EPThttps://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/6/13/15786220/jon-ossoff-ad?utm_campaign=vox.social&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_content=1497364075
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 7849
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15401 Posts
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/6/13/15786220/jon-ossoff-ad?utm_campaign=vox.social&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_content=1497364075 | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21380 Posts
On June 14 2017 00:00 Danglars wrote: I also use the thread to find out what liberals actually believe and why. I had no idea until just now that Nebuchad considered those three policy positions as stemming from "sticking it to the liberals" and not sincerely held. I literally agree with the broad thought in his second paragraph. + Show Spoiler [context] + On June 03 2017 03:30 Nebuchad wrote: Don't you have some Heritage Foundation numbers on the cost of openly fucking over the rest of the world for a family of four by 2035? On June 03 2017 03:24 Nebuchad wrote: Second and third stage in the same post. Kind of meta, I like it. These raised a question in my mind. Why go from troll-y accusations of bad faith to spot-on identifications of irreconcilable worldviews (aka one must be wrong)? He answered it and I'm happy. It's amazing what we can learn about each other sometimes, NewSunshine. If its not 'sticking it to the liberals' then you (or Republicans in general) genuinely believe in trickle down economics and that climate change is not a problem. (I'll ignore guns for now since imo that is a different matter) Its hard to accept that a significant portion of the country does not believe in facts, science or reality and much easier to believe they hold these idea's out of spite. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21380 Posts
On June 14 2017 00:46 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: What? You have to go through a committee to interview a representative of the people? (the person being interviewed having to consent is imo normal). | ||
|
Haemonculus
United States6980 Posts
On June 13 2017 22:30 GreenHorizons wrote: That's just it, we know which one we have. It has to be the one with a system that's terrible otherwise folks like Danglars wouldn't bother complaining about the problems of rich, powerful, white, men. If rich, powerful, white, men, have any personal complaints (especially around unfair treatment) that should be taken seriously by anyone other than the people they pay to worry about that stuff, then obviously millions of people having their constitutional rights violated on a habitual level must be a 5 alarm fire. That the "unfairness" toward someone like Trump riles up folks like Danglars in ways that the suffering of oppressed people never has and may never will, says more than I could with a thousand words. Damn. Very well said. It's clear Danglars knows it's a disaster, he just also knows (or at least believes) that he doesn't have to worry about their suffering because it's not his (or someone like him) problem and as such isn't significant. I think he even knows that's what he's doing, he just isn't at the point where he can accept it and own it. This might be a simplistic explanation though. Now I haven't followed this thread closely in many years so I don't know who most of the new regulars are, but without knowing Danglars I feel like you are being a bit unfair. People naturally see the world from their own perspective and struggle to understand things that don't affect them personally. I think this is half of the key of understanding the frustration of a lot of young white men and/or republicans. The other half is the indirect blame they receive for a lot of issues they aren't even aware of in the first place. They see themselves painted as the bad guy in a conflict they aren't fully aware of. My work means I spend a ton of time with primarily young 20/30s men, almost entirely white but not exclusively. I've spent a lot of time talking with them, and I've seen a lot of this behavior out of good-natured people who if anything suffer solely from ignorance and a bit of a victim complex. They don't understand the systemic issues in our country that do not affect them, and they feel attacked for being part of the group traditionally blamed for those issues. It's frustrating to watch them rationalize their worldviews like this, but honestly it's hard to blame them for what is likely just human nature. If they never experience sexual harassment firsthand, and they also do not *personally* sexually harass women, then in their mind sexual harassment doesn't really exist. Or at least, not to the extent that some women claim it does. Then, when "men" are held in distrust for the harassment that women experience, these young men feel unfairly blamed for a problem that in their mind isn't real. If they never experience undue harassment and stop-and-frisk type behavior from police, and they've also never *personally* harassed a young black kid, then that police brutality doesn't really exist. They don't ever see it in their day to day lives. And then movements like BLM point the finger at white men and the power establishment, again they feel unfairly blamed for a problem that in their mind isn't real. If they've never been discriminated against in housing, jobs, public, and they've also never *personally* denied a gay person an apartment or called someone a faggot in public, etc etc. They start to feel like the victims of an imagined blame game. They, the "evil white men" as they start to identify as, are being unfairly accused of a whole host of phantom menaces. The folks blaming them, "liberals, minorities, feminists" etc, are seen as crazy, unreasonable, race-baiting loons. It becomes very easy to cling to that mentality and look for anything that reinforces the idea that your enemies are crazy special snowflake loons, like Danglar's linked article about a crazy person unhappy with a particular bathroom. They see their somewhat loose identity attacked. "White" and "Male" held up as the enemy of these crusades, and so they cling all the tighter to those labels. And young liberals suffer the same lack of extrospection. It's just as naive to write off these inexperienced young men as malicious in their intent. Again having spent a lot of time with mostly privileged young white men, the biggest thing I can hold against them is a lack of exposure to the world at large. A lot of them mean well but simply can't see the world from any perspective other than their own. Now that said, whether or not it's excusable once those same men start voting for candidates that seek to repeal protections for minorities is a different debate. Anyway, focus on communication. Human nature doesn't drastically change from person to person. Chances are if either of you had been raised in the other's shoes, you'd hold values similar to their own. | ||
