That’s a fair clarification, and I agree with the distinction. I also agree that most people on both the left and the right are in that normal category, even if they end up with different conclusions or priorities. That’s the assumption I try to start with when I talk politics with conservatives in my own life. Where this ties back to my original point is that a lot of 'the left' rhetoric skips that assumption and jumps straight to “they’re evading reality” or “they’re acting in bad faith” as a default. Once that happens it just gets hard to separate people who are wrong but reasoning honestly from people who are actually dishonest. I’m just trying to keep that line clearer, especially when we’re talking about big groups instead of specific arguments.

I mean even truly evil people are operating from sincerely held values

It depends on the person. Some "truly evil" people have no sincerely held values besides wielding power for the sake of it or self-enrichment. Their stated values would simply be what they found most effective to achieve their desired ends

I’d argue that tribalism is more fundamental than you characterize. Not mere cognitive mapping, but something programmed into us through evolution.

Humans as a species are physically weak and frail. Especially compared to say a tiger. We don’t even have claws to protect ourselves. Nor do we have fur to stay warm when it’s cold.

We do have high levels of intelligence compared to most animals, but that intelligence isn’t enough to overcome our innate physical disadvantages as a species, at least if we’re on our own. A species that was exactly like us in both intelligence and physical attributes, but solitary in nature, would likely go extinct.

But when we work together, that changes the equation. Humans have to work together to have a good chance of survival. In fact, under those conditions, we don’t just survive. We dominate.

That’s where the tribalism instinct comes from. You protect what you consider to be your tribe, because that instinct kept your ancestors alive. But it’s ultimately selfish, as all instincts are. Like most species, humans primarily act to maximize their own benefit.

I am not saying true altruism doesn’t exist. But it is somewhat rare, and more often than not, what we rationalize as altruistic deep down has selfish motives. And I think that’s the best lens for viewing politics.

That’s not to say that selfish instincts always lead to the same conclusion. As you pointed out, someone might provide a vaccine to non-citizens to protect themselves, and someone else might only want the vaccine for themselves. Both motives are selfish even though they result in opposite decisions.

And sometimes our instincts are irrational. For instance, you might instinctively protect your family as part of your tribe, even when they abuse you.

With respect to “fairness”, people very rarely adopt ideologies they don’t believe benefit them.

For instance, if you look at people who want to legalize marijuana, the majority are pot smokers and hence benefit selfishly. Of those who aren’t, the next largest group are going to be those with a libertarian ideology. You might think libertarians who don’t do drugs are not being selfish if they support marijuana legalization. But maybe they care about something else more personal, like keeping the government from taking their guns, or being able to speak freely. And so they protect other people having a right to smoke weed, because they hope those people will defend their rights too. Political ideology itself is a form of a tribe.

Or consider a gay liberal defending a Muslim immigrant from discrimination. The theme there is an ideology that is sensitive to discrimination. The gay liberal perceives themselves to have been discriminated against in the past (or at least fears this is a concern), and so they have formed a tribe with others who feel discriminated against. Again, they’re hoping that by fighting for interests of other members of their tribe, those other members will fight for their interests.

And this also results in strange bedfellows, because the Muslim immigrant probably would discriminate against the gay liberal. But as I said, the tribalism instinct isn’t always rational. Nor is tribal affiliation mutual in understanding. You might consider me part of your tribe, but that doesn’t mean I consider you part of my tribe.

When we have an instinct that doesn’t benefit us, that’s called maladaptation. The instinct is still selfish in that its intent is to benefit us, but it’s just buggy.

My whole point is what you consider “fairness” or the kind of empathy you have may deep down stem from a selfish impulse. And that at least partially explains why we can’t agree what is “fair”.

I agree with the general principle of discussion. I don't agree with you about Kirk's open-mindedness.

Also, I have to say it's a false and mean-spirited assertion that it's the left that wants to shut down discussion. Neither side has a monopoly on bad behavior. Let's remember that there was a guy at Kirk's memorial who said, "I hate my opponents." And I’m sure you remember his reaction to Rob Reiner’s murder.

And that is where subjectivity comes into account. What is your view of who makes up this “left”? Does it include Biden, Kamala, AOC, Bernie, Matthew Yglesias, Jon Favreau, Adam Kinzinger, etc?

The people I named are all broadly opponents of Trump but occupy a vast range of space to the left of Trump. I would consider some of these people, AOC, Bernie, left. I would consider others liberal or mainstream democrats, Kamala, Biden, Favreau. Others, namely Kinzinger, I would consider right of center anti Trump.

I have heard every person on this list called a leftist and that blanket label is what leads to questions like this.

To be honest, I wanted to have other conservatives answer for this, but I can't make a top level comment and yours was the only comment in the topic.

What “required purity tests” are you referring to?

I think this is where we’re talking past each other a bit. Strong disagreement isn’t the same thing as anger or brainwashing. If someone says the Russia investigation or Charlottesville coverage was a hoax, a lot of liberals are going to push back hard because they genuinely think that claim is false, not because a spring snaps in their head. Conservatives react the same way when people say things like "Trump colluded with Putin" or "January 6 was no big deal.”

To me, that looks less like brainwashing and more like people having strong priors about events they see as settled facts. The reaction itself doesn’t really tell you much about whether someone is thoughtful or not. That’s why I keep coming back to the standard question. If "most liberals react strongly when you challenge X" is enough to justify treating liberals as a predictable group, why wouldn’t the same logic apply in reverse when conservatives react strongly to certain claims? I’m not denying patterns exist. I’m just asking where you draw the line between pattern recognition and turning a political group into a psychological caricature.

Since you brought it up, what is the “Russian Collusion story?” I see that phrase a lot but I have never seen anyone define it.

No I wouldn’t say I fall on the progressive wing. I believe Democrats should come back closer to center socially.

I align with more democratic goals than republican/conservative, but I’m pretty pro 2A but not an absolutist.

I think a public option would be a big improvement to our healthcare system.

I think police and law enforcement are necessary but should be held more accountable.

I think anyone assuming everyone on the left is a progressive has very little understanding of the left and the divisions within.

I don’t think I’m taking it personally in the sense of “Oh my god, they’re talking about me.” I’m pretty comfortable disagreeing with criticism that I think misses the mark. What I’m pushing on is whether the abstraction you’re describing actually does the work people think it does. Sure, generalizations don’t come out of nowhere. And online behavior definitely matters, and the loudest progressive voices absolutely shape perceptions. I’ve said elsewhere in the thread that people on the left should push back on that more than they do. Where I still disagree is with treating those dynamics as a fairly accurate way to understand the left as a whole, rather than as a description of a specific online subculture that happens to be very visible. I also want to separate “sharing some end goals” from sharing motives, temperament, or psychology. I can agree with someone’s policy goals while rejecting the idea that they’re driven by contempt, sanctimony, or a desire to dominate others. That’s the leap I see happening a lot, and it’s the part I’m questioning.

On the internet point, I don’t deny that social media changed things (I'm in my mid 30s, btw). I just don’t think visibility alone is enough to justify turning observed behavior into claims about what most people are like, especially when that same logic feels unfair when applied to conservatives based on their loudest online spaces. So I don’t think the better question replaces the original one. I think both matter. It’s fair to ask what behaviors contribute to these perceptions. It’s also fair to ask whether the conclusions people draw from those behaviors are proportionate, symmetrical, and actually helpful for understanding real people rather than venting about online dynamics.