2 2
Bigfalls

Presidental Debate

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, mbohu said:

 

I think it goes deeper, and it actually is a problem for progressives that we do not really understand the conservative's perspective on these issues and programs. I think they really believe that it is morally wrong to give things to people who have not specifically earned them. They do not see this as helping them at all. They see this as robbing them of the chance of developing the capacity to earn it for themselves (and if they cannot or will not do that, then they see them as simply bad people, who should not be supported in the first place.)
This runs so counter to the idea of sharing and nurturing and supporting, that is central to the progressive model, that we simply think they (the conservatives) are either selfish or stupid or evil--but that misses the point and robs us of an opportunity to influence them where we can. (...or even have a meaningful conversation about these issues)

If anyone has the time, this is a great article, but it requires reading past ⅓ to even get to this point:

George Lakoff on the strict father model

mbohu,

It is that, no doubt. I personally believe the disconnect happens at the level of the brain. Evolution being a fact, we should expect a variety of brain organizations. We should also expect brain chemistry variations. But we should also expect imperfect characterizations and groupings as we try to make sense of it all. All liberals, including me for example, aren't fully "liberal". All conservatives, Billvon comes to mind, aren't full on conservatives. But just as big groups of liberals think a more equal division of everything is sensible, big groups of conservatives think sharing on principle is senseless. Kind of sort of, unless some outside force causes us unbearable pain, we think and believe according to our wiring and chemistry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JoeWeber said:

Then you know about me, that's sure. No GOP Senator up for election should be allowed to avoid addressing the issue between now and November 3. Again and again. 

You know exactly what they are going to say.

"Well, you should ask the president that.  I wasn't there.  And he didn't say it anyway.  And you know, what he said could have been interpreted a lot of ways.  He also said 'stand down.'  That was a criticism of the Proud Boys, right?  He basically ordered them to do no more.  He's a hero.  But you'll never hear that from the lying leftist media."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, billvon said:

You know exactly what they are going to say.

"Well, you should ask the president that.  I wasn't there.  And he didn't say it anyway.  And you know, what he said could have been interpreted a lot of ways.  He also said 'stand down.'  That was a criticism of the Proud Boys, right?  He basically ordered them to do no more.  He's a hero.  But you'll never hear that from the lying leftist media."

More likely, it's like: are you serious? The President is a racist? That's ridiculous. The President loves the colored. In fact, he is one of the colored. Are you saying orange isn't a color?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

But we should also expect imperfect characterizations and groupings as we try to make sense of it all. All liberals, including me for example, aren't fully "liberal". All conservatives, Billvon comes to mind, aren't full on conservatives.

Absolutely. Great point. People also tend to be holding different beliefs in different areas of their lives, so they may believe in nurturance in the family (progressive) and in strict authority in politics and economics (conservative)

...and of course the terms progressive and conservative (or left and right) are way too limiting. I prefer to look at a multitude of scales to define political positions and most have a side that is often associated with progressive and the other conservative, but it doesn't always match. For example (let's say left is mostly progressive & right mostly conservative):

Collectivist--Individualist
Nurturing Parent--Strict Father
Exterior Causation--Interior Causation (as the primary factor for where to look for problems/solutions)
Stepping on the gas--stepping on the brakes (in terms of evolution/change/progress)
Liberalism--Authoritarianism

Of course on that last one people may disagree strongly. I think the way I sorted it was how I used to perceive it (that the right is generally authoritarian). I am sure libertarians would disagree, but also parts of the left may now disagree (if not admittedly so, but through their actions and beliefs); so that one can certainly go either way.
There are more, I'm sure.

Again though, I think understanding where the other side is really coming from (not just thinking they are stupid, misinformed or evil--because we KNOW they don't see themselves as such) is critical if we want to have any chance of having any power for change.   ---not because it is a nice thing, but because it gives us power, and of course it is also just soooo much more interesting.
I know, not a popular attitude here...or pretty much anywhere else on "the Internets"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, mbohu said:

 

I think it goes deeper, and it actually is a problem for progressives that we do not really understand the conservative's perspective on these issues and programs. I think they really believe that it is morally wrong to give things to people who have not specifically earned them. They do not see this as helping them at all. They see this as robbing them of the chance of developing the capacity to earn it for themselves (and if they cannot or will not do that, then they see them as simply bad people, who should not be supported in the first place.)
This runs so counter to the idea of sharing and nurturing and supporting, that is central to the progressive model, that we simply think they (the conservatives) are either selfish or stupid or evil--but that misses the point and robs us of an opportunity to influence them where we can. (...or even have a meaningful conversation about these issues)

If anyone has the time, this is a great article, but it requires reading past ⅓ to even get to this point:

George Lakoff on the strict father model

Whilst I agree with your point, and I think it's valid for some elites who grew up privileged / rich...  I do think that the US as a nation has a long history of vilifying things without understanding them.  Reading Carl Marx a few years back might as well have meant that you also believed in eating human babies and murdering kittens...  Nazis (and by extension, Germans) were by definition ALL evil...  Russians are all psychopathic mob bosses...  Muslims (and by extension all "brown" people) are terrorists out to kill you...  Socialism is the end of all freedom and liberty...  Feminists want to chop off men's testicles and wear them as earrings...  Et cetera, et cetera.  

Of course I am exaggerating and over simplifying...  But that's just because I'm trying to make light of very sad reality...  The US is one of the most insular, deluded, deeply religious and radical nations in the world...  And also the most powerful.  The US has many, many, MANY excellent things about it, but the current administration DOES represent and highlight a lot of what is wrong with America.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
5 hours ago, mbohu said:

If anyone has the time, this is a great article, but it requires reading past ⅓ to even get to this point:

George Lakoff on the strict father model

By the way, thank you for the link.  It was a very interesting read.

I absolutely agree that language is powerful and that framing is everything...  That's what makes propaganda so effective - all it takes to push bullshit and radical ideas is the ability to frame things in a palatable way...  It also helps if your audience doesn't have much of an external reference that contradicts the lies, and/or if you base SOME of the bullshit on a modicum of truth.

It takes a lot to step out of the values you were taught growing up, and so a lot of ideas are transmitted generationally and never examined/questioned.  It's why "progress" is so slllllllow in areas that are so obviously "wrong"...  (I put that in quotes because people will never agree on what is "good" or "bad"...  Largely because of their frame of reference!)

Edited by Nataly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, headoverheels said:

Don't change the debate rules.

 

 

Cute, but unlikely to constrain the mango Mussolini.

I like the idea of having each debator standing inside a water-tight plexiglass tube, with 1 foot of water added for each interruption or going overtime.

Don

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

George F. WIll's take on it all:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/for-the-sake-of-the-country-cancel-the-remaining-debates/2020/09/30/e68ed090-0334-11eb-a2db-417cddf4816a_story.html

 

He has a great turn of phrase too.

Most Donald Trump utterances resemble turbid creeks that are silty at their sources and trickle away into mud. He might finish his presidential term without ever speaking a complete sentence — subject, object, predicate. Oliver Wendell Holmes, who characterized Theodore Roosevelt’s Bull Moose movement as one of “strenuous vagueness,” survived Antietam but might have expired straining to decipher Tuesday’s cascade of falsehoods, rudeness and syntactical tangles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wmw999 said:

That article was great. Understanding your underpinnings doesn't mean questioning them, but it's best to  understand something to change it effectively.

Wendy P.

Absolutely!!!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
12 hours ago, mbohu said:

 

I think it goes deeper, and it actually is a problem for progressives that we do not really understand the conservative's perspective on these issues and programs. I think they really believe that it is morally wrong to give things to people who have not specifically earned them. They do not see this as helping them at all. They see this as robbing them of the chance of developing the capacity to earn it for themselves (and if they cannot or will not do that, then they see them as simply bad people, who should not be supported in the first place.)
This runs so counter to the idea of sharing and nurturing and supporting, that is central to the progressive model, that we simply think they (the conservatives) are either selfish or stupid or evil--but that misses the point and robs us of an opportunity to influence them where we can. (...or even have a meaningful conversation about these issues)

If anyone has the time, this is a great article, but it requires reading past ⅓ to even get to this point:

George Lakoff on the strict father model

"The myth has been challenged by cognitive scientists such as Daniel Kahneman (who won the Nobel Prize in economics for his theory) and Amos Tversky, who have shown that people do not really think that way."

For those curious to read more about these guys, author Michael Lewis* wrote a book 4 years ago:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Undoing_Project

(*) Also authored "The Big Short", "Moneyball", and many other excellent books.

Edited by ryoder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm currently reading Kahneman's book Thinking, Fast and Slow; it's excellent, and illuminating. Not a quick read, but he keeps giving evidence of experiments that corroborate some non-intuitive (and uncomfortable" characteristics about how we think and judge. It goes well with The Drunkard's Walk, another book I recommend.

In short, data and experience beat intuition enough that most people do better just using them, even if they miss the occasional "I KNEW I was right" opportunity.

