dankind said:

show previous quotes

brianlux said:

dankind said:

brianlux said:

dankind said:

Oh believe me, I ask that sometimes!

I keep pressing on because I believe in Vaclav Havel's definition of hope:  "Hope is not the conviction that things will turn out well.  Hope is the conviction to do what makes sense not matter how things turn out."

And his country did the appropriate (and necessary) thing and split up.

That won't happen because those who lean left would end up with California, Oregon, Washington, New York and most of New England, and the right knows they would be too weakened without those states in their new country.

Fuck 'em. Do they not possess those bootstraps by which to pull themselves up that they're always going on about? Let them have their idiocracy. We'll have them surrounded, too.

tempo_n_groove said:

show previous quotes

dankind said:

brianlux said:

dankind said:

brianlux said:

dankind said:

Oh believe me, I ask that sometimes!

I keep pressing on because I believe in Vaclav Havel's definition of hope:  "Hope is not the conviction that things will turn out well.  Hope is the conviction to do what makes sense not matter how things turn out."

And his country did the appropriate (and necessary) thing and split up.

That won't happen because those who lean left would end up with California, Oregon, Washington, New York and most of New England, and the right knows they would be too weakened without those states in their new country.

Fuck 'em. Do they not possess those bootstraps by which to pull themselves up that they're always going on about? Let them have their idiocracy. We'll have them surrounded, too.

I ain't livin in no seceded state, that is for sure!!!

ecdanc said:

show previous quotes

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. 

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.  

ecdanc said:

show previous quotes

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. 

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. 

ecdanc said:

show previous quotes

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. 

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?

Jason P said:

i think it is once again time for ...

Jason P said:

show previous quotes

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). 

ecdanc said:

show previous quotes

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. 

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.