How long will it take for all of us to just get along?

[brainhulk]

Democrats-republicans, liberals-conservatives. The division is not good for the country.

 

[interchange]

People want to. We lack a strong leader to provide a realistic version of unity. Many liberals talk about it, but as a soft criticism rather than a realistic invitation.

This board is colored by only a few conservative trolls who aren't representative of what's out there. Unfortunately in the general public there are a ton of people who get their news from an echo chamber and are otherwise pretty poorly informed and not sophisticated about their beliefs. For example, because Trump dares to say things that are taboo, he is perceived as a straight shooter and honest by a great number of people. Many identify with him as a person better than they do any other politician. Because of that, they feel empathy for him when critical media comes out and feel he's being unfairly attacked. A great many people believe that conservative media is by leaps and bounds more informative and honest than mainstream media. And this isn't from Trump crying "fake news". If you ever consume conservative media, it has long been their calling card. They report ridiculously slanted things and take pride that the MSM isn't covering it as an example of liberal bias and that they are the only sources you can trust. They state this propaganda message every 10 minutes.

These people aren't bad. They aren't really much different than the average liberal whose facebook feed is full of HuffPo clickbait. The average American is lacking in some combination of interest, time, and intelligence to gather the necessary data to understand what smells fishy.

 

[HomerJS]

A good start would be an acknowledgment of fact. If you trying to come to a consensus with someone who says 2+2=5, I don't know where to go from there.

 

[jmagg]

These people aren't bad. They aren't really much different than the average liberal whose facebook feed is full of HuffPo clickbait. The average American is lacking in some combination of interest, time, and intelligence to gather the necessary data to understand what smells fishy.

IMO, most people are good, but human nature compels to take care of family and self first. What smells fishy is the reason Trump is in the position, Including Bush.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

We;'re not going to get along but what we could have is a productive dialogue towards a constructive agreed upon goal. That's not quite the same thing because "we" are legion and so a majority consensus is the best that can ever be had. There will be outliers who will think outside of the mainstream and there should be as the majority can decidedly be flawed in its collective thinking, but to be destructive of a process because of stupidity or a malicious nature is our real problem.

 

[interchange]

A good start would be an acknowledgment of fact. If you trying to come to a consensus with someone who says 2+2=5, I don't know where to go from there.

I don't think that will ever happen. All people have a hard time seeing things outside of their own narrative.

You can seek unity through common values, though.

 

[highland145]

Don't talk politics or religion.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

People want to. We lack a strong leader to provide a realistic version of unity. Many liberals talk about it, but as a soft criticism rather than a realistic invitation.

This board is colored by only a few conservative trolls who aren't representative of what's out there. Unfortunately in the general public there are a ton of people who get their news from an echo chamber and are otherwise pretty poorly informed and not sophisticated about their beliefs. For example, because Trump dares to say things that are taboo, he is perceived as a straight shooter and honest by a great number of people. Many identify with him as a person better than they do any other politician. Because of that, they feel empathy for him when critical media comes out and feel he's being unfairly attacked. A great many people believe that conservative media is by leaps and bounds more informative and honest than mainstream media. And this isn't from Trump crying "fake news". If you ever consume conservative media, it has long been their calling card. They report ridiculously slanted things and take pride that the MSM isn't covering it as an example of liberal bias and that they are the only sources you can trust. They state this propaganda message every 10 minutes.

These people aren't bad. They aren't really much different than the average liberal whose facebook feed is full of HuffPo clickbait. The average American is lacking in some combination of interest, time, and intelligence to gather the necessary data to understand what smells fishy.

I agree with this, but I have specific memories of more than one person who's definitely in the conservative camp, stating that they appreciated Trump (when running, no idea now) for his honesty, then immediately stated that 'he's just saying what people feel', which I take an extreme issue with, because they were speaking about racism, misogyny, and xenophobia. I'll fully admit that there are times when I've been a 'soft critic' of those with opposing views of mine (I'm sure some would call it elitism or whatever), but those times there's been a reason for it.

Honestly, I think the reason why we're so opposed on things (and why angles seem so sharp) is because we've mostly come together on everything else. There aren't great rifts in fiscal policy, administrative policies, etc. Everything just seems like a big deal even though it isn't, and since we don't have big shit to fight about, we brew tempests in a teapot over every little thing. That leads to extreme views on those stupid little things (since extreme views on little things doesn't have an extreme effect, so it's passable to 50%) and you end up with Trump.

 

[Moonbeam]

People want to. We lack a strong leader to provide a realistic version of unity. Many liberals talk about it, but as a soft criticism rather than a realistic invitation.

This board is colored by only a few conservative trolls who aren't representative of what's out there. Unfortunately in the general public there are a ton of people who get their news from an echo chamber and are otherwise pretty poorly informed and not sophisticated about their beliefs. For example, because Trump dares to say things that are taboo, he is perceived as a straight shooter and honest by a great number of people. Many identify with him as a person better than they do any other politician. Because of that, they feel empathy for him when critical media comes out and feel he's being unfairly attacked. A great many people believe that conservative media is by leaps and bounds more informative and honest than mainstream media. And this isn't from Trump crying "fake news". If you ever consume conservative media, it has long been their calling card. They report ridiculously slanted things and take pride that the MSM isn't covering it as an example of liberal bias and that they are the only sources you can trust. They state this propaganda message every 10 minutes.

These people aren't bad. They aren't really much different than the average liberal whose facebook feed is full of HuffPo clickbait. The average American is lacking in some combination of interest, time, and intelligence to gather the necessary data to understand what smells fishy.

I want to look at only a piece of what you said, that people want to. I believe this is the true nature of man, that in religious terms, man is basically good rather than evil. But we know in fact that, in religious terms again, that we carry original sin, that we are sinners and actually do not want what is good, that we are in need of outside spiritual redemption. In shout, when you address and try to understand what is going on with humanity you run up against contradictions, opposites that apply at the same time, what I call paradox, the presence of which indicates that one is approaching a fundamental question, one where a resolution is possible with proper insight.

That is why I will just stick with this one part of your statement. You stated it is so that we have the desire to be united but fail and you listed some reasons. I believe the reasons you listed are true but superficial, that the key to unlocking the paradox lies elsewhere, that it is a symptom in fact that we were put down and taught to hate ourselves. This was taught to me in the form of (come here, get away} one hand beckoning and the other pushing away:

We want to be loved and when we are our self hate causes us to test the source of that love, to doubt that it is real, and to view the person who loves us as some kind of fool who should be rejected as having no sense at all. All such tests are set up, created, etc, with the intention to fail. This is what makes lovers turn into hated enemies and why so many marriages fail. We hate ourselves because we were put down as children and the pain was too great to consciously bear. It has been repressed and deeply hiden, deeply denied. It is ego that is our armament, our fraud substitute for real self respect. And this condition is practically universal. You have probably never met a single person who isn't sick with it. And as all secrets that lie at the root of paradox, its truth is hidden by its immediate unlikeliness. But as a therapist you will have many chances to see it at work in those you try to help. What can be seen in the people with the most obvious problems of lack of self esteem is actually there in all of us. The truth of this lies in your feelings. It is what we feel, that we are the worst in the world.

It is frankly the motivation never to experience this as our inner reality that makes the world evil. The last time we were able to love we were murdered for it and most will never make that mistake again. It is only the awakening or resurrection of the crucified god child within against the terror of the ego, that can reacquaint us with the fact that we had our birth and have our being in the kingdom of heaven. Everything we were taught to believe is a lie but one we had to believe to survive.

 

[DrunkenSano]

First step is the rein in the media, they are one of the major sources of division because that's what increases ratings which results in $$$. The media doesn't care about reporting news anymore, it will do anything to increase ratings. Once the media stops throwing gasoline on the forest fire, then the next step is to cull the government of the old, puppets that are holding office. There needs to be an age cap on how old you can be before you are forced to retire or can't run anymore. There also needs to be a region/district exam that each politician takes so show that they are knowledgeable about their own areas and their own people. They can't run for office without passing that test with high marks. Reform the media, reform the government, remove the old guard, and maybe we can start returning to a sense of cooperation for the betterment of this country.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

First step is the rein in the media, they are one of the major sources of division because that's what increases ratings which results in $$$.

Media's a symptom imo, they're a version of social natural selection, just doing what they do. Education is key in this regard, educated populace tends to stay off the garbage media (or at minimum they know it's garbage when they go there and disregard whatever 'version' of the message they tout). The media will follow its populace, to a more educated level, if they become more educated.

I agree with most of the rest, though I'd warn against getting rid of 'the old guard' just to get rid of them. Age caps I agree, but you need some of that institutionalized knowledge sometimes. That all depends on how far you're trying to go with it though.

 

[Stokely]

I'm not big on the labels people like to slap on others and themselves. Like most people if they are honest with themselves, I have views that span a bit of everyone's policies. Plus, reality is not zero-sum even though people want to boil it down to that. That's the first thing that needs to change, this team-ball identification bullshit.

