71–80 of 172 posts
he forgot one: they don't watch cable news.
Good recommendation, but probably needs to be updated to "don't read Twitter". 140 characters don't lend themselves to sustained and depolarising argument -- quite the opposite.
I find the idea that the current level of polarization is unprecedented kind of questionable. McCarthyist purges? The violence of the Reconstruction era, which followed a literal Civil War? Compared to that people calling each other mean names seems like small potatoes.
Those historical disagreements were about something. So much of the current sound and fury is just the marketing department of the status quo attempting to convince us that there's a debate going on at all. On a giant polo field of political possibility, the Bushes and Clintons fight furiously over a tiny postage stamp of "acceptable" policies. Anyone venturing outside that is just cra aaa azy! It sort of backfired o…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually, you haven't. You are allowed to pick either group A or group B. Both groups are idiotic in their own ways. On the spectrum from hardcore libertarianism to hardcore conservatism, the two political parties are huddled closely together in the middle of it. You don't get a choice. But you get to be branded for the rest of your life as one of those two groups. It's a game I refuse to play.
Do you mean liberalism? Libertarianism and Conservatism aren't that far apart to begin with.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To add to your point, holding opposing ideas in your mind doesn't mean you accept both ideas as correct and valid and good (as in the Orwell quote). It just means that you can appreciate them and understand some of the points they try to make. The issue with polarized politics is that it encourages one-mindedness. Instead of trying to understand where your political opponents are coming from, you are encouraged to re…
> To add to your point, holding opposing ideas in your mind doesn't mean you accept both ideas as correct and valid and good (as in the Orwell quote). It just means that you can appreciate them and understand some of the points they try to make. If two theses conflict each other at least one of them (perhaps even both) must be wrong. That is basic science. This is also why physicists still try to unify general relati…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To add to your point, holding opposing ideas in your mind doesn't mean you accept both ideas as correct and valid and good (as in the Orwell quote). It just means that you can appreciate them and understand some of the points they try to make. The issue with polarized politics is that it encourages one-mindedness. Instead of trying to understand where your political opponents are coming from, you are encouraged to re…
> To add to your point, holding opposing ideas in your mind doesn't mean you accept both ideas as correct and valid and good (as in the Orwell quote). It just means that you can appreciate them and understand some of the points they try to make. If two theses conflict each other at least one of them (perhaps even both) must be wrong. That is basic science. This is also why physicists still try to unify general relati…
Are two sides of a bridge opposing each other or conflicting with each other?
In a client-server security model the client usually wants as much as it can take and the server wants to provide as little as it has to. Are these opposed, or in conflict?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Opposed ideas doesn't necessarily mean conflicting ideas. For example, it's possible to appreciate that in the US people need some means of getting an education in order to get a job while at the same time realizing the demand for quality education far outstrips supply, which when paired with federal loans inflates the cost of education so much that it puts it farther out of reach for people. That's a problem with a…
I think we use different definitions of "opposed ideas". To keep two opposed ideas in mind should be done with the aim of solving contradictions. If you can distill a better abstraction you are solving the contradiction and you finish with only one idea.
In fact, a big part of the current disagreements is holding oneself oblivious to the different paradigms held by those with opposing views. If you presume they are working from the same assumptions, then of course the only motivation for their views must be malice or some other vice. But that is rarely the case.
well, first off it says that people distrust people of opposite political parties more than of different races like that's a bad thing ( distrusting people because of their beliefs instead of their race seems an improvement to me), furthermore has this data been adjusted for political affiliation and race - do white Republicans, for example, really distrust white Democrats more than they distrust people of other race…
it says that people distrust people of opposite political parties more than of different races Yes. like that's a bad thing No. It did not say this. distrusting people because of their beliefs instead of their race seems an improvement to me Equating political party = belief is a big problem. It's basically the definition of tribalism. You're forced to pick a side.
Why? I agree that it's wrong to assume that because person A supports party B, they agree with the party's position on Issue C. However, Surely the party you support is the one that best reflects your beliefs. If it isn't, then why are you supporting that party?
> You're forced to pick a side.
You're forced to pick a side, secretly, in a booth once every n years, for whatever reason you want (beliefs, best looking candidate, best sandwich eating technique, fair roll of die), for a few seconds (though you may live with the consequence of that choice for longer). Even then, only if you live in a jurisdiction with compulsory voting, and even then, only if ballot spoiling is illegal.
You are not forced to pick a side and wear badges and proclaim it in public between elections and campaign in favour of it or against another side and tell everyone that their candidate is the bees knees etc.
I find the idea that the current level of polarization is unprecedented kind of questionable. McCarthyist purges? The violence of the Reconstruction era, which followed a literal Civil War? Compared to that people calling each other mean names seems like small potatoes.
- The collapse of race relations. Everybody thought a black president would do wonders for the issues of race in this country, it's done just the opposite.
- Several ongoing wars with seemingly no end in sight.
- The illegal immigration ahem "undocumented workers" (for you PC types) issue. 42 million strong at this point and no signs of slowing down. This is quickly approaching a crisis point.
- Government spying, cryptography and the NSA. Snowden's leaks and how much the government really needs to keep us safe and what they're doing with the loads of data they're gathering every day.
- The economy and the recent stagnation and recession already occurring in several areas of the country. More capitalism, less government regulation, or should government be even more involved in regulating business?
There's plenty more, but these were off the top of my head. Ask anybody about one of these topics and they'll most likely give you a fairly polarizing view of where they stand.
I would rather focus on solutions like secession or federalism that allow groups of people with different and irreconcilable moral axioms to simply leave one another alone to build the social/political structures they would prefer.