4 ms·

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 In

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
  To be clear, I agree with your original post that some type of mediation between the poles would be helpful. Reflecting a bit more, it's hard to imagine that a government could convince it's people to go to war without a large degree of brainwashing to demonize the foe. To some degree, we need our soldiers to believe that they people they kill are deserving of death, even though the they were most likely brainwashed and drafted into the conflict on false pretenses. In a symbolic way, this happened in the US in 2020, but this time, private industry and the government entered symbiosis in polarizing citizens into a civil conflict. And people were killed. We owe it to ourselves to peel back a couple of layers of the onion, and understand and respect other well supported beliefs, even if those beliefs differ from our own.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
yardie 5y ago
> - Voters should show proof of citizenship when voting. You'll get no disagreement on this from any liberal. In fact the disagreement lies not in proving citizenship but in the methods to do so. If you have to show proof to register then why do you need to show proof to vote? In fact, if you have ID that proves you are a valid voter then registration shouldn't be necessary at all. Republicans not only want you to show citizenship. They want you to show it 2, 3, 4 times in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying “Beware of The Leopard“.
- bumby 5y ago
  >If you have to show proof to register then why do you need to show proof to vote? Isn’t the argument that you need to prove the person voting is the same person who registered? Where I live, you only need to give a name and address verbally to vote and that can be gathered online fairly easily. (Just to be clear, I’m not saying voting fraud is rampant but can understand the risk)
- throwawaycanal 5y ago
  >You'll get no disagreement on this from any liberal. Maybe in France but in the US you will absolutely get disagreement from liberals. >If you have to show proof to register then why do you need to show proof to vote? If you showed proof to get your driver's license then why do you need to show proof to drive? If you showed proof to purchase/register your vehicle why do you need to show proof of registration when you get pulled over? >In fact, if you have ID that proves you are a valid voter then registration shouldn't be necessary at all. In fact, if you have ID that proves you are over 21 then registration of your firearm purchase shouldn't be necessary at all. Etc. Etc. Etc.
  - bumby 5y ago
    >If you showed proof to get your driver's license then why do you need to show proof to drive? The general counter to this is that one is a privilege and the other is a right. Usually any hurdle to exercising a constitutionally protected is going to receive some pushback. The same goes for the firearm registration issue.
Shingbogle 5y ago
I would obviously apply a more progressive label to you. UBI, not anti-abortion, celebrating diversity, citizenship approval, MSM being dodgy.

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
To be clear, I agree with your original post that some type of mediation between the poles would be helpful. Reflecting a bit more, it's hard to imagine that a government could convince it's people to go to war without a large degree of brainwashing to demonize the foe. To some degree, we need our soldiers to believe that they people they kill are deserving of death, even though the they were most likely brainwashed and drafted into the conflict on false pretenses. In a symbolic way, this happened in the US in 2020, but this time, private industry and the government entered symbiosis in polarizing citizens into a civil conflict. And people were killed. We owe it to ourselves to peel back a couple of layers of the onion, and understand and respect other well supported beliefs, even if those beliefs differ from our own.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

yardie 5y ago

> - Voters should show proof of citizenship when voting. You'll get no disagreement on this from any liberal. In fact the disagreement lies not in proving citizenship but in the methods to do so. If you have to show proof to register then why do you need to show proof to vote? In fact, if you have ID that proves you are a valid voter then registration shouldn't be necessary at all. Republicans not only want you to show citizenship. They want you to show it 2, 3, 4 times in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying “Beware of The Leopard“.

bumby 5y ago
>If you have to show proof to register then why do you need to show proof to vote? Isn’t the argument that you need to prove the person voting is the same person who registered? Where I live, you only need to give a name and address verbally to vote and that can be gathered online fairly easily. (Just to be clear, I’m not saying voting fraud is rampant but can understand the risk)
throwawaycanal 5y ago
>You'll get no disagreement on this from any liberal. Maybe in France but in the US you will absolutely get disagreement from liberals. >If you have to show proof to register then why do you need to show proof to vote? If you showed proof to get your driver's license then why do you need to show proof to drive? If you showed proof to purchase/register your vehicle why do you need to show proof of registration when you get pulled over? >In fact, if you have ID that proves you are a valid voter then registration shouldn't be necessary at all. In fact, if you have ID that proves you are over 21 then registration of your firearm purchase shouldn't be necessary at all. Etc. Etc. Etc.
- bumby 5y ago
  >If you showed proof to get your driver's license then why do you need to show proof to drive? The general counter to this is that one is a privilege and the other is a right. Usually any hurdle to exercising a constitutionally protected is going to receive some pushback. The same goes for the firearm registration issue.

Shingbogle 5y ago

I would obviously apply a more progressive label to you. UBI, not anti-abortion, celebrating diversity, citizenship approval, MSM being dodgy.