"Gamergate happened because gamers hated women" "Animemes revolt happened because they hated trans people" "Christians want to kill queer people and want all women to be handmaidens"
Why do they keep making up these kind of lies? They always ignore what people actually say or what actually happened, and keep making up lies about people.
Leftists don't do "fairness" or "caring" though. They are only "fair" and "caring"... to themselves. It's like an a primitive tribal/feudal concept.
Meshes really well with James Lindays' "pseudo-reality" theory though.
No they definitely do, it's just a much more simplistic version of it that (most) people age out of over time that takes into greater account context, path dependency, iterated games etc.
The "Generic Libtard" as we'll call them for this discussion DOES value "fariness" and "care," but only very simplistic, single shot, zero sum variations of them.
For fairness it's "anyone having more than anyone else is bad/a sign of injustice" because they aren't sophisticated enough to consider the temporal dimension of HOW those inequalities arose...and/or just assumes that can be discarded as unjust...doesn't understand that "fair" depends on value and value is multidimensional with individual term weights varying from person to person... the list goes on.
Leftists "care" in the sense that they "want to stop other people from experiencing harm" but completely block out the idea that suffering is often times earned through action (or inaction), that suffering isn't just meted out by malevolent external actors and is often a default state, that some people are WILLING to suffer short term for longer term gain because of longer time horizons, etc.
The Generic Libtard defaults to the most simplistic, 0th order models for how human interaction, with other humans and the environment, occur.
That suggests that in addition to diminished Moral Foundation Dimensions, leftists also seem to be chronically underdeveloped in terms of their moral theory/reasoning. See Piaget and Kohlberg's theories of moral development or similar ideas. They are underdeveloped in the sense of applying the cognitive muscles of abstraction to moral reasoning, and it really shows if you ever try to argue with one.
Yet another factor is leftists being far more empathizing than systemitizing compared to other political groups (libertarians being the only group showing a relative preference for systemitizing...) [and women being much more/less empathizing/systemitizing than men and the so-obvious-its-forbidden-to-discuss differences that results in...].
The Generic Libtard simply DOESN'T reason abstractly about things across time in the context of iterated games [poor systemitizing ability] between agents with different value structures [because they can't conceive different valuations] being able to only focus on what distress/issues they immediately see before them [high empathizing].
Sure that makes them more vulnerable to/ultimately results in them living in a moral reality that effectively is a figment of their imagination...but the root causes are much deeper.
As I recall, Haidt's moral foundations tests were self-reported. That is, "liberals" see themselves as fair and caring people, but that doesn't necessarily manifest in their actual behavior.
To Duranty's point: I have never seen such a mass of petty, vindictive, hateful monsters as the Woke when it comes to their treatment of the un-Woke. Again and again I've watched them become absolutely ecstatic about destroying the life of some transgressor (e.g. the 15-year-old girl who said the n-word), which cannot be said to come from any place of compassion, by any definition.
Indeed, when I see them demand punishment for a blasphemer who dares utter "the n-word", I'd say that authority and sanctity are actually top priorities for them.
I think they think of themselves as caring and compassionate, but I think the reality is that they are driven by bitterness, resentment, and lust for power that they cloak under the guise of compassion and righteousness so they can mete out all the suffering they wish while telling themselves they're the good guys.
That can still be lumped under 'compassion,' just a very primitive, zero-sum one that applies only for the subset of people within their circle of care (the woke and the 'oppressed') because everyone beyond that sphere, either by dint of their identity or hurtful transgressions against the tribe, is literally beyond moral concern. Ergo, you can show compassion to your in group just as much by 'comforting' them as by committing evil against the out group that, in moral zero-sum fashion, is constantly out to oppress you.
This was something one of Peterson's grad students supposedly found in research; that rabid SJWs scored VERY high in 'agreeableness' which would seem to run contrary to their behavior of attacking others like feral dogs...but not if your moral personality is extended only to your in group, which has to be protected from the outgroup at whatever cost.
True there are some psychopaths out there who just love to torture others, and such a movement will attract well beyond baseline, but most of them are just moral primitives whose domain of moral concern applies ONLY to their tribe because they're too stupid or short sighted for anything beyond stark Manicheanism of in group and out group and even the most basic realization that they shouldn't do that merely because that system could turn on them (see all the former libtards who woke up, but only after the experience of being turned on).
To say nothing of being too dim for concepts of moral symmetry/universalism, veil of ignorance, etc. etc.
In the end I think there are two fundamental (stylized for brevity) approaches to modeling leftists:
Psychopaths aside, I don't think the former view offers any real utility or viable explanatory power - especially since you can back out the former from the latter broader explanation.
The only real utility the former model has, which is what I'm sensing is more in line with what you've posted, is to make you feel better about purging them when reality finally comes to collect its interest on the debt we've accrued.
But the second model doesn't preclude that either, as even IF it's the case that most are warped or handicapped it hardly means they're fixable/redeemable...BUT it offers ideas on how to avoid traveling the same road we're currently on again.
I generally agree with your second model, but I also think that most, if not all humans (regardless of political beliefs) have warped and twisted urges that they are willing to give in to, unless they are taught some combination of morality, empathy, and self-reflection needed to keep those urges in check.
This doesn't make them all psychopaths. In day to day life, they may be pleasant people. But it does mean that they may indulge those urges when given the opportunity and the lack of self-realization, especially when part of a mob.
When I saw the reaction to the girl getting kicked out of college for saying the n-word at 15 years old, I could not stop thinking about the stoning scene from Life of Brian and how well it captures that attitude: People slavering for the chance to throw a stone at the blasphemer (violator of sanctity). They don't really care who it is, they just know they have a chance to feed the dark urge to punish someone, while being able to tell themselves it is a righteous act.
Then again, I guess I don't have a very optimistic view of humanity.