This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.
The RPGPundit's Own Forum Rules
This part of the site is controlled by the RPGPundit. This is where he discusses topics that he finds interesting. You may post here, but understand that there are limits. The RPGPundit can shut down any thread, topic of discussion, or user in a thread at his pleasure. This part of the site is essentially his house, so keep that in mind. Note that this is the only part of the site where political discussion is permitted, but is regulated by the RPGPundit.

Author Topic: Reconciliation  (Read 40308 times)

Mistwell

  • Smarter than Arduin
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5289
Re: Reconciliation
« Reply #105 on: November 25, 2022, 02:56:28 PM »
There won't be any reconciliation.  That requires compromise and finding common ground.  It's increasingly difficult to even speak with progressives, let alone find common ground.  They continue to push the ridiculous which further alienates those that should be considered "moderate".

If you focus on making moderates and independents the power in the nation you won't need to negotiate with progressives.

It's not like Israel is negotiating with progressives right now.

But Conservatives refuse to treat moderates and independents with anything like respect right now. Let's see if that changes for this next election.

Bruwulf

  • Dwarf Fanboy
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 489
Re: Reconciliation
« Reply #106 on: November 26, 2022, 05:41:29 AM »
But Conservatives refuse to treat moderates and independents with anything like respect right now. Let's see if that changes for this next election.

Really? You really think that's a conservative problem?

Here's a whole thread full of gamers on reddit high-fiving each other and agreeing that you gotta keep those filthy moderates out of games, because they're just closet nazis who don't wanna admit it.

Chris24601

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • C
  • Posts: 3326
Re: Reconciliation
« Reply #107 on: November 26, 2022, 07:57:09 AM »
But Conservatives refuse to treat moderates and independents with anything like respect right now. Let's see if that changes for this next election.

Really? You really think that's a conservative problem?

Here's a whole thread full of gamers on reddit high-fiving each other and agreeing that you gotta keep those filthy moderates out of games, because they're just closet nazis who don't wanna admit it.
Which is why I always truthfully tell people my political philosophy is Subsidiarity. It’s fun because so few on any side have even heard of it so they rarely have pre-canned answers ready for it.

Eirikrautha

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1266
Re: Reconciliation
« Reply #108 on: November 26, 2022, 10:46:40 AM »
There won't be any reconciliation.  That requires compromise and finding common ground.  It's increasingly difficult to even speak with progressives, let alone find common ground.  They continue to push the ridiculous which further alienates those that should be considered "moderate".

If you focus on making moderates and independents the power in the nation you won't need to negotiate with progressives.

It's not like Israel is negotiating with progressives right now.

But Conservatives refuse to treat moderates and independents with anything like respect right now. Let's see if that changes for this next election.

Talk about oblivious to history!  Every time a "moderate" is in power, they give the left everything they want.  Name the great moderates in American politics.  McCain?  Romney?  GHW Bush?  How did they push back on the left?  They just headed left more slowly.

The fact is that moderates and independents have no platform, no beliefs, and no principles.  If they did, they'd be defined by those, and not by the fact that they are in the middle of competing belief systems.  And that's why they can't be trusted.  Because being "moderate" or "civil" or whatever other terms they use to virtue signal is far more important than actual beliefs or accomplishments.  They are the people who think Solomon should have actually split the baby.  I'd rather be fighting those who truly believe in the opposite of what I do than subject to the vacillations of the principle-less middle.  To paraphrase Patton, I'd rather have a liberal division in front of me than a "moderate" one behind me...

Bruwulf

  • Dwarf Fanboy
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 489
Re: Reconciliation
« Reply #109 on: November 26, 2022, 11:04:39 AM »
The fact is that moderates and independents have no platform, no beliefs, and no principles.  If they did, they'd be defined by those, and not by the fact that they are in the middle of competing belief systems.  And that's why they can't be trusted.  Because being "moderate" or "civil" or whatever other terms they use to virtue signal is far more important than actual beliefs or accomplishments.  They are the people who think Solomon should have actually split the baby.  I'd rather be fighting those who truly believe in the opposite of what I do than subject to the vacillations of the principle-less middle.  To paraphrase Patton, I'd rather have a liberal division in front of me than a "moderate" one behind me...

