There are more of us than there are of them

[El_Machinae]

The point is, someone giving me advice regarding my morality isn't trying to make the world better. They don't give a crap about my concern. Their goal is to disadvantage me

 

[Cloud_Strife]

But right wingers, from old school fundamentalists to new school gamer gate weirdos, they lack my same-team tolerance. So they will as cloud points out shoot their foot to hurt us.

We need to chill them out. There are many ways.

So how would you propose you do this, whilst ensuring that people like me aren't kept away? The problem you will face is that by allowing these people, these conservatives "in" and welcoming them, you will also be excluding/making people such as me uncomfortable? I don't see why i should have to tolerate people who barely tolerate my existence or who equate me living my life to somehow destroying civilization, this isn't beanbag this is real life and if your goal is to "chill them out" don't come crying to me when you find yourself increasingly surrounded by those on the right, with PoC, LGBTQ+ people, religious minorities etc being alienated. I don't want to be anywhere near a person, people or groups who, in 2019 in this year of our lord, still think that being trans or being gay or bi is a choice that one chooses to make and thinks that i need curing.

 

[El_Machinae]

What's your proposed mechanism to enact change? You either need raw power, legal power, or charisma in order to change the direction of a democracy.

Remember that it's not zero sum, not completely. In that, you can work with each of those tools according to your strengths.

The criticism seems to be "it's insufficient", as well. Yeah, that's known.

We're pretty deep in a thread, so only people with strong opinions either way are still posting. But if you can think of a fourth needed tool, I'm all ears.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

It's not just that it's insufficient, the Democrat party REFUSES to accept that the Republicans have, are and always will act in bad faith and abuse the aparatus of power, you don't need to be a genius to figure that one out yet even Obama thought, naively, that he could reason with these people. Could he? Could he ****, they called for his death, deportation and other things and what did Conservatives/Republicans do? Double down, they couldn't have cared less as long as they were winning.

 

[El_Machinae]

What's your proposed mechanism to enact change? You either need raw power, legal power, or charisma in order to change the direction of a democracy.

Criticism is valuable. So are suggestions.

Of all the successes regarding LGBT issues in the last decade, what would you say was the dominant contributor? Raw power? Legal power? Charisma?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

It's not just that it's insufficient, the Democrat party REFUSES to accept that the Republicans have, are and always will act in bad faith and abuse the aparatus of power, you don't need to be a genius to figure that one out yet even Obama thought, naively, that he could reason with these people. Could he? Could he ****, they called for his death, deportation and other things and what did Conservatives/Republicans do? Double down, they couldn't have cared less as long as they were winning.

Both major political parties in the US routinely act in bad faith. It's silly to think that the Democratic party isn't well aware. But it's hard to cast stones as a proven liar yourself, so they let Republicans get away with garbage and vice versa.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Of all the successes regarding LGBT issues in the last decade, what would you say was the dominant contributor? Raw power? Legal power? Charisma?

Increased representation, literal people dying (unfortunate as that is). Obviously it's been co-opted by big-business since then however.

I would ask you to remember that whilst the L and G part of that acronym have made strides towards inclusion and acceptance, even within the LGBT community, there is still discrimination against bisexuals and especially transpeople, it gets worse when you factor in the views of the latter from outside the LGBT spectrum.

 

[El_Machinae]

How could increased representation possibly have contributed, if people are fundamentally incapable of being swayed by exposure?

 

[El_Machinae]

How could increased representation possibly have contributed, if people are fundamentally incapable of being swayed by exposure?

 

[El_Machinae]

Both major political parties in the US routinely act in bad faith. It's silly to think that the Democratic party isn't well aware. But it's hard to cast stones as a proven liar yourself, so they let Republicans get away with garbage and vice versa.

Ah, "both sides".

Dude, there's bad faith right there. The problem is one of escalation. At any point in time, the escalation can slow down. Claiming "they started it" doesn't work when the problem is escalation

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Ah, "both sides".

Dude, there's bad faith right there. The problem is one of escalation. At any point in time, the escalation can slow down. Claiming "they started it" doesn't work when the problem is escalation

Which party isn't constantly claiming escalation? Doesn't seem like I'm the one with "bad faith" issues in this context.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

How could increased representation possibly have contributed, if people are fundamentally incapable of being swayed by exposure?

Mate, these people are STILL unsure if LGBTQ+ people are decent human beings, the time is long past giving them the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Tristan_C]

I understand their frame. You don’t. That’s not an insult: think about it, I’m comfortable wading through their language and you are not so, it’s evident. And deeper, I know you don’t because you declared me one of them which is suuuuuuper ridiculous. The furthest right person in this thread sort of agreeing with me is Manfred. Dude. We haven’t even gotten them started. @Tristan_C be quietly like Hygro shut up. He’s hoping you all succeed in shutting me down. At least for the sake of the hegemony of his politics. But also Tristan and I could kick it just fine. No pressure TC.

Empathy is such a deep subject. I can easily rattle off positive reasons for liberals to have voted for Clinton in 2016. She is experienced in politics, articulate, has the caution and dignity as president that Trump lacks, and knows a ton of people, all of which can assure a well-staffed and well-led administration and easier diplomacy. She is a woman, and most importantly, even though her personal motives and character are suspect, she can be trusted to have prudent policies more in line with the left's moral foundations than the right— definitely more so than any GOP candidate. Meanwhile I've never read an accurate assessment of my motives here, nor an accurate guess on why people voted for Trump. Ever.

I liked Franken from SNL and was sad about what happened, but the Dems were going after Roy Moore so Al had to pay the price to win the moral high ground in Alabama. Consistency is painful but its necessary, the GOP has lost the moral high ground and the only way they can regain it is if the Dems hand it back to them by nominating a Trump-like candidate. I dont see that happening any time soon.

It wasn't a trade. Dems got to swap senators in a safe seat and pick up a seat in a GOP state. All that was needed was for the WaPo to pick up some visas and guidebooks, deploy to the exotic land of AL, and convince people that Moore, who was a Democrat at the time, locked a girl in a car before child safety locks were installed in a parking lot that doesn't exist. In a coverage-driven sequence of events like this, there is no high ground or objective truth, just strategy. There was some benefit in it as well, because the media overplayed the strategy in their battle with Kavanaugh the following year and got what was coming to them. At the price of a supreme court appointment.

 

[Truthy]

Empathy is such a deep subject. I can easily rattle off positive reasons for liberals to have voted for Clinton in 2016. She is experienced in politics, articulate, has the caution and dignity as president that Trump lacks, and knows a ton of people, all of which can assure a well-staffed and well-led administration and easier diplomacy. She is a woman, and most importantly, even though her personal motives and character are suspect, she can be trusted to have prudent policies more in line with the left's moral foundations than the right— definitely more so than any GOP candidate. Meanwhile I've never read an accurate assessment of my motives here, nor an accurate guess on why people voted for Trump. Ever.

I've posted this before, but Jonathan Haidt is right that liberals are really bad at understanding conservatives, while conservatives are pretty good at understanding liberals.

(To be clear to the audience: my endorsement of the first half of your post isn't an endorsement of the second half)

 

[El_Machinae]

Not sure that liberals 'got what was coming for them'* on the Supreme Court nominations. The Republicans literally changed the rules to make it easier to nominate their choice. They previously made it much harder to have a consensus choice, by willfully blocking Garland.

We've gone from American judges that used to have super-majority confirmations to 'we will win on technicalities, consensus be damned'. 50-48 compared to the previous 97-0 for Kennedy.

The only other recently nominated judge that got zero dissenting votes was Garland.

Mate, these people are STILL unsure if LGBTQ+ people are decent human beings, the time is long past giving them the benefit of the doubt.

Yes, there are some people that will not be swayed into anything other than shutting up. But there's been progress. Oodles more people thought that the community was either sick or evil, compared to today. That was because of charisma. And raw power. And legal power. All combining to vastly improve things. It's not done, but on this front we have figured out how to outnumber them.

 

[Hygro]

I meant the final blog was hotelconcierge (not slatestarcodex)

 

[Synobun]

The whole "conservatives understand liberals really well" thing really just indicts conservatives further, because it means they support cruelty with eyes wide open and a smile. Not sure that's a winning strategy when you're trying to imply "We're not so different, you and I."

Unless we're going to be employing Sun Tzu tactics here, I'm not sure there's much value in "understanding" why conservatives really love hurting "others." The fact of the matter is that they do, and it's unacceptable, and there is no justification for it. Very cool that they think they're right, but frankly we're beyond the point where there is a fact-finding discovery process. We know the motivation. We know they believe in it. And we know it's wrong. This isn't new. Conservatives aren't trying out a new playbook. Their motives and intentions aren't mysterious. It's tried-and-true now. It's been done. We know the cycle. We know the plan.

 

[Farm Boy]

It's not that they do. It's that the blind spot in the opposite direction is a hell of a lot bigger than people generally are willing to admit.

 

[Hygro]

So how would you propose you do this, whilst ensuring that people like me aren't kept away? The problem you will face is that by allowing these people, these conservatives "in" and welcoming them, you will also be excluding/making people such as me uncomfortable? I don't see why i should have to tolerate people who barely tolerate my existence or who equate me living my life to somehow destroying civilization, this isn't beanbag this is real life and if your goal is to "chill them out" don't come crying to me when you find yourself increasingly surrounded by those on the right, with PoC, LGBTQ+ people, religious minorities etc being alienated. I don't want to be anywhere near a person, people or groups who, in 2019 in this year of our lord, still think that being trans or being gay or bi is a choice that one chooses to make and thinks that i need curing.

Well my conservative friends outnumber my phobic-friends which is in 2019 down to one as everyone else came around, and as he said, "I'm trying to be better about that." Buuuut generally if I'm with gay or trans friends then he's not invited.

 

[El_Machinae]

The whole "conservatives understand liberals really well" thing really just indicts conservatives further, because it means they support cruelty with eyes wide open and a smile. Not sure that's a winning strategy when you're trying to imply "We're not so different, you and I."

You don't find it daunting that there are strong odds that you literally don't understand their perspective? You're disagreeing on a balance of dilemmas. But golly, surely you should understand the dilemmas before proclaiming that you're right!

I can only imagine treating every philosophy class with strong certainty that my answer is correct, and the professor is saying "you seem to only understand part of the problem". Or imagine wanting a fitness instructor who literally didn't understand the idea of 'wanting endurance'. Or any other system where there's a multi-factorial balance.

If you're in an argument, and you disagree with what they say, is it more 'damning' to understand what they're saying? Or, is the fact that one party can only misrepresent the other position not a factor?

Now, it's obvious that you're in the cohort that doesn't think you can convince anyone of your position. But surely, knowing that you don't understand should trigger concern, yeah?

In other words, this thesis on 'indicting conservatives'. How do you know you're not just using a post-hoc rationalization of the underlying assumption that you're correct?