Our definitions of social conditions X often embody unreasonably high demands for X, especially when the topic is “true X” . For example, definitions of “democracy” that go beyond merely requiring that some particular process be followed often go crazy adding other demands. For example, “active participation of the people, as citizens, in politics and civic life, protection of the human rights of all citizens; and a rule of law” or:
Isn't a simpler answer that we want to signal our own virtue and the more we endorse high standards the more it suggests we have high standards for ourselves. Much like the way saying you voted to keep drugs illegal suggests you aren't the kind of person who does drugs?
I mean if we ask someone how a company should behave, when a country should go to war or a judge should behave we also set overly high bars. Yet in those cases there is no acceptance/rejection asymmetry since those are all just about public discourse.
I do feel you are onto something about the desire to have an excuse to critisize being greater than the desire to approve but I'm not sure that's about personal acceptance. Maybe it's about the fact that it's easier to be friends against something than friends for something so we form coalitions via criticism more than approval?
The reason for the weird overloading of "democracy" is mostly just that you lose too many people by more accurately talking about liberalism, or liberal democracy. Otherwise what you quoted doesn't seem like a bad definition at all.
I am reminded of the old martial arts adage that when you mean to punch someone, you should aim to punch the place that is slightly behind where you are aiming, so that you deliver all the force you have. This is the same, I think.
You are describing things that are usually considered to have a purpose, and/or are considered good. And you think it's illegitimate or misguided for people to elaborate on the conditions whereby the thing can achieve its purpose well or be good? These are things we value for reasons and they sometimes exist in forms where they don't seem valuable, like if I love someone I chain them up in my basement but you love someone so you sacrifice your life for them. You want us to say 'it's all LOVE' when people compare these two actions, and say my actions were missing something about love? I don't get what you are trying to say here.
I think it's at least partially a preparation for the No True Scotsman and Motte & Bailey argument tactics. You claim Trump damaged Democracy, I point out he didn't impede anyone's ability to vote, and you use a Democracy(TM) definition to show that voting is not the only component of Democracy(TM).
Similarly, you expand the definition of a word in standard usage e.g. racism to become Racism(TM) and then you can call more people racists, and then retreat to your Motte when the going gets rough.
To add to several other good framing in the comments ... you never lowball yourself in a negotiation. That's why ideologues push for the luxe model of whatever it is.
Isn't a simpler answer that we want to signal our own virtue and the more we endorse high standards the more it suggests we have high standards for ourselves. Much like the way saying you voted to keep drugs illegal suggests you aren't the kind of person who does drugs?
I mean if we ask someone how a company should behave, when a country should go to war or a judge should behave we also set overly high bars. Yet in those cases there is no acceptance/rejection asymmetry since those are all just about public discourse.
I do feel you are onto something about the desire to have an excuse to critisize being greater than the desire to approve but I'm not sure that's about personal acceptance. Maybe it's about the fact that it's easier to be friends against something than friends for something so we form coalitions via criticism more than approval?
The reason for the weird overloading of "democracy" is mostly just that you lose too many people by more accurately talking about liberalism, or liberal democracy. Otherwise what you quoted doesn't seem like a bad definition at all.
I am reminded of the old martial arts adage that when you mean to punch someone, you should aim to punch the place that is slightly behind where you are aiming, so that you deliver all the force you have. This is the same, I think.
You are describing things that are usually considered to have a purpose, and/or are considered good. And you think it's illegitimate or misguided for people to elaborate on the conditions whereby the thing can achieve its purpose well or be good? These are things we value for reasons and they sometimes exist in forms where they don't seem valuable, like if I love someone I chain them up in my basement but you love someone so you sacrifice your life for them. You want us to say 'it's all LOVE' when people compare these two actions, and say my actions were missing something about love? I don't get what you are trying to say here.
I think it's at least partially a preparation for the No True Scotsman and Motte & Bailey argument tactics. You claim Trump damaged Democracy, I point out he didn't impede anyone's ability to vote, and you use a Democracy(TM) definition to show that voting is not the only component of Democracy(TM).
Similarly, you expand the definition of a word in standard usage e.g. racism to become Racism(TM) and then you can call more people racists, and then retreat to your Motte when the going gets rough.
To add to several other good framing in the comments ... you never lowball yourself in a negotiation. That's why ideologues push for the luxe model of whatever it is.
Great idea, interesting, to the point.
What is the source for all of these quotes?