I think I understand them, I just strongly disagree with them – adherence to and placing very high value on Loyalty, and especially on Authority and Sanctity, have been absolutely vital to so many of the worst atrocities in human history. One can’t say the same at all for Care, though Fairness (or a poor attempt at it) was certainly part of various communist-inspired redistributions that ended in mass suffering and death.
You are, of course, talking about those well-known leftist states called the Soviet Union and China, which have murdered tens of millions.
Here’s a quick test: which of the two main political parties in the UK preach equality? Both do. And which practice it? That would be the right-wing Tories.
I’m not sure what exactly you’re responding to. This hails back to the principles sleestak mentioned that (in general) define liberals and conservatives – valuing Care, Fairness, Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity – liberals generally value only the first two (Care and Fairness) highly, while conservatives tend to value them all somewhat equally.
If you’re saying that the Soviet Union and China actually placed value on the conservative principles of Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity, then I guess you’re saying that they had conservative features that were significantly influential on the atrocities they committed.
If so, I’m not going to argue with that.
Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play? 
Austerity for the poor, tax cuts and private contracts for the wealthy is “equality”? I suppose if you mean equality in the Anatole France sense of both rich and poor being forbidden to steal bread and sleep under bridges, then sure.
My guess is that you have an equality/equity difference. Public Assistance as an example is inherently unequal. You are giving money to some people and not to others. From an equality standpoint, that’s very unequal. Public Assistance though is very equitable. You’re making up for opportunities that they don’t have due to circumstance.
Conservatives tend to think in terms of equality, not equity. They like things like flat taxes or across the board tax cuts. Those are very equal things. They are not equitable things though since forcing someone that makes ten thousand a year to pay 10% of their salary vs. forcing someone that makes 1 million a year is very inequitable. For the first person, it’s the difference between homelessness and shelter, for the second, it’s the difference between a lambourghini or a mercedes.
They also like things like personal responsibility because personal responsibility is extremely equal. You get whatever you can and no one else looks out for you. The ultimate equality is that the government does nothing for anyone. Of course, this is extremely inequitable since Ivanka Trump and poor Appalachian kid in foster care have very different opportunities, so an equitable person would say that society has an obligation to help poor Appalachian kid to have more opportunities even if it means taking certain opportunities away from Ivanka. Affirmative Action is another one of these equity/equality issues. Affirmative Action is very unequal. A white kid who has identical scores to a black kid is disadvantaged in admissions to colleges. A Conservative would say “this is unequal, they both performed the same, they should be treated equally.” A liberal might say, “The white kid had greater access to education and though the scores are equal, the amount of work to get those scores is not. It is not equitable that someone disadvantaged by systemic racism should be held to the same standard as someone who isn’t.” Conservatives value fairness, but what they consider fair comes down to this basic equality/equity divide.
Well, they also just plain ignore benefits if they’re unequally given to rich people or corporations. All of the public assistance that Walmart workers get, for example, is a direct subsidy for Walmart, effectively paying a large portion of what would be their salary budget, but the conservative complaint target is the ‘welfare mom’ and not the company who reaps extra profits by paying a wage so low they couldn’t have a workforce without the aid.
Do you disagree with my analysis in post #73, then? Tolerating Trump means tolerating what Trump says and does. There are some things that are deal-breakers to people based on basic decency. And there are some things that, while not deal breakers on their own, are definitely bales of straw on the camel’s back.
Trump has enough stuff like that that I think it’s honest and reasonable to conclude that no decent person could endorse him.
(Note: the presence of bullshit factories like Fox News does muddy the water somewhat - a person could watch that shit and have an entirely fictional image of Trump where he literally is the messiah. Fortunately for me, I also don’t hang out with people who are 100% composed of gullibility and stupidity, so being one who laps up lies is still no protection from my disgusted dismissal.)
This is way off base. Companies don’t budget wages based on what their employees need in order to pay their bills, they pay based on what the job is worth. Walmart would still pay what it does if there were no subsidies at all.
An employee of a company I once managed came to me one day and said “I just got a new car so I need a raise.”
I had to explain to him that things don’t quite work like that.
According to economics 101, if potential employees are getting $X in benefits/assistance outside of work, the salary they are willing to take for a job is lower than if they are not getting $X in benefits/assistance. Because they don’t need as much money to live on of they are getting those benefits. And the salary a potential employee is willing to work is half of the equation that sets wages.
I never talk politics with friends. EVER!
I accept friends for the people they are. The common interests and hobbies we share. The fun times and laughs we’ve had over the years.
I could care less about their political views. It’s none of my business.
Walmart has always paid minimum wage or higher. The idea no one would work for them without subsidies is fallacious. Do you really believe that without such things as food stamps no one would take minimum wage jobs?
I didn’t say that, and I don’t believe that.
I’ve wrestled with this over the past few years. I’ve known for the past 3 decades or more that the people I grew up around - and later moved away from but still keep in touch with - are more conservative than I am. And since I’m pretty much the one who’s moved about the country (and even the globe), the contrasts are starker. But it somehow never seemed to bother me because political shit talk barely ever came up among friends, or if it did, it was more like in the form of a passing comment that I just typically ignored or responded to with a sarcastic remark.
Social media changed all that, with platforms that give everyone an oversized social megaphone, and which have amplified the worst of our interpersonal characteristics. Ironically I barely posted much until about 2015 when this most recent campaign cycle began and I just couldn’t stand the daily onslaught of Hillary, Pelosi, and Obama hate. I got suckered into it and ended up posting my own drivel that people would either ignore, or react to if they got viscerally egged on enough. I got unfriended by 2 people; I unfriended one. I can’t say I’m the better for it. I’ve pretty much suspended my activity on FB.
It’s hard to imagine how we can get along but then I saw a documentary about this guy and it reminded me of what the real divide is about, and how it can be overcome. This is an old HuffPo article about Daryl Davis, who visits white supremacists, attends many of their meetings without incident, and sometimes ends up convincing a few to give up their robes. The article’s here but there’s also a PBS documentary (might be a version online):
The thing that struck me was that a lot of these people in the fringe groups felt that nobody ever listened to them, that they’re disrespected. Whether or not the feelings were valid is not the issue - that’s how they perceived their more progressive antagonists. Now not everyone who is right wing is on the fringes and some don’t feel disrespected at all; some are just arrogant and unwilling to consider anyone else’s input. But I don’t know…if a black guy can take the time to keep the line of communication open with active members of an organization committed to white supremacy, maybe there’s a lesson somewhere for the rest of us.
I fully admit that I’m not always good at following my own advice.
So, I’ve read through the thread, and getting continually agitated, and it finally hit me. As a person of color, the discourse here appears to be exclusively among/between white folks, and the discussion is all about why we/you can not see past political differences and just get along. I contend that the ‘gentleman’s agreement’ of the old political system was largely possible only by the exclusion of large swathes of people. And the right disproportionately benefits from that sort of system.
Some of you have hit on it, that issues of policy generally can be discussed on a good/bad spectrum, but when it comes to human rights issues, the spectrum is good/evil in nature. As someone impacted (generally unfavorably) by racially based policies, I can’t help but see those that forward them as less than evil- the best I can muster is misguided, but that only gets you so far, and I have no duty to subject myself to it.
I am actually really encouraged that a lot of my white friends value my friendship enough that when confronted with the jokes, the memes, the hate directed at me and those that look like me, they take it personally and can’t just agree to disagree. This is my personal perspective, but it holds true for other ‘identity politic’ issues surrounding gender, race, religion, etc. as well.
Sure. In an imaginary world you’d be correct. But in the real world motivations are complex and multiple. Some are worthy of scorn some are not.
So in other words, it’s OK to support David Duke if you doing so because you like his position on the alternative minimum tax
That meme needs to die. It’s just so inaccurate.
As compared to what? These things don’t exist in a vacuum. In my opinion, I think voting for ethnic militants of any sort is dangerous. But when there is something like the presidency that impacts the Supreme Court for generations the lines get very blurry. That’s an example of a difficult calculation one must make.
Politics and the real world are ugly. We worked with and helped Stalin to fight Hitler. The moral calculation for that one must have been fun.
Sure, but this motherfucker is worse than Stalin, worse than Duke, and there is no justification to fall to such depths
He probably feels much the same way.