Here in the Netherlands, the number of parties represented in parlement has been rising for decades - there are currently 18 parties. And yes, that causes different kinds of problems.
"It took a record 225 days for the Dutch to get a government" (https://qz.com/1112509/the-dutch-took-a-record-long-225-days...)
"Dutch government resigns over child benefits scandal PM Mark Rutte will stay on in caretaker capacity until general elections scheduled for 17 March" (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/15/dutch-governme...)
"Dutch talks on forming coalition government still deadlocked (June 22, 2021)" (https://apnews.com/article/europe-government-and-politics-79...)
The Mainstream Right, the Far Right, and Coalition Formation in Western Europe, Kimberly Ann Twist (https://digitalassets.lib.berkeley.edu/etd/ucb/text/Twist_be...)
Woman’s rights vs killing unborn children does not leave much moral middle ground.
Ironically I think you've hit the nail on the head, but not for the reasons that are obvious: each side specifically frames the issue in a rigid fashion so it certainly appears obvious that they are morally in the right.
Hence the binary nature of the conversations.
I take the approach that one should be able to CONVINCINGLY argue the opposite side before having a meaningful opinion on the issue. If you can't do that because you view the other side as insane or fully incorrect, then it might be you that's insane. I'm not talking about the-Earth-is-flat type issues, but issues of the day (whatever that day is over the course of time).
But yeah the struggle to find the right argument, rather than to win an argument...
Sadly the second of those is, I think, the more common. Interesting to see from your example how stupid it makes us -- if I try to win an argument without understanding the alternative, the the thing I gain most, is a reduction in my ability to reason
For instance, there are plenty of practical approaches that greatly reduce the number of abortions while still supporting women's rights.
But, for some reason, one side of the issue would rather not reduce abortion while still permitting women's choice because that would take away the 'wedge' issue as a partisan political hammer. So they insist on ever more draconian, misogynistic laws to force the wedge deeper and deeper. That's not because it's an unreconcilable issue. Its because they want the issue.
Except terminations in the US are at their lowest levels[0] since they became legal in 1973.
One side says:
Abortion should be safe, legal and rare.
Abortion is *literal* murder and women who have
them, as well as the doctors who perform them
should be imprisoned and/or executed.
Personally, I believe that women (and men, for that matter) should have control over their bodies. Full stop.
As for the termination of a pregnancy, that should be up to the individual who is pregnant -- likely (but not necessarily) with input from the other potential parent and/or medical professionals.
To put a really fine point on it: If you don't have a functional uterus, shut the fuck up -- it's none of your business.
[0] https://apnews.com/article/health-united-states-ap-top-news-...
I don't really have a position on abortion, but I don't like this point at all. It says too much, I think.
Imagine there's a genocide in North Korea. I'm not North Korean, I'm not friends with anyone from North Korea. Does accepting this point mean that I have to accept that genocide in North Korea is none of my business and is above my criticism? And, if not, what distinguishes the two?
Should Biden not sign a pro-choice bill because he lacks a uterus and therefore is forbidden from taking a side?
"Personally, I believe that women (and men, for that matter) should have control over their bodies. Full stop."
I believe that should be enough information to answer your question, unless you somehow believe that being mass-murdered is the same thing as having control over one's own body.
No. Because what you (or I, for that matter) want or believe is only relevant for our own bodies.
What happens to the bodies of others is up to those others. No one, other than the owner of that body, has anything to say about what happens to their body.
But I ruled it out confidently: The situation where a bunch of people are weighing in on a specific abortion is not one that really comes up, whereas people discuss abortion in general nonstop. You had just said that you aren't opposed to the other potential parent and medical professionals having input in a specific abortion. It doesn't make any sense to phrase that idea that way- having a functional uterus has no bearing on whether you're the one who is considering an abortion. And the other reply also interpreted you as saying men shouldn't comment on the issue and went uncorrected. Taken together, I thought there was no way that was what you meant and I was being excessively charitable.
I misunderstood, but I think you could have been clearer.
I'm not sure how you can make that statement seriously. The only situation where one might want or need to consider terminating a pregnancy is if you have a functional female reproductive system.
Each individual should make those decisions for themselves without a bunch of busybodies telling them what they should do with their own bodies.
As for potential fathers and medical professionals, their opinions may be useful to the person considering such a procedure, but it isn't their body and, as such, that's an advisory situation at most.
>And the other reply also interpreted you as saying men shouldn't comment on the issue and went uncorrected.
Which doesn't make a lot of sense, since I (as a male) was, in fact, commenting on the issue. Or did you miss that part?
People should absolutely be able to express their opinions.
However, when it comes to a specific person considering a specific procedure (whether that be a pregnancy termination, a haircut or removal of a hangnail), the decision necessarily should be that of the specific person involved, and the opinions of others aren't at all relevant.
That's my point. If you can and/or do become pregnant, then the decision whether to terminate or not is yours alone -- but only for your own body.
If you don't have a functional female reproductive system, such decisions are irrelevant to you. If you do have a functional female reproductive system, how that system is used (or not) is completely up to the individual involved and no one should have any decision making power over how another person's body is used.
