CDZ Common Ground

[oldsoul]

That said, what common ground can we find as Americans? Is there any?

None. No.

I am truly saddened my your response. Surely there is something. Anything would at least be a place to start. Do you think that we cannot agree that "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" being unalienable rights is something we can all agree on? Surely something that basic and fundamental we can agree on.

Okay, yes. We can agree on things that basic, but after doing so, where's it lead? Nowhere. Thus the agreement is as usefull as tits on a bull. I can agree that I like air and water too. It's going to be about as useful an agreement as other so very, very basic concepts.

What has made you so cynical? I think of myself as pretty cynical, but man, you are WAY past me.

 

[bt404]

That said, what common ground can we find as Americans? Is there any?

None. No.

I am truly saddened my your response. Surely there is something. Anything would at least be a place to start. Do you think that we cannot agree that "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" being unalienable rights is something we can all agree on? Surely something that basic and fundamental we can agree on.

Okay, yes. We can agree on things that basic, but after doing so, where's it lead? Nowhere. Thus the agreement is as usefull as tits on a bull. I can agree that I like air and water too. It's going to be about as useful an agreement as other so very, very basic concepts.

What has made you so cynical? I think of myself as pretty cynical, but man, you are WAY past me.

I think we can all agree that society should be run democratically i.e by the people. And that those placed in a position of power need to justify their power. The burden of proof is on authority to prove why they should be in authority...

 

[usmbguest5318]

That said, what common ground can we find as Americans? Is there any?

None. No.

I am truly saddened my your response. Surely there is something. Anything would at least be a place to start. Do you think that we cannot agree that "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" being unalienable rights is something we can all agree on? Surely something that basic and fundamental we can agree on.

Okay, yes. We can agree on things that basic, but after doing so, where's it lead? Nowhere. Thus the agreement is as usefull as tits on a bull. I can agree that I like air and water too. It's going to be about as useful an agreement as other so very, very basic concepts.

What has made you so cynical? I think of myself as pretty cynical, but man, you are WAY past me.

Look at how people respond when one tries to have a rational and mature dialogue about any issue:

• Deflection
• Denial of the facts either outright without regard to their verity or by failing to apply them in context
• Cite half truths from dubious sources
• Make out contextually inapt remarks
• Attack the messenger
• Introduce comparisons rather than address the topic/actor under discussion
• Claim highly credible sources aren't
• Having loud and vehement opinions about topics of which one knows little and has researched less
• "Tweeting" in the place of genuine substance
• Failing to even read the content made available to them

What else is there for one to be but cynical?

 

[sartre play]

That said, what common ground can we find as Americans? Is there any?

None. No.

I am truly saddened my your response. Surely there is something. Anything would at least be a place to start. Do you think that we cannot agree that "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" being unalienable rights is something we can all agree on? Surely something that basic and fundamental we can agree on.

Okay, yes. We can agree on things that basic, but after doing so, where's it lead? Nowhere. Thus the agreement is as usefull as tits on a bull. I can agree that I like air and water too. It's going to be about as useful an agreement as other so very, very basic concepts.

What has made you so cynical? I think of myself as pretty cynical, but man, you are WAY past me.

I think we can all agree that society should be run democratically i.e by the people. And that those placed in a position of power need to justify their power. The burden of proof is on authority to prove why they should be in authority...

Could you expand on this point.

 

[sartre play]

Found one on the list that I can fully support. more infrastructure. could we find more?

 

[usmbguest5318]

That said, what common ground can we find as Americans? Is there any?

None. No.

I am truly saddened my your response. Surely there is something. Anything would at least be a place to start. Do you think that we cannot agree that "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" being unalienable rights is something we can all agree on? Surely something that basic and fundamental we can agree on.

Okay, yes. We can agree on things that basic, but after doing so, where's it lead? Nowhere. Thus the agreement is as usefull as tits on a bull. I can agree that I like air and water too. It's going to be about as useful an agreement as other so very, very basic concepts.

