This is interesting. Hidden Tribes Site
"The segments have distinctive sets of characteristics; here listed in order from left to right on the ideological spectrum:
- Progressive Activists: younger, highly engaged, secular, cosmopolitan, angry.
- Traditional Liberals: older, retired, open to compromise, rational, cautious.
- Passive Liberals: unhappy, insecure, distrustful, disillusioned.
- Politically Disengaged: young, low income, distrustful, detached, patriotic, conspiratorial.
- Moderates: engaged, civic-minded, middle-of-the-road, pessimistic, Protestant.
- Traditional Conservatives: religious, middle class, patriotic, moralistic.
- Devoted Conservatives: white, retired, highly engaged, uncompromising, patriotic."
I noticed the fact that TWO kinds of conservatives are "wings" while only one kind of liberal is. That piqued my interest, suspecting these academics had a liberal bias, so I started reading the report, but only got to page 4 when I found this: "seven groups that are defined by their core beliefs, rather than by their political opinions, race, class or gender."
ReplyDelete"In talking to everyday Americans, we have found a large segment of the population
whose voices are rarely heard above the shouts of the partisan tribes. ... They believe that compromise is necessary in politics, as in other parts of life, and want to see the country come together and solve its problems."
Suspicions confirmed. Liberals believe conservatives should forsake there core beliefs and compromise, because conservative core beliefs can NOT form the basis for political opinions. (They are illegitimate core beliefs, you see, being conservative.) There is a reason why academics get a BS degree.
More evidence (chapter 8) "Many Americans regard freedom of speech as a foundation stone of their democracy. This freedom, however, runs into constraints when it threatens important values such as public order and the prevention of hate speech. Freedom of speech ALL speech.
ReplyDeleteHere's what the authors miss in their summary. In their one-on-one interviews they were surprised by the degree of tribalism ABSENT from their conversations and they "gained a new empathy for those different from themselves." That's exactly what needs to happen. Strip away all of that "you are a heartless conservative" or "you are a brain-dead liberal" nonsense away-- what I will call imposed tribalism-- and just have two people sit down and try to solve a problem. The "compromise" will come out of the mutual respect for the views of both parties and, though it may greatly "water down" the solution relative to both sides, they can both claim progress.
ReplyDeleteJerry,
ReplyDeleteI think you are being paranoid again.
After spending time with my parents this weekend I can understand how it happens... They were in rare form, since both Rush and FOX News have been preaching the "everybody is out to get Trump / Conservatives" before this election.
I found this study via a CNN Money link. These comments support my view of reality... I just wonder how our country will come back together if both the wings are willing to blow up the country rather than compromise???
"The "Exhausted Majority" is not only troubled by the divide in Washington politics, he said, but by the arguments among their family and friends about politics.
"They well up with tears about it," Dixon said.
When asked by Stelter how much blame should be assigned to the media, Dixon said it's a significant factor in the country's tensions. More in Common has asked similar questions in different countries, and even though divisions exist elsewhere, respondents are not able to clearly say who they view as their enemy.
"I think the difference is partisan cable television came many years earlier in the United States than any other country, and I think that's really had a significant effect," Dixon said. The problem is that the partisan model seen on cable news makes money, he said.
Social media also plays a role in the problem. People tend to follow and be followed by others with the same opinions as them, and they're likely to receive backlash if they say something contrary to the typical beliefs of their side, Dixon said."
"They believe that compromise is necessary in politics, as in other parts of life, and want to see the country come together and solve its problems."
ReplyDeletePlease note that no one is picking on the poor set upon victimized Conservative wings with this statement... At least not anymore than the poor set upon victimized Liberal wing...
And yes Free Speech does have limits for good reason
To me it seems that fear of something drives a lot of Conservative belief and action. Here is an interesting piece.
ReplyDeleteHere is a Liberal who dislikes the report for different reasons.
ReplyDeleteVOX “Hidden Tribes,” the new report centrists are using to explain away polarization, explained Is there really an “exhausted majority” of Americans against partisanship? Probably not.
