A Liberal Decalogue: Russell's Ten Commandments

Snicolette wrote: Logan wrote:    Not only is acting in a respectful manner nice, but when one one is mocking, patronising, arrogant or generally demeaning, it causes people to go on the defensive and be more offensive themselves. I don't think that it's a good strategy for changing opinions if that is one's aim (doubt that usually is the aim when being denigrating), and is likely to only appeal to those witnesses of the spectacle who agree with you. I think that acting respectfully is important, but at the same time I don't think we need to respect other opinions or people. I like to at least try to understand someone's perspective even if I find it morally repugnant or very misguided. Peaceful tolerance at the least, or politely "agreeing to disagree" isn't a bad outcome.  While I have researched why "liberal" is considered by so many "Conservatives", particularly in the US, to be a dirty word and liberals as being worthy of mocking I guess many conservatives, or alt-right, people these days think that liberals have a death wish for their traditions, or think that all white Liberals are living with "white guilt". Or they think that are too affirmative action. And of course there's the idea that "liberals", who do tend to favour social safety nets, give a free pass for laziness, and some claim are not interested enough in the prosperity of the individual. Ideally, I would like a society where everyone has the opportunity to have a deeply fulfilling, satisfying, and rich life (by rich I don't mean money) and can be given opportunities to reach their potential (be it as a gigolo, a gynecologist, a physicist, a dog walker, a mechanic, a mathematician, a chef, a pet food taster, a teacher, a writer, an artist, a deodorant tester or as a vacuum cleaner, which would kind of suck). While I'd like to see improvements, I don't believe in changing things for the sake of changing things. There are many things that have come from my civilisational history, as well as others, that I would like to see preserved. The conservation of many things is important to me. I value much of my cultural heritage, and when I travel, I appreciate other cultures. I care deeply about environmental issues, and so deeply value the preservation/ conservation of "nature". I value science, and the scientific method, but I don't think that all technological innovation would be good thing (like if we could all 3D print nuclear weapons, or create bio-weapons with our home technology). I'd like to think that humanity will exist, improve and prosper long after I am gone -- that may mean some unpopular decisions such as limiting the number of offspring allowed and advances in robotics to help with a workforce, and possibly genetic enhancements, but that could lead to a Gattaca-like brave new world. Excuse my abbreviating your thoughts, there Logan, I do that so I can focus in on addressing those portions specifically.... In one of my previous lifetimes, I was a 911 (emergency here in the US) dispatcher.  You pretty quickly learn that any shouting escalates a negative situation.  Remain calm and even the most hysterical people will eventually follow your lead.   I don't do Twitter, for just those reasons.  I like to have more time to explain myself!   I think that the quick dismissal of "liberal," as a dirty word and all-encompassing is a sad reflection of those who don't really bother to take the time to find out what a word means....they are echoing the thoughts of others, much like many religious people take the word of their leaders rather than taking the time to study what they are espousing.  It's lazy and all too human. Yes, our society(ies) are crying out for the ability of people to become most of who they are and what their strengths are.  I think the sickness of so much violence and mental illness is partly in reaction to this stifling of the human spirit.  I so agree that monetary wealth is not the entire definition of "rich," and certainly does not necessarily bring happiness.  Been there.  It is good to have enough to not worry about that part, so you can focus on the rest, but the pursuit of it for it's own sake is an empty chase and may leave you all alone with your money in a big, empty house (my second husband). Love the vacuum cleaner! And, finally, just because we CAN do something, does not mean we should.  Again, think it all through first, think of all of the possible outcomes.  Take time take care and come to meaningful and positive conclusions when addressing problems...It requires a bit of patience, something that the world seems to have less of these days.   Again, thank you for the thoughtful discussion herein and bringing it back to the fore.  Looking forward to hearing more.

It seems to me that your abbreviation of my thoughts is a big improvement. Paring down only bothers me when I feel taken out of context, the editing facilitates talking past one another, people only focus on the weaker parts of my posts while missing or ignoring my overall point, only post the self-deprecating parts, then insult me after I have insulted myself, or when, say in debate, people ask questions and then ignore my attempts to answer them, and well, I could go on. Some might have edited my post to read:

SarcasticFecker wrote: Logan wrote: I'll just lamely add (it's late and I'm not thinking very clearly so prepare for some mega rambling) ... which [will] kind of suck.... You got that much right, it does suck.

