131–140 of 316 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We already gave up our agency to make our own decisions in many areas of life. The Government does it for us.
In my experience, Government imposes far fewer limitations on my life than the Market does. It determines that I must work to live, who I can work for, what sort of home and food I can have, etc.
The media calling January 6th an 'insurrection' is a perfect example of the problem. It's pure sensationalism. There were no guns, there was no centralized organization to indicate an insurrection, the 4 people who died were all protestors, mostly from being dumbasses. Clearly those people who damaged the capitol should be punished, just like the Black Lives Matter protesters who damaged the Foley Federal Building. B…
A group of people publicly proclaimed that the election was fake. They announced they were going to advance on Congress and Stop The Steal. They showed up in the thousands with weapons and restraining devices, broke into the Capitol building, broke a lot of things, literally wiped their shit on the walls, and were finally repulsed. Sounds like an "INSURRECTION" to me. What part is missing? Do you only count it as an…
Sensationalism. There were no guns, which an insurrection would have.
> A group of people publicly proclaimed that the election was fake. They announced they were going to advance on Congress and Stop The Steal.
Even your language: 'advance on Congress and stop the steal' is vague and non-specific, and could refer to a protest. They organized a protest that got out of hand. Sensationalism.
I'm not really going to spend time debating your extreme views. You're demonizing these people.
The protesters were wrong in entering the capitol and should be punished just like the BLM folks who damaged the federal building in Vegas.
But this is not close to an insurrection.
This pushing of sensationalized agendas and 'demonization of the other' is the problem magnified by the media.
We live in information bubbles.
Here's a joke for you:
Before the internet:
> I want to have sex with toasters
> Don't be an idiot, grow up, get a life.
After the internet:
>I want to have sex with toasters
>Google and find a community with 1000+ members about people wanting to have sex with toasters
>Hate anyone who tells you and friends that sex with toasters is a bad idea and shut down rational discussion about it
>Mess up your life
This is identity politics in America.
The polarization is much worse on the left side of the isle. I’d always observed it on the internet with what comes across as belligerent hate of anything done by a conservative, but this recent poll really brings home just how far the brainwashing has gone. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/over-70-of-young... If your political beliefs prevent you from associating with somebody because you have labeled the…
Either way, it's a moot point.
This title has been editorialized.
Where this news article says "Over 70% of young Democrats wouldn't date Republicans" and the Axios blog post "Young Dems more likely to despise the other party" the actual data says:
"Would you go on a date with someone that voted for the opposing presidential candidate?
Democrats:
Definitely 7%
Probably 22%
Probably Not 41%
Definitely Not 30%"
I would argue that this is this far from extreme polarization and does not fit under the "despise" verb. It also doesn't provide the thinking behind that answer and doesn't go into detail as to the source of that response. Do the people who responded not want to date the person who voted differently themselves, or do they think that this other person would not consider the idea in the first place? Could the expectation of what happens on a date also be different (expectation of sex vs. expectation of a casual meeting)?
It's also a matter of perception. Where is the line between a "probably" and a "probably not"? "Probably not" was counted as a no, while "probably" was counted as a yes. Could it be that people in a certain demographics are more likely to speak without restraint?
All the other parameters of this question do not take into account the political divide.
But they do consider identity and income.
When it comes to "Race ID", each demographic group gave similar responses, with the exception of "White", who have a lower rate of "Definitely not" (only 15% where "Asian" has 29%)
The "Female" demographic is also notable, coming in at 24% "Definitely Not" versus only 8% for "Male." This to me makes sense when you take into account the fact that women's rights are debated right now. I would have been curious to see metrics about LGBTQ+ issues here has it was a hot topic during the recent elections.
It is when we look at income that we get a clearer picture. All income levels are similar, with the exception of the 50k-80k bracket where the percentage of "Definitely not" is 33% (where all other brackets are close to 15%).
> If your political beliefs prevent you from associating with somebody because you have labeled them so firmly as to write them off entirely as a person, you have jumped the shark and become the problem.
It's also very important to say that the study also contains "Would you be friends with someone that voted for the opposing presidential candidate?" and "Would you work for someone that voted for the opposing presidential candidate?" where results show a similar trend but are a lot more forgiving. Asking for someone to get intimate and build a family is not the same as asking to associate with someone despite different beliefs.
The methodology is also worth mentioning: "This study was conducted Nov. 18-22 from a representative sample of 850 students nationwide from 2-year and 4-year schools".
