Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
The assumption that people on the other side politically are evil (for whatever reason)
...as opposed to assuming that they're seeing the world in a different way, a way that just has the wrong consequences when their own assumptions no longer apply.
For example, I just read this in a comment:
Now, now, don’t be silly – McCain is simply expressing one of the articles of faith for Republicans – that due process is only for wealthy, privileged folks accused of crimes that are associated with a colour of collar that is as pale as their skin.
(from this page)
Is this snark?
If it is, then fine.
If it isn't, though...we've got a slight problem. (And you know there are some people for which it isn't.)
See, I can't think of anyone who in their right mind would actually, explicitly, say that due process is only for "wealthy, privileged folks" with white skin and white-collar crimes. (Pointing out that "color" match is witty...but irrelevant.)
If you ask someone who agrees with McCain on this, they're likely going to give you a justification along these lines or so:
1. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is not a citizen. (Which, as far as I've heard, is false, as he is a citizen, like it or not.)
2. He didn't become a citizen through normal means, because he was granted it for reason of asylum. (As far as I know, being granted asylum doesn't make a person any less of a citizen in legal terms; correct me if I'm wrong.)
3. The heinousness of his crime requires that he be tried as a non-citizen enemy combatant. (Pester them a bit further and you'll get "requires" changed to "really ought to mean".)
4. His (allegedly) doing this for the cause of Islamic extremism means that he should be dealt with like other Islamic extremist terrorists.
5. His actions show that he is a monster, and lacks human compassion. Therefore he shouldn't be treated like a human.
6. He just doesn't deserve it, period.
7. Punishing him as severely as we can will deter further acts of terrorism. It will show that they should not, ever, fuck with us.
Note that the majority of these reasons -- #2 through #6 -- are all expressions of values. They are not expressions of law, or legal precedent; instead, they assume that the law ought to work the way we personally see the notion of justice working. #1 is based in a false assumption. #7 is also based what is likely a false assumption: it assumes that severe punishments will deter people who (at least in other instances) have generally shown their willingness to give up their lives completely to achieve an objective. It's also based in very short-term thinking, because it neglects what the action will do in the long run: while one may be able to deter some violence now, the action engenders resentment, and will end up creating a situation where everyone hates everyone else and is constantly looking to fuck over everyone else at the first hint of weakness. (Is that really the world you want to live in?)
But my point is that, aside from #1, the rest of them run on assumptions that the things work the way one wants them to work -- be they the legal system, social psychology, or whatever.
And if you look at them on the surface, they make sense.
So, accusing the other side of being a bunch of jackasses is not a recipe for doing anything, other than inflaming both sides more.
Comments
Welcome to American politics since the beginning of the colonies
Glennmagusharvey,
I am afraid I probably do not know enough about due process to comment on that, but I agree with your main point about not demonizing political opponents. There is probably something to say about how blogging, cable TV, and what have you have ended up increasing the kind of group polarization that makes people more apt to hate their political opponents.
Though I definitely could be wrong about this, I get the impression that a lot of the polarization problem is linked to people having fewer shared experiences. It seems like people can become more prone to creating strawmen and otherwise having a distorted view of the other side when they stay in their respective political echo-chambers and talk almost exclusively with people who share their political views. So yeah, I guess I feel like political dialogue between people with opposing political beliefs can do some good and that namecalling is just silly and counterproductive.
Or, alternatively, all politics since ever.
I don't think that the overwhelming majority of people like John McCain are evil. I simply think that they are well-intentioned but more often than not completely and utterly... wrong, for lack of a better word, which is probably more dangerous in the long run. I have no intention of vilifying that wrongness; rather, I simply seek to keep it from being acted upon.
I must also hasten to add that "wrong" does not mean "stupid," nor does being wrong about many things disqualify a person from being right about others or having a valid point in the midst of the general wrongness. But to me, a wrong decision made by an intelligent person is less acceptable than one made by an unintelligent one, and either way the effect is still negative.
I'm perfectly open to an unexpectedly large portion of any subset of politicians actually being evil. Kind of a natural result of rewarding ruthless manipulation with an ivory tower.
I don't see how we can look at anyone who would support withholding due process as anything but evil.
At the very least, due process to people who aren't male nobles.
REPENT REPENT
I know you're being silly, but the vast majority of humans historically probably didn't understand the concept of "due process". Still, evil is a very strong word, only reserved to the true scum of the earth...
Kiddy Grade fans.
>kiddy grade fans
do such people actually even exist
They've got a higher chance of existing than Legend of the Galactic Heroes fans, at least.
Fixed.There was a time when Noimporta pimped animoos that aren't universally beloved by everyone ever, you know.
I disagree with you, and particularly the example you gave:
The problem with this is that nobody is stupid enough to come out and say it. Relatively few people even believe it consciously. But obviously most of the right DOES believe it, and it comes out as dog whistles all the time.
For example, your reasons #1, #2, and #4 all reduce to "because he's not really American", and the others are odd in light of cases like Timothy McVeigh and the Unibomber.
More generally I think that it's totally possible for a political ideology is evil to the point where I would say if you don't think that what your political enemies are advocating is evil than why the fuck are you in politics in the first place? I don't think people like to use the word "evil" for this but that strikes me as more cowardice then anything else. I think that if a liberal says that conservative policies "harm innocent people" or a conservative says liberal policies "go against God" what they are both saying is that their opponent's policies are evil.
>if you don't think what your political enemies are advocating is evil
The problem being when you have a two party system that is polarized. Tends to get things all sorts of ugly.
Also someone here has bought kiddy grade stuff, I don't know which one of you, but you know who you are.
(No one will ever remember Crest of the Stars)
I found a thread where glenn said he wanted to buy it. Was that what you were thinking of?
As Nyktos said, you're fighting an uphill battle, here.
BlackHumor,
I can agree that some political ideologies can be really awful, but I feel like this is more a matter of degrees. While "evil" may accurately describe some really malicious policies, I think the word can lose some of its meaning when it is applied to situations concerning things that are less than major human rights abuses. Admittedly, I do not know enough about due process to say that this is potentially one of those situations.
Though there may be some parties whose ideologies are so abhorrent that ignoring them is preferable to working with them, I feel like realistically a lot of politicians (in a system like the U.S.'s) are going to need to cooperate in some fashion with people of differing beliefs. It seems to me that assuming reasonable good faith on the other side's part is going to go a lot further in fostering that cooperation than considering them to be outright "evil." Then again, I cannot really blame someone especially interested or experienced in politics who would consider that a naive perspective to have.
@BlackHumor: See, the thing is that the "he's not actually American" undercurrent theme. That's my point -- bigoted people don't see themselves as bigoted; they take a mistaken assumption, which they think is correct for whatever reason, and run with it as if it were true. And the reason for that assumption is generally, as far as I can tell, not an explicit, intentional bias toward the group in question.
For example, if you're used to white men being POTUS, and then suddenly a black man or a white woman is POTUS, and you think "whoa, this is different, I'm not used to this". If you combine that with a general dissatisfaction with the economy or whatever, it's not hard to find your way to "there's something wrong going on, and the current POTUS being unusual is probably related to it". And now you have prejudice.
I've never even heard of LoGH outside of Noimporta mentioning it, actually. So the heck with it.
It's on my to-watch list.
Check out the MAL recommendation board and marvel at how it's suggested in every single thread no matter what the OP asks for. It used to be the #1 rated anime on MAL, too, though it looks like it's now only #7 and two places above Code Geass R2 (lol).I don't know, most self-proclaimed "sane Republicans" I've ever met are really only just more articulate about what they believe than the more doofy members of their party, and while there's something to be said for being able to defend your opinions, there comes a point where you're talking in circles, and that's where the conversation between myself and most American conservatives just breaks down.
I just don't agree with really anything the Republican party has historically promoted since both parties were polarized the way they were when being a moderate stopped being a viable thing*, and whether or not that makes them "evil", it certainly makes them wrong in my eyes, and while I'm certainly no Democrat bulldog (I really cannot overstate the various problems I've started to have with Obama since his second term started), I generally agree with that party far more than the Republicans, or even any large third party (The Libertarian Party is crazy, the Greens are too mono-issue, and The Constitutionalists make the Republicans look positively liberal). So, I will continue to vote Democrat most of the time (there are exceptions at the local and sometimes state levels).
So I mean, yeah, I guess I do think the Republican party is pretty evil. In general, they oppose gay marriage (usually for stupid reasons, not that there's any logical reason to oppose it, but some are dumber than others), wider healthcare, business regulation, oppose even the most basic of gun control, hate the very idea of immigration, and just generally strike me as either scummy (for the higher ups) or misguided at best, prejudiced at worst (for the party populace). I have a really hard time justifying anything the party currently stands for in any meaningful way.
^^ I guess I hang out with the wrong crowd, then. But if the apparent "right" crowd is the one fond of shoehorning their favorite series into recommendation threads...
^
You may want to rephrase this, seeing as the Republican Party used to be far more moderate, and even liberal at one point. After all, they helped free the slaves and establish the national park system.
The ones who oppose gay marriage generally do so for religious-type reasons. By this I mean that it stems from a postulation that marriage is defined as a union between man and woman. When one simply postulates that that's how things should ideally be, well, there's not much to argue with about that. Religion works like that -- that's what an article of faith or a belief is; it's simply a postulate about how the world should be.
Emphasizing that a man and a woman can reproduce is an excuse, by the way. If it were really an issue, they'd be forcing couples to have children and be in favor of fertility drugs and stuff, and discouraging infertile people from getting married.
Now why they postulate that generally is a combination of religious beliefs (which are themselves postulates) or simply preferring the status quo (or a previous status quo).
In fact, several of these have to do with preserving the status quo, or attempting to return to it. Opposing gun regulations and immigrants are an example. It's because (or at least I surmise that it's because) the world is changing, and as the world changes it becomes less certain. And when the world around you is going downhill at the time, chances are you won't think the change is the right sort of change. The easiest way is to try to pull circumstances back to a scenario wherein you knew things worked out. Such as, well, the good old days, when women and blacks and latinos knew their place (i.e. playing second fiddle), and everyone could just strike it rich if they tried hard enough because there
arewere enough natural resources (including space) for them to do so, and everyone was a good little citizen who went to church on Sundays and everyone in small-town America knew each other and no one would do wrong unless they came in from outside to try to cheat, steal, and murder their way through the town, at which point the town could get together and shoot up or scare off the offending intruder with their guns. Something like that. Bonus points if you go all the way back to colonial North America, like the Tea Party movement does. Essentially, we're talking about a fantasy-world past. Reactionary stuff happens every time there's major social change happening.Opposing business regulation is just big business cherry-picking details from economic history and co-opting the above phenomenon to justify reducing regulations and taxes.
My point is not to justify any of these sorts of bigoted or misguided ideas. My point is to understand what motivates people to espouse them, so as to figure out more effective ways to deal with them.
That asterisk after that very statement was supposed to lead to a footnote about how I'm aware of this. I just forgot to type it.
Cuz there is literally always at least one Belligerant Republican in the audience who goes "yak yak Abe Lincoln yak".
I'm well aware of all of these things, it just doesn't change my opinion that the Republican Party as an institution is A Bad Thing.
It wasn't just Abe Lincoln. They were a pretty progressive force right up until the Conservative Coalition in the 1960's. Half the really abhorrent stuff they're pushing right now is from the ex-Dixiecrats Nixon picked up, and most of the rest is even more recent corporate shills who got a free ride into power on Reagan's botched policy.
Ask them (just ask, don't prompt an answer) if they think that national parks are a waste of taxpayer dollars. See if they even defend the idea, let alone mention Teddy Roosevelt.
^^Yeah man, I know that.
Both parties were at one point more coalitions than collections of single-ideology persons. But that doesn't really change what either is today.
You could probably argue that the Democrats are still a coalition, which is arguably their biggest problem.
Teddy Roosevelt, for all his memetic status, was not exactly a saint.