Why ideologies harm individuals
thomasprosser.substack.com
thomasprosser.substack.com
Yeah, exactly. Ideology is baked into pretty much everything, so when you try to get away from it, you end up just finding the ideology that's so core to you that you don't even (fully) realize what it is.
The other thing to watch out for is people who push "non-ideological" solutions. They're usually just trying to bake their own ideology into that unexamined part of your brain.
The author makes this point very plainly. The 'well it's all ideology anyway' take is reductive and uses relativism to (poorly) justify people supporting ideas that are harmful to both themselves and to society.
In the same way that acknowledging that human conflict is inevitable doesn't justify violence, the existence of ideology doesn't justify structuring one's entire life around it.
Of course there are better or worse ideologues (and blind ideologues tend to be the most insufferable because they believe they're non ideological but turn out to just be neoliberals), but nobody is non ideological.
I could imagine someone saying that we should strive to live off of vibes, never having or acting on ideas about how the world should be, but he doesn't seem to be arguing that.
Harmful according to whom? It's safe to assume people don't support ideas they think are harmful to themselves and society.
What irks me is that the "ideology is intrinsically bad" idea is historically firmly part of conservative ideology. One early formulation is Burke's criticism of the french revolution.
I think pointing this out is not relativism.
You think murder is morally wrong. You think some govt policy is so important that when govt kills people while it is carrying out the policy, the ends justify the means. Ideology is what killed those people.
Maybe, but I certainly can't reduce my thinking about ideology to considering an example featuring comic villains.
I left it vague so people of both sides could relate to how it fits the other side's hypocrisy. But I suppose this also allows people who are looking for a fight to imagine that it fits their own hypocrisy and get defensive.
That analogy is pretty loaded, I think. I doubt people making it would take issue with someone deeply involved in a charitable cause and spending their life to relieve people from their issues. Likewise, I doubt people making that analogy would consider themselves deeply invested in ideology, while, in fact, almost everyone is almost inescapably embedded in a set of dominant ideologies.
I haven't (yet) read him but I think Gramsci wrote about stuff like this in a very detailed way. From the wiki page [1] (because, again, I haven't yet read him, maybe there's a gramscian in here who can come up with better quotes):
> The bourgeoisie, in Gramsci's view, develops a hegemonic culture using ideology, rather than violence, economic force, or coercion. Hegemonic culture propagates its own values and norms so that they become the "common sense" values of all and thus maintain the status quo.
> Ideology is inescapable. To some extent, everyone is under its influence. But that does not mean that all are equally ideological; thinking people can adopt flexible stances, mixing traditions.
Claiming to be "non-ideological" is the most ideological statement possible:
not only you have your own ideas but you claim to be "neutral" while seeing everybody else as biased.
“Does it matter if a poor person dies as a result of not finding a place to be employed in society” => Capitalist ideology
“Does it matter if a person dies as a result of not believing in Jesus” => Christian ideology (as opposed to simply being Christian)
“Does it matter if someone dies as a result of being vaccinated” => No? => Pro-vax ideology.
The opposite is true: “Does it matter if someone dies as a result of Covid” => No? => Antivax ideology.
Honest question: Does the fact that the stats say far more people die from the unvaxxed disease than the vax, bear relevance to this?
Because otherwise it seems like you could apply this to anything. "Does it matter if someone dies as a result of being seatbelted?" => No? => Pro-seatbelt ideology
[1]https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/deaths-per-day
[2]https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/05/how-many-people-die-e...
I don't think this is the case in every instance at all.
I think an individual can strive to scrutinise their beliefs, wrestle with their own conscience and try to come to conclusions based on scientific observation, where appropriate, as much as possible.
A person who is "non ideological" can be just that.
If those beautiful theories don't work, then they're abandoned.
The point remains that there are people who strive to avoid cognitive biases and self delusion, see Cartesian doubt.
The claim to be non ideological doesn't always mean the person is the most ideological. It can just actually mean the person is striving to be non ideological.
