The difference between disagreement and lack of shared values.

[Thyrsis]

Whatever you want to call them, values or standards or principles or whatever, there's a difference between disagreeing with someone's conclusions or priorities or reasoning and simply not sharing any common values with another person. That's obviously true if the person you're dealing with simply doesn't have any values, standards or principles. There's nothing to be gained, imo, from engaging with someone who doesn't share any of those basics. Yet whether it's the media or politicians or message board posters, that distinction is seemingly never recognized.

You'd think we could all agree on some basic core philosophies around those values, but many of us obviously don't.

What to do when you can't?

 

[hoot1]

There has been a growing tendency over the past few decades for politicians (especially in DC) to emphasize disagreements while forgetting shared values.

This makes compromise almost impossible by Congress. Given this disfunction, the Executive branch has assumed more power.

Now with Supreme Court having a majority willing to accept executive unitary power the Constitutional values incorporated in checks and balances between branches is slowly disappearing.

 

[UncleMark]

Whatever you want to call them, values or standards or principles or whatever, there's a difference between disagreeing with someone's conclusions or priorities or reasoning and simply not sharing any common values with another person.
[...]
You'd think we could all agree on some basic core philosophies around those values, but many of us obviously don't.

Wouldn't it have to begin with agreeing on facts?

 

[Thyrsis]

Wouldn't it have to begin with agreeing on facts?

Sure, but I think an interest in facts is one of the values I'm getting at. Valuing good governance, having a sense of common decency, some level of generosity of spirit, a concern for the greater good, respecting the institutional structure upon which our republic depends, etc. etc. In addition to not acting on those shared values, a lack of standards or principles would further be revealed by gross hypocrisy, hateful marginalization of others, a singular goal of exploitation at every turn for self-gain, propagandizing and dodging to shout down legitimate viewpoints, unfettered defense of corruption, etc.

 

[Thyrsis]

Whatever you want to call them, values or standards or principles or whatever, there's a difference between disagreeing with someone's conclusions or priorities or reasoning and simply not sharing any common values with another person. That's obviously true if the person you're dealing with simply doesn't have any values, standards or principles. There's nothing to be gained, imo, from engaging with someone who doesn't share any of those basics. Yet whether it's the media or politicians or message board posters, that distinction is seemingly never recognized.

You'd think we could all agree on some basic core philosophies around those values, but many of us obviously don't.

What to do when you can't?

Here are some I came up with a few years ago.

 

[tooold4]

Any solution ideas? After winning a congressional election your first paycheck puts you way above the national average for income. This article is a few years old but joining the top 3% would leave a person looking down on all but a few.
https://www.politico.com/story/2016...ir-per-diem-compensation-march-19-1816-220896
Just facts, not hoping for congress to give themselves a pay cut, pigs don't fly and all that.
Term limits? Seems that has an equal (see above) chance of gaining any support.

Family, peers and workplace are major factors in forming values.

A Jesus at the temple moment could clean up the workplace a bit.

Assigned seating, instead of DDDDDD RRRRRRR how about DRDRDRDR and get rid of the traditional aisle reach across and promote some mixing of ideas and a get along attitude, maybe even a little common courtesy.

A most radical idea considering that staff does most of the heavy lifting, how about each congressional office be staffed by non political government employees, with different pay grades to allow for some movement based on merit.

 

[Thyrsis]

Any solution ideas? After winning a congressional election your first paycheck puts you way above the national average for income. This article is a few years old but joining the top 3% would leave a person looking down on all but a few.
https://www.politico.com/story/2016...ir-per-diem-compensation-march-19-1816-220896
Just facts, not hoping for congress to give themselves a pay cut, pigs don't fly and all that.
Term limits? Seems that has an equal (see above) chance of gaining any support.

Family, peers and workplace are major factors in forming values.

A Jesus at the temple moment could clean up the workplace a bit.

Assigned seating, instead of DDDDDD RRRRRRR how about DRDRDRDR and get rid of the traditional aisle reach across and promote some mixing of ideas and a get along attitude, maybe even a little common courtesy.

