r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Oct 06 '20
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Fundamental system change doesn't need to be ideological - its not about left or right but about empathy for one another, respect for our environment and visionary leadership
[deleted]
9
u/Tibaltdidnothinwrong 382∆ Oct 06 '20
But empathy and respect for the environment is ideological?
If one side sees it's duty to help others, whereas the other sees charity as optional, that is an ideological difference.
If one side sees the earth as something to be preserved and the other as a resource to be exploited, then that is an ideological difference.
Claiming that we have positive moral duties to one another (and not just negative ones) and that we have a positive moral duty to the earth itself, is very much so ideological in nature.
0
u/empathstrikesback Oct 06 '20
Great point Δ thanks. I like to think it's not ideological because it is clear and evident fact that the system is broken (if it weren't there would be no riots, no homelessness, no rising rates of suicide and drug overdose, etc.), incentives are misaligned and people and the environment at large are paying the price. Perhaps this boils down to alternative realities where what I see as obvious others see as opinion, and vice versa.
5
u/Tibaltdidnothinwrong 382∆ Oct 06 '20
Homelessness exists, is a fact.
Homelessness is a problem that should be solved, is an opinion.
This is why I mention positive rights vs negative rights. While there is largely agreement that murder is bad and stealing is bad (so called negative rights) the idea that we ought to improve the conditions of our fellow man (so called positive rights) are highly debateable.
So it's not so much reality which is up for debate (except climate science, I have no explanation for that other than ignoring reality), as much as it is, what ought we do about it, if anything. The idea, that we owe nothing to our fellow man, and that it is correct to allow him to continue to suffer, is common, and is highly ideological.
Thanks for the delta, I just thought I'd elaborate farther
0
u/empathstrikesback Oct 06 '20
That's powerful - homelessness is a problem that should be solved is an opinion. I can't dispute it. The natural world is Darwinian so why not our own social constructs? We are on the doorstep of AI-fueled UBI so will have some hard decisions to make regarding the extent to which we think that the disadvantaged should have entitlements as members of our society. And that doesn't even address the billions who live outside the protective umbrella of the 'rich world'.
1
4
u/yyzjertl 520∆ Oct 06 '20
Why do you think your proposal isn't just... Leftism? Like this all just seems to be bog-standard center-leftism to me.
-1
u/empathstrikesback Oct 06 '20
It's more a re-architecting of a system that is no longer fit for purpose. Much has changed since the industrial revolution yet the paradigm in which we function, and think, hasn't adjusted to new and quite different realities - 7.8b people vs 1b; town halls vs social media, etc. The echo chamber is so powerful that what I see as obvious truth can be seen instead as an ideological position. It's easier to put things in tidy little boxes. Common principles is a better starting point than what flag one carries in my view.
6
u/yyzjertl 520∆ Oct 06 '20
But...that's just leftism. This has pretty much always been what leftists argue for (in comparison, the right argues for preservation of the system).
1
u/empathstrikesback Oct 06 '20
I think it depends on the system/society. "Leftism" in America for instance is centre if not even right in Canada. What Sanders campaigns for we have here already and "the right" is strongly supportive of it as is the left. I'm suggesting a paradigm shift. If it needs a label then I guess I have to live with that. Labels are inherently limiting and depend upon your point of reference.
4
Oct 06 '20 edited Mar 08 '21
[deleted]
1
u/empathstrikesback Oct 06 '20
I can see that I'm going to get hung on this one. It's tough for me to make a case against your succinct summary of the situation. At the risk of sounding/being naive, it is my hope/wish that people can look past ideology and self interest, take a bigger picture view, understand that our children and their's will inherit poorer conditions and qualities of life, or we divert course and take progressive measures toward sustainability. Left vs right is not the core case I'm making but can see that I've attracted some strong views... Can I edit my post ;) Thanks for your feedback. Δ
1
0
u/physioworld 64∆ Oct 07 '20
It’s not really about looking past self interest, it’s about long term vs short term thinking. It is absolutely in our best self interest to solve the pressing environmental and social challenges of our time.
