4 ms·

"Americans have been trained to have a strictly binary" - not just Americans, but that aside, isn't that inevitable when parties compete for power - allegiances

"Americans have been trained to have a strictly binary" - not just Americans, but that aside, isn't that inevitable when parties compete for power - allegiances form to gain numbers, and mergers take places until there are only two competitors left with no groups left to merge with. The inevitable strategic optimum.

treeman79 5y ago
Hard to avoid. Some issues have little to no middle ground. Woman’s rights vs killing unborn children does not leave much moral middle ground.
- jhayward 5y ago
  Of course there is middle ground. For instance, there are plenty of practical approaches that greatly reduce the number of abortions while still supporting women's rights. But, for some reason, one side of the issue would rather not reduce abortion while still permitting women's choice because that would take away the 'wedge' issue as a partisan political hammer. So they insist on ever more draconian, misogynistic laws to force the wedge deeper and deeper. That's not because it's an unreconcilable issue. Its because they want the issue.
  - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
    I agree, but the other side does the same. Why do pro-choice groups oppose holding abortion clinics to the same medical standards as other medical facilities? Because "access" is their political hammer, and they want to keep using the issue.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > Why do pro-choice groups oppose holding abortion clinics to the same medical standards as other medical facilities? They don't, in general. They do oppose creating “generally-applicable” standards that have the principal effect of preventing access to abortion services, though.
  - nobody9999 5y ago
    >But, for some reason, one side of the issue would rather not reduce abortion while still permitting women's choice because that would take away the 'wedge' issue as a partisan political hammer. So they insist on ever more draconian, misogynistic laws to force the wedge deeper and deeper. That's not because it's an unreconcilable issue. Its because they want the issue. Except terminations in the US are at their lowest levels[0] since they became legal in 1973. One side says: Abortion should be safe, legal and rare. Another side says: Abortion is *literal* murder and women who have them, as well as the doctors who perform them should be imprisoned and/or executed. There is (as I mentioned in another comment on this topic) a significant amount of nuance for most Americans. With a sizable majority supporting safe, legal abortions, but with significant disagreement as to the timing and mechanism(s) of such terminations. Personally, I believe that women (and men, for that matter) should have control over their bodies. Full stop. As for the termination of a pregnancy, that should be up to the individual who is pregnant -- likely (but not necessarily) with input from the other potential parent and/or medical professionals. To put a really fine point on it: If you don't have a functional uterus, shut the fuck up -- it's none of your business. [0] https://apnews.com/article/health-united-states-ap-top-news-ny-state-wire-abortion-7e45fe6f70cf45f1823a45ef9ad2187c https://apnews.com/article/health-united-states-ap-top-news-...
    - austinheap 5y ago
      Your stats were really eye opening for me. I’m stunned men still opine on this conversation.
      - mancerayder 5y ago
        Putting aside the obvious debate about autonomy over one's body, need I remind you that men pay child support as well, so they can at least opine.
    - Stupulous 5y ago
      >To put a really fine point on it: If you don't have a functional uterus, shut the fuck up -- it's none of your business. I don't really have a position on abortion, but I don't like this point at all. It says too much, I think. Imagine there's a genocide in North Korea. I'm not North Korean, I'm not friends with anyone from North Korea. Does accepting this point mean that I have to accept that genocide in North Korea is none of my business and is above my criticism? And, if not, what distinguishes the two? Should Biden not sign a pro-choice bill because he lacks a uterus and therefore is forbidden from taking a side?
