Who are you voting for?

[Mila_]

Such a tendentious reading of my summary of an academic's attempt to do what they do best: to try to systematically understand the world around them, and to share that knowledge. (Or maybe you actually read the article, in which case, I'd be interested in your reaction to it.) Understanding leads to empathy and the finding of common ground, which supplants erroneous stereotypes on both sides. These are generally regarded as Good Things.

The left doesn't engage with common sense workers at all. They simply try to "explain the phenomenon" because they don't think people who dissent are on their same level.​

Reading the article, it seems like the author was nothing but engaged. She was seeking systematic understanding, beyond anecdotes and stereotypes, that can be published and then read by those who most need this understanding.

Instead of looking at people who disagree like equals who are part of the same society, the left sees dissent as an error that must be fixed.​

The tea party/Trump followers are equals, but in some senses they are not part of the same society as everyone else. "The Left" or academia, or whatever you want to call it, recognizes that this is not healthy for society as a whole nor for the political system, and so they have been trying to understand it, which is a precondition to doing something about it (not "fixing" it).

This is how you treat someone like an equal: you debate with them on an equal footing.

This is how you treat someone with condescension: you write an article and a book like the ones you linked.

I SPENT 5 YEARS WITH SOME OF TRUMP'S BIGGEST FANS. HERE'S WHAT THEY WON'T TELL YOU.
How Donald Trump took a narrative of unfairness and twisted it to his advantage.

Even the title of the article is awful. Even putting aside how clickbaity it is, he communicates right away that he thinks Trump's voters are being manipulated into voting for him, like they are so dumb they can't even tell. The description of his book is very telling too:

In Strangers in Their Own Land, the renowned sociologist Arlie Hochschild embarks on a thought-provoking journey from her liberal hometown of Berkeley, California, deep into Louisiana bayou country—a stronghold of the conservative right.

This book is just another flavor of this: "I traveled to Congo and went to the forest for a month to live side to side with a band of Gorillas, I studied their habits and this is my report"

Or worse yet: "I spent a month with the yanomami indians in the Amazonian jungle and you wont believe what primitive beliefs they have about the world!"

You see how that can be insulting? The intellectual class has their head so up their own asses they can't even see why people think they are pompous shits.

This is how you write a neutral book where you treat people like they were your equals:



This is the type of book that people love and praise on the Right. This is the book that convinced me that I am not a libertarian but something else entirely. It doesn't look or read the same way as the thing you posted because the author didn't go in with preconceived notions. He didnt interview their subjects assuming they were "wrong" from the start. He just listened to everybody with an open mind and tried to actually find an answer to his question, to understand what the differences are.

Edit: the book is really good and shows all the differences in a very clear and honest way. I recommend it to anyone, no matter what your political beliefs are. You will walk away understanding the other side.

 

[JoleneBrody]

This is the first step, and it is much easier said than done: shutting down the propaganda on the right. Damned if I know how it can be done.

It is not the politicians. It is the politicians, the pundits, and the pastors. They encourage ignorance and bigotry. They demonize education and government. The more they dumb down their base, the dumber their base demands for them to be. They are caught in an infinite loop of lies and stupidity. They will drag America to the bottom if something does not change.

I'm speaking very generally here, of course. Not saying all on the right are like this; but we have definitely achieved critical mass.

I see the flaws on the left too. I've run afoul of the PC crowd myself. But the problems there are a molehill compared to the mountain of dysfunction on the right.

But hey...
as long as somebody profits...
it's all good...

Yeah I think it's good to specify the far right or religious right. I've known and admired soooooo many fiscal republicans who I don't think are really even attending the same bbq as the far right.

And I agree with @Kitsune with her above statement, it's actually something I've been pondering a lot lately. "The liberals" are demonized and talked down to like some jobless hippies and "the conservatives" are treated like a bunch of backwoods snake dancing rednecks.
Obviously both parties do contain these people, but the majority of either party are just every day normal people. I get it though, it's often the loudest most combative people who are seen are the loudest is not always the best representative.
This is actually an issue I have with Trump. I think he's embarrassing the Republican Party and stuffing them so far down the shitter they may not be able to recover and that's Sad to me. Our governments needs strong smart caring individuals from all parties to come together, combine ideas and create something great together.
I know... Seems like a laughable thought now but it IS the way things are supposed to work.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

This is how you treat someone like an equal: you debate with them on an equal footing.

This is how you treat someone with condescension: you write an article and a book like the ones you linked.



Even the title of the article is awful. Even putting aside how clickbaity it is, he communicates right away that he thinks Trump's voters are being manipulated into voting for him, like they are so dumb they can't even tell. The description of his book is very telling too:



This book is just another flavor of this: "I traveled to Congo and went to the forest for a month to live side to side with a band of Gorillas, I studied their habits and this is my report"

Or worse yet: "I spent a month with the yanomami indians in the Amazonian jungle and you wont believe what primitive beliefs they have about the world!"

You see how that can be insulting? The intellectual class has their head so up their own asses they can't even see why people think they are pompous shits.

