Forum:Name one political viewpoint you can compromise with and one you can't

< Index | Politics discussion

I was just thinking about the subject of compromise. And how I can be rather uncompromising, which isn't the praise it's frequently delivered as. So as an exercise, I thought it would be good to think about who I can compromise with. And who I never would.

• I can compromise with gun rights advocates in the US: I think firearms are an incredibly unhealthy object to own, and are very often used irresponsibly. But I recognize the value of prescribed rights, and the total risk being less than some other things that are widely available and misused.
• I can't even tentatively any sort of racial nationalism. It's inherently an idea that discriminates, and punishes people for the viewpoint holder's own insecurities. And every "compromised" re-branding of it, down to modern republican "color blind" variations. Equality can't be compromised.

Okay, sure, I took easy examples, but what do you think can be compromised on(where you already have strong opinions)? ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 13:10, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• I can compromise on economic issues. I may think some people's proposals are very dumb, but as long as there's sufficient social security, I can shrug it off.
• I can't compromise on social security. If a government's not ensuring that its people always have access to the basic necessities, it's not doing a proper job. Period.

What exactly do you mean with racial nationalism, though? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 16:01, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

My understanding of "racial nationalism" is the belief that national identity is ultimately tied to one's ethnicity and a unified cultural/ethnic origin. Although it's most often brought up in discussions of white supremacy, it's cropped up in a lot of other places as well. Korea, for example, developed a strong sense of ethnonationalism after its liberation from Showa Japan, due in part to cultural supression it experienced during that time. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 16:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• I am willing to compromise, or rather work with, pseudolibertarians om issues like drug legalization, police abuses, and prison and sentencing reform.
• I refuse to compromise with censorship apology of any kind. be they feminist, religious, or culturally conservative.

Grownup politics is less about taking a stand, posing for the camera, and other such ego-feeding exercises and more about getting things done. If your politics is about demonstrating your moral superiority it can only do more harm than good. Any political activity worth the effort has to create ad-hoc alliances with people whose other ideas you may not like all that much. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 16:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Let's talk about that "can't" there. Because, from previous discussions, I feel like you're (sometimes) conflating "vehement and hostile disagreement" with "censorship". And also, how do you feel about constraints on free speech that address: fraud, libel, slander, and threats? Because those laws all fundamentally address speech. If you accept them, where's the line? If you don't, I feel like your failure to compromise is seriously problematic. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 17:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Moral indignation is always cruel, stupid, and evil. It is also always an implied invitation to violence and counter-violence. Vehement and hostile disagreement is inherently wrong if it is tinged with moral indignation, and in my experience it usually is. If your goal is to hound people out of their jobs in retaliation for something they said, I will always be against you. That behavior moreover automatically discredits whatever cause or morality you seek to uphold, because it shows that adherents to the cause are fanatics who can't be trusted with power. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 20:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Say Smerdis, doesn't what you typically do amount to moral indignation towards other people's moral indignation (particularly when activism is involved)? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:51, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

You could say that. It's more about recognizing the limitations of your neurochemical programming. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 00:10, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I could also say that my own recognition of those limitations has not lead me anywhere near the same conclusions, and thus I kinda gotta question your unstated deduction. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 02:36, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Can Compromise- Confederate Flag/Battle Flag, while symbols are what we make them and just because someone has one does not instantly make a person racist just removing it from government property is fine.

Can't Compromise- Racist ideologies, no race is better than the other. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:51, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Can compromise on means. Can't compromise on ends. Like, I can't compromise on social justice, or economic justice, or individual freedom, as goals, but I like to think I can be convinced that the ways I would like to achieve these goals are not the most effective, whereupon I would support more effective ones. <3 C^{Sapphire bullets of pure love} 23:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I think I 'can compromise on nuclear energy (I am moderately opposed, mostly for financial reasons) one thing I can't compromise on would be urban planning (I am pro transit and pro bike, I don't think there is even the possibility of a compromise with car and sprawl advocates...) 141.30.210.129 (talk) 22:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I generally support transit and bikes too, but are you saying cities should be built without roads for cars? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 02:14, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Clearly taller buildings clogging up my view of the sky is the only solution. Skyscrapers only in the town of 141.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 02:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

No. There is no need (yet) for a city without any cars. Though it is not impossible, after all, cities, even gigantic cities without cars have historically existed. But if you compare a city built for the automobile like Atlanta with one that was not like Barcelona, you will see that building for cars hurts everybody. Including cars. At some point in time we will have to get rid of cars entirely, but this is not yet politically feasible... 141.30.210.129 (talk) 22:08, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• I can (barely) compromise on abortion rights, insofar as I believe it should be able to be regulated past the point where meaningful brain activity starts occurring. One of the numbers I have heard for this is 24 weeks. However, I am indeed willing to compromise down a few weeks, but will not compromise past 20 (unless given sufficient reason and evidence as to why I should). Actually, seeing as how I am not a woman, it might simply be better to allow them to decide the compromise on this issue.
• I can't compromise with anything that comes out of Rick Santorum's ass mouth. QuantumDude^{I am beyond your understanding} 15:53, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I would have pegged the anti-abortion cult as the canonical example of people who can't be compromised with at all. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 12:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Well... I see your point. I am willing to compromise slightly, but the problem is that THEY refuse to compromise at all, and therefore really can't be compromised with. QuantumDude^{I am beyond your understanding} 17:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Cannot Compromise- teaching creationism is public schools--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• I can compromise with......I can compromise.... I..... Hmm. I guess I can't compromise, at least not when I don't understand the situation in Congress/Parliament. Realistically, I would compromise somewhat on gun control, and probably abortion.

• I cannot compromise an anything else. Most of all, small groups of people being able to have overwhelming power over the decisions of the country, rather than the people. In other words, I can't compromise on democracy and popular rule. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:58, 10 August 2015 (UTC)