Republicrats and Demicans (aka "The Rad 3-D Dinotomy")
So here’s the gist of things: I believe there’s actually 4 major voter bases in America, and the largest 2 are only semi-represented. I’ve said in another essay that I believe there’s 2 hybridized “moderate” bases hidden within the fractures that Trump and Bernie left in the traditional parties. Really I think Trump and Bernie were the symptoms of something that existed long before the 2016 primaries.
I broke it down like this:
1. Democrat economics and attitudes towards social justice and the struggle for equality combined w/ Republican/Conservative views the military, patriotism, and constitutional rights
2. Republican economics and views on small government with Democrat views of social justice, equality, and gun regulation
Really though, I think it’s a little more complicated than that too. Right now, people who process using the false dichotomy view politics with a strictly left to right x axis. The model I put up there frames it on x and y axes of foreign/domestic policy.
Even then, I believe the best way to view politics actually has 3 axes. If you split foreign policy in half you have trade agreements and diplomatic relations; if you do the same for domestic policy you have economic policy (taxes, budgets, the welfare state) and social policy (LGBT rights. abortion, alcohol on Sundays etc).
Really I think you could split economic policy, foreign diplomatic relations, and domestic social policy into x,y, and z axes to make a <cube/sphere/rad 3d dinosaur>
As you can see, the false dichotomy is the way of the past, and due to quantum superposition and the entanglement of like a photon or something:
We actually live in a true dinotomy and that dinotomy is rad.
Republicrats and demicans is just a way of saying moderate viewpoints that are on the dinosaur representing the most common views are a mixture of things people attach to false party lines and assume that whenever someone believes one thing that's attached to a party line, they also believe 20 other unrelated things superficially attached to that imaginary line. For example:
- A statement against Trump isn’t a statement against the entire conservative party. A person isn’t their party
- A statement for Bernie isn’t necessarily a statement in favor or $15 federal minimum wage or the democrats. Every candidate is human and nobody ever lines up 100% with candidates they support.
- A statement that’s supportive of Trump isn’t necessarily a statement made by a KKK member or a nazi. The actions of individuals within a group don’t belong to the group of as a whole.
- A statement for the environment isn’t necessarily a statement against Trump. People place different values on issues. (Ex. Someone might say, “I disagree with Trump on environmental issues, but other things Trump represents are more important to me”)
There’s more naziflake alpha-cuck conserverals and cuckalpha snowfascist libservatives than the the false dichotomy recognizes and it’s making people feel there’s a larger rift than there actually is.
The thing you also gotta keep in mind is that what you believe really only tells the world what you’ve seen from your perspective on the dinosaur. Your beliefs and worldview are built by your subconscious mind processing your life experience, and thus your beliefs will depend on what you were taught and the things that happened to you. You’re definitely wrong about something you believe, so keep the subjectivity of these things in mind.
Always respect the dinomity. In order for the raddest political dinosaur to exist, all the rad viewpoints on the dinosaur must have some purpose.
These Republicrat and Demican voters are only pseudo-represented by the false dichotomy that’s pushed by mainstream media (msm). In that narrative the majority of people aren’t super-stoked about any of the picks they’re getting when the time comes around.
What people don’t realize about msm, and that includes social media propaganda, is that the left and the right make themselves appear to oppose each other, but really both sides are working together to turn the dinosaur against itself. The false dichotomy and the true dinotomy can only coexist if the false dichotomy is recognized as a single line in a rad dinotomy.
Speaking of coexisting, another theory I have on this is one called compatibilism. This is more of a personal paradigm, all subjective but I use this thought process to break down most conflict in my life.
Compatibilism is a way of explaining free-will within a deterministic system, but I extend the concept used to make it out to most polarized conflicts I see. Rather than picking a side and disagreeing with the opposite, I seek ways the two can be meshed into one. Obviously some things are incompatible, but not nearly as many as people seem to think at times..
The first step to seeing the rad dinotomy is learning to see the cool quadrotomy, which has 2 axis instead of one.
After the majority of people are discussing in hybridized bases, these 4 poorly defined bases could be made more concrete and people would have more fair representation.
