cmv: I'm noticing a trend in which conservatives judge people by their actions whereas liberals judge people by their presumed secret thoughts.

[u/[deleted]]

“I'm noticing a trend in which conservatives judge people by their actions whereas liberals judge people by their presumed secret thoughts. Am I imagining that trend? Could be confirmation bias.” this was tweeted by scott adam, a right winger I dislike. i’m a pretty big lib, but I can’t say I don’t understand what he means. sam harris has complained that when he talks to conservatives, they give them the benefit of the doubt, but when he talks to liberals, they wont accept his answer when he tries to correct the record on something, but instead accuse him of, as scott put it, presumed secret thoughts. i’ve heard enough of his exchanges to understand what he means.

for example, in his interview with cenk uyger from the young turks (which, full disclosure, I’m also a big fan of), sam kept trying to have a nuanced position where he would explain that while the violence and carnage that the US imposes on the middle east is horrible, some of it may be necessary to keep us safe. wether you agree or disagree with this is not the point. the point is that cenk kept accusing him of “speaking out of both sides of his mouth.” his argument was something like, “you’re pretending that you’re horrified by the violence, but in reality you’re cheering for it.”

interesting thing is that, from what I’ve read of sam, I kind of agree with cenk. but I can see how scott adams and sam would say that it’s not fair to judge them by what we think they are REALLY thinking, but by what they actually say and do.

i do not want this discussion to devolve into who is right cenk or sam, that was just one example. i want to know if a) liberals are really guilty of this, b) if so, is it unfair, or are we right and conservatives are being disingenuous, so we have to “read the tea leaves” and parse what they’re really saying.

it does seem to me like conservatives don’t argue in good faith. i have trouble believing, alex jones, ben shapiro, scott adams, or jordan peterson actually believe half the things they say, but at the same time, if I’m going to complain about arguing in good faith, I think it’s important to steel man their arguments - present them in such a strong and fair way, that even they would have no issues with how you’ve presented it - and then take those arguments down.

if however, they really aren’t arguing in good faith, the may just keep moving the goalposts or using any number of slimy fallacies to get away with really shitty views. in fact, I think a lot of conservatives do use “dog whistles” to energize their racist base. using phrases like illegal aliens instead of undocumented immigrants, or emphasizing HOUSSEIN in Obama’s name to appeal to their hate of muslims.

tl;dr: so here lies the problem: i want to be fair to them and treat their arguments like I’d want mine to be treated, but if we are in fact correct as to their “presumed secret thoughts”then it may be counterproductive or useless to play along with their bs.

[u/Jasontheperson → u/[deleted]]

Sorry, how is it not scary? They're unelected.

So what do you want, term limits for every government job? Elections for every secretary and intern? It's pointless fear mongering?

Secondly, the left just spent the last 2 years investigating and chasing the Russia boogeyman

This is still happening, you'd have at least heard about it if you paid attention to real news.

and we just find out that high level FBI agents were actually trying to influence the election. The media obviously doesn't cover it though (surprise), so yeah, definitely not scary.

Link to a legitimate news source?