• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Blue Tribe, Red Tribe: they don't even know each other...

Goshin

Goshin

Burned Out Ex-Mod
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
47,477
Reaction score
53,176
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
... along with some interesting observations about how hate is more often close to home than directed far away, and many other pertinent observations.


The writer is a self-described leftist and comes across as such, but shows such remarkable self-awareness and insights that I found his article compelling despite how we live in different worlds for the most part.

The essay contains many insightful bits of truth regarding left and right, or Blue Tribe and Red Tribe as he calls them, and despite a few errors of observation/assumption he's largely on target and engages in considerable exposition on why all the hate for Trump and "Red" Americans from his side of the aisle.


It's a bit long but quite worth the read for anyone of any 'tribe'.... give it a try and tell us what you think.

I Can Tolerate Anything Except The Outgroup | Slate Star Codex
 
The current political turbulence running through America has little to do with the GOP or the Conservatives. Those people have continued on being what they have been for decades... they're Conservatives... they do not change!

What changed, is a Civil War breaking out among the long term base of the Democratic Party! and a seccession of a large portion of the voter base, who voted for TRUMP, who is NOT a Covervative, or even a common Republican.

The hatred being spewed at Trump and more so, at the Trump voters, the "Deplorables", is aimed at the defectors from the Leftie Plantation.

This is NOT a Blue vs Red conflict, it is a Break up of the Democratic Party into Working Voters who want pragmatic solutions, vs. the Progressive Elites and Far-Leftie Radicals!


It is Not a Blue vs. Red Conflict, it is Cyan vs. Ultra-Violet .... errrr, or perhaps I should say, Ultra-Violent! Conflict.


It is a Civil War among the Left/Dems, with the GOP scratching their heads on the sidelines.


-
 
Goshin said:
... along with some interesting observations about how hate is more often close to home than directed far away, and many other pertinent observations.


The writer is a self-described leftist and comes across as such, but shows such remarkable self-awareness and insights that I found his article compelling despite how we live in different worlds for the most part.

The essay contains many insightful bits of truth regarding left and right, or Blue Tribe and Red Tribe as he calls them, and despite a few errors of observation/assumption he's largely on target and engages in considerable exposition on why all the hate for Trump and "Red" Americans from his side of the aisle.


It's a bit long but quite worth the read for anyone of any 'tribe'.... give it a try and tell us what you think.

I Can Tolerate Anything Except The Outgroup | Slate Star Codex
Click to expand...

I was more interested than I thought. I liked his definition of "outgroup", though I am not sure I think it is useful(I am not even sure I think the concept of "outgroup" is useful, but that is another story). He probably should avoid statistics though:

What I mean is – well, take creationists. According to Gallup polls, about 46% of Americans are creationists. Not just in the sense of believing God helped guide evolution. I mean they think evolution is a vile atheist lie and God created humans exactly as they exist right now. That’s half the country.

And I don’t have a single one of those people in my social circle. It’s not because I’m deliberately avoiding them; I’m pretty live-and-let-live politically, I wouldn’t ostracize someone just for some weird beliefs. And yet, even though I probably know about a hundred fifty people, I am pretty confident that not one of them is creationist. Odds of this happening by chance? 1/2^150 = 1/10^45 = approximately the chance of picking a particular atom if you are randomly selecting among all the atoms on Earth.
Click to expand...

No, really, the odds are not that. You would have to know how each of them would respond to such a poll question, which he does not, to even calculate the odds. Pet peeve, people misusing probabilities...

But where he really starts to go off the rails is just a little later, in failing to understand group dynamics some:

Recently, there was a thread on Reddit asking – Redditors Against Gay Marriage, What Is Your Best Supporting Argument? A Reddit user who didn’t understand how anybody could be against gay marriage honestly wanted to know how other people who were against it justified their position. He figured he might as well ask one of the largest sites on the Internet, with an estimated user base in the tens of millions.

It soon became clear that nobody there was actually against gay marriage.

There were a bunch of posts saying “I of course support gay marriage but here are some reasons some other people might be against it,” a bunch of others saying “my argument against gay marriage is the government shouldn’t be involved in the marriage business at all”, and several more saying “why would you even ask this question, there’s no possible good argument and you’re wasting your time”. About halfway through the thread someone started saying homosexuality was unnatural and I thought they were going to be the first one to actually answer the question, but at the end they added “But it’s not my place to decide what is or isn’t natural, I’m still pro-gay marriage.”

