if you're secretly interested in their demise.
If youâre sure you already know what other people think, I guess thereâs not much point in asking them their opinions? Youâre not going to listen to their answers anyway.
All you really want to know is what category to put them in.
But I guess for prioritizing the happiness of the friend group, some amount of ignorance is needed if someone in the group is ultimately going to model the world on "they kill and deport or they don't" given enough information to make that declaration, and eventually a person on the other side is encountered?
I understand that some things can be more important than just having fun though, down to personal values.
"To be ignorant" sounds like a moral failing on its face, but I feel it is increasingly becoming required in some circumstances with the explosive amount of information available to subscribe to nowadays.
Keeping selfish assholes as friends is not a priority of mine.
I'm talking more about not bringing up politics to avoid giving too much information to people who will make up their own conclusions based on those facts and aren't amenable to change. And choosing not to bring up politics for the purpose of figuring out who out of the friend group is the selfish asshole.
See, this is the problem. People donât vote for individual policies, they vote for candidates.
Not really. Some people love the candidates but I suspect a lot of us vote against the other side more than for a candidate.
correct, their vote says "I'm okay with everything this candidate says they'll do."
You can't cherry pick policies from a candidate and pretend your vote is not culpable for all the harm it inflicts.
The shamelessness with which some commenters openly display the exact aggressive tribal behavior discussed in the article should be studied.
> I think there are two main reasons, the first being the sheer intellectual difficulty of crafting an informed political view leads people to tribalism out of convenience.
What's the difference between tribalism and deferring to experts on complex subjects, e.g. climate change? I have a deep skepticism of people who think they can personally reason through any complex topic from first principles. It shows a lack of humility and self-awareness. Nobody has the time to build that kind of expertise in every domain, and there is wisdom in deferring to the hard won experience of others. But the type to think they can reason through everything seems like the type to call this "tribal politics."
People do not change opinions because someone told them to. It has to be a result of a narrative with personal experiences. Which is why FAFO is still a big thing.
Hence, any effort trying to convince friends that blue is not green it is not gonna work. Sorry.
> a congregation member asking "you believe in god, right?"
That's a very good analogy.
For some, believing in god or not doesn't matter much and they'll go to church mostly to make friends and be part of a community.
For others, being expected (or not) to believe in God is a no go, and losing friends/family holding these expectations will be a price to pay.
We all have our boundaries, and disagreements on some specific topics will be out of them. Cutting friends/family with incompatible stances is just one instance of that IMHO, be it political, religious or anything else that matters enough.
appreciate it! (and thanks for reading)
yeah the religious enforcement is what always popped into my head when I watched it unfold
Something I try to remember when discussing politics or playing Scrabble: "You can be right, or you can have friends"
Hah! One of mine:
I'd rather be right than popular, and I usually am.
great quote, I agree
On average people are incapable of holding a moral position through to the end.
- Bad parenting is bad, we should have a permit for it --> are you ready to get denied the right to try having kids?
- Thou shalt not kill --> except those really bad people I don't like!
- Stealing is bad --> except when you're "starving"
Our perception of good and evil are multifaceted, with most of it happening in our background cognition.
There is a strange "mirror" stopping people from exchanging once a rift has opened. Someone else posited that it might be a fight or flight reaction.
I posit that our cognition is based on negation, and thus the shape of our tool impact our results.
Maybe. Killing or stealing for a reason doesn't make the action morally good, just less morally bad than the outcome it was intended to prevent. I've never heard the first parenting example.
> And even with all this knowledge, can you empathize with both sides of common issues -- the poor renter vs struggling landlord? The tired worker vs underwater business owner? Rich vs poor, immigrant vs legacy, parent vs child -- the list goes on
To me having just two sides is a uniquely American way of thinking.
Between the renter and landlord there's the homeowner, between the tired worker and business owner there's the public sector/NGO/huge corporation worker/freelancer, rich and poor are relative terms which lie on a scale anyway.
Conflicts that actually have only two parties involved are rare and the very first thing one should do to be able to talk politics, is give up on the notion.
This paints a very binary picture. Either you are in or out. Part of this tribe, or this other tribe (ignorantly or not). The article seems to imply that people can't have opinions on political policies unless they are fully informed on not only global affairs but also philosophy and psychology.
I think reality is different - I don't think there are any absolutes that require "knowledge" of e.g. philosophy to get the "right" answer in politics. Instead the right answer (at least in western democracies) is what the people want, even if they are not fully informed.
I view it very much akin to trial by jury - there are highly informed and experienced judges, barristers, solicitors etc but ultimately it is down to the laymen in the jury to make a decision that they see as just. They might reach the "wrong" decision from the perspective of people who are fully informed on the legal processes and the law of the land etc, but that doesn't matter because it is the jury that makes the decision.
So it is for the electorate too.
I have no experience of voting in the US but it appears that a two-party system really stokes the "us Vs them" vibes. The only alternative you have is to totally switch sides. At least in European democracies there is often a plurality of parties to vote for. I've personally moved between the main 3 parties (and there are probably at least another 1 or 2 other minority parties that have different trajectories...) in the UK as my personal situation has changed over the years, and I think that is a very normal thing here.
Agreed, this article feels like ego stroking. Especially with language like "truth seeking". It creates this fantasy that there is this level of consciousness that we can evolve to where we achieve complete knowledge of all subjects. There is a reason we have a democracy with multiple groups and multiple departments. Because no one person has all the answers or is right. We all bring our unique experiences and expertise together to create a better whole. At least that's the idea.
I would note that trial by jury means a jury of your peers is being forced to become informed on a subject [if parties are arguing the facts of the case in good faith].
They are then rendering a judgement [in good faith].
On the facts of the case yes. But they are not expected to become experts in case law or legal precedent and history and philosophy etc.
When I have had to do jury service we have explicitly been told not to research anything about the case outside of the court room. Everything the jury bases their decisions on should only be what was discussed in the court room, and on your own lived experience.
