A so called scientific investigation says both sides judge others as more or less moral by their party affiliation regardless of actual treatment:

[Moonbeam]

Experiments show political affiliation trumps fair play in moral evaluations

Individuals, regardless of moderate political beliefs, judge opponents as less moral, even when treated fairly or kindly, underscoring deep political polarization in the United States.

www.psypost.org

How can we take our opinions seriously if it is true that we do.

I remember being told not to judge least I be judged. Could we be the good guys only in our imaginations.

Ah, fuck it. I’m going back to sleep.

 

[Jaskalas]

I remember being told not to judge least I be judged. Could we be the good guys only in our imaginations.

Left to our own devices, almost everyone would generally not be any better or more evil than anyone else. Murder, looting, raping, taking slaves. It would all occur. Again and again.

The "good guys" concept only becomes valid when there exists an institution that can and does indoctrinate a people towards rule of law, a bill of rights, kindness and compassion.
Do not emotionally judge a person, instead objectively judge their actions. Do they match the institution's goals of Democracy, do they strengthen or weaken it?
If they had their will enacted, would base human behavior rise again, or remain under control?

There is morality to be found in NOT wanting to watch the world burn. In adhering to Democratic principles and in keeping our people from straying off that path.

 

[sandorski]

We choose our sides based upon what we think is more Moral/Correct. That makes the sides we reject lesser by default. The judgment isn't really that nefarious.

 

[Perknose]

Both sides, eh? So . . . the Jews regarded the Nazis as less moral because they wanted to exterminate them and the Nazis regarded the Jews as less moral because . . . reasons? And we call that a draw?

Hey, I know my answer doesn't truly address the depth of the insight in the OP's article, but there is at least sometimes some danger in over-intellectualizing a situation.

It reminds me of the definition of a liberal: "A man too broadminded to take his own side in an argument."

 

[Moonbeam]

Left to our own devices, almost everyone would generally not be any better or more evil than anyone else. Murder, looting, raping, taking slaves. It would all occur. Again and again.

The "good guys" concept only becomes valid when there exists an institution that can and does indoctrinate a people towards rule of law, a bill of rights, kindness and compassion.
Do not emotionally judge a person, instead objectively judge their actions. Do they match the institution's goals of Democracy, do they strengthen or weaken it?
If they had their will enacted, would base human behavior rise again, or remain under control?

There is morality to be found in NOT wanting to watch the world burn. In adhering to Democratic principles and in keeping our people from straying off that path.

You know, of course, that we differ in this. I believe that a sense of morality is innate, that it is a product of millions of years of evolution as a social primate and that the perception of fair play and and unequal treatment is apparent even among monkeys. The reason it does not always express may rarely be the result of some genetic or developmental impairment to an individual's causing an inability to feel empathy but far more likely to be the product of what you call the good, proper indoctrination.

I believe that indoctrination generally speaking is the enemy, and that the flowering of true morality happens in the absence of all of it. We don't need to inculcate anything. Just allow what is there to bloom. This is the danger of self hate and it's attendant need for perfection. We seek the good after being made to feel evil. A flower bud hat hates itself will never reveal it's potential beauty. We carry this truth in many stories such as the ugly duckling. The truth is coded in archetypes everywhere in stories and mythology, in religion and mystical traditions, and today in psychology and the understanding motivation.

 

[Moonbeam]

Both sides, eh? So . . . the Jews regarded the Nazis as less moral because they wanted to exterminate them and the Nazis regarded the Jews as less moral because . . . reasons? And we call that a draw?

Hey, I know my answer doesn't truly address the depth of the insight in the OP's article, but there is at least sometimes some danger in over-intellectualizing a situation.

It reminds me of the definition of a liberal: "A man too broadminded to take his own side in an argument."

Well I am too broadminded to argue with that, but not so lacking in nit-pickiness not to point out that Jew and Nazi aren't exactly political affiliations. They remind me more of the problem of becoming what we fear which may generate the issue of both sides.

