looking down on 'em

[Wahoo Redux]

That's also why I don't talk to my neighbors.

We are friendly with a couple of our neighbors by willfully ignoring some of the egregious, provably factually-inaccurate things they've said.

[mahagonny]

That's also why I don't talk to my neighbors.

We are friendly with a couple of our neighbors by willfully ignoring some of the egregious, provably factually-inaccurate things they've said.

For example?

[Wahoo Redux]

That's also why I don't talk to my neighbors.

We are friendly with a couple of our neighbors by willfully ignoring some of the egregious, provably factually-inaccurate things they've said.

For example?

Nothing you will get exercised about, Mahag.  More having to do with the employment outcomes of certain majors and the legitimacy of some classes.

Although there was the one neighbor who runs the R.O.T.C. program and is convinced COVID is purely a product of media-induced "fear" while ignoring the fear mongering regarding immigrants coming from his own party (he kept his Trump sign up in his yard well after the 2020 election results were announced).

[mahagonny]

That's kind of a pride thing isn't it? I remember people with Dukakis stickers on their car.

ETA: But I wonder this. If democrats, who are now the party with more education, are smarter than republicans, yet are likely getting red-waved tomorrow, doesn't that mean the democrats don't really want to win?

BTW, the way Biden is talking now, there's reason to suspect that if one makes too much noise in the way of curiosity about the techniques employed in the 2020 election, someone from government may just start to watch you closely. He is basically saying the republican party electorate is full of subversives, and we, all of us decent people remaining, need to do something about it. Nothing like this has ever been said by a POTUS in my lifetime.
Nixon's silent majority speech may have come close, but this is more extreme.

[Wahoo Redux]

One of the things that happens is that some people become obsessed, not with policies and politics, but with the other party.  Everything in their world is filtered through this obsession.  The only thing these folks think about is the mendacity of the other political party----it is manic and tribal. 

[mahagonny]

One of the things that happens is that some people become obsessed, not with policies and politics, but with the other party.  Everything in their world is filtered through this obsession.  The only thing these folks think about is the mendacity of the other political party----it is manic and tribal.

But only one of the people who are currently doing this is the President of the United States.

[jimbogumbo]

One of the things that happens is that some people become obsessed, not with policies and politics, but with the other party.  Everything in their world is filtered through this obsession.  The only thing these folks think about is the mendacity of the other political party----it is manic and tribal.

But only one of the people who are currently doing this is the President of the United States.

If things go as expected we are guaranteed one in 2025 REGARDLESS of which party wins.

[Kron3007]

To be honest, I think the current climate of the States (at least) is one that encourages everyone to look down on those they do not agree with. On both sides. I know each side will say, "No, they have contempt for us — they started it — I am only reacting to their bad behavior!" But nope. Each side is contemptuous.

The way I try to resist is is to focus on the fact that actually most people want pretty much the same things, even if they have different views on how to get to that point. And to acknowledge that humans are pretty vulnerable, pretty fickle beings, subject to all kinds of whim, bias, and influence — me included. We're all out here doing the best we can. Often we're really wrong. We just gotta keep trying.

Sometimes, when it all becomes a little overwhelming, a nice break and a little snack helps.

But do most people really want the same thing in the end?  I think this is partially where the problem starts, people don't all want the same thing at all and thinking so is flawed.

Some people are fully in favor of social programs to give everyone opportunity, recognizing that this represents a greater tax burden on them.  Others believe you should only get what you earn, and it is fundamentally not fair for them to subsidize anything.  I dont think these two groups want the same thing at all.   

Likewise, some people want to prioritize personal freedom above all else, while others want to impose their world outlook on others.  Ironically, both parties do both on different topics but ultimately, not everyone agrees on what the goal should be at all.

[marshwiggle]

To be honest, I think the current climate of the States (at least) is one that encourages everyone to look down on those they do not agree with. On both sides. I know each side will say, "No, they have contempt for us — they started it — I am only reacting to their bad behavior!" But nope. Each side is contemptuous.

The way I try to resist is is to focus on the fact that actually most people want pretty much the same things, even if they have different views on how to get to that point. And to acknowledge that humans are pretty vulnerable, pretty fickle beings, subject to all kinds of whim, bias, and influence — me included. We're all out here doing the best we can. Often we're really wrong. We just gotta keep trying.

Sometimes, when it all becomes a little overwhelming, a nice break and a little snack helps.

But do most people really want the same thing in the end?  I think this is partially where the problem starts, people don't all want the same thing at all and thinking so is flawed.

On lots of the big issues, surveys usually show that a significant majority of the electorate are pretty much in the middle. The fringes get all of the media attention, but consensus of a majority of voters isn't that hard to achieve. But because it's not dramatic, even the media isn't keen to devote time to it since it's not as exciting (i.e., doe$n't get a$ many eyeball$ ) as the extreme proposals from both ends.

[dismalist]

To be honest, I think the current climate of the States (at least) is one that encourages everyone to look down on those they do not agree with. On both sides. I know each side will say, "No, they have contempt for us — they started it — I am only reacting to their bad behavior!" But nope. Each side is contemptuous.

