Your first mistake is thinking that over 300 million people can be divided into 2 coherent teams.

​

>that simultaneously proclaims itself pro-life, yet wants to remove roadblocks to capital punishment AND wants to flood the streets with guns? That proclaims the sanctity of life in the womb, yet seeks to dismantle all systemic support for young disadvantaged families?

That said even a single person has many competing and simultaneous reasons for believing what they do. someone who is pro-life, pro-guns, and pro-capital punishment may believe in protecting the lives (unborn children too, as they reckon) of the innocent rather than an inherent sanctity of life.

Even if someone disagrees with their goals and/or methods (myself included, not that it matters because I'm not American) they are doing themselves and their opponent a disservice by not even trying to understand their opponent.

​

>One just has to be willing to look at the dark side of life to grasp the unifying theme: a will to cruelty, to punishment. The moment you do that, the varied positions of that particular ‘team’ all form a coherent package.

"the dark side of life is all the people who disagree with me, they are being evil for kicks"

​

TLDR: the person I replied to can't fathom how someone might be of a different political persuasion.

[deleted]

[removed]

For one ’team’ in this nation, indeed there is no coherent whole at first glance. How do we make sense of a party that simultaneously proclaims itself pro-life, yet wants to remove roadblocks to capital punishment AND wants to flood the streets with guns? That proclaims the sanctity of life in the womb, yet seeks to dismantle all systemic support for young disadvantaged families?

One just has to be willing to look at the dark side of life to grasp the unifying theme: a will to cruelty, to punishment. The moment you do that, the varied positions of that particular ‘team’ all form a coherent package.

Tribalism and social pressure sell beliefs/identities as a package. Social media has accelerated this tribal sorting, and emphasizes the stakes and importance of one's tribal identity.

People are inclined to adopt the beliefs of the in-group whether or not the belief naturally appeals/resonates.

[removed]

What Ayn Rand is saying is: if you say we should care about animals, you should care about animals. You should actually notice if you're eating meat. You should actually check if your pet that appears to be happy is actually happy. You should ask questions about wild animal suffering. You shouldn't be having discussions about caring about animals only when it happens to come up, which is when you and your buddies happen to talk about it, or on online forums, or when you choose to buy the more expensive "organic" option because it's probably better, or whatever, and the rest of the time live a life completely orthogonal to that, as if they're just words you emit to play a game instead of true, meaningful statements. If you say "nobody can be certain of anything", you shouldn't be certain of anything. If you say "we need to be more compassionate", you should be more compassionate. If you say "we should teach critical thinking in schools", maybe you should actually try to get that to happen, and that involves knowing if it already happens, and why it is failing or succeeding, and to what degree.

What Ayn Rand isn't saying is any sort of linguistic gotcha, or something like that. Why did so many commenters go that route? Jesus. "No, you misinterpreted her, when the whole point of what she said is you shouldn't do that but take her at face value. Unlike you, whose interpretation is a misinterpretation, my interpretation is taking her at face value." Very funny, in a sort of meta way, but no.

I don't think the author means to say sarcasm doesn't exist; but rather that philosophy isn't presented as sarcastic.

[removed]

[removed]

No it isn't. She said to take it literally. Not to assume that no one could possibly mean that. Which, to be fair, one shouldn't just assume but double check perhaps but that was not the suggestion made.

I mean, judging by what you said, context and intent (or what you assume is the intent) is more important to you than the straightforward meaning. What did you think Ayn Rand said? "We should use dictionaries" but in more words? No, the important thing she says is that we should live by ideas we accept as true, that we should uphold values we claim to defend. You don't need to impose your meaning on others, but there needs to be a meaning you take seriously.

Ironic considering what she said is that when you read someone say something, you should have a strong definition of words in your head and not conclude "Oh they can't possibly mean that."So either she's a hypocrite or you're a liar.
Edit: "Take it literally. Don’t translate it, don’t glamorize it, don’t make the mistake of thinking, as many people do: “Oh, nobody could possibly mean this!” and then proceed to endow it with some whitewashed meaning of your own. Take it straight, for what it does say and mean."