This is how you write a neutral book where you treat people like they were your equals:

View attachment 65301

This is the type of book that people love and praise on the Right. This is the book that convinced me that I am not a libertarian but something else entirely. It doesn't look or read the same way as the thing you posted because the author didn't go in with preconceived notions. He didnt interview their subjects assuming they were "wrong" from the start. He just listened to everybody and tried to actually understand what the differences are.

You sound like someone crying out for a reason to find offense. You sound like a victim.

Is there any particular reason you could not read both books, glean what truth might be in both, and discard the remainder?
Must one be rejected in favor of the other? One demonized, the other glorified?
The book you cited was written by someone from the intellectual class, no?

 

[Osmia]

This is how you treat someone like an equal: you debate with them on an equal footing.

This is how you treat someone with condescension: you write an article and a book like the ones you linked.

Even the title of the article is awful. Even putting aside how clickbaity it is, he communicates right away that he thinks Trump's voters are being manipulated into voting for him, like they are so dumb they can't even tell. The description of his book is very telling too:

This book is just another flavor of this: "I traveled to Congo and went to the forest for a month to live side to side with a band of Gorillas, I studied their habits and this is my report"

Or worse yet: "I spent a month with the yanomami indians in the Amazonian jungle and you wont believe what primitive beliefs they have about the world!"

You see how that can be insulting? The intellectual class has their head so up their own asses they can't even see why people think they are pompous shits.

This is how you write a neutral book where you treat people like they were your equals:

View attachment 65301

This is the type of book that people love and praise on the Right. This is the book that convinced me that I am not a libertarian but something else entirely. It doesn't look or read the same way as the thing you posted because the author didn't go in with preconceived notions. He didnt interview their subjects assuming they were "wrong" from the start. He just listened to everybody with an open mind and tried to actually find an answer to his question, to understand what the differences are.

Edit: the book is really good and shows all the differences in a very clear and honest way. I recommend it to anyone, no matter what your political beliefs are. You will walk away understanding the other side.

I honestly don't know what to say . . . You've made so many unsupported assertions about Hochschild's motivations and methodology. Her article and the resulting book are not in the same genre as Haidt's book. She's a social scientist who does fieldwork, and she studies people and social phenomena--mainly Americans, judging by the books she's written--not gorillas and not primitive societies in South America. But sometimes, the methodologies have similarities. If you need to immerse yourself in the subject of your studies, you have to go where they are and be with them. I don't see how this is necessarily condescension (though it could be). Her article was published in a popular magazine (i.e., not an academic journal) so of course the title is clickbait-y.

You said, "I recommend [the Haidt book] to anyone, no matter what your political beliefs are. You will walk away understanding the other side." Now that you've read it, do you understand the left/liberal side? You say something like "...the intellectual class has their head so up their own asses they can't even see why people think they are pompous shits." In that statement, I detect contempt and anger, way out of proportion to the matters being discussed; I do not hear understanding.

I'll read Haidt's book (I've already downloaded it to my ipad), because it's got good ratings and reviews and looks like it will illuminate the psychological and moral antecedents of what we're talking about here.

 

[Mila_]

I honestly don't know what to say . . . You've made so many unsupported assertions about Hochschild's motivations and methodology. Her article and the resulting book are not in the same genre as Haidt's book. She's a social scientist who does fieldwork, and she studies people and social phenomena--mainly Americans, judging by the books she's written--not gorillas and not primitive societies in South America. But sometimes, the methodologies have similarities. If you need to immerse yourself in the subject of your studies, you have to go where they are and be with them. I don't see how this is necessarily condescension (though it could be). Her article was published in a popular magazine (i.e., not an academic journal) so of course the title is clickbait-y.

You said, "I recommend [the Haidt book] to anyone, no matter what your political beliefs are. You will walk away understanding the other side." Now that you've read it, do you understand the left/liberal side? You say something like "...the intellectual class has their head so up their own asses they can't even see why people think they are pompous shits." In that statement, I detect contempt and anger, way out of proportion to the matters being discussed; I do not hear understanding.

I'll read Haidt's book (I've already downloaded it to my ipad), because it's got good ratings and reviews and looks like it will illuminate the psychological and moral antecedents of what we're talking about here.

I do have beef with the people in power which is mostly the intellectual class, and I do think they have their head up their asses. Not everyone, obviously, there are intellectuals who are honest and who are intriguing like Haidt who, by the way, is a democrat. But he is doing a disservice to his ideology by publishing this book which contradicts so many things the left shills for, so he probably faced cold shoulders in places like Berkeley who aren't fond of intellectual diversity even when his values do match up. What makes Haidt stand out is there is intellectual honesty to him that is not present in much of the liberal arts university world.

According to Haidt's and other important political morality theories (such as the Moral Foundations theory) people's morality is determined by their genes, it is hereditary, and it is not rational, it comes from gut reactions to things they see. When someone agrees or disagrees with something it is usually the result of a very basic instinct. For example, most people will react right away if they see someone kick a dog. You don't need to think whether it is a good or bad thing, your gut screams: "MAKE IT STOP!" it is the same way with most moral values.

