CDZ Partisan ideology makes people ugly.

[Compost]

Interesting how quickly we veered away from the thread topic.

This is an issue that is plaguing both our political processes and (now) our culture.

Would anyone like to offer some honest, candid, non-ideologically-based input?
.

My take is that people have some sort of innate need to be part of a tribe. Since we do not form our tribes through inbreeding as in the Middle East, people's search for one ends up in the political sphere. Especially considering that our very political system encourages people to see the world in binary, simple minded people decide to play cowboys and Indians by joining the tribe they invest with a sense of good and then battling against the tribe they see as evil.

Lack of in intelligence + excessive need to conform to tribe = extreme partisanship.

The intelligence part is one of the most fascinating elements of this for me. There are people who are perfectly intelligent who fall victim to it. My best friend is brilliant, the most intelligent person I've ever known, and he's a full-blown Trump supporter. And other very intelligent people I know are on the opposite end.

I really think that it transcends intelligence, maybe running parallel to it, like it's more of an affliction than a function of intelligence.
.

I think you're right that this transcends intelligence. Intelligence is like many abilities or talents, you have to hone it or it becomes a rusty tool.

I think there is something to the idea that it's a tribe thing- it's natural to want to belong- but I can't help but think that the biggest cause of the problem is just plain laziness.

Yeah, I think that intellectual laziness plays a role. That may be related to the tribe issue, because we may be prone to defaulting to the path of least resistance, partially because we don't want to annoy other members of our tribe.
.

Indeed. It's a curious thing. We tend to be wimpy about speaking our minds so as not to annoy "our own" but may go out of our way to annoy one of the "others". We're back to that ugliness!

 

[Iceweasel]

We are already nearing that limit of the tolerance envelope as the partisan Democrats demonstrate with their insane behavior of late.

Doesn't look like he wants an actual discussion but started the thread to declare superiority over ideologues and only he can define them. Pretends it's all a matter of partisanship and refuses to process anything that begs differ no matter what you say.

I have had such discussions with Mac before, so I suspect that you are wrong on that point and he wrong about you as well on other points.

To have a useful conversation with someone you disagree with, you have to trust the other person long enough to hear what they say and internalize it to understand what they are trying to say but in their own words you have to digest.

If you two would chill out and speak to each other with more respect and charity, (that is the point to the Christmas season isnt it, btw?) I think you two could be greatly benefited from what you might learn from one another.

But as it typically is, I am the worst sinner of us all on this issue, and I am trying to learn to trust my ideological opposites once again as well.

My point was that political ideology is NOT necessarily based on party affiliation. It's a FACT and I gave examples and he simply ignores it to continue to bash political parties. No words can convince him so what's the purpose?

I have arrived at my ideology through MANY years of listening and sick and tired of people sitting on their high horse telling me I'm a brain dead party animal. My beliefs have zip to do with a political party.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Indeed. It's a curious thing. We tend to be wimpy about speaking our minds so as not to annoy "our own" but may go out of our way to annoy one of the "others". We're back to that ugliness!

The middle ground no longer commands respect as the extremes have used such expectations as a fulcrum to leverage their own advantage in different discussions.

Milo Yainopolis is the kind of trolling style speaker we have this day and age, and though I agree with 90% of what I have heard form him, it is not the kind of thing on which one can expect to build solid cross ideological conversation.

 

[Iceweasel]

You ignored everything I said to posit your view is the only correct one. Isn't that what you accuse others of?

I said what's wrong with the simple view, it isn't all about party politics. It's often how people see life, what's important or unimportant. I oppose big government and live with massive compromises. Exactly what do I divide in half if I vote for less taxes and regulation?

You remind me of judges that simply divide everything 50/50 in the interest of fairness. Well, sometimes people are right and sometimes they are wrong. 50/50 is a copout.

Oops! I thought you were temporarily removing yourself from partisan ideology to discuss its behaviors.

