Politics

[sneepity]

I think this is a fair position to have. It's not important to say what you would do, it's important to understand where the rioting is coming from. Treating them as people with worthwhile concerns is an important step.

I do want to address your comment about history books being "left-leaning". It's important to distinguish when a point of view is actually biased, or when an unbiased point of view merely appears biased in comparison to a different point of view. In America today, the "left" party is functionally a centrist, "don't rock the boat" establishment, and the "right" party is ultra-conservative and would be considered far-right in any other developed country. When compared to the American political system, then, a moderate, unbiased view of history appears "left" because it aligns with the party of the left, but in reality has minimal bias in that direction, if at all.

[nateDC]

I think this is a fair position to have. It's not important to say what you would do, it's important to understand where the rioting is coming from. Treating them as people with worthwhile concerns is an important step.

I do want to address your comment about history books being "left-leaning". It's important to distinguish when a point of view is actually biased, or when an unbiased point of view merely appears biased in comparison to a different point of view. In America today, the "left" party is functionally a centrist, "don't rock the boat" establishment, and the "right" party is ultra-conservative and would be considered far-right in any other developed country. When compared to the American political system, then, a moderate, unbiased view of history appears "left" because it aligns with the party of the left, but in reality has minimal bias in that direction, if at all.

I must disagree, the "right" party is the "status quo" party and the "left" party is the "let's have government go do things" party.

[sneepity]

I think this is a fair position to have. It's not important to say what you would do, it's important to understand where the rioting is coming from. Treating them as people with worthwhile concerns is an important step.

I do want to address your comment about history books being "left-leaning". It's important to distinguish when a point of view is actually biased, or when an unbiased point of view merely appears biased in comparison to a different point of view. In America today, the "left" party is functionally a centrist, "don't rock the boat" establishment, and the "right" party is ultra-conservative and would be considered far-right in any other developed country. When compared to the American political system, then, a moderate, unbiased view of history appears "left" because it aligns with the party of the left, but in reality has minimal bias in that direction, if at all.

I must disagree, the "right" party is the "status quo" party and the "left" party is the "let's have government go do things" party.

Well, when the "status quo" is institutionalized racism and "let's have the government go do things" is ensuring equal rights for all and reigning in out-of-control police forces, I know which side I lean towards.

[Umaroth]

I think this is a fair position to have. It's not important to say what you would do, it's important to understand where the rioting is coming from. Treating them as people with worthwhile concerns is an important step.

I do want to address your comment about history books being "left-leaning". It's important to distinguish when a point of view is actually biased, or when an unbiased point of view merely appears biased in comparison to a different point of view. In America today, the "left" party is functionally a centrist, "don't rock the boat" establishment, and the "right" party is ultra-conservative and would be considered far-right in any other developed country. When compared to the American political system, then, a moderate, unbiased view of history appears "left" because it aligns with the party of the left, but in reality has minimal bias in that direction, if at all.

I must disagree, the "right" party is the "status quo" party and the "left" party is the "let's have government go do things" party.

These are the definitions of the left and the right, but we all know politicians don't actually follow rules or guidelines

[nateDC]

I think this is a fair position to have. It's not important to say what you would do, it's important to understand where the rioting is coming from. Treating them as people with worthwhile concerns is an important step.

I do want to address your comment about history books being "left-leaning". It's important to distinguish when a point of view is actually biased, or when an unbiased point of view merely appears biased in comparison to a different point of view. In America today, the "left" party is functionally a centrist, "don't rock the boat" establishment, and the "right" party is ultra-conservative and would be considered far-right in any other developed country. When compared to the American political system, then, a moderate, unbiased view of history appears "left" because it aligns with the party of the left, but in reality has minimal bias in that direction, if at all.

I must disagree, the "right" party is the "status quo" party and the "left" party is the "let's have government go do things" party.

Well, when the "status quo" is institutionalized racism and "let's have the government go do things" is ensuring equal rights for all and reigning in out-of-control police forces, I know which side I lean towards.

I don't disagree, I just wanted to "correct" the definitions of "left" and "right".

[nateDC]

I think this is a fair position to have. It's not important to say what you would do, it's important to understand where the rioting is coming from. Treating them as people with worthwhile concerns is an important step.

I do want to address your comment about history books being "left-leaning". It's important to distinguish when a point of view is actually biased, or when an unbiased point of view merely appears biased in comparison to a different point of view. In America today, the "left" party is functionally a centrist, "don't rock the boat" establishment, and the "right" party is ultra-conservative and would be considered far-right in any other developed country. When compared to the American political system, then, a moderate, unbiased view of history appears "left" because it aligns with the party of the left, but in reality has minimal bias in that direction, if at all.

I must disagree, the "right" party is the "status quo" party and the "left" party is the "let's have government go do things" party.

These are the definitions of the left and the right, but we all know politicians don't actually follow rules or guidelines

Ehhhh just enough to take advantage of the "my group versus your group" mentality that is more prevalent than we like to acknowledge.

[nateDC]

I must disagree, the "right" party is the "status quo" party and the "left" party is the "let's have government go do things" party.

Well, when the "status quo" is institutionalized racism and "let's have the government go do things" is ensuring equal rights for all and reigning in out-of-control police forces, I know which side I lean towards.

I don't disagree, I just wanted to "correct" the definitions of "left" and "right".

I mean, in theory those are the "correct" definitions, but I can't look at the current Democratic party and consider them the party of big government oversight and progress. They're mostly all talk and no action, and have been actively trying to minimize the impact of an actual progressive wing to the party. If we weren't beholden to the two-party system, the Democratic party would have already split in two pieces if not more.

[nateDC]

Agree 100%. The "problem" with the Democratic Party is that they have to control the extreme progressives to keep together, so as not to lose their core voters.

[EwwPhysics]

Agree 100%. The "problem" with the Democratic Party is that they have to control the extreme progressives to keep together, so as not to lose their core voters.

Which is quite unfortunate - the stigma against ideas that have been labeled as "too radical" is preventing us from making any significant political progress. It's so sad to me that the Democratic party is now thought of as one that is selfish and wants to promote the "common good" for their own benefit - and that this assumption that many people make has too much truth to it.

[sneepity]

It's unfortunate that the race angle is often used to dismiss actual systemic change. Police not being racist won't change things - they're still effectively armed gangs enforcing the will of their handlers.