Source for data: https://www.generationlab.org/partisanship
Earlier quoted context omitted.
60% of Republicans believe that Biden did not win the election. If you believe the presidency has been stolen by a conspiracy then violence is the only recourse remaining. This is not a handful of extremists. This is the predominant view.
And about the same number of Democrats believe the widely debunked conspiracy theory that Trump colluded with the Russians to interfere with the 2016 election or that members of congress were paid Russian assets. That's the thing about polarization. It's easy to see the crazy when it's your political enemy doing it.
I'm tired of seeing this lie spouted to dismiss all this as a " Russia hoax". It is clear there is a conflict of interest within that admin. They went to bat to remove sanctions against Russia. They blackmailed Ukraine to attack a political opponent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where is a single Democratic politician fighting to close polling places and restrict Republican populations from voting? Where is a single Republican politician fighting to give greater access to the vote? Where was a single Democrat who stormed the Virginia capital when Republicans won the Governorship? 2 Republicans in Congress voted for an investigation of the insurrections, so there you go: charity.
While you focus on the other party, you are probably ignoring the detrimental things the party you support does. This is by design. The GOP supporters do the same thing and can list all the horrible things the Democratic Party does with equal fervor. Did you know the GOP doesn't have superdelegates like the Democrats do? Superdelegates are certainly an example of manipulating the will of the people. https://en.wikipe…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The usual solution to this is to move to a country that is more in line with your life philosophy (i.e., “group yourself with people happy with that”). Or you could accept that paying taxes in order for a government to provide certain services is a situation the majority of people find beneficial, and that changing this may be untenable.
But what IF one of groups "invite" or promote immigration to make another group weaker?
The polarization is much worse on the left side of the isle. I’d always observed it on the internet with what comes across as belligerent hate of anything done by a conservative, but this recent poll really brings home just how far the brainwashing has gone. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/over-70-of-young... If your political beliefs prevent you from associating with somebody because you have labeled the…
> If your political beliefs prevent you from associating with somebody because you have labeled them so firmly as to write them off entirely as a person, you have jumped the shark and become the problem. If someone is having their bodily autonomy threatened by legislation pushed and passed by a political party and a choice for potential partner actively supports and votes for those people to gain or retain power, it'…
This absolutely works both ways and erases people in favor of a label.
I talk to a lot of conservatives. While many of them oppose abortion, the issue that sent so many of them over the edge is the lack of willingness of Democrats to agree on a limit. The bulk of opposition is to late term abortions.
The lack of reasonable discourse is what sets extremes in place.
Another example: Tim Scott’s police reform bill that he thought could move forward with bipartisan support. It didn’t solely because Democratic leadership wanted to ensure that it remained an election issue.
We still have no movement on an equivalent bill since Biden took office.
Examples like this make it pretty clear that the party leadership doesn’t actually want to resolve issues.
Allowing the people who benefit from division to keep doing it will only make things worse.
>Democracies require compromise. But compromise becomes almost impossible when voters are divided into diametrically opposed camps. One of the identity tricks that George W Bush used was being a yokel. The Democrats fell into the obvious trap of attacking his identity which immediately turned off tons of people. Then Bush kept going with identity politics. Like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_liberal So…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While you focus on the other party, you are probably ignoring the detrimental things the party you support does. This is by design. The GOP supporters do the same thing and can list all the horrible things the Democratic Party does with equal fervor. Did you know the GOP doesn't have superdelegates like the Democrats do? Superdelegates are certainly an example of manipulating the will of the people. https://en.wikipe…
Ah yes, superdelegates. One of many gripes with the Democratic Party that are famously equivalent to armed insurrection supported by sitting members of Congress.
The polarization is much worse on the left side of the isle. I’d always observed it on the internet with what comes across as belligerent hate of anything done by a conservative, but this recent poll really brings home just how far the brainwashing has gone. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/over-70-of-young... If your political beliefs prevent you from associating with somebody because you have labeled the…
TL;DR: “The problem with polarization is all those brainwashed people over there."
Lately, the pendulum has swung much farther to one direction. There’s a reason that Jon Stewarts Daily Show was so popular for so long and that’s because there was simply so much material to work with.
Now you have conservative comedy outlets that Elon Musk is tweeting about and everything from the left just seems like yelling at the sky by comparison.
I’ve yet to hear stories of right leaning children refusing to associate with their left leaning families. Only the opposite. That tells you something.