6 ms·

The #1 difference I notice between people I talk to who identify as the "left" or the "right" is whether America is an inclusive or exclusive "club". Also, ma

The #1 difference I notice between people I talk to who identify as the "left" or the "right" is whether America is an inclusive or exclusive "club". Also, main takeaway from this? Don't attack people. It seems like that's a big complaint from the[se] people: I've been attacked for my beliefs and values.

panic 10y ago
It can be hard to separate criticism from an attack. If you say something racist, and I tell you so, is that an attack?
- harryh 10y ago
  It depends on how you say it. "You're racist!" is an attack. "That thing you just said was racist." is better but will still come off as an attack. "Have you ever thought about how what you said will impact [minority group]?" will work much better.
  - runako 10y ago
    > "Have you ever thought about how what you said will impact [minority group]?" will work much better. To summarize: PC phrasing works better among people who voted for the anti-PC guy? I'm not disagreeing with your thesis, just pointing out that it's not obvious that it should be the case.
    - harryh 10y ago
      Polite phrasing that doesn't immediately condemn the subject but instead tries to get them to slowly consider alternative points of view works better with almost all people.
  - rockmeamedee 10y ago
    What's worse, being a racist or being called a racist? If it's the former, being called a racist is a valuable thing. It's somebody telling you that you have advertently or inadvertently acted in a manner that is prejudiced against an ethnic group in a way that perpetuates societal imbalances (racism). Now you get an opportunity to fix it. Apologize, then stop doing what you were called out for. Now you'll neither be a racist or called one. Great! Everybody wins.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - harryh 10y ago
      Have you ever called someone a racist or seen someone else be called a racist? How did they tend to react at an emotional level? Did that tend to make them more or less open to feedback? Have you found it to be a particularly effective way of getting people to change their behavior?
- docdeek 10y ago
  No, it's not. But what has got people angry is that it's not you pointing out that what some person said is racist, but rather a group of people declaring that anyone who supports candidate A is a racist. Tarring all Trump supporters or all Republicans or all rural people as racist because one or some of them are is a problem.
- Delmania 10y ago
  That's probably the biggest problem here. Many people will regard your response as an attack and shut down. People also think that saying something is their opinion enables them to say whatever you want without suffering consequences.
- ythn 10y ago
  No, I don't think so. But my (biased) view of the left is that they want to actually control and curate speech via censorship, safe spaces, "hate speech" laws (like UK), political correctness agendas, stereotyping (painting all religious people as bigoted), etc. I view the latter things as an attack on my free speech. People should have the right to say hurtful things without being thrown in jail.
  - ZeroGravitas 10y ago
    I'd be interested to read a history of how this became the right's rallying cry. I mean "safe spaces". Of all the problems facing our world today, how did having a place for students to go and chill out on bean bags become a rallying cry. Why this obsession with student activitsts in general, who as far as I can tell have been caricatured as out of touch poseurs for literally decades without it escalating into a full on culture war. Do people really not see the irony of complaining about political correctness when stats generated by government departments are being discounted as "fake news" by the president? From the outside it really does seem like insanity, but I have to assume people literally believe these things to be important for some reason.
    - fuzzybeard 10y ago
      I'd say it's the natural reaction to extremes like this on college campuses: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1S3yMzEee18 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1S3yMzEee18
- Broken_Hippo 10y ago
