@goblinodds@asglidden it's a legit defense, against a legit harm, and so is forgiveable and permissible. but it doesn't work all that well, and is harmful and so is unwise.
@goblinodds@asglidden Idk. This stuff is really hard speak about in any accurate way.
I find it really hard to imagine vice signalling has no effect, but also hard to blame the ppl who do it, bc it's a legitimate psychic defense. I wind up on a middle ground:
@asglidden@goblinodds sure if it's not actually happening then it's not bad, but it happens plenty. E.g. the dude who went looking for a black guy to provoke and then shoot the other week. That's directly downstream of vice-signalling culture, even if that culture mostly doesn't mean it.
@asglidden@goblinodds This goes both ways, politically. Conservatives appear to lost their minds in the past decade because they were disarmed of their ability to defend themselves against wokeness, gender stuff, etc.
Likewise the left is disarmed of its ability to defend against e.g. gun violence.
@asglidden@goblinodds From this follows an ethic, I think: it is never okay to stigmatize another person's *anger*, so long as that anger pushes away rather than attacks. People lose their minds when disarmed of their ability to push away threats, even psychic threats (words can hurt you).
@shhhhjesse@kenthecowboy_ yes it's really informative. in particular, I took away the fact that the abusive mindset is one that with no sense of being responsible for its own behavior. All moral standards are discarded when it perceives itself as being disrespected. Right/wrong don't exist.
i am not aware of another conflict where a war was fought _on principle_, _for the benefit of a non-belligerent party_ like the enslaved blacks of the south, and _at a terrible own-national cost_
i shit on their descendents but 2d great awakening yankees were wild-eyed holy men
@thomepilgrim@MariGO2thepolls@JeremiahDJohns in particular, and I have a distinct memory of the party consensus changing dramatically a few times in the course of events. Eventually I group/outgroup antagonism won out, but there were some intermediate points where the moral valences were different or mixed in confusing ways
@thomepilgrim@MariGO2thepolls@JeremiahDJohns I think the significant part of haidt's theory is that most rational argument is a rationalization of an emotional-moral belief. The particular ways this expresses are quite complicated, and I'll be the first to grant this is a limitation of the theory.
Covid is complicated..