Right vs Left... Or how we're fucking this world over

[Phelan8801]

Now, since most of the audience here either is American or is at least a little knowledgeable on American politics, I'll preface this by saying this. I'm a mostly left-leaning guy. What do I mean by mostly? I'm for gay marriage, and LGBTQ rights, and for abortion rights, I'm for the legalization of marijuana and other psychedelic substances, I'm against the second amendment (to be clear, I'm not FOR "common sense gun legislation", I think the U.S. as a country needs to outright ban guns), I'm for an increased minimum wage, and for public healthcare, I'm for unionizing, and for a well regulated financial market, I'm a big believer in man-made climate change. I'm a staunch feminist and a firm believer in trans rights.

That being said in a lot of respects, I'm right leaning also. I'm against running up deficits, I'm against social benefit programs that do not have a solid financial backing in the budget, I'm for hunting as a sport and against wildlife protectionism that ignores how some wildlife can actually be detrimental to the environment when unchecked with properly regulated hunting (but do it with a bow, or a low caliber hunting rifle, not a fucking AR-15). I'm for the private industry when it comes to topics like energy, communications, and infrastructure, as long as it is properly regulated. I'm for the death penalty in certain situations, etc. And even as a Mexican citizen, I'm for a strong secure U.S. border with tough immigration laws (that being said, separating children is crazy and beyond the pale, and y'all can pay for your own damn wall).

I'm mostly a lefty, but I do have right-leaning views because I don't subscribe to being a liberal as a dogma that should dictate my every view.

This seems to me like the healthy way of living, having your own individual doctrine and not letting the media or your political affiliations define your every thought...

So why is it that now expressing any view that opposes the general dogma of one side of the talk automatically alienates you and makes you a part of the other? Can't I be for a strong border, and still be for abortion rights?

Isn't the true threat to America's existence as a nation right now, not really Donald Trump and his ilk, but rather this factionalism that seems to permeate every aspect of media and seems to prohibit any sort of civil discourse? I mean, don't get me wrong. I completely understand that Ann Coulter is a racist, and a horrible person, and lacks any sense of basic human compassion or decency, but because of that, should she really be sent death threats and be prohibited to talk in college campuses under threats of violence?

Isn't the inability for the right and the left to talk with and compromise to each other what is actually killing not just America, but every single one of our countries?

Thoughts?

[TheGlyphstone]

The best graphical representation I've ever seen is from SBMC, to be truthful:

https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2013-04-07

[MisledBloodshed]

To be fair, it can be difficult to have even just a reasonable conversation with the moderates on another side of the topic when the topic can boil down to things like 'I don't believe you deserve the same rights as me as a person.'

Not to say I can't be civil with them, but it's grating and humiliating to do so. Frankly its the extremists I can usually laugh off, the rest of the ones, the ones that just quietly think those things, fully believing they're in the right. That bothers me.

Politics as a whole is always a divisive topic because you're rarely talking about things with no consequence. I could be friends with someone who didn't like the same music as me, but not someone who saw me as a lesser being just 'cos of who i am. Ya dig?

[Orval Wintermute]

I'm mostly a lefty, but I do have right-leaning views because I don't subscribe to being a liberal as a dogma that should dictate my every view.

If you put 6 liberals in a room ask then a question and they don't have at least 8 different opinions then you don't have 6 liberals in the room.  ;D

To be fair, it can be difficult to have even just a reasonable conversation with the moderates on another side of the topic when the topic can boil down to things like 'I don't believe you deserve the same rights as me as a person.'

The other problem there is the extremist who do a good job of disguising themselves as moderates (or at least think they do). The number of discussions I've seen that boil down to "I think there are too many Muslim immigrants and that's not racist because Muslims are a religion not a race. Also I can't be racist because I have no problem with Sikh's so obviously it's got nothing to do with skin color. Just ignore that the only way I can tell the difference them is that one has brown skin and wears a turban and one just has brown skin. But it's definitely not a racist thing."

But back to the original point, the world has become much more polarized and it's very easy to label the other side as stupid, ignorant, snowflake etc. and get then get lots of positive reinforcement for putting the other side down but nobody's mind has been changed. Reasonable, moderate debate becomes next to impossible when you know that your reasonableness and moderation will jumped on by extremists from the other side as "proof" they were right all along. Developing a siege mentally then becomes the norm, on both sides.

[Lustful Bride]

+1s to everything here.

But lets be honest. Divisions down party lines benefit politicians more than they ever want to admit. Its so much easier to get votes when its not about the issues, but really about "Us vs. Them!".

Kind of going to get my tinfoil hat on for a moment so bare with me :P   You also get groups like Russia going out of their way to fan the flames of discontent and hate on both sides. Buying ads and using machine learning to send them to people on both sides that present something to feed an echo chamber, or show them extremes of the opposite side to get them angry and riled up.

I spend most of my time on youtube listening to roleplay stuff and listening to music, and yet I keep getting weird political ads warning me against the Blue Tide and how democrats will ruin the country (Even though I've kind of given up on the Reps by now and going to throw more of my chips in with the Dems). And the thing is, when I look into them, they have really weird grammar mistakes in the text on the video, the kind you might see from someone using English as a second language, the tense is off and they seem to confuse Singular for Plural and vice versa. Maybe I'm being paranoid, maybe not.

People are all to easy to throw stones at each other and see the other side as an enemy. It takes greater strength to try to pull the two sides together for compromise and change that helps the most people.

[TheGlyphstone]

To be fair, it can be difficult to have even just a reasonable conversation with the moderates on another side of the topic when the topic can boil down to things like 'I don't believe you deserve the same rights as me as a person.'

Not to say I can't be civil with them, but it's grating and humiliating to do so. Frankly its the extremists I can usually laugh off, the rest of the ones, the ones that just quietly think those things, fully believing they're in the right. That bothers me.

Politics as a whole is always a divisive topic because you're rarely talking about things with no consequence. I could be friends with someone who didn't like the same music as me, but not someone who saw me as a lesser being just 'cos of who i am. Ya dig?

Arguably, if they're not willing to compromise, then by definition they aren't moderates. They're extremists who, like Orval says, either either deluding themselves about their extremism or simply equivocating/lying to blend in better.

[Phelan8801]

Arguably, if they're not willing to compromise, then by definition they aren't moderates. They're extremists who, like Orval says, either either deluding themselves about their extremism or simply equivocating/lying to blend in better.

+1

Politics as a whole is always a divisive topic because you're rarely talking about things with no consequence. I could be friends with someone who didn't like the same music as me, but not someone who saw me as a lesser being just 'cos of who i am. Ya dig?

I totally dig the latter part, but this does speak to the fundamental assumption that people who are in the right wing do not believe you should have the same rights as they do, which belies current surveys that show that right-wing millennials are incredibly for gay and trans rights, even when they're deeply conservative on issues like immigration. Also, most of them happen to be for other left-leaning ideas, such as legalization of drugs. That happens because most modern day millennial Republicans are actually more Libertarians than they are Republicans, but because now a days you either need to be on one side or the other, very little room for nuance is left when discussing such topics.

[Oniya]

I totally dig the latter part, but this does speak to the fundamental assumption that people who are in the right wing do not believe you should have the same rights as they do, which belies current surveys that show that right-wing millennials are incredibly for gay and trans rights, even when they're deeply conservative on issues like immigration. Also, most of them happen to be for other left-leaning ideas, such as legalization of drugs. That happens because most modern day millennial Republicans are actually more Libertarians than they are Republicans, but because now a days you either need to be on one side or the other, very little room for nuance is left when discussing such topics.

I believe that when talking to individuals, that person's individual beliefs are most important in determining whether you can find common ground.  It's going to be very difficult for someone who is trans to find common ground with an individual who personally believes that transgendered people don't have the same rights to self-determination.  Possible, maybe - but only if the issue that they are discussing doesn't intersect with the question of rights for transgendered people.

The question that should be foremost isn't 'what is your party?' or 'what does your party think of [issue]?'.  The question that should be foremost is 'what do you think of [issue]?'

[RedRose]

10 years ago I had friends commie to Front National. I couldn't relate to the fights I witnessed online, in America. We're sadly headed the same way.

[Phelan8801]

The question that should be foremost isn't 'what is your party?' or 'what does your party think of [issue]?'.  The question that should be foremost is 'what do you think of [issue]?'

But see, this question is never asked. It is automatically assumed that if you're for 'Trump', you're against gay people, trans people, and their rights. Despite the fact that Trump's primary platform revolves around economic independence for the US (in a really bone headed way) and secure borders (in the worst possible way) and rarely if ever brings up gay or trans people.

