8 ms·

Young Dems more likely to despise the other party

• sharmin123 5y ago
  How To Secure Your Business? Hire A Hacker To Protect Your Company: https://www.hackerslist.co/how-to-secure-your-business-hire-a-hacker-to-protect-your-company/ https://www.hackerslist.co/how-to-secure-your-business-hire-...
• david38 5y ago
  Like all groups, once a marginalized group comes to power, it seeks to force its ideology on the rest, even if it came to power under the banner of preventing just that. Human nature, it repeats itself all the time.
  • derekjdanserl 5y ago
    marginalized?
• raxxorrax 5y ago
  Well, a lot of young dems mirror the behavior of conservatives. They have problems with media and depictions that doesn't fit their worldview and don't favor free speech because it was a value by people that partially rejected their ideas. I think the liberal label is more induced by peer pressure than anything else. Not saying that republicans are flawless at all, but that doesn't even matter anymore.
  • gizdan 5y ago
    Young Dems mirror the behaviour of Conservatives how exactly? > They have problems with media and depictions that doesn't fit their worldview and don't favor free speech because it was a value by people that partially rejected their ideas. This is completely missing the point of what the younger generation want. They don't have problems with media and their depictions. They tend to be more inclusive. They fight for people that haven't had a voice previously, or have been mistreated. What they have problems with is hate speech, not free speech.
    • raxxorrax 5y ago
      A lot of people in that younger generation are one step before becoming Stormfront 2.0 because they despise the sensibilities of naive bubble accademics. Just as with minorities you should at least ask before effecting change in their names. They aren't inclusive, that is their brand. Same group dynamics apply to everyone.
    • voz_ 5y ago
      I vote very liberal, but the only hate speech I have ever experienced has been from other liberals, primarily on twitter.
    • spinach 5y ago
      Is saying "transwomen aren't women" free speech or hate speech? Because saying facts like that now can get you fired from your job.
      • happytoexplain 5y ago
        "It's true" isn't the bar for hate speech. Hate speech is the direct, explicit fomentation of hatred against groups that are particularly vulnerable to the possibility of that hatred manifesting. You can encourage hatred and also say something based on facts (barring semantic arguments, e.g. your example), and likewise you can express those same facts without expressing hatred.
  • happytoexplain 5y ago
    >Not saying that republicans are flawless at all, but that doesn't even matter anymore. How can that be?
• satellite2 5y ago
  > [they] argue that modern GOP positions [...] are far outside of the mainstream and polite conversation [and that] human rights, and not just policy differences, are at stake.
  • swiley 5y ago
    Some of us feel the same way about the positions of the democrat party.
    • subsection1h 5y ago
      By "some of us", do you mean "some of us Liberty University grads"?
• Nursie 5y ago
  From an outsider's perspective, the leadership of one party recently tried to hang on to power by a variety of underhanded means, and in fact continues to deliberately undermine faith in US democracy itself. I would have sincere and heartfelt suspicions of those who continued to support that party while this stuff is going on. It's beyond party politics at that point.
  • pibechorro 5y ago
    You mean the DNC blatantly cheating at the primaries.. again?
    • spamizbad 5y ago
      I hate what the Democratic party did to Bernie Sanders in both 2016 and 2020; It was profoundly caustic. However, a political party's primaries are its own business and they are free to run them as un-democratically as possible. Even without the "cheating", the Democratic party already has a goofy system of superdelegates, caucuses, and other things that skew things away from the will of the voter. I think a lot of this is perhaps a function of the fact that the US electoral system is really only built to support 2 parties. The Democratic party knows it has a captive audience of voters sympathetic on social and economic issues that it is under limited obligation to deliver on because of its opposition.
      • esarbe 5y ago
        > I think a lot of this is perhaps a function of the fact that the US electoral system is really only built to support 2 parties. As far as I know, the electoral system wasn't built to support two parties. George Washington famously was against having any party system at all. The two party system is - to my understanding - the undesirable consequence of the first-past-the-post voting system. Nowadays of course the political parties are well entrenched and pretend that everything is working the way "The Founders" intended it. In that they are supported by pretty everyone in the political establishment.
        • 5y ago
• zoe4883 5y ago
  They despise even their own party.
• esarbe 5y ago
  Well, no wonder. "The other side" in this case supported a misogynistic, conspiracy-theory spewing, authoritarian grifter with a publicly acknowledged disdain for scientific consensus for president that was disregarding any established limitations on his office and was (and still is) actively trying to undermine a legitimate election. It's hard to be open for "the other side"'s viewpoints when that other sides viewpoint includes undermining the very system in place to promote consensus.
• burntbridge 5y ago
  The asymmetry here is really interesting. Seems maybe Democrats take things more seriously. Not passing judgement either way I'm a left wing Australian.
• chronicsunshine 5y ago
  This is insane. One side is doing everything they can to rig elections and even tried to overthrow the government and end the democratic process. And then the other side is judged for being taken aback by that? Are we supposed to pretend like nothing is happening?
  • raxxorrax 5y ago
    I firmly believe that people from the old establishment abused intelligence work against a political opposition with lies that were picked up by media without a single ounce of sensible criticism. This was such a huge scandal that I cannot condemn anyone that seriously believed that elections were manipulate, maybe Trump himself believed it since it was rather blatant. You are allowed to dislike Trump of course and his behavior relating to giving up power. But that is very much shadowed by using federal agencies to get dirt on people. That isn't democratic at all, it is dirtiest political play and I think more than some people have lost their mask.
    • voz_ 5y ago
      I've lost the thread, can you explain what you mean? Who used which agencies?
    • tshaddox 5y ago
      Whatever accusations you’re hinting at in your first sentence, they don’t seem to have anything to do with rigging an election even if they’re true.
      • deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
    • isoskeles 5y ago
      I honestly can't tell the difference between when people are talking about QAnon or BlueAnon unless a specific event is stated that would give me more context. Seems like others cannot tell the difference either.
  • 5y ago
• yed 5y ago
  If you look at the actual questions in the study, they were all phrased in reference to “someone that voted for the opposing presidential candidate”, not “the other party” or people with opposing views in general, as this article states. It’s clearly more about young Dem’s feelings towards Trump than Republicans in general.
  • deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
• someotherperson 5y ago
  Can we have the title adjusted to "Young American Democrats more likely to despise Republicans" instead? The current title doesn't give much context for non-Americans (i.e, I would have avoided this article entirely).
• rnmwfQ3f 5y ago
  Of course. There's a reason why "shy conservatives" are a thing.
• glacia01 5y ago
  The irony is lost in the comments, lmao.
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• Aeolun 5y ago
  Unsurprising. I imagine they’d kind of enjoy having a world to grow up in.
• argentumReal 5y ago
  The republican president told his top general to deal with BLM Protesters and "just shoot them". I don't know how you are supposed to hold a conversation with someone who still supports him.
  • drivingmenuts 5y ago
    That’s the same side that is arming themselves to kill their opposition (literally, not figuratively). I don’t want to have a conversation with someone who sees me as a target of opportunity in some blood sport.
• voz_ 5y ago
  How is anyone still a republican or democrat these days? I understand being forced to vote as the system is rigged for two parties, but outside of the voting booth, actively identifying with either party? How is anyone finding these absolute crooks relatable?
  • DocTomoe 5y ago
    From an outside, non-US-citizen perspective, it boggles my mind that people in the US think of relatability as a distinguishing factor when choosing a political candidate/party to run their country. I do not need to happily drink a beer with Merkel to know she was an efficient chancellor who all things considered did a lot of good (and some bad) to my country, nor do I need to find Scholz unlikeable to believe his coalition will be a net negative for our general well-being. What people around me care about is whether their government is capable of solving what the voters think are pressing matters, not necessarily if politicians are likeable. Sometimes, it is all about trade-offs, even if the less bad choice comes with a crook.
    • esarbe 5y ago
      The US electorate is pretty substandard. I blame the horrifyingly bad educational system for that; it's hard to have any functional democracy when most of your voting population is under-educated and has an active disdain for scientific consensus.
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• __alias 5y ago
  Probably a highly jaded opinion, but the way I perceived this is that left leaning is seen to signify higher social empathy -- which is something that people on that end would value from peers. Where as on the flip side, right leaning people likely don't have the same conservative requirements for a partner. So i'm not really surprised at all by the results.
• rnmwfQ3f 5y ago
  Here's the question: Would you __________ someone who voted for the opposing presidential candidate? Where the blank is "go on a date with", "be friends with", "work for", "shop at or support the business of"... Important to point out that stated preferences are not actual preferences. There's a pretty good change a lot of them who say they wouldn't be friends with a Republican actually would be friends with a Republican if they found themselves in that situation.
• atoav 5y ago
  Interestingly enough I'd imagine you could take a conservative republican from the 80s and he would despise the GOP in today's shape as well. I am not from the US, but for me condemming the way the Republicans conduct themselves is actually something I would expect anybody who cares about democracy to do in the current state of affairs. They had the choice to change their policy to adapt to a shifting demographic environment – instead they chose to change the rules, change who is allowed to vote, ignore a coup attempt, throw democracy under the bus, all while stoking violence and anger. I live in Germany and the way US party politics read today remind me very, very much about what I learned and read about the fall of the Weimar Republic. The situation is nothing to joke about, it started with treating Trump like a king and then you realized that really a lot in US politics depends on the will of those in power to honor convention. The institutions saved your asses this time, but they won't be able to do it once more. Where is the bold, free democracy that "denazified" Germany after WWII? Even those who say I am exaggerating here – imagine where the US would have been today if they managed to "hang Mike Pence", "kill Nancy Pelosi". What would that then have done with the way Trump dealt with the situation? Would he have distanced himself from the mob? Or would he have been emboldened? Maybe the military would have had to remove the guy from office? Maybe that in turn would have lead to a civil war? In my eyes it is legitimate to have conservative ideas about how society should be, but this is not conservativism, it is fascism.
• fareesh 5y ago
  "The only explanation for allowing abortion is because they are evil and they want to kill babies. No other explanation exists." This view is widely considered to be a fringe one. No serious person espouses it. You don't hear it on Fox News, but Alex Jones will say it and his audience will mostly laugh at him. A small fraction of them agree. On the other hand: "The only explanation for limiting immigration is racism. No other explanation exists." "The only explanation for prioritizing action against illegal immigration is white supremacy. No other explanation exists" This interpretation of the "other side"'s policy is universal. You'll hear it on CNN, MSNBC, late night comedy. Celebrities will tweet about it. It is espoused by folks who say it seriously, framing it as some kind of serious battle of good versus evil. There is no room in the conversation for debating it, therefore you despise anyone who takes this kind of view. Anyone who tries to debate it will be labelled one of Skeletor's minions. In fact, one of the more charitable explanations of these points of view are things like "unconscious racism" like the evil spirits of old who would possess you and make you think evil things. After centuries of orthodoxy, in the west there used to be a culture of enlightenment and free enquiry. In the third world we have never really had a serious understanding of the importance of these topics, and the enlightenment movements had a relatively minor impact. There have been occasional spurts of it, but generally there is no mature understanding of freedom amongst the population. In my country a comedian was arrested for allegedly planning to tell a particular joke in his forthcoming standup set. This kind of authoritarianism is supported because there is widespread support for blasphemy laws, and it is a fairly mainstream position. It seems like western countries are regressing to this kind of worldview, embracing blasphemy laws and the culture of blasphemy where certain "haraam" topics are so unholy that they cannot even be debated, and any infidel who has these views must be removed from society, "by any means necessary". The only difference between this and previous attempts is that the pantheon is some bureaucrats and politicians. I'm reminded of a Stephen Colbert episode where he announced that the President had fired James Comey, and the crowd applauded, and he sprung into action to inform them that James Comey was now on the side of the angels. As a result of these systems, there is no question of beings friends with an infidel, you can only despise them. Even if one wants to challenge this prevailing orthodoxy, there is fear of being associated with infidels - so for self-preservation, one must go along with this point of view. There was a TV host - Ellen DeGeneres who is a friend of George W. Bush. When photos of them laughing together and enjoying a sporting event, were published, it became a national conversation about whether she should be held accountable for this friendship. She then had to make a public explanation as to why she was his friend. This kind of thing exists amongst Republicans too, but it falls flat most of the time. Every now and then there will be a story like Bill Clinton shook hands with Louis Farrakhan or some stupid outrage like that, but it (rightly) doesn't really get much traction and nobody gives it the time of day, because there ought to be freedom of association, and reducing a human being to who they shake hands with is a terrible way of thinking.
• aww_dang 5y ago
  The demonization of the other is a base tribal instinct. There's some irony when it comes from people who celebrate themselves as "inclusive". Otherwise, it isn't especially novel or interesting. It is a useful tool for politicians. Like other manipulative techniques, politicians who do not use it may find themselves at a disadvantage. A more interesting discussion might revolve around democracy incentivizing these base, short-term time preference behaviors. This calls into question the popular premise of democracy being a virtue unto itself.
• happytoexplain 5y ago
  "Young democrats less likely to date/befriend/work for/support people who voted for Trump" is different on two counts from "Young democrats despise republicans." "Republicans" are not "Trump voters", and the alternative to befriending/supporting is not "despising". E.g. I would answer this question the same way, and yet I am friends with republicans and don't despise the Trump voters I know. Framing things this way is exactly a symptom of and instigator of the very bitterness it feigns to demonstrate.
  • jfengel 5y ago
    "Republicans" are not "Trump voters" Effectively, they are. They may say that they don't like him, but they voted for him in droves. He got more votes in 2020 than in 2016 -- more than anybody in history except the person he lost to. There are surely some people who identify with the party but not vote for Trump, but they are a small minority. They may not like him, but if they vote for him, that's how the party will base its policy.