I think VOX is wrong. The vast majority, INCLUDING many in both "wings," are appalled at the divisiveness. The great masses of people are not driving it, either, but rather the extremists on both ends, amplified beyond recognition by the media, both MSM and social. For me, the problem is that politics--i.e. government-- has simply consumed far too much of our lives and is now seen by many as the solution to all our ills, while others see it as the CAUSE of many of them. It's nice we have identified the tribes, now it's time to smokum peace pipe and quit talking about them altogether, all together.
ReplyDeleteExample: I criticize many in my party for calling themselves "conservative," as if that meant something. I tell them, don't call your ideas conservative, call them GOOD ideas, and explain why.
"GOOD ideas" are in the eye of the beholder in most cases lately.
ReplyDeleteJust curious, what would be a "good idea" that you think could get support across the variations?
ReplyDeleteRationale?
Oh, absolutely, "good" is relative, but we should not be judging an idea by who holds it or supports it, but rather on its own merits.
ReplyDeleteOffering a "good idea" is difficult these days, precisely because in the current acidic climate, it never gets a fair shake. Millions of dollars in Special Interest cash will flow in and poison the discussion. For example, "doing something to stop" illegal immigration is a 75-80% issue with Americans. But as soon as somebody proposes a wall or fence or just turning around an invasion, they are hammered as bigots and worse, and the question of whether this is a good solution to the problem never comes up. Catch-22: to end tribalism, you have to first end tribalism.
It's almost back to Rush Limbaugh's philosophy on this: We can't compromise with liberals, we have to defeat them (politically).
I think of Republicans as a combination of social and economic conservatives. The social conservatives deliver votes in exchange for supreme court justices, and the economic conservatives deliver campaign money in exchange for tax cuts.
ReplyDelete==Hiram
Jerry,
ReplyDeleteFood for thought on that poll data
Hiram,
That makes quite a bit of sense.
Hiram,
ReplyDeleteOn second thought... I disagree...
I don't vote GOP for Tax cuts or Judges...
I vote GOP for fewer regulations, better border control / law enforcement, a desire to hold public employees / government accountable for good performance and effectiveness, a desire to hold citizens accountable for learning, working and caring for themselves, etc.
All things that the DEMS seem to pooh pooh...
Hiram is right. Reagan's "three-legged stool" included National Security conservatives, as well. Reagan's advantage was his ability to explain his common-sense ideas directly to the people, going over the "media filter."
ReplyDeleteJohn, of course the polls do not provide answers, and it demonstrates the folly and tragedy of using opinion polls to set policy. Again, this was where Reagan excelled, by setting a clear direction, the reasons for it, and then communicating it to people. Trump is a bit like that, and not doing too badly, considering the stridency of opposing voices. He gains because most people already recognize what common sense would dictate and he doesn't have to explain it. He loses because the opposing tribes refuse to bow to common sense and comity.
He loses because he lacks morality. We see it in his words and actions. He is not trustworthy in small matters and is therefore not trustworthy in larger matters.
ReplyDeleteMoose
So when he wins he is moral? Sorry, incorrect attribution of cause-effect. And we don't have to trust /him/, because he is making sense and the "other tribe" is not. We trust our own good sense; he just agrees with us.
ReplyDelete"So when he wins he is moral?"
ReplyDelete"He gains because most people already recognize what common sense would dictate and he doesn't have to explain it. He loses because the opposing tribes refuse to bow to common sense and comity."
None of this is true. He gains because he speaks to people's insecurities and fear...as do all fascists.
"We trust our own good sense; he just agrees with us."
Your own good sense is that a person who lies about small things is trustworthy?
Your own good sense also aligns really well with Hitler. Not sure I'd be proud of that.
Moose
Jerry,
ReplyDeleteReagan had some things that Trump will never have. He was likeable, honest and had an excellent character... And these showed in his approval ratings
The election is 2 weeks away. I am very interested to see how Trump's continual efforts to motivate his base and alienate the majority of citizens will work out for Republicans.