To give you a taste: if falsification of theories is grounds for rejecting them, all theories must be rejected at all times. There are always - always - some phenomena that are not explicable with current theories. Much of the practice of normal science is in coming up with an explanation of these phenomena using the current theory, not coming up with new theories. Coming up with new theories is an extremely rare practice not done by most scientists. So how do you tell whether a given anomaly will eventually be described by the current theory, or will remain inexplicable until the formation of a new theory? You cannot. New theories also have many more unexplained phenomena when they are first articulated, since not as much work has been put into conforming observation to theory (if that last sentence seems backward to you, you probably don’t know how science is actually practiced). So what grounds does a scientist have for choosing a new anomaly-ridden theory rather than an old anomaly-ridden theory? The process is in part ideological and has nothing - I repeat - NOTHING to do with the scientific method. Emerging theories are chosen by scientists with a high risk tolerance using not a small amount of faith. And many times this bet doesn’t pan out: the theory eventually dies and considerably sets back their career prospects, as all the time they spent conforming observation to theory (again, the practice of normal science) is completely discarded.
The use of “theory” in the above paragraph is probably different from how you think of the meaning of the word. This is analogous to how new theories work: they aren’t just a refinement of previous theories, they actually explain the world in a novel way using different language, occasionally the same words with wildly different definitions (for example, Newtonian mass vs. Einsteinian mass). The author Thomas Kuhn often uses the word “paradigm” in the way I’ve used theory up above to help avoid this confusion. Incidentally, that book is why the term paradigm became popular.
Is it ideological to say that discrete minds have equality of type?
If one then says discrete minds with equality are logically treated with equality of type. Is that not a properly basic truth?
1+1 equaling 2 can be argued against (can't evrything) but the onus is on those who argue that 1+1 equals not 2.
Is basic counting ideological? Are all 1's not the same? Would it be strange to treat a 1 as if some particular 1 does not equal 1 or is a superior 1. I think definitions of 1 would have to be tortured to do so.
I'm not saying what 1 ought to do, I'm just saying form follows function, a tree is not equal to a wheel, they do not share similar form or function.
What moral argument does one have for a particular mind to forcibly coerce another mind. What argument is there for a greater 1?
This seems like this would no longer be describing the way reality is but the way someone views it "ought" to be.
I guess one could argue that minds don't have equality on the whole, but I think the burden of proof would have to fall on the person making such a claim. Maybe through the measurements of skull shape someone has irrefutably identified a superior qualia.
You can be aware of how ideology does sacrifice individual good for group or cultural good, and be happy with that. Being aware of a dynamic doesn't necessarily mean that you support it's implicit values too! For example I don't really think my individual happiness per say is the ultimate good, because I don't last forever, but humanity, in some form, does. It's why I try to be a 'decent human' even when nobody is looking, because a world where people don't act like me is also a shitty place to be. A combination of individual and group preference. In the %20 saints %20 freeloader and %60 status-quo split of a human population, I'd probably be in the %20 saint category.
> Though ideologies define the terms of reality, scholars calling this decontestation, this is necessarily imperfect; reality is irreducibly complex.
Also ideology is ultimately necessary, it's a model of how the world works for an individual too. Even the smartest person needs to reduce reality to a model, since no human can really accurately understand all of it.
> But that does not mean that all are equally ideological; thinking people can adopt flexible stances, mixing traditions. Given the imperfections of ideology, I prefer this approach.
You can also try not to be strongly ideological, even when preferring the group, because it makes you a stronger player 'for the group'.
I made up a game a couple of years ago called "Take it Personal", which is played between two people and in turn each person makes a statement, and it must express outrage about the last thing said. If you don't express outrage, you lose. There is always a path to outrage. It is an unpleasant game, but instructive.
Please accept my condolences at your loss of this round.
But in truth the emotional reactivity is itself a source of great suffering, and disables the person from taking real action anyway. In extreme cases, the reaction eclipses the original injustice entirely.
In the case of real indignity, what is better, to lose your shit and become angry, depressed, upset, for days or weeks, or to pause and recognize that its not about you, it's about them, and to consider what your options are for a response? Who is more powerful, the person who winces, and then stands up and speaks clearly and eloquently against the aggressor, or the person who crumbles?
