Can Americans be united/ work together? If so, how?

2»

Comments

  • ecdancecdanc Posts: 1,814
    brianlux said:
    ecdanc said:
    brianlux said:
    ecdanc said:
    brianlux said:
    ecdanc said:
    brianlux said:
    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.  :lol:
    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. 
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 30,071
    ecdanc said:
    brianlux said:
    ecdanc said:
    brianlux said:
    ecdanc said:
    brianlux said:
    ecdanc said:
    brianlux said:
    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.  :lol:
    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.)



    “After silence, that which comes nearest to expressing the inexpressible is music.”
    -Aldous Huxley
    ***********
    "We urgently need a unified national strategy, one informed by the best science."  -Michael Osterholm
    M.I.T.S.











  • ecdancecdanc Posts: 1,814
    brianlux said:
    ecdanc said:
    brianlux said:
    ecdanc said:
    brianlux said:
    ecdanc said:
    brianlux said:
    ecdanc said:
    brianlux said:
    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.  :lol:
    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?
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 30,071
    ecdanc said:
    brianlux said:
    ecdanc said:
    brianlux said:
    ecdanc said:
    brianlux said:
    ecdanc said:
    brianlux said:
    ecdanc said:
    brianlux said:
    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.  :lol:
    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.

    “After silence, that which comes nearest to expressing the inexpressible is music.”
    -Aldous Huxley
    ***********
    "We urgently need a unified national strategy, one informed by the best science."  -Michael Osterholm
    M.I.T.S.











  • Jason PJason P Posts: 18,574
    i think it is once again time for ...


  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 30,071
    Jason P said:
    i think it is once again time for ...



    Haha!  That's look like fun (and man, I could use some mindless fun).  Is that from a movie?
    “After silence, that which comes nearest to expressing the inexpressible is music.”
    -Aldous Huxley
    ***********
    "We urgently need a unified national strategy, one informed by the best science."  -Michael Osterholm
    M.I.T.S.











  • Jason PJason P Posts: 18,574
    brianlux said:
    Jason P said:
    i think it is once again time for ...



    Haha!  That's look like fun (and man, I could use some mindless fun).  Is that from a movie?
    from both a movie (beerfest) and reality (the 80's). 

  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 30,071
    Jason P said:
    brianlux said:
    Jason P said:
    i think it is once again time for ...



    Haha!  That's look like fun (and man, I could use some mindless fun).  Is that from a movie?
    from both a movie (beerfest) and reality (the 80's). 


    Bill and Ted?  I don't remember that scene (but then, what's new?  :lol: )
    “After silence, that which comes nearest to expressing the inexpressible is music.”
    -Aldous Huxley
    ***********
    "We urgently need a unified national strategy, one informed by the best science."  -Michael Osterholm
    M.I.T.S.











  • ecdancecdanc Posts: 1,814
    brianlux said:
    ecdanc said:
    brianlux said:
    ecdanc said:
    brianlux said:
    ecdanc said:
    brianlux said:
    ecdanc said:
    brianlux said:
    ecdanc said:
    brianlux said:
    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.  :lol:
    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. 
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 30,071
    ecdanc said:
    brianlux said:
    ecdanc said:
    brianlux said:
    ecdanc said:
    brianlux said:
    ecdanc said:
    brianlux said:
    ecdanc said:
    brianlux said:
    ecdanc said:
    brianlux said:
    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.  :lol:
    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.
    “After silence, that which comes nearest to expressing the inexpressible is music.”
    -Aldous Huxley
    ***********
    "We urgently need a unified national strategy, one informed by the best science."  -Michael Osterholm
    M.I.T.S.











  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 30,071
    Kent Nerburn's take on all this is a good one:


    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.”



    “After silence, that which comes nearest to expressing the inexpressible is music.”
    -Aldous Huxley
    ***********
    "We urgently need a unified national strategy, one informed by the best science."  -Michael Osterholm
    M.I.T.S.











