Where is the Common Ground?

[Mumbles]

I seem to recall:

The last democratic president repeatedly held a hand out to people in the other major political party, asking them to improve legislation, and sometimes outright stating that he would sign a proposal they made. In response, the opposition repeatedly abandoned their own proposals and declated them absolutely horrible.

And now, these same people outright refuse to even speak with their own opposition, hastily scribbling in the margins of their proposals, rushing headlong into votes without the slightest understanding of what they're actually voting on, and in many cases outright stating that they with to punish those who don't vote for them. And, again, they're led by a man who outright refuses to respect the most basic of constitutional rights to various minority groups.

Now, remind me, how is it that the former group "refuses to find common ground", when the latter outright runs away from any such attempt?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Well let's let the whole system burn to the ground to punish the other side for "being a hypocrite" then.

We can sit in the ashes and pat each other on the back about our moral highground.

 

[ponderingturtle]

It seems to me that common ground can only be found with those who reject Trumpism. Trumpists who remain faithful are too far gone and must be made politically marginalized.

How do you marginalize 40% of the population?

 

[WilliamSeger]

So is there any chance of this not turning into another metaphysical wankwank "Prove to me why being a total douchebag for no reason is wrong using only my strawman idea of what I think rationality/logic/etc is" discussion?

I think you're missing a lot if you're distracted by that. Debate is useless without common definition of terms, so any common ground that's really common has to begin there. As we're seeing, there is a difference in definitions. For me, "empathy" might or might not trigger compassion and sympathy. For example, I do try to have empathy for trumpers to the extent that I try to see things from their perspective, and I do have some compassion for how Trumpism is actually hurting them, but I have no sympathy for them at all because they are a self-selected group attracted by abhorrent demagoguery. But that's using my definitions.

 

[JoeMorgue]

How do you marginalize 40% of the population?

Women are 51% of the population and they are largely (and correctly) seen as marginalized.

I humbly await your answer to the version of that statement you are currently making up in your head to argue against.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

My concern these days is that it's not just the extremes that are dehumanizing the opposition. Seems like a tendency that's spreading to the middle too.

Well, it is a tricky question. Has the Overton window moved?

How you answer that, is a part of how you view the dehumanizing and what is the cause and what is the effect?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Debate is useless without common definition of terms.

Can we please stop hiding behind that? Every discussion winding up down an endless recursive rabbit hole of people arguing by purposely not being clear while, oddly, simultaneously never actually putting any effort into being any clearer is not needed.

The English language has nuance and inconsistency. Stop pretending like that's some new concept that just got dropped on us and we're not already used to.

But whatever. Let's keep having every argument here being between the man that says boats can't fly because they don't have wings against with the man who's arguing that boats don't have flies because they don't wear pants even though though it was clear to everybody but them which version of the word "fly" they were each using four pages ago.

 

[WilliamSeger]

Lots of possible reasons. Compassion, for example. Self-preservation, if you like. Empathy isn't required. I need not know anything about another person in order to want them to be safe.

Well, see? You're talking about a different definition of empathy than I was when I said social issues can be viewed along an "empathy-apathy spectrum." For me, compassion is a result of empathy, but only one possible one.

 

[WilliamSeger]

Can we please stop hiding behind that? Every discussion winding up down an endless recursive rabbit hole of people arguing by purposely not being clear while, oddly, simultaneously never actually putting any effort into being any clearer is not needed.

The English language has nuance and inconsistency. Stop pretending like that's some new concept that just got dropped on us and we're not already used to.

But whatever. Let's keep having every argument here being between the man that says boats can't fly because they don't have wings against with the man who's arguing that boats don't have flies because they don't wear pants even though though it was clear to everybody but them which version of the word "fly" they were each using four pages ago.

Yeah, we could skip all that and... what? Set us straight, Joe.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Yeah, we could skip all that and... what? Set us straight, Joe.

Here's a radical idea... communicating like human beings and reading/listening for context instead of dragging the discussion back down to the "LET'S STOP AND THROW DICTIONARIES AT EACH OTHER FOR 20 PAGE!" again and again.

We don't have to recreate the language for every discussion. Words already mean things. That's what a language is.

Jesus Christ how do you people think any discussion ever happens at all? Are you amazed when two people just walk up to each other and somehow manage to have a discussion without first laying out their entire linguistic history to each other?

Wait... how are we even having this discussion? It's madness!

You said "skip." Now how am I, without stopping the discussion to make you spell it out, supposed to know if you meant "skip" to mean "Not take a specific step in a series of actions" or "To locomate using a slight repetitive jumping motion." We simply must stop the conversation there and figure it out.

DARMOK AND JALAD AT TANAGRA!

 

[The Big Dog]

You're not a Trump fan yourself, tho, right? You voted for him for the SCOTUS picks?

tut tut tut, one does not use "Trump fan" one uses "unintelligent Hitlerite" when one is searching for common ground.

Do make a note of it.

 

[kellyb]

Well, see? You're talking about a different definition of empathy than I was when I said social issues can be viewed along an "empathy-apathy spectrum." For me, compassion is a result of empathy, but only one possible one.