Well, look. It's important to be careful to not boil your worldview down to "radical extremism is the only true virtue". There'a a world of positions you can hold, for example, between "all criminals should be executed" and "we should abolish the criminal justice system".

You can hold a position in the middle. The important thing is to hold that opinion, though. Don't make your opinion just be whatever the midway between two other opinions is because it's the point in between. 

Eirikrautha

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1266
Re: Reconciliation
« Reply #110 on: November 26, 2022, 06:21:46 PM »
The fact is that moderates and independents have no platform, no beliefs, and no principles.  If they did, they'd be defined by those, and not by the fact that they are in the middle of competing belief systems.  And that's why they can't be trusted.  Because being "moderate" or "civil" or whatever other terms they use to virtue signal is far more important than actual beliefs or accomplishments.  They are the people who think Solomon should have actually split the baby.  I'd rather be fighting those who truly believe in the opposite of what I do than subject to the vacillations of the principle-less middle.  To paraphrase Patton, I'd rather have a liberal division in front of me than a "moderate" one behind me...

Well, look. It's important to be careful to not boil your worldview down to "radical extremism is the only true virtue". There'a a world of positions you can hold, for example, between "all criminals should be executed" and "we should abolish the criminal justice system".

You can hold a position in the middle. The important thing is to hold that opinion, though. Don't make your opinion just be whatever the midway between two other opinions is because it's the point in between.

The problem is that I've never met a "moderate" that could do so.  I know what a socialist is, a communist, a libertarian, a classical liberal, a conservative, a tea-party-ist.  What's a moderate?  Hell, even a neo-conservative, at least if they hold to the definition self-ascribed by guys like David Horowitz: a red diaper baby that is socially liberal but free market economically.  But the problem arises with moderates and independents that they don't have any solid principles to hang their hat on, because their pick-a-little-from-here-and-there quickly becomes logically inconsistent.  If you aren't bound by hard-and-fast principles, then you aren't a trustworthy ally.  Period.

jhkim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11746
Re: Reconciliation
« Reply #111 on: November 27, 2022, 12:04:35 PM »
It's important to be careful to not boil your worldview down to "radical extremism is the only true virtue". There'a a world of positions you can hold, for example, between "all criminals should be executed" and "we should abolish the criminal justice system".

You can hold a position in the middle. The important thing is to hold that opinion, though. Don't make your opinion just be whatever the midway between two other opinions is because it's the point in between.

The problem is that I've never met a "moderate" that could do so.  I know what a socialist is, a communist, a libertarian, a classical liberal, a conservative, a tea-party-ist.  What's a moderate?  Hell, even a neo-conservative, at least if they hold to the definition self-ascribed by guys like David Horowitz: a red diaper baby that is socially liberal but free market economically.  But the problem arises with moderates and independents that they don't have any solid principles to hang their hat on, because their pick-a-little-from-here-and-there quickly becomes logically inconsistent.

In my experience, I find extremists are more often logically inconsistent. I know a number of people who will twist themselves into logical knots in order to justify their extreme positions, especially to justify hypocritical condemnation of the other side. i.e. When we do X, then it's justified. When they do X, then it shows how evil they are.

That said, most people of any leaning are logically inconsistent. Human beings don't primarily work on logic. I respect those uncommon individuals who are more open-minded and are willing to listen to logic, but I don't expect it - and I know many people who aren't logically consistent whom I would consider good.

Eirikrautha

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1266
Re: Reconciliation
« Reply #112 on: November 27, 2022, 01:53:04 PM »
It's important to be careful to not boil your worldview down to "radical extremism is the only true virtue". There'a a world of positions you can hold, for example, between "all criminals should be executed" and "we should abolish the criminal justice system".

You can hold a position in the middle. The important thing is to hold that opinion, though. Don't make your opinion just be whatever the midway between two other opinions is because it's the point in between.

