• 20 of America's top political scientists gathered to discuss our democracy. They're scared.
    92 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;53034581]a civil war is not out of the question[/QUOTE] I've been stockpiling. Not to aid either side, but to keep myself and my son safe. 7.62 for all, and to all a 7.62
[QUOTE=th0rianite;53034788]I think this attitude is part of the problem; blaming and alienating one side primarily and giving only a passing mention to the bilateral nature of the causes. You say it is the conservatives who have driven the wedge regarding collaboration and discussion within academia, maybe you're right, but I do not see conservatives no-platforming people. As for your dismissal of peoples concern regarding scientific study, I wonder if you are aware of the increasing politicization of science (on both sides) and the damage that is causing to science as an institution. Their concerns are legitimate, if misguided. You describe "the other side" as teetering on crazy and that leads me to believe you are unable to understand that whatever your side is, it can appear crazy to the other side, and that is the very crux of the problem undermining our democracies. Lack of mutual respect. You should read up on moral foundations theory and it's application to political ideology. I've seen one person here on facepunch say something like "all opinions are equally shitty, but some are more shitty than others". Like, fucking hell, read animal farm or something. We need to start respecting each other, and each others opinions, even if we don't agree with them, even if they make us froth and rage. Respect the human experience that led to the formation of that opinion. If you can disprove a statement somebody makes, do it, but do it with some fucking decency and kindness, helping them attain knowledge rather than beating them over the head with it in an ideological war. If you can't, respect it as their opinion and try to love and respect them as a fellow human being as difficult as that may be.[/QUOTE] Not every opinion is valid. I'm not going to respect the opinion "The earth is flat" or something else I can verify is bullshit. Opinions aren't special. You, me, none of us are fucking special. We don't deserve special treatment. If we have an idea that's stupid, it should be called stupid. The truth is the left, the right, they're all snowflakes afraid of having to confront any truth that doens't work with their prescribed ideology.
anybody who isn't centre is a snowflake who doesn't like their ideas challenged
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;53035337]anybody who isn't centre is a snowflake who doesn't like their ideas challenged[/QUOTE] It's not even about being "Centre", "right" or "left". It's the problem of the mindset of people today.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53035346]It's not even about being "Centre", "right" or "left". It's the problem of the mindset of people today.[/QUOTE] I was just making comment on the hyperbolic "The truth is the left, the right, they're all snowflakes" thing, partly coz I was triggered coz I'm p left wing and I don't like the idea of peeps saying I don't like discussing stuff/having views challenged
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;53035362]I was just making comment on the hyperbolic "The truth is the left, the right, they're all snowflakes" thing, partly coz I was triggered coz I'm p left wing and I don't like the idea of peeps saying I don't like discussing stuff/having views challenged[/QUOTE] Then don't be triggered and literally prove the point. I don't really know what the answer is, I don't think anyone does, but there's something to be said about how both sides approach the concept of reality, truth, and "Opinion" in todays world that is different from say, 20 or 30 years ago. There is no more shared reality. We all inhabit our own world views with their own facts essentially now. Why? I don't know, but all I know is it doesn't matter where you fall on the political spectrum, everyone is vulnerable to this mental failure. Left, right, or centre, everyone wants to substitute their reality. I don't think we can do that anymore. I don't think we'll survive as a species if we do, genuinely.