For a while, I’ve been wanting to clean up my earliest essays. I’m going to make this essay into an update of two of them because they all fit the theme of compatibilism in politics, and give you guys a break down as to how I see the first politically effective dinotomic paradigms getting representation. Keep in mind, this is going on as we speak:
The Tea Party and Progressive Democrats as Potential Third Parties
We as a nation end up talking about the need for a third viable political party pretty regularly every election cycle… I love the idea but I never hear the conversation go any way other than:
“We definitely need a third party cause this no real options shit suuccckks…” ← This dude is right, and the few of us with enough experience following American politics to know what’s coming next brace ourselves for the trainwreck that this statement sets in motion…
You see, an American’s preferred style of political discussion is to avoid knowing anything about anything then mindlessly repeat incorrect talking points they’ve heard a thousand other fucktards say confidently enough to sound smart.
A true political genius, well trained in this art, always belches:
“THIRD PARTY IS WASTED VOTE”, as quickly as possible in response.
This statement is false, but people thinking it makes it true.
We’re mentally put into crisis mode trying to figure out how someone got through life with no rational thought processes to see the mistake without evolving a different survival mechanism to make up for it.
Outta nowhere, one edgy memelord declares all out war on the concept of rational thought and says, “Voting is a waste of time 'cause our votes don’t count!”
That statement sends us into shock. Our minds are defenseless against groupthink bombarding us with the same logical shitshow while we're still processing the initial blast. The unstoppable force behind this salvo of fucktardation always scores a direct hit, and it short circuits our brains so hard we’re driven to hard drugs and drinking.
This is the scientific community’s only explanation for why America runs on heroin, meth and whiskey. Don’t let Dunkin Donuts fool you; coffee is just a codeword we use to fool the NSA supercomputer that scans all our texts.
("Lol they don't do that! That'd be illegal!" you said as it flagged you for reading this essay)
A lot of people have written off the possibility of a third political party as bunk and thrown away the idea forever. The thinking is that nobody ever votes for those third parties because it's a wasted vote.
That isn’t actually the case. There’s tons of people who are willing to use their vote to show support for a cause, myself included, who’ve just never been presented with a cause worth supporting.
Everything about the third party options we’ve been given in the last 20 years has been one long, embarassing series of clown fiestas. If they hadn’t been such absolute shitshows, they would’ve drawn support.
They’ve all been so completely inept I sometimes suspect they were propped up into the national spotlight by big investors to fail that spectacularly on purpose and kill the idea of third parties in people’s minds.
I give them the benefit of the doubt and tell myself that’s just paranoia, but they’ve had that effect either way.
The main thing they’re doing wrong is posting up on these extreme fringe issues that only appeal to the fanatics of one party or the other. They don’t do themselves any favors by only gunning for the presidency and nominating exclusively crackpots and clowns either, but building on a platform that appeals to the smallest number of people is the major malfunction.
They’re doomed to fail conceptually because the majority of the population is moderate and the spaces they're trying to occupy on the ends of the spectrum are home turf for the two existing parties. There’s a huge unoccupied space at the center, however, and it’s where the majority of people reside.
A huge number of people are in the party they’re in because a certain social policy or economic policy was supremely important to them and they only had one place they could go to get someone who’d handle that issue the way they wanted. That means they’re just being dragged along for the ride on everything else that they disagreed with but weren’t as overwhelmingly concerned about.
Remember that shitheel who used to do PR for the Alt-Right, Milo Greeknameopolous? He’s a perfect example:
Gay and in a long term relationship, extremely right-wing views of business and the economy, but no way of getting married for the tax write-off you just know keeps him awake most nights without losing the real love of his life, trickle-down economics.
I mean he’s a complete garbage person who was created when God heard the Supreme Court decide corporations were people, then got confused and gave a human child the emotionless hyper profit driven soul of a corporation. That's not what makes me dislike the dude. I dislike the dude cause he's a condescending troll. His political beliefs are separate from his personality though, and people that share those beliefs deserve representation.
I might not like the dude or agree with his politics, and he's got some questionable ideas about pedophilia, but he is *technically* a person and all people want and deserve a voice in Washington. Yes, that includes presumably sexually abused, dumpsterfire corporate trolls.
