This is pretty much exactly the mindset I’m trying to avoid.

I’d note you could just as easily flip the 2016 classified documents business. A Conservative could plausibly argue that Liberals were willing to vote for someone being investigated for mishandling classified documents when it was their person, but once it was trump it became a serious voting issue. (I tend to disagree, I think trump’s were a lot worse but I can absolutely see the logic of their case.)

Ha, very fair. I think a good number of friends would say the same about me. I think they’re wrong ;)

RSS is a great idea, not sure why I haven’t done that. Maybe I’ll set one up this weekend!

Thanks!

Oh no, I wouldn’t recommend Fox or Newsmax or the ilk on anyone.

But I do like to understand what the best version of things I disagree with are. Wider perspectives are important but if I agree with all of them? I dunno, it feels intellectually lazy to me. That’s why I’m asking! I’d like to find something akin to what the National Review used to be.

Otherwise, to me at least, there’s a very real danger of becoming the kind of person who writes off everyone who disagrees with me as ignorant, bigoted or evil. Which, in my opinion, isn’t a great way to live. Though, admittedly, I’ve always found those “everything is black or white” folks to be insufferably boring so maybe I’m just trying to not be that person instead of any high minded ideal.

Sorry I’m tired and rambling while pooping.

Edit: Holy shit, was curious about why Alred was getting singled out. Because he said he didn’t support trans women playing sports with the other women? If that’s the most anti trans Democrat candidate ever and your next move is “What else could she do, outlaw trans people?!?” you need to give your head a shake. No wonder we lose to a man who has more orange makeup than brains.

are you going to engage with these responses or what?

I mean, your comic made the same basic point that Oliver did. Which I already responded to. In depth.

Above all, I don’t think that trans issues are edgy and unpopular at all. Until a couple years ago it was a strictly medical thing

You could, uhhh, look back at the Pew research I already shared.

At this point people who take anti-trans propaganda seriously are lost causes to me

I love your argument is simultaneously “we can win them over with enough messaging! The DNC didn’t put enough into trans messaging to overcome propaganda! Also, those people we can win over are lost causes!” Pick a lane!

and I don’t care about Democrats ratings. I rather see that the extreme left everywhere dials up the pro-trans issues and organize defense and survival programs.

I guess that’s the difference. I’ve met some of the people who will be affected by climate change and seen the communities that will be destroyed. They aren’t abstract. It’s very easy to figure winning these elections doesn’t matter when you know damn well it really doesn’t affect you. I just find that view reprehensible as I think it’s throwing the most vulnerable people under the bus so you can feel good about being on the right side.

Life in large, pluralistic society is full of uncomfortable compromises. Most moral progress is made because enough people with old Conservative views have died and the median voter is ready to move forward, not because we screamed at people. (Though, frustratingly, the Left seems to have either lost the messaging game or taken such silly positions that we are no longer dominating the youth vote so we may have, through our evangelizing, set progress back much farther than needs be. How fucking annoying are we such that people would prefer trump to us?)

borders too closely to sealioning and concern trolling

Are you sure you know what those terms mean? This seems like when you had no idea what Utilitarianism was.

Sea lioning doesn’t just refer to disagreeing with someone, here’s the original sea lion comic:

https://wondermark.com/c/1062/

I’m hard pressed to see how, relatively politely, responding to the comments you keep leaving on my original response to someone else’s question fits that at all.

As I hope you’re true to your word and done with this, have a good weekend.

Are you misunderstanding how a hypothetical sistuation works? Or how analogies work?

The basic idea is that it is difficult to picture an important movement, like the abolition movement, succeeding if they had expanded their mandate to include all groups, even if it would have been the right thing to do.

Similarly, while the Left has the moral highground, not all of society is with the Left yet. And so, we’re being painted as wacky folks trying to do some crazy shit and we keep losing elections.

Why do you think almost every Far Right leader rallies against Woke? From Bolsanaro, Orban, La Pen, Meloni to trump, it’s been a winning issue with a majority of voters. I’m old enough to understand that elections have serious consequences and that winning them matters. If a common thread that seems to win majority support across the world keeps coming up, heck, maybe it’s time to look at it.

Glad you liked it, It’s one of my favourites.

Sorry about the barrage of unfun comments. The internet is so wonderful and so goddamn annoying at the same time eh?

because it stresses me out pointing out how everything they think is wrong…

Honestly, that sounds fairly healthy. I have a weird obsession with being well informed and being able to articulate arguments from all sides (which has occasionally made me very unpopular both in real life and online) and while it’s a fine intellectual exercise, it’s probably not the most conducive to feeling great.

Ahaha, I glanced at this earlier before diving into work stuff and thought you’d have a lot more angry replies to you!

Among a lot of folks, I’m the crazy liberal hippy do gooder but I gotta say, a good amount of Lemmy kind of worries me. Though, I suppose I attract the crazy by having the temerity to explain or defend Conservative positions, even when I disagree with them.

Oh interesting. I always thought the Daily Mail was more of a tabloid with like topless girls on page three or whatever. Am I confusing it with something else? Or is it both?

And fully agree with you on the Guardian.

Ha, fair. I generally go about 60/40 on the agree disagree ratio with them but I really respect the way they articulate their views.

Interesting question and thoughtful distinction!

My initial thought is that while you might not be engaging with why trump supporters are for it, I think it still counts because the people making the policy are probably doing it for reasons that are disconnected to the beliefs of the rank and file.

I put it akin to religion and whatnot. If the only argument for or against something is religion, I don’t give it much credence other than the basic “I generally think it’s good to be respectful of religion until it interferes with others.” But even if their reason is religion, if there’s actually a good reason, that good reason may be worth engaging with.

Not sure if I’m making sense, it’s been a looooooooooong day after a longer week.

Ooooooh, thank you! That sounds exactly like what I was hoping for!

Oh interesting, I’ve never really taken libertarian positions seriously but that might be worth a look.

Good definition.

And you’re a better person than I am, I tried a few times but felt really icky really quickly.

I just gotta believe there’s something that offers a coherent defense of their positions without (or at least, with less of) the absolute craziness. Foreign policy ones, sure, Foreign Affairs works. But for a defense of say, trump’s immigration strategy or something, I’d love to have what the National Review used to be arguing for it, just to know what I’m missing.

I used to read the National Review and disagree with 9/10 articles but after Krauthammer died, they went crazy on the trump train.

Foreign Affairs sort of counts? A lot of people with whom I disagree publish essays there…

The Economist, I go 50/50.

I dunno. I’d like the most plausible and persuasive form of the Conservative argument, I’ve got Conservative friends but I don’t think that’s really enough.

I adore that your sources were: Yourself, a comic strip and a paraphrasing of a (solid) late night comedian.

Because I don’t watch many late night comedians I’m absorbing the wrong sources? Jesus fuck.

Admittedly, I did watch Stewart’s take and it was pretty silly. The essence was that because Harris said things, the Right should’ve listened. Which is as dumb as people on the Right saying that “trump said he respects and loves women so I don’t get how the libs think he’s anti woman.”

Oliver’s point is similar, Harris was quiet on trans stuff. Which okay but being quiet on an issue just means the other side gets to paint you howver they want on it. Which is EXACTLY what the trump campaign did by running this vile, but effective ad (which I believe was their most frequently run ad in the last few weeks of the campaign) to ZERO pushback from Harris (again, no way to rebut it without alienating our progressive wing, so we just take the L on this.) You might also read this PBS article where a journalist points out that, of the money they tracked, the trump campaign spent more on anti trans ads than on housing, immigration and the economy combined.

To say that trans issues weren’t a thing this election because your side didn’t talk about then is absurd.

And frankly, you are compromising the human rights of a group, it’s the poor billions who will suffer the effects of climate change. I get that neither you, nor anyone you know will be affected. And that the suffering of those who live elsewhere isn’t really a trendy cause so easily forgettable but personally, I think they should be included in our moral calculus.

then you might have been listening to other sources that make the matter unpalatable, like “biological males in female sports” and what have you.

I mean, before this thread I hadn’t thought about it much but damn, the sport thing would be such an easy bone to throw moderates with almost no real world costs (apologies to the handful of high level trans athletes.) Given that it’s an issue that some 70% of America disagrees with us on it does seem like an easy way to demonstrate we aren’t the crazy party.

Like most things, I think the answer is a frustrating “depends.”

I’ve made some life long friends through workplaces. I’ve made workplace friends whom I haven’t really ever thought about when I switched jobs.

Maybe the key is tone the relationship to whatever it’d be if you just knew each other through other friends? If you get along but don’t super click, a casual friendly work acquaintance is probably right. Do you two really get along, have some shared interests/perspectives etc? Then why be constrained with only kicking it at work?

And if the public doesn’t go along, we just keep killing the planet and billions of the poorest and most vulnerable folks so we can feel good about ourselves?

That seems pretty damned privileged to me.

And yes, it’s a silly hypothetical to illustrate a point, that’s what hypotheticals are. It’s not like we tie people to train tracks and see what trolley drivers do.

Just seems wild to me that you assume everyone is down with what we believe to be right. It’s easy to say you are dragging society forward when the consequences of not winning elections are fairly mild for you while the people at risk live elsewhere and are desperately poor.

And yet again, I don’t actually believe there’s a way for the Left to pitch trans issues in a way that A) wins broad support and B) doesn’t alienate our progressive base, so it’s kind of a moot point. (Even throwing it back to states, which mostly works for Dems as we have the biggest states etc and there’s still freedom of movement probably wouldn’t be enough.)

I mean, Byron had to flee England for fear of lynching and Oscar Wilde spent two years in prison for homosexuality.

And the abolitionists weren’t wildly popular but they were popular enough to win a broad base of support in the North.

And I’m sure folks a couple hundred years ago could multi task.

How is it a false equivalence though? The basic notion is that there are things you can be morally right on that may cause more actual harm.

Meanwhile, I only ever started this to answer someone’s question. As I’ve said repeatedly, I don’t think it’s an effective tactic as you’d split the progressive vote.

That being said, culture war shit and immigration is what the Right is running and winning on.

If you want to reign in the rich and corporations on climate change, it ain’t going to come from the Right. So, we need to win elections.