It is interesting also that such people working low paid jobs generally feel ignored by government. That feeling of being ignored and shoved aside can be easily taken advantage of. They can usually get on board with any politician who notices and speaks to/for them. Whatever other policies that politician has these people will adopt them, they are just happy to be noticed and to adopt the belief that following this politician will make their futures better than they are at the present.

That seems pretty bad though, since that would make radicalization a positive feedback loop. — FlaccidDoor

Hey - Same as it ever was. It's been particularly bad recently, but it's one of the things humans do.

Absolutely politics is much like religion in the west. There is a lot of emphasis on belief rather practical solution. In the US especially presidents are at an almost godlike status, the founding fathers faces are even carved into rock (I cannot remember the name of this thing) much like sculptures in church's or temples. It is interesting how the 'American way' or whatever you'd like to call it is seen as good and right though there are very loose ideas that hold it together, such as freedom. Therefore it leaves a lot up to interpretation, similar to have Christianity and Islam are centered around one holy book but there are numerous factions that have split from eachother because of their different interpretations. This can leave people confused as they know the core ideas of such religion, but they don't know how to go about putting them into use. Therefore any politician can argue any way as long as the end result is this intangible 'freedom' idea. Centering everything on such a broad idea can get people used to painting over details in favour of simplified ideologies or words. Again there is a lot of emotional power behind these words, they require a lot of belief.

that would make radicalization a positive feedback loop. — FlaccidDoor

That's a loop you can break at any time. It's almost completely in your hands. You can either 1) figure out a way to lower the temperature or 2) change the subject or leave.

they are just happy to be noticed and to adopt the belief that following this politician will make their futures better than they are at the present. — Experi

You perfectly explained it here. A clever governor is who makes advantage of those who are not admitted in high society. It is a social paradox because the low paid jobs will do anything but give their lives to promote the leviathan despite probably they will end up abandoned by the State.
This is why it is filthy how governments take advantage from so ignorant people.

Absolutely. This behaviour is promoted at every level of life, especially during education unfortunately, which has been designed specifically to ready people for the work force, think less critically and creatively, and accept the hierarchy as correct. So people turn out ignorant, a product of these governments who know that people will support anything not to be ignored. It's an engineered weakness.

I'm going to completely ignore your appeal against taking sides; and acknowledge from the outset that I am vehemently opposed to political correctness. One problem with it - gone almost unnoticed, was exemplified by responses to the death of Sarah Everard.

There was a determination from the outset to make a politically correct "women's issue" of the case. At first, it was about women walking home late at night. But as the case unfolded, the professional complainers have been wrongfooted twice by the circumstances of the case.

I suspect they will be wrong again when all the circumstances are known. In much the same way that George Floyd created the circumstances in which he died, first by acting criminally, and secondly by violently resisting arrest, I imagine Sarah Everard too, played an active role in creating the circumstances in which she died.

That's not to say either of them deserved to die; but rather what has been shown is that there are politically correct activists, just waiting for a tragedy to adopt, to use to further their narrative. And how can that possibly be sincere? I think it's a self aggrandising, virtue signalling power game - and it's dangerous, not least in that facts are buried for the sake of the PC narrative.

Do you believe that your family members' conservative views are due to their environmental upbringing? Do you think these environments create echo chambers where people radicalize? — FlaccidDoor

Environmental determinism? Could be -- something about cows, pastures, rolling hills, Minnesota weather... I'd say we all started out in the middle of the political road and then differentiated. The brothers lived in cities and became liberal, except for the one who lived in Colorado Springs (military town) who became a Trump man before Trump was a thing. The 4 sisters stayed in the small town and became more conservative in one of MN's congressional district that has always been Republican.

I think long-term social environment is extremely influential. We stay in places where we find like kind and then we become more that way. Or, we don't like where we are and move--and we don't have to go a long ways. The liberal core of the metro Twin Cities area has a radius of 10 miles. Outside the circle it's pretty much all conservative. This pattern holds in all of the large metropolitan areas of the country.

