Why are We so Polarized?

Weirdos. Here we use soda (Na2CO3) for cleaning.

Quote by noll

Weirdos. Here we use soda (Na2CO3) for cleaning.

And how do you say "fucking in the kitchen"?

Quote by Magical_felix

And how do you say "fucking in the kitchen"?

With my mouth.

As someone who grew up in Ohio… fuck all y’all West coast people for making fun of saying ‘Pop’. Learn to use an onomatopoeia you culture deprived swine.

Most of what y’all drink does not contain sodium bicarbonate so you’re not even using the term right.

And to you Southerners, don’t let corporations choose your terminology. The following exchange drives me insane:

“What kind of coke do you want?”

“Pepsi is my favorite coke.”

Quote by RowanThorn

As someone who grew up in Ohio… fuck all y’all West coast people for making fun of saying ‘Pop’. Learn to use an onomatopoeia you culture deprived swine.

Most of what y’all drink does not contain sodium bicarbonate so you’re not even using the term right.

And to you Southerners, don’t let corporations choose your terminology. The following exchange drives me insane:

“What kind of coke do you want?”

“Pepsi is my favorite coke.”

Yeah, but mostly because Pepsi tastes like shit.

So does American coke. Mexican coke isn't that bad.

Quote by noll

With my mouth.

How do you say it in Dutch, come on do it.

Quote by Magical_felix

How do you say it in Dutch, come on do it.

Okay, I did it.

Quote by noll

Okay, I did it.

Type it out you bitch

Quote by Magical_felix

Type it out you bitch

Jesus Christ, will you two just fuck already?

Quote by Dani

Jesus Christ, will you two just fuck already?

You're not supposed to attack other posters for their sexuality

Quote by Magical_felix

You're not supposed to attack other posters for their sexuality

Attack? I'm being encouraging. You could cut the sexual tension between you two with a rusty butter knife. I've had enough of the will they, won't they nonsense. Quit edging and go for it.

Quote by Dani

Attack? I'm being encouraging. You could cut the sexual tension between you two with a rusty butter knife. I've had enough of the will they, won't they nonsense. Quit edging and go for it.

You always get jealous when another member gets my attention, especially if it's flirty.

Quote by Magical_felix

You always get jealous when another member gets my attention, especially if it's flirty.

Why am I not enough for you?

Quote by Dani

Why am I not enough for you?

Too much actually

Quote by Magical_felix

Too much actually

That's fair. And even though it's over between us, you can't UN-eat my ass, bitch.

Quote by noll

Yeah, but mostly because Pepsi tastes like shit.

Correct. Pepsi does taste like shit.

Quote by Dani

That's fair. And even though it's over between us, you can't UN-eat my ass, bitch.

Gross!

Quote by noll

Gross!

It's downright foul

Have you wondered whether our polarization is because we keep getting told how polarized we are? Maybe instead of asking what divides us (there's plenty), we should be seeking out that which brings us together... Like orgasms. It doesn't matter what your political affiliation is, we all enjoy a nice, deep, satisfying orgasm. So, instead of fighting with your neighbors, give them an orgasm. Have one for yourself while you're at it. Life's too short.

I prefer to fuck women who are 100%/180 degrees opposite of my social feelings towards the rest of the world.

They have always been the kinkiest. But, that was back in the good old days when abortion was legal in all 50 states, and SHE might have aborted the fetus and never told me later - cuz I wasn't a good enough catch.

I get along a lot better with women who see the world as I do. I enjoy sex with women who don't necessarily give 2 shits about starvation in Slovenia or Alabama. The more self centered THEY are, the better fucks they are.

Just my 2 cents.

No shit, when exactly, was America great. When was that period of time which Trump and his magats want to take us all back to?

Before women could vote? Before minorities could vote? When..?

Quote by Guest
I recently read a book by Ezra Klein titled "Why We're Polarized."



And when I say "we" I am mainly referring the the USA, but if I put that in my thread title there are certain people that will get mad.

In this book, Klein breaks down not only the history of political polarization but also the factors that have led to increased polarization in modern times. The American population has always been polarized around specific issues like slavery, or civil rights for black people.

But nowadays people pretty much conform to the halo effect. Where if someone is anti-abortion you can pretty much guess their views on global warming. People are forced to pick a team and fight for all the issues that team supports.

It hasn't always been like this... When Medicare was passed in 1966 it received largely bipartisan support. Even though by today's standards it would be seen as a "radical leftist" program.

Let's compare that with Obamacare, which was passed in 2010 despite receiving almost no support from the Republicans. It was just a nationalization of Rebublican Mit Romney's health care plan in Massachusetts. It was a pro business, pro-corporate program that sought to increase coverage while still allowing insurance companies to stay in the game.

Yet the right wing branded Obama as a socialist.

