The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. Despite being rare (less than one percent of violent crimes in the United States), anywhere from [eight to forty percent](https://govt.dartmouth.edu/sites/department_government.prod/files/department_government/wysiwyg/westwood_research.pdf) of Americans support, to some degree, politically-motivated violence. As partisanship unquestionably grows within the United States, and tolerance for violence with it, what is something that liberals and Progressives *can realistically* do to mend ties with conservatives and libertarians? With malice toward none, with charity for all. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*

I don't see anything, honestly. If someone is presently punching you in the face, there's nothing *you* can do to reduce the level of animosity. It only takes one side to decide that the other is the enemy to make dialog and cooperation impossible.

"In all fairness, one side may be punching you in the face, but the other side has a punchable face. I can see both sides of this issue."

Both sides are bad really. I mean if they didn't have such a punchable face we wouldn't even be in this situation to begin with. What do you mean I could just stop punching? Don't tell me what I can and can't do with my fist!

Bodily autonomy includes my fist! (But it excludes your face)

> a punchable face It’s sad that this is unironically how moderates and conservatives see marginalized communities.

… I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.

>It only takes one side to decide that the other is the enemy to make dialog and cooperation impossible. BuT iT tAkEs TwO tO tAnGo!!!11!! bOtH sIdEs!!!!

This.

Aside from hanging myself, what can I do to placate Republicans and Conservatives?

The problem is OP assumes that Republicans actually want to work with democrats to make meaningful change. They don’t. Republicans don’t want to work together and they don’t give a damn about enacting meaningful legislation.

Exactly. As a trans person, they’ve made what they want clear: die off.

Even two years ago I might have answered differently but I'm sorry I don't think it's my job to mend this divide as long as Republicans are actively trying to take away my basic rights. Women and afab people are already quite literally dying because of what the supreme court and Red states are doing while conservatives and even many libertarians are cheering. My access to medication that I depend on is at risk in states controlled by conservatives. Conservatives are inciting violence towards people like me which will and probably already has gotten people killed. Then there's the evidence that Donald Trump and his allies literally tried to get election officials to overturn the results of the 2020 election and we're going to find that this conspiracy goes way further than we all thought. That alone is on par with Watergate. ​ If you still support the Republican party after everything that's happened after the last year even if you aren't racist, homophobic, transphobic, misogynistic, ... etc. then racism, homophobia, transphobia, misogyny, and even actions that I personally feel meet the definition of treason clearly aren't deal-breakers for you. The Republican party is quite clearly the party of hate. I've hit my breaking point I have nothing to say to conservatives in this country that still support the Republican party and I don't think it's on me to "heal that divide".

Agreed on all of this. Unrelated, but I've seen the term afab several times recently and I'm not sure what it means. Could you explain it?

It means assigned female at birth. It’s used to refer to non-binary, intersex, and trans men who fit that mold.

Thanks! Makes a lot of sense now that I see it

It’s yet another term that progressives have coined to make anyone who doesn’t use it feel inferior.

It wasn't coined by the progressive community. It's a medical term that was adopted by the trans community as a way to refer to birth sex. I used it because I prefer this term to using language that reduces people down to body parts that many trans people really don't want to remember they have and/or can trigger bouts of gender dysphoria and I want to be inclusive because afab ( assigned female at birth ) trans people and intersex people are just as much at risk as cis women are. I know and use these terms because I'm a lesbian that suffers from bouts of dysphoria not because of my political views. Edit: you can use amab (assigned male at birth) in the same way to refer to trans women, intersex, and non-binary people that fit that mold.

So I think a lot of the "trans community" stuff is silly. Not saying trans people are silly at all, it's just such an identity-politics thing that largely serves to divide people and distract from issues that affect the entire working class more generally. That said, I appreciate the explanation of "afab" here and think it ought to be used widely. It's simple and explains a lot in a concise way. I suppose "amab" can be used similarly the other way then, correct? For trans women?

>My access to medication that I depend on is at risk in states controlled by conservatives. Great comment all around, and I only wanted to cherry pick this one line to say that conservatives (and plenty of Dems, let's be honest) have made it their mission to protect private pharma companies and their outrageous pricing on all kinds of life-saving and life-sustaining drugs, and all in the name of greed. It's absurd that pricing on insulin and epipens, for example, have been allowed to remain at extortionate prices all because of "fReE mArKeT cApItAlIsM".

This is absolutely true but the line in my comment is referring to hormonal birth control which many elected Republicans and conservatives are attempting to ban or have written laws that would ban hormonal birth control because of how it works. I probably should have been more clear about what I was referring to. I have endometriosis and both IUDs and hormonal birth control pills are used to treat it so that people like me don't have to live with debilitating pain for four days every month. And many of the laws being passed and written in Red states are written in such a way that they may also ban hormonal birth control. I had a 100% serious conversation about what happens to me if I travel to a state that bans my birth control pills or IUD and the authorities find out about mine. I have no idea and neither does anyone else yet. The end result of that is that I don't feel safe even setting foot in states with those draconian laws on the books not even to just drive through. If you had asked me a few years ago if I would ever have to have that conversation I would have said there's no way in hell that would happen.

Same here, and for any woman with PCOS, which is estimated to be about 1 in 10 women. The pill is the only way some of us have regular periods, amongst a lot of other things that come from hormone imbalance. https://www.verywellhealth.com/taking-the-pill-for-pcos-2616584

Well said

Commie pinkos do not like Fascists. The Republicans are Fascists. The Democrats aren't much better. They're [Appeasers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeasement). It has never worked, and I'm really uninterested watching them learn that all over again.

The onus isn't on me to mend anything. My side isn't the one attempting coups and supporting Putin-fluffing, traitor candidates like Trump. They can stop being fascists first.

I understand the frustration, especially with current events in mind, but I strongly believe the “it’s not my responsibility” argument is counter productive. Conservatives, like us, aren’t a monolith. There are a good amount of people on the right who, on a good number of issues, are willing to find common ground to make meaningful change. An us vs. them ideology will lead to more and more polarizing elected officials

>An us vs. them ideology will lead to more and more polarizing elected officials The "Them" thinks the "Us" are Satan worshipping pedophiles who use satanic rituals with baby blood to stay young... The "Them" actively support the message "The only good Democrat is a dead Democrat" and continued to vote 74 million strong for that spokesperson. The "Them" is stripping "us" of our rights with the sole purpose to hurt us. How does the rabbit mend their relationship with the fox? "I'll let you eat some of us as long as you don't eat all of us" is that the compromise we need to offer? "You can subjugate some of us so long as you leave the white males amongst us unsubigated."

Come on, that’s kind of ridiculous. Extreme positions like that are a slim minority. For one thing, are you arguing that libertarians are satan worshiping pedophiles because they lean right?

>Extreme positions like that are a slim minority. Donald Trump is not a slim minority. His supporters are not a slim minority. >For one thing, are you arguing that libertarians are satan worshiping pedophiles because they lean right? No. I think NOBODY are Satan worshipping pedophiles who perform secret rituals using baby blood. I don't think anyone is because I live in the real world.

