this post was submitted on 12 Feb 2025
581 points (97.4% liked)
Political Memes
6911 readers
4118 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Unpopular opinion: if you base your arguments in political debates around morals, you'll only be able to convince people who share your moral standpoint.
As a Leftwinger (real one, not the American notion of left-of-Trump being Leftwing) this is something I've though about a lot.
For example, most people are driven to some level or other by Greed: for example, if you think about it, when people from the "Working class" demand things for the "Working class", are they driven by a pure desire for equality or is it really about benefiting themselves as members of the "Working class"? Ditto for "Positive Discrimination" being demanded by people who will benefit from it - is it really about equality or is it Personal Upside Maximization hidding behind the "group"?
Choices driven by Greed above all often collide with the whole "Greatest good for the greatest number" principle of the Leftwing.
Anyways, "screw you, my moral standpoint is different so I don't care about what you say" as an absolute rule is how the Left fragments, so indeed an absolutist take of "If your Moral standpoint is not exactly the same as mine I won't listen to you" is self-defeating in the strategical sense.
Then again, going totally in the opposite direction - i.e. no people should be shunned due to their Moral standpoint - also ends up with some weird results: if somebody has a moral standpoint that "Slavery is just the Weak being put in their proper place by the Strong, and as Strong people they're superior hence have a right to chose what others do" (I almost puked a little in my mouth writting this), should we really try to do anything else than shun people whose moral standpoint is that?
Personally my compromise is that some Moral standpoints are unnacceptable and those who hold them do not deserve any attempt at finding a middle point between me and them - in other words, even in Morality there are red lines - and whilst we should indeed listen to those who are on the right side of those red lines even if we don't quite have the same Moral standpoint, those on the wrong side of those red lines are beyond salvation and not worth the effort.
There's a difference to "greed" and "self-interest". It benefits me as a member of the working class if my class gets power. Personally, I have a moral reason behind class solidarity. But it's not the only reason.
Yeah, I didn't say that you should never disagree with someone based on moral grounds. But if you're debating with someone, then moral arguments can be very ineffective or you basically already agree with each other. The OP in the tweet chose to gloat about their moral superiority, which helps basically no one.
I think that the amount of people who are that far gone is way exaggerated. I'm sure that a lot of Trump voters are in the "leopards ate my face" cathegory and can therefore be convinced. But you don't convince people by shaming them. The others (Nick Fuentes and the likes) don't care about your moral judgement.