I'll repost part of an essay I made awhile ago on Democratic ideology and compromise. [QUOTE=TheLonelyDonu;52571793]Democrats cannot move to the center on policy issues because for many people politics is a matter of matter of life and death and a matter of human dignity. Gay rights, transgender rights, women's rights, immigrant rights, minority rights, voting rights, worker's rights, affordable healthcare, subsidized college education, intelligent regulation of industries, police reform, progressive tax reform, immigration reform, military reform, pacifism; to compromise on any of these is to condemn a percentage of the population to either death or disrespect... ...People are going to die if we give up the fight.[/QUOTE] When a homosexual is asked to work with a homophobe, the gay person understandably get angry and uncooperative. It's unfair for anyone to ask minorities and allies to work with people who want to strip away human rights and dignity from minority groups. We cannot work with the people who attempt to kill or legally dehumanize others every chance they get. Compounded with "popular conservative ideology" being whatever is on FOX News, you'll see why people don't want to compromise. From gay marriage "slippery slope animal marriage," to transgender "bathroom pervert-predators," to the #TakeAKnee "Unamerican traitors and thugs," to the #MeToo "Attention-seekers lying for money," it's all bullshit. But it's dangerous bullshit. It's dangerous propaganda that vilifies minority groups and blames them for America's problems. It targets disadvantaged minorities and encourages political and physical violence against them. Through "bathroom bills" or "The Wall," minorities are made into enemies of the people, and those who rightfully reject such hate can't be asked to accept legal provisions to sustain or empower such discrimination. When "popular conservative ideology" divorces itself from discrimination, I'll work with conservatives. Show me a conservative who rejects bigotry and I'll work with them. Show me a conservative who as forcefully rejects Republican discrimination as I do and I'll work with them. Until then, we'll keep walking this road, for better or for worse.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53035375]Then don't be triggered and literally prove the point. I don't really know what the answer is, I don't think anyone does, but there's something to be said about how both sides approach the concept of reality, truth, and "Opinion" in todays world that is different from say, 20 or 30 years ago. There is no more shared reality. We all inhabit our own world views with their own facts essentially now. Why? I don't know, but all I know is it doesn't matter where you fall on the political spectrum, everyone is vulnerable to this mental failure. Left, right, or centre, everyone wants to substitute their reality. I don't think we can do that anymore. I don't think we'll survive as a species if we do, genuinely.[/QUOTE] Within a few decades people will be able to substitute their reality, what they see/hear could be filtered to only confirm their world view, then the government/establishment would be free to do whatever they want to. We could survive but it'd be grimosaurus. If augmented vision/hearing does come along I think I'll opt to not get it.
I theorize that much of it comes from the nature of discussion getting more and more shallow over time. We fail to address the real underlying differences and fundamental assumptions that give reasoning to our specific policy positions. For example, look at the issue of taxation on the wealthy. The general conversation goes something like this: The republican party lowers taxes on the wealthy > The democrats say that the Republicans are shills and don't care about the poor. > The republicans say that the democrats just want to keep the poor dependent on them. > etc. Neither of these positions are true for the vast majority of either side. There are extremely nuanced views that absolutely need to be out in the open if we are to come to any understanding. For this issue specifically, one major difference that I see is the basic idea of whether a person has a fundamental right to money they've legally collected. You often hear people on the left side of the spectrum refer to tax breaks as giving money back to the rich. They see that tax money as rightfully belonging to the government, or the society at large. So by lowering taxes, you are actually taking money from the society and giving to the wealthy. Of course, this sounds horrendous! How bad of a person do you have to be to want to take money from the poor and give it to the rich? The republicans must have evil intentions. On the other side, the republicans see it as the rich person's money. By lowering taxes, they are simply letting people keep more of what belongs to them anyway. No one else has any rightful claim to it, and any taxation must be absolutely necessary to justify going against this basic fact. When the democrats call for higher taxes specifically on the wealthy, the republicans see it as equivalent to allowing theft based on a person having more money. Those democrats must be bad people! A discussion about the nature of ownership, how it applies to taxes, and the how the responsibility of a person changes base on their wealth would be far more helpful than a discussion about the specific policy decision of raising taxes on the wealthy, yet we never hear those kinds of discussions. Most people haven't even considered it before.
