Top | Newest First | Oldest First
Because different people have different values. We tend to characterize political discussions as intellectual arguments where one side has the facts and the other is operating on delusion or fantasy, and while that may certainly be true, what's often the case is that two people are interpreting the same situation through different moral perspectives.
We tend to demonize people of different political leanings as morally corrupt or inferior because their views seem to completely exclude the things we value. For instance, in the abortion debate, pro-choice people see the other side as being cruel and authoritative by forcing women to carry and birth an unwanted child, where as pro-life people see abortion as barbaric and sadistic for killing, in their words, a baby.
The reality is that that these two sides have different moral arguments for their position. We've seen in research that people that are politically left tend to lean more towards empathy and compassion and have a higher tolerance for ambiguity, whereas people on the political right have greater regard for sanctity and loyalty, while also having a stronger disgust reflex.
What that means is that people on the left approach abortion through the struggles of the woman and understand that it would be a heavy burden on her to carry this fetus to term. There is also ambiguity to whether a fetus is the moral equivalent to a fully viable infant or whether it's lack of consciousness makes it humane to dispose of since it can register no pain and is unaware of what is happening to it.
For contrast, people on the right feel that all life is a gift from God and that it isn't humanity's place to take that. That human's have souls and therefore have sanctimonious immunity from judgement on its life. Since the fetus is the product of the woman's DNA, she owes her loyalty to the fetus and should see it through to birth and beyond. Their strong disgust reflex also makes them more sensitive to the act of aborting and basically butchering a fetus in order to terminate it.
It becomes such a heated debate among people because they're approaching the issue from two very different sets of values and morals. And their inability to communicate those values in a way that aligns with the values of the other side leads to a lot of acrimony, a lot of vilification, and pure frustration from being unable to breach the impasse. We have to embrace complexity and understand that people have their reasons for believing the things they do, and have the intellectual humility to understand that our way of seeing the world isn't the sole path of righteousness
We tend to demonize people of different political leanings as morally corrupt or inferior because their views seem to completely exclude the things we value. For instance, in the abortion debate, pro-choice people see the other side as being cruel and authoritative by forcing women to carry and birth an unwanted child, where as pro-life people see abortion as barbaric and sadistic for killing, in their words, a baby.
The reality is that that these two sides have different moral arguments for their position. We've seen in research that people that are politically left tend to lean more towards empathy and compassion and have a higher tolerance for ambiguity, whereas people on the political right have greater regard for sanctity and loyalty, while also having a stronger disgust reflex.
What that means is that people on the left approach abortion through the struggles of the woman and understand that it would be a heavy burden on her to carry this fetus to term. There is also ambiguity to whether a fetus is the moral equivalent to a fully viable infant or whether it's lack of consciousness makes it humane to dispose of since it can register no pain and is unaware of what is happening to it.
For contrast, people on the right feel that all life is a gift from God and that it isn't humanity's place to take that. That human's have souls and therefore have sanctimonious immunity from judgement on its life. Since the fetus is the product of the woman's DNA, she owes her loyalty to the fetus and should see it through to birth and beyond. Their strong disgust reflex also makes them more sensitive to the act of aborting and basically butchering a fetus in order to terminate it.
It becomes such a heated debate among people because they're approaching the issue from two very different sets of values and morals. And their inability to communicate those values in a way that aligns with the values of the other side leads to a lot of acrimony, a lot of vilification, and pure frustration from being unable to breach the impasse. We have to embrace complexity and understand that people have their reasons for believing the things they do, and have the intellectual humility to understand that our way of seeing the world isn't the sole path of righteousness
NickiHijab · F
Same reason conversations about religion, gender, and any other differences we have can get divisive and toxic. If you're toxic, so are your views.
Differences can exist without division. I guess only a select know how to assert their right to believe in something without bashing on those who believe differently.
Differences can exist without division. I guess only a select know how to assert their right to believe in something without bashing on those who believe differently.
thomaso · 26-30, M
I think it's mostly to do with the lower classes of society. They've been tricked into believing the opposing party to what they agree with is the root of all their problems rather than self reflecting why their life is the way it is... So essentially any opposition is looked at immediately as an oppressor and causes a gut reaction of anger/toxicity. Still it doesn't help when news outlets constantly stoke the flames.
DearAmbellina2113 · 41-45, F
Maybe because the arguments have already been made, so the positions and responses are adopted from somewhere and automatic; not the result of reason and examination. Therefore, the “conversations” on the topic can’t withstand even the slightest of interrogation.
uncalled4 · 56-60, M
Most people cannot discuss the [i]issues[/i]. That's where it should stay, but it rarely does. Ad hominem attacks should never enter the picture. Strangely, though, an attack on someone's favorite political hero appears to tap into an egotistical/narcissistic side. I don't understand it, but time and time again, there are people affixing the suffix "tard" during said ad hominem attacks, and that's where you lose me. It's sick, often blind, cultish hero worship, often with a weak argument or no basis in reality. People literally invent virtues that their hero does not possess, and I think it has to do with the ego( I VOTED FOR HIM/HER, THEREFORE THEY ARE UNASSAILABLE).
I'm happy to talk to anyone, regardless of party, who isn't an argument baiter or takes 100% of their input from media talking points. Things aren't black and white. Really, though, I'd rather talk about music.
I'm happy to talk to anyone, regardless of party, who isn't an argument baiter or takes 100% of their input from media talking points. Things aren't black and white. Really, though, I'd rather talk about music.
Oster1 · M
Because they do. I tried to put out a good post today but the left immediately jumped on another post that I made. I engaged. My bad. It will not happen again.😊
Ingwe · F
because without strife
where will we be?
sitting bored in a corner and rocking
to and fro
strife makes the world go round
and some people rich
where will we be?
sitting bored in a corner and rocking
to and fro
strife makes the world go round
and some people rich
SW-User
Because people are blinded by closed minded stupidity.
smileylovesgaming · 31-35, F
People have different opinions
Oster1 · M
And I really detest them for doing so.😊