To me the biggest question about Haidt's (very important and impressive work) has always been whether the left's clustering on the "fairness" and "care/harm" axes tells you how they're actually making moral judgements, or how they feel they have to describe their moral judgments.
For example, Haidt asks respondents whether it's okay for someone to have sex with their frozen chicken, then cook and eating it. WEIRD lefties and libertarians say they have no problem with this. I believe they believe this.
But I think most of them would actually be reluctant to come over for a nice chicken dinner.
To be clear, I think Haidt is aware of this issue, but some of his readers clearly are not.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Hello, internet, it is I, lucky wife of @petersuderman, the best amateur bartender in America, and the author of the best at-home cocktail newsletter: cocktailswithsuderman.substack.com. I also happen to have a mostly dormant food blog:cookerymonster.com. And we have a nice surprise!
@petersuderman Tonight, for your amusement, we will be on Clubhouse discussing food and drink, how to turn a picky eater into an omnivore, and more! Including a SPECIAL SNEAK PREVIEW of the 100% ORIGINAL St. Patrick's Day cocktail he has concocted for his readers.
Starting 8:30 PM sharp!
I don't want to give too much away, but there may also be a special guest bullmastiff!
I've had exactly one interaction with Glenn Greenwald online--we quarreled--and pretty sure Matt Taibbi still thinks of me as an avatar of political evil, but they're both exceptionally talented and on this issue, correct: stop equating criticism with harassment.
Obviously, don't harass people! Mobbing people online is horrible and I oppose it, as I'm sure Messrs Taibbi and Greenwald also do. But no reputable journalist accepts the idea that they shouldn't criticize someone because some jerk might read the criticism and harass the target
I mean, *maybe* this is an argument against picking out randos from the middle of nowhere and "exposing" their horrible views to an audience that wouldn't know who they were but for your exposure.
Castro is making the correct point: the question of whether Trump's words legally constituted incitement to riot is a red herring. Trump's biggest crime is having convinced his followers that the election was being stolen, something that was itself culpable, and ended in violence
It is not a legal crime to knowingly and falsely claim that an election was stolen, nor should it be. But the qualifications for higher office are higher than "was it a legal crime".
Trump has demonstrated in the most vivid possible way that he will never put the Republic, or even his followers, ahead of his own welfare. He fed those deluded people the lies that eventually led them to attack Congress. We cannot have a president who would do that.
I obviously cannot judge the accuracy of these results, but they are plausible. Retweeting because opponents of restrictions tend to talk about suicides rising from distancing like they are a fact, even though there's no good data.
It's a perfectly reasonable hypothesis, but your intuition that it must be so does not mean it *is* so. Nor does the person you know who has become despondent; every year, some people become despondent.
It's natural to assume that the stresses of social distancing must be contributing, but it's also natural to assume that the vaccination your kid got three weeks before they started to manifest autistic behaviors must have caused the autism. It might be coincidence.
(Yes, I am tweeting this. Enjoy the delicious irony. No, really, sit with it for a moment. Roll around, until your skin tingles from its mildly caustic properties.)
(I am now on a Twitter campaign to get major institutions, including my employer, to tell employees to get off Twitter. I don't expect it to work. But a girl's gotta try.)
I understand why cities and states are desperate to get BIPOC vaccinated--on average, they have more exposure AND more comorbidities, and vaccination rates lag.
In DC, people in affluent and whiter wards are getting almost all the appointments. Mom lives in Ward 5, one of the Wards that is struggling, and when I took her to get her shot at a nearby Safeway, everyone there was a white woman who didn't live near that safeway. Except us.
Moreover, it was clear from the way that they spoke to us that they assumed we, too, had just surfed in from Ward 1, rather than taking the appointment closest to Mom.
Though it does explain how we got an appointment relatively easily.