The problem is that I've never met a "moderate" that could do so.  I know what a socialist is, a communist, a libertarian, a classical liberal, a conservative, a tea-party-ist.  What's a moderate?  Hell, even a neo-conservative, at least if they hold to the definition self-ascribed by guys like David Horowitz: a red diaper baby that is socially liberal but free market economically.  But the problem arises with moderates and independents that they don't have any solid principles to hang their hat on, because their pick-a-little-from-here-and-there quickly becomes logically inconsistent.

In my experience, I find extremists are more often logically inconsistent. I know a number of people who will twist themselves into logical knots in order to justify their extreme positions, especially to justify hypocritical condemnation of the other side. i.e. When we do X, then it's justified. When they do X, then it shows how evil they are.

That said, most people of any leaning are logically inconsistent. Human beings don't primarily work on logic. I respect those uncommon individuals who are more open-minded and are willing to listen to logic, but I don't expect it - and I know many people who aren't logically consistent whom I would consider good.

Sadly, what you find good or positive or anything else is irrelevant.  You are not the arbiter of consistency or political utility.  Your "experience" has no bearing on the actualities of this discussion.  It's not about you.

Bruwulf

  • Dwarf Fanboy
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 489
Re: Reconciliation
« Reply #113 on: November 27, 2022, 02:35:40 PM »
Sadly, what you find good or positive or anything else is irrelevant.  You are not the arbiter of consistency or political utility.  Your "experience" has no bearing on the actualities of this discussion.  It's not about you.

Let me show you this nice mirror over here in the corner...

Also...

The problem is that I've never met a "moderate" that could do so.  I know what a socialist is a communist, a libertarian, a classical liberal, a conservative, a tea-party-ist.  What's a moderate?  Hell, even a neo-conservative, at least if they hold to the definition self-ascribed by guys like David Horowitz: a red diaper baby that is socially liberal but free market economically.  But the problem arises with moderates and independents that they don't have any solid principles to hang their hat on, because their pick-a-little-from-here-and-there quickly becomes logically inconsistent.  If you aren't bound by hard-and-fast principles, then you aren't a trustworthy ally.  Period.

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" -- Ralph Waldo Emerson. Also, you, about 4 months ago.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2022, 02:45:27 PM by Bruwulf »

Eirikrautha

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1266
Re: Reconciliation
« Reply #114 on: November 27, 2022, 02:54:19 PM »
Sadly, what you find good or positive or anything else is irrelevant.  You are not the arbiter of consistency or political utility.  Your "experience" has no bearing on the actualities of this discussion.  It's not about you.

Let me show you this nice mirror over here in the corner...

Also...

The problem is that I've never met a "moderate" that could do so.  I know what a socialist is a communist, a libertarian, a classical liberal, a conservative, a tea-party-ist.  What's a moderate?  Hell, even a neo-conservative, at least if they hold to the definition self-ascribed by guys like David Horowitz: a red diaper baby that is socially liberal but free market economically.  But the problem arises with moderates and independents that they don't have any solid principles to hang their hat on, because their pick-a-little-from-here-and-there quickly becomes logically inconsistent.  If you aren't bound by hard-and-fast principles, then you aren't a trustworthy ally.  Period.

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" -- Ralph Waldo Emerson. Also, you, about 4 months ago.

It's pretty obvious that you don't have a clue what "foolish" is... which is fitting...

Bruwulf

  • Dwarf Fanboy
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 489
Re: Reconciliation
« Reply #115 on: November 27, 2022, 03:36:06 PM »
It's pretty obvious that you don't have a clue what "foolish" is... which is fitting...

Yes, that is the disconnect here.

Trond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2743
Re: Reconciliation
« Reply #116 on: November 27, 2022, 11:00:40 PM »
I don’t mind one bit if I’m not a “trustworthy ally” of a political party or movement. That sounds a bit sheepish to me. I don’t think I agree 100% with any single person either.

