281–290 of 964 posts
> “Until you can passionately make arguments for both sides,” she says, “you don’t understand the issue.” While this may be true for many issues, I don't think this is true for all issues. Imagine someone saying that just prior to the civil war on the issue of slavery, for example.
One thing that comes to mind on this topic is that I neve rhear anyone discuss the genealogy of moral outrage in recent America culture. Daytime TV in the 90s was _all_ moral outrage and proto-reality TV as theatre of legalo-moral adjudication: Jerry Springer (the vulgar pinnacle of it), The People's Court, Judge Joe Brown, Riki Lake, etc etc. Americans had already proven market fit for "outrage media" a long time ag…
If you want to look at TV entertainment, even something as "wholesome" as Lucy or Leave it to Beaver all they way from the 50s is chocked full of outrage at anything not considered acceptable at the time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Xmas is most certainly Christian. ... didn’t Xmas start being used exactly for that reason, i.e. to separate the event from religion. I didn’t grow up believing in Jesus, but I definitely believed in Santa Claus.
> didn’t Xmas start being used exactly for that reason, i.e. to separate the event from religion. No, its a Christian abvreviation originating from the ancient use of the greek Chi (visually identical to Latin X), sometimes along with Rho (Latin P) — the first two letters of Christ in Greek — as an abbreviation for Christ. Itsl dates back to, IIRC, the 16th C with similar forms back to the medieval period. Its been r…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But since his fanbase has a lot of LGBT, they felt betrayed because he did so The LGBT community was [1] and still are violently attacked for the mere act of existing. The idea that people's political beliefs, what, don't affect other people who live in that country? Is insane. Voting is a political act which affects others. If someone votes for a politician who gives cover and support to a group which - as an exam…
Reading about Trump on this, he seems to flipflop more than be hateful or anything; in one breath he supports same sex marriage, in another he restricts certain federal aspects like gender dysphoric individuals being allowed in the military. The actual content of what he did for LGBT seems to be a minor negative mostly surrounding limiting federal power over employment; he refused to put up any fight against same sex…
These are incredibly different issues. For me personally, given that we ought to only have a small peace time army and we currently have lots of volunteers I support only accepting the strongest, buffets, most agile soldiers which 99/100 times will be a mostly male force.
When we have a war, then we can talk about adding more people, but fighting a war or being in the army is not a right and frankly the army is too big.
Now whether those men are homosexual or not is immaterial, but trans soldiers would require higher costs and more lifetime healthcare costs.
I identify pretty closely with one side. But certainly there are Outrage Machines on both sides, a network of media and personalities hyping up the latest calumny that the other side committed, for views and clicks. These machines can't slow down -- even if the other side has been quiet lately, all those people need something to do and talk about. They'll find something.
One thing a lot of people miss is that there is a profit motive here. You can make money, sometimes a lot of money, by building a huge social media following being a political outrage merchant. You can find examples of people doing this on all sides, especially at the extremes where outrage and other powerful negative emotions can most easily be stirred up. All the outrage over "cancel culture" is not about censorshi…
Something else to keep in mind is that liberal/conservative is a false dichotomy. We have at least four major cultures in the USA - some scholars put it as high as eleven - and they each have differing core values. This accounts for much of the infighting we see in political parties and the various factions that arise. I'm not so much a progressive Democrat as I am a member of "Yankeedom," as Colin Woodard dubs it.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/07/george-...
The first is that, by reading from both sides, they’ll balance and you’ll arrive at an enlightened center. This assumes the Overton Window is balanced, stationary, and not tilted to one side or the other. You’re beholden to the good judgement of each side to not move themselves further left or right.
Another is that the opposing content can actually be merged. In many cases the content will cover different pieces of the same broad issue. Or the interviewees will present their opinions in a completely different fashion. Up to you to carry all this context in your head, or make simplistic summaries of viewpoints that don’t add much value beyond what is already commonly known.
The third assumption is that being at the center or having this detachment from either side is a political position in and of itself. I think it’s too simplistic to say you’ll be the net sum of whatever each side puts out, but you’re taking a position all the same.
You’re not obligated to give equal credence to the opposing side on a number of issues. At best it will make you more detached from politics over time, splitting hairs over policy stances at the voting booth instead of more impactful grassroots political action.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They dont talk about or even cover the same things Yeah, this is a key thing to realize. People seem to think that Fox News, for example, just trots out falsehoods all the time, but if you skim the news, I'd say very little is actually factually incorrect. It's more about the story selection, who they choose to interview to get the quote, how they contextualize (or don't) statistics, etc. But once you realize that,…
Fox New's actual news coverage is mostly truthful. But a huge amount of their airtime is opinion pieces and media personalities who spout BS all day. Tucker Carlson is probably the most notorious. Plus they have Republican politicians calling in and showing up constantly, and they're allowed to say whatever they want.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I highly recommend the Economist . Their articles mostly follow a dialectical format -- thesis, antithesis, synthesis, with about a third of the article spent on each one. I don't know of any other publication whose house style is so rigorous in this. It's also highly editorialized, but very open and transparent about the positions it takes -- any bias they have is in the open, but is in the final synthesis after the…
The Economist skews conservative in the sense that it is who I wish the conservatives were.
> “Until you can passionately make arguments for both sides,” she says, “you don’t understand the issue.” While this may be true for many issues, I don't think this is true for all issues. Imagine someone saying that just prior to the civil war on the issue of slavery, for example.
Better take: Until you can't passionately make arguments for any side you are biased.