I think there should be a new rule that any time someone writes an article bragging about how he'sâ a badass independent thinker just like Paul Graham and Eliezer Yudkowsky, he must in the same article identify his major disagreements with Paul Graham and Elizer Yudkowsky. Because to me the authors of these articles seem exactly as tribal as mainstream political and religious groups, they just care about different things. Yeah, I shouldn't be able to guess your views on sex from your views on taxes, but I also shouldn't be able to guess your views on wokeness from your views on AI safety. Yet I can make both predictions with about equal accuracy.
â I have yet to see an article like this written by a woman.
I believe in the future we will see a much more pronounced split between people who prefer reality to those who prefer un-reality.
Un-reality is the mediated, constructed "reality" that can be conjured up and perpetuated through mediums such as the Internet. It needs constant effort behind it to keep it going because it isn't tethered to actual experience. Un-reality is things like the hyper-partisan views on things that seem like they change on a whim, or extremist views on gender relations. It requires a tribalistic level of affiliation. It is something that has evolved to prize self-perpetuation (e.g. memes) over the views it claims to espouse. (This pattern of growth at all costs also occurs in other contexts, such as business.)
Reality, on the other hand, is the messy, boring, uncontrollable and unmediated thing we experience as humans. It is harder to transmit online because it isn't something that is easily swallowed, but it has a universal appeal to us as we recognize humanity in it. Reality has much bigger downs and ups than un-reality does, that's what makes us want to escape it sometimes. It also has really crappy truths and circumstances in it; there's no respawns or undo.
In some sense, this split already exists: fans of un-reality we often label as too online, implying that they prefer online life to actual life. I believe the biggest difference here lies in the preference for mediated vs unmediated interactions.
The entire problem is that both tribes think your comment applies to them.
We do not agree on what reality is
Who is "both" tribes? Why can there be only two? And why do you not think the parent is talking about both of those tribes compared to more moderate, less terminally-online people?
I think it's somewhat funny that two of the images in this blog post, the two signs, and the miner, are commonly used to mock faux intellectualism and a feeling of moral superiority.
I don't think it's a coincidence, but it also doesn't necessarily undermine their utility. In fact, I think a lot of images that are also used in a mocking context get there because they wind up being overused and over applied, in part because they're actually really good.
Another example of an illustration I like that is somewhat derided is the classic equity vs equality cartoon with the boxes[1]. I say this in spite of the fact that I generally find myself identifying more with equality as a baseline, and the simple reason is it's a good illustration of the potential pitfalls of overindexing on equality.
IMO It's all in how you use them. It's hard to avoid that useful metaphors/analogies often become overused and cliche.
[1]: https://interactioninstitute.org/illustrating-equality-vs-eq...
yeah it's just a great image for making a bet that might fail imo (the miner one)
this reply nails it imo, some images just boil things down perfectly
I think it's ok to be hypocritical and have friends with different vastly political beliefs, in the end relationships; friendships, lovers, etc are not usually an outcome of rational behavior, so I don't mind having friends who are politically different because it's the unconscious connection that brought us together.
As long as there's respect that's what matters.
Politics arenât the outcome of rational behavior either. The strongest belief systems that people have are instilled in them at a young age. Also, people can change.
Politics is more regional than any other single factor. Like religion.
You're highly unlikely to grow up Protestant in Israel just like you're highly unlikely to going to grow up with liberal views in Tennessee.
Second to geography is demographic. You're unlikely to support DEI if you're surrounded by 90% white people all the time, and you're unlikely to decry globalism after you've been exposed to large cities and dense population centers for a long time.
> you're highly unlikely to going to grow up with liberal views in Tennessee
Don't pretend like Nashville doesn't exist. It's very much rural very homogeneous areas versus more urban and diverse areas. It's much easier to label entire demographics as The Enemy and then vote to elect someone to attack The Enemy when you've literally never met The Enemy and just rely on what your news stations of choice tell you. Who The Enemy is changes. It's been women's suffrage and and civil rights. It's been "Mexicans" and Arabs and Gays and now Trans folk. But conservatives will literally always have The Enemy to rally against.
Growing up in more diverse areas means you're more likely to have met a Muslim who doesn't want to "kill or convert you" or a trans person who just wants to live a normal life in the best way they can, or a DACA recipient just trying to make a life in the only place they have ever known as home. Knowing these people builds empathy for outgroups. The key trait conservatives seem to lack. More they seem incapable of comprehending it. So "liberals" can't support "illegal immigrants" because they actually want the best outcome for people. That's a concept conservatives can't comprehend. So it must be that liberals support them for all the "illegal voting" that "illegal immigrants" are doing. Never mind that these people cannot vote. Never mind that if these people could vote, they are far more religious and far more likely to ascribe to the conservative social political agenda. It makes absolutely no sense that "liberals" support "illegal immigrants" to capture their votes. But that's a hard fact to conservatives.
Different brains having different experiences reach different conclusions.
If two people don't have some different opinions, at least one of them isn't thinking for themselves.
yeah I tried to include this via
"Itâs not that truth-seeking is a requirement for friendship, far from it."
agree (and thanks for reading)
In the country where I live, the problem is that it became much of a religious question. People feel like one candidate represents values different than mine, and that by not aligning with them, I'm not an ally. I don't have friends with such different values, but managing family has become a big problem during these times. It's very hard, for example, hearing your mother-in-law defending a change in the constitution that would forbid women to have an abortion, even when raped and at any time of pregnancy, when you have a small daughter. That person is actively trying to make the world a horrible place for my family, according to my values and honestly any sane person.
EDIT: typo.
Name-calling by commentators dehumanised the debates. I still don't understand why it is considered OK.
"They do it" should not be enough of a reason, but it affects youtube income for individuals, so let the market work, I guess? /sarcasm
A lot of the comments in this thread show how difficult it can be to talk about politics. So many strawmen arguments and ad hominims.
Cut a "rationalist centrist moderate" and a fascist who doesn't want to get cancelled because he still needs VC funding and Linkedin connections bleeds.
