I agree with a lot of that, but one really has to consider that all that "world turning against us" is caused by the man currently in the White House. Remember how bad things were pre-Obama:...
I agree with a lot of that, but one really has to consider that all that "world turning against us" is caused by the man currently in the White House. Remember how bad things were pre-Obama: housing crisis, automobile manufacturing crisis, banking crisis, two active wars. Look where it was post-Obama. Economy fully recovered (for the most part), stock market booming, our place of power in the world firmly entrenched. Compare that to now: Trump inherited the economic and market benefits and has single-handedly eroded the world's confidence in our power and ability to lead. I don't think the empire is just naturally decaying, because it's only been a year and a half that things have looked so dire.
I think it's a little reductive to say that the current state of the US economy and international/trade relations is attributable primarily to Trump. Diplomatically, Obama's administration had...
I think it's a little reductive to say that the current state of the US economy and international/trade relations is attributable primarily to Trump.
Diplomatically, Obama's administration had warmer interactions with the EU and plenty of other states, and publicly re-affirmed its dedication to things like the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, but journalists and political writers have been lamenting America's decline as the dominant hegemonic power in the world for the last 2 decades.
You've mentioned some of the struggles that have taken their toll in the last 20 years, expensive international conflicts, economic problems (self inflicted or otherwise), an ever widening gap in income and standards of living.
Even outside of the US's own policies and control, from years ago, China seemed like it was destined to become a natural competitor, if not outright replacement for the US's premier economic position in the globe. There was nothing that the Bush or Obama administrations were able to accomplish during their time that prevented this or changed the course of the country enough to place it on a level or upwards trajectory.
The country's split right down the middle ideologically on too many issues, and that wasn't Trump's doing. He's just one of the many symptoms of what's plaguing America, rather than a cause.
I think the big question to me is, assuming that the U.S. is a falling empire, what should we do? Does it involve changing our current government to a more modern and fitting form, or perhaps...
I think the big question to me is, assuming that the U.S. is a falling empire, what should we do? Does it involve changing our current government to a more modern and fitting form, or perhaps preparing for some kind of (hopefully bloodless) revolution?
"May you be blessed with interesting times" The fall of America will not be totally unwelcome. One intended/unintended result of the corruption in our country is the promulgation and curation of...
"May you be blessed with interesting times"
The fall of America will not be totally unwelcome. One intended/unintended result of the corruption in our country is the promulgation and curation of idiocy and anti intellectualism. Decades of apathy, generations of decreasing value of eduction both in the public eye and in the work force. The over inflation of the cost of living and the stagnation of living wages. We've done these things to ourselves and I don't know how to fix it other than by acting when it's prudent and riding the wave when that's prudent. Maybe things will get better. Maybe they won't. But we'll be here to try and figure it out, so long as Trump doesn't get us incinerated
I reject this wholeheartedly. To be clear, I lean left and have no love for what's going in this administration. That said, I believe you're ignoring three key things: 1) the economy is booming 2)...
I reject this wholeheartedly.
To be clear, I lean left and have no love for what's going in this administration. That said, I believe you're ignoring three key things: 1) the economy is booming 2) our military is strongest in the world and will remain so for the foreseeable future 3) American exceptionalism is alive and well when it comes to innovation.
We may have made missteps (pretty sure we did) and will likely make more (pretty sure we will) but we have a lot of cards left in the deck and a good hand left to play.
Folks also look at what's going on in the USA and think "how could it be worse?" But it could be, and was worse in recent memory. Around 50 years ago we had a National DRAFT and young Americans were being killed by the hundreds every day in Vietnam, there was segregation, riots that shut down entire cities, an oil crisis, etc. And the further back you look into our history (I mean really look) the more clear it is that the last 20-30 years have been some of the most peaceful, most profitable, and most exceptional in our history.
What did Churchill say about America? Something like "You can always count on America to do the right thing - After exhausting every other option."
We're just exhausting those options and will be back in the game ASAP.
You said elsewhere:
Nothing. There's nothing we can do.
Don't turn realism into defeatism. You don't have a bad day and then give up on life! Get out there and vote, volunteer, make your communities better. God dammit - we can do this!
