>How do we make sense of a party that simultaneously proclaims itself pro-life, yet wants to remove roadblocks to capital punishment

Because "pro-life" is a slogan, a sales pitch, a political statement that only tangentially involves the concept of life at all. It's MARKETTING the same way that socialism was selling point of a certain German national socialist political party. (And they did raise wages and rights of workers early on.) Or the "Democratic" part of the Democratic Republic of Congo.

If you even glance at the history, they have their roots in religious ideology which is a-okay with capital punishment (and also against it, depending how you want to pick those cherries).

It's just something they say to get the religious nutters to vote for them. Is a scam artist being irrational when he lies to a mark? Then along came a nuttier nut who actually delivered on that promise and boom, they're all losing elections.

>why political climate is the way it is

/r/history is over there.

The democratic deficit is intentional.

>Our stated political beliefs are irrational when taken as a package

Excuse YOU. This guy has no idea what my political beliefs are and he's treating both the Democrats and Republicans as single unified blocs. There's more than one person in each party. So OF COURSE there are going to be incoherencies.

You don't have to be a philosopher to find out that statistics and sociological polls don't tell you the whole truth. Bloody A, political science and sociology are real sciences, albeit kinda soft, but you need to listen to the people who actually study and measure this stuff rather than people who talk about they feel about it. Don't step out of your box philosophers, you're just going to look like fools.

I read it snorting

The answer is that propaganda works. Also we haven't entered a post-truth era. We never left a post-truth era. There's a lot of money involved in getting people to believe your lies.

> many people don’t feel well-represented by either of the two major political parties.

Maybe that was no accident?

If you look at the elections in the USA, in every race there is exactly one winner. President obviously but even, say, house representatives. Though your state may have many, there is a different election for each one. Same for senators, governors, etc.

Opposed to this would be, say, a parliament where you can only vote for one person/party but the top 100 most popular would win. Or like a running race where the top 5 advance.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law#:~:text=This%20is%20because%20Duverger's%20law,of%20seats%20in%20a%20constituency.

> This is because Duverger's law says that the number of viable parties is one plus the number of seats in a constituency.

So that's why we have only two parties in America.

I ask: Was the country intentionally designed this way in order to provide the illusion of choice without actually providing any choice?

The two parties agree on almost everything. We're so hyper-focused on the differences between them that we fail to notice how very similar they are. Which of them is in opposition to a stronger military? Which one is anticapitalist? Which party is against eating meat? Which party wants to dissolve federal government? On major issues there is no dissent.

There is one problem with that - people always pick up vibes, meaning? Yeah, sometimes, when the planets are in right place, I would say about an hour or two a day, if there are no distractions around.

> Generally The Simpsons tends to be a reflection of the current society.

"tends", "a reflection of", "the".

The nice thing about ambiguity is it is impossible to be incorrect, if used skilfully (which seems to come naturally to humans).

> I think it shows that Republicans have been evil for well over a quarter century.

It very well may, but there is an important difference between representing something in a cartoon vs it actually existing in reality (notice how many characters in cartoons can fly, do superhuman feats, etc).

> The Republican goal is to make sure rich people get richer and poor people stay poor.

Wrong - it is the Democrat goal. This is true by virtue of me saying it is true. Also: I saw it in a meme.

> You can see it in the few times they actually try to submit a bill to Congress. They are Patriots in the same way that they are pro-life, only when it supports their end goals.

You can also see that Democrats like abusing children in their bill submissions - though, I'd be careful forming a strong belief based purely on what one "sees".

Science has studied this phenomenon extensively, I highly recommend digging into the literature.

> But the reality...

Ah yes...."the" "reality". There can be only one.

100%. If you take the time to examine your beliefs and construct your own view of the world and how you see political structures best helping us, there should be no hypocrisy or conflict in your ideology. If you instead pick an off-the-shelf ideology from an existing party built to lure people with hot button issues and rage at their "enemies" as cover for servicing their corporate sponsors, then yeah there's going to be a lot of problems.

Very interested though - how would you describe your political ideology/philosophy?

