There's such a long list of things one could say that about.
In this instance the "representation matters" thought process seems to bear out.
Folks talk about aspiring to role models who look like them. People also react strongly when this sort of thing happens to someone who looks like them.
The problem is that you can slice representation every which way. It could be "I only identify with 6'3" males who live in Idaho and like trains", or it could be "I identify with humans".
The fact that US culture chooses to identify with people of the same colour is telling, though I don't know, maybe that's a human thing and my country is too homogeneous for me to think otherwise.
I debated asking, but I talk to him only a few times a year and we both work really hard to avoid politics. I realize it is my responsibility if I want to see change, but I just lack the skills.
I’ve read lots of books on psychotherapy, and the verdict is a hard disagree on that. The idea of positive relationships to parents is a toxic one, and leads to more transgenerational suffering. It’s good to process the past sufficiently to hold no grudge, but it’s still necessary for mental hygiene to set and enforce boundaries. The most important element of this is grief. Like other posters replied, it is not necessary nor healthy to suppress and wait with anger and grief processing till after their death, and plenty of opportunity to work through unfinished business with them ever after their passing (eg with representatives in constellations work).
Unless a Parent/Child was physically or mentally abused (by clinical standards) then I confident that stopping interacting with them over politics alone is foolish.
Maybe, but also maybe politics can be a reflection of a person’s actions in a broader sense, for which it is perfectly reasonable to disengage from them when those actions have a negative impact.
Yeah, I don’t see why one should wait until after the abuse occurs (“by clinical standards”, above commenter says) to begin defending oneself. As you say, politics isn’t divorced from the rest of their psyche.
It’s predictable that a person who e.g. yells slurs and threatens violence against (whoever they perceive as) gay people on TV is going to progress to actual violence against the gay people in their life, more often than not.
This parental situation is sadly repeated endlessly in the US. My dad is a wealthy retired tech executive whose mind was seemingly taken over by Fox News. He's kind of now in an anti democratic cult and he gets angry if he is even exposed to other news sources.
I will feel sad when he passes and I already feel the loss of being able to talk to him about anything. My brother says the same thing. He doesn't even talk to his grandkids much. I think this is sadly common.
> I don't get the feeling people discussing politics are trying to solve any problems
It depends on what you view a "discussing politics". To borrow a quote, "politics is the art of the possible." You have to use politics to define what problems are even considered, much less the possible ways they might get solved.
For instance, unlimited spending on political campaigns is either a problem, or not a problem, depending on your politics, never mind if it should be solved via amendment, court packing, or congressional act[1].
I agree, many people go hardcore on tribalism. I would likely agree it is a bad thing that many Americans define politics as, "us" and, "them". If you want to be results oriented, you have to convince people it's a problem, you're going to need to use politics to do so.
> Now I think the opposite: politics isn’t the problem; bad politics is. And pretending politics doesn’t exist? That’s how bad politics wins.
Feels like that's how extremism wins? If no one wants to confront other's political ideas, out of fear irrational responses,
At least in the United States, Americans are more unified on issues than the current executive branch, or (at the very least) the largest main stream media outlet would have you believe. It'd be great if people worked at the center, dealing with outcomes. There's far too much talking past each other, as people stand on their mountain of comfortable points, far too many who ignore evidence as soon as it does not conform to their world view.
And actually enforcing it would be branded as "abusing government for political persecution". It's going to take someone with steel will to actually prosecute all of this crime.
When Education, Journalism, Knowledge, Science and Fact Finding are no longer valued by "conservatives", why would you be surprised or upset that an organization which values those very things is "left" in your point of view?
This is a bit of a pointless discussion but I'll have a go at your points anyway:
> When Education...
Education versus indoctrination seems to be the difference in view here. Notice the downward trend in educational outcomes and relate that to the 'progressive' dominance in education.
> Journalism
More or less the same as above, there is a difference between a journalist and a peddler of agitprop. Most of what goes for 'journalism' in the legacy media falls under the latter instead of the former while the 'new' media mostly lacks the means to do 'real journalism'.
