you know how progressives reading that first sentence will react.
Do I? First, I doubt that projecting their emotional reaction was foremost in my mind.
And no, this is not all Progressives, all the time. Context of my comments—Progressives have a greater Ugh field for Libertarians than Libertarians for Progressives. Which I think is true, and I think shows up as them displaying more of the behavior in my generalization than LIbertarians.
You basically describe them as heartless.
No. Plenty of heart. But a human heart has more emotional range than Barney’s.
Why load your mental model of progressive policies with negative emotional valence?
Because I have values. The negative emotional valence comes as a by product of those values when confronted with things that contradict those values.
HPMOR:
Star Wars was the only universe in which the answer actually was that you were supposed to cut yourself
off completely from negative emotions, and something about Yoda had always made Harry hate the little green moron.
Yet another moment where I cheered Harry.
And in this case, the emotional valence was particularly relevant to my point: it’s not just that you don’t have to hate people with ideas you disagree with, but you don’t have to hate people whose ideas you hate. And, you don’t have to hate them if they hate your ideas either.
Your suggestion seems the be that the latter is too much to hope for.
but words have connotations and imagery.
Yes, and in this case they’re relevant to the point.
Do I? First, I doubt that projecting their emotional reaction was foremost in my mind.
Seems like it should have been somewhere in your mind. I mean, I guess if you were just complaining to other Libertarians it’s fine, but it seems like the productive audience for your comment would be progressives.
And no, this is not all Progressives, all the time. Context of my comments—Progressives have a greater Ugh field for Libertarians than Libertarians for Progressives. Which I think is true, and I think shows up as them displaying more of the behavior in my generalization than LIbertarians.
Don’t disagree.
Because I have values. The negative emotional valence comes as a by product of those values when confronted with things that contradict those values.
I have values too. They result in negative emotional valence for bad things happening to people. And inevitably they leak over a bit into the policies and people I think cause those bad things. But I do my best to hold the tides back and keep my values judgments out of my policy analysis. That way I can change my mind on policy if I hear new arguments or learn new information. I don’t think that’s the same as Yoda’s poor advice.
it’s not just that you don’t have to hate people with ideas you disagree with, but you don’t have to hate people whose ideas you hate. And, you don’t have to hate them if they hate your ideas either. Your suggestion seems the be that the latter is too much to hope for.
I have no idea if it is too much to hope for or not. How is it going so far? It would be great if political discourse lived up to your ideals—but why not make it easier for everyone?
But I do my best to hold the tides back and keep my values judgments out of my policy analysis.
Analysis disconnected from values sounds rather pointless to me. Particularly in politics. The first step in good faith negotiation is a communication of values. If I don’t clearly communicate my values, how is a Progressive supposed to come up with an argument to satisfy them?
It would be great if political discourse lived up to your ideals—but why not make it easier for everyone?
I’m trying. The goal isn’t yet another pointless political discussion, or talk for talk’s sake.
If they don’t know my values, the discussion will be unproductive. If knowing my values means they can’t have a productive conversation with me, then we won’t be having a productive conversation. End of story. The only people I might have a productive conversation with are people who can talk to the enemy.
Further, having to self censor information flow does not make the conversation easier for me. In fact, it doesn’t make it easier on anyone. It’s a cost, an impediment, a friction in the exchange in information. This is where I disagree with Crocker. Why should I have to pay that cost, if I’m not requiring it in others? Two people playing by Crocker’s rules can get things done.
On a more personal note, I find people who require their tender feelings to be stroked and soothed 24⁄7 tiresome. If soothing their feelings requires me not being honest about mine, I find it even more tiresome. No doubt they find me tiresome too. Fine. I’m not an appropriate playmate for those people. And they aren’t for me. I can live with that.
Also, I find the culture of offensitivity highly manipulative. Hurt feelings become a trump card to stifle expression of opinion. It’s the new blasphemy. I’m not interested in playing that card, particularly in a political discussion on the web, and see no compelling reason to consent to having it played on me.
I’ve had this discussion before on LW. It’s admittedly a trade off, and one that varies by personality.
But in the case of radically opposed political views, demanding that one side refuse to fully communicate their position strikes me as a non starter. Saying that I “disagree” really isn’t communicating. I find the proposed system grotesque, and the moral foundations an abomination. IMO, one of the problems with those on my side of the argument is that they don’t question the moral premises of Progressivism. Another problem is that Progressives do their best not to hear them. One of the immunizing strategies of the majority is refusing to talk to the Devil.
