thethe's prophecies seem to be coming true.
thethe's prophecies seem to be coming true.
FFF - BB, BB, 2B, HR, 2B, HR, 1B, BB, BB, 1B, BB, BB, HR
I always thought he was an oracleOriginally Posted by Runnin
Trump is running Facebook ads that make it look like Pelosi is tearing up the speech while IMPOTUS honored the Tuskegee airmen. And he wants to complain about fake news
"Donald Trump will serve a second term as president of the United States.
It’s over."
Little Thethe Nov 19, 2020.
Forever Fredi
I'm still not sure we're talking about the same thing. Tribalism isn't a liberal or conservative thing, it's a human thing. It's a bias that's hardwired into all of us. There are no shortage of studies on this phenomenon. Humans are tribal animals and that impacts so many areas.
Essentially, my complaint is that people treat politics like they do sports. Their team is their team and they'll support it no matter what. They'll defend their people even in the face of overwhelming evidence. Look at Giants fans with Bonds. No matter how much evidence piled up showing he was cheating, Giants fans were quick to jump in and defend him. Why would otherwise rational people reject such an obvious reality? Bonds was part of their tribe. If he had been a Dodger instead, Giants fans would have decried him as a cheater.
This kind of tribalism doesn't run along political lines and it's what I'm talking about. Why don't Republicans (not elected officials, ordinary people) criticize Trump when he behaves poorly? Why do otherwise rational Democrats (again individuals) condone petty actions by leaders of their party that they would scream about if done by Republicans?
This is the bias I want to see people overcome. So many Congressmen are from safe districts that the only threat to them is their own party deserting them for another candidate in the primary. So it's going to take people overcoming the bias of justifying everything their tribe does and holding members of their own party accountable for their actions. I don't see this as likely though.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...balism/568342/
Here's an article discussing the threat of the tribalism. It does a decent job exploring the tribalism problems both sides of the aisle deal with. Here's a quote from it I like:
"Americans on both the left and the right now view their political opponents not as fellow Americans with differing views, but as enemies to be vanquished. And they have come to view the Constitution not as an aspirational statement of shared principles and a bulwark against tribalism, but as a cudgel with which to attack those enemies."
It is worth noting that tribalism is an extremely old thing. And also worth noting there is something that seems qualitatively different about the version of it that has infected our politics in the last decade or two.
"I am a victim, I will tell you. I am a victim."
"I am your retribution."
Please note though, in the current case
one tribe stands for health care and the other for ---- I have no idea what their counter is
one tribe is pro choice the other pro "life"
one tribe blindly supports the military the other in reeling back the military
one tribe stands for no taxation - the other stands for roads, hospitals and a social contract
So yeah, guilty as charged because there are clear dividing lines.
I favor a tax rate for billionaires is 90%. One side does not
--- policy wise? I will support the tribe that holds world views closest to mine.
Wrapping up, I find the argument of tribalism a tad simplistic and lazy
The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to make sure he doesn’t get a gun.
That's not what I'm talking about in the least. People believe different things and have different values. That's fine. I'm very willing to admit that other people might have a different set of life experiences than me and so might prioritize things differently. There's no problem with that.
My problem comes when people are willing to excuse the bad acts or reprehensible positions of members of their tribe simply because they are members of their tribe.
Dividing up into parties based on political beliefs is not the problem I have. It's the cognitive bias people engage in when judging the people leading their party (tribe) that I have a problem with.
That evidence presented by that article doesn't really support that assertion at all, except in the sense that it could be used to describe the way parties have always worked since literally Jon Adams was president. De Tocqueville wrote at length bemoaning how the parties in his day had devolved into petty and unprincipled squabbling, unlike how it used to be. The article observes that the left and the right believe different things. Of course, by its very nature, a political party is a "group identity," where you associate with others who share at least some of your beliefs. But that doesn't in no way is proof that both sides partake in some absolutist form of "tribalism" that supersedes everything, even those beliefs that brought them together in the first place. Observing that "both sides" have their own beliefs, which is all this article shows, is a contentless tautology.
And yes, we are talking about the exact same thing. And frankly that article is breathtaking in its audacity. The fact that Amy Chua and Jeb Rubenfeld wrote a paean to "both sides" and "why can't we be less partisan," the very month their good friend and alleged rapist Brett Kavanaugh was being railroaded through by a unitary partisan Republican party, the culmination of years of partisan norm shattering re: the Supreme Court by that same party, is hilarious.
I also disagree with one of the central premises of that article. I actually believe parties are a moderating influence, if they are allowed to function correctly. The more recent rise of polarization has correlated pretty well with the loss of party control over its members, due to the way campaign finance has been designed. Parties are actually limited in the spending they can do re: elections. But outside actors are not. That's how end up with the Republican party being taken over by its own fringe element. It used to be that big donors gave to the parties and the fringe had to associate with one of the main big-funded poles of discourse in order to have any chance of effecting politics. But now, party spending is limited, and donors just spend it themselves through their own surrogates. That's part of why, for example, the Republican party has been taken over by the heavy-outside-funded Tea Party revolution.
Now this phenomenon of centralized party strength dilution does, of course, apply to both sides of the aisle. But the effects are much stronger on the Republican side because, to get back to the point... loyalty is a conservative value. Once the party is shifted by outside influence, all members are more strongly required to toe the new line. That's why you've got Congressmen on FoxNews who can't see any difference between Romney and a Democrat - Loyalty is a fundamental conservative value, and conservatives are more likely to think straying from the exact party line is a mortal sin.
Because loyalty is a high conservative value.
Well is certainly not because they are "loyal" to Nancy Pelosi. I see that you are back to stating this is about "leaders," even though before you stated you were not talking about individuals. I will restate again the idea that Democrats have a tribal allegiance to Nancy Pelosi comparable to the Republican Party to Donald Trump is hilariously absurd.
Anyway, the difference is that they believe, in context, that those things don't matter like you are pretending they do when you clutch your pearls about it. If a Republican did that to Obama, guess what, that'd be different. Because Obama wasn't an irrational norm-shattering gargoyle. The response would have stood out as bizarrely disproportionate. Context matters.
I don't "condone" what Pelosi did. I just don't give a sh*t because with everything going on in politics right now it literally doesn't even register as decorum breaking.
Last edited by Metaphysicist; 02-10-2020 at 04:04 PM.
Hello all. Carry on.
A Republican with integrity is called a Libertarian. The rival straw for me was the insane treatment of Obama. I dont agree with most of his policies but that doesnt make him the antichrist. These people will be remembered like the people who harassed Jackie Robinson.
"Donald Trump will serve a second term as president of the United States.
It’s over."
Little Thethe Nov 19, 2020.
https://www.9and10news.com/i/federal...ars-in-prison/
Prosecutors asking for 7-9 years for IMPOTUS close personal friend Roger Stone. I thought it would be closer to 20 considering he made death threats to a witness in what may have been one of the most important in US history.
"Donald Trump will serve a second term as president of the United States.
It’s over."
Little Thethe Nov 19, 2020.
https://www.newsweek.com/doj-gave-50...report-1486596
I cant make this up. The DoJ gave 500k to a group called "Hookers for Jesus".
"Donald Trump will serve a second term as president of the United States.
It’s over."
Little Thethe Nov 19, 2020.
My complaint is, and has from the beginning of this been, that individuals have become ultra tribal in regards to politics. They're going to great lengths to excuse absolutely ridiculous behavior by their party leaders (that's where leaders come in) because of this tribalism instead of holding them accountable and supporting more reasonable candidates. It's not about loyalty, it's about an us vs them mentality.
I agree that if Paul Ryan had torn up one of Obama's State of the Unions like that, it would be an entirely different reaction. Republicans would be cheering his act as bold defiance of Obama's desire to turn America into a leftist state. Democrats, on the other hand, would be decrying the act as a petulant and unwarranted display of disrespect.
My point is that people are judging the correctness of the actions not based on the actions themselves but based on who it is that's doing it.
You seem to think I'm some right wing nut "clutching my pearls" about what Pelosi did. This is also part of the tribalism I'm railing about. If I criticize the actions of Pelosi, to liberals I'm a Rush loving, MAGA hat wearing tea party idiot. If I criticize the actions of Trump, to the right I'm a tree hugging, baby eating communist.
In reality, I'm not clutching my pearls at Pelosi ripping paper or about Trump refusing to shake hands. Both were just puerile acts. I just found the behavior of Trump and Pelosi on that stage to exemplify a bigger problem. I think this thread shows exactly what that problem is. We have otherwise perfectly rational, normal people willing to cheer on the most powerful people in the world to act increasingly juvenile to one another instead of holding them to a higher standard simply because of political affiliation.
Bottom line, it's completely unacceptable that the President of the United States and the Speaker of the House have reached the point that they can't even engage in niceties or even talk with each other. You can debate on whose fault it is all you want. That doesn't matter. It's incumbent upon each of them to be the adult. The fact that we have no one who can step up and act like an adult and no one will hold them accountable is a problem.
Why does it not matter who's at fault. If someone spends years treating me like **** I'm probably gonna be hostile back at their ass.
Stockholm, more densely populated than NYC - sturg
You're not one of the most powerful people in the world. You have the luxury to be hostile back.
Not to be confused with Zelensky, President of UCrane.
"I am a victim, I will tell you. I am a victim."
"I am your retribution."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