In that regard it isn't hard as a conservative to understand what values rule the mind of a true liberal (not the vultures that use them). An idealist liberal moves in 2 basic moral foundations: the care/harm foundation which is the most important thing in their moral world (save the dog! save the children! save the poor! save the environment! etc), and the liberty/oppression foundation (fight the rich, fight the powerful, bring power to the people. They share this foundation with libertarians). Since a conservative shares these 2 moral foundations he can usually understand where liberals come from which is why you will hardly ever see a conservative labeling people on the left unreasonable, of being "the far left!" or "talibans!" as often as liberals do to them.

The problem is actually the other way around. Liberals often don't understand conservative values because they don't share them. It is similar to the way a libertarian treats a liberal because they don't understand the care/harm foundation. To a libertarian taxation is theft because they don't feel a gut instinct to help their fellow human who is in a rough spot in the same way a liberal does.

Conservatives feel all 6 dimensions of morality, the ones that liberals feel, plus other dimensions that liberals don't feel. These are the dimensions that liberals have a hard time understanding:

Fairness/cheating: to a liberal the concept of cheating relates only to equality. People who make much more than others are "cheating" in the liberal mind regardless of how they made their fortune. But a conservative thinks in terms of proportionality. People should receive in the proportion in which they give. So if someone works harder than everyone else he should receive more than everyone else. Even if that means that there will be inequality. If someone doesn't work he isn't entitled to the earnings of those who did. When a conservative tries to explain this to a liberal the liberal thinks he lacks the care/harm foundation, that the conservative doesnt care about poor families or hungry children. Conservatives care, they just don't care to the expense of fairness, so it isn't the only thing they see.

Loyalty/betrayal: this relates to in-group loyalty so it is the basis for ideas of patriotism, nationalism, pride and tradition. In my opinion this foundation is possibly the most problematic for liberals to understand. Because not only do they not understand this value, they actively fight it with all their might. I recently read an article about a couple who give away 50% of what they make to poor villages in Africa. The husband's mother was sick with cancer and they refused to give her money because it would be taking money away from africans who need it more than her. The article argued that in order to be truly good you need to give your money to people who are completely unrelated to you. This paragraph from that article sums it up nicely:

The usual way to do good is to help those near you: a person grows up in a particular place, perceives that something is wrong there, and sets out to fix it. Or a person’s job suddenly requires heroism of him and he rises to the occasion – he might be a priest whose church becomes a refuge in wartime, or a nurse working in a hospital at the start of a plague. He may not know personally the people he is helping, but he has something in common with them – they are, in some sense, his people. Then there is another sort of person, who starts out with something more abstract – a sense of injustice in the world at large and a longing for goodness as such. This person feels obliged to right wrongs or relieve suffering, but he does not know right away how to do that, so he sets himself to figuring it out. He does not feel that he must attend first to people close to him: he is moved not by a sense of belonging but by the urge to do as much good as he can. The do-gooders I am talking about are this second sort of person.

You can read the rest of the article here: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ould-you-care-for-strangers-as-much-as-family

It is an interesting difference in world view, you see, since the liberal has no grasp of loyalty/betrayal he sacrifices that moral dimension in the altar of care/harm. Since the only value that truly matters is to take care of people who are struggling then the only thing that you must take into account is who is suffering more. The conservative understands taking care of people suffering, he just has to balance that feeling with the feeling of loyalty he feels towards his people.

But liberals often mock this and call this natural instinct regressive, even evil. Talking about nationalism for the left is a sin akin to calling yourself a nazi. Feeling proud of your group or of who you are beyond what your profession is, is something that the left finds insulting. So anyone voting for Trump who promises to "Make America Great Again" is a fanatic! How dare you want to Make America Great Again when there are other countries suffering more? Why don't you want to Make Mexico Great Again too? You must be Hitler.

Authority/subversion: this foundation is about hierarchy. Accepting vertical order or revolting against it. The conservative mind likes order, vertical order, the idea that there is a leader and followers, or an elite of people who are better than others at what they do, etc. But when a liberal sees hierarchy all he sees is oppression/liberty, they think any vertical order is arbitrary and most be abolished in order to end oppression.

Sanctity/degradation: a conservative feels a gut reaction when they see someone use the American flag to clean a toilet. Or when someone spits on a religious symbol like the cross. A liberal doesn't so he doesn't understand what the fuzz is about. It is even funny to a liberal to do these things just to irk the nearest conservative, which is why many pieces of modern art revolve around things like putting a toilet in a museum.

If you like this theory and are interested in learning more you can take tests on their website to see how you score in the moral foundations. Here is the link: http://www.yourmorals.org/explore.php

 

[JoleneBrody]

This is the mindset that most regular people from the working class hate about the left: that they are mainly an intellectual class who looks at them over the shoulder with condescension.

The left doesn't engage with common sense workers at all. They simply try to "explain the phenomenon" because they don't think people who dissent are on their same level. Instead of looking at people who disagree like equals who are part of the same society, the left sees dissent as an error that must be fixed

This is the post I was referring to when I said "above post"... That's what I get for replying before reading further and seeing she had more posts, sorry if I was confusing.

