Why Are Republicans At War With Reality?

Kat said:

So then I guess its run its course? And by the way, Cilantro, aka Coriander, is awesome. Start with a few flakes and work your way up.

Well put. I'd assume that those at the birthplace of guacamole would find it sacrilegious to be anti-cilantro!

backseatLover12 said:

benjs said:

backseatLover12 said:

hedonist said:

backseatLover12 said:

I just think that this topic is a perfect example of how our emotions can get the best of us, things are taken personally when they shouldn't be, and the staying on track is often lost due to emotional charge. The sooner we stop taking things emotionally personal, the better these forums can be.
Again, this post is not meant toward anyone specific, and my words are just words.

Having emotions isn't a bad thing (and for whatever it's worth, one can feel and react, and not have it "get the best of us"). It's not necessarily tantamount to stomping feet and calling names. It can guide us, lend to insights.

I'd rather have that humanness enter into issues constructively. Seems like it did here.

Finally, yes it did.

Not sure if you've read Ishmael, but that book always got me thinking. If we accept that we evolve in ways that lead to our continued existence in this universe (like animals with defences from predators, trees with roots to collect moisture, etc), then the evolution to feel so deeply as we do is a factor in our continued existence too (i.e. the fact that we are inherently empathetic is by design, not coincidence). Then, what does it say about us as a species if we opt to neglect a feature intrinsic to our design in favour of ones that aren't (like gluttony, greed, and apathy)?

It's been almost 10 years since I read it, and I've been thinking about rereading it again. (thanks for the reminder!) If any book has gotten me to think about things, it's that book. One of my all-time faves.

What I was talking about with acting on our emotions rather than cool-headed logic, is that perhaps when it comes to politics, keeping logic in check rather than getting carried away with emotions, that lead to acting on our emotions rather than logic, doesn't work out. It doesn't work out for the country. It doesn't work out in the forum settings when one carries that emotion onto a personal level, for sure, making a topic into a personal feelings and emotions and losing logic altogether. Somewhere there's got to be a balance.

But you've got me thinking about evolution and how we may neglect that natural empathetic nature. Certainly power, money, and ego have something to do with it. The artificial things… But I'm going to think more about that.

Sorry BSL! Totally lost track of this, as I'm insanely scatterbrained these days.

If I go by my own statement there, that every single piece of who we are is intentionally designed, then absolutely: logic must have a place in governance just like emotional response. Where we've failed as I see it is exactly as you put it: there's got to be a balance. Not only is there an imbalance in favour of pure logic, but society tends to ridicule those who embrace emotional response: hippies, beatniks, pacifists (like that's a bad thing) - how many terms are there designed to belittle the person who feels?

What's funny to me is that studies on Game Theory have shown that often once risk/probabilities are adequately factored into a decision, the best outcome of a scenario for one's self, is to act in favour of what serves the masses. Those with the power to make those decisions are all too aware of this, but their excess affords them enough 'chances' to take larger personal risks (or corporation-level risks) that pay off for themselves or their entities, and not the masses.

I think the first step is to be outspoken and to stop stigmatizing the notion of empathetic/selfless/emotional response: we should not be afraid to feel. Unfortunately, for those of us unafraid to feel publicly to have their voices heard, this movement must be widespread. For me, communism exemplifies the largest-scale failure of this.

Communism on paper sounds great - we work together, we reap the benefits together, we strive for equality. And while there are a number of factors why communism hasn't ever been long-term viable, I'd say a major one is greed. Greed from the formerly wealthy, which drowns out the formerly proletariat who collectively whisper empathetic concern for our human brothers and sisters (and trans-siblings if we're to be politically correct), bring the whole system down. That whisper must exist as an unwavering yell: when our resource consumption outweighs resource production, and when we have localized crops surrounding small percentages of the global population - it is inevitable that we will be taxed for doing the right thing if we're to bring any semblance of balance. It will fall on the masses to convince the fortunate few that charity isn't something optional - it's integral to our survival.

First we need to reconsider what we truly need to live. Then we need to observe how the vast majority of the world has a minuscule fraction of that. Then we need to disseminate the wealth. It's time to Robin Hood this shit.

