4 ms·

This is an argument you can make regardless of what is actually going on on the ground. "The problem isn't policy, it's actually polarization" -- but the articl

by vore 8y ago

This is an argument you can make regardless of what is actually going on on the ground. "The problem isn't policy, it's actually polarization" -- but the article completely fails to examine the causes of said polarization: What are people feeling angry about? Which people feel angry about what? Are those people justified in feeling angry? Are those angry people just doing it for show or are their lives being actively ruined? You end up having to view the conflict through an ideological lens, but claiming there is some enlightened non-ideological view and the "real problem" is contemptuousness is mega disingenuous.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
discard0000 8y ago
Created a throwaway account for this. As a foreigner who has spent significant time living the US, indeed this seems like the kind of mealy-mouthed, somewhat vapid meta-commentary about "unity" that offers nothing more than some soundbyte call for some abstract value (in this case "better disagreement"). It doesn't address, for example, the fact that the two political factions in America now accept different versions of reality. You cannot square that circle with "better disagreement". You cannot paper over a disagreement on the nature of fundamental facts with simplistic calls for a better discourse. To offer the most salient example: the question of whether or not the President of the country, with the help of his party and a major media outlet, is conspiring with a foreign dictatorship to undermine the democratic integrity of the country. One demographic believes the above to be true. The other either does not believe it to be true, or alternatively does not believe it to matter even if true. This is not some issue that can be simply bridged with "better disagreement". I'm sorry, that's just something you don't get to do. To offer another example: whether the former President of the united states was indeed an illegitimate candidate due to not being a natural born citizen. One side believes this to be true, the other does not. This disconnect on reality exists across the spectrum, and the lines are harshly drawn. If Americans cannot acknowledge that this schism in their country is arising out of a fundamental and deep disconnect on facts and reality that is widening on a day by day basis, not some mere "communication issue", they will never truly be able to understand and address it.
- paulsutter 8y ago
  None of my conservative friends believe that nonsense about Obama, and none of my democrat friends believe that Trump is a Russian spy. Both sides agree Trump is a swindly buffoon, and everyone agrees the Russians have higher standards when recruiting spies. The difference is that some of my conservative friends think it’s ok - or even funny - to have a swindly buffoon as president, and my democrat friends find this appalling. The New York Times on the other hand is making mad bank promoting a big culture war, so make of that what you will.
  - discard0000 8y ago
    I find two things interesting about your comment. The first is that you refer to conservatives in the general, and democrats in the specific. This may be simply inadvertant coincidence, but it stood out to me. In fact, you use those particular constructions twice: > None of my conservative friends believe that nonsense about Obama, and none of my democrat friends believe that Trump is a Russian spy. > The difference is that some of my conservative friends think it’s ok to have a swindly buffoon as president, and none of my democrat friends agree with that. This suggests that in your mind, the "sides" you are seeing here are "conservative" vs. "democrat", which I find very interesting. One gets a party label, the other does not. Secondly, to address your main point: I don't understand why you feel that it's relevant what the "conservatives you know" believe. The political party that represents that demographic certainly strongly pushes those beliefs, does it not? Did the current President and party behind him not accuse the former one of being born in Kenya? Did they not and do they not still promote the belief that the issue of climate change is a "chinese conspiracy" (or alternatively, some ploy by the liberals and scientific establishment)? Did they prosecute a war on the "belief" that Iraq had WMDs (an action which cost your country several thousand soldiers' lives, and a few trillion dollars)? Whatever your conservative friends may believe (let's leave aside the fact that you are making an argument via anecdote - your friends may or may not be representative of the demographic as a whole).. the party that represents them certainly pushes these understandings, and pushes them relentlessly, and justifies policy on the basis of those understandings. I find your response to be similar to the article in question: generalized, abstracted, "stepping above". Unfortunately, in this circumstance.. the details matter.
DyslexicAtheist 8y ago
for somebody who as a non resident and oblivious to what is happening to US society (other than what toxic media feeds me), I wish the below thread (now dead) had at least 1 or 2 comments explaining why his/her position is flawed (or even outrageous). Judging only from what many Australians, Brits and Europeans are saying it seems the opinion on Americans is that they have been divorced from reality long before Trump. One of my mates living in NYC who I caught up with in January has pretty much reverberated what that (dead) sibling comment said. Not only do I fail to see why people find that comment outrageous but I don't even understand what people believe is the real reason for the divide. Hopefully no one finds this offensive. Also the problem is far from being an isolated US phenomenon. I see it everywhere across the EU (Brexit being just the tip of the iceberg here). edit: suddenly @discard0000's comment is no longer dead.
- malandrew 8y ago
  Yeah, I had to vouch for it to undead it. I was honestly surprised that it was killed. It made a great point and wasn't inflammatory.
whack 8y ago
You haven't addressed the author's main point at all. You can disagree all you want with someone, without feeling contempt towards that person. > "but the article completely fails to examine the causes of said polarization" Actually the article does exactly that: > The sources of motive attribution asymmetry are easy to identify: divisive politicians, screaming heads on television, hateful columnists, angry campus activists and seemingly everything on the contempt machines of social media. This “outrage industrial complex” works by catering to just one ideological side, creating a species of addiction by feeding our desire to believe that we are completely right and that the other side is made up of knaves and fools. It strokes our own biases while affirming our worst assumptions about those who disagree with us. I would add to the above the tech-fueled echo chambers, fake news, and clickbait journalism. As far as actual substantive differences between the 2 political parties, I don't think anything has changed dramatically in the past century. Feel free to be as ideological and radical as you want. I believe in Medicare for all and UBI. But there is such a thing as healthy disagreements and healthy debates, and never does that include contempt. If you think that anyone who voted for the other party is worthy of contempt, you're part of the problem.
- int_19h 8y ago
  I know a literal neo-Nazi who voted for the other party. Are they worthy of contempt?
noobermin 8y ago
This is an ideological view here. The author is the head of a large think tank, the kinds whose current position is threatened by the "extremes" on either side of the divide. Take out the AEI and place in CAP and you get a similar antagonism and a loathing of these types at the people rejecting business as usual.
philwelch 8y ago
Polarization is a tactic used to gain power, on both sides. It’s obvious who benefits from polarization: the moral defectives who end up in positions of power and influence by stoking it.

by vore 8y ago

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

discard0000 8y ago

Created a throwaway account for this. As a foreigner who has spent significant time living the US, indeed this seems like the kind of mealy-mouthed, somewhat vapid meta-commentary about "unity" that offers nothing more than some soundbyte call for some abstract value (in this case "better disagreement"). It doesn't address, for example, the fact that the two political factions in America now accept different versions of reality. You cannot square that circle with "better disagreement". You cannot paper over a disagreement on the nature of fundamental facts with simplistic calls for a better discourse. To offer the most salient example: the question of whether or not the President of the country, with the help of his party and a major media outlet, is conspiring with a foreign dictatorship to undermine the democratic integrity of the country. One demographic believes the above to be true. The other either does not believe it to be true, or alternatively does not believe it to matter even if true. This is not some issue that can be simply bridged with "better disagreement". I'm sorry, that's just something you don't get to do. To offer another example: whether the former President of the united states was indeed an illegitimate candidate due to not being a natural born citizen. One side believes this to be true, the other does not. This disconnect on reality exists across the spectrum, and the lines are harshly drawn. If Americans cannot acknowledge that this schism in their country is arising out of a fundamental and deep disconnect on facts and reality that is widening on a day by day basis, not some mere "communication issue", they will never truly be able to understand and address it.