  Unfortunately, both yes and no. The word has become near profanity now and is often used as an insult rather than a statement. The reaction of, "How is it racist?" can be taken as a defense even if it is an honest question. Luckily, words are amazing and there are ways to diffuse this stuff. "I think some folks might find that insensitive, you know" might be better wording than "That was rather racist" - even though I might prefer the more direct version. Likewise, the response can be reworded for different effect as well.
  - Pent 10y ago
    Is sensitivity a universal value and priority for everyone? Even in the rust belt? Is dismissing sensitivity as a value, allowed?
    - RangerScience 10y ago
      I think in some cases, definitely. I'm not sure how to complete this thought right now, but it comes down to: "Do you feel safe expressing yourself?" Your "safety" might not be important for the situation, may not be relevant for the situation; safety shouldn't be confused with agreement / support, etc, etc.
- fuzzybeard 10y ago
  It becomes a problem when people subscribe to the "punch a Nazi" theme and then label all Trump supporters as Nazis. It's an 'end justifies the means' mentality which is troubling.
mitchty 10y ago
Well yeah, if you think about it and try to view the world from their view it looks like everything is an attack. Take climate change, regardless of its truth or not, if you treat people that are skeptical or reject it as if they are idiots not worth your time, eventually they're just going to embrace it as part of their identity. Same thing where if we call most of middle america racists for voting trump, I think we'll get just that. You're already getting called racist, even if you don't fit the bill, after a while you probably stop caring. Just seems like a bit of a natural human response. An example: as someone that grew up in "flyover country" the overall view that the east and west coast tend to have on the middle of america is rather appalling at times. I think both sides need to have a bit of self reflection on how far into the abyss they've gazed and how much of their alleged rivals worst behaviors they've internalized.
ar15saveslives 10y ago
> The #1 difference I notice between people I talk to who identify as the "left" or the "right" is whether America is an inclusive or exclusive "club". Gender/race war that radical "left" promote, has nothing to do with "inclusivity".
- RangerScience 10y ago
  Okay, I'll bite. I don't actually know what you're talking about. I haven't experienced either a gender or a racial war, or the promotion of it. But I want to take this "personal". When have you, personally, been the victim of a gender / race war? (My hunch is that you haven't, but that you see the promotion of one, because it sells.) (Towards my points - the #1 difference is not the only difference, and there are dickheads everywhere)
  - ar15saveslives 10y ago
    I like your logic. "You know, I have never been a victim of a murder, therefore murders don't happen". When a company publicly announces "we're affirmative action company", I understand it as they openly exercise racism and/or sexism against me. And trust me, as a divorced guy, I've experienced institutionalized sexism A LOT.
    - Arizhel 10y ago
      >And trust me, as a divorced guy, I've experienced institutionalized sexism A LOT. How so?
      - ar15saveslives 10y ago
        Divorces in a nutshell: wives take everything (children, house, money), husbands start life from scratch.
    - RangerScience 10y ago
      My logic is "I have not experienced this therefore you cannot rely on me having experienced it to understand what you're saying". Sorry if that wasn't clear; I can see how it got muddied.
neuronexmachina 10y ago
After hearing about the studies described in the article below, I've decided that instead of arguing with people I disagree with politically, it's more productive to ask them to describe (in as much detail as feasible) what they see as the biggest positive and negative effects of implementing a particular policy. Most people moderate their views after such reflecting, and I think it's a potential learning opportunity for both parties. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-...
mindcrime 10y ago