Moose,
I agree with you. A lying manipulative individual may achieve some gains, but he will never be seen as a great President.
"I am very interested to see how Trump's continual efforts to motivate his base and alienate the majority of citizens will work out for Republicans."
ReplyDeleteI am a bit discouraged by the current polling. After it came out that she compared Michelle Obama to a chimp, Karin Housley's polling improved. I'm not surprised that more Republicans would be drawn to her, but I'm still disgusted by it. It doesn't help that Tina Smith is completely uninspiring.
Moose
The thing is: I want moral, upright, and courageous people elected to public service, flawed humans as they may be. But even if I were inclined to vote for a Republican now and then, any Republican, any politician, who aligns themselves with the Current Occupant does not fit the description.
ReplyDeleteMoose
"It doesn't help that Tina Smith is completely uninspiring."
ReplyDeleteSmith's decision to skip the KSTP debate is baffling. That's the sort of run-and-hide nonsense that it appears is finally going to catch up with Erik Paulsen this year.
This is a pretty high bar given our current state of politics and the great American citizen partisan divide....
ReplyDelete"moral, upright, and courageous people"
Those Left and Right active wings are pretty merciless on folks.
More from Vox:
ReplyDelete"The researchers were testing the collision between two popular models. In one, “contact between opposing groups can challenge stereotypes that develop in the absence of positive interactions between them.” In the other, “exposure to those with opposing political views may create backfire effects that exacerbate political polarization.”
It was, in other words, a test of the simple theory: Does hearing out the other side make us less polarized, or more?
The backfire theorists won the day. The results of the month-long exposure to popular, authoritative voices from the other side of the aisle was an increase in issue-based polarization. “We find that Republicans who followed a liberal Twitter bot became substantially more conservative posttreatment,” write the authors. “Democrats exhibited slight increases in liberal attitudes after following a conservative Twitter bot, although these effects are not statistically significant.”
Note the difference: Liberals were apparently already so annoyed at conservative ideas that they became "not statistically significant" moreso. Conservatives exposed to liberal insults-- both personal and to their intelligence-- became substantially more polarized. Apparently it isn't so much that we argue, but in HOW we argue. When our debate is perpetually ad hominem and ideological, there is no point to it. We don't have to accept the other's ideas, but we do have to accept that they may legitimately hold them. THEN and only then can we debate the merits of the proposition.
Let me try to quote from the Red/Blue exercises. "The Blue Team was struck by how personally the Red Team took policy differences, while the Red Team was struck by how deeply the Blue Team believed that policy differences were differences in values."
ReplyDelete"Note the difference: Liberals were apparently already so annoyed at conservative ideas that they became "not statistically significant" moreso."
ReplyDeleteIs that what the research says? Because it makes little sense, considering that Liberals, by definition, and by personal experience, are much more likely to consider a wide array of viewpoints. It would make much more sense that they didn't become more liberal simply because they are open to more ideas and thus not pushed from their viewpoint by them.
Moose
Policy A: Keeps immigrant families together.
ReplyDeletePolicy B: Separates immigrant children from their families.
That is a difference in values.
Moose
How does the relate to the concept of the exhausted majority and the extremist wings?
ReplyDeleteI think most of us want to stop the flow of:
- illegal immigrants / smuggling
- help people from other countries within reason
- give our existing illegals a path to citizenship
- use immigration policy to help American Citizens
And both wings seem be willing to fight tooth and nail to keep these logical things from happening.
And us Centrists just get more and more exhausted and frustrated with both wings.
ReplyDelete"Is that what the research says? "-- Moose
ReplyDeleteYes, that's what the research says. Liberals take an idea and refuse to move off of it. That is not because they have good reasons, which they can explain in calm debate. I've rarely seen it in individuals, and never in a group.
"Liberals take an idea and refuse to move off of it."
ReplyDeleteAnd that's somehow better than Conservatives taking an idea and then moving further right when shown how wrong they are.
