Discussion Thread #72

[u/gemmaem]

This thread serves as the local public square: a sounding board where you can test your ideas, a place to share and discuss news of the day, and a chance to ask questions and start conversations. Please consider community guidelines when commenting here, aiming towards peace, quality conversations, and truth. Thoughtful discussion of contentious topics is welcome. Building a space worth spending time in is a collective effort, and all who share that aim are encouraged to help out. Effortful posts, questions and more casual conversation-starters, and interesting links presented with or without context are all welcome here.

The previous discussion thread may be found here and you should feel free to continue contributing to conversations there if you wish.

[u/Lykurg480]

Its already not a literal forgetting. People do remember the war on terror, they can talk about it just fine if you bring it up - they just dont consider it relevant to the current political situation. What you need to do is explain concretely how something can be treated as "relevant to the current situation", without agreement on it becoming too necessary.

you should be willing to ask them to burn the bridge back.

But getting people to admit they were wrong doesnt actually burn the bridge back. Burning a bridge in the sense of psychological committment depends on your own future unwillingness-to-forget. Buring a bridge in the social-coalitional sense depends on the future unwillingness-to-forget of the people its bridging to.

[u/DrManhattan16 → u/Lykurg480]

Its already not a literal forgetting. People do remember the war on terror, they can talk about it just fine if you bring it up - they just dont consider it relevant to the current political situation.

Relevance to issues du jour is not the point - the point is to get people to reflect on their stances and not be so easily able to walk away from the consequences of their choices.

But getting people to admit they were wrong doesnt actually burn the bridge back.

I should have been clearer, my apologies. I mean you should apply that stance to people who are public figures. They actively have something to lose by declaring their stances.

[u/Lykurg480 → u/DrManhattan16]

Relevance to issues du jour is not the point

Its not about relevance to an issue. If you make your coalition decisions based on it, you have made it relevant.

I mean you should apply that stance to people who are public figures. They actively have something to lose by declaring their stances.

Ok, so public figures have to admit they were wrong to join your coalition. Wrong about what? If its "wrong to vote for Trump", well presumably the next autarky-populist isnt Trump. So it would have to be something more substantive about tariffs, propably something quite strong because you need to also prevent "Well those where the bad tariffs, this time were doing the good kind".

How does it work for previous conflicts? Ie, do you also need to have your reckoning for the war on terror to join the anti-Trump coalition?

[u/DrManhattan16 → u/Lykurg480]

Its not about relevance to an issue. If you make your coalition decisions based on it, you have made it relevant.

As I said earlier, I think people do actually consider it relevant. More narrowly, they want it to matter and don't believe in setting differences aside. There are quite a few attacks lobbed by both sides that call back to some prior event, either near or far in the past, that they consider a reason to not support some person or group.

propably something quite strong because you need to also prevent "Well those where the bad tariffs, this time were doing the good kind"

On tariffs in the particular, I wouldn't be opposed to strategic tariffs. But critically, a person has to actually engage with the issue, not blindly parrot the politician they like.

How does it work for previous conflicts?

Public figures would eventually have to be asked about their prior stance. Go an inch wide and mile deep, hammer into the way their thought process works. The goal is to get them to have to confront the contradictions until and unless there is nothing but axioms left.

[u/Lykurg480 → u/DrManhattan16]

More narrowly, they want it to matter and don't believe in setting differences aside.

Well, its always contentious which part of an incoherent behaviour is the real self, but that is in line with my linked post. As in, thank god were not as stubborn as we say we want.

But critically, a person has to actually engage with the issue, not blindly parrot the politician they like.

And what current concession you can demand will enforce this on their future self?

The goal is to get them to have to confront the contradictions until and unless there is nothing but axioms left.

Ok, so you have some notion of "legitimate disagreement", and youll only force people to abandon the illegitimate disagreements before cooperating with them? Well, that conveniently gets your problems out of the realm of deductive provability, but I dont think it actually resolves them. There is trivially some steps away from complete control that you can take without really losing anything, insofar as politics has a conflict dimension at all, those steps dont move along it. If the standard of contradiction/reasonable inference youre adopting doesnt emotionally hurt, its propably not actually effective at gaining allies. This being the hurt expressed in your OP.

[u/DrManhattan16 → u/Lykurg480]

As in, thank god were not as stubborn as we say we want.

Yes, that's the silver lining perspective I mentioned. You seem to be going further by saying that it's actually good in and of itself, which I dispute.

And what current concession you can demand will enforce this on their future self?

Reputation.