|
Buckyman
1364 Posts
On June 14 2017 00:47 Gorsameth wrote: If its not 'sticking it to the liberals' then you (or Republicans in general) genuinely believe in trickle down economics and that climate change is not a problem. (I'll ignore guns for now since imo that is a different matter) Its hard to accept that a significant portion of the country does not believe in facts, science or reality and much easier to believe they hold these idea's out of spite. I'm going to step in here as the resident non-binary speaker. You're building a false dichotomy. Consider three hypotheses: 1) Roughly a third of the country chooses what they believe based on the opposite of what you believe. 2) Roughly a third of the country is literally insane 3) Roughly a third of the country has, through rational thought processes, arrived at a belief that is both substantiated and different from what you believe. I would argue that we should eliminate 2 out of hand; insanity has more effects than "odd" beliefs, which we would have observed as a social collapse if they were widespread. Unless you define "insane" as "believes stuff I think is false" in which case it ceases to be a useful category because people can come to different beliefs based on the same process by virtue of looking at slightly different data. How can you tell the difference between 1 and 3? A good way is to ask them why they believe what they believe, and apply Miller's Law. We did that with climate change upthread. I think I know where the difference is now; I'll post it later today because I don't want to derail this meta-discussion. A better way, though, is to ask them what they think about a policy in between their position and your own. Comparing reasons for disagreeing with that policy gives a better sense of where their different beliefs come from than simply asking them to recite some memorized justifications. I've been using this strategy upthread; I don't necessarily agree with all the policies I've asked y'all to weigh in on, though I can debate in favor if necessary, but your answers tend to have concise versions of your dominant values on the topic. Finally, once you've identified a values difference, you need to continue the discussion taking their values into account. Because the values are rarely diametrically opposed, there's some chance of finding a suggestion that's better at satisfying everyone's values than the status quo. (Note: this advice goes for BOTH factions) | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland11933 Posts
On June 14 2017 01:11 Haemonculus wrote: Again having spent a lot of time with mostly privileged young white men, the biggest thing I can hold against them is a lack of exposure to the world at large. A lot of them mean well but simply can't see the world from any perspective other than their own. Now that said, whether or not it's excusable once those same men start voting for candidates that seek to repeal protections for minorities is a different debate. I don't think it's a different debate, I think it's a crucial part of this very debate. At some point we have to balance the amount of understanding that we have for the people who lack empathy and the amount of understanding that we have for the people who have actual problems in their lives that could use some solving and don't get to be solved because the first people, who firmly believe they aren't part of a problem, keep voting for politicians who at best won't solve the problem and at worst will reinforce it. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
______ On June 14 2017 01:11 Haemonculus wrote: That kind of worldview is hard to reconcile with the rest of the western world. Even in macho Spain and Italy, where sexual harrassment is commonplace, there is recognition that sexual harrassment occurs, but men do not feel a sense of victimhood. The difference is probably that in USA, men are held more accountable or that there is a different macho culture.My work means I spend a ton of time with primarily young 20/30s men, almost entirely white but not exclusively. I've spent a lot of time talking with them, and I've seen a lot of this behavior out of good-natured people who if anything suffer solely from ignorance and a bit of a victim complex. They don't understand the systemic issues in our country that do not affect them, and they feel attacked for being part of the group traditionally blamed for those issues. It's frustrating to watch them rationalize their worldviews like this, but honestly it's hard to blame them for what is likely just human nature. If they never experience sexual harassment firsthand, and they also do not *personally* sexually harass women, then in their mind sexual harassment doesn't really exist. Or at least, not to the extent that some women claim it does. Then, when "men" are held in distrust for the harassment that women experience, these young men feel unfairly blamed for a problem that in their mind isn't real. | ||
|
Haemonculus
United States6980 Posts
On June 14 2017 01:31 Nebuchad wrote: I don't think it's a different debate, I think it's a crucial part of this very debate. At some point we have to balance the amount of understanding that we have for the people who lack empathy and the amount of understanding that we have for the people who have actual problems in their lives that could use some solving and don't get to be solved because the first people, who firmly believe they aren't part of a problem, keep voting for politicians who at best won't solve the problem and at worst will reinforce it. Alright, fair. Definitely part of the same debate. But how to convey that to those people is the hard part. Again I think it's less that they lack empathy and more that they lack exposure. Or if anything they lack the *opportunity* for empathy. Watch SNL, Colbert, Bill Maher, or any other Rich Coast Liberal television show and put yourself in the shoes of a conservative voter in the Midwest/South. It's no wonder they dislike us. If we're going to change any minds, we have to actually engage with them. Not talk down to them. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On June 14 2017 01:50 Haemonculus wrote: Alright, fair. Definitely part of the same debate. But how to convey that to those people is the hard part. Again I think it's less that they lack empathy and more that they lack exposure. Or if anything they lack the *opportunity* for empathy. Watch SNL, Colbert, Bill Maher, or any other Rich Coast Liberal television show and put yourself in the shoes of a conservative voter in the Midwest/South. It's no wonder they dislike us. If we're going to change any minds, we have to actually engage with them. Not talk down to them. There is no shortage of right wing comedians and music stars making fun of the out of touch liberals. They are just not on the same networks. They like entertainment that mocks liberals just as much as we like the Daily show. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Buckyman