Moose
"And both wings seem be willing to fight tooth and nail to keep these logical things from happening." -- John
ReplyDeleteLet me correct your sentence structure, and then comment:
I think most of us want to:
-- stop the flow of illegal immigrants / smuggling
Do "we"? Who is funding the "caravan"? Which party wants complete amnesty and voting privileges for illegals?
-- help people from other countries within reason
My guess is that "within reason" varies wildly on a partisan basis and in most cases "reason" does not enter into the "logic" of the issue.
-- give our existing illegals a path to citizenship
No, we don't. Some, yes, but we've already tried that and almost all we got was more illegals. There must be some DISincentive in the mix, somewhere.
-- use immigration policy to help American Citizens
Yes, the REAL ones, and it would help to fix the current badly broken system, but before that we have to STOP the incentives and policies that promote illegal immigration.
Yes, I'm all in favor of "logical things." As soon as we agree what they are, but this "fighting tooth and nail" seems to prevent our coming to agreement. Yes? You are not the only one frustrated. Both wings are frustrated, too, because the "other side" simply will not roll over and agree!
"And that's somehow better than Conservatives taking an idea and then moving further right when shown how wrong they are."-- Moose
ReplyDeleteThat is the correct interpretation of the research, yes, though "better" is up for debate.
I have a different interpretation though, because you tell me that conservatives react to "being shown how wrong they are." I have never been "shown" anything of the sort. Most of what I hear is that I am unworthy of being allowed an opinion and, because I refuse to agree with the liberal cant du jour, should just slink off to the unholy Pit from whence I came. Surprisingly, I find that logic unconvincing. Although it does harden my position.
"I think most of us want to stop the flow of:
ReplyDelete- illegal immigrants / smuggling
- help people from other countries within reason
- give our existing illegals a path to citizenship
- use immigration policy to help American Citizens
And both wings seem be willing to fight tooth and nail to keep these logical things from happening."
No, it's pretty much just the Republicans that are standing in the way. Remember, there was a bipartisan immigration deal in the Senate a few years back that was tanked by House Republicans.
Sean, if no Republicans sign on to the deal, is it truly bipartisan? Is there a "logical solution" to which almost all of Congress could and should agree, given the overwhelming good sense and sound reasoning behind the proposal?
ReplyDeleteNah, mostly your nonsense just isn't worth my time, though I can't seem to help myself when confronted with unjust ideas and policies.
ReplyDeleteMoose
"That is the correct interpretation of the research, yes, though "better" is up for debate."
ReplyDeleteWell...I misspoke, but anyone one with functioning brain would understand that taking a position, considering other views, and then sticking with the position is preferable to taking a position and then further entrenching when confronted with alternative viewpoints.
Moose
"Sean, if no Republicans sign on to the deal, is it truly bipartisan?"
ReplyDeleteRepublicans signed on in the Senate.
Yep... That looked pretty bi-partisan.
ReplyDeleteAnd this could have been a good bi-partisan bill, but the DEMs blocked it.
The wings unfortunately are driving the tribes. :-(
Or this one...
ReplyDeleteJerry,
ReplyDeleteRemember that your view of reality is terribly skewed because you sit in the far right seats of the theater. I am just trying to guess how far right by these descriptions. My guess is the 6% bucket after years of your pretty much never compromising or acknowledging of the other sides beliefs....
•Traditional Conservatives (19%): religious, middle class, patriotic, moralistic.
•Devoted Conservatives (6%): white, retired, highly engaged, uncompromising, patriotic."
Sean and Moose,
ReplyDeleteWhat bucket do you see yourselves in?
•Progressive Activists(8%): younger, highly engaged, secular, cosmopolitan, angry.
•Traditional Liberals (11%): older, retired, open to compromise, rational, cautious.
•Passive Liberals (15%): unhappy, insecure, distrustful, disillusioned.
I kind of think Moose is in the 8% bucket, and Sean is in the 15% bucket?
Those are strange descriptions, John. Are Liberals not described as patriotic? I'd put 'jingoistic' or 'nationalistic' rather than 'patriotic' in the Traditional and Devoted Conservatives' descriptions.
