SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Bridging the gap between left and right. I came across this clip showing Glenn Beck and Samantha Bee, and thought that this SoylentNews story / comment thread should be stickied till the new year so we have an ongoing conversation. It's a short clip from her show where Glenn Beck is a willing guest; the key point is they are trying to find common ground. Beck points out that Bee is following some of his own patterns of crying "catastrophe" but they really don't provide much insight beyond the significance of their little coming together moment.
The divide is clear and present on this site as most everywhere else, I would like to see a meta discussion where we fact check each other and drill down through the rhetoric until we get some straightforward lists and proposals on how we can move forward together. What are the fundamental blockers? Which ideas do we consider to be too outrageous for credibility? Many here are guilty of attacking each other — can we try and Spock it out for about a week?
I'll start us off with my supposition:
Climate change is real and human activity has an important effect on it. We must agree on this point in order to move forward, and social/economic issues must be handled after needed environmental changes."
If you post as AC — try and behave as if you were logged in — reduce the flames for better quality discussion.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 23 2016, @11:24PM
Come on people, its a broad topic! What else besides climate change is a necessary conversation? Where do we have serious animosity between "liberals" and "conservatives" and how can we move forward?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Friday December 23 2016, @11:28PM
The obvious reason that SB and GB are ganging up, is because the neolib/con coalition is in trouble. Just more proof that the Clinton wing of the DNC and Bush wing of the GOP, are far more alike than different.
My take? Fuck'em both.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday December 24 2016, @12:19AM
Pick an issue. Personally, I don't see that there's any reason to compromise on much of anything. Progressives are quite happy to take their victories towards insanity by inches, which means every compromise is a win for them and a loss for conservatives, libertarians, and even sane liberals.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 24 2016, @01:12AM
Have fun in the echo chamber you work so hard to build. Your own reality distortion field makes any of the many, many comments you make hilariously obtuse, and that's before you get into your gross generalizations and simple-minded "us vs them" view.
Pray tell, what homogeneous area do you come from?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday December 24 2016, @01:26AM
Your own response puts the lie to the echo chamber argument. Truthfully, I don't think you even know what the phrase means. Here, maybe this [wikipedia.org] will help.
Ignoring the insult and moving along...
Generalizations are an imprecise but useful tool. I am genuinely amazed that you never use them. Do tell me how you find the time to weigh every decision on the distinct, individual merits of every variable that could possibly go into it. I'll wait.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 24 2016, @05:51PM
Ahh, and more logical fallacies combined with a failure to read another persons words properly.
Thanks for the informative link, the echo chamber I was referring to is this exact site, which I'm pretty sure counts as media. *You* personally are the reason I don't engage in this site less and less; it had so much promise at the start until it became evident that you don't discuss anything; you dismiss and misdirect, misinterpret words, and reduce the quality of discussion here. And the fact that you clearly devote a lot of your day to patrolling the forums and spouting your nonsense everywhere derails interesting conversations left and right, which makes soylent a headling-scanner site at best. So enjoy the fruits of your labor!
Duh everyone uses generalizations, hence my use of the word "gross." I'd provide a condescending link explaining the use of that word, but I don't want to step on any toes.
Again, what homogeneous part of the country do you live in? I assume since you didn't address the point, I've described it accurately?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 24 2016, @01:43AM
I think the parent meant that if different groups can find some common ground in areas where it is worse to take no action, then maybe people could figure out steps to make things better. In this case compromise would be beneficial for all sides (unless a side is incompetent at negotiating and the other is incompetent at solving problems).
I think TFS wanted to try to bring people together with some common ground, but already messed-up this chance, since it picked a very political topic and put a slant on it (especially the human cause part).
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday December 24 2016, @01:48AM
I agree, but I can't currently think of a topic that wouldn't result in me having to explain that feelings are not rational arguments. Thus, pick a topic.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 24 2016, @03:20AM
Any disagreements over anything other than technical topics (and not even those many times) will cause people to act irrationally.
With this community, I'd go for something more on the pro/anti-authoritarian spectrum, instead of left/right, since there seems to be more common ground on that axis.
Which parts of airport security are ineffective and should be removed?
How much, if any, domestic surveillance should be done on citizens with no cause or prior history of criminal activity?
After agreeing on certain points, then we could move on to what conditions would warrant exceptions or what are realistic cost/benefit thresholds.