CDZ Partisan ideology makes people ugly.

[Darkwind]

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.
.

1. Detailing causality on how this all came about could fill a hundred Master thesis'. Suffice it to say that it began with My generation (born at the latter part of the baby boom, 1960) and their attitude of, "I'm not going to be as hard on my kids as my parents were on me." This started the snowball rolling. Now we have two, maybe three generations who think that the world absolutely must give them everything they want and anyone who gets in the way of that is the most evil, vile thing they can think of at the moment. That is also why it continues to get worse. They continue to think of more vile and hateful things to paint the adults with.

2. No good will ever come from immature behavior. It is why we tried to teach and train it out of our children. We are approaching a "Lord of the Flys" point in our history.

3. War.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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.
.

While I agree with the gist of that, we have to not allow the "Desire for the Perfect" to become the Enemy of the "Good Enough" or the "Incremental Gain".

 

[JimBowie1958]

1. Detailing causality on how this all came about could fill a hundred Master thesis'. Suffice it to say that it began with My generation (born at the latter part of the baby boom, 1960) and their attitude of, "I'm not going to be as hard on my kids as my parents were on me." This started the snowball rolling. Now we have two, maybe three generations who think that the world absolutely must give them everything they want and anyone who gets in the way of that is the most evil, vile thing they can think of at the moment. That is also why it continues to get worse. They continue to think of more vile and hateful things to paint the adults with.

2. No good will ever come from immature behavior. It is why we tried to teach and train it out of our children. We are approaching a "Lord of the Flys" point in our history.

3. War.

There are many different levels of warfare, from full blown nuclear Total War to Cold War to social warfare.

Using the lowest level of conflict to attain ones goals is the smartestway to win, dont you think?

 

[Darkwind]

1. Detailing causality on how this all came about could fill a hundred Master thesis'. Suffice it to say that it began with My generation (born at the latter part of the baby boom, 1960) and their attitude of, "I'm not going to be as hard on my kids as my parents were on me." This started the snowball rolling. Now we have two, maybe three generations who think that the world absolutely must give them everything they want and anyone who gets in the way of that is the most evil, vile thing they can think of at the moment. That is also why it continues to get worse. They continue to think of more vile and hateful things to paint the adults with.

2. No good will ever come from immature behavior. It is why we tried to teach and train it out of our children. We are approaching a "Lord of the Flys" point in our history.

3. War.

There are many different levels of warfare, from full blown nuclear Total War to Cold War to social warfare.

Using the lowest level of conflict to attain ones goals is the smartestway to win, dont you think?

I think that if they throw a punch to the nose, we throw 25 kicks to the balls. There is only one way to win a situation like this.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I think that if they throw a punch to the nose, we throw 25 kicks to the balls. There is only one way to win a situation like this.

Well if they cross the threshold into physical violence, then by all means, put them down like dogs.

But make sure of two things:

1) that there is no legal recourse in the courts. If you are in a fight first win the fight then take it to court.

2) Make sure that you are in the right and did not START the bloodshed. In any civil war there are huge losses on both sides. Before taking it to them, keep in mind that one of your loved ones might pay the price for any retaliation. Such things are among the ugliest forms of warfare.

 

[Darkwind]

I think that if they throw a punch to the nose, we throw 25 kicks to the balls. There is only one way to win a situation like this.

Well if they cross the threshold into physical violence, then by all means, put them down like dogs.

But make sure of two things:

1) that there is no legal recourse in the courts. If you are in a fight first win the fight then take it to court.

2) Make sure that you are in the right and did not START the bloodshed. In any civil war there are huge losses on both sides. Before taking it to them, keep in mind that one of your loved ones might pay the price for any retaliation. Such things are among the ugliest forms of warfare.

Then you will need to change the standard of what constitutes assault. Take the two clowns who attacked a woman and her children because they didn't like her dad's politics.

Do you think that the children felt real fear at a alleged adult, someone they were hopeful taught to respect, is suddenly shouting, redfaced (maybe spittle flying from his lips?) at their mother for doing nothing more than sitting in a seat on a plane?

That kind of confrontation should be a felony assault and the guy should be convicted of that assault and have to do 3 to 5 years. I have to wonder at the alleged men on that plane that sat by and just let that happen. Regardless of who the woman is. If that had been a conservative doing that to Chelsea Clinton, i would have stood up and told the guy to sit down or start bleeding. His choice.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

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.
.