I used to be Republican in younger days, but at some point during Clinton's terms I realized my party was toxic. I now am Independent, as I don't like the Democrats much, but the GOP and supporters have gone to places I now can't go. I can only tolerate my own extended family so long as we avoid any politics (and religion, which to them is intertwined)...and I'm sure the feeling is the same coming from them. I don't think there's much common ground to be had--in short, we are in a civil war (mostly) without bullets and I don't see this changing. To change, there would have to be a common ground established based on as close to "the truth" as we can. But pick an issue that has political weight, and invariably there will be two sets of facts thrown out. Climate change is a good example. There can't be cooperation based on two sets of facts unless its by accidental chance "We have always been at war with eastasia" is pretty much the approach to "the truth" these days...basically you make it what you want in order to fit your agenda. Personally I see one side far more active in doing so than the other, so I oppose them in every way I can, despite not exactly being in love with the other....

 

[fskimospy]

I agree with this, but I have specific memories of more than one person who's definitely in the conservative camp, stating that they appreciated Trump (when running, no idea now) for his honesty, then immediately stated that 'he's just saying what people feel', which I take an extreme issue with, because they were speaking about racism, misogyny, and xenophobia. I'll fully admit that there are times when I've been a 'soft critic' of those with opposing views of mine (I'm sure some would call it elitism or whatever), but those times there's been a reason for it.

Honestly, I think the reason why we're so opposed on things (and why angles seem so sharp) is because we've mostly come together on everything else. There aren't great rifts in fiscal policy, administrative policies, etc. Everything just seems like a big deal even though it isn't, and since we don't have big shit to fight about, we brew tempests in a teapot over every little thing. That leads to extreme views on those stupid little things (since extreme views on little things doesn't have an extreme effect, so it's passable to 50%) and you end up with Trump.

There aren't great rifts in fiscal policy? Currently one party is attempting to remove health insurance for more than twenty million people primarily due to their desire to give that money to rich people instead. I imagine a good portion of those twenty million people would consider that a major rift.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I'm not big on the labels people like to slap on others and themselves. Like most people if they are honest with themselves, I have views that span a bit of everyone's policies. Plus, reality is not zero-sum even though people want to boil it down to that. That's the first thing that needs to change, this team-ball identification bullshit.

I used to be Republican in younger days, but at some point during Clinton's terms I realized my party was toxic. I now am Independent, as I don't like the Democrats much, but the GOP and supporters have gone to places I now can't go. I can only tolerate my own extended family so long as we avoid any politics (and religion, which to them is intertwined)...and I'm sure the feeling is the same coming from them. I don't think there's much common ground to be had--in short, we are in a civil war (mostly) without bullets and I don't see this changing. To change, there would have to be a common ground established based on as close to "the truth" as we can. But pick an issue that has political weight, and invariably there will be two sets of facts thrown out. Climate change is a good example. There can't be cooperation based on two sets of facts unless its by accidental chance "We have always been at war with eastasia" is pretty much the approach to "the truth" these days...basically you make it what you want in order to fit your agenda. Personally I see one side far more active in doing so than the other, so I oppose them in every way I can, despite not exactly being in love with the other....

I think this is where most rational people live. Not really liking either side, but really, really disliking one side for one reason or another. That's a big problem because it already has your mentality set toward things you don't like vs things you do like, so you vote against a party instead of for a party. All policies follow suit. Even positive ones become 'I do x, UNLIKE MY CRIMINAL OPPONENT'S EVIL TERRORIST Y'

 

[HomerJS]

People must to be able to acknowledge their own BS. Truth and tribalism and not the same. Admitting when their "side" is wrong shows others the ability of self reflection. Not throwing stones but the right seems incapable of this.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

There aren't great rifts in fiscal policy? Currently one party is attempting to remove health insurance for more than twenty million people primarily due to their desire to give that money to rich people instead. I imagine a good portion of those twenty million people would consider that a major rift.

That's one of the larger ones, but compare it to something like The New Deal, with dozens of separate acts, new administrations, etc created that touched basically every facet of American life for a time. I can't even imagine such a thing being proposed nowadays (as it'd inevitably make things worse), much less getting it passed. The ACA (and to a greater extent universal healthcare) is A Big Deal, without a doubt, but it has a much more narrow focus than past fiscal changes in many ways.

 

[highland145]

There aren't great rifts in fiscal policy? Currently one party is attempting to remove health insurance for more than twenty million people primarily due to their desire to give that money to rich people instead. I imagine a good portion of those twenty million people would consider that a major rift.

