5 ms·

How can you be neutral with someone who repeatedly demonstrates via voting they would prefer a world where some of your loved ones, friends, and acquaintances l

How can you be neutral with someone who repeatedly demonstrates via voting they would prefer a world where some of your loved ones, friends, and acquaintances live a diminished life for simply being? How do you try to weave a social fabric with that?

wtcactus 3y ago
What is interesting about this comment, is that - unlike what is clearly the poster intent - it can be equally applied to Democrats or Republicans. That's the real problem we are facing. Too many people believing they represent the "morally correct" side due to the impact of social networks.
- colinmorelli 3y ago
  I might argue that the real problem we're facing is we continue to perpetuate the idea that the totality of issues facing a nation of 330 million people can be lumped into "republican" or "democrat" and this binary view of the world invariably fosters extremism. If you eliminate terms like "medicare for all" or "socialized medicine" and just ask people if they believe someone's access to care should be limited based on their financial situation, most people would say no. We often agree on the crux of the issue, but disagree on the mechanics of how to get there. But when we try to force people into binary solutions it's either "the people for socialized medicine" or "the people against socialized medicine" and that's a guaranteed downward spiral.
  - aspenmayer 3y ago
    > I might argue that the real problem we're facing is we continue to perpetuate the idea that the totality of issues facing a nation of 330 million people can be lumped into "republican" or "democrat" and this binary view of the world invariably fosters extremism. I agree broadly. The two-party system is emergent phenomena due to our first-past-the-post voting system wherein whichever candidate for nearly any given election receives 50% of votes cast +1 additional vote wins the election, as opposed to a system which apportions seats in a cabinet proportionally according to the percentage of votes cast for a particular party out of total votes cast. It is my belief based on cursory study that this method of voting in USA was known to have this failure mode, but alternative methods of counting votes would be difficult to calculate as well as win support of the early colonies which ultimately became party to the Union. The two-party system benefits both parties equally, to our collective detriment, as it has the knock-on effect of causing both parties to become increasingly pandering to their extremes, while representing poorly those at the extremes as well as their mean. Ranked choice or other alternative apportionment schemes would allow voters to vote their conscience and would ultimately lead to better outcomes, as well as allowing third parties to have a reasonable likelihood of actually being elected. This would also force the extant parties to actually form coalitions based on issues and points of agreement, as well as enhance cooperation among the parties across the aisle, as opposed to down-the-line votes which lead to obstructionism and filibusters. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting > But when we try to force people into binary solutions it's either "the people for socialized medicine" or "the people against socialized medicine" and that's a guaranteed downward spiral. The blessed/cursed wedge issue. As they say in politics, never let a good crisis go to waste. Wedge issues are the ultimate Gordian knot of political hot potatoes, as they aren't meant to ever be solved in a two party system, as then they would be rendered ineffective as wedge issues, as the issue would be settled law, and could no longer be used to dodge or deflect. Much of current culture war disagreements fall under wedge issues broadly, but this is not a new development in politicking or jurisprudence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_issue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_issue When you look at these issues as part of a larger whole, the two party system benefits immensely from the first-past-the-post system; similarly, wedge issues are designed to force voters and elected officials to pick a side on nuanced issues that may not have only two possible legislative outcomes desired by the public. From the point of view of the two dominant parties, it's literally notabug/wontfix.
    - colinmorelli 3y ago
      I very much agree with your response, the implication of the two party system, and the notion of the wedge issue and its inability to be solved. What makes this more painful now is seemingly every issue being discussed is now a wedge issue (immigration, education, healthcare, taxes, abortion, budget, etc) which has inhibited all progress. It seems like making others aware of how much the two party system is harming societal progress is important, so we can start making decisions to inch us closer to where we want to be, rather than continuing to fall victim to the status quo.
      - aspenmayer 3y ago
        Both Maine and Nebraska show that change is possible. The game is not lost; it is ever afoot. > Maine and Nebraska both use an alternative method of distributing their electoral votes, called the Congressional District Method. Currently, these two states are the only two in the union that diverge from the traditional winner-take-all method of electoral vote allocation. https://fairvote.org/archives/the_electoral_college-maine_nebraska/ https://fairvote.org/archives/the_electoral_college-maine_ne... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College#Congressional_district_method https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_Colleg...
- FireBeyond 3y ago
  > it can be equally applied to Democrats or Republicans. No it can't. It can be equally applied when it comes perhaps to things where there is a choice, gun ownership, abortion, and such. But show me one area where the Democrats want to make someone "lesser" or "diminished" for who they are - the things they cannot change. Gender. Sexual orientation.
  - RcouF1uZ4gsC 3y ago
    > But show me one area where the Democrats want to make someone "lesser" or "diminished" for who they are - the things they cannot change. What about race? Harvard was making Asian applicants lesser based on their race and most Democrats seemed to support them in this.
    - whythre 3y ago
      Also how many leftist colleges are acting very permissible towards antisemitism. The left certainly has its own demons to confront.
      - FireBeyond 3y ago
        Permissible towards antisemitism, or towards the actions of the Israeli government? It's frustrating how conveniently these two are conflated. The Israeli government shouldn't be immune to criticism, but behind this thinly veiled wall, it largely is.
        shitlord 3y ago
        It is possible to criticize the Israeli government without lashing out against individual students because they happen to be Jewish or Israeli. Incidents like this seem pretty antisemitic: https://nypost.com/2024/01/03/news/school-of-art-institute-of-chicago-of-accused-of-antisemitism/ https://nypost.com/2024/01/03/news/school-of-art-institute-o... > Two days after Shiran informed the attorneys of her decision, however, professor Sandie Yi — one of the faculty members Shiran complained about to the school and who is also named as a defendant in the suit — altered her course’s final assignment in ways that “uniquely targeted Shiran,” the suit claimed.
boringuser2 3y ago
[flagged]
- throwup238 3y ago
  You're claiming that someone who you disagrees with you is brainwashed. Do you not see the irony?
  - boringuser2 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - throwup238 3y ago
      >> How can you be neutral with someone who repeatedly demonstrates via voting they would prefer a world where some of your loved ones, friends, and acquaintances live a diminished life for simply being? > That poster thinks people who don't agree with him are literally murdering him. "Live a diminished life" is not "literally murdering" anyone. It's literally in the first word! "Live!" It seems you're the one who's radicalized with an agenda and will make demonstrably false claims to illustrate your point. (This is a sign you've been brainwashed) > The notion that everybody but yourself are radicalized and want to harm you because they didn't vote for the free condoms for all homosexuals bill is laughable. You're so close to self awareness yet so far. But I see your agenda is anti-homosexual so... yeah. I'm done.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
akoboldfrying 3y ago
You can choose not to think about it, the same way you most likely don't think about the fact that many of the people who grow the food you eat, make the clothes you wear, construct the buildings you live in, and in general make possible many important parts of your life harbour that same sentiment. The only difference really is the fact that you (again, most likely) don't see most of those people face-to-face. (I'm not arguing that you should choose not to think about it -- only that it's certainly possible to do so.)
knorker 3y ago
How can you work with people who buy phones made by slaves? Or people who eat meat? > How do you try to weave a social fabric with that? How do you do it without it? The only solution given your rules is "if everyone just thought exactly like me and had exactly my values, then everything would be fine", which is a very childish view.
- plussed_reader 3y ago
  You don't do it without; you then form separate tapestries and then have the oldest of human competitions to see which will dominate. Why is it a detrimental 'rule' to exclude those that would punish someones nature capriciously with legislation and policy? Feels like the right path given the intolerance paradox.
  - ETH_start 3y ago
    Humility demands that you consider the possibility that their motivation and even the net effect of the legislation that they support either directly or indirectly through their support for a particular candidate is not to punish anyone's nature.
    - plussed_reader 3y ago
      Hard to do when the cruelty is the point; I tend to reserve the short end of the stick for the capricious.
      - ETH_start 3y ago
        That cruelty is the point is an assumption. It's challenging, but I suggest giving your interlocutors the benefit of the doubt and assume good faith so that you can actually assess their arguments. Without assuming good intentions, it's impossible to effectively evaluate opposing points of view.

wtcactus 3y ago

What is interesting about this comment, is that - unlike what is clearly the poster intent - it can be equally applied to Democrats or Republicans. That's the real problem we are facing. Too many people believing they represent the "morally correct" side due to the impact of social networks.

colinmorelli 3y ago
I might argue that the real problem we're facing is we continue to perpetuate the idea that the totality of issues facing a nation of 330 million people can be lumped into "republican" or "democrat" and this binary view of the world invariably fosters extremism. If you eliminate terms like "medicare for all" or "socialized medicine" and just ask people if they believe someone's access to care should be limited based on their financial situation, most people would say no. We often agree on the crux of the issue, but disagree on the mechanics of how to get there. But when we try to force people into binary solutions it's either "the people for socialized medicine" or "the people against socialized medicine" and that's a guaranteed downward spiral.
- aspenmayer 3y ago
  > I might argue that the real problem we're facing is we continue to perpetuate the idea that the totality of issues facing a nation of 330 million people can be lumped into "republican" or "democrat" and this binary view of the world invariably fosters extremism. I agree broadly. The two-party system is emergent phenomena due to our first-past-the-post voting system wherein whichever candidate for nearly any given election receives 50% of votes cast +1 additional vote wins the election, as opposed to a system which apportions seats in a cabinet proportionally according to the percentage of votes cast for a particular party out of total votes cast. It is my belief based on cursory study that this method of voting in USA was known to have this failure mode, but alternative methods of counting votes would be difficult to calculate as well as win support of the early colonies which ultimately became party to the Union. The two-party system benefits both parties equally, to our collective detriment, as it has the knock-on effect of causing both parties to become increasingly pandering to their extremes, while representing poorly those at the extremes as well as their mean. Ranked choice or other alternative apportionment schemes would allow voters to vote their conscience and would ultimately lead to better outcomes, as well as allowing third parties to have a reasonable likelihood of actually being elected. This would also force the extant parties to actually form coalitions based on issues and points of agreement, as well as enhance cooperation among the parties across the aisle, as opposed to down-the-line votes which lead to obstructionism and filibusters. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting > But when we try to force people into binary solutions it's either "the people for socialized medicine" or "the people against socialized medicine" and that's a guaranteed downward spiral. The blessed/cursed wedge issue. As they say in politics, never let a good crisis go to waste. Wedge issues are the ultimate Gordian knot of political hot potatoes, as they aren't meant to ever be solved in a two party system, as then they would be rendered ineffective as wedge issues, as the issue would be settled law, and could no longer be used to dodge or deflect. Much of current culture war disagreements fall under wedge issues broadly, but this is not a new development in politicking or jurisprudence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_issue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_issue When you look at these issues as part of a larger whole, the two party system benefits immensely from the first-past-the-post system; similarly, wedge issues are designed to force voters and elected officials to pick a side on nuanced issues that may not have only two possible legislative outcomes desired by the public. From the point of view of the two dominant parties, it's literally notabug/wontfix.
  - colinmorelli 3y ago
    I very much agree with your response, the implication of the two party system, and the notion of the wedge issue and its inability to be solved. What makes this more painful now is seemingly every issue being discussed is now a wedge issue (immigration, education, healthcare, taxes, abortion, budget, etc) which has inhibited all progress. It seems like making others aware of how much the two party system is harming societal progress is important, so we can start making decisions to inch us closer to where we want to be, rather than continuing to fall victim to the status quo.
    - aspenmayer 3y ago
      Both Maine and Nebraska show that change is possible. The game is not lost; it is ever afoot. > Maine and Nebraska both use an alternative method of distributing their electoral votes, called the Congressional District Method. Currently, these two states are the only two in the union that diverge from the traditional winner-take-all method of electoral vote allocation. https://fairvote.org/archives/the_electoral_college-maine_nebraska/ https://fairvote.org/archives/the_electoral_college-maine_ne... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College#Congressional_district_method https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_Colleg...
FireBeyond 3y ago
> it can be equally applied to Democrats or Republicans. No it can't. It can be equally applied when it comes perhaps to things where there is a choice, gun ownership, abortion, and such. But show me one area where the Democrats want to make someone "lesser" or "diminished" for who they are - the things they cannot change. Gender. Sexual orientation.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 3y ago
  > But show me one area where the Democrats want to make someone "lesser" or "diminished" for who they are - the things they cannot change. What about race? Harvard was making Asian applicants lesser based on their race and most Democrats seemed to support them in this.
  - whythre 3y ago
    Also how many leftist colleges are acting very permissible towards antisemitism. The left certainly has its own demons to confront.
    - FireBeyond 3y ago
      Permissible towards antisemitism, or towards the actions of the Israeli government? It's frustrating how conveniently these two are conflated. The Israeli government shouldn't be immune to criticism, but behind this thinly veiled wall, it largely is.
      - shitlord 3y ago
        It is possible to criticize the Israeli government without lashing out against individual students because they happen to be Jewish or Israeli. Incidents like this seem pretty antisemitic: https://nypost.com/2024/01/03/news/school-of-art-institute-of-chicago-of-accused-of-antisemitism/ https://nypost.com/2024/01/03/news/school-of-art-institute-o... > Two days after Shiran informed the attorneys of her decision, however, professor Sandie Yi — one of the faculty members Shiran complained about to the school and who is also named as a defendant in the suit — altered her course’s final assignment in ways that “uniquely targeted Shiran,” the suit claimed.

boringuser2 3y ago

[flagged]

throwup238 3y ago
You're claiming that someone who you disagrees with you is brainwashed. Do you not see the irony?
- boringuser2 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - throwup238 3y ago
    >> How can you be neutral with someone who repeatedly demonstrates via voting they would prefer a world where some of your loved ones, friends, and acquaintances live a diminished life for simply being? > That poster thinks people who don't agree with him are literally murdering him. "Live a diminished life" is not "literally murdering" anyone. It's literally in the first word! "Live!" It seems you're the one who's radicalized with an agenda and will make demonstrably false claims to illustrate your point. (This is a sign you've been brainwashed) > The notion that everybody but yourself are radicalized and want to harm you because they didn't vote for the free condoms for all homosexuals bill is laughable. You're so close to self awareness yet so far. But I see your agenda is anti-homosexual so... yeah. I'm done.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

akoboldfrying 3y ago

You can choose not to think about it, the same way you most likely don't think about the fact that many of the people who grow the food you eat, make the clothes you wear, construct the buildings you live in, and in general make possible many important parts of your life harbour that same sentiment. The only difference really is the fact that you (again, most likely) don't see most of those people face-to-face. (I'm not arguing that you should choose not to think about it -- only that it's certainly possible to do so.)

knorker 3y ago

How can you work with people who buy phones made by slaves? Or people who eat meat? > How do you try to weave a social fabric with that? How do you do it without it? The only solution given your rules is "if everyone just thought exactly like me and had exactly my values, then everything would be fine", which is a very childish view.

plussed_reader 3y ago
You don't do it without; you then form separate tapestries and then have the oldest of human competitions to see which will dominate. Why is it a detrimental 'rule' to exclude those that would punish someones nature capriciously with legislation and policy? Feels like the right path given the intolerance paradox.
- ETH_start 3y ago
  Humility demands that you consider the possibility that their motivation and even the net effect of the legislation that they support either directly or indirectly through their support for a particular candidate is not to punish anyone's nature.
  - plussed_reader 3y ago
    Hard to do when the cruelty is the point; I tend to reserve the short end of the stick for the capricious.
    - ETH_start 3y ago
      That cruelty is the point is an assumption. It's challenging, but I suggest giving your interlocutors the benefit of the doubt and assume good faith so that you can actually assess their arguments. Without assuming good intentions, it's impossible to effectively evaluate opposing points of view.