- mancerayder 5y ago
  Well when framed like that they are. Ironically I think you've hit the nail on the head, but not for the reasons that are obvious: each side specifically frames the issue in a rigid fashion so it certainly appears obvious that they are morally in the right. Hence the binary nature of the conversations. I take the approach that one should be able to CONVINCINGLY argue the opposite side before having a meaningful opinion on the issue. If you can't do that because you view the other side as insane or fully incorrect, then it might be you that's insane. I'm not talking about the-Earth-is-flat type issues, but issues of the day (whatever that day is over the course of time).
  - saurik 5y ago
    While I agree with what you are going for, I also struggle to figure out how to describe it, as the whole problem here is that people (and I am including everyone) can't obviously tell the difference between something that is simply falsifiable and something which is murky; like, the entire premise in some sense of these rigid framings is that "if you can't see how" [ "murdering a child that you might even be complicit in causing to exist" / "forcing a woman to carry to term a baby at great cost to her health and destruction of her livelihood that might literally have been forced upon her by rape or coercion"] (and I am sorry if I accidentally sound sided here in either direction as my goal is merely to provide two arguments people make strongly on the topic as it got mentioned in this thread: I am not trying to carefully balance an actual debate on this topic) "is wrong then you probably also believe the Earth is flat". We can't push for the premise that "you absolutely need to be able to convincingly argue the opposite side of of an issue to have a meaningful opinion on it" and then make exceptions for "the-Earth-is-flat type issues" (which I can like, provide an attempt to defend but it comes out sarcastic as it essentially involves knowingly working with limited data and constantly stating as such... it just sounds like "well without knowing I am stupid, I might think X").
    - tsegratis 5y ago
      How about: "Turns out the universe is flat ;)" But yeah the struggle to find the right argument, rather than to win an argument... Sadly the second of those is, I think, the more common. Interesting to see from your example how stupid it makes us -- if I try to win an argument without understanding the alternative, the the thing I gain most, is a reduction in my ability to reason
vanviegen 5y ago
I think that is only inevitable when the rules of democracy have been set up to give overwhelming power to a single winner. Here in the Netherlands, the number of parties represented in parlement has been rising for decades - there are currently 18 parties. And yes, that causes different kinds of problems.
- mcguire 5y ago
  "And yes, that causes different kinds of problems." "It took a record 225 days for the Dutch to get a government" (https://qz.com/1112509/the-dutch-took-a-record-long-225-days-to-form-a-government/ https://qz.com/1112509/the-dutch-took-a-record-long-225-days...) "Dutch government resigns over child benefits scandal PM Mark Rutte will stay on in caretaker capacity until general elections scheduled for 17 March" (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/15/dutch-government-resigns-over-child-benefits-scandal https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/15/dutch-governme...) "Dutch talks on forming coalition government still deadlocked (June 22, 2021)" (https://apnews.com/article/europe-government-and-politics-790f4ec0e9fd1bb1a15665ffbe180e23 https://apnews.com/article/europe-government-and-politics-79...) The Mainstream Right, the Far Right, and Coalition Formation in Western Europe, Kimberly Ann Twist (https://digitalassets.lib.berkeley.edu/etd/ucb/text/Twist_berkeley_0028E_15225.pdf https://digitalassets.lib.berkeley.edu/etd/ucb/text/Twist_be...)
  - mercer 5y ago
    So? It sucks, but it's preferable over a two-party system.

