Is that really true? If I run off in some odd factional direction, but you stay in the same place, we now have 2 factional poles. What action of yours produced this polarization? None, I’m the one who moved, so I created the polarity.
That’s not to say I’m wrong. Maybe I radicalized and went off the deep end, but maybe I incorporated new information that you don’t have, and don’t want to process. Perhaps the radical is the right person here. But the simple existence of polarization is not automatically a fault or flaw. The person who has the best information and applied the best judgment shouldn’t budge, and shouldn’t bear the burden of budging someone who doesn’t want to move.
Underlying this whole debate is a sort of epistemic helplessness of “who’s to judge whether QAnon is wrong.” I am. You are. If you’re in a position to do so, then you should push back as hard as you can on bullshit, don’t just recline to the platitudinous beard-stroking pose of “we have to hear everything, who’s to say what’s right.”
I think more importantly, it’s not symbolic logic when people and beliefs are evaluated and compared. In other words the transitive property (A = B, B = C, therefore A =C) doesn’t always apply because it’s not always “All” or equal signs being used.
There’s too much FUD, false equivalencies, and other stuff muddying the waters to accurately draw that sort of conclusion.
For example, if you take the idea that (A) Person A opposes BLM, and that (B) all who oppose BLM are racist, you would be inclined to believe that (C) Person A is racist.
But that isn’t necessarily the case, and it’s because statement B isn’t necessarily true. There are a lot of law and order / pearl-clutching fearful people who bought into the whole narrative that BLM was about putting criminals ahead of cops and about defunding the police. They may not be racist, but they also may think that their version of civil order is more important than potential race-related collateral damage. So in statement B, the “All who oppose” is the part that isn’t true.
People tend to generalize like this all the time though, and in my observations, that’s what screws things up- this sort of ironclad conviction that they know the score, and that their convictions are right, without any allowance that they might not know the whole story, or that they’re overgeneralizing.
One side looked at the world and said, “too many people are dying in our streets, sidewalks would help,” and it’s not those people who come out of the woodwork crying “war on cars!” or “mah freedumz” and “neighborhood character” to try to justify doing nothing.
I do think the general trend of one particular political party to discredit anything and everything government does, and which actively sabotages said government from the inside, is at the root of much of the polarization.
History is replete with people being persuaded. The whole New Testament is about people being persuaded.
Yes, that’s part of the problem. It’s “those people” coming from the left. It’s people racing to virtue signal and not listening with an opportunity for forgiveness.
With respect, the Republican candidate for superintendent in my state has called for a pay-per-view live execution of her political enemies (Obama and others) and has called schools “socialist indoctrination centers.” The Republican candidate for governor in my state believes that Black Panther is a character created by “an agnostic Jew” in order “to pull the shekels out of your Schvartze pockets,” and says that gay people are equivalent to “what the cows leave behind.”
I’m struggling to see that it’s the left that bears primary responsibility for polarization.
So here we see soneone who when given any examples of extremism on the right, will respond with “that’s one, two, (X) individuals (ETA or, ‘cite please I don’t believe you’ )” , all the while pointing to extremism of the left as somehow self-evident and not subject to the same refutation.
Oh, I’m happy to give cites. And it’s not “two people,” it’s “the two people nominated by one political party for the highest office in my state, and the highest office in my profession.” It’s two people with the backing of tens of thousands of people. The point is, one political party is driving polarization in a way that the other party absolutely isn’t. There is no gubernatorial candidate on the left equivalent to Mark Robinson, to the best of my knowledge, and there is not state superintendent equivalent to Michelle Morrow.
And I think the issue in this thread isn’t so much polarization on individual topics separately; but about lumping topics together and assuming that the person who holds x opinion also must hold a,b,c, and d.
Which manifests in different forms, though they may go together.
There’s ‘I can’t talk to them about b because they hold x’.
There’s ‘they won’t talk to me about b because they hold x and I hold y’.
There’s ‘I hold x and therefore I must change my previous opinons about a and b to match, and form my opinion about c on which I didn’t have one so that it will match x instead of actually looking for facts about it and deciding that independently.’
There’s what I think the OP started with, which is ‘nobody can really hold x unless they also hold the matching opinion on a, b, and c.’
Those I think are all problems, with the exception that depending on what x is one might decide that one doesn’t want to talk to the person about anything at all. If somebody’s x is that they think I, all of my relatives, and anybody who agrees with us should have our citizenship revoked and be murdered, enslaved, or thrown out of the country – I hope somebody can talk to them; but most of the time it’s not going to be me.
And if somebody says c, and in most circumstances I know of c is strongly aligned with x – I’m going to be cautious. Maybe they don’t mean x. Maybe they’re just ignorant of the association, or trying deliberately to separate c from x. But a strong association is reason for caution.
Yeah. And I do think that party has rather painted itself into a corner. They can’t, now, get any of the things done that they used to say were actually worth doing; because the ‘government only breaks things’ attitude combined with the attitude that ‘we mustn’t do anything that might make the other guy look good!’ means that they can’t in effect do anything at all. Something’s bound to break eventually; but it may break in the direction of massive destruction – which will take all or most of them down with it; along with, very unfortunately, at least temporarily the rest of the country. But the first ones to break in any other direction will be punished by the others.
Unfortunately, for reasons unclear to me, they’ve still got enough backing to keep the rest of us to a large extent jammed into that corner with them.
Who got nominated by a batch of others. Are they being denounced by the rest of the party? – The Republican party did use to do things like that, years ago. Quite a few of them denounced David Duke, when he managed to get on the ballot in their name.
What I get is a lot of people making assumptions that if I hold X, and Y, then I must hold Z, AA, and AB. Or more often, that if I hold certain positions on X and Y, then my position on Z must be as far to the left or right as my positions on X and Y. And the flip’s true- people also will assume that if I hold a position on Z, then my positions on X and Y are aligned.
Which isn’t true at all for many people- political beliefs aren’t a “combo” where you sign up for a whole slate of beliefs that all align with each other. They’re more a-la-carte, where you choose the ones you agree with.
This is very often true; and more often ought to be.
Though it’s true that some things are genuinely closely connected – few people are genuinely opposed to continued use of fossil fuels but in favor of fracking, for instance; or genuinely opposed to racism but in favor of separate schools for “white” and “Black” children – for a lot of issues that have recently become considered to be connected I don’t think there’s any such essential connection.
Right- just because I’m strongly in favor of using less fossil fuels, carbon cap and trade, and mitigating global warming, it does NOT follow that I’m also in favor of a UBI or that I’m on board with a wealth tax. Nor does it mean that I’m for a jobs guarantee or anything like that.
Only when they want to be persuaded. People who don’t want to be persuaded are not persuadable.
This is a good explanation of exactly how some people pretend to be open to persuasion while actively shutting down any source of new information. They dismiss anything they don’t want to hear as “virtue signaling”. They expect head-pats and attaboys for considering new factual information, and refuse to budge if gushing approval isn’t on offer.
None of that really matters, though. They’re mostly not going to change their mind, and all of the hoo-hah about “virtue signaling” is just an excuse not to budge an inch.
Did this actually happen - someone accused you of favoring UBI because you favored mitigating global warming, or is this another form of the algebraic contrivance of “if I believe X you mustn’t automatically that I believe Y”?
It really feels like we’re deliberately bowdlerizing the topics involved so that we can stay in the safe conversational zone of “you shouldn’t assume people’s beliefs”. There are certain beliefs that are extremely telling as to how the person acquired that belief, and are a strong indicator that they’re likely to hold a number of other beliefs from the same source, which are equally likely to be fallacious and unexamined.
It’s not 100% reliable of course, but it’s an incredible time-saver to be able to hear a person saying “I believe the earth is flat”, and understand that this is an incurious person with a child’s media consumption habits, who pursues debate as a source of entertainment and attention-seeking rather than illumination. People’s beliefs can definitely tell us a priori what they believe about other things, and the likelihood that they’ll ever process new information, or that they’ll share any novel insights that aren’t already running wild across social media.
One other reason we’re polarized is because, fundamentally, we’ve got two groups of people who want to exterminate each other’s way of thinking. Not necessarily exterminate as in actual killing of physical people, but as in putting to death each other’s viewpoint and ideology.
Progressives would like a world in which MAGA mindset is totally eradicated, and vice versa.
You can’t really find common ground when the other side intends, not common ground, but extermination.
Strong disagree. In my experience, Progressives (in general to be clear) think that their ideas are and should be self-evidently superior, and that if people listened and responded with best intentions (or at least, enlightened self-interest) that a large majority would embrace them, and that majority is sufficient to carry forth their efforts, even benefitting those who disagree with them.
Conservatives, at least in the case of the US MAGA party, don’t care what happens to anyone who doesn’t share their values, and will happily take action to forcibly stop those who don’t agree from pushing their ideas forward, including increasing threats of, and use of violence. So they’re perfectly happy with a perpetual minority rule as long as it’s THEIR minority ruling, with an actual spoken desire to eliminate those who disagree with them.
My continued existence and failure to move with you contributes exactly one half to the distance between us. Think about if instead of you just being one person, you were 9,999 people moving and me not budging. I’m hard pressed to say I haven’t contributed to a polarized environment. Polarization is relative. It might as well be me moving and the other 9,999 staying put.
We could come to a compromise in the middle. Or either of us can unilaterally depolarize the situation by moving to the other, if we really wanted to. I also noted, in both of my posts, that while we could do so, that doesn’t mean we should. As you say, “the simple existence of polarization is not automatically a fault or flaw”.