A reasonable person might assume that people have some core moral axioms and their political positions flow out as logical derivations starting from those axioms. This isn't actually the case in reality.
People's political positions are mostly formed via induction from the pundits of their tribe, whether it be individuals like John Oliver or Sean Hannity or newspapers like the NYT or the WSJ, which in turn form their positions through a complex calculus of tribal affiliations, but never based on axiomatic moral values. The values are only retrofit to provide a veneer of logic to the process. These positions then flow down the influencer pole until the average Joe is virtue signaling about them to his 5 friends.
Not only this, there isn't any feeling of cognitive dissonance when these political stances clash, because they were never really about a logical moral system to begin with.
Thus we see people saying both that:
* "Freedom of Speech" is great but FB should censor individuals based on the speech fashion of the day.
* We should "believe all women" but only if they can lead to the potential cancelation of Brett Kavanaugh, not Joe Biden.
* You were a terrible human being for spreading COVID if you so much as left the house 2 weeks ago but now you are terrible human being if you don't go out and congregate in groups of hundreds and thousands for the protests.
The mistake is assuming there is a logical thought process as opposed to mere tribal affiliation and signaling.
Growing up, I was taught (not in those words, but by implication) that burning books was one of the most symbolically powerful and worst non-violent acts an oppressing regime could do. It's saddening to see that metaphorical books are still being burnt, but by a different set of people.
People's political positions are mostly formed via induction from the pundits of their tribe, whether it be individuals like John Oliver or Sean Hannity or newspapers like the NYT or the WSJ, which in turn form their positions through a complex calculus of tribal affiliations, but never based on axiomatic moral values. The values are only retrofit to provide a veneer of logic to the process. These positions then flow down the influencer pole until the average Joe is virtue signaling about them to his 5 friends.
Not only this, there isn't any feeling of cognitive dissonance when these political stances clash, because they were never really about a logical moral system to begin with.
Thus we see people saying both that:
* "Freedom of Speech" is great but FB should censor individuals based on the speech fashion of the day.
* We should "believe all women" but only if they can lead to the potential cancelation of Brett Kavanaugh, not Joe Biden.
* You were a terrible human being for spreading COVID if you so much as left the house 2 weeks ago but now you are terrible human being if you don't go out and congregate in groups of hundreds and thousands for the protests.
The mistake is assuming there is a logical thought process as opposed to mere tribal affiliation and signaling.
Growing up, I was taught (not in those words, but by implication) that burning books was one of the most symbolically powerful and worst non-violent acts an oppressing regime could do. It's saddening to see that metaphorical books are still being burnt, but by a different set of people.