How divided are we?

[hitbyambulance]

worth reading: Simone Weil's "On the Abolition of All Political Parties" (.epub version here)

https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/book ... -1.2145931

[Paingod]

It's hard to put food on your family.

/Nostalgia

[noxiousdog]

The problem is not that we don't have a lot in common. We do. The problem is that the two political party platforms have told us what the issues are and how to believe on those issues.

Think about it - what are the chances, in a world of no political parties, that people would evenly divide among two different belief systems filled with dozens of issues? Astronomical. We've only become so divisive as a nation as the political party platforms did. The tail has been wagging the dog for years.

We are all victims of an artificial construct put into place to keep the powerful in power, suppress free thinking, and keep the sheep in line.

Until we wake up as a country and realize that, we're fucked.

It's not that surprising considering how it breaks down. One group doesn't trust the government to protect them and the other group doesn't trust other people not to do bad stuff to them. It just so coincides with which one causes the most problems for you. It's almost completely a population density issue. If there's enough people around, you have to be protected from them. If there's fewer people, the government is more likely to mess up your way of life.

[Archinerd]

Nobody should have to decide between bankruptcy and seeing a doctor.

I'm thinking of my MIL as my direct opposite, and she and I would agree on this.
I'm stealing your answer.

[Fitzy]

Stealing is wrong.

[Jeff V]

Stealing is wrong.

Only if you're stealing from other wealthy Republicans. Kind of like the 10 Commandments were intended to only apply to other Jews.

[Fireball]

Nuclear power is a responsible way to generate electricity with minimal carbon emissions.

[Exodor]

Nuclear power is a responsible way to generate electricity with minimal carbon emissions.

Given your avatar and forum name I'm not sure you're the best to make this argument

[Fireball]

Nuclear power plants are very unlikely to explode!

[Jaymann]

Yes, thank goodness Chernobyl didn't explode.

[Isgrimnur]

Nuke plants are like fine cheeses and chocolates. They don’t burn, they melt.

[em2nought]

It just so coincides with which one causes the most problems for you. It's almost completely a population density issue. If there's enough people around, you have to be protected from them. If there's fewer people, the government is more likely to mess up your way of life.

Never thought of it that way before. It sorta makes sense. Personally, I prefer dogs.

[Remus West]

The denominator nears infinity.

[Unagi]

The denominator nears infinity.

This is a math teacher's "The End Is Nigh" , right?

[Remus West]

The denominator nears infinity.

This is a math teacher's "The End Is Nigh" , right?

Pretty much. I just don't see anything in common with those who support Trump right now. His entire administration seems aimed at creating an Oligarchy and there is nothing about that I'm willing to support. I'm to the point where I truly believe that his supporters have become a cult and are no longer thinking for themselves if they ever did. I forget which thread it was mentioned in but his openly talking about extending his time as President being cheered rather than boo'd by those who would call themselves patriots is ridiculous as they are essentially openly cheering for the end of our nation as it was founded.

[LordMortis]

If you're willing to sit through 90 minutes of Indy Rally, I'm sure you can find it but if want my out of context transcription

"So I said unless they give me an extension for the presidency"
pause for adulation
"Which I don't think the fake news media would be happy about"
pause for adulation
"Wait. Wait. Wait wait wait. Actually, they would be happy, because when I'm not here their ratings are going to sink."

[Moliere]

"So I said unless they give me an extension for the presidency"
pause for adulation
"Which I don't think the fake news media would be happy about"
pause for adulation
"Wait. Wait. Wait wait wait. Actually, they would be happy, because when I'm not here their ratings are going to sink."
pause for adulation

FTFY

[Alefroth]

Animals shouldn't be tortured.

[Kurth]

A strong U.S. military is essential to both our national defense and the maintenance of stability throughout the world.