I always try to boil these things down for people to the local level: John threw dog shit in my yard. If your answer isn't "well, talk to John and find out what the hell he's doing," or "call some...
I always try to boil these things down for people to the local level: John threw dog shit in my yard. If your answer isn't "well, talk to John and find out what the hell he's doing," or "call some authority to handle it," but instead "well, Jim down the street does it all the time," something's terribly wrong with your logic.
It's fascinating to me how the data are represented as how divided we are, but presented a different way could show how Americans as a whole look at the issues. If we assume that there is a rough...
It's fascinating to me how the data are represented as how divided we are, but presented a different way could show how Americans as a whole look at the issues. If we assume that there is a rough 50/50 split in terms of the populations of each party, the results could be viewed like this:
62% of Americans believe the influence of wealthy individuals and corporations is a major problem in America’s electoral system.
60% believe that America is on the wrong track.
60% believe that media bias against certain candidates is a problem.
Only 45% believe that influence from foreign governments is a problem.
Only 41% believe that ineligible voting is a problem.
I'm not sure if my statistics skills are valid, or if looking at it this way is more helpful than looking at the parties separately. Just what came to mind as I was reading the article.
You shouldn't. Party self-identification consistently puts self-identified Democrats and Republicans in the 20-30% range. If you force them to assert a "lean" you end up with about 42%...
If we assume that there is a rough 50/50 split in terms of the populations of each party...
You shouldn't. Party self-identification consistently puts self-identified Democrats and Republicans in the 20-30% range. If you force them to assert a "lean" you end up with about 42% Republican-leaning and about 50% Dem-leaning in 2017.
So then you get a choice. Do you take people at whether they identify with being part of the party or whether they lean toward that party even if they don't identify themselves as a part of it? The first group seems to be the type you want to assume for, and that's quite far off.
There are 3 kinds of lies: lies, damn lies and statistics. (a quote popularized by Mark Twain) I think we can safely say that polling is fraught with difficult to detect shortcomings by the...
There are 3 kinds of lies: lies, damn lies and statistics. (a quote popularized by Mark Twain)
I think we can safely say that polling is fraught with difficult to detect shortcomings by the average reader including the methodology used, who is conducting the polling, the margin of error, how the sampling was gathered etc. I don't generally put much stock in them as they are a blunt tool but look at the overall trends instead.
Trump/Trumpism is a symptom, not the disease. Once you start with assumption that "government is the problem" a la Reagan's fucking inaugural address, you immediately undercut any possibility of...
Trump/Trumpism is a symptom, not the disease. Once you start with assumption that "government is the problem" a la Reagan's fucking inaugural address, you immediately undercut any possibility of coming together as society to fix things. After decades of an increasingly cynical / disaffected electorate it is absolutely no surprise we have ended up with the kakistocracy we have today.
Institutions require constant vigilance in the good times, if you want them to be there for you in the bad.
It's because they live in the conservative media bubble. A bubble that's very much designed around brainwashing it's audience into only accepting "the right kind of news". Fox and others like it...
It's because they live in the conservative media bubble. A bubble that's very much designed around brainwashing it's audience into only accepting "the right kind of news". Fox and others like it should be abolished.
The other side isn't interested in having a discussion, their worldview rests on a belief that they're correct and everyone else is out to get them. You will never succeed in changing a...
The other side isn't interested in having a discussion, their worldview rests on a belief that they're correct and everyone else is out to get them. You will never succeed in changing a Republican's mind through rational debate.
Rather than viewing anyone as on your side or on the other side, I might suggest to view people as individuals. Rather than completely dismissing someone's opinion because of the color of their...
The other side
Rather than viewing anyone as on your side or on the other side, I might suggest to view people as individuals. Rather than completely dismissing someone's opinion because of the color of their political team jacket, it is worthwhile to consider they are an individual with their own perspective, background, and ideals.
The team sport of politics is absolutely frustrating and continues to divide the country on issues that we should be united.
[This is my first post here at Tildes, just came today, so also hello!] As a potential intervention into this debate I'd like to suggest something which was pointed out in this excellent Guardian...
[This is my first post here at Tildes, just came today, so also hello!]