In a thread with 10,401 comments, a thread specifically asking for people against gay marriage, I was eventually able to find two people who came out and opposed it, way near the bottom. Their posts started with “I know I’m going to be downvoted to hell for this…”
Click to expand...

Pay attention to that last sentence, as that explains why so few people where willing to admit to a belief that will be unpopular among a more liberal than average group of users(and why we have so many more people willing to explain why SSM is bad, and why I will always oppose DP have a "Dislike" button to go with the "Like" button). He comes across as a really likable, nice guy who speaks well and has some interesting and not entirely wrong ideas. However, he makes some really basic mistakes that kinda kill the message.

Thanks for sharing it though, what I read of it was pretty interesting.
 
Kurmugeon said:
The current political turbulence running through America has little to do with the GOP or the Conservatives. Those people have continued on being what they have been for decades... they're Conservatives... they do not change!

What changed, is a Civil War breaking out among the long term base of the Democratic Party! and a seccession of a large portion of the voter base, who voted for TRUMP, who is NOT a Covervative, or even a common Republican.

The hatred being spewed at Trump and more so, at the Trump voters, the "Deplorables", is aimed at the defectors from the Leftie Plantation.

This is NOT a Blue vs Red conflict, it is a Break up of the Democratic Party into Working Voters who want pragmatic solutions, vs. the Progressive Elites and Far-Leftie Radicals!


It is Not a Blue vs. Red Conflict, it is Cyan vs. Ultra-Violet .... errrr, or perhaps I should say, Ultra-Violent! Conflict.


It is a Civil War among the Left/Dems, with the GOP scratching their heads on the sidelines.


-
Click to expand...

You did not read what he linked, did you?
 
Redress said:
I was more interested than I thought. I liked his definition of "outgroup", though I am not sure I think it is useful(I am not even sure I think the concept of "outgroup" is useful, but that is another story). He probably should avoid statistics though:



No, really, the odds are not that. You would have to know how each of them would respond to such a poll question, which he does not, to even calculate the odds. Pet peeve, people misusing probabilities...

But where he really starts to go off the rails is just a little later, in failing to understand group dynamics some:



Pay attention to that last sentence, as that explains why so few people where willing to admit to a belief that will be unpopular among a more liberal than average group of users(and why we have so many more people willing to explain why SSM is bad, and why I will always oppose DP have a "Dislike" button to go with the "Like" button). He comes across as a really likable, nice guy who speaks well and has some interesting and not entirely wrong ideas. However, he makes some really basic mistakes that kinda kill the message.

Thanks for sharing it though, what I read of it was pretty interesting.
Click to expand...



Very good critique, Redress; I largely agree. I didn't check his math but thought it sounded a bit too extreme in improbability.

Still quite an interesting read overall though.
 
Goshin said:
... along with some interesting observations about how hate is more often close to home than directed far away, and many other pertinent observations.


The writer is a self-described leftist and comes across as such, but shows such remarkable self-awareness and insights that I found his article compelling despite how we live in different worlds for the most part.

The essay contains many insightful bits of truth regarding left and right, or Blue Tribe and Red Tribe as he calls them, and despite a few errors of observation/assumption he's largely on target and engages in considerable exposition on why all the hate for Trump and "Red" Americans from his side of the aisle.


It's a bit long but quite worth the read for anyone of any 'tribe'.... give it a try and tell us what you think.

I Can Tolerate Anything Except The Outgroup | Slate Star Codex
Click to expand...

I did not read it but the headline is right on the money...we dont know each other, worse generally we dont want to know each other (I have huge problems with this) and the collective is so broke that we cant agree on the basics of reality anymore...there is no shared reality anymore. I started to hear about how this was happening 30 years ago but almost no one else seems to know. Those who do generally dont give a ****. That's because we are stupid people now....generally.
 
Redress said:
You did not read what he linked, did you?
Click to expand...

What part of Cyan being the color of the article's "Grey Tribe" don't you get?!

ohhh,... wait, you missed the part about the "Grey Tribe", didn't you?

I guess you were too busy still trying to score points for the Blue-Tribe.

-
 
I know this is probably futile, but could we please hold the partisan politics to a minimum?


It wasn't really the point of the article itself, nor the reason I posted it.


Believe it or not, I was hoping it might make some people stop and think a bit, maybe engage in some self-analysis on the nature of their own tribalism and how much of their reactionary-partisanship might not be entirely rational.

Probably wishful thinking on my part.... naivete at my age smacks of early-onset senility I know...

But I was hoping it might provoke someone to become more self-aware regarding their political tribalism. It did for me.
 
