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

[KMFJD]

'More and more it seems politics in developed countries are dividing into two camps: rational people who want to live in a functioning society and crazed pants shiatting baboons who aren't very bright and want to burn everything down and fark everyone else over. It functionally stops any nuanced debate about any kind of social progress from happening because everyone on the other end has to band together and do everything in their power just to stop the stupids from burning down their house, everyone else's house, and spraying their shiat all over everything.

I think it's time to face the fact that we've advanced technologically faster than we have socially, and some people aren't mentally or emotionally capable with dealing with the cutting edge of modern society. They want to stay in their little village, be ruled by an authoritarian strong man type leader, be uneducated, not use science and rape and pillage everyone else outside their tribe. Like the good old days. They're not ready for the next stage of human development, and I don't know how to change that.'



I thought this was worth sharing from another forum, he's got some good points.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

'More and more it seems politics in developed countries are dividing into two camps: rational people who want to live in a functioning society and crazed pants shiatting baboons who aren't very bright and want to burn everything down and fark everyone else over. It functionally stops any nuanced debate about any kind of social progress from happening because everyone on the other end has to band together and do everything in their power just to stop the stupids from burning down their house, everyone else's house, and spraying their shiat all over everything.

I think it's time to face the fact that we've advanced technologically faster than we have socially, and some people aren't mentally or emotionally capable with dealing with the cutting edge of modern society. They want to stay in their little village, be ruled by an authoritarian strong man type leader, be uneducated, not use science and rape and pillage everyone else outside their tribe. Like the good old days. They're not ready for the next stage of human development, and I don't know how to change that.'



I thought this was worth sharing from another forum, he's got some good points.

I'd argue that there's a middle ground. 'Strong' leadership is still a requirement from a social aspect for humans, that I'll never argue because we aren't socially evolved enough to accept anything otherwise, but that authority/strength can come from a place of intelligence too, it can come from a council, not a king. The 'Founding Fathers' is a perfect example of that. A group of people with the strength to say 'this is how it's going to be, because our country needs this to prosper'. Gave the enemy the middle finger, had the spine to back it up, and was willing to die for their convictions. What we see now is a handful of strong characters fighting among themselves, and a whole troop of baboons crazily throwing shit around to make noise. It looks weak because it is weak, and when that happens you rip the rug out from under your base of strength.

From that, the 'tribe' (Americans) have no choice but self-reliance, which only goes so far before you start fucking over your neighbor for an extra tuber.

 

[dank69]

Fuck you. That's when.

 

[Fardringle]

'More and more it seems politics in developed countries are dividing into two camps: rational people who want to live in a functioning society and crazed pants shiatting baboons who aren't very bright and want to burn everything down and fark everyone else over. It functionally stops any nuanced debate about any kind of social progress from happening because everyone on the other end has to band together and do everything in their power just to stop the stupids from burning down their house, everyone else's house, and spraying their shiat all over everything.

And both sides would argue that the other side is the one that you are referring to. Sadly, far too many people are convinced that their team is right about everything and the "other guy" is wrong about everything, and that simply is not true.

 

[highland145]

And both sides would argue that the other side is the one that you are referring to. Sadly, far too many people are convinced that their team is right about everything and the "other guy" is wrong about everything, and that simply is not true.

Worse is the fucks that we vote for and are supposed to represent our side/ideals/beliefs don't give a rats ass about anything but themselves. I think that is what opened the door for thumper, anyone but the establishment.

 

[Jaskalas]

Don't talk politics or religion.

Enter social media, where that party never ends.

 

[fskimospy]

And both sides would argue that the other side is the one that you are referring to. Sadly, far too many people are convinced that their team is right about everything and the "other guy" is wrong about everything, and that simply is not true.

This sort of 'both sides'-ism is dangerous thinking in and of itself. While both sides certainly display tribal behavior that causes them to dismiss inconvenient facts that behavior is not even remotely evenly distributed.

For example, less than a third of Republicans accept that climate change is real while nearly half (depending on what poll you use) think Obama is a secret Muslim who was born in Kenya. Can you describe some similarly insane positions that you think the left holds? More importantly, can you think of irrational positions that the left holds about issues as important as climate change?

