Are there ways the Left can have better conversations with the Right?

[Saint Frankenstein]

Unfortunately politics is too divisive in the US.
In most European countries, there's not such a thing.
I am secretly in love with an Italian dem. He is a very prominent member of the Democratic Party. There are leftists who marry rightists.

What I can figure out from what I perceive (I do hope I am wrong) is that leftists would hardly befriend Trumpians in the USA.
Let alone marry them.
Am I right?

There's fanatics on both sides. I personally mostly keep my political views to myself because most of the people I know are leftist, liberal or Dems, especially in my area. They'll start ranting and raving about politics, even at work, and I mostly just ignore them. I don't even post about them online, honestly, because it would **** off my Facebook "friends". Although I really shouldn't care because if they're that closed minded, they're not a friend, anyway. One of the people on my friends list was threatening to unfriend people who enjoy new Harry Potter things because JK Rowling is apparently Hitler now. People are crazy. They need to get offline and go outside.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

One of the people on my friends list was threatening to unfriend people who enjoy new Harry Potter things because JK Rowling is apparently Hitler now. People are crazy

To be fair, I'd say that Rowling has almost always been a controversial figure. I remember when I was a pre-teen, the 700 club would go on and on all the time about how Harry Potter books should be banned and were "evil", and this was people on the right.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

To be fair, I'd say that Rowling has almost always been a controversial figure. I remember when I was a pre-teen, the 700 club would go on and on all the time about how Harry Potter books should be banned and were "evil", and this was people on the right.

They say that silly crap about everything, like D&D.

It would also help if we stopped thinking everyone is "right" or "left". It's more nuanced than that.

 

[Stevicus]

Unfortunately politics is too divisive in the US.
In most European countries, there's not such a thing.

Maybe not in recent times, although a number of European countries have had their share of internal political strife. I don't think anyone is immune to it. One difference I've noticed in Europe is that there seems to be more parties represented in their governments than we see the two-party lock-hold on power held by the Democrats and Republicans in the U.S.

Taking a quick glance at your own parliament in Italy, it appears that multiple parties have seats: Italian Parliament - Wikipedia

9 parties represented in Italy's parliament, as opposed to the U.S. Congress:

There are three "independents" in the Senate, although they're mainly with the Democrats on most issues.

Then, we wonder why we can't find any "middle ground" or build any kind of bipartisan consensus on most issues.

I am secretly in love with an Italian dem. He is a very prominent member of the Democratic Party. There are leftists who marry rightists.

What I can figure out from what I perceive (I do hope I am wrong) is that leftists would hardly befriend Trumpians in the USA.
Let alone marry them.
Am I right?

Oh, there's been plenty of politically mixed marriages in the U.S., with Democrats marrying Republicans quite often. My father was a Republican and my mother was a Democrat. They divorced when I was 6. A lot of people might have friends and family members who are in the opposite party. In my experience, I've found that some people can still disagree on politics yet still maintain a warm friendship and loving relationship with friends and family. However, there are others who are unable to disagree amicably and end up becoming lifelong enemies.

 

[Estro Felino]

Maybe not in recent times, although a number of European countries have had their share of internal political strife. I don't think anyone is immune to it. One difference I've noticed in Europe is that there seems to be more parties represented in their governments than we see the two-party lock-hold on power held by the Democrats and Republicans in the U.S.

Taking a quick glance at your own parliament in Italy, it appears that multiple parties have seats: Italian Parliament - Wikipedia

9 parties represented in Italy's parliament, as opposed to the U.S. Congress:

There are three "independents" in the Senate, although they're mainly with the Democrats on most issues.

Then, we wonder why we can't find any "middle ground" or build any kind of bipartisan consensus on most issues.



Oh, there's been plenty of politically mixed marriages in the U.S., with Democrats marrying Republicans quite often. My father was a Republican and my mother was a Democrat. They divorced when I was 6. A lot of people might have friends and family members who are in the opposite party. In my experience, I've found that some people can still disagree on politics yet still maintain a warm friendship and loving relationship with friends and family. However, there are others who are unable to disagree amicably and end up becoming lifelong enemies.

It's a fact that Trump has been very divisive.
Clinton or Bush, not that divisive.

It's something of the last decade.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

It's a fact that Trump has been very divisive.
Clinton or Bush, not that divisive.

It's something of the last decade.

Bush jr wasn't divisive? Were you in a coma from 2000 to 2008?

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Bush jr wasn't divisive? Were you in a coma from 2000 to 2008?

To me, Bush Jr. wasn't that divisive per se, however the Iraq war and foreign policy were.

 

[wellwisher]

I have noticed that some people on the right or center accuse those on the left of using "slurs" when they disagree with them. However, when I look at the messages, I just see the left as trying to have an intellectually honest formal debate. I feel they are often not insulting the person, but challenging their arguments and evidence. I think there are multiple interpretations of the ad hominem fallacy as well, and it's not always clear when someone is committing it or not. An ad hominem fallacy is when someone attacks the character or motive of a person instead of their position or claim, as an argument. But sometimes, pointing out a relevant flaw or bias in someone's reasoning can be valid and necessary. For example - if someone works for a soda company, then exposing their conflict of interest in a debate on sugary drinks is not a personal attack, but a legitimate criticism.

I have to admit... I sometimes wonder if the right would feel better if there was somehow more discussion threads and less debate threads.

In any case... do you have any suggestions on how we can improve the quality and tone of our conversations? I'm talking in more of a "person on the left talking to a person on the right" sense.

Liberalism is about new and novel ideas, while Conservatism is more about conserving the past, since the past has more data and a longer track record, than the novel. Because, the Left has to work with less data to support the new idea, there is more of a dogmatic salesman approach that may involve hard sell, bullying and censorship.

For example, transgender was always considered pathology by the medical and psychiatric communities. There is no new smoking gun hard evidence that has changed this. However, the Left embraces change for the sake of change. Why teach small children how to be pathological? What does the Left gain by making the inmates in charge of the asylum? You guys set the bar to low for your base. Where is the critical thinking to balance the fad.

The Left will ignore the elephant in the room; pathology, and pretend like transgender is suddenly the epitome of health and anyone not with program has mental issues. The way the Left does this is with sales pitch; fakes news media, and then group attack or censorship on common sense, until most stop presenting the truth. Now the myth is the dogma du jour.

Conservative is about conservation which has long term data. To the Conservative, it is less about a sales pitch to sell this and more about defending common sense, when pathology is being sold as healthy.

Does anyone remember the Russian Collusion Coup? The Left was off in an alternate reality, and if you did not accept it as real, you would become a target. Once this was disproven, was there any apology for the rude assault? The answer is no. They pretended it did not happen, and went down another rabbit hole, acting like that new novelty item was a sure thing, that needs censorship to set the stage.

Liberals have been so brain washed with novelty items, they may not even see what they do is wrong. To improve how people on the Left talk to those on the Right, they would need to compare the data bases, before just reciting and enforcing the party lines. You can learn from practical reality approach of Conservatism.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Liberalism is about new and novel ideas, while Conservatism is more about conserving the past, since the past has more data and a longer track record, than the novel. Because, the Left has to work with less data to support the new idea, there is more of a dogmatic salesman approach that may involve hard sell, bullying and censorship.

For example, transgender was always considered pathology by the medical and psychiatric communities. There is no new smoking gun hard evidence that has changed this. However, the Left embraces change for the sake of change. Why teach small children how to be pathological? What does the Left gain by making the inmates in charge of the asylum? You guys set the bar to low for your base. Where is the critical thinking to balance the fad.

The Left will ignore the elephant in the room; pathology, and pretend like transgender is suddenly the epitome of health and anyone not with program has mental issues. The way the Left does this is with sales pitch; fakes news media, and then group attack or censorship on common sense, until most stop presenting the truth. Now the myth is the dogma du jour.

Conservative is about conservation which has long term data. To the Conservative, it is less about a sales pitch to sell this and more about defending common sense, when pathology is being sold as healthy.

Does anyone remember the Russian Collusion Coup? The Left was off in an alternate reality, and if you did not accept it as real, you would become a target. Once this was disproven, was there any apology for the rude assault? The answer is no. They pretended it did not happen, and went down another rabbit hole, acting like that new novelty item was a sure thing, that needs censorship to set the stage.

Liberals have been so brain washed with novelty items, they may not even see what they do is wrong. To improve how people on the Left talk to those on the Right, they would need to compare the data bases, before just reciting and enforcing the party lines. You can learn from practical reality approach of Conservatism.

Thanks. I feel we've to an extent covered this in post #58, which I responded to in post #59.

 

[Stevicus]

It's a fact that Trump has been very divisive.
Clinton or Bush, not that divisive.

It's something of the last decade.

Perhaps not at the elite or media level which was the image the political leadership wanted to convey, at least the give the appearance that there was some modicum of political "unity," more or less.

The divisiveness was still percolating under the surface, although many continued to deny it or pretended like everything was right with the world. So, when Trump was elected in 2016, there was this huge shock, with people wondering aloud "How could this have happened?!?" I don't deny that Trump himself was divisive. He was pretty much a loudmouth and loose cannon who didn't appear intellectually competent enough or mentally stable enough to take on the job of President. Frankly, I was kind of surprised myself, but not terribly shocked. The polls all said Hillary would win, and it looked like it was headed in that direction.

After the election, most of the media resembled some kind of dazed rambling from pundits who didn't know what to do, but there were a few insightful comments relating to the situation in the Rust Belt and the general sense of disgruntlement felt by working class folks who feel as if they've been forgotten and neglected by the supposed "party of the working man." Over the past decades, they've seen factories shut down, jobs sent overseas, towns and communities deteriorate into rural slums.

There's a strong sense of apathy and dispiritedness that's been going on for a very long time, but it's always been masked by a corporate image which must always be maintained. Trump is divisive in the sense that he ruined that corporate image. He did the political equivalent of painting a mustache on the Mona Lisa, and irrevocably ruined a great piece of art. Naturally, many people would be outraged at such a thing.

 

[Estro Felino]

There's a strong sense of apathy and dispiritedness that's been going on for a very long time, but it's always been masked by a corporate image which must always be maintained. Trump is divisive in the sense that he ruined that corporate image. He did the political equivalent of painting a mustache on the Mona Lisa, and irrevocably ruined a great piece of art. Naturally, many people would be outraged at such a thing.

Honestly I think that Trump is very similar to a European populist.

That's why he's divisive in the US, I think. He is not liked by many.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Edit...
BTW, the worst of the worst....the real gems
appeared before you arrived on RF. Those
were different times, when....dang...we can't
discuss such that topic on RF.

I just now read this edit. I wanted to comment that I feel this forum generally shows a slightly better sense of maturity on the open forum than when I joined in 2019. I feel that a lot of conversations were about sex and innuendos and a certain fascination with Christianity, back then. I could have had a warped view because I didn't explore every topic, but it seemed there was some banter when people didn't agree, as well as a lot of short posts (one or two lines). Really the only downside I see comparing 2023 on RF to 2019, is that more people seem against transgender now in 2023, as it has been fully brought to light by the GOP and some media sites, and as a result, is now more of a hot topic.

Besides the forum, there are actually other reasons why I wouldn't want to go back to 2019, too. I had some social anxiety then, or had it worse than I do now.

 

[Shaul]

Unfortunately politics is too divisive in the US.
In most European countries, there's not such a thing.
I am secretly in love with an Italian dem. He is a very prominent member of the Democratic Party. There are leftists who marry rightists.

Italy's parliament in chaos as MPs fight – video

VIDEO : WATCH: Brawl breaks out in Kosovo parliament after MP spills water on PM Kurti

Fist fighting in Ukrainian parliament

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/10/uk/parliament-brexit-suspension-chaos-intl-gbr/index.html

 

[Estro Felino]

Italy's parliament in chaos as MPs fight – video

VIDEO : WATCH: Brawl breaks out in Kosovo parliament after MP spills water on PM Kurti

Fist fighting in Ukrainian parliament

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/10/uk/parliament-brexit-suspension-chaos-intl-gbr/index.html

I will explain it better:
I am a Christian but I have friends and colleagues who are leftists and atheists.
And we debate very often, whenever we meet or even during lunch break.

The problem is that we are outspoken with each other and very, very blunt and crass. So many times they called me names for my unique ideas. For my vision of politics and religion.
But we love each other.

Same things as for Italian parliamentarians: they may have violent brawls, but the next moment, they all dine happily together.

On the contrary, I have remarked that there's something visceral in the United States: I have figured it out back when Sarah Huckabee, who is a very sweet and motherly person was chased away from a restaurant back in 2018, just because she was Trump's spokesperson.
That's absolutely incredible.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

On the contrary, I have remarked that there's something visceral in the United States: I have figure it out back when Sarah Huckabee, who is a very sweet and motherly person was chased away from a restaurant back in 2018, just because she was Trump's spokesperson.
That's absolutely incredible.

I see there as being hate, and even unreasonable hate, out there, but I see a lot of it as starting during the time of Obama. Unlike some, I don't consider it to be Obama's fault. To me, what happened is that figures like Alex Jones and other Tea Party people, for some reason being mad at Obama, sowed discord, and that there is now discord on both sides, but that the side where a lot of the discord started, now acts surprised when there is a very, very large push-back when they not only don't get the picture themselves, but fan the flames.

To be fair, while I am suggesting that I feel Republicans started it, to balance things out, I would also say that there have been signs of a bigger problem for awhile, where you can't really blame Alex Jones or Trump or others, or even the other side - Obama, etc.

To combat all this, I recommend more open conversations between both sides, whether in real life, or even on the internet.

 

[Secret Chief]

a very sweet and motherly person

"The Arkansas governor is turning her state into a mini-Florida, one hateful law at a time.

Much like DeSantis, Sanders has centered her governorship around demonizing LGBTQ+ people and marginalized communities.

In addition, she’s signed an effective book ban that threatens up to a year in prison for any librarian or bookseller caught supplying kids with “harmful” (read: LGBTQ+) material."

- Sarah Huckabee Sanders is following Ron “Don’t Say Gay” DeSantis straight to the bottom

Sweet.

 

[Estro Felino]

I see there as being hate, and even unreasonable hate, out there, but I see a lot of it as starting during the time of Obama. Unlike some, I don't consider it to be Obama's fault. To me, what happened is that figures like Alex Jones and other Tea Party people, for some reason being mad at Obama, sowed discord, and that there is now discord on both sides, but that the side where a lot of the discord started, now acts surprised when there is a very, very large push-back when they not only don't get the picture themselves, but fan the flames.

If the winning POTUS had been Cruz, for example, I don't think there would have been such results in the divisiveness.
I may be wrong...I guess it deals with Trump.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

If the winning POTUS had been Cruz, for example, I don't think there would have been such results in the divisiveness.
I may be wrong...I guess it deals with Trump.

There would have been some problems with Cruz. But, perhaps not as bad.

 

[Estro Felino]

"The Arkansas governor is turning her state into a mini-Florida, one hateful law at a time.

Much like DeSantis, Sanders has centered her governorship around demonizing LGBTQ+ people and marginalized communities.

In addition, she’s signed an effective book ban that threatens up to a year in prison for any librarian or bookseller caught supplying kids with “harmful” (read: LGBTQ+) material."

- Sarah Huckabee Sanders is following Ron “Don’t Say Gay” DeSantis straight to the bottom

Sweet.

I may disagree with the mayor of Florence on many issues, but I would shake hands with him.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I don't want to look overly partisan even if I do have a side, so to be fair, I also wanted to add that some people felt that Obama had "lied" to them about some things (the American public) to get in office, then changed stance after getting elected.