Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Dunamisdeos]

Well, it's hard to say what life without conservatives or without liberals at all would be like, since proving a negative is hard.

But we can see what places with no liberals in power are like (pretty bad) and we can look at universities which have next to zero conservative professors, and they're the same ones that have gone off the deep end in other ways. Lord of the Flies sorts of ways.

It's not necessarily about conservative or liberals as reductionist labels, it's just that any ideology needs people to step back and say "hang on, this is just stupid". Otherwise you end up with an ideological thought-bubble that rapidly veers away into la-la land.

"liberal" as in mainstream liberal only exists because other doctrines are pushing back against it, and tempering the more out-there ideas, forcing liberal to remain sensible to be competitive. Take away those external pressures and the balance will be far off from what it is now. Any one doctrine unconstrained by competition from rival doctrines rapidly mutates to be unrecognizable.

You do need elements of both ways of thinking if you want a sane government. And tribalism is actively harmful to that, because it encourages people to not actually think about their ideas. Splitting things up into "the liberal party" and "the conservative party" just ensures that neither party is actually liberal or conservative.

If that is the reigning mindset at the end of this political era then it was all worth it.

[Doomblade187]

Aye, Egan. Triablism is a fucked up beast. I was talking with my dad yesterday, and we tend to chat about politics. I noticed that in his speech that I heard the buzzwords I keep hearing on conservative talk radio, thrown into conversation probably unconsciously and sounding out of place.

And then I thought I was better than that.

Tribalism had made me not think about how my own views affect me and my actions, and made me feel superior. Gotta watch that shit.

[wierd]

Perpetuating a system that actively excludes outside voices, and enables only two opposing voices naturally trends toward extremeism, when the public is either overloaded with mental baggage, or otherwise unwilling or unable to invest the energy to see through the charades of those seeking power for power's sake.

The US really would benefit greatly from adopting some of the more European style parliamentary processes for elections, and burying first past the post in a shallow grave, as it would require actual ideological position taking, rather than the formation and maintenance of tribalist thinking in political assemblies.

[Reelya]

Which state was it where a citizens initiative brought in ranked voting, but they designed the most convoluted implementation of it possible, clearly to spite the voters?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Maine.

[hector13]

The unfortunate thing about changing a political system in that way is you’re basically asking the people in power to vote against their own benefit.

[smjjames]

It's not necessarily about conservative or liberals as reductionist labels, it's just that any ideology needs people to step back and say "hang on, this is just stupid". Otherwise you end up with an ideological thought-bubble that rapidly veers away into la-la land.

Both sides have issues with a lack of those kind of people within their groups. Democrats a little less so (if only because they're the party that is out of power), but the far out ideas are going to have to hit the wall of reality at some point as they'll have to figure out how to actually pay and implement that stuff. Republicans do have a point when they point out the costs and ask 'how are you going to pay for that?' since lofty ideas are nice and all, but the 'how' is largely absent.

Well, it's hard to say what life without conservatives or without liberals at all would be like, since proving a negative is hard.

But we can see what places with no liberals in power are like (pretty bad) and we can look at universities which have next to zero conservative professors, and they're the same ones that have gone off the deep end in other ways. Lord of the Flies sorts of ways.

It's not necessarily about conservative or liberals as reductionist labels, it's just that any ideology needs people to step back and say "hang on, this is just stupid". Otherwise you end up with an ideological thought-bubble that rapidly veers away into la-la land.

"liberal" as in mainstream liberal only exists because other doctrines are pushing back against it, and tempering the more out-there ideas, forcing liberal to remain sensible to be competitive. Take away those external pressures and the balance will be far off from what it is now. Any one doctrine unconstrained by competition from rival doctrines rapidly mutates to be unrecognizable.

You do need elements of both ways of thinking if you want a sane government. And tribalism is actively harmful to that, because it encourages people to not actually think about their ideas. Splitting things up into "the liberal party" and "the conservative party" just ensures that neither party is actually liberal or conservative.

Not to mention that both parties aren't explictly 'the conservative/liberal party' (note my earlier mention of them swapping places), they are big tent parties which have a range of sub caucases in them.

Perpetuating a system that actively excludes outside voices, and enables only two opposing voices naturally trends toward extremeism, when the public is either overloaded with mental baggage, or otherwise unwilling or unable to invest the energy to see through the charades of those seeking power for power's sake.

The US really would benefit greatly from adopting some of the more European style parliamentary processes for elections, and burying first past the post in a shallow grave, as it would require actual ideological position taking, rather than the formation and maintenance of tribalist thinking in political assemblies.

A more parliamentary style legislature with multiple parties would be interesting for sure. I saw an article a while ago (Vox I think? or maybe 538?) that while a lot of Americans want a third party, the agreement stops there and you'd need at least five or six new parties (whether that includes the Greens and Libertarians, I don't know) just to encompass the range of opinions.

[Zangi]

Reality is at the forefront when the tribes can score points for itcould beat the other over the head with it.  Reckon the red tribe is more guilty of doing it at the expense of everything else though.

[SalmonGod]

*went to sleep after last post and just woke up*

I can't say I'm surprised that the following page and a half or so focused completely on pronouns.  Good grief.  That is the *one* point where anyone can argue that people with non-binary gender identities ask something of anyone else beyond being left alone.  I agree that it can get kind of ridiculous, and is not a point that should be legislated, beyond maybe ensuring an "other" option on official registration forms for passports and stuff like that.

But in my opinion, the pronoun issue is a small outlier as compared to most debate on the topic, which amounts to some people asking for permission to exist openly as who they are, and everyone else going "No!  We think you're icky and weird!  CONFORM OR BE CRUSHED!"

Like seriously, I'm associated with some extremely progressive social circles, such that I know at least a dozen trans people, many gay/bi/poly people, and I even have a family member who is a gay furry.  But I have yet to personally encounter a single person ever who earnestly wanted to be referred to as something off the wall.  I know they're out there.  But their existence is blown up into such a ridiculous boogeyman, and that boogeyman is used as a bludgeon against all the aforementioned who are far more common and generally asking only for reasonable permissions to exist.

And that is where my previous argument is most relevant.  Freedom does not include freedom from ever being weirded out by anyone.

[Max™]

It's terrifying in a weird way that Trumpfuckery has slid the bounds of "republican, right wing, and probably conservative with a hint of religious zeal" over until it settled on top of "foul mouthed grifters, gilded age elite wannabes, pussy grabbers, and the women who support them" but fuck... here we are.

In the process the democrat tent has gotten dragged over to the point that it starts to look inviting to regular vanilla conservatives until one of the Trumpfuckers shrieks "BUT HER EMAILS" and they scatter in a panic.

[smjjames]

The Democratic tent hasn't been dragged anywhere, it's a relativistic optical illusion from the vacuum created by the Republicans retreating from the center.

At least that's what us liberals would like to think. Really though, the center has practically dropped out from the Republicans and the Democrats don't have as many moderates as they used to. Both parties have been contracting (and expanding, as paradoxial as that sounds) away from the center with the Democrats having a delayed teaparty-like stretch towards the fringes.

Though the Democrats are being more 'return to their roots' than 'embrace the madness' in the stretch towards the fringes.

[Max™]

They are trying to stretch over here to the left side of things, but the party of "corporations aren't all bad guiz" isn't ever going to be more than an ally of convenience for those most radical of leftists.


I saw a great term for the current dems: radical centrists.

[Karnewarrior]

I'm just going to point out that near the start of that whole conversation was a link to an article that stated, quite explicitly, that New York had actually legalized criminal repercussions for not using the right pronoun. Nothing major, mind, but actual legal repercussions.

Which is fucked. Yes, it's not as fucked as basically anything coming out of the white house these days, but you also have to call out your own stupid, inane horseshit or else you become the stupid, inane horseshit you hate. Not to mention there's only so many times we can have the conversation:

"Gee, Brett Kavanaugh is a fucking grade-A douchebag."
"Yeah, I wish Trump hadn't put him on the Supreme Court."
"Can we do anything about it?"
"Nope. Sucks."
"Yeah, gee, this sucks."


Much more productive to call out far left nutjobs to help pad the echo chamber a bit. Bay 12 is pretty diverse, and I wouldn't be shocked if an actual non-binary participated in the discussion, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have any discussions on whether it's whackjobbery or not. We need to proofread our own shit if we want to proofread someone elses.

[wierd]

The thing that always makes me rage?  This construction:

"I am ideologically opposite/opposed to [historic group that did bad things by thinking they were justified in inducing forced compliance in all others], so I [and my group] cannot possibly end up that way. [the new group that does bad things by thinking they are justified in inducing forced compliance in all others.]"

Never mind that they are hard at work doing that exact thing. [forced compliance of all others, out of the misguided belief that they are in the absolute right.]


It does not matter if it is [the gay people are aberrant!], or [unless you believe in jesus, you are going to hell!], or [You can never say anything I find offensive, EVER!], or [insert bombastically absurd pronouncement here]--- the construction holds:

A group believes that "WE ARE RIGHT! THE OTHERS ARE WRONG!", and in so doing, feels justified in their actions to FORCE all others into compliance.

This was true of nazification [We are the MASTER RACE, and all those inferiors MUST be purged!], and it is true of forced pronoun use [We prefer 'shglee' and "hmer" for our outlier identity pronouns, and if you fail to respect that, there's jail time!], and it is true of this absurd notion that you must never say anything offensive, ever [I find that speech to be undesirable and it must be banned from use, with severe recriminatory consequences if violated!]

Sure, there's differences in the degrees of how bad each of those are, but they are *ALL* *BAD*.  They all stem from the same root, which is the desire to feel in the glorious fire of righteousness, against the tyranny and evil of the establishment. (nevermind that the establishment is often representative of the bulk/majority of the civilization, which is why it is so entrenched and empowered to begin with.)


People need to stop thinking that they are better than other people.  That's the crux of this.

[Il Palazzo]

the western concept of a gender/sex binary sentence-initial capitalization was something that was forced by scalpel or erasure onto everyone else.

Down with the oppressive establishment!