Where is the Common Ground?

[uke2se]

As well you should.

But the problem with being... well "too good" has negative connotations I'm not trying to get across but "not willing" to meet halfway with people who are too far gone in an over all society is... they're still in the overall society. A society is not your social circle, you can't choose who's in it.

The people you can't/won't "meet halfway on" are still out there voting and spending their money and affecting change on a social level.

Yes, and those are the people I want marginalized.

I'm not saying we should take away their vote. I'm simply saying that we need to focus on outnumbering them at the polls and then fix the system once we're back in power so that the inbuilt advantage of the GOP is eradicated. That way these people will be politically marginalized.

(I say 'we' but I mean "the Democrats".)

 

[uke2se]

I acknowledge your position. I accept you as a human, but I don't agree with you. I don't hate you or consider you morally wrong. I accept that we disagree and that we want different things.

Ok.

Now, what have you gained by saying that in the struggle for a fair society?

And when the person you're talking to won't make the same concession to you?

ETA: I also think it's wrong to be dishonest. I do consider the people we are talking about "morally wrong".

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Ok.

Now, what have you gained by saying that in the struggle for a fair society?

And when the person you're talking to won't make the same concession to you?

That I don't do like them and treat them as human even if they don't. If I start treating them like non-humans they have won, because I have become like them.

Regards

 

[uke2se]

That I don't do like them and treat them as human even if they don't. If I start treating them like non-humans they have won, because I have become like them.

Regards

But I'm not arguing that we treat them as non-humans. I am arguing we make them politically marginalized.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Ok.

Now, what have you gained by saying that in the struggle for a fair society?

And when the person you're talking to won't make the same concession to you?

ETA: I also think it's wrong to be dishonest. I do consider the people we are talking about "morally wrong".

I apologize for bring up morally wrong.
We have to take that elsewhere. That is philosophy and I am not allowed to answer that in this sub-forum.
My apologies.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

But I'm not arguing that we treat them as non-humans. I am arguing we make them politically marginalized.

Then you have 20-40% of the people, who feel left out and all you want to do, is to ignore them. Are you sure that is going to end well? Don't you want to help them and care for them?

 

[uke2se]

Then you have 20-40% of the people, who feel left out and all you want to do, is to ignore them. Are you sure that is going to end well? Don't you want to help them and care for them?

No, I'm not sure it'll end well. Then again, the current trajectory we're on is almost guaranteed to not end well.

As for help and care, they'll get the same care and help that everyone else is entitled to. I mean, it would be ironic to withold basic societal aid for them given that that's what they are attempting to deprive from other people, but I don't think that's right. Hopefully, within a generation or two, they'll have died off, and with no political representation and no economic incentives to pander to their disgusting views, the eco-chambers feeding them will evaporate as well.

I mean, we could all just fight it out, and that seems to be where it's headed, but I'm trying to avoid that.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

No, I'm not sure it'll end well. Then again, the current trajectory we're on is almost guaranteed to not end well.

As for help and care, they'll get the same care and help that everyone else is entitled to. I mean, it would be ironic to withold basic societal aid for them given that that's what they are attempting to deprive from other people, but I don't think that's right. Hopefully, within a generation or two, they'll have died off, and with no political representation and no economic incentives to pander to their disgusting views, the eco-chambers feeding them will evaporate as well.

I mean, we could all just fight it out, and that seems to be where it's headed, but I'm trying to avoid that.

I understand your position and I actually accept it.

 

[WilliamSeger]

Yes, and those are the people I want marginalized.

I'm not saying we should take away their vote. I'm simply saying that we need to focus on outnumbering them at the polls and then fix the system once we're back in power so that the inbuilt advantage of the GOP is eradicated. That way these people will be politically marginalized.

(I say 'we' but I mean "the Democrats".)

For at least the last three decades, right-wing propaganda has been devoted to driving a wedge down the country, hoping to end up with the bigger half and insisting that the only common ground has to be on their side of the divide. We can't get them to change the game; all we can do now is play to win it.

 

[ahhell]

But I'm not arguing that we treat them as non-humans. I am arguing we make them politically marginalized.

This may have already been clarified but by them to you mean the 40% of folks that approve of Trump? Or some smaller fraction of that group?

I believe that evidence supports the notion that the majority of Trump's support is from a lot of folks that have just sucumbed to pretty well understood biases. Yes they are bigots but xenophobia is as part of human nature as a sex drive. If we can change what they see as their tribe we can mitigate the bigotry some.

Libs are just as bigoted they just have different notion of tribe. It seems to much more about ideology than ethnicity or culture.

On things like AGW, there's a devoted disinformation campaign. I wouldn't blame the victims of that campaign for being misinformed.

 

[uke2se]

This may have already been clarified but by them to you mean the 40% of folks that approve of Trump? Or some smaller fraction of that group?

I believe that evidence supports the notion that the majority of Trump's support is from a lot of folks that have just sucumbed to pretty well understood biases. Yes they are bigots but xenophobia is as part of human nature as a sex drive. If we can change what they see as their tribe we can mitigate the bigotry some.

Libs are just as bigoted they just have different notion of tribe. It seems to much more about ideology than ethnicity or culture.

On things like AGW, there's a devoted disinformation campaign. I wouldn't blame the victims of that campaign for being misinformed.

My point is that the wrongheadedness of these people is doing real damage to society. We can't afford to sit and hope that they'll change their minds. It would be nice if they did, but until then, we ought to make them marginalized.

As for liberals being as bigoted, bollocks.

As for AGW, the people swallowing the disinfo campaign are politically driven to do so. That's why you see it exclusively on the right.

 

[WilliamSeger]

...
Libs are just as bigoted they just have different notion of tribe. It seems to much more about ideology than ethnicity or culture.
...

By the dictionary definition of "bigot" you may be right, but that usage hides more than it reveals, as your false equivalence shows. Yes, I am bigoted against people who hold to ideologies that I find repulsive because they hurt people, but that ideology is of their own choice, and it's something they can change.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I'm being dead serious here but what does, in a democracy, "marginalize" mean that isn't just straight up voter fraud/disenfranchisement.

Now if your opinion is that one side has committed these acts and you are simply undoing them, fine that's perfectly valid.

But there is an air of... sour grapes to the whole "Oh we'll win as soon as the system is fair" argument.

You do have to ask yourself, if even as a hypothetical, what happens when you even the playing field... and you still lose?

So hypothetically... you get rid of gerrymandering. You get rid of voter ID laws. You create a perfectly fair electoral system over an infinite plane of uniform gravity in a friction-less vacuum and you assume perfectly spherical voters.... and you still lose. What then?

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

I'm being dead serious here but what does, in a democracy, "marginalize" mean that isn't just straight up voter fraud/disenfranchisement.

Now if your opinion is that one side has committed these acts and you are simply undoing them, fine that's perfectly valid.

But there is an air of... sour grapes to the whole "Oh we'll win as soon as the system is fair" argument.

You do have to ask yourself, if even as a hypothetical, what happens when you even the playing field... and you still lose?

So hypothetically... you get rid of gerrymandering. You get rid of voter ID laws. You create a perfectly fair electoral system over an infinite plane of uniform gravity in a friction-less vacuum and you assume perfectly spherical voters.... and you still lose. What then?

Then the other side cheated!!!

 

[ahhell]

By the dictionary definition of "bigot" you may be right, but that usage hides more than it reveals, as your false equivalence shows. Yes, I am bigoted against people who hold to ideologies that I find repulsive because they hurt people, but that ideology is of their own choice, and it's something they can change.

The current research does not support this. Most likely, though there are exceptions, you are bigoted against people who are not in your in group, and you have found reasons to justify that. Even if your reasons are pretty good, they probably aren't why you are bigoted against those people.

There is literally research showing people are bigoted against others based on completely arbitrary and meaningless groups. The most commonly mentioned study told people the were either good or bad estimators. They then started showing bias against the other group.

https://youarenotsosmart.com/transcripts/transcript-tribal-psychology/

My point is that the wrongheadedness of these people is doing real damage to society. We can't afford to sit and hope that they'll change their minds. It would be nice if they did, but until then, we ought to make them marginalized.

Well, I'm trying to figure out what percentage of the electorate you want to marginalize.

As for liberals being as bigoted, bollocks.

False, see above. We are all xenophobic to some extent, its just about what we define as the in group or out group. Most of us anyway.

As for AGW, the people swallowing the disinfo campaign are politically driven to do so. That's why you see it exclusively on the right.

True, but again, we all do that.

 

[Distracted1]

My solution is to make them politically marginalized. It's important to understand that they aren't a majority. Getting people to vote who aren't normally voting would go a long way towards making this minority redundant. I believe these people are a lost cause, and the only thing that can be done is to make sure their votes are dilluted by the votes of rational people.

One might observe that the current administration is a result of the "other side" feeling politically marginalized already. Further, it is pretty clear that they recognize that they are not a majority already- hence the gerrymandering and voter ID initiatives.

Consider also that much of what has been uncovered regarding Russian propaganda through social media is designed to exploit this very divide, to the detriment of most of us.

The "other side" may be morally bankrupt, ignorant, cruel, and bigoted, nonetheless they are baked into our society like a marble-cake and simply repressing them for as long as possible is not a long term strategy that shows promise.
Ironically, I make a very similar argument to racists who insist that minorities are inferior to whites and are responsible for much of what is "wrong" with our country.

 

[WilliamSeger]

I'm being dead serious here but what does, in a democracy, "marginalize" mean that isn't just straight up voter fraud/disenfranchisement.

Now if your opinion is that one side has committed these acts and you are simply undoing them, fine that's perfectly valid.

But there is an air of... sour grapes to the whole "Oh we'll win as soon as the system is fair" argument.

You do have to ask yourself, if even as a hypothetical, what happens when you even the playing field... and you still lose?

So hypothetically... you get rid of gerrymandering. You get rid of voter ID laws. You create a perfectly fair electoral system over an infinite plane of uniform gravity in a friction-less vacuum and you assume perfectly spherical voters.... and you still lose. What then?

The only proper liberal answer is, that's what's supposed to happen. I'll grant you, I see plenty of examples of Democrats who don't quite seem to grasp that aspect of a liberal democracy (e.g. Bernie Bros), but we'll see what happens if we ever get anywhere near your hypothetical.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

...We are all xenophobic to some extent, its just about what we define as the in group or out group. Most of us anyway.True, but again, we all do that.

You seem smart. I wish I could pick your brain to learn more.

Back to the Overton window. You said it had moved both good and bad in different sense. Care to explain.

 

[kellyb]

We are all xenophobic to some extent, its just about what we define as the in group or out group. Most of us anyway.True, but again, we all do that.

I think it's actually about how you believe the "other" should be treated.

Liberals might feel just as angry at conservatives as conservatives feel towards, say, minorities, but we actually believe in improving the lot of everyone, in spite of our anger.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

I think it's actually about how you believe the "other" should be treated.

Liberals might feel just as angry at conservatives as conservatives feel towards, say, minorities, but we actually believe in improving the lot of everyone, in spite of our anger.

But some on the left are not liberals and maybe some liberals start to hate so much, that they become like some of those on the right, that they hate.