My bad, sorry.
.

You have no response because you project your shortcomings onto others. You're damn right your bad. Just because YOU are incapable of making decisions doesn't mean it a flaw when others can. You're the one with the simplistic black/white vision.

Actually, I do make decisions, I do take stands, and I do have opinions on all of the issues, every last single one. The differences between you and I, in no particular order, are:

1. Your opinions and stands on issues obediently and predictably fall in line with your partisan ideology, while mine are independent and often disagree with those on both ends.

2. You have convinced yourself that you and your end of the spectrum have all the answers, while I'm convinced that the best and longest-lasting answers can easily come from both ends of the spectrum, depending on the situation.

3. You're quick to utilize personal attacks, insults and partisan thought, while I have no such interest in doing so, because I'm more interested in fixing problems than in "beating" the other "side".

4. Your thought processes exist within an ideological vacuum, while I believe that ideological vacuums only serve to depress intellectual growth, retard dynamic thought and distort both perceptions & critical thinking skills.

5. You are incurious. I am curious.

6. You're ready and willing to deploy spin, diversion, deflection, straw man arguments and intellectual dishonesty in the goal of "winning" some kind of argument, while I feel those tactics do absolutely nothing to advance the conversation.

7. You perceive the political landscape as Left vs. Right (or some similar paradigm). I perceive it as hardcore partisan ideologues on both ends vs. a majority of the country.

Interestingly, I suspect any response you have to this post will include at least one of the seven elements above. This is why I find the behaviors of hardcore partisan ideology so fascinating as an amateur psychological / sociological / anthropological study.
.

I'm incurious? You are one inflated gas bag. You are guilty of the worse character traits you accuse others of. What a hypocrite. You use the CDZ to throw shit at people?

You are the most hardcore person here, you pretend to view us peons from Mt. Olympus and have already declared yourself the victor no matter what. How petty and cheap. Apparently you didn't want to discuss anything here, just set yourself up as Grand Master.

Phony bastard.

The sad truth of what is at the core of human thought and our struggle to grasp what is real and what is only our own fears and paranoia projected onto the world around us, we are all phony with each other to some degree in almost every situation.

The you that speaks to the preacher at the church house door is not the you that was getting drunk and talking shit to some ass holes last Friday night at the pool hall. The you that pals around with your buddies shooting pool and playing Texas Hold 'em is not the you that kisses your kids good night and hugs your wife and tells her what a lucky man you are.

We all have our masks we wear to 'pass' among different social circles.

It is a hard thing to learn how to set those masks aside and engage in honest discussion.

Well, I don't wear any mask, never have. I am the same person regardless of who I meet. That has not always worked out in my favor but I'd rather be honest that a fraud. Too many phonies out there. Here too.

 

[Mac1958]

Indeed. It's a curious thing. We tend to be wimpy about speaking our minds so as not to annoy "our own" but may go out of our way to annoy one of the "others". We're back to that ugliness!

The middle ground no longer commands respect as the extremes have used such expectations as a fulcrum to leverage their own advantage in different discussions.

Milo Yainopolis is the kind of trolling style speaker we have this day and age, and though I agree with 90% of what I have heard form him, it is not the kind of thing on which one can expect to build solid cross ideological conversation.

Then what is the real goal of the behavior?

I can't imagine it's to heal wounds, to move forward together.

So what is the point?
.

 

[Iceweasel]

We are already nearing that limit of the tolerance envelope as the partisan Democrats demonstrate with their insane behavior of late.

Doesn't look like he wants an actual discussion but started the thread to declare superiority over ideologues and only he can define them. Pretends it's all a matter of partisanship and refuses to process anything that begs differ no matter what you say.

I have had such discussions with Mac before, so I suspect that you are wrong on that point and he wrong about you as well on other points.

To have a useful conversation with someone you disagree with, you have to trust the other person long enough to hear what they say and internalize it to understand what they are trying to say but in their own words you have to digest.

