11 ms·

I hear what you're saying, and I don't think you're necessarily wrong. And at the risk of sounding like a partisan, I really don't think the two "sides" in U.S.

I hear what you're saying, and I don't think you're necessarily wrong. And at the risk of sounding like a partisan, I really don't think the two "sides" in U.S. politics are at all equivalent. There is one party that cares about "winning" at any cost. They absolutely justify this by, as you say, painting the other party—and those in their own party that don't toe the line—as "the enemy". It is terrifying, and I don't know how this gets resolved.

zaque1213 7y ago
It appears you have given a perfect illustration of the comment you are replying to.
- SuperFerret 7y ago
  the_gastropod is right though.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- nathan_compton 7y ago
  I think the gastropod is basically on point. The democrats aren't beacons of virtue or rationality by any stretch of the imagination, but its a strange kind of self-imposed blindness to pretend the two political parties are playing the same game here. We can simultaneously see that partisan politics isn't completely rational and also observe that one side, for various reasons, is working that irrationality harder than the other.
  - insickness 7y ago
    A study at Dartmouth found that 45 percent of Democrats say they would be uncomfortable rooming with a Republican. Comparatively, only 12 percent of Republicans said rooming with a Democrat would make them uncomfortable. My anecdotal evidence bears this out. Progressives tend to be far more intolerant of opposing viewpoints than conservatives. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/majority-of-democrats-at-dartmouth-uncomfortable-living-with-roommate-who-disagrees-on-politics-poll-finds https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/majority-of-democrats-at-...
    - notJim 7y ago
      Well, one explanation for this would be that republican politics are actually much more morally repellent than democratic politics. My entire life, Republican politics have been defined by rejecting gay and transgender rights, cutting social services, demonizing immigrants and muslims, making it harder for people to vote and taking away abortion rights. Gee, why wouldn't someone want to hang out with someone who supports that lovely agenda?
      - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
        If you're curious, there are lots of people who've written at length about why they hang out with and indeed support Republicans despite being in those categories. Peter Thiel and Marco Rubio would be two prominent examples if you're looking for recommendations.
      - Mountain_Skies 7y ago
        Maybe I'm older than you but Democrats have held many of those positions for a good portion of my life. They just generally don't hold them now though a sizable minority still do have at least a couple of those views.
        the_gastropod 7y ago
        Yes, even Barack Obama was against gay marriage. We've come a long way. But since ~1968, the Democratic party has consistently lead the Republican party on social issues.
        bart_spoon 7y ago
        Except there is still a double standard. For example, approximately the same number of black people are opposed to gay marriage as Republicans (52% vs 49%)[1], and yet only one of those groups gets consistently portrayed as homophobic and detestable. [1] https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/support-for-same-sex-marriage-isnt-unanimous/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/support-for-same-sex-ma...
  - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
    The question isn't whether they're playing the same game. Indeed, it'd be surprising if they were, since the goals and principles of the two parties are often quite different. The question is whether "aha, that other party has decided to do the wrong thing rather than the right thing" is a helpful way to conceptualize the difference. As another reply to you has shown, it's very easy to find specific differences and elevate them to an all-encompassing explanation, if that's how you decide you want to look at things.
- bobbydroptables 7y ago