US politics has been increasingly polarized into positions congruent with facts and policy and our traditional ideals, and positions associated with a general stance of grievance, with an insistent selfishness, with anti-empathy, anti-intellectualism, with "palingenetic ultranationalism". This has been a test of your ideals, of your humanity. It wasn't very hard.
Yes, there is often a lot of nuanced truth in the middle of any argument. But less now, in politics, than in a long, long time. Only a very particular sort of person walks into a liberated Auschwitz and starts shouting "Both sides are too extreme and I'm better than them!" from the rooftops.
Speaking as somebody who spent a lot of time there: A lot of the tropes in the "rationalist" community are inherently conservative-pointing, and it's a general prerequisite for participating there that you have a coherent base of progressive terminal ideals and an attitude suited towards introspection and iteration of your beliefs. Because otherwise you go from zero to Nietzschean ubermensch to Nazi ubermensch to Musk/Thiel brownshirt in no time, having weaponized everything present there to support your priors and idly expand your confidence.
Excellent post.
It wasnât always like this. I remember when you could be pro-gun and pro-environmentâand still have thoughtful, respectful conversations with people who held different beliefs.
Today, if youâre not fully aligned with every talking point of a political party, youâre instantly labeled either a fascist or a communist. And sometimes it borders on absurd: the moment party leadership shifts its stance, the whole tribe flips with it. It wasnât that long ago that Republicans staunchly opposed tariffs. Now? Theyâre all in.
My question is: What changed? When did we become so tribalâand why?
From what I've seen, tribalism is core to innate human nature. It's always been there, and until human nature can be edited like a spreadsheet, it always will be.
What's changed now is how visible it's become and how much easier it is to mass organize people and split up into echo chambers that favor a specific viewpoint.
Before, people were not well organized. The internet has been a revolution in spreading views and allowing like minded people to hang out together. Turns out that's not always for the best. But there's no going back. It's only going to get worse until something happens that unites people more than it divides them.
IMO it was technology allowing more viewpoints to be expressed. First with more than 3 TV stations, then of course the internet. Before that transition, everyone was mostly part of one tribe, because mass media was mostly homogeneous. After, it was increasingly easy to find tribes that fit your exact viewpoints, and reject other sources of information
> It wasnât that long ago that Republicans staunchly opposed tariffs. Now? Theyâre all in.
Which Republicans are we talking? The old guard that held leadership positions for decades, making the decisions while most of the public weren't invested? Or the new guard that hijacked the Republican party after the population started getting invested after recent events?
Every "conservative" I know is in favor of protectionism, and tariffs are a strong manifestation of that. Don't conflate the get-what-you-get leadership, and the disenfranchised voterbase for having been the same people.
Both Regan and George H.W. Bush were anti tariffs and pro free market. I believe the change happened with Trump. Good interview about that is here [1]
[1] https://www.npr.org/2024/12/19/nx-s1-5215953/how-the-gop-wen...
And most of the conservatives I know that are actually politically-aware are critical of both. For many reasons. Bush for his wars and the Patriot Act, and Reagan for his anti-2A policies and eternal blue-ification of California.
A combination of factors:
1. Apolitical people are now political
2. News stations running more opinion pieces than actual newsvand being selective about said news
3. Seeing politics as an identity similar to a belief instead of a state of mind
Large scale divergence in the two human moralities: social morality (rules for people around us to protect the community, largely coded liberal) and personal morality (moral intuitions for how to keep you and your immediate family safe). The two have become at odds with each other so everyone feels intensely and uncompromisingly threatened by those who ascribe more to the other, leading to two groups that can no longer even 'treat with the enemy' much less collaborate on their mutual preservation. This was aided along by a whole lot of largely unchecked fearmongering because it turns out that that sells views, clicks, and ratings.
(and possibly also a general dumbification of everything due to bad education combined with lowering social standards for who is allowed to have a public voice and be take seriously; confusingly thus was one of the points of a standard of decorum, because it served as a filter on who was intelligent enough to be a thought leader.)
People were always tribal. You just call out a group to be evil. And it takes just a little bit of propaganda and people will ignore any rational arguments and start harassing a group.
Witch-hunts (last conviction in Europe was 1944), jews, communists, americans, non-americans, all sorts of religious groups, ... history is full of that.
One thing that changed recently is that nowadays propaganda is very organized and well funded. I also think there was a pretty calm period for a few decades (but only in certain regions of the planet). In the cold war period the tribes were very fixed and the evil was always far away, so locally not much happened.
Further, I mute and unfollow aggressively any family or friends that just constantly post political news/rants etc from Facebook and other social media platforms.
Nice article, the comments in here also reinforced the title.
Friendship is more of an ideal.
https://www.wilde-online.info/the-devoted-friend.html
My personal strategies... 1. I try to be indirect on what I think and just describe why some people think one opinion versus another. So I try not to convince people. 2. I try to stick to "is this going to work?" Style arguments when I do state my opinion. I acknowledge when my preferred party does or says something I disagree with. 3. I avoid getting bogged down with "do you agree with x y z??" Controversies that may be anecdotal and I'm not opinionated or familiar with. So I try not to argue the outage of the day.
This generally keeps me from arguing with relatives and in-laws, and on this site. So usually I can discuss differences without things going crazy.
One thing I definitely don't do anymore is discuss politics with any friends or family ONLINE.
It's just not worth it. Publish or tweet something if you have something to say and want to reach a lot of people. Talking to ONE person and risking your relationship has a lousy cost/benefit ratio.
How do you avoid the pain of someone expressing a particularly hurtful political opinion (i.e. entire class of ppl should die) if you don't filter relationships by political beliefs?
I generally keep people's political opinions at arms length, as some relationships are worth the pain or lack of depth. But it has caused unforseen pain at times, and hurts when relations from different spheres interact negatively.
By interacting with the positive aspects of the person and ignoring or disengaging from the political opinions I don't like. If they want to kill jews or whatever, they have the right to that opinion, doesn't bother me so long as I'm not obliged to partake. I might engage the view but if neither of us are benefitting from the conversation there is no point in continuing down that particular path.
