One has to consider the reasons for this. Some of my observations:
* The left has taken to describing people of color, LGBTs, immigrants (in particular illegals), women, people with pre-existing conditions, all as being "terrified" of the right's policies, due to racism, the possibility of overturning marriage equality, increased border enforcement, a bad example set by POTUS, overturning of the ACA. Also of course, fascism is also presented as a threat from the right, which evokes images of Hitler and Mussolini and whoever else depending on one's definition of fascism. As a result of being "terrified" of harm due to the right's selfishness and callousness and downright immorality, they feel justified taking and defending extreme measures to oppose policies of the right they claim to be harmful or fatal to them. It results in extreme sanctimony in speech, and protests and the accompanying riots in action.
* The right's goals are more focused on the maintenance of law and order, the protection of the culture which has been extremely successful in creating freedom, technological progress and a high standard of living which remains the envy of the world in most areas, and protection of individuals' wealth and the freedom to engage in commerce and debate and expression.
* The right's goals are much more big picture. The left's goals are also big picture but they able to focus on individual stories. I blame the left for much of the violence and shrillness in political debate, because they have framed the debate today as good vs. evil: freedom and being free from fascism and racism supported by their policies vs. marginalization and racism and fascism espoused by the right.
* The left is much more focused on individual stories, and the right is more focused on big picture / framework / institutional issues. The term "bleeding heart liberal" is from the 70s, it's not new. The saying that "If you are not a liberal at 18, you have no heart. If you are not conservative at 40, you have no head" has been around for a long time as well.
* Also social media has given stupid people a platform from which to bark slogans. There are people who are not particularly literate, who are not good at debate and novel thinking, and when faced with opposing points of view, especially from the right, cannot effectively formulate responses but instead have been trained to think they are being faced with racists and fascists and so they go into protest slogan-barking mode. Think about engaging a cop in debate after he's told you to move along or has decided to arrest you on a warrant. He's already made up his mind about what to do, and he's not going engage in debate. He's just in order-giving mode, not debate mode. In the political world, this is the mode people who are not good at thinking or debate take when faced with opposing points of view.
Summary: The left's focus on individual stories and characterizing the right as racists and fascists has really ratcheted up the heat of the discourse. Why are they doing this? Because they've been faced with the first real pushback against left-leaning policies in 60 years with the 2016 election result. Also, POTUS has angered a lot of powerful and influential people on both the left and right and they want payback.
I think we can trace this all back to Lee Atwater and his "wedge issues". Our political landscape has been redrawn to excite strong emotional reactions and social media's algorithms are tuned for engagement.
Pointing fingers at either side is fully reasonable but essentially ineffectual.
The right's goals are much more big picture. The left's goals are also big picture but they able to focus on individual stories.
So the right's goals are much more big picture than the left's, which are also big picture? How about you save your next manifesto for a time when you have something meaningful to say?
The right's goals are much more big picture. The left's goals are also big picture but they able to focus on individual stories.
So the right's goals are much more big picture than the left's, which are also big picture? How about you save your next manifesto for a time when you have something meaningful to say?
I should have included a couple of examples of the left's use of individual stories driving big picture issues, in my initial response below:
1) Images of a sad, tired young mother in a detention camp
Before whining about "the left", perhaps you should listen to us? Nobody on the left (well, nobody normal) is describing Marco Rubio, or Ted Cruz, or John Boehner, or Jeb Bush, or George W Bush and Dick Cheney (both of whom we generally have strong opinions on), or the Kochs, or most right wingers in general "Fascists". We're calling a, currently in power, subset, who use populist attacks on minorities, racism, who describe the media in the same terms Hitler did, who attempt with no evidence to undermine t
Unfortunately this is not a winning tactic against populism. Anything that requires explanation is an automatic fail in that arena, only three word slogans work.
You see it used online a lot. Say something stupid but rebuttal requires a lot of effort, by which point they have long moved on to the next thing.
Fortunately it's not working for them so well any more and hopefully it will just go away by itself soon.
The internet, the media in general, and schools K-12 and College level, are stuffed full of left wingers calling any and all Republicans and even many libertarians "Fascists" and likening them to Hitler. Not only is it moronic, since NOBODY in the USA in any part of the political spectrum is in anywhere near that little mustached monster, but the vacuous nature of the attack is exposed when the Koch brothers are brought into it; The Koch brothers are/were (one then them is dead now) LIBERTARIANS who often f
I would also add MSM (Mainstream Media) trivializing complex with overly simplistic "sound bites" and manufactured sensationalism is a huge part of the problem. Accuracy and accountability in the meda? Hahaha. There is a reason it is called Faux News.
When the news are a joke, and comedians tell the actual news, is it any wonder people are unable to engage in critical thinking?
Charlie Brooker's Newswipe [youtube.com] in March 2009 had an excellent commentary on the corruption of the new's scapegoating when they i
Summary: The left's focus on individual stories and characterizing the right as racists and fascists has really ratcheted up the heat of the discourse. Why are they doing this? Because they've been faced with the first real pushback against left-leaning policies in 60 years with the 2016 election result. Also, POTUS has angered a lot of powerful and influential people on both the left and right and they want payback.
Wow, that is incredibly moronic. I could go after each point separately (the right loves law and order! Except for the president lying on tax returns, which is illegal. And on-duty police killing unarmed civilians with no consequences, which is legal but not "order"). But that would take too long and won't change your mind.
So instead, I'll talk about some scenes showing our political discourse becoming toxic:
* In the early 2000s, conservatives (once non-interventionist, then eager to invade Iraq at any cost) called politicians who didn't support the invasion "traitors". Conservative politicians and pundits did not complain about this.
* In 2010, President Obama was addressing the joint houses of congress. He mentioned the (in progress) ACA and mentioned that the ACA would not cover illegal immigrants. A conservative representive stood up and screamed "YOU LIE!". As we all know, neither the unpassed ACA of the time nor the passed version covered illegal immigrants, so it was the conservative who lied. Conservative politicians and pundits thought this was peachy and fine.
* Around the same time, a young lady in college became famous when she advocated for the ACA covering contraception. Rush Limbaugh said something civil like like "she's a slut who wants the government to pay for her whoring around on campus." Conservative politicians and pundits thought this was an excellent way to talk about someone who disagreed with them.
* I recall a concert (2007 maybe?) when Ted Nugent politely said "Obama, he’s a piece of shit. I told him to suck on my machine gun. Hey Hillary, you might want to ride one of these into the sunset, you worthless bitch." Conservative politicians and pundits thought that this was the rational way to discuss opposing government leaders; I mean, how else could you do it?
* Conservatives constantly complain about how "the media" attacks President Trump, yet somehow see no irony in the fact that the President constantly attacks people in Twitter, speeches, rallys, press conferences, and, well, all the time and everywhere. There are those fragile souls who can dish it out but cannot take it...
So yes, civil discourse is difficult. But I'm guessing that you have never complained about any of these occurances which caused discourse to become less civil. Each event is, to me, completely unacceptable, and I would feel the same whether it was a liberal or a conservative doing it. Liberals are hardly innocent; they have walked down the same roads (albeit years after the conservatives paved them), but the conservatives are the ones who led the way to the Brave New Uncivil World. Someone once wrote "you reap what you sow"; sadly, that was probably someone ignored by conservatives.
Re: (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Not just at work (Score:3, Insightful)
One has to consider the reasons for this. Some of my observations:
* The left has taken to describing people of color, LGBTs, immigrants (in particular illegals), women, people with pre-existing conditions, all as being "terrified" of the right's policies, due to racism, the possibility of overturning marriage equality, increased border enforcement, a bad example set by POTUS, overturning of the ACA. Also of course, fascism is also presented as a threat from the right, which evokes images of Hitler and Mussolini and whoever else depending on one's definition of fascism. As a result of being "terrified" of harm due to the right's selfishness and callousness and downright immorality, they feel justified taking and defending extreme measures to oppose policies of the right they claim to be harmful or fatal to them. It results in extreme sanctimony in speech, and protests and the accompanying riots in action.
* The right's goals are more focused on the maintenance of law and order, the protection of the culture which has been extremely successful in creating freedom, technological progress and a high standard of living which remains the envy of the world in most areas, and protection of individuals' wealth and the freedom to engage in commerce and debate and expression.
* The right's goals are much more big picture. The left's goals are also big picture but they able to focus on individual stories. I blame the left for much of the violence and shrillness in political debate, because they have framed the debate today as good vs. evil: freedom and being free from fascism and racism supported by their policies vs. marginalization and racism and fascism espoused by the right.
* The left is much more focused on individual stories, and the right is more focused on big picture / framework / institutional issues. The term "bleeding heart liberal" is from the 70s, it's not new. The saying that "If you are not a liberal at 18, you have no heart. If you are not conservative at 40, you have no head" has been around for a long time as well.
* Also social media has given stupid people a platform from which to bark slogans. There are people who are not particularly literate, who are not good at debate and novel thinking, and when faced with opposing points of view, especially from the right, cannot effectively formulate responses but instead have been trained to think they are being faced with racists and fascists and so they go into protest slogan-barking mode. Think about engaging a cop in debate after he's told you to move along or has decided to arrest you on a warrant. He's already made up his mind about what to do, and he's not going engage in debate. He's just in order-giving mode, not debate mode. In the political world, this is the mode people who are not good at thinking or debate take when faced with opposing points of view.
Summary: The left's focus on individual stories and characterizing the right as racists and fascists has really ratcheted up the heat of the discourse. Why are they doing this? Because they've been faced with the first real pushback against left-leaning policies in 60 years with the 2016 election result. Also, POTUS has angered a lot of powerful and influential people on both the left and right and they want payback.
Re: (Score:1)
Gee, I wonder which side you identify as.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think there's moral equivalence here. In 2016, despite violence on both sides, the violence level on one side was much higher, as evidenced by the fact that only one candidate ever had to cancel events due to violence, or sneak in due to violence. [salon.com]
The level between the sides was much different. And realize, only one side has attempted an actual political assassination. [washingtonian.com]
Also recall that one of the iconic images from the 2016 was the kneeling, screaming woman. The fury since then has only grown.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The right's goals are much more big picture. The left's goals are also big picture but they able to focus on individual stories.
So the right's goals are much more big picture than the left's, which are also big picture? How about you save your next manifesto for a time when you have something meaningful to say?
Re: (Score:2)
Your parser halted midway through the second sentence :)
Seriously though, you should get that checked out.
Re: (Score:3)
I should have included a couple of examples of the left's use of individual stories driving big picture issues, in my initial response below:
1) Images of a sad, tired young mother in a detention camp
Re: (Score:2)
transgenderism is a profound gender dysphoria
[Citation Needed]
Re: (Score:2)
Before whining about "the left", perhaps you should listen to us? Nobody on the left (well, nobody normal) is describing Marco Rubio, or Ted Cruz, or John Boehner, or Jeb Bush, or George W Bush and Dick Cheney (both of whom we generally have strong opinions on), or the Kochs, or most right wingers in general "Fascists". We're calling a, currently in power, subset, who use populist attacks on minorities, racism, who describe the media in the same terms Hitler did, who attempt with no evidence to undermine t
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately this is not a winning tactic against populism. Anything that requires explanation is an automatic fail in that arena, only three word slogans work.
You see it used online a lot. Say something stupid but rebuttal requires a lot of effort, by which point they have long moved on to the next thing.
Fortunately it's not working for them so well any more and hopefully it will just go away by itself soon.
um (Score:2)
The internet, the media in general, and schools K-12 and College level, are stuffed full of left wingers calling any and all Republicans and even many libertarians "Fascists" and likening them to Hitler. Not only is it moronic, since NOBODY in the USA in any part of the political spectrum is in anywhere near that little mustached monster, but the vacuous nature of the attack is exposed when the Koch brothers are brought into it; The Koch brothers are/were (one then them is dead now) LIBERTARIANS who often f
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed.
I would also add MSM (Mainstream Media) trivializing complex with overly simplistic "sound bites" and manufactured sensationalism is a huge part of the problem. Accuracy and accountability in the meda? Hahaha. There is a reason it is called Faux News.
When the news are a joke, and comedians tell the actual news, is it any wonder people are unable to engage in critical thinking?
Charlie Brooker's Newswipe [youtube.com] in March 2009 had an excellent commentary on the corruption of the new's scapegoating when they i
Re: (Score:2)
Because they've been faced with the first real pushback against left-leaning policies in 60 years with the 2016 election result.
Maybe you never heard about Reagan. Or Clinton, for that matter. Or Bush.
Re:Not just at work (Score:5, Insightful)
Summary: The left's focus on individual stories and characterizing the right as racists and fascists has really ratcheted up the heat of the discourse. Why are they doing this? Because they've been faced with the first real pushback against left-leaning policies in 60 years with the 2016 election result. Also, POTUS has angered a lot of powerful and influential people on both the left and right and they want payback.
Wow, that is incredibly moronic. I could go after each point separately (the right loves law and order! Except for the president lying on tax returns, which is illegal. And on-duty police killing unarmed civilians with no consequences, which is legal but not "order"). But that would take too long and won't change your mind.
So instead, I'll talk about some scenes showing our political discourse becoming toxic:
* In the early 2000s, conservatives (once non-interventionist, then eager to invade Iraq at any cost) called politicians who didn't support the invasion "traitors". Conservative politicians and pundits did not complain about this.
* In 2010, President Obama was addressing the joint houses of congress. He mentioned the (in progress) ACA and mentioned that the ACA would not cover illegal immigrants. A conservative representive stood up and screamed "YOU LIE!". As we all know, neither the unpassed ACA of the time nor the passed version covered illegal immigrants, so it was the conservative who lied. Conservative politicians and pundits thought this was peachy and fine.
* Around the same time, a young lady in college became famous when she advocated for the ACA covering contraception. Rush Limbaugh said something civil like like "she's a slut who wants the government to pay for her whoring around on campus." Conservative politicians and pundits thought this was an excellent way to talk about someone who disagreed with them.
* I recall a concert (2007 maybe?) when Ted Nugent politely said "Obama, he’s a piece of shit. I told him to suck on my machine gun. Hey Hillary, you might want to ride one of these into the sunset, you worthless bitch." Conservative politicians and pundits thought that this was the rational way to discuss opposing government leaders; I mean, how else could you do it?
* Conservatives constantly complain about how "the media" attacks President Trump, yet somehow see no irony in the fact that the President constantly attacks people in Twitter, speeches, rallys, press conferences, and, well, all the time and everywhere. There are those fragile souls who can dish it out but cannot take it...
So yes, civil discourse is difficult. But I'm guessing that you have never complained about any of these occurances which caused discourse to become less civil. Each event is, to me, completely unacceptable, and I would feel the same whether it was a liberal or a conservative doing it. Liberals are hardly innocent; they have walked down the same roads (albeit years after the conservatives paved them), but the conservatives are the ones who led the way to the Brave New Uncivil World. Someone once wrote "you reap what you sow"; sadly, that was probably someone ignored by conservatives.