I had an argument with my dad a while back about single payer health care. A lot of people on the left might frame it like "don't you think everyone is entitled to access to health services?" But an idea like this is like nails on a chalkboard to my dad, who believes everything should be merit based, even access to health care.
Instead, phrasing it as "wouldn't you prefer it if we paid the same amount of money every month and when we go to the hospital we don't have to worry about any out of pocket costs?" This really nailed the point home to him. It's not about entitlements or whatever. It's about people not being destroyed financially by bad health. We skip over the feely stuff, we skip over the specifics of cost. We can both agree that this mechanism makes a lot of sense for most people, and the current system is rather arbitrary.
Anyway, he's still firmly a MAGA trumper but I do think on the aspect of health care, he does see single payer as a viable alternative.
I can already hear the nails on this one, because the goal has now been camouflaged.
Nowhere in that statement is there an allowance for people to not pay into the system: Everyone is forced to pitch in, even if they don't want to. An exit door must be available, no exceptions.
-- Stephen Covey, 7 Habits of Highly Effective People
I’d say the any group of people has areas of less factitious basis for their beliefs. But, We all should want to employ truthful factual real, non-propagandistic ideas, eh? Is this controversial?
If we don’t have ground truth, real facts, what can we base anything off of? Our policies will fail, our dollars will be wasted, and division will grow.
Another danger is people playing with definitions. A third is people claiming things to be "facts" based on cherry-picked studies (and possibly some dubious interpretations thereof).
Progress can be made, but I think it requires a sophisticated approach. Paying attention to all the above dimensions, and probably to the motives of the people involved.
Some regular self doubt "what I think are ground truth facts may need to be requisitioned and revalidated and that isn't just true for one specific group to consider" is a core requirement of trying to hold a fact based viewpoint, just as important as any other part of such an approach.
1. We're not doing that.
2. If we are, it's not that bad.
3. If it is that bad, it's not our fault.
4. If it is our fault, just have faith it'll work out.
A lot of their belief system relies on Trump being a liar. Literally, they're hoping for and arguing that it's all a-okay because Trump is a liar so him saying XYZ terrible thing doesn't matter.
The right isn't trying to push anyone in their direction because even they don't believe their direction. They're currently in a suspended state, a type of dissociation.
What you have to understand about the populist far-right is they are, by definition of populism, appealing to the bottom of the barrel. This characterization of how right-wing voters grapple with what their representatives are doing is uncomfortable because we all know it's true.
For context, a lot of people in my family vote right always. Trust me, I have engaged with people on the right and conspiracists, and the common theme is their reliance in a distrust for the people and actions they themselves support. It's an almost supreme lack of conviction, juxtaposed with a religion-like blind faith.
If it's any consolation to you, or anyone, this isn't a new thing. You can see this kind of behavior throughout history in all populist movements that have gone sour. Their supporters stuck in a type of purgatory, where they must ignore what is actually going on while absentmindedly following the messaging. When asked "so what happens now?", they do not know. But they are certain it will be okay.
So much of it's simply made-up that any attempt to engage one of them is incredibly tedious, and it's the exact same bullshit every time you start talking to a new one. You'd need weeks, at least, of consistent and very-careful engagement to fix the fact-gap so you can even begin discussing actual issues. For each one of them.
It's like trying to talk politics with someone and they keep bringing up how the real problem is the lawless Rebel Alliance and we need to trust Emperor Palpatine to set things right, and after a while you figure out they aren't joking or just trying to get under your skin and sincerely believe we live in Star Wars, so now you can't even talk about actual issues in the real world until you manage to convince them that they do not live in Star Wars. You try to talk about crime & policing or whatever and they start talking about how we need to clear all the criminals out of the pirate moon Nar Shaddaa, and... what the fuck do you even do with that? It's disheartening.
[EDIT] Real world example: Local republican politician comes to my door while campaigning and is talking about how local crime (in our amazingly safe, rather rich small town) is WAY UP and out of control and that's why we need more money for the police. I have my strong suspicions based on practically every other time this claim has been made by a Republican, and also the fact that our town is conspicuously safe and rich, but I don't fact-check her on the spot and just let her finish the spiel and politely disengage, but that was like half of her message (the rest was, I shit you not, about trans athletes, JFC).
Of course the police department's own stats fail to back up any of what she was saying, when I check right after the conversation. I mean, obviously they do, there was no reason to expect otherwise, but I did check, because that's how I roll.
Without even digging into the other half of what she was presenting, half of her message right off the bat, half of what she chose to present as important, was over a completely made-up issue. Not real at all.
The fact that it didn't matter to you isn't important to them, it's the aggregate as that is the end goal. They may even disagree with it entirely and agree with your stance.
Those work, though, because you run into he same perspectives among Republican voters, because their media are telling them it's true and they don't bother to check (the ones who do, presumably, move away from identifying as Republicans the dozenth time they catch such an "error" in a given day of watching Fox).
I view it as planting seeds, and harvesting them later. Before that can be done though, a person generally has to understand how entrenched a person is in being a stenographer. I have found on both "sides", there are a certain amount of people that literally do no thinking for themselves at all, and only regurgitate. I've tried for years to work different angles on them, and those seeds mostly still lay dormant and un-sprouted...
“The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies... is a foolish idea. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can throw the rascals out at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies.” - Carroll Quigley
I see some error patterns that both sides seem to uniquely make, for example. Just 1 for each side for the sake of brevity here: Rightwingers idolize success without acknowledging the systematic boosts (or pure luck) that have often assisted it, while leftwingers are not only disgusted by success but consider it heretical. Leftwingers constantly compare a situation to some unattainable ideal and are therefore constantly complaining about the current state of affairs without offering a realistic solution; rightwingers fail to acknowledge the very real injustices that a more purely authoritarian approach to things often causes (see: three-strikes laws).
Speaking as one who tests politically center, I believe that the danger is neither nonexistent nor is as high as you may believe. Note that there is some merit to the rightwing claim of "MSM bias"; harping on the same cherry-picked injustice stories for outrage clicks over and over again seems to be the last remaining successful news business model (and this should worry EVERYONE).
The entire left wing rhetoric against billionaires is that they are not in fact successful on the merits of work that everyone else is doing, they are successful in cheating the system and exploiting others. We love success that happens within the same rules that we average people all operate in.
This is like saying that CoD players who are against aimbotters are "disgusted by success" when they point out that no one will legitimately have a 100/4/0 KDA (a more appropriate ratio for billionaire vs average person would be 1000000/4/0, but that would almost be too outlandish, which is why there are so many infographics showing just how conceptually confounding a billion dollars really is).
Yes. And that is false. If you don't believe me, bring that to ChatGPT and ask it to argue both sides of this claim, because I do not have time to retread this. For one thing, everyone has to abide by the rules- and if the rules are unfair, then it is the rules that deserve this scorn, not the people who played the game by them.
> We love success that happens within the same rules that we average people all operate in.
This is also false. I have not seen a single successful individual praised on this basis. I'd love to know of one. Musk graduated with college debt- something that I did not- and yet has attained massively more success than I, for example. Luigi, the guy who shot the CEO of UnitedHealthcare, was raised in a far wealthier family than that CEO was!
Wait, how am I already getting downvoted? At least counterargue?
> Rightwingers idolize success without acknowledging the systematic boosts (or pure luck) that have often assisted it
Guess what some of those systemic boosts are? Unequal rules. And if a game maker (or a government) made a bunch of special rules or made constant exceptions to the rules, for people of a certain wealth level, no one would direct their scorn only at the unfair rules, they'd also rightly direct it at the people benefiting from them (especially when that group lobbies for the special treatment like the wealthy do).
> Musk graduated with college debt
So? His family is incredibly rich, and he was given every opportunity on earth to succeed, and any college debt would have been no threat to that. He carries millions in personal debt, and it doesn't disadvantage him now, either.
> I'd love to know of one.
Bernie Sanders? Hasanbi? The average 60+ retiree whose house is now worth north of a million? If you're asking me to list billionaires, there won't be any, but the vast majority of millionaires out there who aren't trying to use their money unethically, the Left has no issue with.
> Wait, how am I already getting downvoted? At least counterargue?
Perhaps the people who downvoted you didn't have time to retread all this.
You have to understand their position: They don't feel in danger. They feel in power - the opposite of danger. Asking them to perceive danger is asking them to give up their feeling of power - tantamount to admitting everything they voted for is void.
But the path I found was to tease out that expansion of powers are permanent, making any changes from expansion of powers temporary. And we don't want temporary positive changes, do we? With all this legislative power, couldn't we just, you know, pass laws?
I've also come to accept that we should (for the sake of progress past issues) just:
* build the border wall, but suddenly nobody seems interested - what gives?
* slash costs to balance the budget, but suddenly nobody seems interested, what gives?
etc
The problem with true discussion of these issues is that you find yourself mostly in agreement with each other's viewpoint (at least subject to their "axioms"), and have to mellow out a bit. You can't really stand still and say "Come over here" all the time.
I'd believe govt agency staffers, since conservatives by and large want to destroy those agencies and not work there.
The military is a weird place and contains multitudes
The fact that the US only has “two parties” obscures the fact that there are wings in those parties that don’t really govern in a meaningful way.
The nationalist/populist conservative wing (MAGA née Tea Party) hasn’t really been in power pre Trump.
I don’t have an answer, but reason and logic are not going to solve the problem.
-- I liken it to how arguing about the shortcomings of your bully's stance doesn't make them stop punching you.
EDIT: I'm going to add, that I think the solution at least begins with encouraging more shared experiences and spaces (like a movie theater). Most people want to be seen as well functioning in public limiting how much they might explore the nastiness of their own right wing echo chambers.
As someone who loves to converse with either side, it's more often one side than the other that will listen to reason, and argue outside of logical fallacies.
I get vastly more violent threats/lame insults from one side.
I get an overwhelming amount of definition problems from one side. Which are easily solved using any dictionary (though this is becoming less true)
I get things like "True X, Y, Z or Proper X, Y, Z" overwhelmingly from one side.
And I get vastly more conspiracy theories not grounded in any reality from one side.
I know of many people from both sides that hold disgusting views such as: I want to do X,Y,Z but am mad if anyone else does this exact thing to me. Every one of these people do so on protected grounds (in Government) of one form or another.
Recently, I have noted people who scream at a leader and bootlick another while claiming each are of the other's style of governance. It's quite remarkable.
I am not “on the right”, but I do have the ability to entertain the idea my “opponent” is actually right and I am wrong. This can be a valuable exercise to get you in a more .. sympathetic frame of mind.
Let’s try to loosen you up. Let’s say we are actually not in danger and you and all the rest of you - excuse me, it’s for the exercise - “pearl clutchers” are actually ridiculously overreacting and misreading the situation. The world is dangerous right now and singing kumbaya is not going to cut it. Trump is weird and we all dislike him, but nothing you can offer will improve the situation.
Try to see that viewpoint. Try to feel it. Try to imagine a world where you are wrong and your “opponent” is actually right and you were “suppressing” them all that time and in your righteous might caused tremendous harm which resulted in this correction.
Next time enter the discussion with “These times are complex and there sure is a lot going on. Let’s talk because I’m confused!” instead of “I am right and why do you take so long to see that I am clearly knowledgable and you should definitely heed all my warnings (which with 98% probability come down to ‘you are basically stupid’)”
This second administration has very much crossed my line, in so many ways. We are past the point of "maybe I'm just confused?"
The people I've met who still support this guy are dangerously, dangerously stupid and hypocritical. They'd have strongly opposed all of the stuff Trump has done if they didn't know Trump was the one who did it. It's terrifying watching people completely abandon the principles they used to stand for.
We are dealing with a different phenomenon than just political disagreement; we are dealing with the type of delusion that gets millions of people killed, and we need to acknowledge it as such now.
If they give up principles that easily, they were never principles. They are simply ad hoc justifications for their preferred cult of personality.
Many people have been conditioned to gain energy and meaning from confrontation. But when you let them explain their views they suddenly become a lot more open to being wrong about some but not all of the details.
Slowly slowly this leads to minds being changed.
I think a lot of technical debates can also be solved this way. Ask people to help you understand what they’re saying, repeat back what they said so they know you got it, and then ask about how it world work in x, y, z scenarios. Talking like this has the best chance of success.
I don't have the heart for it though. Block and move on
His reasons for doing so are presumably not all that rational so I’d steer clear off obvious bear traps like rationality.
I liken it more to how you engage with angry toddlers or teens. Acknowledge the issue first. Share their pain and then you can try alternatives.
