I think pro-Biden and pro-Trump people will see different things when they watch the same political speech. I think we need to acknowledge that. I hope I don’t sound like I’m arguing that we need to negotiate with terrorists, but I think there’s something in between that and referring to the other side as a basket of deplorables.
I admire your efforts but there’s no talking to those who have eyes but refuse to see, and who have ears but refuse to hear.
Both of those speeches took great pains not to lump all Republican voters into the same "basket." Whether that's effective or not rhetorically (or lacked the requisite art to make it effective), I don't know, but they definitely did not say "everyone on the other side is bad."
I totally agree on the first point: no single entity should ever be the authority of truth. I’m certainly not going to rate pizzagate as “partly true” in a search for absolute truth. But getting close to real knowledge seems to happen faster when you include multiple viewpoints to hone our ideas.
Real knowledge tells us that the methods of hard science to create truth are largely incompatible with the civic realm. A speech isnt a white paper where you cite sources or test theories.
I hope that’s not how I am. A guiding principle is not to believe everything I think. Or John Locke so much more nicely put it, “For if the light, which every one thinks he has in his mind, which in this case is nothing but the strength of his own persuasion, be an evidence that it is from God, contrary opinions have the same title to be inspirations; and God will be not only the Father of lights, but of opposite and contradictory lights”
It would be nice to be able to reconcile as a country. But sometimes differences are unreconcilable. I think with the MAGA crowd, we've reached this point. It's been almost two years and Trump and his sycophants are still crying about a stolen election without any evidence to back up their claim. How long do you let this go without standing up and saying enough is enough? If the middle of both parties can come together and work again to make the country better, and see disagreements not as a battle to be won and lost, but rather chances for compromise, I think most of us here would be happy. Those that wouldn't be happy with this? The MAGA crowd. They view compromise as dirty word, and it's either their way or the highway. And when they don't get their way? It's only because of fraud and deceit. How long do you allow a movement like this to fester because you call it out?
I would argue that accepting that civics is no place for algorithms underscores my point about the need for diversity of viewpoints. If your problem is what is 5*5, all you need is a calculator. If your problem is what is the optimal construction of a social safety net, you better get yourself some other eyes to help you.
That's all well and good when it comes to basic governing questions like how much taxes should be or whatever. Diversity of viewpoints is fundamental to democracy that is true, which is why we need more democracy in this country, so they are heard. To get more democracy (or even to keep what little we have) you need to defeat anti-democratic and anti-pluralistic forces in the civic realm, which are also one of those diverse viewpoints. How would you resolve that contradiction? In the field of science, you seek many viewpoints to confirm truth, but science does not entertain "all" viewpoints, like those founded on say, magic or superstition. Just as science does not entertain anti-science, there is no need to entertain those that are hostile to civic society as a concept or treat their viewpoint as essential to the debate.
Why is it only bad when pubs deny election results? Karine Jean Pierre and Stacey Abrams have both disputed and failed to accept election results. Two members of the J6 Committee have a history of disputing and failing to accept election results. Why is it only bad when puts do it? Why does it only threaten democracy when pubs do it? And if you think only MAGA would be unhappy with compromise, let's see how the left would accept the wildly popular abortion compromise to a 15 week limit. Jesus bro.
Abrams and Pierre are both wrong. Both should have conceded. So should have Trump. Want a difference? Last time I looked, nobody stormed the GA state Capitol with a bunch of Abrams flags in hand. As for compromise, why not try and propose one. I think most liberals would accept a 15 week ban after abortion with two conditions. One, federal funding for abortions during the 15 weeks and two, a provision for abortion after 15 weeks in case of maternal health. I know I would accept this, and it would mirror most of the laws in Euro countries.
I was speaking in general terms. I keep reading in post after post people saying President Biden was attacking everyone who voted for Trump despite the evidence to the contrary.
Heady and fascinating questions, wgb. Indeed, even if we can’t agree on policies or politicians, we must have some agreement about the procedure to install them. This of course is usually enshrined in a constitution. This constitution can be amended, but it has its own agreed upon procedure for that, also somewhat paradoxically enshrined within itself. Perhaps, there are better ways to determine our leaders, but of course I agree with you that we can’t go around changing past elections without following those previously determined rules. Once we do, our nation probably ceases to exist in a real and fundamental way. I now realize perhaps I sounded like an election relativist to you. My arguments here have been about the much more prosaic question of whether the backlash against Biden’s speech was reasonable.
All I want is for the Trumpists to acknowledge they were supporting a guy who thought he was more important than democracy. That those who rioted and tried to overthrow the election are enemies of democracy. The bier hall putsch also failed.
Mitch loved the speech last night. He helped with the MAGA bad theme. Pay attention to who keeps quiet on the right. Some RINO's are hard to spot.
The truth doesn’t have a side. It simply is the truth. As much as we may want it to 2 plus 2 doesn’t equal 5.
An Italian who grew up under Mussolini, philosopher, and writer, Umberto Eco, made a list of the 14 things fascist regimes have in common. Take a look at number 4. Disagreement is treason. “The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism. In modern culture the scientific community praises disagreement as a way to improve knowledge.” Mitch has voted with Trump 99% of the time. But since he doesn't march in lockstep with the orange God, he's a RINO. Why? Because, "Disagreement is treason." Some of the other interesting things on the list include: The cult of tradition. “One has only to look at the syllabus of every fascist movement to find the major traditionalist thinkers. The Nazi gnosis was nourished by traditionalist, syncretistic, occult elements Fear of difference. “The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders. Thus Ur-Fascism is racist by definition.” The obsession with a plot. “Thus at the root of the Ur-Fascist psychology there is the obsession with a plot, possibly an international one. The followers must feel besieged.”