As a potential intervention into this debate I'd like to suggest something which was pointed out in this excellent Guardian article by Sheri Berman the other day, namely that a big part of the problem regarding this divide is the bipartisan proliferation of a rhetoric of identity politics.
The article is slightly lengthy, but one main point, which she backs up with relevant psychological studies, is that the two parties are so perfectly divided that people's instinctive 'protect my group' reaction kicks in whenever anything "Republican" is attacked:
Trump’s stress on themes like growing immigration, the power of minorities and the rise of China highlighted status threats and fears particularly among whites without a college education, prompting a “defensive reaction” that was the most important factor in his election. This “defensive reaction” also explains why Trump’s post-election racist, xenophobic and sexist statements and reversal of traditional Republican positions on trade and other issues have helped him – they keep threats to whites front and center, provoking anger, fear and a strong desire to protect their own group.
Another quote which summarizes this is:
although racial and religious animosity has been present throughout American history, only recently has it lined up neatly along partisan lines. In the past, the Republican and Democratic parties attracted supporters with different racial, religious, ideological and regional identities, but gradually Republicans became the party of white, evangelical, conservative and rural voters, while the Democrats became associated with non-whites, non-evangelical, liberal and metropolitan voters. This lining up of identities dramatically changes electoral stakes: previously if your party lost, other parts of your identity were not threatened, but today losing is also a blow to your racial, religious, regional and ideological identity.
So one of Berman's points in this regard is that incivility and aggressive behavior - "you're a racist!" - is counter-productive. The best solution is to talk a bit and the most likely thing is that soon you will be able to find something in common with this person. Dissolving these artificial lines which have been created is perhaps the most important step to take - making someone of this typical "white, evangelical, conservative and rural voters" feel that they are on common ground with you and the rest of this diverse country seems one way to actually do your small part to effectively tackle this rather massive problem.
That's a really good article you referenced! I think a lot of the same points made about the proliferation of bipartisan rhetoric and a feeling of 'us vs them' continuing to polarize people can be...
That's a really good article you referenced!
I think a lot of the same points made about the proliferation of bipartisan rhetoric and a feeling of 'us vs them' continuing to polarize people can be applied to how people (esp. younger voters) are viewing their political information through social media like Twitter and Facebook. The thing about traditional broadcast media was that you weren't in control of what was on the tv, outside of picking which channel to watch, and most news channels essentially had the same information available to them.
Now, rather than continually being exposed to posts from people of all political viewpoints and opinions, people tailor their online experiences by following/unfollowing specific sources, resulting in their own political echo chambers, reinforcing their already-existing viewpoints and making them less tolerant of conflicting viewpoints.
I don't know if society can disentangle itself from new media in a way that will allow people to be exposed to a greater breadth of opinions and experiences outside of what they already know.
Hey, I understand your stance, it is a very frustrating thing to come up against a wall of ideology, I'm not saying it isn't. I'm not even saying I'm that hopeful, only that considering it this...
Hey, I understand your stance, it is a very frustrating thing to come up against a wall of ideology, I'm not saying it isn't. I'm not even saying I'm that hopeful, only that considering it this way does provide a glimmer of possibility. The truth is that you are on common ground, in that most humans are good human beings, and this article is so on-point because I believe the only way its possible to truly be antagonistic towards somebody else is if you consider them the "other group." Thus the deep success of identity politics, which as the article points out Steve Bannon is very aware of and specifically targets. So strategies to find the common ground, which yes does exist, is the thing to search for.
I'm just saying stay strong, if you are too frustrated to engage that is fine, but everytime somebody who considers themselves liberal descends into incivility / personal attacks they make things worse.
I have spent tens if not hundreds of hours engaging one-on-one with Republicans, I think the term "other side" is justified because their world is so fundamentally different to mine that there is...
I have spent tens if not hundreds of hours engaging one-on-one with Republicans, I think the term "other side" is justified because their world is so fundamentally different to mine that there is absolutely no chance of swaying them. It's not a minor difference in opinion or slight variation in morals, it's a deep, irreconcilable idealogical cavern.
The team sport of politics is absolutely frustrating and continues to divide the country on issues that we should be united.
I don't play teams, I hate the democrats just as much, but I at least abstractly stare some of their values.
