CDZ A very simple question

[Mac1958]

Take the money out, get a fighting chance for honest government.

I'd like to see short, strict term limits and publicly-funded elections.

Nothing changes unless and until we change the rules under which these thugs operate.
.

 

[flacaltenn]

Take the money out, get a fighting chance for honest government.

Not part of the topic but the money, graft, corruption part really STARTS once candidates win and are given power to make biased decisions.. That's where "dealing" has to be confronted.. That's why incumbents are virtually undefeatable...

Clear solution to promoting THINKING on the part of the electorate is to promote Independent candidate and REMOVE the toxic identity of 2 party politics.... Look at how many problems are not being solved for citizens in need... Because the "minority" doesn't want to give a "win" to the majority party in power...

 

[Gdjjr]

Clear solution to promoting THINKING on the part of the electorate

While not scientific, using a political forum as a metric, thinking is out of the question- hell, they won't even read more than 1 or 2 sentences and if that is contrary to what they feel they start the disruptive straw man arguments and personal attacks- there are very few thinkers using these forums as the gauge.
That's a reason I detest Public Education, one of several, but that's the crux of ALL our problems. The general population has been deceived by and through the education system and I guess are maybe just hard headed by nature- or a desire to remain ignorant. Either can be lain at the feet of education. Formal and parental proper education has been sorely lacking for decades if it ever did exist. Thinking is out of the question for acolytes of the church of godvernment.

 

[Mac1958]

Here's an example of my point.

I've just been told by a Trumpster -- literally -- that being happy and content is irrelevant. He is saying that everyone should want to live in America, and my point was simply that some people are perfectly happy and content where they are. He was having none of that.

This is a clear example of a lack of fundamental human empathy. These people believe that, if your priorities and wants are not the same as theirs, there is something wrong with YOU.

Don't believe me? Look at Americana Trump And The Prophets Of Doom, beginning at post 8.
.

 

[dblack]

Take the money out, get a fighting chance for honest government.

Not part of the topic but the money, graft, corruption part really STARTS once candidates win and are given power to make biased decisions.. That's where "dealing" has to be confronted.. That's why incumbents are virtually undefeatable...

Clear solution to promoting THINKING on the part of the electorate is to promote Independent candidate and REMOVE the toxic identity of 2 party politics.... Look at how many problems are not being solved for citizens in need... Because the "minority" doesn't want to give a "win" to the majority party in power...

That's why changing the voting system is such a crucial step to saving democracy. Unfortunately, the party in power will always want to keep the voting system that put them in power.

 

[dblack]

Here's an example of my point.

I've just been told by a Trumpster -- literally -- that being happy and content is irrelevant. He is saying that everyone should want to live in America, and my point was simply that some people are perfectly happy and content where they are. He was having none of that.

This is a clear example of a lack of fundamental human empathy. These people believe that, if your priorities and wants are not the same as theirs, there is something wrong with YOU.

Don't believe me? Look at Americana Trump And The Prophets Of Doom, beginning at post 8.
.

Yes. Empathy, the golden rule - basic elements of morality - seem to be falling away in favor of partisanship. We need to update the way we do democracy such that collaboration and consensus are rewarded rather than punished.

 

[Gdjjr]

I've just been told by a Trumpster -- literally -- that being happy and content is irrelevant. He is saying that everyone should want to live in America, and my point was simply that some people are perfectly happy and content where they are. He was having none of that.

Typically I try not to tell anyone what they should do- my thought is I don't have thought authority-

"some people are perfectly happy and content where they are. He was having none of that"

His attitude is arrogance born in ignorance- he might want to consider he's better at being funny.
Ignorance or arrogance can be overcome but a combination of the two makes the task extremely difficult.
Axioms come about for good reason and in this case "one man's trash is another man's treasure" or "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" are a proper fit.
As with most personal problems (which ignorance and arrogance are) they can only be overcome with a traumatic event causing reflection on how one got to where they are.

When we wish to correct with advantage, and to show another that he errs, we must notice from what side he views the matter, for on that side it is usually true, and admit that truth to him, but reveal to him the side on which it is false. He is satisfied with that, for he sees that he was not mistaken, and that he only failed to see all sides. Now, no one is offended at not seeing everything; but one does not like to be mistaken, and that perhaps arises from the fact that man naturally cannot see everything, and that naturally he cannot err in the side he looks at, since the perceptions of our senses are always true.

Pascal added:

People are generally better persuaded by the reasons which they have themselves discovered than by those which have come into the mind of others.

Put simply, Pascal suggests that before disagreeing with someone, first point out the ways in which they’re right. And to effectively persuade someone to change their mind, lead them to discover a counter-point of their own accord. Arthur Markman, psychology professor at The University of Texas at Austin, says both these points hold true.

To Tell Someone They’re Wrong, First Tell Them They’re Right - Quartz - Pocket

 

[dblack]

Take the money out, get a fighting chance for honest government.

I'd like to see short, strict term limits and publicly-funded elections.

Nothing changes unless and until we change the rules under which these thugs operate.
.

I definitely agree that changing the rules is in order. But I think the problem lies in the voting system itself (plurality, winner-take-all elections). Term limits and publicly funded elections are bandaid solutions with serious downsides. Term limits can actually force good leaders out of office, and "publicly" funding elections gives the "thugs" the power to control who can run for office.

 

[Gdjjr]

I definitely agree that changing the rules is in order. But I think the problem lies in the voting system itself (plurality, winner-take-all elections).

Are you saying the above is good or bad? If bad, what is your solution? Winner take all is democracy we are a representative republic.

 

[Mac1958]

I've just been told by a Trumpster -- literally -- that being happy and content is irrelevant. He is saying that everyone should want to live in America, and my point was simply that some people are perfectly happy and content where they are. He was having none of that.

Typically I try not to tell anyone what they should do- my thought is I don't have thought authority-

"some people are perfectly happy and content where they are. He was having none of that"

His attitude is arrogance born in ignorance- he might want to consider he's better at being funny.
Ignorance or arrogance can be overcome but a combination of the two makes the task extremely difficult.
Axioms come about for good reason and in this case "one man's trash is another man's treasure" or "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" are a proper fit.
As with most personal problems (which ignorance and arrogance are) they can only be overcome with a traumatic event causing reflection on how one got to where they are.

When we wish to correct with advantage, and to show another that he errs, we must notice from what side he views the matter, for on that side it is usually true, and admit that truth to him, but reveal to him the side on which it is false. He is satisfied with that, for he sees that he was not mistaken, and that he only failed to see all sides. Now, no one is offended at not seeing everything; but one does not like to be mistaken, and that perhaps arises from the fact that man naturally cannot see everything, and that naturally he cannot err in the side he looks at, since the perceptions of our senses are always true.

Pascal added:

People are generally better persuaded by the reasons which they have themselves discovered than by those which have come into the mind of others.

Put simply, Pascal suggests that before disagreeing with someone, first point out the ways in which they’re right. And to effectively persuade someone to change their mind, lead them to discover a counter-point of their own accord. Arthur Markman, psychology professor at The University of Texas at Austin, says both these points hold true.

To Tell Someone They’re Wrong, First Tell Them They’re Right - Quartz - Pocket

Yeah. Another issue here is that trying to "communicate" with people online is very difficult for me. It's much easier in person, where you can hear their inflection and watch their mannerisms. It's MUCH easier for me to find (at least some fundamental) common ground in person for that reason.

I joke that politics is essentially like pro wrestling, but given the anonymity of the internet, I think many like to play a role here.
.

 

[Gdjjr]

I think many like to play a role here.

Indeed-

 

[dblack]

I definitely agree that changing the rules is in order. But I think the problem lies in the voting system itself (plurality, winner-take-all elections).

Are you saying the above is good or bad? If bad, what is your solution? Winner take all is democracy we are a representative republic.

First, we need to implement some form of proportional representation. One idea is to have large, multi-representative districts. So, instead of five districts, each with one rep, we'd have one larger district with five winners. This would do away with gerrymandering and elect reps who more closely represent the voting public.

Second, we need to change the voting system itself so it allows more robust expression of voter preferences. Ranked choice voting is one solution. Approval voting is a simpler approach that achieves similar results. Either system allows voters to, essentially, vote against candidates whom they find unacceptable. Despite delusions to the contrary, our current system doesn't do that. These solutions would reward candidates with genuine, broad appeal, and punish those who are divisive.

 

[Blues Man]

All empathy is is the intellectual understanding of the thoughts and feeling of another

I can empathize with you and your situation and still not give a shit about you

 

[dblack]

All empathy is is the intellectual understanding of the thoughts and feeling of another

I can empathize with you and your situation and still not give a shit about you

Exactly. Empathy and sympathy are two different things. Empathy is a crucial tool in working, and negotiating, with other people, regardless of your intentions. Empathy with a hated enemy can give you leverage and power that you wouldn't have otherwise.

 

[Blues Man]

All empathy is is the intellectual understanding of the thoughts and feeling of another

I can empathize with you and your situation and still not give a shit about you

Exactly. Empathy and sympathy are two different things. Empathy is a crucial tool in working, and negotiating, with other people, regardless of your intentions. Empathy with a hated enemy can give you leverage and power that you wouldn't have otherwise.

When you can understand the feelings of others it's easier to manipulate them

 

[dblack]

All empathy is is the intellectual understanding of the thoughts and feeling of another

I can empathize with you and your situation and still not give a shit about you

Exactly. Empathy and sympathy are two different things. Empathy is a crucial tool in working, and negotiating, with other people, regardless of your intentions. Empathy with a hated enemy can give you leverage and power that you wouldn't have otherwise.

When you can understand the feelings of others it's easier to manipulate them

Exactly. But both of our political parties encourage their members to do the opposite - to refuse to even try to look at things from their opponent's perspective. That's dumb - flying blind - and produces very little real progress.

 

[Gdjjr]

All empathy is is the intellectual understanding of the thoughts and feeling of another

I can empathize with you and your situation and still not give a shit about you

Then you are acting from emotion not intellect.

 

[Blues Man]

All empathy is is the intellectual understanding of the thoughts and feeling of another

I can empathize with you and your situation and still not give a shit about you

Then you are acting from emotion not intellect.

I don't think so.

Just because I can intellectually understand another's feelings, thoughts and motivations in no way means I care about them.

 

[flacaltenn]

I've just been told by a Trumpster -- literally -- that being happy and content is irrelevant. He is saying that everyone should want to live in America, and my point was simply that some people are perfectly happy and content where they are. He was having none of that.

Typically I try not to tell anyone what they should do- my thought is I don't have thought authority-

"some people are perfectly happy and content where they are. He was having none of that"

His attitude is arrogance born in ignorance- he might want to consider he's better at being funny.
Ignorance or arrogance can be overcome but a combination of the two makes the task extremely difficult.
Axioms come about for good reason and in this case "one man's trash is another man's treasure" or "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" are a proper fit.
As with most personal problems (which ignorance and arrogance are) they can only be overcome with a traumatic event causing reflection on how one got to where they are.

When we wish to correct with advantage, and to show another that he errs, we must notice from what side he views the matter, for on that side it is usually true, and admit that truth to him, but reveal to him the side on which it is false. He is satisfied with that, for he sees that he was not mistaken, and that he only failed to see all sides. Now, no one is offended at not seeing everything; but one does not like to be mistaken, and that perhaps arises from the fact that man naturally cannot see everything, and that naturally he cannot err in the side he looks at, since the perceptions of our senses are always true.

Pascal added:

People are generally better persuaded by the reasons which they have themselves discovered than by those which have come into the mind of others.

Put simply, Pascal suggests that before disagreeing with someone, first point out the ways in which they’re right. And to effectively persuade someone to change their mind, lead them to discover a counter-point of their own accord. Arthur Markman, psychology professor at The University of Texas at Austin, says both these points hold true.

To Tell Someone They’re Wrong, First Tell Them They’re Right - Quartz - Pocket

Yeah. Another issue here is that trying to "communicate" with people online is very difficult for me. It's much easier in person, where you can hear their inflection and watch their mannerisms. It's MUCH easier for me to find (at least some fundamental) common ground in person for that reason.

I joke that politics is essentially like pro wrestling, but given the anonymity of the internet, I think many like to play a role here.
.

I always try to address the CONCERNS of those I'm gonna oppose on-line... Meaning that I have to TRY and empathize and understand their fears and biases.. If those concerns are REAL or even imagined, I help to defuse them..

But if their concerns are just troll bait and I can tell they couldn't ever explain those fears and concerns, I just disappear... This would never happen in face to face discussions.. I've yet to see someone successfully troll me in person... Probably more empathy and attempts to relate in real life meetings huh?


OK -- maybe the Comcast service guy can do it....

 

[Gdjjr]

I don't think so.

Just because I can intellectually understand another's feelings, thoughts and motivations in no way means I care about them.

How do you express empathy?
Part 1 Connecting with Others through Empathy

1. Listen. Listening is one of the most effective ways you can demonstrate empathy to other people. ...
2. Open up. Just listening to someone isn't going to build a bridge between the two of you. ...
3. Offer physical affection. ...
4. Focus your attention outwards. ...
5. Withhold judgment. ...
6. Offer help.
   
   Being able to practice empathy is one of the most important skills you can learn. In a world that spends so much time picking at flaws and igniting fear and anger in people, empathy can be a balm to that fear and anger. It can help you, and others, lead a more fulfilling and healthier life. Empathy means you have to put yourself in their shoes and be aware of and sensitive to their feelings to help them.