Why are both the left and right terrible at accepting opposing viewpoints?

[Jimmy Higgins]

I agree with OP. As far as the liberal democrats and conservative republicans never being further apart. One way or another we have to make our system work better or we are all going into the night IMO. Especially with the rise of a totalitarianism based society (China) competing with western democracy. Conservatives have it mostly right when it comes to making billionaires and income. But the liberals have it right when it comes to fairness and equality of opportunity.

Neither are both completely rught or wrong. But we sure better figure how to make our system work. We dont have much time either.

Now only if the GOP were a conservative party.

 

[Elixir]

Russiagate is just Qanon for liberals and you prove it with everything you post

What, the part about Russians hacking emails, providing them to Wikileaks, which were released periodically to help benefit the Trump campaign such as immediately after the P-Gate story broke... as in the night of?

Or that Trump's campaign conspired with Russia to do all that?

I simply assumed the PH had no idea what I (or (s)he) was talking about...
It takes a special kind of stoopid to believe Trump is not a Pootey Pawn at this point.

 

[PyramidHead]

Russiagate is just Qanon for liberals and you prove it with everything you post

What, the part about Russians hacking emails, providing them to Wikileaks, which were released periodically to help benefit the Trump campaign such as immediately after the P-Gate story broke... as in the night of?

Or that Trump's campaign conspired with Russia to do all that?

I simply assumed the PH had no idea what I (or (s)he) was talking about...
It takes a special kind of stoopid to believe Trump is not a Pootey Pawn at this point.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I simply assumed the PH had no idea what I (or (s)he) was talking about...
It takes a special kind of stoopid to believe Trump is not a Pootey Pawn at this point.

View attachment 25781

So you are saying that you don't believe that Wikileaks had emails from Democrats and leaked them at particularly odd times that seemed to be aimed at giving cover to the Trump campaign?

Are the rocks where you live big enough for a family of three?

 

[ronburgundy]

I simply assumed the PH had no idea what I (or (s)he) was talking about...
It takes a special kind of stoopid to believe Trump is not a Pootey Pawn at this point.

View attachment 25781

"I'm gonna turn every evidence-based claim that Trump colluded with Russia for their mutual political benefit into a strawman that Trump was literally a Russian spy." --- Pyramidhead's guide to intellectual dishonesty: Or, how to attack liberals and promote the left-wing fascism without even trying to reason.

 

[steve_bank]

Part of it is the media that now treats politics and the impeachment like a college football game. 24/7 tabloid gossiping on every word creating mere divides. Creating drama on off hand remark.

Members of congress on the right have clearly decided to put reelection and poetical survival above ethics regarding Trump.

Social media.

And last but not least Trump's endless spewing of cancerous conspiracy theories. Constantly stoking division and hatred. If evil exists that would be Trump.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I simply assumed the PH had no idea what I (or (s)he) was talking about...
It takes a special kind of stoopid to believe Trump is not a Pootey Pawn at this point.

View attachment 25781

Just look at his actions. He's taking actions that benefit Moscow but hurt Washington.

I don't think he's a spy, though--saboteur is a much better description. (Although I strongly suspect it's actually a handler near him that is under Moscow's control, he's too erratic to maintain cover.)

 

[Mumbles]

These days I consider myself a bit of a centrist politically, maybe left of center, but for the most part a centrist. For the most part I hope for the human condition to be improved, but at the same time I recognize that reality is messy, and that achieving this goal is complicated. Where usually those on the right and left present issues like there is only one correct way of looking at things. They believe they are righteous and moral, and the opposing side is always vehemently wrong, without trying to seek common ground and find the most valid argument. But in many political issues there actually are two sides to the story. A few examples:

Women's rights
Left - We should seek out gender equality. True.
Right - Sometimes the left's claims are unfounded, and we should be mindful of meritocracy and innate interests. True.

Nationalism
Left - In good conscience we should help as many people as we can. True.
Right - We can't help too much or we will suffer ourselves. True.

Political Philosophy
Left - We should organize our government to help as many people as we can. True.
Right - If we interfere too much we'll cause more damage than good. True.

You'll notice that right in the center of these issues there's a middle way which recognizes that these issues don't have to be an either/or binary, that both sides can be correct to some extent, and in some ways. And yet when we approach political conversation these issues are always presented as mutually exclusive.

My question is why? Why do most of us seem incapable of accepting viewpoints that fundamentally oppose our own?

It's going to depend on where you live. As far as the US goes, a large part of the problem is that people think "Democrat" is "left", while "republican" is right. In truth, the dems are fairly centrist, with a few reasonably right or left people, while the GOP is rather close to, say, 2019 UKIP. There's a reason why party leader Donald Trump insists that black and Hispanic people born in the US should "go back to where they came from", why he insisted that Obama wasn't American, and has repeatedly stated that Netanyahu is the Prime minister of Jewish Americans - simply put, he's a white nationalist, and believes that nonwhite people are, by nature, not US citizens.

The US GOP does *not* believe that we should be careful not to interfere "too much" with people's lives - they simply think it should leave white men alone, and interfere with nonwhite people in a violent, and sometimes deadly, manner, mostly through the criminal justice system, via programs like Stop and Frisk. THis is utterly incompatible with a basic respect for the rights of the people being stopped. (For reference, this point is also why black and brown people don't buy their yammering about "freedom" for an instant, regardless of whether on the right or the left - there are far more black conservatives among the dems than among the GOP.)

 

[repoman]

Stop and Frisk is bad and the polar opposite in cities like San Francisco is also terrible.

 

[RVonse]

I simply assumed the PH had no idea what I (or (s)he) was talking about...
It takes a special kind of stoopid to believe Trump is not a Pootey Pawn at this point.

View attachment 25781

Just look at his actions. He's taking actions that benefit Moscow but hurt Washington.

I don't think he's a spy, though--saboteur is a much better description. (Although I strongly suspect it's actually a handler near him that is under Moscow's control, he's too erratic to maintain cover.)

Which actions?

 

[Tigers!]

It much easier and far more satisfying to shoot first and ask questions later.

 

[PyramidHead]

Just look at his actions. He's taking actions that benefit Moscow but hurt Washington.

I don't think he's a spy, though--saboteur is a much better description. (Although I strongly suspect it's actually a handler near him that is under Moscow's control, he's too erratic to maintain cover.)

Which actions?

Assassinating the top general of Russia's hated foe... *squints at notes* Iran

 

[Elixir]

Just look at his actions. He's taking actions that benefit Moscow but hurt Washington.

I don't think he's a spy, though--saboteur is a much better description. (Although I strongly suspect it's actually a handler near him that is under Moscow's control, he's too erratic to maintain cover.)

Which actions?

Assassinating the top general of Russia's hated foe... *squints at notes* Iran

Putin's Payout: 12 Ways

Here are twelve ways that Putin has received his payout:


Putin’s Goal: Weaken and divide the transatlantic alliance.
Putin’s Payout:Trump undermines US relationships with European allies and calls the US’s commitment to NATO into question.

Putin’s Goal: Degrade the European Union and foster pro-Russian political movements.
Putin’s Payout:Trump attacks the EU and actively supports anti-EU, Kremlin-backed parties.

Putin’s Goal: Disrupt American leadership and dominance of the global economic order.
Putin’s Payout: Trump is eagerly pushing for an all-out trade war with Europe

Putin’s Goal: Build global resentment and distrust towards the US and stoke anti-American sentiment.
Putin’s Payout: America’s closest allies are explicitly suspicious and distrusting of the US because of Trump’s rhetoric and actions.

Putin’s Goal: Relieve economic and domestic political pressure from US sanctions on Russia.
Putin’s Payout: Trump tries to roll back, impede, and blunt the impact of sanctions at every step.

Putin’s Goal: Legitimize his regime in the eyes of the world.
Putin’s Payout: Trump repeatedly praises and defends Putin, lending the credibility of the US presidency to Putin’s standing.

Putin’s Goal: Revive Russia’s status as a great power and gain international recognition for its illegal seizure of Crimea.
Putin’s Payout:Trump publicly says that Crimea is part of Russia and calls for Russia to be welcomed back into the international community with no concessions.

Putin’s Goal: Continue to sow discord in Western democracies and avoid repercussions for interfering in American and European elections.
Putin’s Payout: Trump dismisses Russian interference and has done nothing to prevent future interference, putting him at odds with his own intelligence community.

Putin’s Goal: Soften America’s adversarial stance toward Russia.
Putin’s Payout: Trump is shifting the Republican Party’s generations-long hawkish views on Russia.

Putin’s Goal: Destabilize the US from within.
Putin’s Payout: Trump attacks US institutions while driving divisive politics and eroding democratic norms.

Putin’s goal: Advance the Kremlin’s narrative to shape global perceptions.
Putin’s payout: Trump has repeatedly, and inexplicably, parroted Kremlin talking points across a range of global issues.

Putin’s goal: Undermine international norms and democratic values abroad.
Putin’s payout: Trump has repeatedly failed to respond to human rights violations or support democracy abroad, creating a more permissive environment for autocrats to crack down.

 

[Gun Nut]

These days I consider myself a bit of a centrist politically, maybe left of center, but for the most part a centrist. For the most part I hope for the human condition to be improved, but at the same time I recognize that reality is messy, and that achieving this goal is complicated. Where usually those on the right and left present issues like there is only one correct way of looking at things. They believe they are righteous and moral, and the opposing side is always vehemently wrong, without trying to seek common ground and find the most valid argument. But in many political issues there actually are two sides to the story. A few examples:

Women's rights
Left - We should seek out gender equality. True.
Right - Sometimes the left's claims are unfounded, and we should be mindful of meritocracy and innate interests. True.

Nationalism
Left - In good conscience we should help as many people as we can. True.
Right - We can't help too much or we will suffer ourselves. True.

Political Philosophy
Left - We should organize our government to help as many people as we can. True.
Right - If we interfere too much we'll cause more damage than good. True.

You'll notice that right in the center of these issues there's a middle way which recognizes that these issues don't have to be an either/or binary, that both sides can be correct to some extent, and in some ways. And yet when we approach political conversation these issues are always presented as mutually exclusive.

My question is why? Why do most of us seem incapable of accepting viewpoints that fundamentally oppose our own?

because as a "civilized" species, we are infants just starting to learn how to walk. We can cognitively suppose it is good to be good, but then you see someone with a bigger kill than yours and you want to kill them and take all their stuff. That is why. Having "humanity" is just a skin thickness away from bare-tooth snarling.
The shadow that moved in your periphery will either kill you and eat you.. or it won't. Everything our brain processes must first go through that binary choice - this is what your hippocampus does for every bit of stimulus you get, even though you aren't "naked and afraid" at that moment.
So, the answer to your question (why is everything binary - good or evil?) is that it is by our very nature to be that way... and it worked to keep us alive as a species.

 

[rousseau]

These days I consider myself a bit of a centrist politically, maybe left of center, but for the most part a centrist. For the most part I hope for the human condition to be improved, but at the same time I recognize that reality is messy, and that achieving this goal is complicated. Where usually those on the right and left present issues like there is only one correct way of looking at things. They believe they are righteous and moral, and the opposing side is always vehemently wrong, without trying to seek common ground and find the most valid argument. But in many political issues there actually are two sides to the story. A few examples:

Women's rights
Left - We should seek out gender equality. True.
Right - Sometimes the left's claims are unfounded, and we should be mindful of meritocracy and innate interests. True.

Nationalism
Left - In good conscience we should help as many people as we can. True.
Right - We can't help too much or we will suffer ourselves. True.

Political Philosophy
Left - We should organize our government to help as many people as we can. True.
Right - If we interfere too much we'll cause more damage than good. True.

You'll notice that right in the center of these issues there's a middle way which recognizes that these issues don't have to be an either/or binary, that both sides can be correct to some extent, and in some ways. And yet when we approach political conversation these issues are always presented as mutually exclusive.

My question is why? Why do most of us seem incapable of accepting viewpoints that fundamentally oppose our own?

Your "right" positions are not right, they are already the centrist position putting qualifications on the leftist position. In fact, they are essentially classical liberal ideas that acknowledge the value of the left position and the injustices they aim mto correct, but balance it with trying to protect individual liberty and acknowledge evidence-based realities complicate what the end goal should look like and what methods of getting there will preserve important principles in the long run.

The actual "right" positions are:

[P]Women are inherently inferior in many ways including management and leadership. Their proper role is child rearing.

Those in need of help got there because they are lazy, and giving them any help only rewards that trait.[/P]

Note that these actual right positions are false and shouldn't be part of a compromise. And yes, many millions of Republicans and conservatives continue to hold these views.

They may not hit the right of the American political spectrum, but they're Conservative positions. The American right is the fringe right in the context of the rest of the developed world.