Thanks for the interesting response, Spaceman. Regarding your example, it is definitely a fact that the transgender treatment professionals are "castrating boys," and that they obviously avoid using that term to describe what they are doing. I doubt that they are denying that reality, however, so much as claiming that said procedure is "…
Thanks for the interesting response, Spaceman. Regarding your example, it is definitely a fact that the transgender treatment professionals are "castrating boys," and that they obviously avoid using that term to describe what they are doing. I doubt that they are denying that reality, however, so much as claiming that said procedure is "medically necessary, effective and safe." (Full disclosure: I am opposed to "gender affirmative care" as it is currently defined and practiced).
My position on the need for compromise is that our form of government requires it, if any action is to be taken on problems that need to be solved. Compromise is a process of mutual give and take, in which both sides get some of what they want but not all of it. When one side is doing all the giving and yielding, that is not compromise, it is dominance and submission. You rightly argue that one-sided efforts to compromise become a fools' strategy leading to self-subordination. What you describe in your last sentence about "how the hard progressive Left operate; they exploit the reasonableness of their critics," is the effort to take power via hostile manipulation. The leftist activists do appear to take a lot of pleasure in hostile manipulation, although I would assume they would prefer direct power assertion (dictatorship).
I agree in principle, that compromise is an enlightened way to do business. It makes perfect sense.
But how do we accommodate the fact those currently running things in Western nations do not share our view of compromise being the best option? I won't get in to discussions about stealing elections etc. But even these NGOs funding every liberal DA and shadowy pressure groups. At times it feels impossible to get to a point where we could compromise. I know of several climate and trans groups where I am where some of the main organizers are employed full-time to agitate, all funded by wealthy donors. I suppose the counterargument is we need donors of our own.
We also witnessed what some were prepared to do during Covid, mandatory medical procedures and camps. There are a lot of unreasonable types out there.
But I do agree with your principle. And it is certainly an ambition we should all aspire to. But in the current climate things are not looking good.
I agree with all you are saying here. I think about what it means to identify someone as “the enemy” and treat them accordingly. I believe that the left is engaged in psychological warfare at the expense of most of our population.
My comments about compromise actually arose from my concerns about how those of us who oppose the leftists can form coalitions to fight them. There are deep differences among us, fraught with emotional reactivity. That is where I would like to see efforts towards identifying common goals, and learning to compromise towards actionable policies that we can agree on.
> My comments about compromise actually arose from my concerns about how those of us who oppose the leftists can form coalitions to fight them. There are deep differences among us, fraught with emotional reactivity.
That's because many of those horrified by what the left has become are still unrepentant in their support of all the steps that got us here. Thus their position basically amounts to "I'm all for driving off the cliff, I just oppose crashing into the canyon floor below."
Thanks for the interesting response, Spaceman. Regarding your example, it is definitely a fact that the transgender treatment professionals are "castrating boys," and that they obviously avoid using that term to describe what they are doing. I doubt that they are denying that reality, however, so much as claiming that said procedure is "medically necessary, effective and safe." (Full disclosure: I am opposed to "gender affirmative care" as it is currently defined and practiced).
My position on the need for compromise is that our form of government requires it, if any action is to be taken on problems that need to be solved. Compromise is a process of mutual give and take, in which both sides get some of what they want but not all of it. When one side is doing all the giving and yielding, that is not compromise, it is dominance and submission. You rightly argue that one-sided efforts to compromise become a fools' strategy leading to self-subordination. What you describe in your last sentence about "how the hard progressive Left operate; they exploit the reasonableness of their critics," is the effort to take power via hostile manipulation. The leftist activists do appear to take a lot of pleasure in hostile manipulation, although I would assume they would prefer direct power assertion (dictatorship).
I agree in principle, that compromise is an enlightened way to do business. It makes perfect sense.
But how do we accommodate the fact those currently running things in Western nations do not share our view of compromise being the best option? I won't get in to discussions about stealing elections etc. But even these NGOs funding every liberal DA and shadowy pressure groups. At times it feels impossible to get to a point where we could compromise. I know of several climate and trans groups where I am where some of the main organizers are employed full-time to agitate, all funded by wealthy donors. I suppose the counterargument is we need donors of our own.
We also witnessed what some were prepared to do during Covid, mandatory medical procedures and camps. There are a lot of unreasonable types out there.
But I do agree with your principle. And it is certainly an ambition we should all aspire to. But in the current climate things are not looking good.
I agree with all you are saying here. I think about what it means to identify someone as “the enemy” and treat them accordingly. I believe that the left is engaged in psychological warfare at the expense of most of our population.
My comments about compromise actually arose from my concerns about how those of us who oppose the leftists can form coalitions to fight them. There are deep differences among us, fraught with emotional reactivity. That is where I would like to see efforts towards identifying common goals, and learning to compromise towards actionable policies that we can agree on.
> My comments about compromise actually arose from my concerns about how those of us who oppose the leftists can form coalitions to fight them. There are deep differences among us, fraught with emotional reactivity.
That's because many of those horrified by what the left has become are still unrepentant in their support of all the steps that got us here. Thus their position basically amounts to "I'm all for driving off the cliff, I just oppose crashing into the canyon floor below."
Great imagery and insight!
I borrowed the imagery from @covfefeanon's twitter.
"many of those horrified by what the left has become are still unrepentant in their support of all the steps that got us here."
Yes that makes sense.