 

[highland145]

Enter social media, where that party never ends.

You guys are my only social media. Happy?

 

[interchange]

What we see now is a handful of strong characters fighting among themselves, and a whole troop of baboons crazily throwing shit around to make noise. It looks weak because it is weak, and when that happens you rip the rug out from under your base of strength.

Strong and aggressive/assertive are not the same thing. Most people are generally OK but not independently assertive. Very few can be assertive without drawing their strength from social reference of shared values. And there are others which are very aggressive with their beliefs and defense of them, but that aggression is reactive to an inner sense of weakness.

Unfortunately, people who need to be led (the majority of us) have a really hard time seeing that distinction, and in the absence of an assertive leader they can identify with, they'll pin themselves to an aggressive one. If that aggressive person engages in bad behavior for which their peer group does not denounce, then they will then normalize the bad behavior. People can get pretty far away from their normal humanity by slowly going down a slippery slope before coming to grips with it, if at all.

My suggestion is this: if you think something going on is fishy, speak up. You merely need to honestly share your concern. And this suggestion is for people within their own peer group. Criticizing a different peer group only strengthens the division.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Strong and aggressive/assertive are not the same thing. Most people are generally OK but not independently assertive. Very few can be assertive without drawing their strength from social reference of shared values. And there are others which are very aggressive with their beliefs and defense of them, but that aggression is reactive to an inner sense of weakness.

Unfortunately, people who need to be led (the majority of us) have a really hard time seeing that distinction, and in the absence of an assertive leader they can identify with, they'll pin themselves to an aggressive one. If that aggressive person engages in bad behavior for which their peer group does not denounce, then they will then normalize the bad behavior. People can get pretty far away from their normal humanity by slowly going down a slippery slope before coming to grips with it, if at all.

My suggestion is this: if you think something going on is fishy, speak up. You merely need to honestly share your concern. And this suggestion is for people within their own peer group. Criticizing a different peer group only strengthens the division.

Great summary. Unfortunately that 'aggressive with beliefs' segment is *really* easy to be a part of, far easier to be aggressive than strong. Anyone can be aggressive until they get punched in the face by someone stronger than them. I see Trump as one of those people, he's always had things his way, and as soon as things are not his way, he throws a fit of child-like rage to make it fixed. He doesn't realize that in the past there's just always been someone there to either do his bidding, or bow to aggressiveness, and that doesn't fly with Govt.

 

[Stokely]

The problem with expecting or demanding politicians to examine things in depth without providing a snap judgement--they'll get primaried. "Wishy washy" will be a term used. And heaven help a politician that changes their view based on new facts, or simply one that changes their mind because they've seen the light on a particular issue. That should be differentiated from those that just shift based on prevailing winds (such as Hillary being for the Iraq War when it was easy and safe to be so...only later to be against it.)

I don't blame the elected officials, they are doing what "the people" want. And that is to provide neat little soundbite solutions.

To use Hillary again, compare what she told out-of-work working class people vs what Trump told them. He told them what they wanted to hear, and they rewarded him for it. He said they'd get their jobs back. He found boogeymen in regulations and foreign countries, but completely omitted the largest reason they lost their jobs in the first place: automation. He completely omitted the fact that even if those jobs did come back (say coal mining), they'd now be largely automated. Why would that be? Because there's no easy answer to that one. There's no "bad guy"...unless you want to blame and limit the companies themselves for putting in automation! People don't want to know that something is hard or impossible, they want you to tell them they'll do it. If it doesn't happen, blame someone else down the line. That's where we are.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

The problem with expecting or demanding politicians to examine things in depth without providing a snap judgement--they'll get primaried. "Wishy washy" will be a term used. And heaven help a politician that changes their view based on new facts, or simply one that changes their mind because they've seen the light on a particular issue. That should be differentiated from those that just shift based on prevailing winds (such as Hillary being for the Iraq War when it was easy and safe to be so...only later to be against it.)

I don't blame the elected officials, they are doing what "the people" want. And that is to provide neat little soundbite solutions.

To use Hillary again, compare what she told out-of-work working class people vs what Trump told them. He told them what they wanted to hear, and they rewarded him for it. He said they'd get their jobs back. He found boogeymen in regulations and foreign countries, but completely omitted the largest reason: automation. Why would that be? Because there's no easy answer to that one. People don't want to know that something is hard or impossible, they want you to tell them they'll do it. If it doesn't happen, blame someone else down the line. That's where we are.

And that goes back to education. If the populace, upon looking at someone decrying an otherwise rational person as 'wishy washy' were to instead say 'now hang on a second, don't call him out for changing his thoughts based on new evidence, where's your ideas beyond mud-slinging?' This of course isn't an easy change, and takes generations, but it's far favored to our existing model.

 

[Fardringle]

This sort of 'both sides'-ism is dangerous thinking in and of itself. While both sides certainly display tribal behavior that causes them to dismiss inconvenient facts that behavior is not even remotely evenly distributed.

For example, less than a third of Republicans accept that climate change is real while nearly half (depending on what poll you use) think Obama is a secret Muslim who was born in Kenya. Can you describe some similarly insane positions that you think the left holds? More importantly, can you think of irrational positions that the left holds about issues as important as climate change?

I'm particularly fond of a quote that is attributed to Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain) although there is no proof that he actually said it: "It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." Regardless of the source of the quote, I've found that it's completely true far too often, especially when it's something that people want to believe.

I try to avoid the irrational arguments as much as possible since very little good comes of them, but I'll give you one example since you asked. Please don't take this as an attempt to start an argument about which side is worse or which should be believed. I don't want to do that. I'm just giving an example...

Since the 70's (possibly before that as well), some folks on the left have been adamantly insisting - and sometimes screaming - that if we don't do something "RIGHT NOW" about the environment, then the world will end in the very near future. In the late 70's, it was declared an absolute guaranteed fact that we were going into another ice age within 20 years because of CO2 levels in the atmosphere, and lots of people bought it as "gospel" and nothing anyone else said could convince them otherwise. Around 2007/2008, Al Gore reported that some scientists had said that it was possible that the polar ice caps would be completely gone in less than 10 years, again because of those same CO2 levels in the atmosphere, and many voters on the left took that to mean - and still swear that it's true even though it's clearly inaccurate - that the ice caps are going to disappear and there's nothing we can do about it unless we spend trillions on mildly effective (or completely ineffective) government programs to slightly reduce pollution.

Extreme positions/arguments on both sides are silly and unproductive, and in many cases, actually destructive to the causes they claim to promote. Most of the time, the best answers are somewhere closer to the middle.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I'm particularly fond of a quote that is attributed to Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain) although there is no proof that he actually said it: "It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." Regardless of the source of the quote, I've found that it's completely true far too often, especially when it's something that people want to believe.

I try to avoid the irrational arguments as much as possible since very little good comes of them, but I'll give you one example since you asked. Please don't take this as an attempt to start an argument about which side is worse or which should be believed. I don't want to do that. I'm just giving an example...

Since the 70's (possibly before that as well), some folks on the left have been adamantly insisting - and sometimes screaming - that if we don't do something "RIGHT NOW" about the environment, then the world will end in the very near future. In the late 70's, it was declared an absolute guaranteed fact that we were going into another ice age within 20 years because of CO2 levels in the atmosphere, and lots of people bought it as "gospel" and nothing anyone else said could convince them otherwise. Around 2007/2008, Al Gore reported that some scientists had said that it was possible that the polar ice caps would be completely gone in less than 10 years, again because of those same CO2 levels in the atmosphere, and many voters on the left took that to mean - and still swear that it's true even though it's clearly inaccurate - that the ice caps are going to disappear and there's nothing we can do about it unless we spend trillions on mildly effective (or completely ineffective) government programs to slightly reduce pollution.

Extreme positions/arguments on both sides are silly and unproductive, and in many cases, actually destructive to the causes they claim to promote. Most of the time, the best answers are somewhere closer to the middle.

Humans tend to believe the first thing they hear from a perceived source of authority (which was advantageous to us as a species ~3000+ years ago). That's how data trend + theory becomes fact to a person who doesn't understand how such things work. Then that person goes on to authoritatively state a_thing as a fact, to which other people listen.

 

[Jaskalas]

You guys are my only social media. Happy?

Imagine if every post on P&N beeped your phone, and you actually bothered to read it. There'd be no escape from the madness.
Now picture a world consumed by that.

 

[highland145]

Imagine if every post on P&N beeped your phone, and you actually bothered to read it. There'd be no escape from the madness.
Now picture a world consumed by that.

It already is. Perk probably even texts. I'm one of the last Luddites on this site.

 

[vi edit]

I'm particularly fond of a quote that is attributed to Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain) although there is no proof that he actually said it: "It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." Regardless of the source of the quote, I've found that it's completely true far too often, especially when it's something that people want to believe.

I try to avoid the irrational arguments as much as possible since very little good comes of them, but I'll give you one example since you asked. Please don't take this as an attempt to start an argument about which side is worse or which should be believed. I don't want to do that. I'm just giving an example...

Since the 70's (possibly before that as well), some folks on the left have been adamantly insisting - and sometimes screaming - that if we don't do something "RIGHT NOW" about the environment, then the world will end in the very near future. In the late 70's, it was declared an absolute guaranteed fact that we were going into another ice age within 20 years because of CO2 levels in the atmosphere, and lots of people bought it as "gospel" and nothing anyone else said could convince them otherwise. Around 2007/2008, Al Gore reported that some scientists had said that it was possible that the polar ice caps would be completely gone in less than 10 years, again because of those same CO2 levels in the atmosphere, and many voters on the left took that to mean - and still swear that it's true even though it's clearly inaccurate - that the ice caps are going to disappear and there's nothing we can do about it unless we spend trillions on mildly effective (or completely ineffective) government programs to slightly reduce pollution.

Extreme positions/arguments on both sides are silly and unproductive, and in many cases, actually destructive to the causes they claim to promote. Most of the time, the best answers are somewhere closer to the middle.

1. Please post more often. This was a great post.
2. We have had it beat into our heads that normal isn't normal. We *HAVE* to be radicalized and identify with side A or side B. Being moderate isn't sexy. You're just labeled as DINO or a RINO or whatever the term is for the day. We've thrown all sensibilities out the window and have put all efforts into backing a party rather than platform.
3. I have no idea where we go from here short of some kind of fractured representation system like the English parliament. The bi-partisan platform has been weaponized and used for more destruction than for good.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

3. I have no idea where we go from here short of some kind of fractured representation system like the English parliament. The bi-partisan platform has been weaponized and used for more destruction than for good.

Honestly, I see the Democratic party fracturing between a 70% 'classical democrat' somewhere to the right of Bernie, and 30% toward Bernie's end. Moderate (aka rational) Repubs jump ship to the 70% side, and we have a very centrist Democrat on next election cycle that sweeps the board. Things will normalize after that, but Repubs won't recover in their current incarnation. Either they swing wildly left to recover from this madness, or they become as relevant as the Tea Party and something new forms.

 

[Commodus]

We can start getting along again when Trump is out, and his supporters acknowledge some semblance of reality again.

For goodness' sake, these people support a President who lied about his inauguration crowd size because of his fragile ego. They reject the reality of climate science and don't mind a President who's trying to prop up the fossil fuel industry despite obvious signs that it's in an irreversible decline. They're willing to scapegoat entire religions and countries (and let's be honest, races) for the country's problems. And of course, they don't seem to have an issue with the President admitting to having fired the FBI director in a bid to thwart the Russia investigation.

I believe a rational, moderate right-wing demographic is out there... but right now, it's either a minority or is being drowned out by the mindless supporters who see politics as a game, and will enthusiastically support Republican corruption and lies so long as they feel their side "won." It's important to stress that there are people on the left who give the Democrats a free pass as well, but it's nowhere near as blatant and widespread as it is on the right at the moment. Get back to a world of logic and truth and we'll talk.

 

[ivwshane]

I'd guess things would start to change once social media starts policing itself to remove bots and false stories.

People have created bubbles for themselves and surrounded themselves with like minded people and when you do that reality starts to get distorted.

I don't think anything changes in the short term though at least until the baby boomer generation starts dying off. I've been able to have reasonable conversations with younger generations even when we have different opinions, I can't really say the same is true for the older generation. They seem more interested in starting their opinion instead of seeking some sort of dialogue.

 

[interchange]

We can start getting along again when Trump is out, and his supporters acknowledge some semblance of reality again.

For goodness' sake, these people support a President who lied about his inauguration crowd size because of his fragile ego. They reject the reality of climate science and don't mind a President who's trying to prop up the fossil fuel industry despite obvious signs that it's in an irreversible decline. They're willing to scapegoat entire religions and countries (and let's be honest, races) for the country's problems. And of course, they don't seem to have an issue with the President admitting to having fired the FBI director in a bid to thwart the Russia investigation.

I believe a rational, moderate right-wing demographic is out there... but right now, it's either a minority or is being drowned out by the mindless supporters who see politics as a game, and will enthusiastically support Republican corruption and lies so long as they feel their side "won." It's important to stress that there are people on the left who give the Democrats a free pass as well, but it's nowhere near as blatant and widespread as it is on the right at the moment. Get back to a world of logic and truth and we'll talk.

Why not? Why can't we cooperate when everyday Republicans have learned to support a healthier interaction?

Osiris did a good job illustrating how unsafe it is for someone to be open minded and admit their mistakes along the way 'lest they be viewed as wishy washy.

Your proposal seems a continuation of that. You can't recognize you got in over your head. You must repent and accept that you are illogical and self interested prior to engaging in political discourse.

That is the problem itself. Trump is a symptom of partisanship not the root cause.

I believe we must be welcoming. And that we can do this by collaborating on values instead of facts or policies.

After all, your average Trump supporter just wants to feel that their personal beliefs are not constantly under attack. They don't want to feel made to give handouts to those that don't respect their hard work, culture, etc. They want freedom to express their beliefs even if they are wrong.

 

[highland145]

I'd guess things would start to change once social media starts policing itself to remove bots and false stories.

Good luck with that when the media is pushing biased stories. I watch CNN and Fox in the AM. They will report on the same topic but you would hardly know it. Not that either story is false, they just report the parts that they want to.

 

[vi edit]

After all, your average Trump supporter just wants to feel that their personal beliefs are not constantly under attack. They don't want to feel made to give handouts to those that don't respect their hard work, culture, etc. They want freedom to express their beliefs even if they are wrong.

I think someone needs to run on the platform of "Political Respect" rather than "Politically Correct". It's just as you say. You don't berate someone for their ideas. Give it an honest understanding and try to respect why someone feels/thinks the way they do.

This was an interesting quiz.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/do-you-live-in-a-bubble-a-quiz-2/

I scored a 65 because of most of my childhood and early to late teenage life. I grew up in ground zero of many heavy "Trump" areas. I do get it. But I also understand that you just can't sit on your hands and think that electing an official will magically make that better.

 

[ivwshane]

Good luck with that when the media is pushing biased stories. I watch CNN and Fox in the AM. They will report on the same topic but you would hardly know it. Not that either story is false, they just report the parts that they want to.

CNN already polices itself, fox has started. I'm not worried about a medium that has standards and competition. Social media has none of that.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I think someone needs to run on the platform of "Political Respect" rather than "Politically Correct". It's just as you say. You don't berate someone for their ideas. Give it an honest understanding and try to respect why someone feels/thinks the way they do.

This was an interesting quiz.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/do-you-live-in-a-bubble-a-quiz-2/

I scored a 65 because of most of my childhood and early to late teenage life. I grew up in ground zero of many heavy "Trump" areas. I do get it. But I also understand that you just can't sit on your hands and think that electing an official will magically make that better.

I got a 50, a lot of those were very nonsensical though, and I think relies far too much on television as grounds for information. For instance, there wasn't a single question in any way, shape, or form related to the internet, where I get 99% of my information about goings-on in the world.