There are opinions which should cause one to seriously consider ending their friendship. I would hope âwanting to kill Jewsâ is on pretty much everyoneâs list.
It undoubtedly is. I have to assume the GP slipped up with a really badly chosen example, since their point is otherwise pretty middle of the road.
It seems to me that the bad qualities of a person that would cause them to embrace genocide should be evident long before you get into a friendship that you would need to end.
You would think, but unfortunately the world is full of duplicitous people.
This extends to actions vs beliefs too.
F.ex. one of my most altruistic and charitable friends is a Trump supporter
She's run a Christmas time charity for 10 years, solely out of the goodness of her heart, to ensure that families in our community who are struggling get what they need for a happier holiday in tough times.
It's a non-trivial 6 months of work, between making prizes for donation-driving lotteries, attending events and promoting, and then finding the most cost-effective deals for the families.
So I choose to say "She's a better person than most I know, in some ways, and disagrees with me in others. Worth friendship."
Hmm, sounds about right. I still feel like being around people when they express such radical beliefs reflects poorly on me and hurts me in some unexplainable way.
When challenging such beliefs I find some are hyperbole or a side effect of group-think. Rarely are they genuine, but when they are it's the most worrying. And that's usually when I stop engaging that line of thought.
That sounds so bleak.
Whatâs the endgame to this approach? Seems to me, folks with genocidal thoughts and feelings would find more positive reinforcement amongst themselves and less negative reinforcement everywhere else. Not great for the âgenocide is badâ theory.
The negative reinforcement is supposed to be when they actually attempt to unlawfully kill others, a 9mm bullet goes through their head. Until then, they have the right to their opinion.
It's hard to imagine isolating them from counter points is going to mitigate their position.
I think there are ways a friend can be toxic without threatening death. This friend may encourage you to isolate from your jewish friends, or explicitly make your jewish friends feel unwelcome by saying slurs while in group settings. This friend is explicitly making you in the position where you have to isolate your own friend groups from each other to "keep the peace", i.e. you are forced to do the labor, instead of them, to handle the harm they are causing.
Like we all know a guy who we can't keep around because he keeps saying unhinged stuff, or creeps on any women, or whatever it is he does that ruins it for everyone else.
So I think it's more nuanced than just refusing to cut off heinous viewpoints. It's also how this person injects this view in your existing friend ecosystem.
yeah I sorta mention it in the footnotes, I find writing a nice medium for this because there's less gaslighting / interrupting
so I guess I agree to some degree
I enjoy debating politics in the way that others enjoy playing chess or a friendly game of bowling. But when the other party gets wrapped around the axle, I don't debate with them anymore. Unfortunately, most seem to be in the latter camp.
I can agree with parts of this article, but I believe it's missing a large part of the puzzle.
The author implicitly assumes that the constraints of our society are fixed and that it's therefore possible to determine which political systems are objectively better or worse. We should be doing that research (like astronomers trying to determine how the universe works) instead of religiously supporting ideological positions.
I fundamentally disagree with that assumption. I think we behave the way we do in large part due to the ideological principles we were raised with. This can be confirmed by observing various closed-off societies sometimes operating on principles that seem completely bonkers to most of us.
If you teach people capitalism/socialism, you build a capitalistic/socialistic system. It's impossible to live inside that system and objectively determine whether it's good or bad, let alone better or worse than other systems.
So in that context, I believe following an ideology is _not_ the opposite of thinking for yourself, as the author puts it. It is a conscious decision based on morality. You decide what your values are and you find a political option that aligns with them.
To be clear, that's still a very imperfect decision to make, many things can go wrong from that point on and I believe this is where the author is correct in many ways. We should reason about it constantly to make sure we're actually doing what we want to be doing and not just blindly repeating things.
That seems overly reductive.
> It's impossible to live inside that system and objectively determine whether it's good or bad, let alone better or worse than other systems.
I mean, if someone says "Let's pollute the rivers!" and another person says "Let's not pollute the rivers!", that's a pretty clear cut objectively good and bad position. Or "Let's put people in prison if they jaywalk.", etc.
That's not to say there are no positions that have a clear cut good or bad outcome that can be measured beforehand. For example, putting a tax on sugary drinks. Maybe it will work, maybe it won't, but you have no way of being sure beforehand, because you can't A/B test reality and the complexity of the system is such that you can't accurately predict human behavior at a large scale.
But the existence of positions that don't have a clear answer that can be determined ahead of time doesn't mean there's no objective way to determine whether it's good or bad, just that we don't have the tooling to do so at this point in time.
Why I don't discuss politics with Hacker News (6,000 comments)
I agree that "tribalism" exists. I'd add that sometimes political disagreements are actually differences in morality. And there is no way you can persuade someone to change their moral beliefs. Everyone accepts their moral beliefs as "axioms". But I still believe it's worth discussing politics in order to learn what kind of person someone is and their morality.
"Unbiased" aggregators like Ground News, MSM, and the right blogosphere like Joe Rogan are doing their best to normalize dragging the Overton window to the right with haste. Progressives have a handful of obscure, disconnected, largely-unknown reputable sources with a wasteland of as many or more former progressives and once-promising journalist and journalist-adjacent personalities.
Wrote this after noticing myself repeating the same conversational pattern over the years w/ friends, across the political spectrum
I've noticed this too, on average people are incapable of holding a moral position through to the end.
- Bad parenting is bad, we should have a permit for it --> are you ready to get denied the right to try having kids?
- Thou shalt not kill --> except those really bad people I don't like!
- Stealing is bad --> except when you're "starving"
Our perception of good and evil are multifaceted, with most of it happening in our background cognition.
There is a strange "mirror" stopping people from exchanging once a rift has opened. Someone else posited that it might be a fight or flight reaction.
I posit that our cognition is based on negation, and thus the shape of our tool impact our results.
