Where is the Common Ground?

[Tommy Jeppesen]

But there really are empirical facts, and there basically is no rational argument whatsoever to be had which side so much more relies on those empirical facts and which side on the cynical and totally shameless distortion of them.

E.g. slavery is not an empirical facts. It is political.

Or e.g. I don't care about global warming. I don't deny it and that humans play a part. I just don't think that we should do anything about it.

 

[uke2se]

E.g. slavery is not an empirical facts. It is political.

Or e.g. I don't care about global warming. I don't deny it and that humans play a part. I just don't think that we should do anything about it.

Slavery is a historical fact. Global warming is an established scientific fact.

Your attitude towards either is not relevant as long as you accept the fact.

And this is what I'm saying people on the Trump spectrum need to start doing before any common ground can be found. How can we find common ground if we can't even agree on what's real and not?

 

[Frank Newgent]

After 350 posts I think we can safely say that the common ground (sub: in the current US political environment) is that both sides like to belittle the other.

Question answered. Thread closed.

I like presidents that don't get captured.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Slavery is a historical fact. Global warming is an established scientific fact.

Your attitude towards either is not relevant as long as you accept the fact.

And this is what I'm saying people on the Trump spectrum need to start doing before any common ground can be found. How can we find common ground if we can't even agree on what's real and not?

Whether there are slavery or have been or not is a fact. Whether we should accept slavery or not is politics. Whether there is global warming or not is an established scientific fact. What we should do about global warming is politics.

 

[uke2se]

Whether there are slavery or have been or not is a fact. Whether we should accept slavery or not is politics. Whether there is global warming or not is an established scientific fact. What we should do about global warming is politics.

Yes.

It's a fact that there is and has been slavery going on. It's a scientific fact that there is global warming. Glad we agree. That's a small step taken towards common ground.

Sadly, you do not speak for a majority of Trump supporters.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Yes.

It's a fact that there is and has been slavery going on. It's a scientific fact that there is global warming. Glad we agree. That's a small step taken towards common ground.

Sadly, you do not speak for a majority of Trump supporters.

But I am not a Trump supporter. I am a social democrat in the European/Scandinavian sense.

But part of the start of common ground is to accept all humans as humans. That includes Trump supporters. That doesn't mean I agree with them, but that I care for them in general humanistic sense.

 

[uke2se]

But I am not a Trump supporter. I am a social democrat in the European/Scandinavian sense.

But part of the start of common ground is to accept all humans as humans. That includes Trump supporters. That doesn't mean I agree with them, but that I care for them in general humanistic sense.

It would be swell if we could sit everyone down and start with all around acceptance of the humanity of others, but I'm afraid that's just not feasible. That's why we normally accept the shorthand of "reality", where "reality" is the things we all should simply agree on, namely facts. One of those facts is that we're all humans.

The problem as I've described in this thread is that for a not insignificant subset of Americans, "reality" isn't a given anymore, and instead of the rest of us having to try to adopt reality to that significant subset's new "reality", that subset should stop being so ******* pigheaded and simply accept reality as it is.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

It would be swell if we could sit everyone down and start with all around acceptance of the humanity of others, but I'm afraid that's just not feasible. That's why we normally accept the shorthand of "reality", where "reality" is the things we all should simply agree on, namely facts. One of those facts is that we're all humans.

The problem as I've described in this thread is that for a not insignificant subset of Americans, "reality" isn't a given anymore, and instead of the rest of us having to try to adopt reality to that significant subset's new "reality", that subset should stop being so ******* pigheaded and simply accept reality as it is.

Yes, but what to do about that?
Now that ends up being in part psychology and requires approaches used by e.g. social workers. But that is off topic for this sub-forum in some sense.

 

[uke2se]

Yes, but what to do about that?
Now that ends up being in part psychology and requires approaches used by e.g. social workers. But that is off topic for this sub-forum in some sense.

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.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

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.

Yes, that is one way to go and in practice it has to be included to save democracy in the USA.
But to write them off as a totally lost cause might cause other problems.

 

[uke2se]

Yes, that is one way to go and in practice it has to be included to save democracy in the USA.
But to write them off as a totally lost cause might cause other problems.

As far as I'm concerned, until they give up on the racism and make a clean break with Trumpism, they are a lost cause. They are welcome back to the fold of decent humanity whenever they please.

 

[JoeMorgue]

The problem is the people you won't meet halfway on... don't go away.

"Meeting halfway" is important for people who you can just cutoff from in your life.

When they are going to be there not matter what "Meeting them somewhere on something, anything" is sadly sometimes a necessary evil.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

As far as I'm concerned, until they give up on the racism and make a clean break with Trumpism, they are a lost cause. They are welcome back to the fold of decent humanity whenever they please.

So how are you going to treat them until/if they do come around? Can the difference between until versus if be altered by how the rest of society treat them?

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

The problem is the people you won't meet halfway on... don't go away.

"Meeting halfway" is important for people who you can just cutoff from in your life.

When they are going to be there not matter what "Meeting them somewhere on something, anything" is sadly sometimes a necessary evil.

Yeah, how do you treat them as they are still humans. If the common ground is that we are all humans and you treat them like they are not, are you then any different than them.
That is the problem that some liberals don't see.

 

[uke2se]

So how are you going to treat them until/if they do come around? Can the difference between until versus if be altered by how the rest of society treat them?

I'm not going to treat them in any way. I am not going to deal with them, and politicians shouldn't be trying to pander to them. Ignore them until they change their ways.

They can still enjoy all the benefits of living in society. I just don't think we ought to let them have any say in how that society is run, because they have proven themselves incapable of that. That said, we can't disallow them from democratic functions, so we simply need to make their votes drown in other votes.

 

[uke2se]

The problem is the people you won't meet halfway on... don't go away.

"Meeting halfway" is important for people who you can just cutoff from in your life.

When they are going to be there not matter what "Meeting them somewhere on something, anything" is sadly sometimes a necessary evil.

That's true for family members of course. I think, however, that there might come a time where you need to think about cutting off family members who cling to Trumpism. That is, unless you can engage them effectively and at least get them to keep their disgusting views to themselves.

If I had racist family members I would first try to reason with them, then argue with them and if that didn't work, cut them out of my life.

 

[kellyb]

The problem is the people you won't meet halfway on... don't go away.

"Meeting halfway" is important for people who you can just cutoff from in your life.

When they are going to be there not matter what "Meeting them somewhere on something, anything" is sadly sometimes a necessary evil.

One side wants to expand and strengthen the safety net, and the other wants to repeal the New Deal (and has already partially succeeded.)

What does "meeting halfway" look like there?

 

[JoeMorgue]

If I had racist family members I would first try to reason with them, then argue with them and if that didn't work, cut them out of my life.

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.

 

[TragicMonkey]

One side wants to expand and strengthen the safety net, and the other wants to repeal the New Deal (and has already partially succeeded.)

What does "meeting halfway" look like there?

Strengthen the safety net for the rich and remove it entirely for the poor. Compromise!

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

One side wants to expand and strengthen the safety net, and the other wants to repeal the New Deal (and has already partially succeeded.)

What does "meeting halfway" look like there?

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.