This country is more divided than it has been since the U.S. Civil War from 1861-1865. I think it would be difficult to impossible to argue that this is a good thing. There are many people among us who would like to see Americans be more united and work together for those thing we want and need (and you know my bias- I would hope for the good of the planet as well).
I've already post a graph elsewhere that shows show how Congress used to work together across the isle to get things done. That working together has become increasingly less and less common to the point of being almost non-existent. There are groups who would like to see us work together again (RepresentUs is a prime example) and even the occasional politician or political candidate emphasizes this desire (Andrew Yang is an excellent example).
So my question is, can we be more united and work together better again? If so, how?
An incident occurred at the bookstore yesterday that got me to thinking about this. We had a customer who was looking for any books we had published by a certain press. In the process of gathering them together and packaging them up to ship (he was visiting from out of state) we had plenty of time to talk and get to know each other a bit. As it turns out, this man has a major position in a department under in the Trump administration and was hired by the president (I won't say who he is or what his position is as that is not relevant here, but I will say he is not war related and not likely at all anyone you would know of). He was also a very personable man and it was a pleasure talking with him about his former work, about books, about organizing a library, pretty much anything but politics. And I'm guessing he could figure out I'm not a Trump kind of guy (and you all sure as heck know that!) by my MATH. pin, but none of that mattered because we were working together packing the books he purchased and having a friendly conversation. As he left, we should hands and he said, "Thank you, keep in touch." Cool!
I think we can work together. We all want basically the same things and if you don't get it together, we will all lose.
That's my 200 cents. Yours?
Really? How are you measuring this?
I base that on what I know of U.S. history from the the mid 1800's up until the early 1960's at which point it all became personal observation and keeping up with current events.
Brian,
Obviously, you and I disagree on a lot of things, but I don't think we disagree that the political environment right now is pretty crappy. However, I think it's important to clearly see the nature of that environment. Saying we're more divided than we've been since the Civil War I fear obscures the nature of our divide. Are we more divided than we were during Reconstruction, Jim Crow, the Red Summer of 1919, the Civil Rights Movement, Suffrage, the Vietnam War? I lean toward "no" as the answer to at least some of those things. I don't want to derail the larger point of your thread, but I am genuinely curious about the *nature* of the divide you see--what exactly is that divide and how does it manifest?--because I think understanding the divide is crucial for deciding a) how we fix it? and b) if we want to unite.
To clarify that last part: another moment of significant divide was the Civil Rights Movement. Was the appropriate question at that time "how do we unite competing views on Civil Rights?" I would suggest not.
I really think we should be less divided because most people have internet access- access to more information. But social media has sort of "sabotaged" that information by making it too easy to "know" what is right (i.e. chose sides). So factoring a misused tool that could solve so many issues yet aided in divided is part of why I say we are divided more than ever.
But let's assume I'm wrong and we have been more divided in the past than we are today. Is the division we see today healthy, normal, not worth being concerned about? Should I assume division is normal and instead of fretting over the state of things that way my time would be better spent making coffee?
Coffee? Did someone say coffee?
Umm, excuse me. I shall return.
I ask not because I want people to throw their hands up and say "why bother trying?" Rather, we all have to ask ourselves: who is it with whom I disagree (i.e., from whom I'm divided)? On what do we disagree? And is it possible to have common ground with that person (to "unite" as you put it)? For all of us, I believe there are some people we're not willing to "meet halfway" (so to speak). As an extreme example, the white supremacists who marched in Charlottesville. I don't want under any circumstances want to unite with those people; to find any common ground. I want them not to exist.
Well, it is true, there will always be extremest. But I'm not sure they are as common as the media/internet would get us to believe. For example, I live in one of the most conservative parts of California (El Dorado County- highly conservative and, yes, lots of guns) but even here there really aren't that many extremest. Most people just go about their day. When I attended a pro-impeachment rally on the steps of city hall, nobody got shot or run over or even harassed. I just don't see the extremes being that prevalent among the people. But they are out there in big business and government.
That's completely fair. So, we're really asking "where does each person draw the line and say 'anyone on this side of the line, I'm not trying to unite with,'" right?
If the 2016 Presidential election results are any indication, I live in a place significantly more conservative than you (40% for Clinton in your county; <25% in my county). I regularly see *overt* racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. That has a big effect on where I draw my personal line.
This country is more divided than it has been since the U.S. Civil War from 1861-1865. I think it would be difficult to impossible to argue that this is a good thing. There are many people among us who would like to see Americans be more united and work together for those thing we want and need (and you know my bias- I would hope for the good of the planet as well).
I've already post a graph elsewhere that shows show how Congress used to work together across the isle to get things done. That working together has become increasingly less and less common to the point of being almost non-existent. There are groups who would like to see us work together again (RepresentUs is a prime example) and even the occasional politician or political candidate emphasizes this desire (Andrew Yang is an excellent example).
So my question is, can we be more united and work together better again? If so, how?
An incident occurred at the bookstore yesterday that got me to thinking about this. We had a customer who was looking for any books we had published by a certain press. In the process of gathering them together and packaging them up to ship (he was visiting from out of state) we had plenty of time to talk and get to know each other a bit. As it turns out, this man has a major position in a department under in the Trump administration and was hired by the president (I won't say who he is or what his position is as that is not relevant here, but I will say he is not war related and not likely at all anyone you would know of). He was also a very personable man and it was a pleasure talking with him about his former work, about books, about organizing a library, pretty much anything but politics. And I'm guessing he could figure out I'm not a Trump kind of guy (and you all sure as heck know that!) by my MATH. pin, but none of that mattered because we were working together packing the books he purchased and having a friendly conversation. As he left, we should hands and he said, "Thank you, keep in touch." Cool!
I think we can work together. We all want basically the same things and if you don't get it together, we will all lose.
That's my 200 cents. Yours?
Really? How are you measuring this?
I base that on what I know of U.S. history from the the mid 1800's up until the early 1960's at which point it all became personal observation and keeping up with current events.
Brian,
Obviously, you and I disagree on a lot of things, but I don't think we disagree that the political environment right now is pretty crappy. However, I think it's important to clearly see the nature of that environment. Saying we're more divided than we've been since the Civil War I fear obscures the nature of our divide. Are we more divided than we were during Reconstruction, Jim Crow, the Red Summer of 1919, the Civil Rights Movement, Suffrage, the Vietnam War? I lean toward "no" as the answer to at least some of those things. I don't want to derail the larger point of your thread, but I am genuinely curious about the *nature* of the divide you see--what exactly is that divide and how does it manifest?--because I think understanding the divide is crucial for deciding a) how we fix it? and b) if we want to unite.
To clarify that last part: another moment of significant divide was the Civil Rights Movement. Was the appropriate question at that time "how do we unite competing views on Civil Rights?" I would suggest not.
I really think we should be less divided because most people have internet access- access to more information. But social media has sort of "sabotaged" that information by making it too easy to "know" what is right (i.e. chose sides). So factoring a misused tool that could solve so many issues yet aided in divided is part of why I say we are divided more than ever.
But let's assume I'm wrong and we have been more divided in the past than we are today. Is the division we see today healthy, normal, not worth being concerned about? Should I assume division is normal and instead of fretting over the state of things that way my time would be better spent making coffee?
Coffee? Did someone say coffee?
Umm, excuse me. I shall return.
I ask not because I want people to throw their hands up and say "why bother trying?" Rather, we all have to ask ourselves: who is it with whom I disagree (i.e., from whom I'm divided)? On what do we disagree? And is it possible to have common ground with that person (to "unite" as you put it)? For all of us, I believe there are some people we're not willing to "meet halfway" (so to speak). As an extreme example, the white supremacists who marched in Charlottesville. I don't want under any circumstances want to unite with those people; to find any common ground. I want them not to exist.
Well, it is true, there will always be extremest. But I'm not sure they are as common as the media/internet would get us to believe. For example, I live in one of the most conservative parts of California (El Dorado County- highly conservative and, yes, lots of guns) but even here there really aren't that many extremest. Most people just go about their day. When I attended a pro-impeachment rally on the steps of city hall, nobody got shot or run over or even harassed. I just don't see the extremes being that prevalent among the people. But they are out there in big business and government.
That's completely fair. So, we're really asking "where does each person draw the line and say 'anyone on this side of the line, I'm not trying to unite with,'" right?
If the 2016 Presidential election results are any indication, I live in a place significantly more conservative than you (40% for Clinton in your county; <25% in my county). I regularly see *overt* racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. That has a big effect on where I draw my personal line.
Perhaps "unite" was not the best choice of words. Ideally, unity is great. But sometimes the best you can do (not including a self-defense situation) is treat someone the way you want to be treated. Speak out against racism, sexism, homophobia and the destruction of the planet- yes!- but do no harm to any person (the motto of Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and the original Earth First! movement before it was infiltrated by despoilers) and be kind (the motto of Ilona Ann Coggswater, daughter of God, fan of Paul Westerberg in Gorman Bechard's The Second Greatest Story Ever Told) and love may fail, but courtesy will prevail (Kurt Vonnegut Jr.)
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
This country is more divided than it has been since the U.S. Civil War from 1861-1865. I think it would be difficult to impossible to argue that this is a good thing. There are many people among us who would like to see Americans be more united and work together for those thing we want and need (and you know my bias- I would hope for the good of the planet as well).
I've already post a graph elsewhere that shows show how Congress used to work together across the isle to get things done. That working together has become increasingly less and less common to the point of being almost non-existent. There are groups who would like to see us work together again (RepresentUs is a prime example) and even the occasional politician or political candidate emphasizes this desire (Andrew Yang is an excellent example).
So my question is, can we be more united and work together better again? If so, how?
An incident occurred at the bookstore yesterday that got me to thinking about this. We had a customer who was looking for any books we had published by a certain press. In the process of gathering them together and packaging them up to ship (he was visiting from out of state) we had plenty of time to talk and get to know each other a bit. As it turns out, this man has a major position in a department under in the Trump administration and was hired by the president (I won't say who he is or what his position is as that is not relevant here, but I will say he is not war related and not likely at all anyone you would know of). He was also a very personable man and it was a pleasure talking with him about his former work, about books, about organizing a library, pretty much anything but politics. And I'm guessing he could figure out I'm not a Trump kind of guy (and you all sure as heck know that!) by my MATH. pin, but none of that mattered because we were working together packing the books he purchased and having a friendly conversation. As he left, we should hands and he said, "Thank you, keep in touch." Cool!
I think we can work together. We all want basically the same things and if you don't get it together, we will all lose.
That's my 200 cents. Yours?
Really? How are you measuring this?
I base that on what I know of U.S. history from the the mid 1800's up until the early 1960's at which point it all became personal observation and keeping up with current events.
Brian,
Obviously, you and I disagree on a lot of things, but I don't think we disagree that the political environment right now is pretty crappy. However, I think it's important to clearly see the nature of that environment. Saying we're more divided than we've been since the Civil War I fear obscures the nature of our divide. Are we more divided than we were during Reconstruction, Jim Crow, the Red Summer of 1919, the Civil Rights Movement, Suffrage, the Vietnam War? I lean toward "no" as the answer to at least some of those things. I don't want to derail the larger point of your thread, but I am genuinely curious about the *nature* of the divide you see--what exactly is that divide and how does it manifest?--because I think understanding the divide is crucial for deciding a) how we fix it? and b) if we want to unite.
To clarify that last part: another moment of significant divide was the Civil Rights Movement. Was the appropriate question at that time "how do we unite competing views on Civil Rights?" I would suggest not.
I really think we should be less divided because most people have internet access- access to more information. But social media has sort of "sabotaged" that information by making it too easy to "know" what is right (i.e. chose sides). So factoring a misused tool that could solve so many issues yet aided in divided is part of why I say we are divided more than ever.
But let's assume I'm wrong and we have been more divided in the past than we are today. Is the division we see today healthy, normal, not worth being concerned about? Should I assume division is normal and instead of fretting over the state of things that way my time would be better spent making coffee?
Coffee? Did someone say coffee?
Umm, excuse me. I shall return.
I ask not because I want people to throw their hands up and say "why bother trying?" Rather, we all have to ask ourselves: who is it with whom I disagree (i.e., from whom I'm divided)? On what do we disagree? And is it possible to have common ground with that person (to "unite" as you put it)? For all of us, I believe there are some people we're not willing to "meet halfway" (so to speak). As an extreme example, the white supremacists who marched in Charlottesville. I don't want under any circumstances want to unite with those people; to find any common ground. I want them not to exist.
Well, it is true, there will always be extremest. But I'm not sure they are as common as the media/internet would get us to believe. For example, I live in one of the most conservative parts of California (El Dorado County- highly conservative and, yes, lots of guns) but even here there really aren't that many extremest. Most people just go about their day. When I attended a pro-impeachment rally on the steps of city hall, nobody got shot or run over or even harassed. I just don't see the extremes being that prevalent among the people. But they are out there in big business and government.
That's completely fair. So, we're really asking "where does each person draw the line and say 'anyone on this side of the line, I'm not trying to unite with,'" right?
If the 2016 Presidential election results are any indication, I live in a place significantly more conservative than you (40% for Clinton in your county; <25% in my county). I regularly see *overt* racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. That has a big effect on where I draw my personal line.
Perhaps "unite" was not the best choice of words. Ideally, unity is great. But sometimes the best you can do (not including a self-defense situation) is treat someone the way you want to be treated. Speak out against racism, sexism, homophobia and the destruction of the planet- yes!- but do no harm to any person (the motto of Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and the original Earth First! movement before it was infiltrated by despoilers) and be kind (the motto of Ilona Ann Coggswater, daughter of God, fan of Paul Westerberg in Gorman Bechard's The Second Greatest Story Ever Told) and love may fail, but courtesy will prevail (Kurt Vonnegut Jr.)
This country is more divided than it has been since the U.S. Civil War from 1861-1865. I think it would be difficult to impossible to argue that this is a good thing. There are many people among us who would like to see Americans be more united and work together for those thing we want and need (and you know my bias- I would hope for the good of the planet as well).
I've already post a graph elsewhere that shows show how Congress used to work together across the isle to get things done. That working together has become increasingly less and less common to the point of being almost non-existent. There are groups who would like to see us work together again (RepresentUs is a prime example) and even the occasional politician or political candidate emphasizes this desire (Andrew Yang is an excellent example).
So my question is, can we be more united and work together better again? If so, how?
An incident occurred at the bookstore yesterday that got me to thinking about this. We had a customer who was looking for any books we had published by a certain press. In the process of gathering them together and packaging them up to ship (he was visiting from out of state) we had plenty of time to talk and get to know each other a bit. As it turns out, this man has a major position in a department under in the Trump administration and was hired by the president (I won't say who he is or what his position is as that is not relevant here, but I will say he is not war related and not likely at all anyone you would know of). He was also a very personable man and it was a pleasure talking with him about his former work, about books, about organizing a library, pretty much anything but politics. And I'm guessing he could figure out I'm not a Trump kind of guy (and you all sure as heck know that!) by my MATH. pin, but none of that mattered because we were working together packing the books he purchased and having a friendly conversation. As he left, we should hands and he said, "Thank you, keep in touch." Cool!
I think we can work together. We all want basically the same things and if you don't get it together, we will all lose.
That's my 200 cents. Yours?
Really? How are you measuring this?
I base that on what I know of U.S. history from the the mid 1800's up until the early 1960's at which point it all became personal observation and keeping up with current events.
Brian,
Obviously, you and I disagree on a lot of things, but I don't think we disagree that the political environment right now is pretty crappy. However, I think it's important to clearly see the nature of that environment. Saying we're more divided than we've been since the Civil War I fear obscures the nature of our divide. Are we more divided than we were during Reconstruction, Jim Crow, the Red Summer of 1919, the Civil Rights Movement, Suffrage, the Vietnam War? I lean toward "no" as the answer to at least some of those things. I don't want to derail the larger point of your thread, but I am genuinely curious about the *nature* of the divide you see--what exactly is that divide and how does it manifest?--because I think understanding the divide is crucial for deciding a) how we fix it? and b) if we want to unite.