 

[JoleneBrody]

It is an interesting difference in world view, you see, since the liberal has no grasp of loyalty/betrayal he sacrifices that moral dimension in the altar of care/harm. Since the only value that truly matters is to take care of people who are struggling then the only thing that you must take into account is who is suffering more. The conservative understands taking care of people suffering, he just has to balance that feeling with the feeling of loyalty he feels towards his people.

But liberals often mock this and call this natural instinct regressive, even evil. Talking about nationalism for the left is a sin akin to calling yourself a nazi. Feeling proud of your group or of who you are beyond what your profession is, is something that the left finds insulting. So anyone voting for Trump who promises to "Make America Great Again" is a fanatic! How dare you want to Make America Great Again when there are other countries suffering more? Why don't you want to Make Mexico Great Again too? You must be Hitler.

I don't think I could possibly disagree with this more, as a mostly liberal I'm dumbfounded by how you came to this conclusion. The majority of people (both pubs, dems and liberts) I know that do not like the "Make America Great Again" logo feel that way because the statement insinuates that america is not great currently and that strikes a chord with their patriotism. It feels very similar to pick up artist Negging, and that puts people on edge.

 

[Mila_]

I don't think I could possibly disagree with this more, as a mostly liberal I'm dumbfounded by how you came to this conclusion. The majority of people (both pubs, dems and liberts) I know that do not like the "Make America Great Again" logo feel that way because the statement insinuates that america is not great currently and that strikes a chord with their patriotism. It feels very similar to pick up artist Negging, and that puts people on edge.

The MAGA bit was just a joke to paint the picture of what I was trying to say. I have never actually read anyone criticizing MAGA by telling people to Make Mexico Great Again because that would mean they are okay with the concept of Mexico being a separate entity to the US. And that is a badwhite thing to do. Goodwhites don't want Mexico to be Great Again either, their idea of greatness is Making America Mexico Again.

No, the criticism from liberals I have actually heard when it comes to MAGA has more to do with this idea:
"When was America great according to Trump huh? When there was slavery? When we had segregation? When we burned witches? When we engaged in wars in all the world? When we toyed with south american countries by imposing dictators there? When gays couldn't get married? Is this the America these badwhites want to bring back? I dont think America was a great country and I am not ashamed to admit it" Not very patriotic, I don't think.

When I hear liberal leaders like Barack Obama drone on and on about all the ways in which America is evil, I don't feel they (or their voters) believe America is (or ever was) Great. I will use Obama as an example since he was voted by an overwhelming majority of liberals many of whom still defend him and identify with him.

Michelle Obama said that the first time she felt proud of America was when her husband was elected president.


"For the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country not because my husband has done well but because people are hungry for change"

If America is already great, why aren't you proud? Why do you want to change it? The liberal first lady doesn't sound very patriotic to me.

Anyone who simply looks at the factual evidence as to whether Obama loves America, or does not, will find remarkably little to suggest love and a large amount of evidence, over a long period of years, showing his hostility towards America. His association to Jeremiah Wright was just one in a long series of such people he related to. Not very patriotic, in my opinion.

Barack Obama's campaign promise to "fundamentally change the United States of America" hardly suggests pride or love. In his international speaking tour in 2009, he told foreign audiences all around the world that America was to blame for problems on the world stage.

The liberal left voted Obama into the White House even though he never showed love or pride for his country. Why should I assume the left loves America when everything I see in the liberal leaning media and from their leaders is shame and rejection for American values? When they applaud a president that bows to Saudi princes, the Emperor of Japan and other historic foes while giving his back to every ally the US has? I dont think that shows much patriotism at all.

Then you have to see strong movements within the left like Occupy Wallstreet burning the American flag or groups like Black Lives Matter or feminists saying that America is an oppressive patriarchal society that is responsible for injustice and inequality all across the globe. What I can see from liberals around me is they do not feel proud about what America is. They dont feel proud of America's history or heritage either. They want to change it so they can then be proud.

The criticism towards Trump's campaign from many people, I think you included, has to do with nationalism being something only a badwhite feels, and goodwhites are very much against borders and for globalism, embracing other cultures even if that fundamentally changes the nature of the country. That goes against the feeling of loyalty for the in-group and in favor of abolishing any distinction that makes your group a separate entity. Which is what my MAGA comment was about.

 

[LuckySmiles]

The difference is simple as this. (And I count myself as one of the people that's always been good at toeing the line, I don't think either group is an idiot and I can tell why both think certain things because I thought them too)

I will look at the difference between someone who makes it "out of the hood" and doesn't. To see the difference and problems in the society. And hood is not racist in my world the same as American as a a term is not racist, because anyone can be any color from any country in both places.

I will look at what one person had and one person didn't. Maybe it was a different family, maybe it was the opportunity and the bus one kid took and hour and a half to a different school everyday, etc. etc. I will not blame one person over the other, or necessarily praise but I can see the difference and know what needs to be worked on.

A sociology professor from USC Berkeley is just sitting there saying look at this group of people! how fascinating! And seemingly cherry picking details to fit an argument about an entire group of people that are just like some sort of sociological experiment, from their PHD thesis....