Saying that I “disagree” really isn’t communicating. I find the proposed system grotesque, and the moral foundations an abomination.
Can you unpack “grotesque” and “abomination”? When people use words like that I mostly understand them to be conveying disagreement, along with the desire to rile people up in unproductive ways, but I understand you here to be claiming to have different goals than that. I’m not sure what they are.
Disagree really isn’t right at all. I disagree that 2+2=5. Progressivism is a set of values and programs to implement those values that runs counter to my values. Strongly counter to my values. I’m not disagreeing, I’m disvaluing.
For my own part, I have no difficulty talking about people disagreeing over values, but I’m content to talk about people having values that run counter to each other’s values instead, if you prefer that.
So… when you call a system “grotesque” or a moral foundation an “abomination,” you’re conveying that your values run strongly counter to it? Did I understand that right?
Well, I’m not Spock tallying up a spreadsheet of values, so another part of what I’m communicating is my emotional reaction, and the intensity thereof. And indeed, that my reaction is a moral reaction, with some of the associated multi-ordinal punishing and disapproval characteristic of moral reactions. Though in this case, not punishing as much as a withdrawal of goodwill and a will to protect when they get screwed by the systems they advocate.
Grotesque and abomination also connote the twisted evil of the systems. One example. The poor who are supposedly so cared for are systematically punished if they take actions to improve their situation. Get a job, and face effective marginal tax rates, counting government benefits, often in excess of 100%. Find a partner to share the burdens of life, and likewise lose benefits.
Not just harmful, but a perverse and twisted harm, punishing someone for trying to do the right thing and improve their lot in life. When the “unintended consequences” of the system look similar to what a sadist would do who was trying to cripple people, I think “grotesque” and “abomination” applies.
So “grotesque” and “abomination” are meant to convey that the other side is not only incorrect, but also to express your moral judgment of the other side’s position as twisted, evil, and perverse, and also to express your withdrawal of goodwill from the individuals who hold that position, and your reduced willingness to protect them from certain kinds of harm (specifically, from harmful consequences of that position).
The same issue as “disagree”. 2+2=5 is incorrect. I’m not saying that their position is incorrect. Clippy isn’t “incorrect” either.
your withdrawal of goodwill from the individuals...
Both the loss of goodwill and willingness to protect are contextual on the same types of situation, while I read what you wrote as making the loss of goodwill general.
Analysis disconnected from values sounds rather pointless to me.
Analysis that is connected to values doesn’t have to mean embedding the values in the analysis. Pick a policy. Talk, in neutral terms, about what you think it will do. Then express how you feel about those impacts. Then the progressive you’re talking with can say “oh, I don’t care about that impact at all” or “I certainly care about that impact but disagree that the policy does it.” You can’t have conversations about terminal values. You can have them about policies which is why you have to take terminal values out of your conversations about policies.
If I don’t clearly communicate my values, how is a Progressive supposed to come up with an argument to satisfy them?
Right, so clearly express those values. But don’t attach the values to progressive policies. If it is the policies themselves that you loathe, how is a progressive supposed to argue for them?
Further, having to self censor information flow does not make the conversation easier for me. In fact, it doesn’t make it easier on anyone. It’s a cost, an impediment, a friction in the exchange in information.
I think this is probably wrong for (most) humans. We’re immediately distracted by status signals and emotions. Once the conversation is about that that is all it’s about.
Why should I have to pay that cost, if I’m not requiring it in others? Two people playing by Crocker’s rules can get things done.
Most people can’t play by Crocker’s rules. I’m not even sure the people who say they play by Crocker’s rules do all that well.
I’ve had this discussion before on LW. It’s admittedly a trade off, and one that varies by personality.
Fair enough.
But in the case of radically opposed political views, demanding that one side refuse to fully communicate their position strikes me as a non starter.
To be clear: if you had said “I loathe libertarian policies” I would have made the same objection. Both sides ought to lower the stakes.
IMO, one of the problems with those on my side of the argument is that they don’t question the moral premises of Progressivism. Another problem is that Progressives do their best not to hear them. One of the immunizing strategies of the majority is refusing to talk to the Devil.
This is interesting and I would be interested in hearing you expand on them. Part of why your language seems unnecessary to me is that I’m somewhere between a libertarian and a Progressive and I don’t see any differences in values so much as I see Progressives not understanding how incentives work.
You can’t have conversations about terminal values.
Sure you can. You can explain yours to the other guy, and likely discover something about them yourself in the process.
I agree about the possibility of discussing the likely outcomes of a policy divorced from the valuation of the policy. But the valuation provides both the motivation for the discussion and the punchline to it.