CBT protects you from manipulation. Consider someone who's in emotional turmoil from something they've heard. Maybe they heard CRT is in their schools, or MS13 is moving into the house next door. Rather than encourage them to examine their emotions, and pause to examine the motive of the speaker, the speaker instead encourages the emotion further and offers "solutions" to these problems. It is a manipulation on a grand scale, and yields power. Or perhaps they've heard that racism is everywhere, all white are racists, all black people are victims, all men are violent. In this case the emotion is righteous indignation, greed, envy and an appeal to power, and is no less emotionally manipulative.
If you choose the latter as a kind of cognitive "assume good faith policy," you may "suffer" less emotionally. But your cognitive strategy makes you vulnerable to abuse. People can take advantage of your charitable assumptions. You may end up experiencing even more emotional suffering after that happens (and you might not even understand what happened afterward).
I'll also point out that the emotions go both ways here: if someone powerful offends you or someone else in this way, your reaction will be suppressed (however much) by fear at the thought of the retaliatory exercise of that power. This is by far the more powerful controlling emotion in the society at large. Not racial outrage or self-righteousness or anything like that.
I think you won't see CBT employed to control that emotion though.
You're not wrong. I agree that this is a risk. And in fact, the key risk, of this approach. It is very easy to post hoc rationalize away an aggression simply because it would be inconvenient to not, and you've lost that round.
As I write this I realize that my stance is fundamentally a pragmatic one, which does not deny the above error mode. Power is...powerful. It can really and materially hurt you. Therefore it makes sense to treat it with respect, even if not admiration. It is incredibly dangerous to tell people to to disrespect power, and show contempt for it. It is setting them up for a great deal of (unproductive) pain. Successfully challenging existing power is extremely difficult, and I would argue that emotional expression will, in general, not help you win. If you want to win, you must adopt an attitude of calm detachment, and pick a specific strategy, and execute.
CBT is a tool that helps victims avoid the cul-de-sac of emotional turmoil caused by an irritant. As such, it is quite useful as an agent of real change. There is an unpleasant element of "blaming the victim" to it. It is easy to attack the emotionally reactive actor, whether or not they are right. It would be nice if society at large could distinguish between "valid" and "invalid" emotional reactivity. However, at least in this place and time, calm non-reactivity is given a great deal more weight than the opposite, so it makes sense to encourage victims to control their emotions.
This quote (ignoring the appeal to a desire to be part of the "thinking people" group) is a more interesting point, in my reading, and I'd like to see more discussion about this:
> Ideology is inescapable. To some extent, everyone is under its influence. But that does not mean that all are equally ideological; thinking people can adopt flexible stances, mixing traditions. Given the imperfections of ideology, I prefer this approach.
It's the "flexible stances, mixing traditions" part that is interesting here.
10-20 years ago, at least in the US, I recall reading that "independent" was the fastest growing political alignment. How did the polarizing elements of society break that trend, and how can a diversity of ideas be restored?
Why don't we see more of that?
If you had more of a political spectrum of representation/viability, then you'd probably see more political diversity as you do in many parliamentary governments around the world.
There does seem to be more of this emerging in the U.S., although it's still in very small pockets -- for example, you will find some socialist groups that intermix aspects of social conservatism or traditionalism with leftist economics.
If I as a independent free thinking person — which has never set a foot in the US — critizise a policy objectively and on rational grounds I can gurantuee you that people will call me out as a member of the opposite party, rather than enlighten me why what I said is flawed.
If anybody who opposes your parties views is (dis-)counted as part of the other party, you get an easy way out when someone's argument starts challenging your world view.
Also: Flexibility is in itself not a value. A flexible thinker can be one that honors the truth and enlightenment to such a degree they change their mind when the evidence shows they are wrong. Or a flexible thinker could be someone who always adjusts the facts to fit their story, because all they care about is winning — and of that you can see a lot. Flexibility is a necessity, but ultimately the goals count. Is your goal to make society better? To survive? To get rich? To tell the truth? To "show" the other side with a deep rooted (yet unreflected) passion?
If we need to start the discussion by agreeing to a flawed definition given by the author, the discussion isn't going to go very far, is it?
> 10-20 years ago, at least in the US, I recall reading that "independent" was the fastest growing political alignment. How did the polarizing elements of society break that trend, and how can a diversity of ideas be restored?
The wave of independents you talk about is just a mark of traditional parties failing to discuss issues that appeal to people. New political movements, which you call "polarizing" are a logical consequence of that.
