The gentle mockery of friends is primarily about group cohesion. So is the vicious mockery of a public enemy.
Those who mock together flock together.
This is not a justification of mockery, just a first stab at explanation.
Mockery seems to be an honor-culture bonding ritual.
Or maybe better, it is a human group bonding ritual that's more compatible with honor culture than dignity culture.
Those who deeply internalize liberal individualism, tend to develop a distaste for mockery.
Mockery is a group sport. When you gang up on an individual by mocking them, their gang generally comes to their defense.
Those who buy into legal individualism have exchanged the protection of their groups for the protection of the state.
The state is not generally in the business of coming to the aid of those who are being mocked. So individualists, who have exchanged the burdens of honor culture for the freedoms of liberalism, develop a moral distaste for mockery (even as they develop a thicker skin).
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Most equivocations aren't planned. They result from semantic drift when people are defending two different generalizations (which often constitute the premises of a categorical syllogism).
E.g., Democrats are socialists, socialism is bad, therefore Democrats are bad.
In order to defend "Democrats are socialists", your criteria for "socialism" tend to broaden, in order to ensnare more Democrats.
In defending "Socialism is bad", you tighten your definition and cherry-pick the very worst examples of socialism.
If you like a theory, you ask: "Can I believe this, given the evidence?"
If you don't like a theory, you ask: "Must I believe this, given the evidence?"
Biased Thinking (2/2)
If it's your out-group, you ask: "Can I stigmatize the whole group based on a few bad apples."
If it's your in-group, you ask: "Must the whole group be stigmatized because of these few bad apples?"
(3/2) This leads the accused in-group to call for a higher-rez analysis of the in-group ("more nuance, please!"), while the accusing out-group moves toward a lower-rez analysis ("There's no essential difference! It's all *vaguely* systemically connected!").
(THREAD) Three stages of ideological growth. The last stage can be fatal.
/1
The journey starts when you find an ideology that helps you interpret your experience and give meaning to your life. Often this is provided for you by parents and the communities of which they are a part. Sometimes you discover a compelling ideology later in life.
/2
You will spend a honeymoon period learning the language, mental models, and narratives of the ideology, marveling at how the ideology has an answer for everything.
/3
"Your surface claim has some unsavory connotations/implications that you don't need to make. All the things you want can be had without making that claim. (unless you have some ulterior motives you haven't mentioned)."
2/ @danieldennett makes this move on the free will issue.
3/ Non-cognitivists make this move in meta-ethics.