Here's a novel thought Why be absolutely one way or the other? Why not just vote for the person that's going to do the better job? And why do we have to only have two parties that are at the extremes in either direction with nothing in the middle? People need to fix their attitudes and then the country will get fixed
[QUOTE=sgman91;53035412] A discussion about the nature of ownership, how it applies to taxes, and the how the responsibility of a person changes base on their wealth would be far more helpful than a discussion about the specific policy decision of raising taxes on the wealthy, yet we never hear those kinds of discussions. Most people haven't even considered it before.[/QUOTE] My own view on taxation is that those businesses (and their investors/owners) benefitted indirectly from public spending so should pay toward it. I see the lower income tax payers as having a sort of tax discount. If a company is unhappy paying into the system then they should up n leave to set up shop in somewhere like Somalia, where they dont have to contribute to public programs and won't benefit from public programs. Funny that you only allude to fiscal policy, the worst thing about the two party system we (as a US and a UK poster) have is you're forced to comprise some preferences on account of other preferences, so a socially progressive fiscal Conservative doesn't really have great representation (dems are relatively economically right to me but they're seem as left wing in the US and libertarian is a meme). People tend to be semi single issue voters bunched into supporting a party along with others with whom they have little in common, the only Middle ground is being opposed to "those other guys". I'm rambling tho
[QUOTE=sgman91;53035412]I theorize that much of it comes from the nature of discussion getting more and more shallow over time. We fail to address the real underlying differences and fundamental assumptions that give reasoning to our specific policy positions. For example, look at the issue of taxation on the wealthy. The general conversation goes something like this: The republican party lowers taxes on the wealthy > The democrats say that the Republicans are shills and don't care about the poor. > The republicans say that the democrats just want to keep the poor dependent on them. > etc. Neither of these positions are true for the vast majority of either side. There are extremely nuanced views that absolutely need to be out in the open if we are to come to any understanding. For this issue specifically, one major difference that I see is the basic idea of whether a person has a fundamental right to money they've legally collected. You often hear people on the left side of the spectrum refer to tax breaks as giving money back to the rich. They see that tax money as rightfully belonging to the government, or the society at large. So by lowering taxes, you are actually taking money from the society and giving to the wealthy. Of course, this sounds horrendous! How bad of a person do you have to be to want to take money from the poor and give it to the rich? The republicans must have evil intentions. On the other side, the republicans see it as the rich person's money. By lowering taxes, they are simply letting people keep more of what belongs to them anyway. No one else has any rightful claim to it, and any taxation must be absolutely necessary to justify going against this basic fact. When the democrats call for higher taxes specifically on the wealthy, the republicans see it as equivalent to allowing theft based on a person having more money. Those democrats must be bad people! A discussion about the nature of ownership, how it applies to taxes, and the how the responsibility of a person changes base on their wealth would be far more helpful than a discussion about the specific policy decision of raising taxes on the wealthy, yet we never hear those kinds of discussions. Most people haven't even considered it before.[/QUOTE] To be honest, the second view you laid out entirely ignores the social contract that we're all volunteered for, and sign off on when we're born in a society like ours so I already feel like you may also be missing the point. I'm sure there's something equivalent about the "left" I could state if I thought about for a few moments longer but it's not that simple. Though turning your political adversary into an enemy is a negative for all of us, but I genuinely wonder how you can avoid that when you're looking at the rights of gay people or other groups being marginalized. How are those people NOT going to look at them as an enemy? How is someone's who's entire mindset around say, abortion, that it's murder NOT going to look at someone else as an enemy of humanity? It's because people necessitate that their emotions drive their actions and their beliefs more than anything.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53035321]Not every opinion is valid. I'm not going to respect the opinion "The earth is flat" or something else I can verify is bullshit. Opinions aren't special. You, me, none of us are fucking special. We don't deserve special treatment. If we have an idea that's stupid, it should be called stupid. The truth is the left, the right, they're all snowflakes afraid of having to confront any truth that doens't work with their prescribed ideology.[/QUOTE] Can we drop the pretense that we have a left and right? Bernie Sanders, outside of the US, would be left of center. In the US, he's far left. We have two choices of Far Right, and Right of Center. That's it. [editline]8th January 2018[/editline] This isn't even a debate about left and right? This is a debate of Right vs. Center.
[QUOTE=SunsetTable;53035515]Can we drop the pretense that we have a left and right? Bernie Sanders, outside of the US, would be left of center. In the US, he's far left. We have two choices of Far Right, and Right of Center. That's it. [editline]8th January 2018[/editline] This isn't even a debate about left and right? This is a debate of Right vs. Center.[/QUOTE] It's not even one about political ideology anymore dude. It's one about the facts that people believe, and the reality that we don't share a reality anymore.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53035522]It's not even one about political ideology anymore dude. It's one about the facts that people believe, and the reality that we don't share a reality anymore.[/QUOTE] Which annoys the shit outta me because I can directly point that finger at Post Modernism which has been abused to a point that I'm fairly certain the original theorists are literally spinning their boney bodies in the grave.