I'm not declaring victory, if anything I'm giving up. Listen to what? As I said in my other comment, I have spent an inordinate about of time engaging with conservatives. They're not just...
I'm not declaring victory, if anything I'm giving up.
Just try to listen more and attack less.
Listen to what? As I said in my other comment, I have spent an inordinate about of time engaging with conservatives. They're not just misunderstood or hold slightly different views, they have fundamental differences in their core values which you are never going to change through debate or discussion. Any change with have to come from within.
I agree with understanding the other side and building rapport, but it's not efficient especially in the lead up to midterms. More than enough moderates and dormant Democrats are out there to sway...
I agree with understanding the other side and building rapport, but it's not efficient especially in the lead up to midterms. More than enough moderates and dormant Democrats are out there to sway this election in favor of progressives, so why spend time trying to persuade someone who's dug in and will never change? The only people in my life who get that kind of commitment are family I still care about enough to engage. Otherwise, I'm organizing, canvasing, phonebanking, calling current representatives, and finally voting.
If a blue wave this fall is your goal, you can do without the other side. 30 minutes spent calling 6 registered voters is much more effective than 30 minutes spent arguing with one person online.
There's not much wrong in theory with prioritizing focusing on convincing democrats to vote and moderates to vote for democrats. The only real problem comes in how you find and treat the people...
There's not much wrong in theory with prioritizing focusing on convincing democrats to vote and moderates to vote for democrats. The only real problem comes in how you find and treat the people who do disagree. If you're relying on a data team to suss that out, then it's possible you're missing people who might be persuadable but who just really don't want to give that 40th call this week from someone they don't know. If you're relying on the person you're talking with to tell you, then you will be getting some people over the phone who are mean, but most people in person are pretty nice. Persuasion-wise, it's important to be polite yourself in all circumstances. Each side remembers the slights most acutely that were perpetrated by the others, and forgive or don't even see those that come from their own political camps (however they define them) especially when used against people seen as outside that camp.
Now that doesn't mean that I think you need to give someone who knows they are voting against your candidates any more time than to establish that. But I think it hurts more than helps for others to be treating those people like assholes for the way they think without getting to know the person they're being mean to. I mean, if you* know the person? Have at it. In all likelihood you have at least some trust built into your relationship with that person you can build on. If you don't know them and you want to treat them like an asshole? Shut up and move on. It's a waste of everyone's time and energy.
*I'm not saying you specifically would do that, but the general "you."
Pretty much boils down to this for me, although I'm not perfect. When canvasing or phonebanking, you bet your ass I'm as respectful and polite as possible because it's easier to do so over the...
If you don't know them and you want to treat them like an asshole? Shut up and move on. It's a waste of everyone's time and energy.
Pretty much boils down to this for me, although I'm not perfect. When canvasing or phonebanking, you bet your ass I'm as respectful and polite as possible because it's easier to do so over the phone or in person especially with individuals targeted based on their party affiliation. When getting into polarizing discussion online, sometimes the condescension creeps out due to pent up frustration. That is a fault of mine and forever work in progress.
We really don't need Fox news. Those people aren't even journalists. Sean Hannity said so himself https://twitter.com/seanhannity/status/791132954298818561?s=19
We really don't need Fox news. Those people aren't even journalists. Sean Hannity said so himself
I feel like the solution is probably to be found in education. I don't think it's a coincidence that more educated individuals tend to skew more left and liberal than the populace at large, and...
It really seems like half the country lives in an alternate reality and I have no clue how this could be fixed at this point.
I feel like the solution is probably to be found in education. I don't think it's a coincidence that more educated individuals tend to skew more left and liberal than the populace at large, and people who think critically can more easily identify propaganda like Fox. But rather than waiting for college to develop these skills in students, I think we need to focus on introducing critical thinking and media analysis into K-12 curricula in a much greater way than they are now. Definitely media analysis isn't something that's being prioritized in the current environment of STEM fetishism. Of course, fat chance of any of that happening with DeVos as the secretary of education, but that's what I think would put us on the right track.
It's because they live in the liberal media bubble. A bubble that's very much designed around brainwashing it's audience into only accepting "the right kind of news". MSNBC and others like it...