This would be a legitimate question if you were to say "I'm for Mike Pence" but anyone who says "I'm for Mike Pence" is well aware of this. Meanwhile people who are "for Trump" are actually blind sided by this argument that they have not ever, nor should they ever, have to relate to Trump, who has never expressed any strong opinions on the issue.

It should not be the president's job to pronounce policy on everything.

[Twisted Crow]

This reminds me much of my "politically purple" thread. So I feel that I understand and empathize with a lot of this. I would consider myself very much bipartisan.

When it comes to trans people, I fear that there is also some complication some have in which certain rights can be 'safely administered'; in spite of my tireless desire to just give them the rights they should have as American Citizens and be done with it... I sort of understand the pragmatic, non-transphobic/trans-hate point of view. When it boils down to marriage and civilian social rights, I feel that this is simple. They are people; they deserve the same rights as people.

The only obstacle I feel conflicted with is how they might join the military. It isn't that I don't want them to, but our military is primarily structured around men with some caveats to accomodate women. This already creates a rift in the structure where the men and women are (otherwise) to be treated "as men". There are rules, regulations and expecations, some of which are unfortunately influenced by gender. Some of them to protect them from each other, in fact. The question should not be 'should trans people be allowed to serve?' The question should be "What would have to be restructured in our military to accommodate trans-people without compromising mission success?" At the moment, there is very little to offer that protects, provides for and/or facilitates them so that they can be optimally utilized as soldiers/marines/etc. Some examples (among many) in that problem would be...

Would they mind being misgendered by superiors or even peers of the same rank? Sometimes the men are men and the women are men... and sometimes they are not (Military Etiquette and protocol is... complicated). How would we train a genderfluid soldier with an identity issue? On a citizen level of political correctness, this is not an issue, it is "just who they are". But in military matters; this is an issue if they think as a person first, then as part of unit second. A person's mental state cannot be jarred by matters like this of any sort. Not my rules, it is just how the machine is built to operate, at the moment. The mission always comes first. Such people are not fit for service, even if they are monogendered (case in point; me... technically). It is easier to manage the monogendered in a structure like this.

Would they exhibit any exclusive problems that might compromise the mission? Do we have doctors medically trained to accomodate them and their needs? Should we let trans people opt for Combat MOS's? If we allow trans men to -- but not trans women -- what dangers does that present to the structure? Do we not allow women in combat-heavy operations for the same reason? The entire infrastructure would have to be redesigned... which could mean (funny enough, and somewhat ironically) you would probably want that Republican backing that runaway military budget to be able to fund that kind of restructuring. And this is just the tip of that iceberg, I am afraid.

In my heart, I feel that if a trans American citizen wanted to serve our country... They should be able to. But as a former soldier, myself... I understand the dangers present in blindly letting them in without thoughts as to how structure and solidarity would be maintained. It is more than just "what bathrooms" or "which gender quarters to bunk" them in. More than "they would be bullied a lot" or "transphobia and gender politics would create morale issues". The military is a huge machine that works beyond mere appeals to novelty or emotion, and it requires all pieces and parts to move at optimal capacity to function. It works because it must work, otherwise objectives are guanteed to fail.

[MiraMirror]

But see, this question is never asked. It is automatically assumed that if you're for 'Trump', you're against gay people, trans people, and their rights. Despite the fact that Trump's primary platform revolves around economic independence for the US (in a really bone headed way) and secure borders (in the worst possible way) and rarely if ever brings up gay or trans people.

This would be a legitimate question if you were to say "I'm for Mike Pence" but anyone who says "I'm for Mike Pence" is well aware of this. Meanwhile people who are "for Trump" are actually blind sided by this argument that they have not ever, nor should they ever, have to relate to Trump, who has never expressed any strong opinions on the issue.

It should not be the president's job to pronounce policy on everything.

On the other hand, he's also done nothing but hurt gay/trans individuals since stepping into office, and is arguably supported by one of the worst examples of a bigot I've ever seen.  Just because he held up a rainbow flag (upside down) once, does not make him a supporter.  He's still hurt those groups, and as was mentioned earlier, I'm not supporting a guy who actively sets back rights that were won for those groups.  I try not to judge individual people, but I will also say that a large margin of Trump supporters that I, personally, have seen do fit the bill of being extremely racist, sexist, or bigoted.  I don't judge individuals, but can you really blame people who are guarded by default after experiences like that? 