Civil War ain't happening. Too many red states have blue cities, too many blue states have red rural areas. And I really don't like equating the sides, Republicans have been running anti-science, anti-intellectualism, disruptive candidates across the board for a while now (i.e. Gingrich revolution, Tea Party, etc). The media played into that game too. This Trump mess is an inevitable result of this, and the increasing economic inequality and changing economy has people on their toes and easily manipulated. I'm curious to see how much of a difference Millennials can actually make coming into this environment.
[QUOTE=shadow_oap;53035535]Civil War ain't happening. Too many red states have blue cities, too many blue states have red rural areas. And I really don't like equating the sides, Republicans have been running anti-science, anti-intellectualism, disruptive candidates across the board for a while now (i.e. Gingrich revolution, Tea Party, etc). The media played into that game too. This Trump mess is an inevitable result of this, and the increasing economic inequality and changing economy has people on their toes and easily manipulated. I'm curious to see how much of a difference Millennials can actually make coming into this environment.[/QUOTE] Ah buh buh In the interest of fair discussion you gotta give both sides a platform and hold their views in equal regard. Otherwise you're bias!
[QUOTE=shadow_oap;53035535]Civil War ain't happening. Too many red states have blue cities, too many blue states have red rural areas. And I really don't like equating the sides, Republicans have been running anti-science, anti-intellectualism, disruptive candidates across the board for a while now (i.e. Gingrich revolution, Tea Party, etc). The media played into that game too. This Trump mess is an inevitable result of this, and the increasing economic inequality and changing economy has people on their toes and easily manipulated. I'm curious to see how much of a difference Millennials can actually make coming into this environment.[/QUOTE] If we're taking the OP's report seriously, then the millennials are the most open to authoritarianism and the most apathetic about democracy.
[QUOTE=sgman91;53035579]If we're taking the OP's report seriously, then the millennials are the most open to authoritarianism and the most apathetic about democracy.[/QUOTE] Millennials who also happen to be right wing or left wing I think it's important to recognize this is a generational issue, and not one so simply waved away as "millenials are authoritarian". And why wouldn't we be when the generation that raised us wasn't much better? I mean I don't look at Reagan and think anything but authoritarianism
[QUOTE=sgman91;53035579]If we're taking the OP's report seriously, then the millennials are the most open to authoritarianism and the most apathetic about democracy.[/QUOTE] Rated by mistake because I'm a dirty phone poster. If millenials really are more open to authoriatrianism, who do you thunk primed then for that?
[QUOTE=SunsetTable;53035515]Can we drop the pretense that we have a left and right? Bernie Sanders, outside of the US, would be left of center. In the US, he's far left. We have two choices of Far Right, and Right of Center. That's it. [editline]8th January 2018[/editline] This isn't even a debate about left and right? This is a debate of Right vs. Center.[/QUOTE] No. We have a left and a right. The context is US politics, not world politics. If that were the case, we could compare to other less desireable countries and see that we have left of center and far left, and say "See, we're very liberal!". Keep the discourse within it's proper context, not the context you want to give it.
[QUOTE=sgman91;53035579]If we're taking the OP's report seriously, then the millennials are the most open to authoritarianism and the most apathetic about democracy.[/QUOTE] Most apathetic? As an anecdote, it sure seems like that's not true. 2-3 sites popped up during the NN repeal giving info or help in contacting all of your representatives by phone and a few even would mail your reps for you if you so desired. And that was just for NN: it seems like everytime something comes up I'm seeing posts on my FB, reddit, and even here about the importance of contacting your reps and congresspeople. And this is backed up by a study that's three years old - I have no doubt the numbers are higher - [URL="https://www.heri.ucla.edu/monographs/TheAmericanFreshman2015.pdf"]that found (Pg. 7) that political engagement among college-aged adults has not been this high since 1967[/URL]. Also, the young voting groups had a larger proportional turnout than any other age group in the 2008 and 2012 elections - though, I haven't found data on the most recent election. Also, I think it's fairly easily to consider just how much income can affect one's ability to vote and participate: [t]http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media/03F04B49039A4E9683161B63F5F57E43.jpg[/t] Millenials are fighting as hard as they can against authoritarianism, and want to continue to see a system that remains truly democratic. I'm not sure where your perception of apathy and love of authoritarianism comes from [editline]edited[/editline] Also, while I get that the point of the OP is about the starkness of the gap, take a quick look at Pew research centers' page on US politics: there are quite a few (maybe that majority?) of articles on the landing page that are about political polarization, increased divide, and the size of said political divide. Which is fair, as [URL="http://www.people-press.org/2017/10/05/the-partisan-divide-on-political-values-grows-even-wider/"]this[/URL] survey a few months ago found: [t]http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2017/10/04152956/Overview_1.png[/t]
[QUOTE=th0rianite;53034788]I think this attitude is part of the problem; blaming and alienating one side primarily and giving only a passing mention to the bilateral nature of the causes. You say it is the conservatives who have driven the wedge regarding collaboration and discussion within academia, maybe you're right, but I do not see conservatives no-platforming people. As for your dismissal of peoples concern regarding scientific study, I wonder if you are aware of the increasing politicization of science (on both sides) and the damage that is causing to science as an institution. Their concerns are legitimate, if misguided. You describe "the other side" as teetering on crazy and that leads me to believe you are unable to understand that whatever your side is, it can appear crazy to the other side, and that is the very crux of the problem undermining our democracies. Lack of mutual respect. You should read up on moral foundations theory and it's application to political ideology. I've seen one person here on facepunch say something like "all opinions are equally shitty, but some are more shitty than others". Like, fucking hell, read animal farm or something. We need to start respecting each other, and each others opinions, even if we don't agree with them, even if they make us froth and rage. Respect the human experience that led to the formation of that opinion. If you can disprove a statement somebody makes, do it, but do it with some fucking decency and kindness, helping them attain knowledge rather than beating them over the head with it in an ideological war. If you can't, respect it as their opinion and try to love and respect them as a fellow human being as difficult as that may be.[/QUOTE] I want to reiterate that I am not talking about voters, I am talking about leaders and those who influence the leaders, such as wealthy donors or right-wing media. I am also well aware (and rather annoyed by) regressive elements of the left, and aware that examples of far-left-wing media are becoming more mainstream and spreading these views as right-wing media did with their base. The ultimate result is that you have two groups of people who live in different worlds and have been taught that the other side is evil and should humiliated and dismissed. It isn't okay regardless of who is doing it, it doesn't matter if it's Shareblue or Breitbart, it's harmful. Right wing media has been doing it for longer and is much more mainstream (Fox News), but it's rising on the left and CNN has caught flak for positioning themselves as a sort of left-wing Fox News. As far as scientific study goes, I believe it started with global warming and abortion and snowballed from there. If you can convince people that so and so climate science or so and so medical science is a political conspiracy to kill babies or whatever the hell global warming hoax is supposed to achieve (I've heard it's everything from an elaborate conspiracy to discredit conservatives to being a stepping stone for a new world order), then you can convince them anything scientific is faked or engineered against them. And from that, you get an anti-intellectual base that no longer trust scientific study unless it comes from their favorite politician or media outlet. I don't doubt there are liberal examples of this, but they aren't nearly as widespread (55% of Republicans deny climate change), and I cannot think of any at the moment. I agree with your closing statement, people need to chill out and respect each other. But we also need less of this extremism, which makes it hard to respect the opinions of a person on either side of the fence. Especially when those people are ready to attack the instant they see you are not one of them, because they see themselves as heroes fighting an ideological war against an evil enemy. I see a lot of conservatives conflating democrats with Socialists and increasing numbers of liberals conflating republicans with fascists, and that needs to end. Division like that will be the downfall of this country's political system and with that, the downfall of our country in general.
[QUOTE=TheTalon;53035426]Here's a novel thought Why be absolutely one way or the other? Why not just vote for the person that's going to do the better job? And why do we have to only have two parties that are at the extremes in either direction with nothing in the middle? People need to fix their attitudes and then the country will get fixed[/QUOTE] Decades of political brainwashing through the lens of religion will make that hard to do.
Honestly things aren't going to chill out. The article talks about how both sides see each other as a legitimate threat to the nation, and, yeah. I can't help but feel that way too. In my opinion the right is a danger to the nation, [i]specifically[/i] me. It isn't a fair difference of opinion when the difference of opinion is that LGBT people and women and minorities should suffer, lose their rights, and have the progress they've made stripped away from them. When discrimination is high on their agenda, I'm sorry, I'm not compromising. And I fear for a future in which I get rounded up and arrested or killed just for being myself.
[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;53036586]Honestly things aren't going to chill out. The article talks about how both sides see each other as a legitimate threat to the nation, and, yeah. I can't help but feel that way too. In my opinion the right is a danger to the nation, [i]specifically[/i] me. It isn't a fair difference of opinion when the difference of opinion is that LGBT people and women and minorities should suffer, lose their rights, and have the progress they've made stripped away from them. When discrimination is high on their agenda, I'm sorry, I'm not compromising. And I fear for a future in which I get rounded up and arrested or killed just for being myself.[/QUOTE] You are a part of the problem. Not all republicans or even most of them are a threat to you. It’s beliefs like his that worsen the divide. Don’t just label the right as “racist” or sexist” or a danger. I see why trumps rhetoric could scare you, but he does not represent the entire right, and rightists are still just Americans like you. There are still conservative senators, Govenors, Mayors, Carpenters etc that do not hate you and are not a “danger” to the nation. The vocal minority is deafening but it is a minority. Although I do agree the public stances of the gop lately are extremely worrying, I suspect not all voters think this way.
[QUOTE=Firetornado;53037230]You are a part of the problem. Not all republicans or even most of them are a threat to you. It’s beliefs like his that worsen the divide. Don’t just label the right as “racist” or sexist” or a danger. I see why trumps rhetoric could scare you, but he does not represent the entire right, and rightists are still just Americans like you. There are still conservative senators, Govenors, Mayors, Carpenters etc that do not hate you and are not a “danger” to the nation. The vocal minority is deafening but it is a minority. Although I do agree the public stances of the gop lately are extremely worrying, I suspect not all voters think this way.[/QUOTE] There's a difference between conservative voters and conservative politicians. The politicians are the ones Sandman is referring to and they actively are a detriment to the groups Sandman is talking about. So no. Sandman is not part of the problem, those garbage politicians are the problem.
Right winger politicians have a propensity to be anti lgbt. Right winger folks vote for those politicians regardless. It might not imply they're anti lgbt themselves but it sure as hell shows they don't care. In the best case scenario it means they prioritise tax cuts for the rich over the lgbt/minority wellbeing which is lameoid prime
Okay that’s a fair point, right politicians currently do seem to have it out for lgbt. [editline]9th January 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=Alice3173;53037314]There's a difference between conservative voters and conservative politicians. The politicians are the ones Sandman is referring to and they actively are a detriment to the groups Sandman is talking about. So no. Sandman is not part of the problem, those garbage politicians are the problem.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Firetornado;53037230]You are a part of the problem. Not all republicans or even most of them are a threat to you. It’s beliefs like his that worsen the divide. Don’t just label the right as “racist” or sexist” or a danger. I see why trumps rhetoric could scare you, but he does not represent the entire right, and rightists are still just Americans like you. There are still conservative senators, Govenors, Mayors, Carpenters etc that do not hate you and are not a “danger” to the nation. The vocal minority is deafening but it is a minority. Although I do agree the public stances of the gop lately are extremely worrying, I suspect not all voters think this way.[/QUOTE] If the vocal minority id a minority, why did the silent majority vote for a president who is racist and sexist. That makes no sense. If you vote for it then you are complicit.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.