ReplyDeleteMoose
I'm a mix of all three of those categories.
ReplyDeleteMoose
I took the quiz twice, because I didn't like the options on some of the questions so I flipped around my answers on those questions. One time I was a Progressive Activist and one time I was a Traditional Liberal.
ReplyDeleteNow as for me... Since I certainly do not fit into the Devoted or Traditional Conservative buckets... And I do not land in...
ReplyDelete•Politically Disengaged (26%): young, low income, distrustful, detached, patriotic, conspiratorial.
I guess I land here...
•Moderates (15%): engaged, civic-minded, middle-of-the-road, pessimistic, Protestant.
I may need to look at the report in more detail to understand why they picked the word patriotic for Conservatives rather than Nationalistic...
ReplyDeletePatriotic: having or expressing devotion to and vigorous support for one's country.
Nationalistic: having strong patriotic feelings, especially a belief in the superiority of one's own country over others.
I see the folks on the Left as equally Patriotic, though often they seem to think poorly of our country compared to others.
Jingoistic: characterized by extreme patriotism, especially in the form of aggressive or warlike foreign policy
ReplyDeleteThinking that we can do better for our own citizens and the world is not the same as thinking poorly of our country.
ReplyDeleteIs there a quiz to determine one's category?
Moose
I took the quiz. Yes, I fall into the Progressive Activist category, and the following is a very accurate description of my general attitude.
ReplyDelete"Progressive Activists have strong ideological views, high levels of engagement with political issues, and the highest levels of education and socioeconomic status. Their own circumstances are secure. They feel safer than any group, which perhaps frees them to devote more attention to larger issues of social justice in their society. They have an outsized role in public debates, even though they comprise a small portion of the total population, about one in 12 Americans. They are highly sensitive to issues of fairness and equity in society, particularly regarding race, gender, and other minority group identities. Their emphasis on unjust power structures leads them to be very pessimistic about fairness in America. They are uncomfortable with nationalism and ambivalent about America’s role in the world."
Moose
It's an interesting idea that my cohort "feel(s) safer than any group". It's likely a result of not finding diversity to be frightening.
ReplyDeleteMoose
Why don't you take the quiz, John? Because I bet you're a Traditional Conservative.
ReplyDeleteMy work computer does not like it...
ReplyDeleteI'll try it at home later.
For my consideration...
ReplyDeleteModerates reflect the middle of the road of public opinion
in America. They tend to be engaged in their communities,
often volunteer, and are interested in current affairs, but
uncomfortable with the tribalism of politics. They tend to be
socially conservative. Religion plays an important role in their
lives, but they reject extremism and intolerance. They strongly
disapprove of Donald Trump as president and overwhelmingly
believe that the country is headed in the wrong direction.
Among those planning to vote in the 2018 midterms, they favor
Democrats over Republicans by a margin of 4-3. Yet they also
think that political correctness has gone too far. They dislike the
activism and what they see as extremism of both progressives
and conservatives. While they think feminism has gone too
far, they also recognize sexual harassment as an important
issue. They support the notion of sanctuary cities and want
undocumented immigrants to have better treatment. They reject
extreme policies such as building a border wall and a ‘Muslim
travel ban.’ They are worried about the state of America and feel
that American identity is slipping away. They feel conflicted
on certain social justice issues, including same sex marriage,
and they are slower to embrace change. They tend to seek less
radical solutions than Devoted or Traditional Conservatives.
Traditional Conservatives value patriotism and
America’s Christian foundations. They feel that those
foundations are under threat from a liberal political
culture that emphasizes diversity and devalues America’s
achievements. They believe in values such as personal
responsibility and self-reliance, and think that too
much emphasis is given to issues of gay rights, sexual
harassment and racism. They have a clear sense of
identity as American, Christian and conservative, but
they are not as strident in their beliefs as Devoted
Conservatives. For example, they are open to dialogue
or compromise on a pathway to citizenship for
undocumented immigrants brought here as children, and
they acknowledge that racist acts still persist in the United
States. They are suspicious of the traditional media, yet
they are more likely than any other group to feel that their
voice is represented in American politics.