Being a 911 dispatcher would be far too stressful for me. I had to learn to keep my calm with one of my kids who has been going through a difficult patch as things could escalate quickly. There was a recent story in the news about a dispatcher who when dealing with someone who was panicking hung up on that person (there was a murderous person in the house).

I wish more police, well all police, were better trained when it comes to de-escalation and calming people in acute stress (more training in psychology would help). "CALM DOWN!!! CALM DOWN!!! GET ON THE FLOOR! GET ON THE FLOOR! DROP THE SAFETY SCISSORS NOW!!!" I wish that the police here were more adequately trained in conflict resolution sans TASERS, bullets or threats of violence, would be less likely to demand respect while being disrespectful of others, were more aware of mental health issues, and aggressive officers/ hotheads who show signs of being in it for the sense of power over others would be less tolerated, and not defended, by the police force/ union. I realise it's a difficult situation that police often find themselves in, but too often the approach has led to bodily injury and death. That said, I'm not claiming that there aren't many wonderful people who join the police and do their best and their duty under very stressful, adverse conditions. Not an easy job very often, and they too often have to put up with abuse.

I prefer long-form discussion to the limitations of Twitter. I find it useful for finding out about certain things by people who interest me, but it is quite a toxic, hyper-partisan environment all too often, where discussion often lacks nuance.

More people should look into things for themselves, using a variety of sources, instead of just parroting what others that they identify with, their tribes, claim.   Too many people seem to shun research, laziness as you say, but also I sometimes think it's because people fear being challenged in their notions and don't have very investigative minds, or a healthy scepticism, I would say. I had a run-in with an anthropogenic climate change denier at this forum where he linked to a "scientific" source which claimed that humanity was having no significant impact on climate change. It only took a few minutes of my research to see that it came from a conservative think tank strongly linked to the Koch brothers. It was clear that he was only getting info on a variety of topic from certain sources that fit his world view. This siloing, echo chamber, bubble effect narrows thinking. It's important to travel outside of one's comfort zone to find other perspectives, and listen despite ones biases (we all have our biases but be aware of the biases) and gain a greater understanding of issues. Of course some things are easier to dismiss from a rational perspective than others, and we only have so much time in the day so it helps to gains some sense of discernment when it comes to the quality of the media, research etc. One should consider how cogent an argument is and how well backed up are the assertions (are the premises sufficient, relevant and acceptable to adequately support the conclusion, for instance).

It's interesting how often people double-down on their views when presented with new evidence that should shed serious doubts on their beliefs.

When it comes to listening to religious leaders, for instance, it is a shame that more people don't do their own research (which not only requires reading the texts for oneself, but also trying to understand the history and traditions). Of course many leaders would rather their flock follow them blindly, not question, as that can maintain their power. Authority is important to authoritarians.

Many of us are striving for some awakening of the human spirit (I'm something of a seeker), which does in part involve finding your strengths and feeling empowered. People want to feel valued and to value themselves. So, so many feel isolated, alienated, powerless, not an integral part of the system, or more than a cog in the wheel, not mattering, and not having a voice. Society seems so cold and heartless to many and so many feel unfulfilled. Despite any controversial feelings I have when it comes to population control, to me humanity is such a precious resource, and not giving people more opportunities to better themselves, find their strengths and thus potentially contribute more to society, as well as feeling like they have more fulfilling, satisfying lives, seems such a tragic waste to me.

The world really does seem so impatient these days; so short-sighted. Prudence is desirable when it comes to so many things. We're running lots of experiments around the world, and in our lives, many of which could have disastrous consequences. There are serious existential risks. Stepping back and taking time to think through the consequences when possible, and thinking through the best approach and doing the research, is not time wasted -- as I have realised when attempting plumbing around the house. ;)