A most radical idea considering that staff does most of the heavy lifting, how about each congressional office be staffed by non political government employees, with different pay grades to allow for some movement based on merit.

I worry and wonder whether some of this is hard-wired in us (whatever that might mean) and, if so, whether convincing will never work, but instead only reinforcing fear and self-preservation in "them" will curtail certain bad behaviors. Maybe an extreme example, but if a person is genetically hard-wired to be cruel and to lack any empathy whatsoever, you're never going to convince that person to think of their fellow man. The way around such a hired-wired baddie wouldn't be to persuade them or to woo them, but instead would be penalizing that person somehow and making it so their worst instincts create harsh-but-avoidable consequences. If you can't join them, beat them.

Nazis seem like a long-ago aberration, but maybe that's just what naturally happens to a meaningful portion of mankind when we don't consistently reinforce negative outcomes for bad social behaviors. Maybe those personas are always there, but maybe only quiet for long stretches because they lack the positioning to act on their hard-wired badness and they'll always take off their masks of silence as soon as the opportunity arises. Or maybe they're always there in the wide open sans masks but we misdiagnose it or misdescribe it or ignore it when they don't have control.

 

[tooold4]

It takes an upper hand to inflict harsh consequence, even an agreement on the rule of law gets diluted with the injection of currency.
As a self avowed low info poster I suggested bringing back the stocks and pillory for anyone who lies for public consumption, only half kidding. The point being, who decides the truth?
I won't sully this thread with current goings on but if I understand what you've posted, it is a natural and sane reaction to those now in control. vote D

 

[Rockfish1]

I worry and wonder whether some of this is hard-wired in us (whatever that might mean) and, if so, whether convincing will never work, but instead only reinforcing fear and self-preservation in "them" will curtail certain bad behaviors. Maybe an extreme example, but if a person is genetically hard-wired to be cruel and to lack any empathy whatsoever, you're never going to convince that person to think of their fellow man. The way around such a hired-wired baddie wouldn't be to persuade them or to woo them, but instead would be penalizing that person somehow and making it so their worst instincts create harsh-but-avoidable consequences. If you can't join them, beat them.

Nazis seem like a long-ago aberration, but maybe that's just what naturally happens to a meaningful portion of mankind when we don't consistently reinforce negative outcomes for bad social behaviors. Maybe those personas are always there, but maybe only quiet for long stretches because they lack the positioning to act on their hard-wired badness and they'll always take off their masks of silence as soon as the opportunity arises. Or maybe they're always there in the wide open sans masks but we misdiagnose it or misdescribe it or ignore it when they don't have control.

Trump’s core supporters think and talk like fascists. They believe the big lie. They reject all evidence against the big lie as disloyal. When the big lie is proven false they retreat to cynicism, saying it’s all lies anyway, and our guy owns you.

I think this is always there and mostly latent. It comes out when people feel triggered.

 

[Cortez88]

Trump’s core supporters think and talk like fascists. They believe the big lie. They reject all evidence against the big lie as disloyal. When the big lie is proven false they retreat to cynicism, saying it’s all lies anyway, and our guy owns you.

I think this is always there and mostly latent. It comes out when people feel triggered.

Here’s what I don’t get. What do all the poor, uneducated Trump supporters get for actions such as the G7 fraud? Trump does absolutely nothing for them. Nothing. His corruption benefits him and him alone. Yet, these MAGA hats are ardent in their support for him.

 

[IUCrazy2]

Trump’s core supporters think and talk like fascists.

The way around such a hired-wired baddie wouldn't be to persuade them or to woo them, but instead would be penalizing that person somehow and making it so their worst instincts create harsh-but-avoidable consequences. If you can't join them, beat them.

Lol.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Whatever you want to call them, values or standards or principles or whatever, there's a difference between disagreeing with someone's conclusions or priorities or reasoning and simply not sharing any common values with another person. That's obviously true if the person you're dealing with simply doesn't have any values, standards or principles. There's nothing to be gained, imo, from engaging with someone who doesn't share any of those basics. Yet whether it's the media or politicians or message board posters, that distinction is seemingly never recognized.