If you two would chill out and speak to each other with more respect and charity, (that is the point to the Christmas season isnt it, btw?) I think you two could be greatly benefited from what you might learn from one another.

But as it typically is, I am the worst sinner of us all on this issue, and I am trying to learn to trust my ideological opposites once again as well.

As you know, I'm more than happy to have a conversation with anyone who can keep their emotions out of it and just avoid personal attacks and insults.

Once that stuff starts, I lose interest pretty quickly.

I started this thread in the CDZ for a reason.
.

Which explains why YOU got into the personal attacks and insults so quickly, right? That's what I mean, you throw crap and cry victim when it comes back.

You took it personally when I pointed out the fact that political ideology and political parties are not the same thing. One can be ideological and not give a hoot about a political party. That's simple thinking and wrong headed. There often is no middle road and no way to compromise, to pretend otherwise and claim both sides are wrong misses the point.

For example, how do you find the middle ground on gay marriage? Either you are for it or you aren't. You can't let half the gays marry and call it a compromise. Plus, it isn't the right pushing for the changes. The left was solidly against it up until right after obama's second election victory. He came out for gay marriage so they all did. So explain to me how that's two sides mindlessly duking it out based on party politics and not listening to each other.
I'm not a party member nor religious and have my views. And I don't need people like you telling me I am just a party ideologue. You can't see how insulting that is? Well, that's not my problem.

 

[Mac1958]

We are already nearing that limit of the tolerance envelope as the partisan Democrats demonstrate with their insane behavior of late.

Doesn't look like he wants an actual discussion but started the thread to declare superiority over ideologues and only he can define them. Pretends it's all a matter of partisanship and refuses to process anything that begs differ no matter what you say.

I have had such discussions with Mac before, so I suspect that you are wrong on that point and he wrong about you as well on other points.

To have a useful conversation with someone you disagree with, you have to trust the other person long enough to hear what they say and internalize it to understand what they are trying to say but in their own words you have to digest.

If you two would chill out and speak to each other with more respect and charity, (that is the point to the Christmas season isnt it, btw?) I think you two could be greatly benefited from what you might learn from one another.

But as it typically is, I am the worst sinner of us all on this issue, and I am trying to learn to trust my ideological opposites once again as well.

As you know, I'm more than happy to have a conversation with anyone who can keep their emotions out of it and just avoid personal attacks and insults.

Once that stuff starts, I lose interest pretty quickly.

I started this thread in the CDZ for a reason.
.

Which explains why YOU got into the personal attacks and insults so quickly, right? That's what I mean, you throw crap and cry victim when it comes back.

You took it personally when I pointed out the fact that political ideology and political parties are not the same thing. One can be ideological and not give a hoot about a political party. That's simple thinking and wrong headed. There often is no middle road and no way to compromise, to pretend otherwise and claim both sides are wrong misses the point.

For example, how do you find the middle ground on gay marriage? Either you are for it or you aren't. You can't let half the gays marry and call it a compromise. Plus, it isn't the right pushing for the changes. The left was solidly against it up until right after obama's second election victory. He came out for gay marriage so they all did. So explain to me how that's two sides mindlessly duking it out based on party politics and not listening to each other.
I'm not a party member nor religious and have my views. And I don't need people like you telling me I am just a party ideologue. You can't see how insulting that is? Well, that's not my problem.

Okie dokie!
.

 

[JimBowie1958]

My point was that political ideology is NOT necessarily based on party affiliation. It's a FACT and I gave examples and he simply ignores it to continue to bash political parties. No words can convince him so what's the purpose?

While I hesitate to speak on Macs behalf, I suspect that he sees your point as a non sequitor to his point. He is complaining about the partisanship in our politics and it has become fairly well aligned along two different groups of ideologies in both parties. In the Democratic Party the Marxists and their sympathizers that work their ideological salesmanship through Identity Politics, and it has grown tot he point that a legit moderate Democrat like Jim Webb was harrassed from the primaries this year and declared to not be a "real Democrat".