> Knowledge
See above and realise that the term 'different ways of knowing' and the pointless discussions on things like 'indigenous knowledge' and 'standpoint epistemology' are things stemming from the 'progressive' side.
> Science
It is getting quite repetitive but there is a difference between science as in the process of applying the scientific method to gain insight and knowledge and Science™ as a producer of dogma. Ask your latest supreme court justice if she can define what a woman is and you'll soon understand the difference.
> Fact Finding
Rinse and repeat, it is the 'progressive' side which uses terms like 'my truth' and 'your truth'.
What you're summing up is not a 'difference between left and right' but the result of a thorough indoctrination by one of the extremes into thinking 'the other side' is comprised of drooling idiots. For a true comparison you should remove the opinions of the extreme outliers on the 'left' and 'right' and soon you'll find that there is not that much difference between rational people who happen to lean more towards the right or left. The one problem here is that it has become practice on the 'progressive' side to 'center the margin' [1] in an appeal to 'support the oppressed in their struggle against the oppressors' which then creates new marginal opinions which in turn are centred until it is margins all the way down.
For perspective, I'm a European - Dutchman living in Sweden, both relatively 'progressive' countries. It used to be that we considered American politics to consist of two parties, one right (R) and once centre-right (D) compared to the wider spectrum seen here with everything from Lenin-Stalin-Mao-hailing communists to blood-and-soil ultranationalists and everything in between. This has changed, especially in the last 15 years due to the radical left-wing slide of the 'democratic' party which now voices opinions which are comparable to those of European socialist parties. I suspect they do not represent the political opinion of the majority of their potential voter base and with that I don´t see these opinions becoming mainstream other than in the 'deep blue' cities but the American left is now in many ways comparable to and in some ways more radical than their European 'comrades'. Reading or listening to speeches by people like JFK or Bill Clinton in the current situation makes you wonder whether they are in the same party as Obama or Harris or any of the grandstanding loudmouths like Jeffries or 'the squad'.
It is quite remarkable how a country so big with so much potential has managed to produce a political class so dysfunctional and incompetent. Not that we're much better off here in Europe mind you but that is another discussion for another day.
Why are you getting so upset that "conservatives" don't value the things they claim not to value? You're ignoring the core argument, instead trying to play dumb "let's define the words".
The modern GOP opposes those ideas. If you want to contend that core argument, feel free. Otherwise:
> Education versus indoctrination
It's interesting you bring that up, considering the slide in outcomes is rather intense in areas with non-public forms of irrational indoctrination.
> journalist and a peddler of agitprop ... 'journalism' in the legacy media
And yet, Fox News, the largest and most popular Legacy Main Stream media player falls, very obviously into the later description of "agitprop".
> ask your latest supreme court justice
Ah. I do not posses a Supreme Court justice. I do not presume any justice is, "my", or "your" justice. It's rather reductive to refer to someone that way, especially a person of African American descent.
> Rinse and repeat, it is the 'progressive' side which uses terms like 'my truth' and 'your truth'.
Yeah. You cannot invalidate other people's personal experiences. That's, uh, pretty basic. Empathy is unpopular with some folks right now.
> I suspect they do not represent the political opinion of the majority of their potential voter base
That's rather true for the extreme maggots running executive branch, sure.
Only one response to make sure I'm correct in who I'm conversing with:
> > ask your latest supreme court justice
> Ah. I do not posses a Supreme Court justice.
I have been assuming you're an American all the time and made my remarks based on those assumptions. If you are an American this latest supreme court justice is 'yours', if not she isn't.
Assuming that you are indeed an American I can only conclude you assume I meant 'your (...) supreme court justice' in an ideological way - why? Is that a normal way to talk about justices in your circles? It is not in mine.
> Is that a normal way to talk about justices in your circles?
It is _extremely_ common to speak that way about government officials in conservative circles in the United States. Not centrist, liberal or progressive ones, because such language is reductive and problematic.
It is also _extremely_ common to use the dog whistle[1] of "define a woman" in American Conservative circles. American conservatives often use such bigotry to justify political violence against those they see as less than themselves[2].
If you want to say, "your Supreme Court's latest Justice", or "your nation's newest Justice", feel free.
> It is _extremely_ common to speak that way about government officials in conservative circles in the United States
I was asking you whether this was normal in your circles, not whether you think it to be common outside of your circles. For that information I would not ask you but others.
Notice the following:
* You automatically assumed that I was a conservative.
* You assumed that I was using the term 'your justice' as a reference to ideological instead of national identification.
* You have now listed a long list of things which according to you apply to those other people who you do not agree with (conservatives, republicans, etc.).
* When I asked a direct question on whether something applied to your circles you again deflected by claiming this thing applied to others without actually answering the question.
* You tried to imply 'racist' motives by referring to the mentioned supreme court justice's race as 'african american' as if this factor were in any way related to the discussion.
* When called out on this you bring up the tired old trope of 'dog whistles' - the secret signs which supposedly are used by those very same other - but not by you - to further their nefarious goals but which you somehow know how to recognise even though you are most definitely not part of the groups which would use them, fittingly illustrated (given the context of this thread) using a severely biased Wikipedia link.
If your approach to these issues is common in the USA it is no wonder that American politics is so polarised.
You 'othered' people from the get-go. Why are you so upset about others doing it?
> You automatically assumed that I was a conservative.
Where did anyone call you a conservative? Referring to conservatives in the 3rd person is not referring to you?
Why are you taking things personally?
> You assumed that I was using the term 'your justice' as a reference to ideological instead of national identification
Because that is often how it is discussed. Having never met a person who uses the words the way you are using them, so why assume that someone is using a term in a novel way? In Dutch, are you going to assume people are using terminology to mean something, while technically correct, that no one you have met uses? Props if so, but that's sounds like a tall tale.
> You have now listed a long list of things which according to you apply to those other people who you do not agree with
They apply to many people. If you do not have personal experience, that's fine.
But, don't try to invalidate other people's lived experiences.
> When I asked a direct question on whether something applied to your circles
There was no deflection. Simply a response. If you cannot parse the response, it can be clarified to your benefit.
> You tried to imply 'racist' motives
Explaining why something is racist is not prescribing intent. Why are you prescribing intent, but while criticizing others by falsely reading into their intent?
> When called out on this you bring up the tired old trope of 'dog whistles'
Pretending something isn't a problem is a rather poor defense.
> using a severely biased Wikipedia link.
Maybe you're the one with a rather large bias? Or maybe small bias? Who knows.
Then you really should know better than this, man. I'm Dutch, and from my perspective it's pretty obvious which way US media and the society as a whole is biased. There's barely any political left there.
> This has changed, especially in the last 15 years due to the radical left-wing slide of the 'democratic' party which now voices opinions which are comparable to those of European socialist parties.
You mean they finally support universal healthcare? Guaranteed maternity leave? 5 weeks of vacation plus unlimited sick days, like every single European country has?
From a European perspective, most of the Democratic Party is still well right of center. There is a real left wing, but it's very small. Bernie, AOC, Liz Warren and a few others; those would be actual left of center compared to Europe.
> I suspect they do not represent the political opinion of the majority of their potential voter base
Indeed. Most voters do want all those sensible things that mainstream Democrats still refuse to support.
> Obama or Harris
...are also still fairly right-wing on economic issues. Refused to support Medicare for All, Harris didn't want to condemn the genocide in Gaza, and was campaigning with Republicans and CEOs. She's about where European moderate right-wing neo-liberal parties are.
> It is quite remarkable how a country so big with so much potential has managed to produce a political class so dysfunctional and incompetent.
I do agree with that. That they not only elected Trump, but re-elected his circus of incompetence is incomprehensible. (And it's true, Europe is also headed towards more fascism. It's bizarre, what's going on right now.)
Freakonomics did a great series talking about the economics and process of developing a new musical. It was striking how producers spoke about the expenses of putting a show on in NYC compared to London.
There's such a long list of things one could say that about.
In this instance the "representation matters" thought process seems to bear out.
Folks talk about aspiring to role models who look like them. People also react strongly when this sort of thing happens to someone who looks like them.
reply