slug.com slug.com

0 0

Many people (the vast majority IMO) are intellectual misers when it comes to political issues. They simply pledge allegiance to an ideological tribe, and then blindly adopt its package of issues and stances :
Susan identifies with the progressive tribe, so she must be in favor of A, B , C, and D, and against E, F, G, and H;
Peter identifies with the conservative tribe and must be against A, B , C, and D, and in favor of E, F, G, and H, ... and so on.

Whether these stances and issues are mutually consistent or not, whether there is some logic in it or not, whether there is some scientific evidence pro or anti B or F - it doesn't matter. Being pro-B or anti-F only means showing affiliation to one's tribe.

Just one example: if you want to belong to the progressive tribe, you have to be in favor of (and to show it to your comrades!) environmental protection AND of open borders / liberal immigration laws. Is there any logical connection between these two?
Sure, any devout progressive would be able to come up with some ad-hoc connection, just as any not-too-stupid conservative will be able to invent some connection between anti-abortion and pro liberal gun laws...

Human reason, as David Hume remarked, is the slave of passions. In the political realm, it is the slave of tribal allegiances.

Matias66 6 May 25
Share

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:340749