Online or in person?
mostly in-person actually
I donât discuss politics with anyone anymore. Just wish I had made that decision 30 years agoâŚ
To have an informed view on any given issue, one needs to:
1. understand economics, game theory, philosophy, sales, business, military strategy, geopolitics, sociology, history, and more
2. be able to understand and empathize with the various (and often opposing) groups involved in a topic
3. detect and ignore their own bias
1) is a lot of work. Just finding out what's going on is hard. Partly because news-gathering organizations are far more thinly staffed than they used to be. There aren't enough reporters out there digging, which is hard work. There are too many pundits and influencers blithering. Read the output of some news outlet, cross out "opinion" items and stories based on press releases or press conferences, and there's not much left. The Economist, the Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, the New York Times, and Reuters still have people who dig for facts. Beyond that, reporters are thin on the ground. If you can only read one thing, read the Economist for a year. Each week they cover some country in detail, and over a year, most of the world gets a close look. (Although at the moment, their China coverage is weak, because their reporters were kicked out of China for doing too much digging.)
Background is necessary. Many pundits seem to lack much of a sense of history. Currently, understanding the runups to WWI and WWII is very useful. Understand what Putin is talking about when he references Catherine the Great and Peter the Great. Geography matters. Look at Ukraine in Google Earth and see that most of the current fighting is over flat farmland and small towns, much like Iowa. Look at Taiwan and realize how narrow and exposed an island it is. There's no room to retreat after an invasion, unlike Ukraine.
As for empathy, there's a huge split in America between the areas above and below 700 people per square mile. Above 1,500 per square mile, almost always blue. Below 400 per square mile, almost always red.[1] This effect dwarfs race, religion, ideology, or income level. It's very striking and not well recognized in public discourse. There's a minimum viable population density below which small towns stop working as self-supporting entities. (On the ground, this shows up as empty storefronts on Main Street and a closed high school.)
On bias, there are many people in the US whose lot has been slowly getting worse for decades now. That's the underlying source of most US political problems.
[1] https://www.cookpolitical.com/analysis/national/national-pol...
I was really enjoying the article until I realized there is zero attribution to the book _Thinking in Bets_, which IMO this is obviously heavily influenced by.
But there IS this?
> [13] Not a reference to the book, which I havenât read â this is just a phrase I use
Seems to me an unwillingness to cite / give proper attribution to Annie Duke and the book, which is super weird? At any rate Iâd highly recommend the book.
The author specifically said he didn't ready the book.
I think the bigger problem is the tribal ape brains have been programmed by history's most sophisticated propaganda engines 24/7.
Author thinks they are the lone person stuck in the middle between two tribes, but actually they are part of a third tribe that fallaciously believes that it is possible to write better policy, if only we took the time to study reality more and listen to more people and apply more reason etc. In short, Author distinguishes between the two established tribes (in which people make a very limited emotional engagement with the issues) and their tribe (in which people make a stronger emotional engagement). This is a fallacy because:
People will seek out good leadership. People will switch leaders when their current leadership fails to make them happy. Good leaders defer to experts, each in their own domain, who may make imperfect decisions and other mistakes but nonetheless make well-intentioned efforts to improve over time and pass on their knowledge so that future generations can learn from their mistakes. All else is natural variance due to human imperfection.You should not discuss politics with friends.
You should however discuss politics with close friends -- they probably got close to you because you both share a worldview or they like hearing your worldview (even if it differs from yours).
Closeness means more sharing. That always comes with risks and rewards.
Tribalism really is the thing one has to individually overcome in order to gain some perspective, then maybe adhere to free thinking, before blooming as a free doer.
For me, it always was a voluntarily long and sinuous and silly and lonely path. It had to be.
An uncertain path as well, and one that was totally worth all the trouble it brought my way.
And as seducing as it is, the reality of crossing path with fellow free thinking/doing individuals always felt like falling for some other tribe.
Because in the end, that's what we do. While not following, we often become leaders of followers. How could it be otherwise is the only question left to answer.
This article seems to be saying that religions are tribal by nature because it's made up of humans, and humans are tribal by nature -- ok fair enough. But the subtext I'm getting is that people in religions are less self-aware of it than the author or the people they admire.
People being more interested in comfortable beliefs rather than true beliefs has always been a concern throughout Biblical history. But that doesn't mean it never went unchallenged.
For instance, regardless of what you think of the Bible, it's interesting that Isaiah has the following to say to Judah (emphasis mine) because it shows an ever-present problem with human nature.
And before someone responds with a de jure objection to say that "the instruction of the Lord" is not looking for truth, I just want to make it clear that that is out of the scope of my point. My point is that, de facto, in the context, a religious text is agreeing that it is bad to "tribe-up and truth-out."Lastly, on a personal note, as a human Christian, I think I have the same biases to groupthink as any other person because I am human. But because Christianity has a reputation, I have found that throughout my life, I've had to work harder to really test (not validate) my beliefs because I am constantly being challenged and, ironically, often ended up more informed about both my beliefs and my interlocutors' beliefs.
Actually I think people in traditional organized religions like Christianity are on the whole more self-aware than secular people who fall into the same religious behavior in random topics, because they acknowledge the "faith" component.
Sort of summarized by the sentence here:
"If someone is self-aware enough to consciously acknowledge their choice to remain in the bubble, thatâs totally fair. I respect it like Iâd respect anyone who chooses to participate in a more traditional religion. My issue is when this view is falsely passed off as an intellectually-driven one."
politics (and the truth itself) have always been tribal. People discussed things and disagreed in public and that's how they managed to slightly influence each other.
Avoiding to discuss politics is cowardly. It distances people from each other because they maintain a fake facade, and they express their true selves and beliefs only online.
I actually encourage discussion in the essay, as long as people are well-intentioned or until you hit a point of dogma
But if anyone is closed to the idea of an idea being wrong, no discussion can really be had
I think the groupthink and independent thought axes need to be flipped. Way more toeing the party line and groupthink near the center. The more fringe you get the more independent thought there is. It might be crazy and wrong but it's not groupthink.
I guess the dots should be described as "average of all views"
PG explains it better here: https://www.paulgraham.com/mod.html
One thing I didn't see mentioned, and maybe this is part of being tribal, but politics is often not about the positions you take, but about the game theory of how you stay in power, and convince a group of people about the positions you take.