To clarify that last part: another moment of significant divide was the Civil Rights Movement. Was the appropriate question at that time "how do we unite competing views on Civil Rights?" I would suggest not.
I really think we should be less divided because most people have internet access- access to more information. But social media has sort of "sabotaged" that information by making it too easy to "know" what is right (i.e. chose sides). So factoring a misused tool that could solve so many issues yet aided in divided is part of why I say we are divided more than ever.
But let's assume I'm wrong and we have been more divided in the past than we are today. Is the division we see today healthy, normal, not worth being concerned about? Should I assume division is normal and instead of fretting over the state of things that way my time would be better spent making coffee?
Coffee? Did someone say coffee?
Umm, excuse me. I shall return.
I ask not because I want people to throw their hands up and say "why bother trying?" Rather, we all have to ask ourselves: who is it with whom I disagree (i.e., from whom I'm divided)? On what do we disagree? And is it possible to have common ground with that person (to "unite" as you put it)? For all of us, I believe there are some people we're not willing to "meet halfway" (so to speak). As an extreme example, the white supremacists who marched in Charlottesville. I don't want under any circumstances want to unite with those people; to find any common ground. I want them not to exist.
Well, it is true, there will always be extremest. But I'm not sure they are as common as the media/internet would get us to believe. For example, I live in one of the most conservative parts of California (El Dorado County- highly conservative and, yes, lots of guns) but even here there really aren't that many extremest. Most people just go about their day. When I attended a pro-impeachment rally on the steps of city hall, nobody got shot or run over or even harassed. I just don't see the extremes being that prevalent among the people. But they are out there in big business and government.
That's completely fair. So, we're really asking "where does each person draw the line and say 'anyone on this side of the line, I'm not trying to unite with,'" right?
If the 2016 Presidential election results are any indication, I live in a place significantly more conservative than you (40% for Clinton in your county; <25% in my county). I regularly see *overt* racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. That has a big effect on where I draw my personal line.
Perhaps "unite" was not the best choice of words. Ideally, unity is great. But sometimes the best you can do (not including a self-defense situation) is treat someone the way you want to be treated. Speak out against racism, sexism, homophobia and the destruction of the planet- yes!- but do no harm to any person (the motto of Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and the original Earth First! movement before it was infiltrated by despoilers) and be kind (the motto of Ilona Ann Coggswater, daughter of God, fan of Paul Westerberg in Gorman Bechard's The Second Greatest Story Ever Told) and love may fail, but courtesy will prevail (Kurt Vonnegut Jr.)
What about nazis? Can we do harm to nazis?
noun
noun: Nazi; plural noun: Nazis
historical
a member of the National Socialist German Workers' Party.
Strictly based on the definition, no.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
This country is more divided than it has been since the U.S. Civil War from 1861-1865. I think it would be difficult to impossible to argue that this is a good thing. There are many people among us who would like to see Americans be more united and work together for those thing we want and need (and you know my bias- I would hope for the good of the planet as well).
I've already post a graph elsewhere that shows show how Congress used to work together across the isle to get things done. That working together has become increasingly less and less common to the point of being almost non-existent. There are groups who would like to see us work together again (RepresentUs is a prime example) and even the occasional politician or political candidate emphasizes this desire (Andrew Yang is an excellent example).
So my question is, can we be more united and work together better again? If so, how?
An incident occurred at the bookstore yesterday that got me to thinking about this. We had a customer who was looking for any books we had published by a certain press. In the process of gathering them together and packaging them up to ship (he was visiting from out of state) we had plenty of time to talk and get to know each other a bit. As it turns out, this man has a major position in a department under in the Trump administration and was hired by the president (I won't say who he is or what his position is as that is not relevant here, but I will say he is not war related and not likely at all anyone you would know of). He was also a very personable man and it was a pleasure talking with him about his former work, about books, about organizing a library, pretty much anything but politics. And I'm guessing he could figure out I'm not a Trump kind of guy (and you all sure as heck know that!) by my MATH. pin, but none of that mattered because we were working together packing the books he purchased and having a friendly conversation. As he left, we should hands and he said, "Thank you, keep in touch." Cool!
I think we can work together. We all want basically the same things and if you don't get it together, we will all lose.
That's my 200 cents. Yours?
Really? How are you measuring this?
I base that on what I know of U.S. history from the the mid 1800's up until the early 1960's at which point it all became personal observation and keeping up with current events.
Brian,
Obviously, you and I disagree on a lot of things, but I don't think we disagree that the political environment right now is pretty crappy. However, I think it's important to clearly see the nature of that environment. Saying we're more divided than we've been since the Civil War I fear obscures the nature of our divide. Are we more divided than we were during Reconstruction, Jim Crow, the Red Summer of 1919, the Civil Rights Movement, Suffrage, the Vietnam War? I lean toward "no" as the answer to at least some of those things. I don't want to derail the larger point of your thread, but I am genuinely curious about the *nature* of the divide you see--what exactly is that divide and how does it manifest?--because I think understanding the divide is crucial for deciding a) how we fix it? and b) if we want to unite.
To clarify that last part: another moment of significant divide was the Civil Rights Movement. Was the appropriate question at that time "how do we unite competing views on Civil Rights?" I would suggest not.
I really think we should be less divided because most people have internet access- access to more information. But social media has sort of "sabotaged" that information by making it too easy to "know" what is right (i.e. chose sides). So factoring a misused tool that could solve so many issues yet aided in divided is part of why I say we are divided more than ever.
But let's assume I'm wrong and we have been more divided in the past than we are today. Is the division we see today healthy, normal, not worth being concerned about? Should I assume division is normal and instead of fretting over the state of things that way my time would be better spent making coffee?
Coffee? Did someone say coffee?
Umm, excuse me. I shall return.
I ask not because I want people to throw their hands up and say "why bother trying?" Rather, we all have to ask ourselves: who is it with whom I disagree (i.e., from whom I'm divided)? On what do we disagree? And is it possible to have common ground with that person (to "unite" as you put it)? For all of us, I believe there are some people we're not willing to "meet halfway" (so to speak). As an extreme example, the white supremacists who marched in Charlottesville. I don't want under any circumstances want to unite with those people; to find any common ground. I want them not to exist.
Well, it is true, there will always be extremest. But I'm not sure they are as common as the media/internet would get us to believe. For example, I live in one of the most conservative parts of California (El Dorado County- highly conservative and, yes, lots of guns) but even here there really aren't that many extremest. Most people just go about their day. When I attended a pro-impeachment rally on the steps of city hall, nobody got shot or run over or even harassed. I just don't see the extremes being that prevalent among the people. But they are out there in big business and government.
That's completely fair. So, we're really asking "where does each person draw the line and say 'anyone on this side of the line, I'm not trying to unite with,'" right?
If the 2016 Presidential election results are any indication, I live in a place significantly more conservative than you (40% for Clinton in your county; <25% in my county). I regularly see *overt* racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. That has a big effect on where I draw my personal line.
Perhaps "unite" was not the best choice of words. Ideally, unity is great. But sometimes the best you can do (not including a self-defense situation) is treat someone the way you want to be treated. Speak out against racism, sexism, homophobia and the destruction of the planet- yes!- but do no harm to any person (the motto of Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and the original Earth First! movement before it was infiltrated by despoilers) and be kind (the motto of Ilona Ann Coggswater, daughter of God, fan of Paul Westerberg in Gorman Bechard's The Second Greatest Story Ever Told) and love may fail, but courtesy will prevail (Kurt Vonnegut Jr.)
What about nazis? Can we do harm to nazis?
noun
noun: Nazi; plural noun: Nazis
historical
a member of the National Socialist German Workers' Party.
This country is more divided than it has been since the U.S. Civil War from 1861-1865. I think it would be difficult to impossible to argue that this is a good thing. There are many people among us who would like to see Americans be more united and work together for those thing we want and need (and you know my bias- I would hope for the good of the planet as well).
