I think it’s that you’re implying the actual ideological framework they claim to have is sound from their perspective, when it certainly isn’t. They basically just make shit up to justify their material motivations.
Those frameworks are sound if you don’t have the priors leftists do. That doesn’t mean they’re good, it just means they’re internally consistent.
Take homelessness. If your prior is that housing is a human right, then you think the government should make sure everyone has housing. But if your prior is that housing is something individuals have to provide for themselves, you aren’t as concerned about homelessness.
A lib with the latter prior isn’t stupid; they just have a fundamentally different belief about how society should work. It’s not that they haven’t read the books we have on homelessness, it’s that they simply disagree with the importance we place on the issue. Often they disagree because they understand that agreeing would have a material cost.
Of course, plenty of libs also have incoherent worldviews, or really are just uneducated on important topics. My point is that viewing them all that way isn’t correct, and falls into the same “no reasonable person could possibly disagree with me” trap we rip on others for buying into.
the problem is that developing priors requires thought in the first place and said priors are usually developed due to other terrible interpretations of things they’ve gone through. there is no real such thing as a prior, it all just goes back forever until the beginning of history
No, you understand perfectly. “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it” and all.
No idea why “this person makes money off this policy, so they have a material reason to support it” is suddenly a controversial concept
I think it’s that you’re implying the actual ideological framework they claim to have is sound from their perspective, when it certainly isn’t. They basically just make shit up to justify their material motivations.
Those frameworks are sound if you don’t have the priors leftists do. That doesn’t mean they’re good, it just means they’re internally consistent.
Take homelessness. If your prior is that housing is a human right, then you think the government should make sure everyone has housing. But if your prior is that housing is something individuals have to provide for themselves, you aren’t as concerned about homelessness.
A lib with the latter prior isn’t stupid; they just have a fundamentally different belief about how society should work. It’s not that they haven’t read the books we have on homelessness, it’s that they simply disagree with the importance we place on the issue. Often they disagree because they understand that agreeing would have a material cost.
Of course, plenty of libs also have incoherent worldviews, or really are just uneducated on important topics. My point is that viewing them all that way isn’t correct, and falls into the same “no reasonable person could possibly disagree with me” trap we rip on others for buying into.
the problem is that developing priors requires thought in the first place and said priors are usually developed due to other terrible interpretations of things they’ve gone through. there is no real such thing as a prior, it all just goes back forever until the beginning of history