Comment by alexey-salmin
Comment by alexey-salmin 15 days ago
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.
Comment by alexey-salmin 15 days ago
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.
Way more than anyone should be comfortable with.
Looks through thread
Tribalism and purity tests abound.
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.
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.
Let me ask you a direct question: what would the Republicans have to do for us to call their actions evil and it not be tribalism in your mind? Is deporting a legal immigrant to an El Salvadorean prison where he can't be recovered[1] not evil? Is denying an abortion to a 9 year old rape victim[2] not evil?
> I was mainly referring to dialogs like the one below.
Again, nothing in what you quoted is actually calling anyone evil. They're calling something someone said evil, not the person.
> 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].
I was talking about the Nazis and the Stalinists being evil, but you knew that and decided to make this bad-faith argument.
I am clearly not favoring popular opinion now, either. Reminder: Trump won the popular vote.
I'll ask a direct question: what would the Republican party have to do for calling their actions evil to not be tribalism in your mind? I'm not even calling Republicans evil, I'm calling their actions evil.
> 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.
Agreed.
Which is exactly why calling Republican actions evil isn't tribalism:
1. It's not calling people evil, it's calling people's actions evil.
2. Even if you refuse to acknowledge a distinction between a person and their actions, you'd have to admit that this is calling a person evil because they did something evil. If you are a Republican but didn't vote for Trump or any of the awful things Republicans have done in the past few years, I have no problem with you. But if you supported all of what was done, and continue to support it, you did and are doing evil things. That's why I have a problem with you, not because of your group membership.
> The original post does not advocate for "enlightened centrism", furthermore centrists are as prone to tribalism as anybody else.
You're refusing to engage with any of the reasons why it might actually not be tribalism to call someone's actions evil. That's what "enlightened centrism" refers to--the ideology which treats all ideologies as equally valid even when they're hateful, violent, or otherwise obviously harmful.
Sure, tribalism exists and is happening, and sometimes people call other people evil because of tribalism. Obviously. Nobody is arguing against that and nobody is confused about that. You can stop explaining what everyone already knows.
But evil exists too, and if we dismiss every instance of calling something evil as tribalism, then we're failing to identify and stop evil.
[1] https://apnews.com/article/el-salvador-deportation-maryland-...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Ohio_child-rape_and_India...
I do not engage with your reasons mainly because they are irrelevant to my point.
You give examples that prove that some evil exists somewhere, be it Nazi Germany or present day US. I don't argue with that. You also ask questions to probe whether your evil is the same as mine -- an interesting topic but not important in this conversation either.
I started this thread referencing comments (including the one I cited above) where people explain how they cutoff their friends and relatives because they "side with evil".
I do see this as clear sign of tribalism. They're signalling that their tribe is more important than friends and family. Which by the way is fine, it's their choice. What I find amusing is the denial.
> I started this thread referencing comments (including the one I cited above) where people explain how they cutoff their friends and relatives because they "side with evil".
Okay, but in the sentence _right before this one_, you acknowledged that evil does exist in modern American and it is popular.
So no need for the scare quotes. They don't "side with evil". They side with evil, literally, by your own admission!
> They're signalling that their tribe is more important than friends and family.
No, they're signalling that they don't want to be friends with people who side with evil.
I don't understand how the point keeps bashing you upside the head and it's still not clicking. You're acting like they're cutting them off because they love their tribe. No no, it's because those people are bad people.
Even regardless of tribalism, there exists bad people. Why would you want to be friends with bad people? That's not a rhetorical question. Is it not kind of pathetic that you wish to befriend people who harm you? Why is that not only something you're advocating for, but using as some sort of moral high ground?
I just don't see the purity or the angelic-ness in supporting or being friends with people who are bad. Really, I don't. I don't see how you, and others, are constructing a pedestal there. It seems self-destructive and virtue-signalling to me. Which, ironically, _is actually tribalism_.
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 not a matter of evil or good, those are subjective naturally.
It’s a matter of harm.
For example, some conservatives in the state level are trying to allow insurance to not provide PrEP based on religious grounds. For context, PrEP is medicine that prevents HIV infection and is required to be covered at a low cost by insurance.
The result is more HIV or AIDS in gay male populations in those states. There’s no charitable way to interpret these conservative pushes.
I am a gay man. My friends are gay men. I cannot be friends with someone who is actively trying to harm me and my community. This is NOT subjective. This is objective fact - these policies harm me, and my friends. If you interpret that to mean “evil” then that is on you, and perhaps should spark some introspection.
The point is, me being friends with people who are voting in policies that literally, tangible, undeniably, harm me is pathetic and self-destructive.
Maybe you’re okay with being pathetic and self-destructive. Or, more likely, there exists no policies like this for you or any demographics you belong to.
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.