I think the adults who need safe spaces, trigger warnings, and other such things are operating on a level similar to infants.

I would like to concede that I don't think it was always this way. — Brendan Golledge

No, it wasn't always this way. I'm 79. I'm glad that I was an idealistic young man in the 1960s and not now in these years of national decline and climate crisis. Who is responsible for so much of the decline and climate crisis? Capitalists, of course. Consumers who drank the various flavors of Kool Aid the capitalists were selling. Blame the liberals, conservatives, communists, fascists, farmers, factory owners, democrats (small 'd'), dictators, Democrats and Republicans. All of us. The moral issues before us now are far more grave than a war in SE Asia which was a life and death matter for millions. Now we have life and death conundrums affecting billions--all of us.

A lot of things aren't the way they used to be (and at the same time, some things haven't changed a bit). I'm not confident we will find a lot of common ground to discuss morals and politics.

Years back I did a very unscientific analysis, gathered as much as I could regarding the convictions of politicians for crimes in the United States, and separated their crimes by political party. To my surprise the Democrats had more corruption convictions, while republicans excelled in sex-related crimes. Their respective leads were negligible, at best, so the analysis was fruitless, but the moral development seemed to be lacking in both just about the same.

I object to the left/right paradigm in general because left and right are so nearly identical in their underlying philosophies. They both hold to the republican belief in the sovereign power of political machinery, that so long as their people are allowed to tinker with it long enough and send it off running in the direction of their choosing, everyone will get The Good Life. Once their power is threatened they act as a praetorian guard. Sprinkle on top of this activity some surface-level rhetorical content and one might be able to convince others there is a distinguishing mark between these two factions, but on the whole it is all similar. Perhaps, the only differences are the incidence of the beneficiaries. At any rate, this specious divide is what we get for modelling a political spectrum after the seating plan of the National Assembly.

I also object to the social categorization at use here and for the same reasons I would do so for all sorts of identity politics. There are as many political beliefs as there are people, and the term “Left” and “Right” are by now slurs meant to impugn another, or otherwise to signal one’s political purity, and not much else. A whole host of fallacy results.

the term “Left” and “Right” are by now slurs meant to impugn another, or otherwise to signal one’s political purity, and not much else. — NOS4A2

You often say crazy shit. This is patently not one of those. This is bang on.

Good points.

BLM riots dwarfs — Brendan Golledge

Were they all dwarfs?

Pre-conventional morality is only concerned with power. People in this stage don't have genuine moral opinions, but only act off of reward and punishment. So, they will do whatever authority tells them to do, no matter how transparently stupid it is. The left must clearly be in this category, because they talk about equality, and then discriminate against white men. They talk about saving the environment, and then burn electric cars. They talk about "justice" and then burn cities and punish good Samaritans. They are for feminism, but refuse to define what a woman is. So, the left has no genuine moral beliefs; all their beliefs are only verbally espoused in order to try to win the approval of other leftists. — Brendan Golledge

The difficulty with your OP is that there's too much in it. This paragraph alone would take weeks to conceptually clarify. There is putative evidence in there somewhere. Also inferences. I don't have the time or inclination to try and explicate it all though. In any case, you haven't told us what you want to talk about. How can we help?

Also, 100% of marriages are initiated by men, but 70% of divorces are initiated by women. — Brendan Golledge

Therefore, what? Men aren't very good at marriage?

There is more in this post than most commenters are going to give it. But I can already see from the one response, people are not going to be even partially fair to an view-from-above post like this. A shame. — AmadeusD

You don't see this as just self-aggrandizing:

, expatriating for a better life, or some other such thing, then it is very unlikely that this person has reached the point where they have their own values and can act independently of authority figures. I am not trying to argue that a person must do one or all of the things in this list to be a good person, but that if a person has not taken unilateral action such as this, then one has not yet demonstrated independent moral agency.