First amendment rights, bitches!
I personally fall in the another archetype I suspect is common: I see trickle-down as cancerous and wanna see us go back to the economic policy Clinton used. This forces me to vote for Democrats.
Like I said, the left is okay~ish, I guess. It's hard to argue against the fight for equality and I already said I like their economics. I don’t want to spend a whole bunch of time preaching my ideology but I can tell by a lot of what's said and done by the party in respect to the military that they don't really represent my values.
If a third party came up with a platform that aimed down the middle and thought more "Republican/Democrat hybrid" instead of “Exactly like an existing party except really high on PCP” they would open the kind of third option people desperately want. Here’s the two archetypes I can think of:
1) Democrat economics and attitudes towards social justice and the struggle for equality combined w/ Republican/Conservative views the military, patriotism, and constitutional rights
2) Republican economics and views on small government with Democrat views of social justice, equality, and gun regulation
But.. like… more specific. Duh.
(Yo... doesn't Germany already have those parties, but want ones like ours? Get Angela Merkel on the phone!!! I've got an idea for her that'll change everything. Ask her what she knows about rad dinosaurs...)
Now keep in mind, I’m not saying be centrist and pander to both sides for the sake of appeasement; I legitimately feel these are the two major archetypes that already have existing supporters lacking representation. I think they would have more potential as competitors in the states where one party is dominant over the current opposition, and leech from both party’s bases in swing states right out of the gate.
I actually believe the foundations of these parties are already laid, and it’s only a matter of time before the current parties coalesce into four distinct platforms.
In the 2016 presidential primaries each party had a dark horse, Donald Trump (Nazis!) for the right and Bernie Sanders (Communists!) for the left, that found massive grassroots support among both existing party members and people previously part of the non-voting majority of American citizens. These dudes created political movements called the Progressive Democrats and the Tea Party and fractured the party bases. (Actually, the Tea Party had been brewing for a while) Now we’re left with the same two parties, except within them are two competing factions, leaving a total of four voter bases.
The movements are starting to hammer out more specific ideological platforms, and are on social media interacting with their growing voter bases to do that. I believe that since both parties represent the more polarized ideologies, people with the hybridized ideologies I mentioned will begin to coalesce into the traditional factions of each party, and once the divide within the parties grows wide enough they’ll split leaving us with four parties.
The way these "parties" (No beer. No drugs. Not a party. That's a get-together) need to go about handling PR is somewhat different than what we're used to seeing.
The mainstream media (MSM) is a supermachine created from the existing parties’ individual propaganda machines working in tandem to maintain the status quo. There’s no outlet in that bubble that doesn’t see both movements as a threat to the current equilibrium, and they work to damage the movement's images because of that.
In order to avoid having their reputations smeared by the msm, the movement's are building the core of their propaganda machines in the digital space, specifically social media. This matches perfectly with how I've always predicted a viable third party would behave.
While they’ll need to engage via traditional methods eventually, they’re better off operating online and keeping out of the mainstream spotlight as best they can for now.
Both movements have done a good job of establishing themselves as targets of MSM smear campaigns in the public consciousness and inoculating against the efforts by the current propaganda machine's efforts to sabotage their reputation. It's a good thing for them that this kind of controversy can generate a lot of free exposure and word of mouth. However, the movements can’t jump to attacking MSM too quick, overuse the talking point, or let it appear to be their main agenda.
Most of Trump’s support believe they have the ultimate voice in Trump, but in reality he doesn’t act the way he talks and he doesn’t work for what he’s telling those people he works for. The movement of people who associate themselves with Trump are actually still voiceless. At the end of the day, Trump is a non-partisan issue. I don’t dislike Trump because he’s conservative. I dislike him because he’s authoritarian. I would be leery of his attacks on free speech no matter what side they came from.
Because a lot of the appeal to this fracturing that it creates alternatives to the system arising, incorporating some non-MSM issues into their platform could pay off for all four factions. Taking a stand on properly maintaining our collapsing national infrastructure isn’t particularly sexy or controversial, but the collapse of our infrastructure is a very real imminent threat that a lot of people are very concerned about. Giving those people a voice will earn their support.
