The political bubble and how it affects your opinion

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

Ran across an interesting article over the weekend on The Guardian. Uncommonly, for The Guardian, it's a rather balanced item. They interviewed groups of voters identified as Dems and GOP to see how closely their perception of the other's answers mirrored reality. The results were interesting. Please give it a read.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/21/democrats-republicans-political-beliefs-national-survey-poll


Spoiler alert, living in a bubble is bad.

[CJD]

In my experience, if you sit down and talk to someone from the other party, you'll find that you agree on a majority of sweeping statements (such as "racism is bad," "Healthcare is a human right," "Illegal immigration is bad," "Debt is a major problem in this country") but it's the details on how to act on those sweeping statements that people disagree on.

For example, Republicans' solution to decreasing illegal immigration is to build a wall to prevent it whereas Democrats' solution is to make legal immigration a less harrowing path. One physically prevents illegal immigration (in some cases), the other makes illegal immigration less necessary to the immigrants who feel like they are in danger/fear they will be rejected in a legal application process (and are now on file, making illegal entry more difficult).

It's a similar case with abortion. Republicans want to ban it, Democrats want to make it less necessary by providing sexual education and more access to birth control, but not forbidding abortion if it comes to that. Both would likely decrease abortion, but one condones it while the other doesn't. (I also recognize that the way I've described these two issues may sound like I personally favor the Democrat's path. It's because I do. It doesn't mean the two parties' end goal isn't similar.)

One of the biggest things coming between the two parties is that our politicians are so happy to demonize and caricaturize the opposing party. Like the article says, Republicans thought half of the left think Police are bad people. Because they oppose the police killing unarmed people of color. Same with Democrats regarding Republicans' beliefs regarding racism. Of course there are radicals on both sides that do believe these things but they are in the minority.

As for Democrats not being exposed to Republicans as much as Republicans are exposed to Democrats, I think that's a matter of the media being, largely, biased towards the left. Fox News is the only mainstream right wing news media, and Democrats mostly avoid them because of people like Sean Hannity and Jeanine Pirro (although I've found a few of them to be relatively nonpartisan in their reporting, such as Chris Wallace and Shep Smith).

Another factor may be Republicans' tendency to not be willing to share their beliefs in public, especially in democratic areas, such as most medium to large cities. So Democrats may be living and talking to Republicans who just don't share their beliefs publicly. In the age of social media, it is becoming more and more difficult to discuss Republican talking points without offending someone, so it isn't a far leap to assume it's safer just to not say what you believe, in case it offends someone and that affects your personal or professional life (how many people have we seen lose their job because of something they said on twitter that was offensive to a certain minority group?)

I know that I worked with a guy who was a Republican but he was unwilling to admit it even in casual conversation because he feared it would affect his job (I know this because he chose me to confide in. I can't be sure why, as he knew I was very left wing, but I think it was because I would actually debate and refute his points rather than accuse him of things. He definitely said things to me that I think could have gotten him in trouble, at least socially. Notably, after Michael Brown was murdered he whispered to me "He probably deserved it anyway." He was also a stalwart defender of Dinesh D'souza...But he was generally a good person).

Or maybe I'm just one of the many delusional ones that this article is talking about. It's hard to say, really. The Dunning Kruger effect is a phenomenon in which people who are profoundly lacking in some skill or area of knowledge mistakenly think they know much more than the average person, or are perhaps even an expert in it. Sometimes I wonder "if the less you know about something, the more confident you are in your understanding, how can you possibly know when you actually know what you're talking about?"

But maybe that's just too meta even for this discussion...

[Yojimbo]

My belief, it’s monied interests that create the bubbles via their media assets because if they keep the electorate arguing on wedge issues through lies and misinformation, it makes it easier for them to raid the treasury and control the masses.

[BmorePat87]

The bubble is bad if you're not seeking to connect with those outside of it, in person or online (as we all do here).

That said, I won't fault someone who has to live in a bubble in order to ensure they can't legally be discriminated against.