If it is the policies themselves that you loathe, how is a progressive supposed to argue for them?
He argues by showing me how I am mistaken or not fully aware of things entailed by the policy that I would value positively.
Once the conversation is about that that is all it’s about.
I suppose for some people. But since I think the valuations are an important part of the conversation, if those people can’t do valuations and objective analysis, they won’t be very fruitful partners in the discussion.
Both sides ought to lower the stakes.
Nope. Both sides should be as clear as they can about what the stakes are. I think that’s what’s missing. Here are my values. Here’s why I loathe your policies. Once put on the table, I think there is some hope of setting aside for moments and doing the objective analysis. But until honestly confronted, I’d expect the “objective” discussion to be polluted by both attempts to insert them, and interpretations on the look out for them.
I don’t see any differences in values
There aren’t, necessarily. But I think statistically, there are.
I see Progressives not understanding how incentives work.
I don’t think they care to understand. It’s not rocket science. They are motivated by something other than achieving outcomes. Some people want to do something. Some people want to be something. I think they tend toward the latter.
Do I? First, I doubt that projecting their emotional reaction was foremost in my mind.
And no, this is not all Progressives, all the time. Context of my comments—Progressives have a greater Ugh field for Libertarians than Libertarians for Progressives. Which I think is true, and I think shows up as them displaying more of the behavior in my generalization than LIbertarians.
No. Plenty of heart. But a human heart has more emotional range than Barney’s.
Because I have values. The negative emotional valence comes as a by product of those values when confronted with things that contradict those values.
HPMOR:
Yet another moment where I cheered Harry.
And in this case, the emotional valence was particularly relevant to my point: it’s not just that you don’t have to hate people with ideas you disagree with, but you don’t have to hate people whose ideas you hate. And, you don’t have to hate them if they hate your ideas either.
Your suggestion seems the be that the latter is too much to hope for.
Yes, and in this case they’re relevant to the point.
Seems like it should have been somewhere in your mind. I mean, I guess if you were just complaining to other Libertarians it’s fine, but it seems like the productive audience for your comment would be progressives.
Don’t disagree.
I have values too. They result in negative emotional valence for bad things happening to people. And inevitably they leak over a bit into the policies and people I think cause those bad things. But I do my best to hold the tides back and keep my values judgments out of my policy analysis. That way I can change my mind on policy if I hear new arguments or learn new information. I don’t think that’s the same as Yoda’s poor advice.
I have no idea if it is too much to hope for or not. How is it going so far? It would be great if political discourse lived up to your ideals—but why not make it easier for everyone?
Analysis disconnected from values sounds rather pointless to me. Particularly in politics. The first step in good faith negotiation is a communication of values. If I don’t clearly communicate my values, how is a Progressive supposed to come up with an argument to satisfy them?
I’m trying. The goal isn’t yet another pointless political discussion, or talk for talk’s sake.
If they don’t know my values, the discussion will be unproductive. If knowing my values means they can’t have a productive conversation with me, then we won’t be having a productive conversation. End of story. The only people I might have a productive conversation with are people who can talk to the enemy.
Further, having to self censor information flow does not make the conversation easier for me. In fact, it doesn’t make it easier on anyone. It’s a cost, an impediment, a friction in the exchange in information. This is where I disagree with Crocker. Why should I have to pay that cost, if I’m not requiring it in others? Two people playing by Crocker’s rules can get things done.
On a more personal note, I find people who require their tender feelings to be stroked and soothed 24⁄7 tiresome. If soothing their feelings requires me not being honest about mine, I find it even more tiresome. No doubt they find me tiresome too. Fine. I’m not an appropriate playmate for those people. And they aren’t for me. I can live with that.
Also, I find the culture of offensitivity highly manipulative. Hurt feelings become a trump card to stifle expression of opinion. It’s the new blasphemy. I’m not interested in playing that card, particularly in a political discussion on the web, and see no compelling reason to consent to having it played on me.
I’ve had this discussion before on LW. It’s admittedly a trade off, and one that varies by personality.
But in the case of radically opposed political views, demanding that one side refuse to fully communicate their position strikes me as a non starter. Saying that I “disagree” really isn’t communicating. I find the proposed system grotesque, and the moral foundations an abomination. IMO, one of the problems with those on my side of the argument is that they don’t question the moral premises of Progressivism. Another problem is that Progressives do their best not to hear them. One of the immunizing strategies of the majority is refusing to talk to the Devil.
