I'll ask again, what's the point of pointing out that there is another "actual party responsible"? So what? You're trying to get me to change my behavior with regards to this party. You're asking an ally to improve. Blame them all you want for my needing to improve, but you're asking me to.
So this
is the dissonance I think. Maybe even more than this time, but in
general between us.
We're referring to less similar groups than we thought we were. On top of that, for me personally, there's a separation between "we're not doing enough" (for any demographic) and trying to discuss improvements of the self (ourselves, in terms of how we view things). I viewed "we're not doing enough" as material, vs. something like self-improvement which is a lot harder to quantify.
Back to the groups though, I thought we were referring to some mostly-progressive umbrella. And maybe our experiences in this regard are different but the ability of a lot of people in this regard to provide material aid is incredibly limited. We see it on "the right" as well, of course. Tons of poor, impoverished voters there regardless of their personal beliefs and how much they may be dead-set against mine. I'm talking capital here (in any of its numerous forms). You seem to be operating with an instinctively disposable budget (in that you have one) vs. my assumption that not everyone does (like, at all).
That's true and that's your slippery slope to infer. But they can also be coddled and given moral license to not be marginally better. We can even trick each other into thinking that we can't (or needn't) do better. And that harm is as real as doing the harm we need to prevent. In the world of math, a negative is subtracting a positive. And when it comes to effecting change, the math matters. Convincing a person they need luxury X "to avoid burning out" redirects those funds away from helping just as much as convincing them the assistance isn't required.
It's not a slippery slope, it's an observation of the pressure on marginalised people vs. less marginalised, often more affluent "allies". Who are what I think you're actually referring too generally (as I said above).
People need luxuries. You can't put people into an organ grinder, take away anything that gives the smallest bit of relief, and characterise any relief as
coddling them. However, again, I think this is because of who you were referring to vs. who I was referring to. To take a very basic example of a luxury (in the most basic sense of the word), I drink coffee. I need coffee. I cannot function as well as I do with two young children, other compounding factors, etc, without it. But it costs money. And there was a time in the not-so-distant past, where choosing coffee meant literally sacrificing other things. For myself, and my family. Very tight budget, and none (or precious little) spare for other people. Paycheck to paycheck, with one missed paycheck meaning me literally being without the ability to pay rent.
And I wasn't even
poor compared to some of the circles I move in. I always wanted to give something, and had precious little opportunity to do so.
I still chose coffee. Would you consider that giving myself the moral license to not be better? Or is it an acceptable cost to my functioning that leads to eventual betterment? The same goes for like, a chocolate bar a week, or two beers once a week, or something. And that's before we get onto socialising and exorcising that because
it costs money. What is the value of maintaining any relationship (friendships, etc)? My disposable income was measured in a literal handful of pounds (sterling) per month at the time.
This is why I said what I said about the dissonance. I think you fundamentally misunderstand the available resources I'm referring to at play.
I mention many things, and I recognize that people cannot do them all. Too many, but that doesn't excuse that people will do 'too few'. There's efficiency and there's opportunity cost. But, if I cared about the Pro-Choice movement in the United States, I'd give them money or time, depending on efficiency. Ideally by freeing up resources from something that was net-harmful, not feeling entitled to the lifestyle (and damages) of the average person in my cohort. And here is where the math mentioned above matters. Either people are funding it, or they're not. And if they're not, they're not. Pennies are real, in this regard. You asked "materially make that happen". "Materially make that happen" is (a) finding or creating the organization and then (b) donating or canvassing. The first of those two suggestions is immediately actionable, using your expertise to fund an expert to do something necessary.
People will often do less than is beneficial, I agree. So how do we accurately target these people? I think accurately is the kicker.
Though, of course, I know plenty of people that canvas as well. Volunteer at soup kitchens, you name it. I would in my local area, politically, if it would make a difference (and I'm not copping out, this is a local seat that literally hasn't changed party in four decades). The "donating" is more the contentious thing between us I feel. Because that's the biggest impact on literally anything, and we both know the problem is that the people
with aren't motivated enough to rectify the imbalance between them and the people without. That's it, in essence.
Pennies are real. I feel like the people I refer to more literally don't have them. I'm at the stage now where I do, but heaven if I know where half of it goes (children). And is donating £20 shifting the needle? £100? We need to try and make the conversation about these real pennies making material change, and how we do that. Because in the States in particular, it seems to be that the mainstream of both parties prevents undue outside influence that isn't already aligned with pre-existing goals. And, perhaps paradoxically, the more money you have to spare, the more likely you aren't going to be interested in disrupting them.
Here is an interesting communication confusion that I don't know how to address without many paragraphs. When I was referring to 'morals' above, I was more referring to 'being right' than 'convincing someone to be good'. Don't get me wrong, I like being right, but the victims of any hesitation on my part don't really care if I'm right.
I'm never against discussing morals, but moral arguments not made just in order to 'be correct'. They're made to 'effect change' in those who hear them. Convincing people to improve is just as useful as forcing them to, from the perspective of those being harmed. I'm not even insisting that we be moral in order to change momentum, even if I note that you don't need to cheat to win (you just need to be better, despite their cheating, which is a large set of possibilities). But the decision to cheat is a complex calculation, with collateral damage and whatever.
The problem is people will and do absolutely equate "being right" with "convincing someone to be good". That's where the whole "virtue signalling" mess (and other things that Angst details in his new thread) comes from. The belief that people don't say things because they're good people, but because they merely see themselves as good people and this is used as clout (over people who are seen as not). You and I both know the separation, but in terms of communication - in terms of
winning, the separation is obfuscated to help other people win instead.
Can you clarify? What do you mean reveling in it?
El_Mac was talking to the problems of moral superiority as a way of "winning", and you were feeling morally superior over lessons you think Trump should've taught people (vs. the more realistic outcome that people maybe just learned different lessons to you).
Why would you not want to purge your biases?
In short, what
@Lexicus already said.
It obviously gets more complicated when you discuss different types of bias - there's a far stronger argument for the need to purge something like racial bias, vs. something like preferential (ingroup) or confirmation biases you may hold. But that doesn't change the fact that it is difficult, and it's often a length (if not permanent) process. We're not robots. To truly "purge" ourselves of something like that we'd have to deconstruct it completely, work through any associated hangups (or actual trauma), and come out the other side. A lengthy process that often takes money as well as time. But if that was the case we all wouldn't still have demonstrable bias, and I can't think of a single CFC poster who doesn't on at least any one given topic (myself included).