[*bfine32*]

(07-22-2019, 11:56 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: In my experience, if you sit down and talk to someone from the other party, you'll find that you agree on a majority of sweeping statements (such as "racism is bad," "Healthcare is a human right," "Illegal immigration is bad," "Debt is a major problem in this country") but it's the details on how to act on those sweeping statements that people disagree on.

For example, Republicans' solution to decreasing illegal immigration is to build a wall to prevent it whereas Democrats' solution is to make legal immigration a less harrowing path. One physically prevents illegal immigration (in some cases), the other makes illegal immigration less necessary to the immigrants who feel like they are in danger/fear they will be rejected in a legal application process (and are now on file, making illegal entry more difficult).

It's a similar case with abortion. Republicans want to ban it, Democrats want to make it less necessary by providing sexual education and more access to birth control, but not forbidding abortion if it comes to that. Both would likely decrease abortion, but one condones it while the other doesn't. (I also recognize that the way I've described these two issues may sound like I personally favor the Democrat's path. It's because I do. It doesn't mean the two parties' end goal isn't similar.)

One of the biggest things coming between the two parties is that our politicians are so happy to demonize and caricaturize the opposing party. Like the article says, Republicans thought half of the left think Police are bad people. Because they oppose the police killing unarmed people of color. Same with Democrats regarding Republicans' beliefs regarding racism. Of course there are radicals on both sides that do believe these things but they are in the minority.

As for Democrats not being exposed to Republicans as much as Republicans are exposed to Democrats, I think that's a matter of the media being, largely, biased towards the left. Fox News is the only mainstream right wing news media, and Democrats mostly avoid them because of people like Sean Hannity and Jeanine Pirro (although I've found a few of them to be relatively nonpartisan in their reporting, such as Chris Wallace and Shep Smith).

Another factor may be Republicans' tendency to not be willing to share their beliefs in public, especially in democratic areas, such as most medium to large cities. So Democrats may be living and talking to Republicans who just don't share their beliefs publicly. In the age of social media, it is becoming more and more difficult to discuss Republican talking points without offending someone, so it isn't a far leap to assume it's safer just to not say what you believe, in case it offends someone and that affects your personal or professional life (how many people have we seen lose their job because of something they said on twitter that was offensive to a certain minority group?)

I know that I worked with a guy who was a Republican but he was unwilling to admit it even in casual conversation because he feared it would affect his job (I know this because he chose me to confide in. I can't be sure why, as he knew I was very left wing, but I think it was because I would actually debate and refute his points rather than accuse him of things. He definitely said things to me that I think could have gotten him in trouble, at least socially. Notably, after Michael Brown was murdered he whispered to me "He probably deserved it anyway." He was also a stalwart defender of Dinesh D'souza...But he was generally a good person).

Or maybe I'm just one of the many delusional ones that this article is talking about. It's hard to say, really. The Dunning Kruger effect is a phenomenon in which people who are profoundly lacking in some skill or area of knowledge mistakenly think they know much more than the average person, or are perhaps even an expert in it. Sometimes I wonder "if the less you know about something, the more confident you are in your understanding, how can you possibly know when you actually know what you're talking about?"

But maybe that's just too meta even for this discussion...

Is it just me or does the majority of your "issue differences" strive to make the Liberal more rational?

If that's the case; you may be a prime example of the study.

[Belsnickel]

So this is interesting timing and a good place to put this news, as well. I recently resigned from my local Democratic party after about a year of being an active member. The reason I gave them was time commitments, but given that I just registered with the BSA again, it's easy to tell that answer was bullshit. What my issue was, and continues to be, is the lack of ability to see outside of the bubble by the party leadership and members.

The most recent example of this was due to a special session of our General Assembly called by Governor Northam. The intended topic was gun control in the wake of the mass shooting in a city government building that occurred here in Virginia. The GOP promptly voted to end the session within hours of it opening and with no discussion of the intended topic.