If you are interested in actual economics then I suggest you read the works of Nobel prize winning economist Paul Krugman, who has numerous books as well as online lectures.

If you look at income inequality over the last hundred years you can see that it directly correlates with political polarization.



As fewer people concentrate more of the wealth then they are able to manipulate the politics of the country. During the gilded age, they were able to do it because there was virtually no government regulation on industry. After the New Deal various social programs spread the wealth out and gave (mostly white people) affordable housing and education. Then came the Reagan era. And you can see how inequality grew once again. (Disproportionately among minorities.) The war on drugs also had a huge effect on that.

Now, they are able to dominate the political system by using social issues to manipulate working class uneducated whites into voting against their economic interests. They also maintain their power through disenfranchisement, gerrymandering, and the continuations of silly ideas like the Electoral college and the fact that Wyoming gets as many senators as California.

But I believe that there is an even more nefarious actor at work here. And that is the media.

In the 50s and 60s there were 3 networks that pretty much had the same news. The media was a trusted organization and relatively non-biased.

Now today you can still see relatively non biased news if you go to the BBC or CBC, or NPR in America. But people generally find those boring.

Roger Ailes once said that "People don't want to be informed. They want to feel informed." In other words, they want their own ideas shouted back to them.

This started with FOX news in the mid 90s, but it was really after the 2003 invasion of Iraq that FOX took on the role of the Republican Party Propaganda machine. And today, even though they are fighting against One America News Network as Trump's official ass kisser.... the network that the majority of Americans get their news from is a Trump lap dog. If you feel like that's an overestimation, then please just youtube the way that FOX has changed their "news" to suit Trump's COVID views.

So in your opinion... why are we so polarized now?

Is it the media?

Is it due to rising inequality?

Is it social media?

Or is it something else?

It is because people Don't want to work for them selves . To justify that , they come up with events of injustice [their pov] in other spaces , very little to with them. They find resonance with similar people and the sound gets louder. Media and other intellectual vultures, who feed on this tries to tap it for their self benefit...

The polarization started in 1985 when the Reagan administration did away with the Fairness Doctrine - which enabled the rise of the FOX Network by Ailes. They brag about this 'accomplishment' on Reagan's official website: https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/archives/topic-guide/fairness-doctrine

This enabled the shitshow that Fox news has evolved into. You say it started in the mid 90s? You fail to remember the Starr investigation into Bill Clinton's behavior in 1991 after he was elected to office - he was badgered for the entirety of his 8 years in office - and Fox broadcast everything he did they disagreed with and they invented BULLSHIT he had nothing to do with to paint him AND Hillary as liberal devils.

Rush Limbaugh rose to prominence on Talk Radio during this timeframe and nobody swung more public clout than that nasty SOB.

Democrats were on the defensive all the time to the point where they failed to be able to go on the offensive at all. Newt Gingrich in the 1994 election year came rolling into power with lies and bullshit which was promoted daily on Fox Noise.

Quote by befikre83

It is because people Don't want to work for them selves . To justify that , they come up with events of injustice [their pov] in other spaces , very little to with them. They find resonance with similar people and the sound gets louder. Media and other intellectual vultures, who feed on this tries to tap it for their self benefit...

most people don't work for themselves. they work for multi-billion dollar corporations who keep getting richer, while their employers are just trying to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table.

It appears that Kamala is making a former conservative Trump stronghold in Florida - a lot less polarized. I bet there's ketchup all over the walls of Mar-a-Lardo tonight.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/kamala-harris-rally-draws-hundreds-of-golf-carts-in-conservative-florida-community-the-villages-200715047.html

On Saturday afternoon, around 500 golf carts reportedly paraded through the Villages, a retirement community in Central Florida, in support of Kamala Harris for president — roughly 200 more than the number that reportedly showed up for President Biden ahead of the 2020 election.

Saturday’s rally was part of the newly minted Harris campaign's efforts to engage Florida voters and recruit volunteers to boost Democratic support.

With roughly 30% of Florida voters affiliated with neither the Republican or Democratic parties, per the Tallahassee Democrat, some attendees saw the turnout as a sign of a notable shift for the largely conservative community.

Political tensions were on full display in the Villages, when a man at a pro-Trump golf cart rally shouted “White power!” in a 2020 that was later retweeted by Trump with the message: “Thank you to the great people of The Villages!”

At least four people living in the Villages have pleaded guilty to voter fraud for casting multiple ballots in the 2020 election.

1.

I wish to apologize in advance to the reader. For various reasons, my spelling and grammar are flawed. I have an idiosyncratic method of punctuation, meant to satisfy my desire for my written words to reflect my audible speech.

I also realize that my compositional style comes across to some readers as overwrought or verbose. So be it. If you have the attention span of a small child, feel free to move on.