  As someone who is against both parties, I don't agree. Both parties are absolutely horrible but the Republicans are much worse. While I don't know how we can propose an independent arbiter to nail this down, there is absolutely no reason to assume that these groups are equivalently moral. There need not be two equivalent sides in any debate, but there's no reason to even pretend that groups of humans behave equally morally. Like I'm not sure where that idea would even derive from. We of course have plenty of evidence that Republicans are more Machievellian for example. That's not exactly a point up for debate. (More than happy to engage in that debate if you wish.) We can use an extreme example to illustrate the point. Let's say we have two parties: a random moderate party and a Nazi party. They're both going to say very mean things about the other party and how much more unethical it is. One of these groups will be making these statements accurately. Only one.
  - UnpossibleJim 7y ago
    Seriously, if people keep calling everyone a Nazi, the term and horror of what they did and the crimes they perpetrated will be lost to a fairy tale, if it hasn't been already. Stop it. Choose your words more carefully and pick a different School yard insult to call people. That's shameful. The actuality of what Nazis did is horrific. Don't cheapen it in less than a century.
    - bobbydroptables 7y ago
      I don't think I called anyone a Nazi. Why don't you stop making up things that people didn't say. Let me know when you're ready to get there and we'll try this again. Also, instead of whining, consider critiquing the substance of anything I said.
- mrlala 7y ago
  But sometimes one side is really the correct side to be on. Which side is intent on banning choice, banning gay rights, forcing religion down everyone's throats, forcing capitalism to the extreme where people can't even afford health care? Against mandated maturity leave. Against mandated time off and job security. Sure some of those issues are more complicated than others, but some are also really simple. We are getting to the point where you can't just say "both sides are the same but just have different views". One side is trying to make lives better for the vast majority of people and the other is trying to ensure they stay in power and keep getting richer. Greed is a hell of a drug, apparently.
fingerlocks 7y ago
I’m not trying to be glib when I say this, but I really don’t know which side you’re referring to. I’ve witnessed an equal amount of tribalism from supporters of both sides.
- Verdex 7y ago
  Hear, hear. I almost said exactly the same thing you just did. I have absolutely no clue which "side" he's talking about.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- notJim 7y ago
  I think it's the party engaging in voter suppression throughout the country, and the one that stripped the powers of the governor when someone from the other side won, and the one that literally fled the state so that the legislature didn't have quorum and couldn't pass legislation, even though they were a clear minority. Or the one that refused to confirm a seat on the supreme court for nearly a year, in an unprecedented move. I could go on.
  - Frondo 7y ago
    I have a couple of friends who are basically checked out when it comes to politics; they don't pay attention at all, and generally repeat what they hear from others, if asked. They'd say the same thing, "they're both the same," because it's an old and easy refrain to say "all politicians are crooks" -- no one will question you on it and you won't get called out for giving a non-answer to it. It could be that GP is also politically disengaged, in which case "they're all tribalists" is not an unreasonable position; yet not one that will shed a lot of light on any further topics.
  - gred 7y ago
    I think GP has a point, and I'll illustrate by trying to simply flip the very convenient mirror that you've set up. Please get past the initial emotional response (canards! blasphemy!) and just realize that this is a paragraph that roughly half the country will read with a straight face and agree with. "I think it's the party engaging in voter fraud [1] throughout the country, and the one that tried to impeach the president when someone from the other side won [2], and the one that literally fled the state so that the legislature didn't have quorum and couldn't pass legislation [3], even though they were a clear minority. Or the one that falsely accused a supreme court nominee of rape [4], in an unprecedented move. I could go on." It's evident to me that people of all political bents in this country are extremely tribalistic, and none of the tribes count many saints among their numbers. Citations added simply to highlight that I'm not pulling any of this out of thin air: [1] https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/politics/impeachment-support-house-democrats/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/politics/impeac... [3] https://www.npr.org/2011/02/17/133847336/wis-democratic-lawmakers-flee-to-prevent-vote https://www.npr.org/2011/02/17/133847336/wis-democratic-lawm... [4] https://reason.com/2018/11/05/brett-kavanaugh-due-process-false-rape/ https://reason.com/2018/11/05/brett-kavanaugh-due-process-fa...
golergka 7y ago
There's only one political party in the US right now that routinely uses labels such as "racists", "Nazis" and "white supremacists" against their opponents to dehumanize them and justify physical violence. Haven't seen anything like it from the other side.
- zapita 7y ago
  Does it bother you that the same could have been said in defense of the actual Nazi party?
  - golergka 7y ago
    No, because 99% of the time these labels have no basis in reality and those who use these labels don't bother to even try to prove these accusations. They became just fighting words for dehumanization, used without a second thought.
  - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
    I don't think it could have been said. The Nazis were, from the start, clearly and enthusiastically in favor of violence against their political opponents. Their first attempt at a violent coup happened only a couple years after they were founded.
  - Frondo 7y ago
    Sounds like he's trying to talk about Antifa, but as we all know, Antifa has killed as many people as weed, i.e. none. Casting a slightly wider net: "Over the past decade, extremists of every stripe have killed 372 Americans. 74 percent of those killings were committed by right wing extremists. Only 2 percent of those deaths were at the hands of left wing extremists." https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/08/17/are-antifa-and-the-alt-right-equally-violent/ https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/08/17/are-antifa-and-the-al... But "both sides" and all.
- pell 7y ago
  Donald Trump went on an interview with Telemundo and claimed he's uniting families and Obama was the one who separated them. In this kind of reality distortion, it seems people are more concerned with being called "racist" than owning up to being racist. It is absolutely rich that the party that argued no soap for detained children, separated from their parents, creating trauma by the minute lasting decades, is feeling dehumanized by an adjective. The Republican party is morally bankrupt. This is not a partisan idea, but a very obvious fact. For this to be clear to you, you don't have to be a fan of the Democrats at all.
gmac 7y ago
It’s absolutely the same in the UK. The right wing party has lost any moral compass and any sense of shame. There’s something new almost every day, but to pick two examples: (1) They unlawfully shut down Parliament, which stood in the way of them crashing the country out of the EU, by lying to the Queen. (2) During a live TV debate on Tuesday they rebranded their Twitter account as ‘factcheckUK’ to try to con people into thinking their partisan lines were impartial or true. There is absolutely no equivalence between their actions and any other party’s. To believe that politicians are all as bad as each other, as many people appear to, is to have given up making any attempt to understand the world, and is dangerous for democracy.
BurningFrog 7y ago
The thing about tribalism is that all tribes think this about the "other" tribe. This is hardcoded in us.
tenebrisalietum 7y ago
Both parties care, but one side wants government to do less or not interfere with things, and the other side wants government to do more or redistribute things. One side has an interest in government functioning properly and the other doesn't (until they need Medicare anyway). I think this contributes to the "win at any cost" appearance of the one side.

