I was being somewhat facetious, but in a world where this is even a topic, who knows. Society seems to be bifurcating.
Admittedly I’m a boomer but my feeling is all people are unique individuals. I have decades old friends whom I’ve never asked who they vote for, though I suspect it ain’t my way.
Great article! I'm definitely concerned about the mental health effects of far-left ideology too.
But I'm not sure that that's a reason to be cautious dating across party lines. Mental health problems might be more prevalent among liberal women, but they exist in young conservatives too; and I've definitely known some young liberals who were very mentally healthy. I could definitely see vetting the mental health of prospective partners, but I'm concerned that using politics as a proxy for mental health might screen out some very cool and healthy people.
The Democratic party tactic of telling people to cut Trump supporters out of their lives is akin to the Jehovah’s Witness strategy of forcing members to excommunicate their friends and family, if and when they leave the church. Scientologists employ a similar tactic.
I used to religiously listen to a podcast called Irreligiosophy, where they interviewed many people who had escaped from various types of indoctrination, mainly religious in nature. It was very illuminating.
As usual with these things, nuance matters. I agree that we can do with more cross party communication and relationships. On individual personal bases a shared value of kindness leads people to come to the aid of others (a recent flat tire episode comes to mind) regardless of political affinity.
However the following made me think:
Vincent, in turn, is far from the neo-Nazi that Leah expects: he's kind, generous, and one of his biggest values is taking care of his aging grandmother.
That he would care for his grandmother wouldn’t necessarily exclude the possibility of his being a “neo-Nazi”. A real Nazi (Hitler) was incredibly devoted to his dog…
As usual with these things, nuance matters. I agree that we can do with more cross party communication and relationships. On individual personal bases a shared value of kindness leads people to come to the aid of others (a recent flat tire episode comes to mind) regardless of political affinity.
-100% and well said.
However the following made me think:
Vincent, in turn, is far from the neo-Nazi that Leah expects: he's kind, generous, and one of his biggest values is taking care of his aging grandmother.
That he would care for his grandmother wouldn’t necessarily exclude the possibility of his being a “neo-Nazi”. A real Nazi (Hitler) was incredibly devoted to his dog…
- very true! But I think if you watch the film it's pretty clear that Vincent's not a bad guy. Mostly he's down-to-earth, working-class, and a persistently decent guy who goes out of his way to help even perfect strangers.
Oh I get your point about the character Vincent — which I would say is an example of the “personal basis of kindness” across time and varied situations. I may have not been as clear as I could have been. I’m just saying that being kind in any specific situation (or even in many situations within a specific relationship) is not in itself sufficient evidence that someone is a Nazi or otherwise vile being.
Thanks for responding and I do look forward to the film!
I thought so too, but after seeing the film I'm not so sure.
On the one hand, Vincent does end the movie by rejecting one of his conservative beliefs, which I think is portrayed as a win from the movie's perspective.
On the other hand, he is consistently portrayed as a better/kinder/more decent human being than Leah is.
So does the film lean right or lean left? I honestly couldn't tell you.
I can see why you didn't cite the actual belief changed:) The belief was not without empirical grounding. The problem is that conservatives were looking for big smoking guns rather than subtle and smart jury-rigging which came right up to the very edge of legality without stepping over the line. Unfair and unreflective but legal is probably the best objective analysis.
For example, vote curing is legitimate and legal, but in order for it to be fair and reflective it would need to be applied equally to in-person and mail-in, which it wasn't. If it had been, it would have produced a net +299,200 Republican shift, to counter the net +234,000 Democratic shift which was actually included in the results.
It’s the process of correcting errors on ballot papers by contacting the voter and giving them an opportunity to amend their ballot. The reason why in-person errors are generally lower is because voters can ask an official or volunteer for information about how to vote correctly if they are unfamiliar with the voting process.
In the past, estimates of invalid ballots were 1% for in-person, and 2% for mail-ins. Sure, vote curing is legitimate- in 2020, vote curing efforts brought the 2% for mail-in figure down from 2% to around 0.2-0.3%, but the fact that similar efforts weren’t resourced for in-person voting, provided Dems with a small, but significant electoral advantage not aligned with voter preference.
It should be noted that vote curing for mail-ins is an ongoing process which has been favouring Dems for some time: 2.0% (2004), 1.5% (2008), 1.0% (2016), 0.8% (2020).
The efforts were most aggressive in battleground states, although it appears that some of the headline claims I was relying on were an exaggeration from partisan sources. Vote curing efforts brought mail-ballot rejections down to 0.3-0.5% in battleground states, with the exception of Michigan which was 0.6%. It’s still a structural non-reflective advantage for Democrats, just less of one than my statistical analysis originally estimated.
Closer to the election I had a spirited and civil debate with a liberal college professor about mail-ins, he linked me a study showing that mail-ins didn’t affect the outcome of the election. I copied and pasted a segment of text from the appendix which showed that mail-ins had swung the demographics of voter participation by 1.5% towards the under 65 category.
Even the issue of signature verification is fraught. Both parties claim to support signature verification, but in practice its only Republicans who insist on strict verification. Basically, it’s competitive sailing. Both sides take a position which most favours their side.
