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
Hold on. That might have been the prevailing view counted by the candidates on stage, but it's not the prevailing view of the Democratic electorate, or of the nominee (Biden "supports" urgent care for undocumented immigrants, but does not support enrolling them in a national health plan). There was a crystal healer shaman on the stage for several of the debates; you can't just do this by roll call.

I agree with you in spirit, that we're further left than the American left realizes. But on this particular, I think you're wrong.

>>tptace+DK1
That’s fair. My point wasn’t to really assert a conclusion about the Democratic Party as a whole, but rather to show that there is a robust social left in the US. To my knowledge, only two Western countries extend universal (rather than emergency) care for undocumented immigrants.

>>rayine+kN1
>To my knowledge, only two Western countries extend universal (rather than emergency) care for undocumented immigrants.

Not to derail, but extending public health care to undocumented immigrants in a pandemic just makes sense. Undocumented doesn't mean vaccinated, so there's a clear public interest in minimizing the absolute number of COVID-19 carriers, no matter their legal status.