[harimau777]

Do you think that's true of both sides? As a progressive, a lot of my frustration with "the other side" is that they seem to ignore what I'm seeing in the first person video accounts.

However, I'm wondering if people on the other side feel the same way about me.

[mikece]

One of the sources for "raw info" that I follow is the No Agenda Podcast (co-hosted by former MTV VJ and co-inventor or podcasting Adam Curry and former tech columnist John C. Dvorak). They position their podcast as "media deconstruction" and contrasting what the media say versus what is actually going on, and they slam Fox News every bit as much -- if not more -- as anyone else.

I'll tell you what gives me hope though: podcasts like the Joe Rogan Show where Joe, who is very progressive, will talk with ANYONE in order to discuss and understand differences. And this is one of the biggest weakness of mass media these days: if it cannot be condensed to a sound bite it's ignored. A thriving democracy is supposed to be a place where differing points of view are debated vigorously but with mutual respect between the parties debating. Unfortunately, these days it seems to be a race to get to the point where you can dehumanize your opponent, and this is a fault of both the left and right.

You ask who people on the other side think about you: I'm not a progressive but I don't think it's black and white either. I think we could probably agree on 80%+ of RELEVANT political issues... assuming we don't let a polarized media exaggerate what is actually relevant. We all want to be happy, we all want to be loved, we all want the next generation to prosper... I think that's universal.

[alphaomegacode]

Not sure how you get that Joe Rogan is a progressive?

He's probably more libertarian than progressive. He was quite open about his support for Ron Paul in the Obama-Romney election and then went for Gary Johnson in 2016. When Sen Sanders lost the nomination, he was quite open about saying he would vote for Trump over Biden.

He's very good friends with Alex Jones (of Sandy Hook denial infamy) and has hosted numerous other rightwing guests with a great degree of empathy for some of their positions.

Add to that his thoughts that perhaps "the Man" has had some grand conspiracies at work (e.g. him wondering if we really did land on the moon) and he's probably more identifiable as a liberal libertarian.

He definitely has a pleasant voice and can engage in conversations but I'm not sure how much some of the above-mentioned positions align with the majority of progressives.

[Viliam1234]

> However, I'm wondering if people on the other side feel the same way about me.

Generally, identifying as <political label> usually involves ignoring the parts of reality that go against the narrative. Each group has a story, which is a simplification of a selection of real life, optimized to be viral (otherwise they would never have become a large group).

If you realize this:

- first, your former allies will denouce you as a traitor;

- then your former enemies will offer you membership, because it seems to them like you want to switch sides;

- you refuse, now both your former allies and your former enemies are angry at you;

- you spend some time alone;

- then you find people who are not playing the game, and they become your new friends;

- finally you realize that people not playing the game are actually a majority of the population.

[Mountain_Skies]

Maybe those who identify as a truth seeker instead of as a progressive or a conservative find it easier to see what is happening in the world. Where do your first person video accounts come from? Are the edited? Are the missing content at the start or at the end that other first person video accounts include? Would your sources ever admit this or would you have to go to "the other side" to find the video in its entirety? Would you even know that the other side has a video with a more complete view of what happened? There are many ways to lie with video, lies of omission being quite common these days.

[Digory]

How does “truth seeker” help, say, with Teacher Unions supporting guillotines for Jeff Bezos?[0]

I think our epistemic agreements are gone, yes, but it feels like we’d be polarized today even with epistemic agreement.

It is true that Amazon has caused some bad things in the world, which has some factual basis, and we all might agree. But our ethics of eradication of obstacles to personal happiness has turned toxic.

[0] https://mobile.twitter.com/ctulocal1/status/1299101069163859...

[ntsplnkv2]

This is exactly the problem - no one has time to do this, nor do they want to.

[rdiddly]

The belief that there are two sides, in the first place, is a problem.