The conduct of this hypothetical person isn't suggestive of an independent thinker. It describes someone distrustful at best and paranoid at worst. This activity describes preparations for a coming societal failure. Authority isn't forbidden in this context, but it's limited to only highly trusted people, like immediate or extended family, or, very commonly, those with shared similar religious views.

I mean sure, if you distrust societal structures, build your compound, but fabricating a "rugged individualistic free thinker" philosophy to justify it seems much.

Fear coupled with a rejection of cooperation is the driver here.

I think the polarization of groups is based upon moralizing, meaning it is when one group characterizes the other as immoral simply because they have a different worldview is what leads to the loss of middle ground. — Hanover

In this sense they have turned their politics into a religion where non-believers are pawns of Satan, and anyone that questions the party is a heretic.

I object to the left/right paradigm in general because left and right are so nearly identical in their underlying philosophies. — NOS4A2

Exactly. Their shared underlying philosophy is authoritarianism.

No, it wasn't always this way. — BC

Would you say that it started getting worse when their numbers started declining and the number of independents and moderates started growing? It's as if they are seeing the demise of the political left and right and are now engaging in underhanded and manipulative tactics in a vain attempt to hold on to their dwindling flock of followers.

I object to the left/right paradigm in general because left and right are so nearly identical in their underlying philosophies.
— NOS4A2
Exactly. Their shared underlying philosophy is authoritarianism.


No, it wasn't always this way.
— BC
Would you say that it started getting worse when their numbers started declining and the number of independents and moderates started growing? It's as if they are seeing the demise of the political left and right and are now engaging in underhanded and manipulative tactics in a vain attempt to hold on to their dwindling flock of followers. — Harry Hindu

I would think that by definition a polarized social and political environment implies that there is such a wide gap between the ways differing communities look at the world that it becomes impossible for the warring groups to meet each other at a moderate center.

I am far from alone in only recently discovering that childhood friends, relatives, acquaintances from the neighborhoods adhere to political views that are profoundly alien to my ways of thinking. My niece was born and raised in Orlando, Florida , went to college and graduate school out of state, and a few years ago moved back to Orlando with her husband. They decide they had to leave Orlando because the political atmosphere had become so oppressively right wing. They are far from political activists. On the contrary, in any large northern city they would be considered middle of the road. Meanwhile a friend of mine is considering leaving the Chicago area because he is so alienated by the generally left-leaning perspectives of those he deals with. Are you telling me you don’t have experiences on your own like this to share?

I would think that by definition a polarized social and political environment implies that there is such a wide gap between the ways differing communities look at the world that it becomes impossible for the warring groups to meet each other at a moderate center. — Joshs

Correct. When the moderates leave your party all that is left are the extremists.

When people of a certain political persuasion leave a state and move to another that shares their views you will eventually gets states that are encampment of the left and right. Florida used to be a purple state but right-leaning people from New York and Californua have left those States and move to Florida which is now red and just makes Cali and New York more blue.

Correct. When the moderates leave your party all that is left are the extremists. — Harry Hindu

I don’t think the people in Massachusetts and Florida, California and Oklahoma ( London and rural England) are extremists if that implies that their views are irrational, objectively ‘wrong’ or unjustifiable. It’s a matter of traditionalists vs much newer ways of thinking. The rural
areas and lower population density cities have changed their traditional views more slowly than those of the large cities, particularly since the 1960’s social revolution, to the point that each speaks a different language and is unrecognizable to the other.

Would you say that it started getting worse when their numbers started declining and the number of independents and moderates started growing? It's as if they are seeing the demise of the political left and right and are now engaging in underhanded and manipulative tactics in a vain attempt to hold on to their dwindling flock of followers. — Harry Hindu

The left and right are poorly defined and do not maintain consistency through time.

G.W. Bush was a interventionist who allowed fairly open immigration from Mexico and believed in free trade. That doesn't describe Trump in any way.

Transsexuals playing in sports is a hot button issue for the left, a far distance from the opposition of to gay marriage and the don't ask, don't tell policies of Clinton.

Does anyone care about health care costs anymore? I remember that being a thing.

