161–170 of 172 posts
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]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I happen to know a few people who have grown up stewing in a sometimes-violent sometimes-cold conflict. They are openly and honestly essentialist racists, and if given the red genocide button would likely push it, or so they say. They are on the borderline about compatriots who question them, making dark jokes about traitors. I've never truly tried to engage with them, hampered by internal disquiet that kept me mostl…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I find if you can get anyone to consider the tradeoffs of things they believe, that alone makes it possible and worthwhile to have a conversation. But those people are rare. (I think Rich Hickey noted this is even a problem in programming language flamewars...)
This article left me more ticked-off than it should have; I think it's because I got the sense that the author valued consensus and national cohesion more than he valued any ideological question. If the article had said, "we're at war, but remember that chivalry is a good thing," I would have simply agreed; instead, he quoted Lincoln.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In my experience, because they only see in black and white, polarized people see anybody that isn't polarized as belonging to the other pole. It gets boring after a while.
So true. Half of my facebook friends think I'm a flaming liberal. The other half think I'm a flaming conservative. This is because I dare to challenge their silly meme posters that lie about and defame the "opposition". They don't seem to notice that I challenge the BS on both sides. They only know that correcting falsehoods that align with their pet belief is proof you're in the enemy camp. Likewise, they think it's…
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.
I've been on a history bug about the Revolutionary War & the founding of America (admittedly, triggered by Hamilton).
In a nutshell, America has been incredibly partisan since 1796.
It doesn't make me like it better, but it's good to know it's not actually a big problem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_ele...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_ele...
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.
I can't blame the author to trying to focus on the best aspects of how to reach across the political spectrum (even within the same party), but I'll be honest and say that some ideas/positions are fundamentally incompatible with a liberal society. For example, the current crop of social conservatism to seem to be dead set on putting inspectors at the entrances of public restrooms because of pseudo-fears over transgen…
>Clearly, it's not about protecting children, women, and the elderly. It's about shaming a minority into submission since we've been making gains in terms of the national discussion. It would be fruitless for me to speculate on the particular aversion you mention to transsexuals, but in general you'll gain a better understanding by looking for a motivation other than malice; that's seldom the explanation. The real ra…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
In the case of abortion, I'll grudgingly admit that reasonable people can differ, at least in cases of rape or incest; in life-of-the-mother cases (pregnancy in the Fallopian tube), the other side might even be right. But on torture? I'm not willing to make any concession to people who think that hanging a Japanese general for waterboarding US soldiers is fine, while leaving a US president entirely unpunished for wat…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I generally agree with your blame TPTB first mindset, but in this case I think they underestimated Trump. Although he's not a deep policy thinker and historically has been indistinguishable from any other trendy NYC lib, he has two distinguishing traits. First, his massive ego, second, he's a violently pro-American nationalist, moreso than anyone in the past 50 years. That presents a major challenge for the globalist…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the case of abortion, I'll grudgingly admit that reasonable people can differ, at least in cases of rape or incest; in life-of-the-mother cases (pregnancy in the Fallopian tube), the other side might even be right. But on torture? I'm not willing to make any concession to people who think that hanging a Japanese general for waterboarding US soldiers is fine, while leaving a US president entirely unpunished for wat…
Your post specifically opened with an example of how important issues don't have bright lines. When the population is split on an issue, it's unlikely that one and only one half are evil/idiots. Life is complicated.