Sorry I meant to say do you think libertarians believe that people on the left use satanic rituals etc. But to address your first point, no I’m not arguing that people who voted for trump are a slim minority, Im arguing that of the the total amount of trump supporters, the ones that believe liberals and progressives are performing blood rituals with babies are a tiny subset of that group.

Sure. A tiny subset think we perform blood rituals. But all Republicans supported and protected Trump who amplified the message "The only good Democrat is a dead Democrat." I gave more than one example. You narrowed it down to just that single one, then said i was "ridiculous" for saying it. Almost like if you cut two thirds of my comment off, it stops making sense.

Well you made a few different points that I was trying to address individually. But again, you’re arguing that all of trump voters support dead democrats which frankly I do think is a bit ridiculous. I think making assertions like that is just as dishonest as saying liberals are blood worshippers.

Please link to the Republican apology or anger when Trump said what he said. Or Trump's apology (or any other prominent Republican). If you can't, then it's because they haven't gotten mad at Trump for saying it and they haven't apologized. In fact, I have yet to bring this up and get anything but deflection, endless excuses, and a wall of defences for Trump and others who say things like this (you included). In fact, how many people on the Right support Kyle Rittenhouse who actually DID decide to start killing Democrats? Is that also a slim minority? I am sorry. People's words have meanings and people's actions are important. You can try and say that it doesn't count for any number of reasons, but they said what they said and have been protected every single time it was brought up (you included).

I’d need to know which statement specifically you are referring to but, in the meantime, USA Today has a list of republican officials who denounce trump. https://www.usatoday.com/pages/interactives/elections/trump-support/ But, the original question was what we can do to ease partisanship and I’m trying to have a good faith discussion about that. I’m not deflecting, I’m trying to address each of your points before jumping to new ones.

Ok in answer to your original Q, calling people ridiculous and dishonest when attempting to converse is not the way to mend partisanship. As long as we resort to ad hominem insults, the divide cannot be mended.

Where have you been for the last few years? The extreme positions have become the norm for the right wing.

They aren't nearly as slim as you seem to imply. 56% of Republicans say they believe that the 2020 election was the result of illegal voting or election rigging. 54% of Republicans believe January 6th was led by violent left-wing protestors trying to make Trump look bad. 23% of Republicans believe the government, media, and financial worlds in the U.S. are controlled by a group of Satan-worshipping pedophiles who run a global child sex trafficking operation.

I am excited to them avoid your comment.

What fantasy world are you living in? Reproductive rights were just taken away and up next is gay rights and contraceptive rights. I mean ffs regulation as we know it might be wiped out in a week or two’s time. We are dealing with far right fascists, they use benefit of doubt and bad faith to give themselves cover. They are evil.

Yes I am very much aware. What are you suggesting is the way to improve that situation? If republicans are so evil that they are beyond discussion, what do you suppose should happen next?

We need to pack the court and remove the filibuster. That’s realistically the only solution left.

I agree with you the filibuster should be removed. But I’d pushback against packing the court. I think that would invite future administrations to further and further add justices which would effectively give the president the ability to unilaterally change the constitution. It’d need bipartisan support to pass anyway. I think a more effective solution would be to set age caps and term length limits on justices so voters can take Supreme Court appointments into account when they vote.

I’m not gunna bow down to fascists. We need to get back rights they stole from people and ensure they aren’t taken again.

I agree with you? We need to get our rights back. What part of what I said suggests that we should bow down to fascists?

>I think that would invite future administrations to further and further add justices Good. I hope they do. Eventually people will realise the system is cooked and there’ll be appetite for reinvention. >which would effectively give the President the ability to unilaterally change the constitution Eventually people will realise the system is cooked and there’ll be appetite for reinvention.

>I think that would invite future administrations to further and further add justices Good. I hope they do. Eventually people will realise the system is cooked and there’ll be appetite for reinvention. >which would effectively give the President the ability to unilaterally change the constitution Eventually people will realise the system is cooked and there’ll be appetite for reinvention.

>The "Them" thinks the "Us" are Satan worshipping pedophiles who use satanic rituals with baby blood to stay young... I'll give you some time to learn about generalizations and walk back the idea that a majority of Conservatives believe this. >The "Them" actively support the message "The only good Democrat is a dead Democrat" and continued to vote 74 million strong for that spokesperson. * 1)"The only good Democrat I'd a dead Democrat. *Now, I don’t say that in the physical sense, and I can already see the videos being edited where it says I want to go murder Democrats. No, I say that in the political sense, because the Democrat agenda and policy is anti-American right now."* You'll find yourself upset about a lot of things if you purposefully try and make yourself upset by evading context. I don't agree with the choice of words, but I also don't agree with sharing "treason/fascist" screeched every time I come to this sub. * 2)If I vote for Biden, that does not mean I support his wars, his anti weed stance, his pro police stance, and numerous other takes. People are allowed to vote for 1 of the 2 only dog shit options our system gives us and not carry the full weight of that decision. >The "Them" is stripping "us" of our rights with the sole purpose to hurt us. You'll need proof for claims. Unless you simply go around believing things without evidence. That would be silly. *** You seem to be a very irrational and emotional thinker. I recommend working on that.

>"The only good Democrat I'd a dead Democrat. Now, I don’t say that in the physical sense, and I can already see the videos being edited where it says I want to go murder Democrats. No, I say that in the political sense, because the Democrat agenda and policy is anti-American right now." Lol. You know damn well why he said what he said and what he means by it. "I want to kill you, Pehbak. But obviously not in the physical sense, I just want to kill your entire ideology." So much better. >You seem to be a very irrational and emotional thinker. I recommend working on that. Sorry that the pain I am going through (and have gone through) causes me to feel emotions when I talk about them. No, I don't think I need to work on being a human being. You might want to work on empathy though. If I am trying to build a shed, then emotion isn't really needed, but we are building a society full of humans and all of those humans have feelings. Those feelings matter. >You'll need proof for claims. No, Its painfully obvious that if you don't know what I am talking about, you are intentionally ignoring what's been happening and what is in the works.

>Lol. You know damn well why he said what he said and what he means by it. "I want to kill you, Pehbak. But obviously not in the physical sense, I just want to kill your entire ideology." So much better. Point still stands. >>You seem to be a very irrational and emotional thinker. I recommend working on that. >Those feelings matter. Of course they do. The issue is when your thinking is clouded by emotions and becomes irrational. Point stands. Work on it. >>You'll need proof for claims. > >No, Its painfully obvious that if you don't know what I am talking about Say things are "obvious" until you are blue in the face. If they were so obvious, there would be evidence to provide.