The biggest bombshell on the 2020 election happened at the end of 2023, with a poll released by Rasmussen. It was the reason why 538 dropped them from their polling affiliates.
It should be noted that the claim about disability is valid, but overstated. Only around 12% of Americans have conditions which might plausibly be considered serious enough to possibly require aid filling out a ballot, and only a portion of them would have actually needed aid- far short of the 21% figure.
The argument that Rasmussen polling doesn’t represent a representative sample is entirely valid, and it shows in some of the survey responses, which tend to suggest an oversampling of older voters.
The 8% figure for people offered incentives for voting is deeply worrying, although this figure doesn’t doesn’t differentiate a Clinton Resistance mother offering her kid a Playstation for voting Kamala from something more organised and nefarious.
Google curation tries to hide this source, unless one is quite specific about what one is looking for.
Fascists love to claim their nice people in their own lane. Intolerance, ridicule, breaking the law - tolerated by Trump supporters, including the myriad stupid things being sanctioned. What about ism is over. Wake up.
Not my article but just wanted to chime in. I think the key word here is nuance which is something that partisans just can't seem to do. I was talking to a right-wing partisan a couple of weeks ago who thought I was advocating for communism just because I believed that companies should be more responsible about how they are affecting the communities they exist in, instead of just being focused on shareholder returns. Absolute lack of nuance.
Dichotomous reasoning creates an either or type of thinking process. You either agree with me or you agree with the polar opposite position which is fascism, communism, socialism, anti-american, etc. Most people live in the gray area but partisans cannot see the gray area. So, they constantly misunderstand other's positions. If you are a level 10 on position A and I am an 8, you would likely think I hold the 1 position since I am not on level 10. So even though I am just 2 points away from your position and 7 points from position 1, a true believer would be unable to process that as their only option is 100% agree with me or 100% disagree.
Honestly, it's tiresome dealing with such lack of nuance.
Where can we see this and when?
It's actually out now!
https://elephantintheroomfilm.com/watch/
How can a society function if people of different political views are not even willing to engage with each other? So sad.
Well said <3
Perhaps a more compelling reason the be cautious dating across the great divide:
https://www.thefp.com/p/why-the-mental-health-of-liberal?r=539mq&utm_medium=ios&triedRedirect=true
I was being somewhat facetious, but in a world where this is even a topic, who knows. Society seems to be bifurcating.
Admittedly I’m a boomer but my feeling is all people are unique individuals. I have decades old friends whom I’ve never asked who they vote for, though I suspect it ain’t my way.
They’re my friends. That’s all that matters.
Well said <3
Great article! I'm definitely concerned about the mental health effects of far-left ideology too.
But I'm not sure that that's a reason to be cautious dating across party lines. Mental health problems might be more prevalent among liberal women, but they exist in young conservatives too; and I've definitely known some young liberals who were very mentally healthy. I could definitely see vetting the mental health of prospective partners, but I'm concerned that using politics as a proxy for mental health might screen out some very cool and healthy people.
What do you think?
The Democratic party is frighteningly employing the same tactics utilized by the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Scientologists.
Interesting! Can you say more about that?
The Democratic party tactic of telling people to cut Trump supporters out of their lives is akin to the Jehovah’s Witness strategy of forcing members to excommunicate their friends and family, if and when they leave the church. Scientologists employ a similar tactic.
Oh interesting! I hadn't heard that about Jehovah’s Witnesses or Scientologists, but 100% true and concerning in some Democratic circles.
I used to religiously listen to a podcast called Irreligiosophy, where they interviewed many people who had escaped from various types of indoctrination, mainly religious in nature. It was very illuminating.
Interesting! I might be interested in that.
As usual with these things, nuance matters. I agree that we can do with more cross party communication and relationships. On individual personal bases a shared value of kindness leads people to come to the aid of others (a recent flat tire episode comes to mind) regardless of political affinity.
However the following made me think:
Vincent, in turn, is far from the neo-Nazi that Leah expects: he's kind, generous, and one of his biggest values is taking care of his aging grandmother.
That he would care for his grandmother wouldn’t necessarily exclude the possibility of his being a “neo-Nazi”. A real Nazi (Hitler) was incredibly devoted to his dog…
As usual with these things, nuance matters. I agree that we can do with more cross party communication and relationships. On individual personal bases a shared value of kindness leads people to come to the aid of others (a recent flat tire episode comes to mind) regardless of political affinity.
-100% and well said.
However the following made me think:
Vincent, in turn, is far from the neo-Nazi that Leah expects: he's kind, generous, and one of his biggest values is taking care of his aging grandmother.
That he would care for his grandmother wouldn’t necessarily exclude the possibility of his being a “neo-Nazi”. A real Nazi (Hitler) was incredibly devoted to his dog…
- very true! But I think if you watch the film it's pretty clear that Vincent's not a bad guy. Mostly he's down-to-earth, working-class, and a persistently decent guy who goes out of his way to help even perfect strangers.
Oh I get your point about the character Vincent — which I would say is an example of the “personal basis of kindness” across time and varied situations. I may have not been as clear as I could have been. I’m just saying that being kind in any specific situation (or even in many situations within a specific relationship) is not in itself sufficient evidence that someone is a Nazi or otherwise vile being.
