7 ms·

>I wish we had such a book currently on how arabs and the muslim world are different I also wish we had such a book currently on how progressive and conservati

• mbfg 5y ago
  sometimes groups of people are just nasty, bad people worthy of mocking and ridicule. You can't always pretend that situations are around reasonable differences of opinion with each side being honest actors. Each situation is going to be different. the english/french situation may be one way and the progressive/conservative situation may be different.
  • coldtea 5y ago
    sometimes groups of people are just nasty, bad people worthy of mocking and ridicule Yes, conservatives aren't just people with a different belief system than yours. They are bad people, liars, evil, rotten to the core, and deserve to die. /s
    • tobltobs 5y ago
      How did you decide that he meant conservatives == nasty, bad people?
      • coldtea 5y ago
        It was a statistical observation. The people who phrase it the way the parent did, usually tend to be on a specific side. (The other side has its tell-signs as well).
        • hallway_monitor 5y ago
          If you are liberal you believe conservatives are greedy, amoral and probably evil. If you are conservative you believe liberals are stupid and probably brainwashed. This is America.
          • mbfg 5y ago
            You need to evaluate verifiable facts and come to conclusions. In discussion regarding two sides, A against B, you don't just say well each has it's good points, each has it's bad, we have to be fair and balanced. No, this is especially where newspapers have it wrong. You are fair and balanced when you appropriate praise and scorn to sides based on the externally verifiable facts, and the honestness of their actions. You don't blindly give both sides equal footing for fairness. When a man beats up a wife, _you don't say_, well, look, she probably wasn't the easiest to live with, and he had it tough dealing with her. He is a good business man, and a pillar in the community. so look both sides have positives and negatives. (Well to be fair as a society we usually do, do this, but clearly we are wrong). No the facts say otherwise.
            • bumby 5y ago
              I don't think the point is advocating some sort of moral relativism but rather to steel-man both sides in good-faith rather than respond to some sort of caricature of each.
              • mbfg 5y ago
                Yes i agree caricaturing is clearly wrong. But i am saddened by this group think that all groups of people should be given even standing as all having positives and negatives. People should be given standings based on verifiable evidence with regard to their actions. If your group is composed of bad actors, your group is bad. We don't have to treat you fair and balanced.
          • coldtea 5y ago
            And if you're neither, you can see through both charades.
  • deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  • bumby 5y ago
    I think interrogating those differences can help you either find out if they are borne of "nastiness" and ignorance, or if there is actually fundamental difference in values that should be explored. E.g., Someone could assume a person is against voter ID simply because they want to disenfranchise specific groups or they can legitimately be concerned about fraud. If we just assume the former, it misses any opportunity to make rational arguments about the claims of the latter.
    • techrat 5y ago
      Yet if you look at all the cases of actual election fraud and voter fraud, they (almost?) exclusively fall on the side pushing voter ID the hardest.
• 11thEarlOfMar 5y ago
  I'll use myself as an example: - Voters should show proof of citizenship when voting. - The US needs to take a serious look at implementing Universal Basic Income, and not just because of the automation of jobs. - Abortion should be legal up to the earliest that a fetus has survived out of the womb, roughly 3 months. - We should celebrate diversity, and, we should be able to talk about what makes us different. Without risking censure. - We should have a clear, straightforward and streamlined path to citienship for anyone who wants to become an American. - Mass media has done a masterful job of brainwashing Americans for the purpose of polarizing us, which drives outrage, clicks and ad revenue. What label do you apply to me? How about none? People's beliefs are on a spectrum, they aren't binary. But we should each understand the 'first principles' of why we believe what we believe, and dig deeper than a news article. Once you view people in this way, you actually have to get to know them before you can decide whether their beliefs align with yours. Labeling people and judging them based on a superficial observation is the opposite of inclusion. I was taught that in grade school 50 years ago.
  • bumby 5y ago
    You're correct. I should have been more clear that progressive and conservative labels are more apt for individual viewpoints and not as a defining characteristic of the person. I think that logic can still be applied, though. The point I was trying to make is that with any label (whether French/American or conservative/progressive) it's more productive to try and find clarity about the opposing viewpoint rather than just slapping on a rigid label lacking nuance. While I wouldn't want to label 11thEarlOfMar personally, I think it can be helpful to look at each of those views in the context of a larger framework because it helps understand what value systems you operate with to either find inconsistencies or common ground. Edit: I think the fact that people are so quick to either label their personhood or assume someone else is doing the same is indicative of the problem. It's also a bit troubling that a post simply advocating for contextually understanding differences would get downvotes. I don't know if that's a problem with my inability to communicate that point effectively or something worse.
    • 11thEarlOfMar 5y ago