undefined | Better HN

0 pointsdang5y ago0 comments

That seems like overinterpretation to me, based on the ideological battle lines of the moment. Even if you're right, though, I think people mostly do that because they want to stand up for someone.

Edit: maybe it would be of interest to add that, from the therapeutic work I've been involved in, it is clear that people's motivations in these areas can often be traced to family dynamics—which is to say, to love. Even when it doesn't look or sound like love, love is usually the driving force. I often think of Chesterton's line, "The soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him". You can say the same thing about political and ideological battles, which after all are (quoting a different celebrity) war by other means.

This is an optimistic view, because the more we can see and acknowledge that love in each other, the less we need to be in conflict. The challenge is that such love often goes through complex transformations and distortions which can be hard to disentangle.

0 comments

abtinf5y ago

I believe in treating people with justice, which means to treat each person as they deserve to be treated.

So long as I believe a person is merely mistaken--that is, they lack evidence or the proper method of thinking, but are otherwise virtuous--then I will forgive them a thousand grievances and "acknowledge [the] love" in them. If they are important to me and I don't have to give up something more important, I would be willing to invest the time to bridge our differences. A relationship is the earned reward of the participants' virtues.

But if a person consciously takes a single step toward evil, they are a threat to my life. It would be self-destructive for me to try to see the love in the thug mugging me at gunpoint. It disrespects the people I admire and destroys the value of those positive relationships. Such a person might work to reform their character, but I have no obligation toward them.

I've come to the conclusion there are people in this world who act out of hatred for life and fear of living.

There are soldiers who fight for evil causes, and they are evil. Robert E Lee was offered a senior role in the Union army, but chose to fight for the Confederates. Some might say he fought for love of southern culture or his home or family or any number of other inessential factors; they evade the essential that Lee fought to preserve slavery.

There are soldiers who fight for good causes, and they are good. Sherman fought slavery and he obliterated everything in his path that supported slavery.

To equivocate between the two rewards the wicked and damns the good. Any ethical method that fails to distinguish the essential difference between the two is at best useless, and at worst a tool in the service of evil.

Minimizing conflict is a standard that is anti-life. We should be in conflict with evil. The test I apply in online discussion is to ask myself "What is this person advocating for? If this person achieved their ideal outcome, what would that look like?"

The opinion I've come to regarding comments like jameshart's is that they actively advocate for nothing--nihilism. I don't see any evidence indicating they want to replace something bad with something good. In this case, they want to replace a sentimental anecdote with silence.

By the way, I know these views are radically different. If you are curious about other applications or how it might apply to family interactions, PM me and I'd be happy to chat.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse