Where is the Common Ground?

[WilliamSeger]

Originally Posted by kellyb

I actually can answer that. They literally don't know how harmful it is. They really think there's more discrimination against white folks nowadays. They think black people have access to all kinds of government benefits white people don't have access to, and other beliefs like that which make the occasional klan rally seem like not a big deal to them.

That's a fair point -- but then it requires a lot of seemingly willful ignorance.

[WilliamSeger]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

No question. But it's not really a coincidence that Republicans are frequently described by Democrats as 'selfish' and Republicans refer to Democrats as 'bleeding hearts'. Which do you think is more likely to being 'empathetic'?

Don't hear "bleeding hearts" much anymore -- mostly it's "social justice warriors" who are just "virtual signaling."

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

No question. But it's not really a coincidence that Republicans are frequently described by Democrats as 'selfish' and Republicans refer to Democrats as 'bleeding hearts'. Which do you think is more likely to being 'empathetic'?

I'm not sure you'll like my answer.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by WilliamSeger

The evidence is that they first nominated and then elected Trump. I rest my case.

Your case is illogical and unsound. Among other problems, caring about things isn't a binary proposition.

[phiwum]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

I'm not sure you'll like my answer.

How is that an answer to the question of "which group tends to be more empathetic?"

There are two groups in question here. The GOP and the Democrats. An answer would involve picking one and perhaps explaining why.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by phiwum

How is that an answer to the question of "which group tends to be more empathetic?"

It isn't. It's an indicator of why he might not like my answer.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

I'm not sure you'll like my answer.

I think your citation proves my point. The logic of Republican/Libertarian philosophy is that concerns for others is counterproductive. It's pure Aynd Rand philosophy. It's the Fountainhead and When Atlas shrugged. It's searching for both a reason for why they are so blessed in their position and why they shouldn't share. It's the Reverend Thomas Malthus argument that feeding starving people is wrong as they will only breed to create more starving people.

[kellyb]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

I think your citation proves my point. The logic of Republican/Libertarian philosophy is that concerns for others is counterproductive. It's pure Aynd Rand philosophy. It's the Fountainhead and When Atlas shrugged. It's searching for both a reason for why they are so blessed in their position and why they shouldn't share. It's the Reverend Thomas Malthus argument that feeding starving people is wrong as they will only breed to create more starving people.

Word!

There's some serious embracing of Ebeneezer and the "Bah, humbug. Let them die and decrease the surplus population!" thing going on.

I was once mentioning a homeless woman to a libertarian, and he blamed her for being homeless, because she had a moral obligation to "sell her body" (prostitute) to improve her situation and had not done so.

[kellyb]

Fundamentally, "they" (the more "elite" rightwingers) seem to prefer chaos to intervention, because they don't want to be taxed to help anyone else. And that's it, at the core. Everything else is mental gymnastics to justify that selfish instinct.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

I think your citation proves my point. The logic of Republican/Libertarian philosophy is that concerns for others is counterproductive.

Wow, way to misinterpret that link.

Quote:

It's pure Aynd Rand philosophy.

No. The problems with empathy (which isn't synonymous with concern for others) is empirically demonstrated psychology. Your straw man attempt at a refutation demonstrates one of its fundamental flaws: it makes you respond emotionally rather than logically.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by kellyb

Fundamentally, "they" (the more "elite" rightwingers) seem to prefer chaos to intervention, because they don't want to be taxed to help anyone else. And that's it, at the core. Everything else is mental gymnastics to justify that selfish instinct.

Now you're getting the hang of this thread! All blame, no search for a common ground.

[kellyb]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Now you're getting the hang of this thread! All blame, no search for a common ground.

You were just answering that question about empathy with a "empathy is overrated, anyway" type answer, right?

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by kellyb

You were just answering that question about empathy with a "empathy is overrated, anyway" type answer, right?

Empathy is overrated. That's pretty damn obvious, if you actually look at the objective evidence.

But I don't see what that has to do with the post you just quoted, unless you're under the mistaken impression that I think this problem is unique to one side. Hell, if you had paid attention you might have noticed I never indicated how big a problem it is to begin with. I'm not the one who brought up empathy hoping to prove a partisan point.

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

I know you believe that or wish to contend that both sides are equally responsible but that is never actually true. Frankly, until this President I see few differences between the parties on foreign policy. Different politicians might have different perspectives, but it isn't party specific.

On domestic policy it pretty much comes down to social engineering. How do we deal with the poor and the middle class?

The GOP position pretty much takes its inspiration from Ayn Rand, Adam Smith and Gordon Gekko. The view is that selfishness is inevitably good for everyone. By assisting the poor we are being counterproductive. That we are taking away their incentive to do for themselves. The best remedy for poverty is for the government to get out of the way and resist the attempt to help.

Democrats OTOH, see the inherent unfairness of the economic system and see that the every man for himself leads to a good quality of life for only a select few. That government involvement is not only good but necessary. If there is an inspiration for Democrats, it would have to be John Rawls and his Original Position and the veil of ignorance.

These two positions are so diametrically opposed that finding common ground is pretty much an impossibility.

That is unfair on Adam Smith, who was against trade cartels

[kellyb]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Empathy is overrated. That's pretty damn obvious, if you actually look at the objective evidence.

It's grossly under-rated. Look at Norway compared to the US for a very stark contrast that demonstrates how nutty the US-specific allergy to empathy is!

Quote:

But I don't see what that has to do with the post you just quoted, unless you're under the mistaken impression that I think this problem is unique to one side. Hell, if you had paid attention you might have noticed I never indicated how big a problem it is to begin with. I'm not the one who brought up empathy hoping to prove a partisan point.

I'm just seeing you refuse to answer the simple question:

Quote:

But it's not really a coincidence that Republicans are frequently described by Democrats as 'selfish' and Republicans refer to Democrats as 'bleeding hearts'. Which do you think is more likely to being 'empathetic'?

It's an easy question to answer, because you must know on some level that the American right has been embracing ruthlessness and cold-heartedness and selfishness as virtues since the 1930's, at least.

[kellyb]

Originally Posted by jimbob

That is unfair on Adam Smith, who was against trade cartels

Yes. And when he talked about "free markets", he was talking about free from economic rents. He was also opposed to even assembly lines because he thought it would make human life miserable to work under those conditions.

Most rightwingers who think of him as "one of their own" haven't even read ANY of The Wealth of Nations.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by kellyb

It's grossly under-rated. Look at Norway compared to the US for a very stark contrast that demonstrates how nutty the US-specific allergy to empathy is!

I see no evidence that Norway is more empathetic than the US.

Once again, empathy is not synonymous with concern for others.

Quote:

I'm just seeing you refuse to answer the simple question:

Indeed, Democrats are likely to be more empathetic than Republicans. Which also means they are more illogical, more prone to be swayed by emotions, more prone to ignore unintended consequences, and actually less tolerant of people with different views.

Quote:

It's an easy question to answer, because you must know on some level that the American right has been embracing ruthlessness and cold-heartedness and selfishness as virtues since the 1930's, at least.

You need this to be true, don't you? Because if your adversaries aren't the caricatures you believe them to be, everything comes crumbling down.

It isn't merely that you can't find common ground, it's that you mustn't find common ground.

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by kellyb

Yes. And when he talked about "free markets", he was talking about free from economic rents. He was also opposed to even assembly lines because he thought it would make human life miserable to work under those conditions.

Most rightwingers who think of him as "one of their own" haven't even read ANY of The Wealth of Nations.

I reas a copy with a foreword by Gordon
Brown, who was unsuited to being a prime minister, and over enamoured with complex fiscal tools but generally one of the better Chancellors in my opinion

[kellyb]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Indeed, Democrats are likely to be more empathetic than Republicans. Which also means they are more illogical, more prone to be swayed by emotions, more prone to ignore unintended consequences, and actually less tolerant of people with different views.

There's research demonstrating that empathy makes people intolerant?

Quote:

You need this to be true, don't you? Because if your adversaries aren't the caricatures you believe them to be, everything comes crumbling down.

It isn't merely that you can't find common ground, it's that you mustn't find common ground.

No, I desperately wish it were not true. If it were not true, I would hold out hope that republican elites could be persuaded by evidence to seriously consider things like single payer healthcare and lifting the cap on social security and criminalizing torture.

I get absolutely no joy out of my diagnosis of selfish and sadistic rot in the heart of the party's policy elites.

[3point14]

I think this is relevant here:

[WilliamSeger]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Your case is illogical and unsound. Among other problems, caring about things isn't a binary proposition.

You'd like to divide the "half" who "don't care" into those who don't care at all and those who don't care enough to vote for someone else? Suit yourself, if you think that helps.

[kellyb]

Originally Posted by 3point14

I think this is relevant here:

No, that's about gun control.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Wow, way to misinterpret that link.

I don't think so. I've seen articles like that for years. It preaches distance and is really another person telling us to be cold dispassionate and selfish.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

No. The problems with empathy (which isn't synonymous with concern for others) is empirically demonstrated psychology. Your straw man attempt at a refutation demonstrates one of its fundamental flaws: it makes you respond emotionally rather than logically.

Sorry, no. There is NOTHING wrong with empathy. It's only when we consider what life is in someone else's shoes that we really can begin to care or find actual solutions. Empathy is not an obstacle to logic or intellect.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Indeed, Democrats are likely to be more empathetic than Republicans. Which also means they are more illogical, more prone to be swayed by emotions, more prone to ignore unintended consequences, and actually less tolerant of people with different views.

Huh? Less tolerant? Such as? Seriously who's views am I not tolerant of?

Racists? That's true.
Sexists? You got me there.
People that think it is ok to discriminate against homosexuals and transgendered people. Yep.

Beyond this group, who am I intolerant of?

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by kellyb

There's research demonstrating that empathy makes people intolerant?

More than that, research demonstrates empathy can even make people more violent.

You didn't read the link, did you?

Quote:

No, I desperately wish it were not true. If it were not true, I would hold out hope that republican elites could be persuaded by evidence to seriously consider things like single payer healthcare and lifting the cap on social security and criminalizing torture.

Wow. How magnanimous to hope that your opponents will agree with you.

Quote:

I get absolutely no joy out of my diagnosis of selfish and sadistic rot in the heart of the party's policy elites.

I said nothing about joy.

And you're basically claiming that policy disagreements are due to a fundamental flaw (a lack of empathy in this case) in your opponents. Common ground can be found with people who are merely mistaken, but when you're positing that your opponents are evil, then finding common ground isn't even desirable. So I think my analysis is spot on.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

Huh? Less tolerant? Such as? Seriously who's views am I not tolerant of?

You personally? No idea. I made no claims about you. Democrats on average? Like I said, people with different ideas than them. This isn't news.

The left doesn't want common ground. That's why they police their own to prevent that from happening.

[kellyb]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

More than that, research demonstrates empathy can even make people more violent.

You didn't read the link, did you?

It does not show that more empathetic people are less tolerant.

The closest it (the link to the link) showed was that everyone can be manipulated by experiment or circumstance to be more vindictive on behalf of a witnessed victimization of another.

Quote:

And you're basically claiming that policy disagreements are due to a fundamental flaw (a lack of empathy in this case) in your opponents. Common ground can be found with people who are merely mistaken, but when you're positing that your opponents are evil, then finding common ground isn't even desirable. So I think my analysis is spot on.

It would be highly desirable if it were possible.

You are aware of the fact that US rightwingers embrace selfishness as a virtue and reject empathy more than any other major political group in the entire Western world, right?

[kellyb]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

You personally? No idea. I made no claims about you. Democrats on average? Like I said, people with different ideas than them. This isn't news.

Oh, please. When did likelihood of facebook unfriending after a specific election become the gold standard metric for psychological research? LOL

eta:
Actual science:
https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...y-think-215114

Quote:

But these differences didn’t affect the larger picture: Liberals were as discriminatory toward conservative groups as conservatives were toward liberal groups. And Brandt’s findings have been echoed elsewhere: Independently and concurrently, the labs of John Chambers at St. Louis University and Jarret Crawford at The College of New Jersey have also found approximately equal prejudice among conservatives and liberals.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

You personally? No idea. I made no claims about you. Democrats on average? Like I said, people with different ideas than them. This isn't news.

The left doesn't want common ground. That's why they police their own to prevent that from happening.

A biased survey conducted by a highly biased man pushing an agenda.

I want common ground, but I am not interested in being Neville Chamberlain to Trump.

[Distracted1]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

The premise of your question is unproven.

Yet there is evidence for it.
Trump retains very high approval ratings amongst Republicans, despite his extreme deviations from typical Conservativism (take his stance on tariffs, as an example, or the massive deficits his policies are creating). One would expect a luke-warm support of him by the Republicans at best.

Concurrently, he expresses disdain for people who's ancestry links them back to those "********" countries, which also happen to be predominantly brown. He talks and acts like a racist.

Taking these bits of evidence together, the hypothesis that a substantial amount of the Trumpsters' support for this administration is rooted in wholehearted approval of his racist attitudes seems a reasonable one.

I can attest that with two exceptions every openly racist person I know is also a big Trump fan. Whilst those who are not racist (at least overtly)- yet found themselves voting for Trump (or in three cases, voting libertarian or not voting for any presidential candidate) because of opposition to the Democratic Party, find him to be a disgrace.

[Delvo]

Originally Posted by WilliamSeger

No, I don't believe all trumpers are racists; I think a goodly number of them just don't care that Trump and "half" his base are... They just don't care that racism has real consequences to real people...

That's just another way of saying they're all racists (just some more active and some more passive).

You're still denying the truly, actually non-racist option: righties considering racists such a rare and far-off thing, so unconnected from most people's real-world experience, that they seem to be a deservedly tiny, rightfully irrelevant, almost hypothetical speck in the big picture, having nothing to do with what most real people think, say, or do. It's hard to believe any particular sort of movement is really a big deal if you never meet a member of it or have one of their events come to your town. It becomes just something you know technically describes somebody somewhere who has nothing to do with you, and some people out there accuse each other of a lot, but those accusers are the same ones who also accuse you of it yourself, and you know it's a lie in that case, so you have no reason to believe it in most other cases either...

For a parallel from a progressive perspective, just think of any straw man you see the left getting painted with too much that you know does describe some few real people somewhere out there who have no relevance to your own progressivism. Just recently I saw someone saying modern progressives want to end any & all law enforcement. I have no doubt that somewhere out there, there are some lefties who want to end law enforcement, but why would the rest who don't want that and have never met anybody who does ever identify with them? Or for somewhat more of a classic, Soviet infiltrators and their collaborators; there certainly were Soviet infiltrators & collaborators trying to influence American Cold War politics to the left, but why would the rest who weren't among them and had never even met one ever identify with them?

The equivalent of the argument you just made is an attempt to impose exactly that kind of identity on you anyway no matter how irrelevant it actually is to your real identity. "Lefties don't mind being on the same side with people who want no law enforcement at all." "Lefties don't mind being on the same side with Soviet infiltrators." The invalidity is transparently obvious... which means anybody who seriously actually makes that kind of claim is being transparently obviously dishonest.

[kellyb]

Originally Posted by Distracted1

I can attest that with two exceptions every openly racist person I know is also a big Trump fan. Whilst those who are not racist (at least overtly)- yet found themselves voting for Trump (or in three cases, voting libertarian or not voting for any presidential candidate) because of opposition to the Democratic Party, find him to be a disgrace.

I know many racists who are Trump fans, and one lady who I think is not a racist who's a fan. Her deal is that she just thinks "racism is an overblown issue".

I don't think Ben Carson is a racist. He's just...apparently flattered to be in the administration and super loyal to the party, maybe? Thinks Democrats will always be worth voting against because Satan? Intellectually, he strikes me an obedient human sponge when it comes to absorbing the ideas and professed opinions of others.

[3point14]

Originally Posted by kellyb

No, that's about gun control.

I don't think so. I think that's about almost everything.

[WilliamSeger]

Originally Posted by Delvo

That's just another way of saying they're all racists (just some more active and some more passive).

You're still denying the truly, actually non-racist option: righties considering racists such a rare and far-off thing, so unconnected from most people's real-world experience, that they seem to be a deservedly tiny, rightfully irrelevant, almost hypothetical speck in the big picture, having nothing to do with what most real people think, say, or do.

I'll stop you right there, because that's not what I'm saying, which I'll phrase another way: Not all of Trump supporters are racists, misogynists, or xenophobes, but the fact that Trump is all of those things (and more) is obviously not a deal-breaker. All the various reasons why that's so (including living in a bubble where those things don't affect them) are a different issue.

[BrooklynBaby]

Originally Posted by WilliamSeger

I'll stop you right there, because that's not what I'm saying, which I'll phrase another way: Not all of Trump supporters are racists, misogynists, or xenophobes, but the fact that Trump is all of those things (and more) is obviously not a deal-breaker. All the various reasons why that's so (including living in a bubble where those things don't affect them) are a different issue.

Trump is none of those things. The problem is that the Democrats just declare Trump is a racist, homophobe, xenophobe, misogynist, bigot, etc. like they do the rest of us, based on nothing, and like they have been doing long before Trump was even a candidate. It is what all of the progressives in Europe called everyone who might vote for Brexit during the run-up to the vote, and who actually did vote for Brexit after the initiative passed. It is just what you guys do. What Trump actually does is irrelevant because he was already labeled all of those things before he actually did anything. (Lying about what he said during the speech where he announced he was running reflects more on the the people who do the lying than than on Trump.)

