[TeMPOraL]

Another observation about the "Other side" (that is, really, about all of us) to add to excellent points made by others here.

Most disagreements happen around things that have no direct impact on day-to-day life. People can hold widely different opinions about politics because... it's politics. Most of it is bullshit, and rest doesn't affect your daily life anyway, at least not immediately or directly. Take two people who are in fierce disagreement about the balance between government intervention and market freedom - take them, and go see how they manage their personal checkbooks or how they maintain their homes and cars. Suddenly, you'll see agreement, similar solutions, and both people being generally smart.

People are pragmatic. We tend to invest in knowing the actual truth proportionally to how the issue is actually important to us. Hence most disagreements are about things that actually cost us nothing when we get them wrong.

[enraged_camel]

>>People can hold widely different opinions about politics because... it's politics. Most of it is bullshit, and rest doesn't affect your daily life anyway, at least not immediately or directly.

I completely disagree. Most political issues have a direct impact on people. Affordable Care Act is requiring millions of people to buy health insurance. Defunding Planned Parenthood would cut aid from millions of young women. Gun control laws have a direct impact on our nation's safety from internal threats. Legalized gay marriage is allowing tons of gay couples to finally get married and enjoy many of the benefits (especially financial) of the institution.

I can go on.

The only debates that don't have a direct and immediate impact on people are the abstract ones, such as the example you gave about government intervention vs. market freedom. But even those debates happen within the the context of concrete issues, proposed laws or ongoing lawsuits.

[TeMPOraL]

Ask yourself - how many of those issues affect you directly? And by directly I mean something you'll suddenly have to account for in your daily life and spending patterns.

Personally, their equivalents in my country don't affect me at all. I'm young and relatively healthy, my employer pays for my health insurance. Yes, accidents can happen, but it's an abstract possibility. Gun control - when have you last seen people shooting each other on the streets in real life? It's another topic that's just abstract for most people. Gay marriage is something that naturally affects only LGBT people. The opposition argues against same-sex marriages mostly from a moral standpoint, which is again something abstract.

Say, on the other hand, that we'd have confirmed reports about zombies (or evil commie nazi aliens) showing up in various places in the US. I'm pretty sure the gun control debate would be resolved unanimously in a single hearing.

That of course doesn't account for all policy disagreements. But the most I've seen so far always involve at least one side with no immediate, tangible stake in the issue.

--

EDIT:

Replying to the three (so far) responses.

Thanks for sharing your perspectives. I guess I might be underestimating the direct importance of some of those issues to people, as well as the amount of disagreements that are about conflicting interests. I will reevaluate my opinions on this topic.

[djur]

I have a friend who would probably be dead if it wasn't for the ACA's expansion of dependent health care coverage. I had another friend who might still be alive today if guns had been harder to acquire.

The fact that my gay and lesbian friends can get married is important to me, as is the fact that they are protected from workplace discrimination (in my state). As a result, it's important to me that gay, lesbian, and trans people in other states don't have the same protection.

For a cisgender straight white high-SES male to disregard things that don't directly affect him isn't rational, it's solipsistic.

[enraged_camel]

>>Ask yourself - how many of those issues affect you directly? And by directly I mean something you'll suddenly have to account for in your daily life and spending patterns.

Me directly? Probably very few. But that's because I'm a gainfully employed single white male and I have an incredible amount of job security. However, I'm definitely in the minority.

Besides, it's difficult to think of certain issues such as gun control in terms of direct and immediate impact. I mean, is lack of gun control affecting me right now? No. Will it affect me tomorrow when I'm watching a movie at the theater and some guy comes in and opens fire on the crowd and kills me? It's a very real possibility.

[tamana]

Your post betrays multiple kinds of immense privilege. A large portion of America have attended a shooting victim's funeral, been gay themselves or had a close friend or family, or didn't have health insurance.

[munin]

> Say, on the other hand, that we'd have confirmed reports about zombies (or evil commie nazi aliens)

seriously? so you read a piece whose thesis is "talk rationally and empathetically with people that hold different points of views" and your next thought was "okay, zombies and evil commie nazi aliens, yeah"

anyway:

> I'm young and relatively healthy

great for you, I'm not. daily survival is contingent on remaining employed. yippee! the opposition to ACA sees a reminder of why they should oppose this issue every two weeks when they look at their income tax deduction and wonder how much they would get back if a few people that they didn't really know suffered some more. what is more immediate than money missing from your own pocket?

> when have you last seen people shooting each other on the streets in real life?

growing up, guns were a part of every day life. they were tools that you used to accomplish concrete goals. sometimes those goals were defending yourself from wildlife, sometimes they were getting dinner. sometimes, they were for ending your own life. people that are for gun control have seen one too many accident, suicide, or homicide. people that are against gun control see an immediate threat to a utilitarian tool or a way of life. it's very visceral and you're deluding yourself if you think otherwise.