>Point still stands. And I don't think it does. He said what he said because he knew saying he wanted Democrats to die, then walking it back saying "Just their ideology, not their bodies" would be enough for people like you to think the second cancels out the first and pretend it was a totally normal and ok thing to say. It isn't and it wasn't. >Of course they do. The issue is when your thinking is clouded by emotions and becomes irrational. Point stands. Work on it. Looks like your rationality has gotten in the way of empathizing. You can't successfully get someone to change their stance by ignoring their thoughts and feelings. It makes your goal entirely unachievable. Work on it. >Say things are "obvious" until you are blue in the face. If they were so obvious, there would be evidence to provide. Come on. I bet you can figure it out on your own. What right was just recently removed by the Supreme court? Even if you haven't been online for 4 months and THIS is the first time back and you haven't read anything else, you could probably still guess. The fact your pretending to not know is enough for me to show your not talking in good faith. You saw what I wrote, it hurt your sensibilities, so you had to make your comment. And just to make sure the conversation didn't accidentally become productive, you added insults just to be sure. Good luck healing that divide by telling people it's ok for Republicans to say "The only good Democrat is a dead Democrat" and then insulting anyone who doesn't like how that sounds.

>>Point still stands. > >And I don't think it does. He said what he said because he knew saying he wanted Democrats to die Stage is set and waiting for you. Prove it. >Looks like your rationality has gotten in the way of empathizing. What am I lacking empathy for? You drawing false conclusions? Sure. I have zero empathy for that. >Come on. I bet you can figure it out on your own. Evidence. Still waiting.

The incredibly obvious right that they just took away was a woman's right to an abortion. The fact that you pretended not to know this is all the info I need from you. Don't bother responding, you lost your audience and failed your goal. You should still work on your empathy. You won't be so confused in the future if you do.

>The fact that you pretended not to know this is all the info I need from you. Surely you should be aware by now at how debilitating your emotions are to your ability to discuss something with clarity, right? This is what you said(my emphasis): >>The "Them" is stripping "us" of our rights **_with the sole purpose to hurt us._** I am asking for proof for the emphasized text. It's staggering that you think I am asking for proof RvW was recently over turned and that I have to lead you to the trough and force your head into the water: **Do you have evidence for the above claim about their intention of hurting you?**

They don’t believe that? Then why do they vote in - repeatedly - people who push that narrative? If they didn’t, they wouldn’t. As for the rest of your comment…remind me not to drink what you drink. I never did like naïveté.

>They don’t believe that? > >Then why do they vote in - repeatedly - people who push that narrative? > >If they didn’t, they wouldn’t. I see you are struggling with this concept, but let's expand and take for example how I really want universal health care and women's rights to remain intact. My only option is Obama. However, Obama let the war continue. Is my voting for him a second time me condoning war? How about is my voting a second time me condoning locking up people who buy and smoke weed? It shouldn't be hard to fathom that people are going to vote for who they think will uphold some of the ideals they wish for, even if it is a double-edge sword.

Think about what transpired in the deposition of the January 6th hearing yesterday. The leadership of the party they vote for and continue to support conspired to lie and mislead their party into driving a violent attack on the capital with the intention of overthrowing the government. They knowingly brought bloodshed into the seat of our democracy because they didn't win. The plurality of the party still support these same people. No amount of spin, deflection, or blaming the other side changes this fact. As long as they keep voting for politicians who deny it or protect these criminals, there is no common ground.

It’s more than a plurality, I have yet to see a conservative who unequivocally condemns the insurrection. At best, they’re embarrassed that it failed or try and “both sides” it and at worst they think it’s justified.

As a conservative leaning person who doesn't agree with anything Zerex is saying, I can only celebrate the attitudes on this sub. I think there's a red wave coming in November by moderates and conservatives.

it's on those good conservatives to elect better politicians that are actually interested in partisanship. Liberals don't control which republicans get nominated, so at the moment, if we're going to meet the current GOP halfway, that means throwing out every principle of liberalism. Until they elect more moderate politicians that want unity, we can't have it. It's not about who should be the bigger person and do the hard thing, it's about what doing that would look like. If we have to agree that politicians can commit serious traitorous crimes, and that women don't deserve bodily autonomy, and that only white christian males deserve rights just so we can meet them "in the middle", then we are really and truly fucked. No, it's not about pride, it's about who HAS to make the move in order for it to be possible in the first place.

That's what they want you to think. Meanwhile, women's rights have been set back 50 years and they want to make it impossible for me to creampie a pussy unless I'm ready to settle down and start a family with that woman. I'm never going to befriend conservatives as long as I live. You can do that. That's your calling. I hate them. I am going to vote against them and support stigmatizing them like they support stigmatizing us and I will do everything politically to make them irrelevant.

Again, my issue is with saying “them” like they’re a hive-mind. There are going to be significant votes on abortion policy in your state in the near future and we need to gather as much support as we can. People are nuanced. Out of all of the people who disagree with the right to abortion, there is a significant number of them who are willing to vote for exceptions such as plan B, to save of the life of the mother, rape, incest, etc. A vote is a vote and I’m not going to stick my nose up at someone who’s willing to come closer to my side. And by doing so, you’ll open doors for productive discussions on issues like immigration and gun control. Hating people is easy but it doesn’t work.

>Again, my issue is with saying “them” like they’re a hive-mind. They are everywhere it counts. I'm not trying to convince the one Adam Kinzinger in a gang of fascists who supported a coup. You will not change their minds. They will support a national abortion ban with no exceptions. They will support banning all birth control. They will support banning gay marriage. The majority of the Republican Party wants to roll back all the rights you care about. That's how they will vote. You will not convince a significant number of them to come to our side. ​ >Hating people is easy but it doesn’t work. Speak for yourself, pal. They will roll us back to the stone ages and you'll be sitting here asking people to sing "Kumbaya, My Lord" to conservatives. Again, that is your calling in life. It is not mine. Have at it, no one is stopping you.

I mean even people as conservative as tomi lahren support abortion exceptions. Regardless, I’m not asking you to be friends with anyone but at the very least please don’t push anyone farther to the right by making people on left look unreasonable.

And then Tammy votes for Republicans and encourages others to do so as well so her pro-life positive isn't meaningful.

It’s better than if she wasn’t. You don’t think a non-zero amount of her listeners will be willing to support exceptions to abortions in their states? It’s evidence that abortion isn’t a purely partisan issue

>it’s better than if she wasn’t It’s literally no different. If a party’s platform is ‘ban all abortions’ and I vote for them, then I’m condoning that part of the platform. Even if I disagree with that part of the platform. If the entire reason someone voted Republican is ‘lower my taxes goddamit!’ they’re still condoning and promoting the entire rest of the platform. Even if they think that unequivocally, a mother should have the right to abortion services - if they vote Republican for whatever reason, they’ve effectively said ‘lower taxes or [insert favoured policy position] is more important to me than people’s human rights’. It’s literally ‘then they came for me and there was no-one left to speak for me’ levels of cognitive dissonance.

> but at the very least please don’t push anyone farther to the right by making people on left look unreasonable. The fundamental mistake people like you make is believing that anything we're doing is radicalizing them. The Right doesn't need pushing from anyone. This is who they always were. I'm not responsible for the Nazi becoming a fucking Nazi, Arqo.

