On the question of rushing to judgement on political questions, one thing we often see is a particular group of people who are being oppressed or done an injustice in a particular situation, who then become classified as an "oppressed group" in general by people with a certain way of thinking about political questions, and the people with the certain way of thinking then see every other situation in which that group (or members thereof) are involved through the prism of them being an "oppressed group". This then means that in specific situations where members of the oppressed group are in a complex situation of at least partly lateral conflict with another group of people, or may even themselves be the oppressing group, these situations are reinterpreted in a Procrustean way to fit the narrative of "Group X is the Oppressed Group and therefore must always be supported.
I was in among a crowd of one-eyed Brisbane Lions supporters at the AFL final at The Gabba on Saturday night, and they would boo hysterically whenever the umpires made a decision that didn't favour Brisbane, no matter what the merits of the incident on which the umpires were adjudicating. I can forgive that behaviour by a football crowd - not so much when it's by participants in political debates.
Yes. The football analogy is very apt, actually. One can’t just cheer *anything* one’s team does. But the question is how to deal with it - not partisan booing, or defensiveness - but stepping back and imagining if it happened to someone or something you weren’t emotionally involved with. Hard in the heat of the moment in the crowd.
Which reminds me of the time I took my US friend to a Tigers match. It devolved into a total brawl. Her (wide-eyed): “What is this move called?” Me: “It’s a mêlée and they’re all going to be fined for it. This is not legal.” Poor woman, no idea what she thought of it all.
And yet this is human nature in all its glory and gore.
The "explanation " is so long because reconciling our conception of goodness with the reality of us is really quite a challenge, and for each of us an ongoing struggle.
In relation to the third last paragraph, Australian jurisdictions require sentencing judges to consider, among many other factors, "community expectations" when determining sentences. This prompts me to wonder, and ask, whether "community expectations" in this context means the actual expectations of the actual community, most of whose members' knowledge of the case is what they have been told by the media, or does it mean what the sentencing judge thinks the community would expect if members of the community were as fully informed about the case as the judge?
That’s why the Sentencing Advisory Committee was doing the research into what community expectations are - because if the judge has to take them into account, it has to be accurate. Not just based on a knee-jerk reaction, but on the full facts. That is what I think it means.
On the question of rushing to judgement on political questions, one thing we often see is a particular group of people who are being oppressed or done an injustice in a particular situation, who then become classified as an "oppressed group" in general by people with a certain way of thinking about political questions, and the people with the certain way of thinking then see every other situation in which that group (or members thereof) are involved through the prism of them being an "oppressed group". This then means that in specific situations where members of the oppressed group are in a complex situation of at least partly lateral conflict with another group of people, or may even themselves be the oppressing group, these situations are reinterpreted in a Procrustean way to fit the narrative of "Group X is the Oppressed Group and therefore must always be supported.
I was in among a crowd of one-eyed Brisbane Lions supporters at the AFL final at The Gabba on Saturday night, and they would boo hysterically whenever the umpires made a decision that didn't favour Brisbane, no matter what the merits of the incident on which the umpires were adjudicating. I can forgive that behaviour by a football crowd - not so much when it's by participants in political debates.
Yes. The football analogy is very apt, actually. One can’t just cheer *anything* one’s team does. But the question is how to deal with it - not partisan booing, or defensiveness - but stepping back and imagining if it happened to someone or something you weren’t emotionally involved with. Hard in the heat of the moment in the crowd.
Which reminds me of the time I took my US friend to a Tigers match. It devolved into a total brawl. Her (wide-eyed): “What is this move called?” Me: “It’s a mêlée and they’re all going to be fined for it. This is not legal.” Poor woman, no idea what she thought of it all.
And yet this is human nature in all its glory and gore.
The "explanation " is so long because reconciling our conception of goodness with the reality of us is really quite a challenge, and for each of us an ongoing struggle.
Nice post!
Thank you! *bows*
I enjoyed reading that!
In relation to the third last paragraph, Australian jurisdictions require sentencing judges to consider, among many other factors, "community expectations" when determining sentences. This prompts me to wonder, and ask, whether "community expectations" in this context means the actual expectations of the actual community, most of whose members' knowledge of the case is what they have been told by the media, or does it mean what the sentencing judge thinks the community would expect if members of the community were as fully informed about the case as the judge?
That’s why the Sentencing Advisory Committee was doing the research into what community expectations are - because if the judge has to take them into account, it has to be accurate. Not just based on a knee-jerk reaction, but on the full facts. That is what I think it means.