Quote:
Originally Posted by GratefulCitizen
I'll throw in with Dusty for now.
Not necessarily because I agree with him, but to make a point.
Liberals love to play the "define the middle" game.
It's all about compromise.
Suppose I say: 2+2 = 6
The likely response would be no, it's 4.
Then I say: 2+2 = 5 (a compromise)
The likely response would be no, it's 4.
This game keeps going until I say 2+2 = 4.00001
Most people would still insist that 2+2 = 4
I'VE COME WAY MORE THAN HALF WAY, WHY ARE THEY SO UNREASONABLE!!!!
The game is to get people to give up their core beliefs.
Then it's time to start boiling the frog.
Many people (probably Dusty included) often respond by going far the other direction rhetorically.
This helps expose the "define the middle" game and prevents the "boiling the frog" strategy.
|
I think this illustration does a very good job of establishing part of the problem...Justice Scalia once used something similar to discuss why Originalism was not as popular as pragmatism with relation to judicial philosophy. i.e. the pragmatists have something to bargain with where as the originalists are simply interpreting the text as accurately as possible.
If I believe that a particular position is correct and that its opposite is incorrect, at what point am I to accept a poor or incorrect compromise?
More and more I see a fundamental shift between the conservative and liberal mindsets which provides for very little common ground.
To suggest that the potential solution to this shift is a series of compromises which ultimately feature a number of zero sum choices where liberal progressive increases incrementally is not a solution to to underlying questions, but a war of attrition where instead of careful evaluation of policy we get a subtle and gradual move toward the left in the name of "compromise".
Effective compromise is possible between people who share a common world view, it is much more difficult to achieve when world views are diametrically opposed.