I am most interested, I think, in the issues around unconscious bigotry and how it distorts perception. The greatest enemy to truth in my opinion is the assumption we already know it. The presences of unexamined but assumed to be truthful bias automatically prevents serious introspection. Perhaps that is only my bias. But then being a Jew and being a Nazi look to me to be quite different things because I would say there are lots of good Jews and no good Nazis.

 

[ivwshane]

Well we did have DEI training/teaching that actually addresses such biases but a certain political group with a low IQ didn’t understand what it was and has tried their best to kill it.

 

[Moonbeam]

Well we did have DEI training/teaching that actually addresses such biases but a certain political group with a low IQ didn’t understand what it was and has tried their best to kill it.

What you call low IQed I call threatened by facts that cast doubt of the objectivity of their ego pride. The bigger the ego the more terrifying it's loss which is why the meek inherit the earth. The ego seeks to obtain by wealth what the egoless have in spades for free. Thus they need to do all they can to deny this reality. Those who can see say the Emperor has no clothes.

 

[Greenman]

Experiments show political affiliation trumps fair play in moral evaluations

Individuals, regardless of moderate political beliefs, judge opponents as less moral, even when treated fairly or kindly, underscoring deep political polarization in the United States.

www.psypost.org

How can we take our opinions seriously if it is true that we do.

I remember being told not to judge least I be judged. Could we be the good guys only in our imaginations.

Ah, fuck it. I’m going back to sleep.

Did anyone ever think this wasn't the case?

 

[dank69]

Well I am too broadminded to argue with that, but not so lacking in nit-pickiness not to point out that Jew and Nazi aren't exactly political affiliations. They remind me more of the problem of becoming what we fear which may generate the issue of both sides.

I am most interested, I think, in the issues around unconscious bigotry and how it distorts perception. The greatest enemy to truth in my opinion is the assumption we already know it. The presences of unexamined but assumed to be truthful bias automatically prevents serious introspection. Perhaps that is only my bias. But then being a Jew and being a Nazi look to me to be quite different things because I would say there are lots of good Jews and no good Nazis.

Nazism isn't a political affiliation? Pretty sure you didn't mean that. The line between religion and politics is often non-existent as well.

Of course you can find examples of liberals taking it too far, but none of them have any real power or are even close to having real power. Meanwhile, it is practically impossible to be a conservative without being a bigot against something. It's impossible to be a Republican or vote Republican these days without being bigoted. Republicans do not offer anything to anyone other than bigotry in some form.

 

[brycejones]

Did anyone ever think this wasn't the case?

Intelligent, not ignorant people......

 

[Moonbeam]

Nazism isn't a political affiliation? Pretty sure you didn't mean that. The line between religion and politics is often non-existent as well.

Of course you can find examples of liberals taking it too far, but none of them have any real power or are even close to having real power. Meanwhile, it is practically impossible to be a conservative without being a bigot against something. It's impossible to be a Republican or vote Republican these days without being bigoted. Republicans do not offer anything to anyone other than bigotry in some form.

I suppose I relied too much of charity when I said that Jew and Nazi are not political affiliations. The article I linked examined the two political affiliations in the US between which the polarization between them has created an urgency that has attracted scientific interest. Liberal is to conservative as Jew is to Nazi does not work in a US context.

You have focused on how extreme the right has become. I don’t disagtee as I said to Perk. Where I find the scientific study part useful is what it says about liberals, about how I may be trending myself and whether I want to be that way. As you may know, I see all imperfections the world curses me with as the product, not of something out there but as unhesled wounds from the past.

Wisdom, real self understanding, transcendental third way realization leaves a person in this world but not of it, I believe.

The polarization we see in the US, then, to me, is the result of an unconscious need to get even for grievance and disgust we carry within because we were identified by others via being pit down as causing them.

 

[Moonbeam]

Did anyone ever think this wasn't the case?

That is not the question I would ask. The question I would ask is did I ever see that this is how I am, so fucking petty that I would assume that everybody who doesn’t think like me is worthless shit.

 

[Moonbeam]

We choose our sides based upon what we think is more Moral/Correct. That makes the sides we reject lesser by default. The judgment isn't really that nefarious.

Why? Can't it be that what we believe to be more morally attuned than some other belief it is so for instinctive or logical reasons any of which could be presented as to why that one is better than the other. Would it not be that a so called superior moral position that any one person may espouse they do so because they feel that their moral beliefs make them good, and that the reason they will cling to suck a belief and despise any who challenge it is maybe the result of doubt, a result of hidden insecurities as to the validity of their moral beliefs inculcated in childhood by long suppressed memories of being told one is worthless?

Contrast that with the possibility that one can transcend such an unfortunate condition and be free from such unconscious motivations opening the door to directly perceive what real morality is.

If people's moral positions are based on unconscious needs how can they be judged as worthy of contempt? People for the most part have no idea why they believe what they believe.

Shouldn't the first step to improved morality be the realization of this fact? Otherwise, it seems to me that people are just pissing into the wind.

 

[MrSquished]

If you vote for Trump, you are fundamentally immoral. In a parallel universe I'm sure they could have turned out better, but this is not the case, and we are where we are. History has taught us repeatedly this is the case. Moonbeam is foolish.

 

[sandorski]

Why? Can't it be that what we believe to be more morally attuned than some other belief it is so for instinctive or logical reasons any of which could be presented as to why that one is better than the other. Would it not be that a so called superior moral position that any one person may espouse they do so because they feel that their moral beliefs make them good, and that the reason they will cling to suck a belief and despise any who challenge it is maybe the result of doubt, a result of hidden insecurities as to the validity of their moral beliefs inculcated in childhood by long suppressed memories of being told one is worthless?

Contrast that with the possibility that one can transcend such an unfortunate condition and be free from such unconscious motivations opening the door to directly perceive what real morality is.

If people's moral positions are based on unconscious needs how can they be judged as worthy of contempt? People for the most part have no idea why they believe what they believe.

Shouldn't the first step to improved morality be the realization of this fact? Otherwise, it seems to me that people are just pissing into the wind.

The underlying psychology for why one chooses their morals is moot. They choose the Party that best reflects their Morals.

 

[Moonbeam]

The underlying psychology for why one chooses their morals is moot. They choose the Party that best reflects their Morals.

That is what they believe and what you believe. Neither you nor they had a choice. The underlying psychological factors in your case and theirs don't tell you that they and you had no choice because you are unconsciously avoiding seeing that. The underlying factor is the opposite of what you say. No conscious choice is possible for people who are asleep. You can't argue against what I have said by evoking choice. It does not exist. You have to prove there is no such thing as unconscious motivation we are unaware directs our behavior and that choice does exist. Good luck with that.

 

[sandorski]

Cool bro.

 

[MrSquished]

I wonder what moonbeam and green man think of people that thought Nazis were terrible people. I guess it was just because they were biased anti Nazis party members. Huh. I'm enlightened now.

 

[Moonbeam]

I wonder what moonbeam and green man think of people that thought Nazis were terrible people. I guess it was just because they were biased anti Nazis party members. Huh. I'm enlightened now.

I can tell you what I think. I think they live in misery through no fault of their own and so long as they protect themselves from that awareness they will never know the real joy of being. In short, they make me feel profoundly sad. There is a way out but their defensiveness prevents them from seeing. Sadder still, if they act out with lethal violence against people in my presence and the only option I have to stop them is with one of my guns, I will use it to do so. Acting out is a line in the sand that demands a response. You are of course free to try bellyaching. I prefer being armed.

 

[HomerJS]

I base my opinion on actions. If you are racist there is an 85% chance you are Republican.