zlacker

>>tosh+(OP)
I think this comes down to a lack of trust in good-faith debate. People don't trust that someone "from the other side" will actually have the empathy and generosity required to have a good-faith discussion on a topic.

Also, I believe that we're constantly hearing so many voices trying to convince us one way or another, that our own discussions on those topics end up being attempts to convince others. That would explain "safe spaces" to some degree -- people don't want the pressure of having someone else try to convince them of something they don't agree with.

Some of it just the two-party system. The points don't matter, just which side of the line each person is on. I wonder if more parties would help depolarize the situation. I'm really not sure.

>>lallys+0r
> That would explain "safe spaces" to some degree -- people don't want the pressure of having someone else try to convince them of something they don't agree with.

In my experience, it's more that people don't try to convince. Hell, the people who need safe-spaces, and the people they're trying to be "safe" from, don't even share the underlying epistemic assumptions that would allow them to "convince" each-other of anything less clearly observable than the sky being blue. The latter group, the people who other people need to be "safe" from, usually just scream, berate, harass, and often resort to violence.

(Note that I've avoided identifying "which side" is which. The answer is: it depends which side is dominant in your particular area. Boston and San Francisco and Brooklyn are left-dominant. Middle America is right-dominant.)

>>eli_go+nx
No place in the US is left-dominant (this is true of most of Europe as well). There are right-dominant areas and centrist-dominant areas. Left discourse (think Chomsky) is extremely rare and almost never accepted in the media.

>>tsimio+NR
This is untrue when applied to social/cultural political issues. For example, the prevailing view during the Democratic primaries that undocumented immigrants should get universal healthcare coverage is to the left of nearly every EU country. Trump’s order required enhanced scrutiny of immigrants from certain Muslim countries is tame compared to Macron’s plans to essentially nationalize Islam. (And Macron is the left candidate—his far-right opponent is now receiving 45% of the support in polls.) Canada’s point-based immigration system, supported by the left and the right there, which heavily weighs English language fluency, would be denounced as irredeemably racist by the mainstream left in the US. What we are seeing in the media now, with attacks on the country’s founding documents and historical figures, would be utterly condemned in say France.

On social issues, our left is as far left as anywhere else in the developed world.

>>rayine+Rf1
> And Macron is the left candidate—his far-right opponent is now receiving 45% of the support in polls.

A centre-right candidate doesn't become "left" just because there's a far-right candidate. Maybe in the US that rhetoric works, but not in the EU.

What poll are you referring to where Macron's far-right opponent received 45%? Le Pen has 26% - less than Macron - from what I can see [0].

[0] https://www.politico.eu/europe-poll-of-polls/france/

>>jahaja+Xt1
> A centre-right candidate doesn't become "left" just because there's a far-right candidate.

He's the more left candidate for purposes of this comparison, which is to compare where the U.S. is relative to France. So if Macron is to the right of Trump on muslim immigrants (and I think it's fair to say he is), and 45% of French support a candidate that is even further right, I think it's fair to say the U.S. is well to the left of France on the issue.

I was citing a head-to-head matchup in the second round: https://www.ft.com/content/6d8b9c7a-412c-11ea-a047-eae9bd51c...

> A recent Ifop opinion poll put Ms Le Pen narrowly ahead of Mr Macron for an assumed first round of the 2022 election, and within a few percentage points of victory in the second round (45 per cent to his 55 per cent)

>>rayine+zx1
Sigh, that's just so blatant cherry-picking. Macron is deeply unpopular for his neo-liberal "reforms" that caused the yellow vests protests, a head-to-head polling against other candidates would likely render similar results.

>>jahaja+5C1
It’s not cherry picking. An American candidate that had said the things Le Pen has said would be completely unviable. There is a reason that Trump—who is concerned outside the American norms even among many Republicans—is always accused of using “coded language” and “dog whistles.” That’s because in the US, even the “right wing fascist” candidate can’t get away with saying the overtly racist things that European right-wing people can get away with.

>>rayine+nJ1
You blatantly cherry-picked the 45% number, but you seemed to ignore that part of my reply. Also, why are you changing the subject to what's allowed to be said or not? Trump's madness wouldn't be viable in the EU either.