> how can a diversity of ideas be restored?
Having polarizing debates doesn't mean there is no diversity. People can have polarizing views on plenty of topics. That's part of why so many people with radical ideas are at each other's throats on both side of the aisle.
Do you have any thoughts on this part?
I'm not sure we should view this luxury as a superior attitude.
I don't have the background to say if Zizek is misusing it, but on my extremely shallow reading I don't think he is.
And your dismissal would be seen as meta-ideological.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/388781/political-party-preferen...?
The linked article falls into this trap. It sees through “ideology” - meaning political theory - on the grounds that it oppresses the individual. The problem is that this itself a political ideology.
Except Zizek never claims that. Not everyone is claiming "only I see the truth and you are a sheep". Some of us are claiming we are all being manipulated and need to be aware: ourselves included.
I think it is disingenuous for you to make that straw-man, to claim people who say ideology is harmful somehow think they are better than everyone else because only they see the truth.
That only serves to put a spotlight on your own personal axe to grind.
“The key feature here is that to see the true nature of things, we need the glasses: it is not that we should put ideological glasses off to see directly reality as it is”: we are “naturally” in ideology, our natural, immediate, sight is ideological.”
However, I'm still having trouble internalizing your claim that the belief that you have to put on the glasses is in itself an ideology. How? Is it an ideology in the sense that anyone can apply it by saying, "Ah, you don't see the truth," where the truth can be whatever you say it is?
Wouldn't Zizek have noticed that? Or is it intentional since the entire film is about ideology, and that's kind of a perversion of ideology.
Zizek uses the metaphor of parallax to explain ideology. Parallax is the phenomenon where a distant object's position seems to shift depending on the position of the viewer. Two people looking at the same object from different angles will see something different. Zizek's point is that this isn't an epistemic problem where one person is wrong (lying, deluded, etc.) and the other is right. The conflict is ontological—the parallax shift is part of reality itself.
The true ideological move is to claim that you've stepped back from the conflicting perspectives to a neutral, objective standpoint, some kind of middle ground where all differences are reconciled. This move is always epistemic, i.e. "Both sides have good points, but they're blinded by their beliefs and can't see how things really are." The truth is not a middle position halfway between two people who are looking out at a distant object and seeing different things due to parallax.
Zizek says the They Live glasses are like critique-of-ideology glasses, not because they show the that the "true" meaning behind advertising is "Obey", "Consume", etc. It's because they render the conflict visible. Ultimately, one is forced to pick a side-which is a political choice-because there is no neutral objective position.
Is a better title: “ideologies involving self-sacrifice involve self-sacrifice”? This revised title is admittedly less striking than the original
“I already am eating from the trash can all the time. The name of this trash can is ideology. The material force of ideology makes me not see what I am effectively eating. It’s not only our reality which enslaves us- the tragedy of our predicament when we are within ideology is that when we think that we escape it into our dreams, at that point we are the most within ideology.”
Slavoj zizek
I'd argue the same is true in most kinds of activism, it's rarely principled, and more defined by some broad dislike of something that eventually causes some ideological principles to get parroted as justification.
All that to say, I think some ideology might be welcome
You can often tell you're in an ideological debate when the same old points are trotted out over and over. Tax is theft, capitalism is oppression, that kind of stuff. When you talked to a person who has bought in, they always have an answer to everything, and it's the same rehearsed answer squished into whatever thing you're discussing each time: doing X reduces my freedom, having to do Y is the capitalists bullying everyone.
The thing that ideology really buys you is a complete weltanschauung. That in itself is dangerous. If you don't have any doubts about what you're thinking, you'll never change it. In fact, you won't even be thinking, just repeating, like times tables. Your fellow travelers will congratulate you when you make a comment they like, but it's like learning a playbook. It simply won't occur to you that you might be wrong, or that other people might have legitimate views.
The only way to wean yourself off this sort of non-thinking is to try to seek discomfort. I try to not label my thinking with common labels like capitalism, libertarianism, communism, and so on. Those words tend to mean a wide variety of things to people that they often can't articulate, and once you identify with them you'll be held to account for views that other people think you have that they nonetheless cannot fully explain. You yourself will not be able to fully explain them either, because intellectual history is pretty big and you can't cover everything. I try to just address whatever issue is at hand without tying it to a big idea that will then end up being the source of a stream of what-abouts.
