I have the same concerns that I think you're alluding to but the way you phrased that question has me more worried.
> ~ Y is not likely because of X
You're saying you were basing your argument on the fact that X ("judicial system is mostly fair and apolitical") and now that you're learning that X may not have been true you're wondering what that means about Y.
I think it's appropriate to question Y now that you're questioning X but I hope that Y has nothing to do with the decision to question X. It would be an ugly truth that you might have to live with but I hope you don't close your eyes to the reality of X because of what that could mean.
Sorry for the overuse of X/Y abstractions but unfortunately I think if we replaced the specifics in this case it would deter from the point I'm trying to point out which is if we think about the what outcomes follow a truth and we disagree with the outcomes (personally invested in arguing against that) then we might choose not to look at the truth.
That being said, idk if it's accurate to say the judicial system is not fair and very political
Let me be explicit: so many Americans, including many here on this very post, are tearing down are institutions with as much vigor as they can, all in the service of their partisan cause.
With Team Red, it's our election system is corrupt, and our judicial system is corrupt because it ruled the election system wasn't corrupt. Oh, and Congress is corrupt because it's dominated by Team Blue and Team Red traitors.
With Team Blue, it's our judicial system is corrupt, for reasons X, Y, and Z. In fact, all our insitutions are corrupt because of systemic Foo or Bar. Oh, and by the way, we're more or less the same as China.
With these kinds of attitudes, how can we expect to come out of this with our country intact? Because let me assure you, there are plenty of groups itching for a conflict to break out so that they can rebuild society in their image from the rubble.
Many of you have no conception of what it's like to live in a conflict or post-conflict zone. We're all privileged as Americans. Not because we're perfect as a country, but because we're a functioning, developed country, or at least we were before this great partisan insanity took hold:
Well the solution isn’t to gloss over it for them and just say “no the institutions ARE good.” I mean who is going to actually accept that.
If we want the other side to understand, we have to speak to them in a way that they’ll understand it.
When you say “with these kinds of attitudes, how can we expect to come out of this with our country intact?” I genuinely believe you are doing harm to your own cause because you have shown that you have an ulterior motive to honest seeking of the truth.
If I were to believe that parts of the country were truly and deeply corrupt, why would I want to remain intact with that? Don’t you cut tumors out.
Also if I didn’t know you personally, I’d probably conclude that you are someone in power trying to keep the status quo and maintain power. I’d be pretty unlikely to consider your arguments at that point.
"If we want the other side to understand, we have to speak to them in a way that they’ll understand it."
with
"If I were to believe that parts of the country were truly and deeply corrupt, why would I want to remain intact with that? Don’t you cut tumors out." and "I’d probably conclude that you are someone in power trying to keep the status quo and maintain power. I’d be pretty unlikely to consider your arguments at that point."
I was playing the role of many possible counter-arguments to the parent comment. None of the views I expressed were actually representative of me. I was saying 'if I believed...' because I think many people on the other side actually believe what I put out there and if parent wants to make change, he/she'll have to acknowledge it.
I personally don't actually believe that the country is irreparably divided and I try to bridge divides when I see it.
But I'm sure millions of americans are jaded beyond that point and take the positions I offered in my original comment.
> Also if I didn’t know you personally, I’d probably conclude that you are someone in power trying to keep the status quo and maintain power.
Ha, I'm broke because of serious chronic+acute illnesses that have bankrupted me, and not currently working. So I'd love to see a better medical system. But I've also worked in a conflict/post-conflict zone (several decades ago) so I know how much worse things can get - and that's where we're heading right now unless we can turn things around.
And tons of institutions need reform. But mostly not because of corruption, but rather poor incentives and archaic and poorly-thought-out laws. Our system is far from insalvageable.
But way to ad hominem, not engaging any further with you.
Something is amplifying dissent, and tricking us into misattributing the causes.
Personally I suspect it is just the result of information transmitting faster, and dangerous memes can parasitically reproduce within our minds and culture (a la selfish genes).
There are other reasons it could occur, but partisanship seems more like a decoy than a reason.
Yeah, I think it's social media and hyper-partisan media and government (the slow build) combined with a pandemic (the fast build). They've collided and now we're circling the toilet.
I don't see this as "team blue" vs "team red" any more. It used to be, back when team-red was confident it could control the populist tiger it was riding. But now it's team-status-quo vs team-revolution, and judging by their tactics, team-revolution would rule in a top-down authoritarian manner, where power is distributed based on fealty and relationship, rather than on process and institution like now.
> ~ Y is not likely because of X
You're saying you were basing your argument on the fact that X ("judicial system is mostly fair and apolitical") and now that you're learning that X may not have been true you're wondering what that means about Y.
I think it's appropriate to question Y now that you're questioning X but I hope that Y has nothing to do with the decision to question X. It would be an ugly truth that you might have to live with but I hope you don't close your eyes to the reality of X because of what that could mean.
Sorry for the overuse of X/Y abstractions but unfortunately I think if we replaced the specifics in this case it would deter from the point I'm trying to point out which is if we think about the what outcomes follow a truth and we disagree with the outcomes (personally invested in arguing against that) then we might choose not to look at the truth.
That being said, idk if it's accurate to say the judicial system is not fair and very political
reply