Not directly related to the original comment, but generally, I must disagree with the assertion that caring about differences in intensity is problematic or warrants the assumption of “justifying bad behavior”. I’d argue, that in most cases, failure to juxtapose two distal scenarios is dubious and spurs a breakdown in communication. It seems commonplace now, amongst a set of the population, to cast all loosely related things into one bucket, details be damned. This is a dangerous mode of groupthink. It represents an over-correction that pushes the pendulum-of-social-discord to new heights. I also think it emblematic of the current political divide. Assuming intent, and classifying it as akin to some greater evil, only “highlights” that one party is leaning upon emotional hooks to make an obscure point seem clear. That’s religious bollocks. Words matter and differences are important. Good-bad binaries are born from our ideological past, to assert control or prepare us for battle.
“why are you defending bad behavior from being compared”
He quite clearly is comparing them and saying one isn’t as bad, in his tongue-in-cheek opinion.
“why do you care?”
Many are quite simply fatigued with the torrent of false equivalencies plaguing modern discourse, whether for dramatic effect or not. I think it sometimes comes from a good place, but more often, I suspect it to be self-serving group selection, othering behavior. The sanctimony with which some connect the dots clouds broader context. Effective communication requires giving the other party some grace.
I speak to some folks who have worked on university campuses over the past 20 years. Beginning, in earnest, around the year 2010, this type of behavior has run amok. I do think it started with good, well-reasoned intentions but metastasized into a nebulous search-for-meaning, a weary reaction to the declining state-of-the-world. Yes, identifying bad behavior can be a positive, to move society away from our more basal instincts, but oversimplifying in this manner is not helpful; it’s inflammatory. It’s like fighting fire with fire, which may work for a time, but ultimately, it’s a stopgap, feel-good, short-term solution that runs the risk of exacerbating the original problem.
Fact of the matter is, we are living during a time of extinction. Siloing into groups is probably inevitable, and I think manifestations of the culture war are a symptom, driven by environmental factors and bad actors. But, humans should be intelligent enough to maintain a broad context window and resist the temptation to reduce the complexities of cause-and-effect into emotional binaries. Mapping differences is how we truly improve and avoid thinking in binaries.
TLDR: I drank some coffee and wrote some stuff. No offense intended. For more about “thinking in binaries” check out the essays of Montaigne.
Not directly related to the original comment, but generally, I must disagree with the assertion that caring about differences in intensity is problematic or warrants the assumption of “justifying bad behavior”. I’d argue, that in most cases, failure to juxtapose two distal scenarios is dubious and spurs a breakdown in communication. It seems commonplace now, amongst a set of the population, to cast all loosely related things into one bucket, details be damned. This is a dangerous mode of groupthink. It represents an over-correction that pushes the pendulum-of-social-discord to new heights. I also think it emblematic of the current political divide. Assuming intent, and classifying it as akin to some greater evil, only “highlights” that one party is leaning upon emotional hooks to make an obscure point seem clear. That’s religious bollocks. Words matter and differences are important. Good-bad binaries are born from our ideological past, to assert control or prepare us for battle.
“why are you defending bad behavior from being compared”
He quite clearly is comparing them and saying one isn’t as bad, in his tongue-in-cheek opinion.
“why do you care?”
Many are quite simply fatigued with the torrent of false equivalencies plaguing modern discourse, whether for dramatic effect or not. I think it sometimes comes from a good place, but more often, I suspect it to be self-serving group selection, othering behavior. The sanctimony with which some connect the dots clouds broader context. Effective communication requires giving the other party some grace.
I speak to some folks who have worked on university campuses over the past 20 years. Beginning, in earnest, around the year 2010, this type of behavior has run amok. I do think it started with good, well-reasoned intentions but metastasized into a nebulous search-for-meaning, a weary reaction to the declining state-of-the-world. Yes, identifying bad behavior can be a positive, to move society away from our more basal instincts, but oversimplifying in this manner is not helpful; it’s inflammatory. It’s like fighting fire with fire, which may work for a time, but ultimately, it’s a stopgap, feel-good, short-term solution that runs the risk of exacerbating the original problem.
Fact of the matter is, we are living during a time of extinction. Siloing into groups is probably inevitable, and I think manifestations of the culture war are a symptom, driven by environmental factors and bad actors. But, humans should be intelligent enough to maintain a broad context window and resist the temptation to reduce the complexities of cause-and-effect into emotional binaries. Mapping differences is how we truly improve and avoid thinking in binaries.
TLDR: I drank some coffee and wrote some stuff. No offense intended. For more about “thinking in binaries” check out the essays of Montaigne.