4 ms·

I agree with you that partisanship and polarization are making it worse. However, you imply that "both sides" are just as extreme, but that isn't often the case

by V__ 4y ago

I agree with you that partisanship and polarization are making it worse. However, you imply that "both sides" are just as extreme, but that isn't often the case. Let's exaggerate it to: "Russians buy sneakers too" or "Taliban are religious too" or something alike. A business saying "We want the Russian military and the Ukrainian civilians to interact, share different viewpoints and prevent partisanship" would sound ridiculous. My example is obviously exaggerated but my point is: Right now there is only one really extreme "side" in the U.S., so it doesn't come across odd that some businesses for ethical reasons and some for efficient reasons try to position themselves against it.

geraldwhen 4y ago
Whether you understand it or not you have taken an extreme political position. “Their politics are politics. Our politics are ethics/human rights.” It’s all politics and refusing to see that is extremely divisive.
- V__ 4y ago
  If we look back at my example. Would you say the same thing to the Ukrainian making that point? If not, we agree that there is a line at which politics end and extremism begins, that is not an extreme political position. This also doesn't mean, one shouldn't try to discuss or interact with them, but be wary of what the reality is.
  - geraldwhen 4y ago
    Politics is politics. A religious person who believes absolutely in no murder might think that Ukrainians have a duty to retreat; land isn’t worth the price of a single life. Many others feel differently. But how personal ethics and belief tie into law and governance IS politics.
    - V__ 4y ago
      I understand your viewpoint, but can't agree with you. Dismissing everything as just politics and giving every viewpoint the same validity would mean that "rape should be legal" and "raising the tax by 1%" are equally valid positions or opinions to hold. Sure, there may be people which would agree with that assessment and calling one viewpoint extreme might seem be divisive to you or ignoring that it's just politics. But I can't agree with you. I find that notion absurd.
      - geraldwhen 4y ago
        A non straw man of your first argument would be the definition of “rape.” Most people believe forced sex should be illegal. But rape also means consent, in America, so you get “statutory” rape, and Romeo and Juliet laws, and different handling of intoxication all over the world. If two people are black out drunk, can either rape the other if they ostensibly agreed while intoxicated? Does it matter the sex of the participants? Look no further than any Reddit post and you will see that at least some people think a 17 year old male having sex with a 25 year old female teacher should not be considered rape. The definition of rape is unequivocally political.
        V__ 4y ago
        Absolutely, there are lines and some are blurry and worthy of discussion. I'm not trying to deny that. I just wanted to exaggerate an example to get my point across. I could have said "forced sex of a one-year-old by a sane adult" but that's not what I tried to convey. I try to state that some positions are so out-there (I'm sorry for a lack of a better term) that they are extreme and not part of sane or normal (for a lack of a better term) political discourse. That doesn't mean that one shouldn't try to talk with these people or shun them. Just that pretending they are normal is dangerous. Politicians insisting 1+1 equals 3 is extreme but maybe not harmful, someone insisting Jews are not people got 6 million killed. That's why I can't agree that it's just politics, if such a position can have real dangerous and harmful implications. I hope I could make my point more clear.
siglesias 4y ago
>> Right now there is only one really extreme "side" in the U.S. I urge you to consider that this attitude is the very problem under discussion.
- V__ 4y ago
  If we look back at my example. Would you say the same thing to the Ukrainian making that point? If not, we agree that there is a line at which politics end and extremism begins, which has nothing to do with attitude. Personally, I find it obvious that Republicans have crossed that line. Maybe they will come back, maybe not. This also doesn't mean, one shouldn't try to discuss or interact with them, but be wary of what the reality is.
  - bluefirebrand 4y ago
    > Personally, I find it obvious that Republicans have crossed that line. Maybe they will come back, maybe not And many Republicans "find it obvious" that the Democrats are going to destroy the USA by supporting insert whatever Republicans are angry about today. Gay Rights, or something As Objectively Correct you think you are, they think they are equally Objectively Correct. You are being equally dismissive of them as they are of you, and therefore you are also part of the problem. Seeing their side doesn't mean you are obligated to COMPROMISE with them, but as long as you are dismissing them outright as having "crossed a line", you're just as extreme as they are.
    - V__ 4y ago
      Saying they crossed a line or even declaring something extreme doesn't mean I can't see or understand their side. Let's bring it back to my example: I understand and see why Russians think they are fighting a just war. If possible, I would want a peaceful diplomatic solution and being open to talks is the first step. That however doesn't mean that they aren't occupying an extremist position. I think me, labeling one side extreme, implied they should be ignored or shunned etc. This is not the case. I only labeled them extreme.
  - rayiner 4y ago
blagie 4y ago
It doesn't matter whether one side is right or wrong, or whether one side is more or less extreme. Your tactics don't work and lead to harm. Let's work from your Taliban example. The extreme pressure placed on the Taliban does nothing to move them out of power, but it does lead to mass famine in Afghanistan, for people who don't deserve it. Last Week Tonight with John Oliver just did an episode. They're in power. They should have their accounts unfrozen. Aid organizations should be able to help people in Afghanistan. Let's work from you Ukraine example. What change would you like to see? Sanctions on Russia have a few impacts: 1. They reduce Russia's ability to produce weapons 2. They isolate people from the West and make them more vulnerable to propaganda 3. They hurt 140 million people, most of whom didn't ask for the war 4. They support Putin's message that the West is out to get Russia ... and so on. When the war started, I pushed for much more military aid than was provided, but also for weaker and more targetted sanctions. The point is that simply "taking a stance" and lashing out doesn't lead to change. There need to be tactics involved, and one needs to think through impact. The impact of having "blue" and "red" businesses, communities, and schools is very, very negative. One side needs to take a stance on saving baby's lives, and another on women's rights. That's fine. One needs to take a stance on respecting the Bill of Rights, and the second on reducing gun violence. That's okay too. However, there are appropriate forums in which to take those stances so we don't all just end up hating each other, and so where possible, reasonable compromises can be found.

by V__ 4y ago

geraldwhen 4y ago

Whether you understand it or not you have taken an extreme political position. “Their politics are politics. Our politics are ethics/human rights.” It’s all politics and refusing to see that is extremely divisive.

V__ 4y ago
If we look back at my example. Would you say the same thing to the Ukrainian making that point? If not, we agree that there is a line at which politics end and extremism begins, that is not an extreme political position. This also doesn't mean, one shouldn't try to discuss or interact with them, but be wary of what the reality is.
- geraldwhen 4y ago
  Politics is politics. A religious person who believes absolutely in no murder might think that Ukrainians have a duty to retreat; land isn’t worth the price of a single life. Many others feel differently. But how personal ethics and belief tie into law and governance IS politics.
  - V__ 4y ago
    I understand your viewpoint, but can't agree with you. Dismissing everything as just politics and giving every viewpoint the same validity would mean that "rape should be legal" and "raising the tax by 1%" are equally valid positions or opinions to hold. Sure, there may be people which would agree with that assessment and calling one viewpoint extreme might seem be divisive to you or ignoring that it's just politics. But I can't agree with you. I find that notion absurd.
    - geraldwhen 4y ago
      A non straw man of your first argument would be the definition of “rape.” Most people believe forced sex should be illegal. But rape also means consent, in America, so you get “statutory” rape, and Romeo and Juliet laws, and different handling of intoxication all over the world. If two people are black out drunk, can either rape the other if they ostensibly agreed while intoxicated? Does it matter the sex of the participants? Look no further than any Reddit post and you will see that at least some people think a 17 year old male having sex with a 25 year old female teacher should not be considered rape. The definition of rape is unequivocally political.
      - V__ 4y ago
        Absolutely, there are lines and some are blurry and worthy of discussion. I'm not trying to deny that. I just wanted to exaggerate an example to get my point across. I could have said "forced sex of a one-year-old by a sane adult" but that's not what I tried to convey. I try to state that some positions are so out-there (I'm sorry for a lack of a better term) that they are extreme and not part of sane or normal (for a lack of a better term) political discourse. That doesn't mean that one shouldn't try to talk with these people or shun them. Just that pretending they are normal is dangerous. Politicians insisting 1+1 equals 3 is extreme but maybe not harmful, someone insisting Jews are not people got 6 million killed. That's why I can't agree that it's just politics, if such a position can have real dangerous and harmful implications. I hope I could make my point more clear.

siglesias 4y ago

>> Right now there is only one really extreme "side" in the U.S. I urge you to consider that this attitude is the very problem under discussion.

V__ 4y ago
If we look back at my example. Would you say the same thing to the Ukrainian making that point? If not, we agree that there is a line at which politics end and extremism begins, which has nothing to do with attitude. Personally, I find it obvious that Republicans have crossed that line. Maybe they will come back, maybe not. This also doesn't mean, one shouldn't try to discuss or interact with them, but be wary of what the reality is.
- bluefirebrand 4y ago
  > Personally, I find it obvious that Republicans have crossed that line. Maybe they will come back, maybe not And many Republicans "find it obvious" that the Democrats are going to destroy the USA by supporting insert whatever Republicans are angry about today. Gay Rights, or something As Objectively Correct you think you are, they think they are equally Objectively Correct. You are being equally dismissive of them as they are of you, and therefore you are also part of the problem. Seeing their side doesn't mean you are obligated to COMPROMISE with them, but as long as you are dismissing them outright as having "crossed a line", you're just as extreme as they are.
  - V__ 4y ago
    Saying they crossed a line or even declaring something extreme doesn't mean I can't see or understand their side. Let's bring it back to my example: I understand and see why Russians think they are fighting a just war. If possible, I would want a peaceful diplomatic solution and being open to talks is the first step. That however doesn't mean that they aren't occupying an extremist position. I think me, labeling one side extreme, implied they should be ignored or shunned etc. This is not the case. I only labeled them extreme.
- rayiner 4y ago

blagie 4y ago

It doesn't matter whether one side is right or wrong, or whether one side is more or less extreme. Your tactics don't work and lead to harm. Let's work from your Taliban example. The extreme pressure placed on the Taliban does nothing to move them out of power, but it does lead to mass famine in Afghanistan, for people who don't deserve it. Last Week Tonight with John Oliver just did an episode. They're in power. They should have their accounts unfrozen. Aid organizations should be able to help people in Afghanistan. Let's work from you Ukraine example. What change would you like to see? Sanctions on Russia have a few impacts: 1. They reduce Russia's ability to produce weapons 2. They isolate people from the West and make them more vulnerable to propaganda 3. They hurt 140 million people, most of whom didn't ask for the war 4. They support Putin's message that the West is out to get Russia ... and so on. When the war started, I pushed for much more military aid than was provided, but also for weaker and more targetted sanctions. The point is that simply "taking a stance" and lashing out doesn't lead to change. There need to be tactics involved, and one needs to think through impact. The impact of having "blue" and "red" businesses, communities, and schools is very, very negative. One side needs to take a stance on saving baby's lives, and another on women's rights. That's fine. One needs to take a stance on respecting the Bill of Rights, and the second on reducing gun violence. That's okay too. However, there are appropriate forums in which to take those stances so we don't all just end up hating each other, and so where possible, reasonable compromises can be found.