The way I try to resist is is to focus on the fact that actually most people want pretty much the same things, even if they have different views on how to get to that point. And to acknowledge that humans are pretty vulnerable, pretty fickle beings, subject to all kinds of whim, bias, and influence — me included. We're all out here doing the best we can. Often we're really wrong. We just gotta keep trying.

Sometimes, when it all becomes a little overwhelming, a nice break and a little snack helps.

But do most people really want the same thing in the end?  I think this is partially where the problem starts, people don't all want the same thing at all and thinking so is flawed.

On lots of the big issues, surveys usually show that a significant majority of the electorate are pretty much in the middle. The fringes get all of the media attention, but consensus of a majority of voters isn't that hard to achieve. But because it's not dramatic, even the media isn't keen to devote time to it since it's not as exciting (i.e., doe$n't get a$ many eyeball$ ) as the extreme proposals from both ends.

I'd like to believe that, Marsh, but if true it would suggest that 1) political parties are stupid, and/or 2) the electorate is stupid. I can't bring myself to believe that long term and repeated voters are stupid, rational voter ignorance in a single election aside.

And, the Median Voter Theorem only holds for one issue at a time. Thus, the median voter on money to higher education may well be a different voter than on the issue of funds for the poor, and so on. The parties are trying to capture groups of voters with diverse median preferences. As I said before, I think the Democratic Party has a particularly hard time doing this because it is trying, for whatever reason, to be so diverse.

I'm also not too worried about the influence of the media. That's entertainment for the believers, nothing more. It certainly doesn't convince anybody.

[mahagonny]

I see several fault lines, but the one I think is the most fractured right now is public school. Public education is simply not going to survive the intention on the part of some to encourage and 'instruct' very young people to reconsider which or what gender they 'want to join'. There isn't even any consensus that such thing can be a valid question. Someone's going to lose this battle and lose hard.
The larger question, playing out in other topics, is what Sowell talks about... the ruling elite who are convinced with their superior education and professional stature that they know better than ordinary people what is best for those legions of ordinary, self-motivated people.

[mahagonny]

con't

Quote from: Hegemony on November 05, 2022, 01:56:27 AM
To be honest, I think the current climate of the States (at least) is one that encourages everyone to look down on those they do not agree with. On both sides. I know each side will say, "No, they have contempt for us — they started it — I am only reacting to their bad behavior!" But nope. Each side is contemptuous.

Quote:
"The way I try to resist is is to focus on the fact that actually most people want pretty much the same things, even if they have different views on how to get to that point. And to acknowledge that humans are pretty vulnerable, pretty fickle beings, subject to all kinds of whim, bias, and influence — me included. We're all out here doing the best we can. Often we're really wrong. We just gotta keep trying.

Sometimes, when it all becomes a little overwhelming, a nice break and a little snack helps."

But do most people really want the same thing in the end?  I think this is partially where the problem starts, people don't all want the same thing at all and thinking so is flawed.

For the first time in my life I will say no.

Interesting to me, some of the parents' groups who are fighting with local boards of education over sexualized education for little kiddies consist of Muslim Moms and Dads, now working with Christian Moms and Dads.
Aside: I'm old enough to remember what we said about the people who attacked us on 9/11. 'They hate us because we are free.' And I thought 'yeah. Like free enough to do stupid things like make pornography available to children.' (Never told anyone)

Long post summarized: Republicans want to be Christians but they're OK with you being something else unless you're woke. And I can see why. It's not just a religion. It's one of the worst.

[marshwiggle]

On lots of the big issues, surveys usually show that a significant majority of the electorate are pretty much in the middle. The fringes get all of the media attention, but consensus of a majority of voters isn't that hard to achieve. But because it's not dramatic, even the media isn't keen to devote time to it since it's not as exciting (i.e., doe$n't get a$ many eyeball$ ) as the extreme proposals from both ends.

I'd like to believe that, Marsh, but if true it would suggest that 1) political parties are stupid, and/or 2) the electorate is stupid. I can't bring myself to believe that long term and repeated voters are stupid, rational voter ignorance in a single election aside.

And, the Median Voter Theorem only holds for one issue at a time. Thus, the median voter on money to higher education may well be a different voter than on the issue of funds for the poor, and so on.

Sure. I agree. The fact that there are, say 3 big issues where 70% of the electorate can find consensus doesn't mean that it's the same 70% on each issue. But it does allow a party to choose which hill to die on, if they go with the broad consensus on as many issues as possible, and only narrow down on one or two. (It's easier in countries other than the US where there are multiple parties that get some portion of the vote. In the two party system, it's not going to work nearly as well.)

The parties are trying to capture groups of voters with diverse median preferences. As I said before, I think the Democratic Party has a particularly hard time doing this because it is trying, for whatever reason, to be so diverse.

I'm also not too worried about the influence of the media. That's entertainment for the believers, nothing more. It certainly doesn't convince anybody.

It's not so much about the media convincing anyone, as avoiding having public conversations that are sane. If the amount of screen time given to voices was proportionate to how common those opinions were, rather than how loudly they were expressed, the perceived polarization of society would be much less.