tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4716342550760162208.post2344940545474854618..comments2023-12-19T02:55:49.657-08:00Comments on Mary Versus the Trumpeting Legions of Apathy: Third-party identificationmlhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06897457666469917298noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4716342550760162208.post-22883179746315717662008-10-05T07:47:00.000-07:002008-10-05T07:47:00.000-07:00or put otherwise, I think sometimes people partici...or put otherwise, I think sometimes people participate in riots--even though it's very dangerous--because they believe it's The Right Thing To Do.Dayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01792544618389217135noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4716342550760162208.post-7475086753494002572008-10-05T07:46:00.000-07:002008-10-05T07:46:00.000-07:00Hmn. . .Maybe this is just one more example of "bu...Hmn. . .<BR/><BR/>Maybe this is just one more example of "but I don't have human nature like all the rest of y'all," but I actually think my reasons for wanting to participate in riots have everything to do with harm/care and justice/reciprocity, and little or nothing to do with in-group loyalty and competition.<BR/><BR/>My brother tells me that some of the people who are into revolutionary politics are like that--that it's all about being part of something and being an adrenaline junkie. . on that last one, at least, I'm sure it's not me. . .<BR/><BR/>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0850253/Dayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01792544618389217135noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4716342550760162208.post-32836881625807126522008-10-04T08:50:00.000-07:002008-10-04T08:50:00.000-07:00Well, it's well known that human nature forces...Well, it's well known that human nature forces us to form groups. Our primal nature urges us to do this because it affords greater protection in numbers against dangers. People will always end up making sub cliches because it makes them feel better to have something to play against. Also combine that with a competetive spin and you can see why it does become "us vs them" for a lot of things. And that kind of strife is very easy to exploit in large groups. This is why agitated people participate in riots & such even though there is a high chance for getting injured! Generally natural elimination would take care of such things, but not so much anymore =) You should rent "Idiocracy" that shows what happens (it's a comedy by the same guy who did Office Space) when you take this idea to it's comedic focus point. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04893551438183014750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4716342550760162208.post-1433345519069537952008-09-30T18:55:00.000-07:002008-09-30T18:55:00.000-07:00Mary I love this post. A few of the minor details...Mary I love this post. A few of the minor details I have a few variations of opinion, but overall I totally agree. My family and I are getting increasingly worried that politics is more about 2 parties creating an "us vs. them" mentality and killing anyone outside that arena (as we've seen with Nader and a host of other "3rd party" hopefuls.) <BR/><BR/>What scares me is along the lines of what you said-the goal no longer is about what is best for the country (the real good,) but what is best for the party, and the actual citizens get overlooked in the process of trying to have a stronger party that gets to do more of what it wants than the other guy. The 3rd party you're looking for might be...the citizens.Lobbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07921291768879322592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4716342550760162208.post-17903109437233649122008-09-28T20:33:00.000-07:002008-09-28T20:33:00.000-07:00This is extremely interesting to me.I have a coupl...This is extremely interesting to me.<BR/><BR/>I have a couple of loosely related thoughts that I'll try to organize into readability.<BR/><BR/>1) I watched a TED talk the other day that said there seem, across cultures, to be five criteria for morality; <BR/><BR/>a)harm/care<BR/>b)justice/reciprocity<BR/>c)obedience to authority<BR/>d)in-group loyalty<BR/>e)purity<BR/><BR/>Apparently liberals have very high values on (a) and (b), with the other three trailing far behind--and conservative values tend to be far more equally distributed. <BR/><BR/>The point of the talk is that we need to recognize the virtue of the other side's moral structure to find common ground.<BR/><BR/>It's hard to do that, though, when you strongly feel your side is morally superior. Conservative morality supports stability, and there's a lot to be gained from that. To me, though, stability hardly holds a candle to what Camus would call "not being on the side of the executioners."<BR/><BR/>Where does one draw the line between attempting to understand the other side and staying true to the values one is sure of? We have many historical examples of times when in-group loyalty and obedience have become moral nightmares; where does one (where do I) ask conservatives to draw the line so as to ensure that doesn't repeat? How do I come to better understand why other people are willing to take those risks?<BR/><BR/>Liberalism is a fascinating example of how an "outside perspective" can become yet another inside perspective, and leaves open the question of exactly what one should do about it.<BR/><BR/>I think the TED talk--while I really hate some of the things it says--offers interesting insight into how we identify the good and why that identification isn't globablized as you suggest it should be. Here's the link.<BR/><BR/>http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html<BR/><BR/><BR/>2) I think the single member electorate or "winner take all" system in the US encourages in-group mentalities.<BR/><BR/>That's all. Thanks for indulging the monster post. :)Dayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01792544618389217135noreply@blogger.com