Disagreements About Values Aren't Real

I made a claim last week that nobody challenged me on… here is why I’m disappointed?

Based on the way most humans behave, most of you should have disagreed with me.

Based on our 2-party political system, most of you should have disagreed with me.

Based on our education system, most of you should have disagreed with me.

Based on the way we learn language, most of you should have disagreed with me.

Based on the structure of religion, most of you should have disagreed with me.

Here was the claim I made:

All disagreements are disagreements of context, 
there is no such thing as a disagreement of values.        

I was disappointed nobody disagreed with me, because I don’t even know that I agree with that claim.??

But frankly… it feels right to me.??I’ve argued about that claim with myself enough that I’m comfortable taking it to battle.??

Here’s why, let’s take a super polarizing topic for example - guns.?

If you are pro-2nd amendment, the media would say that you “value” personal liberty, protection of your family and tradition (the constitution.)

If you are pro-gun restriction, the media would say that you “value” life, safe neighborhoods and progressive mindsets.??

Now honestly, if you are pro-2nd amendment or pro-gun restriction, can you honestly look at the values of the other side of the issue and say “I don’t value those things at all.” … ?

I think arguing about values is less about prioritizing what society “needs” and is more about saying “I’m right.”?

Here is why I believe EVERY issue is a contextual disagreement: whether you are pro-2nd amendment or pro-gun laws, your views on the matter are determined by the experiences that you have had in your past.?

(DUH, Tucker?… of course they are….)

Here's the point:

Pull back the curtains a little more, and it isn’t just the experiences you have had, but the experiences you believe you will have more of…?

It isn’t just what has happened, but what you think will happen if gun control or gun regulation persists.??

In other words, have you lived in a hostile Universe or a friendly Universe in the past… and do you believe the Universe is getting more hostile or more friendly??

?Your answers to those questions form your life context.??

You know what EVERYONE’S dominant value is, subconsciously, whether they want to admit it or not?

Safety.?

And depending on whether guns make you feel more safe, or less safe, has way less to do with your “values” and much more to do with your relationship to guns within the context of your life experiences.??

Guns make some feel safe and others feel less safe.??And whether you support gun control or not, I’m claiming, depends?on how much safer guns make you feel, or not.?

(Okay, Tucker… why does this matter at all?)

Here’s why it matters - if we can agree that context is the root of all disagreement, then we can stop arguing about “what are our values as a people?” and start asking the more important questions, like:?

?1. What are the life experiences that made you who you are?

?2. How did your parents/guardians treat you?

3. When do you remember first feeling significant or insignificant in your life?

4. Were you ever bullied?

5. What was your happiest/unhappiest memory that you have?

6. What brings you the most joy in your life?

7.?What makes you feel unsafe?

8. What makes you feel inspired?

Because guess what???

The answers to THOSE questions get to the root of a person’s life context.?

And when you begin compiling that data from individuals, you get aggregate data.?

That aggregate data can be correlated regionally, socioeconomically, ethnically…etc.?

Then, you will get REAL trends, with REAL representation that isn’t based on “values” but real lived experiences which trace to facts that build a contextual understanding of how someone has lived and why they want to live the way that they do.?

You know what I bet would happen??

Johnny from Texas would get to keep his AK47 because it turns out, white males from rural Texas have zero experience that guns are unsafe and they grow up in families that teach them about gun safety. They also get taught a narrative about how the founding fathers thought the government may one day turn on its people and they wanted to ensure the citizens had a means to defend themselves.?

Sally from Los Angeles who lost six friends in a horrific, racially motivated public massacre would get to sleep soundly at night knowing guns have been prohibited because as it turns out, heavily populated areas with high rates of poverty breed emotional and behavioral instability which lends itself to higher likelihoods of public violence and mass shootings.??

In what scenario do these two people get to have what they want???One in which regionally collected data led to contextually-informed law making and local politicians were able to decide what was best for their local citizens based on the aggregate life-experiences that they have had.??

More importantly is that Sally and Johnny both understand that they both value safety, they both value life and they both value freedom, and they respect each other.??Sally knows Johnny’s life experiences were profoundly influenced by the community he was raised in, the way his parents raised him, and Sally knows all of that was out of little Johnny’s control because nobody chooses where they’re born or who they’re born to.??And Johnny respects and understands that the same can be said for Sally.??Johnny and Sally can even hug one another out of a Love for humanity, while respectfully understanding the way their local laws are structured are out of the best and most up-to-date contextually-based data taken from their local communities.??

Johnny and Sally can have the same values and also want vastly different laws for where they live, because guess what???Objective context is interpreted subjectively.??

Humanity’s best stab at guessing what’s objectively best for everyone is simply aggregated subjectivity.??

When we begin asking people WHY they believe what they believe (and dare I say, even introducing subjective interpretation of objective context in the classroom??) and then making it okay for people to have their own subjectively-interpreted beliefs, with respect to personal safety whilst acknowledging that projected feelings of harm always comes from feelings of fear (feeling UNsafe)... then we might be able to start having some seriously productive discussions in our communities, our society, and on the global stage at large.?

It comes down to being able to say, “I don’t fear you.??I fear that the context that you grew up in taught you to hate me.”?

In this way, hate is never personal.??

Hate can’t exist in a humans heart.??

Hate is learned.??

Hate is absorbed through one’s subjective interpretation of an objective context.??

Our environment teaches us how to interpret the information we are exposed to.?

Therefore, you don’t hate me.??

I don’t hate you.??

You and I feel unsafe, and our search for safety has blinded us to the truth…

That the only thing truly worth fearing, is fear itself.??