Opinion What are some areas that the left and the right can find common ground?

[IamStryker]

The "excuse" for asking you what you mean? I don't need an excuse. That's what one is supposed to do. You need an excuse for refusing to answer. And no, trying to discuss things normally isn't what "dishonest" means.

You saying the term is meaningless. It's what you tell yourself when you lie about it. If you wanted to discuss in good faith you wouldnt lie about our critiques with your "your just a bigot" nonsense.

 

[TankAbbott4Eva]

I think the left and right in Australia have a fair bit of common ground, the US the two sides seem much more divided which is a shame.

 

[Sir Burton]

The one bill that I think both left and right could ostensibly agree on—the banning of politicians trading stock— was just torpedoed by Nancy Pelosi.

The origin of the bill came from Abigail Spanberger, probably the only Congress person that I actually admire.

she’s the one in 2020 after the election, on a phone call with all Democratic members, who said the Democrats are going to get a “fucking shellacking“ if they don’t stop with the defund the police crap.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/...-democrats-need-new-leaders-in-the-house/amp/

 

[AristotleAmadopolis]

Ill come back to this thread when i have the energy

but i just wanna say

in spirit of the thread some of u guys need to try to discuss in a way to find common ground rather than feign ignorance or do gotch ya posts


I get disagreements are inevitable but the back and forth should also attempt to find areas of agreement.

the trans shit.
most would probably be okay with them doing their thing but are jot okay with it being peddled in primary school or irreversible treatments. I dont get why some on the left cant make that concession

 

[Jack V Savage]

Ill come back to this thread when i have the energy

but i just wanna say

in spirit of the thread some of u guys need to try to discuss in a way to find common ground rather than feign ignorance or do gotch ya posts


I get disagreements are inevitable but the back and forth should also attempt to find areas of agreement.

the trans shit.
most would probably be okay with them doing their thing but are jot okay with it being peddled in primary school or irreversible treatments. I dont get why some on the left cant make that concession

I'm certainly not feigning ignorance. I really have no idea what the "trans ideology" that Democrats embrace is supposed to be. I think the thing is that partisans want to tell others what they believe and it doesn't really make sense. It's basically a non-issue among actual liberals beyond the belief that people should be allowed to do their thing and shouldn't be unfairly discriminated against. Issues that matter are the environment, healthcare, the economy, protecting democracy, preserving rights against Christian attacks, etc. Republicans generally don't want to talk about those things because they have unpopular and objectively bad positions on those issues so they try to pretend that the key issue in elections is whether everyone should be forced to be trans or something.

 

[Jack V Savage]

You saying the term is meaningless. It's what you tell yourself when you lie about it. If you wanted to discuss in good faith you wouldnt lie about our critiques with your "your just a bigot" nonsense.

You're making up a quote. And accusing me of "lying" for asking a simple question. It's clear by now that as long as you live, you will never be able to explain what is meant by "trans ideology," because the attempt would immediately show that it's an empty buzz term designed to activate partisanship.

 

[USA!USA!]

I think the left and right in Australia have a fair bit of common ground, the US the two sides seem much more divided which is a shame.

It's because our politicians want this to happen, and its only getting worse. They want to villainize anyone who doesn't agree with them 100% - it happens on both sides.

 

[AristotleAmadopolis]

I'm certainly not feigning ignorance. I really have no idea what the "trans ideology" that Democrats embrace is supposed to be. I think the thing is that partisans want to tell others what they believe and it doesn't really make sense. It's basically a non-issue among actual liberals beyond the belief that people should be allowed to do their thing and shouldn't be unfairly discriminated against. Issues that matter are the environment, healthcare, the economy, protecting democracy, preserving rights against Christian attacks, etc. Republicans generally don't want to talk about those things because they have unpopular and objectively bad positions on those issues so they try to pretend that the key issue in elections is whether everyone should be forced to be trans or something.

the issues you listed are important no doubt, but to downplay the trans issue as just a partisan talking point is incorrect i think and it is also pushing away moderates.

if on one hand we have universal healthcare but a society that embraces irreversible sex procedures on children, and on the other hand we don't have universal healthcare nor a society that embraces irreversible sex procedures on children, i along with many others would take the latter over the former.

i will, when i have a moment, try to put together a list that highlights that trans ideology policy has been embraced on the local, state and federal level as well as institutional level including hospitals/medical field.

you seem knowledgeable on a lot of things, but for this particular issue you claim ignorance or downplay the troubling aspect of it by saying it's not a relevant issue because there are other bigger more important issues out there. well many (hopefully an overwhelming majority) parents disagree that it is an irrelevant issue.

 

[Lead]

You kinda want a system with just two parties to disagree on a variety of issues, otherwise you are shit out of luck for representation on a position you have. However, I think the two parties should agree to more fundamental items for the “rules of the game”. Everyone should be alert about balance of powers and making sure each branch is properly performing their role. I think prior established norms should be respected if they cultivate good will between politicians to work together and serious consideration should be done if it is reneged on. Everyone should be long term thinking in the sense they aren’t approaching a current event with the lines of what party it currently benefits but rather what remedy seems best after multiple instances of this being tested for decades to come. Other simpler stuff would be respecting the institution of our elections and not undermining them for political purposes. There’s probably a lot more but I’m mainly thinking the bones of the system rather than policy here as it’s perfectly healthy if there’s disagreement there.

 

[Jack V Savage]

the issues you listed are important no doubt, but to downplay the trans issue as just a partisan talking point is incorrect i think and it is also pushing away moderates.

I really have no interest in trying to change anyone's mind here, though you are accurately getting at why Republicans lie about the issue. My interest is accuracy and decency. I don't think there's any reasonable case that being harsher to trans people is a more important issue than any of the things I listed or many, many other things I didn't list. And I think it absolutely is just a partisan talking point.

if on one hand we have universal healthcare but a society that embraces irreversible sex procedures on children, and on the other hand we don't have universal healthcare nor a society that embraces irreversible sex procedures on children, i along with many others would take the latter over the former.

But you don't see how that is crazy? We don't have a society that embraces irreversible procedures on children, and it's completely nuts to think we ever would. Your point, again, just shows why oligarchs have embraced the trans scare.

you seem knowledgeable on a lot of things, but for this particular issue you claim ignorance or downplay the troubling aspect of it by saying it's not a relevant issue because there are other bigger more important issues out there. well many (hopefully an overwhelming majority) parents disagree that it is an irrelevant issue.

I get the sense that your understanding of what liberals think comes more from listening to Republicans say what liberals think than from listening to liberals. I think if you read respected liberal commentators, it would be a really eye-opening experience.

 

[Striderxdj]

What pretend? You're the guy who went from steadfastly refusing to answer a simple question to claiming that you answered it. And accusing me of lying for asking a question. IMO, you would have looked less ridiculous if you just admitted in the beginning that it was a meaningless term.

I can't remotely imagine stubbornly arguing for 4 pages that someone understands something that hasn't been defined specifically, instead of just explaining it...

It seems like if they specifically define what they mean, they would have to come to terms with the fact that the people they accuse of believing things don't in fact believe those things, and that is an unacceptable outcome.

 

[IamStryker]

You're making up a quote. And accusing me of "lying" for asking a simple question. It's clear by now that as long as you live, you will never be able to explain what is meant by "trans ideology," because the attempt would immediately show that it's an empty buzz term designed to activate partisanship.

I talk about the issues of gender ideology regularly in many threads which you are in. Hence how I know you are lying to just paint conservatives as bigots with no arguments. If you in good faith post one single issue of gender ideology that conservatives have a problem with I will discuss it with you. But you will stick to your lie. Durrrrrrr what's trans ideology? Durrrrrrrrrr

 

[Jack V Savage]

I can't remotely imagine stubbornly arguing for 4 pages that someone understands something that hasn't been defined specifically, instead of just explaining it...

It seems like if they specifically define what they mean, they would have to come to terms with the fact that the people they accuse of believing things don't in fact believe those things, and that is an unacceptable outcome.

Exactly. It's exactly the opposite of the spirit of the thread, too. If you keep your accusations very vague, you can group a lot of different people together and then use re-centralization tactics to attack everyone. If you're more specific, your attack might have more substance but it can only apply to people who hold the views you're attacking, which in this case, might be a half a percent of the population rather than the whole left.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I talk about the issues of gender ideology regularly in many threads which you are in. Hence how I know you are lying to just paint conservatives as bigots with no arguments. If you in good faith post one single issue of gender ideology that conservatives have a problem with I will discuss it with you. But you will stick to your lie. Durrrrrrr what's trans ideology? Durrrrrrrrrr

A question is not a lie. And you know how you can show that you're not a bigot with no argument? Make an argument! Don't just dance around and refuse to say what you mean. I can't believe you can't see how transparent your efforts are here.

 

[IamStryker]

I can't remotely imagine stubbornly arguing for 4 pages that someone understands something that hasn't been defined specifically, instead of just explaining it...

It seems like if they specifically define what they mean, they would have to come to terms with the fact that the people they accuse of believing things don't in fact believe those things, and that is an unacceptable outcome.

I wouldn't respond like this with any other poster. Jack is ignoring all of the critiques that have been made to instead act like Conservatives only want to attack trans people for being different.

I have zero respect for thise who do that and know better.

 

[IamStryker]

A question is not a lie. And you know how you can show that you're not a bigot with no argument? Make an argument! Don't just dance around and refuse to say what you mean. I can't believe you can't see how transparent your efforts are here.

Cool story.

 

[AristotleAmadopolis]

I really have no interest in trying to change anyone's mind here, though you are accurately getting at why Republicans lie about the issue. My interest is accuracy and decency. I don't think there's any reasonable case that being harsher to trans people is a more important issue than any of the things I listed or many, many other things I didn't list. And I think it absolutely is just a partisan talking point.



But you don't see how that is crazy? We don't have a society that embraces irreversible procedures on children, and it's completely nuts to think we ever would. Your point, again, just shows why oligarchs have embraced the trans scare.



I get the sense that your understanding of what liberals think comes more from listening to Republicans say what liberals think than from listening to liberals. I think if you read respected liberal commentators, it would be a really eye-opening experience.

your assumption is false. i listen to a variety of channels providing a variety of perspectives.

recommend me some books that you think are necessary reading and i'll check them out.

and to dismiss a concern that many have on the basis of us not being in such a society yet is somewhat silly considering that there is enough evidence out there to suggest that there is an attempt to create such a society.

you say your interest is accuracy and decency but go on to say something about how it's bad to be harsh against trans. i didn't endorse such a position.

and, just for clarity - how do you view yourself? to me you seem like a burrowed in partisan representing what you consider to be "righteousness" but are no different than the partisans of the side you have a serious disdain for. do you feel indifferent, dislike/disdain or hatred towards the other? you dislike the oligarchs, but do you vote for the oligarchs of your party every election cycle? do you just dislike the people in power or do you also dislike the people (blind/mute ignorant dumb dumb followers) of the party as well?

 

[Jack V Savage]

your assumption is false. i listen to a variety of channels providing a variety of perspectives.

recommend me some books that you think are necessary reading and i'll check them out.

I don't think most of the influential liberal thinkers are podcasting, as opposed to writing. Some good ones to read:

https://www.slowboring.com/archive?sort=new
https://noahpinion.substack.com/archive
https://modelcitizen.substack.com/
https://www.nytimes.com/column/paul-krugman
https://nymag.com/author/jonathan-chait/

Look at the titles, BTW. You'll see no promotion of anything that one could call "trans ideology."

In terms of books, I'm just halfway through one now that I'd recommend: Brad DeLong's Slouching Towards Utopia. One that's had probably the biggest influence on me moving left has been the Everyman's Library collection of Orwell essays, though that's not fair to recommend (1,400-plus pages). Side note: the man is spinning in his grave and rightist attempts to appropriate him. I dislike Pinker, and the book has some issues, but overall I think Enlightenment Now is a good look at the case for liberalism. Kurt Andersen's Fantasyland is another great one. If you like classics, Adam Smith's The Theory of Moral Sentiments is a key one. Another good recent one is Joe Henrich's The WEIRDest People in the World.

and to dismiss a concern that many have on the basis of us not being in such a society yet is somewhat silly considering that there is enough evidence out there to suggest that there is an attempt to create such a society.

But there is no such evidence. It's a lunatic scare like ritual Satanic abuse in the '80s or something.

you say your interest is accuracy and decency but go on to say something about how it's bad to be harsh against trans. i didn't endorse such a position.

I said that it's crazy to think that being harsher on trans people is a more important issue than things like the economy, healthcare, the environment, etc.

and, just for clarity - how do you view yourself? to me you seem like a burrowed in partisan representing what you consider to be "righteousness" but are no different than the partisans of the side you have a serious disdain for.

I think that's a personal attack that you're throwing out because I disagree with you about some things (I don't think there's much of a culture of reasoned disagreement on the right). I think you'll find that there's no one here less partisan than I am (and note that I was the only person who really took a serious stab at the question you asked). I do, of course, believe in always trying to do the right thing morally and in getting factual issues right.

 

[HereticBD]

I think you'll find that there's no one here less partisan than I am

<Lmaoo>

 

[Jack V Savage]

BTW, @AristotleAmadopolis, who are some active rightist thinkers you think are worth reading? I have read (and enjoyed) Russell Kirk's The Conservative Mind, Allan Bloom's The Closing of the American Mind (big influence on my thinking), Brian Doherty's Radicals for Capitalism, among other books conservatives have recommended. Current rightist thinkers I enjoy (though frequently disagree with) are Tyler Cowen, Ross Douthat, Bryan Caplan, and Richard Hanania (he's batshit crazy but fun and smart), among others.