It's because they live in the liberal media bubble. A bubble that's very much designed around brainwashing it's audience into only accepting "the right kind of news". MSNBC and others like it should be abolished.
That's a false equivalence if ever I saw one. Fox News isn't a news network, it's the propaganda arm of the republican party. You don't see the same sort of deference to one particular party on...
That's a false equivalence if ever I saw one. Fox News isn't a news network, it's the propaganda arm of the republican party. You don't see the same sort of deference to one particular party on any of the other mainstream networks, nor do you see the tribalistic exclusion of other networks by their viewers, with the possible exception of Fox for the reason I just said.
I agree with a lot of that, but one really has to consider that all that "world turning against us" is caused by the man currently in the White House. Remember how bad things were pre-Obama: housing crisis, automobile manufacturing crisis, banking crisis, two active wars. Look where it was post-Obama. Economy fully recovered (for the most part), stock market booming, our place of power in the world firmly entrenched. Compare that to now: Trump inherited the economic and market benefits and has single-handedly eroded the world's confidence in our power and ability to lead. I don't think the empire is just naturally decaying, because it's only been a year and a half that things have looked so dire.
I think it's a little reductive to say that the current state of the US economy and international/trade relations is attributable primarily to Trump.
Diplomatically, Obama's administration had warmer interactions with the EU and plenty of other states, and publicly re-affirmed its dedication to things like the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, but journalists and political writers have been lamenting America's decline as the dominant hegemonic power in the world for the last 2 decades.
You've mentioned some of the struggles that have taken their toll in the last 20 years, expensive international conflicts, economic problems (self inflicted or otherwise), an ever widening gap in income and standards of living.
Even outside of the US's own policies and control, from years ago, China seemed like it was destined to become a natural competitor, if not outright replacement for the US's premier economic position in the globe. There was nothing that the Bush or Obama administrations were able to accomplish during their time that prevented this or changed the course of the country enough to place it on a level or upwards trajectory.
The country's split right down the middle ideologically on too many issues, and that wasn't Trump's doing. He's just one of the many symptoms of what's plaguing America, rather than a cause.
I think the big question to me is, assuming that the U.S. is a falling empire, what should we do? Does it involve changing our current government to a more modern and fitting form, or perhaps preparing for some kind of (hopefully bloodless) revolution?
"May you be blessed with interesting times"
The fall of America will not be totally unwelcome. One intended/unintended result of the corruption in our country is the promulgation and curation of idiocy and anti intellectualism. Decades of apathy, generations of decreasing value of eduction both in the public eye and in the work force. The over inflation of the cost of living and the stagnation of living wages. We've done these things to ourselves and I don't know how to fix it other than by acting when it's prudent and riding the wave when that's prudent. Maybe things will get better. Maybe they won't. But we'll be here to try and figure it out, so long as Trump doesn't get us incinerated
I reject this wholeheartedly.
To be clear, I lean left and have no love for what's going in this administration. That said, I believe you're ignoring three key things: 1) the economy is booming 2) our military is strongest in the world and will remain so for the foreseeable future 3) American exceptionalism is alive and well when it comes to innovation.
We may have made missteps (pretty sure we did) and will likely make more (pretty sure we will) but we have a lot of cards left in the deck and a good hand left to play.
Folks also look at what's going on in the USA and think "how could it be worse?" But it could be, and was worse in recent memory. Around 50 years ago we had a National DRAFT and young Americans were being killed by the hundreds every day in Vietnam, there was segregation, riots that shut down entire cities, an oil crisis, etc. And the further back you look into our history (I mean really look) the more clear it is that the last 20-30 years have been some of the most peaceful, most profitable, and most exceptional in our history.
What did Churchill say about America? Something like "You can always count on America to do the right thing - After exhausting every other option."
We're just exhausting those options and will be back in the game ASAP.
You said elsewhere:
Don't turn realism into defeatism. You don't have a bad day and then give up on life! Get out there and vote, volunteer, make your communities better. God dammit - we can do this!
I always try to boil these things down for people to the local level: John threw dog shit in my yard. If your answer isn't "well, talk to John and find out what the hell he's doing," or "call some authority to handle it," but instead "well, Jim down the street does it all the time," something's terribly wrong with your logic.
