5 ms·

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 v

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.
  - noobermin 8y ago
    Keeping it real, you're reading way too much into what they're saying.
    - tiredyam 8y ago
      No he isn’t. I agree with him that there is something interesting about the fact that he refers to democrats specifically and conservatives generally. It gives us some insight into his/her bias. It exemplifies some of the broad strokes that are being painted. All conservatives think X because all conservatives, whether fiscally or socially, have the same beliefs. Their anecdata is also highly questionable and presented as a legitimate source of information.
roenxi 8y ago
> It doesn't address, for example, the fact that the two political factions in America now accept different versions of reality. This isn't an unusual state of affairs. Historically, western civilization has faced similar problems with, eg, Catholics vs Protestants (which was substantially worse than anything we have now). The US specifically isn't yet even as bad as it was in the Civil War. The C v. P issue deserves special consideration - religious freedom isn't a principle in the west because it is warm and fuzzy. There were a lot of deaths. The threat is always that one side gets so delusional they do away with the institutions and systems that moderate the disagreement. Things like equal voting and standing before the law, judicial precedent, free speech, personal freedom, etc, etc. That risk is not concentrated in either wing of politics.
- int_19h 8y ago
  The problem is, as soon as one side starts doing that, the other side will try to outdo them next time they have a chance. We're already seeing the collapse of many customary norms in Congress, for example.
dropofwill 8y ago
I think part of what you’re getting at is what Wittgenstein called deep disagreements, conflicts that can’t rationally be resolved because they actually are just a proxy for differences in foundational beliefs (‘hinge commitments’). There’s a lot of interesting work that sprung out of these ideas, for example can hinge commitments be true/false or just ‘are’, if they can be true/false is it possible to give evidence to prove that? High level (hopeful) overview i read a while back on the topic https://chris-ranalli.weebly.com/uploads/7/4/6/4/7464753/wittgenstein_deep_disagreement___the_moral_problem_ranalli.pdf https://chris-ranalli.weebly.com/uploads/7/4/6/4/7464753/wit...
Theodores 8y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy It is a trick. People are being deliberately played. Power depends on myths. And people believing them.
fulafel 8y ago
Is there really a qualitative difference? Public discourse is a vehicle to arrive at a shared understanding of (= beliefs about) facts.
timthorn 8y ago
> 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 can't square the circle, but you can have a better discourse that recognises the fact. Abortion has been an issue like this for years - one side believes it is murder, the other believes it is fundamental to women's rights. But in the main, debate has been civil and about the issue rather than the people. That might be changing, of course - but it demonstrates that you can have a better discourse.
specialist 8y ago
One of my brothers studied to become a marine biologist. He then found Jesus. Now he's a creationist. Amongst a dozen other proclaimed beliefs. Does my brother really, truly believe that the earth is 6,000 years old? Really? One of my besties just revealed that she's an anti-vaxxor. Um, okay. Honestly, I can't even look at her the same way. I now favor the theory of belief as attire. Every day is Halloween and people dress up aspirationally. Because reasons. Whatever my brother (and others) now claim to believe, I've no idea how to relate, so I've given up trying to have meaningful, sincere conversations about anything substantial. To keep things civil and pleasant, it's all just chitchat. With familiar strangers.

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.
- noobermin 8y ago
  Keeping it real, you're reading way too much into what they're saying.
  - tiredyam 8y ago
    No he isn’t. I agree with him that there is something interesting about the fact that he refers to democrats specifically and conservatives generally. It gives us some insight into his/her bias. It exemplifies some of the broad strokes that are being painted. All conservatives think X because all conservatives, whether fiscally or socially, have the same beliefs. Their anecdata is also highly questionable and presented as a legitimate source of information.

roenxi 8y ago

> It doesn't address, for example, the fact that the two political factions in America now accept different versions of reality. This isn't an unusual state of affairs. Historically, western civilization has faced similar problems with, eg, Catholics vs Protestants (which was substantially worse than anything we have now). The US specifically isn't yet even as bad as it was in the Civil War. The C v. P issue deserves special consideration - religious freedom isn't a principle in the west because it is warm and fuzzy. There were a lot of deaths. The threat is always that one side gets so delusional they do away with the institutions and systems that moderate the disagreement. Things like equal voting and standing before the law, judicial precedent, free speech, personal freedom, etc, etc. That risk is not concentrated in either wing of politics.

int_19h 8y ago
The problem is, as soon as one side starts doing that, the other side will try to outdo them next time they have a chance. We're already seeing the collapse of many customary norms in Congress, for example.

dropofwill 8y ago

I think part of what you’re getting at is what Wittgenstein called deep disagreements, conflicts that can’t rationally be resolved because they actually are just a proxy for differences in foundational beliefs (‘hinge commitments’). There’s a lot of interesting work that sprung out of these ideas, for example can hinge commitments be true/false or just ‘are’, if they can be true/false is it possible to give evidence to prove that? High level (hopeful) overview i read a while back on the topic https://chris-ranalli.weebly.com/uploads/7/4/6/4/7464753/wittgenstein_deep_disagreement___the_moral_problem_ranalli.pdf https://chris-ranalli.weebly.com/uploads/7/4/6/4/7464753/wit...

Theodores 8y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy It is a trick. People are being deliberately played. Power depends on myths. And people believing them.

fulafel 8y ago

Is there really a qualitative difference? Public discourse is a vehicle to arrive at a shared understanding of (= beliefs about) facts.

timthorn 8y ago

> 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 can't square the circle, but you can have a better discourse that recognises the fact. Abortion has been an issue like this for years - one side believes it is murder, the other believes it is fundamental to women's rights. But in the main, debate has been civil and about the issue rather than the people. That might be changing, of course - but it demonstrates that you can have a better discourse.

specialist 8y ago

One of my brothers studied to become a marine biologist. He then found Jesus. Now he's a creationist. Amongst a dozen other proclaimed beliefs. Does my brother really, truly believe that the earth is 6,000 years old? Really? One of my besties just revealed that she's an anti-vaxxor. Um, okay. Honestly, I can't even look at her the same way. I now favor the theory of belief as attire. Every day is Halloween and people dress up aspirationally. Because reasons. Whatever my brother (and others) now claim to believe, I've no idea how to relate, so I've given up trying to have meaningful, sincere conversations about anything substantial. To keep things civil and pleasant, it's all just chitchat. With familiar strangers.