(Also, please excuse me if this sounds confrontational.  That's not at all my intention.)

[Phelan8801]

On the other hand, he's also done nothing but hurt gay/trans individuals since stepping into office, and is arguably supported by one of the worst examples of a bigot I've ever seen.  Just because he held up a rainbow flag (upside down) once, does not make him a supporter.  He's still hurt those groups, and as was mentioned earlier, I'm not supporting a guy who actively sets back rights that were won for those groups.  I try not to judge individual people, but I will also say that a large margin of Trump supporters that I, personally, have seen do fit the bill of being extremely racist, sexist, or bigoted.  I don't judge individuals, but can you really blame people who are guarded by default after experiences like that? 

I completely understand why you would be guarded against Trump supporters. I'm Mexican. I get it.

At the same time, being guarded against someone doesn't mean you shouldn't automatically not listen to them.  Ted Nugent is a terrible human being, for instance. Ted Nugent is an actual terrible piece of shit human being. But! Listen to the man talk about hunting. Read the science, look at the numbers. And tell me that when he speaks about hunting, he doesn't have a point. I disagree with Ted on numerous issues, but that does not make his views on hunting any less valid.

Just becaus he's wrong about some things, doesn't mean he's wrong about everything. Same with Trump, and every other republican.

[Twisted Crow]

The unfortunate truth is that both sides can be correct about the issues, particularly if enables them out of political expedience. I have slapped around the media and both major parties for this. And I continue to.

A thought I had stressed to my 'think free' group was to consider the individual issues, prioritizing them over the chosen political allegiance. Being vocal and speaking for the self, as opposed to surrendering to the peer pressures and fallacies of the outspoken populace (i.e., "You have a problem with the feminism movement? Regardless of your logic behind it, it must clearly come from a hatred of women. Or you are automatically against equality.", etc.) As I have seen both sides identified as a "lesser of two evils", it also enables them to perpetuate a different sort of Police State than the the opposition generally pushes. Or at least, that seems to be the status quo at the moment.

It is of a rather tragic genius that our dual party system is essentially what keeps their citizens powerless with an illusion of choice... as it transmutes a divisive complex that works to their advantage in spite of their opposing agendas.  :-\

[Skynet]

I completely understand why you would be guarded against Trump supporters. I'm Mexican. I get it.

At the same time, being guarded against someone doesn't mean you shouldn't automatically not listen to them.  Ted Nugent is a terrible human being, for instance. Ted Nugent is an actual terrible piece of shit human being. But! Listen to the man talk about hunting. Read the science, look at the numbers. And tell me that when he speaks about hunting, he doesn't have a point. I disagree with Ted on numerous issues, but that does not make his views on hunting any less valid.

Just becaus he's wrong about some things, doesn't mean he's wrong about everything. Same with Trump, and every other republican.

People rarely bring up a political figure's non-political expertise in regards to whether or not to listen to them. Most people who say that Trump is a great businessman are his supporters. People who criticize Orson Scott Card for funding anti-LGBT hate groups realize that he's a talented writer. Or that fast food companies like Chik Fil A have good food.

At least in regards to E, most of the criticisms of the US President have been for his policies.

Also Trump's economic promises are either vague or counter-intuitive. His promise to bring back jobs are for outdated things such as coal and assembly line work which have actually been outscourced to slave labor in third world countries. Or debtor's prison working conditions. All for the benefit of cheap goods worldwide.

Those jobs aren't coming back unless we put tens of millions of Americans into forced labor.

And a man can be judged for the company he keeps. President Trump chose Pence to court evangelical voters, in spite of full knowledge of his policies.

[Twisted Crow]

I think the only state that might hurt economically from gutting the coal industry altogether would be West Virginia. But I could be wrong on that. I was led to believe that their economy specifically was dependent on it.

Speaking of, I did like Arnold Schwarzenegger's bit or appeal to Trump in trying to dissuade him from trying to bring it back, though.

[Phelan8801]

People rarely bring up a political figure's non-political expertise in regards to whether or not to listen to them. Most people who say that Trump is a great businessman are his supporters. People who criticize Orson Scott Card for funding anti-LGBT hate groups realize that he's a talented writer. Or that fast food companies like Chik Fil A have good food.

At least in regards to E, most of the criticisms of the US President have been for his policies.