One thing I hate about the trump administration, and maybe all politics is fundamentally like this, is you can't really disagree with them. You can't really disagree with them because it's really hard to figure out what position they're taking. I find it makes discussing things with family really difficult. I can intellectually agree that "A nation should protect it's borders" and have a nuanced perspective on how much immigration is the right amount, but then I'm never going to square that with what the politicians are actually doing, right? We can't have a nuanced conversation with what the right immigration policy is, when the administration is deporting people without due process, or when the current administration says the problem with immigration is that Joe Biden let judges run wild in 2019.
I personally think this is the right approach, where you can assign probabilities to the unknowns (the "thinking in bets" section)
Because then the discussions/research switch toward data and evidence, with the results downstream of those
Overall when people can agree "I understand stance 1 if the data says X, or stance 2 if the data says Y", and then all the energy goes into the data analysis, I consider that a successful conversation
Author says SF Bay Area is truth seeking, but that's far from truth.
More like, it's truth seeking within its echo chamber.
Adherence to tribal views is how you end up with the space shuttle Columbia crash.
I have friends all over the political spectrum. I've read political philosophy ranging from Hegel, Marx, Foucault, Butler, Crenshaw, Gentile, Locke, Rawls, Friedman, Mises, Rand, ect.. I find myself actively engaging in political discussion frequently with these friends. The only friend I've stopped talking over politics were black block during the antifa riots. I viewed his actions as ultimately misguided and dangerous. I ultimately forgave him and now we are friends who actively debate policy in good faith.
It's easy to spot political tribalism - just reference the comments here. They ultimately misrepresent, and have never tried to understand, their opposition's political position. It's kind of sad because it allows them to be manipulated by propaganda and political powers much like my antifa friend.
> It's easy to spot political tribalism - just reference the comments here. They ultimately misrepresent, and have never tried to understand, their opposition's political position.
Can you explain the Trump administration's political aims this term? Because this sounds very much like both sides are the same, and I'm not seeing that at all with what Trump and Elon are trying to accomplish.
We often reach for black and white thinking which makes political discussions difficult. Both sides do it, and it stunts our empathy for why people vote the way they do.
Empathy for why people vote the way they do has to be balanced with empathy for those harmed by horrible voting decisions.
There are horrible consequences and people are suffering, totally. So then what? How do we get others to understand the impacts and start to change their mind?
The article is titled Why I don't discuss politics with friends but it doesn't explain the why? Unless I missed it. It seems to just talk about the challenges.
Why don't you discuss politics with friends? Are you worried about loss of friends? Do the conversations ruin your day? Do you feel alienated?
Depending on the why, there's different points I'd argue for or against the reasoning. Without that piece, it's kind of hard to discuss the premise of the article without just guessing its implications.
This sentence was intended as that answer, but I guess it wasn't clear enough:
"And this is fundamentally why I don't discuss politics with friends.
It's not that I don't want or am scared of opposing views (in fact the opposite is true[8]), but rather because of how common othersâ desire to "remain in the bubble" is."
I actually am willing to risk alienation to find people that enjoy this sort of discussion-based discovery as much as I do, but found most people I encounter don't actually want that -- so I try and respect what seems to be the average opinion.
> Most people don't want to graduate from tribalism.
Even if you personally want to, others will still judge you based on it. And honestly, there's often enough people out there for you to pick a social circle that aligns with your own interests at least on fundamental issues.
As for the people that you don't choose to be around, e.g. at work, probably read the room first.
I actively practice not discussing politics but intentionally being member of groups of different political affiliation.
I can only encourage everybody to do the same.
People usually know if you are a âfilthy liberalâ or a âcloset fascistâ anyways and my experience shows that just knowing you will draw them away from the political extremes.
> Bay Area ⌠finding a community of truth-seeking people
I donât know if I would entirely classify the Bay Area as truth seeking people. Itâs eclectic but it definitely felt just as polarizing as living in other parts of the country, but perhaps itâs better defined as moving to live with more like minded people.
This is "both-sides-ism" of the worst sort. It's exactly the sort of navel-gazey pablum that gives technical people a bad name.
The author doesn't recognize that it's not "politics" today. Politics is disagreeing on how to fund road improvements. When one party wants to dismantle the state, remove protections for marginalized groups, disavow alliances, engage in absurd imperialism, and flagrantly disregard the rule of law, we're not talking about mere "politics" anymore.
This is "both-sides-ism" of the worst sort. And it gives one the impression that the author is fine being friends with people who hole absolutely horrible beliefs, as long as he doesn't have to know about them.
I lived in China in the early-2000s, and one of the things I noticed is that no one ever talked about any sort of politics. Never. It was weird at first, as political discussion is so ingrained in the culture (in the US). Even just regular smalltalk, like, "How's it going, Bob? / It'd be a lot better if the city council would pull their heads out of their asses and fix these potholes!" - there was nothing like that.
I asked a few local friends about it, and got two basic explanations:
1. What's the point? No one is empowered to change anything, so why bother talking about it at all?
2. You can get in big trouble for saying the wrong thing in public.
The weirder thing I noticed is that I kinda enjoyed it. It was nice to not hear a bunch of bitching about the government (not saying the government shouldn't be criticized - it should; just saying it was nice to be completely removed from it for a time).
Not sure if it's still like this in China; I haven't been there in years, but yeah, this was really strange to me when I lived there.
I do think that a scary thing is that if there's a descent into fascism, how many people will hardly notice, or maybe even enjoy it. There was a quote I heard on this American life recently, that went:
"Life under autocracy can be terrifying, as it already is in the United States for immigrants and trans people. But those of us with experience can tell you that most of the time, for most people, it's not frightening. It is stultifying. It's boring. It feels like trying to see and breathe under water â because you are submerged in bad ideas, being discussed badly, being reflected in bad journalism and, eventually, in bad literature and bad movies."