Feel free to disagree with my position and make your opinions clear. But when it comes to a specific person making a specific decision about their own body, you have no say unless it's your body.
>I misunderstood, but I think you could have been clearer.
That's entirely likely. I tried to elucidate my point. If I failed to do so, my apologies. I attempted to do so again in this comment. I hope I was clearer this time.
They don't, in general.
They do oppose creating “generally-applicable” standards that have the principal effect of preventing access to abortion services, though.
I would slightly disagree. Americans are typically very moderate and I believe made to not understand the concepts of politics, when there's capitalism and liberalism involved it's just too complex to understand. The biggest and obviously evidence of this is the apathy toward voting, why even be engaged in something that isn't felt to be a democratic system? How many feel marginalized and the kinds of communities that say so. As impacftul Assange's work may be, the shakers and movers of the world are doing a good job at damage control sounds like.
Perhaps that's true of some (perhaps many) Americans, but certainly not all. Please don't paint 330 million individuals with the same broad brush. If for no other reason than you're doing exactly what (taking a binary, categorical view of a gigantic group instead of treating individuals as individuals) you're complaining about.
For me (as well as many other Americans), I recognize that context and nuance are important when considering most issues.
Assuming that tweets or political slogans represent the views of all (or even many) Americans is shallow indeed.
The devil (as well as the solutions) is always in the details, whether it be the minimum wage, broadband competition, healthcare or dozens of other issues.
Many people (myself included) are ignorant of the details surrounding a variety of issues unless it directly affects them.
However, many (if not most) have a nuanced understanding of issues (at all levels of government) that impact them.
The nationalization of party politics (helped along quite a bit by the decline and disappearance of much of the local journalism in the US) creates least-common-denominator messaging that ignores any nuance or context whatsoever.
As for Assange, it's not a left/right dichotomy at all.
In fact, many who generally vote (D) are among Assange's biggest supporters, and many who generally vote (R) are among his biggest detractors.
IMNSHO, it has much more to do with whether or not you believe that Assange can get a fair trial in a US Federal court.
There are dozens (50 state court systems, many more municipal/county/territorial court systems) of other courts in the US, but the Federal court system is generally among the fairest of US court systems. Especially if there's a lot of publicity surrounding a particular case -- as there is here.
And Assange will be tried in Federal court.
The man himself doesn't think so, or he wouldn't have cloistered himself in the Ecuadorian embassy for seven years.
Given that no journalist has ever been convicted under the 1917 Espionage Act[0], under which the really serious charges against Assange was indicted, it seems unlikely in the extreme that he'd be convicted of those charges.
The charges under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act[1] do not carry heavy sentences, nor (at least as I understand it) is the evidence of violations of that law very strong.
As such, it's quite likely that if Assange hadn't jumped bail and hidden out in the Ecuadorian embassy, all this would have been over and he'd have been banging Swedish girls again for at least a few years.
As someone who generally votes (D), I'd like to see Assange acquitted and let him move on.
His credibility has suffered mightily, but most of that (IMHO) was a result of his own actions and statements (Seth Rich? Really?).
Regardless, you're flat wrong about Americans as mindless morons parroting their particular party line. Sure there are some who do so, but certainly not all (or even most).
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act
Edit: Added referenced links.
Small note: about 150m people voted for D or R. Out of almost 230m eligible voter pool, the rest just didn't vote.
I think it's fair to say that US Politics is framed as a binary choice (regardless of how you justify it) because that's the party system that is in place...along with the common winner-takes-all systems.
That's an excellent point. No third party has come anywhere close to the major levers of power in more than 150 years.
And first-past-the-post elections certainly contribute to that.
But that's orthogonal to my point. GP said:
"Americans have been trained to have a strictly binary, categorical view of issues instead of looking at each issue as something with its own set of properties to explore."
Note that GP doesn't address parties or elections. Rather they claim that Americans have a "binary, categorical view of issues."
That's to what I took exception. Many Americans have nuanced views of a variety of issues.
That said, the reality is that neither major party platform supports all the good ideas from across the ideological spectrum.
But, as you correctly pointed out, most people pick the party that they think gives them more of what they think is right.
That doesn't mean every (R || D) voter supports every (R || D) position. Nor does it mean that every (R || D) voter blindly accepts the talking points of their selected party.
Yes. There absolutely are voters who just vote their party without giving a thought to the policies advocated by that party. Sometimes because they're one-issue voters, sometimes because they, their extended families and communities have voted that way for generations, sometimes because they're too intellectually lazy to understand the issues and take the easy way out.
But to ascribe the above to all Americans (whether they voted or not -- GP talked about issues, not votes) is equally intellectually lazy.
There are many instances of this, and the corporate media does this on both sides of the aisle. Of course, there's one dominant one at the moment. There's a heavy-handed corporate media attempt to squeeze out compliance - from biased stories (that are later proven false) from mainstream outlets as the most serious, to the cover of Vogue as the most silly.
What's disturbing is that if you point this out to people, what happens? Ah hah, they discovered someone on the other side of the political aisle. Their enemies. Again, this is true for both parties.
Americans have been trained to have a strictly binary, categorical view of issues instead of looking at each issue as something with its own set of properties to explore.