Wendy P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, mbohu said:

 

I think it goes deeper, and it actually is a problem for progressives that we do not really understand the conservative's perspective on these issues and programs. I think they really believe that it is morally wrong to give things to people who have not specifically earned them. They do not see this as helping them at all. They see this as robbing them of the chance of developing the capacity to earn it for themselves (and if they cannot or will not do that, then they see them as simply bad people, who should not be supported in the first place.)
This runs so counter to the idea of sharing and nurturing and supporting, that is central to the progressive model, that we simply think they (the conservatives) are either selfish or stupid or evil--but that misses the point and robs us of an opportunity to influence them where we can. (...or even have a meaningful conversation about these issues)


If anyone has the time, this is a great article, but it requires reading past ⅓ to even get to this point:

George Lakoff on the strict father model

That all sounds great, and may even be true, to a degree.


But I think a more powerful motive is simple greed.

The "I got mine, you can't have any of it" mentality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

That all sounds great, and may even be true, to a degree.


But I think a more powerful motive is simple greed.

The "I got mine, you can't have any of it" mentality.

I disagree.  In general people feel much better about earning something than having it given to them.  Just look at the participation trophy fiasco.  

We need to help those who can't help themselves and we need a safety net for everyone to be used in times of need but that's not what we have now.  We have generations who are dependent upon a government check every month.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, airdvr said:

I disagree.  In general people feel much better about earning something than having it given to them.  Just look at the participation trophy fiasco.  

We need to help those who can't help themselves and we need a safety net for everyone to be used in times of need but that's not what we have now.  We have generations who are dependent upon a government check every month.

Many do. But when the opportunities don't pay as much as one needs to live (by needs I mean food and shelter and probably transportation, not a 2-bedroom apartment to yourself and a new car), then they're not really opportunities, are they? People who grow up in "those" neighborhoods see few examples, because they're shut out of so much by virtue of where they live, and where they go to school.

Maybe if we fixed some of that stuff, so that people felt as though they actually have some possibilities, and not just whatever dregs are left over, it'd be easier.

I was talking with a woman the other day whose husband at 72 is still enthralled with his job, renting tuxedos and coordinating with event coordinators etc. She said he hires all kinds of sketchy people. Good for him -- those are very possibly people with few other options for work, with a boss who loves what he does (always better than one who just wants money).

Wendy P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, airdvr said:

We have generations who are dependent upon a government check every month.

Makes you feel good about yourself, doesn't it?

But if that were true, then the very generous welfare state in Denmark or Sweden, for example, would encourage hundreds of thousands of people to be unproductive causing their economy to collapse. But right now they're both very wealthy societies.

Would you consider the possibility that the government check is NOT one of the reasons why those people are unproductive?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree Wendy.  The current system makes it damned near impossible for someone convicted of a crime to find gainful employment.

Rox runs a DD facility that is totally funded by Medicaid.  She has real trouble hiring people for $11 an hour to do the menial jobs required.  And when she has someone who wants to work they must pass a drug screen and background check.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, airdvr said:

We need to help those who can't help themselves and we need a safety net for everyone to be used in times of need but that's not what we have now.  We have generations who are dependent upon a government check every month.

Who?  The PROWA limited the time on welfare (specifically AFDC) to two years after you lose your job and five years total for any person.  So this program can't create "generations dependent on the government."

Social security and medicare?  That would certainly qualify; there are people on here who are dependent on them and in all likelihood their children will be too.  What would you replace those with?  Would you do away with them altogether?

SNAP?  That only provides for specific kinds of food for poor families and no one gets a "government check every month." 

So what, specifically, would you change?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the path forward for someone earning $11/hour? That's $22000/year, which is tight but possible to support one person, but virtually impossible to support a family -- either a spouse stays home, or they can't afford childcare. If there isn't a path forward, then you can understand people not wanting the job.

We as a society have come to expect too much for too little. And then we wonder why the "minions" object and quit.

Wendy P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wolfriverjoe said:

That all sounds great, and may even be true, to a degree.


But I think a more powerful motive is simple greed.

The "I got mine, you can't have any of it" mentality.

Yes, that's the "they are evil" explanation. The problem is: Given that about 50% of the population falls into that category, the options to deal with that are not great. (winning a civil war against them seems to be the "best" option)
I'm sure greed can be a powerful motivator, but if it was the most powerful one, people would always vote in their economic interest, and it's been proven that they don't. In fact: Isn't this one of the things that drives us "liberals" crazy? That large portions of conservative voters seem to consistently vote against their own economic interests?
No, I think, while self-interest is certainly part of the equation, it's not the most determining factor: People's internalized frames of reference, belief systems and "identities" seem to be more powerful--and the good thing about this is, that this gives an opening for dialogue and/or influence--if one bothers to understand them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

2 2