The same goes with moderate Republicans like Ayotte from Maine who has never held her moderate values secret, in contrast to John McCains fairly broad RINO closet Big State Fence Sitting is simply a variation of hypocrisy and deceit.

While party identification is not 100% an indicator of ideology it is about an 80% indicator of it. And more importantly there is absolutely no ideological overlap in the parties representation in Congress at all any more. Conservative Democrats are as rare as Liberal Republicans.

So while you are correct, it is a difference without much real world distinction so it comes off as more like obfuscation than an attempt to communicate honestly, I suspect.

I have arrived at my ideology through MANY years of listening and sick and tired of people sitting on their high horse telling me I'm a brain dead party animal. My beliefs have zip to do with a political party.

For you I have no doubt that that is true. You called the Brexit Factor in the general election at 4% while I was thinking it closer to 10% or more. You were right and I respect your honest exploration of these issues.

But the challenge we have when explaining our thoughts and hard earned facts is not in getting points form those who agree with us.

The real challenge is to figure out how to express those ideas in such a way that you connect to people who disagree with you in honest conversation and maybe even persuade them to respect if not embrace your perspective on the matter. Or best yet, you come to recognize those items where you have been mistaken, and you then correct your own world view and become a better person to some small degree with a better reflection of Reality as it exists in conceptual form in your mind.

That is the biggest and best pay off. And that is why I am here so often, to learn and grow, not to preach to the choir. I suspect that you agree on that, no?

 

[Iceweasel]

I can't imagine it's to heal wounds, to move forward together.

So what is the point?

We only hear about compromise and moving forward together when the left loses power. When they have it they ram every thing they can down our throats and gloat about it. so pardon my lack of compassion.

But I don't think discussion boards are where one should go for whatever healing they may need.

 

[leftwinger]

one person, one vote, per state.

Winner of the popular vote per state, win the electoral votes for that state.

electoral votes win the presidency.

Why do so many have a problem understanding that?

We don't have any confusion. Hillary got more votes. The people chose her.

You won on a technicality. If you are good with that, that' fine... I'm sure you wouldn't be if it went the other way.

The rules were known to all candidates at start. If DJT had needed more votes he would have worked CA. Simple. He worked where he needed to work.

 

[Auld Phart]

one person, one vote, per state.

Winner of the popular vote per state, win the electoral votes for that state.

electoral votes win the presidency.

Why do so many have a problem understanding that?

We don't have any confusion. Hillary got more votes. The people chose her.

You won on a technicality. If you are good with that, that' fine... I'm sure you wouldn't be if it went the other way.

one person, one vote, per state.

Winner of the popular vote per state, win the electoral votes for that state.

electoral votes win the presidency.

Why do so many have a problem understanding that?

We don't have any confusion. Hillary got more votes. The people chose her.

You won on a technicality. If you are good with that, that' fine... I'm sure you wouldn't be if it went the other way.

I'm sure you wouldn't be if it went the other way.

Considering I didn't vote for either, I am good with it.

It proves the system works as it was set up.

If Hillary wanted to win the Electoral vote, she had plenty of chances and money to do so.

she blew it.

 

[Iceweasel]

My point was that political ideology is NOT necessarily based on party affiliation. It's a FACT and I gave examples and he simply ignores it to continue to bash political parties. No words can convince him so what's the purpose?

While I hesitate to speak on Macs behalf, I suspect that he sees your point as a non sequitor to his point. He is complaining about the partisanship in our politics and it has become fairly well aligned along two different groups of ideologies in both parties. In the Democratic Party the Marxists and their sympathizers that work their ideological salesmanship through Identity Politics, and it has grown tot he point that a legit moderate Democrat like Jim Webb was harrassed from the primaries this year and declared to not be a "real Democrat".