So, I'll engage in some confession about what I learned from reading this article, and thinking about its content.


I don't like to identify as Red Tribe. Not entirely. I prefer to think of myself as center-right with libertarian tendencies... and politically I think that's fairly accurate. I'm right or right/libertarian on a number of things, including gun rights, immigration security, defense and individual liberty.

I'm centrist on social safety nets and taxes. I'm ok with progressive taxation as long as it isn't too steep. I'm ok with "hand-up" social programs that are efficiently run and show effective results. I'm ok with taking care of those who genuinely can't take care of themselves.

The author says it is FUN and EASY to criticize your genuine "outgroups", but that criticizing your own TRUE side is hard, painful, sweating-blood unpleasant.

This made me realize I'm more Red Tribe than I like to admit. I can critique the more extreme views of Progressives and Libertarians with little discomfort, but on those occasions I take the Red Tribe to task for lack of compassion or unrealistic trust in the market, or the more extreme social views, I feel uncomfortable and nervous.

As the writer says, this tells me who my true in-groups and out-groups are, whether I want to admit it or not.
 
Goshin said:
I know this is probably futile, but could we please hold the partisan politics to a minimum?


It wasn't really the point of the article itself, nor the reason I posted it.


Believe it or not, I was hoping it might make some people stop and think a bit, maybe engage in some self-analysis on the nature of their own tribalism and how much of their reactionary-partisanship might not be entirely rational.

Probably wishful thinking on my part.... naivete at my age smacks of early-onset senility I know...

But I was hoping it might provoke someone to become more self-aware regarding their political tribalism. It did for me.
Click to expand...

What you're asking for was possible during the Obama Administration.


Not at all because of Obama, in fact, he almost made it impossible... he TRIED to do so.


It was possible during the Obama Administration, or at least for MOST of that period, because of the maturity and forebearance of the "Red-Tribe".


Since Nov 9, 2016, The Blue-Tribe has made American Politics a BLOOD SPORT. They hurt, when there is no need, out of pure hatred and vindictiveness, and they KILL people's lively hoods and careers, anytime they can! Ask Sean Hanity!


Here is a very important lesson about Tribalism not covered in the OP article:

It it takes Two willing Tribes to make peace.

It only takes One Hatred and Violence Filled Tribe to make War.


The Blue-Tribe has declared Total-War...


War.jpg
 
Last edited:
Goshin said:
So, I'll engage in some confession about what I learned from reading this article, and thinking about its content.


I don't like to identify as Red Tribe. Not entirely. I prefer to think of myself as center-right with libertarian tendencies... and politically I think that's fairly accurate. I'm right or right/libertarian on a number of things, including gun rights, immigration security, defense and individual liberty.

I'm centrist on social safety nets and taxes. I'm ok with progressive taxation as long as it isn't too steep. I'm ok with "hand-up" social programs that are efficiently run and show effective results. I'm ok with taking care of those who genuinely can't take care of themselves.

The author says it is FUN and EASY to criticize your genuine "outgroups", but that criticizing your own TRUE side is hard, painful, sweating-blood unpleasant.

This made me realize I'm more Red Tribe than I like to admit. I can critique the more extreme views of Progressives and Libertarians with little discomfort, but on those occasions I take the Red Tribe to task for lack of compassion or unrealistic trust in the market, or the more extreme social views, I feel uncomfortable and nervous.

As the writer says, this tells me who my true in-groups and out-groups are, whether I want to admit it or not.
Click to expand...

It's a good thing to do, congrats, you've grown as a person.
More so that a whole heap of a lot of people will ever do.

Slate Star is a great read, some incredibly interesting things discussed there, (often but not always) from a libertarian leaning point of view.
 
Redress said:
I was more interested than I thought. I liked his definition of "outgroup", though I am not sure I think it is useful(I am not even sure I think the concept of "outgroup" is useful, but that is another story). He probably should avoid statistics though:



No, really, the odds are not that. You would have to know how each of them would respond to such a poll question, which he does not, to even calculate the odds. Pet peeve, people misusing probabilities...

But where he really starts to go off the rails is just a little later, in failing to understand group dynamics some:



Pay attention to that last sentence, as that explains why so few people where willing to admit to a belief that will be unpopular among a more liberal than average group of users(and why we have so many more people willing to explain why SSM is bad, and why I will always oppose DP have a "Dislike" button to go with the "Like" button). He comes across as a really likable, nice guy who speaks well and has some interesting and not entirely wrong ideas. However, he makes some really basic mistakes that kinda kill the message.

