1
6

[–] Kurplow 1 point 6 points (+7|-1) ago  (edited ago)

I think a lot of the vitriol comes from basic, ideological disagreement. The core beliefs of either side, if true, actively undermine almost everything that someone on the other side might have built on top of their ideological foundation. I encounter this constantly in real life. I talk to family members who actually get scared when someone disagrees with them on certain subjects. This fear, as it has been expressed to me, is the fear that they are wrong about everything.

Take global warming as an example. Those on the left tend to put a lot of stock into the work of scientists, whom they perceive as honest and learned. To challenge global warming, to a leftist, is to undermine their faith in knowledge and understanding as sources of human power and advancement. On the other hand, for someone on the right, the very idea of global warming being true undermines their notions that capitalist markets can self-adjust and adapt to any externality, as well as their core belief that the government exists, at most, to maintain competition in the market place (others believe it exists only to intrude into the marketplace). For those rightists, the existence of a problem created by capitalism, that requires government intervention to solve is completely unacceptable, it can't be if the world is as they see it.

Edit: some see a real move to marginalize any third parties, thus creating a duopoly of parties which can be simultaneously dominated by a powerful force.

0
2

[–] Pylote 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

You nailed my point of view on the left in your example, yet I am still very open to new information. I do feel like you missed the mark for a lot of people on the right, less about markets and governments but rather we as humans couldn't change earth that way

0
2

[–] Kurplow 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

So, you're right, that's some of it for some on the right. I didn't mean to completely and fairly express every motivating belief on either side (who could?). There are other motivations on the left, too: collectivism, social responsibility, fairness, etc.

But, to my point, most arguments on either side are upsetting to the other side (and deeply). I think that idea, that we couldn't possibly change the Earth, is religiously motivated; and, being a well-convinced atheist, I tend to disregard this opinion, as it rests on the belief that the world is infinite (which clearly isn't true) and only a god could affect things so grand in scale. In fact that argument tends to really bother me, because it runs counter to the most basic and foundational beliefs that I hold.

I don't know how to bridge this gap. The war of ideas is the war that is and must be fought in this century, in my opinion. I know which side I favor, but not which is correct.

0
1

[–] cynoclast 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Edit: some see a real move to marginalize any third partiesYouTube, thus creating a duopoly of parties which can be simultaneously dominated by a powerful force.

http://i.imgur.com/vl3rTia.jpg

0
2

[–] cynoclast 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

The choice between Democrat and Republican is not freedom, but a box to contain you. And for the most part, it has worked. By using wedge issues to the working class against each other along race divides, religious divides, over gun rights, over abortion, over unions, and teaching people to hate the poor they've managed to completely usurp democracy. America is a plutocracy disguised as a constitutional republic sold to its citizens employees as a democracy.

And it literally isn't: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig

The preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.

Sanders is the longest serving Independent senator. He's only running as a Democrat so as not to divide the vote. I too was an Independent until I learned that in order to vote for the only guy who makes his #1 platform issue to be the #1 issue with America I had to register as a Democrat because my state has closed primaries. I don't get why so many people who obviously aren't benefiting from any pro-plutocrat policies aren't for him. I mean some republicans are now pulling for Sanders, but none of them appear to be on voat.

That's the worst thing. I'm not even a Democrat really, but one wiff of left leaning views, I'm instantly branded as everything Fox has designated in the eyes of conservatives. Even though they don't remotely apply.

I've been trying for months to get any sort of reasonableness out of voat's right leaning folks and so far it's just met with vitriol, hate, ad hominems, and a total refusal to think. It's all kneejerk reaction and no substance. I'm not sure what to do about it.

0
1

[–] New_years_day 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

We don't need to set aside out views per say, we need to change the voting system.

The way it is set up now, there can only be the 2 party system we have, any other party will fail. (The Reform Party under Ross Perot)

Imagine if the same 2 teams went to the super bowl every year.........

We need change at the core, not on the surface.

0
1

[–] YourDumbWhat [S] 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

We don't need to set aside out views per say

True true. Nothing wrong with having and sharing your views on an issue. It's just trying to control how much of a factor team spirit is in shaping your views. Like, I imagine a Patriots fan is more willing to look past Bob Belichick's history of cheating than those who consider the Patriot's to be a rival. You pick some other coach with a cheating problem, and these same people may have significantly different takes on the issue. So it's not the nature of the cheating that determines your approach to rationalizing the issue, it's whether the cheater is on your side or not. Political affiliations are a lot like sports teams affiliations: we're much more willing to forgive the faults of those on our team, than we are of those on the other team.

we need to change the voting system.

Yes, well any change to the system at this scale would take an unprecedented level of bipartisan support. And those in charge of both teams have the most to gain by maintaining the status quo. So it seems unlikely to me that we'd get any changes in the current structure unless/until we can see past the team labels better.

0
1

[–] New_years_day 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Political affiliations are a lot like sports teams affiliations: we're much more willing to forgive the faults of those on our team, than we are of those on the other team.

Which i just don't get, our team, the people, is the side for freedom and Liberty, and what's right and/or good for the population.
But maybe that's why I don't pick a side, and i don't understand the rational of picking a side. Same case for me with football, I don't have a "team" I just like the game. I refuse to brand myself with a corporation and have it effect my emotions if my corporation doesn't win. Maybe if i had some money involved or my brother was a linebacker, I would actually have some affiliation, like you said.

Same goes for the parties, we for the most part have zero affiliation with a political party, unless an immediate family member is the majority leader or some shit. Just because they glaze over some of the same views we have doesn't make it black and white, we should have options just as we have opinions.

I'm just saying if you want change, it will have to be a top down approach, because this bottom up shit is exactly what they want to keep the wheels spinning in the mud. We won't ever get traction to move forward.

0
0

[–] W3a53l ago 

The lunch with killer Mike was a PR move to get the black vote, being that Vermont is 98% white. I understand you want to stop the rhetoric, but the interview you opened with is 100% rhetoric. Just like all political based rhetoric its filled with some truth, and tons of exaggeration. If you really want to start a discussion, where we take off our teams colors, start with yourself first.

0
0

[–] New_years_day ago 

Why do you feel the need to pick a side?

You want to set aside differences to have a logical discussion on this forum, but not on the government level? This right here is the heart of the problem, we are divided.

You also feel the need to state that you are a democrat having good discussions with conservatives, while referencing Bernie Sanders.

Do you really want to have a discussion about what you are talking about, or do you just want to shameless plug your party and your candidate?

And for the record, I am neither a republican or a democrat, or any other arbitrary label.

0
1

[–] YourDumbWhat [S] 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Why do you feel the need to pick a side?

That's the point, I try not to. My perspective on issues tend to favor progressives more often than not though, so I tend to get put in that camp whether I overtly say I am or not. Regardless, I try my best to make sure my stances on issues are due to my own reasoning, and not because "that charismatic guy on the team I like says I should believe this."

You also feel the need to state that you are a democrat having good discussions with conservatives, while referencing Bernie Sanders.

The quote was from Killer Mike, though yeah it is from an interview with him. This is a political sub and the topic of discussion I pulled from that quote from the interview, so to me, the link seems relevant. And the language I used in this discussion does not seem judgmental to me. Most political discussions will mention politicians at some point, it's not the mentioning of people that makes something biased and unproductive, it's how the issue is approached and discussed.

Do you really want to have a discussion about what you are talking about, or do you just want to shameless plug your party and your candidate?

Yes I do want to talk about this, and I've enjoyed reading most of the replies I've gotten so far. Is this a shameless plug? Not my intention, I've been at voat long enough to know which way the majority swings politically. This isn't about Bernie, it's about my desire to advocate for improving the mixed quality of discussion in comment threads. When people disagree with a view I articulate, I'd rather the top comment be the one where a poster gives an earnest reply about why they disagree, as opposed to a bunch of comments telling me to go back to reddit. Or just being called a faggot or pussy, without any attempt to interpret my views or enunciate their own views. I get it, some people are incapable of rational thought and so resort to insults to retaliate when they disagree instead of constructive disagreement, but why do these posts get voted up higher than the constructive posts. I've been around the internet long enough to not take offense to this stuff, but it's kind of disappointing to see their relative popularity and I think, "is this really the best you can do?"

0
1

[–] New_years_day 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Fair enough, And I just like to probe people just to see what their true intentions are.

And I applaud you for just wanted to have a rational discussion on this topic.

Unfortunately you are correct about the usual top comments, on here and reddit alike, they are usually half thought out shitty puns.

It's way easier to dig through the rest of the comments on this site though, as you don't have 1000 upper level comments to dig through, or have to "un"reddit to find deleted comments with substance,

2
0

[–] greycloud 2 points 0 points (+2|-2) ago 

on the pro-life/pro-choice debate, its your body and you have the right to use contraceptives, you also have the right to use multiple contraceptive methods (a pill, a condom, and pull out) in order to drastically reduce unwanted pregnancies and in the process reduce the number of abortions.

on the raise/lower tax debate, it is easy enough to just lump together wages/salary with capital gains, and to cut the loopholes and just make a generic income of all types tax that everyone pays. as well we could raise import/export taxes to match taxes on businesses and corporations that way it doesn't create an incentive to leave the country.

immigration concerns could be fixed by increasing the number of legal immigrants we allow and cutting down the process time. perhaps social security concerns could be addressed by optional buy in programs for immigrants.

gun control and free speech concerns as well as religious concerns could all just go back to the constitution. any debate about these topics is a non-factor unless someone seriously believes they have the power and support to override the constitution and add a new amendment. (these discussions are mostly a waste of time, the constitution protects the rights to speech, assembly, religion, the right to bear arms, etc in the exact same fashion that it guarantees the rights for minorities and women to vote).

we should be working towards automating more labor and means of survival. some time in the future there will be a tipping point that destroys the entire capitalist system. we need to prepare for that time, and to work towards it.

1
-1

[–] BoiseNTheHood 1 point -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

Translation: "shut up and let us control the narrative!"

8
-4