> The contradictions probably should generate political compromises
My point is that they hinder compromise. If we disagree on a fundamental value but are upfront about our values, we can realize there are a whole bunch of other values we do agree on. We can also likely see that there are merits to each others' values, even if we prioritize our own values higher.
But when we go from values to long baked-out logical justifications of specific actions, the values get obscured and lost - even to the people who claim to hold them. The long justifications go towards rationalizing and buttressing what is the groupthink, but anything that goes against that groupthink is not afforded the same "let's follow the reasoning here" that would demonstrate the contradictions.
> I don't see any attempt from the powers in charge to lean toward "fully-baked reasoning"
Because the lowest common denominator soundbites still resonate. Where the "fully-baked reasoning" chains come is people justifying supporting the crass soundbites to themselves back in their larger personal context.
> lowest of the lowlife trolling forum goers are even remotely approaching logically consistent philosophical systems
This is the exact same dynamic - simplistic group identity soundbites for popular rallying cries, but they are backed by up reasoned arguments from a larger intellectual community. For any throwaway troll comment, you can find well-written long-form essays backing up the fundamental idea - if you look in the right communities.
> Have you ever chatted with a libertarian for instance?
So this is kind of funny, because I consider myself a libertarian but I also agree with where you're coming from here. So-called right-libertarianism is exactly one of these patterns of long chains of logical justifications working to obscure values. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49136085 for my specific critique, with a slightly different framing.
My point is that they hinder compromise. If we disagree on a fundamental value but are upfront about our values, we can realize there are a whole bunch of other values we do agree on. We can also likely see that there are merits to each others' values, even if we prioritize our own values higher.
But when we go from values to long baked-out logical justifications of specific actions, the values get obscured and lost - even to the people who claim to hold them. The long justifications go towards rationalizing and buttressing what is the groupthink, but anything that goes against that groupthink is not afforded the same "let's follow the reasoning here" that would demonstrate the contradictions.
> I don't see any attempt from the powers in charge to lean toward "fully-baked reasoning"
Because the lowest common denominator soundbites still resonate. Where the "fully-baked reasoning" chains come is people justifying supporting the crass soundbites to themselves back in their larger personal context.
> lowest of the lowlife trolling forum goers are even remotely approaching logically consistent philosophical systems
This is the exact same dynamic - simplistic group identity soundbites for popular rallying cries, but they are backed by up reasoned arguments from a larger intellectual community. For any throwaway troll comment, you can find well-written long-form essays backing up the fundamental idea - if you look in the right communities.
> Have you ever chatted with a libertarian for instance?
So this is kind of funny, because I consider myself a libertarian but I also agree with where you're coming from here. So-called right-libertarianism is exactly one of these patterns of long chains of logical justifications working to obscure values. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49136085 for my specific critique, with a slightly different framing.