Thanks for sharing it though, what I read of it was pretty interesting.
Click to expand...

"Outgroup" is a termed either coined by or popularized by George Orwell in 1984. Sometimes I feel like the only person who's ever read it.
 
Kurmugeon said:
View attachment 67218628
Click to expand...
Yes exactly. Regardless of how much guff Republicans gave Obama, they rarely if ever targeted the actual OBAMA VOTERS, and if it did happen it wasn't condoned. Liberals and Democrats alike have not only attacked Trump, they've dehumanized his supporters and encourage violence against those voters. The MSM doesn't even acknowledge the horrible violence Trump supporters faced because they don't see Trump supporters as human beings.
 
reinoe said:
Yes exactly. Regardless of how much guff Republicans gave Obama, they rarely if ever targeted the actual OBAMA VOTERS, and if it did happen it wasn't condoned. Liberals and Democrats alike have not only attacked Trump, they've dehumanized his supporters and encourage violence against those voters. The MSM doesn't even acknowledge the horrible violence Trump supporters faced because they don't see Trump supporters as human beings.
Click to expand...

In WWII, it would have been completely irresponsible of the Allied forces to Stop, having liberated all German captured territory, and refuse to enter Germany and force complete surrender and disarmament.

Similarly, the Grey-Tribe, the Disaffected Blue-Tribespeople, and the Red Tribe, in Alliance, cannot stop with the election of Trump and his appointment of a number of supreme court justices, and the removal of a few of the worst of the Establishment Apparatchiks .


The remaining, Extremist, Far-Leftie Blue-Tribe declared unconditional war against the Grey-Tribe... and now they must be politically destroyed to the last office holding Democrat!

The Democratic Party went full Ethnocentric, and it also endorsed violence! Now, the Democratic Party must be completely destroyed by the Alliance of the Grey-Tribe and the Red-Tribe.

A new Cyan-Tribe will form out of the remaining Greys... and stability will return to America when the Democratic Party is GONE!

-
 
Redress said:
I was more interested than I thought. I liked his definition of "outgroup", though I am not sure I think it is useful(I am not even sure I think the concept of "outgroup" is useful, but that is another story). He probably should avoid statistics though:



No, really, the odds are not that. You would have to know how each of them would respond to such a poll question, which he does not, to even calculate the odds. Pet peeve, people misusing probabilities...

But where he really starts to go off the rails is just a little later, in failing to understand group dynamics some:



Pay attention to that last sentence, as that explains why so few people where willing to admit to a belief that will be unpopular among a more liberal than average group of users(and why we have so many more people willing to explain why SSM is bad, and why I will always oppose DP have a "Dislike" button to go with the "Like" button). He comes across as a really likable, nice guy who speaks well and has some interesting and not entirely wrong ideas. However, he makes some really basic mistakes that kinda kill the message.

Thanks for sharing it though, what I read of it was pretty interesting.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it was interesting, and I'd like to see the author revisit/revise it for the DJT era.

I found it curious that he kept pushing the libertarians into the "blue" using a definition which only works for a subset of those who claim that label (libertarian).

There is definitely a 'grouping of tribes" that's been going in this country for a long time. Some of it has always seemed to me to be partially due to the urban/rural divide.

And once again, I don't really fit in either box that was constructed.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
Yeah, it was interesting, and I'd like to see the author revisit/revise it for the DJT era.

I found it curious that he kept pushing the libertarians into the "blue" using a definition which only works for a subset of those who claim that label (libertarian).

There is definitely a 'grouping of tribes" that's been going in this country for a long time. Some of it has always seemed to me to be partially due to the urban/rural divide.

And once again, I don't really fit in either box that was constructed.
Click to expand...

The boxes he describes represent perhaps 40% of the population

The red tribe (strong association) perhaps 30% and blue tribe (again strong association) perhaps 10%.

The blue tribe seems more numerous because of being concentrated in larger urban areas. While still having a fair bit of disposable income (excluding uni students)
 
<alt>doxygen said:
Yeah, it was interesting, and I'd like to see the author revisit/revise it for the DJT era.

I found it curious that he kept pushing the libertarians into the "blue" using a definition which only works for a subset of those who claim that label (libertarian).

There is definitely a 'grouping of tribes" that's been going in this country for a long time. Some of it has always seemed to me to be partially due to the urban/rural divide.

And once again, I don't really fit in either box that was constructed.
Click to expand...