Also Trump's economic promises are either vague or counter-intuitive. His promise to bring back jobs are for outdated things such as coal and assembly line work which have actually been outscourced to slave labor in third world countries. Or debtor's prison working conditions. All for the benefit of cheap goods worldwide.

Those jobs aren't coming back unless we put tens of millions of Americans into forced labor.

And a man can be judged for the company he keeps. President Trump chose Pence to court evangelical voters, in spite of full knowledge of his policies.

All those are points worth considering, but none of those address the idea they shouldn't be listened to under any circumstance. This is a legitimate feeling among many left wingers, and it holds for people like Jordan Peterson or Ben Shapiro. People whose arguments are often mischaracterized, or smeared unfairly for having mostly conservative view points. Now, I can agree that many of Jordan Peterson's thoughts on gender and transgender people are INSANE. I can agree that Ben Shapiro can be quite an asshole. At the same time, often time the main crux of the arguments for both of them is often rooted in pretty solidly structured logic, worth listening to.

That doesn't mean you buy it, or that you believe their ideas. The very basis of their ideas is wrong, but to hear them construct their argument helps you understand how to disassemble it. That just means you discuss with them. It doesn't mean you admit they're correct but that you give them credit for actually intelligent thought processes, even if they lead to wrong conclusions.

[Oniya]

I think the only state that might hurt economically from gutting the coal industry altogether would be West Virginia. But I could be wrong on that. I was led to believe that their economy specifically was dependent on it.

Speaking of, I did like Arnold Schwarzenegger's bit or appeal to Trump in trying to dissuade him from trying to bring it back, though.

Oddly enough, the state's largest employment industries are (in descending order) government sector; healthcare and social assistance; retail trade; accommodation and food services; and manufacturing. Source.

[Skynet]

All those are points worth considering, but none of those address the idea they shouldn't be listened to under any circumstance. This is a legitimate feeling among many left wingers, and it holds for people like Jordan Peterson or Ben Shapiro. People whose arguments are often mischaracterized, or smeared unfairly for having mostly conservative view points. Now, I can agree that many of Jordan Peterson's thoughts on gender and transgender people are INSANE. I can agree that Ben Shapiro can be quite an asshole. At the same time, often time the main crux of the arguments for both of them is often rooted in pretty solidly structured logic, worth listening to.

That doesn't mean you buy it, or that you believe their ideas. The very basis of their ideas is wrong, but to hear them construct their argument helps you understand how to disassemble it. That just means you discuss with them. It doesn't mean you admit they're correct but that you give them credit for actually intelligent thought processes, even if they lead to wrong conclusions.

I don't think any mainstream left-wingers, at least in the USA, have suggested this. If anything, this is a talking point rolled out by the right to portray left-wingers as inherently unreasonable. When there are cases like not having someone speak at a college campus, it's more often specifically in regards to a specific thing. Like Richard Spencer talking about racist pseudo-science. Or Milo Yiannopoulos who threatened to expose the identities of closted gay and undocumented immigrant students on a public platform for intimidation purposes.

Also Jordan Peterson wreathes a lot of his talking points in pseudo-science to appear more rational than he is. He's well-read in psychology, but on many other topics (notably philosophy) he thinks he knows more than he does.

And honestly, when conservative firebrands like Ted Nugent, Peterson, etc have a repeated history of saying outrageous statements, it's inevitable that many people will not take them seriously.

[MisledBloodshed]

I totally dig the latter part, but this does speak to the fundamental assumption that people who are in the right wing do not believe you should have the same rights as they do, which belies current surveys that show that right-wing millennials are incredibly for gay and trans rights, even when they're deeply conservative on issues like immigration. Also, most of them happen to be for other left-leaning ideas, such as legalization of drugs. That happens because most modern day millennial Republicans are actually more Libertarians than they are Republicans, but because now a days you either need to be on one side or the other, very little room for nuance is left when discussing such topics.

I'll certainly admit I probably would have a certain idea in mind of their views if a conversation was led with them identifying with the right, and that I could definitely be wrong in that assumption. It could definitely be a case of only really being exposed to the uh... Worst of them. Though -

I believe that when talking to individuals, that person's individual beliefs are most important in determining whether you can find common ground.  It's going to be very difficult for someone who is trans to find common ground with an individual who personally believes that transgendered people don't have the same rights to self-determination.  Possible, maybe - but only if the issue that they are discussing doesn't intersect with the question of rights for transgendered people.

