We're all extremists, eventually

[dialamah]

An interesting article about the way in which our society is becoming increasingly polarized.

Imagine you’re in a bar, discussing the upcoming election with your friends. You admit you’re undecided. In fact, you can see both sides of the argument. They stare back at you as though you’ve just said you’d like to murder baby pandas.

Politics has never seemed more tribal. In America, it’s Donald Trump vs Hillary Clinton. In Europe, it’s the Europhiles vs the Eurosceptics. In Turkey, it’s the Islamists vs the secularists.

In the US, Australia and Europe, the gap between liberals and conservatives, the left and the right is widening. Look at social media, and it can feel like antipathy towards the other side is becoming increasingly intense.

In the US, for example, “very unfavourable” views of the other party more than doubled between 1992 and 2014, according topolls by the Pew Research Center. Fast-forward to 2016 and most – as opposed to just many – Republicans and Democrats view the opposition in deeply negative terms. Of nearly 5,000 people surveyed, over half believe the opposition is “closed-minded”, while around four in 10 are convinced supporters of the rival party are more “lazy”, “immoral” and “dishonest”than other Americans.

I'm sure we've seen or experienced the other side's "hatred" of us. I admit, I've wondered why. When I arrived on this forum about a year ago, I actually believed I'd find reasoned discourse about policies and ideology on both sides of the political divide. Prior to this forum, I'd been described as apolitical by others. I didn't have strong feelings about right vs. left; I only knew that I'd supported Harper previously, but that ultimately I didn't like some of the policies that were being implemented. But I really wanted to understand both sides better, to make a better and more informed decision this time, and maybe next time as well.

But now, a year later I'm a (sneer) 'progressive', a (sneer) 'leftie', someone who doesn't care about Canada, who experiences "white liberal guilt" (I had no idea that was even a thing in August of 2015), and who sides with people who carry out brutal attacks on others.

Equally, my supposed "opponents" complain about being called racist, bigots, red-necked, un-Canadian, backwards, etc.

I'm sorry we're at this point, honestly. Is the article accurate in it's explanation of why we have become so nasty to each other? Is there any way of becoming more civil to one another - both here, and in the wider world? What do you think?

Edited August 29, 2016 by dialamah

[bush_cheney2004]

...I'm sorry we're at this point, honestly. Is the article accurate in it's explanation of why we have become so nasty to each other? Is there any way of becoming more civil to one another - both here, and in the wider world? What do you think?

Sure, but it isn't really necessary or even helpful when "honest" sometimes includes "nasty". Suppressing "nasty" expression on any partisan side only drives identical discourse underground. The University of Chicago has recently called for an end to the artificial safety of politically correct speech and censorship of ideas that make us uncomfortable. That is how it should be...ideas should compete...including those that are "nasty" or nastily delivered.

Edited August 29, 2016 by bush_cheney2004

[dialamah]

Sure, but it isn't really necessary or even helpful when "honest" sometimes includes "nasty". Suppressing "nasty" expression on any partisan side only drives identical discourse underground. The University of Chicago has recently called for an end to the artificial safety of politically correct speech and censorship of ideas that make us uncomfortable. That is how it should be...ideas should compete...including those that are "nasty" or nastily delivered.

Why does nasty need to be a part of any political discourse, though? That's really my question. If someone disagrees with JT's policy on deficit spending for infrastructure and increasing child tax benefit, why should such pejoratives as 'lazy' and 'hand-outs' come into it? Why not stick to facts - perhaps demonstrating a time in history when the same policy resulted in a certain negative consequence?

[TimG]

I'm sure we've seen or experienced the other side's "hatred" of us.

There are two factors:

1) Framing of issues as moral choices rather than pragmatic balancing of conflicting requirements;

2) A loss of humility on the part of political actors (i.e. absolute conviction that one knows the 'truth');

For 1) an example is the climate change debate. It is easy to get to the point where one agrees that CO2 is causing warming. However, it is much more difficult to get agreement on the extent of future consequences and what is an effective measure for dealing with any negative consequences. Yet, advocates of on one side of the debate insist on framing it as moral question about 'saving the planet' and paint people with reasonable concerns about the effectiveness of the policies that they push to be evil 'deniers'.

The consequence of such framing is dialog and compromise become impossible because what good person would compromise with 'evil'. There are similar examples from the right when it comes to questions of terrorism, crime or immigration.

For 2) an example is the minimum wage debate. People trot out a few studies that show minimal harmful effects and declare that any minimum wage imposed any where at any time must be good. None of humility or self reflection which would lead thoughtful people to admit that they could be wrong and ask what are the consequences if they are wrong? Similar absolutism can be found on the right when it comes to questions of deficit spending, cutting taxes or free trade.

Edited August 29, 2016 by TimG

[Bonam]

I'm sorry we're at this point, honestly. Is the article accurate in it's explanation of why we have become so nasty to each other? Is there any way of becoming more civil to one another - both here, and in the wider world? What do you think?

I think the problem stems from the abundance of information that is now easily available to everyone, and the ease with which one can place themselves in a bubble of information that only reaffirms their ideas and delegitimizes other ideas. It's gotten to the point that people operate in realities that are almost unrecognizable from each other based on their political ideology. I know some very smart people that are convinced Trump will make a great president and truly believe that he never really said/meant anything racist or sexist, and is a very mature and thoughtful statesman... those are the set of facts they operate with. And I know other very smart people whose entire world revolves around regretting their white privilege and contemplating all the hundreds of ways in which everything in Western society is a result of systemic biases / patriarchy / racism, etc. Just totally different realities, if you hear them talk about the world it would be hard to imagine they exist in the same universe.

I think an analogy might be conspiracy theorists. People that subscribe in conspiracy theories believe a very strange set of facts and explain things in very strange ways that all add up to reinforce their world view. They come off as crazy to "mainstream" people because of it, but they truly believe the things they believe, and they surround themselves with information and people that reinforce their beliefs. Well... partisans are the same thing, it's just another conspiracy theory essentially, just as crazy sounding to anyone outside of it, all built on taking facts that fit and emphasizing them and taking facts that don't fit and ignoring them. Religions, of course, work the same way too.

[dialamah]

There are two factors:

1) Framing of issues as moral choices rather than pragmatic balancing of conflicting requirements;

2) A loss of humility on the part of political actors (i.e. absolute conviction that one knows the 'truth');

For 1) an example is the climate change debate. It is easy to get to the point where one agrees that CO2 is causing warming. However, it is much more difficult to get agreement on the extent of future consequences and what is an effective measure for dealing with any negative consequences. Yet, advocates of on one side of the debate insist on framing it as moral question about 'saving the planet' and paint people with reasonable concerns about the effectiveness of the policies that they push to be evil 'deniers'.

The consequence of such framing is dialog and compromise become impossible because what good person would compromise with 'evil'. There are similar examples from the right when it comes to questions of terrorism, crime or immigration.

For 2) an example is the minimum wage debate. People trot out a few studies that show minimal harmful effects and declare that any minimum wage imposed any where at any time must be good. None of humility or self reflection which would lead thoughtful people to admit that they could be wrong and ask what are the consequences if they are wrong? Similar absolutism can be found on the right when it comes to questions of deficit spending, cutting taxes or free trade.

I like the point you make about framing things as moral choices vs. pragmatic ones. I think it would be helpful if we could divorce our 'morals' from our 'politics', but not sure that's entirely possible, at least not for every debate. But I will try to keep that in mind at least for any future posts of my own.

Loss of humility is interesting too. There's a lot of ego tied up in being 'right', and not admitting to any weakness - especially that of being not-right. In an adversarial atmosphere, who wants to blink first?

[bush_cheney2004]

Why does nasty need to be a part of any political discourse, though? That's really my question.

Because it always has been, despite claims to the contrary. All that has changed is the scope and access of/to media, which now thrives more on content than news, especially "nasty" content. Nasty is both a tactical and strategic exercise to be exploited against opponents, and that includes personal attacks. The peasants understand nasty in their daily lives...."just keepin' it real".

[Moonlight Graham]

There are two factors:

1) Framing of issues as moral choices rather than pragmatic balancing of conflicting requirements;

2) A loss of humility on the part of political actors (i.e. absolute conviction that one knows the 'truth');

With 1), that's almost impossible since the overwhelming majority of political issues are at their core moral philosophical issues. You can argue 100% true facts using statistics until you're blue in the face, but what will always matter is the outcomes that are desired as much as how to achieve them, and these desired outcomes can differ based on your ideological view.

I think this factors into 2), which I agree with. It's often very hard to know "the truth" when what is a good policy vs bad policy can often come down to your moral philosophy & desired outcomes, not just the facts supporting or undermining a position on an issue.

[BC_chick]

I'm sorry we're at this point, honestly. Is the article accurate in it's explanation of why we have become so nasty to each other? Is there any way of becoming more civil to one another - both here, and in the wider world? What do you think?

I've been on political forums since the late 90's and I think they've made me more sympathetic to other opinions, not less. I haven't really changed my positions, but there are many instances that I can see some truth to differing opinions and it makes me more open minded.

It's funny but all the time people complain about warning points on this site and I just don't relate. I don't get warning points and with a couple of exceptions, I don't really feel any wrath from my opponents.

If there is a cause and effect at work, I'd say that respecting your opponent is the cause and disagreeing respectfully is the effect. A lot of people are unfortunately losing the ability to respect their opponent and the level of discourse becoming disrespectful.

[Moonlight Graham]

I think politics have become more extreme for a few reasons. First, politicians are pandering to those who vote and pay attention most to politics, "their base", who are more likely to vote and give campaign donations. This base tends to be more ideological, set in their views, and more passionate about issues. Moderates or swing voters tend to be more casual in their attention to politics.

The media is also a cause. Sound bites are the norm, and with the wall of entertainment and media messages coming at everyone these days, it's a race for who can be the loudest and cause the most controversy to be noticed. Consider why the most popular talk-radio personalities tend to be "shock jocks". A calm, thoughtful, mild-mannered voice is less sensational and less able to cut through the noise to be noticed. And so people begin to be influenced by the views of these "shock jocks" and sensational news sound-bites. Trump calling Hillary a bigot is going to get more viewers than a rational argument on why Clinton's policies are short-sighted.

Bonam also has a good point about more media existing that caters to only one's ideology, so people live in an echo chamber.

[TimG]

With 1), that's almost impossible since the overwhelming majority of political issues are at their core moral philosophical issues.

While this is true what I was getting at is the tendency to frame the issues in a way that makes 'agreeing to disagree' an impossible choice. For example, one could argue that their values mean they wish to avoid risk - no matter how small - even at a cost to their welfare today which leaves room for other people with different values to state their own opinion. It is another thing to argue that people who do not share your values on risk aversion are selfish 'deniers' intent on 'destroying the planet'. The latter rhetoric encourages extremism and precludes a meaningful compromise because it paints the opposition as the 'evil' instead of people with a different set of priorities. Edited August 29, 2016 by TimG

[Altai]

In Turkey, it’s the Islamists vs the secularists.

What does "Islamist" mean ? I dont understand that. We are just Muslims. There is no any other names for us.

"Secularism" is also a kind of religion, its a belief. Seculars believe in that people should be able to put the rules independently from their "religious" believes. These people generally dont believe in God or they dont care so much despite they have some weak symptoms of faith.

[TimG]

What does "Islamist" mean ? I dont understand that. We are just Muslims. There is no any other names for us.

Not all Muslims are conservative ideologues intent on using their religion to justify the repression of others.

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

With Christianity the words "Evangelical" or "Fundamentalist" are used to describe the same type of people. It is necessary to have to different words because it allows people to direct comments/criticisms at the Islamists that are causing the problems instead of tarring all Muslims with the same brush.

Edited August 29, 2016 by TimG

[Moonlight Graham]

What does "Islamist" mean ? I dont understand that. We are just Muslims. There is no any other names for us.

"Secularism" is also a kind of religion, its a belief. Seculars believe in that people should be able to put the rules independently from their "religious" believes. These people generally dont believe in God or they dont care so much despite they have some weak symptoms of faith.

"Islamist" means "a person who follows political Islam". Islamist doesn't mean "Muslims". Islamism is a political ideology, where law and policy stems from scripture and religious belief.

[Hal 9000]

We are learning it directly from the media, they are the ones causing the separation.

Back in the day, the left would define politics simply by saying "if you are good and loving, you're a democrat/liberal, the conservatives are hateful and mean", the right would say that they have common sense and the liberals were simply flakes. Today, the liberals/progressives have ramped that up to racists, homophobes, misogynists and bigots. Just like the Nazis and how they successfully reduced the jewish people to rats and how the the americans reduced the Vietnamese, Germans and Japanese to gooks, krauts and japs - in order to attack them without guilt. The left, being led by the media has successfully reduced conservatives/republicans down to the lowest form of human (if even that) - one that deserves the abuse.

You can turn on CNN or MSNBC at any time and see a panel of 3 or 4 liberals shouting down some conservative with absolutely no respect given. Sometimes they'll even have all their chairs aimed at that person.

10 years ago, the Dixie Chicks said they were embarrassed by president Bush, they were protested by the right and rewarded from the left - today, that comment would be nothing, not even noteworthy. In the last 12 hours, I've seen Don Cheadle call Trump a piece of sh1+ that should die in a grease fire, a roast where Ann Coulter was the one attacked, calling her a Cnnt and Trump being called everything from from racist to psychopath - and this is from influential and seemingly smart people. Tomorrow, there will be a new celebrity come out with something more outrageous than that.

The media has fully led us down this road.

[dialamah]

Because it always has been, despite claims to the contrary. All that has changed is the scope and access of/to media, which now thrives more on content than news, especially "nasty" content. Nasty is both a tactical and strategic exercise to be exploited against opponents, and that includes personal attacks. The peasants understand nasty in their daily lives...."just keepin' it real".

Perhaps you are right that nothing has changed but the scope. Pretty sure the advice to never talk religion or politics predated the internet or the kind of media we see today.

[dialamah]

I think the problem stems from the abundance of information that is now easily available to everyone, and the ease with which one can place themselves in a bubble of information that only reaffirms their ideas and delegitimizes other ideas. It's gotten to the point that people operate in realities that are almost unrecognizable from each other based on their political ideology. I know some very smart people that are convinced Trump will make a great president and truly believe that he never really said/meant anything racist or sexist, and is a very mature and thoughtful statesman... those are the set of facts they operate with. And I know other very smart people whose entire world revolves around regretting their white privilege and contemplating all the hundreds of ways in which everything in Western society is a result of systemic biases / patriarchy / racism, etc. Just totally different realities, if you hear them talk about the world it would be hard to imagine they exist in the same universe.

I think an analogy might be conspiracy theorists. People that subscribe in conspiracy theories believe a very strange set of facts and explain things in very strange ways that all add up to reinforce their world view. They come off as crazy to "mainstream" people because of it, but they truly believe the things they believe, and they surround themselves with information and people that reinforce their beliefs. Well... partisans are the same thing, it's just another conspiracy theory essentially, just as crazy sounding to anyone outside of it, all built on taking facts that fit and emphasizing them and taking facts that don't fit and ignoring them. Religions, of course, work the same way too.

I've also heard the theory (?) that experts are viewed as merely having an opinion and that everyone's opinion has the same weight; there is essentially no difference between fact and opinion. Therefore, there is no way a person can learn something new, because everything is opinion and opinion is as good as fact.

[bush_cheney2004]

Perhaps you are right that nothing has changed but the scope. Pretty sure the advice to never talk religion or politics predated the internet or the kind of media we see today.

Probably did, but that's part of the false expectations for civility. Etiquette and manners were/are the tools of the educated and privileged aristocracy, not the commoners. Social media has facilitated communications by all social classes without regard to ruling class restraint. Anger matters, and the language of angry people is not polite.

Self-righteous bloggers now routinely include F-bombs and other profane language just to get noticed. Same for Slate.com or Politico. Nasty gets more attention. Just ask Heather Mallick.

YouTube has thousands of videos with content that depends on bad behaviour(s) to garner and keep interest. Polite language in the king's English is not going to be as credible on the street.

Edited August 30, 2016 by bush_cheney2004

[dialamah]

I've been on political forums since the late 90's and I think they've made me more sympathetic to other opinions, not less. I haven't really changed my positions, but there are many instances that I can see some truth to differing opinions and it makes me more open minded.

It's funny but all the time people complain about warning points on this site and I just don't relate. I don't get warning points and with a couple of exceptions, I don't really feel any wrath from my opponents.

If there is a cause and effect at work, I'd say that respecting your opponent is the cause and disagreeing respectfully is the effect. A lot of people are unfortunately losing the ability to respect their opponent and the level of discourse becoming disrespectful.

Yes, I have a belief that you get what you give. Good on you for maintaining that.

[dialamah]

What does "Islamist" mean ? I dont understand that. We are just Muslims. There is no any other names for us.

"Secularism" is also a kind of religion, its a belief. Seculars believe in that people should be able to put the rules independently from their "religious" believes. These people generally dont believe in God or they dont care so much despite they have some weak symptoms of faith.

