Why My Facebook Friends are pro-white & black, pro & anti Jewish, Holocaust believers & deniers, liberals & conservatives, commies & nazis, etc

My Facebook profile has friends who are -- I imagine sincere -- pro-white, pro-black, pro-Jewish, anti-Jewish, Holocaust believers and Holocaust deniers, liberals, conservatives, commies, right wingers, nazi's, christians, buddhists and atheists. If they find themselves offended (as some have) that I refuse to remove a person or persons whom their ideology opposes; then they have been welcome to remove themselves from my 'network' list. Which is why I probably (hopefully) suffer less from the problems described in the Article further below: What Facebook is Hiding From You. In short your self-deception!

While many love friends who confirm their self-deceptions; I love friends who help me to confront my self-deceptions. Why I joined the Radical Honesty cult! ;-) So, now I don't care what a persons beliefs are; I do care how you hold those beliefs. What do I mean by that?

I answered that in a recent discussion on Constitutionally Speaking: About Unknown Unknowns and Hate Speech, I clarified my thoughts here, here, here, here, here, and here:

I have all the time in the world to debate with anyone who is willing to make an impartial enquiry into any issue whatsoever. I don’t discriminate against anyone for their beliefs; not even a Nazi, a commie, black power, whatever. To me it is far more important how a person holds their beliefs or ideologies; than what their ideology or beliefs are.

By how I mean; if for example their belief is sincere; based upon their actual life experience; it may be ‘extreme’ to me; simply because I have a totally different life experience. If they hold their belief sincerely, it means they are willing to listen to new inforamtion with an open mind, and to seriously consider it; and if it proves to be of a higher quality of information their prior information is founded upon, to change their conclusions.

People who BELIEVE THEY ARE RIGHT; are fundamentalists fascists. They are welcome to their beliefs they are right; but their beliefs about being right; are I have found, more about psychological insecurity complexes and their sense of identity to want to believe they are right; than about having actually made an impartial serious enquiry into their own beliefs.

So, I love sincere commies, sincere right wingers, sinsere nazi’s, sincere liberals, sincere christians, sincere muslims, etc.

I cannot stand fake fundamentalist psychologically insecre commies, right wingers, nazi’s, liberals, christians, muslims etc.

[..] I use the word belief very loosely; I don’t actually ‘believe’ any abstract theory (ideology) with 100% conviction (which is what belief generally implies to many).

My ‘beliefs’ are better described as a ‘working hypothesis’; which fits into how I hold them. My working hypothesis is based upon (a) what I have read about the matter; with what level of scientific evidence such reading material included; (b) my personal experiences; how I have applied my intellectual knowledge in the guts of the living, by testing it to see if it is true. So a kinesthetic, audio and visual learning experience.

From all that I have a working hypothesis conclusion (a temporary belief about reality about that issue), in the absence of new evidence showing some of it incorrect.

If, or when someone provides me with new intellectual or experiential information and evidence that any evidence which contributed to my working hypothesis is incorrect; then I change it; and if required change the conclusion; so that I have a new working hypothesis based on more accurate information.

It is important for me that my working hypothesis/beliefs conclusions must be founded on the best and most accurate (not most politically correct – ie earth is flat ideas of the masses) facts and evidence for me to live in the real world, based on the closest knowledge I have of reality; not on politically correct illusions.


Contrast to Beliefs which are the Foundation of Identity

Now if my beliefs/working hypothesis are not founded on intellectual and experiential evidence; but becuase I have a fragile ego, am psychologically or intellectuall insecure; I hold them not from a rational intellectual and experiential enquiry; but because they allow me to join a particular ideological tribe, whether it is the commiee/right wing/nazi/christian/islam etc tribe; so that such a person has a sense of belonging.

Their ideology is a substitute for their identity. They are not a person, who can change ideologies, with new evidence; because their identity is: I am a nazi; I am a commiee; I am a Christian, Muslim, etc.

Hence if such a person whose ideology is their identity comes across any evidence that contradicts their ideology/identity; they must shut the person up; becuase it is a direct attack on the foundation of their identity. So they must do all to avoid giving the information which contradicts their sense of identity a serious enquiry. It is too threatening to their identity/sense of self.

So then instead of addressing the actual argument of the person; they will try and smear the person with labels of ‘racist’ or ‘nazi’ or ‘commie’ or ‘insane’ and so on. Whatever they are not. The nazi will label the commiee, the commie will label the nazi.. and so they both avoid having a conversation about the actual evidence in that particular matter, so they can upgrade their beliefs about their ideology; if provided sufficient evidence. Its a form of ideological intellectual stunting.

Anything to avoid dealing with the evidence which confronts not their belief; which is a fake belief, becuase it is not a belief founded on evidence; but a belief to subsitute their psychological insecurity; hence their belief is an aspect, or the aspect of their identity.

In Radical Honesty, Brad Blanton talks about the Tao of Democracy; which he describes as follows:

Tom Atlee, the author of The Tao of Democracy, postulates the possibility of something he calls co-intelligence. He asserts that if people of divergent viewpoints get together and disagree to whatever degree possible but remain committed to solving a problem, they will eventually come up with a solution more brilliant and creative than any of them could have come up with alone. This form of deep democracy differs from the usual process known as co-stupidity. When people can honestly disagree and still stick with each other, instead of having an ideal that all must believe in, in common, before they can act together—we then have a process through which all can discover in common, and create together unique solutions. We substitute the process of mutual problem solving for idealism of any kind. That's it. That's very radical and that's our only hope. Radical hope depends on radical honesty.

Read more »