5 ms·

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

by zaque1213 7y ago

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...
        the_gastropod 7y ago
        Being a Republican is a choice. Being black is not.
        bart_spoon 7y ago
        Being in favor of gay marriage is a choice though
  - the_gastropod 7y ago
    Are you familiar with the paradox of tolerance? Historically, conservatives in the U.S. have been very intolerant of minorities—be they racial, sexual, gender identification, religious, or otherwise. It's not unreasonable to think people in these minority groups would be uncomfortable sharing a room with a person who is likely intolerant of an important aspect to who they are. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
    - zdragnar 7y ago
      Historically, the "conservatives" (if you're referring to the Republican party) was actually more tolerant. The abolitionist movement to end slavery, for one, and republicans supported the civil rights act more than the democrats did: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#By_party https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#By_... Yes, in all votes, by percentage, more democrats opposed the civil rights act than did republicans. Earlier, the progressive movement was founded on, among other things, eugenics (sterilization and abortion) of undesirable people, such as minorities and disabled. The progressive movement has since changed its tune. Minority groups clearly aren't using history to pick roommates they would feel comfortable with.
      - bobbydroptables 7y ago
        >Yes, in all votes, by percentage, more democrats opposed the civil rights act than did republicans. Yes I'm sure that's why all those Democrats are upset at tearing down Confederate/traitor statues... Definitely the same party.
        zdragnar 7y ago
        In fact, it is the same party, but different people. I was responding to the idea that minorities were using history to choose their roommates, and how if that were the case, it would not be so clear cut.
        7y ago
  - stouset 7y ago
    I would find it uncomfortable being a roomate with an outspoken holocaust denier. A holocaust denier probably wouldn't find it uncomfortable being my roommate. I would wager this generalizes pretty well to holocaust accepters and deniers as a whole. Is the takeaway from this that holocaust deniers are more accepting people?
- 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.

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...
        the_gastropod 7y ago
        Being a Republican is a choice. Being black is not.
        bart_spoon 7y ago
        Being in favor of gay marriage is a choice though
- the_gastropod 7y ago
  Are you familiar with the paradox of tolerance? Historically, conservatives in the U.S. have been very intolerant of minorities—be they racial, sexual, gender identification, religious, or otherwise. It's not unreasonable to think people in these minority groups would be uncomfortable sharing a room with a person who is likely intolerant of an important aspect to who they are. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
  - zdragnar 7y ago
    Historically, the "conservatives" (if you're referring to the Republican party) was actually more tolerant. The abolitionist movement to end slavery, for one, and republicans supported the civil rights act more than the democrats did: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#By_party https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#By_... Yes, in all votes, by percentage, more democrats opposed the civil rights act than did republicans. Earlier, the progressive movement was founded on, among other things, eugenics (sterilization and abortion) of undesirable people, such as minorities and disabled. The progressive movement has since changed its tune. Minority groups clearly aren't using history to pick roommates they would feel comfortable with.
    - bobbydroptables 7y ago
      >Yes, in all votes, by percentage, more democrats opposed the civil rights act than did republicans. Yes I'm sure that's why all those Democrats are upset at tearing down Confederate/traitor statues... Definitely the same party.
      - zdragnar 7y ago
        In fact, it is the same party, but different people. I was responding to the idea that minorities were using history to choose their roommates, and how if that were the case, it would not be so clear cut.
        7y ago
- stouset 7y ago
  I would find it uncomfortable being a roomate with an outspoken holocaust denier. A holocaust denier probably wouldn't find it uncomfortable being my roommate. I would wager this generalizes pretty well to holocaust accepters and deniers as a whole. Is the takeaway from this that holocaust deniers are more accepting people?
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.