David Johansen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • D
  • Posts: 6222
Re: Reconciliation
« Reply #117 on: November 27, 2022, 11:55:32 PM »
The problem with the conservative approach to moderates is that they still need to sway undecided voters to win elections.  All the bluster and indignity in the world will only drive them the other way.  Unless you're willing to dispense with democracy at which point you're not anything I'd support.
Fantasy Adventure Comic, games, and more http://www.uncouthsavage.com

Bruwulf

  • Dwarf Fanboy
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 489
Re: Reconciliation
« Reply #118 on: November 28, 2022, 06:57:19 AM »
I don’t mind one bit if I’m not a “trustworthy ally” of a political party or movement. That sounds a bit sheepish to me. I don’t think I agree 100% with any single person either.

Yeah, my response to someone telling me I wasn't a "trustworthy ally" in politics would be some slightly less geekish version of "I'm not your torchbearer, sir.".

The problem is, you can either be slavishly loyal to an ideal, or to a political party.

If you're slavishly loyal to a political party, you can't truly hold any ideals. Because sooner or later the party will betray you. In my lifetime I've seen both political parties make massive shifts in their professed opinions.

Look at the Democrat party. They march in lockstep to a greater degree than the republicans. Politically speaking, it's one of their strengths - and I've often lamented it. Democrats don't generally have to worry about what percentage of their members are going to betray them on an upcoming vote. It's a very small number, and the ones that will (like Manchen) are notorious. But the flip side is, how many Democrat politicians are both nominally religious, and yet hold views their church condemns, just as an example? Hell, the catholic diocese have tried to make their displeasure known by denying some of them Communion. You have to betray your personal ideals to function like that.

On the other side of the relationship, these are the mythical ~20% of the voter base that each party has that will, come hell or high water, always vote for one party. Although honestly, I think it's higher than that anymore, but that's still the number everyone uses. These are the useful idiots.

If you're slavishly loyal to an ideal, on the other hand, you just become an angry, insular idealist yelling about how you can't trust anyone to be loyal. Because the vast majority of people are going to disagree with you about some important issues to some extent. Because they have their own ideals. There is a reason that a generation or two ago, it was normal for friends to argue politics. As part of friendly social interaction. And then still be friends the next day.

As an example, despite normalloy tending to hold conservative / right wing ideals, there are certainly some issues I don't on. One of them is the death penalty. I am ardently against it. Not because I don't believe, as a matter of philosophy, that the state doesn't have the right, but rather because as a practical matter, the state screws up. It's basically the ultimate manifestation of Blackstone's ratio, for me. Since it's impossible to guarantee the government never executes an innocent man by mistake, I don't believe they have any business being allowed to execute people. An innocent person who spends time in prison has been wronged, but there may be some attempt to redress that wrong. If they are dead, they are just dead. Given that, I don't see a compelling argument to allow execution, or any benefit it will serve that life in prison will not... save for sating bloodlust. There isn't even an economic argument for it, given how long it takes an the expenses involved. And I've had more than a few "excited" arguments about the subject with friends who believe other wise. Still friends with them.

Of course, a few issues get more complicated. Abortion being the big one. If you absolutely believe that any abortion in any form is murder, and I can't say you're wrong to feel that way if you do, then yeah, it's going to be hard to compromise. The compromise between "murder is okay" and "murder is not okay" isn't so simple as "some murder is okay".

Ah, hell, I'm rambling at this point. The older I get, the more I watch the world grow more partisan, the more friendships and familial relationships I see strained or torn apart over the subject in the last few years, the more I'm coming to agree with the people who dismiss it all with a cry of "politics suck!". And in my younger days, I was intensely political. I couldn't get enough of it. Listened to it all the time, read books on it, had my own political blog, tried to help with local elections... That's a lot of my life I probably could have spent more wisely.

Trond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2743
Re: Reconciliation
« Reply #119 on: November 28, 2022, 11:32:14 AM »
I don’t mind one bit if I’m not a “trustworthy ally” of a political party or movement. That sounds a bit sheepish to me. I don’t think I agree 100% with any single person either.