I've already post a graph elsewhere that shows show how Congress used to work together across the isle to get things done. That working together has become increasingly less and less common to the point of being almost non-existent. There are groups who would like to see us work together again (RepresentUs is a prime example) and even the occasional politician or political candidate emphasizes this desire (Andrew Yang is an excellent example).
So my question is, can we be more united and work together better again? If so, how?
An incident occurred at the bookstore yesterday that got me to thinking about this. We had a customer who was looking for any books we had published by a certain press. In the process of gathering them together and packaging them up to ship (he was visiting from out of state) we had plenty of time to talk and get to know each other a bit. As it turns out, this man has a major position in a department under in the Trump administration and was hired by the president (I won't say who he is or what his position is as that is not relevant here, but I will say he is not war related and not likely at all anyone you would know of). He was also a very personable man and it was a pleasure talking with him about his former work, about books, about organizing a library, pretty much anything but politics. And I'm guessing he could figure out I'm not a Trump kind of guy (and you all sure as heck know that!) by my MATH. pin, but none of that mattered because we were working together packing the books he purchased and having a friendly conversation. As he left, we should hands and he said, "Thank you, keep in touch." Cool!
I think we can work together. We all want basically the same things and if you don't get it together, we will all lose.
That's my 200 cents. Yours?
Really? How are you measuring this?
I base that on what I know of U.S. history from the the mid 1800's up until the early 1960's at which point it all became personal observation and keeping up with current events.
Brian,
Obviously, you and I disagree on a lot of things, but I don't think we disagree that the political environment right now is pretty crappy. However, I think it's important to clearly see the nature of that environment. Saying we're more divided than we've been since the Civil War I fear obscures the nature of our divide. Are we more divided than we were during Reconstruction, Jim Crow, the Red Summer of 1919, the Civil Rights Movement, Suffrage, the Vietnam War? I lean toward "no" as the answer to at least some of those things. I don't want to derail the larger point of your thread, but I am genuinely curious about the *nature* of the divide you see--what exactly is that divide and how does it manifest?--because I think understanding the divide is crucial for deciding a) how we fix it? and b) if we want to unite.
To clarify that last part: another moment of significant divide was the Civil Rights Movement. Was the appropriate question at that time "how do we unite competing views on Civil Rights?" I would suggest not.
I really think we should be less divided because most people have internet access- access to more information. But social media has sort of "sabotaged" that information by making it too easy to "know" what is right (i.e. chose sides). So factoring a misused tool that could solve so many issues yet aided in divided is part of why I say we are divided more than ever.
But let's assume I'm wrong and we have been more divided in the past than we are today. Is the division we see today healthy, normal, not worth being concerned about? Should I assume division is normal and instead of fretting over the state of things that way my time would be better spent making coffee?
Coffee? Did someone say coffee?
Umm, excuse me. I shall return.
I ask not because I want people to throw their hands up and say "why bother trying?" Rather, we all have to ask ourselves: who is it with whom I disagree (i.e., from whom I'm divided)? On what do we disagree? And is it possible to have common ground with that person (to "unite" as you put it)? For all of us, I believe there are some people we're not willing to "meet halfway" (so to speak). As an extreme example, the white supremacists who marched in Charlottesville. I don't want under any circumstances want to unite with those people; to find any common ground. I want them not to exist.
Well, it is true, there will always be extremest. But I'm not sure they are as common as the media/internet would get us to believe. For example, I live in one of the most conservative parts of California (El Dorado County- highly conservative and, yes, lots of guns) but even here there really aren't that many extremest. Most people just go about their day. When I attended a pro-impeachment rally on the steps of city hall, nobody got shot or run over or even harassed. I just don't see the extremes being that prevalent among the people. But they are out there in big business and government.
That's completely fair. So, we're really asking "where does each person draw the line and say 'anyone on this side of the line, I'm not trying to unite with,'" right?
If the 2016 Presidential election results are any indication, I live in a place significantly more conservative than you (40% for Clinton in your county; <25% in my county). I regularly see *overt* racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. That has a big effect on where I draw my personal line.
Perhaps "unite" was not the best choice of words. Ideally, unity is great. But sometimes the best you can do (not including a self-defense situation) is treat someone the way you want to be treated. Speak out against racism, sexism, homophobia and the destruction of the planet- yes!- but do no harm to any person (the motto of Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and the original Earth First! movement before it was infiltrated by despoilers) and be kind (the motto of Ilona Ann Coggswater, daughter of God, fan of Paul Westerberg in Gorman Bechard's The Second Greatest Story Ever Told) and love may fail, but courtesy will prevail (Kurt Vonnegut Jr.)
What about nazis? Can we do harm to nazis?
noun
noun: Nazi; plural noun: Nazis
historical
a member of the National Socialist German Workers' Party.
Strictly based on the definition, no.
You need a better dictionary.
Whatever. I'm done here.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Several weeks ago I asked my several thousand Facebook followers —
most of whom are on the left, some of whom are on the right — what they
would not give up of their beliefs as we move forward in these
politically fraught times. Things have only gotten worse since that
time, with Trump raging out of control and executing a political
scorched earth policy toward anyone who challenges his personal position
on anything at all, having now blurred the lines between his
increasingly erratic internal monologue and the national self interest.
The Republican senators, one of the most cowardly groups of
politicians ever, who somehow have forgotten their morals and courage in
an effort to appease the unbalanced narcissist who hijacked their
party, have gone the extra step of floating out the idea that since
Trump’s position equals the national interest, anything he does to
achieve reelection is legal because it is in the national interest.
This is the clearest path to dictatorship we will ever see, and moves us
into territory that imperils the very system of government on which our
nation is based. This must be stopped so that no one, from the left or
the right or anywhere else, can ever hijack our government for his or
her personal interest. Whether or not you think Trump is a bad person,
this represents governmental suicide for a democracy such as ours.
What my facebook followers showed me in their answers is a possible
way forward that can salvage our national dialogue and, hopefully, our
democratic system. It involves elevating that dialogue from an argument
over what is right and what is wrong to a dialogue about how to achieve
what we all see as a common purpose. And the place where my followers
showed me a common purpose is our common belief that the future of our
children must be our paramount concern. This sounds obvious and even a
bit naive, but it is not. Right now we are contending over a grab bag
of specifics that can all be subsumed into the overarching argument of
individual freedom versus collective responsibility. This argument is
at the core of our American political and cultural identity, but it is
predicated on a philosophical difference, not based in a search for a
solution to a commonly shared political aspiration.
My unscientific survey through my facebook page showed me that our
commonly shared political aspiration is creating a better life for our
children. Now this can easily subsume differences in opinion and
political positions. The right-leaning folks will say that the way they
choose to do this, and their moral responsibility, is to provide the
greatest opportunity and the best economic footing for their own
children. The furthest left will say it is teaching our own children
the need to share and sacrifice and always making decisions for the
seventh generation. In between will be any number of arguments about
obligation versus opportunity which can, of course, devolve into
arguments about individual freedom versus collective responsibility.
But if we keep the discussion focused on the common goal and always
return to that commonality, we will not devolve into the kind of
political fistfight we find ourselves in at the present moment.
Right now our minds are completely filled with the poisonous presence
of Trump. Although we are a culture that celebrates personalities and
individuals, it is unhealthy to have the focus of our national dialogue
be an individual, not matter who that individual is. Individuals, both
the best and the worst, die. Ideas do not die, or, at least, they do
not have to. We need a common unifying idea to pull us out of this
malaise. The survival of the planet is a worthy one, but it is too
subject to argument. The good of the children is more immediate and
ties immediately into images that touch each of us at our moral core.
I do not know how we change a national dialogue, and I am not
claiming that my idea is the only one or the best. But our national
dialogue must change, and I believe it must change to something that
touches us all at our moral heart. As always, I go back to Chief
Sitting Bull: “Come, let us put our minds together to see what kind of
life we can create for our children.”
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
This country is more divided than it has been since the U.S. Civil War from 1861-1865. I think it would be difficult to impossible to argue that this is a good thing. There are many people among us who would like to see Americans be more united and work together for those thing we want and need (and you know my bias- I would hope for the good of the planet as well).
I've already post a graph elsewhere that shows show how Congress used to work together across the isle to get things done. That working together has become increasingly less and less common to the point of being almost non-existent. There are groups who would like to see us work together again (RepresentUs is a prime example) and even the occasional politician or political candidate emphasizes this desire (Andrew Yang is an excellent example).
So my question is, can we be more united and work together better again? If so, how?
An incident occurred at the bookstore yesterday that got me to thinking about this. We had a customer who was looking for any books we had published by a certain press. In the process of gathering them together and packaging them up to ship (he was visiting from out of state) we had plenty of time to talk and get to know each other a bit. As it turns out, this man has a major position in a department under in the Trump administration and was hired by the president (I won't say who he is or what his position is as that is not relevant here, but I will say he is not war related and not likely at all anyone you would know of). He was also a very personable man and it was a pleasure talking with him about his former work, about books, about organizing a library, pretty much anything but politics. And I'm guessing he could figure out I'm not a Trump kind of guy (and you all sure as heck know that!) by my MATH. pin, but none of that mattered because we were working together packing the books he purchased and having a friendly conversation. As he left, we should hands and he said, "Thank you, keep in touch." Cool!
I think we can work together. We all want basically the same things and if you don't get it together, we will all lose.
That's my 200 cents. Yours?
Really? How are you measuring this?
I base that on what I know of U.S. history from the the mid 1800's up until the early 1960's at which point it all became personal observation and keeping up with current events.
Brian,
Obviously, you and I disagree on a lot of things, but I don't think we disagree that the political environment right now is pretty crappy. However, I think it's important to clearly see the nature of that environment. Saying we're more divided than we've been since the Civil War I fear obscures the nature of our divide. Are we more divided than we were during Reconstruction, Jim Crow, the Red Summer of 1919, the Civil Rights Movement, Suffrage, the Vietnam War? I lean toward "no" as the answer to at least some of those things. I don't want to derail the larger point of your thread, but I am genuinely curious about the *nature* of the divide you see--what exactly is that divide and how does it manifest?--because I think understanding the divide is crucial for deciding a) how we fix it? and b) if we want to unite.
To clarify that last part: another moment of significant divide was the Civil Rights Movement. Was the appropriate question at that time "how do we unite competing views on Civil Rights?" I would suggest not.
I really think we should be less divided because most people have internet access- access to more information. But social media has sort of "sabotaged" that information by making it too easy to "know" what is right (i.e. chose sides). So factoring a misused tool that could solve so many issues yet aided in divided is part of why I say we are divided more than ever.
But let's assume I'm wrong and we have been more divided in the past than we are today. Is the division we see today healthy, normal, not worth being concerned about? Should I assume division is normal and instead of fretting over the state of things that way my time would be better spent making coffee?
Coffee? Did someone say coffee?
Umm, excuse me. I shall return.
I ask not because I want people to throw their hands up and say "why bother trying?" Rather, we all have to ask ourselves: who is it with whom I disagree (i.e., from whom I'm divided)? On what do we disagree? And is it possible to have common ground with that person (to "unite" as you put it)? For all of us, I believe there are some people we're not willing to "meet halfway" (so to speak). As an extreme example, the white supremacists who marched in Charlottesville. I don't want under any circumstances want to unite with those people; to find any common ground. I want them not to exist.
Well, it is true, there will always be extremest. But I'm not sure they are as common as the media/internet would get us to believe. For example, I live in one of the most conservative parts of California (El Dorado County- highly conservative and, yes, lots of guns) but even here there really aren't that many extremest. Most people just go about their day. When I attended a pro-impeachment rally on the steps of city hall, nobody got shot or run over or even harassed. I just don't see the extremes being that prevalent among the people. But they are out there in big business and government.
That's completely fair. So, we're really asking "where does each person draw the line and say 'anyone on this side of the line, I'm not trying to unite with,'" right?
If the 2016 Presidential election results are any indication, I live in a place significantly more conservative than you (40% for Clinton in your county; <25% in my county). I regularly see *overt* racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. That has a big effect on where I draw my personal line.
Perhaps "unite" was not the best choice of words. Ideally, unity is great. But sometimes the best you can do (not including a self-defense situation) is treat someone the way you want to be treated. Speak out against racism, sexism, homophobia and the destruction of the planet- yes!- but do no harm to any person (the motto of Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and the original Earth First! movement before it was infiltrated by despoilers) and be kind (the motto of Ilona Ann Coggswater, daughter of God, fan of Paul Westerberg in Gorman Bechard's The Second Greatest Story Ever Told) and love may fail, but courtesy will prevail (Kurt Vonnegut Jr.)
What about nazis? Can we do harm to nazis?
noun
noun: Nazi; plural noun: Nazis
historical
a member of the National Socialist German Workers' Party.
Strictly based on the definition, no.
You need a better dictionary.
Whatever. I'm done here.
You’re right—that was a dick thing for me to say. But what do you do about people who are, say, racists? Where’s the common moral heart?
i fully endorse punching nazis. and neo nazis. and pretty much all racists. racism needs to be eradicated violently. education has clearly not worked in this regard.
there are a lot of reasons to hate people, the laziest of which is due to skin color or ethnicity.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
That's completely fair. So, we're really asking "where does each person draw the line and say 'anyone on this side of the line, I'm not trying to unite with,'" right?
If the 2016 Presidential election results are any indication, I live in a place significantly more conservative than you (40% for Clinton in your county; <25% in my county). I regularly see *overt* racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. That has a big effect on where I draw my personal line.
Perhaps "unite" was not the best choice of words. Ideally, unity is great. But sometimes the best you can do (not including a self-defense situation) is treat someone the way you want to be treated. Speak out against racism, sexism, homophobia and the destruction of the planet- yes!- but do no harm to any person (the motto of Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and the original Earth First! movement before it was infiltrated by despoilers) and be kind (the motto of Ilona Ann Coggswater, daughter of God, fan of Paul Westerberg in Gorman Bechard's The Second Greatest Story Ever Told) and love may fail, but courtesy will prevail (Kurt Vonnegut Jr.)
What about nazis? Can we do harm to nazis?
noun
noun: Nazi; plural noun: Nazis
historical
a member of the National Socialist German Workers' Party.
Strictly based on the definition, no.
You need a better dictionary.
Whatever. I'm done here.
You’re right—that was a dick thing for me to say. But what do you do about people who are, say, racists? Where’s the common moral heart?
When I said, do no harm to any person, I meant physical violence. I just assumed that was clear. I think you would likely agree that using physical harm against a racist or a Nazi or a pedophile or anyone else most of us would agree to be of hideous moral standards is not likely to change them. If anything, violence begets violence and exacerbates the issue.
I'm not saying we should compromise with those kinds of people. I'm not saying, "OK, you can be a little bit antisemitic- maybe torture Jews a little but don't gas them", or "You can hate blacks a little, maybe give them more traffic tickets than whites, but don't hang them from a tree." No, I would never compromise on morals.
I think it's worth recognizing that people are not born with the desire to do these hideous things- they are learned behaviors. So rather than just yell at people and show them hatred, I think a better choice is to lead by example and improve education. Really, how many bigots are going to stop being prejudiced if you get in their face and call them a "fucking asshole racist"? That may be what they are, but calling them that only makes matters worse. And using violence against them- even more so.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
i fully endorse punching nazis. and neo nazis. and pretty much all racists. racism needs to be eradicated violently. education has clearly not worked in this regard.
there are a lot of reasons to hate people, the laziest of which is due to skin color or ethnicity.
I disagree with the notion of punching someone to change them but I like and respect you gimme, so if you do that and need me to post bail, I'm here for you my friend!
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
That's completely fair. So, we're really asking "where does each person draw the line and say 'anyone on this side of the line, I'm not trying to unite with,'" right?
If the 2016 Presidential election results are any indication, I live in a place significantly more conservative than you (40% for Clinton in your county; <25% in my county). I regularly see *overt* racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. That has a big effect on where I draw my personal line.
