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

[AristotleAmadopolis]

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.



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



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.



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.

you can take that as a jab at you but i'm not jabbing but expressing how you come off to me. so i wanted to know how you view yourself. you say you aren't partisan and are against oligarchs but do you vote all blue every election cycle? that does not compute.

i will check out the recommendations you provided. thank you. in regard to the word utopia - it's greek word meaning "no place."

and there is evidence to suggest that trans ideology is being spread at all levels of society so i disagree with you that it's just an 80s satanism boogeyman re-appropriated to modern times.

cheers.

 

[Jack V Savage]

you can take that as a jab at you but i'm not jabbing but expressing how you come off to me. so i wanted to know how you view yourself. you say you aren't partisan and are against oligarchs but do you vote all blue every election cycle? that does not compute.

Well, I didn't say how I vote (not sure where you got that). Nor did I say I'm against oligarchs (against oligarchy, sure). That's a key distinction IMO. I think a lot of leftists are misguided on that issue. The idea that individual moral agency is to blame for societal problems (and thus that oligarchs are the problem) is decidedly anti-liberal. If we want a society that is constantly improving and that is distributing prosperity broadly, we want to focus on structures and incentives.

and there is evidence to suggest that trans ideology is being spread at all levels of society so i disagree with you that it's just an 80s satanism boogeyman re-appropriated to modern times.

cheers.

But there isn't really. At best, you can find what I call the Trout Whiffs Fallacy, after this video of the best baseball player of the past 10 years:

 

[AristotleAmadopolis]

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.

i'm honestly not sure. i mostly read history books about events and philosophy shit - sartre, nitzche, jung, plato/socrates/aristotle, viktor frankl.

but i'll try to check some of the ones you listed as well in that area.

i like chomsky (not right obviously) and i listen/watch to democracy now, france 24, dw news, rt (when it was on youtube), sky news.

 

[AristotleAmadopolis]

Well, I didn't say how I vote (not sure where you got that). Nor did I say I'm against oligarchs (against oligarchy, sure). That's a key distinction IMO. I think a lot of leftists are misguided on that issue. The idea that individual moral agency is to blame for societal problems (and thus that oligarchs are the problem) is decidedly anti-liberal. If we want a society that is constantly improving and that is distributing prosperity broadly, we want to focus on structures and incentives.



But there isn't really. At best, you can find what I call the Trout Whiffs Fallacy, after this video of the best baseball player of the past 10 years:

i am assuming that you vote and i am assuming that when you vote you for for blue oligarchs. i assumed you were against oligarchs but you are just against oligarchy?

but again, i disagree as i think there is evidence to suggest contrary to your point and when i have time maybe i will compile it (but i'm not sure what the purpose of me doing that would be honestly.)

i guess we don't know each other very well and the foundational line of thought/philosophy each posses. same would apply for other posters as well. which probably increases assumptions of one another.

i'm also not convinced that it is necessary to develop a society you envision. i think it is inevitable that some in society will have these grandiose visions, but the nature of the human being will never fundamentally change and so the "righteous" in control will impose injustices on others. there are others things to focus on rather than building a utopia.

 

[Jack V Savage]

i'm honestly not sure. i mostly read history books about events and philosophy shit - sartre, nitzche, jung, plato/socrates/aristotle, viktor frankl.

but i'll try to check some of the ones you listed as well in that area.

i like chomsky (not right obviously) and i listen/watch to democracy now, france 24, dw news, rt (when it was on youtube), sky news.

I've read everything by Nietzsche and Plato, and a lot of Chomsky. Can't stand TV opinion stuff, especially outright propaganda like RT. But, yeah, I think one of the issues in America at least is that it's increasingly hard for someone who is kind of reality-based to support the GOP. As there has been a brain drain from the party, the problems accelerate. Hard to be a Republican in good standing these days without affirming obviously false claims (the 2020 election was stolen, climate change is a big hoax, tax cuts for rich people supercharge the economy, the spike in gas prices was because of Biden, etc.--and that's not even getting into the fact that a plurality of GOP voters believe that God created the Earth by magic <10,000 years ago!).

 

[Jack V Savage]

i am assuming that you vote and i am assuming that when you vote you for for blue oligarchs. i assumed you were against oligarchs but you are just against oligarchy?

Don't know what you mean by "blue oligarchs." I didn't vote for Bloomberg in the primary. If he had better ideas, him being super rich wouldn't have stopped me. I don't think we should vote out of spite for rich people, but I think that we should try to have more broadly distributed prosperity.

i'm also not convinced that it is necessary to develop a society you envision. i think it is inevitable that some in society will have these grandiose visions, but the nature of the human being will never fundamentally change and so the "righteous" in control will impose injustices on others. there are others things to focus on rather than building a utopia.

