The older I get, the more it becomes apparent that the primary political distinction between people is how many degrees of separation from themselves they care about people. The more you care about people barely connected to you at all, the more progressive you are. The more your scope of concern for people is limited to people in your immediately sphere, the more conservative you are.
It is not always selfishness that sways conservatives. They can care genuinely and deeply for their family, friends, colleagues, and community. But that is typically as far as that scope of concern goes. They can take on more progressive political positions or make limited exceptions when their lifelong regressive politics suddenly negatively affects themselves or those close to them. Their kid comes out as trans, their work friend is black, their community is being spoiled by a corporation, and suddenly they are a progressive ally on those things alone. But what they care about will still be limited to those in their bubble. They will not care that their politics has the same effect on someone else’s family until it happens to their’s. It’s a genuine character flaw. They are incapable of general altruism.
Unfortunately, that it’s such a widespread characteristic means society can only maintain progressive institutions by figuring out a way to protect them from being considered “enemy other” by people like that. There are selfish reasons to support safety nets - treating infectious diseases in poor communities prevents transmission to wealthier communities, for example - but those reasons haven’t been sold in a way to gain traction with today’s conservatives.
There are 2 types of people, those who think might makes right and those who think consent makes right. The might-makes-right type form rigid hiearchies and well defined in-groups and the group leaders are always working to shrink the group and demonstrate status.
Right but I think that that particular strategy just plays on that character flaw. Consevatives care about very few poeple, and if you can manipulate who those poeple are that they care about, and concentrate the types of people they care about as a group, you can control WHAT they care about.
Progressives are also susceptible to in-group/out-group manipulation too. But our out-groups are those who oppress or disenfranchise others. So you would manipulate us by convincing us that that is happening when it isn’t, or isn’t happening when it is. Sound like a familiar argument?
Only because it affects him directly
Which is why “losing the room” isn’t really true. Each MAGA is in their own sound proofed room by themselves.
The older I get, the more it becomes apparent that the primary political distinction between people is how many degrees of separation from themselves they care about people. The more you care about people barely connected to you at all, the more progressive you are. The more your scope of concern for people is limited to people in your immediately sphere, the more conservative you are.
It is not always selfishness that sways conservatives. They can care genuinely and deeply for their family, friends, colleagues, and community. But that is typically as far as that scope of concern goes. They can take on more progressive political positions or make limited exceptions when their lifelong regressive politics suddenly negatively affects themselves or those close to them. Their kid comes out as trans, their work friend is black, their community is being spoiled by a corporation, and suddenly they are a progressive ally on those things alone. But what they care about will still be limited to those in their bubble. They will not care that their politics has the same effect on someone else’s family until it happens to their’s. It’s a genuine character flaw. They are incapable of general altruism.
Unfortunately, that it’s such a widespread characteristic means society can only maintain progressive institutions by figuring out a way to protect them from being considered “enemy other” by people like that. There are selfish reasons to support safety nets - treating infectious diseases in poor communities prevents transmission to wealthier communities, for example - but those reasons haven’t been sold in a way to gain traction with today’s conservatives.
Game theory and Contractualist ethical theories should be compulsorily taught in high school. Then you’re not too dependent on empathy or caring.
in-groups and out-groups
There are 2 types of people, those who think might makes right and those who think consent makes right. The might-makes-right type form rigid hiearchies and well defined in-groups and the group leaders are always working to shrink the group and demonstrate status.
Right but I think that that particular strategy just plays on that character flaw. Consevatives care about very few poeple, and if you can manipulate who those poeple are that they care about, and concentrate the types of people they care about as a group, you can control WHAT they care about.
Progressives are also susceptible to in-group/out-group manipulation too. But our out-groups are those who oppress or disenfranchise others. So you would manipulate us by convincing us that that is happening when it isn’t, or isn’t happening when it is. Sound like a familiar argument?
Observed the same, mostly agree. Many hold bigoted “one of the good ones” attitude, never an ally for people outside their circle.
Liberals will agree with this but still reject communism.
Plus goldfish memory ensures it won’t stick
Well yes, but at this point the percentage of people he has not impacted directly is tiny. So indeed losing the room.