141–150 of 172 posts
Politeness comes from social solidarity: it is a consequence of social harmony, not a precursor. What if the polarization represents actual, fundamental disagreements on politics and, at root, moral axioms? Being polite hasn't done much for the respectable right for the last fifty years. I would rather focus on solutions like secession or federalism that allow groups of people with different and irreconcilable moral…
The increasing political divide in the US is the direct result of ever more aggressive gerrymandering. Jurisdictions are becoming ever more partisan. So now only the most partisan (divisive) candidates can win their primary election, which then pretty much makes the general election moot. The fix is California style redistricting, where citizens and not politicians are in charge of the process.
That's definitely a cause for what we're seeing out of Congress, but it's not related to what we're seeing with Trump. He is winning at the polls with his hateful angry rhetoric and it's pretty damn strange.
The increasing political divide in the US is the direct result of ever more aggressive gerrymandering. Jurisdictions are becoming ever more partisan. So now only the most partisan (divisive) candidates can win their primary election, which then pretty much makes the general election moot. The fix is California style redistricting, where citizens and not politicians are in charge of the process.
I think that there is almost precisely zero evidence of this; there's a lot more to support that regional strong political divides have always been present in the US, what's new is that the salient issues have become increasingly consistent nationally, so that it is no more the case that the national political scene often seems less sharply divided because all the sharp regional divides used to be in different places, whereas now there are more common national divides.
> The fix is California style redistricting, where citizens and not politicians are in charge of the process.
Non/bipartisan redistricting by notionally independent commissions (which, often, as in California, legislators actually have a role in choosing members for, so they aren't truly independent of the legislators, though they are certainly less accountable than legislators) has been a growing trend in the same time as the increasing polarization in national politics. So, its pretty clearly not fixing the problem.
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. 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…
> If two theses conflict each other at least one of them (perhaps even both) must be wrong. This is too simplistic. They can be partially right as well as partially wrong. Is light a wave or a particle? Well, it depends. Two opposing half-truths form a paradox. While some paradoxes can be resolved, by finding a deeper theory that unifies them, some cannot. To draw an example from the political realm -- more relevant…
> This is too simplistic. They can be partially right as well as partially wrong. Is light a wave or a particle? Well, it depends.
In this case both statements (light is a wave and light is a particle) are simply wrong and as current scientific matters stand the description given by quantum physics seems to be the correct one (at least for about 70 years no experiment could be given that has disproved it).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> As a thought experiment, take the issue of abortion. GP is telling me that certainly either "Abortions should be allowed because of the mother's rights" or "Abortions should not be allowed because of the unborn child's rights" is WRONG. Tell me how anyone could possibly create an "experiment" which would result in a meaningful answer. How would you measure the morality and goodness of the event in a way that everyo…
This is a fruitful example: the vast majority of those opposed to abortion will concede that a zygote has no conciousness or intellectual capacity, yet most of them will nonetheless insist on the zygote's personhood and right to life.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the same, and I'd go a step further. I don't particularly _want_ to get along with people who have no problem with abortion, nor with people who have no problem with torture. Why should I see being de-polarizing as something desirable? (And where can I move to?)
Spend more time with real people and you'll see why it's worthwhile to have relationships with persons who have differing political or social philosophies. Variety in personal judgment and alternative worldviews are really beneficial to be able to access; you can learn a lot that way, and your own perspectives and arguments will be improved. You don't have to agree, but people are still worth something and still have…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the same, and I'd go a step further. I don't particularly _want_ to get along with people who have no problem with abortion, nor with people who have no problem with torture. Why should I see being de-polarizing as something desirable? (And where can I move to?)
I think the article makes lots of good arguments for why being de-polarizing is a desirable thing, so I'm not going to attempt to make better ones. But I think your comment is a really good example in and of itself. You've done the binary thinking thing that the article discussed in detail! I've never met anyone who has no problem with abortion, or anyone who has no problem with torture, but I've met people who think…
One of my favorite quotes actually embodies this pretty well. "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function." - F. Scott Fitzgerald
IMO, A large part of the problem is people of different political views don't talk, face to face, enough. Like in war, it's easier to kill a "gook" or "haji" than a person. The Internet makes it easy to dehumanize the other side; they're just avatars and words on your screen. It's a lot harder to hate an actual person, especially just for having a different opinion than you. [Edited]