(Other non-MSM issues you could go after: overincareration/adopting portuguese drug policy, federally codified and uniform de-gerrymandering, finding out who stole my bong <I bet it was Jeff Sessions>)
As of now, the newcomers have support bases that are active in spreading the word, visible social media presences are established, and the grind for real tangible political influence has begun.
The alternate parties running their campaigns within the existing parties’ institutions is the only way it could have happened really. This is less tricky than it would be for an actual third party because a true third party would have to worry more about a candidate slipping up and permanently damaging the parties public image thus sinking the ship. In this case, being the “Republican” slipping up damages your opposing republican just as bad.
The new movements won’t have to worry about who’ll become name and face linked to their cause in people’s minds since Bernie and Trump have done that already already. The next wave of candidates produced by the movements are still under a lot of pressure however, and everything they say and do during this formative period has the power to make or break the whole endeavor.
The fledgling movement’s first successful bids are already done, and the movements are making a push for mayoral positions and other positions in local and state governments to begin establishing reputations for their candidates to use in later Congressional runs. They've also got a few Congressional seats under their belts.
Ultimately, change needs to happen from the ground up at the local level. It’s think its important for the fledgling parties to remember that committing too many resources into any one election at the local level should be treated with caution, despite that. As a general rule, anything other than congressional runs and gubernatorial bids that are actually a contest should be done as bare bones as possible with raising public awareness of the movement as the objective. They should still go after local offices, but only commit so much to each one unless it’s absolutely crucial they do so in a specific circumstance. Operate on the small scale, but dream on the big scale.
To truly break into the system, the movements will need to be able to not only block legislation but force their traditional counterpart’s cooperation to pass legislation. That means the main objective right now is seats in congress. Obviously, seats in the house are lower hanging fruit, but senate seats are the big money. We’ve already seen the Alt-Right take yet another stand for pedophilia in Alabama, and there’s a going to be quite a few candidates from both new movements running this November.
Even though these types of campaigns generally don’t grab a whole fuckton of eyeballs and go unnoticed by the world most of the time, there needs to be an effort to use the underdog qualities they’ve built into their images and draw attention with a David v. Goliath narrative as much as possible. Americans eat that shit up and as long as the movements show good form, losing means they gain respect for putting up a fight. Voters love to hop on so they can say helped the scrappy underdog. If they actually win enough seats in Congress to compete with their traditional opponents, pussies'll gush, dicks’ll turn hard as steel, and the hearts and minds of the masses will catch fire while Queen's "We Are The Champions" plays and confetti falls from the rafters.
(For some people, this was the election of Trump)
Once this happened via Bernie and Trump, the associated movements came into control of a piece of their party’s foundations. This is when I believe they’ll begin drawing the lines the parties will split on. This is about where we are now.
Here’s how I *suspect* they’ll do the splitting.
Right now conservatives are debating whether or not being racist as all hell should be codified back into law and preparing for a second holocaust (Srsly, dudes? Okay, but only if stupid people get to be the target). Elements of the Tea Party will most likely need to do some rebranding and shake the racist and fascist overtones before they collapse.
The left is wondering if seizing the means of production and transferring to a socialist economy sounds smart. Both movements being labeled fascist and communist is something that needs to be overcome, really.
The idea of the highly controversial and intolerant Alt-Right being their own statistically significant party worries people because it bears parallels to Nazi Germany, but they’ll likely end up merging with the Tea Party which dilutes the racial motivation some. The thing is, the cancer people aren’t going anywhere, so we need a cancer party to pull all the socially toxic garbage out of the traditional Republican base and make it habitable for the more tolerant right wing party I mentioned earlier.
(If you don’t agree that supporting race realism and eugenics makes you a cancer person, convince me otherwise)
As of right this instant, a lot is still up in the air. Like I said earlier, I’m into traditional military values… patriotism, constitutional rights and all that. I know there’s a lot of people who would like to see a split in the Democratic party that wasn’t so aggressively opposed to the armed services, and who want to have options who support leftist economics and second amendment rights. Berniecrats won’t mind becoming the party in favor disarming, and the traditionals whose main concern is gun legislation could jump into that camp to dial some of the more extreme socialist tendencies of the group back some. Traditional Democrats becoming gun owner friendly will pull second amendment activists over from the right for sure, and we'd end up with smoother way to divide our political ideologies as a nation.
The question of religion most likely going to be a large part of how the factions draw the battle lines on the right. For the LGBT tolerant right I mentioned to form, the equality minded conservatives would have to push Christian conservatives into the Alt-Right, which could happen. The racist rhetoric of the Alt-Right combined with the extreme libertarian aspects of the Tea Party might make the new faction unappealing to some Christian conservatives, and I pray that would cause that base to finally fracture and disperse among all four parties so those voters would finally be forced to vote on something other than their shared taste in prehistoric fiction novels. Ya, that would mean the pro-life base is gonna have to get some love from pretty much everyone, if that hypothetical split happens. I'd be shocked if it does though. The Christian conservative right is probably one of the most cohesive political units in the world.
I think religion on the left will be handled the same way it is now: by expressing how important freedom of religion is, and avoiding commitment to one particular faith while being favorable to all spirituality. I personally think the right should adopt a more inclusive view as well.
I think it would be interesting to see all four parties not draw a line on abortion and let individual candidates decide whether or not they wanna make a stand on that battlefield, but I don’t see that happening and at least one faction on the right is likely going to remain purely pro-life, with one on the left remaining purely pro-choice.
Then there’s problem the Progressive Democrats have that arises because they don’t want their anti-corporate revolution getting bought out from under them by the corporate lobby. For things to work the way they do according to Bernie's dreams, the movement will need to be crowdfunded. This’ll be tricky… Bernie barely funded a primary run, I don’t know if kickstarter is really gonna be able to fund a political party. I suspect they’re going to end up taking the corporate cash eventually, but maybe they’ll hold out. I think if they set guidelines on the sources and amounts of corporate cash they take, along with setting guidelines for what they promise in return for those donations and *actually sticking to them* they could accept big-money donations and stay faithful to their cause. I just don’t see them making it in our system of what Average Joe is willing to donate, cause Average Joe is actively opposed to caring about politics.
The problem is, for things to happen along these lines, our country needs to stay together. So many people are shouting gloom and doom while they prepare for a civil war, and we're never gonna be able to get a cultural revolution like this unless people on all sides chill the fuck out.
I know America can pull through this, but Americans need to stop viewing other Americans as the bad guys. You can disagree with people, I'm not saying we all gotta be a hivemind with no differences of opinion; I clearly disagree with the Alt-Right, as you’ve seen. Despite not liking them much, I still try to respect their right to free speech. I realize even if I don’t agree with them, but I can’t just try to shut down their right to free speech or try to push them out of existence, or I’m no better.
There's limits to that grace rule obviously, and alt-righters also need to be more tolerant of views outside their group. I'm just speaking to what I assume is my audience; I'm pretty sure most alt-righters checked out when I called Milo a shitheel. Then again, it's possible an alt-righter will make it past all the shit I said ragging on them to see this...
Lemme direct some condescending preaching their way, just in case:
(They love this sorta shit)
Yo, to all the literal “race realist” nazis who’ve come out on the far right: One thing I've noticed about a lot of people in your camp is that they seem to think that they're the only people capable of rational thought. They treat all opposing points of view like it's absolutely absurd to think someone arrived there with sound critical thinking. Some people in your crowd seem to think any disagreement with your platform is a result of people either being fucktards or being brainwashed. I know it's because the red pill propaganda relies on being "The truth ‘The Man’ doesn't want people to know," but a lot of the red pill intentionally presents things in a misleading way and/or just straight up misinterprets the implications of the data.
(Just like... keep that in mind... and stuff…)
All of this is speculation for fun, of course. I just like the idea of a movement like this taking off. I don’t know shit. A lot of folks I've shared this essay say this is definitely a strong possibility, so who knows? Honestly, I only see a few routes possible for our country and this is the one that works out the best for everybody in the end.
None of it matters anyways, cause 60% of Americans don’t give two donkeyriding fucks about politics and get offended by the idea that they should.
I hope you like opiates, amphetamines and grain alcohol, muh dudes.
The End... or is it?!? (It's sorta both...)
And what’s working against that, you ask? Why, we are! All of us! Some more than others, but inevitably we all contribute to the discord some. (Some discord is necessary to make harmony possible)
Mainly what’s preventing the false dichotomy from falling apart is the way we communicate over social media. This is the very first essay I wrote on this adventure. I’m revamping to compatibilize the rad 3d dinosaur that is my early work:
The Beginning... or is it?!? (It definitely is)
The Day the Discourse Died: How Social Media Culture and the *False* Partisan Divide Threaten the Heart of America”
The hands down, number 1 biggest problem with our system is easily people’s inability to view and discuss politics without defining all things along party lines.
There's a rightwing stance and a leftwing stance. The majority of people pick one and then tow the party line. Anyone who disagrees with them is a snowflake cuck liberal or a fascist nazi conservative. Too many people lock into an echo chamber that only confirms what they already believe. Too many people view the other side as ridiculous caricatures incapable of rational thought, and so they never have their beliefs truly challenged. This leads to people inadvertently perpetuating the cycle that prevents any true political discourse from happening before it even begins.
It’s now extremely clear that our nation’s greatest rival has launched and is continuing to wage a propaganda war and they're using the way we frame everything as a partisan issue to divide us.
Really the majority of people fall somewhere in the middle.
(Really, the false dichotomy doesn’t exist, but let's start small)
Please, if you see yourself as a diehard on either side of the aisle, take some time to consider the possibility that the other side may have some valid points and complaints. Remember that your brain has a subconscious tendency to only accept things that confirm your current viewpoint, and that confirmation bias will cloud your judgement if left unchecked. Critically analyze your own viewpoint as hard as you do the opposition.
We'll never move forward to any workable solutions until the masses on both sides remember that we're all on the same team, we all want to see this great nation thrive, and people start working together instead of against each other.
I'm not saying you need to actually BE moderate and never hold any political leanings at all.We all fall somewhere [in the dinotomy]. I myself tend to “lean left” on most things economic, which is where I place the most importance when voting. That means the majority of the time I find myself voting Democrat, and the fact that I have that leaning is not a bad thing as long as you throw out connotations attached to the words like “Republican” and “Democrat” and view the world as a dinotomy rather than a dichotomy. If you lean the opposite way, that’s fine cause we’re all just part of the rad 3d dinosaur.
I think it's best to approach each issue from a position of neutrality at first though, just so you get get an idea of what the dinosaur should look like. Is our dinotomy a t-rex or a pterodactyl? Try to find ways it’s a ptrexodactyl.
That way you can take in the arguments from the perspective of all sides, find the counterpoints to all the arguments being made, weigh the pros and cons of all sides of a debate, and come to a leaning founded firmly in logic and critical thinking, not one based solely in emotional reasoning and bias.
Now, the reason why we’re probably going to struggle closing the partisan gap I just talked about is entirely our new premier political forum and center of our social interaction, you probably guessed already, “The Facepage / social media culture.”
Facebook, in theory, has the potential to completely revolutionize political discourse and let new ideas be introduced and exchanged at a rate never seen before. The fact that it has that potential makes what it's actually done feel like a huge kick in the nuts.
Essentially, Facebook has completely eliminated all discourse and discussion and replaced it with a cheap facade that in no way acts as a substitute by allowing people to make sure the only ideas that ever reach them are ones they'll agree with by cherry picking friends and pages to hear from. People end up creating an environment we've come to refer to as an echo chamber.
People share out memes to an audience they've preselected to agree with them to collect the obligatory likes that confirm their beliefs. In turn, those same friends send them memes to be liked back. This chain of constant confirmation of their beliefs combined with the fact that those beliefs are never challenged makes people's political opinions transform into undeniable, indisputable fact within their subconscious.
Alongside this, certain styles of political memes have risen up that are intentionally designed to make discourse die before it has even begun. The most destructive of these in my opinion are ones that paint the entire opposition as an absurd caricature, incapable of rational thought, and therefore not worth giving any real attention or consideration in the rare case they do cross paths. There's also ones designed to turn specific opposition talking points into jokes as well, ones meant to misrepresent the opposing argument, ones that present data in a misleading way to create unfair representations of certain situations in people's minds, and plain old classic misinformation. These memes are the bread and butter of Russia's campaign. Stop sharing them.
Cross party interaction is low, and when it does occur the chances of it leading to a productive discussion were sabotaged within the echo chambers long before it happened. Instead of having a civil discussion with an exchange of ideas and each side producing points and counterpoints, it becomes an interaction that's basically scripted ahead of time. Both sides take turns exchanging talking points given to them within their echo chambers, talking more at each other than to each other.
Since both sides see themselves as indisputably correct, and sees their opponent as a ridiculous stereotype incapable of producing a valid thought; neither side truly reads the post their opponent has sent. Instead, they skim through the messages, looking for things which stand out superficially so they can take the statements out of context and either ridicule them, or counter the out-of-context statements with their toolkit of preprogrammed talking points. Both sides end up debating against the cherry picked pieces of each others posts and neither sides true stance is ever communicated to the other side.
It doesn’t work towards a resolution, so it can never produce one. Instead continues until exhaustion and boredom cause it to peter out, or one side loses mental composure and begins spewing venom and name calling at their opponent and shutting them out of the conversation until they leave.
Almost all political discourse in America is occurring in this format. I haven't seen a true political discussion anywhere in years unless I was a part of it. This is all compounded by huge waves of misinformation being sent out by the Russkies and eventually falling into the echo chambers.
Facebook culture itself isn't contributing at all. The reliance on memes to do the majority of exchanging ideas has caused all detail and nuance to vanish from the dialogue, and its as if people have forgotten details ever existed in the first place.
The last part of Facebook culture that's toxic to discourse is that people only want their information to come from videos and memes. Reading is met with stiff opposition. The thought of someone typing more than a paragraph and expecting it to be read has become offensive to some people.
If you're one of the rare ones who's read this far into one of my writings, thank you. Really though, I'm writing this for me because I enjoy the writing process. It’s a good release and it helps consolidate my thoughts. I expect most people to keep scrolling. Only a small minority of people even consider this much reading acceptable anymore.
The common sense solution would appear "to be stay moderate, avoid echo chambers, and responsibly source information."
Then, from your position in the middle, attempt to disrupt the echo chambers from outside them. In practice this isn't as functional as it sounds. I've tried it; It simply does not work.
First of all, trying to force myself to pretend I'm moderate when I'm not was unbearable, and second I actually had less effectiveness in getting my point across when I tried to be wishy washy and appease both sides.
Because a moderate isn't completely indoctrinated along either party's lines and can't communicate with the same talking points as someone in the echo chambers, both sides label them as the opposition and ignore everything they say.
Calls for cooperation between the parties by anybody are not taken very seriously by either side, and because moderates lack their own party they're slowly being pulled into the echo chambers and the general population is being spread from the middle out to the extremes.
I'm sorry to have brought you this far just to tell you that I see no viable solution. It seems that the divide can only grow further with everything operating like this. Trying to bridge it is futile, since neither party is allowing themselves to see common ground and only see themselves as increasingly more incompatible every day.
Unless people start believing they can find common ground, they’ll never find common ground.
I'm not a psychic, I can't see the future. An objective analysis of the current situation tells us to expect an increasingly divided population. The implications of that are frightening, but in reality we have no idea what will happen next. I know that it almost definitely will not be as amazing as what a truly united United States could achieve.
Repetitive joke... or is it?!? (HAH! Get it!?! It's funny 'cause I'm lame!!!)
Really, the enemy is the Creature Called Fauxwoke. People refusing to see from of other people’s perspectives is a form of ignorance, and the Misinformed Mutation is the spirit of all ignorance.
Abandon the false dichotomy. Compatibilize the dinosaur. Join the Dinotomic Cultural Revolution, muh dudes. “Why?” you ask? Simple, friendo: Rad 3-D dinosaurs are rad, and straight lines aren’t.
Always try to view things from the other person’s side. Even if you disagree, disagree intelligently and respect the dinotomy.