Part of the problem is the continued use of the terms "left" and "right", which are meaningless and which perpetuate the idea that the range of political opinion can be represented by a one dimensional continuum. We need a better vocabulary which more accurately represents different categories of political thought. Unfortunately "liberal" has been over-loaded to the point of being useless at this point as well. And truth be told, both "liberal" and "conservative" seem to be used as pejoratives as much as they are used for any other reason. Unfortunately I'm just complaining now, as I don't have a ready-to-go alternative to offer up. And even if somebody came up with alternatives, getting people to adopt new terminology would be a huge uphill battle in its own right.
awinder 10y ago
How these people feel attacked from the left would be a very important question to ask, though. I mean, they're not walking into artisanal coffee shops and facing this every day. From Sam's account, they're living in communities where there is not a representation from the left where you'd think, oh, they face this adversarial attack every day. What I'm getting at is that if these people feel attacked because they're fed media that says they're being attacked, that's a very tricky problem to solve. Whatever larger issues the left has with tolerance to ideas, I think it's possibly a mistake to directly call it causation to this feeling of being attacked, because I'd like to see the proof of that first.
- randcraw 10y ago
  It's curious that the press (and the populace) seems to have assumed in this election that the left was not also sensitive to being attacked as a carpetbagger. Unlike most folks on the right, I suspect a smaller fraction of folks on the left now live anywhere near where they grew up. Emigrating as most did to larger metro areas, they left friends/families behind to seek a better life within their own country, hoping to thrive in a climate where outliers and diversity are more common and better tolerated. It's hardly a surprise that someone like Trump who has made opposition to immigration/emigration the central plank in his platform would be seen by any transient, be s/he international or intranational, as a threat.
GVIrish 10y ago
> Also, main takeaway from this? Don't attack people. It seems like that's a big complaint from the[se] people: I've been attacked for my beliefs and values. Yes and no. If someone is willing to discuss their viewpoint and consider the opposing viewpoint in good faith, then I agree they shouldn't be attacked. If someone is willing to share their worldview without vitriol or hatefulness, they shouldn't have their character assaulted. On the other hand, something I see a lot is people who are outraged that other people criticize them sharply for their bigotry. "Don't call me a hateful bigot because I believe I should be able to discriminate against gay people." "I'm not a bad person because I think Muslims should be banned from entering the United States." What I've seen is that some people are not used to being criticized or challenged for their regressive views and they react poorly to it. They lived most of their lives experiencing zero push back for saying racist or homophobic things and very quickly things have changed. Trump in some ways has allowed those people to go back to believing nothing they're saying or doing is wrong, and that mean 'ol liberals are the problem. There certainly is a component of the far left that is out there shouting people down for having opposing views. But the truth is that tolerance is advancing rapidly and it is disorienting for people who've never had to practice it much.
- RangerScience 10y ago
  I think I see what you're saying, but... ...when has it ever actually helped to attack them? Also, +1 for: > But the truth is that tolerance is advancing rapidly and it is disorienting for people who've never had to practice it much.
  - GVIrish 10y ago
    What I was trying to get at, is that sometimes people use the word 'attacking' when other people are shouting down and being mean and nasty to people who hold a different viewpoint than them. But other times people say 'attacking' when people are calling out bigotry in a completely appropriate way. Like, yeah you're going to catch heat for calling the FLOTUS an ape in heels. I'd agree that attacking in a mean and nasty way is rarely productive. But there's also a place for loudly condemning hatefulness and ignorance, usually when we're talking about public figures who are willfully divisive or hateful. If David Duke decides to hold a white power rally I don't think it's inappropriate for people to loudly protest someone like him. Or a politician getting in front of a crowd talking about 'legitimate rape'.

