Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

coyote-1 t1_j0uku9r wrote

For one ’team’ in this nation, indeed there is no coherent whole at first glance. How do we make sense of a party that simultaneously proclaims itself pro-life, yet wants to remove roadblocks to capital punishment AND wants to flood the streets with guns? That proclaims the sanctity of life in the womb, yet seeks to dismantle all systemic support for young disadvantaged families?

One just has to be willing to look at the dark side of life to grasp the unifying theme: a will to cruelty, to punishment. The moment you do that, the varied positions of that particular ‘team’ all form a coherent package.

4

wilde_man t1_j0urvzq wrote

Your first mistake is thinking that over 300 million people can be divided into 2 coherent teams.

​

>that simultaneously proclaims itself pro-life, yet wants to remove roadblocks to capital punishment AND wants to flood the streets with guns? That proclaims the sanctity of life in the womb, yet seeks to dismantle all systemic support for young disadvantaged families?

That said even a single person has many competing and simultaneous reasons for believing what they do. someone who is pro-life, pro-guns, and pro-capital punishment may believe in protecting the lives (unborn children too, as they reckon) of the innocent rather than an inherent sanctity of life.

Even if someone disagrees with their goals and/or methods (myself included, not that it matters because I'm not American) they are doing themselves and their opponent a disservice by not even trying to understand their opponent.

​

>One just has to be willing to look at the dark side of life to grasp the unifying theme: a will to cruelty, to punishment. The moment you do that, the varied positions of that particular ‘team’ all form a coherent package.

"the dark side of life is all the people who disagree with me, they are being evil for kicks"

​

TLDR: the person I replied to can't fathom how someone might be of a different political persuasion.

17

Chankston t1_j0ut6kz wrote

I feel like it’s always the lazy resort to “comic book villain” strawmanning.

If you always think your political enemies think what they think because “they’re evil, they want to inflict pain and be monstrous,” then it’s blatantly obvious you’ve never been good faith or probably even read the foundational reasoning of the opponent.

And that’s a shame generally, but also rhetorically. Is this supposed to convince the other side to change their mind when you completely butcher their position and call them names?

I get that politics is becoming more intertwined with identity, but I feel like good discussions are always a give and take. I take the good parts of your reasoning and weigh it into my own beliefs, even if we disagree broadly.

9

LongjumpingArgument5 t1_j0v1mzd wrote

Even the Simpsons pointed out that Republicans are evil back in 1994.

https://youtu.be/TMRmuyy9f_w

They're only goal is to gaslight obstruct and project. They have no ideas on how to move forward at all. They create no real bills and do not even attempt to pass laws. All they want to do is put on a circus to pander to their flock of sheep.

Why bother passing laws when all you have to do is "own the libs" and your people will vote for you because they love a three-ring circus

8

iiioiia t1_j0vi9ue wrote

> Even the Simpsons pointed out that Republicans are evil back in 1994.

Demonstrating that causing someone to believe that a proposition is true can be as easy as showing them a cartoon, which is pretty interesting if one has the ability to take such things seriously.

3

LongjumpingArgument5 t1_j0vmcn0 wrote

Generally The Simpsons tends to be a reflection of the current society. I think it shows that Republicans have been evil for well over a quarter century.
The Republican goal is to make sure rich people get richer and poor people stay poor. You can see it in the few times they actually try to submit a bill to Congress. They are Patriots in the same way that they are pro-life, only when it supports their end goals. But the reality is they believe in neither of those things. All you have to do is look instead of burying your head in the sand and saying "go team". What bills have Republicans put forward in the last 6 years?

1

iiioiia t1_j0vnbaz wrote

> Generally The Simpsons tends to be a reflection of the current society.

"tends", "a reflection of", "the".

The nice thing about ambiguity is it is impossible to be incorrect, if used skilfully (which seems to come naturally to humans).

> I think it shows that Republicans have been evil for well over a quarter century.

It very well may, but there is an important difference between representing something in a cartoon vs it actually existing in reality (notice how many characters in cartoons can fly, do superhuman feats, etc).

> The Republican goal is to make sure rich people get richer and poor people stay poor.

Wrong - it is the Democrat goal. This is true by virtue of me saying it is true. Also: I saw it in a meme.

> You can see it in the few times they actually try to submit a bill to Congress. They are Patriots in the same way that they are pro-life, only when it supports their end goals.

You can also see that Democrats like abusing children in their bill submissions - though, I'd be careful forming a strong belief based purely on what one "sees".

Science has studied this phenomenon extensively, I highly recommend digging into the literature.

> But the reality...

Ah yes...."the" "reality". There can be only one.

3

LongjumpingArgument5 t1_j0vxcr6 wrote

>I'd be careful forming a strong belief based purely on what one "sees".

I suppose I could form strong beliefs like Republicans do, based on what Fox News says. I mean why trust my eyes when I could just trust talking heads. Remember, critical thinking is a tool of the left, you should skip it unless you want to be woke. There is no room for thought on the right.

