Nostr Web Client

Then, they're fake progressives without empathy. And yeah, in-groups all over the world get priority, but having true empathy allows you to see the out-group with empathy. It may even help you pass laws that help them even if they voted against you.

Liberals are apparently more empathetic:

https://brainasap.com/empathy-differences-liberals-conservatives-brain-scans-study/

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Are-Liberals-and-Conservatives-Equally-Motivated-to-Hasson-Hasson/39dbe73bea896cf67c8e4553976b43982dce1014

jimbocoin 🃏 1y ago

Progressivism is inherently coercive.

Once the progressive has identified a victim group, they are willing to take from their perceived oppressor group for redistribution.

This could be along racial lines, socioeconomic lines, class lines etc. The key idea is “it’s ok to rob groups I don’t like (oppressors) to pay groups I like (the oppressed)”

Whether individuals in those groups have actually caused oppression or been oppressed themselves is beside the point. The group label is sufficient grounds for intervention.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

🇩𝔢𝔠𝔢𝔫𝔱 🇼𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪 1y ago

Humans can be inherently coercive.

This gets into deeper philosophical views. Is there ever a time when this definition of progressivism is the right thing to do?

jimbocoin 🃏 1y ago

To learn more about the moral foundations of progressives and conservatives, I recommend Jonathan Haidt’s book The Righteous Mind. It discusses six moral foundations that people express in different amounts:

- Care/Harm

- Fairness/Cheating

- Authority/Subversion

- Sanctity/Degradation

- Loyalty/Betrayal

- Liberty/Oppression

Progressive (“Liberal” in the U.S.) morality is dominated by Care/Harm, with a little Fairness/Cheating. Conservative morality is a blend of all.

Of note, Libertarian morality is almost entirely Liberty/Oppression. Haidt explored this in later works, after the initial 5.

None of the above is provably right or wrong. The foundations are like tastebuds and different people have different preferences.

Haidt has also done a number of talks on this subject, which are great introductions. Available on YouTube.

/1280px-Haidt-political_morality.png

🇩𝔢𝔠𝔢𝔫𝔱 🇼𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪 1y ago

Thanks for sharing. These "tastebuds" are valuable as a whole, but there are times when a few need to be prioritized.

To that point, you may be interested in Schwartz's Theory of Basic Human Values as there seems to be a lot of empirical support, is designed to account for cultural and environmental influences, and can shift in response to changing life circumstances.

Haidt's theory focuses on innate moral foundations, which do not easily adapt to changes and may not account for cultural and contextual differences.

While I believe we are foundationally "programmed," in a sense, we have the ability to change who we are and our perspective. To change, perhaps a philosophical approach, like virtue ethics, is best suited to guide us to be deprogrammed or to live a life worth living.

💜🫂🧡

jimbocoin 🃏 1y ago

> but there are times when a few need to be prioritized

This is a moral claim, which makes it circular. Morality is pre-rational. There’s nothing underneath on which to build an argument for change.

🇩𝔢𝔠𝔢𝔫𝔱 🇼𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪 1y ago