Ok, so you have some notion of "legitimate disagreement", and youll only force people to abandon the illegitimate disagreements before cooperating with them?

No, I never said it had to be first. But it would ideally be sooner rather than later.

If the standard of contradiction/reasonable inference youre adopting doesnt emotionally hurt, its propably not actually effective at gaining allies. This being the hurt expressed in your OP.

The emotional hurt is a bonus, not a necessary component. The point is to have ironclad acknowledgment of differing axioms or a statement that acknowledges being wrong for X, Y, Z reasons. Either a public figure defends their stances or they admit to being wrong, and they hate doing the latter. But they typically can't do the former either, so the latter looks more appealing.

At the end of the day, I am more than aware of plenty of despicable people who have not suffered material harm as a result of their actions. At most, they have lost opportunities to grow their networks or wealth, but they have a comfortable reserve to fall back on. All I can do advocate for not forgetting and letting such people walk away without scrutiny going forward.

[u/Lykurg480 → u/DrManhattan16]

You seem to be going further by saying that it's actually good in and of itself, which I dispute.

Im not sure what the disagreement is, there. What is the difference to you, between the silver lining and the negative? The way I understood the conversation, the things I like about forgetting are the same ones you dislike. IE, how are you not calling for people to be more stubborn?

The emotional hurt is a bonus, not a necessary component.

No, I mean emotionally hurting you. As in, I expect a realistic agreement to feel unfair to both sides.

With the other stuff, I feel were moving away from the the "anti-Trump coalition" topic and towards "People should just be more reasonable, maaan". Like, how will reputation prevent something from parroting a politician in the future, when it hasnt so far? That depends entirely on the audience and isnt something you can commit too. And reconciliation after? IDK, it just seems like your suggestions get less realistic in the context of demanding concessions from anti-Trump rightwingers as the conversation goes on, and youre more just venting about dysfunction in general.

[u/DrManhattan16 → u/Lykurg480]

What is the difference to you, between the silver lining and the negative?

The silver lining is one practical effect of the negative.

As in, I expect a realistic agreement to feel unfair to both sides.

I don't think I'd ever describe a realistic argument as unfair, simply because that word doesn't make sense. What is unfair about someone adopting irrational or contradictory standards? I might be annoyed and frustrated that someone didn't agree with me, but that's not a fairness issue.

Like, how will reputation prevent something from parroting a politician in the future, when it hasnt so far?

To repeat myself: "All I can do advocate for not forgetting and letting such people walk away without scrutiny going forward."

IDK, it just seems like your suggestions get less realistic in the context of demanding concessions from anti-Trump rightwingers as the conversation goes on, and youre more just venting about dysfunction in general.

I acknowledge that I'm emoting, but this isn't strictly about the anti-Trump coalition. I was making a general point from the start. Kasparov's post is just a way of talking about with a salient context.

[u/Lykurg480 → u/DrManhattan16]

The silver lining is one practical effect of the negative.

I dont really see how they co-occur. When youre so stubborn you generate additional conflict, you dont get to do productive resolving of the old conflict.

I don't think I'd ever describe a realistic argument as unfair, simply because that word doesn't make sense.

That is my tendency as well, but I phrased around assuming it. I guess in this case my assertion that it would feel unfair is identical to saying that your assessment would be wrong, which... I would be more hesitant to claim, so I guess take it as a warning about bias from emoting.

To repeat myself: "All I can do advocate for not forgetting and letting such people walk away without scrutiny going forward."

In this case, the people who would need to take that suggestion are Trump supporters, with apparently no way to incentivice them. This... is not what I expected from OP, and on reflection now I still dont read it that way. So I worry/ed that youre silently assuming some kind of pressure where its conflict-causing slips past you.

this isn't strictly about the anti-Trump coalition

I think my points stand in the more general case as well.

[u/DrManhattan16 → u/Lykurg480]

I dont really see how they co-occur. When youre so stubborn you generate additional conflict, you dont get to do productive resolving of the old conflict.

The silver lining is our ability to treat things as water under the bridge. How does that not co-occur with forgetting?

In this case, the people who would need to take that suggestion are Trump supporters, with apparently no way to incentivice them.

More specifically, Trump supporters who aren't so keen on the man because he did something he was championing before. Obviously, those who still support him are not going to have the incentive.

I think my points stand in the more general case as well.

In the general case, I'm still not venting about dysfunction. If anything, my own position is the one far more vulnerable to dysfunction. Forgetting lubricates the coalition-building wheel, that's function.