Well, I think there are different types of intelligence, as the one in question has to do with original thought. There are a great many people with terrific memories, innate abilities with mathematics or ability to follow complex systems, and they are certainly intelligent, but they do not necessarily create. Their intelligence manifests itself in ways that are revealed in situations that are highly structured. The type of intelligence I was referring to I might call intuitive intelligence -- the ability to see the flaws in systems of thought, to point out bull shit and to theorize based upon observation. I don't see these traits as something that can be taught.

 

[Mac1958]

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.
.

Well, I think there are different types of intelligence, as the one in question has to do with original thought. There are a great many people with terrific memories, innate abilities with mathematics or ability to follow complex systems, and they are certainly intelligent, but they do not necessarily create. Their intelligence manifests itself in ways that are revealed in situations that are highly structured. The type of intelligence I was referring to I might call intuitive intelligence -- the ability to see the flaws in systems of thought, to point out bull shit and to theorize based upon observation. I don't see these traits as something that can be taught.

Yeah, fair point. If that is indeed true as it applies here, that would make me wonder then if they have the capacity to reject their thought patterns.

My theory has been this: I've read a few books on the subconscious, and they all agree that we can essentially "talk ourselves into" believing some pretty wild stuff. This is done primarily through repetition of words/thoughts, and limited exposure to contrary opinions - existing in essentially an ideological echo chamber.

So that has been my hypothesis - ideologues "talk themselves into" their thought patterns & vacuums, but maintain the capacity to talk themselves back OUT.

If they in fact LACK that capacity, that would be a different ball game.
.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

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.
.

Well, I think there are different types of intelligence, as the one in question has to do with original thought. There are a great many people with terrific memories, innate abilities with mathematics or ability to follow complex systems, and they are certainly intelligent, but they do not necessarily create. Their intelligence manifests itself in ways that are revealed in situations that are highly structured. The type of intelligence I was referring to I might call intuitive intelligence -- the ability to see the flaws in systems of thought, to point out bull shit and to theorize based upon observation. I don't see these traits as something that can be taught.

Yeah, fair point. If that is indeed true as it applies here, that would make me wonder then if they have the capacity to reject their thought patterns.

My theory has been this: I've read a few books on the subconscious, and they all agree that we can essentially "talk ourselves into" believing some pretty wild stuff. This is done primarily through repetition of words/thoughts, and limited exposure to contrary opinions - existing in essentially an ideological echo chamber.

So that has been my hypothesis - ideologues "talk themselves into" their thought patterns & vacuums, but maintain the capacity to talk themselves back OUT.

If they in fact LACK that capacity, that would be a different ball game.
.

Well, there have certainly been many cases of those who were true believers in one thing turning around and becoming a true believer in something else.

As such, my question would be to ask whether they have, indeed, displayed the capacity to change their thought patterns or whether they were simply hardwired towards being a true believer in the first place?

 

[Mac1958]

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.
.

Well, I think there are different types of intelligence, as the one in question has to do with original thought. There are a great many people with terrific memories, innate abilities with mathematics or ability to follow complex systems, and they are certainly intelligent, but they do not necessarily create. Their intelligence manifests itself in ways that are revealed in situations that are highly structured. The type of intelligence I was referring to I might call intuitive intelligence -- the ability to see the flaws in systems of thought, to point out bull shit and to theorize based upon observation. I don't see these traits as something that can be taught.

Yeah, fair point. If that is indeed true as it applies here, that would make me wonder then if they have the capacity to reject their thought patterns.

My theory has been this: I've read a few books on the subconscious, and they all agree that we can essentially "talk ourselves into" believing some pretty wild stuff. This is done primarily through repetition of words/thoughts, and limited exposure to contrary opinions - existing in essentially an ideological echo chamber.

So that has been my hypothesis - ideologues "talk themselves into" their thought patterns & vacuums, but maintain the capacity to talk themselves back OUT.

If they in fact LACK that capacity, that would be a different ball game.
.

Well, there have certainly been many cases of those who were true believers in one thing turning around and becoming a true believer in something else.

As such, my question would be to ask whether they have, indeed, displayed the capacity to change their thought patterns or whether they were simply hardwired towards being a true believer in the first place?

Whoa, like an addictive personality. Cigarettes, booze, drugs, etc.

Interesting.
.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

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.
.

Well, I think there are different types of intelligence, as the one in question has to do with original thought. There are a great many people with terrific memories, innate abilities with mathematics or ability to follow complex systems, and they are certainly intelligent, but they do not necessarily create. Their intelligence manifests itself in ways that are revealed in situations that are highly structured. The type of intelligence I was referring to I might call intuitive intelligence -- the ability to see the flaws in systems of thought, to point out bull shit and to theorize based upon observation. I don't see these traits as something that can be taught.

Yeah, fair point. If that is indeed true as it applies here, that would make me wonder then if they have the capacity to reject their thought patterns.