I have been in countries like that and I've found they were quite open to talking to me about it, since I was obviously a foreigner much less likely to snitch on them than even their family or friends. Buy a beer for someone in a dictatorial country and I pretty much guarantee you they will open up in private.
I actually ask my friends what they think and don't judge them for it. Everyone has some way to build up their belief and it's interesting to listen to these.
They often have horrible reasoning but I don't try to talk them out of it, just nod, polite comment, move on.
A good discussion. I've personally thought of political adherence similar to football teams. Fans are fans. That's it.
Escaping that tribalism or fandom is important, but you need to hold fast to your own sense of morality along the way.
Applying your own sense of right/wrong to political arguments and policies is a useful way to cut through the noise and distraction that accompanies political discourse.
im a nuance enjoyer when it comes to politics too but i wouldnt say i know adequate amounts about economics, politics, game theory, etc. i might know slightly more about my preferred fields than the average person, but im still woefully incompetent. so im always hesitant to lay judgement. especially because politics is such a complex system. its difficult to make the probabilities the author speaks of unless you make a bunch of assumptions. which is terrible and miserable. things get even worse when you think about things at a global vs local political level, which are just completely different in dynamics.
i hate rationalists because it's like. you cant logically reason your way out of this one buddy. the system is far too complex for rationalism to work. sometimes its easier to just align with the groupthink and focus on other things you deem more important. hanging out with friends vs spending all day in your room teaching yourself about tribal relations in central africa so you can have your own unique opinions on us foreign policy.
I feel like "tribal relations in central Africa" is a defeatist exaggeration of the requisite nuance necessary to engage meaningfully with socioeconomic power dynamics in one's own society. It's an extremist viewpoint, and unworthy of a "nuance enjoyer."
Remember the Pareto Principle! The principal aspect of Central African Politics is probably, still, colonialism/imperialism and the game of Hungry, Hungry Hippos played between US/Russia/China.
Do you really need to grok the unique reactions to neo-colonialism in every affected African, South American, and Asian country to form a principled, independent outlook?
I had quick scan of the comments but I didn't see anybody else make the point, so here is my 2c.
I believe the problem is the two party systems and how our government is set up, people vote for one tribe or the other. There is no _value_ to being educated on individual issues because ultimately you simply have to choose between 2 people who are affiliated with a party.
How awesome would it be if individuals could vote on specific issues, perhaps only after proving they have a working knowledge of the subject matter.
Completely agree and it is an oversimplification when you graph people on even a 2-dimensional axis.
In reality we all have beliefs that are formed by our "in groups". People have groups beliefs formed from their religion, work, hobbies, study, and internet consumption. These all form our views and then get flattened to a 2-party system.
Unfortunately people can now form their identity solely on a political identity primarily due to social media.
agreed, this would be ideal if maybe practically impossible
I think you're right, it is harder to discuss politics as widely as we once did.
That said, what do you think of money changing what is left/right and group/individual? The outcome of Citizens United to allow obscured spending to create seeming grass roots efforts on any topic that the monied want very effectively moving opinions.
Does the author really believe anyone can transcend tribalism?
Telling people they don't have political views, that they only belong to a tribe, is a great way to lose friends.
No compromise with fascism!
Itâs super sad that the political establishment has managed to polarize people so much that a rational discussion about very important issues is not possible anymore for a lot of people. Itâs a dream come true for unscrupulous politicians and oligarchs who can do whatever they want as long their propaganda is strong enough.
I think its a side-effect of depoliticization by neoliberal reform from the 80s onward in the western liberal democracies. Everything has already been privatized and financialized, technocratic decision making has taken over. People are increasingly hurt by this system, but there is no political conceptualization of where that hurt is coming from. So people are galvanized into impotent political camps where they can hysterically scream about gay people, abortion, immigrants, guns or whatever.
I would be very curious to know what people here even consider "rational debate", probably a bunch of centrist takes on gay people, abortion, immigrants, guns or whatever would be my guess.
Most people are afraid of words, not a great start for discussion :p
And then there are forbidden words, words that make you lose your job, or your freedom...
Maybe tribalism is ok in some respects, and maybe we should increase it.
For example, it would be fine if the people in the other tribe to do what they want - as long as when the taxes becomes too high, the beaurocracy stifling, the crime rampant, and they have to deal with issues they assumed other people would sacrifice for in order for them to feel good - as long as when it inevitably breaks down, they don't come to MY area learning nothing and try to replicate what they left.
That is a worldwide problem actually.
I'm looking forward to going back to the days when political disagreements were more along the lines of 'I think __TAX__ should be x%, rather than x+y%'
I'll never forget calling Yang a tool in a group of math nerds back around 2019. Instantly outgrouped. I don't think this alone caused our friendship to crumble, but the fact that we couldn't discuss actual policy makes me tend to agree with this post.
I'm not even sure what politics is anymore. I'm largely not on social media, so I am generally late to what's taboo or a hot button topic, like Tesla automobiles and SpaceX, or anything else connected to a billionaire.
In 2025, but before the Tesla burnings made the news, I was having some chitchat about possibly purchasing a Tesla as my next car, at which point, I got a tirade of anger mentioning words like "Nazi", "fascism" and so on. I was completely taken aback.
I realize we Americans are probably undergoing the results of some adversarial nation-state psychological operations[1], but we really need to chill out.
1. Coincidentally, most of my social media "usage" is identifying sock puppet accounts and their adversarial psyops campaigns.
Welcome to the Bay Area!
The big issue is a lot of people will believe what they want to believe. Most folks are not scientists - they start by assuming their conclusions and will choose the soothing moral and emotional rhetoric over evidence.
Trying to see the world objectively puts you in a category of outliers. The people you become friends with due to proximity in everyday life will not be outliers.
Most people are unaware of how small that outlier group is.
Like there's an even bigger group of people who think they're scientific and unbiased and impartial but they actually aren't. That group is more likely the group you and I are in.
The group of actual objective people is so small that you may never meet a single person like this in your lifetime. That person may even be autistic.
Part of being scientific is realising that you can't be completely unbiased and impartial, but you can be thorough, systematic, rigorous and informed by evidence rather than soundbites.