paulsutter 8y ago
None of my conservative friends believe that nonsense about Obama, and none of my democrat friends believe that Trump is a Russian spy. Both sides agree Trump is a swindly buffoon, and everyone agrees the Russians have higher standards when recruiting spies. The difference is that some of my conservative friends think it’s ok - or even funny - to have a swindly buffoon as president, and my democrat friends find this appalling. The New York Times on the other hand is making mad bank promoting a big culture war, so make of that what you will.
- discard0000 8y ago
  I find two things interesting about your comment. The first is that you refer to conservatives in the general, and democrats in the specific. This may be simply inadvertant coincidence, but it stood out to me. In fact, you use those particular constructions twice: > None of my conservative friends believe that nonsense about Obama, and none of my democrat friends believe that Trump is a Russian spy. > The difference is that some of my conservative friends think it’s ok to have a swindly buffoon as president, and none of my democrat friends agree with that. This suggests that in your mind, the "sides" you are seeing here are "conservative" vs. "democrat", which I find very interesting. One gets a party label, the other does not. Secondly, to address your main point: I don't understand why you feel that it's relevant what the "conservatives you know" believe. The political party that represents that demographic certainly strongly pushes those beliefs, does it not? Did the current President and party behind him not accuse the former one of being born in Kenya? Did they not and do they not still promote the belief that the issue of climate change is a "chinese conspiracy" (or alternatively, some ploy by the liberals and scientific establishment)? Did they prosecute a war on the "belief" that Iraq had WMDs (an action which cost your country several thousand soldiers' lives, and a few trillion dollars)? Whatever your conservative friends may believe (let's leave aside the fact that you are making an argument via anecdote - your friends may or may not be representative of the demographic as a whole).. the party that represents them certainly pushes these understandings, and pushes them relentlessly, and justifies policy on the basis of those understandings. I find your response to be similar to the article in question: generalized, abstracted, "stepping above". Unfortunately, in this circumstance.. the details matter.

DyslexicAtheist 8y ago

for somebody who as a non resident and oblivious to what is happening to US society (other than what toxic media feeds me), I wish the below thread (now dead) had at least 1 or 2 comments explaining why his/her position is flawed (or even outrageous). Judging only from what many Australians, Brits and Europeans are saying it seems the opinion on Americans is that they have been divorced from reality long before Trump. One of my mates living in NYC who I caught up with in January has pretty much reverberated what that (dead) sibling comment said. Not only do I fail to see why people find that comment outrageous but I don't even understand what people believe is the real reason for the divide. Hopefully no one finds this offensive. Also the problem is far from being an isolated US phenomenon. I see it everywhere across the EU (Brexit being just the tip of the iceberg here). edit: suddenly @discard0000's comment is no longer dead.

malandrew 8y ago
Yeah, I had to vouch for it to undead it. I was honestly surprised that it was killed. It made a great point and wasn't inflammatory.

whack 8y ago

You haven't addressed the author's main point at all. You can disagree all you want with someone, without feeling contempt towards that person. > "but the article completely fails to examine the causes of said polarization" Actually the article does exactly that: > The sources of motive attribution asymmetry are easy to identify: divisive politicians, screaming heads on television, hateful columnists, angry campus activists and seemingly everything on the contempt machines of social media. This “outrage industrial complex” works by catering to just one ideological side, creating a species of addiction by feeding our desire to believe that we are completely right and that the other side is made up of knaves and fools. It strokes our own biases while affirming our worst assumptions about those who disagree with us. I would add to the above the tech-fueled echo chambers, fake news, and clickbait journalism. As far as actual substantive differences between the 2 political parties, I don't think anything has changed dramatically in the past century. Feel free to be as ideological and radical as you want. I believe in Medicare for all and UBI. But there is such a thing as healthy disagreements and healthy debates, and never does that include contempt. If you think that anyone who voted for the other party is worthy of contempt, you're part of the problem.

int_19h 8y ago
I know a literal neo-Nazi who voted for the other party. Are they worthy of contempt?

noobermin 8y ago

This is an ideological view here. The author is the head of a large think tank, the kinds whose current position is threatened by the "extremes" on either side of the divide. Take out the AEI and place in CAP and you get a similar antagonism and a loathing of these types at the people rejecting business as usual.

philwelch 8y ago

Polarization is a tactic used to gain power, on both sides. It’s obvious who benefits from polarization: the moral defectives who end up in positions of power and influence by stoking it.