My theory has been this: I've read a few books on the subconscious, and they all agree that we can essentially "talk ourselves into" believing some pretty wild stuff. This is done primarily through repetition of words/thoughts, and limited exposure to contrary opinions - existing in essentially an ideological echo chamber.

So that has been my hypothesis - ideologues "talk themselves into" their thought patterns & vacuums, but maintain the capacity to talk themselves back OUT.

If they in fact LACK that capacity, that would be a different ball game.
.

Well, there have certainly been many cases of those who were true believers in one thing turning around and becoming a true believer in something else.

As such, my question would be to ask whether they have, indeed, displayed the capacity to change their thought patterns or whether they were simply hardwired towards being a true believer in the first place?

Whoa, like an addictive personality. Cigarettes, booze, drugs, etc.

Interesting.
.

Yep.

I see us as all having an innate struggle between our sense of being an individual and of being part of a group. We need that group bond in order to survive, but have the sort of self-awareness necessary to act as an individual, so there is always a tension between the two.

I imagine something of a bell curve where those at one end of the spectrum you have the sociopaths, the the heretics and the loners, and at the other end you have the fundamentalists, the totalitarians, and the sheeple. Too much individuality leads to dysfunction, but so does excessive conformity -- mob behavior and whatnot.

 

[Mac1958]

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.
.

Well, I think there are different types of intelligence, as the one in question has to do with original thought. There are a great many people with terrific memories, innate abilities with mathematics or ability to follow complex systems, and they are certainly intelligent, but they do not necessarily create. Their intelligence manifests itself in ways that are revealed in situations that are highly structured. The type of intelligence I was referring to I might call intuitive intelligence -- the ability to see the flaws in systems of thought, to point out bull shit and to theorize based upon observation. I don't see these traits as something that can be taught.

Yeah, fair point. If that is indeed true as it applies here, that would make me wonder then if they have the capacity to reject their thought patterns.

My theory has been this: I've read a few books on the subconscious, and they all agree that we can essentially "talk ourselves into" believing some pretty wild stuff. This is done primarily through repetition of words/thoughts, and limited exposure to contrary opinions - existing in essentially an ideological echo chamber.

So that has been my hypothesis - ideologues "talk themselves into" their thought patterns & vacuums, but maintain the capacity to talk themselves back OUT.

If they in fact LACK that capacity, that would be a different ball game.
.

Well, there have certainly been many cases of those who were true believers in one thing turning around and becoming a true believer in something else.

As such, my question would be to ask whether they have, indeed, displayed the capacity to change their thought patterns or whether they were simply hardwired towards being a true believer in the first place?

Whoa, like an addictive personality. Cigarettes, booze, drugs, etc.

Interesting.
.

Yep.

I see us as all having an innate struggle between our sense of being an individual and of being part of a group. We need that group bond in order to survive, but have the sort of self-awareness necessary to act as an individual, so there is always a tension between the two.

I imagine something of a bell curve where those at one end of the spectrum you have the sociopaths, the the heretics and the loners, and at the other end you have the fundamentalists, the totalitarians, and the sheeple. Too much individuality leads to dysfunction, but so does excessive conformity -- mob behavior and whatnot.

Man oh man, just looking around the board right now.

As this stuff just keeps getting worse, I'm seeing things written that would never even enter my head, not in a thousand years.

It's troubling, frankly. Every time we hit a new low, it's only temporary.
.

 

[Coyote]

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?

It certainly isn't a new phenomenum, in fact I'm surprised no one complained until now. It's been getting worse and worse and worse each year.

1. How has it come to this? Good question. A fundamental lack of manners and compassion disquised anti-PC maybe? An inability to recognize that just because you CAN - doesn't mean you should? You can blame the idiot that behaved that way, but don't overlook the role of the media (all kinds) and the unwillingness of the audience to condemn these kinds of attacks a culture that seems to glorify this behavior as "free speech".

2. What good can come from it? I honestly don't know. The only good I can think of is that it puts sunlight on some truly deplorable behavior and challenges us, on all sides to condemn it.

3. Condemnation. Stepping in and making a difference. Not being a standerby and allowing it. Not DEFENDING IT. You don't have to be violent. Whether it's Ivanka Trump or Michelle Obama or a Jewish guy with a yarmuka or a Muslim woman with a hajib - it should be excused. You can't be saying Trump caused it with his ugly rhetoric as an excuse for bad behavior. Teaching kids that this is not how to express political displeasure. Publically humiliating the attacker with condemnation.




Others have mentioned "tribalism". Humans are social animals - we're hardwired to want to be part of a group. Unfortunately a lot of "bonding rituals" include bullying and violence towards outsiders to solidify the group.