Generally The Simpsons tends to be a reflection of the current society. I think it shows that Republicans have been evil for well over a quarter century.
The Republican goal is to make sure rich people get richer and poor people stay poor. You can see it in the few times they actually try to submit a bill to Congress. They are Patriots in the same way that they are pro-life, only when it supports their end goals. But the reality is they believe in neither of those things. All you have to do is look instead of burying your head in the sand and saying "go team". What bills have Republicans put forward in the last 6 years?

> What I'm saying is that a good number of people believe that it's one or the other when really, it's not. It's all of them combined that make these judgements of how everything works

Agree....though, there are also many other important things in play, like media/journalism/propaganda/social media ("The telephone Game")/etc.

> -Technology. -We have entered a post-truth era. -We’re polarized, sorted socially and geographically along partisan lines. -Our leaders. -Psychology.

YES!!!

I believe that we can fight back against ("the simulation" supports it physically), but we also cannot (our minds do not (yet) support it).

> Why does it have to be just one and why can't it be all?

Architectural and "software" (culture, knowledge, etc) shortcomings. Consider the conversations you read online: most people are typically utterly unable to skilfully contemplate FAR simpler problems than this! A lot of people hit their limit with one variable, let alone millions.

> Why can't we as individuals look at an opposing individual and say "everything is fucked up and we are both feeding into it"?

It is our nature.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scorpion_and_the_Frog

>> A scorpion wants to cross a river but cannot swim, so it asks a frog to carry it across. The frog hesitates, afraid that the scorpion might sting it, but the scorpion promises not to, pointing out that it would drown if it killed the frog in the middle of the river. The frog considers this argument sensible and agrees to transport the scorpion. Midway across the river, the scorpion stings the frog anyway, dooming them both. The dying frog asks the scorpion why it stung despite knowing the consequence, to which the scorpion replies: "I am sorry, but I couldn't resist the urge. It's in my nature."

Though, if one considers the history of racism, sexism, basically any "-ism", we know that we do have some capacity for change. Were we to invest more time, attention, and resources in this domain, I would be shocked if we wouldn't make substantial progress, perhaps even rapidly. Unfortunately, we would first have to develop both the ability and desire to do that, before we would be able to actually do it, and ain't nobody got time for that. So, I suspect we will remain in this state until that changes.

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Be Respectful

>Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:

> Read the Post Before You Reply

> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

ctrl + f "Carl Schmitt"

It would do people well do understand that politics is premised on the Friend-Enemy distinction. All other aspects are secondary to this.

[deleted]

I don’t think that’ll be possible while having organic bodies. Also a future in which my way of life is viewed as inferior, just bc I like walking and use my body doesn’t sound too utopian 😅.

Do you maybe mean a “every wish is granted” type of future?

It this is saying most people hold irrational beliefs, obviously yes. Everyone already knew that.

It's it's saying all political beliefs are irrational, that's clearly not true.

The articles references a few folks who actually say interesting things, but none of it makes it into the article.

What I'm saying is that a good number of people believe that it's one or the other when really, it's not. It's all of them combined that make these judgements of how everything works

-Technology. -We have entered a post-truth era. -We’re polarized, sorted socially and geographically along partisan lines. -Our leaders. -Psychology.

Why does it have to be just one and why can't it be all? Why can't we as individuals look at an opposing individual and say "everything is fucked up and we are both feeding into it"?

I think I agree with you and redact my previous stance and terminology

[deleted]

All really, to point where even the need the walk will be inferior way of life

I’m not the one who said anything about two teams. I merely examined the public pronouncements of one very well known team.

All the rest is your own projection. Especially the TLDR at the end.

> Even the Simpsons pointed out that Republicans are evil back in 1994.

Demonstrating that causing someone to believe that a proposition is true can be as easy as showing them a cartoon, which is pretty interesting if one has the ability to take such things seriously.

I think you touch on a thought tho that I think will happen, the new species of Homo sapiens, the slug people, homo inferiors and new gods, homo superiors. I think tho this where humanity stops being human, and what remains of Homo sapiens will be the adventurers who dare to leave Utopia for adventure onward in the dark, either on Earth or beyond