Nostr Web Client

Because if I tie politics to my identity, then I need to take it personally if people attack my political beliefs. And I tend to think of political beliefs as ideas that are fair game for attack. I tend to view my politics as something I should be prepared to defend intellectually if challenged. And if I do not what to defend them, or cannot defend them, then I have no business holding them.

But at no point do I feel personally miffed by people holding opposing views or criticizing views I hold. Although, it will probably cause me to tune you out of you launch ad hominem attacks on me. Whereas, if you constrain your attacks to my ideas alone, without a personal dimension, you'll find I don't have a tendency to take such things personally at all.

This is possible, because I don't tightly tie my sense of identity to these ideas.

nobody 2y ago

why is a discourse based on disagreement considered an attack?

for myself: i deeply tie my political beliefs to my identity and i don't take it personally when others disagree with me, nor do i tune them out. making an interaction a profit generator or personal attack veiled in political interaction is a different conversation. i don't tolerate disrespectful interaction, but that has no baring on whether or not we agree on anything. some of the most simpatico-with-me aligned political individuals i know have stopped all communications with me because i refuse to flip my narrative and tolerate rude discourse because it's "how it's done". that has nothing to do with ideology or politics - it's about decency and a fundamental divergence of practice. they view me as dangerous; i am simply here. regardless, the point sit stands - if one doesn't have political principals in which they believe: what's the point?

a libertarian is an anarchistic radical progressive. that seems fairly opinionated to me...?

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Mike Brock 2y ago

If you're not taking it personally, then you're probably using a different definition of identity than I am. Identity for me, is at the nexus of one's self-worth. It is your reason for being. Once you build your entire sense of self up from some political idea, your capacity to tolerate dissent goes down.

Jac 2y ago

Why would you build your entire sense of self from anything but your experiences and sentiment? As a child, my sense of self was installed in religious dogma. What a mistake for my family. I had to burn the whole thing down entirely and start fresh.

nobody 2y ago

all sense of self, whether it's a digital or in real life identity, or a symbiosis of the two is built. we are products of the biases around us. ultimately, if we are not constantly retooling and reimagining ourselves, we are stagnant. sameness and the refusal to explore the unknown - or our barricade from it in the case of filter bubbles and imposed social isolation - is a recipe for collapsed cultural engagement. as restrictions for communication capacity, style, and ability increase, so too does the chaos surrounding the inability to navigate difference because the exposure disappears, and complacency and rhetorical laziness reign.

nobody 2y ago

self-worth: as in monétisation of value? online or in reality? do you separate those two things?

so based on that premise that built identity (of any variety) limits tolerance, every political engagement which narrows my access to my religious beliefs (the banning of physical medical abortion for a jewish woman) is supposed to make me feel less tolerant of those who peddle that perspective? how am i to know how they arrived at it? what if it's a result of propaganda or the inability to access free and fair information? why would i tolerate them less if i would hope to understand and hopefully persuade them differently? if i cannot ask questions and listen to their réponse in real time - what's the point of engagement at all?

Mike Brock 2y ago

Here's perhaps the most fundamental point about why I don't tie my political/ideological beliefs close to my sense of who I am: because I'm not personally convinced that I'm not wrong about anything.

I'm a Bayesian. And my political views have shifted in sufficiently dramatic ways quite a few times in my life, that I'm pretty allergic to the idea that I know for certain that my beliefs are correct or optimal.

I am fundamentally open to the idea that I'm completely full of shit. And it's one of the reasons I'm so willing to debate and accept challenge. Out of a principle, I feel committed to the necessity of changing my mind if a better argument comes along.

So restricting myself to people who politically and ideologically agree with me, would cut me off from the possibility of gaining an insight that reveals the wrongness of my beliefs. This, to me anyways, seems stupid on its face.

⚡️🌱🌙 2y ago

Optimal politics is situational.

I could think of a dozen issues where I would advocate 1 policy in one country and a different policy in a different country.

Believing in a rigid universal application of a policy (politics) is dogmatic.

Mike Brock 2y ago

We'd probably get along!

nobody 2y ago

true -

which is different from relativism.

nobody 2y ago

being convinced you are correct about something doesn't preclude you from changing your mind later. they're not mutually exclusive. and neither has anything to do with convictions based on a personal compass of built identity.

"not wrong" is poor grammar, and i think it's pointless to use words like "stupid" if you wish to be properly understood or taken seriously.

bayesian? like as in "from a bay"? i hope you get some relief from your allergic lack of certainty 😏.

🤙🏻☀️✌🏻

Mike Brock 2y ago

Your semantic nitpicking aside, I would argue that absolute certainty is not compatible with changing one's mind. Because if you're absolutely certain something is true, it's logically correct to dismiss any evidence to the contrary as fraudulent.

Accepting the possibility some evidence could change your mind, is sort of predicated on the idea you *could* be wrong in order to provide a cognitive basis for evaluating such evidence in the first place.

nobody 2y ago

no one said anything about absolutism.

for my own perspective, i personally evolve my opinions constantly. do you? i also take great care in forming them initially so they are broad enough to evolve in the first place.

semantics in a world of weasel word "cognitive biases" and those who sling them, are critical so as not to be deliberately misinterpreted for profit or clout. hence why i do not use "right" and "wrong" or other tired phraseology.

so what are we evaluating? providing it's something other than my perspective. switch to a topic of discussion that interests you and let's apply your theory in practice instead of whatever this is.