Perhaps "unite" was not the best choice of words. Ideally, unity is great. But sometimes the best you can do (not including a self-defense situation) is treat someone the way you want to be treated. Speak out against racism, sexism, homophobia and the destruction of the planet- yes!- but do no harm to any person (the motto of Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and the original Earth First! movement before it was infiltrated by despoilers) and be kind (the motto of Ilona Ann Coggswater, daughter of God, fan of Paul Westerberg in Gorman Bechard's The Second Greatest Story Ever Told) and love may fail, but courtesy will prevail (Kurt Vonnegut Jr.)
What about nazis? Can we do harm to nazis?
noun
noun: Nazi; plural noun: Nazis
historical
a member of the National Socialist German Workers' Party.
Strictly based on the definition, no.
You need a better dictionary.
Whatever. I'm done here.
You’re right—that was a dick thing for me to say. But what do you do about people who are, say, racists? Where’s the common moral heart?
When I said, do no harm to any person, I meant physical violence. I just assumed that was clear. I think you would likely agree that using physical harm against a racist or a Nazi or a pedophile or anyone else most of us would agree to be of hideous moral standards is not likely to change them. If anything, violence begets violence and exacerbates the issue.
I'm not saying we should compromise with those kinds of people. I'm not saying, "OK, you can be a little bit antisemitic- maybe torture Jews a little but don't gas them", or "You can hate blacks a little, maybe give them more traffic tickets than whites, but don't hang them from a tree." No, I would never compromise on morals.
I think it's worth recognizing that people are not born with the desire to do these hideous things- they are learned behaviors. So rather than just yell at people and show them hatred, I think a better choice is to lead by example and improve education. Really, how many bigots are going to stop being prejudiced if you get in their face and call them a "fucking asshole racist"? That may be what they are, but calling them that only makes matters worse. And using violence against them- even more so.
In WWII, the goal wasn’t to change nazis. Why is it different now?
That's completely fair. So, we're really asking "where does each person draw the line and say 'anyone on this side of the line, I'm not trying to unite with,'" right?
If the 2016 Presidential election results are any indication, I live in a place significantly more conservative than you (40% for Clinton in your county; <25% in my county). I regularly see *overt* racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. That has a big effect on where I draw my personal line.
Perhaps "unite" was not the best choice of words. Ideally, unity is great. But sometimes the best you can do (not including a self-defense situation) is treat someone the way you want to be treated. Speak out against racism, sexism, homophobia and the destruction of the planet- yes!- but do no harm to any person (the motto of Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and the original Earth First! movement before it was infiltrated by despoilers) and be kind (the motto of Ilona Ann Coggswater, daughter of God, fan of Paul Westerberg in Gorman Bechard's The Second Greatest Story Ever Told) and love may fail, but courtesy will prevail (Kurt Vonnegut Jr.)
What about nazis? Can we do harm to nazis?
noun
noun: Nazi; plural noun: Nazis
historical
a member of the National Socialist German Workers' Party.
Strictly based on the definition, no.
You need a better dictionary.
Whatever. I'm done here.
You’re right—that was a dick thing for me to say. But what do you do about people who are, say, racists? Where’s the common moral heart?
When I said, do no harm to any person, I meant physical violence. I just assumed that was clear. I think you would likely agree that using physical harm against a racist or a Nazi or a pedophile or anyone else most of us would agree to be of hideous moral standards is not likely to change them. If anything, violence begets violence and exacerbates the issue.
I'm not saying we should compromise with those kinds of people. I'm not saying, "OK, you can be a little bit antisemitic- maybe torture Jews a little but don't gas them", or "You can hate blacks a little, maybe give them more traffic tickets than whites, but don't hang them from a tree." No, I would never compromise on morals.
I think it's worth recognizing that people are not born with the desire to do these hideous things- they are learned behaviors. So rather than just yell at people and show them hatred, I think a better choice is to lead by example and improve education. Really, how many bigots are going to stop being prejudiced if you get in their face and call them a "fucking asshole racist"? That may be what they are, but calling them that only makes matters worse. And using violence against them- even more so.
In WWII, the goal wasn’t to change nazis. Why is it different now?
I honestly don't know how to rid the world of Nazis. I sincerely wish we could. If you knew me even a little bit you would know that I would LOVE to rid the world of all Nazis, bigots, pedophiles, rapists, etc. But I don't think we will do that by trying to kill them all. Is that your solution?
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
That's completely fair. So, we're really asking "where does each person draw the line and say 'anyone on this side of the line, I'm not trying to unite with,'" right?
If the 2016 Presidential election results are any indication, I live in a place significantly more conservative than you (40% for Clinton in your county; <25% in my county). I regularly see *overt* racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. That has a big effect on where I draw my personal line.
Perhaps "unite" was not the best choice of words. Ideally, unity is great. But sometimes the best you can do (not including a self-defense situation) is treat someone the way you want to be treated. Speak out against racism, sexism, homophobia and the destruction of the planet- yes!- but do no harm to any person (the motto of Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and the original Earth First! movement before it was infiltrated by despoilers) and be kind (the motto of Ilona Ann Coggswater, daughter of God, fan of Paul Westerberg in Gorman Bechard's The Second Greatest Story Ever Told) and love may fail, but courtesy will prevail (Kurt Vonnegut Jr.)
What about nazis? Can we do harm to nazis?
noun
noun: Nazi; plural noun: Nazis
historical
a member of the National Socialist German Workers' Party.
Strictly based on the definition, no.
You need a better dictionary.
Whatever. I'm done here.
You’re right—that was a dick thing for me to say. But what do you do about people who are, say, racists? Where’s the common moral heart?
When I said, do no harm to any person, I meant physical violence. I just assumed that was clear. I think you would likely agree that using physical harm against a racist or a Nazi or a pedophile or anyone else most of us would agree to be of hideous moral standards is not likely to change them. If anything, violence begets violence and exacerbates the issue.
I'm not saying we should compromise with those kinds of people. I'm not saying, "OK, you can be a little bit antisemitic- maybe torture Jews a little but don't gas them", or "You can hate blacks a little, maybe give them more traffic tickets than whites, but don't hang them from a tree." No, I would never compromise on morals.
I think it's worth recognizing that people are not born with the desire to do these hideous things- they are learned behaviors. So rather than just yell at people and show them hatred, I think a better choice is to lead by example and improve education. Really, how many bigots are going to stop being prejudiced if you get in their face and call them a "fucking asshole racist"? That may be what they are, but calling them that only makes matters worse. And using violence against them- even more so.
In WWII, the goal wasn’t to change nazis. Why is it different now?
I honestly don't know how to rid the world of Nazis. I sincerely wish we could. If you knew me even a little bit you would know that I would LOVE to rid the world of all Nazis, bigots, pedophiles, rapists, etc. But I don't think we will do that by trying to kill them all. Is that your solution?
What happened to the low-level nazis (or nazi supporters) after WWII?
That's completely fair. So, we're really asking "where does each person draw the line and say 'anyone on this side of the line, I'm not trying to unite with,'" right?
If the 2016 Presidential election results are any indication, I live in a place significantly more conservative than you (40% for Clinton in your county; <25% in my county). I regularly see *overt* racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. That has a big effect on where I draw my personal line.
Perhaps "unite" was not the best choice of words. Ideally, unity is great. But sometimes the best you can do (not including a self-defense situation) is treat someone the way you want to be treated. Speak out against racism, sexism, homophobia and the destruction of the planet- yes!- but do no harm to any person (the motto of Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and the original Earth First! movement before it was infiltrated by despoilers) and be kind (the motto of Ilona Ann Coggswater, daughter of God, fan of Paul Westerberg in Gorman Bechard's The Second Greatest Story Ever Told) and love may fail, but courtesy will prevail (Kurt Vonnegut Jr.)
What about nazis? Can we do harm to nazis?
noun
noun: Nazi; plural noun: Nazis
historical
a member of the National Socialist German Workers' Party.
Strictly based on the definition, no.
You need a better dictionary.
Whatever. I'm done here.
You’re right—that was a dick thing for me to say. But what do you do about people who are, say, racists? Where’s the common moral heart?
