4 ms·

To point 3 A group will radicalise itself, even in isolation. The approach of splitting the nation into 2 will work… for a while. Also: I don’t have any bett

by i5heu 5y ago

To point 3 A group will radicalise itself, even in isolation. The approach of splitting the nation into 2 will work… for a while. Also: I don’t have any better solution for the near or mid term. Maybe education will help. But I am immensely disappointed with this approach. I seams to just not work. Maybe small nations work way better. As far I can see this is the case. So maybe splitting up the nation into even smaller states would help. As long as you have federal laws that grands children a life if they decide to go, this would be somewhat human? Think on a gay child in a radical state that demands forced conversion therapy.

rsj_hn 5y ago
> Maybe education will help. You mean, Red education to get the Blues to see the error of their ways, or Blue education to get the Reds to see the error of their ways? People really don't want their enemies' values taught to their kids. We are seeing massive pushback against Blue education now, which was the key to Virginia's governor flipping red. It may be the most important issue of the 2022 elections. Did I mention how much people hate their kids being indoctrinated in values they think are evil? > Maybe small nations work way better. As far I can see this is the case. So maybe splitting up the nation into even smaller states would help. Yes, if Saudi Arabia doesn't let women drive, we don't need to invade and conquer Saudi Arabia. We can can grant asylum to Saudi women who are unhappy with this arrangement, and just leave Saudi Arabia alone. Even if they behead people. >Think on a gay child in a radical state that demands forced conversion therapy. Agree. Ultimately it means giving up on the idea that the US is going to fix the whole world. We stayed in Afghanistan, it seems, to make sure the girls can go to school and that gay men are not killed for being gay. I don't think this was the right decision. At some point you have to say "I hate how those people live, but I'm not going to try to change them." Honestly I don't know a single friend of mine on the left who is willing to say this. I have friends on the right, on the other hand, who want nothing more than to be left alone. They don't care how many abortions people have in New York or what kind of stuff is taught in New York schools about how evil Europeans are. But the reverse is not true, every single leftist friend I have is absolutely committed to making sure girls in Alabama can also have abortions and that they are taught the evils of Europeans in the Alabama schools. For there to be any peace, the left is going to have to give this asymmetry up, and learn to live and let live.
- disgruntledphd2 5y ago
  > which was the key to Virginia's governor flipping red I think you'll find that turnout in an off year was the major driver of this change. Turnout 2020: 75%, Turnout 2021: 55%. In general, only motivated people turn up in off years, which usually favours the opposition.
- throwaway34241 5y ago
  I wonder how coherent the base of either party is values-wise or ideologically. There's certainly some intellectuals that have a clear ideological side, but for the people I talk to offline there often seems to be a kind of sports-team dynamic, even if they don't fit neatly into ideological boxes. For example, I know Republicans that don't generally support their party's economic policies, and Democrats that don't support many of their party's social policies, but neither of those facts seem to interfere with them being solid partisans. Often they end up in a media bubble for their "team" which probably contributes.
- happytoexplain 5y ago
  I agree, but you're being a little biased I think, presumably due to your experience and the news you read: >"I hate how those people live, but I'm not going to try to change them." This is phrased to sound reasonable without context, but based on your example, it's more like "They are fairly objectively killing/beating/oppressing people for their gender/sexuality, but I'm not going to try to change them." I agree it's probably futile, especially in this case, but we should be realistic about what we are asking people to accept. As for the domestic example of abortion, everybody I know on the right, friends and otherwise, want it illegal for everybody, and have a pretty deep hatred for people who get abortions (sometimes barring health reasons), in their own state and in all others. On this and other topics, they are all firmly in "dominion" territory, even going so far as to "joke" to varying degrees about killing people on the left for their crimes. I am not refuting your point though, and I'm not taking a "both sides" stance, just offering a different view on the same conclusion. In general people want to exclude others, and in general the right favors splitting first, and, if that's unrealistic, dominion second, while the left tend to favors dominion first. Both are enormous disasters.
- 5y ago

by i5heu 5y ago

rsj_hn 5y ago

> Maybe education will help. You mean, Red education to get the Blues to see the error of their ways, or Blue education to get the Reds to see the error of their ways? People really don't want their enemies' values taught to their kids. We are seeing massive pushback against Blue education now, which was the key to Virginia's governor flipping red. It may be the most important issue of the 2022 elections. Did I mention how much people hate their kids being indoctrinated in values they think are evil? > Maybe small nations work way better. As far I can see this is the case. So maybe splitting up the nation into even smaller states would help. Yes, if Saudi Arabia doesn't let women drive, we don't need to invade and conquer Saudi Arabia. We can can grant asylum to Saudi women who are unhappy with this arrangement, and just leave Saudi Arabia alone. Even if they behead people. >Think on a gay child in a radical state that demands forced conversion therapy. Agree. Ultimately it means giving up on the idea that the US is going to fix the whole world. We stayed in Afghanistan, it seems, to make sure the girls can go to school and that gay men are not killed for being gay. I don't think this was the right decision. At some point you have to say "I hate how those people live, but I'm not going to try to change them." Honestly I don't know a single friend of mine on the left who is willing to say this. I have friends on the right, on the other hand, who want nothing more than to be left alone. They don't care how many abortions people have in New York or what kind of stuff is taught in New York schools about how evil Europeans are. But the reverse is not true, every single leftist friend I have is absolutely committed to making sure girls in Alabama can also have abortions and that they are taught the evils of Europeans in the Alabama schools. For there to be any peace, the left is going to have to give this asymmetry up, and learn to live and let live.

disgruntledphd2 5y ago
> which was the key to Virginia's governor flipping red I think you'll find that turnout in an off year was the major driver of this change. Turnout 2020: 75%, Turnout 2021: 55%. In general, only motivated people turn up in off years, which usually favours the opposition.
throwaway34241 5y ago
I wonder how coherent the base of either party is values-wise or ideologically. There's certainly some intellectuals that have a clear ideological side, but for the people I talk to offline there often seems to be a kind of sports-team dynamic, even if they don't fit neatly into ideological boxes. For example, I know Republicans that don't generally support their party's economic policies, and Democrats that don't support many of their party's social policies, but neither of those facts seem to interfere with them being solid partisans. Often they end up in a media bubble for their "team" which probably contributes.
happytoexplain 5y ago
I agree, but you're being a little biased I think, presumably due to your experience and the news you read: >"I hate how those people live, but I'm not going to try to change them." This is phrased to sound reasonable without context, but based on your example, it's more like "They are fairly objectively killing/beating/oppressing people for their gender/sexuality, but I'm not going to try to change them." I agree it's probably futile, especially in this case, but we should be realistic about what we are asking people to accept. As for the domestic example of abortion, everybody I know on the right, friends and otherwise, want it illegal for everybody, and have a pretty deep hatred for people who get abortions (sometimes barring health reasons), in their own state and in all others. On this and other topics, they are all firmly in "dominion" territory, even going so far as to "joke" to varying degrees about killing people on the left for their crimes. I am not refuting your point though, and I'm not taking a "both sides" stance, just offering a different view on the same conclusion. In general people want to exclude others, and in general the right favors splitting first, and, if that's unrealistic, dominion second, while the left tend to favors dominion first. Both are enormous disasters.
5y ago