[killbot737]

"So I said unless they give me an extension for the presidency"
pause for adulation
"Which I don't think the fake news media would be happy about"
pause for adulation
"Wait. Wait. Wait wait wait. Actually, they would be happy, because when I'm not here their ratings are going to sink."
pause for adulation

FTFY

What exactly did you fix?

[Holman]

Drone strikes should not be used.
No amount of collateral damage is acceptable.

Honestly, I doubt we all agree on this.

The exercise isn't to find something we all agree on. It's to find something that someone who is the political opposite of you likely agrees with you on. In practice, this likely means a liberal would espouse a typically conservative view, and a conservative would espouse a typically liberal view.

So here’s an exercise: Replying from the perspective of someone who you believe to be 180 degrees opposite from you on the political spectrum, make one statement on a political/social issue you imagine that person (hypothetical or real) holds a firm conviction about that you agree with as well.

I don't mind being corrected, but I'm not sure a one-on-one exercise means a great deal. It's not hard for me to imagine a single particular conservative who feels the way I do about a single major issue. (For example, I'm generally a Liberal Hawk, so I can easily imagine a conservative who also believes that e.g. we should embrace NATO fully and not pull back from our military commitment to our traditional allies.)

I think the spirit of the exercise ("How divided are we?") requires finding very broad rather than particular common ground. I take the question to be about what still holds our country (or even just our forum) together even though it's hard to see it. The idea is to notice what we generally have in common regardless of ideological labels.

[Jeff V]

Animals shouldn't be tortured.

Nope. GOP doesn't give a rats ass about rats or anything else in the animal world that stands in the way of profit. I'm pretty certain Michael Vick was rehired by a Republican.

Liberals tend to be more empathetic about....well, everything.

[Moliere]

"So I said unless they give me an extension for the presidency"
pause for adulation
"Which I don't think the fake news media would be happy about"
pause for adulation
"Wait. Wait. Wait wait wait. Actually, they would be happy, because when I'm not here their ratings are going to sink."
pause for adulation

FTFY

What exactly did you fix?

I added a 3rd line for "pause for adulation". Because, really, can we have enough adulation of everything Trump?

[Max Peck]

I added a 3rd line for "pause for adulation". Because, really, can we have enough adulation of everything Trump?

Nope.

But that's because any adulation is already too much adulation.

[pr0ner]

Animals shouldn't be tortured.

Nope. GOP doesn't give a rats ass about rats or anything else in the animal world that stands in the way of profit. I'm pretty certain Michael Vick was rehired by a Republican.

Liberals tend to be more empathetic about....well, everything.

[dbt1949]

After Trump got elected I was so shocked that I had to do a lot of research to see where I went wrong.
I think I can start with the liberal bias of the media. I've since been looking for less liberal media.
The second was here with you guys. I love you all to death but for the most part you are a liberal group.
And I agree with a lot of what you say but it did make me vulnerable to Trump's win.
My stepson is an idiot about Trump and doesn't see that anything Trump says or does is bad. I just have to keep away from politics with him. Most of the people of NW Arkansas are Trump supporters too.
I'm hoping my olde age kills me off before I see Trump reelected again.
I feel I'm just so out of touch with society.

[Kraken]

Animals shouldn't be tortured.

Nope. GOP doesn't give a rats ass about rats or anything else in the animal world that stands in the way of profit. I'm pretty certain Michael Vick was rehired by a Republican.

Liberals tend to be more empathetic about....well, everything.

I, for one liberal, staunchly support People Eating Tasty Animals.

[Jaymann]

Animals shouldn't be tortured.

Nope. GOP doesn't give a rats ass about rats or anything else in the animal world that stands in the way of profit. I'm pretty certain Michael Vick was rehired by a Republican.

Liberals tend to be more empathetic about....well, everything.

I, for one liberal, staunchly support People Eating Tasty Animals.

But you empathize with them as they fall down your gullet.