Not saying I think “talking” will be helpful with guys like Hitler, but I’m not much of an assassin so if I personally where to be put on the spot I have very few other options than try this route of, at least attempted, understanding.
I’m not really what you’d call “on the right” but my left-leaning friends seem convinced democracy is teetering and to me that seems to be mostly just propaganda.
So where’s the danger again? Were you worried then?
It’s all framing. You’re being primed by biased media to see everything Trump does as a hostile takeover and while I don’t agree with many of those things, if you keep an open mind and try to talk to intelligent Trump fans (which does require a fair amount of filtering, but they do exist) you can see the alternate frame.
And that’s sort of what this original article is about, right? That was my point, the comment to which I was responding was a “toddler” getting frustrated by other people being toddlers. It’s toddlers all the way down.
The first thing you should do, when you encounter a toddler, is to be really careful to ask whether you too are one. We all are most of the time and with loads of self-examination, we can occasionally overcome it.
It’s all a matter of framing and I was asking the parent if they’re open to an alternate frame because if not, they’re a toddler too and I don’t think they recognize it. The comments I got in reply were pretty solid evidence that it’s toddlers all the way down.
2016 was when Trump suggested that his supporters could shoot Hillary if he lost, and that didn't immediately end his candidacy. That was a shocking development. It's been downhill since.
- A conspiracy to refuse to leave the white house went unpunished at the highest levels of government.
- Congress is refusing to cancel declarations of emergency that grant the executive special powers with enormous impact.
- Habeas corpus has been violated many times and the judicial branch has been limited to ineffectively "ordering" it to stop in one case.
There are many others, but the ones that are overtly political tend to be "invisible" to people who agree deeply enough. For example, Chinese-style social media scanning for visa holders seems to only bother people who do not see the US as being in a state of war related to what their social media is being scanned for.
It is not propaganda that he has signed executive orders directing the DOJ to investigate individuals who have made statements he doesn't like but were never suspected of any crime.
It is not propaganda that America is now illegally (according to court rulings) renditioning people from the US to incarceration facilities in another country with no conviction, no charges, and no sentence -- indeed, no due process at all -- and illegally (according to court rulings) circumventing habeas corpus, a principle of proto-democracy since the 12th century.
It is not propaganda that the administration is willfully ignoring rulings by SCOTUS.
These are the basic facts. It is also a fact that these, or similar, things have not happened in US history outside of some extreme events such as the Civil War or world wars.
Whether or not you integrate these extreme and highly unusual actions that go against basic tenets of democracy and reach a conclusion of "danger" or not is up to you, but if anyone does reach such a conclusion, it would clearly not be "just propaganda" or even "mostly just propaganda".
One stand-out feature of the first term was a total disregard for conflict of interest. No real attempt to distance himself from his investments and businesses, multiple actions that sure looked like enriching himself at the public expense, multiple family members given roles in the administration. All of these would have been huge scandals and maybe even drawn impeachment and a conviction, not that long ago.
These blatantly corrupt abuses of power against officers of the court are not propaganda.
Dude, the last time Trump lost he tried to overthrow the government. Are we just supposed to... pretend that didn't happen and he's just some bastion of American democracy?
The stage for this has been set for a while now, and if you haven't noticed, Trump isn't backing down on ANY of his beliefs. He's doubling down. What other conclusion could you draw then?
If a lot of people have drawn a vastly different conclusion from the same set of facts as you, and you can’t fathom what that may be, that’s the strongest possible sign that you may be a toddler in this particular instance.
No, it's not, because we're not living in 1984. What is possible isn't determined by what people believe. No, actually, I cannot claim I am a butterfly and then fly out of this room, even if everyone in the room sees it.
> that’s the strongest possible sign that you may be a toddler in this particular instance.
Me, worried about the value of democracy, am a "toddler". Even on hacker news, the enticement of propaganda cannot escape you. You MUST defend the fascism, like a robot. What an idiot I am, for standing by the constitution, by American morals. How foolish of me for demanding we be skeptical of our all-knowing all-powerful king. Rise ye, and lay down your hands! Your lord Trump approaches, and we must kiss his feet.
Facts matter not. Reality matters not. Courts matter not. Law matters not. We not only live in delusion, we revel in it. We are proud to be insane. We are grateful to be so smart as to denounce reality. And we, alone, can see the True Nature of the world.