The point being that you have to expect changes in membership in any organization that constantly changes its charter.

I don’t think the people in Massachusetts and Florida, California and Oklahoma ( London and rural England) are extremists — Joshs

I never said they were. I said that what is left in the party (Dems and Reps) are extremists. States are still composed of opposing parties and moderates, but since we are ruled by a majority and the majority can shift, then it is possible that some states might swing one way or the other, or change altogether (as in my example of Florida).

I do think that there are people that are members of the parties that are not extremists. They may be life-long Republicans or Democrats, but the parties have changed with many claiming that they did not leave the party, the party left them. If you want to limit extremism then either stay and fight for the moderate mantra in your party, or just abolish political parties.

And when I say extremists, I mean authoritarians, as authoritarians are extreme in a free society.

I do think that there are people that are members of the parties that are not extremists. They may be life-long Republicans or Democrats, but the parties have changed with many claiming that they did not leave the party, the party left them. If you want to limit extremism then either stay and fight for the moderate mantra in your party, or just abolish political parties. — Harry Hindu

You focus on political parties, but I think they are just reflecting the polarization I just described in the general population. I have no reason to expect members of Congress to start singing kumbaya together until small town and big city America begin to see the world in ways that are more alike.

The left and right are poorly defined and do not maintain consistency through time. — Hanover

They are only poorly defined because authoritarians have used these labels as a means of manipulating the population.
As NOS4A2 said,

and the term “Left” and “Right” are by now slurs meant to impugn another — NOS4A2

For instance, when I get into a debate with a Republican on the topic of freedom of religion and rejecting the idea of prayer in public schools, I'm accused of being a leftists. When I get into a debate with a Democrat on the topic of free speech and women's rights and transgenderism, I'm accused of being a right-winger. I'm an independent Libertarian. It's as if there is no middle ground for these people. Everything is black and white.

You focus on political parties, but I think they are just reflecting the polarization I just described in the general population. I have no reason to expect members of Congress to start singing kumbaya together until small town and big city America begin to see the world in ways that are more alike. — Joshs

The level of polarization today is not what it was 30-40 years ago. What changed? It seems to me that the rhetoric on the left and right has become more aggressive and tribalistic and that is what is driving the polarization.

Why do we even bother listening to what politicians say in the first place when they only speak in generalities and platitudes. We can predict what a Democrat or Republican will say on either side of the issue, or what they will say about each other. I no longer care what a politician says. I only care about what they do, which is often different from what they say.

It must be gratifying to have one advocate.

Why do we even bother listening to what politicians say in the first place when they only speak in generalities and platitudes. We can predict what a Democrat or Republican will say on either side of the issue, or what they will say about each other. I no longer care what a politician says. I only care about what they do, which is often different from what they say. — Harry Hindu

Not giving them public platforms on mass media sure would save a lot of money, time, better tv programming, more interesting social media as well as wear on the environment: all that travel, all those balloons...! Each candidate should campaign in their own district, on foot and in the town hall. The party platforms - however many apply - should be published in the news outlets of the states in which they have a candidate. Campaigns to run for one month prior to each election.
That way, people can vote for whoever they think comes closest to their own level of morality.
(must repaint keyboard.)

The level of polarization today is not what it was 30-40 years ago. What changed? It seems to me that the rhetoric on the left and right has become more aggressive and tribalistic and that is what is driving the polarization. — Harry Hindu

If the population has grown more heterogenous over time, then tribal disputes should become more prevalent. As in, if we're all in the same tribe, we have fewer disputes, but we're not less tribalistic. We just don't have any meaningful competitors.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

The level of polarization today is not what it was 30-40 years ago. What changed? It seems to me that the rhetoric on the left and right has become more aggressive and tribalistic and that is what is driving the polarization.

