So glad you changed your tune, from the almost a daily drumbeat of trashing the former president, to this. And I mean this, sincerely.To me, it's a little weird that we spend so much time on MN acting like we are the people who can decide what the social contract is for America as a whole or for Facebook. To me, a basic Christian response to the things Haidt describes is probably more like this: (1) be aware of the outrage cycles, predefined "us" versus "them" narratives, and clickbait journalism, step away from it; (2) if you choose to care about an issue, find reliable sources that don't do those things; (3) remember to seek first the Kingdom of God in all things; (4) ask how we can be like Jesus to the broken world around us.
Why the Past 10 Years of American Life Have Been Uniquely Stupid
Re: Why the Past 10 Years of American Life Have Been Uniquely Stupid
0 x
-
PetrChelcicky
- Posts: 781
- Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2017 2:32 pm
- Location: Krefeld, Germany
- Affiliation: none
Re: Why the Past 10 Years of American Life Have Been Uniquely Stupid
Bootstrap,
I will try to keep this as short as possible.
- Haidt and you and I seem to be willing to discuss this as a problem of dangers and fears.
- as for the danger described by Haidt (being exposed to a shitstorm and dismissed by your employer) I am not so sure that the problem is bigger nowadays than for instance in the 1950s (when Gordon and Mildred Gordon described it in "The big frame": A FBI man is to be cancelled by digging out and publishing smut about the early life of his wife).
- In any case, I think that German employers have been more thick-skinned and less inclined to sacrifice their employees on the altar of public outrage. (Maybe things are changing here, too.)
- Most people that I read, i.e. most people on the right, are much more fearful about another scenario: that one day at 5 o'clock a.m. the political police comes and confiscates their laptop - and perhaps, in the not-so-far future, confiscates themselves, too.
- Haidt and you and I seem to think that one can stop such fears only by mutually creating trust.
- That's where I add: trust by giving mutual guarantees. And as far as "we" are concerned (i.e. the persons who mostly fear suppression of free speech), the best guarantee is specifying which kinds of speech are essential enough to be upkept under all circumstances. I miss such a specification really badly. (My personal idea is that all kinds of speech should be protected if they are (a) honest (the speaker really believes what he says) and (b) serious (the speaker does not merely want to stimulate a reaction).)
- Until now I have not really thought about the counterpart: which kind of guarantee would "we" give to "them"? Insofar I have profited from this debate. (But wouldn't we simply allow them to persecute everyone who oversteps the limits implied in the specification?)
- All these kinds of reflections could as well be part of a course about "mediation" or "peacekeeping" by an Anabaptist institution. "Social contracts" are certainly different in detail and I would not want to impose them on someone - but they work only when some basic rules are observed; and finding out and defining those basic rules is a matter in which every student of human life can participate.
I will try to keep this as short as possible.
- Haidt and you and I seem to be willing to discuss this as a problem of dangers and fears.
- as for the danger described by Haidt (being exposed to a shitstorm and dismissed by your employer) I am not so sure that the problem is bigger nowadays than for instance in the 1950s (when Gordon and Mildred Gordon described it in "The big frame": A FBI man is to be cancelled by digging out and publishing smut about the early life of his wife).
- In any case, I think that German employers have been more thick-skinned and less inclined to sacrifice their employees on the altar of public outrage. (Maybe things are changing here, too.)
- Most people that I read, i.e. most people on the right, are much more fearful about another scenario: that one day at 5 o'clock a.m. the political police comes and confiscates their laptop - and perhaps, in the not-so-far future, confiscates themselves, too.
- Haidt and you and I seem to think that one can stop such fears only by mutually creating trust.
- That's where I add: trust by giving mutual guarantees. And as far as "we" are concerned (i.e. the persons who mostly fear suppression of free speech), the best guarantee is specifying which kinds of speech are essential enough to be upkept under all circumstances. I miss such a specification really badly. (My personal idea is that all kinds of speech should be protected if they are (a) honest (the speaker really believes what he says) and (b) serious (the speaker does not merely want to stimulate a reaction).)
- Until now I have not really thought about the counterpart: which kind of guarantee would "we" give to "them"? Insofar I have profited from this debate. (But wouldn't we simply allow them to persecute everyone who oversteps the limits implied in the specification?)
- All these kinds of reflections could as well be part of a course about "mediation" or "peacekeeping" by an Anabaptist institution. "Social contracts" are certainly different in detail and I would not want to impose them on someone - but they work only when some basic rules are observed; and finding out and defining those basic rules is a matter in which every student of human life can participate.
0 x