1364 Posts
On June 14 2017 01:50 Dangermousecatdog wrote: At some point you must understand that the person in question voted for Donald Trump, because he supports the building of a wall across the border of Mexico. Now...apply Miller's Law. What does this tell you? Possible explanations, in no particular order: 1) They believed illegal immigration or drug-smuggling is a problem and that a wall is an effective partial-solution. 2) They thought Mexico would pay for the wall and wanted "free" stuff. 3) They subscribe to the 'hole filling' economic principle; they believe building the wall will stimulate the economy. 4) They aren't in favor of the wall per se, but viewed it as an improvement over the alternative (Clinton's) immigration proposals. 5) They don't think the wall will actually be built but view the threat of building it as an effective immigration policy tool. (Game Theory explanation) 6) They see the wall as a symbolic indicator of a willingness to tackle immigration issues that have gone unaddressed. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
8940 Posts
On June 14 2017 01:56 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: https://twitter.com/kasie/status/874671733432877056 This reads weird. I understand what is says, but it's still scratching at my brain. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
8940 Posts
On June 14 2017 02:04 Buckyman wrote: Possible explanations, in no particular order: 1) They believed illegal immigration or drug-smuggling is a problem and that a wall is an effective partial-solution. 2) They thought Mexico would pay for the wall and wanted "free" stuff. 3) They subscribe to the 'hole filling' economic principle; they believe building the wall will stimulate the economy. 4) They aren't in favor of the wall per se, but viewed it as an improvement over the alternative (Clinton's) immigration proposals. 5) They don't think the wall will actually be built but view the threat of building it as an effective immigration policy tool. 6) They see the wall as a symbolic indicator of a willingness to tackle immigration issues that have gone unaddressed. I'd add another that states: A metaphorical, if not physical, implication that America is "their" nation and that no one is welcome unless vetted. Legally or illegally. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland11933 Posts
On June 14 2017 01:50 Haemonculus wrote: Alright, fair. Definitely part of the same debate. But how to convey that to those people is the hard part. Again I think it's less that they lack empathy and more that they lack exposure. Or if anything they lack the *opportunity* for empathy. Watch SNL, Colbert, Bill Maher, or any other Rich Coast Liberal television show and put yourself in the shoes of a conservative voter in the Midwest/South. It's no wonder they dislike us. If we're going to change any minds, we have to actually engage with them. Not talk down to them. My attempt would be to give a focus to the debate. The initial premise on whether the US is mostly doing fine or not is where it's at; if you don't have that backbone that the US are doing mostly fine, I don't see how you can have a honest worldview where the other groups are just a bunch of whiners that want to play the victim. So I'd challenge that initial premise and see whether and how well they are willing to defend it. | ||
|
Haemonculus
United States6980 Posts
On June 14 2017 01:50 Dangermousecatdog wrote: That kind of worldview is hard to reconcile with the rest of the western world. Even in macho Spain and Italy, where sexual harrassment is commonplace, there is recognition that sexual harrassment occurs, but men do not feel a sense of victimhood. The difference is probably that in USA, men are held more accountable or that there is a different macho culture. That's actually really interesting. I'd be curious as to what causes those differences. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On June 14 2017 02:06 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: This reads weird. I understand what is says, but it's still scratching at my brain. From what I am reading from congressional reporters is that some congressional staff told them they were not allowed to conduct interviews in the hallways. They claimed there were new rules in place. Once that started to be reported by the press, someone in congress walked it back and said there were no new rules. It sounds like tensions in capitol hill are pretty high due to the mythical healthcare bill no one gets to read. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On June 14 2017 00:47 Gorsameth wrote: If its not 'sticking it to the liberals' then you (or Republicans in general) genuinely believe in trickle down economics and that climate change is not a problem. (I'll ignore guns for now since imo that is a different matter) Its hard to accept that a significant portion of the country does not believe in facts, science or reality and much easier to believe they hold these idea's out of spite. most people claim to believe in facts; they're just not capable enough to accurately discern what ARE facts and what aren't (and they aren't able to tell that they aren't able to discern facts well). learning to actually discern facts rigorously takes a lot of training and willingness; and many people simply don't have the training, some also don't have the willingness/mindset. they rely on heuristics which have exploitable failure points, which politicians through the ages have exploited. also add in some sociological processes adn that largely accounts for it. if you need more detail it can be provided. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On June 14 2017 02:52 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: https://twitter.com/ThePlumLineGS/status/874684941682036739 So... we can say Trump is on par with Clinton? If Billy was that unpopular five months in, Hillary would probably be worse than Trump. Lol. (To be fair the entire reason for Trump low popularity is that he invents his own crises.) | ||
| ||