It's a meme! It still may be it comes up at the relevant time and says the right thing for that time.
> If you don't have any doubts about what you're thinking, you'll never change it.
You're presuming there always has to be something more to think about. That isn't so.
> In fact, you won't even be thinking, just repeating, like times tables
The times table is an example of where you don't need to keep thinking.
In any case, the mere fact that wars are sometimes fought does not begin to imply they're actually a good idea. So if you want to prove some ideas are more important than lives, rather than just that some people with power think so: try harder.
Often some ideas or ideologies were used to motivate people to support a war or to participate in it, but as a rule they were just a small part a reason for the war itself. For example, various religious conflicts in Europe almost always have very practical reasons for being started, and religious ideas being raised as an artificial justification and motivation; WW2 was not really fought over ideologies (even though it was often framed that way in propaganda), the allies would happily tolerate fascism and holocaust if Hitler had kept to his borders; and in modern times its obvious that people aren't willing to fight wars over ideas but are willing to do so for either minerals or internal fighting to see which "clan" will get to be in power.
Of course there are more reasons. Political independence is probably the second most common reason for a war but as you move down this list, the war becomes less and less justifiable.
Also, nationalism is known for creating the bloodiest wars in recorded history, so be careful.
> Ideologies are associated with cognitive dissonance. This occurs when individuals hold conflicting beliefs, causing discomfort and motivating changes which reduce the dissonance.
This statement confuses ideas/ideals with cognitive bias.
> psychologists warn against narratives which emphasize threats and remove control from individuals.
What about all the ideas around removing existential threats to individuals or societies?
I can't speak to Mannheim but aren't Marx's ideas about satisfying group AND individual needs? In that (simply) proles are oppressed the bourgeois and they eventually overthrow them to create a society of only one class. I don't think Marx ever imagined proles would group up behind Marxism to do something that was bad for them on an individual level, he thought enough of them would eventually realize that what was better for them as individuals was the same as what was better for them as a group and so they would do it.
Anyways that's just a little specific nitpick but I think it gets at my broader problem with the piece, namely that Individualism is also an ideology, even if it's one that almost feels like air given how pervasive it is in society today. So to put an argument about 'ideology bad' while ignoring the one you're using to frame everything strikes me as a bit suspect.
'Controlled, altered, razed... ferventness, limits...'
( um you may enter your possible addiction to individual-ism now )
> (One asking:) 'Somebody surrounding "content-less"?'
(Critics:) [Trolling]: 'It Probably may have been an more aestethic approach to not say anything by now...'
(-;
>he thought enough of them would eventually realize that what was better for them as individuals was the same as what was better for them as a group and so they would do it.
Isn't that literally every ideology ever? Even authoritarian rulers that exploit their people think that exploitation is justified for the greater good.
Nationalizing is only a part of this process; it's not the whole story. The idea is to centralize everything under government control while holding control of the government -- always advancing toward the goal of abolishing private property.
"Not usually. There is a very interesting debate raging at the moment on the nature of sin, for example." [answered Mightily Oats.]
"And what do they think? Agin’ it, are they?"
"It's not as simple as that. It's not a black and white issue. There are so many shades of gray."
"Nope."
"Pardon?"
"There's no grays, only white that's got grubby. I'm surprised you don't know that. And sin, young man, is when you treat people like things. Including yourself. That's what sin is."
"It's a lot more complicated than that--"
"No. It ain't. When people say things are a lot more complicated than that, they means they're getting worried that they won't like the truth. People as things, that's where it starts."
"Oh, I'm sure there are worse crimes--"
"But they starts with thinking about people as things..." --Carpe Jugulum, by Terry Pratchett.
when you get to thinking that your Idea is more important than people, tread really, really carefully. The ground under you isn’t as solid as you think.
Usually the more desperately you find yourself wishing things like “if only those idiots would see the light then of course we could Solve Everything!!”, the less solid the ground becomes.
> when you get to thinking that your Idea is more important than people, tread really, really carefully.