The Politically Disengaged most resemble Passive Liberals in
ReplyDeletehaving lower levels of income and education and being less
engaged in following current affairs. Fully 41 percent are making
less than $30,000 per year, and approximately one in four have
gone without enough food or without medical treatment at least
somewhat often. They are different from Passive Liberals in
being more anxious about external threats and less open in their
attitudes towards differences. For instance, they are the most
likely to say that being white is necessary to be American and
that people who hold other religious views are morally inferior.
They are more concerned about the threat of terrorism and are
quite closed to the view that Islamic and American values are
compatible. They are practically invisible in local politics and
community life, being one of the least likely groups to participate
in political rallies or vote in local elections. They are also the least
well informed group on all measures of political knowledge.
They are the most pessimistic about the possibility of reconciling
differences between political factions. Overall, this makes the
Politically Disengaged a difficult segment to reach and mobilize.
It will be interesting to see what the test indicates.
ReplyDeleteI don't like sanctuary cities and support stronger borders...
But...
I trust the main stream media and am not very religious...
It seems to me that the "politically disengaged" could be conservatives or liberals...
ReplyDelete"when confronted with alternative viewpoints." Ha, I see. So what should I do when confronted with unwavering invective, Rather than a cogent debating point?
ReplyDeleteDo whatever you want. You're deaf to anything beyond your own ill-considered viewpoint.
ReplyDeleteMoose
And for Jerry's consideration.
ReplyDeleteThe Devoted Conservatives are the counterpart to the
Progressive Activists, but at the other end of the political
spectrum. They are one of the highest income-earning
groups, and feel happier and more secure than most
other Americans. They are highly engaged in social and
political issues and think that religious liberty, abortion
and terrorism are especially important issues. They
value patriotism and loyalty to the flag. They feel that
traditional values are under assault and that Americans
are being forced to accept liberal beliefs about issues
such as immigration, racial inequality, Islam and the role
of women. They believe that American values are being
eroded rapidly and they see themselves as defenders of
those values.
Compared to typical American citizen
–– Almost twice as likely to list politics as a hobby - 63% V. 35%
–– Three times more likely to strongly support a US-Mexico border wall - 75% V. 24%
–– More than twice as likely to have donated to their place of worship - 64% V. 24%
–– Almost three times more likely to strongly support a ‘Muslim travel ban’ - 88% V. 31%
–– Twenty-four percent more likely to oppose compromise - 63% V. 39%
–– Nineteen percent more likely to be white - 88% V. 69%
–– Fourteen percent more likely to be older than 65 - 34% V. 20% - and much less likely to be born between 1985 and 2000 - 11% V. 27%
–– More likely to come from the South - 45% V. 38%
John-- I took the test and am not a Devoted Conservative. And your attempt to pigeonhole people is exactly the problem we need LESS of. As for the issue positions, They seem perfectly reasonable to me, yet I am guessing you are quoting them as an implicit condemnation.
ReplyDeleteMoose- "your own ill-considered viewpoint."? Really? Didn't you just prove my point?
So you are a Traditional Conservative?
ReplyDeleteI would love to see your answers... :-)
I thought the comparisons above described you nearly perfectly. Support the wall, donate to Church, support Muslim travel ban, oppose compromise, etc. Or am I incorrect on any of these?
Now there is an interesting twist...
ReplyDelete- First time I took it I was a Traditional Conservative
- Second time I was a Traditional Liberal
The primary difference in my answers were in the feeling section...
The first time I focused on the longer, things will get better. My natural optimism.
The second time I let myself focus on the continually increasing national debt, the increasing Tribal wars, etc... And the fact that I see no way for it to improve...
Traditional Conservatives value patriotism and
America’s Christian foundations. They feel that those
foundations are under threat from a liberal political
culture that emphasizes diversity and devalues America’s
achievements. They believe in values such as personal
responsibility and self-reliance, and think that too
much emphasis is given to issues of gay rights, sexual
harassment and racism. They have a clear sense of
identity as American, Christian and conservative, but
they are not as strident in their beliefs as Devoted
Conservatives. For example, they are open to dialogue
or compromise on a pathway to citizenship for
undocumented immigrants brought here as children, and
they acknowledge that racist acts still persist in the United
States. They are suspicious of the traditional media, yet
they are more likely than any other group to feel that their
voice is represented in American politics.
Traditional Liberals reflect the liberal ideals of the Baby Boomer generation. They maintain idealistic attitudes about the potential for social justice in America, yet they are less ideological than Progressive Activists. They also are not as intolerant of conservatives. They have strong humanitarian values, and around half say that religion is important to them. Traditional Liberals are significantly more likely to say that people “need to be willing to listen to others and compromise.” They are the most likely group, along with Progressive Activists, to handle conflict by “getting to the heart of the disagreement.” Overall, Traditional Liberals respond best to rational arguments and are inclined to place more faith in the viability of American institutions, even if they are disillusioned with the country’s current direction.
Jerry,
ReplyDeleteSorry I missed this earlier.
"I am guessing you are quoting them as an implicit condemnation."
I was not thinking of the as a condemnation. Just as statements that you, a far Right Conservative would agree with.
Please remember that my Parents are right there with you and I still think the world of them. I can happily disagree with people and not want to condemn them.
My biggest frustration with you over the years has been your, "if you disagree with me you are wrong attitude"...
ReplyDeleteTraditional Conservatives: religious, middle class, patriotic, moralistic.
Devoted Conservatives: white, retired, highly engaged, uncompromising, patriotic."
But I do not begrudge you being you... Anymore than I begrudge Moose being his angry name calling self...
Progressive Activists: younger, highly engaged, secular, cosmopolitan, angry.
The mix of this group is what makes it interesting, even if we never do get anywhere... :-)
Nicely said, but still wrong. :-) Pigeonholing people is the mild form of name-calling. Sometimes useful, but hardly the way to a rational discussion. It tends to end discussion. All I have to do is say you are a wacko liberal, thereby dismissing any and all nuance or possible points of agreement. When /I/ say "you can agree with me or you can be wrong," it is partly in jest, but what I really mean is that if you do not have a solid contrary argument, you are wrong all by yourself; you don't need me to be wrong.
ReplyDeleteAnd I am surprised you accept such a 1-dimensional political spectrum when you have long supported the two-D Nolan world. I have often thought it is a 1-D, but mapped onto a semi-cirle. And although I Agree there is a large "disengaged" group (only half of us vote), I am not sure I would put them in the middle. They don't know what to think and don't care. To some degree they shouldn't NEED to care; politics is too big a part of our lives and needs to shrink. "Deprive them of the funds by which they corrupt our social fabric."
I am not against your positions on:
ReplyDelete- sex ed / birth control
- LGBT rights
- Climate change
- Big budget cuts
- School vouchers
- etc
because you tend to believe like other far right Conservatives... I disagree because "you do not have a solid contrary argument, you are wrong all by yourself; you don't need me to be wrong."
Your right... That works well... :-)
"...politics is too big a part of our lives and needs to shrink."
ReplyDeleteSays the heterosexual, cis-gender, white male. No wonder you're wrong on nearly every issue that affects people not like you.
Moose
I forgot Christian. Seriously, you're part of the majority (or the most powerful group) no matter how you're categorized. The arrogance of your privilege blinds you to the harmful effects of your political positions.
ReplyDeleteMoose
John, I still believe you err by saying " you tend to believe like other far right Conservatives." You are probably right, depending on how you define that, issue by issue, and not allowing for any independent thought." The problem is not what I /believe/ but what I know to be true, having reasoned my way into it. It is rightly said "it is difficult if not impossible to reason a man out of a position he did not first reason himself into."