You'd think we could all agree on some basic core philosophies around those values, but many of us obviously don't.

What to do when you can't?

I think the problem ultimately comes down to the fact that people are often incorrect about what their values are, either through mistake or dishonesty. For example, virtually all of us will say we value truth (Ladoga being the notable example amongst us here), but some people who would claim to value truth clearly don't. Truth doesn't mean three shits to them.

Most of us would claim we value life. But some only value life when the topic is abortion. Others only value life when the topic is the death penalty. Or gun violence. Or specifically mass shootings by sociopathic whites. Or specifically gang violence by inner city blacks. Or whatever.

Long story short, the values we claim to hold often take a back seat to whatever other motivations are driving our positions.

 

[stollcpa]

Lol.

All you can do is just shake your head and laugh.

 

[iu_a_att]

I think the problem ultimately comes down to the fact that people are often incorrect about what their values are, either through mistake or dishonesty. For example, virtually all of us will say we value truth (Ladoga being the notable example amongst us here), but some people who would claim to value truth clearly don't. Truth doesn't mean three shits to them.

Most of us would claim we value life. But some only value life when the topic is abortion. Others only value life when the topic is the death penalty. Or gun violence. Or specifically mass shootings by sociopathic whites. Or specifically gang violence by inner city blacks. Or whatever.

Long story short, the values we claim to hold often take a back seat to whatever other motivations are driving our positions.

I agree with much of what you say. Where I diverge is that I am not sure that most of us even know, as in conscious awareness kind of knowledge, what we actually value. Instead, the things we claim to value are often ex post politically correct (as in socially acceptable) justifications of our feelings. In an important sense people don't have values at all, rather they have feelings. Those feelings are somewhat predictable but they are not "values" as in the kind of socially acceptable, rationally coherent ethics or rules that constitute legitimate acceptable justifications of action.

 

[iu_a_att]

Here’s what I don’t get. What do all the poor, uneducated Trump supporters get for actions such as the G7 fraud? Trump does absolutely nothing for them. Nothing. His corruption benefits him and him alone. Yet, these MAGA hats are ardent in their support for him.

Trump punishes and abuses their enemies. He elevates them by diminishing others. That is enormously satisfying for his supporters.

 

[stollcpa]

Trump punishes and abuses their enemies. He elevates them by diminishing others. That is enormously satisfying for his supporters.

You have an ironic like to your post. LOL.

 

[iu_a_att]

You have an ironic like to your post. LOL.

Do you mean that my post was ironic or that someone's like of my post is ironic?

 

[mashnut]

You have an ironic like to your post. LOL.

Are you able to comment on the content of that post or are you just here to snipe at other posters? I’d be interested in your actual opinion of you have one to share.

 

[stollcpa]

Are you able to comment on the content of that post or are you just here to snipe at other posters? I’d be interested in your actual opinion of you have one to share.

It’s simple, both parties are demonizing their opponents. I wish all would stop. Posters do the same thing on WC.

 

[mashnut]

It’s simple, both parties are demonizing their opponents. I wish all would stop. Posters do the same thing on WC.

Ok, and you think that your comment above helped that? You think that anything on a message board is comparable to someone holding the most powerful office in the world engaging in that kind of behavior? You’re clearly intelligent, I’d be interested to hear your opinion on a specific topic instead of whatabouting and blaming other posters on the board for your bad behavior. I think you can do better.

 

[iu_a_att]

It’s simple, both parties are demonizing their opponents. I wish all would stop. Posters do the same thing on WC.

It seems to me that what one group sees as good the other sees as evil. Are they wrong about each other?

 

[stollcpa]

It seems to me that what one group sees as good the other sees as evil. Are they wrong about each other?

Most of the time we’re wrong about each other. Unfortunately each side cannot make an argument for their position without demonizing the other side. I’ve given up on any change happening in my lifetime. Anyone that doesn’t acknowledge both sides are doing it are dishonest people.