The question that should be foremost isn't 'what is your party?' or 'what does your party think of [issue]?'.  The question that should be foremost is 'what do you think of [issue]?'

Oniya makes a very good point here. In general if I choose to engage with someone in politics it is because of views they have already expressed. I don't have the energy or the interest in picking fights with someone just because they consider themselves Republicans. Of course, this is my personal approach, so it may not entirely apply to the wider conversation.

That doesn't mean you buy it, or that you believe their ideas. The very basis of their ideas is wrong, but to hear them construct their argument helps you understand how to disassemble it. That just means you discuss with them. It doesn't mean you admit they're correct but that you give them credit for actually intelligent thought processes, even if they lead to wrong conclusions.

This sort of circles back to my earlier point, in that these things can be exhausting. I can understand where you're coming from, but the fact remains that it is a lot of mental and emotional effort for very little reward. Yes, perhaps somewhere in their arguments you can find flaws that can strengthen your own. But at the same time you just spent 2 hours dissecting something that is a) wrong and b) fundamentally painful, in many cases.

Being told you don't have the right to exist over and over hurts, no matter how eloquently or reasonably someone does it. I had a real bad time a year or so ago because of similar issues. Though, ironically, the people causing that problem would probably identify as leftists. So yeah, problems on both sides exist.

But I also know someone whose aunt would probably fall under the 'moderate conservative' side, who pulled the 'I don't have a problem with gay people but I don't think they should get married' card, in front of their very gay nephew.

The thing is for many moderates - at least from what I've noticed - is that they can turn away from a conversation and once its done, it doesn't effect them anymore. For most of the minorities they're debating with, it is a lot harder to turn away from. That can lead to feeling like crap, being worn down and being frustrated as all hell. It may not excuse any lashing out, probably doesn't, but at least it is understandable, to me.

[TheGlyphstone]

It is of a rather tragic genius that our dual party system is essentially what keeps their citizens powerless with an illusion of choice... as it transmutes a divisive complex that works to their advantage in spite of their opposing agendas.  :-\

Sometimes I envy European governments for their parliamentary legislature systems, which seems a far more sensible way to run a government. But other times it seems like the end result is the same - the same parties coalesce into blocks and essentially run the government as if they were a single party, but with more internal squabbling; comparatively, both American superparties are upon closer glance essentially permanent coalitions between different sub-parties with only loosely correlated interests and goals. So I have to wonder if it's just a grass-is-greener situation or not.

[Twisted Crow]

The thing is for many moderates - at least from what I've noticed - is that they can turn away from a conversation and once its done, it doesn't effect them anymore.

...To a point, yes. Some indeed. For others that are like myself, it is not so. It really is too contingent upon what "Moderate" means to the person proposing their viewpoint. Which makes things difficult, as some of your points accurately illustrate.

Sometimes I envy European governments for their parliamentary legislature systems, which seems a far more sensible way to run a government. But other times it seems like the end result is the same - the same parties coalesce into blocks and essentially run the government as if they were a single party, but with more internal squabbling; comparatively, both American superparties are upon closer glance essentially permanent coalitions between different sub-parties with only loosely correlated interests and goals. So I have to wonder if it's just a grass-is-greener situation or not.

Heh, you wouldn't be alone in this sentiment. It seems we both have been on that particular wavelength, at least.  :-)



Anyways... maybe I should speak on my own perspective on what it is like to truly be "in the middle". Some of this echos my politically purple thread rant but I might to try to expand this a bit so that more might understand. Again, this is just me on the outside looking in... take it for what it is worth to you, folks ;D ...

To speak as one among the "middle-ground"...

Imagine fighting a pointless uphill battle on two fronts. One that you know that you are always outnumbered in. For a... eh, "moderate" like myself, this is essentially a hopeless feeling almost every day. Not to mention, it is incredibly lonely.