I freely admit that much of this is written in a "stream of consciousness" style. I do not believe that necessarily makes it incoherent or invalid, and I may at some later date edit it for greater organization and clarity.

I've given the ideas presented here a good deal of thought, over the course of many years. I realize that some persons are likely to be emotionally provoked by some of them. This generally results in hasty responses full of logical fallacies. I've numbered certain sections in order that those few calm and rational persons who may disagree can do so with some precision, so they can cite in specific what they are discussing.

Since the nation is so politically polarized as of this writing, I feel I must state that I am emphatically neither a conservative nor a liberal.

2.

There has been a lot of "noise" in the general culture,

an apparent attempt to drown out individuality. Many of the precepts of this philosophy, variously known as "Political Correctness" or "Woke", make no logical sense.

3.

For example, I notice quite a few things attacked as "racist" or "sexist". The self evident fact that there are exceptions to general stereotypes only means that the stereotype is not universal. It does not mean that NO ONE within that group fits the stereotype.

4.

If a person makes a stereotype observation about a group, and you consider it inaccurate, you're perfectly free to cite contrary examples. Unless you were there, however, you can't refute the first hand experience of the person commenting. You may not like their conclusions, but you have no basis to refute them.

In reply, your opponent is entitled to challenge you: "Are you saying that the majority in that group are NOT the way I describe them?" , and then it is on you to prove them wrong. Good luck with that.

5.

My observation is that the premise of "Woke" and "Political Correctness" groups is absurd. They are attempting to ignore objective reality, like a child who puts fingers in his ears and yells "Nah nah nah, I can't hear you!".

Stereotypes are not, as they would like to believe, just malicious falsehoods. They are rules of thumb that emerged from objective observation over time.

6.

If someone wishes to speak up and warn against

Confirmation bias, I am strongly in favor of that.

What I am opposed to is Orwellian censorship, attempting to tell persons what words they cannot use, and what beliefs they are not allowed to hold.

That is what I observe in practice by those who label themselves "woke" or "politically correct".

7.

The wage gap.

If it were factually true that females and minorities are paid less than white males, even though they are equally qualified, that would be a self correcting situation. If there were a population of workers being paid, for example, 25% less, and I observed that they had equal skills, I could hire them away with an offer of just 12% more money, start up a competing company, and put the "unfair" company out of business. My overhead being lower would allow me to undercut them. Yet this has not happened. Insisting that some type of irrational bias overrides the survival and profit motives is absurd.

Justice and equality are not synonymous. Enforced equality of pay or grades or anything else, regardless of merit, is not justice.

8.

When Thomas Jefferson wrote, "....all men are created equal....", he was not stating that all humans are equal. On the contrary, he owned slaves and believed that women were in many ways inferior to men.

What Jefferson WAS saying was a refutation of the "Divine Right of Kings", the concept that some individuals are designated by God to rule over others. He was not saying "we are all the same", he was saying that the King had no inherent right to rule simply due to birth or supernatural designation.

Did Jefferson succumb to inaccuracy in pursuit of poetic style? Were his words subject to editing and approval from his peers before a final edition emerged? Often, documents created by the Founding Fathers are praised for their vagueness, allowing future flexibility. I suspect this may be completely unintentional. The final words were simply what a group of quarrelsome and very disparate politicians would grudgingly agree to settle upon.

9.

Many persons succumb to the game Berne named "Yes But". For example, a female friend is an actress, and she opined that females are heavily discriminated against. She asserts that women are given fewer roles, rarely leading roles, and are underpaid. I asked her if most of her female friends in the profession agreed, and she said they very much felt the same.

I said, "So, there are a lot of you, and you all want better roles and better pay, correct?"

"Yes." she replied

"Simple, then. Pool your money and talent, and produce your own plays and movies. If you really are "just as good" as male writers, actors and producers, then you will succeed. No one can prevent you from staging a play or putting your promotional material for a movie up onto YouTube.

Every cable company in America is forced by law to have a studio and a channel with free access for the community to produce programming."

She blathered about not being able to get a loan to make a female-lead or female-content movie. I replied that statistics prove that the bulk of the wealth in America is held by females, not males.

I asked her to name some under-utilized movie actresses. I looked up their status online, and discovered that many of the women had simply married a very wealthy man, and retired from acting. How many failed male actors ended up married to a Sugar Momma? Take a look for yourself.

My friend quickly lost interest in whining about women being discriminated against.

Imagine a stereotypical Romance Novel, with a female lead character. Suppose each role in the novel had reversed genders. Now, it is the man who has to be chased, seduced and won by the woman jumping through the hoops. How well do you think that would sell to women? Poorly, and rightly so. The market wants what it wants. It does not care about "fair" or "equal".

Equality of opportunity simply means the government puts no barriers in place. It does not mean that government should enforce equality of results.

