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

[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?

 

[ronburgundy]

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.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

The examples are simplified and generalized to the point of being nonsensical. You've marked things as true, but are they? Are those positions fairly attributed?

There are cases where I can think of opposing priorities which aren't always given consideration. For example, as I encountered the debate on fossil fuels in Canada for much of my life, it was hard to find a lot of people who could simultaneously entertain that both environmental concerns and job loss concerns were both deeply meaningful issues. While they shouldn't have been mutually exclusive considerations, they sort of became that way. I do find more people leaning toward the middle on this issue now, but it feels like too little too late.

In general, though, I am less concerned with people accepting opposing viewpoints. It often doesn't make sense. What I really wish could happen is people spend more time understanding and addressing arguments people are actually making. My most significant pet issue over the last decade has been trans rights as a matter of self-interest, and honestly the lion's share of my time 'debating' and discussing with people is explaining they are arguing against points pretty much no one is making.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

In large part it is strawmanning too. Write any of the above, from either left or right, and the right or left will presume you disagree with their point. You can see that on this very forum all the time. The worst of it is when people even go far as to say "what you really think is..."

As for why people do this, probably a mixture of ego and confirmation bias.

 

[PyramidHead]

Politics is not an aesthetic game or a meeting place for diverse views. It's a struggle for who in society gets to wield power over whom. The more you care about "accepting opposing viewpoints" rather than roundly defeating them, the more you prop up whatever the dominant viewpoint happens to be.

 

[Elixir]

Politics is not an aesthetic game or a meeting place for diverse views. It's a struggle for who in society gets to wield power over whom. The more you care about "accepting opposing viewpoints" rather than roundly defeating them, the more you prop up whatever the dominant viewpoint happens to be.

Spoken like a proponent of Midnight Moscow Mitch politics.

 

[repoman]

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.

Reminds me of this which I just stumbled on

Show

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Because Moore-Coulter.

 

[ronburgundy]

Politics is not an aesthetic game or a meeting place for diverse views. It's a struggle for who in society gets to wield power over whom. The more you care about "accepting opposing viewpoints" rather than roundly defeating them, the more you prop up whatever the dominant viewpoint happens to be.

If your views are not completely shared by the majority in your society, then the only way you can accomplish "roundly defeating them" is via violent authoritarian oppression. And most of the time, one's views are not fully shared by the majority, thus compromise is required to maintains anything resembling a free democratic society. In fact, by definition, any "progressive" will not represent the majority. Sure some views are so extremely wrong that the goal should be to defeat those who hold them. But that is accomplished by compromise and acknowledging the valid points of those with whom an alliance creates a democratic majority.

 

[PyramidHead]

Politics is not an aesthetic game or a meeting place for diverse views. It's a struggle for who in society gets to wield power over whom. The more you care about "accepting opposing viewpoints" rather than roundly defeating them, the more you prop up whatever the dominant viewpoint happens to be.

Spoken like a proponent of Midnight Moscow Mitch politics.

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

 

[PyramidHead]

Politics is not an aesthetic game or a meeting place for diverse views. It's a struggle for who in society gets to wield power over whom. The more you care about "accepting opposing viewpoints" rather than roundly defeating them, the more you prop up whatever the dominant viewpoint happens to be.

If your views are not completely shared by the majority in your society, then the only way you can accomplish "roundly defeating them" is via violent authoritarian oppression.

It doesn't need to be the majority, it's whatever the ruling ideology is. In a society where capitalist neoliberalism is dominant, the state will be utilized to suppress the countervailing narrative in various ways. Where proletarian communism is dominant, the state will be harnessed to suppress the resurgence of a capitalist class or control its activity. There are no exceptions to this rule; all societies are authoritarian. The word "authoritarian" becomes meaningless once you understand this. You should stop using it.

And most of the time, one's views are not fully shared by the majority, thus compromise is required to maintains anything resembling a free democratic society. In fact, by definition, any "progressive" will not represent the majority. Sure some views are so extremely wrong that the goal should be to defeat those who hold them. But that is accomplished by compromise and acknowledging the valid points of those with whom an alliance creates a democratic majority.

Bourgeois "free democracy" is an empty label that has been weaponized by everyone from the US State Department to the corporate media to conceal the lack of real democracy in almost all aspects of society, and create the impression of a healthy republic where most people are satisfied except for an eccentric fringe. You are carrying their water as usual.

...

So, Americans.

You do realize that you are living on the Death Star, right? And that you probably shouldn't trust mainstream news outlets originating from the Death Star to educate you on the rebel alliance and their relative numbers, what they stand for, and whether their cause is just or not? Do you ever wonder if living on the Death Star might affect what you can access in terms of history, economics, culture, and moral philosophy, or do you expect to gain a balanced ideological perspective by passively absorbing whatever is provided by the Empire? Do you think you live in a normal place with normal leaders and a neutral culture that is basically reliable if you cite your Wikipedia?

On the spectrum between "has invaded and conquered no other worlds" and "has invaded and conquered dozens of other worlds", where do you think the needle of trustworthiness should fall when it comes to topics that directly relate to the Empire's ability to maintain its dominance over the galaxy? Do you imagine it's just not important enough for them to try to sway public opinion in their favor?

Just an aside, and hopefully in a language people can understand.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Politics is not an aesthetic game or a meeting place for diverse views. It's a struggle for who in society gets to wield power over whom. The more you care about "accepting opposing viewpoints" rather than roundly defeating them, the more you prop up whatever the dominant viewpoint happens to be.

Spoken like a proponent of Midnight Moscow Mitch politics.

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?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

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.

I agree with your post in spirit. But I'd note that the left is capable of nuance and examining liberty as well.

I think that the things being said by each side should reference primary sources instead in order to demonstrate the op with evidence.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Second this. These aren't the positions of the right, this is a strawman argument.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

I agree with your post in spirit. But I'd note that the left is capable of nuance and examining liberty as well.

I think that the things being said by each side should reference primary sources instead in order to demonstrate the op with evidence.

Moore-Coulter. RIght now in America, the so many on the right-wing are unreachable. And of the others that you can talk to, well, they just can't vote for a liberal regardless what the alternative is.

In general, a lot of the nation wants the same thing... one side has been brainwashed through decades of bullshit conservative news coverage. And the other... are a herd of cats.

 

[Patooka]

The simple reason is that it is far more profitable to have conflict and be adversarial than compromising. The likes of Ben Shapiro and Cenk Uygur wouldn't have careers if they weren't railing against their counterparts. However, it's pretty lazy and intellectually dishonest to say both sides of the political spectrum are equivalent. Conservative politicians actively collaborate with fringe elements like the alt-right and Tea Party. Very few left wing politicians have tried to legitimise groups like Occupy Wall Street or Antifa, Some do of course, but no where near the amount on the right.

If the issue is going to be resolved, it needs to be identified accurately. And adversarial politics disproportionately stems from the conservative spectrum.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

You do realize that you are living on the Death Star, right?

As are you, just in the garbage compactors.

 

[RVonse]

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.

 

[zorq]

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.

I wanted to agree with you, but then you wrote some weird details. It's almost like you were agreeing that billionaires need bigger tax breaks than the middle class (86% of Trump's tax breaks went to the 1%) and that liberals are opposed to jobs and income in some way.

Also, just so that you don't get confused, let me say up front that I don't have a problem with billionaires existing in the world. I just see no reason to look them as a class of people that deserve special protection. The world doesn't need billionaires. It doesn't take a billionaire to invent new products, implement new services, or hire employees.

---------------------------------------------

On to the OP, I think the opposite sides of the spectrum can't accept opposing viewpoints because some of them are just wrong.

Environment:

-----*The Left: Anthropogenic global warming and its ensuing climate change is projected to have lasting, drastically damaging, and costly effects. It will affect environments, economies, and livelihoods of people, but will be distributed unevenly across the world and manifest is a multitude of ways. If we act now we can reduce or prevent some of the worst of these expensive and tragic outcomes.

-----*The Right: What? climate change? That sounds like it will cut in to profits. Let's invent a conspiracy theory so that we can ignore an inconvenient truth. Drill, baby, drill!

Religion:

-----*The Left: You can worship and believe whoever or whatever you want up to the point that your religion interferes with other people's lives.

-----*The Right: Our favorite religious idea is the best and we are working hard to make sure that our particular interpretation of ancient rules written in our magic book get codified into the law of the land.

 

[repoman]

When the right agrees with the left on the reality of overpopulation (a couple lefty posters here are cornucopianist on this), finiteness of resources and global warming then they can be scary. Unabomber/Christchurch scary.

Ecofascism makes some deep visceral sense to them and matches the war level footing of the conservative mind.



Take in immigrants like a spinster does with cats, not so much.