> So if we recognize this principle, then we can also recognize the inverse - that if they’re not willing to listen to the other side, then they’re not just misguided - they’re actively evil.
I think that most people on *both* sides of most political issues do blatantly ignore their opponents' arguments.
Many of the people who agree with me on various issues, rather than just those opposed, are evil in this manner, but it always takes me longer to *notice* this. Thus, as a center-left guy, it was much easier to notice the unreasonableness of conservatives than liberals. I like to think that now I have matured enough to realize they are both full of s**t. One must therefore be cautious not to judge a cause by its zealots, for it may be that alongside the many zealots there may be quietly reasonable people that would listen to you.
There are some causes, such as anti-nuclear activism, where I have never encountered any non-zealots, which helps make it clear that pro-nuclear is the place to be. But usually I find the truth does not lie on either extreme. And are there unreasonable pro-nuclear zealots? Of course!
Edit: and I guess I want to add that I don't really think it's *useful* to call people evil for having an earnest belief. Maybe quietly, between friends, you call them evil when they can't hear you. But if somebody wasn't acting like a zealot when you start talking to them, they will probably start acting like one as soon as you call them "evil" or otherwise disrespect them. So I try my best to avoid such disrespect; let them be zealots of their own accord, not because I provoked them!
And on the object level, the question wasn't "would you date someone who voted for Romney", it was "would you date someone who voted for Trump". The question is not symmetrical between left and right wings, and I myself have a yes/no dichotomy there; if you voted for Trump, that pattern matches to "you're not worth my time" (unlike Romney - who in the end voted to impeach Trump).
> So if we recognize this principle, then we can also recognize the inverse - that if they’re not willing to listen to the other side, then they’re not just misguided - they’re actively evil.
I think that most people on *both* sides of most political issues do blatantly ignore their opponents' arguments.
Many of the people who agree with me on various issues, rather than just those opposed, are evil in this manner, but it always takes me longer to *notice* this. Thus, as a center-left guy, it was much easier to notice the unreasonableness of conservatives than liberals. I like to think that now I have matured enough to realize they are both full of s**t. One must therefore be cautious not to judge a cause by its zealots, for it may be that alongside the many zealots there may be quietly reasonable people that would listen to you.
There are some causes, such as anti-nuclear activism, where I have never encountered any non-zealots, which helps make it clear that pro-nuclear is the place to be. But usually I find the truth does not lie on either extreme. And are there unreasonable pro-nuclear zealots? Of course!
Edit: and I guess I want to add that I don't really think it's *useful* to call people evil for having an earnest belief. Maybe quietly, between friends, you call them evil when they can't hear you. But if somebody wasn't acting like a zealot when you start talking to them, they will probably start acting like one as soon as you call them "evil" or otherwise disrespect them. So I try my best to avoid such disrespect; let them be zealots of their own accord, not because I provoked them!
And on the object level, the question wasn't "would you date someone who voted for Romney", it was "would you date someone who voted for Trump". The question is not symmetrical between left and right wings, and I myself have a yes/no dichotomy there; if you voted for Trump, that pattern matches to "you're not worth my time" (unlike Romney - who in the end voted to impeach Trump).