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

[Saint Frankenstein]

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.

Doesn't really matter as nothing will likely change. This is had been brought up multiple times over the past few years and the problem is still on-going. What we can do is report every instance of bullying and insults we see, even if we consider the poster our "friend". There's a couple of people here who spend most of their time insulting others and trolling, basically just being extremely rude. So stopping that behavior and maybe banning people would help a lot. Basically enforce the forum mission.

Personally, I just stay out of the heated insult threads and refuse to be baited into political bashing in unrelated threads. I'm not into that sort of torture.

 

[Yerda]

The is some agreement across the political divide for the idea that we are being totally screwed. We could open with that.

 

[PureX]

It is true that it does not help when someone calls others "fascists". On the other hand we have at least one, no, I have to say at least two, posters here that regularly call anything that is left of US center as "socialism". In other words it is the same as calling the most liberal of Republicans a fascist. I do not see anyone on the left doing that. So when a person complains about being called a fascist perhaps one should ask if he ever used the term "socialist" in describing a member of the Democratic party. And when it comes to the socialist/fascist debate I would say that those on the right are much closer to fascism than those on those on the left are to socialism.

Also, "fascism" is a specific ideology and course of action. So if someone calls someone else a fascist and that person doesn't think they are, they COULD simply ask for how they appear to the other to be fitting that criteria. I, for example, am completely OK with being called a "socialist" because I understand what socialism actually is, and I am in full agreement with it's ideal and intention. And I am happy to discuss the many possible methods a society might try implementing it. If someone called me a "fascist" I would simply ask them how they think I fall under the criteria associated with that label, because I don't think I do.

 

[PureX]

The is some agreement across the political divide for the idea that we are being totally screwed. We could open with that.

Yes, this is true.

I happened to see one of those YouTube videos the other day where a "reporter" visits a Trump rally and asks his supporters why they are there. (I watched it because the rally happened to have been in my home town.) And the "reporter" was surprised by many of the responses he was getting. Because they weren't a lot of cult-like idiocy. They were honest, articulate, and deeply felt complaints about how BOTH parties have been screwing over the majority of hard-working middle class Americans (actually lower and working class, nowadays) for decades and they are sick to death of it. And they've seen no candidate from either party, in decades, that cared in the least about their plight.

They are NOT in love with Donald Trump. They did NOT consider him to be any kind of messiah. And they were NOT totally delusional about who he actually is. They were only supporting him because to their way of thinking, he has been the ONLY candidate in many decades that spoke to their very real concerns, and dared to call out the career politicians that have sold them out. And he was the only one that promised to actually do something about it.

Now, I don't believe for an instant that Donald Trump will ever actually do anything for those people, or for anyone but himself. But I can certainly agree with what they are saying and how they are feeling about the way the two current political parties and their lies, and corruption, and total disregard for the poor and working classes in this country, that now makes up a huge segment of the population. The segment without stocks and bonds and investments on Wall Street, and that never get counted when the government and their crony capitalists are making their crooked deals and spending everyone else's money.

I agree with them more than I disagree. Unfortunately, where we disagree is on the fundamental cause of the problem and on how to fix it. And Trump clearly ain't how. But I think a lot of them already know this. They just aren't willing to give up their hope that someone in politics will finally see their plight, and stand up for them.

 

[Revoltingest]

This illustrates the semantic problem. The definition of a word and what people mean when they use it is illustrated by Humpty Dumpty's words. "libertarian socialism" is subject to the "no true Scotsman" argument by some who deny that it's true socialism. But there are people who don't like government's control of the "means of production" but also don't like classic corporate ownership and want to see the people who work in a business own the business. The ESOP comes to mind as a libertarian socialist program.

I was not thinking of the authoritarian left but more in terms of the American left

"No true Scotsman" is different, ie defining something
in a manner to exclude undesirables who nonetheless
fit the definition of the word. Eg, even bad Christians
are still Christians as longs as they believe in Jesus.

The problem with "Libertarian Socialism" is the same as
with "Progressive Nazi", ie, two mutually exclusive terms
are combined.
Socialism, as defined by dictionaries, has "the people"
owning the means of production, a system which requires
an authoritarian government (as borne out in every example
in history, eg, USSR, PRC, NK, KR).

 

[YmirGF]

Yes, this is true.

I happened to see one of those YouTube videos the other day where a "reporter" visits a Trump rally and asks his supporters why they are there. (I watched it because the rally happened to have been in my home town.) And the "reporter" was surprised by many of the responses he was getting. Because they weren't a lot of cult-like idiocy. They were honest, articulate, and deeply felt complaints about how BOTH parties have been screwing over the majority of hard-working middle class Americans (actually lower and working class, nowadays) for decades and they are sick to death of it. And they've seen no candidate from either party, in decades, that cared in the least about their plight.

They are NOT in love with Donald Trump. They did NOT consider him to be any kind of messiah. And they were NOT totally delusional about who he actually is. They were only supporting him because to their way of thinking, he has been the ONLY candidate in many decades that spoke to their very real concerns, and dared to call out the career politicians that have sold them out. And he was the only one that promised to actually do something about it.

Now, I don't believe for an instant that Donald Trump will ever actually do anything for those people, or for anyone but himself. But I can certainly agree with what they are saying and how they are feeling about the way the two current political parties and their lies, and corruption, and total disregard for the poor and working classes in this country, that now makes up a huge segment of the population. The segment without stocks and bonds and investments on Wall Street, and that never get counted when the government and their crony capitalists are making their crooked deals and spending everyone else's money.

I agree with them more than I disagree. Unfortunately, where we disagree is on the fundamental cause of the problem and on how to fix it. And Trump clearly ain't how. But I think a lot of them already know this. They just aren't willing to give up their hope that someone in politics will finally see their plight, and stand up for them.

Politically, we are about as far apart as possible, and yet I agree with almost everything you have to say here. Your analysis of Trump is really, very good. I think the thing that some miss is that it's not that people have a lot of love for Trump. It's just that they do not believe the alternative is worth their support. I know this is a scary thought for folks on the left of centre, but not everyone thinks like you do or thinks your ideas moving forward are very wise. Believe it or not, there are some idea coming from the "left" that many on the "right" think are downright dangerous and need to be stopped at all costs.

Some areas that might prove interesting to discuss:

The efficacy of Climate Change initiatives
The efficacy of E.S.G. initiatives
The efficacy of D.E.I. initiatives
Should CRT even be taught?
Is SOGI a subject better left to parents than schools?
The role of censorship in a modern society.
The dangers of fighting "misinformation".

Etc.

My guess is that discussions, about any of the above, would almost immediately become deadlocked.

 

[sun rise]

"No true Scotsman" is different, ie defining something
in a manner to exclude undesirables who nonetheless
fit the definition of the word. Eg, even bad Christians
are still Christians as longs as they believe in Jesus.

The problem with "Libertarian Socialism" is the same as
with "Progressive Nazi", ie, two mutually exclusive terms
are combined.
Socialism, as defined by dictionaries, has "the people"
owning the means of production, a system which requires
an authoritarian government (as borne out in every example
in history, eg, USSR, PRC, NK, KR).

I'm not going to derail the thread any more but I will point out that our exchange is classic and one we've had before and one we won't resolve because both of us is convinced that I'm right and you're wrong. This is thus a classic example of how to disagree without name calling.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm not going to derail the thread any more but I will point out that our exchange is classic and one we've had before and one we won't resolve because both of us is convinced that I'm right and you're wrong. This is thus a classic example of how to disagree without name calling.

I think this exchange had some differences.
That's enuf for now.

 

[PureX]

Politically, we are about as far apart as possible, and yet I agree with almost everything you have to say here. Your analysis of Trump is really, very good. I think the thing that some miss is that it's not that people have a lot of love for Trump. It's just that they do not believe the alternative is worth their support. I know this is a scary thought for folks on the left of centre, but not everyone thinks like you do or thinks your ideas moving forward are very wise. Believe it or not, there are some idea coming from the "left" that many on the "right" think are downright dangerous and need to be stopped at all costs.

Some areas that might prove interesting to discuss:

The efficacy of Climate Change initiatives
The efficacy of E.S.G. initiatives
The efficacy of D.E.I. initiatives
Should CRT even be taught?
Is SOGI a subject better left to parents than schools?
The role of censorship in a modern society.
The dangers of fighting "misinformation".

Etc.

My guess is that discussions, about any of the above, would almost immediately become deadlocked.

These are also mostly just distractions being pushed by the very criminals in business and politics that are really the cause of our problems. And there will be no significant forward movement on any of these issues so long as the real problem remains unaddressed. And the real problem is that our government has become so fully corrupted by the legalized bribery of their rich capitalist cronies that none of them give a damn about the plight of the vast majority of poor, working, and middle class Americans. And until we put a stop to all that bribery, NOTHING CAN OR WILL EVER CHANGE. And sooner or later it will all collapse because their greed has no limits.

So conversing with our fellow citizens about anything short of how to end all the legalized bribery is going to be wasted energy, anyway. And the moment any of us actually begin this very real and necessary conversation, the corporate and political criminals are going to do everything in their power to squelsh it. It's the whole reason we are being given this endless litany of "social moral issue" to fight amongst ourselves over. And sadly, we just keep on taking that bait.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Some areas that might prove interesting to discuss:

The efficacy of Climate Change initiatives

What would that achieve? Since the vast majority of people are not climate scientists, how would they be able to accurately or reliably assess the efficacy of climate-change initiatives?

I believe it is essential to let the public know what is being done, why, and how, and there have already been (and continue to be), in the US and elsewhere, many discussions about the scientific consensus on climate change and the effects thereof. I don't think the efficacy of the initiatives can be determined by popular opinion, however—although I also realize that there should be tangible effects to a subset of those initiatives (or a lack thereof, since the climate crisis is already noticeable in multiple significant ways globally) that could conceivably be visible to the general public and allow some of the initiatives to be assessed sccordingly, at least to an extent.

 

[YmirGF]

What would that achieve?

You are, of course, quite correct. Why would mere mortals dare to trouble ourselves with such weighty matters?

And thank you for proving my point about deadlock. Thanks.

 

[Debater Slayer]

You are, of course, quite correct. Why would mere mortals dare to trouble ourselves with such weighty matters?

I'm not saying people shouldn't trouble themselves with climate-change initiatives; I said the opposite of that when I expressed my view that it is essential for the public to know about the effects of climate change, what is being done about it, and how. What I'm saying is that I don't think popular opinion is a reliable judge of the efficacy of climate-change initiatives in general, as opposed to a limited and specific subset of those. Do you think popular opinion makes any difference to highly specialized scientific issues or changes the evidence about them?

And thank you for proving my point about deadlock. Thanks.

Well, we're talking about an issue where the scientific consensus is unequivocal that it is an existential threat for humans and a cause of increasingly frequent natural disasters. I simply asked what it would achieve to ask laypeople about the efficacy of the initiatives that are aimed to address that.

This isn't a situation where the scientific evidence is nascent or highly questionable, so I'm not sure there's any outcome of downplaying or dismissing the significance of implementing climate-change initiatives that would not include a deadlock with many people who accept the science and the necessity to do something about the problem. Likewise, I have seen some people who accept the science reach a deadlock when trying to discuss climate change with some people who deny it, because the latter didn't want to consider the scientific consensus or the available evidence.

I'm open to discussion, myself, but you haven't answered my question about what it would achieve to ask the public about the efficacy of the initiatives in question. How would the public, the vast majority of whom are not climate scientists, assess the efficacy of any given initiative concerning, say, the rate at which ice caps melt, or the specific levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere? (And those are just two examples among many others that only scientists could reliably measure and assess with the rigor and detail required to inform major efforts that tackle climate change.)

 

[YmirGF]

I'm open to discussion, myself, but you haven't answered my question about what it would achieve to ask the public about the efficacy of the initiatives in question. How would the public, the vast majority of whom are not climate scientists, assess the efficacy of any given initiative concerning, say, the rate at which ice caps melt, or the specific levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere? (And those are just two examples among many others that only scientists could reliably measure and assess with the rigor and detail required to inform major efforts that tackle climate change.)

Hell, I'm already sorry I brought it up. Have a nice night.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Hell, I'm already sorry I brought it up. Have a nice night.

You too, although I was (and am still) open to discussing the subject.

Maybe another day, I guess. Enjoy your night!

 

[icehorse]

What would that achieve? Since the vast majority of people are not climate scientists, how would they be able to accurately or reliably assess the efficacy of climate-change initiatives?

I believe it is essential to let the public know what is being done, why, and how, and there have already been (and continue to be), in the US and elsewhere, many discussions about the scientific consensus on climate change and the effects thereof. I don't think the efficacy of the initiatives can be determined by popular opinion, however—although I also realize that there should be tangible effects to a subset of those initiatives (or a lack thereof, since the climate crisis is already noticeable in multiple significant ways globally) that could conceivably be visible to the general public and allow some of the initiatives to be assessed sccordingly, at least to an extent.

I don't recall "popular opinion" being put forth as an argument here?

What I thought I heard was the idea that we could debate a certain topic. Honestly, I'm not sure what to make of your response? It seems to me that if you're pro-democracy, you'd want the voters to be as well informed as possible. Almost nothing improves knowledge as well as honest debate. Am I missing something here?

 

[PureX]

We can talk or argue or debate about climate change til we're blue in the face and we're all experts, but until we stop our politicians from taking the corporation's bribe money hand over fist they are never going to do anything to mitigate the problem of industrial pollution, because it'll be bad for corporate profits.

We need small, efficient, (and inexpensive) electric vehicles for localized transportation, and modern collective (trams and train) transportation for traversing greater distances. But huge, way overly complex combustion vehicles that poison the air and enforce insanely expensive and frustrating and unhealthy urban sprawl is where the big profits are. And we do EVERYTHING in the country for those big profits, because the profiteers own our government.

We don't really need a lot of discussion about climate change, as we all know what's causing it ... greed. The same greed that is causing the whole gamut of our current social and environmental ills by it's corrupting our collective decision-making process (government). That has to be stopped first before any of the other problems can be addressed. So lets begin THAT discussion. How do we do THAT. Because until we do that, nothing else we discuss will ever be effectively addressed, anyway.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I don't recall "popular opinion" being put forth as an argument here?

What I thought I heard was the idea that we could debate a certain topic. Honestly, I'm not sure what to make of your response? It seems to me that if you're pro-democracy, you'd want the voters to be as well informed as possible. Almost nothing improves knowledge as well as honest debate. Am I missing something here?

The initial post I responded to proposed discussing the efficacy of climate-change initiatives with laypeople, and I asked what that would achieve. When it comes to the efficacy of initiatives addressing climate change, I think the only people who are qualified to assess that—and therefore be able to debate it productively—are scientists. A layperson doesn't have the sufficient knowledge or expertise to debate a scientist on such a highly specialized topic and inform themselves or others better, just as a layperson can't productively debate a scientist on the finer details of evolution, quantum physics, or epidemiology.

I think climate change should be included in more school curricula worldwide, and it is already a part of many. In my opinion, doing that and what I talked about earlier would be a good way to promote public awareness and knowledge about the subject:

I believe it is essential to let the public know what is being done, why, and how, and there have already been (and continue to be), in the US and elsewhere, many discussions about the scientific consensus on climate change and the effects thereof.

I'm not saying people shouldn't trouble themselves with climate-change initiatives; I said the opposite of that when I expressed my view that it is essential for the public to know about the effects of climate change, what is being done about it, and how. What I'm saying is that I don't think popular opinion is a reliable judge of the efficacy of climate-change initiatives in general, as opposed to a limited and specific subset of those.

Debates between evolutionary biologists and creationists have taken place on many occasions, but they don't dictate the validity of the theory of evolution (and indeed, there are still millions of people who dismiss evolution and believe it shouldn't be taught as a scientific fact despite the scientific consensus about it). The validity of the theory and the merit of teaching it are not determined by debate because the only thing that is relevant to either is whether the theory is backed by scientific consensus and evidence.

 

[Stevicus]

They are NOT in love with Donald Trump. They did NOT consider him to be any kind of messiah. And they were NOT totally delusional about who he actually is. They were only supporting him because to their way of thinking, he has been the ONLY candidate in many decades that spoke to their very real concerns, and dared to call out the career politicians that have sold them out. And he was the only one that promised to actually do something about it.

This, I think, pretty much sums it up, as I've made many of the same observations over the past several years. If those career politicians had been willing to change their rhetoric and to come clean and say "Yes, we have let the American people down these past decades, but we're sorry and we will try to turn over a new leaf," it might have made a difference.

Instead, they've doubled down in support of the same failed policies, and none of the establishment-level politicians (or their supporters among the hoi polloi) seem willing to even admit in the slightest that any mistakes were made over the past 30-40 years.

Despite all of the energy and resources expended to try to stop Trump, the party leadership (in both parties) could have saved a lot of money, time, and aggravation if they simply apologized and expressed regret and remorse for how badly they've mismanaged the country. But it seems they'd rather lose elections than admit to their mistakes.

 

[Estro Felino]

This, I think, pretty much sums it up, as I've made many of the same observations over the past several years. If those career politicians had been willing to change their rhetoric and to come clean and say "Yes, we have let the American people down these past decades, but we're sorry and we will try to turn over a new leaf," it might have made a difference.

Instead, they've doubled down in support of the same failed policies, and none of the establishment-level politicians (or their supporters among the hoi polloi) seem willing to even admit in the slightest that any mistakes were made over the past 30-40 years.

Despite all of the energy and resources expended to try to stop Trump, the party leadership (in both parties) could have saved a lot of money, time, and aggravation if they simply apologized and expressed regret and remorse for how badly they've mismanaged the country. But it seems they'd rather lose elections than admit to their mistakes.

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?

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

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?

I'd say that probably over 50% wouldn't marry a Trump support. Some would. However, some consider the idea a dealbreaker.

Say Trump were single, though. I think most leftists would never marry Trump.