[YellowKing]

dbt's post highlighted a major problem with our current 2-party system. In short, many reasonable people are stuck in a position of either voting for a party they don't align with (Democrats), or voting for the party they align with, but that has been taken over by crazy extremists. The only solution for that is for Republicans as a whole to reign that shit in and stop voting for people they can't stomach (but pull the lever for anyway) because they're not liberals. The GOP needs a major course correction, and I just don't see it happening. We're so locked into this "us vs them" mentality that "voting for the other guy" is an insurmountable challenge.

Same thing with the NRA. The vast majority of responsible gun owners are out there faithfully paying their dues for a cause they believe in while the leadership rants and raves and takes extreme positions that don't align with the majority of its members.

At some point the American people are going to have to stop being willing to be led around on a leash by the more extreme members of their party/group whatever. But they can't be bothered to vote. They can't be bothered to muster outrage at a President who has already committed multiple impeachable offenses. They can't be bothered to give a damn when some whack job shoots a dozen kids. This complacency is quite literally destroying the country. We are all fiddling while Rome burns.

[Unagi]

I'd be OK with a 3rd party forming from the ashes of the old GOP.... the OGOP let's say.

[Jeff V]

I, for one liberal, staunchly support People Eating Tasty Animals.

Still one of the best expired domain stories ever!

[Kurth]

Drone strikes should not be used.
No amount of collateral damage is acceptable.

Honestly, I doubt we all agree on this.

The exercise isn't to find something we all agree on. It's to find something that someone who is the political opposite of you likely agrees with you on. In practice, this likely means a liberal would espouse a typically conservative view, and a conservative would espouse a typically liberal view.

So here’s an exercise: Replying from the perspective of someone who you believe to be 180 degrees opposite from you on the political spectrum, make one statement on a political/social issue you imagine that person (hypothetical or real) holds a firm conviction about that you agree with as well.

I don't mind being corrected, but I'm not sure a one-on-one exercise means a great deal. It's not hard for me to imagine a single particular conservative who feels the way I do about a single major issue. (For example, I'm generally a Liberal Hawk, so I can easily imagine a conservative who also believes that e.g. we should embrace NATO fully and not pull back from our military commitment to our traditional allies.)

I think the spirit of the exercise ("How divided are we?") requires finding very broad rather than particular common ground. I take the question to be about what still holds our country (or even just our forum) together even though it's hard to see it. The idea is to notice what we generally have in common regardless of ideological labels.

That is pretty much what I had in mind, Holman. It’s more about thinking of a hypothetical person with political leanings 180 degrees from yours and trying to conjure up something - even something really basic - that you and that hypothetical person (or people) more or less agree upon.

Put another way, each statement could start with the preface, “By virtue of us both being Americans and fundamentally decent human beings, I and my hypothetical political opposite both probably believe that . . . “

Sorry to our Canadian and non-U.S. members, but it’s our country that’s in the shithole right now.

[Unagi]

A strong U.S. military is essential to both our national defense and the maintenance of stability throughout the world.

While I agree with this, I don't think you would find it to be a universal common ground in the US.

[Kurth]

A strong U.S. military is essential to both our national defense and the maintenance of stability throughout the world.

While I agree with this, I don't think you would find it to be a universal common ground in the US.

That’s ok. That’s not the point. It’s an idea that I agree with that I believe I share with many who are my political opposites. Not looking for universal common ground here. Not sure that ever exists.

[Carpet_pissr]

Putin can’t be trusted.

[Max Peck]

A strong U.S. military is essential to both our national defense and the maintenance of stability throughout the world.

While I agree with this, I don't think you would find it to be a universal common ground in the US.

That’s ok. That’s not the point. It’s an idea that I agree with that I believe I share with many who are my political opposites. Not looking for universal common ground here. Not sure that ever exists.

The problem with that proposition is that it is difficult to reconcile with the foreign policy actions of the faction in control of the executive and legislative branches of the American federal government. They certainly believe that a strong military is essential to national defense, but far from caring one wit about maintaining global stability through military (or any other) means, they actively court instability if it offers them a perceived advantage.