When I said, do no harm to any person, I meant physical violence. I just assumed that was clear. I think you would likely agree that using physical harm against a racist or a Nazi or a pedophile or anyone else most of us would agree to be of hideous moral standards is not likely to change them. If anything, violence begets violence and exacerbates the issue.
I'm not saying we should compromise with those kinds of people. I'm not saying, "OK, you can be a little bit antisemitic- maybe torture Jews a little but don't gas them", or "You can hate blacks a little, maybe give them more traffic tickets than whites, but don't hang them from a tree." No, I would never compromise on morals.
I think it's worth recognizing that people are not born with the desire to do these hideous things- they are learned behaviors. So rather than just yell at people and show them hatred, I think a better choice is to lead by example and improve education. Really, how many bigots are going to stop being prejudiced if you get in their face and call them a "fucking asshole racist"? That may be what they are, but calling them that only makes matters worse. And using violence against them- even more so.
In WWII, the goal wasn’t to change nazis. Why is it different now?
I honestly don't know how to rid the world of Nazis. I sincerely wish we could. If you knew me even a little bit you would know that I would LOVE to rid the world of all Nazis, bigots, pedophiles, rapists, etc. But I don't think we will do that by trying to kill them all. Is that your solution?
What happened to the low-level nazis (or nazi supporters) after WWII?
You should be on one of the presidential debates. You're good at evading a question.
Try again.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
That's completely fair. So, we're really asking "where does each person draw the line and say 'anyone on this side of the line, I'm not trying to unite with,'" right?
If the 2016 Presidential election results are any indication, I live in a place significantly more conservative than you (40% for Clinton in your county; <25% in my county). I regularly see *overt* racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. That has a big effect on where I draw my personal line.
Perhaps "unite" was not the best choice of words. Ideally, unity is great. But sometimes the best you can do (not including a self-defense situation) is treat someone the way you want to be treated. Speak out against racism, sexism, homophobia and the destruction of the planet- yes!- but do no harm to any person (the motto of Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and the original Earth First! movement before it was infiltrated by despoilers) and be kind (the motto of Ilona Ann Coggswater, daughter of God, fan of Paul Westerberg in Gorman Bechard's The Second Greatest Story Ever Told) and love may fail, but courtesy will prevail (Kurt Vonnegut Jr.)
What about nazis? Can we do harm to nazis?
noun
noun: Nazi; plural noun: Nazis
historical
a member of the National Socialist German Workers' Party.
Strictly based on the definition, no.
You need a better dictionary.
Whatever. I'm done here.
You’re right—that was a dick thing for me to say. But what do you do about people who are, say, racists? Where’s the common moral heart?
When I said, do no harm to any person, I meant physical violence. I just assumed that was clear. I think you would likely agree that using physical harm against a racist or a Nazi or a pedophile or anyone else most of us would agree to be of hideous moral standards is not likely to change them. If anything, violence begets violence and exacerbates the issue.
I'm not saying we should compromise with those kinds of people. I'm not saying, "OK, you can be a little bit antisemitic- maybe torture Jews a little but don't gas them", or "You can hate blacks a little, maybe give them more traffic tickets than whites, but don't hang them from a tree." No, I would never compromise on morals.
I think it's worth recognizing that people are not born with the desire to do these hideous things- they are learned behaviors. So rather than just yell at people and show them hatred, I think a better choice is to lead by example and improve education. Really, how many bigots are going to stop being prejudiced if you get in their face and call them a "fucking asshole racist"? That may be what they are, but calling them that only makes matters worse. And using violence against them- even more so.
In WWII, the goal wasn’t to change nazis. Why is it different now?
I honestly don't know how to rid the world of Nazis. I sincerely wish we could. If you knew me even a little bit you would know that I would LOVE to rid the world of all Nazis, bigots, pedophiles, rapists, etc. But I don't think we will do that by trying to kill them all. Is that your solution?
What happened to the low-level nazis (or nazi supporters) after WWII?
You should be on one of the presidential debates. You're good at evading a question.
That's completely fair. So, we're really asking "where does each person draw the line and say 'anyone on this side of the line, I'm not trying to unite with,'" right?
If the 2016 Presidential election results are any indication, I live in a place significantly more conservative than you (40% for Clinton in your county; <25% in my county). I regularly see *overt* racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. That has a big effect on where I draw my personal line.
Perhaps "unite" was not the best choice of words. Ideally, unity is great. But sometimes the best you can do (not including a self-defense situation) is treat someone the way you want to be treated. Speak out against racism, sexism, homophobia and the destruction of the planet- yes!- but do no harm to any person (the motto of Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and the original Earth First! movement before it was infiltrated by despoilers) and be kind (the motto of Ilona Ann Coggswater, daughter of God, fan of Paul Westerberg in Gorman Bechard's The Second Greatest Story Ever Told) and love may fail, but courtesy will prevail (Kurt Vonnegut Jr.)
What about nazis? Can we do harm to nazis?
noun
noun: Nazi; plural noun: Nazis
historical
a member of the National Socialist German Workers' Party.
Strictly based on the definition, no.
You need a better dictionary.
Whatever. I'm done here.
You’re right—that was a dick thing for me to say. But what do you do about people who are, say, racists? Where’s the common moral heart?
When I said, do no harm to any person, I meant physical violence. I just assumed that was clear. I think you would likely agree that using physical harm against a racist or a Nazi or a pedophile or anyone else most of us would agree to be of hideous moral standards is not likely to change them. If anything, violence begets violence and exacerbates the issue.
I'm not saying we should compromise with those kinds of people. I'm not saying, "OK, you can be a little bit antisemitic- maybe torture Jews a little but don't gas them", or "You can hate blacks a little, maybe give them more traffic tickets than whites, but don't hang them from a tree." No, I would never compromise on morals.
I think it's worth recognizing that people are not born with the desire to do these hideous things- they are learned behaviors. So rather than just yell at people and show them hatred, I think a better choice is to lead by example and improve education. Really, how many bigots are going to stop being prejudiced if you get in their face and call them a "fucking asshole racist"? That may be what they are, but calling them that only makes matters worse. And using violence against them- even more so.
In WWII, the goal wasn’t to change nazis. Why is it different now?
I honestly don't know how to rid the world of Nazis. I sincerely wish we could. If you knew me even a little bit you would know that I would LOVE to rid the world of all Nazis, bigots, pedophiles, rapists, etc. But I don't think we will do that by trying to kill them all. Is that your solution?
What happened to the low-level nazis (or nazi supporters) after WWII?
You should be on one of the presidential debates. You're good at evading a question.
Try again.
I guess you find a way to make them afraid.
Like I said, I'm not totally sure what the answer is but I can't argue with that.
But we've gotten a bit off track here again. We may never be able to work or even get along well with extremists like Nazis and hard core bigots, but what about the average American? Most people are not raving racists or angry Antifa. I would rather spend my energy trying to work with people who are more sensible than those extremes. But we haven't even begun to discuss that yet here so I am very close to abandoning this, yet another failed thread.
Are we really this hopeless? Perhaps.
I'm going to take my presently discouraged self and get ready for work. Work is the only thing that keeps me level anymore. Vertical, ambulatory and employed. Hallefuckinlujah!
Have a good day!
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Will we? I don’t think so. Too many people are “you are either with me or against me” and unwilling to budge even a smidge. And the internet lets them find the crazy people unwilling to compromise all over the pace and make them feel like they are normal.
Will we? I don’t think so. Too many people are “you are either with me or against me” and unwilling to budge even a smidge. And the internet lets them find the crazy people unwilling to compromise all over the pace and make them feel like they are normal.
For sure. The internet is a magnifying glass for the extreme. It's useful to know who and what it is, but then it gets blown out of proportion and we tend to forget what normal (or average or typical) really is. This feeds extremism and helps it grow. One could say (paraphrasing Edward Abbey's quote) that extremism, like growth for the sake of growth, is the ideology of the cancer cell.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Can Americans be united/ work together? If so, how?