This is where the disconnect is. It's not that people on the right "hate smart people" as more liberals would like to be true. It's the tone... it's the I'm telling you right here right where I am that most people are not racist, that most people are not sexist or America is a great place...

And someone will inevitably tell me how I'm wrong... that I'm the one that lives in a bubble...because of some class they took in school... or because of something some sociology professor wrote an article about....or because of isolated examples...

But I'm the most annoying person to argue with(and lately a bit louder or textier about it) because I took all those classes too!! Or I thought all those same ideas too at some point!! Or had a friend one time that had something that was bad that had happened! Or something happened to me!

So I know where it comes from, and I know what parts are rooted in truth and aren't.
And I rejected the ones that didn't make any sense in real life. What does not add up to the truth.

You don't need to be a rocket scientist in terms of politics. Here's an experiment if you want to be scientific about it. Go look up the most dangerous cities in America right now.... (spoiler alert... NYC, LA, Chicago, are not on that list, they are big but not the statistically most dangerous) And then look up the mayors and tell me what party is overwhelmingly represented in those cities.... hint hint.... you already know.

And if they are middle american economies that have or are going under... what happened to change those economies leading them to that point of crime? etc etc.

That's why Detroit is such a harped on example, because it is such a big one and it was also once the richest city in America. But there are so many places that are exactly the same on a smaller scale. They should serve as a warning, the rest of America is not magically immune to this.
And the only way to bring them back is through entrepreneurship and education and new ideas and new resources to build new economies.... What is America even known for at this point? I go to costa rica and they tell me it's their rice and pineapples and melons, WTF is america's brand aside from war? (I know the answers but I'm making a dramatic point)

but democrats tend to just promise to give more people money and stick it to the man.... when other people are trying to build entire businesses and communities that are sustainable. It's quite frustrating to say the least!!!

 

[Osmia]

The MAGA bit was just a joke to paint the picture of what I was trying to say. I have never actually read anyone criticizing MAGA by telling people to Make Mexico Great Again because that would mean they are okay with the concept of Mexico being a separate entity to the US. And that is a badwhite thing to do. Goodwhites don't want Mexico to be Great Again either, their idea of greatness is Making America Mexico Again.

No, the criticism from liberals I have actually heard when it comes to MAGA has more to do with this idea:
"When was America great according to Trump huh? When there was slavery? When we had segregation? When we burned witches? When we engaged in wars in all the world? When we toyed with south american countries by imposing dictators there? When gays couldn't get married? Is this the America these badwhites want to bring back? I dont think America was a great country and I am not ashamed to admit it" Not very patriotic, I don't think.

When I hear liberal leaders like Barack Obama drone on and on about all the ways in which America is evil, I don't feel they (or their voters) believe America is (or ever was) Great. I will use Obama as an example since he was voted by an overwhelming majority of liberals many of whom still defend him and identify with him.

Michelle Obama said that the first time she felt proud of America was when her husband was elected president.


"For the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country not because my husband has done well but because people are hungry for change"

If America is already great, why aren't you proud? Why do you want to change it? The liberal first lady doesn't sound very patriotic to me.

Anyone who simply looks at the factual evidence as to whether Obama loves America, or does not, will find remarkably little to suggest love and a large amount of evidence, over a long period of years, showing his hostility towards America. His association to Jeremiah Wright was just one in a long series of such people he related to. Not very patriotic, in my opinion.

Barack Obama's campaign promise to "fundamentally change the United States of America" hardly suggests pride or love. In his international speaking tour in 2009, he told foreign audiences all around the world that America was to blame for problems on the world stage.

The liberal left voted Obama into the White House even though he never showed love or pride for his country. Why should I assume the left loves America when everything I see in the liberal leaning media and from their leaders is shame and rejection for American values? When they applaud a president that bows to Saudi princes, the Emperor of Japan and other historic foes while giving his back to every ally the US has? I dont think that shows much patriotism at all.

Then you have to see strong movements within the left like Occupy Wallstreet burning the American flag or groups like Black Lives Matter or feminists saying that America is an oppressive patriarchal society that is responsible for injustice and inequality all across the globe. What I can see from liberals around me is they do not feel proud about what America is. They dont feel proud of America's history or heritage either. They want to change it so they can then be proud.

The criticism towards Trump's campaign from many people, I think you included, has to do with nationalism being something only a badwhite feels, and goodwhites are very much against borders and for globalism, embracing other cultures even if that fundamentally changes the nature of the country. That goes against the feeling of loyalty for the in-group and in favor of abolishing any distinction that makes your group a separate entity. Which is what my MAGA comment was about.

I'll respond to your previous post, which I liked a lot, in a bit.

But I think much of the problem here, the disagreement, is due to the use of extremes, of hyperbole, to represent one side or the other. For example, loving one's country (which I do) isn't black and white. Everyone falls somewhere on a continuum, as do the underlying psychological and moral qualities. So, for the sake of polemic and clarity, it may sometimes be useful to express these ideas as extremes or stereotypes, but it is harmful to everyone, and to society, to think in those extreme terms as a routine matter. I'm not saying this as a criticism of you, because everyone does it. If the goal is to achieve better understanding between "left" and "right", we need to learn about each other as non-judgmentally as possible, and speak about each other as non-judgmentally as possible.

