Which "side" of the "fence" are you on?

[Mac1958]

don't agree with that assertion. Without exception, every temperate and prudent person with whom I've interacted -- personally and professionally -- recognizes that their position need not be one of "all or nothing;" thus they strive sincerely for genuinely win-win solutions

Perhaps level headed people are not passionate about their beliefs. Not sure. I used to be a staunch Christian and people would not view me as level headed but brainwashed. So, I guess it depends on what YOU VIEW as temperate and prudent. Again, you are limiting the field. Not every passionate Christian is a nut job crazy. Even if they feel it is their duty to try to get others to believe as they do, since they truly believe their soul depends on it.

I've developed a huge respect for the power of ideology -- that includes everything from religion to politics -- and I know that we can talk ourselves into some pretty incredible things.

In all seriousness, I used to think that ideologues knew they were being intellectually dishonest and playing games. But I changed my mind on that, I think an ideologue really can believe what they're saying, no matter how outlandish it seems.

That's not good news.
.

 

[Votto]

I am a strong proponent of discussion and agreeing to disagree. Coming to a compromise is difficult, even with level headed people that are firmly entrenched in their beliefs.

When it reaches this level, unfortunately, a fight to the death can be the deciding factor. It happens often in nature. Obviously, we view ourselves as above all other animals, so, we should know better... but sometimes nature takes over. The ID lives.

Coming to a compromise is difficult, even with level headed people that are firmly entrenched in their beliefs.

I don't agree with that assertion. Without exception, every temperate and prudent person with whom I've interacted -- personally and professionally -- recognizes that their position need not be one of "all or nothing;" thus they strive sincerely for genuinely win-win solutions. Every rube I've encounters, all of whom are indolently pusillanimous SOBs, on the other hand, dastardly conceive and construe everything binarily.

The problem is that your second group is the one that is the loudest and therefore attracts the most attention and influence.

Here's what really worries me: This in anecdotal only, but as part of my profession I speak at a fairly in-depth level with a lot of people I haven't met before. And it just seems like more and more often, some switch goes off, and they go off on a very binary, partisan tangent. They use words and phrases that you'd hear on conservative talk radio or left wing website.

And look at what is happening in popular culture: There is now nowhere to go to escape partisan politics. for a moment or two.

I could be wrong on that, but it just seems to me that this behavior is beginning to infect a larger percentage of our population.
.

And the more intrusive government becomes in our lives the worse this will get.

This is because the life blood of politicians is division. After all, would you send your support and money to certain politicians if you thought they would all treat us the same? No, you are sending your money to those who will benefit you. You are betting the house that your vote or campaign money will benefit the group you want represented.

I don't think our increasing divisions are coming from the politicians - they're just puppets who are chasing campaign contributions.

This is coming from our culture, from the people who gain personally by increasing our divisions, and their flocks who implement for them.
.

There is a reason that BLM rose up when they did, it was when Obama was President. They thought to themselves, here is our chance with someone who cares who is in charge.

Likewise, Trump was elected and the white Nazis said, here is our chance.

But yea, you are right, neither party gives a damn it's all demagoguery because both parties will drag us kicking and screaming to the same place, but the perception is otherwise. The perception is that they will help our group.

 

[Votto]

don't agree with that assertion. Without exception, every temperate and prudent person with whom I've interacted -- personally and professionally -- recognizes that their position need not be one of "all or nothing;" thus they strive sincerely for genuinely win-win solutions

Perhaps level headed people are not passionate about their beliefs. Not sure. I used to be a staunch Christian and people would not view me as level headed but brainwashed. So, I guess it depends on what YOU VIEW as temperate and prudent. Again, you are limiting the field. Not every passionate Christian is a nut job crazy. Even if they feel it is their duty to try to get others to believe as they do, since they truly believe their soul depends on it.

I've developed a huge respect for the power of ideology -- that includes everything from religion to politics -- and I know that we can talk ourselves into some pretty incredible things.

In all seriousness, I used to think that ideologues knew they were being intellectually dishonest and playing games. But I changed my mind on that, I think an ideologue really can believe what they're saying, no matter how outlandish it seems.

That's not good news.
.

I would not say that ideology is necessarily a bad thing. Are you not forming your own?

In fact, we depend on ideology, or belief. That is because we can prove precious little in this world. All we have are random facts, or what we think are facts, to try and correlate them into meaning. This requires belief, and without it, we could not function.

Religion and politics are closely related in this way. Neither can be proven or disproven. Both give us a frame work for what is good and bad. We all have a savior and a devil it seems. For Dims, their salvation is a collective salvation that is ushered in by the Nanny state. For those of faith, we will only know true salvation in the next life.

 

[Wry Catcher]

This latest incident violent incident in Charlottesville is once again illustrating how our divisions are increasing, and how the "sides" of the "fence" are becoming more clear.

On one side of the fence, we have the people who appear to think they're "accomplishing" something by screaming at, verbally attacking, insulting, blaming, and now, finally, physically attacking and even KILLING those who dare to disagree with them. Attack, attack, attack, no matter what.

Their political affiliations are irrelevant, because their behaviors are so similar. They would much rather scream than communicate. They would much rather attack than heal. They would much rather "beat" those who dare to disagree than find a way to co-exist with them like normal, well-adjusted adults.

On the other side of the fence is the majority of the country, those who know that the only way to solve problems is to communicate and cooperate. That you're not always going to get your way. That sometimes you have to be a little humble, check your ego, and respect differing opinions. And that -- horror of horrors -- you may actually be wrong about something now and then.

So, which side of the fence are you on?
.

The side which votes for those who will actively listen, communicate and cooperate. That lets out our current POTUS.

 

[Billo_Really]

This latest incident violent incident in Charlottesville is once again illustrating how our divisions are increasing, and how the "sides" of the "fence" are becoming more clear.

On one side of the fence, we have the people who appear to think they're "accomplishing" something by screaming at, verbally attacking, insulting, blaming, and now, finally, physically attacking and even KILLING those who dare to disagree with them. Attack, attack, attack, no matter what.

Their political affiliations are irrelevant, because their behaviors are so similar. They would much rather scream than communicate. They would much rather attack than heal. They would much rather "beat" those who dare to disagree than find a way to co-exist with them like normal, well-adjusted adults.

On the other side of the fence is the majority of the country, those who know that the only way to solve problems is to communicate and cooperate. That you're not always going to get your way. That sometimes you have to be a little humble, check your ego, and respect differing opinions. And that -- horror of horrors -- you may actually be wrong about something now and then.

So, which side of the fence are you on?
.

I'm on the side of the American way. Being tolerant of others and their beliefs (except the Dutch).

 

[Billo_Really]

The side which votes for those who will actively listen, communicate and cooperate. That lets out our current POTUS.

Listening is 75% of a conversation.

 

[Billo_Really]

I'm on the side that involves cracking open heads on both sides and putting all these perps away with substantial sentences.

All the talk of love and cooperation and "coming together as one" oozing out of our politicians is just shit. No one is listening.

Media are fueling this crap by the all-day constant attention paid to them.

Outlaw these people - all of them - and get them out of the way by whatever means are legally available. If none are available, make them so.

Or become Venezuela. It's your choice.

Obviously, you have no clue as to what are American values.

 

[Votto]

This latest incident violent incident in Charlottesville is once again illustrating how our divisions are increasing, and how the "sides" of the "fence" are becoming more clear.

On one side of the fence, we have the people who appear to think they're "accomplishing" something by screaming at, verbally attacking, insulting, blaming, and now, finally, physically attacking and even KILLING those who dare to disagree with them. Attack, attack, attack, no matter what.

Their political affiliations are irrelevant, because their behaviors are so similar. They would much rather scream than communicate. They would much rather attack than heal. They would much rather "beat" those who dare to disagree than find a way to co-exist with them like normal, well-adjusted adults.

