4 ms·

When reason fails, use fear or violence eh? The US is in a bad state today because people have forgotten how to speak to each other respectfully, they don't ag

When reason fails, use fear or violence eh? The US is in a bad state today because people have forgotten how to speak to each other respectfully, they don't agree to disagree, they violently disagree. Fear mongering and labeling will only make things worse. Both sides need to stop explaining, justifying and funding their bad apples by pointing to the other. In medical terms, stop tying to cure an infection with another infection of your own.

oblio 5y ago
> When reason fails And what "reason" might that be and how did it fail? :-)
michaelmrose 5y ago
I'm sorry the current state of the US has nothing whatsoever to do with a breakdown of dialog. Nobody looks at a Lion closing its jaws around an antelope and thinks gee what a failure to communicate there. If only they had talked it out. 40 years ago the right wing decided to build its platform on a combination of white people, Christianity, and conservative social and sexual mores. This went swimmingly for a while but none is the fastest growing religion, white people are headed to be the largest minority instead of a majority by 2040s, and more liberal perspective on sex is becoming increasingly common. https://www.pewforum.org/2019/10/17/in-u-s-decline-of-christianity-continues-at-rapid-pace/ https://www.pewforum.org/2019/10/17/in-u-s-decline-of-christ... https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-tps16.html https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-tps... https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2020/06/25/global-divide-on-homosexuality-persists/ https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2020/06/25/global-divide-... To be specific we have gone from half of people believing homosexuality should be accepted to 72% in the last 20 years. White people are slated to become merely the largest minority by 2044, and Christians went from 77% to 65% in 14 years. If your bread and butter is white people, who have strong feelings about sexual mores and jesus by 2044 you are going to be looking at 10% of the population down from closer to 50% in 1980. Hell leave out the sexual mores and white Christians are sliding from 64% heading towards 25%. The republican party hasn't had anything like an acceptable game with any other group in decades. They are losing the country because they built their house on sand and they are freaking out about it instead of making a coherent plan half their party is already off the deep end and wont be dragged back.
- ridaj 5y ago
  Agree with everything there. For now Republicans play the demographic hand that they're dealt with today. So do the Democrats in other ways (with all the respect due to African-American voters from Georgia, I think their opinion matters a lot more than that of many other democratic supporters). It's important for both parties' survival to shuffle where the puck actually is on election day, not where it'll be in 2044.
  - kelnos 5y ago
    > It's important for both parties' survival to shuffle where the puck actually is on election day, not where it'll be in 2044. Also consider that many politicians in power (especially at the national level) won't be alive in 2044. It's worth it to the conservative ones to slow the rate of change a bit, even if they know that some changes are inevitable.
- inglor_cz 5y ago
  "The republican party hasn't had anything like an acceptable game with any other group in decades." Trump's record with Hispanic voters was actually fairly good, though not great. Many Hispanics do not even consider themselves people of color and Democrats cannot take this fairly huge group for automatically granted. https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/five-myths/five-myths-about-hispanics/2019/10/03/1640cca0-e55c-11e9-a6e8-8759c5c7f608_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/five-myths/five-myths...
  - michaelmrose 5y ago
    https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/how-groups-voted-2020 https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/how-groups-voted-2020 Hispanics and Black Vote for Republican Party 2020:32% 12% 2016:28% 8% 2012:27% 6% 2008: 31% 4% 2004: 44% 11% 2000: 35% 9% 1996: 21% 12% 1992: 25% 10% 1988: 30% 11% 1984: 34% 9% 1980: 37% 14% Trumps record with Hispanics is only average even grading on a curve and life isn't graded on a curve. Objectively 32% is garbage. Trump got only an average of 25% of nonwhite voters and 58% of white voters in 2020. Once you have as many nonwhite voters as white you need 43% of the non white vote plus 58% of the white vote to win the popular vote. "The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is an agreement among a group of U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their electoral votes to whichever presidential candidate wins the overall popular vote in the 50 states and the District of Columbia." https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/ https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/ This is the crisis for the republicans not the fake crisis of perpetual riots, BLM, or hordes of brown people crossing the border. The best republican performance in history with with nonwhite voters was 39% in 1956 and its just not good enough.
tshaddox 5y ago
