Why must you accuse your intellectual opponents of being mean and evil? Why would they be so cruel and irrational? Do you have any real reason to believe you are any better than them?
Because it takes a whole lot of energy to constantly invent imaginary earnest justification after imaginary earnest justification for a group of people who consistently come out against making life better for the less fortunate at every turn. No matter the cost or savings or lack of either, no matter the circumstance -- it's always vote against the interests of the disadvantaged.
And it doesn't help when it's literally the focus of their stated ideology. Or when the leaders of their party say things to the effect of "Our goal is to destroy this president at all costs no matter what it does to the country or the american people"
I get that it's easy to say it's always a mistake or oversimplification to call a group of people evil, but what if they actually are?
>"I get that it's easy to say it's always a mistake or oversimplification to call a group of people evil, but what if they actually are?"
How do I know you are not evil? You say that the conservatives are trying to persecute the disadvantaged, but you could be accused of pursuing authoritarianist populism.
Emotional screeds like this convince no one; perhaps this is a self-satisfying venture, or it may be an attempt to signal your loyalty to a cause, but either way, it is entirely useless to anyone except you.
If you want to argue against someone, please pick a logical framework, and go with it. From what you've written, it seems you have utilitarian leanings; there are points for and against this vote in that paradigm, and it would be interesting to read an exposition of them.
I could be accused of many things. I didn't say they are trying to persecute anyone (though I think there's an argument to be made there), I said they obstruct efforts to help those who need it. And they undeniably do. Their justifications are the only facts of the matter which are up for debate. And I'm not intending to win over high ranking members of the republican party; rather establishment sycophants and independents and some left-wing people who feel some ridiculous need to always be considered "fair" or "balanced" -- there is an inclination among those who ask to be considered intelligent to always assume the correct answer lies in the middle of the two positions they are presented with. This is a fallacy and a dangerous one: sometimes one position is simply wrong, or put forth by dishonest or disingenuous or careless or misinformed people. And the "level-headed, thoughtful even handed" position of supposing the correct answer to always be in the middle forces each position to a further extreme in order to push the middle over further and further to their side.
My post was not particularly emotional; it's not really necessary to attack it by claiming so: claiming you are the logical reasonable one and I am being hysterical is a cheap schoolyard tactic and I'm not particularly moved by it. You asked a question and I answered it.
I intended with my post to defend the notion of unconditional rejection of a position or of an ideology or of a political group; we are allowed to just say that they are wrong. We aren't obligated to constantly justify their positions and look for ways in which they are right -- in fact if we do this we will be taken advantage of and it will cause even more extremism and polarization.
I despise utilitarianism and I'm not quite sure how you inferred I was one from my post.
Yes, I am aware of the psychological reasons why people hold themselves in high esteem while accusing their opponents of moral corruption; my rhetorical questions were meant to highlight the absurdity of the accusations.
Haidt's research actually suggests this behavior is more common amongst progressives because they subscribe to a narrower moral framework based on fairness and harm-reduction while conservatives incorporate other elements such as loyalty, respect for authority, and purity. Thus, when the two disagree, conservatives, being concerned with fairness and harm reduction but not exclusively so, are able to understand the progressive position and understand why progressives disagree with them, but progressives are unable to likewise understand the conservative position and why conservatives disagree with them, so they assume wickedness instead.
Because they are mean and evil. Their irrationality comes from the zealous belief that anything conservative must be defended to the death, and without compromise.
At the end of the day, though, the "why" of their cruelty is not all that important. The fact is that they are evil, and relish in it.
