I guess I mean something like: a fixed cluster of ideas that people apply to quickly make good/bad judgments, often accompanied by strong emotions.
Ideology tends to be generic (the same ideology gets applied to lots of things), predictable (a fixed idea lets one know where one stands in a predictable way), emotional (the need to know this is strongest on high-stakes issues), and binary (each ideology organizes itself in opposition to an opposing one).
I use the term in moderation comments because these qualities are bad for HN discussion. The 'fixed' aspect makes discussion predictable, the 'generic' aspect makes it shallow, and the binary/emotional aspect makes it inflammatory. A bad trifecta for curious conversation.
These are very good parameters for encouraging positive discourse.
and averting dull discussion that descends into a game of Top-Trumps -
I play my ideological card, you play your idealogical card... ad
nauseum.
I'm not sure whether predictable, emotional and polar qualities are
necessarily intrinsic to "ideologies" in the broad sense. Novel,
calmly reasoned and nuanced commentary could be offered in support of
positions so labelled. But I get your drift on "touchy topics that
people are prone fly off the handle over". FWIW I think this has more
to do with stated identity than abstract modes of thought these
days. As a moderator I guess one gets a sense of the dynamics of a
thread and when it's going to tip in a bad direction.
As I see it, we've come through, and remain in, an interregnum for
perhaps 50 years, in which the word has become dirtied by the failures
of political and religious practices. And also by incessant and needy
"wars" on <the next terrible thing>. A thematic analysis of news from
the past 20 years would surely place "ideology" in close proximity to
words like "radicalised" or "extremist". That is parochial.
As a sceptic I'm possessed of a meta-ideology - that ideologies in
themselves are healthy. We can have ideologies like economics, belief
in space-faring exploration, benevolent technological society,
self-determination in health and preventative medicine, and other
powerful ideas which, in this forum, would be inarguably deemed
positive. Perhaps, unless we propose abandoning thought as a way of
being (in a Buddhist sense) ideology is just the inescapable waters in
which we swim.
I guess what bugs me is if people use "ideology" as a bare, dismissive
accusation that attempts to cut-off further dialogue. If everything
and anything, including scientific method, can be an "ideology" it
ultimately adds nothing to the conversation.
I guess I mean something like: a fixed cluster of ideas that people apply to quickly make good/bad judgments, often accompanied by strong emotions.
Ideology tends to be generic (the same ideology gets applied to lots of things), predictable (a fixed idea lets one know where one stands in a predictable way), emotional (the need to know this is strongest on high-stakes issues), and binary (each ideology organizes itself in opposition to an opposing one).
I use the term in moderation comments because these qualities are bad for HN discussion. The 'fixed' aspect makes discussion predictable, the 'generic' aspect makes it shallow, and the binary/emotional aspect makes it inflammatory. A bad trifecta for curious conversation.