The same goes with moderate Republicans like Ayotte from Maine who has never held her moderate values secret, in contrast to John McCains fairly broad RINO closet Big State Fence Sitting is simply a variation of hypocrisy and deceit.

While party identification is not 100% an indicator of ideology it is about an 80% indicator of it. And more importantly there is absolutely no ideological overlap in the parties representation in Congress at all any more. Conservative Democrats are as rare as Liberal Republicans.

So while you are correct, it is a difference without much real world distinction so it comes off as more like obfuscation than an attempt to communicate honestly, I suspect.

I have arrived at my ideology through MANY years of listening and sick and tired of people sitting on their high horse telling me I'm a brain dead party animal. My beliefs have zip to do with a political party.

For you I have no doubt that that is true. You called the Brexit Factor in the general election at 4% while I was thinking it closer to 10% or more. You were right and I respect your honest exploration of these issues.

But the challenge we have when explaining our thoughts and hard earned facts is not in getting points form those who agree with us.

The real challenge is to figure out how to express those ideas in such a way that you connect to people who disagree with you in honest conversation and maybe even persuade them to respect if not embrace your perspective on the matter. Or best yet, you come to recognize those items where you have been mistaken, and you then correct your own world view and become a better person to some small degree with a better reflection of Reality as it exists in conceptual form in your mind.

That is the biggest and best pay off. And that is why I am here so often, to learn and grow, not to preach to the choir. I suspect that you agree on that, no?

I don't agree it's the same on both aisles. True, conservative Democrats seem to be extinct but there are plenty of liberal Republicans. They aren't a bunch different than their buds on the left. They may not be AS liberal but give way too much ground.

That's what this election was all about. People are fed up. We put Republicans in office to fight obamacare and what do we get? They didn't vote for it but they didn't stop it either. The party fought tooth and nail against Trump because he was not a party animal and it's why I and many others voted for him.

 

[JimBowie1958]

For example, how do you find the middle ground on gay marriage? Either you are for it or you aren't.

OK, lets explore that issue.

What are the various permutations people have on Gay marriage?

On the left:
1) Gay marriage should be legal and available to anyone that wants it and it should be treated as not different than any other form of marriage.

2) Gay marriage should be legal, but it is not exactly the same as heterosexual marriage.

The middle:
1) Gay marriage is different from normal marriage and so should not be treated in exactly the same way as heterosexual marriage in regard to tax breaks, etc.

2) Gay Marriage is not the optimal institution that we as a nation have an interest in promoting, but gays should have some form of legally recognised relationship so that they can be considered family and see sick loved ones, attend funerals, etc, that the other partners parents might not allow. And so we should have civil unions available to homosexuals who are interested in a permanent rel;ationship with most of the rights of being married.

The right
1) Gay Marriage is not a valid form of marriage as it is an endorsement of an unhealthy lifestyle and it is useless for obvious reason for promoting the demographic growth of our next generation. Having legal Gay marriage only erodes the efforts to promote demographic growth.

2) Gay marriage is a travesty, fraud, and undermines the holy institution of genuine marriage and is harmful for the children of such a union. It therefore must not be accommodated in any form or fashion.


These are several different variations on the gay marriage debate and there are more. I am simply giving you an example of how an issue can have more shades of gray than solid white or black.

BTW, personally I hold for my personal values the most conservative position, but in our secular society I can only justify restricting gays to civil unions, not a complete 100% ban.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I don't agree it's the same on both aisles. True, conservative Democrats seem to be extinct but there are plenty of liberal Republicans. They aren't a bunch different than their buds on the left. They may not be AS liberal but give way too much ground.

In some ways, the different parties are the same and in other ways they are not. There are as many varied personal sets of beliefs among Democrats as there are among Republicans. For example Bernie Sanders is strong on gun rights and Jim Webb is even stronger. Not all of them are gun grabbers. But I think one is justified in being a bit gun-shy, pun intended, when it comes to Democrats who claim to be in favor of gun rights.