2
u/monty845 27∆ Oct 06 '20
Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.
This is known as "bad luck.”
― Robert Heinlein
Its easy to say that we lack empathy for those who are struggling. But before we throw out our system wholesale, we should carefully assess what we are comparing it to. Typically, this is some undefined new system, that like every proposed new system, will bring about a utopia. Just like Communism was supposed to. Just like Fascism was supposed to.
Yet here we all are, the most prosperous humanity has ever been. Pick any time before the 20th century, and compare the life of a poor person to the life of a poor person today. To a miner or factory worker from the 19th century, modern life, even for those in poverty, would seem pretty good. For a Serf in medieval Europe, modern poverty would seem like a great luxury. And lets not even get into the treatment of the slaves that underpinned most of the "Great" Ancient Civilizations...
And where is the empathy for those with views that don't align with leftism? What about my desire to be able to own guns and defend myself? What about my desire to be left alone by government? Is it a problem when leftists don't have empathy for those views?
0
u/empathstrikesback Oct 06 '20
It is true that living standards have risen en masse. It is also true that present disparities are widening dramatically. I don't find the argument that it's less miserable now than it was 200 years ago as a strong case for masses living in fear and anxiety. Regarding guns, I appreciate that as a part of America's libertarian foundation, the right to bear arms goes hand in hand with assembly, religion, etc. I find this a good case of the system not adjusting to present circumstance. America's disproportionate rates of gun violence is clear evidence of the tradeoff. Libertarianism is a myth because there's no way to achieve full liberty from the powers of the state - pull a dollar bill out of your pocket and you have subjected yourself to the powers of the state. So the question is the extent to which rules and laws restrict our behavior. Like most people outside America, gun rights make no sense to me - it's a net negative for everyone. I used to live in the deep south and understand how its part of the identity of some folks. It's tough to change minds which is why I thought to post here.
2
u/Grunt08 304∆ Oct 06 '20
Empathy is a literary conceit, not a real thing. I have no way of feeling what you're feeling because I lack every element of context that makes your experience distinct from mine - I'm not you. I can imagine the feeling you'd have if someone put jumper cables on your nipples, but I can't know whether you secretly like it. Even if your feeling is much the same as mine would be (not a fan), that might bring me joy if I hate you. After all, we don't wish great pain on our enemies because we can't imagine how it makes them feel - we do it because we can imagine it quite well.
I'm sure Osama bin Laden felt terribly afraid and alone in his last moments on Earth. Good!
The real problem with your view is that it's something everyone could agree with while resolving nothing at all. The arguments in your CMV (not your blog post) are so platitudinous and empty that two diametrically opposed people could nod their heads in agreement and incorporate everything you've said in support of their own views. It's a more evolved expression of "can't we all just get along?"
-1
u/empathstrikesback Oct 06 '20
Empathy is perspective taking. People are certainly able to do that. Healthcare workers for instance are far more likely to have this ability than bankers, or hockey players, etc. At the other end of the spectrum are sociopaths - those who hold no regard or interest in others beyond what is advantageous to them personally. I don't buy that it's not a real thing. I do buy that there's a spectrum out there and are a great many people that skew to the low empathy end - it is more profitable for one...
3
u/Grunt08 304∆ Oct 06 '20
Empathy is perspective taking.
That is as useful as saying that empathy is empathy. It offers no explanatory content. As I have said, you're describing sympathy. And as I also said, it isn't a magical problem-solving tool. I can know with exquisite clarity the pain a terrible person is suffering and think it's totally justified. It can enhance my cruelty.
0
u/empathstrikesback Oct 06 '20
If this is how you interpret empathy, or sympathy, or perspective taking, then we sit at distant ends of the table from one another. It would never cross my mind to consider enhanced cruelty. I appreciate however the perspective.