Was just thinking about this yesterday as I was thinking of how the Catholic world went from Jesus’ principle of "Love thy neighbor" and "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" to a full blown religious wars and the Inquisition
Obviously people in power will use dogma to their benefit - but all the foot soldiers have is the cognitive dissonance between their orders and their dogma
I sincerely doubt the peasants filling out, say, Zwingli's army for instance had any real informed opinion on the liturgical dispute.
One of my favourite debates, but probably not the right place and time for it, to discuss it fully.
But maybe a little bit:
1.Jesus said some other things as well, besides loving everyone, like he is there to bring the sword and he is not there to abolish the law(old testament) but to fullfill it. So of course there is lots of room for interpretation, but nevertheless, this allowed for all the archaic and brutal parts of the law, the old testament, to be included.
2.catholicism became state religion in a empire on the decline, close to collapse.
"but all the foot soldiers have is the cognitive dissonance between their orders and their dogma"
And the foot soldiers of empires, almost always had as the highest dogma - to follow their orders, not to morally judge them. And since the catholic dogma has a lot of battle descriptions included - even the thinking soldiers can find justification, without great cognitive dissonance. But sure, the christian military priests in nazi germany on the frontlines and such, probably had to have a bigger cognitive dissonance from their holy book and their actions.
When Constantine made christianity the religion of Rome he discovered that christianity was not well defined. Constantine created the Council of Nicaea to clean up the religion. It was a capitol offense to even believe some of the previous christian beliefs if the Nicaean council deleted your belief. Many many christians were executed.
Constantine then decided to make many Roman regions christian in name only. This included incorporating pagan gods as christian saints and adopting pagan festivals and other practices. Only a tiny educated class was expected to understand christianity at all. The uneducated class was not well regarded so that was OK.
The inquisition came much later. The intent of the Inquisition was to expunge the pagan adoption that started under Constantine. Most of the people executed during the inquisition were affiliated with pagan practices. Many of the women were pagan priestesses. At that time you had to read Latin to even understand the bible so I am sure the inquisition was confusing for most people.
Most of the major Pauline Epistles are mid first century, there were theological controversies as Christianity expanded but it's for sure not a state religion. It took centuries for the faith to dominate the pagan empire and the two got along pretty well well into late antiquity. Ultimately, many of the debates within Christianity in the fourth and fifth centuries are so obscure we can hardly understand them from a modern perspective- like the miaphysite controversy and countless others.
The other controversial issue from the council of Nicaea was the nature of the trinity. Many a holy war was fought over this exact issue for hundreds of years.
I understand what you are saying about Paul - but his assignment was to define a jewish sect for gentiles. That is what the epistles were. Paul redefined our modern understanding of Christianity by aligning the gospels with the intellectual class of the Roman empire.
As far as the Inquisition, the historical reality falls far short of the Monty python esque black legend our culture has inherited from protestant Europe. Really, trying to portray the Inquisition that way has more to do with historical anti catholic bias than facts and figures. These sorts of analyses always tend to ignore inter-protestant sectarian violence or any of the killings of catholics by protestants , usually out of ignorance but often due to selective framing for ideological purpose.
But then I think of an example like vaccine mandates and immediately an area opens up for varied interpretation.
One side would say a mandate (or "public health policy" more generally) treats people as a corporate body of "things" seeking to maximize their lifespan while ignoring their free will and volition.
The other side would say without such a mandate we are unnecessarily harming real people, who would otherwise be railroaded by the irresponsible actions of another.
Within each side, there is hiding a position that genuinely cares about other people. But on both sides, the way it is pursued is very often to just try to run over the other side.
If only more people were rational, and understood how to properly value "small risks with disproportionately large consequences". But there I go touting an ideology, again...
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-inertia-trap/201...
Maybe the line needs to be crossed, but denying that line and ridiculing the people who value the line is not helpful. Bodily autonomy/corporeal sovereignty was historically a cornerstone belief for the same people who now want to deny it from others, and that should not be taken lightly.
Interestingly enough, you appear not to identify with the group that has historically supported the right to abortion as a personal decision, have I interpreted that correctly? And you do identify with the group that believes vaccination should be a personal decision?
Helmet law would be a better comparison. The argument for requiring a seat belt isn't about protecting people from their own choices. It's because it's very easy to lose control when things get exciting if you're not belted into the seat. Now you're throwing around a two ton projectile and everyone else's lives are at risk.