> Gay marriage is something that naturally affects only LGBT people

I guess you don't know or care about any LGBT people in your life, which is okay, but totally overlooks anyone for whom this is the case. in the south, if you walk around in the wrong town with the person you love, you're liable to have someone yell "FAGGOT!" or "DYKES!" at you just for being you. to the people doing the yelling, they are on the front line of a culture war and they see an insult to their moral fiber every time they encounter someone that loves another of their own gender. they get a reminder of why to keep fighting every week or so.

these aren't abstract concepts, these are issues where the parties involved have real skin in the game. the abstract issues you're thinking about are probably things like "foreign policy" or "defense spending" but even there the reason to support them is visceral - every time a redneck sees someone on the street that isn't white, they get reminded of the "other" and are filled with a desire to keep them out. every time a family living near a base hears about BRAC they develop an immediate fear for the vortex of pain that is about to fill their lives, require their relocation, and destroy the property value of their home.

you are a fool if you think the people involved in these debates consider the issues abstract. they're quite concrete.

[wutbrodo]

> seriously? so you read a piece whose thesis is "talk rationally and empathetically with people that hold different points of views" and your next thought was "okay, zombies and evil commie nazi aliens, yeah"

Not the parent commenter but in what way is using a mildly humorous hypothetical even remotely contrary to either rationality or empathy...?

[DrScump]

"Defunding Planned Parenthood would cut aid from millions of young women."

No, the "defunding Planned Parenthood" amendment would have simply removed their status as a preferred (and overpaid) provider of abortion services. Overall funding of family planning (including abortion) would not have been reduced, and Planned Parenthood could have still competed for such patients on level ground with all other providers.

I am pro-choice. Why do our opinions differ? Because I actually bothered to read the legislation. It's right there, freely accessible, on congress.gov.

There is a larger lesson here: major media agencies (including the big names like the New York Times, AP, Washington Post, etc.) generally never read legislation at all. A given reporter simply prints what a preferred legislator's staffer tells him/her to print. A great example of this was when pretty much all of the major media outlets claimed that "Republicans voted down a provision the (Feinstein Amendment) to deny gun sales to those on the terror watchlist", which was an outright lie. That amendment would have instead wiped out the ObamaCare repeal language.

[gizmo686]

"(Sec. 3) This bill prohibits, for a one-year period, the availability of federal funds for any purpose to Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc., or any of its affiliates or clinics, unless they certify that the affiliates and clinics will not perform, and will not provide any funds to any other entity that performs, an abortion during such period." [0]

Additionally, Planned Parenthood already does not receive any federal funding for abortion services, because, under the Hyde amendment, no federal funding goes to abortion (excluding rape and incest).

"No funds authorized or appropriated by Federal law, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are authorized or appropriated by Federal law, shall be expended for any abortion." [1]

[0] https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/3134...

[1] https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/142...

[djur]

> No, the "defunding Planned Parenthood" amendment would have simply removed their status as a preferred (and overpaid) provider of abortion services. Overall funding of family planning (including abortion)...

Are you saying that the federal government is funding abortion services in violation of the Hyde Amendment?

[wutbrodo]

> People are pragmatic. We tend to invest in knowing the actual truth proportionally to how the issue is actually important to us. Hence most disagreements are about things that actually cost us nothing when we get them wrong.

This is even worse! You're substituting malice for stupidity. Someone who doesn't bother learning or even thinking about a topic but then takes actions that affect other people (like voting) should be ashamed of themselves: to me they're culpable in the same way as someone intentionally causing the same damage (tho I suppose it would be 50% as culpable for a binary policy). It's even less excusable when you consider that in your construction, the policy doesn't even affect them.

I've pretty firmly condemned lack of intellectual rigor for a long time, and by far the most common response I've gotten is "not everyone has the time or will to try to become informed on every issue". I fully agree, but I personally don't talk confidently about or act on any issue that I haven't at least attempted to learn about, and I don't understand why this is considered so difficult. The only reason I can imagine is wanting to feel and seem informed without putting in any of the time to become so. It's pretty despicable to me when that tendency ends up having real life policy impacts.

[TeMPOraL]

> I've pretty firmly condemned lack of intellectual rigor for a long time, and by far the most common response I've gotten is "not everyone has the time or will to try to become informed on every issue".

Yeah. A lot of people don't seem to realize that not having an opinion is also a viable, and in those cases the right, option. But it ties to:

> The only reason I can imagine is wanting to feel and seem informed without putting in any of the time to become so.

I'll give you another one - signaling. Especially in debates that have some audience, it's a way for people to show their allegiance. The argument doesn't even have to convince anyone. It seems that most arguments on social media go like this.