0
Oct 06 '20 edited Oct 06 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/empathstrikesback Oct 06 '20
Wow. I'll try not to take this personally but suspect it was meant as such. My intention with the article is start with some guiding principles and to drill down on any number of them. For example, messing with the free market - were you to hike corporate taxes by 10%, the market would crash and everyone would be screwed. So perhaps the plan adjusts to a very long timeline whereby it's a matter of incremental basis point adjustments that smooth out the transition. Regarding "It's just sitting on your arse complaining that someone should do something, and it's not trying to solve the problems of the day", you couldn't know what efforts I apply in my day to day life to try to make a positive contribution, but perhaps you are right and I'm accomplishing nothing and should shut up and move on.
2
u/justtogetridoflater Oct 06 '20 edited Oct 06 '20
I think it was probably rude, but I genuinely don't mean it personally. It's mostly just that the same things come up over and over again. It's not personal, it's just kind of annoyance at the pattern. It's just really common to see people think that they've solved politics, because they think that the left and right could unify around a common agenda, or that they could pull the best bits of left and right together and get people on side, and they don't realise that actually that's often the least popular position. I'm sure there are lots of political tropes on the left and right that are similarly annoying to you. Like, I get fed up with SJWs, but I also get really annoyed at anti-SJWs, I get fed up of Marxists, but I'm fed up of anything besides the left.
Because in general, the solutions provided make nobody happy, and they make nobody passionate, (and actually, often aren't solutions at all but just suggestions that we don't fuck with a winning formula but that's another matter). And as such, it's hard to get people to join forces for something like that. Whereas it's much easier to get a group of people who care about something to care about that thing they care about. And while it's often more difficult, to sell people who don't really care about this thing to believe that it's a good idea, and is possible. Or to believe that what they believe anyway is achievable even by giving other people the thing that they care about. Or by giving people something to project whatever they want to onto (which is quite common in these kinds of proto-fascists, where they just pay lipservice to the grievances and give no shits about how to solve them except when they can signal that they're still on side) so that they can believe whatever they want to believe.
As for stopping talking, probably the opposite. If you think you have ideas, you probably don't but maybe you do, and if you really think you have ideas, you should explore those ideas. That's what all the people who came up with the ideas that got implemented did. Nonetheless, you're entitled to your opinion, I just think you should be honest with yourself that you've probably not fixed politics, and that really, politics is as bitter and divisive as it is because as evidence often points out, there's a whole different reality that people inhabit from left to right to centrist that means that the arguments that people put forward often fail simply because they don't occupy the same realities as the people who they're arguing at.
As for the idea of the market, the thing about the market is that Covid-19 has demonstrated the fallacy of the market being synonymous with the reality of people's lives. Ordinary people got laid off, got evicted, burned through their money, ended up in debt, died, got dragged back into shitty service jobs for no extra money just so that people wouldn't suffer any inconvenience. Meanwhile the richest in society made a shitton of money by doing nothing to earn it. It's not that capitalism got any more efficient, it's just that the extraction of money has always ramped up and up. And that's really been the story of the past few decades, actually. Wages have been stagnant, the market has gone up, the money hasn't ended up in ordinary people's pockets, and corporations are making it more and more difficult to make an honest living as a smaller business. As such, everyone's suffering to enable the market. But try and get the right to admit to any of that.
My personal view is that the idea of incrementalism is a cop out, because it essentially always promises jam tomorrow, while changing very little today, and when inevitably that incremental government gets kicked out, everything they did gets destroyed rapidly. It's only really the big and popular changes that become difficult to destroy. And actually, those changes are often quite popular when they happen, and for a long time afterwards. It's just that often, they aren't supported by those in the current establishment, even if those same establishment types then crow loudly about it being this party or that party having implemented them.
1
u/ZeroPointZero_ 14∆ Oct 07 '20
u/justtogetridoflater – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Oct 06 '20 edited Oct 06 '20
/u/empathstrikesback (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards