"Research" tells us what we should already know about partisanship

[Dogmaphobe]

I would argue that this approach works fine, if we assume that each side has equal legitimacy.

For example, when debating whether to concentrate on offense or defense in football, this system works. If, however, the 'offense' side gets overtaken by a contingent advocating a six-tight end spread, dual quarterbacks, and never punting, then demonstrating understanding and listening to their schemes will only lead to this obviously foolish plan being considered equally legitimate as tried and tested defensive schemes. Then, everyone gets frustrated, people stop watching, and the sport dwindles away.

You have been comparing the views of MSNBC and FOX throughout this thread, which is fine, but the right-wing media picture includes a lot more than FOX. I would encourage you to also include the likes of Newsmax and OAN, whose views are indicative of the even farther, extreme right who now dominate the right wing of politics, and who have a lot more legitimacy now than they had even five years ago. There are no equivalent far-left outlets with anywhere near such popularity.

When a moderate tries to understand an extreme, it gives the extreme legitimacy it shouldn't have. In that case, trying to empathize actually harms the whole system.

You are just playing the same dishonest game as Mac by trying to define your lock-step orthodoxy as the norm, and anything short of that as "extreme".

You speak of "moderate" and "extreme" as inhabiting locations on the political spectrum FAR to the left of where they exist in reality.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

You should speak for yourself and not others. Respectfully speaking...

Debate is not the goal. Propaganda is.

This is just a naked attempt at moving the bar further and further to the left.

The goal here is to establish that any view other than the one that supports absolute complete governmental control over every aspect of our lives us "extreme right wing".

 

[candycorn]

I'm not talking about demonstrating THEIR accurate understanding, I'm talking about demonstrating YOUR or MY accurate understanding.

Yes. What is your “accurate understanding” of the massive voter fraud conspiracy that encompassed six states yet remains completely undetectable and involves every law enforcement officer, every court and election official in those states? What have you gleamed from those who really feel that this took place? And what are your conclusions.

 

[candycorn]

I would argue that this approach works fine, if we assume that each side has equal legitimacy.

For example, when debating whether to concentrate on offense or defense in football, this system works. If, however, the 'offense' side gets overtaken by a contingent advocating a six-tight end spread, dual quarterbacks, and never punting, then demonstrating understanding and listening to their schemes will only lead to this obviously foolish plan being considered equally legitimate as tried and tested defensive schemes. Then, everyone gets frustrated, people stop watching, and the sport dwindles away.

You have been comparing the views of MSNBC and FOX throughout this thread, which is fine, but the right-wing media picture includes a lot more than FOX. I would encourage you to also include the likes of Newsmax and OAN, whose views are indicative of the even farther, extreme right who now dominate the right wing of politics, and who have a lot more legitimacy now than they had even five years ago. There are no equivalent far-left outlets with anywhere near such popularity.

When a moderate tries to understand an extreme, it gives the extreme legitimacy it shouldn't have. In that case, trying to empathize actually harms the whole system.

 

[Mac1958]

I would argue that this approach works fine, if we assume that each side has equal legitimacy.

For example, when debating whether to concentrate on offense or defense in football, this system works. If, however, the 'offense' side gets overtaken by a contingent advocating a six-tight end spread, dual quarterbacks, and never punting, then demonstrating understanding and listening to their schemes will only lead to this obviously foolish plan being considered equally legitimate as tried and tested defensive schemes. Then, everyone gets frustrated, people stop watching, and the sport dwindles away.

You have been comparing the views of MSNBC and FOX throughout this thread, which is fine, but the right-wing media picture includes a lot more than FOX. I would encourage you to also include the likes of Newsmax and OAN, whose views are indicative of the even farther, extreme right who now dominate the right wing of politics, and who have a lot more legitimacy now than they had even five years ago. There are no equivalent far-left outlets with anywhere near such popularity.

When a moderate tries to understand an extreme, it gives the extreme legitimacy it shouldn't have. In that case, trying to empathize actually harms the whole system.

Do you think that this approach is not appropriate within a political context? It certainly seems reasonable to me otherwise.

And if it is not appropriate within a political context, why is that? Is it due to our own failures? I don’t see what is so sinful or counterproductive in demonstrating understanding of the views of another. That just seems like fundamental adult communication. Why would it not apply in this context?

 

[Mac1958]

It does appear that some literally, actively don’t WANT to have an accurate understanding of the views of others. That’s a story onto itself.

Is it really not possible to understand and disagree at the same time? Do we now equate understanding with capitulation?

 

[Mac1958]

Yes. What is your “accurate understanding” of the massive voter fraud conspiracy that encompassed six states yet remains completely undetectable and involves every law enforcement officer, every court and election official in those states? What have you gleamed from those who really feel that this took place? And what are your conclusions.

I don’t think it’s difficult at all to understand their position on this. I don’t have to agree with it.

 

[candycorn]

I don’t think it’s difficult at all to understand their position on this. I don’t have to agree with it.

Well, for us who aren't as smart as you...why don't you tell us what their position is? Also please tell us if it, in any way, reflects reality.

 

[candycorn]

It does appear that some literally, actively don’t WANT to have an accurate understanding of the views of others. That’s a story onto itself.

Is it really not possible to understand and disagree at the same time? Do we now equate understanding with capitulation?

Well, if you're betting on the New York Jets to win the super bowl, cool. I don't think they have a shot but it's your money and you can do what you want with it. No capitulation there. The person placing the bet simply chooses to ignore reality.

With regard to the 2020 election, there is only one President. There isn't an alternative government. There is only one head of state. And when you have people actively ignore reality, slander and libel officials, undermine confidence in elections, and stage an insurrection to try to stop the legitimate transfer of power... and they have the same loose grip on reality as the guy betting on the Gents...what then? Tell me...what is there to understand? That there is a large segment of the population that is brainwashed? That they are simply anarchists who want to destroy the entire governmental system?

 

[JoeB131]

Do you think that MSNBC's Joy Reid & Rachel Maddow are presenting and reinforcing an accurate representation of the perspectives, life experiences, priorities and opinions of the GOP?

Do you think that FOX's Sean Hannity & Tucker Carlson are presenting and reinforcing an accurate representation of the perspectives, life experiences, priorities and opinions of the Dems?

Really?

Why should they?

let's look at it from another perspective. If Carlson got on TV tomorrow and started praising liberal ideas, his ratings would sink like a rock.

The problem, Vichy Mac, is that you think the hosts, those partisan meanyheads, are the problem, and they aren't.

Their audiences are.

15 years ago, it wasn't Maddow vs. Carlson, it was Olberman vs. O'Reilly. They both imploded spectacularly for reasons unrelated to ratings or the content of their shows. The audiences just moved on to new hosts who articulated their views.

And this is the problem... you whine about partisans, but it's partisans who put in the effort.

It's partisans who spend time being invested in issues, understanding them, being able to argue them, campaigning for candidates, volunteering for party events and activities. But you think it's the people with no strong opinions who are only tangetially involved who should dictate things? Really?

Everyone on USMB is a partisan... Which means they spend a certain amount of their day thinking about issues, reading about them, honing their opinions.

 

[JoeB131]

Anybody who has used the term "Trumpster" thousands of times over to describe anybody who does not march in complete lockstep with his by-the-book D.N.C. politics has no business talking about others dividing us.

Um... okay.. the problem is with you Trumpsters is that you have abandoned any ideology to rationalize your mistake.

Family Values Conservatives have gotten on here and defended grabbing women by the pussy and paying off porn stars.

Security conservatives have gotten behind scrapping our alliances and withdrawing from the middle east. (Until Biden had to live with Trump's crap deal in Afghanistan, then it was the worst thing ever).

Fiscal Conservatives have gotten behind 8 TRILLION in new debt in one presidential term.

Law and Order Conservatives have cheered on the Capitol Rioters, and referred to the FBI as the "Deep State".

You kind of stopped becoming a political movement and started becoming a cult....

Simply put, Biden simply is never going to have that kind of cultish response. Already, a lot of Democrats are unhappy he won't deliver everything they want... In our bizarro world, 4.2% unemployment is considered disappointing.

Trump delivered nothing but fucking misery and Conservatives still can't quit him.

 

[Mac1958]

Well, for us who aren't as smart as you...why don't you tell us what their position is? Also please tell us if it, in any way, reflects reality.

Um, they believe the election was rigged, and they have laid out many examples of what they believe is proof.

Reality is not the point. It's what they believe.

And again, understanding is not agreement. Understanding is not capitulation.

 

[Mac1958]

Well, if you're betting on the New York Jets to win the super bowl, cool. I don't think they have a shot but it's your money and you can do what you want with it. No capitulation there. The person placing the bet simply chooses to ignore reality.

With regard to the 2020 election, there is only one President. There isn't an alternative government. There is only one head of state. And when you have people actively ignore reality, slander and libel officials, undermine confidence in elections, and stage an insurrection to try to stop the legitimate transfer of power... and they have the same loose grip on reality as the guy betting on the Gents...what then? Tell me...what is there to understand? That there is a large segment of the population that is brainwashed? That they are simply anarchists who want to destroy the entire governmental system?

Trumpism is not an issue, it's a symptom.

It's telling us that our failure to communicate effectively has created competing alternate universes. The research study from the OP tries to address that.

We can just keep flinging poo if we want, though. That's working out great.

 

[candycorn]

Um, they believe the election was rigged, and they have laid out many examples of what they believe is proof.

Reality is not the point. It's what they believe.

And again, understanding is not agreement. Understanding is not capitulation.

So the other side isn't dealing in reality.... cool. Does the political left have to be encumbered by reality or can we make up our own? Its pretty convenient. I wonder if the political right will just accept it....

 

[candycorn]

Trumpism is not an issue, it's a symptom.

It's telling us that our failure to communicate effectively has created competing alternate universes. The research study from the OP tries to address that.

We can just keep flinging poo if we want, though. That's working out great.

You're saying we should act like adults...right? Isn't part of that living in reality and accepting the fact that your candidate lost?

 

[Mac1958]

You're saying we should act like adults...right? Isn't part of that living in reality and accepting the fact that your candidate lost?

Well, maybe we're fucked, I don't know.

Just passing on an idea.

 

[JoeB131]

Well, maybe we're fucked, I don't know.

Just passing on an idea.

Or maybe the world will just go on as it always has...

You keep acting like this is something new...

To me, at 60 years old, all the stuff you've been whining about has gone on for most of my lifetime...

 

[candycorn]

Well, maybe we're fucked, I don't know.

Just passing on an idea.

I disagree.

Nothing lasts forever and eventually whatever -ism is dominant today is replaced with another -ism.

What is getting really troublesome if you love the nation and it's institutions is that this denial of reality is just the latest in what is becoming a decades long denial-fest. Starting with Obama's birth certificate, extending through the Clintons supposedly rubbing out people close to them, to the claims that Mexico will pay for a wall to the voter fraud allegations.

You say it has nothing to do with Trump... Again I disagree. The only difference between Hannity and Limbaugh and the blob is that the blob doesn't have a formal broadcast platform. All 3 do one thing...tell you exactly what you want to hear, never speak of sacrifice, never acknowledge any time they are incorrect and, since, to your point, we're in our own bubbles on the left as well (although there is some tether to reality over here in the light) we don't correct the record since we don't pay attention to the shit show.

Eventually it will pass. What I think will be interesting to see is how the right wing comes back home and pretends that they were never as batshit crazy as we all know them to be.

If the left were remotely organized--even a little bit--they could be making great inroads on every front.

 

[Muhammed]

So back to my question from above: Do you think that MSNBC's Joy Reid & Rachel Maddow are presenting and reinforcing an accurate representation of the perspectives, life experiences, priorities and opinions of the GOP?

Realistically. Nope.

They lack integrity.