It is also the case that the political parties have shifted rightward. The Republican Party was once considerably more liberal, having a large wing of fiscal-conservative/social liberal members. They were driven out in the 60s and 70s. By 1980 it was Ronald Reagan. The Democratic Party also shifted to the right. After all, ending welfare-as-we-know-it happened under Bill Clinton, a Democrat.

A lot of the rightward shift has been driven from the top of society, by people most of us never associate with.

As for my leftward shift, it was driven by association too--liberal gay men, some socialist friends, and the like, and living in a liberal city.

I'm going to completely ignore your appeal against taking sides; and acknowledge from the outset that I am vehemently opposed to political correctness. — counterpunch

It is inconsiderate to ignore an explicit specification for the discussion clearly expressed in the original post. It's also against the rules of the forum.

We live in the capitlism era. This means having money or at least a decent salary can provide you enter in the culture circle (books, theaters, universities, etc...)
Imagine having a low paid job like 700 euros or even less per month working in a boring job that nobody wants but the low qualification ones. — javi2541997

Very true.

Also, being poor means living on the edge of small disasters which can happen at any time. One's life is precarious. Constant threat makes one more cautious, more likely to respond well to political promises of "the good old days" when people imagined life was better.

The reason politics has become divisive is because the conservative movement (about 80% of it) has lost their minds, has bought in to all this white grievance BS, believes crazy conspiracy theory shit, and is enthrall to a narcissistic sociopath. How can I have common cause with such people? So, I avoid them as much as possible.

The truth is that most of us have already chosen sides. Pretending that we have not, that we are weighing the two sides on a sensitive scale, is a strategy more than a fact. We choose sides before we know it, given the heavy wash of social engagement.

George Floyd has been elevated to local sainthood, but here is a man with a string of criminal convictions, drug addiction, and petty crime--of the sort he was engaged in at the time of his final arrest. He wasn't resisting arrest so extreme that a fatality should have been expected. What the role of the fentanyl is on behavior, not sure. Probably not beneficial.

It is inconsiderate to ignore an explicit specification for the discussion clearly expressed in the original post. It's also against the rules of the forum. — T Clark

I disagree. I think seeking to proscribe the manner and scope of a discussion is bad form - which is why I brought attention to it. I have nothing to say about making peace with politically correct activists, but I can at least explain why I despise them - which is, in my view, a positive contribution to the overall discussion.

I disagree. I think seeking to proscribe the manner and scope of a discussion is bad form - which is why I brought attention to it. I have nothing to say about making peace with politically correct activists, but I can at least explain why I despise them - which is, in my view, a positive contribution to the overall discussion. — counterpunch

The moderators sometimes take a dim view of ignoring the rules so transparently. We'll see.

The reason politics has become divisive is because the conservative movement (about 80% of it) has lost their minds, has bought in to all this white grievance BS, believes crazy conspiracy theory shit, and is enthrall to a narcissistic sociopath. How can I have common cause with such people? So, I avoid them as much as possible. — RogueAI

They feel the same way about you. That's how we got to this place. If we ever want to get out of it, we have to try something different.

I'm a liberal Democrat. Even so, I know it's true that I share most values with people I disagree with politically.

However like I said the emotive argument of murder is disconnected from the complex and broader issue that is meant to be discussed (abortion). — Experi

I wouldn't say the emotive argument is completely disconnected from the rational deconstruction of the problem. As you said, at minimum it's usually a signpost but continuing off the abortion debate I would argue that it is intertwined much more deeply.

So it's women's right Vs murder. One side is acting off the emotive argument that women's rights should not be trampled (not this specific right, but in general). The other is acting off the emotive argument of murder (in general) is wrong. Neither side disagrees with the other's emotive argument by itself. Neither side believes that a mother's convenience is a priority over a new life or women should not have rights (or at least not a significant enough number of them do). What I'm trying to get at, I think, is that they are trying to rationalize their emotive arguments, using their emotive arguments as base, if that makes any sense.

Say I'm a proabortion person
Let's further assume that my emotive argument is: trampling women's rights is bad (so expanding it must be good)
That as a starting point, we attempt to rationalize it like:
Expanding women's rights is good, so fighting for this is a good thing
It's not a life until it's first heart beat/birth/etc.
You can't kill what isn't a life
etc. etc.
Thus I'm right

The truth is that most of us have already chosen sides. — Bitter Crank

Sides in what? It's a phoney war - pursued beyond all sense of reason. I'm not choosing sides in a phoney war. I despise politically correct activists, and yet continue to treat people as individuals regardless of skin colour or gender.

The moderators sometimes take a dim view of ignoring the rules so transparently. We'll see. — T Clark

What rule, exactly?

It is interesting how the 'American way' or whatever you'd like to call it is seen as good and right though there are very loose ideas that hold it together, such as freedom. — Experi

The American Way is (was?) an extremely important part of being American. Perhaps best characterized by Hollywood in John Wayne and Clint Eastwood western movies, being American was about individualism and an incredible sense of positivity, a spirit that attracted tens of millions of emigrants over the past two centuries.

It is the attempted re-writing of this history of great achievement with the mantle of victim-hood that has caused a great deal of the America's contemporary problems (along with massive systemic political and corporate corruption). Americans are very proud of what this country has been able to achieve but this does not mean that we are not willing to air out our dirty laundry and strive to move things forward. This 20's are going to be a difficult but very necessary catharsis for the U.S.

The ugly side of this country revealed itself when destiny decided it was time to assume global leadership after WWII. The elite took this as their opportunity to abandon the moral high-ground and do what elite have done for millennia, i.e., lie, cheat, and steal to their heart's content.

They may say that about me, but it's not true, and that's the problem- many conservatives have become detached from reality. I, personally, am not enthrall to any political leaders. I don't understand the Trumpian mindset. I've never been slavishly loyal to anyone. I also don't believe in the kooky conspiracy theories they believe. I also am not afraid of "demographic change". So, they may think the same about me, but they are objectively wrong (e.g., climate change is real and is a serious man-made threat). They're the ones that need to come back to reality, and until they do, I would rather avoid them.

So:
State your positions strongly but civilly. Clearly.
Show some respect.
Take the other guys ideas seriously.
Look for areas of agreement.
Look for common values.
Be self-aware about what's going on inside yourself while you're arguing.
Be willing to change your mind.
If it gets too hot, bail. — T Clark

Very nice TC. Respect and common ground go a long way.

The subject of politics seems to be a hate generator. I decided long ago that much politics is a faith-based belief system and there is almost no sense in debating people with strong views. They are rarely held rationally. Find common ground or talk about movies.

We seem to be living in a culture war and society is becoming increasingly angry and combative and tribal. The internet and the ability to live in bubbles has surely been a problem. An Australian Aboriginal activist I know once said that bigotry and hatred isn't more prevalent today than it was 50 years ago, it is just better organized.

I'm going to completely ignore your appeal against taking sides; and acknowledge from the outset that I am vehemently opposed to political correctness. — counterpunch

As long as you believe that what you are saying is worth ignoring what I asked I personally don't mind. I think everyone here is aware enough to refrain from rage baiting and getting baited. However I do think getting too lopsided in the analysis of contentious events is counterproductive towards what I made this discussion for.

Also, being poor means living on the edge of small disasters which can happen at any time. One's life is precarious. Constant threat makes one more cautious, more likely to respond well to political promises of "the good old days" when people imagined life was better. — Bitter Crank

True. We live in an era where a huge number of citizens use their income just to pay the house and bills. Around a 50 or 60 % of the salary is attached to a precarious life. It is sad because it looks like reading philosophy or going to theatres is the modern privilege.
I wish one day we can change this context. It remembers somehow the past times in Rome with slaves. It sounds like a metaphor

They may say that about me, but it's not true, — RogueAI

At the risk of repeating myself, they feel the same way about you.

Very nice TC. — Tom Storm

Awww shucks.

An Australian Aboriginal activist I know once said that bigotry and hatred isn't more prevalent today than it was 50 years ago, it is just better organized. — Tom Storm

And, given the internet and all the associated media, more visible.

As long as you believe that what you are saying is worth ignoring what I asked I personally don't mind. I think everyone here is aware enough to refrain from rage baiting and getting baited. However I do think getting too lopsided in the analysis of contentious events is counterproductive towards what I made this discussion for. — FlaccidDoor

I don't accept I have an obligation to colour within the lines you draw - unless you think your comprehension is so definitive, no-one could possibly have anything to add. I read your post, and I'm responding to it in the only way I can.

I am honest, when I tell you I have no interest in making peace with political correctness. Indeed, given its postmodern rejection of values, and a neo marxian preoccupation with power for power's sake, I'm suspicious of the suggestion we should seek to make peace with this dogma. My question would be, how do we eradicate it? It's wrongheaded in a dozen different ways; and leads people - for instance, to ignore the Covid lockdown to protest against the mere fact this woman - Sarah Everard, was killed.

Such behaviour is a direct consequence of the unreasonableness of the overall politically correct narrative. Same with black lies matter. They think their politically correct righteousness is license to dismiss all other concerns! This kind of behaviour is in my view, symptomatic of the obsessive/compulsive psychology fostered by politically correct ideology - and it should be treated as threat to mental health.

The truth is that most of us have already chosen sides. Pretending that we have not, that we are weighing the two sides on a sensitive scale, is a strategy more than a fact. We choose sides before we know it, given the heavy wash of social engagement. — Bitter Crank

That's true in a sense. I already have a predetermined conclusion I want to reach, which is: I think that we can be better than to allow ourselves to fight endlessly on these contentious issues. However I don't think that's what you meant by choosing sides.

If you think I'm using a "strategy," let me go back to the abortion issue as an example. To start, I'm a libertarian male. I don't feel any moral need to back either side, because it's women's rights. I'm not saying it's irrelevant to me but it's not my most pressing concern either. Additionally, I think what differentiates humans from animals is our ability to reason and choose choices what our instinct cannot. Thus, I don't think people are 'human' until they have the ability to understand and exercise their will. Some adults, much less fetuses fit this description for me, and murdering them is not far removed from slaughtering livestock.

In conclusion, I don't care about which side ends up making the policies. However I don't think it's fun that these debates are starting and ending with just emotions and assumptions of self righteousness.

I don't accept I have an obligation to colour within the lines you draw - unless you think your comprehension is so definitive, no-one could possibly have anything to add. I read your post, and I'm responding to it in the only way I can. — counterpunch

I don't think you understand what I meant. I said go ahead. I am offended if you're comparing my suggestion for the direction of this discussion with political correctness. If you want to take this discussion in that direction, that's fine.

With that said, you're bringing up too many differing points at once to address meaningfully.

given its postmodern rejection of values, and a neo marxian preoccupation with power for power's sake — counterpunch

What is postmodernism in the context that you're using? Why is it bad? What makes neo-marx ideas particularly bad and why does this have anything to do in relation to this discussion as a whole?

It's wrongheaded in a dozen different ways; and leads people - for instance, to ignore the Covid lockdown to protest against the mere fact this woman - Sarah Everard, was killed. — counterpunch

I'm assuming you're speaking hyperbolically, but name the 12 reasons if I'm incorrect. I don't even know who Sarah Everard is. Even if I did, I think I would appreciate a brief explanation as to what it is and why I should care about her death in particular.

Such behaviour is a direct consequence of the unreasonableness of the overall politically correct narrative. Same with black lies matter. They think their politically correct righteousness is license to dismiss all other concerns! This kind of behaviour is in my view, symptomatic of the obsessive/compulsive psychology fostered by politically correct ideology - and it should be treated as a mental health issue. — counterpunch

Again, too much to address. It gives me the impression that you are rage baiting and don't want to actually have a discussion about your views.

You're trying to make an equivalence where none exists. The problem for Trump supporters is on their end, not mine, and this is objectively true. The election was not stolen, climate change is not a hoax, Q-anon is a bunch of nonsense, Sandy Hook really happened, Hillary Clinton is not a murderer, etc. I'm also not in a cult.

Maybe a good place to start is, political correctness. You said it was postmodernistic and neo-marxian, but is also comparable to my appeal for the scope of this discussion. I don't like political correctness either, and I'm curious if you thought I was postmodernistic or neomarxian, and if so, why?

Do you think this acts as a catalyst for the polarization of people, and people would be more inclined to talk with each other otherwise?