  • ecdancecdanc Posts: 1,814
    brianlux said:
    ecdanc said:
    brianlux said:
    ecdanc said:
    brianlux said:
    ecdanc said:
    brianlux said:
    ecdanc said:
    brianlux said:
    ecdanc said:
    brianlux said:
    ecdanc said:
    brianlux said:
    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.  :lol:
    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?
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin LouisPosts: 16,765
    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.
    "There is nothing to writing. All you do is sit down at a typewriter and bleed."- Hemingway

    "i'm not here to start the fire. i am here to fan the flames..."

    If you have never failed, you have never lived.
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 30,071
    ecdanc said:
    brianlux said:
    ecdanc said:
    brianlux said:
    ecdanc said:
    brianlux said:
    ecdanc said:
    brianlux said:
    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.
    “After silence, that which comes nearest to expressing the inexpressible is music.”
    -Aldous Huxley
    ***********
    "We urgently need a unified national strategy, one informed by the best science."  -Michael Osterholm
    M.I.T.S.











  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 30,071
    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!
    “After silence, that which comes nearest to expressing the inexpressible is music.”
    -Aldous Huxley
    ***********
    "We urgently need a unified national strategy, one informed by the best science."  -Michael Osterholm
    M.I.T.S.











  • ecdancecdanc Posts: 1,814
    brianlux said:
    ecdanc said:
    brianlux said:
    ecdanc said:
    brianlux said:
    ecdanc said:
    brianlux said:
    ecdanc said:
    brianlux said:
    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?
     
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 30,071
    ecdanc said:
    brianlux said:
    ecdanc said:
    brianlux said:
    ecdanc said:
    brianlux said:
    ecdanc said:
    brianlux said:
    ecdanc said:
    brianlux said:
    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?
    “After silence, that which comes nearest to expressing the inexpressible is music.”
    -Aldous Huxley
    ***********
    "We urgently need a unified national strategy, one informed by the best science."  -Michael Osterholm
    M.I.T.S.











  • ecdancecdanc Posts: 1,814
    brianlux said:
    ecdanc said:
    brianlux said:
    ecdanc said:
    brianlux said:
    ecdanc said:
    brianlux said:
    ecdanc said:
    brianlux said:
    ecdanc said:
    brianlux said:
    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?                            

  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 30,071
    ecdanc said:
    brianlux said:
    ecdanc said:
    brianlux said:
    ecdanc said:
    brianlux said:
    ecdanc said:
    brianlux said:
    ecdanc said:
    brianlux said:
    ecdanc said:
    brianlux said:
    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.  :lol:

    Try again.
    “After silence, that which comes nearest to expressing the inexpressible is music.”
    -Aldous Huxley
    ***********
    "We urgently need a unified national strategy, one informed by the best science."  -Michael Osterholm
    M.I.T.S.











  • ecdancecdanc Posts: 1,814
    brianlux said:
    ecdanc said:
    brianlux said:
    ecdanc said:
    brianlux said:
    ecdanc said:
    brianlux said:
    ecdanc said:
    brianlux said:
    ecdanc said:
    brianlux said:
    ecdanc said:
    brianlux said:
    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.  :lol:

    Try again.
    I guess you find a way to make them afraid. 
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 30,071
    ecdanc said:
    brianlux said:
    ecdanc said:
    brianlux said:
    ecdanc said:
    brianlux said:
    ecdanc said:
    brianlux said:
    ecdanc said:
    brianlux said:
    ecdanc said:
    brianlux said:
    ecdanc said:
    brianlux said:
    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.  :lol:

    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!
    “After silence, that which comes nearest to expressing the inexpressible is music.”
    -Aldous Huxley
    ***********
    "We urgently need a unified national strategy, one informed by the best science."  -Michael Osterholm
    M.I.T.S.











  • hedonisthedonist standing on the edge of foreverPosts: 20,872
    A failure? Why try anything if complete success is the only option?

    Guess I still stand by my initial response!
  • cincybearcatcincybearcat Posts: 13,805
    Can Americans work together? Yes,

    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.


    hippiemom = goodness
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 30,071
    Can Americans work together? Yes,

    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.

    “After silence, that which comes nearest to expressing the inexpressible is music.”
    -Aldous Huxley
    ***********
    "We urgently need a unified national strategy, one informed by the best science."  -Michael Osterholm
    M.I.T.S.











Sign In or Register to comment.