On the other side of the fence is the majority of the country, those who know that the only way to solve problems is to communicate and cooperate. That you're not always going to get your way. That sometimes you have to be a little humble, check your ego, and respect differing opinions. And that -- horror of horrors -- you may actually be wrong about something now and then.

So, which side of the fence are you on?
.

I'm on the side of the American way. Being tolerant of others and their beliefs (except the Dutch).

Interesting. So as long as people are for the "American way"?

Naturally, screw the Dutch, that is a given.

Any ideology will work if everyone is on the same page and agrees, even communism. The problem is, people disagree, so the question becomes what is the best ideology for people who disagree, or may not be for your "American way"? Put a better way, what ideology can adapt to the reality of human nature rather than wishing human nature were a certain way?

The larger question is, is there a good ideology that can join together a people that are at odds, or, can true diversity work?

I'm skeptical.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The side which votes for those who will actively listen, communicate and cooperate. That lets out our current POTUS.

Listening is 75% of a conversation.

For active listeners; far too many who should be listening, are thinking about what they want to say once the speaker pauses for a breath.

 

[Wry Catcher]

This latest incident violent incident in Charlottesville is once again illustrating how our divisions are increasing, and how the "sides" of the "fence" are becoming more clear.

On one side of the fence, we have the people who appear to think they're "accomplishing" something by screaming at, verbally attacking, insulting, blaming, and now, finally, physically attacking and even KILLING those who dare to disagree with them. Attack, attack, attack, no matter what.

Their political affiliations are irrelevant, because their behaviors are so similar. They would much rather scream than communicate. They would much rather attack than heal. They would much rather "beat" those who dare to disagree than find a way to co-exist with them like normal, well-adjusted adults.

On the other side of the fence is the majority of the country, those who know that the only way to solve problems is to communicate and cooperate. That you're not always going to get your way. That sometimes you have to be a little humble, check your ego, and respect differing opinions. And that -- horror of horrors -- you may actually be wrong about something now and then.

So, which side of the fence are you on?
.

I'm on the side of the American way. Being tolerant of others and their beliefs (except the Dutch).

Interesting. So as long as people are for the "American way"?

Naturally, screw the Dutch, that is a given.

Any ideology will work if everyone is on the same page and agrees, even communism. The problem is, people disagree, so the question becomes what is the best ideology for people who disagree, or may not be for your "American way"? Put a better way, what ideology can adapt to the reality of human nature rather than wishing human nature were a certain way?

The larger question is, is there a good ideology that can join together a people that are at odds, or, can true diversity work?

I'm skeptical.

It's a simple one, which needs no explanation or justification: The Golden Rule

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

 

[Mac1958]

This latest incident violent incident in Charlottesville is once again illustrating how our divisions are increasing, and how the "sides" of the "fence" are becoming more clear.

On one side of the fence, we have the people who appear to think they're "accomplishing" something by screaming at, verbally attacking, insulting, blaming, and now, finally, physically attacking and even KILLING those who dare to disagree with them. Attack, attack, attack, no matter what.

Their political affiliations are irrelevant, because their behaviors are so similar. They would much rather scream than communicate. They would much rather attack than heal. They would much rather "beat" those who dare to disagree than find a way to co-exist with them like normal, well-adjusted adults.

On the other side of the fence is the majority of the country, those who know that the only way to solve problems is to communicate and cooperate. That you're not always going to get your way. That sometimes you have to be a little humble, check your ego, and respect differing opinions. And that -- horror of horrors -- you may actually be wrong about something now and then.

So, which side of the fence are you on?
.

I'm on the side of the American way. Being tolerant of others and their beliefs (except the Dutch).

Interesting. So as long as people are for the "American way"?

Naturally, screw the Dutch, that is a given.

Any ideology will work if everyone is on the same page and agrees, even communism. The problem is, people disagree, so the question becomes what is the best ideology for people who disagree, or may not be for your "American way"? Put a better way, what ideology can adapt to the reality of human nature rather than wishing human nature were a certain way?