On the GOP side the RINOS are far quicker to cooperate with things that they dont see as essential issues than I prefer as they are breaking faith with their constituents. But the more experienced among them learn quickly how to play fight the Democrats on things they think truly doesnt matter. They become better at passing off as a Conservative when theya re really not at all.

Frankly, I would rather have an honest Republican moderate than a RINO who keeps play fighting on things I consider truly important as they serve the interests of corporations and the corporate crony network.

That's what this election was all about. People are fed up. We put Republicans in office to fight obamacare and what do we get? They didn't vote for it but they didn't stop it either. The party fought tooth and nail against Trump because he was not a party animal and it's why I and many others voted for him.

Hey, I am right there with you. I think Mac has more trust in the political establishment than you or I do, I get the impression he may be tangentially involved in it, but that doesnt mean that he is part of the problem.

He just has a different set of opinions than you and I have and I have seen no evidence that he is any less sincere or honest about his values than we are.

 

[kiwiman127]

Trump's daughter and grandkids harassed on an airplane, people refusing to perform for the inauguration or even in his hotels, the stories are coming fast and furious.

All of this is an excellent illustration of how ugly partisan ideology makes people.

For the next four (or more) years, those who hate Trump will continue their vicious-as-possible attacks, they'll defend and/or deflect for all nastiness directed at him and his family, they'll ignore and/or distort any positive news or attribute it to Obama or someone else, and they'll be hoping for as much pain as possible, to then be leveraged for electoral advantage.

Just as it was the last eight years, and before that. And it just keeps getting worse.

I'd like some (civil, decent, honest) input on this, without the standard finger-pointing and aggressive lack of self-awareness.

1. How has it come to this?
2. What good can come from this behavior, specifically?
3. What, if anything, can be done to reverse this ugly course?

JimBowie1958, you and I began a conversation on this yesterday.
.

I read this thread title;
Partisan ideology makes people ugly.
And thought to myself, "now this is a thread I can agree with."
Then I read the OP, what a huge disappointment. "Partisan ideology makes people ugly" is true and applies to to both sides of the aisle. Mac, where have you been the last thirteen years or so?
Following the election of George W Bush, there was polarization in the US, but it was in infant stages. 9/11, brought America together and that harmony rolled along until the invasion of Iraq drove a wedge into America and polarization of America has grown bigger and wider each passing year.
Both sides are equally responsible for this divisive polarization, anyone who denies this is truly not dealing with reality.
This partisanship that makes people ugly is a mockery of these words:
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
This is sad, very, very sad.

 

[JimBowie1958]

But I don't think discussion boards are where one should go for whatever healing they may need.

It isnt for you as you may have other people and social circles to take refuge in.

Not all of us have those options.

 

[Mac1958]

What are the various permutations people have on Gay marriage?

On the left:
1) Gay marriage should be legal and available to anyone that wants it and it should be treated as not different than any other form of marriage.

2) Gay marriage should be legal, but it is not exactly the same as heterosexual marriage.

The middle:
1) Gay marriage is different from normal marriage and so should not be treated in exactly the same way as heterosexual marriage in regard to tax breaks, etc.

2) Gay Marriage is not the optimal institution that we as a nation have an interest in promoting, but gays should have some form of legally recognised relationship so that they can be considered family and see sick loved ones, attend funerals, etc, that the other partners parents might not allow. And so we should have civil unions available to homosexuals who are interested in a permanent rel;ationship with most of the rights of being married.

The right
1) Gay Marriage is not a valid form of marriage as it is an endorsement of an unhealthy lifestyle and it is useless for obvious reason for promoting the demographic growth of our next generation. Having legal Gay marriage only erodes the efforts to promote demographic growth.

2) Gay marriage is a travesty, fraud, and undermines the holy institution of genuine marriage and is harmful for the children of such a union. It therefore must not be accommodated in any form or fashion.