zaque1213 7y ago

It appears you have given a perfect illustration of the comment you are replying to.

SuperFerret 7y ago
the_gastropod is right though.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
nathan_compton 7y ago
I think the gastropod is basically on point. The democrats aren't beacons of virtue or rationality by any stretch of the imagination, but its a strange kind of self-imposed blindness to pretend the two political parties are playing the same game here. We can simultaneously see that partisan politics isn't completely rational and also observe that one side, for various reasons, is working that irrationality harder than the other.
- insickness 7y ago
  A study at Dartmouth found that 45 percent of Democrats say they would be uncomfortable rooming with a Republican. Comparatively, only 12 percent of Republicans said rooming with a Democrat would make them uncomfortable. My anecdotal evidence bears this out. Progressives tend to be far more intolerant of opposing viewpoints than conservatives. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/majority-of-democrats-at-dartmouth-uncomfortable-living-with-roommate-who-disagrees-on-politics-poll-finds https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/majority-of-democrats-at-...
  - notJim 7y ago
    Well, one explanation for this would be that republican politics are actually much more morally repellent than democratic politics. My entire life, Republican politics have been defined by rejecting gay and transgender rights, cutting social services, demonizing immigrants and muslims, making it harder for people to vote and taking away abortion rights. Gee, why wouldn't someone want to hang out with someone who supports that lovely agenda?
    - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
      If you're curious, there are lots of people who've written at length about why they hang out with and indeed support Republicans despite being in those categories. Peter Thiel and Marco Rubio would be two prominent examples if you're looking for recommendations.
    - Mountain_Skies 7y ago
      Maybe I'm older than you but Democrats have held many of those positions for a good portion of my life. They just generally don't hold them now though a sizable minority still do have at least a couple of those views.
      - the_gastropod 7y ago
        Yes, even Barack Obama was against gay marriage. We've come a long way. But since ~1968, the Democratic party has consistently lead the Republican party on social issues.
        bart_spoon 7y ago
        Except there is still a double standard. For example, approximately the same number of black people are opposed to gay marriage as Republicans (52% vs 49%)[1], and yet only one of those groups gets consistently portrayed as homophobic and detestable. [1] https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/support-for-same-sex-marriage-isnt-unanimous/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/support-for-same-sex-ma...
- SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
  The question isn't whether they're playing the same game. Indeed, it'd be surprising if they were, since the goals and principles of the two parties are often quite different. The question is whether "aha, that other party has decided to do the wrong thing rather than the right thing" is a helpful way to conceptualize the difference. As another reply to you has shown, it's very easy to find specific differences and elevate them to an all-encompassing explanation, if that's how you decide you want to look at things.
bobbydroptables 7y ago
As someone who is against both parties, I don't agree. Both parties are absolutely horrible but the Republicans are much worse. While I don't know how we can propose an independent arbiter to nail this down, there is absolutely no reason to assume that these groups are equivalently moral. There need not be two equivalent sides in any debate, but there's no reason to even pretend that groups of humans behave equally morally. Like I'm not sure where that idea would even derive from. We of course have plenty of evidence that Republicans are more Machievellian for example. That's not exactly a point up for debate. (More than happy to engage in that debate if you wish.) We can use an extreme example to illustrate the point. Let's say we have two parties: a random moderate party and a Nazi party. They're both going to say very mean things about the other party and how much more unethical it is. One of these groups will be making these statements accurately. Only one.
- UnpossibleJim 7y ago
  Seriously, if people keep calling everyone a Nazi, the term and horror of what they did and the crimes they perpetrated will be lost to a fairy tale, if it hasn't been already. Stop it. Choose your words more carefully and pick a different School yard insult to call people. That's shameful. The actuality of what Nazis did is horrific. Don't cheapen it in less than a century.
  - bobbydroptables 7y ago
    I don't think I called anyone a Nazi. Why don't you stop making up things that people didn't say. Let me know when you're ready to get there and we'll try this again. Also, instead of whining, consider critiquing the substance of anything I said.
mrlala 7y ago
But sometimes one side is really the correct side to be on. Which side is intent on banning choice, banning gay rights, forcing religion down everyone's throats, forcing capitalism to the extreme where people can't even afford health care? Against mandated maturity leave. Against mandated time off and job security. Sure some of those issues are more complicated than others, but some are also really simple. We are getting to the point where you can't just say "both sides are the same but just have different views". One side is trying to make lives better for the vast majority of people and the other is trying to ensure they stay in power and keep getting richer. Greed is a hell of a drug, apparently.

fingerlocks 7y ago

I’m not trying to be glib when I say this, but I really don’t know which side you’re referring to. I’ve witnessed an equal amount of tribalism from supporters of both sides.