It's fascinating to me how the data are represented as how divided we are, but presented a different way could show how Americans as a whole look at the issues. If we assume that there is a rough 50/50 split in terms of the populations of each party, the results could be viewed like this:
I'm not sure if my statistics skills are valid, or if looking at it this way is more helpful than looking at the parties separately. Just what came to mind as I was reading the article.
You shouldn't. Party self-identification consistently puts self-identified Democrats and Republicans in the 20-30% range. If you force them to assert a "lean" you end up with about 42% Republican-leaning and about 50% Dem-leaning in 2017.
So then you get a choice. Do you take people at whether they identify with being part of the party or whether they lean toward that party even if they don't identify themselves as a part of it? The first group seems to be the type you want to assume for, and that's quite far off.
There are 3 kinds of lies: lies, damn lies and statistics. (a quote popularized by Mark Twain)
I think we can safely say that polling is fraught with difficult to detect shortcomings by the average reader including the methodology used, who is conducting the polling, the margin of error, how the sampling was gathered etc. I don't generally put much stock in them as they are a blunt tool but look at the overall trends instead.
edited to include citation of quote
Trump/Trumpism is a symptom, not the disease. Once you start with assumption that "government is the problem" a la Reagan's fucking inaugural address, you immediately undercut any possibility of coming together as society to fix things. After decades of an increasingly cynical / disaffected electorate it is absolutely no surprise we have ended up with the kakistocracy we have today.
Institutions require constant vigilance in the good times, if you want them to be there for you in the bad.
It's because they live in the conservative media bubble. A bubble that's very much designed around brainwashing it's audience into only accepting "the right kind of news". Fox and others like it should be abolished.
The other side isn't interested in having a discussion, their worldview rests on a belief that they're correct and everyone else is out to get them. You will never succeed in changing a Republican's mind through rational debate.
Rather than viewing anyone as on your side or on the other side, I might suggest to view people as individuals. Rather than completely dismissing someone's opinion because of the color of their political team jacket, it is worthwhile to consider they are an individual with their own perspective, background, and ideals.
The team sport of politics is absolutely frustrating and continues to divide the country on issues that we should be united.
[This is my first post here at Tildes, just came today, so also hello!]
As a potential intervention into this debate I'd like to suggest something which was pointed out in this excellent Guardian article by Sheri Berman the other day, namely that a big part of the problem regarding this divide is the bipartisan proliferation of a rhetoric of identity politics.
The article is slightly lengthy, but one main point, which she backs up with relevant psychological studies, is that the two parties are so perfectly divided that people's instinctive 'protect my group' reaction kicks in whenever anything "Republican" is attacked:
Another quote which summarizes this is:
So one of Berman's points in this regard is that incivility and aggressive behavior - "you're a racist!" - is counter-productive. The best solution is to talk a bit and the most likely thing is that soon you will be able to find something in common with this person. Dissolving these artificial lines which have been created is perhaps the most important step to take - making someone of this typical "white, evangelical, conservative and rural voters" feel that they are on common ground with you and the rest of this diverse country seems one way to actually do your small part to effectively tackle this rather massive problem.
edit: formatting and a word
That's a really good article you referenced!
I think a lot of the same points made about the proliferation of bipartisan rhetoric and a feeling of 'us vs them' continuing to polarize people can be applied to how people (esp. younger voters) are viewing their political information through social media like Twitter and Facebook. The thing about traditional broadcast media was that you weren't in control of what was on the tv, outside of picking which channel to watch, and most news channels essentially had the same information available to them.
Now, rather than continually being exposed to posts from people of all political viewpoints and opinions, people tailor their online experiences by following/unfollowing specific sources, resulting in their own political echo chambers, reinforcing their already-existing viewpoints and making them less tolerant of conflicting viewpoints.
I don't know if society can disentangle itself from new media in a way that will allow people to be exposed to a greater breadth of opinions and experiences outside of what they already know.
But they're not on common ground, they're not even close to being on common ground.
Hey, I understand your stance, it is a very frustrating thing to come up against a wall of ideology, I'm not saying it isn't. I'm not even saying I'm that hopeful, only that considering it this way does provide a glimmer of possibility. The truth is that you are on common ground, in that most humans are good human beings, and this article is so on-point because I believe the only way its possible to truly be antagonistic towards somebody else is if you consider them the "other group." Thus the deep success of identity politics, which as the article points out Steve Bannon is very aware of and specifically targets. So strategies to find the common ground, which yes does exist, is the thing to search for.