Now, I know full well that the NRA made that decision for them, they had their own war room set up in the Speaker's conference room, after all. But, the way the local Democrats went on about this issue was just asinine. One of the hot button topics was suppressors because the attacker supposedly used one. Police said it made no difference, and many people across the state invited legislators to come experience what a suppressor actually does, showing that it really doesn't work like in the movies. All of that be damned, they stuck to their talking points when it came to this whole issue.

I prefer progressive policies. There are no ifs, ands, or buts about that. I am for promoting the general welfare of the people by improving equity among the citizenry. I am for conservation of our natural resources and energy independence through renewable means. I want evidence based policy solutions, though. Making laws that are not rooted in evidence doesn't work and is a waste of resources.

[CJD]

(07-22-2019, 12:46 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Is it just me or does the majority of your "issue differences" strive to make the Liberal more rational?

If that's the case; you may be a prime example of the study.

Or maybe you can't imagine that liberals actually have rational positions.

If that's the case; you may be a prime example of the study.

You may have also missed this part:

Quote:(I also recognize that the way I've described these two issues may sound like I personally favor the Democrat's path. It's because I do. It doesn't mean the two parties' end goal isn't similar.)

I can't verify that you actually read my post though, so I can't say.

[*bfine32*]

(07-22-2019, 03:39 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Or maybe you can't imagine that liberals actually have rational positions.

If that's the case; you may be a prime example of the study.

You may have also missed this part:



I can't verify that you actually read my post though, so I can't say.

Nah, I skimmed all of it. It just seemed like you were fitting (and continue to do so) the description(s) mentioned it the OP. 

Why did you make up the assertion that "I can't imagine liberals actually have rational positions"? Perhaps demonstrating more of the traits listed in the OP. Off the top of my head I support their overall views on gun control more than I do the conservative; I'm also in favor of making continuing education more affordable. 

So perhaps I am not a prime exam; though you've only solidified your candidacy.

[CJD]

(07-22-2019, 04:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Nah, I skimmed all of it. It just seemed like you were fitting (and continue to do so) the description(s) mentioned it the OP. 

Why did you make up the assertion that "I can't imagine liberals actually have rational positions"? Perhaps demonstrating more of the traits listed in the OP. Off the top of my head I support their overall views on gun control more than I do the conservative; I'm also in favor of making continuing education more affordable. 

So perhaps I am not a prime exam; though you've only solidified your candidacy.

Troll on, buddy. Troll on.

[*bfine32*]

(07-22-2019, 04:10 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote:

Troll on, buddy. Troll on.

I get that Jahri's window can be difficult to look through. Simply pointed out your responses might solidify the points addressed in the OP; apparently, I'm the only one to notice it.

But feel free to call a member of this forum who provides points of view contrary to the majority a troll. It is becoming an accepted practice.

[CJD]

(07-22-2019, 04:16 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I get that Jahri's window can be difficult to look through. Simply pointed out your responses might solidify the points addressed in the OP; apparently, I'm the only one to notice it.

But feel free to call a member of this forum who provides points of view contrary to the majority a troll. It is becoming an accepted practice.

your points aren't trolling because they are contrary. Your points are troll because you don't address the content, you address either the semantics or ignore chunks of the statement with the intention of misrepresenting or exaggerating what was said. Your posts are not meant for discussion. They're meant to annoy. They're meant to frustrate and they're meant to dismantle any kind of positive or functional discourse.

And now you're going to tell me that I cannot possibly know what the intentions behind your posts are, or something to that effect. Or maybe now that I've already called it out, you'll try some other way to dodge my point and instead make it some other form of pissing contest that doesn't go anywhere.

Either way, I'm not really concerned with what you post. You showed your ass, bro. I'm sorry that you took so long with it. It would have saved me a lot of time had I recognized it sooner.

[Dill]

(07-22-2019, 01:08 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The most recent example of this was due to a special session of our General Assembly called by Governor Northam. The intended topic was gun control in the wake of the mass shooting in a city government building that occurred here in Virginia. The GOP promptly voted to end the session within hours of it opening and with no discussion of the intended topic.