A mistake a peer of mine made not long ago was implying that it was "easy" for me to "judge two sides while seated atop a pedestal on the fence." When one genuinely cares for the cause, doubling one's political opposition is not only exhausting... but it is almost automatically putting oneself in a 'lose:lose' scenario. Because of the blur surrounding those that claim to be in the middle ground, there is very little commraderie and one's rights tend to seem under constant threat by both sides of political spectrum. For myself, heh... I feel it everywhere sometimes. I am threatened by toxic feminists telling me to shut my mansplaining hole and obey the supreme will of the feminarchy. At the same time, I am equally threatened by zealous fanatics that take religion and spiritualism waaay too far, attempting to push  government to legislate my behavior and/or otherwise dictate my rights in accordance to their own subjective perception of "God's will" or what have you. And to top it all off, I still support women's rights and I consider myself spiritual. And I have faux moderates and real moderates to equally contend with, as there isn't any real solidarity that one might find with Team Red or Team Blue.

It is a key reason why I don't typically enjoy putting a political label on myself and why I am vague. A word only means as much as the actions that enforce its meaning. If it conflicts with the meaning, the use of the word is pointless to me.  :-\



It would depend on what one defined as moderate. It makes people in my position "in the middle" rather difficult. A moderate could be a smokescreen term (as some of you had noted above) to cloak an extremist point of view, it could be someone with an interest in political issues but they are not "too political"... It could be someone like me, whom zealously calls both parties put on their wrong-doings.

[Twisted Crow]

Heh. I forgot to delete that last paragraph, but for a draft it isn't a completely terrible way to close things. *shrugs*  ::)

[Phelan8801]

This sort of circles back to my earlier point, in that these things can be exhausting. I can understand where you're coming from, but the fact remains that it is a lot of mental and emotional effort for very little reward. Yes, perhaps somewhere in their arguments you can find flaws that can strengthen your own. But at the same time you just spent 2 hours dissecting something that is a) wrong and b) fundamentally painful, in many cases.

Being told you don't have the right to exist over and over hurts, no matter how eloquently or reasonably someone does it. I had a real bad time a year or so ago because of similar issues. Though, ironically, the people causing that problem would probably identify as leftists. So yeah, problems on both sides exist.

I would say that's there's some of a reward in there. I used to be, in my younger days... quite callous and ignorant about transgender rights and transgender people. My view was that these were mentally ill individuals who had their genders confused. It was through reading well-structured literature and arguments that actually addressed and challenged this point of view that I became a pro-trans advocate. Nowadays I'm in a management position in my company, and I've more than once been in a position to defend trans co-workers' and subordinates' right to be trans at the workplace. Each time, I've taken that chance, and it's worked out each time.

There is something to be gained by engaging the other side, even if it's not always with the people who are directly resisting you, but also with those with an open mind to listen. Arguments made in good faith by those misguided by religion, inadvertent sexism, inadvertent racism, etc. should be heard and debated on their merits, even if they're hurtful, because it helps those who are undecided make up their mind about the important issues while helping them see the nuance of the issue. I still UNDERSTAND why people reject trans rights, doesn't mean that I agree with it, but I understand it and that helps me discuss the issue and advocate my point of view more eloquently.

[Skynet]

In regards to my earlier post, I meant to link to a specific statement in his AMA, the claim that the Nazis were explicitly anti-religious.

But I can grab many other statements besides that. Although Peterson is definitely a well-educated man, the way he conducts himself and the claims he makes which open him up to scrutiny do not do him any favors in having others take him seriously.

There is something to be gained by engaging the other side, even if it's not always with the people who are directly resisting you, but also with those with an open mind to listen. Arguments made in good faith by those misguided by religion, inadvertent sexism, inadvertent racism, etc. should be heard and debated on their merits, even if they're hurtful, because it helps those who are undecided make up their mind about the important issues while helping them see the nuance of the issue. I still UNDERSTAND why people reject trans rights, doesn't mean that I agree with it, but I understand it and that helps me discuss the issue and advocate my point of view more eloquently.

As for the larger conversation on debate and statements, it is an ideal to have a respectful and understanding conversation. But many people do not argue in good faith, or in some cases there are political viewpoints which are at heart inherently misinformative or disrespectful. I post a lot in PROC on E not to convince the other side or come to some "compromised middle," but to point out the sources of an issue and/or flaws in order so that readers can get a better picture of things.

But not everyone can do that, and not all conversation points necessarily need to be legitimized. The idea that gay rights movements are an invention of Soviet Union psy-ops can be safely laughed off in the Western world by most people without making the rational side looking bad. Debate and talking across the aisle goes only so far, especially when the other side is not acting in good faith. And I hate to say it, but a lot of Trump supporters fall in this camp, given that as time goes on there is less and less reason for even a right-winger to support him.