7 ms·

What is the argument you're trying to make?

rayiner 6y ago
I’m trying to figure out if anyone actually want to heal societal schisms? And the measure of that is what folks are willing to compromise on?
- enraged_camel 6y ago
  I don't think banning extremism, hate speech and calls for political violence from private platforms constitutes a compromise.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  I don't agree. Healing societal schisms is about reestablishing a vision of politics where you argue by saying "here's why this is the best policy" or "here's why this is the most ethical policy", rather than "my movement is very strong and you'd better not get in our way". Making compromises is an important part of effective governance, but it won't by itself heal anything.
  - rayiner 6y ago
    That sort of governance is a luxury for societies that have strong cultural ties and social bonds.
- jacquesm 6y ago
  How about that one side stops peddling conspiracy theories and following every idiot that promises them what they want to hear in terms of gun rights, abortion and immigration. Compromise = fact based middle ground between reasonable people. When one side consistently treats politics like winner-takes-all and lies out of their asses to get to power and to stay in power then the burden to compromise would be on them.
  - rayiner 6y ago
    So the answer is, you want to win rather than heal political schisms. Which is a perfectly fine answer! But that's the approach the other side has taken also, and well here we are. Politics isn't about rationality or facts or what one side thinks is "reasonable." Nobody approaches the Israel/Palestine conflict by asking "well who has the more rational argument here?" That would be silly. Politics is about power, and appeasing (or not) different factions.
    - jacquesm 6y ago
      I think you mistook my reply. Politics is all about facts and rationality, if it isn't then it will quickly cause your country of choice to slide down into the gutter of irrelevance. The essence of politics in democratic countries is people trying to self-govern with some kind of optimum outcome for the largest number of people involved. And the Israel/Palestine conflict would improve lots if people started using facts rather than 'might makes right'. Politics is only about power in some parts of the world, in other parts of the world people are actually trying to get along with each other.
      - rayiner 6y ago
        The parts of the world you’re talking about are mostly ethnostates, tied together by deep cultural, linguistic, and historical bonds. Those things create the basic framework from which people can have rational, fact-based discussions. The US doesn’t have that. My wife says we’re a “credo country” but it’s not clear to me we share much in the way of credo anymore either. Senator Ed Markey says the constitution, the closest thing we have to a social contract, is “racist, sexist, and homophobic.” What does someone in Kansas have in common with Ed Markey? A superficial consumer and television culture? What binds them together when they disagree intensely on policy?
        jacquesm 6y ago
        Where I live is not exactly a country tied together in that way. And yet, we have plenty of immigrants, first and second generation in politics. We also have the backlash against that, roughly equivalent to the position the Republican party in the USA takes. But that doesn't mean that the USA needs to have a fact-free Republican party, it could easily change if it really wanted to, at the expense of not being in power for a couple of decades. It's the difference between John McCain and Donald Trump, the one a principled politician who believed lots of things that I would not subscribe to but who was fundamentally a decent human being. Trump is not a decent human being, never was and never will be and his legacy has the power to utterly divide and destroy the United States. Coalition governments are a lot safer in that that respect because they take away the insane power of the small fraction that decides who is king in the USA. There also is a real problem with the president having as much power as they do. I see the USA - as one of the oldest democracies - as deeply flawed, with a thin critical path to fixing itself. If it doesn't then one day maybe sooner, maybe later, it will fall apart in either two or maybe even three countries (2x coastal, mid). That will cause a lot of grief so better to avoid that fate, which will require some major overhauling of the constitution and some power removed from the states. Time will tell, for all my friends alive in the USA right now I sincerely hope that this can be postponed long enough that the country can first heal from the last attempt at splitting it.
- tptacek 6y ago
  What do you think we should compromise on? (Asking because curious, and from the long thread that followed this it seemed like you'd actually have an opinion).
  - rayiner 6y ago
    I think compromising on immigration would have the biggest effect on defusing tensions. I think Biden is doing an admirable job keeping a lid on the reprisal/deprogramming talk. The media should follow his lead. Obama's administration fought a bunch of gratuitious fights, like suing nuns. I anticipate Biden will keep people on a tighter leash, just as a longtime legislator who is going to be thinking harder about the fights he wants to pick.

