4 ms·

Do you think that's true of both sides? As a progressive, a lot of my frustration with "the other side" is that they seem to ignore what I'm seeing in the first

Do you think that's true of both sides? As a progressive, a lot of my frustration with "the other side" is that they seem to ignore what I'm seeing in the first person video accounts. However, I'm wondering if people on the other side feel the same way about me.

Mountain_Skies 6y ago
Maybe those who identify as a truth seeker instead of as a progressive or a conservative find it easier to see what is happening in the world. Where do your first person video accounts come from? Are the edited? Are the missing content at the start or at the end that other first person video accounts include? Would your sources ever admit this or would you have to go to "the other side" to find the video in its entirety? Would you even know that the other side has a video with a more complete view of what happened? There are many ways to lie with video, lies of omission being quite common these days.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- ntsplnkv2 6y ago
  This is exactly the problem - no one has time to do this, nor do they want to.
- Digory 6y ago
  How does “truth seeker” help, say, with Teacher Unions supporting guillotines for Jeff Bezos?[0] I think our epistemic agreements are gone, yes, but it feels like we’d be polarized today even with epistemic agreement. It is true that Amazon has caused some bad things in the world, which has some factual basis, and we all might agree. But our ethics of eradication of obstacles to personal happiness has turned toxic. [0] https://mobile.twitter.com/ctulocal1/status/1299101069163859968 https://mobile.twitter.com/ctulocal1/status/1299101069163859...
mikece 6y ago
One of the sources for "raw info" that I follow is the No Agenda Podcast (co-hosted by former MTV VJ and co-inventor or podcasting Adam Curry and former tech columnist John C. Dvorak). They position their podcast as "media deconstruction" and contrasting what the media say versus what is actually going on, and they slam Fox News every bit as much -- if not more -- as anyone else. I'll tell you what gives me hope though: podcasts like the Joe Rogan Show where Joe, who is very progressive, will talk with ANYONE in order to discuss and understand differences. And this is one of the biggest weakness of mass media these days: if it cannot be condensed to a sound bite it's ignored. A thriving democracy is supposed to be a place where differing points of view are debated vigorously but with mutual respect between the parties debating. Unfortunately, these days it seems to be a race to get to the point where you can dehumanize your opponent, and this is a fault of both the left and right. You ask who people on the other side think about you: I'm not a progressive but I don't think it's black and white either. I think we could probably agree on 80%+ of RELEVANT political issues... assuming we don't let a polarized media exaggerate what is actually relevant. We all want to be happy, we all want to be loved, we all want the next generation to prosper... I think that's universal.
- abraxas 6y ago
  If your source of information is Adam Curry then I just don't know what to tell you. On that note alone I'm pessimistic that we could have a meaningful conversation. That fella is so unhinged he is likely an undiagnosed schizophrenic. Also we are not likely to agree on 80% of the issues. At least not when weighted by relevance. People who make fun of the catastrophe that is climate change and the collapse of the ecosystems will never find a common ground with progressives. I'm sorry to tell you this but the modern conservative movements have taken a divorce from reality and dwell in an alternative reality that only exists in their minds. I just can't see a common ground to launch from. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts.
- alphaomegacode 6y ago
  Not sure how you get that Joe Rogan is a progressive? He's probably more libertarian than progressive. He was quite open about his support for Ron Paul in the Obama-Romney election and then went for Gary Johnson in 2016. When Sen Sanders lost the nomination, he was quite open about saying he would vote for Trump over Biden. He's very good friends with Alex Jones (of Sandy Hook denial infamy) and has hosted numerous other rightwing guests with a great degree of empathy for some of their positions. Add to that his thoughts that perhaps "the Man" has had some grand conspiracies at work (e.g. him wondering if we really did land on the moon) and he's probably more identifiable as a liberal libertarian. He definitely has a pleasant voice and can engage in conversations but I'm not sure how much some of the above-mentioned positions align with the majority of progressives.
rdiddly 6y ago
The belief that there are two sides, in the first place, is a problem.
duncan_bayne 6y ago
I'm sure they do. Rand was writing about this back in the 30s / 40s: ===== "Oh, yes," she answered. "The house you own on East Twelfth Street, Mrs. Palmer ... has a sewer that gets clogged every other day and runs over, all through the courtyard. It looks blue and purple in the sun, like a rainbow." "The block you control for the Claridge estate, Mr. Brooks, has the most attractive stalactites growing on all the ceilings ..." She was asked to speak at a meeting of social workers. It was an important meeting, with a militant, radical mood, led by some of the most prominent women in the field. ... She said, among many other things: "The family on the first floor rear do not bother to pay their rent, and the children cannot go to school for lack of clothes. The father has a charge account at a corner speak-easy. He is in good health and has a good job. ... In the fourth floor front, the father of the family has not done a whole day's work in his life, and does not intend to. There are nine children, supported by the local parish. There is a tenth one on its way..." ... "Look, you know, I've heard about that swank dinner where you made certain remarks on this same subject. And then you go and say things like these at a radical meeting." "They're true, though, both sides of it, aren't they?" "Oh, sure, but couldn't you have reversed the occasions when you chose to express them?" =====
Viliam1234 6y ago
> However, I'm wondering if people on the other side feel the same way about me. Generally, identifying as <political label> usually involves ignoring the parts of reality that go against the narrative. Each group has a story, which is a simplification of a selection of real life, optimized to be viral (otherwise they would never have become a large group). If you realize this: - first, your former allies will denouce you as a traitor; - then your former enemies will offer you membership, because it seems to them like you want to switch sides; - you refuse, now both your former allies and your former enemies are angry at you; - you spend some time alone; - then you find people who are not playing the game, and they become your new friends; - finally you realize that people not playing the game are actually a majority of the population.