The larger question is, is there a good ideology that can join together a people that are at odds, or, can true diversity work?

I'm skeptical.

That's a great question, but it's binary, either/or. Really, I'd think the answer is "both".

Rather than having a single ideology to govern all thought, a larger ideology that allows for, and even encourages, contrary thought makes more sense to me. The question, the problem, is how we deal with contrary thought. Do we dismiss it out of hand? Do we automatically attack it the way white blood cells attack an infection?

Or do we agree that human nature is curious, inquisitive, and not being so is destructive and counter-productive? To me, committing to an ideology robs a person of their curiosity, and leads to a narcissistic defensiveness that stops us from solving problems.
.

 

[Billo_Really]

Interesting. So as long as people are for the "American way"?

Naturally, screw the Dutch, that is a given.

Any ideology will work if everyone is on the same page and agrees, even communism. The problem is, people disagree, so the question becomes what is the best ideology for people who disagree, or may not be for your "American way"? Put a better way, what ideology can adapt to the reality of human nature rather than wishing human nature were a certain way?

The larger question is, is there a good ideology that can join together a people that are at odds, or, can true diversity work?

I'm skeptical.

We're the country where many ideologies can co-exist without being attacked for those views.

 

[easyt65]

Just curious....

Why did the former Globalist Narcissist and Chief quote the African Nelson Madela rather than American Martin Luther King, who actually 'fought' here to end racism, when speaking out yesterday?

 

[Si modo]

​

The demonstrated racist pig is trying to feel relevant in any discussion about racism.​

 

[Mac1958]

I assume your posts are meant to provide an illustration of my point?
.

 

[easyt65]

We're the country where many ideologies can co-exist without being attacked for those views.

We're supposed to be a 'melting pot', not an 'octagon'.

 

[Billo_Really]

That's a great question, but it's binary, either/or. Really, I'd think the answer is "both".

Rather than having a single ideology to govern all thought, a larger ideology that allows for, and even encourages, contrary thought makes more sense to me. The question, the problem, is how we deal with contrary thought. Do we dismiss it out of hand? Do we automatically attack it the way white blood cells attack an infection?

Or do we agree that human nature is curious, inquisitive, and not being so is destructive and counter-productive? To me, committing to an ideology robs a person of their curiosity, and leads to a narcissistic defensiveness that stops us from solving problems.
.

When it gets to that point, we need to seek out the Tea Party for leadership and guidance.

Or maybe I've had one too many jello shots?

 

[Billo_Really]

We're supposed to be a 'melting pot', not an 'octagon'.

What, you're not in to MMA?

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

This latest incident violent incident in Charlottesville is once again illustrating how our divisions are increasing, and how the "sides" of the "fence" are becoming more clear.

On one side of the fence, we have the people who appear to think they're "accomplishing" something by screaming at, verbally attacking, insulting, blaming, and now, finally, physically attacking and even KILLING those who dare to disagree with them. Attack, attack, attack, no matter what.

Their political affiliations are irrelevant, because their behaviors are so similar. They would much rather scream than communicate. They would much rather attack than heal. They would much rather "beat" those who dare to disagree than find a way to co-exist with them like normal, well-adjusted adults.

On the other side of the fence is the majority of the country, those who know that the only way to solve problems is to communicate and cooperate. That you're not always going to get your way. That sometimes you have to be a little humble, check your ego, and respect differing opinions. And that -- horror of horrors -- you may actually be wrong about something now and then.

So, which side of the fence are you on?
.

If I get 51% of what I want then I am happy and anymore mean the better it is.

Now if I do not hit that goal of 51% then I have to work on getting the officials I want elected to achieve that goal but do I scream and yell if I fail and kill others?

No, because in real life you win some and you lose some and you learn to work around the problems you face by working with others or just going around the system until you get the system changed ro benefit you...

That is what adults do!