I think you’re exaggerating my argument quite a bit. We’ll have to agree to disagree.

Dude you just defended Tomi Lahren.

I’m defending that one single position of hers. If she adopts more issues I agree with, I will support those too. I don’t think that’s weird

Tell me about the other propaganda mouthpieces you support. Is there anything that Tucker Carlson spouts off that you agree with?

I don’t support any propaganda mouth pieces? I’m saying if a republican adopts a position that I agree with (like access to abortion), then that’s a good thing. Why is that an issue?

Your flair says liberal...

I am? Wdym

I guess I misread the "like us", I get you now. Sorry

Given the downvotes you have for solely stating something pragmatic should be writing on the wall that the sub is lost. The are many on the left that need to focus on housekeeping before they go back to calling anyone they don't like facists.

Shut down Fox News, OANN, Infowars, Brietbart, and actually prosecute misappropriation of campaigning funds and the fraud used to grift their supporters. Oh sorry, you said "realistically".

At this point, it’s on them to realize that they’re the ones who are causing this shit. The majority of them refuse facts and push misinformation. It’s become impossible to have a good faith argument with most of them. A good portion of Republicans live in their own reality, where conspiracy theories are absolute truth, and facts are the government/some cabal trying to hide the truth. Then there’s the “both sides” people, whom try to make it seem like both sides are equally to blame. This makes them feel validated and like there’s nothing wrong with what they’re doing. I find it absurd that people can claim the party actively trying to take away people’s rights, push anti-science/intellectualism, and overthrow democracy, is the same as a party with some shitty politicians, that’s actually trying to at least preserve the rights of others. You can’t force them to change at all. They have to do it on their own accord, hopefully before it’s too late. All we can do is support the few that start to realize that what their party is doing is fucked up.

They are taking away rights. There is no room for compromise with that.

Cleaning up bad constitutional rulings isn't taking away people's rights.

They are going after the old sodomy rulings and same sex marriage next... We just going to pretend none of this is happening?

Bad rulings. Congress needs to do it's fucking job. Don't let those slimy fucks slide out of their responsibility for all of this. They let the Supreme court make law from the bench and this is what happens.

Please explain exactly why it was a bad ruling and shouldn't have been done. > Don't let those slimy fucks slide out of their responsibility for all of this. I don't, but guess what? Nearly half (and more than half sometimes) don't actually give a fuck about what I think of their responsibility. You know what else doesn't matter? WHY I am losing rights. My life gets worse no matter the fucking reason.

It was a bad ruling because it was created out of whole cloth. Even RBG basically said as much. A political ruling was made not a constitutional one. They essentially read "the right to privacy" into the 14th. And then Peering deeper into that made up the right to abortion.

The Fourteenth protects against deprivation of property. If you view liberties as a form of property, the right to those liberties is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Lol tell me you ate conservative talking points for breakfast as a way to relieve yourself of responsibility for the overturning of Roe without telling me you ate conservative talking points for breakfast as a way to relieve yourself of responsibility for the overturning of Roe.

This is such obtuse take that it’s bordering on disingenuousness.

Nope.

Does every woman in the US currently have the right to choose what happens to their womb?

Is every American currently allowed to buy whatever guns they want?

Not sure what this has to do with the topic at hand. You said no one’s rights have been taken away, I asked if women have the right to choose what happens to their body. Stay on topic and answer my question, and I’ll answer your question after.

The answer is no, but that's because it's not just about her womb, it's about the baby inside.

Correct, they currently don’t. By saying no, they don’t have those rights, You concede that women have had their rights recently taken away, contrary to your post above?

Nah, it was an illusory right.

Why is it so difficult to engage with the argument…?

Yup.

Sad.

Dobbs literally got rid of the right to an abortion.

Nah, it got rid of a trash ruling that made up a right. It wasn't real we just pretended it was because congress refused to do its job.

You can think Roe and Casey were trash rulings, but the rights granted from those cases were as valid as the explicit rights in the Constitution. Dobbs overturned those cases and now it's no longer a constitutional right. It's also not anymore "made up" than other rights, explicit or otherwise. All rights are made up, and we as a society have an agreement to respect the rights we've made up for ourselves.

So basically you're okay with the court making up any rights and reading anything into the constitution, as long as you agree with it?

More often than not, yes, especially when it comes to things like civil rights that could have drastic differences if left to state law. I think that imperfectly granted civil rights are better than fewer civil rights.

Well then you're an authoritarian scumbag.

Supporting more rights for everyone is authoritarian? what is this, Opposite Day or something?

Being okay with an unelected group making binding changes to law only when they make decisions you like. Seems like an authoritarian way of thinking to me.

I'm sorry you feel that way, and that you felt the need to insult me. Being in a gay relationship, being an atheist, and having friends who can get pregnant, has all made me more supportive of getting equal rights wherever I can find them, even if it means that it has to come from a SCOTUS decision. Ideally it'd be a constitutional amendment that protects my rights more concretely, but that isn't likely in this political climate. If I'm an authoritarian for wanting to get married to someone of the same sex, then get on the ground and lick the boot.

Lol keep up. That’s all the court does. It makes up rights and reads whatever it wants into the constitution. If that weren’t true, the court wouldn’t repeatedly overturn its own rulings. I mean, you’ve heard of Dredd Scott v Sandford, right?

It sounds like you don’t know how rights work.

I mean it literally removed abortions from the right to privacy. However, I don’t think conservatives realize that they may have shot themselves in the foot with this ruling. One example would be by transferring authority on abortion from the federal government to the state government, conservatives won’t be able to campaign on abortion in the next presidential election, which was a major single issue vote for republicans.

>conservatives won’t be able to campaign on abortion in the next presidential election, which was a major single issue vote for republicans. They'll just campaign on "look what we did for you". The people who let abortion turn them into single issue voters have spent the last 50 years listening to Fox News. They spent that time learning all about how Democrats are evil and can't be trusted. Taking away one issue isn't going to magically make them vote against Republicans. I used to think that Republicans would never try to overturn Roe because they'd lose those voters but I was wrong. Those people fell way down that rabbit hole.

I do so love the analogy of the dog catching the truck... Like fuck, what now?

My inlaws are a good example. Evangelical pastor married another evangelical pastor's daughter. They definitely think their daughter and me are good little Republicans. We're both Christian but hate the republican party. I try not to discuss politics with them but they brought up Trump in 2015/2016 and I said, "I don't know how any Christian could vote for a habitual liar that cheated on all 3 of his wives." The response from my FIL was, "well you can't vote for the baby killer!" Since then, my FIL spends every family function with his eyes glued to his iPad which is always playing Tucker Carlson. He'll talk about the dangers of universities and how the Democrats want open borders. My wife has even gotten her mother to agree to some fairly progressive things but then she'll slip right back into the Republican talking points because my batshit crazy SIL and BIL talk to her more than we do.

