Belief that is believed to be factual

Kind of a religion/politics crossover in this blog. There’s really just one part of it that I wanted to highlight. It’s good overall, and it’s “long form”, so not asking everyone to read it all. The one part is seen here often, and seen in everyday discourse, so I think it’s useful to keep in mind when you bump into a person who seems to be operating in a different world. That is, they see things as factual that you know are only beliefs.

How A Personal Fear of Death Might Also Be Driving the Anti-Abortion Delusion • Richard Carrier

Key quote:

“Cognitive dissonance can only be resolved by abandoning the belief that is false (or unsustainable on any evidence), or denying the entire state of the evidence, which latter requires some mechanism of evasion or validation: avoiding (or making go away) people who don’t validate, and surrounding yourself with people who do validate, your delusion. But you can’t evade the government’s decisions. The law, the state’s decisions on what to manifest in society, is a constant and unavoidable reminder that your own cherished central authority (‘Merica!) won’t validate your delusion. “

Something the blog doesn’t cover too much, is how these beliefs bind a community. Even if you have checked your facts, found the mechanisms that hold them in place wanting, and are questioning your belief, somewhere in that is the calculus that if you take it too far, you risk losing your social support system. For a young person, that can have lifetime consequences.

I don’t think the anti-abortion thing is about life and death. I think it is a means to control women and not allow them to have control over their own bodies, making their own health care decisions. Those who buy that it’s murder and a sin are generally listening to men who want control over others, such as a minister. In which case, if they were to believe that abortion isn’t murder or isn’t a sin, then they are made to feel guilty and threaten with hell, until they fall in line.

The title doesn’t quite cover the whole idea he lays out. The fear of death is handled by the immortal soul, but, with the government saying you can “kill” souls in the womb, it’s saying the soul isn’t a real thing. So the government, that’s supposed to support your religion (like it used to) no longer does. Either your religion is wrong, or you need to pile on a bunch of reasons for why the government is wrong.

And you’re right, it’s not just that they want souls to be real, and all the other things that come with it, like the men having control etc.

If we aren’t changing minds we are losing.

See my question and Richard’s response. I asked it yesterday evening.

That’s confusing.
Who are you responding to, where is this question?

I’ve now read the full article, pulled out some quotes and made some observation, but don’t know that any of that would relate to what you’re asking, so will spare you folks.

Though I am convinced “if we aren’t changing minds we are losing” is relevant, why not challenge the faithful, why not try to make them think a little?

Carrier’s response is more important. The question is, how does this idea affect your approach to an individual? He says,

Some people are so delusional they are impossible to reach with any approach. Those people you just have to stop talking to.

…the best you can do is find the best rational, evidence-based arguments and advertise them.

Then you get hundreds of eyes on the same argument. If the return on investment is even just 5% that’s a dozen or more people’s minds changed. …But that doesn’t matter when you have compound interest: you only need convert a few percent of every batch. … i.e. a single article won’t have the effect, but it can start a journey of questioning and vetting that after a few years produces the desired result.

He later says angering people should not be off the table, but I’ve found that to be counter productive.

Yeah, tell that to the Republican leadership. :wink:

Seems to me that’s in line with, we are losing if we aren’t changing minds.

Simply saying it’s hopeless to try is no strategy (not that I’m implying you’re saying that - I’m just underlining my point.)

Which is why I don’t say that, but I know you, and many other people, interpret it that way. What exactly would I tell the Republicans? Should I tell them that they did make me mad, and now I’m going to respond with an irrational tirade just like them? Should I go yell out of a window?

(27) NETWORK, Sidney Lumet, 1976 - I’m Mad As Hell and I’m Not Gonna Take This Anymore! - YouTube

One of the weird disconnects I see among liberals is how they will sit down with a kid who is dealing drugs and hanging out with people who are most likely going to end dead or in jail, and they will listen to their story, sympathize, accept that their actions are due to how they were treated, mistreated, abused maybe, or they just missed some basic lesson because of a bad situation at home. But, if it’s not a kid, if it’s a person in their 20s, it doesn’t matter, sometime after they turned 18, they should have found a book, met a mentor, or otherwise got themselves straightened out.

Nah I think about simple things.

For instance, why in the world did Democrats allow MAGA Trumpsters being questioned to get away with: “The plead the fifth” “The fifth” “The fifth” “The fifth” “The fifth” “The fifth” “The fifth” “The fifth” “The fifth”

When it should have been demanded that each and every time they say the full sentence.

