Comment by blitz_skull
Comment by blitz_skull 8 hours ago
I love when people label politics they disagree with as “ethical” problems. It really helps mask the underlying lack of thought with an air of moral superiority.
Comment by blitz_skull 8 hours ago
I love when people label politics they disagree with as “ethical” problems. It really helps mask the underlying lack of thought with an air of moral superiority.
Politics is, by its very nature, about power and coercion. It is a delicate miracle of only a few centuries through which many of us are able to actually voice our opinions peacefully and live in liberal democracies where disagreements impact policy rather than collapse into violence and war.
That includes disagreements about incredibly serious, controversial things with devastating impacts. Does the ontological status of the fetus affect the ethics (never mind legality) of terminating a pregnancy? Should people be able to seek medical help in ending their own lives to end suffering? When is a minor allowed to consent to their own medical treatments? These are questions with enormous impact on those affected.
Yet people disagree. They have different values, assumptions, experiences, predictions, and priorities which will often be at odds. Even if you disagree on what a good life is or how to achieve it.
You may feel a particular policy or party advocating for policies you strongly disagree with is deeply harmful to you or those you care about. You may resent their ideology so much that you get angry, sad, tense, violent thoughts, frustrated, etc. You may have absolutely no idea how someone can promote a particular policy. Your only explanation is that they are bad actors out to cause more harm than good.
But they feel the same about you. Your ideas are just as harmful and incomprehensible to others as theirs are to you. People are different. Acknowledging this is called empathy, and its departure from political discourse has been strongly felt. Part of a mature and healthy society is recognizing that although your peers may have different views they are still good faith actors who want to live in a better world.
No one person or one subgroup gets to unilaterally decide the Overton Window, or which topics are "settled" and which are off-limits. This is a decision made by the masses, and within the EU approx. between 25 and 50% of representatives hold (some) views in line with what dhh writes in his blog. It is mainstream, governments of major world economies kind of stuff. Are we actually going to propose a world where people are deemed persona non grata for supporting the CPC in Canada? Hell, let's expand that to the LPC because bill C-5 and the Major Projects Office says its going to undermine the human rights of indigenous peoples under UNDRIP as well. 85% of Canadians are racist, we'll welcome them back when they learn respectable political opinions.
I mean... it's all completely unworkable. How do you walk down the street knowing that other people are so evil, and who want to do you such harm? Anyone who believes in $religion1 genuinely believes that members of $religion2 are doomed or preventing salvation, yet we can smile and say "good morning" and hold the door open for each other. Where did we lose that?
If you want me to hold the door for you, don't tell me to my face that you want my immigrant neighbors removed from the country.
> I love when people label politics they disagree with as “ethical” problems.
This is a disingenious portrayal of what people you disagree with are saying. It is not like someone is calling pro-capitalist or socialist views unethical.
"Politics they disagree with" means racism, homophobia and ableism. There certainly is an argument that each of those is ethically problematic, because each denies some human beings' basic rights to be considered human.
You may well argue that dhh doesn't hold those views, or argue that the community should accept that some members have toxic views and move on. It is best to avoid claiming that racism is just another respectable political opinion.