Some questions don't have definite answers, it's the sophistication of the analysis that counts.
nailed it (and ty for the welcome!)
I feel pretty much the same, except the political situation here (central Europe) is pretty mild. I can't imagine being in the US right now.
For what it's worth, the situation in the US right now is largely fine. It's hard to appreciate what the reality on the ground is like if all one sees is the media (which stirs up trouble because that makes them money) or terminally online Doom posters (a lot of the commenters on any social media site). But for the average person, life is going on as normal. Some people like things the administration is doing and some dislike them, but most people don't feel the need to make it the central feature of their lives.
In my experience the (now ancient) Sequences are not of much use in learning how to change your mind. With only a cursory background in psychology, his advice tends to consist of generic platitudes. Not much practical application.
Iâd recommend a short course in mindfulness instead, at whatever point in the spectrum between science and mysticism youâre comfortable with.
Is this an American thing? No one has ever in my life asked me "Who did you vote for?"
I have had plenty of people behave in a way that made it clear they assumed I agreed with them on political matters/issues that would have us voting the same way (sometimes correctly, sometimes incorrectly) but I have never been asked this question. Is it common or is it a contrivance in service of the article?
My experience may not be representative, but I think it's very uncommon to outright ask "who did you vote for" in the US. It's more common (although many people still find it impolite or inappropriate in many situations) for someone to bring up an issue that is important to them and that strongly suggests a preference for one of our two viable political parties.
The only scenario where I believe people might directly ask "Who did you vote for?" is screening for dating. I don't know exactly how common it is, but I've heard multiple anecdotes about that being asked on dating apps or first dates, because they're not interested in dating someone who voted for Trump.
Prior to Trump it wasn't really a thing, because both parties were still following the law and maintaining a functioning democracy, so people could date across party lines and just agree-to-disagree about taxes or whatever.
I strongly disagree with most of this post.
Politics dictates so much of daily life, at every level, that it's important to be able to have conversations about it. It's frankly self-righteous to see yourself as the one person with nuanced opinions in a crowd of simpletons, and while I do think that politics in many liberal democracies has become more polarized, you'll never restore nuanced debate or good-faith disagreement in political discussions by just avoiding the topic.
I'm not advocating for politics being the only thing you talk about with your friends, but if you and your friends are able to have useful discussions about the impact of some policies over others, can have constructive disagreements over reasonable political discourse, and can identify larger problematic trends in politics, a lot of good can come of that.
> Politics dictates so much of daily life, at every level,
Thatâs weird because you can live life of total ignorance of whatâs happening in the news. Lobbying and marketing make you think things are important that arenât.
You can drive a car blindfolded, too, in ignorance of the wall you're driving into; that doesn't mean it's a good idea.
A marginal understanding of what's happening in the world around you helps you navigate it better.
> Thatâs weird because you can live life of total ignorance of whatâs happening in the news.
Being unaware of politics, just like being unaware of biology or physics, doesn't reduce or disprove the degree to which it impacts your life, it just recuces your understanding.
Only if you believe PR and material published by NGOs is equivalent to political understanding.
Itâs a nice thought. But itâs kind of like thinking you will become an athlete by watching ESPN talk shows. Or maybe even hoping to learn about physics by watching the Big Bang theory. You might pick up some new words, but Itâs two levels removed from the real thing.
Of course, but I think people tend to overestimate the amount politics, especially federal politics actually impact their lives.
Spending hours a day worrying and reading about cancer risk and fatalities increases your understanding, but it certainly isn't healthy or proportional.
Ideally, one should select friends that are respectful of other's opinions. Certainly, one shouldn't keep someone close who isn't.
But with family and acquaintances, it's not worth getting into. Except when someone isn't being respectful. Then I will certainly speak up and ask why they aren't respecting someone's right to think for themselves.
I don't have a problem with my dad's view that taxes should be low or that we should be responsible with the environment. I don't have a problem with his view that over-regulation is a danger. I don't have a problem with my dad's opinion that capitalism is great, even with my disagreement.
I have a problem with the fact that my dad votes for people who do not do those things, and then gets upset when people point that out to him.
He told me that "I think people just need to have more patience with each other and accept our differences" as a moral to a story he told about being a manager to trans and non-binary folks. IMO it's 100% the right take, and he holds no negative feelings for any trans people or nonbinary people.
Then he votes for the anti-trans candidate.
How do you square that circle?
The reality is that I know my dad's voting history (we have talked about politics) and my dad is not an idealist or a pragmatist or conservative or liberal.
My dad is a populist.
> Then he votes for the anti-trans candidate.
> How do you square that circle?
I don't know your dad, maybe he doesn't see that candidate as "anti-trans"?
If you think that some group has unfair benefits you can vouch for stripping those benefits without seeing yourself as "anti". Your drive is not hatred but fairness. You can be misguided but that's a different question.
If you think church must pay taxes, it doesn't make you anti-church. If you want to reduce police funding it doesn't make you anti-police. If you want stricter control of guns that doesn't make you anti-guns.
The whole "anti" split is indeed a sing of the tribalism which in US takes a binary form. You're either with us or against us.
Doesn't a lot of it come down to having to choose between only two parties?
It's unlikely that most people will agree with all the positions of a party, so they choose the one who most closely aligns with their highest priority issues.
Perhaps trans policy is just a lower priority issue for your dad. His voting may be illogical based on your priorities, but may be the rational choice based on his ranking of issues.
I don't think I ever make the only-nuanced-opinion claim, the claim I'm making here is many people don't want to have useful discussions, they just want to proselytize
I actually say there are reasons to persevere and encourage debate if it's not just trying to "win":
"However, one reason to persevere is to find the 1% of people that also want to see the world as it is. Aka, finding your own community of anti-tribalists."
"Few things give me greater joy than a discovery-ridden conversation with smart friends, and this is only enhanced if I learn something I previously believed to be true is actually wrong. Seriously, come prove some core belief I have as wrong and you will quite literally make my week."