Why do we even bother listening to what politicians say in the first place when they only speak in generalities and platitudes. We can predict what a Democrat or Republican will say on either side of the issue, or what they will say about each other. I no longer care what a politician says. I only care about what they do, which is often different from what they say. — Harry Hindu

We could rid of every politician in the country and it wouldn’t have the slightest effect on the polarized split between worldviews. This is not about what politicians or political parties say. It is about fundamental differences in philosophical outlook. One doesnt derive such an outlook from politicians. It is formed through interactions within one’s family and social milieu.

For instance, when I get into a debate with a Republican on the topic of freedom of religion and rejecting the idea of prayer in public schools, I'm accused of being a leftists. When I get into a debate with a Democrat on the topic of free speech and women's rights and transgenderism, I'm accused of being a right-winger. I'm an independent Libertarian. It's as if there is no middle ground for these people. Everything is black and white — Harry Hindu

I know that principled conservatives of the socially moderate William Buckley-National Review strand of republicanism (George Will, David Frum, David Brooks, Charles Krauthammer, Lynn Cheney, Peter Wehner, etc) were pushed out of the ‘new’ populist republican party.
If that makes MAGA populism extreme, it also means that a significant minority of the country identifies with it to some extent.
Which places your moderate libertarianism in a big messy tent alongside the other groups who oppose MAGA, which includes RHINO republicans, moderate and progressive democrats and Sanders-style socialists. I imagine you share the most with RHINO republicans and perhaps some moderate democrats. Plenty of democrats were never fully onboard wokism, and simply tolerated it because they supported other elements the party stands for. The lesson is that when the extreme ends of the political spectrum are pushed as far apart as they are now, it shrinks the middle. And it wasn’t the politicians who did the pushing, it was the people.

The level of polarization today is not what it was 30-40 years ago. What changed? — Harry Hindu

Obama's election. Conservatives could not deal with a black man as president, so to cope they tried to "other" him and went down a rabbit hole of birtherism, qanon, pizzagate, antivax, stolen election nonsense where conspiracies and enemies are everywhere. They're still falling.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

what does this even mean? "more developed"? You're talking about it like it's some objective fact, like you can measure how developed a set of political values are... I don't think so mate.-

There's something there but not much truthfully. What OP doesn't seem to realize is they're just crowning one slave morality they're bias for in favor of another. Left or Right is merely a new age dogma for people who can't think for themselves.

You don't see this as just self-aggrandizing: — Hanover

I don't see it as self-referential at all, let along aggrandizing. I think its a totally reasonable set of things to say (not true of everything he's said, granted).

The conduct of this hypothetical person isn't suggestive of an independent thinker. — Hanover

I quite disagree. Unfortunately, that might speak to your state of mind with regard to his points. I don't know that, I'm just offering an explainer for why we see it so differently. It may also just mean that I'm in some category you have laid out by which I am not 'engaging' with what's being said. I don't know, really but I see nothing wrong with that quote. It just seems pointless to wade in to why we see it so differently (though, I'm open to that i guess).

Fear coupled with a rejection of cooperation is the driver here. — Hanover

I really don't think so, and having (I think) understood OP a bit better than most here, it seems that this quoted line will be read as a hook-line-sinker type of statement. You're drinking the kool aid. Again, I don't know if that's the case or whatever but I can see that this seems to just reject OP on the basis that you see things differently to the writer. That's fine... He's likely to say something dumb about it, but that's not what I'm defending.

Let's take the sample given and see where it gets us — tim wood

I would have preferred an answer to the question. I am asking about how you apply logic to similar (in my opinion, indistinguishable) scenarios. I very much appreciate what you're getting across and roughly speaking, agree with how stats get used etc... but this doesn't help me understand what you're saying or whether its consistent. I was interested in that. I did not ask for an analysis of old mate's chosen statistical pull. In any case, all this does is show me that you use this assessment here, and wont answer as to whether it applies elsewhere. You clearly have views in those 'elsewhere', so this seems obviously disingenuous. If that's annoying, I am not bothered.

As to over-incarcerating, yours a loaded question. — tim wood

It wasn't. I wanted a straight answer. Not prevarication. I suppose I can understand from this that you think its a complex issue and it requires a different assessment than that of hiring in regard to ethnicity. Ok. I don't think so, though. As to 'over-incarcerating' I'm having a hard time not thinking you're doing a bit of trolling here. Are you unaware of this concept? For what it's worth, 'mass incarceration' is also used. This article is on point at least in terms of presenting the ball park i'm in with this. No comment on it's actual content/conclusions.

I don't know what DEI is, beyond its initials, which I suppose are reasonably descriptive. — tim wood

That's fair. I think I have an idea, but it matters not. That's totally fair (including the exposition following..)

I am generally aware of the damage of riots - but maybe you should know a bit more history. In any case, BLM is a red herring here. — tim wood

Well, as far as I'm concerned this is prevarication. I am aware of history, and it's lead-ins to modern events. This simply isn't relevant to the fact that leftists encouraged and carried out billions in damage and violence(19 dead, i believe) in mainly black and Hispanic communities. In terms of the modern West, this is on the most extreme end of ideological behaviour. I think only this was what was being pointed out there. Again, what OP insinuated I'm not particularly here or there on.

Decree: don't confuse laws with decrees, they're not the same thing. As you can easily see by just consulting any, or many, dictionaries. — tim wood

I am a legal professional. A Decree is "an official order that has the force of law". As google would have shown you. I am not confusing the two, at all.

But that's not the context. Nor do you understand the issue. The definition called for is categorical, and Justice Jackson wisely demurs. It's not about judging particular cases but about creating a class definition that applies to all, and that easy only for people who are confused or ignorant, or both. — tim wood

Given what you've quoted, I cannot made heads of tails of this. All is already responded to in the portion of my reply you quoted. Particularly the bolded part which is clearly wrong, as I've just done that and am neither confused, nor ignorant. It take it then, this is confusing or not easy for you. That's fine. It is easy and not confusing for me.

You appear to be taking on the part of the OP. If so, account for, defend, this from his OP: — tim wood

No. Just stop making shit up about things i've said. It'll be way easier my dude.

Obama's election. Conservatives could not deal with a black man as president — RogueAI

Are you even close to being in the vicinity of serious?

Yes, you can. Are they coherent, consistent, thought-out and hang together in a way that gives a complete picture of hte person's/group's moral thinking.
Again, you can disagree with the positions, but a more developed morality will have the hallmarks of any well-developed argument. If you don't think well-developed arguments are possible, then I concede.

but not much truthfully — DifferentiatingEgg

Disagree.

Left or Right is merely a new age dogma for people who can't think for themselves. — DifferentiatingEgg

That is exactly what he's been saying, as I see it. Clearly an axe to grind with the Left though, no doubt.

Exactly what I said would happen, has happened. *sigh*. The cognitive dissonance in this forum, on solely political issues, is impressive.

Obama's election. Conservatives could not deal with a black man as president, so to cope they tried to "other" him and went down a rabbit hole of birtherism, qanon, pizzagate, antivax, stolen election nonsense where conspiracies and enemies are everywhere. They're still falling. — RogueAI

No doubt a good many conservatives disliked the idea of a black Liberal president, but they were able to get on with life as we know it. Some people to the right of Attila the Hun, however, were filled with acute cognitive dissonance. The rabbit hole of birtherism might be a specific reaction to Obama, but I don't see the rabbit holes of stolen elections, Q-anon, pizza gate, anti-vaxing, and so on being unique to the Obama election reaction. It seems like there is always a sizzle of conspiracy out on the edge of the pan that never turns into a full boil (which would be very bad news).

Trump promoted the stolen 2020 election conspiracy quite deliberately and in the long run, successfully, as a strategy to keep his base motivated.

:up:

:up:

:up: :up:

Re: fwiw, contextualizing America's 'polarization' – no doubt a disputable guess (2021) ...

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/504611

i.e. ethics / moral norms (e.g. OP's "developmental stages" :roll:) are not the drivers or causes of contemporary 'extremism'.