I don't see a lack of compassion on either side. This speaks to the problem I often bring up in threads that tend to go off the rails:

State your goals first. Otherwise, nothing is clear.

If you state your goals first, one can assess whether your policies are likely to achieve the goal. This is a practical consideration.

But the goals, and the understanding of each other's goals, requires both empathy and compassion. It is highly unlikely there is a lack of either within the goal-setting habits of either side. Its compassion for whom that gets people's nickers in a twist: Vulnerable young British women, or illegal economic migrants? You can see how these phrase angry up the blood. But the goal can be compassion, or practicality, themselves, imo.

This says to me 'progressive' is not based on compassion, but liberality as a concept. "allow" is essentially the mode until one doesn't like something. That's another discussion.

It also seems that conservatives are either marginally, or largely depending on sex, more tolerate of opposing views than progressives. In the last 24 months, that seems obviously true. Perhaps even the last five years. BLM was certainly not, in any sense of the word, a compassionate movement.

Vulnerable young British women — AmadeusD

Was somebody trying to be compassionate toward vulnerable British women?

Wouldn't you say that there is a sense in which Marxist or Marxist-inspired ideologies are supposed to be based on compassion for the victim or the oppressed or the disenfranchised? Whether they actually succeed in helping such people, it does seem that there is a sense in which the concept of compassion is especially operative within such ideologies.

Wouldn't you say that there is a sense in which Marxist or Marxist-inspired ideologies are supposed to be based on compassion for the victim or the oppressed or the disenfranchised? — Leontiskos

That's a good question. Strictly speaking, Marx was an apocalyptic prophet, not advising about how things should be, but predicting what will be. The proletariat are weaponized against the bourgeoisie with little regard for whether they're actually capable of running the world.

Maybe Marxism could be valued by someone who has compassion, but is it really based on compassion?

at some point, I assume lol.

Wouldn't you say that there is a sense in which Marxist or Marxist-inspired ideologies are supposed to be based on compassion for the victim or the oppressed or the disenfranchised? — Leontiskos

No. All you need do is read their texts to note the 'person' is not, at any point, the driving force behind policies. Its concepts. That is (somewhat uniquely) anti-human. It can be framed that way, but misleadingly.

I agree. True Marxism is about throwing the baby out with the bathwater, that is, everything we've done up to now has served its purpose and we're on our way to a new world.

Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,” for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. 2 I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. 4 ‘He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death’ or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.” — Revelations 21:4

Note "the new heaven and new earth" is a quote from Isaiah.

Maybe Marxism could be valued by someone who has compassion, but is it really based on compassion? — frank

Certainly not. An ideology that depicts a "class enemy", with Marxism the capitalists and the bourgeoisie, and preaches about a violent revolution to overthrow these, is certainly not compassionate. One has to understand that there's a huge void between the socialism that Marxism (Marxism-Leninism) and modern social-democracy talks about.

Anyway, I would pool together all ideologies that start from the reasoning that societal problems are being caused by a certain group of people, be they jews, muslims, the liberal-elites or capitalists, and then continue to argue on that the eradiction of these people is the answer to build a better world, to be extremely dangerous ideologies that just create more problems. They all should be resisted at all costs, be they from the left or from the right. One should judge individuals if the commit wrongdoing, but not accuse groups like ethnic minorities altogether. These ideologies and movements don't have any amount of compassion in them.

You claimed Reagan created stability. I'm calling utter bullshit
— creativesoul

I was talking about the stagflation crisis of the 1970s, which set the stage for the rise of Reaganomics, also called neoliberalism. — frank

Bullshit. You're too much.

As if minimizing the number of downtrodden while increasing the amount of Americans with plenty of spendable income somehow does not result in tremendous stability?
— creativesoul

That's an interesting question, and history answers that it definitely does not produce stability. When the general population is fat and happy, the labor market becomes costly and inflexible. If 1970s labor unions in the US and the UK would have had the ability to stop grandstanding and work with employers, it would have been harder for neoliberals like Reagan and Thatcher to take control. The neoliberal solution was to bring labor to its knees and make them beholden for every crumb. That produced stability. — frank

You claimed Reagan's policies produced stability. Again. I call bullshit. We must be measuring very different things. Now, you've taken it a step farther...

As if working class people are responsible for both, not increasing their own earnings and raising the price of essential goods and services.

I suppose on that account, they're still to blame - for today's stagflation - even when the wages remained stagnant for nearly 50 years.

I don't see a lack of compassion on either side. — AmadeusD

Less than 24 hours after the Reiners were found stabbed to death in their Brentwood home on Sunday, Trump –– the leader of the Conservative Party –– lambasted Rob Reiner for his political beliefs, posting on Truth Social that his death was “reportedly due to the anger he caused others through his massive, unyielding, and incurable affliction with a mind crippling disease known as TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME” and that Reiner “was known to have driven people CRAZY by his raging obsession of President Donald J. Trump.”

