I'm not sure what it means to say that a rapist and rapee are on the same side, for example. I suppose it might be true on a species-gene level, sortof. (Or, as another example, Palestinians being murdered and ethnically cleansed by river-to-the-sea-Zionists. Or, as another example, people wanting to be left alone and those who don't want to leave them alone.)
> radical uncertainty ... I never know 100% what is true.
I'm not sure what that means. Like, say my kid is raped or enslaved (in front of me :p), should I doubt that it happened? Should I not take his side - for the sake of not taking sides - because from some other perspective we're all on the same side?
> taking a side creates war
Well, someone initiates it, and the other person chooses how to respond - ranging from pacifism to some degree of retaliation. I wouldn't say that taking a pacifist tactic means there is no war going on (as the expression "it takes two to tango" suggests). If nowhere else, there is a war going on in your head, you aren't okay with those injustices done unto you.
I don't think the problem is people have incorrect/false opinions. I think they know that they're false/dishonest, and that explains their reactions when you try to correct them - their aggression and evasion. For example, a driver going in the wrong direction would appreciate course corrections. On the other hand someone who secretly (or openly) actually wants to be going in that direction would not. Someone who really wants to go south, for example, say for some very nefarious purpose, would get very aggressive when others try to pressure him to reverse course, he'd come up with all sorts of incoherent reasons not to - this is precisely the behavior we witness among "statists" and other immoral people.
> we’re all on the same side
I'm not sure what it means to say that a rapist and rapee are on the same side, for example. I suppose it might be true on a species-gene level, sortof. (Or, as another example, Palestinians being murdered and ethnically cleansed by river-to-the-sea-Zionists. Or, as another example, people wanting to be left alone and those who don't want to leave them alone.)
> radical uncertainty ... I never know 100% what is true.
I'm not sure what that means. Like, say my kid is raped or enslaved (in front of me :p), should I doubt that it happened? Should I not take his side - for the sake of not taking sides - because from some other perspective we're all on the same side?
> taking a side creates war
Well, someone initiates it, and the other person chooses how to respond - ranging from pacifism to some degree of retaliation. I wouldn't say that taking a pacifist tactic means there is no war going on (as the expression "it takes two to tango" suggests). If nowhere else, there is a war going on in your head, you aren't okay with those injustices done unto you.
I don't think the problem is people have incorrect/false opinions. I think they know that they're false/dishonest, and that explains their reactions when you try to correct them - their aggression and evasion. For example, a driver going in the wrong direction would appreciate course corrections. On the other hand someone who secretly (or openly) actually wants to be going in that direction would not. Someone who really wants to go south, for example, say for some very nefarious purpose, would get very aggressive when others try to pressure him to reverse course, he'd come up with all sorts of incoherent reasons not to - this is precisely the behavior we witness among "statists" and other immoral people.
Love these provocations, Sarah! Even up to the end our egos are still trying to trap us, heh?
@Dennis raises some good points.
I think you're both right ;-)