Can you unpack “grotesque” and “abomination”? When people use words like that I mostly understand them to be conveying disagreement, along with the desire to rile people up in unproductive ways, but I understand you here to be claiming to have different goals than that. I’m not sure what they are.
Disagree really isn’t right at all. I disagree that 2+2=5. Progressivism is a set of values and programs to implement those values that runs counter to my values. Strongly counter to my values. I’m not disagreeing, I’m disvaluing.
For my own part, I have no difficulty talking about people disagreeing over values, but I’m content to talk about people having values that run counter to each other’s values instead, if you prefer that.
So… when you call a system “grotesque” or a moral foundation an “abomination,” you’re conveying that your values run strongly counter to it? Did I understand that right?
Well, I’m not Spock tallying up a spreadsheet of values, so another part of what I’m communicating is my emotional reaction, and the intensity thereof. And indeed, that my reaction is a moral reaction, with some of the associated multi-ordinal punishing and disapproval characteristic of moral reactions. Though in this case, not punishing as much as a withdrawal of goodwill and a will to protect when they get screwed by the systems they advocate.
Grotesque and abomination also connote the twisted evil of the systems. One example. The poor who are supposedly so cared for are systematically punished if they take actions to improve their situation. Get a job, and face effective marginal tax rates, counting government benefits, often in excess of 100%. Find a partner to share the burdens of life, and likewise lose benefits.
Not just harmful, but a perverse and twisted harm, punishing someone for trying to do the right thing and improve their lot in life. When the “unintended consequences” of the system look similar to what a sadist would do who was trying to cripple people, I think “grotesque” and “abomination” applies.
So “grotesque” and “abomination” are meant to convey that the other side is not only incorrect, but also to express your moral judgment of the other side’s position as twisted, evil, and perverse, and also to express your withdrawal of goodwill from the individuals who hold that position, and your reduced willingness to protect them from certain kinds of harm (specifically, from harmful consequences of that position).
Do I have it right now?
No, not right.
The same issue as “disagree”. 2+2=5 is incorrect. I’m not saying that their position is incorrect. Clippy isn’t “incorrect” either.
Both the loss of goodwill and willingness to protect are contextual on the same types of situation, while I read what you wrote as making the loss of goodwill general.
OK.
Analysis that is connected to values doesn’t have to mean embedding the values in the analysis. Pick a policy. Talk, in neutral terms, about what you think it will do. Then express how you feel about those impacts. Then the progressive you’re talking with can say “oh, I don’t care about that impact at all” or “I certainly care about that impact but disagree that the policy does it.” You can’t have conversations about terminal values. You can have them about policies which is why you have to take terminal values out of your conversations about policies.
Right, so clearly express those values. But don’t attach the values to progressive policies. If it is the policies themselves that you loathe, how is a progressive supposed to argue for them?
I think this is probably wrong for (most) humans. We’re immediately distracted by status signals and emotions. Once the conversation is about that that is all it’s about.
Most people can’t play by Crocker’s rules. I’m not even sure the people who say they play by Crocker’s rules do all that well.
Fair enough.
To be clear: if you had said “I loathe libertarian policies” I would have made the same objection. Both sides ought to lower the stakes.
This is interesting and I would be interested in hearing you expand on them. Part of why your language seems unnecessary to me is that I’m somewhere between a libertarian and a Progressive and I don’t see any differences in values so much as I see Progressives not understanding how incentives work.
Sure you can. You can explain yours to the other guy, and likely discover something about them yourself in the process.
I agree about the possibility of discussing the likely outcomes of a policy divorced from the valuation of the policy. But the valuation provides both the motivation for the discussion and the punchline to it.
He argues by showing me how I am mistaken or not fully aware of things entailed by the policy that I would value positively.
I suppose for some people. But since I think the valuations are an important part of the conversation, if those people can’t do valuations and objective analysis, they won’t be very fruitful partners in the discussion.
Nope. Both sides should be as clear as they can about what the stakes are. I think that’s what’s missing. Here are my values. Here’s why I loathe your policies. Once put on the table, I think there is some hope of setting aside for moments and doing the objective analysis. But until honestly confronted, I’d expect the “objective” discussion to be polluted by both attempts to insert them, and interpretations on the look out for them.
There aren’t, necessarily. But I think statistically, there are.
I don’t think they care to understand. It’s not rocket science. They are motivated by something other than achieving outcomes. Some people want to do something. Some people want to be something. I think they tend toward the latter.
That’s an interesting statement. Would you mind expanding on it?
Preferences, likes, dislikes. I prefer A to B. I value A more than B.