This can't be the complete argument, because then it would only apply to drivers. If you're not wearing a seat belt and you're in an accident, you might become a projectile which can cause harm to others in the same vehicle.
If some person starts to link their identity to not believing in the vaccines, belittling them is not likely to help.
If it hadn't been made political, I would buy your comparison to seatbelts and drunk driving, but as it is, I think it is more comparable to putting a ban on male circumcision.
(Also, for the record, I think both sides of US politics has their own areas where they ignore evidence in favour of what is "correct" thinking for their side.)
A good test of the rule is how well it compares to the situation you want to apply it to. In the case you presented ( 'vaccines' ), for example, there is conscious effort to cast people, who refuse to be vaccinated as subhuman that have no rights in the face of this overwhelming threat.
On the other hand, unvaccinated attempt to portray the 'opposing side' as 'sheeple' riding on pre-existing anti-government strain prevalent in US mainstream.
It does not make the quote less insightful. It just shows that humans instinctively gather into tribes. It used to be the tribes were limited geographically, but this has not been the case for a while.
TLDR; Granny ( and Pratchett ) was not wrong when those words were written. It starts there.
At best, this is misplacement of blame. The only people placing others in jeopardy are those not getting vaccinated. The rest of us are not responsible just because we didn't tie those people down and inject them. That doesn't mean the rest of us should do nothing about the problem, but neither does it mean that a vaccine mandate is necessarily the appropriate solution.
You will often see such justifications of actions: 1. We are responsible for X. 2. Our solution solves the problem of X. 3. Therefore, our solution must be implemented regardless of your objections.
The problem being (1) may or may not be true; (2) is usually true; but (3) does not follow, because their solution to the problem of X is not the only solution, even if it is their preferred solution because of politics, economy, expediency, convenience, et cetera.
> Usually the more desperately you find yourself wishing things like “if only those idiots would see the light then of course we could Solve Everything!!”, the less solid the ground becomes.
As a former vegan that was in the movement for years, I can say in hindsight that those statements are very true.
Granny was the best!
> you have me except for the last paragraph. sometimes there really are misguided groups that need to be shown the way. flat earthers are a good example.
Are they though? Isn't some giant fraction of flat-eartherism self-consciously unserious (e.g. taken up as a joke for fun as a troll), and that that isn't is tiny and utterly marginalized?
That last paragraph you responded to is quite apt for very large numbers of people in the political mainstream that are in no way like the semi-mythical flat-eathers.
Popehat's Law of Goats applies.
If you want to advance things, ignore group affiliation. Study ideas and collect everything you can about them to build up knowledge, but if it's genuinely new, expect mostly confusion, dismay or indifference when publishing and presenting. The world doesn't care about knowing things until there is self-interest involved, and then it will care about winning by knowing, as if there is an exam to pass. Most things learned in school, for example, are about passing the exam, and therefore are only learned to be socially correct. This learning enables sophomoric behavior. The really good stuff has to be struggled for in all instances, by each person, at their own pace.
We should expect to mostly be incorrect in trying to save the world, because we aren't good, pure or innocent either.
I've thought for a long time that the flat earthers are predominantly not a group of people who actually think the world is flat, but rather a group of people who enjoy the creative mental gymnastics required to try and rationalize it. I'm sure there are some people who actually believe it, but my impression is they are the minority.
> “Miles shook his head. “I’ll allow you know the man better than I do. And yet... well, people do get hypnotized by the hard choices. And stop looking for alternatives. The will to be stupid is a very powerful force—“
> This surprised a brief laugh from Galeni, and a thoughtful look.
> “—but there are always alternatives. Surely it’s more important to be loyal to a person than a principle.”
> Galeni raised his eyebrows. “I suppose that shouldn’t surprise me, coming from a Barrayaran. From a society that traditionally organizes itself by internal oaths of fealty instead of an external framework of abstract law—is that your father’s politics showing?”
> Miles cleared his throat. “My mother’s theology, actually. From two completely different starting points they arrive at this odd intersection in their views. Her theory is that principles come and go, but that human souls are immortal, and you should therefore throw in your lot with the greater part. My mother tends to be extremely logical. Betan, y’know.”