Facts slide off Republicans like Teflon.

"Omg that's a cartoon, there is no possible way that cartoons can contain truth, I should just reject it outright, especially because it doesn't conform to my twisted perspective of the world". - you presumably

2

iiioiia t1_j0vy9bo wrote

> I suppose I could form strong beliefs like Republicans do, based on what Fox News says.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mz2WfBFdOAU

> I mean why trust my eyes when I could just trust talking heads.

Trusting either may not be wise.

> Remember, critical thinking is a tool of the left, you should skip it unless you want to be woke.

Is this to say that all people on the left are good at critical thinking, or even a majority of them are?

> There is no room for thought on the right.

What does this even mean?

> Facts slide off Republicans like Teflon.

Perhaps you should give the rules on the sidebar a read.

> "Omg that's a cartoon, there is no possible way that cartoons can contain truth, I should just reject it outright, especially because it doesn't conform to my twisted perspective of the world". - you presumably

Well, you are incorrect once again.

I'm genuinely curious: why do you do this? Granted, it's surely plenty of fun, but still. It seems to me to be contrary both to your implied desires as well as your literal words.

1

VersaceEauFraiche t1_j0vzy4d wrote

The Simpsons is a cartoon. The reason why you shouldn't give much weight to the political philosophy of the Simpsons should not need to be further explicated.

2

LongjumpingArgument5 t1_j0w7oa0 wrote

Are you the kind of person who when reads an opinion article that makes the following statement

"There is water vapor in our atmosphere, it makes the sky blue, I like the way the sky looks when it's blue but also sometimes with a change"

And then they come to the conclusion that because it's an opinion article that the whole article is invalid so clearly water vapor is not in our atmosphere making the sky blue.

You dismiss it outright because of the form it takes.

I know it's hard to understand but you have to refute the message not the form that it comes in.

2

[deleted] t1_j0uvxcb wrote

[removed]

−8

[deleted] t1_j0uxdty wrote

[removed]

8

[deleted] t1_j0uxrj5 wrote

[removed]

−2

[deleted] t1_j0uywe6 wrote

[removed]

4

[deleted] t1_j0ux0tz wrote

[removed]

1

[deleted] t1_j0uxn00 wrote

[removed]

0

[deleted] t1_j0v0w9p wrote

[removed]

1

BernardJOrtcutt t1_j0vlija wrote

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Be Respectful

>Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

1

coyote-1 t1_j0vilog wrote

I’m not the one who said anything about two teams. I merely examined the public pronouncements of one very well known team.

All the rest is your own projection. Especially the TLDR at the end.

2

RampantRooster t1_j0uv4px wrote

Neither team makes 100% sense when viewed as a whole. That's why this two party system is so shit.

8

Purely_Theoretical t1_j0vaag8 wrote

You would have to do a lot more work to prove those things are contradictory.

Regarding pro life, the GOP seems to be heavily weighting things being done TO a life, like abortion, relative to things happening as a result of inaction. I don't think that's obviously incoherent.

Regarding guns, they believe guns offer them a means to protect themselves and loved ones. People of diverse ideologies have recently lost trust in the police. Couple that with the fact that the police legally have no duty to protect you, and have qualified immunity when they do something wrong. Again, not obviously incoherent.

5

iiioiia t1_j0vh4kg wrote

> How do we make sense of a party that simultaneously proclaims itself pro-life, yet wants to remove roadblocks to capital punishment AND wants to flood the streets with guns?

Ontology, logic, epistemology, psychology, mindfulness/meditation, at least (these are more than enough to improve things substantially, were we to actually use them).

For example: here you are discussing several predictions about reality as if they are necessarily accurate descriptions of reality itself. It is possible to do otherwise, but it is not very popular. Even discussing the simple abstract phenomenon itself is typically very popular, if such a conversation is invoked from an object level instance like this, despite it being a philosophy forum (psychology forums are similar in my experience). Paradoxically, abstract discussion is often extremely popular, but only if the invocation of the topic is from an abstract perspective - then, people very often thoroughly enjoy discussing the phenomenon, including their personal shortcomings.

I'm thinking ChatGPT and AI in general will some day be very helpful with this issue as technologies improve.

2

noonemustknowmysecre t1_j0vt7fz wrote

>How do we make sense of a party that simultaneously proclaims itself pro-life, yet wants to remove roadblocks to capital punishment

Because "pro-life" is a slogan, a sales pitch, a political statement that only tangentially involves the concept of life at all. It's MARKETTING the same way that socialism was selling point of a certain German national socialist political party. (And they did raise wages and rights of workers early on.) Or the "Democratic" part of the Democratic Republic of Congo.

If you even glance at the history, they have their roots in religious ideology which is a-okay with capital punishment (and also against it, depending how you want to pick those cherries).

It's just something they say to get the religious nutters to vote for them. Is a scam artist being irrational when he lies to a mark? Then along came a nuttier nut who actually delivered on that promise and boom, they're all losing elections.

1