I may have to start cracking the skulls of folks who agree

[Orpheus]

... Agree with me, that is -- or at least nominally agree with me.

I'm a progressive (at least). I like to think I'm an Informed progressive.

But too many people who claim to be on my side of the aisle can't bother to read books, know history, or even click their own damn link, where (e.g.) the Washington Post retracted the accusation that has their unisex panties in a bunch -- 8 hours before THEY reflexively retweeted/expounded on it in ignorant outrage.

Be right on the facts or YOU'RE SIMPLY WRONG. I didn't make that rule. Reality did.

Otherwise, maybe you're just as much a kneejerk/emotional enemy of facts and reason as anyone you or I despise.

There's nothing wrong with being ignorant. I am, on a stunning array of issues, even issues where I have no excuse. It's our natural state.
Being dirty is also our natural state. Most of us pay more than rhetorical lip service to the virtues of bathing at least monthly.

[huggle]

Be right on the facts or YOU'RE SIMPLY WRONG.

But didn't your current president recently invent a third option: alternative facts?

[Lupine]

It's the era where Facebook seems to be the primary source of news in the country.

[RJDiogenes]

Otherwise, maybe you're just as much a kneejerk/emotional enemy of facts and reason as anyone you or I despise.

Indeed, and this has been an escalating problem for at least twenty years, and has reached its nadir (hopefully) in the atmosphere of alienation and division that brought us President The Donald. It's always been true to some degree, which is why I distinguished Liberal from Left Wing even as a teenager, but it's reached the point where the consequences are disastrous.

But didn't your current president recently invent a third option: alternative facts?

Alternative facts is the very definition of politics.

It's the era where Facebook seems to be the primary source of news in the country.

And a convenient place for cowardly ideologues to mouth off.

[Orpheus]

I've long since lost interest in labels.

These days, those who rant on BBSs and social media are accomplishing so little, in the least-possible-effort mode, that they are, in essence, passively supporting Those In Power.

Last month (Aug 2017), I was in a workshop of mathematicians and activists at Tufts University to discuss how to mathematically improve congressional redistricting -- and if you don't think mathematicians and hardened activists are a tough crowd, then golly, Josh, I don't even want to know you [alternative, possibly slightly less US-centric reference] "You know nothing, Jon Snow!"

Thus far this month, I've plied a congressional aide with steaks and liquor at Morton's (okay, the steaks alone were almost worth the not-inconsiderable price of admission) to get the inside skinny on the stunned myocardium (see "Takotsubo Syndrome") that passes for the primary opposition party in the US today.

My point is: my actual efforts in these last few weeks of summer has been minimal; anyone could have done as much, yet not nearly 0.1% of Americans in my general region of political belief has.

I'm not interested in fighting the Culture War. I'm interested in crafting intelligent viable policies. I'm not interested in sides. I'm increasingly less interested in winning hearts and minds for a political party that proclaims itself "the rightful majority", but acts like whipped puppies -- and TBH I've never really liked either major party. I have, since childhood, argued that the US two party system is only marginally superior to exactly one thing: the one-party systems that still existed in some major totalitarian regimes when I was a kid. Two-party is a choice between self-interested masters hiding behind a forced bundling of views: why must my view on abortion match a view on social lassez-faire, military policy, or federal vs state control? Two-party is not any kind of democratic expression of diverse personal views. It's like a shotgun wedding: "Which of my ugly, mean-spirited daughters are ya gonna marry? 'Cuz door#3 is a burial."

Yes, it's hard to effect change. It's even hard to know what to support, sometimes. When hasn't it been? Did my historical studies miss the era where the salient issue was "puppies: cute or not?"

[Edited to add: No, I didn't "pay for play" at some congressional fundraiser. I found someone who owed me a favor [people still make deals with the devil, y'know], who knew a child of a friend who was a congressional aide, whom I invited (with their SO -- always a good political move) to an expensive dinner, where I plied them with wild tales, an even more expensive bar tab and other persuasions, to hear what I presume was the straight skinny.]

[RJDiogenes]

I agree about the two-party system-- we need either no parties or a couple of hundred (which would be the equivalent of none). Which is why I advocate election reform in the form of abolishing the Electoral College and establishing ranked voting. That's the only way to make alternative parties and independents viable.