I asked this question early in the year. I had my doubts this could be done and as the year progressed and now grows late, I have just as many or more doubts. But it is something I think about often and still wish for. And I recently had an experience that tells me that despite the belief that there will always be division and conflict to some degree, there some hope that we can be a better united people and even a better united world.
I recently had an exchange of email with a fairly well known author who at one time inspired me greatly. We have had correspondences over the last several years that have generally been quite pleasant. But in recent years, especially this year, this author who at one time was a Democrat (and who shall remain unnamed here) became more and more dissatisfied with the Democratic Party to the point of actually supporting Donald Trump's bid for re-election. At one point, he said some things that I so very strongly disagreed with, I told him that I was through with ever listening to him again.
He wrote back and said simply, "Fuck off. Don't read my [work]"
I wrote back and called him "a loser".
And so forth.
It more or less became a pissing match replete with insults and nasty comments.
But then at one point, I basically told him that I was saddened to see things come to this because he had written some things I found inspiring and insightful (and I still do). So we worked our way back to being civil and agreed that although we may never agree on some things, there are reasons to listen to each other. We both apologized, accepted the apologized, and agreed to be friends.
This situation gives me some hope. This country is seriously- dangerously even- divided. But perhaps there still remains some glimmer of hope of reconciliation.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Some people just have to get their digs in, lower themselves, whatever. Even if they "apologize" after the fact. You (collective) were still an utter asshole, and doubt you're sincerely regretful of your actions.
Of course try not to take the bait, and to genuinely offer an olive branch or an ear should the situation (or conscience) call for it. Too many do that with impurity. And then, what's the point?
I'm glad *one* situation gives you hope. Enjoy it. I just don't think most are even open-minded anymore.
Some people just have to get their digs in, lower themselves, whatever. Even if they "apologize" after the fact. You (collective) were still an utter asshole, and doubt you're sincerely regretful of your actions.
Of course try not to take the bait, and to genuinely offer an olive branch or an ear should the situation (or conscience) call for it. Too many do that with impurity. And then, what's the point?
I'm glad *one* situation gives you hope. Enjoy it. I just don't think most are even open-minded anymore.
That one situation really does give me a glimmer of hope and a heap of good feeling.
I don't think we will see the word "trending" attached to this idea any time soon, lol, but to have just one iota of peace where there was strife is something anyway. In this world of conflict and despair, I'm always glad for one little bit of reconciliation, no matter how tiny.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Sorry to bump my own thread, but I'm really curious about this. I mean, it is very hard to make any kind of amends with someone you strongly disagree with, but I think it can be done.
At one point in our conversing with the author I mentioned above, I pointed out that if one of us berates the other or yells at the other or calls the other person names, do we really expect that person to have a change of mind or even consider our point of view? It's really, really hard and humbling work to try to interact with someone on the other side of the fence, but doesn't it beat throwing rocks, hurling insults, or shooting guns at each other? Good grief, I hope so.
I'll point out again for those here supporting our newly elected president Biden, that he has repeatedly talked about taking this approach. He wants to work with both sides and try to heal the divide. Do you support him in this endeavor or is it all just about beating Trump?
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Comments
If the 2016 Presidential election results are any indication, I live in a place significantly more conservative than you (40% for Clinton in your county; <25% in my county). I regularly see *overt* racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. That has a big effect on where I draw my personal line.
Perhaps "unite" was not the best choice of words. Ideally, unity is great. But sometimes the best you can do (not including a self-defense situation) is treat someone the way you want to be treated. Speak out against racism, sexism, homophobia and the destruction of the planet- yes!- but do no harm to any person (the motto of Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and the original Earth First! movement before it was infiltrated by despoilers) and be kind (the motto of Ilona Ann Coggswater, daughter of God, fan of Paul Westerberg in Gorman Bechard's The Second Greatest Story Ever Told) and love may fail, but courtesy will prevail (Kurt Vonnegut Jr.)
Haha! That's look like fun (and man, I could use some mindless fun). Is that from a movie?
Bill and Ted? I don't remember that scene (but then, what's new?
Whatever. I'm done here.
Several weeks ago I asked my several thousand Facebook followers — most of whom are on the left, some of whom are on the right — what they would not give up of their beliefs as we move forward in these politically fraught times. Things have only gotten worse since that time, with Trump raging out of control and executing a political scorched earth policy toward anyone who challenges his personal position on anything at all, having now blurred the lines between his increasingly erratic internal monologue and the national self interest.
The Republican senators, one of the most cowardly groups of politicians ever, who somehow have forgotten their morals and courage in an effort to appease the unbalanced narcissist who hijacked their party, have gone the extra step of floating out the idea that since Trump’s position equals the national interest, anything he does to achieve reelection is legal because it is in the national interest. This is the clearest path to dictatorship we will ever see, and moves us into territory that imperils the very system of government on which our nation is based. This must be stopped so that no one, from the left or the right or anywhere else, can ever hijack our government for his or her personal interest. Whether or not you think Trump is a bad person, this represents governmental suicide for a democracy such as ours.
What my facebook followers showed me in their answers is a possible way forward that can salvage our national dialogue and, hopefully, our democratic system. It involves elevating that dialogue from an argument over what is right and what is wrong to a dialogue about how to achieve what we all see as a common purpose. And the place where my followers showed me a common purpose is our common belief that the future of our children must be our paramount concern. This sounds obvious and even a bit naive, but it is not. Right now we are contending over a grab bag of specifics that can all be subsumed into the overarching argument of individual freedom versus collective responsibility. This argument is at the core of our American political and cultural identity, but it is predicated on a philosophical difference, not based in a search for a solution to a commonly shared political aspiration.
My unscientific survey through my facebook page showed me that our commonly shared political aspiration is creating a better life for our children. Now this can easily subsume differences in opinion and political positions. The right-leaning folks will say that the way they choose to do this, and their moral responsibility, is to provide the greatest opportunity and the best economic footing for their own children. The furthest left will say it is teaching our own children the need to share and sacrifice and always making decisions for the seventh generation. In between will be any number of arguments about obligation versus opportunity which can, of course, devolve into arguments about individual freedom versus collective responsibility. But if we keep the discussion focused on the common goal and always return to that commonality, we will not devolve into the kind of political fistfight we find ourselves in at the present moment.
Right now our minds are completely filled with the poisonous presence of Trump. Although we are a culture that celebrates personalities and individuals, it is unhealthy to have the focus of our national dialogue be an individual, not matter who that individual is. Individuals, both the best and the worst, die. Ideas do not die, or, at least, they do not have to. We need a common unifying idea to pull us out of this malaise. The survival of the planet is a worthy one, but it is too subject to argument. The good of the children is more immediate and ties immediately into images that touch each of us at our moral core.
I do not know how we change a national dialogue, and I am not claiming that my idea is the only one or the best. But our national dialogue must change, and I believe it must change to something that touches us all at our moral heart. As always, I go back to Chief Sitting Bull: “Come, let us put our minds together to see what kind of life we can create for our children.”
there are a lot of reasons to hate people, the laziest of which is due to skin color or ethnicity.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
I disagree with the notion of punching someone to change them but I like and respect you gimme, so if you do that and need me to post bail, I'm here for you my friend!
I honestly don't know how to rid the world of Nazis. I sincerely wish we could. If you knew me even a little bit you would know that I would LOVE to rid the world of all Nazis, bigots, pedophiles, rapists, etc. But I don't think we will do that by trying to kill them all. Is that your solution?
Guess I still stand by my initial response!
Will we? I don’t think so. Too many people are “you are either with me or against me” and unwilling to budge even a smidge. And the internet lets them find the crazy people unwilling to compromise all over the pace and make them feel like they are normal.
Can Americans be united/ work together? If so, how?
Short answer: No.
Some people just have to get their digs in, lower themselves, whatever. Even if they "apologize" after the fact. You (collective) were still an utter asshole, and doubt you're sincerely regretful of your actions.
Of course try not to take the bait, and to genuinely offer an olive branch or an ear should the situation (or conscience) call for it. Too many do that with impurity. And then, what's the point?
I'm glad *one* situation gives you hope. Enjoy it. I just don't think most are even open-minded anymore.