Now, I know full well that the NRA made that decision for them, they had their own war room set up in the Speaker's conference room, after all. But, the way the local Democrats went on about this issue was just asinine. One of the hot button topics was suppressors because the attacker supposedly used one. Police said it made no difference, and many people across the state invited legislators to come experience what a suppressor actually does, showing that it really doesn't work like in the movies. All of that be damned, they stuck to their talking points when it came to this whole issue.

I prefer progressive policies. There are no ifs, ands, or buts about that. I am for promoting the general welfare of the people by improving equity among the citizenry. I am for conservation of our natural resources and energy independence through renewable means. I want evidence based policy solutions, though. Making laws that are not rooted in evidence doesn't work and is a waste of resources.

How will resigning from the Dems increase the likelihood of laws that support equity, conserve natural resources, advanced evidence-based policy solutions, etc. ?

[BmorePat87]

I guess this is relevant here.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/454161-trump-store-sells-more-than-140000-plastic-straws-in-dig-at-reusable?fbclid=IwAR1eDd56WBnudk3jZMI9TqRpM7iLWZ64HDp887-Y-II92A_CTcfz2mjxs2U

The Trump campaign sold packs of 10 reusable straws for $15 as pushback against "liberal paper straws that don't work". They apparently sold out.

Common ground. Reusable plastic straws would work for both groups.

[*bfine32*]

(07-22-2019, 04:22 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: your points aren't trolling because they are contrary. Your points are troll because you don't address the content, you address either the semantics or ignore chunks of the statement with the intention of misrepresenting or exaggerating what was said. Your posts are not meant for discussion. They're meant to annoy. They're meant to frustrate and they're meant to dismantle any kind of positive or functional discourse.

And now you're going to tell me that I cannot possibly know what the intentions behind your posts are, or something to that effect. Or maybe now that I've already called it out, you'll try some other way to dodge my point and instead make it some other form of pissing contest that doesn't go anywhere.

Either way, I'm not really concerned with what you post. You showed your ass, bro. I'm sorry that you took so long with it. It would have saved me a lot of time had I recognized it sooner.

I thought my point addressed the content perfectly.

You  can assume whatever you want and pat yourself on the back for "calling me out". What point of yours did I dodge again (I'm a troll)?

Imagine my shame.

[Dill]

(07-22-2019, 11:56 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote:
One of the biggest things coming between the two parties is that our politicians are so happy to demonize and caricaturize the opposing party. Like the article says, Republicans thought half of the left think Police are bad people. Because they oppose the police killing unarmed people of color. Same with Democrats regarding Republicans' beliefs regarding racism. Of course there are radicals on both sides that do believe these things but they are in the minority.

Thoughtful post, C-Dawg. 

A couple of questions though, do you think this tendency of politicians to "demonize and caricaturize the opposing party" is of equal magnitude on both sides?

And if this sort of thing "comes between" the parties, do you think politicians are the primary "cause" of it?

[BmorePat87]

(07-22-2019, 04:22 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: your points aren't trolling because they are contrary. Your points are troll because you don't address the content, you address either the semantics or ignore chunks of the statement with the intention of misrepresenting or exaggerating what was said. Your posts are not meant for discussion. They're meant to annoy. They're meant to frustrate and they're meant to dismantle any kind of positive or functional discourse.

And now you're going to tell me that I cannot possibly know what the intentions behind your posts are, or something to that effect. Or maybe now that I've already called it out, you'll try some other way to dodge my point and instead make it some other form of pissing contest that doesn't go anywhere.

Either way, I'm not really concerned with what you post. You showed your ass, bro. I'm sorry that you took so long with it. It would have saved me a lot of time had I recognized it sooner.

[Dill]

(07-22-2019, 04:27 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I guess this is relevant here.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/454161-trump-store-sells-more-than-140000-plastic-straws-in-dig-at-reusable?fbclid=IwAR1eDd56WBnudk3jZMI9TqRpM7iLWZ64HDp887-Y-II92A_CTcfz2mjxs2U

The Trump campaign sold packs of 10 reusable straws for $15 as pushback against "liberal paper straws that don't work". They apparently sold out.