 

[iu_a_att]

Most of the time we’re wrong about each other. Unfortunately each side cannot make an argument for their position without demonizing the other side. I’ve given up on any change happening in my lifetime. Anyone that doesn’t acknowledge both sides are doing it are dishonest people.

I think people feel demonized by the other side. But I wonder if they are? Consider one of the most contentious issues, abortion. Those who support abortion rights regard efforts to deny them those rights as evil. Those who oppose abortion rights regard efforts to permit abortion as evil. I don't think either side demonizes the other by saying that the other side supports evil.

 

[Thyrsis]

I think people feel demonized by the other side. But I wonder if they are? Consider one of the most contentious issues, abortion. Those who support abortion rights regard efforts to deny them those rights as evil. Those who oppose abortion rights regard efforts to permit abortion as evil. I don't think either side demonizes the other by saying that the other side supports evil.

From my point of view, none of this is that difficult or anything like a close call. People aren't perfect beings, but some are clearly without standards, don't make any real pretense of holding themselves or their elected representatives to consistent standards, put team/self/party over universal standards, have no meaningful concern or interest in others they consider the opposition, are willfully dishonest, tolerant of corruption, etc. Quibbling over details or masking bad actions behind a screen of "everybody does it" completely misses the point I was getting at (regardless of whether there's some other point to be had).

 

[Thyrsis]

Whatever you want to call them, values or standards or principles or whatever, there's a difference between disagreeing with someone's conclusions or priorities or reasoning and simply not sharing any common values with another person. That's obviously true if the person you're dealing with simply doesn't have any values, standards or principles. There's nothing to be gained, imo, from engaging with someone who doesn't share any of those basics. Yet whether it's the media or politicians or message board posters, that distinction is seemingly never recognized.

You'd think we could all agree on some basic core philosophies around those values, but many of us obviously don't.

What to do when you can't?

Meanwhile ....

 

[Courtsensetwo]

I think the problem ultimately comes down to the fact that people are often incorrect about what their values are, either through mistake or dishonesty. For example, virtually all of us will say we value truth (Ladoga being the notable example amongst us here), but some people who would claim to value truth clearly don't. Truth doesn't mean three shits to them.

Most of us would claim we value life. But some only value life when the topic is abortion. Others only value life when the topic is the death penalty. Or gun violence. Or specifically mass shootings by sociopathic whites. Or specifically gang violence by inner city blacks. Or whatever.

Long story short, the values we claim to hold often take a back seat to whatever other motivations are driving our positions.

Well said.

 

[Thyrsis]

Whatever you want to call them, values or standards or principles or whatever, there's a difference between disagreeing with someone's conclusions or priorities or reasoning and simply not sharing any common values with another person. That's obviously true if the person you're dealing with simply doesn't have any values, standards or principles. There's nothing to be gained, imo, from engaging with someone who doesn't share any of those basics. Yet whether it's the media or politicians or message board posters, that distinction is seemingly never recognized.

You'd think we could all agree on some basic core philosophies around those values, but many of us obviously don't.

What to do when you can't?

 

[Courtsensetwo]

From my point of view, none of this is that difficult or anything like a close call. People aren't perfect beings, but some are clearly without standards, don't make any real pretense of holding themselves or their elected representatives to consistent standards, put team/self/party over universal standards, have no meaningful concern or interest in others they consider the opposition, are willfully dishonest, tolerant of corruption, etc. Quibbling over details or masking bad actions behind a screen of "everybody does it" completely misses the point I was getting at (regardless of whether there's some other point to be had).

Agreed, and it seems more prevalent than at least I have ever noticed before. Each side of the spectrum on almost any issue pointing and painting the other, quick to justify their own. There is as you said, far more common ground that is being suppressed for the sake of "winning" or even demonizing someone else. The task of the next President and congress is daunting but the opportunity of a generation.

