CDZ Have we literally lost the ability to solve our own problems?

[Circe]

I don't know what fixes this. My best guess is that it would take some kind of event, and then a national reaction to it. Some kind of momentum that would wake people up.

And example of that is the "Me Too" thing that arose from essentially one case. There has to be some kind of driver.

Whoa, good example! I'm still trying to get my mind around this #MeToo thing: an historical event, maybe. Too early perhaps to come to any conclusions, it has to play out more. That is a win/lose no-compromise attack, but it certainly is a change driver.

 

[Anathema]

Communication. Cooperation. Creativity. Everybody wins, some.

My apologies if I have not been clear. I do not advocate compromise under any circumstance. I simply see no sense in arguing with those too dense or blind to see the correctness of my beliefs.

 

[Mac1958]

Communication. Cooperation. Creativity. Everybody wins, some.

My apologies if I have not been clear. I do not advocate compromise under any circumstance. I simply see no sense in arguing with those too dense or blind to see the correctness of my beliefs.

No, I understand. I just stole a specific sentence to help myself make a point.


.

 

[Anathema]

]No, I understand. I just stole a specific sentence to help myself make a point.

Even when the rest of the post providing context for that sentence make the exact opposite arguement?

Yet people wonder why discorse is dead in this country.

 

[Mac1958]

]No, I understand. I just stole a specific sentence to help myself make a point.

Even when the rest of the post providing context for that sentence make the exact opposite arguement?

Yet people wonder why discorse is dead in this country.

You said this:

We have turned conversation into combat rather than communication by requiring there to be a winner and a loser at the end of things. THAT is our problem.

Now, did you mean that?

If you did not mean what you wrote, I apologize.
.

 

[dblack]

I think the best, most long-lasting answers come from all sides. Kind of like our Constitution.

The whole point of the Constitution is to avoid situations like this. The founders knew that unlimited democracy inevitably devolves into mob rule. So they set down rules to ensure that the rights of the minority weren't subject to a vote. These rules made it possible to peacefully accept the election of a person or faction you oppose; the new leadership might appoint a postmaster you don't like, but they won't have the power to radically impact your life.

That's what's changed. We have government making way too many decisions in society. It can't be ignored. And that's the problem. I'll posit that in a healthy society, most people aren't interested in government, especially national government. They want to know someone trustworthy is in charge, but otherwise, (under proper constitutional limits) the national government has so little ability to impact on their lives, they really don't care.

 

[Mac1958]

I think the best, most long-lasting answers come from all sides. Kind of like our Constitution.

The whole point of the Constitution is to avoid situations like this. The founders knew that unlimited democracy inevitably devolves into mob rule. So they set down rules to ensure that the rights of the minority weren't subject to a vote. These rules made it possible to peacefully accept the election of a person or faction you oppose; the new leadership might appoint a postmaster you don't like, but they won't have the power to radically impact your life.

That's what's changed. We have government making way too many decisions in society. It can't be ignored. And that's the problem. I'll posit that in a healthy society, most people aren't interested in government, especially national government. They want to know someone trustworthy is in charge, but otherwise, (under proper constitutional limits) the national government has so little ability to impact on their lives, they really don't care.

But there are remedies. If you feel that government is playing too large a role right now, the way to fix that is to elect people who would take things in the opposite direction. And my argument is that, in order to get the votes to make that happen, you'll need to change hearts & minds. And the way to change hearts & minds is through communication.

And it may be that communication won't necessarily change a mind. But it can at least soften positions and open up new possibilities, no?
.

 

[dblack]

I think the best, most long-lasting answers come from all sides. Kind of like our Constitution.

The whole point of the Constitution is to avoid situations like this. The founders knew that unlimited democracy inevitably devolves into mob rule. So they set down rules to ensure that the rights of the minority weren't subject to a vote. These rules made it possible to peacefully accept the election of a person or faction you oppose; the new leadership might appoint a postmaster you don't like, but they won't have the power to radically impact your life.

That's what's changed. We have government making way too many decisions in society. It can't be ignored. And that's the problem. I'll posit that in a healthy society, most people aren't interested in government, especially national government. They want to know someone trustworthy is in charge, but otherwise, (under proper constitutional limits) the national government has so little ability to impact on their lives, they really don't care.

But there are remedies. If you feel that government is playing too large a role right now, the way to fix that is to elect people who would take things in the opposite direction. And my argument is that, in order to get the votes to make that happen, you'll need to change hearts & minds. And the way to change hearts & minds is through communication.

And it may be that communication won't necessarily change a mind. But it can at least soften positions and open up new possibilities, no?
.

Sure. And that requires the ability, and will, to see things from another person's perspective. Unfortunately, that's become exceedingly rare.

 

[Anathema]

Now, did you mean that?

If you did not mean what you wrote, I apologize.

I think your mistake was suggesting that the lack of combat somehow equates to an acceptance of the opposing opinion or a willingness to embrace compromise.

It doesn't. Not in my mind anyway. I can listen to alternate viewpoints and discard them without cursing, swearing, or devolving to cromagnon levels.

 

[Mac1958]

Now, did you mean that?

If you did not mean what you wrote, I apologize.

I think your mistake was suggesting that the lack of combat somehow equates to an acceptance of the opposing opinion or a willingness to embrace compromise.

It doesn't. Not in my mind anyway. I can listen to alternate viewpoints and discard them without cursing, swearing, or devolving to cromagnon levels.

Sure.

My only point is that we can disagree on some things and still find areas of agreement. I think we agree that, as you said, "We have turned conversation into combat rather than communication by requiring there to be a winner and a loser at the end of things. THAT is our problem."

Where we disagree on is where we go from there.
.

 

[Mac1958]

Dang, this thread has been more interesting than I expected!

 

[Votto]

I think the government needs to start a program to force people to be more self-sufficient.

Not me boy, I'm all for thinking critically for yourself.

That's right left wingers, ANARCHY!!!!

 

[Anathema]

Sure.

My only point is that we can disagree on some things and still find areas of agreement. I think we agree that, as you said, "We have turned conversation into combat rather than communication by requiring there to be a winner and a loser at the end of things. THAT is our problem."

Where we disagree on is where we go from there.

Yes, for the most part. I do believe there are lines that cannot be crossed, but for the most part we can use the common ground to advance conversation in Society.

 

[task0778]

I think the best, most long-lasting answers come from all sides. Kind of like our Constitution.

The whole point of the Constitution is to avoid situations like this. The founders knew that unlimited democracy inevitably devolves into mob rule. So they set down rules to ensure that the rights of the minority weren't subject to a vote. These rules made it possible to peacefully accept the election of a person or faction you oppose; the new leadership might appoint a postmaster you don't like, but they won't have the power to radically impact your life.

That's what's changed. We have government making way too many decisions in society. It can't be ignored. And that's the problem. I'll posit that in a healthy society, most people aren't interested in government, especially national government. They want to know someone trustworthy is in charge, but otherwise, (under proper constitutional limits) the national government has so little ability to impact on their lives, they really don't care.

This is why the US Senate is not supposed to be ruled by a 51 vote majority, we're supposed to work things out where the minority party has some power to avoid being trampled. A democratic republic isn't supposed to be easy, and our elected reps are supposed to be working for the best interests of their constituencies rather than that of themselves or their respective parties. The problem is that the minority party over the past 12 years has been more obstructionist that cooperative, and the majority party hasn't been all that cooperative either. Too much influence from the extreme ends of both parties in the primaries has lead to fewer moderates and here we are today with both political parties fractured and in disarray. All I can see is a need for a 3rd party that is more practical and pragmatic; maybe that won't fix the problem, but I think we need to try something different cuz the prsent political system is too dysfunctional.

 

[DOTR]

Sure. Both sides operate essentially from that simplistic, binary foundation regularly.

As a result, we are where are. Divided, and getting worse.
.

You begin with "both sides"...then try and explain that the preexisting opposing sides are opposed because each believe they are correct?

 

[Mac1958]

Sure. Both sides operate essentially from that simplistic, binary foundation regularly.

As a result, we are where are. Divided, and getting worse.
.

You begin with "both sides"...then try and explain that the preexisting opposing sides are opposed because each believe they are correct?

I think you're quoting me there. I don't quite understand the question, could you re-phrase?
.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Fail to exercise a muscle and it will wither. Fail to exercise a skill and it will do the same.

Is that what has happened to our ability to communicate with those who dare to disagree with us? And if so, precisely how are we supposed to solve ANY problem, improve ANY situation?

How often do you see two people who disagree have a normal, civil, intelligent conversation any more, in the media, online, or in real life? I think we have literally lost the skill to have normal disagreements.

Has Society Lost Its Ability to Debate?

I think, as a society, we have abandoned our ability to do our research and debate. We allow our own allegiances (both in politics, religion, and other issues) to cloud our skills. I see it on my own newsfeed. People arguing, but no one is really saying anything. This lack of conversation divides people. It makes people puff out their chest and scream the loudest or say the nastiest of words in order to assert dominance in an argument. What does that accomplish? Nothing. It just burns more relationships.

We are so convinced that our side is right and the other side is evil that we fail to investigate a situation, understand both sides, and talk with someone whose opinions differ than your own. This type of behavior has highlighted a much more irrational side of our society. A side that causes more problems than solutions. Isn't that the point of conversation? To discuss an issue completely in order to fix it?

Thoughts?
.

When you finally come to the conclusion, as I have, that the majority of the public is stupid and easily mislead, these things stop upsetting you

 

[Mac1958]

Fail to exercise a muscle and it will wither. Fail to exercise a skill and it will do the same.

Is that what has happened to our ability to communicate with those who dare to disagree with us? And if so, precisely how are we supposed to solve ANY problem, improve ANY situation?

How often do you see two people who disagree have a normal, civil, intelligent conversation any more, in the media, online, or in real life? I think we have literally lost the skill to have normal disagreements.

Has Society Lost Its Ability to Debate?

I think, as a society, we have abandoned our ability to do our research and debate. We allow our own allegiances (both in politics, religion, and other issues) to cloud our skills. I see it on my own newsfeed. People arguing, but no one is really saying anything. This lack of conversation divides people. It makes people puff out their chest and scream the loudest or say the nastiest of words in order to assert dominance in an argument. What does that accomplish? Nothing. It just burns more relationships.

We are so convinced that our side is right and the other side is evil that we fail to investigate a situation, understand both sides, and talk with someone whose opinions differ than your own. This type of behavior has highlighted a much more irrational side of our society. A side that causes more problems than solutions. Isn't that the point of conversation? To discuss an issue completely in order to fix it?

Thoughts?
.

When you finally come to the conclusion, as I have, that the majority of the public is stupid and easily mislead, these things stop upsetting you

Well, as I mentioned earlier (I think it was this thread, who knows), the kids are off to a great start and that's what I REALLY care about...
.

 

[DOTR]

Sure. Both sides operate essentially from that simplistic, binary foundation regularly.

As a result, we are where are. Divided, and getting worse.
.

You begin with "both sides"...then try and explain that the preexisting opposing sides are opposed because each believe they are correct?

I think you're quoting me there. I don't quite understand the question, could you re-phrase?
.

fixed. Apologies.

 

[Mac1958]

Sure. Both sides operate essentially from that simplistic, binary foundation regularly.

As a result, we are where are. Divided, and getting worse.
.

You begin with "both sides"...then try and explain that the preexisting opposing sides are opposed because each believe they are correct?

I think you're quoting me there. I don't quite understand the question, could you re-phrase?
.

fixed. Apologies.

Thanks. Well, this actually goes to a similar conversation I'm having right now in another thread. Political/partisan ideology, in my opinion, literally distorts both perceptions and thought processes. So the two sides can absorb the same information and derive absolutely opposite input, process it differently, and arrive at conclusions that are literally 180° apart. So each side is being absolutely serious and honest with their conclusion.

Is that what you mean?
.