What has made you so cynical? I think of myself as pretty cynical, but man, you are WAY past me.

I think we can all agree that society should be run democratically i.e by the people. And that those placed in a position of power need to justify their power. The burden of proof is on authority to prove why they should be in authority...

Say what?

• Why should people in power justify the power? What do you want to do? Keep changing the legal authority powerful people have every time a new person assumes some position of power? Why should the powerful not instead be held to justify the actions they take using their power, rather than the power itself?
• Burden on those in authority to prove why they should be in authority? We just had elections and just how much of the decisions voters made do you suppose was based on anything other than some emotional preference as contrasted with any sort of highly measured rational analysis of facts and "just the facts, mam?"

Indeed, the last U.S. election and Brexit to a large degree was a complete revolt against all forms of logically sound analysis and decision making. The right in the U.S. has all but laid waste to expertise and intellectualism. Accordingly, what would be the point of trying to justify anything. It seems the only justification that matters is whether one can pander to what people want to hear rather than the hard truths that they need to hear. Take economic matters for example.

• The Democrats essentially say, "People have to change and enhance their skills to be competitive and employable in the years ahead. We'll help you reinvent yourselves.
• The GOP essentially says, "You don't have to change at all. We'll make things the way they used to be."

Now I know sure as God made little green apples that one of those two mantras is possible and the other is impossible. One rolls with the way the world is evolving and the other aims at halting the evolution. It doesn't take much to tell which one isn't going to pan out anywhere near as well as people have been led to believe, yet it's what people want to hear, and since they're being told what they want to hear, they're going with it. Lord only knows what they'll do when they find it was all just smoke and mirrors.

 

[OldLady]

No politics? Okay.
What do we all agree on?

We hope that the sun will shine on our face, and the wind be at our back.
We hope to have the money to pay our bills, every time.
We hope not to be hated by anyone just for how we look or who our Daddy was.
We hope not to be hungry when we go to bed.
We hope to remain free to speak our mind without fear, free to travel where we please when we please, and free to become what we dream of being.
We agree that parades and picnics and fireworks on the 4th of July are good.
That the Statue of Liberty stands for welcome.
That Christmas lights are pretty twinkling in the dark, and holiday cookies are a good thing.

 

[bt404]

That said, what common ground can we find as Americans? Is there any?

None. No.

I am truly saddened my your response. Surely there is something. Anything would at least be a place to start. Do you think that we cannot agree that "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" being unalienable rights is something we can all agree on? Surely something that basic and fundamental we can agree on.

Okay, yes. We can agree on things that basic, but after doing so, where's it lead? Nowhere. Thus the agreement is as usefull as tits on a bull. I can agree that I like air and water too. It's going to be about as useful an agreement as other so very, very basic concepts.

What has made you so cynical? I think of myself as pretty cynical, but man, you are WAY past me.

I think we can all agree that society should be run democratically i.e by the people. And that those placed in a position of power need to justify their power. The burden of proof is on authority to prove why they should be in authority...

Say what?

• Why should people in power justify the power? What do you want to do? Keep changing the legal authority powerful people have every time a new person assumes some position of power? Why should the powerful not instead be held to justify the actions they take using their power, rather than the power itself?
• Burden on those in authority to prove why they should be in authority? We just had elections and just how much of the decisions voters made do you suppose was based on anything other than some emotional preference as contrasted with any sort of highly measured rational analysis of facts and "just the facts, mam?"

Indeed, the last U.S. election and Brexit to a large degree was a complete revolt against all forms of logically sound analysis and decision making. The right in the U.S. has all but laid waste to expertise and intellectualism. Accordingly, what would be the point of trying to justify anything. It seems the only justification that matters is whether one can pander to what people want to hear rather than the hard truths that they need to hear. Take economic matters for example.