I wonder what you think about the question of why this polarization seems to be so much worse in the last couple of decades. Maybe this is discussed in Haidt's book? One reason I've read again and again is that people are tending to live near/with others with a similar background (and probably similar political outlook). I recall someone on a forum (not sure if it was ACF) who recalled his childhood 40 or 50 years ago, and noted that on his block there was a doctor and a plumber, and a variety people of other jobs. That's almost inconceivable these days. I think the advent of the Internet has something to do with it, since it disrupted the monolithic TV networks and facilitated news and content from all perspectives.

 

[Mila_]

I'll respond to your previous post, which I liked a lot, in a bit.

But I think much of the problem here, the disagreement, is due to the use of extremes, of hyperbole, to represent one side or the other. For example, loving one's country (which I do) isn't black and white. Everyone falls somewhere on a continuum, as do the underlying psychological and moral qualities. So, for the sake of polemic and clarity, it may sometimes be useful to express these ideas as extremes or stereotypes, but it is harmful to everyone, and to society, to think in those extreme terms as a routine matter. I'm not saying this as a criticism of you, because everyone does it. If the goal is to achieve better understanding between "left" and "right", we need to learn about each other as non-judgmentally as possible, and speak about each other as non-judgmentally as possible.

I wonder what you think about the question of why this polarization seems to be so much worse in the last couple of decades. Maybe this is discussed in Haidt's book? One reason I've read again and again is that people are tending to live near/with others with a similar background (and probably similar political outlook). I recall someone on a forum (not sure if it was ACF) who recalled his childhood 40 or 50 years ago, and noted that on his block there was a doctor and a plumber, and a variety people of other jobs. That's almost inconceivable these days. I think the advent of the Internet has something to do with it, since it disrupted the monolithic TV networks and facilitated news and content from all perspectives.

Haidt does touch on the "bubble" subject a bit since it was one of the things that motivated him to do his research. He talks a little bit about how most people gravitate towards people who think and feel the same way the do, and how they surround themselves with people with similar ideas and pull away from people they disagree with until all they see around them reinforces their own views. And eventually you just stop seeing the other side completely. One example is facebook... how people unfriend others in facebook simply because they post things that they disagree with politically. For most people that is very difficult to swallow because morality, he says, is a gut reaction. So it can be upsetting. They just dont want to be around these people any longer.

But that "bubble" in my opinion is not symmetrical. Since progressives have control of most media and the education system, conservatives are forced to be exposed to liberal propaganda every day and develop tolerance to that different point of view, while liberals hardly ever are exposed to the other side. Before you ask about Fox News, they are only conservative when it comes to the economy and maaaaaybe religion. But they are progressives in everything else. When it comes to culture and nationalism and borders they are just as leftist as CNN.

Addressing the "stereotyping" that you talk about, we all have to make some generalizations to talk about things or we couldn't even understand each other. So there could be liberals who love the US and dislike Obama, who think Michelle Obama's speech is sad, but they are not representative. There could be a liberal or two who are only liberal because they believe in the economic principles like equality and progressive taxation, but we can agree that the economy is not ideology. Which is why being "fiscally conservative" like Fox News is the only brand of" right-wing" the left accepts.. because someone who is fiscally conservative isn't really really right wing, they are only conservative in practical matters which means the left wins the battle from the very beginning cause ideology rules over practical ideas every time.

So... is it a stereotype or a generalization to say that liberals blamed the US for 9/11? Sure... does that mean it is inaccurate? Not necessarily. Many liberals did blame America for 9/11 like somehow the US deserved an attack for his policies in the Middle East. The same people accuse the US of being guilty of islamic terrorism... of ISIS. Like it is the fault of badwhites that muslims radicalize. Not all liberals, surely some disagree with this statement, but the most representative group, the group that holds power and has leadership does.

This is actually something that the left uses often to obscure the truth. They try to paint everything as so complex that it is impossible to describe (when the debate is taking a turn they don't like). So say you are debating Chomsky about.. uh.. Nicaragua and the Sandinistas.. he will bring forth a sea of data and tiny details to make it seem like the subject is so complex that it is impossible to draw any conclusions. But that is obviously not true. Sure, if we are studying something we should make an effort to be precise, but we need to make generalizations in order to talk to each other about things.

 

[Lili_xo]

Barack Obama's campaign promise to "fundamentally change the United States of America" hardly suggests pride or love. In his international speaking tour in 2009, he told foreign audiences all around the world that America was to blame for problems on the world stage.