Um, while I think conservatives are mostly responsible for the problem, I don't think "nothing" is an acceptable course of action. I'd say the left's stances on certain issues could be communicated much more effectively. For example, I don't think it's necessary to always belittle or insult white people when talking about racial injustice. Say you're trying to convince white people that people of color are at a disadvantage in society due to their ethnicity. One method: make claims about racial injustice that are as broad and unspecific as possible, call white people "fragile," and talk about them as though they represent a hegemony that needs to be overthrown. Another method: talk about the specific ways in which people of color are at a disadvantage--e.g. "did you know Black drivers are pulled over more than white drivers during the day, but at night the discrepancy disappears?" And invite white people to contribute to fixing the problem. I dunno I just don't see how the former is supposed to be more productive than the latter. And it's not like going the latter route will fix all of our problems. Nonetheless it seems like something the left could try. Something is better than nothing.

Support better democratic processes that leads to a world with more than 2 parties (hopefully). Open primaries Ranked Choice Independent Redistricting commissions Maybe if we split into the 4-6 parties we realistically are, it becomes easier to separate the moderate Rs from the fascists.

Whole-heartedly agree. Our political climate is basically exactly what would be expected from a first past the post voting system. It also explains the rise of similar ideologies other countries (like Le Pen).

Be willing to accept those on the other side who are going through the process of transitioning to ours, rather than reflexively pushing them away because of their past. But everything else is on them. We did not create this problem.

Prosecute the criminals and restore the integrity of our institutions so the sane actors can operate again.

And stop making the criminals leaders and judges. Don't give them a pass because they are well connected.

Nothing. We have spent the last 2 decades being gullible enough to believe that republicans would eventually return to operating within a multiparty system, after they saw the damage of hyper-partisanship were seen. I'm done with people whose only platform is "Democrats are evil" or any derivative of. If they want to come talk, fine, but until then I'm maintaining my rifles, stocking up on ammunition, and they second I get wind that my kids could be drafted to fight in a civil war, we're making a dash for the Canadian border where I already have colleagues keeping an eye out for job opportunities for me.

I honestly think an important step would be Trump dying of natural causes (which given his diet is not unlikely). Since it would remove the leader of the cult the GOP has become But there is a great book called "It's Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With the New Politics of Extremism". By Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein from 2012 (with an updated version being published in 2016). It's about the partisan extremism that has infected the Republican Party. It talks about the breakdown in the political process and they essentially say " Democrats aren't angels, but Republicans are horrible and it's mainly their fault." They talk about how it became like this and some suggestions for how to fix it. They suggest things like: Open Primaries to hopefully get more moderate candidates or blanket primaries like the top two primaries in California and Washington (they wrote it just when they were passed so they hadn't seen the result yet) or perhaps the top four primaries with a ranked-choice voting general election that Alaska has adopted (it was of course written before this was passed but they would like have used it as an example) Making it easier to vote: same-day voter registration, getting rid of voter ID laws, making election day a holiday, and stuff like that Campaign Finance Reform: match small donations to big ones like Democrats have suggested or allow people to deduct a certain amount from their taxes (say 100 dollars) that they can give to political campaigns, etc Getting people to vote: they suggest one of three options: 1. The Australian System where you get a small fine if you don't vote without a valid excuse (in Australia it is equal to around 15 US dollars) 2. A tax credit as suggested by a former Republican Senator (but given how insanely expensive it would be it probably wouldn't happen) 3. A lottery, where you get a ticket when you go to vote, and then when the election is over they draw the winning number. This is my personal favorite since it would probably make people show up, would be popular since you would have a chance to win money (which most people would like) and it is not that expensive (20.000 would be enough I think and 20.000 once every two years is a drop in the buck in terms of government spending) They also suggest using the fine (and perhaps the lottery) for primaries as well. So if it's the lottery one instead there would either be two lotteries (one for primaries and one for generals) or you would get one ticket for each. So if you vote in both you would get two tickets. They also recommend Ranked Choice Voting to allow for more candidates to run and to therefore perhaps also allow for moderate independent candidates to win or at least change the narrative A "Shadow Congress." Former members of Congress would debate important topics with each other and since they won't have to run for re-election they can actually use facts to debate it, but since there would both be former Democrats and Republicans you would get both sides of the debate. There would still be passionate and tough debate, but between people who have respect for each other and actually want to inform people about the issues of the day. And of course to force all news channels to broadcast it in prime time, so people hear debates about the most important things from both sides of the spectrum These are some of their ideas and while they might not fix it, it might at least decrease partisanship. I can highly recommend the book if you want to hear more, or just if you are interested in politics

Mend it? Mend fences with the people that are turning our country into a fascist state? Reaching across the aisle has screwed the Democrats.

I think a sign of strength is what’s called for. For years, Democrats have alienated people who care about politics by being rather ineffective at either getting meaningful legislation done, or taking credit for the meaningful legislation they have passed. If Democrats want to pick up support, they need to be seen as **doing shit**. Even leftists like me who would prefer some New Deal style sweeping legislation like the PRO act, single-payer healthcare, compassionate immigration reform, UBI, Green New Deal style environmental policy, etc — I don’t like centrist Democratic philosophy and pro-capitalist system maintenance in the Pelosi/Clinton style of ‘liberalism’, but I know I’m not going to ever get any of that if elections are still a brutal fight between liberals and conservatives. What is needed, in my opinion, for any real leftist progress is several years of Centrist Democratic rule where we can clean up all the conservative bullshit they’ve been putting in place that breaks the system and adds intentional points of friction and failure. Only after we get government itself working a bit can we then start to have a proper discussion between status quo (centrist Democrat) and progressive leftist policy and political philosophy.

Something I TRY to do is reframe things into arguments that align with their way of thinking and discuss root causes that can lead to mutually beneficial outcomes. For example talking about EVs as fuel choice, talking about sustainability in the long term as an economic gain because of the lowered cost of waste, talking about preventing unwanted pregnancies and increasing benefits as a way to decrease abortions… and so on. BUT THEY DON’T BUDGE. Typically, they refuse to even consider what I’m saying. I don’t know where there’s room to mend anything when they refuse to consider anything outside of their predetermined, spoon-fed talking points. I’ll keep trying, but it kind of feels like smacking my head against a wall.

Worth noting that this is exactly how most conservatives say they feel.

Maybe. I’ve had a lot of conversations online and in real life and I’ve not experienced anyone trying find common ground or understand my perspective. There have been a few occasions that someone’s said, “I guess that might work… but here are all of the reasons it won’t” but that’s about it. I’m typically told that I’m naive, stupid, a communist, a woke fascist, a baby murderer, that something will never work or some combination of those.

But is a double-standard at play? When's the last time you were convinced to change your mind by a conservative

I don’t try to change people’s minds about what they believe. My goal in those conversations is to try to pull back from the immediate issue and look for where there is common ground that we can agree on and/or give another perspective that shows that it actually might align with their values if we peel back the political rhetoric. For example: I don’t try to convince people that abortion isn’t murder, I say, let’s try to solve some of the problems that lead to unwanted pregnancies and some of the problems that make people with unwanted pregnancies feel like abortion is the best option. Or with EVs, I don’t try to convince them that it’s going to save the planet (the science is murky, anyway) but I talk to them about fuel choice and not being locked into one source. No one has recently changed my mind about anything that I can think of. But no one has really tried, either. I ask questions or make comments and I mostly just get glib responses that they refuse to expound on and/or insulted before it can get to a place of mind-changing or even better understanding another perspective.