Verdex 7y ago
Hear, hear. I almost said exactly the same thing you just did. I have absolutely no clue which "side" he's talking about.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
notJim 7y ago
I think it's the party engaging in voter suppression throughout the country, and the one that stripped the powers of the governor when someone from the other side won, and the one that literally fled the state so that the legislature didn't have quorum and couldn't pass legislation, even though they were a clear minority. Or the one that refused to confirm a seat on the supreme court for nearly a year, in an unprecedented move. I could go on.
- Frondo 7y ago
  I have a couple of friends who are basically checked out when it comes to politics; they don't pay attention at all, and generally repeat what they hear from others, if asked. They'd say the same thing, "they're both the same," because it's an old and easy refrain to say "all politicians are crooks" -- no one will question you on it and you won't get called out for giving a non-answer to it. It could be that GP is also politically disengaged, in which case "they're all tribalists" is not an unreasonable position; yet not one that will shed a lot of light on any further topics.
- gred 7y ago
  I think GP has a point, and I'll illustrate by trying to simply flip the very convenient mirror that you've set up. Please get past the initial emotional response (canards! blasphemy!) and just realize that this is a paragraph that roughly half the country will read with a straight face and agree with. "I think it's the party engaging in voter fraud [1] throughout the country, and the one that tried to impeach the president when someone from the other side won [2], and the one that literally fled the state so that the legislature didn't have quorum and couldn't pass legislation [3], even though they were a clear minority. Or the one that falsely accused a supreme court nominee of rape [4], in an unprecedented move. I could go on." It's evident to me that people of all political bents in this country are extremely tribalistic, and none of the tribes count many saints among their numbers. Citations added simply to highlight that I'm not pulling any of this out of thin air: [1] https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/politics/impeachment-support-house-democrats/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/politics/impeac... [3] https://www.npr.org/2011/02/17/133847336/wis-democratic-lawmakers-flee-to-prevent-vote https://www.npr.org/2011/02/17/133847336/wis-democratic-lawm... [4] https://reason.com/2018/11/05/brett-kavanaugh-due-process-false-rape/ https://reason.com/2018/11/05/brett-kavanaugh-due-process-fa...

golergka 7y ago

There's only one political party in the US right now that routinely uses labels such as "racists", "Nazis" and "white supremacists" against their opponents to dehumanize them and justify physical violence. Haven't seen anything like it from the other side.

zapita 7y ago
Does it bother you that the same could have been said in defense of the actual Nazi party?
- golergka 7y ago
  No, because 99% of the time these labels have no basis in reality and those who use these labels don't bother to even try to prove these accusations. They became just fighting words for dehumanization, used without a second thought.
- SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
  I don't think it could have been said. The Nazis were, from the start, clearly and enthusiastically in favor of violence against their political opponents. Their first attempt at a violent coup happened only a couple years after they were founded.
- Frondo 7y ago
  Sounds like he's trying to talk about Antifa, but as we all know, Antifa has killed as many people as weed, i.e. none. Casting a slightly wider net: "Over the past decade, extremists of every stripe have killed 372 Americans. 74 percent of those killings were committed by right wing extremists. Only 2 percent of those deaths were at the hands of left wing extremists." https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/08/17/are-antifa-and-the-alt-right-equally-violent/ https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/08/17/are-antifa-and-the-al... But "both sides" and all.
pell 7y ago
Donald Trump went on an interview with Telemundo and claimed he's uniting families and Obama was the one who separated them. In this kind of reality distortion, it seems people are more concerned with being called "racist" than owning up to being racist. It is absolutely rich that the party that argued no soap for detained children, separated from their parents, creating trauma by the minute lasting decades, is feeling dehumanized by an adjective. The Republican party is morally bankrupt. This is not a partisan idea, but a very obvious fact. For this to be clear to you, you don't have to be a fan of the Democrats at all.

gmac 7y ago

It’s absolutely the same in the UK. The right wing party has lost any moral compass and any sense of shame. There’s something new almost every day, but to pick two examples: (1) They unlawfully shut down Parliament, which stood in the way of them crashing the country out of the EU, by lying to the Queen. (2) During a live TV debate on Tuesday they rebranded their Twitter account as ‘factcheckUK’ to try to con people into thinking their partisan lines were impartial or true. There is absolutely no equivalence between their actions and any other party’s. To believe that politicians are all as bad as each other, as many people appear to, is to have given up making any attempt to understand the world, and is dangerous for democracy.

BurningFrog 7y ago

The thing about tribalism is that all tribes think this about the "other" tribe. This is hardcoded in us.

tenebrisalietum 7y ago

Both parties care, but one side wants government to do less or not interfere with things, and the other side wants government to do more or redistribute things. One side has an interest in government functioning properly and the other doesn't (until they need Medicare anyway). I think this contributes to the "win at any cost" appearance of the one side.