treeman79 5y ago

Hard to avoid. Some issues have little to no middle ground. Woman’s rights vs killing unborn children does not leave much moral middle ground.

jhayward 5y ago
Of course there is middle ground. For instance, there are plenty of practical approaches that greatly reduce the number of abortions while still supporting women's rights. But, for some reason, one side of the issue would rather not reduce abortion while still permitting women's choice because that would take away the 'wedge' issue as a partisan political hammer. So they insist on ever more draconian, misogynistic laws to force the wedge deeper and deeper. That's not because it's an unreconcilable issue. Its because they want the issue.
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  I agree, but the other side does the same. Why do pro-choice groups oppose holding abortion clinics to the same medical standards as other medical facilities? Because "access" is their political hammer, and they want to keep using the issue.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > Why do pro-choice groups oppose holding abortion clinics to the same medical standards as other medical facilities? They don't, in general. They do oppose creating “generally-applicable” standards that have the principal effect of preventing access to abortion services, though.
- nobody9999 5y ago
  >But, for some reason, one side of the issue would rather not reduce abortion while still permitting women's choice because that would take away the 'wedge' issue as a partisan political hammer. So they insist on ever more draconian, misogynistic laws to force the wedge deeper and deeper. That's not because it's an unreconcilable issue. Its because they want the issue. Except terminations in the US are at their lowest levels[0] since they became legal in 1973. One side says: Abortion should be safe, legal and rare. Another side says: Abortion is *literal* murder and women who have them, as well as the doctors who perform them should be imprisoned and/or executed. There is (as I mentioned in another comment on this topic) a significant amount of nuance for most Americans. With a sizable majority supporting safe, legal abortions, but with significant disagreement as to the timing and mechanism(s) of such terminations. Personally, I believe that women (and men, for that matter) should have control over their bodies. Full stop. As for the termination of a pregnancy, that should be up to the individual who is pregnant -- likely (but not necessarily) with input from the other potential parent and/or medical professionals. To put a really fine point on it: If you don't have a functional uterus, shut the fuck up -- it's none of your business. [0] https://apnews.com/article/health-united-states-ap-top-news-ny-state-wire-abortion-7e45fe6f70cf45f1823a45ef9ad2187c https://apnews.com/article/health-united-states-ap-top-news-...
  - austinheap 5y ago
    Your stats were really eye opening for me. I’m stunned men still opine on this conversation.
    - mancerayder 5y ago
      Putting aside the obvious debate about autonomy over one's body, need I remind you that men pay child support as well, so they can at least opine.
  - Stupulous 5y ago
    >To put a really fine point on it: If you don't have a functional uterus, shut the fuck up -- it's none of your business. I don't really have a position on abortion, but I don't like this point at all. It says too much, I think. Imagine there's a genocide in North Korea. I'm not North Korean, I'm not friends with anyone from North Korea. Does accepting this point mean that I have to accept that genocide in North Korea is none of my business and is above my criticism? And, if not, what distinguishes the two? Should Biden not sign a pro-choice bill because he lacks a uterus and therefore is forbidden from taking a side?
mancerayder 5y ago
Well when framed like that they are. Ironically I think you've hit the nail on the head, but not for the reasons that are obvious: each side specifically frames the issue in a rigid fashion so it certainly appears obvious that they are morally in the right. Hence the binary nature of the conversations. I take the approach that one should be able to CONVINCINGLY argue the opposite side before having a meaningful opinion on the issue. If you can't do that because you view the other side as insane or fully incorrect, then it might be you that's insane. I'm not talking about the-Earth-is-flat type issues, but issues of the day (whatever that day is over the course of time).
- saurik 5y ago
  While I agree with what you are going for, I also struggle to figure out how to describe it, as the whole problem here is that people (and I am including everyone) can't obviously tell the difference between something that is simply falsifiable and something which is murky; like, the entire premise in some sense of these rigid framings is that "if you can't see how" [ "murdering a child that you might even be complicit in causing to exist" / "forcing a woman to carry to term a baby at great cost to her health and destruction of her livelihood that might literally have been forced upon her by rape or coercion"] (and I am sorry if I accidentally sound sided here in either direction as my goal is merely to provide two arguments people make strongly on the topic as it got mentioned in this thread: I am not trying to carefully balance an actual debate on this topic) "is wrong then you probably also believe the Earth is flat". We can't push for the premise that "you absolutely need to be able to convincingly argue the opposite side of of an issue to have a meaningful opinion on it" and then make exceptions for "the-Earth-is-flat type issues" (which I can like, provide an attempt to defend but it comes out sarcastic as it essentially involves knowingly working with limited data and constantly stating as such... it just sounds like "well without knowing I am stupid, I might think X").
  - tsegratis 5y ago
    How about: "Turns out the universe is flat ;)" But yeah the struggle to find the right argument, rather than to win an argument... Sadly the second of those is, I think, the more common. Interesting to see from your example how stupid it makes us -- if I try to win an argument without understanding the alternative, the the thing I gain most, is a reduction in my ability to reason

vanviegen 5y ago

I think that is only inevitable when the rules of democracy have been set up to give overwhelming power to a single winner. Here in the Netherlands, the number of parties represented in parlement has been rising for decades - there are currently 18 parties. And yes, that causes different kinds of problems.

mcguire 5y ago
"And yes, that causes different kinds of problems." "It took a record 225 days for the Dutch to get a government" (https://qz.com/1112509/the-dutch-took-a-record-long-225-days-to-form-a-government/ https://qz.com/1112509/the-dutch-took-a-record-long-225-days...) "Dutch government resigns over child benefits scandal PM Mark Rutte will stay on in caretaker capacity until general elections scheduled for 17 March" (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/15/dutch-government-resigns-over-child-benefits-scandal https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/15/dutch-governme...) "Dutch talks on forming coalition government still deadlocked (June 22, 2021)" (https://apnews.com/article/europe-government-and-politics-790f4ec0e9fd1bb1a15665ffbe180e23 https://apnews.com/article/europe-government-and-politics-79...) The Mainstream Right, the Far Right, and Coalition Formation in Western Europe, Kimberly Ann Twist (https://digitalassets.lib.berkeley.edu/etd/ucb/text/Twist_berkeley_0028E_15225.pdf https://digitalassets.lib.berkeley.edu/etd/ucb/text/Twist_be...)
- mercer 5y ago
  So? It sucks, but it's preferable over a two-party system.