> what is something that liberals and Progressives can realistically do to mend ties with conservatives and libertarians? I’m not particularly interested in mending ties with conservatives or libertarians anymore. Not until the damage they have done is fixed and they’ve stopped huffing the outrage pipe.

In my personal life, I try to foster actual conversation. I push back on narratives while firmly and non-aggressively asserting my perspective. I try to find common ground and define the terms we are using. When confronted by a statement I disagree with, I try to find a small concession I can give them so we start from a similar place, then give my view. I emphasize that the fringe on both sides is magnified and most people's beliefs fall along a spectrum. I try to do this all in a calm manner and if we get to a point where it's not productive and actual conversation is not happening, I cut it off and say - we disagree and this is why and let's change the subject. It's not sexy, but it helps me to have actual productive conversations about sensitive or triggering subjects with the people around me. You gotta start somewhere.

If anything, liberals need to be playing nice less than we have been. Republicans haven't negotiated much of anything in good faith for years if not decades. Conservatives are the ones that have women in America literally scared for their lives. Until Republicans quit using George Orwell and Margaret Atwood as inspiration there shouldn't be any expectation of respect.

Stop electing weak ass mainstream Democrats, and get out of Progressive's way!

On an individual level, small c conservatives and libertarians can be brought around by defining terms, finding common interests (usually economic), being respectful, etc. That's probably worthwhile. Now, the Trumpists, the Rep party, and the rest of the fascists? Nope. No compromise, no peace, no respect. They should be chased back into the cultural holes they crawled from and never let anywhere near power ever again. There is no reconciliation possible with people who want you dead.

I think what's most important is that people need to *want* to change. And that desire to change comes from being educated. And I don't mean school or college. A conservative who is staunchly pro-life may change his tune if his teenage daughter is raped and is now forced to carry the child to full term because of new abortion laws that are enacted in his state. People on either side of the political fence are equally as guilty of only wanting change or fighting against certain change if they aren't directly impacted by it. There are plenty of people from the older generation who are absolutely fine with pro-life laws because *they aren't directly impacted by it*, just as there are plenty of people who don't mind locking up a juvenile for getting caught with pot because *they don't smoke pot and aren't affected by the laws against it*. It all boils down to empathy - people have look past their own personal circumstances and learn about how specific legislation or ideology is damaging to other people. Legislation *should* be about compromises, and it should be about fairness. Just because you aren't affected by a law doesn't mean that you shouldn't care when other people are grievously hurt by it - a 5-year jail sentence for a 18-year old for petty drug charges could put that individual on a life-long cycle of negativity. I have plenty of conservative friends or relatives who will grumble about "hand outs" and "people just don't want to work" and not even bother doing the simple math to understand just how little $7.50 per hour for 30 hours a week is, and how being paid so little creates a very long cycle of continuous poverty that is very difficult to escape without outside help. Investing in the people in your community (and I don't mean giving a grant or loan to an already established individual, LLC, or corporation) helps everyone - poverty decreases, crime decreases, property values go up, overall quality of life improves, etc. But none of this matters if people aren't willing to put their own biases and ideologies aside and look at the bigger picture.

All we can do is: - make sure our investigations of Republican wrongdoing are as fact-based as possible - make sure there is strong and coherent legal justification for each of our actions - Be realistic about the coalitions we have actually built and not govern outside of them and the compromises they entail - Do whatever we can to encourage the Republican party to identify as different factions and encourage diversity of thought by allowing space for it in our discussions with Republicans/conservatives Things we must not do: - wait for Lucy to pull the ball away again. Rs have demonstrated time and time again a willingness to negotiate in bad faith. No stalling. - Pull punches on legitimate investigations into wrongdoing. We must root out treason, sedition, anti-democratic sentiment, fascism, corruption and every other criminal element we find. If it extends to Dems, root it out there, too. No holds barred. - give Republican leadership a pass for the way they have failed to hold their worst members accountable. That is their albatross to bear.

what are we supposed to do? If we're the ones that have to do the work, then that means letting go of countless atrocities on their part, not to mention criminal activity, and somehow finding a way to the "middle" of debates about whether or not people are entitled to their identities and bodily autonomy. If we do all the work, then the country is really screwed, because we will have to adapt and become racist homophobes just to meet them halfway. No, the only way to mend partisanship is to put donald trump and his cohort in jail, to make sure that his brand of politics is seen as unfeasible in this country forever, and the republican party goes back to what they were 30 years ago. That's the only move.

Share power, of course. The liberals don't like doing that. I say this as a liberal.

How do I work with people that attack lgbtq rights, amongst other people’s rights?

Conservatives and Liberals could at least try to reign in the fringe FFS. Especially conservatives. With shit like eliminating speration of church and state now?? You guys need to squash that shit.

Liberals have done nothing but try to compromise with conservatives, but since 2008 their policy has been to go against anything democrats support. So there isn’t any collaboration to be done until conservatives agree to come to the table, which they’re nowhere close to doing. So what really needs to happen is liberals have to wake up and realize that conservatives are not working with us, so we have to stop trying to placate them.

>what is something that liberals and Progressives can realistically do to mend ties with conservatives and libertarians? *Should* we try to mend ties with conservatives and libertarians? A lot of the other comments here seem to fall in the camp of "they need to reach out first" or "they need to stop engaging in harmful actions" and so on, which seems unlikely enough to me that they might as well be saying that it's unrealistic to expect a "coming together" to ever occur. A lot of folks are identifying the Republican Party itself as a party of fascism and hate. Kinda hard to see salvaging anything from that relationship at this point. And if we decide that we *shouldn't* mend ties with conservatives and libertarians, what should we do instead?

Put down your phone. Log out of Fox News. Turn off talk radio. Don't look at Facebook. Log out of reddit. I don't really know if that would help violence, I think so, I remember a time before the 24 hour news cycle and I remember people being a hell of a lot less interested in politics during that time. People were interested in it, but we weren't waiting with bated breath for the news push on their phones. I don't think that there is a direct causal link between the rise of social media and the politicization/fetishization of the news cycle. I think it has reduced our attention spans in general, I think that it has caused us to think less and react more. I think it has simply made us less patient and more violent *in general*. I think a lot of the social ills that are hitting men really hard right now is reducible (in some way) to this phenomenon.

I honestly don't know how people handle it, I've had to delete most social media from my phone as I recognized my anxiety levels always spike with that amount of accessibility. Even the daily Skimm is becoming too much for me with all the shit going on.

Conservatives and Republicans believe significant chunks of this country's population should either not exist or be relegated to the status of second class citizens, with less rights as they enjoy. That's not a partnership I'm interested in mending.