Logan wrote: It seems to me that your abbreviation of my thoughts is a big improvement. Paring down only bothers me when I feel taken out of context SarcasticFecker wrote: Logan wrote: I'll just lamely add (it's late and I'm not thinking very clearly so prepare for some mega rambling) ... which [will] kind of suck.... You got that much right, it does suck. I am very happy that you don't mind!  And I do love your sense of humour.   Being a 911 dispatcher would be far too stressful for me. I had to learn to keep my calm with one of my kids who has been going through a difficult patch as things could escalate quickly. There was a recent story in the news about a dispatcher who when dealing with someone who was panicking hung up on that person (there was a murderous person in the house).  It was long ago and in a place that was very quiet compared to what it is now.  Santa Cruz in the early 1980's.  I would not want that job now.  Hanging up on someone in the situation is unconscionable. I wish more police, well all police, were better trained when it comes to de-escalation and calming people in acute stress (more training in psychology would help)That said, I'm not claiming that there aren't many wonderful people who join the police and do their best and their duty under very stressful, adverse conditions. Not an easy job very often, and they too often have to put up with abuse. In my day, not only the police, but we dispatchers had lots of training.  I am actually qualified in hostage negotiations!  And trained in suicide prevention, not to mention a healthy grounding in gallows humour, which helps in dealing with high stress situations, especially the PTSD-type effects that follow requiring to be calm in the most insane occurrences.   I found that police, like any other group of people, had their fair share of people who were there for all the right reasons and some who were there for all of the wrong reasons.  It's a shame when the wrong reason crew get into the wrong situation, in particular.   I prefer long-form discussion to the limitations of Twitter. I find it useful for finding out about certain things by people who interest me, but it is quite a toxic, hyper-partisan environment all too often, where discussion often lacks nuance. More people should look into things for themselves, using a variety of sources, instead of just parroting what others that they identify with, their tribes, claim.   Too many people seem to shun research, laziness as you say, but also I sometimes think it's because people fear being challenged in their notions and don't have very investigative minds, or a healthy scepticism, I would say. I had a run-in with an anthropogenic climate change denier at this forum where he linked to a "scientific" source which claimed that humanity was having no significant impact on climate change. It only took a few minutes of my research to see that it came from a conservative think tank strongly linked to the Koch brothers. It was clear that he was only getting info on a variety of topic from certain sources that fit his world view. This siloing, echo chamber, bubble effect narrows thinking. It's important to travel outside of one's comfort zone to find other perspectives, and listen despite ones biases One should consider how cogent an argument is and how well backed up are the assertions (are the premises sufficient, relevant and acceptable to adequately support the conclusion, for instance). I did see that, I figure there's no reasoning with the like. It's interesting how often people double-down on their views when presented with new evidence that should shed serious doubts on their beliefs. Yes.  And yes.  Doubling down on that!   When it comes to listening to religious leaders, for instance, it is a shame that more people don't do their own research (which not only requires reading the texts for oneself, but also trying to understand the history and traditions). Of course many leaders would rather their flock follow them blindly, not question, as that can maintain their power. Authority is important to authoritarians.  Absolutely. Many of us are striving for some awakening of the human spirit (I'm something of a seeker), which does in part involve finding your strengths and feeling empowered. People want to feel valued and to value themselves. So, so many feel isolated, alienated, powerless, not an integral part of the system, or more than a cog in the wheel, not mattering, and not having a voice. Society seems so cold and heartless to many and so many feel unfulfilled. Despite any controversial feelings I have when it comes to population control, to me humanity is such a precious resource, and not giving people more opportunities to better themselves, find their strengths and thus potentially contribute more to society, as well as feeling like they have more fulfilling, satisfying lives, seems such a tragic waste to me.  It is hard to sit and watch as this happens for so many.  We are lucky in having lived when we did, we had chances to build strong friendships based on shared experiences and draw on those.  It is terribly hard for young people to make real friends these days, especially people who have any depth.  I see it with my son and also with other friends I have made of younger age groups than mine.  They really want connection.  Not to imply that my son doesn't have friends, the ones he has have remained life-long ones, they just don't all live in the same place anymore and it is harder to make new ones than it used to be. The internet is funny this way, it can connect so many, yet, somehow can also isolate so many.  Not sure what the answer is, but perhaps keep talking about it.   The world really does seem so impatient these days; so short-sighted. Prudence is desirable when it comes to so many things. We're running lots of experiments around the world, and in our lives, many of which could have disastrous consequences. There are serious existential risks. Stepping back and taking time to think through the consequences when possible, and thinking through the best approach and doing the research, is not time wasted -- as I have realised when attempting plumbing around the house. ;)

Oh, I am not a defender of bad police practices in the least, just have a bit of an insider viewpoint of them.  Which is different than many other insiders, I recognize their fallability.  And have no tolerance for brutality on their part.  I agree with you that the guns here are a big part of the problem.  I don't know the answer to that problem, just stands to reason that if there are more guns, there will be more gun violence.

