The Thread Outside The Echo Chamber

You know, I've been thinking: the talk on the budget thread goes beyond different worldviews, even the ones far more insane than anybody here has ever espoused. I'm thinking that we're getting different facts entirely - possibly because, due to the Internet, we don't have to hear from people with contradictory opinions if we don't want to.

Biggest example: I think the only memory we have in common about the health care debate is that the Republicans refused to budge. The left-wingers remember Obama and the Congressional Democrats constantly attempting compromise; I remember him telling the Republicans to step out of the way, rules about appropriations being used to pass a non-appropriations bill by simple majority, and the House attempting to bypass the Senate altogether.

Smaller example: They see conservatives as universally laissez-faire economists with uber-Christian social values. I admit I tend to see liberals as universally socialists-lite who are so intent on civil rights that the pendulum is a little past dead center.

What say we all make an effort to step out of our respective echo chambers a bit?

Here's a thread to post your political case, or better yet, websites that state something similar to it, rationally and clearly, without falling into the temptation to piss the other side off.

Hope this works out.

I think your representation of the healthcare debate is part of the Echo Chamber you complained about.

Yes, it is. That was my point.

No, let me express it again: your representation of it as an echo chamber is itself an echo chamber.

edited 27th Jul '11 10:21:05 AM by blueharp

...I'm not really sure what to do about that?

I cannot, and by my own personal rule, do not try and guess at the motivations behind politicians or other people without first studying them a bit.

That said, I suspect most people who vote Republican are fine people who do work hard, have friends, eat candy, etc. They just have a different set of information or values than I.

But when I talk about politicians I do know about, I am quite dissatisfied.

Which is why I say with confidence that with a single exception, the Republican majority in the WI state senate and the conservative majority in the State Supreme Court, as well as the governor himself, are the single most corrupt group of bastards I have ever seen in my life.

EDIT: However, I may have misconstrued the purpose of your topic.

edited 27th Jul '11 10:26:38 AM by Enkufka

...that doesn't make any sense Blueharp. He's saying that by constantly chattering away over old ground without bringing in anything from outside, we've no way of unifying our views and reaching consensus.

We're bouncing off each other and off the walls of the restrictive environment of the forums. That is an echo chamber, even if we all bring different items into the echo chamber.

Doma, I don't want to attack you, you seem like a nice enough guy personally, but you deal far too much in generalities. You make vague and unsubstantiated statements that, as likely as not, have been repeatedly debunked in the past by better posters than I, and then act surprised when people are dismissive. They're not dismissive because you're bringing in new ideas, they're dismissive because you're bringing in stale ones without any new facts to freshen them back up.

The closest thing we have to a rightwinger in this forum who isn't a crackpot is Major Tom. He brings in links and statistics and facts. And then we get to argue about what those things mean or how they're misrepresented, but at least he gives people something to chew over. You just throw out statements and opinions. And, granted, I do that a lot myself, but I also try to keep my mouth shut when I feel that I'm not well-informed on a subject.

And I'm saying that that representation of the health care debate as an echo chamber is itself part of the problem, because it's basically a self-justifying example, since people think "Oh yeah, that's an example" to justify their belief that there is some problem.

It's like using an echoing sound to prove that there's an echo in the room.

edited 27th Jul '11 10:35:01 AM by blueharp

Here's a video on pure libertarianism. It leaves plenty of room for libertarians to quibble about all the points they've always quibbled about, but it's a nice general take on the matter.

Okay, Karkadinn, I'll make sure to cite more in future.

edited 27th Jul '11 10:45:06 AM by DomaDoma

Two things come to mind when it comes to this sort of thing.

First, equivocation is bad. Please don't do it. Yes, there's an echo chamber of sorts on both sides. No, they are not automatically equivalent. It's much much much worse on the right, for a number of reasons. A big one being that the right really does move in much more lockstep than the left.

Let's just take the on-line community, which seems fair enough, considering that's where it's generally the worst. There are quite vast differences if you're reading Matthew Yglasias vs. Ezra Klein vs. Talking Points Memo vs. Balloon Juice vs. Atrios vs. Daily Kos vs. Fire Dog Lake. Everything from policy to politics, there are VAST differences of opinion, although all of them can definitely be called partisan Democratic sources. (Those sources, FWIW, I listed them in order from Centrist to Far Left. Although some people would argue that FDL is less of a far left-blog and more of a troll blog. I happen to largely agree.)

That range of opinion by and large doesn't exist nearly as much on the Right, in my experience ALTHOUGH it's starting to form, namely because of the extremism of the "Tea Partiers" are getting to that point.

This actually makes the Right much stronger than the Left. It is what it is.

Second, when people make blanket statements, generally speaking they're talking about the leaders, both political and ideological, of the movement. And because you're talking about a small sample size, such statements are often much more accurate than when talking about individuals.

Because of this, one shouldn't expect or feel entitled to the assumption of nuance. If you want to be recognized as someone with nuance, you really need to make the effort to show it. Otherwise, it's perfectly reasonable for people to assume that it's not there. I know that I try my best, in these types of conversations to show my nuance when it exists. Definitely. I say where I disagree with common political/policy tropes, whenever I think it's appropriate.

One final thing, to tie it all together. Common beliefs that the left are a bunch of socialists, or more accurately, wanna-be communists (because let's be honest. That's what people really mean by "socialist"), is much less true than the common belief that the right are a bunch of authoritarian supply-siders. Again.

Equivocation is bad.

Heck, you can find nearly that range of difference within Townhall columnists, let alone the legislators of either party.