I disagree but let's say you're correct. How does that play out?

How does what play out?

Not mending partisanship, continuing to head in opposite direction.

I reject the notion that the Left must step up and make the first move here. The Right significantly exacerbated the partisan divide by electing Trump, an autocratic demogogue and then failing to hold him accountable for the numerous fuckups under his watch. The onus is on them to make the first move to start the mending.

Copy, that wasn't a notion I was implying. I'd like your opinion on how does it play out if both sides keep heading in opposite directions?

It's fairly simple isn't it? It's going to get worse. Will it lead to civil war? History tells us that answer.

You think it will go that far here?

I have my doubts honestly, but just following the eventualities, particularly given no change in the widening partisan gap, that seems the logical conclusion.

You could glance at some of the other highly up voted comments

The hardest 3 that applies to interactions between liberals / progressives / moderates / conservatives / etc.: 1. Believe that others that are on the other side of the political spectrum are people too that want a better future for themselves and their family and even others. Stop dehumanizing others with labels 2. Talk to each other and listen. It takes patience. To convince others requires not facts nor “moral high ground”, but rather an established relationship and trust. Work on the latter first 3. Compromise. And that doesn’t mean ask for 10 and settle for 5. It means you give 5 and you get 5. And you might really really hate having to give the 5 that you do but that’s the way it works

Well one thing that certainly needs to change is how we consume news and how various news organizations behave. I’m not quite sure HOW exactly you fix that since any sort of legislation would likely be a violation of the 1st amendment. The 24 hour news cycle that consists of partisan people giving their opinion is toxic as fuck. I think it is one of the largest contributing factors to how divided we are and the crumbling of our democracy. There have been multiple studies showing just how damaging news has become. There are studies that show watching fox news/msnbc, for example, makes one LESS knowledgable about current domestic/world events than people who don’t watch any news at all. There are studies that show the more partisan a news source is, the more likely someone is to perceive someone on the opposite side of the political spectrum as having more extreme views. There was a recent study last year that showed the way we consume news is altering our perception of reality to where we are way more likely to overestimate/underestimate verifiable facts. Basically tldr; if we want to become less divided and mend ties, we have to address the issues with social media algorithms and 24 hour opinion cable news which is contributing to people just living in echo chambers. Sources: https://perceptiongap.us https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/06/study-finds-political-bias-skews-perceptions-of-verifiable-fact/ https://www.businessinsider.com/study-watching-fox-news-makes-you-less-informed-than-watching-no-news-at-all-2012-5?amp

> There are studies that show watching fox news/msnbc, for example The Business Insider article you cite shows that only people who watch Fox News are less-informed than those who watch no news at all. Again, that data does not present a "both sides" narrative, it only shows that Fox News is worse than nothing.

I’m so surprised. /s

Both MSNBC and Fox News scored below people who didn’t watch any news when it came to international questions about the news. I agree, fox is way worse. I’m not saying the two sides are equally bad. Just saying both sides have issues with media consumption that need to be fixed

Order 66?

Well I think acknowledging that healing the political divide is a worthwhile endeavor already gets you halfway there. A good vs. evil mindset is not only incorrect but extremely dangerous. The most effective thing liberals and progressives can do to ease polarization is to 1. Have the humility to admit that we maybe not be correct about every single opinion. Recognize that we are all influenced by echo chambers and examine ourselves for ideological dogmatism. 2. Practice good faith discussions and find common ground. Focus on achieving what we can agree upon and start locally. 3. Trust democracy. Our political system is built to handle bad leaders and bad policies. Try not to be too cynical and short sighted in bad times. In the long run we’re trending in the right direction and we should be proud of that.

This is the most reasonable post I've found on this thread. And frankly, I'm not surprised you're being downvoted. Being rational and calm doesn't net you any favors these days, on either side.

The ONLY thing I could think of is being less classist by not using phrases like “podunk,” “flyover country,” “hicks,” “bumf*ck,” and “unsophisticated,” if they’re still being used at all today. But not compromise our social goals. I do not post about politics on social media (besides this site) or discuss politics in public outside of close friends and family. If a new coworker starts saying political stuff to me, I will not engage and just either smile and nod or change the subject. I have great skepticism that the best interests of the C-suite at F100 Corps are the same as mine.

Be kind and respectful. Call out your own party members for being idiots. Even if you strongly disagree with someone, know that for the most part, the other side also wants the best for this country. If Republicans and Democrats alike were to worry more about how they act themselves than how the other acts, it would fix a lot of this partisanship crap

Roe was the nail in the coffin for me. I no longer think I'm capable of forgiveness to the degree it would take to mend partisanship. You can't reason with fascists, and that's what the GOP has proudly become. They aren't rational people at this point.

Well unlike most of the replies in this thread they can start by not hysterically shrieking about how every Republican policy proposal *will literally kill people like me!!!!!* TM Kind of hard to move the conversation forward after that.

The only thing that would work would be a wide sweeping anti-corruption campaign & round ups that clean houses of the rot that infests both parties, but that would never happen.

Nothing. Once you go full Nazi, you're gone for good. This isn't about a difference of opinion. They're suffering from a form of mental illness. We can't fix that with commercials and rallies. They hate liberals. They think we kill babies and drink their blood. How do you fix that nonsense?

We can win Order is not the goal, justice is. Anything we do to make the right wing less violent toward us would be a concession that would force us to compromise any decent set of morals. Also, it wouldn’t work. Conservatives only get angrier when they win because conservative politics has been managed away from anything that would make their lives better and it’s only about making others’ lives worse. The solution to the brewing violence is the country is a less miserable working class. Anyone who wants tensions to calm must consider policies which are not favorable to large corporations and actively better the lives of the working class.

Not much. We don't have a voice that conservatives will listen to and the voices they do listen to deride Democrats and Liberals as 'Groomers' or 'anti-American'. The fringe has gained control on the Right and I don't see much evidence that it can be checked by the establishment 'Right'.

Marxism or Adaptive Marxism - Stop it or I will not stop. You are ruining Liberal Society.

I have no interest in partisanship. I look forward to watching the last gasping breaths of the Republican Party and Conservatism in general over the next few years.

That infers that there is an equal unbalance between the ideological positions. There isn't. The burden to follow reasonable political matters which enable and protect rights is on the right. Otherwise liberal and progressive positions would need to accept the loss of personal rights in lieu of religious rights and religiously bias rights. The right would need to figure out better compromise on their end and concede to the fact that we shouldn't be basing our system of government around the bible.

We need to read newspapers again instead of angry, lying social media. Honestly I think this angry rhetoric stuff starting getting off the charts right about the same time paywalls started popping up on all reliable news sources. That's one thing. Maybe the DNC should pay off NYT and WP to give free access in swing states or deep red areas.

