I think their point is that you can get more done with compromise than with strict adherence to your principles. Being right doesn’t mean much of shit if nothing gets done about it.
“The boat is sinking”, says the captain. The crew try to fix the boat the best they can. The captain stops them. “Let’s wait until we can fix it completely.”
The boat is sinking! Says the captain. The captain starts to fix it, but the crew stop him and say well what about the sail. E- removed an autocorrect error.
Sometimes you need to draw out the ‘inevitable end’ for a better solution to be made apparent. Grab a bucket and start throwing water overboard, we might yet make it to port.
The problem is that the other guys are the ones busy kicking holes in the boat, while the centrists share their sincere concerns that buckets are woke, and that stopping people kicking holes and repairing them can’t be done because it’s never been done.
There’s no satisfaction knowing you’re right as you start inhaling lungfulls of water - the morally correct thing to do is save everyone by throwing that motherfucker overboard if they won’t stop kicking holes abnd let you sell their hole-kicking boots to pay for a repair kit.
But the problem is it isn’t one or two people kicking holes, it’s half the damn ship. Morally correct is, again, useless when you can do nothing with it. It’s more complicated than just patching up a hole or two, it’s trying to convince a force as strong as yourself that you’ve come to the correct conclusion while they were incapable of doing the same.
The core problem is a small group of people with disproportionate wealth and political power, which they’re using to exploit the gullible masses. Both are a problem, but if you solve for one, the other solves itself. You also create the opportunity to solve… most of society’s problems.
Compromise only works if both sides are acting in good faith and acutally are trying to get shit done. If one side is actively trying to tear the whole democratic system down then it will just result in a slow decline if the other side compromises.
I said we, which can exclude you, while including me.
Clearly we don’t have a supermajority in order to circumvent the democratic systems in place to avoid the need to compromise, so if compromise isn’t possible, what is?
The Nazis only lost after several countries unified to defeat them. What would you have Poland do? France? When your only options are to lose or lose faster, compromise is the only possibility.
The Nazis only lost after several countries unified to defeat them. What would you have Poland do? France? When your only options are to lose or lose faster, compromise is the only possibility.
I said Neville Chamberlain, not the leaders of Poland. Poland had no recourse after being invaded by both Germany and Russia; and it didn’t exactly help them, did it? Had the nations of the world stood up to Germany, it’s likely they would have had to back down entirely. You’re starting at the end. Germany didn’t start off invading Poland; they invaded Austria*, then Czechoslovakia. Check out the Munich Agreement for an insight into how well appeasement works with the far right.
“At a Cabinet meeting on 8 September 1937, Chamberlain indicated that he saw “the lessening of the tension between this country and Italy as a very valuable contribution toward the pacification and appeasement of Europe” which would “weaken the Rome–Berlin axis.””
I think their point is that you can get more done with compromise than with strict adherence to your principles. Being right doesn’t mean much of shit if nothing gets done about it.
Meet me in the middle, says the dishonest man. They take a step back. Meet me in the middle he says again.
“The boat is sinking”, says the captain. The crew try to fix the boat the best they can. The captain stops them. “Let’s wait until we can fix it completely.”
The boat is sinking! Says the captain. The captain starts to fix it, but the crew stop him and say well what about the sail. E- removed an autocorrect error.
deleted by creator
Problem being the compromise usually means accepting the worst bits of the deal. So instead of a race to the bottom its just a light jog.
Sometimes you need to draw out the ‘inevitable end’ for a better solution to be made apparent. Grab a bucket and start throwing water overboard, we might yet make it to port.
The problem is that the other guys are the ones busy kicking holes in the boat, while the centrists share their sincere concerns that buckets are woke, and that stopping people kicking holes and repairing them can’t be done because it’s never been done.
There’s no satisfaction knowing you’re right as you start inhaling lungfulls of water - the morally correct thing to do is save everyone by throwing that motherfucker overboard if they won’t stop kicking holes abnd let you sell their hole-kicking boots to pay for a repair kit.
But the problem is it isn’t one or two people kicking holes, it’s half the damn ship. Morally correct is, again, useless when you can do nothing with it. It’s more complicated than just patching up a hole or two, it’s trying to convince a force as strong as yourself that you’ve come to the correct conclusion while they were incapable of doing the same.
The core problem is a small group of people with disproportionate wealth and political power, which they’re using to exploit the gullible masses. Both are a problem, but if you solve for one, the other solves itself. You also create the opportunity to solve… most of society’s problems.
Compromise only works if both sides are acting in good faith and acutally are trying to get shit done. If one side is actively trying to tear the whole democratic system down then it will just result in a slow decline if the other side compromises.
Yes, Neville Chamberlain was famously correct in compromising with Germany.
(Do I need an /s? I’ll keep that one just in case.)
Oh no, compromises can be bad so we should just retire the concept entirely. (Do I need an /s?)
Without compromise, we wouldn’t have an American Constitution.
If you’re going to use historical examples as a weapon, you’d do well to be better versed in it.
That’s funny, I don’t have the American Constitution.
I also never said not to compromise, as others here have pointed out, compromise isn’t always possible.
Unless you have some sort of alternate history where compromising with the Nazis worked?
I said we, which can exclude you, while including me.
Clearly we don’t have a supermajority in order to circumvent the democratic systems in place to avoid the need to compromise, so if compromise isn’t possible, what is?
The Nazis only lost after several countries unified to defeat them. What would you have Poland do? France? When your only options are to lose or lose faster, compromise is the only possibility.
I said Neville Chamberlain, not the leaders of Poland. Poland had no recourse after being invaded by both Germany and Russia; and it didn’t exactly help them, did it? Had the nations of the world stood up to Germany, it’s likely they would have had to back down entirely. You’re starting at the end. Germany didn’t start off invading Poland; they invaded Austria*, then Czechoslovakia. Check out the Munich Agreement for an insight into how well appeasement works with the far right.
“At a Cabinet meeting on 8 September 1937, Chamberlain indicated that he saw “the lessening of the tension between this country and Italy as a very valuable contribution toward the pacification and appeasement of Europe” which would “weaken the Rome–Berlin axis.””
That turned out well too, didn’t it?