“I plead the fifth on the grounds that it might incriminate me.”
“I plead the fifth on the grounds that it might incriminate me.”
“I plead the fifth on the grounds that it might incriminate me.”
“I plead the fifth on the grounds that it might incriminate me.”
“I plead the fifth on the grounds that it might incriminate me.”
“I plead the fifth on the grounds that it might incriminate me.”

Every freaking time, no exception.

Simple things like that would go along way, but it so seldom seems to happen.
When someone gives those grossly misleading response, that are fundamentally dishonest, call them on it.
Make an effort to confront the lies with facts and coherent stories to explain the real situation.

But it would also require the DNC to do a better job of informing Democratic grassroots about issue, and education them regarding how to respond. Because both of us agree that talking to someone you know has a better chance of getting through, then preaching to a stranger.

It’s also why I believe something like this would be a win win for the Democratic Party, if it ever wants to get past the wet noodle phase. It’s be very interesting watching some of the new crowd in Congress.

There’s a big difference between that and standing your ground intellectually, humanistically.

It’s kinda like, a law, or something

Where did I say anything about not allowing them to plead the Fifth Amendment !?!

That is not what I said, think optics.

The LAW is:
“I plead the fifth on the grounds that it might incriminate me.”
“I plead the fifth on the grounds that it might incriminate me.”
“I plead the fifth on the grounds that it might incriminate me.”

There’s no reason to have given them the cheap short cut - why not force them to take responsibility for the entire sentence?

Kavanaugh hearing was another grand example of where the Democrats folded like wet noodles rather than have the wherewithal to confront Kavanaugh with questions of jurisprudence and what it takes to be an objective judge on the Supreme Court.

Given a refresher I could do better, it’s been a while.

You say there is no reason just after this!

I’m not defending the weak Democrats that think democracy will take care of itself, but once you get to hearings and legal proceedings, there are rules. Trump said it, if someone pleads the fifth, they are obviously guilty.

Wait a moment, are you saying you don’t appreciate the difference between stating:

“I plead the Fifth”
“I plead the Fifth on the grounds that it might incriminate me .”

There is no difference. It’s the definition.

exercise the right, guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, of refusing to answer questions in order to avoid incriminating oneself.

Legally, it can’t be used as an admission of guilt. The “not let them get away with it” part is that prosecutors have to find other evidence.

NO difference? Seriously?

Optically there’s a huge difference between watching this pr#!%$ with their oozing contempt for all governmental authority, smugly disregarding every question with a dismissive “I take the Fifth”
instead of being reminded at every single f’n question just exactly what they are doing,
they are taking the f’n Fifth Amendment because they are claiming they believe it could incriminate themselves.

It’s about making people think a little, instead of disregarding everything.

But then casual disregard is what created this entire mess to begin with, so hey, what’s there to complain about. :face_with_raised_eyebrow:

And the unprecedented request for the DOJ to charge an ex President. I’m not seeing “casual” here. Repeating “because you think you’re quilty” doesn’t seem like good optics to me. More like, being a jerk.

Seriously ?!?
Oh so the behavior of these criminals is supposed to be normalized now (and yes that is what you are implying), and we shouldn’t do anything to make them (or their supporters) to feel uncomfortable with a bit of reality check and coming to grips with any of the significants of exactly what they were trying to do?

Unless we are changing minds we are losing.

We had an unprecedented President built upon a house of lies, fraud and crimes - from the first golden elevator ride to the incredible disruption of American civility and political possibilities.

Fulfilling minimal duty and expectations is no cause for pride.

We are doing a lot. The only thing I’m saying to not do is abuse the court system. You get to plead the fifth, doesn’t matter who you are or what you did. If, in the middle of that legal process, we say, “oh, so you’re saying you know you’re guilty”, then why have the plea?

Where do I say they should not have been allowed to plead the Fifth?
If you can’t find the quote then please stop claiming that’s what I said.

I’m saying follow the full formality of the American legal deal, you can plead the Fifth, but according to the law, one can’t plead it frivolously!

I’m talking about following the full letter and formality of the right to plead the Fifth Amendment, which demands a statement that responding might incriminate oneself.

Your logic amounts to, anyone can claim the “Fifth” because they don’t feel like answering the question. That is not in the law.