The liberal left voted Obama into the White House even though he never showed love or pride for his country. Why should I assume the left loves America when everything I see in the liberal leaning media and from their leaders is shame and rejection for American values?

if USA is so bad then GTFO!!

there are ppl who love this country the way it is and are honest about their feelings and frankly I personally had enough of all the all kind of criticizm of USA and american values - to ppl who dont like USA pls just go...this planet is huge and there are already countries who have the systems you propose just do google search to find your perfect place

 

[Lili_xo]

All this constant criticizm of USA makes me feel insecure and worried bout America. I will fight back. Some of ppl out there think is something super original and genius their socialistic ideas but it has been done so many times before there is nothing original about it. Nothing. This is a copy cat of ideas which destroyed other lands some of them very beautiful lands. Definition of doing same thing over and over and expecting different results is insanity.I really dont get it why would anyone want to fundamentally change USA but i figure they think they get a lot of free stuff that way. Well the truth is you end up with lots of monopoly kind of money and no products to buy. If you want that I can recommend a dozen countries that already have that. No need to change USA. You will find your paradise faster just getting on a plane.

 

[Gen]

if USA is so bad then GTFO!!

there are ppl who love this country the way it is and are honest about their feelings and frankly I personally had enough of all the all kind of criticizm of USA and american values - to ppl who dont like USA pls just go...this planet is huge and there are already countries who have the systems you propose just do google search to find your perfect place

Does this not apply to Trump and his supporters who want to make America great again, which is a slogan completely based on changing the country? Should they leave? Or can we all agree that wanting change doesn't necessarily mean hating your country? Trying to shut down criticism seems like the opposite of American values to me. A strong country can, and should, stand up to criticism and I think discussing politics/the country and voting for politicians who will guide your country to where you feel it should be is a good thing.

I love Canada, and there are a lot of things I wish would change about it. It's ridiculous to act as if those are mutually exclusive.

 

[Lili_xo]

what is this exactly? i dont get it...

 

[JoleneBrody]

Genuine question.

Do you think people who lean heavier towards being empaths, are more frequently democrats?

I'm not insinuating republicans have no empathy, btw. But thinking about personality types and what not.
I'm a severe empath, my heart bleeds for the horrors of the world and I want deeply for everyone to love one another so badly it can be a negative influence on my life.
I agree with some fiscal issues on the republican side, but my heart has always led to dem because to my personality type... The Dems offer the positive dreams for humanity that my gut and soul feels the strongest connection too.

But obviously not everyone is an empath. I feel like a Twitter poll!

 

[EspiKvlt]

@JoleneBrody While I'm not a democrat, I am really liberal and I am also an empath (I literally cry when people step on bugs, it's bad).

 

[JoleneBrody]

@JoleneBrody While I'm not a democrat, I am really liberal and I am also an empath (I literally cry when people step on bugs, it's bad).

Same! Dems adapt liberal ideas more but agreed. I'm not a dem either but def a liberal. I would probably be the endangered "liberal republican" if there were any room for them in the party anymore.
Most people probably didn't even know that was a thing.
It was.

 

[Mila_]

Does this not apply to Trump and his supporters who want to make America great again, which is a slogan completely based on changing the country? Should they leave? Or can we all agree that wanting change doesn't necessarily mean hating your country? Trying to shut down criticism seems like the opposite of American values to me. A strong country can, and should, stand up to criticism and I think discussing politics/the country and voting for politicians who will guide your country to where you feel it should be is a good thing.

I love Canada, and there are a lot of things I wish would change about it. It's ridiculous to act as if those are mutually exclusive.

MAGA isn't about changing America, on the contrary, it is going back to what America has been traditionally since it was founded. The word "again" is a rejection to all the failed leftist policies that are trying to steer america into a socialism direction.

Genuine question.

Do you think people who lean heavier towards being empaths, are more frequently democrats?

I'm not insinuating republicans have no empathy, btw. But thinking about personality types and what not.
I'm a severe empath, my heart bleeds for the horrors of the world and I want deeply for everyone to love one another so badly it can be a negative influence on my life.
I agree with some fiscal issues on the republican side, but my heart has always led to dem because to my personality type... The Dems offer the positive dreams for humanity that my gut and soul feels the strongest connection too.

But obviously not everyone is an empath. I feel like a Twitter poll!

I do think idealist leftists are predominantly "feelers" which is why they care so much about helping people in need sometimes even to the detriment of common sense. When you look at MBTI types, progressives are often F+P: ENFP, ESFP, ISFP, INFP.

I make the distinction of "idealist leftist" because not everyone on the left wing is in it for the ideals, some people just want to take advantage and gain power, others want attention (tumblrinas come to mind), and others are simply sheeple who follow the current and dont think too much.

 

[EspiKvlt]

lol I'm an INFP

 

[Nordling]

Same! Dems adapt liberal ideas more but agreed. I'm not a dem either but def a liberal. I would probably be the endangered "liberal republican" if there were any room for them in the party anymore.
Most people probably didn't even know that was a thing.
It was.

Yeah, my best friend in HS was a conservative, Goldwater Republican...years later at a reunion, he told me he was still a republican but on the extreme, left wing. He gained empathy.

 

[LuckySmiles]

Genuine question.

Do you think people who lean heavier towards being empaths, are more frequently democrats?

I'm not insinuating republicans have no empathy, btw. But thinking about personality types and what not.
I'm a severe empath, my heart bleeds for the horrors of the world and I want deeply for everyone to love one another so badly it can be a negative influence on my life.
I agree with some fiscal issues on the republican side, but my heart has always led to dem because to my personality type... The Dems offer the positive dreams for humanity that my gut and soul feels the strongest connection too.