> When reason fails, use fear or violence eh? I assume you mean to ask this rhetorically, as if the notion is absurd. But this is pretty much the gist of the paradox of tolerance. What would you suggest doing about intolerant people when reason fails? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
- FeepingCreature 5y ago
  Note: the Paradox of Tolerance only applies in a "naive" (first-order) consequentialist framework. In a virtue ethics framework, the answer to "what should be done about intolerant people" is "tolerance" because tolerance is an inherent good regardless of outcomes. However, I also think to a first approximation, virtue ethics has better consequentialist outcomes than naive consequentialist ethics does. So I don't have an answer to the PoT; I just don't think it's a slam-dunk argument against tolerance at all. I espouse tolerance first and foremost for the sake of its ideal, and I hold that ideal because I prefer its generalized outcomes. In other words, I can't help but notice that the Paradox of Tolerance is largely used as a tool to justify plain intolerance.
  - slfnflctd 5y ago
    Eh, I'm going to have to vehemently disagree with anyone suggesting that Germany banning Nazis wasn't a good idea.
    - FeepingCreature 5y ago
      Eh, I actually think Germany banning Nazis was a good idea in hindsight, but there's some special context there. :P Specifically, looking at Germany, I don't think it's a Paradox of Tolerance situation because we've seen over decades of experience that the Nazi ban is not being broadened or overapplied. And there's no need for it, because the actual Nazis remarkably seem to be unable to help themselves, even given the very specific and limited ban we're running. So I'm going to explicitly carve out an exception for the Nazi ban in my otherwise liberal ideology - on consequentialist grounds, since as far as free speech restrictions go this one seems to be operating productively even within its sharply curtailed limits. In other words, it selects Nazis and approximately nobody else. If more limitations of free speech had the character of §86, I'd be a lot more on board with the concept. In other words, the Nazi ban is one case where the dialog went like this: "Come on, this is pointless, they can just use other symbols and dogwhistles. You'll fall into an escalating spiral of swatting down new Nazi symbols, negatively affecting pretty much everyone but Nazis." "Yeah but look, we won't fall into an escalating spiral of free speech restrictions. Because they won't change their symbols, ever." And they were right. I don't entirely understand why, but clearly they were right. My standing theory is that Nazis are either really dumb or in some sort of symbiotic relation with the constitutional protection office where going to jail is actually their goal. Works for me. Tl;dr: my rule-consequentialist ethics don't have a problem with "liberalism, except where Nazi paraphernalia and holocaust denial", since those modifications have clearly demonstrated their worth and limited character.
devwastaken 5y ago
You cannot reason with people who are taught since birth to be unreasonable and simply believe. Go to any sort of forum with people of these crazy positions, try to reason with them, it is impossible. You can't dispel it, it doesn't matter if you are the most patient and we'll explained person in the world - you cannot overcome belief. These groups are intentionally malicious, they fabricate information, group together to spread that disinformation, and use the democratic system against itself to advocate for the times of lord's and surfs. Just this week the local school cancelled a vaccination clinic because people believe covid isn't real and that the vaccine is there to put chips in you. That "the lord Jesus" is their immune system. These people will change the law from underneath you if you let them. They don't care about the truth.
- quantumwannabe 5y ago
  Outside of the covid chip comment, which is a specific example, everything you wrote applies to yourself and others who agree with you as well. When you're trying to convince someone to take the vaccine who says they don't want to because covid isn't a threat, they don't see you as an enlightened mind backed by science who wants to save lives like you see yourself, they see you as an arrogant sheep brainwashed by the media who doesn't understand statistics and relative risks. Since you clearly don't understand their perspective, it is no wonder that you can't convince them to listen to yours. Try listening to people you want to convince before trying to convince them. This approach doesn't have a 100% success rate, but it has a higher chance of success than your current approach has. The catch is you have to be open for them to convince you that your closely held beliefs are wrong. If you're not, and you dismiss everything they say out-of-hand, how can you expect them to be open to your ideas?
  - devwastaken 5y ago
    If they were interested in the truth it's not hard to find. They don't want that, and believe "facts" are false because they believe it so. Not because they have any actual knowledge. They cannot be convinced despite a plethora of opportunities given, not due to a lack of them. That's how I know quite well that they don't care about the truth. If you were to argue with these people you'd be eaten alive, as would anyone else. This isn't chess, they make up the rules and knock over the pieces as they go. Again, no care for the truth. You cannot change that. The only thing we can do is outnumber them.