10. It just now occurs to me that some, even many, hostile readers, not liking what they're finding here, will attempt to twist my words. I am not saying that there are not unfair persons who irrationally discriminate based upon race or gender. What I am saying is that some generalizations are mostly accurate.

11. I am also stating that a victimhood mentality is often destructive to the individual, and policies that reward failure, real or imagined, are corrosive.

12.

I began by commenting about racism. If someone chooses to use an ethnic slur in reference to me, or to make a comment that has a negative stereotype attached to it, I have choices.

First of all, no one can offend me unless I give them the power to do so. If I do not regard the person making the comment as someone whose opinion deserves respect, why would I get upset?

Second, that commenter might have perfectly valid personal experiences/observations to cause them to make incorrect assumptions about me. They may indeed have fallen into the lazy habit of conforming; they have heard from many others certain things about my group, and it never occurred to them that there are exceptions to every stereotype. It is up to me to determine if any of these possibilities is true.

Dismissing the speaker as a "racist" is just as ignorant as their labeling me incorrectly.

Being offended is a choice.

Before there can be a feeling, "that makes me angry" for example, there first has to be a thought. Often, the thoughts that result in negative feelings are vague, almost unconscious, and usually illogical.

Bad feelings emerge when we have unrealistic expectations that are not met. When dealing with people, "hope for the best, but plan for the worst" is the only rational policy.

Why would you give anyone, let alone a stranger, the power to "make" you anything?

Happiness and unhappiness, joy and anger, are choices.

13.

Now, suppose a commenter has accurately described the negative traits of some, or most, of the persons in my group?

If I don't want to be regarded that way, which tactic is most likely to be effective? Self-righteous indignation and name-calling in return?

Or would it be more sensible to simply not display the negative traits that are being assumed to exist in me?

I happen to know many persons of my group that fit many elements of the negative stereotype. If I want to stop being lumped in with them, I can not only behave differently, I can address the persons who actually are bad examples, and tell them to clean up their act.

Telling someone it's "not nice" to make assumptions or to speak the general truth is futile. If a person is already resentful, biased or suspicious, attacking them with self righteous censorship will only deepen their hatred and confirm their beliefs.

14. The term "discrimination" is often misused. To discriminate is to tell the difference between things.

If you did not discriminate between safe and unsafe, healthy and unhealthy, good and bad, life would literally be impossible.

The trouble is, liberals in general have deliberately obscured any distinction between discrimination with rational factual criteria, and irrational discrimination.

If a person genuinely has objective merit, and they are rejected by others based upon irrational criteria, whose loss is that? No amount of resentment, shouting, legislation or childishly holding your breath until you turn blue is going to persuade an already irrational person.

15.

It's perfectly valid to demand freedom from harm, from active harassment.

Unfortunately, once minorities gained freedom from persecution, they actively attempted to force others to, not just leave them in peace, but to INCLUDE them.

16.

An example is that years ago, an annual St. Patrick's Day parade in Boston Massachusetts was hijacked. Vocal and pushy gays attempted to hijack the parade and participate, trying to turn it into a sort of gay pride event.

This was especially obnoxious in that it deeply offended many Irish Catholics, and it was unnecessary. The gays could have applied for a permit, paid the fees, and held their own parade. The reality was, they wanted to shove their chosen lifestyle down the throats of a major-venue audience, a parade with TV coverage. The majority of citizens would have actively boycotted a "gay pride" parade, and the gays knew this.

You should have a legal right to be TOLERATED, but that is where it ends. You have no "right" to be included where you are not wanted.

Your rights end where other person's rights begin. You have a right to your lifestyle, and they have a right to theirs. Theirs means you are NOT WELCOME in their lives, and you have no right to force your way in.

Now, you should bear in mind that was written by a person who has experienced lifelong bullying and rejection. I don't base my values on shallow subjective experience.

I'm conscious of having said "lifestyle choice". I'm not aware of any scientific proof that sexual orientation is genetic. If it were an inherited trait, how was the gay person conceived by two straight people?

Was persecution of gays prevalent, violent and misguided? Yes. That does not justify them being pushy assholes in response.

Thomas Paine pointed out that when things have been bad long enough, most persons begin to think that bad conditions are normal and inevitable. This is false.

Simply asking the question "why are we polarized" implies that there are only two poles. This is false.

There is another option:

1. Mind your own business;

2. Pay your own way;

3. Use force only in self defense.

If you'd like to understand how that would be implemented, I refer you to two essays, "The Nature of Government" and "Government Financing in a Free Society". The author has come under so much hysterical Ad Hominem attack, you may be reluctant to read these brief explanations. Consider why they would choose to attack the messenger rather than the message.

I was tempted to write a randy story about Ayn, but couldn't get anything or anyone to come together. It always just ended up with her on a deserted beach throwing rocks at the seagulls.