I'm just saying stay strong, if you are too frustrated to engage that is fine, but everytime somebody who considers themselves liberal descends into incivility / personal attacks they make things worse.
I have spent tens if not hundreds of hours engaging one-on-one with Republicans, I think the term "other side" is justified because their world is so fundamentally different to mine that there is absolutely no chance of swaying them. It's not a minor difference in opinion or slight variation in morals, it's a deep, irreconcilable idealogical cavern.
I don't play teams, I hate the democrats just as much, but I at least abstractly stare some of their values.
I'm not declaring victory, if anything I'm giving up.
Listen to what? As I said in my other comment, I have spent an inordinate about of time engaging with conservatives. They're not just misunderstood or hold slightly different views, they have fundamental differences in their core values which you are never going to change through debate or discussion. Any change with have to come from within.
I agree with understanding the other side and building rapport, but it's not efficient especially in the lead up to midterms. More than enough moderates and dormant Democrats are out there to sway this election in favor of progressives, so why spend time trying to persuade someone who's dug in and will never change? The only people in my life who get that kind of commitment are family I still care about enough to engage. Otherwise, I'm organizing, canvasing, phonebanking, calling current representatives, and finally voting.
If a blue wave this fall is your goal, you can do without the other side. 30 minutes spent calling 6 registered voters is much more effective than 30 minutes spent arguing with one person online.
There's not much wrong in theory with prioritizing focusing on convincing democrats to vote and moderates to vote for democrats. The only real problem comes in how you find and treat the people who do disagree. If you're relying on a data team to suss that out, then it's possible you're missing people who might be persuadable but who just really don't want to give that 40th call this week from someone they don't know. If you're relying on the person you're talking with to tell you, then you will be getting some people over the phone who are mean, but most people in person are pretty nice. Persuasion-wise, it's important to be polite yourself in all circumstances. Each side remembers the slights most acutely that were perpetrated by the others, and forgive or don't even see those that come from their own political camps (however they define them) especially when used against people seen as outside that camp.
Now that doesn't mean that I think you need to give someone who knows they are voting against your candidates any more time than to establish that. But I think it hurts more than helps for others to be treating those people like assholes for the way they think without getting to know the person they're being mean to. I mean, if you* know the person? Have at it. In all likelihood you have at least some trust built into your relationship with that person you can build on. If you don't know them and you want to treat them like an asshole? Shut up and move on. It's a waste of everyone's time and energy.
*I'm not saying you specifically would do that, but the general "you."
Pretty much boils down to this for me, although I'm not perfect. When canvasing or phonebanking, you bet your ass I'm as respectful and polite as possible because it's easier to do so over the phone or in person especially with individuals targeted based on their party affiliation. When getting into polarizing discussion online, sometimes the condescension creeps out due to pent up frustration. That is a fault of mine and forever work in progress.
We really don't need Fox news. Those people aren't even journalists. Sean Hannity said so himself
https://twitter.com/seanhannity/status/791132954298818561?s=19
I feel like the solution is probably to be found in education. I don't think it's a coincidence that more educated individuals tend to skew more left and liberal than the populace at large, and people who think critically can more easily identify propaganda like Fox. But rather than waiting for college to develop these skills in students, I think we need to focus on introducing critical thinking and media analysis into K-12 curricula in a much greater way than they are now. Definitely media analysis isn't something that's being prioritized in the current environment of STEM fetishism. Of course, fat chance of any of that happening with DeVos as the secretary of education, but that's what I think would put us on the right track.
It's because they live in the liberal media bubble. A bubble that's very much designed around brainwashing it's audience into only accepting "the right kind of news". MSNBC and others like it should be abolished.
That's a false equivalence if ever I saw one. Fox News isn't a news network, it's the propaganda arm of the republican party. You don't see the same sort of deference to one particular party on any of the other mainstream networks, nor do you see the tribalistic exclusion of other networks by their viewers, with the possible exception of Fox for the reason I just said.