I’m trying to figure out if anyone actually want to heal societal schisms? And the measure of that is what folks are willing to compromise on?

enraged_camel 6y ago
I don't think banning extremism, hate speech and calls for political violence from private platforms constitutes a compromise.
SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
I don't agree. Healing societal schisms is about reestablishing a vision of politics where you argue by saying "here's why this is the best policy" or "here's why this is the most ethical policy", rather than "my movement is very strong and you'd better not get in our way". Making compromises is an important part of effective governance, but it won't by itself heal anything.
- rayiner 6y ago
  That sort of governance is a luxury for societies that have strong cultural ties and social bonds.
jacquesm 6y ago
How about that one side stops peddling conspiracy theories and following every idiot that promises them what they want to hear in terms of gun rights, abortion and immigration. Compromise = fact based middle ground between reasonable people. When one side consistently treats politics like winner-takes-all and lies out of their asses to get to power and to stay in power then the burden to compromise would be on them.
- rayiner 6y ago
  So the answer is, you want to win rather than heal political schisms. Which is a perfectly fine answer! But that's the approach the other side has taken also, and well here we are. Politics isn't about rationality or facts or what one side thinks is "reasonable." Nobody approaches the Israel/Palestine conflict by asking "well who has the more rational argument here?" That would be silly. Politics is about power, and appeasing (or not) different factions.
  - jacquesm 6y ago
    I think you mistook my reply. Politics is all about facts and rationality, if it isn't then it will quickly cause your country of choice to slide down into the gutter of irrelevance. The essence of politics in democratic countries is people trying to self-govern with some kind of optimum outcome for the largest number of people involved. And the Israel/Palestine conflict would improve lots if people started using facts rather than 'might makes right'. Politics is only about power in some parts of the world, in other parts of the world people are actually trying to get along with each other.
    - rayiner 6y ago
      The parts of the world you’re talking about are mostly ethnostates, tied together by deep cultural, linguistic, and historical bonds. Those things create the basic framework from which people can have rational, fact-based discussions. The US doesn’t have that. My wife says we’re a “credo country” but it’s not clear to me we share much in the way of credo anymore either. Senator Ed Markey says the constitution, the closest thing we have to a social contract, is “racist, sexist, and homophobic.” What does someone in Kansas have in common with Ed Markey? A superficial consumer and television culture? What binds them together when they disagree intensely on policy?
      - jacquesm 6y ago
        Where I live is not exactly a country tied together in that way. And yet, we have plenty of immigrants, first and second generation in politics. We also have the backlash against that, roughly equivalent to the position the Republican party in the USA takes. But that doesn't mean that the USA needs to have a fact-free Republican party, it could easily change if it really wanted to, at the expense of not being in power for a couple of decades. It's the difference between John McCain and Donald Trump, the one a principled politician who believed lots of things that I would not subscribe to but who was fundamentally a decent human being. Trump is not a decent human being, never was and never will be and his legacy has the power to utterly divide and destroy the United States. Coalition governments are a lot safer in that that respect because they take away the insane power of the small fraction that decides who is king in the USA. There also is a real problem with the president having as much power as they do. I see the USA - as one of the oldest democracies - as deeply flawed, with a thin critical path to fixing itself. If it doesn't then one day maybe sooner, maybe later, it will fall apart in either two or maybe even three countries (2x coastal, mid). That will cause a lot of grief so better to avoid that fate, which will require some major overhauling of the constitution and some power removed from the states. Time will tell, for all my friends alive in the USA right now I sincerely hope that this can be postponed long enough that the country can first heal from the last attempt at splitting it.
tptacek 6y ago
What do you think we should compromise on? (Asking because curious, and from the long thread that followed this it seemed like you'd actually have an opinion).
- rayiner 6y ago
  I think compromising on immigration would have the biggest effect on defusing tensions. I think Biden is doing an admirable job keeping a lid on the reprisal/deprogramming talk. The media should follow his lead. Obama's administration fought a bunch of gratuitious fights, like suing nuns. I anticipate Biden will keep people on a tighter leash, just as a longtime legislator who is going to be thinking harder about the fights he wants to pick.