These are several different variations on the gay marriage debate and there are more. I am simply giving you an example of how an issue can have more shades of gray than solid white or black.

BTW, personally I hold for my personal values the most conservative position, but in our secular society I can only justify restricting gays to civil unions, not a complete 100% ban.

That's the type of approach we should be using on ALL issues:

1. Clarify all definitions
2. Look for areas of agreement
3. Identify real differences that remain
4. Let the people decide from that point - win some, lose some

But instead, the partisan ideologues shout down the other side from the very beginning and pollute the entire conversation with distortion, hyperbole, straw man arguments and outright lies.

Simplistic, all-or-nothing, binary thought processes combined with narcissism are the enemy of real progress.
.

 

[Mac1958]

Trump's daughter and grandkids harassed on an airplane, people refusing to perform for the inauguration or even in his hotels, the stories are coming fast and furious.

All of this is an excellent illustration of how ugly partisan ideology makes people.

For the next four (or more) years, those who hate Trump will continue their vicious-as-possible attacks, they'll defend and/or deflect for all nastiness directed at him and his family, they'll ignore and/or distort any positive news or attribute it to Obama or someone else, and they'll be hoping for as much pain as possible, to then be leveraged for electoral advantage.

Just as it was the last eight years, and before that. And it just keeps getting worse.

I'd like some (civil, decent, honest) input on this, without the standard finger-pointing and aggressive lack of self-awareness.

1. How has it come to this?
2. What good can come from this behavior, specifically?
3. What, if anything, can be done to reverse this ugly course?

JimBowie1958, you and I began a conversation on this yesterday.
.

I read this thread title;
Partisan ideology makes people ugly.
And thought to myself, "now this is a thread I can agree with."
Then I read the OP, what a huge disappointment. "Partisan ideology makes people ugly" is true and applies to to both sides of the aisle. Mac, where have you been the last thirteen years or so?
Following the election of George W Bush, there was polarization in the US, but it was in infant stages. 9/11, brought America together and that harmony rolled along until the invasion of Iraq drove a wedge into America and polarization of America has grown bigger and wider each passing year.
Both sides are equally responsible for this divisive polarization, anyone who denies this is truly not dealing with reality.
This partisanship that makes people ugly is a mockery of these words:
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
This is sad, very, very sad.

I'm not sure where we disagree.
.

 

[JimBowie1958]

That's the type of approach we should be using on ALL issues:

1. Clarify all definitions
2. Look for areas of agreement
3. Identify real differences that remain
4. Let the people decide from that point - win some, lose some

But instead, the partisan ideologues shout down the other side from the very beginning and pollute the entire conversation with distortion, hyperbole, straw man arguments and outright lies.

Simplistic, all-or-nothing, binary thought processes combined with narcissism are the enemy of real progress.
.

We who see ourselves as in the middle and appreciative of BOTH sides of the debate, need to shun those who shout the other side down even if they are among the side we normally hang our hat with.

Not sure how to do that effectively.

 

[Mac1958]

That's the type of approach we should be using on ALL issues:

1. Clarify all definitions
2. Look for areas of agreement
3. Identify real differences that remain
4. Let the people decide from that point - win some, lose some

But instead, the partisan ideologues shout down the other side from the very beginning and pollute the entire conversation with distortion, hyperbole, straw man arguments and outright lies.

Simplistic, all-or-nothing, binary thought processes combined with narcissism are the enemy of real progress.
.

We who see ourselves as in the middle and appreciative of BOTH sides of the debate, need to shun those who shout the other side down even if they are among the side we normally hang our hat with.

Not sure how to do that effectively.

That part of it can only accomplish so much.

To me, the real progress can only begin when there is a change in direction culturally, organically; and that can only happen (the way our culture works) if recognized "leaders" in many areas (politics, sports, pop culture, across the board) get brave and start leading by example.
.