Comment by csours | Hacker News Reader

Comment by csours | Hacker News Reader

Heresy isn't a sin against a man like a pope or a president.

Heresy is a sin against the moral convictions of the in-group.

> They're making a public gesture of submissiveness.

Submissiveness, as seen from the outside. Loyalty, as seen from the inside. The head of the group is the standard bearer of the group, not just the person in charge.

The concept of loyalty signaling makes a lot of nonsense more understandable to me.

---

On the whole, I think labor unions are net positive benefit - so it's hard to point out any problems with them. It feels disloyal.

But one problem is that union representatives have to fight on behalf of the worst dues-paying members. If you don't fight for them, you get voted out next election. You can't have a disloyal rep!

You signal loyalty by pushing boundaries, especially when it's time to fight.

I'm loyal to you, I'm fighting for you - so you should be loyal to me.

---

I'm living through my 3rd personal heresy. The first was against the church I was raised in, but more importantly against the church my family still attends.

It's the 2nd heresy that's notable to this discussion - Heresy against the rational skeptics. Debunking was never enough. Being right was never enough. There is no such thing as irrational thought - all thoughts are reasonable inside a person's head.

There might be such a thing as rational communication - the ability to build a common picture in a group of people.

    You're wrong - we are both communicating in the same (or proximate) framework or context, but you have incorrect observations or conclusions.

    I don't understand what you mean - you need to do more work if you want me to understand.

    You're being irrational - we have a severe context mismatch and you need to take my context.

But what we have right now is loyalty signaling in public speech

    It is disloyal to even try to understand the context mismatch. People not in our context are dangerous enemies.

The problem with rationality is that we use leaky meat to think with, but we pretend like we don't.

> Heresy is a sin against the moral convictions of the in-group.

Honestly I’m perplexed. Consider the heresy of Arianism. In what way was this heresy morally different from the orthodoxy position? I just don’t see how the nature of Christ affects any possible moral or practical, or even ritual position.

Yes, some conflicts are just so old and obscure it's hard to see why anyone cared.

I wonder in the future how people will explain the "woke" panic, because even right now, it's a bit hard to explain.

My best effort is: Conservatives do not want Progressives to impose 'secular progressive' moral positions upon them. Of course no one really says it that way because most people have picked a 'side'.

The beauty of the human mind is that we can tell more than one story. I strongly sympathize with progressive morality, but honestly the communication is very poor.

So here's how I would describe the situation to a Progressive: "Whenever you come over to my house, you let a porcupine loose in my living room. Then you say it's my porcupine, but it's not mine! I can't take care of it!".

When we use our strongest and most motivating moral arguments, it is very motivating, but we don't get to choose which direction it motivates people towards. Our moral arguments appeal to us, but you have to already understand and identify with them for them to be 'properly' motivating.

Here's how I would describe the situation to a Conservative: "No one can tell you that you were raised wrong. Once someone is 'grown folks', you can't raise them again. But, sometimes you might notice that some things are nicer for some folks nowadays, and that trend should probably continue, even if it does make it harder to understand some people."

> one problem is that union representatives have to fight on behalf of the worst dues-paying members.

Without referencing police or prison guard unions, can you explain why this is bad?

Well, on first glance it's not so bad - you may just have to put up with someone who doesn't really care about the job. It's why some systems are adversarial.

But sometimes, some people learn what they can 'get away' with, and they become difficult to work with (as a coworker) and difficult to manage.

Do you love the idea of someone just under the legal limit assembling your plane or automobile? Or someone who just doesn't care?

Of course sometimes "doesn't care" is just a reflection of poor management, and thus we have unions.

I don't think it's a problem that can be resolved for all time in one direction or the other, it's a tension in the system.

But! My larger point is that it's hard for a pro union person to even say "It's a tension in the system". What you are supposed to say is "Solidarity Forever" and "screw the bosses" or words to that effect.

> it's a tension in the system

Yeah, of course there is "structural" slack (and tension) in any system, but don't forget that "Solidarity Forever" is only two things: 1) a default, initial reaction to managerial imposition, and 2) a chant leveraged to temporarily concentrate force towards the resolution of a crisis.

In meetings, and between workers, there's plenty of room for sober, reasoned planning and rational debate. So, it's NOT hard for a pro-union person to acknowledge systemic tensions; there's a time and a place for both tenors of rhetoric.

Furthermore, there are tensions in the un-unionized firm that also neglect the customer. Remember Deming's first theorem: "Nobody gives a hoot about profits." That's a commentary on managerial and executive tendencies to prioritize personal well-being, short-term gains, activity over productivity, and easily measurable metrics. These are Emperor's New Clothes of their own, frequently unassailable due to corporate culture.

Meanwhile, even saying the word solidarity can met with reprisals—let alone actually discussing unionization. So, I just don't think it's an model for your point given the current discursive hegemony.

Again, I agree with you that at times solidary furvor quashes rational dissent, but it's a deliberate, mechanical part of the union's anatomy and not a religion... mostly. And, secondly, it's silly to make an example of a union hegemony under our current anti-union climate. In fact, I would say, perpetuating this narrative of the mindless, frothing union berserker is harming working families' leverage in an age of increasing labor precarity.

> sometimes "doesn't care" is just a reflection of poor management

I might say, it's a reflection of poor compensation, but I guess that goes under the umbrella of "poor management". I suspect that the venn diagram between yours and mine definitions of "poor management" would have some surprising overlap... and otherwise.

I'm sure I agree.

I think the point I was trying to make was about public discussions across moral lines. Another example: it's certainly possible for a pro-choice person to be uncomfortable with trying to define when personhood begins, and even discuss that with other like minded people, but that kind of thing is not what we fight about.

Public fights are incredibly dumb in the sense that they must simplify the arguments. They must do violence to the real and complex issues that human lives are made of. And thus you have several (7?) states that both elected mostly anti-abortion politicians, and also enshrined some level of access to female health care... because they saw that overly restrictive laws caused real harm to real people.

I strongly think that faith without humility is an abomination, just as loyalty without reason is an abomination, likewise progress without compassion. It's just that it so very difficult to be loyal to one's own side and rational about the other side at the same time when the fighting heats up. As it gets hotter, the extremes get louder, and the middle looks disloyal.

Again to be clear, I don't think the truth or the right way is in the middle. I don't consider myself a centrist. I do think that humans seek satisfaction, and it is hardest to shift a morally satisfying conclusion, especially when there is not a more satisfying conclusion in view.

In other words "So what? People have complex histories, what does that change? They should just stop being wrong. Where are you trying to take me?"

I'm sorry, but you just can't get there from here.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com