As an aside, I'm fortunate enough to have been to numerous stunningly beautiful but horrendously impoverished places in the world. Each time I visit one, my reaction is almost exactly the same: if Albert Einstein had lived in Nepal, he would have died in Nepal and he would not have been able to share his ideas of the world. If Steve Jobs was born in Ecuador, Steve Jobs would have died in Ecuador and I'd be typing on a different (and inferior) computer. One article I read suggested that 80% of the world's population lives on $10 a day or less. How many people with minds fit to change the world lived and died in a rice paddy field, or picking tea leaves, or doing what ever was available to keep their parents alive?

The opportunity cost to civilization of allowing the masses to be born, stagnate, and die - is inconceivably huge. We're talking literally billions of people, out of whom one could safely assume several of them could change the world in unimaginable ways, if afforded access to education and paths to personal and economic growth. That can only happen if we (the fortunate few who spend our days on Pearl Jam message boards instead of towing soil for dollars a day) exhibit the empathy and selflessness necessary to help these people reach the stages that they can grow themselves.

So, going back to the beginning of this rant/message: logic likely has a place in our decision-making and governance, but emotion must have a place too.

EDIT: As an additional aside - cilantro all the way!

Bravo to benjs. I can't say I agree in its entirety, but some stellar points made.

PS - boo to cilantro!

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

Is this the post where you get mad and sign off for awhile?
Or is this the post where you pm and ask not to respond to each other?

is this really necessary?

hedonist said:

Are you talking about Republicans as politicians or as the average Joe?

Likely a big difference, gimme.

And hopefully you're not talking about all, either way.

does it matter?

when i talk about "republicans" i refer to the elected ones. but those who vote for them are just as wrong because they are still on the wrong side of the issue.

do your average rank and file republican still vote for incumbent republicans?

yes they do.

care to address the contrast between the positions, or just try to discredit my post by pointing out a generalization?

most americans do not favor needing a voter id. republicans do.
most americans do not want creationism taught in public school. republicans do.
most americans do not want to rewrite history textbooks. republicans do, and have done it in texas.
most americans want common sense gun law reform. republicans absolutely don't.
most americans want comprehensive immigration reform. republicans don't.
most americans believe obama is a christian american citizen. the ones who don't are republican.

gimmesometruth27 said:

hedonist said:

Are you talking about Republicans as politicians or as the average Joe?

Likely a big difference, gimme.

And hopefully you're not talking about all, either way.

does it matter?

when i talk about "republicans" i refer to the elected ones. but those who vote for them are just as wrong because they are still on the wrong side of the issue.

do your average rank and file republican still vote for incumbent republicans?

yes they do.

care to address the contrast between the positions, or just try to discredit my post by pointing out a generalization?

First, I'm not one of those "dirty" republicans.

Second, was addressing your sweeping post with no intent to discredit. Please re-read it; I did.

How am I to know what you mean when you say republicans are this and that? Given prior posts, the wording gave that impression and I asked.

And yes, it does matter to me - if that's OK. I've been asked to clarify myself too, and have. It's not always an attack or attempt to be an asshole.

Oh well. I tried! - so grows the great divide.

hedonist said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

hedonist said:

Are you talking about Republicans as politicians or as the average Joe?

Likely a big difference, gimme.

And hopefully you're not talking about all, either way.

does it matter?

when i talk about "republicans" i refer to the elected ones. but those who vote for them are just as wrong because they are still on the wrong side of the issue.

do your average rank and file republican still vote for incumbent republicans?

yes they do.

care to address the contrast between the positions, or just try to discredit my post by pointing out a generalization?

First, I'm not one of those "dirty" republicans.

Second, was addressing your sweeping post with no intent to discredit. Please re-read it; I did.

How am I to know what you mean when you say republicans are this and that? Given prior posts, the wording gave that impression and I asked.

And yes, it does matter to me - if that's OK. I've been asked to clarify myself too, and have. It's not always an attack or attempt to be an asshole.

i have said it on here numerous times i refer to the elected republicans. just like i refer to the israeli government when i refer to israel.