5 ms·
The problem is that it is easy for one side, in partisan politics, to label the other side as stupid, regardless of whether or not they actually are stupid. If
by abnry 8y ago
The problem is that it is easy for one side, in partisan politics, to label the other side as stupid, regardless of whether or not they actually are stupid.
If you hold a minority opinion, you're likely to be called stupid. But consensus is not the same thing as being truth.
- _Schizotypy 8y agoI think it would be considered stupid if you damage your own country based on ideology without evidence
- abnry 8y agoPeople disagree about what is damaging to their country. Some people think it's a national emergency that there's no border wall. Otherwise think we live in a third world country because we don't have a single payer healthcare system.
- _Schizotypy 8y agoThat's why the "evidence" portion is the important qualifier. There is evidence that we pay an absurd amount for healthcare in the US, while there is no evidence that a border wall would do anything.
- MockObject 8y agoOthers would argue that there's no evidence that the US federal government could improve healthcare outcomes, and that there is evidence that border walls work, say, in Israel. I'm not interested in arguing any of this either way. Just that "no evidence" can mean "no evidence that I personally find convincing".
- wrs 8y agoNo, they wouldn’t — they would just yell the same words louder and keep moving the goalposts so their side could “win”. I could respond with all the differences between the US and Israel borders, or point out that the US government runs two very large single payer health plans already, but that’s not what happens. An actual discussion like that is exactly what democracy needs but seems impossible to have right now.