I don't have any expectation of an end state (I think you're too hung up on the word--if you read that book I recommended, it's not about creating some perfect society). I think we can and should constantly push to address problems that arise, to continually build wealth of the society, and to try to ensure that it is distributed as broadly as possible without sacrificing higher goals.

 

[AristotleAmadopolis]

I've read everything by Nietzsche and Plato, and a lot of Chomsky. Can't stand TV opinion stuff, especially outright propaganda like RT. But, yeah, I think one of the issues in America at least is that it's increasingly hard for someone who is kind of reality-based to support the GOP. As there has been a brain drain from the party, the problems accelerate. Hard to be a Republican in good standing these days without affirming obviously false claims (the 2020 election was stolen, climate change is a big hoax, tax cuts for rich people supercharge the economy, the spike in gas prices was because of Biden, etc.--and that's not even getting into the fact that a plurality of GOP voters believe that God created the Earth by magic <10,000 years ago!).

but the podcasters you listen to aren't offering their opinion? of course news is attempting to manufacture consent, but by watching a variety of them from a variety of countries one can see the central arguments of the governments the news channels represent so i think it is beneficial in picking up more of the stories that may not be covered in us media and that helps one become more informed as to what is happening in the world as well as the narratives that are being peddled. in regards to rt - i liked that zizek wrote columns there as they were always fun to read.

i didn't know nor do i think that gop voters are made up of as many creationists as you claim. i also do not have an issue of people believing in religion or the possibility of god.

it's irresponsible to make claims that 2020 was stolen, but i noticed how you didn't mention that it is irresponsible of dems saying 2016 was stolen.

Don't know what you mean by "blue oligarchs." I didn't vote for Bloomberg in the primary. If he had better ideas, him being super rich wouldn't have stopped me. I don't think we should vote out of spite for rich people, but I think that we should try to have more broadly distributed prosperity.



I don't have any expectation of an end state (I think you're too hung up on the word--if you read that book I recommended, it's not about creating some perfect society). I think we can and should constantly push to address problems that arise, to continually build wealth of the society, and to try to ensure that it is distributed as broadly as possible without sacrificing higher goals.

pelosi, biden, clintons - all oligarchs in my eyes.

what do you consider to be the higher goals of society or civilization?

 

[Jack V Savage]

but the podcasters you listen to aren't offering their opinion?

I don't listen to podcasters. I think reading is inherently more active and critical. Big part of the problem these days is that people get "news" from audio and visual media, which inherently appeal more to passions and inspire less deliberate thought.

i didn't know nor do i think that gop voters are made up of as many creationists as you claim. i also do not have an issue of people believing in religion or the possibility of god.

it's irresponsible to make claims that 2020 was stolen, but i noticed how you didn't mention that it is irresponsible of dems saying 2016 was stolen.

Well, because the same thing didn't happen. I support citing drivers who are speeding but not citing drivers who are not speeding. Clinton conceded the day after the election, and Obama helped with the transition. The inauguration and counting went off without issue. Obviously Democrats, and decent people of all persuasions, were unhappy with having Trump as president, but that's not the same thing as attempt to overturn democracy that we've seen from the GOP.

pelosi, biden, clintons - all oligarchs in my eyes.

Biden's remarkably poor for someone who has had a high-paying job for as long as he has, actually. Generally, I don't think you know what "oligarch" means. But more importantly, contrast Trump with Pelosi. He was born into great wealth, and his sole focus in office was personal enrichment and to a lesser extent enrichment for his class generally. Pelosi married into money, but she has dedicated her career--with some great results--to creating a more fair, prosperous society. So, yes, her and Trump are both wealthy, but they are not in any other way similar.

what do you consider to be the higher goals of society or civilization?

Well, higher goals of civilization are not what we're talking about, as the focus here is just on governance. What I'm saying is that we have to balance the interest of broad distribution of prosperity with freedom, rule of law, etc. I'm not a communist or something.

 

[AristotleAmadopolis]

I don't listen to podcasters. I think reading is inherently more active and critical. Big part of the problem these days is that people get "news" from audio and visual media, which inherently appeal more to passions and inspire less deliberate thought.



Well, because the same thing didn't happen. I support citing drivers who are speeding but not citing drivers who are not speeding. Clinton conceded the day after the election, and Obama helped with the transition. The inauguration and counting went off without issue. Obviously Democrats, and decent people of all persuasions, were unhappy with having Trump as president, but that's not the same thing as attempt to overturn democracy that we've seen from the GOP.



Biden's remarkably poor for someone who has had a high-paying job for as long as he has, actually. Generally, I don't think you know what "oligarch" means. But more importantly, contrast Trump with Pelosi. He was born into great wealth, and his sole focus in office was personal enrichment and to a lesser extent enrichment for his class generally. Pelosi married into money, but she has dedicated her career--with some great results--to creating a more fair, prosperous society. So, yes, her and Trump are both wealthy, but they are not in any other way similar.



Well, higher goals of civilization are not what we're talking about, as the focus here is just on governance. What I'm saying is that we have to balance the interest of broad distribution of prosperity with freedom, rule of law, etc. I'm not a communist or something.

i do know what oligarch means. i dont like trump but pelosi is an oligarch and has enriched herself a lot. she operates in a blue-only district and has enough money and connections to prevent any new blood from unseating her. same as mcconnell.

there are dems on record denying election results so it's not just a red thing as you make it seem.

i was not implying you are a communist but curious from a philosophical point of view what you think some higher goals of civilization (yes it's going outside of the scope of the original conversation.) for instance - i think us become space faring is one ultimate goal.

 

[Jack V Savage]

i do know what oligarch means. i dont like trump but pelosi is an oligarch and has enriched herself a lot. she operates in a blue-only district and has enough money and connections to prevent any new blood from unseating her. same as mcconnell.

I don't think you do. She's popular in her district, sure. And you can frame that in a sinister way, but her policy record speaks for itself, and it's quite impressive and not at all focused on enriching herself and other wealthy people.

there are dems on record denying election results so it's not just a red thing as you make it seem.

So your view is that the GOP's behavior following the 2020 election was normal or similar to what they and Democrats have done in past elections? I don't see how anyone acquainted with the facts who values accuracy and honesty can say such a thing. Am I misreading you or something?

 

[AristotleAmadopolis]

I don't think you do. She's popular in her district, sure. And you can frame that in a sinister way, but her policy record speaks for itself, and it's quite impressive and not at all focused on enriching herself and other wealthy people.



So your view is that the GOP's behavior following the 2020 election was normal or similar to what they and Democrats have done in past elections? I don't see how anyone acquainted with the facts who values accuracy and honesty can say such a thing. Am I misreading you or something?

no that is not my view and i agreed with you in a previous post about it. i brought up dems because you have so many areas of criticism against the repubs but i dont see u voice any criticism of ur party hence my assumption of u being a partisan.

i do. and i disagree with your take on pelosi. she's no altruist. you can be certain of your position but it does not make it so in reality - just an opinion like mine. shit can be interpreted multiple ways. thing is i can say it is opinion but your political views that you hold you see as irrefutable facts hence again - at the end of the day you come off as a partisan.

 

[Jack V Savage]

no that is not my view and i agreed with you in a previous post about it. i brought up dems because you have so many areas of criticism against the repubs but i dont see u voice any criticism of ur party hence my assumption of u being a partisan.

Well, why would I criticize them for doing something that they didn't do? I think that would be a partisan move. Even to try to bothsides it. I think the point is to tell the truth no matter who it hurts; not to pretend that both parties are always the same, regardless of whether they are or not.

i do. and i disagree with your take on pelosi. she's no altruist. you can be certain of your position but it does not make it so in reality - just an opinion like mine. shit can be interpreted multiple ways. thing is i can say it is opinion but your political views that you hold you see as irrefutable facts hence again - at the end of the day you come off as a partisan.

Hmm. I'm at a loss to see how even if your accusation is correct it is an example of partisanship. In the sense the term is used here, I think of it meaning an alternative to having philosophical views or principles (i.e., going along with a party regardless of whether their actions conform to your ideals--for example, when people claim to be libertarians but then support Trump or DeSantis, I think that is partisanship). I'm consistently liberal, regardless of what parties are doing. And, yeah, I don't think it's merely a matter of opinion to say that Pelosi has promoted policies that have gone against oligarchy and benefitted the poor and middle class. That's just an objectively true statement. One might have different opinions about it (for example, a lot of rightists believe that post-market redistribution by the gov't is fundamentally illegitimate and immoral and would thus dislike a lot of what she's done), but that it has happened is simply a fact. Contrast with Trump, whose only major policy accomplishment was another tax cut for rich individuals and corporations. He also tried and failed to get a tax cut for income over $250K, paid for by cuts to Medicaid and to subsidies for middle-class insurance buyers.

 

[AristotleAmadopolis]

Well, why would I criticize them for doing something that they didn't do? I think that would be a partisan move. Even to try to bothsides it. I think the point is to tell the truth no matter who it hurts; not to pretend that both parties are always the same, regardless of whether they are or not.



Hmm. I'm at a loss to see how even if your accusation is correct it is an example of partisanship. In the sense the term is used here, I think of it meaning an alternative to having philosophical views or principles (i.e., going along with a party regardless of whether their actions conform to your ideals--for example, when people claim to be libertarians but then support Trump or DeSantis, I think that is partisanship). I'm consistently liberal, regardless of what parties are doing. And, yeah, I don't think it's merely a matter of opinion to say that Pelosi has promoted policies that have gone against oligarchy and benefitted the poor and middle class. That's just an objectively true statement. One might have different opinions about it (for example, a lot of rightists believe that post-market redistribution by the gov't is fundamentally illegitimate and immoral and would thus dislike a lot of what she's done), but that it has happened is simply a fact. Contrast with Trump, whose only major policy accomplishment was another tax cut for rich individuals and corporations. He also tried and failed to get a tax cut for income over $250K, paid for by cuts to Medicaid and to subsidies for middle-class insurance buyers.

again what i see is you are well knowledgeable about the rights failures and hypocrisies - i have no issues there, but the left you only see in a positive way. got to protect and defend your team at all costs it seems. you should get into politics it would suit you well. anyway - i'll take a look at some of those recommendations. have a good one.

 

[Super_Nintendo]

That America is still the greatest country in the world and it's principles are still worth fighting for.

 

[Jack V Savage]

again what i see is you are well knowledgeable about the rights failures and hypocrisies - i have no issues there, but the left you only see in a positive way. got to protect and defend your team at all costs it seems. you should get into politics it would suit you well. anyway - i'll take a look at some of those recommendations. have a good one.

I think you're resorting to outright lying and personal attacks because you feel fairly stuck on the actual discussion. Of course I criticize the left (and I have no team) when it is appropriate. And we agree that it's not appropriate to criticize them for trying to get rid of democracy because they didn't do that.

 

[IamStryker]

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.
.

Hormone therapy and double masectomies are done on minors. You aren't being honest in the least. It's also inarguable that society mostly supports this.

Socially transitioning small children is equally immoral as well.

 

[AristotleAmadopolis]

I think you're resorting to outright lying and personal attacks because you feel fairly stuck on the actual discussion. Of course I criticize the left (and I have no team) when it is appropriate. And we agree that it's not appropriate to criticize them for trying to get rid of democracy because they didn't do that.

don't inflate your ego to the point that you think you make people stuck and frustrated in the conversations. take it as an attack if you want but it's just an observation. you didn't say one negative thing about your party. i do not feel "stuck on the actual discussion" but i'm winding down my engagement with you.

 

[Jack V Savage]

don't inflate your ego to the point that you think you make people stuck and frustrated in the conversations. take it as an attack if you want but it's just an observation. you didn't say one negative thing about your party. i do not feel "stuck on the actual discussion" but i'm winding down my engagement with you.

What party? When has it even come up? I've said negative things about all parties many, many times since I've been here. You're just making up dishonest personal attacks because you don't feel like you have actual responses to points I've made, but you are also unwilling to grant them. It's a very common failing here. Similarly, I think there's a consistent pattern for rightists to avoid serious exchanges, as the goal seems to be more team-building than thinking.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Hormone therapy and double masectomies are done on minors. You aren't being honest in the least. It's also inarguable that society mostly supports this.

Your belief is that society mostly supports hormone therapy and double masectomies on minors? What percentage of minors are doing this, and what on Earth does it have to do with political parties?

 

[AristotleAmadopolis]

What party? When has it even come up? I've said negative things about all parties many, many times since I've been here. You're just making up dishonest personal attacks because you don't feel like you have actual responses to points I've made, but you are also unwilling to grant them. It's a very common failing here.

dude you're accusing me of doing the exact thing you are doing. and no, i did not see you once saying anything critical of the left. why don't you point me to when you did perhaps i missed it (actually don't who cares). i've agreed to certain things that you have said in our conversation but now i am "unwilling to grant" you the idea that you are right about everything? there is nothing dishonest about what i have said. and i've engaged with you for a bit - i listened to what you have said - i've taken into account your recommendations - and now i am ready to go focus on something else so spare me the bullshit accusation that i don't have actual response to the points you have made. here's some advice (personal attack) - you seem to have an inflated sense of self so don't forget to check your ego every once in awhile. it's a good reminder for everyone me including.