 

[Coyote]

Well, I think there are different types of intelligence, as the one in question has to do with original thought. There are a great many people with terrific memories, innate abilities with mathematics or ability to follow complex systems, and they are certainly intelligent, but they do not necessarily create. Their intelligence manifests itself in ways that are revealed in situations that are highly structured. The type of intelligence I was referring to I might call intuitive intelligence -- the ability to see the flaws in systems of thought, to point out bull shit and to theorize based upon observation. I don't see these traits as something that can be taught.

Yeah, fair point. If that is indeed true as it applies here, that would make me wonder then if they have the capacity to reject their thought patterns.

My theory has been this: I've read a few books on the subconscious, and they all agree that we can essentially "talk ourselves into" believing some pretty wild stuff. This is done primarily through repetition of words/thoughts, and limited exposure to contrary opinions - existing in essentially an ideological echo chamber.

So that has been my hypothesis - ideologues "talk themselves into" their thought patterns & vacuums, but maintain the capacity to talk themselves back OUT.

If they in fact LACK that capacity, that would be a different ball game.
.

Well, there have certainly been many cases of those who were true believers in one thing turning around and becoming a true believer in something else.

As such, my question would be to ask whether they have, indeed, displayed the capacity to change their thought patterns or whether they were simply hardwired towards being a true believer in the first place?

Whoa, like an addictive personality. Cigarettes, booze, drugs, etc.

Interesting.
.

Yep.

I see us as all having an innate struggle between our sense of being an individual and of being part of a group. We need that group bond in order to survive, but have the sort of self-awareness necessary to act as an individual, so there is always a tension between the two.

I imagine something of a bell curve where those at one end of the spectrum you have the sociopaths, the the heretics and the loners, and at the other end you have the fundamentalists, the totalitarians, and the sheeple. Too much individuality leads to dysfunction, but so does excessive conformity -- mob behavior and whatnot.

Man oh man, just looking around the board right now.

As this stuff just keeps getting worse, I'm seeing things written that would never even enter my head, not in a thousand years.

It's troubling, frankly. Every time we hit a new low, it's only temporary.
.

I've never seen so much sheer hate, uglyness, vitriole, labeling, and an utter unwillingness to discuss as I have lately. It's very dispiriting and it is coming from both sides. There seem to be no brakes.

 

[LoneLaugher]

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?
.

Yes.

It is no worse now than it was when we were kids. It's just far less politically correct.

Our culture is fine. There are awesome examples of how kind, generous and loving Americans are toward one another every single day. They just don't draw ratings.

Our children are fine. They are bright, well rounded and civic minded. They might even show us how to be more agreeable when we disagree. But....I caution you, Mac....that will appear like PC to you. You may not like it.

Merry Christmas.

 

[Mac1958]

Yeah, fair point. If that is indeed true as it applies here, that would make me wonder then if they have the capacity to reject their thought patterns.

My theory has been this: I've read a few books on the subconscious, and they all agree that we can essentially "talk ourselves into" believing some pretty wild stuff. This is done primarily through repetition of words/thoughts, and limited exposure to contrary opinions - existing in essentially an ideological echo chamber.

So that has been my hypothesis - ideologues "talk themselves into" their thought patterns & vacuums, but maintain the capacity to talk themselves back OUT.

If they in fact LACK that capacity, that would be a different ball game.
.

Well, there have certainly been many cases of those who were true believers in one thing turning around and becoming a true believer in something else.

As such, my question would be to ask whether they have, indeed, displayed the capacity to change their thought patterns or whether they were simply hardwired towards being a true believer in the first place?

Whoa, like an addictive personality. Cigarettes, booze, drugs, etc.

Interesting.
.

Yep.

I see us as all having an innate struggle between our sense of being an individual and of being part of a group. We need that group bond in order to survive, but have the sort of self-awareness necessary to act as an individual, so there is always a tension between the two.

I imagine something of a bell curve where those at one end of the spectrum you have the sociopaths, the the heretics and the loners, and at the other end you have the fundamentalists, the totalitarians, and the sheeple. Too much individuality leads to dysfunction, but so does excessive conformity -- mob behavior and whatnot.

Man oh man, just looking around the board right now.

As this stuff just keeps getting worse, I'm seeing things written that would never even enter my head, not in a thousand years.

It's troubling, frankly. Every time we hit a new low, it's only temporary.
.

I've never seen so much sheer hate, uglyness, vitriole, labeling, and an utter unwillingness to discuss as I have lately. It's very dispiriting and it is coming from both sides. There seem to be no brakes.