But obviously not everyone is an empath. I feel like a Twitter poll!

Sort of. But also most people become "tougher" or whatever a result of being too sensitive. It's like clashing with conservative parents thinking they must be horrible people or something "Because they just don't care!!" and then realizing they overcame many obstacles you(meaning me.. or anyone) might not be able to handle or overcome, without being a bit tougher.

It's not that there's no need for either side, but there's need for balance of both so that no one gets out of hand. Too sensitive or too ruthless in business or whatever. And many people are of the opinion that things need to lean in an opposite direction before it is too late.

It's like... it's not that I don't care about people dying on the other side of the world... it's that I care more about people dying a mile away from me...

I would rather America had the best cars, the smartest students, the most innovative systems, because I like America and the fact that so many different kinds of people can live here relatively peacefully means it already is one of the nicest places. And I see it as having the most potential because of all the different people and ideas... and not living up to it.

 

[Gen]

MAGA isn't about changing America, on the contrary, it is going back to what America has been traditionally since it was founded. The word "again" is a rejection to all the failed leftist policies that are trying to steer america into a socialism direction.

But the concept of "leave if you don't like it" would seem, to me, to mean "leave if you don't like what it is", not "leave if you don't like what it was, or could be".

Either way, whatever side of the political spectrum you find yourself, saying criticism of the government is bad seems like a slippery slope (as well as an outrageously illogical thing to suggest). And again, for a country that so highly values freedom, it seems distinctly un-American. And everyone from every side of the political spectrum has things they'd like to change about the country, hence why we have elections and numerous parties.

 

[Lili_xo]

Trying to shut down criticism seems like the opposite of American values to me.

Totally yes. I agree.
America is about free speech and voicing your opinions.
Is a WONDERFUL country on so many ways. So... I find that funny that the very ppl who want to fundamentally change it and criticize america for what it IS- also are so quick to bring the american values up (the ones they criticize) as a shield for themselves the moment someone gets angry at them for wanting to change USA.
freedom of speech= USA
(remember that -anyone- when you want to change the country because this will also change)

 

[LuckySmiles]

Just to add to my other post. People like me would rather be able to get someone hired by making more real jobs so that they don't die selling drugs or something instead. In history this is proven more successful at changing things for the better than bigger government programs. So by being more economically motivated etc. sometimes you can be one of the good people in disguise.

 

[Mila_]

But the concept of "leave if you don't like it" would seem, to me, to mean "leave if you don't like what it is", not "leave if you don't like what it was, or could be".

Either way, whatever side of the political spectrum you find yourself, saying criticism of the government is bad seems like a slippery slope (as well as an outrageously illogical thing to suggest). And again, for a country that so highly values freedom, it seems distinctly un-American. And everyone from every side of the political spectrum has things they'd like to change about the country, hence why we have elections and numerous parties.

I don't think I understand your post.. what do you mean with GTFO? I don't think anyone is suggesting that american citizens that disagree with them should leave. At least I wasn't. Trump isn't. I don't even think democrats want this.

I haven't said criticizing the Government is a bad thing. But the left doesn't criticize the government. The left criticizes the ideals that the country is built upon which is quite another thing. The left criticizes tradition and it criticizes the moral foundation of the USA. They also criticize the group that built the country and that constitutes the majority of the population to this day: whites. The left claims that it is the values that the US was built upon are the big bad "oppressive capitalistic patriarchy" and that whites are bad for oppressing minorities when every citizen enjoys the same freedoms and protections as every other group.

Some bleeding heart liberals have threatened to leave the country if Trump wins, but that doesn't mean anyone cares. It's like a "bye, Felicia" situation. Barbra Streisand said she is moving to Australia, Lena Dunham to Canada, Elizabeth Moss to Italy, etc. Surprisingly they all want to move to other white majority civilized countries with working economies. None of these bleeding heart liberals declares they want to move to Cuba, Venezuela, or Congo.

 

[Lili_xo]

yeah i been told before am unable to voice my opinion in a politically correct way but am passionate and feel protective about usa and some criticize absolutely everything about it and then still want to live in it and the american communists with their weird flags and slogans at trump rallies (the ppl who hate trump) they just plain scare me

 

[Lili_xo]

Some bleeding heart liberals have threatened to leave the country if Trump wins, but that doesn't mean anyone cares. It's like a "bye, Felicia" situation. Barbra Streisand said she is moving to Australia, Lena Dunham to Canada, Elizabeth Moss to Italy, etc. Surprisingly they all want to move to other white majority civilized countries with working economies. None of these bleeding heart liberals declares they want to move to Cuba, Venezuela, or Congo.

LOL
I am going to watch this when Trump wins. Wonder how many will actually make the move.

 

[Gen]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that american citizens that disagree with them should leave.

This was what I was replying to:

if USA is so bad then GTFO!!

I think we are reading different things into it, though. But appreciate your perspective!

 

[Mila_]

This was what I was replying to:

I think we are reading different things into it, though. But appreciate your perspective!

You quoted me, not Lunella, which is why I was confused.