US Democratic voters unwilling to recognize systemic faults, perceive how they apply to their chosen politicians, or reason their way to incremental action beyond voting and virtue signaling. They’re the third of the country that watches while one third kills another third.
US Conservative voters unwilling to recognize systemic faults, perceive how they apply to their chosen politicians, or reason their way to incremental action beyond voting and virtue signaling. They’re the third of the country that kills one third while another another third watches
im telling you seriously its not the same statement. whil it demonstrates that the entire country is at fault, but with a nod to those who are pulling the majority of the triggers in the human killing devices.
I think it was clear what I meant: what is the point of repeating the exact same phrase. Your explanation was quite halfassed. Anyway I was asking so to understand American politics better as a non-American. You have not brought me any closer.
There is no point here as very few conservatives are reading this. It is likely that most of them are enlightened enough to see the faults in their own side. As opposed to the large number of democrat voters here who cannot see the flaws in their own side. There are of course democrat voters here who can see the flaws in their own side, but lemmy is in general an echo chamber of “left wing” and a large number cannot see their own flaws.
Seems counterintuitive, but I’ve had more productive arguments with conservative vs. liberal friends. By productive I mean to say, the conservative often changed his view, sometimes a little, sometimes a lot, sometimes a complete reversal. In any case, they listened to my points and would reason with me. They would often shift my thoughts or, at worst, I came away understanding, if not agreeing.
If one’s only experience arguing a political point is online, well, your mileage will vary.
Liberals, on the other hand, often won’t engage in real life arguments, at all. “This doesn’t bear discussion. I’m right, you’re an idiot, I’m out.” Try arguing a conservative take in a room full of liberals. You’re getting shouted down, and you’re not getting invited back. Winning hearts and minds here guys?
Both sides are religious in their online echo chambers, ears firmly plugged, “You will toe the party line, comrade!”. (Point goes to the online liberal, they’re a bit more lenient.) The echo is so strong around here, posts get down voted for having the impertinence to ask a clarifying question or so much as explaining a conservative view, even if not holding it. Fuck me, I’ve seen dozens of buried posts, posts that only stated a single, inconvenient fact. Hell, I check the negative posts because I often find an interesting take or new thought. Watch the down votes roll on this post merely because I related positive personal experiences with conservatives. No value judgements, just stating what I’ve seen in real life.
(Here I’m going to ramble around a bit, hoping I can get back on track at the end…)
Funny story, I was at a house party and wandered upstairs to find my dad moderating a debate (I forget the topic) in a room full of drunk college kids. After a few minutes he called a halt. Pointing to the debaters, he said, “You’re going to argue his view and you’re going to take his. Switch sides.” Momentarily taken aback, they wholeheartedly jumped into their new roles. I suspect dad timed that to teach me a lesson, he often said, “If you can’t argue both sides, you don’t know what you’re talking about.”
Pre-Obama, I used to be fairly conservative, thought I was anyway, listened to talk radio while delivering or eating lunch. One afternoon I realized dad would be ashamed to hear that I got all my views from one side. So I started reading CCN, that hotbed of radical-left boogeyman I had heard so much about. Let’s see what these liberals have to say. Well, CNN was anything but a hotbed of whacky liberalism, even back then. Terrible journalism, yes, opinions rampant in every “news” story, but nothing like the bias I had been listening to. (And here we are, back to experiences differing in real-life arguments vs. online, or on-air as the case may be.)
About the same time, Limbaugh turned me off like a light switch, never listened to another word after snapping off my radio. A caller was relating his experience with purchasing and installing a wind turbine at his home. Rush laughed, on cue, at the silly liberal notions of clean energy. OK, that sucks, but to be expected. The caller starts talking about the expense and hassle of hooking it to the grid. Limbaugh went off, over and over again, “You mean to tell me the windmill needs power to function?! Har, har, har!” The man was only trying to explain that he wished to pump excess back into the grid, get paid, but all in all, the system was a loss for him. Rush was a very intelligent man, knew exactly what the caller was trying to say, knew if would be construed as a benefit, cut him off every time he opened his mouth to explain. Fuck you Rush.
That last anecdote seems to contradict earlier statements. I guess what I’m getting at it that conservatives are close-minded when they’re in their echo chambers. Confronted with a live human being, they’re mostly pleasant to argue with. Bet money that, one-on-one, Rush would have argued in good faith. When contradicted, liberals come with “tell it to the hand”.
i put left wing in quotes for that reason. when you have two sides - republicans and democrats - then in the us the democrats are the left. However there are a large number of different issues and it is safe to say no two people agree on 100% and so dividing into two sides is wrong. Still calling the democrats left wing is often a useful simplfication even if not very insightful.
US Democratic voters unwilling to recognize systemic faults, perceive how they apply to their chosen politicians, or reason their way to incremental action beyond voting and virtue signaling. They’re the third of the country that watches while one third kills another third.
US Conservative voters unwilling to recognize systemic faults, perceive how they apply to their chosen politicians, or reason their way to incremental action beyond voting and virtue signaling. They’re the third of the country that kills one third while another another third watches
What’s your point by repeating this for conservatives?
its not repeated.
I’m asking seriously
The initial post says Democrats are the third that watch while one third kills the other third. The Conservatives are the third that does the killing.
im telling you seriously its not the same statement. whil it demonstrates that the entire country is at fault, but with a nod to those who are pulling the majority of the triggers in the human killing devices.
I think it was clear what I meant: what is the point of repeating the exact same phrase. Your explanation was quite halfassed. Anyway I was asking so to understand American politics better as a non-American. You have not brought me any closer.
How did the original comment enlighten you?
Who said it did?
There is no point here as very few conservatives are reading this. It is likely that most of them are enlightened enough to see the faults in their own side. As opposed to the large number of democrat voters here who cannot see the flaws in their own side. There are of course democrat voters here who can see the flaws in their own side, but lemmy is in general an echo chamber of “left wing” and a large number cannot see their own flaws.
Seems counterintuitive, but I’ve had more productive arguments with conservative vs. liberal friends. By productive I mean to say, the conservative often changed his view, sometimes a little, sometimes a lot, sometimes a complete reversal. In any case, they listened to my points and would reason with me. They would often shift my thoughts or, at worst, I came away understanding, if not agreeing. If one’s only experience arguing a political point is online, well, your mileage will vary.
Liberals, on the other hand, often won’t engage in real life arguments, at all. “This doesn’t bear discussion. I’m right, you’re an idiot, I’m out.” Try arguing a conservative take in a room full of liberals. You’re getting shouted down, and you’re not getting invited back. Winning hearts and minds here guys?
Both sides are religious in their online echo chambers, ears firmly plugged, “You will toe the party line, comrade!”. (Point goes to the online liberal, they’re a bit more lenient.) The echo is so strong around here, posts get down voted for having the impertinence to ask a clarifying question or so much as explaining a conservative view, even if not holding it. Fuck me, I’ve seen dozens of buried posts, posts that only stated a single, inconvenient fact. Hell, I check the negative posts because I often find an interesting take or new thought. Watch the down votes roll on this post merely because I related positive personal experiences with conservatives. No value judgements, just stating what I’ve seen in real life.
(Here I’m going to ramble around a bit, hoping I can get back on track at the end…)
Funny story, I was at a house party and wandered upstairs to find my dad moderating a debate (I forget the topic) in a room full of drunk college kids. After a few minutes he called a halt. Pointing to the debaters, he said, “You’re going to argue his view and you’re going to take his. Switch sides.” Momentarily taken aback, they wholeheartedly jumped into their new roles. I suspect dad timed that to teach me a lesson, he often said, “If you can’t argue both sides, you don’t know what you’re talking about.”
Pre-Obama, I used to be fairly conservative, thought I was anyway, listened to talk radio while delivering or eating lunch. One afternoon I realized dad would be ashamed to hear that I got all my views from one side. So I started reading CCN, that hotbed of radical-left boogeyman I had heard so much about. Let’s see what these liberals have to say. Well, CNN was anything but a hotbed of whacky liberalism, even back then. Terrible journalism, yes, opinions rampant in every “news” story, but nothing like the bias I had been listening to. (And here we are, back to experiences differing in real-life arguments vs. online, or on-air as the case may be.)
About the same time, Limbaugh turned me off like a light switch, never listened to another word after snapping off my radio. A caller was relating his experience with purchasing and installing a wind turbine at his home. Rush laughed, on cue, at the silly liberal notions of clean energy. OK, that sucks, but to be expected. The caller starts talking about the expense and hassle of hooking it to the grid. Limbaugh went off, over and over again, “You mean to tell me the windmill needs power to function?! Har, har, har!” The man was only trying to explain that he wished to pump excess back into the grid, get paid, but all in all, the system was a loss for him. Rush was a very intelligent man, knew exactly what the caller was trying to say, knew if would be construed as a benefit, cut him off every time he opened his mouth to explain. Fuck you Rush.
That last anecdote seems to contradict earlier statements. I guess what I’m getting at it that conservatives are close-minded when they’re in their echo chambers. Confronted with a live human being, they’re mostly pleasant to argue with. Bet money that, one-on-one, Rush would have argued in good faith. When contradicted, liberals come with “tell it to the hand”.
/rambling-nonsense
The Democrats are not left wing.
i put left wing in quotes for that reason. when you have two sides - republicans and democrats - then in the us the democrats are the left. However there are a large number of different issues and it is safe to say no two people agree on 100% and so dividing into two sides is wrong. Still calling the democrats left wing is often a useful simplfication even if not very insightful.