oblio 5y ago

> When reason fails And what "reason" might that be and how did it fail? :-)

michaelmrose 5y ago

I'm sorry the current state of the US has nothing whatsoever to do with a breakdown of dialog. Nobody looks at a Lion closing its jaws around an antelope and thinks gee what a failure to communicate there. If only they had talked it out. 40 years ago the right wing decided to build its platform on a combination of white people, Christianity, and conservative social and sexual mores. This went swimmingly for a while but none is the fastest growing religion, white people are headed to be the largest minority instead of a majority by 2040s, and more liberal perspective on sex is becoming increasingly common. https://www.pewforum.org/2019/10/17/in-u-s-decline-of-christianity-continues-at-rapid-pace/ https://www.pewforum.org/2019/10/17/in-u-s-decline-of-christ... https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-tps16.html https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-tps... https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2020/06/25/global-divide-on-homosexuality-persists/ https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2020/06/25/global-divide-... To be specific we have gone from half of people believing homosexuality should be accepted to 72% in the last 20 years. White people are slated to become merely the largest minority by 2044, and Christians went from 77% to 65% in 14 years. If your bread and butter is white people, who have strong feelings about sexual mores and jesus by 2044 you are going to be looking at 10% of the population down from closer to 50% in 1980. Hell leave out the sexual mores and white Christians are sliding from 64% heading towards 25%. The republican party hasn't had anything like an acceptable game with any other group in decades. They are losing the country because they built their house on sand and they are freaking out about it instead of making a coherent plan half their party is already off the deep end and wont be dragged back.

ridaj 5y ago
Agree with everything there. For now Republicans play the demographic hand that they're dealt with today. So do the Democrats in other ways (with all the respect due to African-American voters from Georgia, I think their opinion matters a lot more than that of many other democratic supporters). It's important for both parties' survival to shuffle where the puck actually is on election day, not where it'll be in 2044.
- kelnos 5y ago
  > It's important for both parties' survival to shuffle where the puck actually is on election day, not where it'll be in 2044. Also consider that many politicians in power (especially at the national level) won't be alive in 2044. It's worth it to the conservative ones to slow the rate of change a bit, even if they know that some changes are inevitable.
inglor_cz 5y ago
"The republican party hasn't had anything like an acceptable game with any other group in decades." Trump's record with Hispanic voters was actually fairly good, though not great. Many Hispanics do not even consider themselves people of color and Democrats cannot take this fairly huge group for automatically granted. https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/five-myths/five-myths-about-hispanics/2019/10/03/1640cca0-e55c-11e9-a6e8-8759c5c7f608_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/five-myths/five-myths...
- michaelmrose 5y ago
  https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/how-groups-voted-2020 https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/how-groups-voted-2020 Hispanics and Black Vote for Republican Party 2020:32% 12% 2016:28% 8% 2012:27% 6% 2008: 31% 4% 2004: 44% 11% 2000: 35% 9% 1996: 21% 12% 1992: 25% 10% 1988: 30% 11% 1984: 34% 9% 1980: 37% 14% Trumps record with Hispanics is only average even grading on a curve and life isn't graded on a curve. Objectively 32% is garbage. Trump got only an average of 25% of nonwhite voters and 58% of white voters in 2020. Once you have as many nonwhite voters as white you need 43% of the non white vote plus 58% of the white vote to win the popular vote. "The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is an agreement among a group of U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their electoral votes to whichever presidential candidate wins the overall popular vote in the 50 states and the District of Columbia." https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/ https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/ This is the crisis for the republicans not the fake crisis of perpetual riots, BLM, or hordes of brown people crossing the border. The best republican performance in history with with nonwhite voters was 39% in 1956 and its just not good enough.

tshaddox 5y ago

> When reason fails, use fear or violence eh? I assume you mean to ask this rhetorically, as if the notion is absurd. But this is pretty much the gist of the paradox of tolerance. What would you suggest doing about intolerant people when reason fails? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

FeepingCreature 5y ago
Note: the Paradox of Tolerance only applies in a "naive" (first-order) consequentialist framework. In a virtue ethics framework, the answer to "what should be done about intolerant people" is "tolerance" because tolerance is an inherent good regardless of outcomes. However, I also think to a first approximation, virtue ethics has better consequentialist outcomes than naive consequentialist ethics does. So I don't have an answer to the PoT; I just don't think it's a slam-dunk argument against tolerance at all. I espouse tolerance first and foremost for the sake of its ideal, and I hold that ideal because I prefer its generalized outcomes. In other words, I can't help but notice that the Paradox of Tolerance is largely used as a tool to justify plain intolerance.
- slfnflctd 5y ago
  Eh, I'm going to have to vehemently disagree with anyone suggesting that Germany banning Nazis wasn't a good idea.
  - FeepingCreature 5y ago
    Eh, I actually think Germany banning Nazis was a good idea in hindsight, but there's some special context there. :P Specifically, looking at Germany, I don't think it's a Paradox of Tolerance situation because we've seen over decades of experience that the Nazi ban is not being broadened or overapplied. And there's no need for it, because the actual Nazis remarkably seem to be unable to help themselves, even given the very specific and limited ban we're running. So I'm going to explicitly carve out an exception for the Nazi ban in my otherwise liberal ideology - on consequentialist grounds, since as far as free speech restrictions go this one seems to be operating productively even within its sharply curtailed limits. In other words, it selects Nazis and approximately nobody else. If more limitations of free speech had the character of §86, I'd be a lot more on board with the concept. In other words, the Nazi ban is one case where the dialog went like this: "Come on, this is pointless, they can just use other symbols and dogwhistles. You'll fall into an escalating spiral of swatting down new Nazi symbols, negatively affecting pretty much everyone but Nazis." "Yeah but look, we won't fall into an escalating spiral of free speech restrictions. Because they won't change their symbols, ever." And they were right. I don't entirely understand why, but clearly they were right. My standing theory is that Nazis are either really dumb or in some sort of symbiotic relation with the constitutional protection office where going to jail is actually their goal. Works for me. Tl;dr: my rule-consequentialist ethics don't have a problem with "liberalism, except where Nazi paraphernalia and holocaust denial", since those modifications have clearly demonstrated their worth and limited character.

devwastaken 5y ago

You cannot reason with people who are taught since birth to be unreasonable and simply believe. Go to any sort of forum with people of these crazy positions, try to reason with them, it is impossible. You can't dispel it, it doesn't matter if you are the most patient and we'll explained person in the world - you cannot overcome belief. These groups are intentionally malicious, they fabricate information, group together to spread that disinformation, and use the democratic system against itself to advocate for the times of lord's and surfs. Just this week the local school cancelled a vaccination clinic because people believe covid isn't real and that the vaccine is there to put chips in you. That "the lord Jesus" is their immune system. These people will change the law from underneath you if you let them. They don't care about the truth.

quantumwannabe 5y ago
Outside of the covid chip comment, which is a specific example, everything you wrote applies to yourself and others who agree with you as well. When you're trying to convince someone to take the vaccine who says they don't want to because covid isn't a threat, they don't see you as an enlightened mind backed by science who wants to save lives like you see yourself, they see you as an arrogant sheep brainwashed by the media who doesn't understand statistics and relative risks. Since you clearly don't understand their perspective, it is no wonder that you can't convince them to listen to yours. Try listening to people you want to convince before trying to convince them. This approach doesn't have a 100% success rate, but it has a higher chance of success than your current approach has. The catch is you have to be open for them to convince you that your closely held beliefs are wrong. If you're not, and you dismiss everything they say out-of-hand, how can you expect them to be open to your ideas?
- devwastaken 5y ago
  If they were interested in the truth it's not hard to find. They don't want that, and believe "facts" are false because they believe it so. Not because they have any actual knowledge. They cannot be convinced despite a plethora of opportunities given, not due to a lack of them. That's how I know quite well that they don't care about the truth. If you were to argue with these people you'd be eaten alive, as would anyone else. This isn't chess, they make up the rules and knock over the pieces as they go. Again, no care for the truth. You cannot change that. The only thing we can do is outnumber them.