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?

It certainly isn't a new phenomenum, in fact I'm surprised no one complained until now. It's been getting worse and worse and worse each year.

1. How has it come to this? Good question. A fundamental lack of manners and compassion disquised anti-PC maybe? An inability to recognize that just because you CAN - doesn't mean you should? You can blame the idiot that behaved that way, but don't overlook the role of the media (all kinds) and the unwillingness of the audience to condemn these kinds of attacks a culture that seems to glorify this behavior as "free speech".

2. What good can come from it? I honestly don't know. The only good I can think of is that it puts sunlight on some truly deplorable behavior and challenges us, on all sides to condemn it.

3. Condemnation. Stepping in and making a difference. Not being a standerby and allowing it. Not DEFENDING IT. You don't have to be violent. Whether it's Ivanka Trump or Michelle Obama or a Jewish guy with a yarmuka or a Muslim woman with a hajib - it should be excused. You can't be saying Trump caused it with his ugly rhetoric as an excuse for bad behavior. Teaching kids that this is not how to express political displeasure. Publically humiliating the attacker with condemnation.




Others have mentioned "tribalism". Humans are social animals - we're hardwired to want to be part of a group. Unfortunately a lot of "bonding rituals" include bullying and violence towards outsiders to solidify the group.

You may disagree with this, but there goes: On one hand, I agree, this over-the-top snap-back against PC has led to, enabled, and allowed for some horrible, counter-productive behaviors. And no one is more virulently anti-PC than I am. That seems to be an ongoing problem in this country - we just love to kneejerk at every opportunity, and Trump really played on that. More than anything else, THAT got him into office.

HOWEVER - it would also be a mistake to acknowledge that and then ignore/dismiss the size and passion of the anti-PC'ers. While some of their behaviors have been flat-out wrong, they were and are reacting to something that has been taking place and growing for decades. It's real, and it's not going anywhere. I think that those who push PC are as responsible for Trump as anyone else. It's time they admit that and stop pushing it.

Regarding what can be done, my guess is that it has reached a point where a grass roots effort like that just isn't enough. The hatred on both sides is just too intense for that. My guess is that it will take people recognized as "leaders" - political, business, sports, pop culture, music, all of it - to be brave and use their position and visibility and influence to call it out and condemn it in no uncertain terms.

Look at it another way: Companies pay "celebrities" millions and millions to promote and endorse their products because they know the public will react to those endorsements. Well, maybe those same people could leverage their considerable influence to deal with the hatred that has infected this country. It shouldn't be that way - the thought of "celebrities" (plus more serious leaders, such as politics & business) coming to the rescue is repellent to me - but I think that's where we are.
.

 

[Iceweasel]

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.

You completely misrepresented the right, nice going. I find this typical with so call moderates or "reasonable" people. To justify their position they mischaracterize the others.

My view is it should be up to the citizens in the states like it always has been. Why is it different now? First, second cousins, it's up to the state, not central government. How people arrive at their view should be up to them, religious or not. Mine is based on the fact that mankind has been around for a while and gay marriage has not been part of it, regardless of the culture. Many today think it's an odd quirk of fate, a coincidence. BS.

People understood how little bunnies and children are made and marriage is the moral and legal union of the genders that bring different aspects to the family. If all that is thrown out what's the argument to keep it at two people? Makes no sense. So I base my opinion on logic and history and people are not free to mischaracerize or demonize me for it, which the left and "moderates" LOVE to do.

 

[Iceweasel]

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.

I didn't say it was up to me. You are consistently misrepresenting what I said.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Well, there have certainly been many cases of those who were true believers in one thing turning around and becoming a true believer in something else.

As such, my question would be to ask whether they have, indeed, displayed the capacity to change their thought patterns or whether they were simply hardwired towards being a true believer in the first place?

I think it was the German propaganda minister Goebels who said that he prefered converting communists to the Nazi movement because they were more prone to abandoning all their previous beliefs and adopting the new set of beliefs entirely than any other set of converts to Nazism.

But then again, it was that big a move in the first place.

Maybe Goebels was groping at something similar?

 

[JimBowie1958]

What are the various permutations people have on Gay marriage?....
These are several different variations on the gay marriage debate and there are more.

You completely misrepresented the right, nice going. I find this typical with so call moderates or "reasonable" people. To justify their position they mischaracterize the others.

I was not giving an exhaustive listing, just two samples fromt he left, middle and right for the point of illustration of the granularity you said was not there.

Certainly there are as many variations of belief on this topic as there are people with opinions.

But I certainly was not trying to mischaracterize anyone or anything.

Chillax, bro, there is plenty of food for the feast.