 

[stollcpa]

Agreed, and it seems more prevalent than at least I have ever noticed before. Each side of the spectrum on almost any issue pointing and painting the other, quick to justify their own. There is as you said, far more common ground that is being suppressed for the sake of "winning" or even demonizing someone else. The task of the next President and congress is daunting but the opportunity of a generation.

What happens if the next President is the same one we have now. Should they all try to do something together or have four more years of impeachment?

 

[Circlejoe]

What happens if the next President is the same one we have now. Should they all try to do something together or have four more years of impeachment?

I guess it depends on whether the President stops doing illegal sh!t. How’s that sound to you?

 

[stollcpa]

I guess it depends on whether the President stops doing illegal sh!t. How’s that sound to you?

There’s a difference of opinion on if he’s doing illegal shit.

I didn’t post to start a fight. Just asking a question.

 

[UncleMark]

There’s a difference of opinion on if he’s doing illegal shit.

I didn’t post to start a fight. Just asking a question.

It's not a difference of opinion, that's a willingness to turn a blind eye.

 

[iu_a_att]

I guess it depends on whether the President stops doing illegal sh!t. How’s that sound to you?

You don't understand. If the President does it, it is legal. That is, literally, the position of the President.

 

[Thyrsis]

I wish you would stop the whole "not posting to start a fight", "can't we be better than this" meme and then write the crap you do on this forum. At least own it. Don't be a coward.

And there's no difference of opinion. There's only denial from some people like you. Trump thinks because he didn't say the exact words of quid pro quo that he is safe. That's the strategy of a man who does illegal shit all the time but has lawyers to bail him out. Trump has done criminal activity his entire life. And those that continue to support him fall into four categories, they fear him, they want something from him, they think everyone does it (which means they are probably criminals too) or they just choose to ignore it. There's nobody that thinks he's not a criminal. Nobody.

Along those lines (and that of the original post), regardless of which insufficient reason explains that support, if your values/standards tolerate or are consistent with supporting a key government official whose corruption/criminality runs to his/her very essence, there really isn't much to talk about.

 

[hoot1]

I think people feel demonized by the other side. But I wonder if they are? Consider one of the most contentious issues, abortion. Those who support abortion rights regard efforts to deny them those rights as evil. Those who oppose abortion rights regard efforts to permit abortion as evil. I don't think either side demonizes the other by saying that the other side supports evil.

IAT, abortion is a perfect example of each side saying, "You are wrong and we are right" while ignoring shared values with politicians bringing government into the issue in support of one side or the other.

This well thought out .thesis discusses the above and in part states,

According to evangelical minister and author of Costly Grace, the Rev. Robert Schenk, “This is not a question for politicians. When your end goal is a political one, you will, without exception, exploit the pain and the suffering and the agony of those who face the issue in their daily reality, in their real life.”

Since we do not know with absolute medical or theological certainty when life begins, a decision to begin or terminate a pregnancy should be made by each individual.

Our second shared value involves compassion and care for others, rooted in sacred scriptures and moral codes.

The third shared value across the abortion debate is support for limited government interference in private matters.​

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

There is a difference of opinion. You’re opinion on legality is determined by person your goring.

And BTW, my opinion is you’re an asshole.

The general opening statements that have been released have been enough to demonstrate there was an illegal quid prop quo. The only difference of opinion is that some people are of the opinion that they should ignore criminal activity because the guy doing it is "their guy."

 

[iu_a_att]

IAT, abortion is a perfect example of each side saying, "You are wrong and we are right" while ignoring shared values with politicians bringing government into the issue in support of one side or the other.

This well thought out .thesis discusses the above and in part states,

According to evangelical minister and author of Costly Grace, the Rev. Robert Schenk, “This is not a question for politicians. When your end goal is a political one, you will, without exception, exploit the pain and the suffering and the agony of those who face the issue in their daily reality, in their real life.”

Since we do not know with absolute medical or theological certainty when life begins, a decision to begin or terminate a pregnancy should be made by each individual.

Our second shared value involves compassion and care for others, rooted in sacred scriptures and moral codes.