• The Democrats essentially say, "People have to change and enhance their skills to be competitive and employable in the years ahead. We'll help you reinvent yourselves.
• The GOP essentially says, "You don't have to change at all. We'll make things the way they used to be."

Now I know sure as God made little green apples that one of those two mantras is possible and the other is impossible. One rolls with the way the world is evolving and the other aims at halting the evolution. It doesn't take much to tell which one isn't going to pan out anywhere near as well as people have been led to believe, yet it's what people want to hear, and since they're being told what they want to hear, they're going with it. Lord only knows what they'll do when they find it was all just smoke and mirrors.

Why should the powerful not instead be held to justify the actions they take using their power, rather than the power itself?

It's the same thing really. Those in power need to justify their position of power via. through the possible actions that that power gives them.

You're taking my point way too literally. It was supposed to be a broad ethical statement more in line with truism. For instance, if a group of people were stranded on an island and they're in search of food, then the one with the most experience in hunting/fishing would be put in charge, put in a position of power. One can't just say "I'm in power because I choose to be" or "I'm just superior to everyone", they need to prove why they're worthy of being charge i.e through his credentials and so on.

As far as using that statement to apply to today's world. I think it still stands. Perhaps you could expand your last paragraph statement.

 

[jwoodie]

Conservative vs. Progressive

Objectivity vs. Emotionalism
Reality vs. Fantasy
Substance vs. Form
Individual vs. Group Identity
Freedom vs. Coercion
Civility vs. Violence

What is there to agree on?

 

[bt404]

Conservative vs. Progressive

Objectivity vs. Emotionalism
Reality vs. Fantasy
Substance vs. Form
Individual vs. Group Identity
Freedom vs. Coercion
Civility vs. Violence

What is there to agree on?

We can agree that your reductive dichotomy is so comically ludicrous that it's hard to even know if you're serious or just trolling.

 

[oldsoul]

Conservative vs. Progressive

Objectivity vs. Emotionalism
Reality vs. Fantasy
Substance vs. Form
Individual vs. Group Identity
Freedom vs. Coercion
Civility vs. Violence

What is there to agree on?

We can agree that your reductive dichotomy is so comically ludicrous that it's hard to even know if you're serious or just trolling.

While I do agree with you, sort of, jwoodie does make some pretty valid points here, such as:

• Conservatives tend to identify themselves (and others) based on individuality, Progressives tend to identify themselves (and others) by the group (or groups) they "belong" to.
• Conservatives tend to behave more civilly (especially in large groups), while Progressives tend to be more "violent" ( I would not use this word myself, I use it because that is the wording used above. I believe a better term to use would be "disrespectful".)
• While I agree that Conservatives tend to prefer to retain freedom and that Progressives tend to use coercion more, I don't think either of these groups have a monopoly on either trait. Nor do I see how they can be used as they were. Freedom and coercion are not mutually exclusive by any means.

 

[oldsoul]

Something occurred to me this afternoon while posting in another thread. I think it's important enough to bear repeating, again (I repeated the same concept in two threads already). So, here goes:

Sadly both sides are far too busy bickering over who is more to blame, and have no time left to realise we actually agree there is a problem. I am not, repeat, not referring to politicians. I'm talking about the everyday people out there trying to prove their "side" didn't do this, or the other guys are more to blame. It's time for this country to grow-up and quit worrying about who did what (groups, parties, etc.), we have more important things to do, like fix our Republic. I don't think there are too many people who don't think it's broken, just disagree on why, and what is broken about it. Well, I can clear both of those things up with one word:

Divided.

Abraham Lincoln: “A house divided against itself cannot stand."

So, who out there is adult enough to come to the table to fix the real problem? Are there any?