ReplyDeleteYou want to disagree? Prove me wrong with rational persuasion and facts, not insults.
I guess I don't see this as an insult...
ReplyDelete"you tend to believe like other far right Conservatives."
Do you?
Sorry, but after almost a decade of providing you with rational persuasion and facts... I have decided that you are not willing to consider the faults in your positions or the truth is another party's positions... You will take your current beliefs to the grave with you unless you have an Ebenezer Scrooge like experience.
That is fine, most Far Right and Far Left folks are pretty well dug in that they are correct and the other side is wrong. Just ask Moose... :-)
"I guess I don't see this as an insult...
ReplyDelete"you tend to believe like other far right Conservatives."
Do you?"
Absolutely it is an insult. Normally I would ignore such things from Moose, but not from you, and not on this topic.
First of all, you assign me to a group (incorrectly as it turns out), then you disparage the entire group, calling them "far right," and then you simply dismiss any and all viewpoints as being from the "far right." Thus endeth the conversation.
"after almost a decade of providing you with rational persuasion and facts..." According to YOU. You insult me again, insisting that REAL rational persuasion and facts are wasted on me, when I thought that was the whole point of our discussions. If you have REAL persuasion and facts, equal in validity to mine, we will be forced to agree to disagree-- that is, there are two possible realities based on the facts chosen, or from the rational conclusions based on those facts. On a few questions, I can imagine that happens, but most of the time our conversations end like this, with insulting stereotypes.
"...most Far Right and Far Left folks are pretty well dug in that they are correct ..." Why just Far L&R? YOU are pretty much dug in, as well, as is everybody else on the planet. Facts and rational persuasion are not effective tools because of this, but insults only harden positions.
I have never argued that you were incorrect because it was a far right idea... I find other flaws in your solutions, actions, etc...
ReplyDeleteUsually I close our long comment strings with "we will need to agree to disagree". Which means I still think you are incorrect and you think I am incorrect. I am okay with that.
Now if you ever make an argument or post a position that varies from the Far Right, I would be happy to hear it. Unfortunately history has shown that I can determine your position and arguments before we ever start writing...
Can you think of one topic where you vary from them?
One topic where you are willing to compromise?
Tell us what it is and I will happily post about it.
On the above topics, it is always Jerry's way or the Highway...
I may hold "far right" positions, but you assume I hold them /because/ they are far right, rather than reasoning myself into those positions. You dismiss them out of hand, insisting on your own "moderate" view rather than asking (or trying to understand) what REASONS I have for holding those views. And why should I compromise when I have already thoroughly vetted my own viewpoint and find it correct? I have already "compromised" as far as I must to arrive at the correct "answer." Any further compromise would only be to appease those whose knee-jerk political resistance to a good idea would "water down" the solution.
ReplyDeleteBesides, who is the "Far Right," anyway? Where is its center of thought? How much variation is allowed? Do they have a membership roll? What are the requirements? Dues? Oath? How about we treat people as people, get away from stereotypes and have an honest conversation, or debate?
I enter into these fora because for me, the challenge has always been to make a convincing argument in a very few words, somewhat like the challenge in contract bridge, to convey the contents of your hand to your partner in two or three two-word sentences. [and you cannot bid "no trump" every time :-)] If all you do is insist you are right because so-and-so says so, that limits the conversation.
"And why should I compromise when I have already thoroughly vetted my own viewpoint and find it correct?"
ReplyDeleteHitler felt the same way. Indeed, you should be so proud.
Moose
Moose,
ReplyDeleteI assume Marx, Lenin and Stalin all did also... As you do...
Jerry,
I guess I never said that you believe what you do because the Far Right believes so... I just say that your beliefs and unwillingness to compromise land you in that bucket.
Well, apparently the do NOT, according to the test. And have you ever given me a good solid reason to compromise my fundamental principles, or even my policy preferences?
ReplyDeleteAnd I believe as I do because I have reasons. On occasion you question my reasons, but fail to offer contrary reasoning. At least that is what I see in our discussions. Sean does a good job of it, often times.