Yeah, my response to someone telling me I wasn't a "trustworthy ally" in politics would be some slightly less geekish version of "I'm not your torchbearer, sir.".

The problem is, you can either be slavishly loyal to an ideal, or to a political party.

If you're slavishly loyal to a political party, you can't truly hold any ideals. Because sooner or later the party will betray you. In my lifetime I've seen both political parties make massive shifts in their professed opinions.

Look at the Democrat party. They march in lockstep to a greater degree than the republicans. Politically speaking, it's one of their strengths - and I've often lamented it. Democrats don't generally have to worry about what percentage of their members are going to betray them on an upcoming vote. It's a very small number, and the ones that will (like Manchen) are notorious. But the flip side is, how many Democrat politicians are both nominally religious, and yet hold views their church condemns, just as an example? Hell, the catholic diocese have tried to make their displeasure known by denying some of them Communion. You have to betray your personal ideals to function like that.

On the other side of the relationship, these are the mythical ~20% of the voter base that each party has that will, come hell or high water, always vote for one party. Although honestly, I think it's higher than that anymore, but that's still the number everyone uses. These are the useful idiots.

If you're slavishly loyal to an ideal, on the other hand, you just become an angry, insular idealist yelling about how you can't trust anyone to be loyal. Because the vast majority of people are going to disagree with you about some important issues to some extent. Because they have their own ideals. There is a reason that a generation or two ago, it was normal for friends to argue politics. As part of friendly social interaction. And then still be friends the next day.

As an example, despite normalloy tending to hold conservative / right wing ideals, there are certainly some issues I don't on. One of them is the death penalty. I am ardently against it. Not because I don't believe, as a matter of philosophy, that the state doesn't have the right, but rather because as a practical matter, the state screws up. It's basically the ultimate manifestation of Blackstone's ratio, for me. Since it's impossible to guarantee the government never executes an innocent man by mistake, I don't believe they have any business being allowed to execute people. An innocent person who spends time in prison has been wronged, but there may be some attempt to redress that wrong. If they are dead, they are just dead. Given that, I don't see a compelling argument to allow execution, or any benefit it will serve that life in prison will not... save for sating bloodlust. There isn't even an economic argument for it, given how long it takes an the expenses involved. And I've had more than a few "excited" arguments about the subject with friends who believe other wise. Still friends with them.

Of course, a few issues get more complicated. Abortion being the big one. If you absolutely believe that any abortion in any form is murder, and I can't say you're wrong to feel that way if you do, then yeah, it's going to be hard to compromise. The compromise between "murder is okay" and "murder is not okay" isn't so simple as "some murder is okay".

Ah, hell, I'm rambling at this point. The older I get, the more I watch the world grow more partisan, the more friendships and familial relationships I see strained or torn apart over the subject in the last few years, the more I'm coming to agree with the people who dismiss it all with a cry of "politics suck!". And in my younger days, I was intensely political. I couldn't get enough of it. Listened to it all the time, read books on it, had my own political blog, tried to help with local elections... That's a lot of my life I probably could have spent more wisely.

I agree with basically all of this. As a side note I was very apolitical in my younger days, I just couldn't stand politics (and there's still a bit of that in me) but now it feels a bit like I have been forced into it. People just assuming that I agree with a certain point of view because I work at the university for instance. I agree that the abortion issue is one point where people will never, well, agree.

As far as moderates go, I think we should note that they could be of various kinds: they could be in a "gray zone" on some issues ("I believe we should cut down on carbon emissions gradually, but not so much as to crash the economy") or they could be rather extreme on different right wing vs left wing issues ("I believe that abortion is murder, and I also believe we will all be doomed if we don't stop carbon emissions now", this is a rare combination, but I have seen it). None of this is self-contradictory, or less worthy of consideration compared to someone who follows a certain set of beliefs associated with a specific group. You could actually argue that they are more worthy of consideration because they show that they are not just following the "flock" as a bunch of sheep (Tolstoy has a character in Anna Karenina, who is described as wearing his opinions like others wear clothes, just following whatever is the latest fashion. Oh boy does this fit a lot of people I know).