Common ground. Reusable plastic straws would work for both groups.

This reminds me of a time many years ago when a guy tried to get me to invest in re-usable tampons made of sponge. Women would "just wash them out and reuse them," he said. "Save money."  If he could have somehow framed throwaway tampons as "liberal" maybe I'd have considered.

[*bfine32*]

(07-22-2019, 04:16 PM)bfine32 Wrote: But feel free to call a member of this forum who provides points of view contrary to the majority a troll. It is becoming an accepted practice.

(07-22-2019, 04:30 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote:

Did you feel CJ's wording of the issues demonstrated any of the dynamics in the OP? 

[CJD]

(07-22-2019, 04:29 PM)Dill Wrote: Thoughtful post, C-Dawg. 

A couple of questions though, do you think this tendency of politicians to "demonize and caricaturize the opposing party" is of equal magnitude on both sides?

And if this sort of thing "comes between" the parties, do you think politicians are the primary "cause" of it?

Well, recency bias would lead me to think that the Republicans are much heavier offenders of the first question. But, of course, that's about 99.9% due to Donald Trump, who I think is the manifestation of this entire article.

But think back to the Presidency of George W Bush. The left's readiness to call him and his followers racist, in hindsight, seems pretty demonizing, doesn't it? (See: Kanye West saying W doesn't care about black people). Like, comparing him to Donald sure makes me feel like I was too hard on W and the people who voted for him. So if that's the case now, then I find it incredibly likely that at least a degree of that is occurring now, even if Donald is kind of making Democrats feel like it's 100% warranted right now.

I'll openly admit that I don't have any close friends who I know voted for Donald Trump. I have mostly Democrat friends and family who voted for Hillary (or didn't vote/voted for Jill Stein). I have friends and family who voted Republican their entire lives except for 2016. But I don't have any friends or family who (openly) voted for Donald. So maybe my bubble is preventing me from commenting on this accurately. Or maybe the kind of person who would vote for Donald would not naturally be someone I would pursue friendship with even before I knew their politics. I can't say for sure. Or maybe I do have friends who voted for Donald and, knowing my stance on him, decided to lie about who they voted for (I have a few friends who voted for Gary Johnson. Maybe they didn't actually. I dunno.)

As far as whether this is primarily caused by politicians...yea. I think so. Politicians kind of need you to feel like voting matters. If you think both candidates are basically the same (Hillary was pretty fiscally conservative and her socially liberal policies were pretty recent and not that all encompassing, especially compared to where the party is now), then you wouldn't really feel compelled to vote unless you have a specific issue that you vote on. So I think it's natural that politicians would try to make the other side seem worse than they are. 

Again, Donald is a perfect example of this. He is literally telling people the media lies to them regularly. He is attempting to divide the country by virtue of demonizing and de-legitimizing one of the main systems meant to check him. And he's no kinder to Democratic politicians either. Remember, before Donald, it used to be basically taboo to criticize the President before you. Donald insults Obama so much, it's not even newsworthy anymore.

AOC has been described as the liberal Donald Trump because she uses similar tactics. I think the squad in general does stoke the anti-Republican vibe, not just anti-Trump.

It's in politicians' best interest for their voting base to hate their opponents. It's how they get re-elected. Now, that's not to say that all demonization is a cynical attempt to falsify their opponent. I'm sure both sides believe part or most of what they say about the other side. But the reason decorum used to be important in politics was because outwardly calling other politicians bad people for what they believe is a great way to get them shot at on a baseball field or have bombs sent to their home addresses. And this hatred creates conspiracy theories, like the pizzagate thing.

It's just not good for anyone. And I hope it stops after 2020.

[*Nately120*]

(07-22-2019, 04:48 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: It's just not good for anyone. And I hope it stops after 2020.

It will be interesting to see if the political climate as it is today ends up being a bit of a phase, or if the proverbial toothpaste can't be put back in the tube, so to speak.