panic 10y ago

It can be hard to separate criticism from an attack. If you say something racist, and I tell you so, is that an attack?

harryh 10y ago
It depends on how you say it. "You're racist!" is an attack. "That thing you just said was racist." is better but will still come off as an attack. "Have you ever thought about how what you said will impact [minority group]?" will work much better.
- runako 10y ago
  > "Have you ever thought about how what you said will impact [minority group]?" will work much better. To summarize: PC phrasing works better among people who voted for the anti-PC guy? I'm not disagreeing with your thesis, just pointing out that it's not obvious that it should be the case.
  - harryh 10y ago
    Polite phrasing that doesn't immediately condemn the subject but instead tries to get them to slowly consider alternative points of view works better with almost all people.
- rockmeamedee 10y ago
  What's worse, being a racist or being called a racist? If it's the former, being called a racist is a valuable thing. It's somebody telling you that you have advertently or inadvertently acted in a manner that is prejudiced against an ethnic group in a way that perpetuates societal imbalances (racism). Now you get an opportunity to fix it. Apologize, then stop doing what you were called out for. Now you'll neither be a racist or called one. Great! Everybody wins.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - harryh 10y ago
    Have you ever called someone a racist or seen someone else be called a racist? How did they tend to react at an emotional level? Did that tend to make them more or less open to feedback? Have you found it to be a particularly effective way of getting people to change their behavior?
docdeek 10y ago
No, it's not. But what has got people angry is that it's not you pointing out that what some person said is racist, but rather a group of people declaring that anyone who supports candidate A is a racist. Tarring all Trump supporters or all Republicans or all rural people as racist because one or some of them are is a problem.
Delmania 10y ago
That's probably the biggest problem here. Many people will regard your response as an attack and shut down. People also think that saying something is their opinion enables them to say whatever you want without suffering consequences.
ythn 10y ago
No, I don't think so. But my (biased) view of the left is that they want to actually control and curate speech via censorship, safe spaces, "hate speech" laws (like UK), political correctness agendas, stereotyping (painting all religious people as bigoted), etc. I view the latter things as an attack on my free speech. People should have the right to say hurtful things without being thrown in jail.
- ZeroGravitas 10y ago
  I'd be interested to read a history of how this became the right's rallying cry. I mean "safe spaces". Of all the problems facing our world today, how did having a place for students to go and chill out on bean bags become a rallying cry. Why this obsession with student activitsts in general, who as far as I can tell have been caricatured as out of touch poseurs for literally decades without it escalating into a full on culture war. Do people really not see the irony of complaining about political correctness when stats generated by government departments are being discounted as "fake news" by the president? From the outside it really does seem like insanity, but I have to assume people literally believe these things to be important for some reason.
  - fuzzybeard 10y ago
    I'd say it's the natural reaction to extremes like this on college campuses: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1S3yMzEee18 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1S3yMzEee18
Broken_Hippo 10y ago
Unfortunately, both yes and no. The word has become near profanity now and is often used as an insult rather than a statement. The reaction of, "How is it racist?" can be taken as a defense even if it is an honest question. Luckily, words are amazing and there are ways to diffuse this stuff. "I think some folks might find that insensitive, you know" might be better wording than "That was rather racist" - even though I might prefer the more direct version. Likewise, the response can be reworded for different effect as well.
- Pent 10y ago
  Is sensitivity a universal value and priority for everyone? Even in the rust belt? Is dismissing sensitivity as a value, allowed?
  - RangerScience 10y ago
    I think in some cases, definitely. I'm not sure how to complete this thought right now, but it comes down to: "Do you feel safe expressing yourself?" Your "safety" might not be important for the situation, may not be relevant for the situation; safety shouldn't be confused with agreement / support, etc, etc.
fuzzybeard 10y ago
It becomes a problem when people subscribe to the "punch a Nazi" theme and then label all Trump supporters as Nazis. It's an 'end justifies the means' mentality which is troubling.

mitchty 10y ago

Well yeah, if you think about it and try to view the world from their view it looks like everything is an attack. Take climate change, regardless of its truth or not, if you treat people that are skeptical or reject it as if they are idiots not worth your time, eventually they're just going to embrace it as part of their identity. Same thing where if we call most of middle america racists for voting trump, I think we'll get just that. You're already getting called racist, even if you don't fit the bill, after a while you probably stop caring. Just seems like a bit of a natural human response. An example: as someone that grew up in "flyover country" the overall view that the east and west coast tend to have on the middle of america is rather appalling at times. I think both sides need to have a bit of self reflection on how far into the abyss they've gazed and how much of their alleged rivals worst behaviors they've internalized.

ar15saveslives 10y ago

> The #1 difference I notice between people I talk to who identify as the "left" or the "right" is whether America is an inclusive or exclusive "club". Gender/race war that radical "left" promote, has nothing to do with "inclusivity".

RangerScience 10y ago
Okay, I'll bite. I don't actually know what you're talking about. I haven't experienced either a gender or a racial war, or the promotion of it. But I want to take this "personal". When have you, personally, been the victim of a gender / race war? (My hunch is that you haven't, but that you see the promotion of one, because it sells.) (Towards my points - the #1 difference is not the only difference, and there are dickheads everywhere)
- ar15saveslives 10y ago
  I like your logic. "You know, I have never been a victim of a murder, therefore murders don't happen". When a company publicly announces "we're affirmative action company", I understand it as they openly exercise racism and/or sexism against me. And trust me, as a divorced guy, I've experienced institutionalized sexism A LOT.
  - Arizhel 10y ago
    >And trust me, as a divorced guy, I've experienced institutionalized sexism A LOT. How so?
    - ar15saveslives 10y ago
      Divorces in a nutshell: wives take everything (children, house, money), husbands start life from scratch.
  - RangerScience 10y ago
    My logic is "I have not experienced this therefore you cannot rely on me having experienced it to understand what you're saying". Sorry if that wasn't clear; I can see how it got muddied.