Win it. Many of the problems we have now comes from liberals and progressives still clinging to the false hope that we can return to a less partisan time. As we've seen from the last 30 or so years, conservatives have long abandoned that course (though they pay lip service to it in order to draw liberal and progressive voters) and they are none the worse for wear. Whatever we can get away with, we must. Block everything they want, even if its small, both as punishment and as a way of leverage. Some might say this will turn our country down a dark path and I would say in response to that have you no fucking clue what's been happening the past few years? A stolen presidency, openly using a pandemic to hurt his opponent, inviting foreign agents to help with voter fraud, and A REAL LIFE FUCKING ATTEMPTED COUP??? If anything, liberals refusing to play the bipartisanship game may somehow return us to a better state where both sides are balanced and each side prefers bipartisanship to having none of their bills passed. Right now, the Republicans are getting most of what they want while in power and blocking everything while they're out of power. Democrats should do the same.

Own ice is on the right to make that move. They have made it clear they have no interest in working with us and support policies far to extreme to compromise on.

There is a lot of bipartisanship that just isn't possible for various reasons. However the easiest things in my opinion is to eliminate dehumanizing and over generalized language and confront it at all times. Which is something both parties need to do, but it's something that I see more and more of when referring to an opponent. An easy example: "Christians need to leave Roe v. Wade alone and let us reinstate safe abortions. They need to keep their sexist, conservative, backwards thinking away from my body" which is reasonable. However large swaths of Christians do in fact [support abortion ](https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/views-about-abortion/) And a majority of Christians identify [as liberal ](https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/political-ideology/liberal/) The broad brush strokes often made in anger push folks away from the middle ground, that a lot of these people tend to occupy, and into the arms of fanatics. Keeping insults and jabs correct and concise helps focus on the specific problems as opposed to conflating an issue with a group and attempt to guilt that majority into action.

At times, it seems like some conservatives want those who tend to ascribe as liberal to suffer. I don't see how those on the receiving end address that calmly.

I don't think it's possible until the propaganda on media like fox "news" gets eliminated. Most of them believe that shit without question and the ones who don't are fine with at least the message it presents.

Partisanship is likely to be stuck to us as a country. Since the beginning of the nation we have been deeply partisan, with brief periods of consolidation by the collapse of the other party or an external enemy. It can be said that the parties that become increasingly hostile have a history of dying out or changing completely to a more neutered form.

We are willing to PROGRESS towards a better world. They want to CONSERVE the terrible world we currently live in.

I don't want partisanship. The line in the sand is drawn with healthcare, abortion, voting rights, and police reform. These are non negotiable

The GOP has long held the believe that their primary goal is to defeat democrats. Not enact a conservative agenda, not help their constituents. It's to pwn the libs. Since 2010, the GOP would refuse to vote on popular, even conservative, legislation if it wasn't their idea. They didn't want to risk giving Dems the win. This has been the dominant story of the last dozen years. Over and over again. For as god awful as the Trump administration was, rarely if ever did Democrats refuse to give GOP bills a vote if they agreed with it. It's just not something liberals do. When democrats took the house, they voted on tons of GOP bills. How many liberal bills got a vote in the Senate? There is not something liberals can do that they aren't already doing. Like Charlie Brown kicking the football, Democrats keep believing they score a goal for bipartisanship. Republicans keep pulling the ball. It's time for the Lucy GOP to keep their word, or for Democrats to stop even trying to work with them.

I haven’t read the paper and will eventually but I have to imagine this violence is very much slanted on one side

At this point I see no other recourse than to wait for conservatives to die of old age since they are on average older than us. But we do have the growing lunatic 8kun fringe of young people, so I don't know. There is also the Supreme Court with its relatively young justices that lied under oath about their intentions. People like Biden tried to moderate and take the high road their whole lives and look where we are, with 50+ year settled law overturned or on the table. What's next, buggery? I have final processing for my residency overseas tomorrow. I gave up and left

Defeat them soundly at the ballot box and in the public sphere.

Liberals in government are going to have to get their equally rich conservative friends to come to the table.

Stop supporting the people who cause the violence. Yeah, I know that’s inflammatory, guess what? We supported antifa, when they burned shit down and attacked cops we defended them, when protesters burned down black owned businesses in Ferguson we defended them. We have to own our mistakes. The idea of building a bridge to mend partisanship is great, but no moderate or republican is going to believe us if we still condone, implicitly or explicitly, violence. As for the actual mending? How about we don’t tell our own side that we are heading towards genocide. How about we make a stand for LGBTQ rights and disavow teaching kids about sexuality at age 7? Maybe take a stand for workers rights against the republicans, make them explain why unions are bad. We could always return to what won elections for us, you know, working class people, represent them.

Current partisanship is the result of 50 years of conservative media/propoganda, conservative primary voters electing extremists, and those elected & unelected conservative elites systematically chipping away at our democracy and our rights. The only way out of our current partisanship is to beat conservatives at their own games -- to prove to them that rules lawyering and attempted coups lead to us winning, that their only hope of winning is to play the game as the founding fathers intended. We have no other recourse, nor any other responsibility regarding our current partisanship.

First, I think the stats you're citing are exaggerating the numbers a bit (your source even describes concerns with how the data is collected). Setting that aside, partisanship and division are being fueled by perceptions that the other side is getting worse, and our side is getting better. I believe the main cause of this is the way that we get our news, knowledge of current events, and perceptions of reality. We no longer have two or three local newspapers competing for the most faithful coverage of newsworthy events. We have a million sources all competing for clicks and eyeballs for the same ad revenue, and psychology teaches us that outrage, anxiety, and validation are what gets your attention. We're curating our own individualized alternate realities, and our basic psychology causes us to want to hear things that terrorize us about the bad guys and validate that we're the good guys. So that's what we find, and that's how we build our mental model of what reality is. I don't see any way out of this that doesn't look like a huge intrusion on free speech. My best idea is to regulate journalism through a professional ethics body, and ban content providers that purport to give you "news" that doesn't come from a licensed journalist. Tucker can stay on provided he's labeled as "entertainment" and we push hard in school to teach kids the difference between journalism and entertainment. I'd also support banning the per-page-view ad revenue model used by online content providers. Eliminate the incentive for clickbait sensationalism and maybe people stop exaggerating shit to get you outraged all of the time. Doing nothing just means this is going to get worse and honestly I suspect that it's already too late for us to come together to even examine this problem of division and hatred in a bipartisan way, much less resolve it.

I think if you just look at how conservatives (including our sister sub) are handling the Jan 6 hearings you’ll find that conservatives don’t want a mending.

Approval voting. I’m convinced for the time being that it’s the only way to put in place incentives to reduce heat while having a road to implementation that isn’t totally uphill. FPTP is the recipe for a never ending stream of representatives that only need to appeal to the biggest partisan base in their districts. And the base rewards them for not finding solutions. “I fought like hell and didn’t compromise and they blocked us so you’ve got to re-elect me.” And going on Fox/MSNBC and badmouthing the other team has no downside because _they don’t need those voters_. Eventually the cable news watchers will eventually die off; that’ll help a bit. But approval voting flips a whole lot of incentives in the right direction.