5 ms·

Anyone on "the other side" (problems with that framing aside for now) who doesn't understand and accept this is only serving to make the problem worse. This is

by squigz 2y ago

Anyone on "the other side" (problems with that framing aside for now) who doesn't understand and accept this is only serving to make the problem worse. This is the result of people's disillusionment with government from both sides of the aisle reaching a boiling point. Anyone could have seen it coming, and anyone who wants to fix it needs to understand where the other side is coming from, and not just paint them as evil stupid idiots. Compromise. It's essential to peaceful co-existence of a group of humans of any size. At some point along the line, America seems to have lost that quality.

2358452 2y ago
I think not only compromise, but more importantly communication. Like it or not, the other half of the country is also part of the country, and you cannot claim to be in support of the public without covering half of the public. The first line should be consensus, and when consensus isn't possible a carefully balanced compromise should be attempted. If the left or the right disagree on even language and core cultural issues, they both need to find ways to communicate and evolve that allows for a peaceful coexistence. The notion the other party is a stupid or evil adversary incapable of enlightenment is poisonous, it forbids communication. Even if your adversary is indeed stupid and/or evil, it is far better to talk to them and if not change their mind, explain yourself in a language they understand (that includes a language they don't find outrageous or absurd!), leaving open the door to seeing your point of view. Even if they want to destroy you, it is a much better strategy to show you're not all that bad than escalating or just giving up. Of course, there are always voices that profit from discord, and human nature is perhaps attracted to antagonism. But we shouldn't let that go out of control, for the benefit of everyone. If we're wrong about something, it's to our profit to learn from an adversary. This is the main lesson I think we should be taking -- even if being wrong is painful or sometimes isolating. Also logically, don't isolate those who think a little differently from your cultural heterodoxy, for the case they might have good reasons you just don't understand yet. I think the old customs of being, and of course appearing, respectful were in part norms created for this. By behaving respectfully you're showing a willingness to learn and be wrong. By shouting, offending and imposing your opinion you're demonstrating you might be closed to other possibilities even if they are wrong, sometimes for very misguided reasons like ego, pride, or power. It's clearly then particularly important to act respectfully with those who are your adversaries or with whom you disagree (since perhaps you'll be more inclined to hear those who you already mostly agree with). In summary: communication, compromise and respect.
- filoeleven 2y ago
  Remember when there was a bipartisan bill to fix immigration that had a good deal of compromise in it, and it was all set to pass until Trump told the republicans to tank it so that Biden wouldn’t get credit for it?
alxjrvs 2y ago
It would be a lot easier if they weren't so god-dammned stupid and plausibly evil. I do not feel the need to compromise with "White Power" or "We need to find a way to safely inject bleach".
- squigz 2y ago
  That isn't what I'm suggesting, and the fact you jump to that conclusion is precisely what I'm referring to...
  - slater 2y ago
    How would you compromise with "white power"?
    - squigz 2y ago
      Y'all really doubling down on this whole "77 million people are white supremacists" huh? You understand this means that the other 75 million people are actually looking to mutilate children, destroy the concepts of sex and gender, abolish all of the police, and are aggressively racist against white people, right?
      - aisenik 2y ago
        They voted for people that are working to reinstitute Jim Crow apartheid, are pushing for ethnic cleansing in Gaza and the hostile annexation of Canada, canceled federal celebrations of MLK Jr. Day, put tattooed white supremacists in charge of the US Military apparatus, think "there are good people" on both sides of a white supremacist terror attack on Americans, turned Guantanamo Bay into a concentration camp while furiously deporting immigrants of color yet opening the door to white people aggrieved by the aftermath of the fall of South African Apartheid, and constantly boost/reply/repost white supremacist propaganda including normalizing white replacement theory. Just a short list of real things off the top of my head. It's possible that their perspective on the outgroup is not entirely "fair and balanced." As a white American the concept of "racist against white people" is laughable. The right's obsessive persecution complex while enjoying the bounties of the greatest empire of human history is childish in the extreme. Like toddlers, but with the power to destroy all of human civilization.
buttercraft 2y ago
> Compromise The problem is that the republican party has had a "no comprimise" policy for a while. It's like they put the party before the country.
- nomdep 2y ago
  … what? The Republican Party was the one saying “either agree with us unconditionally or you are a Nazi” for the last 10 years? The Republican Party was the one ignoring the many crimes of Biden’s son because it would hurt the party?
  - avs733 2y ago
    Ironically, this proves the parent comments point.

by squigz 2y ago

2358452 2y ago

I think not only compromise, but more importantly communication. Like it or not, the other half of the country is also part of the country, and you cannot claim to be in support of the public without covering half of the public. The first line should be consensus, and when consensus isn't possible a carefully balanced compromise should be attempted. If the left or the right disagree on even language and core cultural issues, they both need to find ways to communicate and evolve that allows for a peaceful coexistence. The notion the other party is a stupid or evil adversary incapable of enlightenment is poisonous, it forbids communication. Even if your adversary is indeed stupid and/or evil, it is far better to talk to them and if not change their mind, explain yourself in a language they understand (that includes a language they don't find outrageous or absurd!), leaving open the door to seeing your point of view. Even if they want to destroy you, it is a much better strategy to show you're not all that bad than escalating or just giving up. Of course, there are always voices that profit from discord, and human nature is perhaps attracted to antagonism. But we shouldn't let that go out of control, for the benefit of everyone. If we're wrong about something, it's to our profit to learn from an adversary. This is the main lesson I think we should be taking -- even if being wrong is painful or sometimes isolating. Also logically, don't isolate those who think a little differently from your cultural heterodoxy, for the case they might have good reasons you just don't understand yet. I think the old customs of being, and of course appearing, respectful were in part norms created for this. By behaving respectfully you're showing a willingness to learn and be wrong. By shouting, offending and imposing your opinion you're demonstrating you might be closed to other possibilities even if they are wrong, sometimes for very misguided reasons like ego, pride, or power. It's clearly then particularly important to act respectfully with those who are your adversaries or with whom you disagree (since perhaps you'll be more inclined to hear those who you already mostly agree with). In summary: communication, compromise and respect.

filoeleven 2y ago
Remember when there was a bipartisan bill to fix immigration that had a good deal of compromise in it, and it was all set to pass until Trump told the republicans to tank it so that Biden wouldn’t get credit for it?

alxjrvs 2y ago

It would be a lot easier if they weren't so god-dammned stupid and plausibly evil. I do not feel the need to compromise with "White Power" or "We need to find a way to safely inject bleach".

squigz 2y ago
That isn't what I'm suggesting, and the fact you jump to that conclusion is precisely what I'm referring to...
- slater 2y ago
  How would you compromise with "white power"?
  - squigz 2y ago
    Y'all really doubling down on this whole "77 million people are white supremacists" huh? You understand this means that the other 75 million people are actually looking to mutilate children, destroy the concepts of sex and gender, abolish all of the police, and are aggressively racist against white people, right?
    - aisenik 2y ago
      They voted for people that are working to reinstitute Jim Crow apartheid, are pushing for ethnic cleansing in Gaza and the hostile annexation of Canada, canceled federal celebrations of MLK Jr. Day, put tattooed white supremacists in charge of the US Military apparatus, think "there are good people" on both sides of a white supremacist terror attack on Americans, turned Guantanamo Bay into a concentration camp while furiously deporting immigrants of color yet opening the door to white people aggrieved by the aftermath of the fall of South African Apartheid, and constantly boost/reply/repost white supremacist propaganda including normalizing white replacement theory. Just a short list of real things off the top of my head. It's possible that their perspective on the outgroup is not entirely "fair and balanced." As a white American the concept of "racist against white people" is laughable. The right's obsessive persecution complex while enjoying the bounties of the greatest empire of human history is childish in the extreme. Like toddlers, but with the power to destroy all of human civilization.

buttercraft 2y ago

> Compromise The problem is that the republican party has had a "no comprimise" policy for a while. It's like they put the party before the country.

nomdep 2y ago
… what? The Republican Party was the one saying “either agree with us unconditionally or you are a Nazi” for the last 10 years? The Republican Party was the one ignoring the many crimes of Biden’s son because it would hurt the party?
- avs733 2y ago
  Ironically, this proves the parent comments point.