neuronexmachina 10y ago

After hearing about the studies described in the article below, I've decided that instead of arguing with people I disagree with politically, it's more productive to ask them to describe (in as much detail as feasible) what they see as the biggest positive and negative effects of implementing a particular policy. Most people moderate their views after such reflecting, and I think it's a potential learning opportunity for both parties. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-...

mindcrime 10y ago

Part of the problem is the continued use of the terms "left" and "right", which are meaningless and which perpetuate the idea that the range of political opinion can be represented by a one dimensional continuum. We need a better vocabulary which more accurately represents different categories of political thought. Unfortunately "liberal" has been over-loaded to the point of being useless at this point as well. And truth be told, both "liberal" and "conservative" seem to be used as pejoratives as much as they are used for any other reason. Unfortunately I'm just complaining now, as I don't have a ready-to-go alternative to offer up. And even if somebody came up with alternatives, getting people to adopt new terminology would be a huge uphill battle in its own right.

awinder 10y ago

How these people feel attacked from the left would be a very important question to ask, though. I mean, they're not walking into artisanal coffee shops and facing this every day. From Sam's account, they're living in communities where there is not a representation from the left where you'd think, oh, they face this adversarial attack every day. What I'm getting at is that if these people feel attacked because they're fed media that says they're being attacked, that's a very tricky problem to solve. Whatever larger issues the left has with tolerance to ideas, I think it's possibly a mistake to directly call it causation to this feeling of being attacked, because I'd like to see the proof of that first.

randcraw 10y ago
It's curious that the press (and the populace) seems to have assumed in this election that the left was not also sensitive to being attacked as a carpetbagger. Unlike most folks on the right, I suspect a smaller fraction of folks on the left now live anywhere near where they grew up. Emigrating as most did to larger metro areas, they left friends/families behind to seek a better life within their own country, hoping to thrive in a climate where outliers and diversity are more common and better tolerated. It's hardly a surprise that someone like Trump who has made opposition to immigration/emigration the central plank in his platform would be seen by any transient, be s/he international or intranational, as a threat.

GVIrish 10y ago

> Also, main takeaway from this? Don't attack people. It seems like that's a big complaint from the[se] people: I've been attacked for my beliefs and values. Yes and no. If someone is willing to discuss their viewpoint and consider the opposing viewpoint in good faith, then I agree they shouldn't be attacked. If someone is willing to share their worldview without vitriol or hatefulness, they shouldn't have their character assaulted. On the other hand, something I see a lot is people who are outraged that other people criticize them sharply for their bigotry. "Don't call me a hateful bigot because I believe I should be able to discriminate against gay people." "I'm not a bad person because I think Muslims should be banned from entering the United States." What I've seen is that some people are not used to being criticized or challenged for their regressive views and they react poorly to it. They lived most of their lives experiencing zero push back for saying racist or homophobic things and very quickly things have changed. Trump in some ways has allowed those people to go back to believing nothing they're saying or doing is wrong, and that mean 'ol liberals are the problem. There certainly is a component of the far left that is out there shouting people down for having opposing views. But the truth is that tolerance is advancing rapidly and it is disorienting for people who've never had to practice it much.

RangerScience 10y ago
I think I see what you're saying, but... ...when has it ever actually helped to attack them? Also, +1 for: > But the truth is that tolerance is advancing rapidly and it is disorienting for people who've never had to practice it much.
- GVIrish 10y ago
  What I was trying to get at, is that sometimes people use the word 'attacking' when other people are shouting down and being mean and nasty to people who hold a different viewpoint than them. But other times people say 'attacking' when people are calling out bigotry in a completely appropriate way. Like, yeah you're going to catch heat for calling the FLOTUS an ape in heels. I'd agree that attacking in a mean and nasty way is rarely productive. But there's also a place for loudly condemning hatefulness and ignorance, usually when we're talking about public figures who are willfully divisive or hateful. If David Duke decides to hold a white power rally I don't think it's inappropriate for people to loudly protest someone like him. Or a politician getting in front of a crowd talking about 'legitimate rape'.