While I don't think the Rs are going to get jack done on "affordable" HC, the last party removed affordable health care from me so you can understand why I'm a bit miffed. I don't have access to your employer HC options and taking one for the greater good doesn't pay for my kid's education or my retirement. Anyway, enough of that....

 

[HomerJS]

Perfect recent example. Misrepresenting "fact" to effect agenda...
https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/nadas-ever-gonna-to-happen-teflon-trump.2508359/#post-38931151

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

While I don't think the Rs are going to get jack done on "affordable" HC, the last party removed affordable health care from me so you can understand why I'm a bit miffed. I don't have access to your employer HC options and taking one for the greater good doesn't pay for my kid's education or my retirement. Anyway, enough of that....

I'm curious on other perspectives on this, since I only know what I know... when the ACA was released I personally hit the exchange (in GA at the time) to see how it fared against my existing policy. It was very close to identical to what my employer was offering (and the HR team was quite happy on my research) but I was 30 or so at the time, with no existing conditions or whatever. My healthcare costs were always totally reasonable... What kind of numbers were you seeing on the exchange? And why?

 

[Moonbeam]

There aren't great rifts in fiscal policy? Currently one party is attempting to remove health insurance for more than twenty million people primarily due to their desire to give that money to rich people instead. I imagine a good portion of those twenty million people would consider that a major rift.

What is the problem with that. It seems intuitively obvious that people who have money are the people who did all the right things they were taught as children, that they came from the best homes with the best moral training and grew up working hare and making something of themselves. Why shouldn't that bring a reward rather than a yoke to support the people who grew up to be nobodies? There are thoroughbreds and there's mongrels, right?

 

[highland145]

I'm curious on other perspectives on this, since I only know what I know... when the ACA was released I personally hit the exchange (in GA at the time) to see how it fared against my existing policy. It was very close to identical to what my employer was offering (and the HR team was quite happy on my research) but I was 30 or so at the time, with no existing conditions or whatever. My healthcare costs were always totally reasonable... What kind of numbers were you seeing on the exchange? And why?

Not wanting to derail and I've posted the figures before so I'll PM the #s.

 

[fskimospy]

What is the problem with that. It seems intuitively obvious that people who have money are the people who did all the right things they were taught as children, that they came from the best homes with the best moral training and grew up working hare and making something of themselves. Why shouldn't that bring a reward rather than a yoke to support the people who grew up to be nobodies? There are thoroughbreds and there's mongrels, right?

I would expect to hear that from the ultra rich as nobody wants to think their prosperity was significantly due to the good luck of being born into the right family. What's strange is that we hear it from conservatives quite frequently who aren't rich or even close to rich. Do they think they are too lazy or incapable to be wealthy or something?

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I would expect to hear that from the ultra rich as nobody wants to think their prosperity was significantly due to the good luck of being born into the right family. What's strange is that we hear it from conservatives quite frequently who aren't rich or even close to rich. Do they think they are too lazy or incapable to be wealthy or something?

Generally, those who are inclined to feel in this vein are 'bootstrap' folks, who have never had an instance where they couldn't make their own way, and since they're unimaginative cannot come up with a scenario where they were not able to make their own way. Hence they feel there's no reason why someone cannot bootstrap themselves to success as they apparently have, and so feel slighted at the notion of 'their money' going to such people.

 

[Stokely]

The whole bootstrap vs born-into-wealth thing is an example of the zero-sum mentality at work (though not saying the posters are, just people in general).

If you believe in bootstrapping, it follows that anyone not getting rich on their own is a failure.

The idea that people should try hard, and be held accountable if they don't--AND be given a helping hand to allow this to happen--is a non-starter. That's fuzzy and complicated. People like their politics like they want a playoff game, a winner and a loser with no ties.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

The whole bootstrap vs born-into-wealth thing is an example of the zero-sum mentality at work (though not saying the posters are, just people in general).

If you believe in bootstrapping, it follows that anyone not getting rich on their own is a failure.

The idea that people should try hard, and be held accountable if they don't--AND be given a helping hand to allow this to happen--is a non-starter. That's fuzzy and complicated. People like their politics like they want a playoff game, a winner and a loser with no ties.

Which is exactly why a) people need to be more educated about these measures, and b) politicians (all of them) need to knock off the 'team' mentality. As long as they're combative to a party or opponent, instead of to a policy, you cannot have a valid discussion on politics because it's too (hilariously coined) politicized.