Thanks for responding and I do look forward to the film!
True!
Thanks for responding and I do look forward to the film!
Let me know what you think :)
I believe it might be funny and cute and even poignant but that it will be clear which direction the producer and director lean.
I thought so too, but after seeing the film I'm not so sure.
On the one hand, Vincent does end the movie by rejecting one of his conservative beliefs, which I think is portrayed as a win from the movie's perspective.
On the other hand, he is consistently portrayed as a better/kinder/more decent human being than Leah is.
So does the film lean right or lean left? I honestly couldn't tell you.
I can see why you didn't cite the actual belief changed:) The belief was not without empirical grounding. The problem is that conservatives were looking for big smoking guns rather than subtle and smart jury-rigging which came right up to the very edge of legality without stepping over the line. Unfair and unreflective but legal is probably the best objective analysis.
For example, vote curing is legitimate and legal, but in order for it to be fair and reflective it would need to be applied equally to in-person and mail-in, which it wasn't. If it had been, it would have produced a net +299,200 Republican shift, to counter the net +234,000 Democratic shift which was actually included in the results.
Interesting!
What is vote curing? I haven't heard that term before.
It’s the process of correcting errors on ballot papers by contacting the voter and giving them an opportunity to amend their ballot. The reason why in-person errors are generally lower is because voters can ask an official or volunteer for information about how to vote correctly if they are unfamiliar with the voting process.
In the past, estimates of invalid ballots were 1% for in-person, and 2% for mail-ins. Sure, vote curing is legitimate- in 2020, vote curing efforts brought the 2% for mail-in figure down from 2% to around 0.2-0.3%, but the fact that similar efforts weren’t resourced for in-person voting, provided Dems with a small, but significant electoral advantage not aligned with voter preference.
It should be noted that vote curing for mail-ins is an ongoing process which has been favouring Dems for some time: 2.0% (2004), 1.5% (2008), 1.0% (2016), 0.8% (2020).
The efforts were most aggressive in battleground states, although it appears that some of the headline claims I was relying on were an exaggeration from partisan sources. Vote curing efforts brought mail-ballot rejections down to 0.3-0.5% in battleground states, with the exception of Michigan which was 0.6%. It’s still a structural non-reflective advantage for Democrats, just less of one than my statistical analysis originally estimated.
Closer to the election I had a spirited and civil debate with a liberal college professor about mail-ins, he linked me a study showing that mail-ins didn’t affect the outcome of the election. I copied and pasted a segment of text from the appendix which showed that mail-ins had swung the demographics of voter participation by 1.5% towards the under 65 category.
Even the issue of signature verification is fraught. Both parties claim to support signature verification, but in practice its only Republicans who insist on strict verification. Basically, it’s competitive sailing. Both sides take a position which most favours their side.
The biggest bombshell on the 2020 election happened at the end of 2023, with a poll released by Rasmussen. It was the reason why 538 dropped them from their polling affiliates.
https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/partner_surveys/one_in_five_mail_in_voters_admit_they_cheated_in_2020_election
I’ve added a factcheck for fairness.
https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/partner_surveys/one_in_five_mail_in_voters_admit_they_cheated_in_2020_election
It should be noted that the claim about disability is valid, but overstated. Only around 12% of Americans have conditions which might plausibly be considered serious enough to possibly require aid filling out a ballot, and only a portion of them would have actually needed aid- far short of the 21% figure.
The argument that Rasmussen polling doesn’t represent a representative sample is entirely valid, and it shows in some of the survey responses, which tend to suggest an oversampling of older voters.
The 8% figure for people offered incentives for voting is deeply worrying, although this figure doesn’t doesn’t differentiate a Clinton Resistance mother offering her kid a Playstation for voting Kamala from something more organised and nefarious.
Google curation tries to hide this source, unless one is quite specific about what one is looking for.
Fascists love to claim their nice people in their own lane. Intolerance, ridicule, breaking the law - tolerated by Trump supporters, including the myriad stupid things being sanctioned. What about ism is over. Wake up.
Not my article but just wanted to chime in. I think the key word here is nuance which is something that partisans just can't seem to do. I was talking to a right-wing partisan a couple of weeks ago who thought I was advocating for communism just because I believed that companies should be more responsible about how they are affecting the communities they exist in, instead of just being focused on shareholder returns. Absolute lack of nuance.
Dichotomous reasoning creates an either or type of thinking process. You either agree with me or you agree with the polar opposite position which is fascism, communism, socialism, anti-american, etc. Most people live in the gray area but partisans cannot see the gray area. So, they constantly misunderstand other's positions. If you are a level 10 on position A and I am an 8, you would likely think I hold the 1 position since I am not on level 10. So even though I am just 2 points away from your position and 7 points from position 1, a true believer would be unable to process that as their only option is 100% agree with me or 100% disagree.
Honestly, it's tiresome dealing with such lack of nuance.
Thanks for the heads up. I'll have to look for this.
Thank you for the disclosure but I would hope that you put it in bold italics at the very very top and the very very end of your story