 

[OldLady]

Something occurred to me this afternoon while posting in another thread. I think it's important enough to bear repeating, again (I repeated the same concept in two threads already). So, here goes:

Sadly both sides are far too busy bickering over who is more to blame, and have no time left to realise we actually agree there is a problem. I am not, repeat, not referring to politicians. I'm talking about the everyday people out there trying to prove their "side" didn't do this, or the other guys are more to blame. It's time for this country to grow-up and quit worrying about who did what (groups, parties, etc.), we have more important things to do, like fix our Republic. I don't think there are too many people who don't think it's broken, just disagree on why, and what is broken about it. Well, I can clear both of those things up with one word:

Divided.

Abraham Lincoln: “A house divided against itself cannot stand."

So, who out there is adult enough to come to the table to fix the real problem? Are there any?

Abraham Lincoln: “A house divided against itself cannot stand."
And we are headed there without a good reason, except a lot of propaganda and swill being spewed by both sides, to get us so amped up that we can't think reasonably anymore. A friend wisely said the same this morning (looking at pictures of the riots): this is a civil war coming, except we won't be the north fighting the south. It will be neighbor against neighbor.
Is that what we want? If so, just keep doing what you're doing and make sure your side "wins." IMO, there aren't going to be any winners at the end of this one.

 

[bt404]

Something occurred to me this afternoon while posting in another thread. I think it's important enough to bear repeating, again (I repeated the same concept in two threads already). So, here goes:

Sadly both sides are far too busy bickering over who is more to blame, and have no time left to realise we actually agree there is a problem. I am not, repeat, not referring to politicians. I'm talking about the everyday people out there trying to prove their "side" didn't do this, or the other guys are more to blame. It's time for this country to grow-up and quit worrying about who did what (groups, parties, etc.), we have more important things to do, like fix our Republic. I don't think there are too many people who don't think it's broken, just disagree on why, and what is broken about it. Well, I can clear both of those things up with one word:

Divided.

Abraham Lincoln: “A house divided against itself cannot stand."

So, who out there is adult enough to come to the table to fix the real problem? Are there any?

I agree with you that there needs to be more rational discourse and less name-calling/reverting to the blame game. However, are you not doing exactly just that--playing the blame game--by overgeneralizing "liberals" or the "left"? Let's take your assessment of the philosophical values between "Conservatives" and "Liberals":

You say:

Conservatives tend to identify themselves (and others) based on individuality, Progressives tend to identify themselves (and others) by the group (or groups) they "belong" to.

Conservatives very much identify themselves with groups. Vast swathes of the Christian right for example think there should be no separation of church and state, believing that the country was funded on "Christianity" when in fact our funding fathers were mostly deists (and possibly closeted agnostics or atheists). To take an extreme case, look at Steve Bannon calling on Christians from all across the country to form "church militants" (President Trump’s right-hand man Steve Bannon called for Christian holy war: Now he’s on the National Security Council). Or the millions of Conservatives who believe the earth is only 5000 years old and that humans once roamed with dinosaurs, whom disavow evolution and take the propaganda of big business oil magnates and lobbying groups over the American Meteorology Society, U.S National Academy of Sciences, Geophysical Union (and hundreds more respected scientific organizations from around the world Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Scientific Consensus) in regards to climate change that might threaten to destroy any possibility of a decent life for our grandchildren. I can't think of a more extreme case of group-think than the ones displayed here.

Conservatives tend to behave more civilly (especially in large groups), while Progressives tend to be more "violent" ( I would not use this word myself, I use it because that is the wording used above. I believe a better term to use would be "disrespectful".)
This again is an overgeneralization. Take a look at the "civil" Conservatives protests after Obama's win in 2008, when crowds protested against having a dark skinned Kenyan president. You can still find online the photos of mobs creating black lynch dolls and setting them on fire, and holding signs that say "Hang in there Obama." Or at the University of Mississippi in 2012 after the reelection, when hundreds of Conservatives students went out and said that they didn't want a Black for a president. We can go on and on with this one.

While I agree that Conservatives tend to prefer to retain freedom and that Progressives tend to use coercion more, I don't think either of these groups have a monopoly on either trait. Nor do I see how they can be used as they were. Freedom and coercion are not mutually exclusive by any means.

Precisely. Which is why we should stop overgeneralizing on both sides, especially on the laughable notion that liberals = violence, group think and conservatives = peace, individuality...

 

[usmbguest5318]

I agree with you that there needs to be more rational discourse and less name-calling/reverting to the blame game.

Precisely. Which is why we should stop overgeneralizing on both sides, especially on the laughable notion that liberals = violence, group think and conservatives = peace, individuality...

Well, there're two things I agree with you about.

 

[Rob37]

We need to identify as Americans above all else, and this must take priority over the divisions. If the divisions define us then our nation will fall and we will be left with just a bunch of groups within our borders. We all want peace, security and a prosperous economy. But without the underlying national unity we cannot maintain this.

We used to have national unity, even during the years of racial division. But, ironically, it seems that we are more divided now, at a time when everyone has more civil rights and liberties than ever before.

So, what we have in common is a desire to live in a civilized and prosperous society that is secure to remain so. I do not think anyone can disagree with this. However, with the malignant divisiveness that exists makes me wonder if we can ever get back there.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[sartre play]

With just a little effort we could start looking for things that we all think need improvement, and things like fixing our roads bridges electric grid, better water quality that all most all agree with.

 

[Nosmo King]

Common ground ...

1 - keep out inferior Chinese goods.

2 - keep out illegal Mexicans.

3 - keep out moosleem terrorist by whatever means

4 - build more infrastructure

5 - lower taxes equally on everybody in terms of dollar amounts

6 - huge tariff on expensive German and Jap. cars

7- keep out illegal drugs

8 - wipe ISIS and Al Qaeda off the face of the Earth

9 - concealed carry gun rights in all 50 states for everyone without any criminal record

10 - nationwide reciprocity for concealed carry permits in every state

11 - gays and lesbo's back into the closet

12 - sex change operations illegal in the USA

13 - all abortions after 27 weeks illegal.

Yes on #4 and #8. Absolutely NO on the other eleven.

 

[oldsoul]

Something occurred to me this afternoon while posting in another thread. I think it's important enough to bear repeating, again (I repeated the same concept in two threads already). So, here goes:

Sadly both sides are far too busy bickering over who is more to blame, and have no time left to realise we actually agree there is a problem. I am not, repeat, not referring to politicians. I'm talking about the everyday people out there trying to prove their "side" didn't do this, or the other guys are more to blame. It's time for this country to grow-up and quit worrying about who did what (groups, parties, etc.), we have more important things to do, like fix our Republic. I don't think there are too many people who don't think it's broken, just disagree on why, and what is broken about it. Well, I can clear both of those things up with one word:

Divided.

Abraham Lincoln: “A house divided against itself cannot stand."

So, who out there is adult enough to come to the table to fix the real problem? Are there any?

I agree with you that there needs to be more rational discourse and less name-calling/reverting to the blame game. However, are you not doing exactly just that--playing the blame game--by overgeneralizing "liberals" or the "left"? Let's take your assessment of the philosophical values between "Conservatives" and "Liberals":

You say:

Conservatives tend to identify themselves (and others) based on individuality, Progressives tend to identify themselves (and others) by the group (or groups) they "belong" to.

Conservatives very much identify themselves with groups. Vast swathes of the Christian right for example think there should be no separation of church and state, believing that the country was funded on "Christianity" when in fact our funding fathers were mostly deists (and possibly closeted agnostics or atheists). To take an extreme case, look at Steve Bannon calling on Christians from all across the country to form "church militants" (President Trump’s right-hand man Steve Bannon called for Christian holy war: Now he’s on the National Security Council). Or the millions of Conservatives who believe the earth is only 5000 years old and that humans once roamed with dinosaurs, whom disavow evolution and take the propaganda of big business oil magnates and lobbying groups over the American Meteorology Society, U.S National Academy of Sciences, Geophysical Union (and hundreds more respected scientific organizations from around the world Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Scientific Consensus) in regards to climate change that might threaten to destroy any possibility of a decent life for our grandchildren. I can't think of a more extreme case of group-think than the ones displayed here.

Conservatives tend to behave more civilly (especially in large groups), while Progressives tend to be more "violent" ( I would not use this word myself, I use it because that is the wording used above. I believe a better term to use would be "disrespectful".)
This again is an overgeneralization. Take a look at the "civil" Conservatives protests after Obama's win in 2008, when crowds protested against having a dark skinned Kenyan president. You can still find online the photos of mobs creating black lynch dolls and setting them on fire, and holding signs that say "Hang in there Obama." Or at the University of Mississippi in 2012 after the reelection, when hundreds of Conservatives students went out and said that they didn't want a Black for a president. We can go on and on with this one.

While I agree that Conservatives tend to prefer to retain freedom and that Progressives tend to use coercion more, I don't think either of these groups have a monopoly on either trait. Nor do I see how they can be used as they were. Freedom and coercion are not mutually exclusive by any means.

Precisely. Which is why we should stop overgeneralizing on both sides, especially on the laughable notion that liberals = violence, group think and conservatives = peace, individuality...

In principle, I agree. However, it is not "over-generalization" that I am intending. One can find examples of disrespectful actions on both sides, and one can find examples of civil discourse on both sides. In short one can find examples of anything one wishes on both sides. What I am trying to say is that, in my experience the different sides have certain tendencies. Maybe this is due to my own biases, maybe it is not, it really doesn't matter as finding blame, or criticizing one side ot the other serves no real purpose if what one is trying to do is bring people together. While I did fall into this trap myself, as you point out, what I was attempting to illustrate (poorly I must admit) is that there is plenty of blame to go around. There are extremists on both sides, conservatives that disregard well established chronology, and liberals who reject the idea that failure is an essential part of growth (just to illustrate the point), but I do not believe that either extreme represents the majority of Americans. Likewise, one can find examples of respectful disagreement on both sides, as well as topics/issues we can all, generally, agree on. This is where the vast majority of Americans would fall, in my opinion. While we may disagree on certain topics/issues, we are generally in agreement that what we want is a better tomorrow for ourselves and our posterity. Unfortunately, this idea does not sell as well as extremism, in the media (both sides, and even truly objective sources). Therefore, we must, if we are to correct the state of affairs in our great land, reject the notion that there is little, if any middle ground. There is quite a bit of middle ground. Extremists are just that, the fringe, radical, not the norm, ultra-left and ultra-right. While they have every right to voice their opinion, that does not mean they are right, or wrong. Nor does it mean that we should even listen to them, let alone allow them to influence public policy.

Conservatives tend to identify themselves (and others) based on individuality, Progressives tend to identify themselves (and others) by the group (or groups) they "belong" to.

Just because one identifies with a group, does not mean that there identity IS that group. There is a difference. Let me explain. While I identify with a particular faith, that is not my identity. I am also, American, a particular gender, of a particular age group, and have a particular skin color or "race". None of these identify who I am, nor what I am, they are merely adjectives to describe me in various ways. The flip side of that is one who allows who they are as a person to be dictated by these adjectives. I'll give some examples of how this manifests itself:

• Terms such as Jewish-American, African-American, Etc. Are we not all, first and foremost Americans? Yes, some are Jewish, some have African ancestry, but that is not who we are, it is only segregating us into groups. There are proper uses for this, but really not many.
• Christians who oppose abortion, yet cannot fully explain why their personal beliefs lead them to this position. "It says so in the bible", is not a sufficient argument for me. Why, that is the question I would ask, "why does it say so in the bible?" What do you beleive that tells you abortion is unacceptable for other people?
• As has been documented here: I Only Voted For Obama 'Cause He's Black. Now What? | The Huffington Post, and here: Samuel L. Jackson Says, "I Voted For Barack Obama Because He Was Black!" - EBONY

Conservatives tend to behave more civilly (especially in large groups), while Progressives tend to be more "violent" ( I would not use this word myself, I use it because that is the wording used above. I believe a better term to use would be "disrespectful".)

National Mall after Obama's inauguration:

After Trump's inauguration:

Were there fewer people at Trump's? Sure, probably. Enough to account for the difference in litter? I wouldn't think so. Yes, this is anecdotal, it is just one example. There are plenty more if one is inclined to look. And yes, one can also find evidence to the contrary. I doubt the scales would tip against my assertion, but you are welcome to prove me wrong.

 

[oldsoul]

In principle, I agree. However, it is not "over-generalization" that I am intending. One can find examples of disrespectful actions on both sides, and one can find examples of civil discourse on both sides. In short one can find examples of anything one wishes on both sides. What I am trying to say is that, in my experience the different sides have certain tendencies. Maybe this is due to my own biases, maybe it is not, it really doesn't matter as finding blame, or criticizing one side ot the other serves no real purpose if what one is trying to do is bring people together. While I did fall into this trap myself, as you point out, what I was attempting to illustrate (poorly I must admit) is that there is plenty of blame to go around. There are extremists on both sides, conservatives that disregard well established chronology, and liberals who reject the idea that failure is an essential part of growth (just to illustrate the point), but I do not believe that either extreme represents the majority of Americans. Likewise, one can find examples of respectful disagreement on both sides, as well as topics/issues we can all, generally, agree on. This is where the vast majority of Americans would fall, in my opinion. While we may disagree on certain topics/issues, we are generally in agreement that what we want is a better tomorrow for ourselves and our posterity. Unfortunately, this idea does not sell as well as extremism, in the media (both sides, and even truly objective sources). Therefore, we must, if we are to correct the state of affairs in our great land, reject the notion that there is little, if any middle ground. There is quite a bit of middle ground. Extremists are just that, the fringe, radical, not the norm, ultra-left and ultra-right. While they have every right to voice their opinion, that does not mean they are right, or wrong. Nor does it mean that we should even listen to them, let alone allow them to influence public policy.

"Conservatives tend to identify themselves (and others) based on individuality, Progressives tend to identify themselves (and others) by the group (or groups) they "belong" to."
Just because one identifies with a group, does not mean that there identity IS that group. There is a difference. Let me explain. While I identify with a particular faith, that is not my identity. I am also, American, a particular gender, of a particular age group, and have a particular skin color or "race". None of these identify who I am, nor what I am, they are merely adjectives to describe me in various ways. The flip side of that is one who allows who they are as a person to be dictated by these adjectives. I'll give some examples of how this manifests itself:

• Terms such as Jewish-American, African-American, Etc. Are we not all, first and foremost Americans? Yes, some are Jewish, some have African ancestry, but that is not who we are, it is only segregating us into groups. There are proper uses for this, but really not many.
• Christians who oppose abortion, yet cannot fully explain why their personal beliefs lead them to this position. "It says so in the bible", is not a sufficient argument for me. Why, that is the question I would ask, "why does it say so in the bible?" What do you beleive that tells you abortion is unacceptable for other people?
• As has been documented here: I Only Voted For Obama 'Cause He's Black. Now What? | The Huffington Post, and here: Samuel L. Jackson Says, "I Voted For Barack Obama Because He Was Black!" - EBONY

"Conservatives tend to behave more civilly (especially in large groups), while Progressives tend to be more "violent" ( I would not use this word myself, I use it because that is the wording used above. I believe a better term to use would be "disrespectful".)"
National Mall after Obama's inauguration:

After Trump's inauguration:

Were there fewer people at Trump's? Sure, probably. Enough to account for the difference in litter? I wouldn't think so. Yes, this is anecdotal, it is just one example. There are plenty more if one is inclined to look. And yes, one can also find evidence to the contrary. I doubt the scales would tip against my assertion, but you are welcome to prove me wrong.