Well stated.

But I'm sensing that the argument will be that since people are biased in empathy's application sometimes, the whole thing is bad/dangerous/futile, or something.

 

[ahhell]

Well, it is a tricky question. Has the Overton window moved?

How you answer that, is a part of how you view the dehumanizing and what is the cause and what is the effect?

It definitely has moved. Some for the good and some for the bad.

Can we please stop hiding behind that? Every discussion winding up down an endless recursive rabbit hole of people arguing by purposely not being clear while, oddly, simultaneously never actually putting any effort into being any clearer is not needed.

The English language has nuance and inconsistency. Stop pretending like that's some new concept that just got dropped on us and we're not already used to.

But whatever. Let's keep having every argument here being between the man that says boats can't fly because they don't have wings against with the man who's arguing that boats don't have flies because they don't wear pants even though though it was clear to everybody but them which version of the word "fly" they were each using four pages ago.

To be fair, agreeing on terms seems to be a bigger problem on the internet than in real life. I've seen threads go on for pages with folks arguing mostly because they didn't understand the what other person was saying. So, occasionally, its worth establishing definitions. Often it used to obfuscate though.

 

[kellyb]

tut tut tut, one does not use "Trump fan" one uses "unintelligent Hitlerite" when one is searching for common ground.

Do make a note of it.

It was a serious question. I'm getting the vibe that no, you're not an actual fan of Trump, you just think it's mean to publicly note that his fans are largely dupes, as well as being in conflict with what should be the spirit of this thread.

 

[JoeMorgue]

To be fair, agreeing on terms seems to be a bigger problem on the internet than in real life. I've seen threads go on for pages with folks arguing mostly because they didn't understand the what other person was saying. So, occasionally, its worth establishing definitions. Often it used to obfuscate though.

When linguistic nuance is being used intentionally as an argumentative instead of arising naturally repeatedly stopping the conversation for clarification does not help, indeed it is counter productive.

 

[kellyb]

Here's a radical idea... communicating like human beings and reading/listening for context instead of dragging the discussion back down to the "LET'S STOP AND THROW DICTIONARIES AT EACH OTHER FOR 20 PAGE!" again and again.

We don't have to recreate the language for every discussion. Words already mean things. That's what a language is.

Jesus Christ how do you people think any discussion ever happens at all? Are you amazed when two people just walk up to each other and somehow manage to have a discussion without first laying out their entire linguistic history to each other?

Wait... how are we even having this discussion? It's madness!

You said "skip." Now how am I, without stopping the discussion to make you spell it out, supposed to know if you meant "skip" to mean "Not take a specific step in a series of actions" or "To locomate using a slight repetitive jumping motion." We simply must stop the conversation there and figure it out.

DARMOK AND JALAD AT TANAGRA!

You know this whole empathy mini-discussion is a result of Zig using a very "unconventional", almost unique to him definition of the word in order to argue that empathy is a very bad thing, yes?

 

[JoeMorgue]

You know this whole empathy mini-discussion is a result of Zig using a very "unconventional", almost unique to him definition of the word in order to argue that empathy is a very bad thing, yes?

Are you new to the internet?

The reason the "I'm going to argue using my super special version of a word" tactic works is because we let it.

 

[kellyb]

The reason the "I'm going to argue using my super special version of a word" tactic works is because we let it.

William and I are not letting it work, but you're complaining about us calling it out?

Here's the most recent development on the "what in the world is Zig pulling here" front:

Pure rationality/computation without empathy is useless.

Of course pure logic doesn't suffice. Duh. You need a value system, and compassion (not empathy) should be built into your value system.

What is that nonsense supposed to mean?

 

[JoeMorgue]

*Head desk*

A multi-page discussion arguing about his use of the word is what he wanted.

He wanted you to "call it out" because arguing about his word usage delays you from arguing his point. Forever. In perpetuity.

And he knew full well the discussion would generate a "But we have to clear!" argument from somebody else.

So now we are pages in a discussion still arguing the language and by the time, if ever, we get back to the discussion the language is going to be so muddled and over analyzed that nobody anybody says is going to mean anything. Just like he wanted.

The front flap of my trousers is buzzing around the garbage and Levis now have button up small insects.

Shaka. When the walls fell.

 

[kellyb]

*Head desk*

A multi-page discussion arguing about his use of the word is what he wanted.

He wanted you to "call it out" because arguing about his word usage delays you from arguing his point. Forever. In perpetuity.

And he knew full well the discussion would generate a "But we have to clear!" argument from somebody else.

So now we are pages in a discussion still arguing the language and by the time, if ever, we get back to the discussion the language is going to be so muddled and over analyzed that nobody anybody says is going to mean anything. Just like he wanted.

The front flap of my trousers is buzzing around the garbage and Levis now have button up small insects.

Shaka. When the walls fell.

Or maybe he actually hates empathy.
That is an actual distinct possibility, too.
That stuff is kind of a thing with libertarians.