3 ms·

> If Republican voters actually have a moderate view of immigration, that's great, but they voted for a guy who is putting migrants in cages. Therefore, they al

> If Republican voters actually have a moderate view of immigration, that's great, but they voted for a guy who is putting migrants in cages. Therefore, they all support putting migrants in cages. This is unreasonable.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
agreed8282 7y ago
They may not emotionally agree with it individually. But they enabled the behavior. These voters are suffering cognitive dissonance. Their actions mean more than their self professed personal identity. That’s been true in social discourse forever. Or should we let rapists go because they felt like they needed to rape and we should allow perpetrators their feelings over their victims real freedoms? In the same way we jail rapists for their actions we can shame and demonize others for crap actions. This cause effect loop is what we rely on to improve our society. So long as it doesn’t devolve into caging old white people, it’s not a big deal to me if they lose some political power given what the world looks like when they have it. SCOTUS just confirmed the people are not owed objective representation. Their side just enabled the path for their own undoing. Freedom of speech is not freedom from repercussions of that speech. John Stuart Mill said the government should be prevented from punishing people for being drunks. But their neighbors were under no obligation to accept them for being a drunk. This is well trodden philosophical territory that gets circular fast. Cause here you are calling someone else’s position unreasonable over their position that others are unreasonable and should be called such. Subjective emotional positions is how humans view the world. It’s unreasonable to expect we all subscribe to the same take.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
gonzo41 7y ago
It's not really that unreasonable that a view like that exists. The right wing, where ever you place that pin, has decided to play winner takes all politics for a long time in the west. The left loses when it compromises in most political spheres. The saying, the left always fight's itself first, didn't just pop out of thin air. I think the left is becoming a little more hard nosed with fighting, and realizing that winning is winning is winning and it doesn't matter how you get there it's what you do once you are there. And I'd say this may be an effect of climate change and that we may be living in the last two decades where we can take meaningful action on climate change.
- 18pfsmt 7y ago
  The US leads the world in GHG emission reductions, and acting like we need to do more, while every other country does less is not sound.
  - tensor 7y ago
    This thinking is equivalent to "oh the ship is sinking, others aren't bailing as many buckets of water as me therefore I should do less." Unless your goal is actually to sink, your rational is missing the objective.
    - 18pfsmt 7y ago
      This is rhetoric without substance. How much more should we be doing? The poorest among our country will suffer the most with the proposed austerity measure. If it's a global problem, more than one country has to address it (not just the one doing 15% of emissions; focus on the 80%, not 20%). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_distribution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_distribution

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

agreed8282 7y ago

They may not emotionally agree with it individually. But they enabled the behavior. These voters are suffering cognitive dissonance. Their actions mean more than their self professed personal identity. That’s been true in social discourse forever. Or should we let rapists go because they felt like they needed to rape and we should allow perpetrators their feelings over their victims real freedoms? In the same way we jail rapists for their actions we can shame and demonize others for crap actions. This cause effect loop is what we rely on to improve our society. So long as it doesn’t devolve into caging old white people, it’s not a big deal to me if they lose some political power given what the world looks like when they have it. SCOTUS just confirmed the people are not owed objective representation. Their side just enabled the path for their own undoing. Freedom of speech is not freedom from repercussions of that speech. John Stuart Mill said the government should be prevented from punishing people for being drunks. But their neighbors were under no obligation to accept them for being a drunk. This is well trodden philosophical territory that gets circular fast. Cause here you are calling someone else’s position unreasonable over their position that others are unreasonable and should be called such. Subjective emotional positions is how humans view the world. It’s unreasonable to expect we all subscribe to the same take.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

gonzo41 7y ago

It's not really that unreasonable that a view like that exists. The right wing, where ever you place that pin, has decided to play winner takes all politics for a long time in the west. The left loses when it compromises in most political spheres. The saying, the left always fight's itself first, didn't just pop out of thin air. I think the left is becoming a little more hard nosed with fighting, and realizing that winning is winning is winning and it doesn't matter how you get there it's what you do once you are there. And I'd say this may be an effect of climate change and that we may be living in the last two decades where we can take meaningful action on climate change.

18pfsmt 7y ago
The US leads the world in GHG emission reductions, and acting like we need to do more, while every other country does less is not sound.
- tensor 7y ago
  This thinking is equivalent to "oh the ship is sinking, others aren't bailing as many buckets of water as me therefore I should do less." Unless your goal is actually to sink, your rational is missing the objective.
  - 18pfsmt 7y ago
    This is rhetoric without substance. How much more should we be doing? The poorest among our country will suffer the most with the proposed austerity measure. If it's a global problem, more than one country has to address it (not just the one doing 15% of emissions; focus on the 80%, not 20%). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_distribution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_distribution