The third shared value across the abortion debate is support for limited government interference in private matters.​

Some thoughts on shared values. Being human beings we have many shared values. The problems arise because we don't have just one value, we have multiple values that conflict. For example, fairness collides with efficiency collides with piety etc. When our values conflict we must figure out which value governs. Left to choose for themselves people resolve values conflicts differently. Abortion is an excellent example of values in conflict. A woman has the freedom to control her body and the fetus has a right to life. People obviously reach different conclusions about which value should triumph. I think the arguments people make about why one or the other value is the one that wins are little more than rationalizations for positions they have reached largely on emotional grounds. It is why "debate" on issues involving conflicts of values is so singularly unpersuasive.

The idea that we might leave individuals to resolve value conflicts for themselves as a matter of "conscience" has tremendous appeal. But the abortion debate illustrates that when decisions have to be made that impact the fate of multiple individuals this is not possible.

Contrary to Rev Shenk, politics (remembering Clauswitz's famous dictum that war is a continuation of politics by other means) is precisely where values conflicts involving multiple individuals get decided. We create democratic government and processes as a means to come up with an answer to the question of what should be done when values conflict. We collaborate in a political process as an alternative to enormously destructive war. The political process has another enormous virtue. It requires us to articulate rules and principles that will govern not just one case but future cases as well. This is helpful because it helps us clarify what are values versus what are temporarily advantageous outcomes we desire in a specific situation.

 

[Thyrsis]

Some thoughts on shared values. Being human beings we have many shared values. The problems arise because we don't have just one value, we have multiple values that conflict. For example, fairness collides with efficiency collides with piety etc. When our values conflict we must figure out which value governs. Left to choose for themselves people resolve values conflicts differently. Abortion is an excellent example of values in conflict. A woman has the freedom to control her body and the fetus has a right to life. People obviously reach different conclusions about which value should triumph. I think the arguments people make about why one or the other value is the one that wins are little more than rationalizations for positions they have reached largely on emotional grounds. It is why "debate" on issues involving conflicts of values is so singularly unpersuasive.

The idea that we might leave individuals to resolve value conflicts for themselves as a matter of "conscience" has tremendous appeal. But the abortion debate illustrates that when decisions have to be made that impact the fate of multiple individuals this is not possible.

Contrary to Rev Shenk, politics (remembering Clauswitz's famous dictum that war is a continuation of politics by other means) is precisely where values conflicts involving multiple individuals get decided. We create democratic government and processes as a means to come up with an answer to the question of what should be done when values conflict. We collaborate in a political process as an alternative to enormously destructive war. The political process has another enormous virtue. It requires us to articulate rules and principles that will govern not just one case but future cases as well. This is helpful because it helps us clarify what are values versus what are temporarily advantageous outcomes we desire in a specific situation.

For what little it's worth, I think focusing on a singular unresolvable issue like abortion and engaging in esoteric discussions about what values are misses the applicable and crucial point to today's political realities (i.e., the abandonment of foundational governing principles among a growing portion of the electorate).

 

[hoot1]

For what little it's worth, I think focusing on a singular unresolvable issue like abortion and engaging in esoteric discussions about what values are misses the applicable and crucial point to today's political realities (i.e., the abandonment of foundational governing principles among a growing portion of the electorate).

Thyrsis, in thinking about the abandonment of foundational governing principles my mind reflected upon the principle that through the electoral process we the people have power over governing.

Did we the people abandon this principle or have corporations and lobbyists for special interest groups usurped much of the people power? First of all, through large donations and political ads they influence who gets elected. Then once elected they use their lobbyists to influence how politicians govern. The lobbyists even assist in writing the bills.

Lately state legislatures have grown accustomed to passing copy cat bills written by special interest groups such as ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council).

 

[IUCrazy2]

For what little it's worth, I think focusing on a singular unresolvable issue like abortion and engaging in esoteric discussions about what values are misses the applicable and crucial point to today's political realities (i.e., the abandonment of foundational governing principles among a growing portion of the electorate).

There are some pretty established governing values that the left has done an about-face on lately if that is what you mean.