Mountain_Skies 6y ago

Maybe those who identify as a truth seeker instead of as a progressive or a conservative find it easier to see what is happening in the world. Where do your first person video accounts come from? Are the edited? Are the missing content at the start or at the end that other first person video accounts include? Would your sources ever admit this or would you have to go to "the other side" to find the video in its entirety? Would you even know that the other side has a video with a more complete view of what happened? There are many ways to lie with video, lies of omission being quite common these days.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ntsplnkv2 6y ago
This is exactly the problem - no one has time to do this, nor do they want to.
Digory 6y ago
How does “truth seeker” help, say, with Teacher Unions supporting guillotines for Jeff Bezos?[0] I think our epistemic agreements are gone, yes, but it feels like we’d be polarized today even with epistemic agreement. It is true that Amazon has caused some bad things in the world, which has some factual basis, and we all might agree. But our ethics of eradication of obstacles to personal happiness has turned toxic. [0] https://mobile.twitter.com/ctulocal1/status/1299101069163859968 https://mobile.twitter.com/ctulocal1/status/1299101069163859...

mikece 6y ago

One of the sources for "raw info" that I follow is the No Agenda Podcast (co-hosted by former MTV VJ and co-inventor or podcasting Adam Curry and former tech columnist John C. Dvorak). They position their podcast as "media deconstruction" and contrasting what the media say versus what is actually going on, and they slam Fox News every bit as much -- if not more -- as anyone else. I'll tell you what gives me hope though: podcasts like the Joe Rogan Show where Joe, who is very progressive, will talk with ANYONE in order to discuss and understand differences. And this is one of the biggest weakness of mass media these days: if it cannot be condensed to a sound bite it's ignored. A thriving democracy is supposed to be a place where differing points of view are debated vigorously but with mutual respect between the parties debating. Unfortunately, these days it seems to be a race to get to the point where you can dehumanize your opponent, and this is a fault of both the left and right. You ask who people on the other side think about you: I'm not a progressive but I don't think it's black and white either. I think we could probably agree on 80%+ of RELEVANT political issues... assuming we don't let a polarized media exaggerate what is actually relevant. We all want to be happy, we all want to be loved, we all want the next generation to prosper... I think that's universal.

abraxas 6y ago
If your source of information is Adam Curry then I just don't know what to tell you. On that note alone I'm pessimistic that we could have a meaningful conversation. That fella is so unhinged he is likely an undiagnosed schizophrenic. Also we are not likely to agree on 80% of the issues. At least not when weighted by relevance. People who make fun of the catastrophe that is climate change and the collapse of the ecosystems will never find a common ground with progressives. I'm sorry to tell you this but the modern conservative movements have taken a divorce from reality and dwell in an alternative reality that only exists in their minds. I just can't see a common ground to launch from. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts.
alphaomegacode 6y ago
Not sure how you get that Joe Rogan is a progressive? He's probably more libertarian than progressive. He was quite open about his support for Ron Paul in the Obama-Romney election and then went for Gary Johnson in 2016. When Sen Sanders lost the nomination, he was quite open about saying he would vote for Trump over Biden. He's very good friends with Alex Jones (of Sandy Hook denial infamy) and has hosted numerous other rightwing guests with a great degree of empathy for some of their positions. Add to that his thoughts that perhaps "the Man" has had some grand conspiracies at work (e.g. him wondering if we really did land on the moon) and he's probably more identifiable as a liberal libertarian. He definitely has a pleasant voice and can engage in conversations but I'm not sure how much some of the above-mentioned positions align with the majority of progressives.

rdiddly 6y ago

The belief that there are two sides, in the first place, is a problem.

duncan_bayne 6y ago

I'm sure they do. Rand was writing about this back in the 30s / 40s: ===== "Oh, yes," she answered. "The house you own on East Twelfth Street, Mrs. Palmer ... has a sewer that gets clogged every other day and runs over, all through the courtyard. It looks blue and purple in the sun, like a rainbow." "The block you control for the Claridge estate, Mr. Brooks, has the most attractive stalactites growing on all the ceilings ..." She was asked to speak at a meeting of social workers. It was an important meeting, with a militant, radical mood, led by some of the most prominent women in the field. ... She said, among many other things: "The family on the first floor rear do not bother to pay their rent, and the children cannot go to school for lack of clothes. The father has a charge account at a corner speak-easy. He is in good health and has a good job. ... In the fourth floor front, the father of the family has not done a whole day's work in his life, and does not intend to. There are nine children, supported by the local parish. There is a tenth one on its way..." ... "Look, you know, I've heard about that swank dinner where you made certain remarks on this same subject. And then you go and say things like these at a radical meeting." "They're true, though, both sides of it, aren't they?" "Oh, sure, but couldn't you have reversed the occasions when you chose to express them?" =====

Viliam1234 6y ago

> However, I'm wondering if people on the other side feel the same way about me. Generally, identifying as <political label> usually involves ignoring the parts of reality that go against the narrative. Each group has a story, which is a simplification of a selection of real life, optimized to be viral (otherwise they would never have become a large group). If you realize this: - first, your former allies will denouce you as a traitor; - then your former enemies will offer you membership, because it seems to them like you want to switch sides; - you refuse, now both your former allies and your former enemies are angry at you; - you spend some time alone; - then you find people who are not playing the game, and they become your new friends; - finally you realize that people not playing the game are actually a majority of the population.