We also saw swathes of people celebrating Charlie Kirk's death on the day, and continually for weeks after including hoping more conservatives are killed.

Yet, this is not the party line. Individuals will always be individuals. And that was a shitty response from trump to say the least. But that is not the party line. He is just incapable of acting like a President.

Of course there were weirdos celebrating Kirk's death. Kirk was a culture warrior and warriors have enemies.

The difference is that Trump is the chosen leader of the Conservative Party.

That's a distinction without a difference. Case in point: James Woods literally crying on national television to give Reiner his flowers. And Woods is a pretty heavy Trumper from what I know. Trump was not elected because of a Tweet at Rob Reiner (again, for the record, and so you don't drop the ball, Trumps reaction was terrible - particularly for a President. That's not in issue here)

You can distance yourself from your side's foibles all you want, but you cannot do that and then also pretend any one who is right of center must also share Trump's views. I suggest its highly unlikely most voters share the personal views of their chosen leaders. I mean, Biden literally, more than one, suggested he would try to physically assault Trump if given the chance, and not a President.

The fact that leaders are dickheads is not an argument. They almost all, almost always are.

The fact is and has always been that the vast majority of both sides are normal people. That you seem to want that to not be the case on the right, but be the case on the left is exactly illustrative of the type of bias that makes these things so difficult to talk about. "right" does not mean "stupid", it does not mean "bigoted", it does not mean "uncompassionate". These are horrible myths that perpetuate the exact kind of division that keeps getting people like Trump elected (and Biden for that matter, but the comparison is obviously not one of parity. Trump is a far worse person., Biden was a worse President.. and they overlap). I challenge you to go to some 'right leaning' places (bars, clubs, whatever.. ) and actually talk to some real human beings. I can guarantee you'll be surprised as long as you don't actively look for MAGA merch or whatever.

:lol:

And there we are.

Oh, you're being serious?

There we are again. You are not a good faith interlocutor and I shall now avoid you.

My reaction to this entire thread. Especially the comments about Marx. Good god.

You are not a good faith interlocutor — AmadeusD

I was seriously hoping that you were joking.

You are not a good faith interlocutor and I shall now avoid you. — AmadeusD

:up:

I like his Trump/Reiner and Biden/Kirk compassion comparison. Reiner was a harsh critic of Trump and Kirk was a harsh critic of Biden so I think it's a fair equivalency.

Reiner said that Trump is a mentally unstable sociopath, a traitor, and similar comments.

Kirk said that Biden was a corrupt tyrant and should be given the death penalty for crimes against America, in addition to other criticisms and calls to action.

When Kirk was murdered Biden posted the following statement:

“There is no place in our country for this kind of violence. It must end now. Jill and I are praying for Charlie Kirk’s family and loved ones.”
–– Joe Biden on X

When Reiner was murdered Trump posted the following statement:

"A very sad thing happened last night in Hollywood. Rob Reiner, a tortured and struggling, but once very talented movie director and comedy star, has passed away, together with his wife, Michele, reportedly due to the anger he caused others through his massive, unyielding, and incurable affliction with a mind crippling disease known as TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME, sometimes referred to as TDS. He was known to have driven people CRAZY by his raging obsession of President Donald J. Trump, with his obvious paranoia reaching new heights as the Trump Administration surpassed all goals and expectations of greatness, and with the Golden Age of America upon us, perhaps like never before. May Rob and Michele rest in peace!"
–– Donald Trump on Truth Social

I think it's fair to say that the Trump response does not express compassion and that the Biden response does.

Also, no elected Democrat official, formal Democratic Party leader, or political pundit publicly celebrated the death of Charlie Kirk.

I mean, Biden literally, more than one, suggested he would try to physically assault Trump if given the chance, and not a President. — AmadeusD

This is a blatant lie. Biden said something about giving Trump a beating behind the gym in High School, presumably to beat the lecherous 'pussy grabbing' out of him. Apparently Biden has more compassion for victims of sexual harassment than for creepy men who use their status to sexually assault women.

Does lying about it express a bias and is it "the type of bias that makes these things so difficult to talk about"? I think any bias can hinder communication.

Sometimes trolls try really hard to get you to respond to them. Toxic stuff.

I think it's fair to say that the Trump response does not express compassion and that the Biden response does. — praxis

Pretty clear to anyone without an agenda. Trump really has no compassion or empathy, but that’s been known for decades. Whether that extends to his followers— Yes, of course it does. What percentage? Who knows.

Anyway, this thread is Twitter-like nonsense anyway, so I’ll leave it there.

Yeah, I mean just then he claimed a 'blatant lie' and then confirmed what I said lmao.

yep

There is literally no chance that Biden can go back in time to high school and beat Trumps ass. :lol:

Sometimes trolls try really hard to get you to respond to them. Toxic stuff. — frank

It’s rather telling that AmadeusD doesn’t take issue with Trump boasting about sexual assault (pussy grabbing) but does take issue with Biden’s condemnation of sexual assault and his hypothetical punishment for it.