Just wanted to say welcome to the forums and I hope you'll stick around and give us insight from your own experience.

[dialamah]

We are learning it directly from the media, they are the ones causing the separation.

Back in the day, the left would define politics simply by saying "if you are good and loving, you're a democrat/liberal, the conservatives are hateful and mean", the right would say that they have common sense and the liberals were simply flakes. Today, the liberals/progressives have ramped that up to racists, homophobes, misogynists and bigots.

Just like the Nazis and how they successfully reduced the jewish people to rats and how the the americans reduced the Vietnamese, Germans and Japanese to gooks, krauts and japs - in order to attack them without guilt. The left, being led by the media has successfully reduced conservatives/republicans down to the lowest form of human (if even that) - one that deserves the abuse.

You can turn on CNN or MSNBC at any time and see a panel of 3 or 4 liberals shouting down some conservative with absolutely no respect given. Sometimes they'll even have all their chairs aimed at that person.

10 years ago, the Dixie Chicks said they were embarrassed by president Bush, they were protested by the right and rewarded from the left - today, that comment would be nothing, not even noteworthy. In the last 12 hours, I've seen Don Cheadle call Trump a piece of sh1+ that should die in a grease fire, a roast where Ann Coulter was the one attacked, calling her a Cnnt and Trump being called everything from from racist to psychopath - and this is from influential and seemingly smart people. Tomorrow, there will be a new celebrity come out with something more outrageous than that.

The media has fully led us down this road.

This reads to me as "this is all the fault of the left; they behave thus and thus and thus, the right is reasonable and being treated disrespectfully by the left". Is that what you think or am I misreading it?

[Bonam]

I've also heard the theory (?) that experts are viewed as merely having an opinion and that everyone's opinion has the same weight; there is essentially no difference between fact and opinion. Therefore, there is no way a person can learn something new, because everything is opinion and opinion is as good as fact.

Yes, there is that too. The media exacerbates the problem, often giving equal weight and legitimacy to two opposing ideas, even when rudimentary research would show that one is much better supported than the other. For example, the way the whole vaccination thing has played out.

[TimG]

Yes, there is that too. The media exacerbates the problem, often giving equal weight and legitimacy to two opposing ideas, even when rudimentary research would show that one is much better supported than the other. For example, the way the whole vaccination thing has played out.

Part of the blame here has to rest with activist academics who choose to actively campaign for policies that are completely out side of their expertise. For example, climate scientists may have the expertise to comment on the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere, however, they have no special qualifications that would allow them to comment on what policies make sense for governments to adopt. Yet despite that they do it all of the time and people are told they have to listen to the opinions because they are "experts".

You also have other activist academics such as the 600 "economists" that signed a letter calling for a higher minimum wage which completely misrepresented the state of the literature. Now this letter is being used by leftist ideologues to dismiss critics because they are 'ignoring the experts' when the opposite is true.

It should come as no surprise that the actions of the activists academics has completely destroyed the concept of professional expertise in policy debates.

Edited August 30, 2016 by TimG

[dialamah]

Part of the blame here has to rest with activist academics who choose to actively campaign for policies that are completely out side of their expertise. For example, climate scientists may have the expertise to comment on the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere, however, they have no special qualifications that would allow them to comment on what policies make sense for governments to adopt. Yet despite that they do it all of the time and people are told they have to listen to the opinions because they are "experts".

You also have other activist academics such as the 600 "economists" that signed a letter calling for a higher minimum wage which completely misrepresented the state of the literature. Now this letter is being used by leftist ideologues to dismiss critics because they are 'ignoring the experts' when the opposite is true.

It should come as no surprise that the actions of the activists academics has completely destroyed the concept of professional expertise in policy debates.

Why would experts not advise the government on policies that impact their area of expertise? That doesn't make sense to me, honestly. I'd rather have an expert on climate science advise the government on climate issues, than an expert in fracking. I certainly wouldn't want the decisions left strictly to the politicians.

Edited August 30, 2016 by dialamah

[TimG]

Why would experts not advise the government on policies that impact their area of expertise?

Climate scientists have no expertise in energy engineering or economics so they cannot provide any expert advice to governments on what policies to persue. Their expertise is limited to telling government that CO2 is a potential problem that deserves some action on the part of the government. Too many scientists insist on using their expertise as a basis for making claims which they are not qualified to make. Edited August 30, 2016 by TimG