The unfortunate truth is the Democrats' single issue for the mid-terms amounts to "You're a racist if you don't vote for us."

[Fudbucker]

Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby

Trump is none of those things. The problem is that the Democrats just declare Trump is a racist, homophobe, xenophobe, misogynist, bigot, etc. like they do the rest of us, based on nothing, and like they have been doing long before Trump was even a candidate. It is what all of the progressives in Europe called everyone who might vote for Brexit during the run-up to the vote, and who actually did vote for Brexit after the initiative passed. It is just what you guys do. What Trump actually does is irrelevant because he was already labeled all of those things before he actually did anything. (Lying about what he said during the speech where he announced he was running reflects more on the the people who do the lying than than on Trump.)

The unfortunate truth is the Democrats' single issue for the mid-terms amounts to "You're a racist if you don't vote for us."

1. Based on nothing? Even you can't possibly believe that. The laundry list of Trump's deplorable behavior is long and detailed.

2. It is not just Democrats.

"You used to belong to a conservative party with a white-nationalist fringe. Now it’s a white-nationalist party with a conservative fringe. If you’re part of that fringe, what should you do?"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.2161abb14d6a

I don't know why he lowers himself to such a low, low standard and debases our country," Mr Corker told CNN during an interview in the Capitol, marking an escalation in the rhetorical fight between the two. "He is obviously not going to rise to the occasion as President of the United States."
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a8017341.html

[WilliamSeger]

Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby

Trump is none of those things.

Beyond reasonable doubt, he is.

Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby

The unfortunate truth is the Democrats' single issue for the mid-terms amounts to "You're a racist if you don't vote for us."

Seriously? Is that what Fox News is telling you?

If Democrats have a single issue for the mid-terms, it's that only Congress can put the brakes on this disastrous administration. They will be talking loudly about the things he and his corrupt Cabinet have actually done, so don't expect Fox to give it much coverage.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by WilliamSeger

I'll stop you right there, because that's not what I'm saying, which I'll phrase another way: Not all of Trump supporters are racists, misogynists, or xenophobes, but the fact that Trump is all of those things (and more) is obviously not a deal-breaker. All the various reasons why that's so (including living in a bubble where those things don't affect them) are a different issue.

Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby

Trump is none of those things.

Trump is ALL OF THOSE THINGS. Do you actually believe he's not? Can you say "cognitive dissonance"?

[Roger Ramjets]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Empathy is overrated.

It's perfectly understandable why you would say that. Just like a person who was blind from birth might say that 'sight is overrated' a person with no empathy can't understand what is so great about it.

But perhaps you are right. Perhaps empathy is overrated - after all it's only what makes us human. What's so great about that? Sharks don't have empathy, and they have a wonderful life (so long as they keep swimming).

Without empathy, humans would not be able to cooperate on the level required to build complex civilizations and develop advanced technologies. But you may think that is overrated. What is so great about living in a polite society with all the comforts of modern technology, when we could be running around naked flinging poo at strangers?

Quote:

empathy is not synonymous with concern for others.

That's right, but it is a necessary component of empathic concern.

Originally Posted by Fudbucker

2. It is not just Democrats.

Sure it's not just Democrats, but it is just leftists. Any Republican who isn't 100% behind Trump is a RHINO. There is no middle ground - either you are for him or against him. And if you are against him you must be a leftist.

But don't worry, it won't last forever. As time goes on and Trump becomes more and more unacceptable the number of RHINOs will increase until... suddenly the party turns on him and Trump becomes the RHINO. You will know this is about to happen when Fox starts putting a 'D' after his name.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

It's perfectly understandable why you would say that. Just like a person who was blind from birth might say that 'sight is overrated' a person with no empathy can't understand what is so great about it.

I didn't say it was useless, I said it was overrated. These are very different claims. And all you can offer in response is that straw man plus an appeal to emotion.

Quote:

Sure it's not just Democrats, but it is just leftists. Any Republican who isn't 100% behind Trump is a RHINO. There is no middle ground - either you are for him or against him. And if you are against him you must be a leftist.

After your little rant about how I don't have any empathy and want to live in a poo-slinging society, this claim that it's just Republicans who can't accept a middle ground is more than a touch ironic.

Oh, and it's RINO, not RHINO.