>What really matters is the idea someone is trying to convey and sometimes people are not great at that which requires work on the receiving end

That's what she's saying. You'd know that if you actually did it.

What she means is that when you say something like "narcissism leads to linguistic tyranny", you should actually make sure you know what that means, and that that means anything at all, not just let vibes do the work for you.

Nothing to do with sarcasm. It means that if you claim to believe something, or if you think someone else believes something, you should start by acting as if it's actually true. Like when people hear "abortion is murder" and somehow end up parsing that as "I hate women" - don't do that. Or when people claim to think "abortion is murder" and yet don't act like millions of children are being murdered, but act as if it's a minor inconvenience to be settled with ballots.

As the title said: take ideas seriously. Don't use them as attire or status markers, to identify which political group you're in, or for fun philosophical discussions you ignore in real life. Did you know 2/3rds of self-described vegetarians claim to have eaten meat in the last 24 hours?

What a baffling take. When on the receiving end of communication you want to figure out what someone means. Sometimes this means considering if someone could really mean something and then clarifying it with them to be sure. Instantly taking things literally only works with some people and even then they might have a different conception of what a word means. What really matters is the idea someone is trying to convey and sometimes people are not great at that which requires work on the receiving end

I have more questions about the conclusions of why political climate is the way it is. Why can't political belief be a combination of all of the things they are referring to? I know a lot of people would like one specific answer as to why, but why can't we have all these things stacked against us as individuals and citizens?

[removed]

That's the point the writer was making. It's two sides of the same coin

Yeah this is narcissism, thinking that the meanings you give to words are more important to what someone is saying than the context and intent. It leads to linguistic tyranny where you hold others ideas to your concept of words rather than accepting words can have multiple definitions.

EDIT: Can only people who have read the article and are willing to defend it's words in good faith comment. I don't like wasting my time, even if they are indirectly evidencing my point on this mindset.

[deleted]

Define "God."

>"attach clear, specific meanings to words,” identifying what the words refer to in reality: Take it literally. Don’t translate it, don’t glamorize it, don’t make the mistake of thinking, as many people do: “Oh, nobody could possibly mean this!” and then proceed to endow it with some whitewashed meaning of your own. Take it straight, for what it does say and mean.

What? I stop reading after this. It's basically saying sarcasm does not exist?...

>!And as someone with OCD I personally say this feels harmful. Sometimes people take words too literally when it wasn't even mean as such and it gives them negative impact. And OCD and GAD gives their sufferer a lot of harmful and false ideas!<

Does this mean something to anyone?

I have no absolute control in what you see, I have no absolute control in what surrounds you, I have no absolute control over your thoughts, I have no absolute control over your feelings, absolute control over your experience is a guise.

I have no absolute control in what I see, I have no absolute control in what surrounds me, I have no absolute control over my thoughts, I have no absolute control over my feelings, absolute control over my experience is a guise.

My actions can influence what you see, my actions can influence what surrounds you, my actions can influence what you think, my actions can influence what you feel, my actions can influence your experience.

My actions Influence what I see, my actions influence what surrounds me, my actions influence what I think, my actions influence what I feel, my actions influence my experience.

You have no absolute control in what I see, you have no absolute control in what surrounds me, you have no absolute control over what I think, you have no absolute control over what I feel, absolute control over my experience is a guise.

You have no absolute control in what you see, you have no absolute control in what surrounds you, you have no absolute control over what you think, you have no absolute control over what you feel, absolute control over your experience is a guise.

Your actions influence what you see, your actions influence what surrounds you, your actions influence what you think, your actions influence what you feel, your actions influence your experience.

Your actions can influence what I see, your actions can influence what surrounds me, your actions can influence what I think, your actions can influence what I feel, your actions can influence my experience.

No Absolute control of perspective, no Absolute control of surrounding's, no Absolute control of thoughts, no Absolute control of feelings, no Absolute control.

Actions influence perspective, actions influence surrounding's, actions influence thoughts, actions influence feelings, experiencing Actions influence.