Logan wrote: I was put in mind of this by something. I'm interested to hear from more people what "liberal" means to them (of course it depends on the context). Does it have positive, negative or neutral connotations to you (again, of course that could depend on the context)? As said, in some ways I'm quite conservative/ traditional, but mostly I like to be liberal in terms of being open-minded (just not so open-minded that my brains fall out).

Snicolette wrote: Logan wrote: I was put in mind of this by something. I'm interested to hear from more people what "liberal" means to them (of course it depends on the context). Does it have positive, negative or neutral connotations to you (again, of course that could depend on the context)? As said, in some ways I'm quite conservative/ traditional, but mostly I like to be liberal in terms of being open-minded (just not so open-minded that my brains fall out). Probably not exactly what you were looking for, but has a bearing on it.  My son recently went to Europe in a college extension course....he's a Masters candidate in International Relations at Boston University.  They went to a place in London, which was once bombed and has become a center for studies and a safe place for people of all religions and political propensities, for purposes of discourse and discussion.  He and the other students (who were all first-year college students, he was the only Master's candidate) were in a yurt on the property, and the docent gathered them and told them that this is a triangulation that they often use for discussion amongst people of differing backgrounds.  He asked them to go to a specific place in the yurt, if the word, "power," brought forth a feeling of "angry," "sad," or "happy."   The other students mostly collected into the "angry," corner.  My son stood aside.  The docent finally said, "Why aren't you making a choice?"  My son said, "Because the word, "power," is just a word.  It's what you DO with it, that gives it any emotion.  You can abuse power, you can use it for good, you can choose to do nothing with it.  That is what defines the feeling behind the word."   The professor who accompanied the class said, "And there you have the difference between a first year student and a Master's candidate in International Relations."   That all being said, I define myself as a "liberal," and also "conservative," in the true sense of the words (much as you do, Logan, and in the same ways).  My son does not, he looks at all sides of a question from all aspects that he can gather and then makes his own opinion.  I wish I could have that kind of detachment, yet still find that I also view things on an emotional level as well.   So, not sure if that is what you were looking for, but it's what was brought to mind for me.  I could never vote for a Republican candidate, I just feel too strongly against what they stand for on several key issues, that carry a lot of weight for me.  What is happening in my country right now is not that, however. We are tossed right back into Nixonian times.

Yes, we are all humans and other creatures on this little planet.  We are ALL of the same tribe.  Earthlings.  

Perhaps more to your point, Logan, is that I consider myself "liberal," in the sense that individuals have a right to live differently than I do, with of course the common good being kept in mind (if your religion or mania calls for you to murder me, then, no, you cannot do that).  It is not my business if you want an abortion, want to smoke pot, even want to (safely) own firearms (with reasonable limits), want to marry any consenting adult, believe in one god, hundreds, or none, eat meat or if you're lactose intolerant, or vegan or gluten intolerant, or for freaking sake, allergic to any foods (just tell me before I make a dinner for you so that I can feed you properly), that everyone deserves equal medical care and the right to equal rights, no matter your sex, race or financial status, and especially if you want to say "Merry Christmas," or "Happy Holidays," and I will respond in kind, politely...just don't spitefully say any of it to me ....Please, the Golden Rule should preside over all.

Yes, I am not for anarchy!  

Lewian wrote: "Liberal" for me has aspects that I like and aspects that I don't like that much. I like open mindedness, open debate, and am very much against censorship. On the other hand I think there can be too much freedom. Some things should be regulated centrally. People have to come together and do something about the destruction of nature and the world as we know it. And then people are not born with equal opportunities, freedom may mean great freedom to some and hardly any to others. There needs to be protection of workers' rights, regulation of competition and the like, and there is an interpretation of "liberal" that dislikes all of these ideas. The concept of absolute freedom is inherently contradictory, freedom of one person will at some point always get in conflict with the freedom of another. Today's world needs a healthy dose of liberalism but it also needs coordination, rules and constraints.

When I describe myself as a liberal, that does not entail absolute liberty/ freedom. I would call that some form of extreme libertarianism, or hyper-liberalism.

I'm for limited liberty, regulation, and am hardly libertarian. Individual freedom should end when it is detrimental to others (according to certain frameworks). One can be liberal without taking an anything goes approach. I have a problem with hyper-liberalism and libertarianism.

My basic ethos is that a system that promotes the maximum well-being (health, fulfillment etc.) and minimises suffering amongst the population is better than the opposite. Figuring that out is not always easy either. I'm a moral situationalist, but I do start with some basic moral assumptions.