Some of it is urban/rural; some is north/south; some is labor/academia. But I think there's more to it. There are many different distinct cultures in America, who may share many characteristics but divide on a number of political, social, religious, cultural, economic and regional differences.

Grouping them as Red Tribe and Blue Tribe, or conservative and liberal, is convenient but glosses over the truth that both tribes consist of many sub-tribes with considerable variation.


It's true the two descriptions of typical Red and Blue Tribe are not 100% accurate... I don't think they were intended to be, though; more of a stereotype, while acknowledging that stereotypes come into existence often because there's some truth in them.


Few people will fit neatly and completely in either box.... but at the end of the day, one is probably more comfortable in one box than the other.



For some reason, though, no one seems to want to stay long in the box simply labeled "Americans" anymore.... we've become so polarized sometimes I think we should split the country in half.
 
Goshin said:
Some of it is urban/rural; some is north/south; some is labor/academia. But I think there's more to it. There are many different distinct cultures in America, who may share many characteristics but divide on a number of political, social, religious, cultural, economic and regional differences.

Grouping them as Red Tribe and Blue Tribe, or conservative and liberal, is convenient but glosses over the truth that both tribes consist of many sub-tribes with considerable variation.


It's true the two descriptions of typical Red and Blue Tribe are not 100% accurate... I don't think they were intended to be, though; more of a stereotype, while acknowledging that stereotypes come into existence often because there's some truth in them.


Few people will fit neatly and completely in either box.... but at the end of the day, one is probably more comfortable in one box than the other.



For some reason, though, no one seems to want to stay long in the box simply labeled "Americans" anymore.... we've become so polarized sometimes I think we should split the country in half.
Click to expand...

Pretty much agree with all of that.

I also found myself nodding while reading your post #8. Change from right-libertarian to left and swap red with blue, and I could have written most it. I do diverge in one interesting respect, though. I find it just as easy to criticize far out social/econ lefties as I do to criticize far out social/econ righties. Some of the conversations I've had with progressive friends and relatives regarding things like how I think BLM are their own worst enemies are pretty interesting.

I wish there was a solution. I, for one, do identify as an American. If the country was split in half, I think I'd live on the border.
 
Post a brainless partisan rant and it can go on for hundreds, sometimes thousands of posts per thread. No shortage of those around here.


Post something that asks people to think and do some self-analysis and we're at post#19.... over half of them being my replies to people.

Kinda disappointing, if not really surprising.
 
Goshin said:
Post a brainless partisan rant and it can go on for hundreds, sometimes thousands of posts per thread. No shortage of those around here.


Post something that asks people to think and do some self-analysis and we're at post#19.... over half of them being my replies to people.

Kinda disappointing, if not really surprising.
Click to expand...

It's the innate flaw of men.
The illusion is more comforting, than the reality.
 
Goshin said:
... along with some interesting observations about how hate is more often close to home than directed far away, and many other pertinent observations.


The writer is a self-described leftist and comes across as such, but shows such remarkable self-awareness and insights that I found his article compelling despite how we live in different worlds for the most part.

The essay contains many insightful bits of truth regarding left and right, or Blue Tribe and Red Tribe as he calls them, and despite a few errors of observation/assumption he's largely on target and engages in considerable exposition on why all the hate for Trump and "Red" Americans from his side of the aisle.


It's a bit long but quite worth the read for anyone of any 'tribe'.... give it a try and tell us what you think.

I Can Tolerate Anything Except The Outgroup | Slate Star Codex
Click to expand...

Slate Star Codex often has articles of this depth and quality.
 
Goshin said:
Post a brainless partisan rant and it can go on for hundreds, sometimes thousands of posts per thread. No shortage of those around here.


Post something that asks people to think and do some self-analysis and we're at post#19.... over half of them being my replies to people.

Kinda disappointing, if not really surprising.
Click to expand...

It is a long read somewhat simple in the analysis but in the cases of red tribe and blue tribe I can see both strongly represented here.

Even people who are not really part of the red or blue tribe are assumed to be if they do not agree with what what I've tribe member has stated.
 
Goshin said:
Post a brainless partisan rant and it can go on for hundreds, sometimes thousands of posts per thread. No shortage of those around here.


Post something that asks people to think and do some self-analysis and we're at post#19.... over half of them being my replies to people.

Kinda disappointing, if not really surprising.
Click to expand...

Maybe it's that blood, sweat and tears thing people want to avoid :lol: Though to be fair, despite a number of interesting observations the article is a fairly rambling and tedious read, and the OP doesn't really pose any specific points or questions for discussion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom