Can't We All Just Get Along?

[Barb_]

I feel the need to qualify: opinions are not alternative facts. Opinions don't lead to alternative facts unless one is deliberately trying to manipulate reality. Which is in fact, the fundamental problem this time around. This is why this time is different.

[Guest]

I'm not supposed to get into politics, but maybe taxes don't count. Justin is taxing all the rich 1% of Canadians. That eliminate any rich Canadians that we might of had. ;)

I am thinking rich as defined by the poor - you have more. Enough that a refugee can eat too, if given a seat at the table.

[Valley Girl]

No, I remember. The difference is, this time the worries aren't abstract maybes. It's hard to be specific here, but today's worries are less local and personal and more worldwide and existential in scale. We're watching as they are coming to pass at a dizzying rate in real time.

 

I understand what you're saying. Thing is, what you see as having been abstract maybe's were VERY real to those who worried about them. I guess that's my point. I'm not saying you're doing this, but in general I see a trend of "My concerns on whatever issue are real, but yours aren't/weren't." I'm talking general "you" here. Anyway, I'm not going to say more since it gets into waters I don't want to go wading in here. I'm just frustrated with the various sides being more concerned with scoring points than solving problems. It's truly discouraging.

[Guest]

The question is can we find ways to amplify the agreements and minimize the disagreements. Right now our institutions seem to do the opposite

This is what I want to be able to do at the individual level.

[Frances]

I'm not supposed to get into politics, but maybe taxes don't count. Justin is taxing all the rich 1% of Canadians. That eliminate any rich Canadians that we might of had. ;)

Because they leave the country? That's often a myth that is perpetuated in the US when states increase taxes on the wealthy, usually fueled by a few well known people moving. But actual research shows that in general wealthy people do not move due to higher taxes, family and business ties are much stronger pulls than lower taxes. Although it is possible to manipulate the data to show that taxes are the main reason by conveniently forgetting the natural churn that takes place. But maybe Canada is different.

[Guest]

I understand what you're saying. Thing is, what you see as having been abstract maybe's were VERY real to those who worried about them. I guess that's my point. I'm not saying you're doing this, but in general I see a trend of "My concerns on whatever issue are real, but yours aren't/weren't." I'm talking general "you" here. Anyway, I'm not going to say more since it gets into waters I don't want to go wading in here. I'm just frustrated with the various sides being more concerned with scoring points than solving problems. It's truly discouraging.

Yes, I think that IS part of the disconnect. If Person A feels it is critical that we fund the colonization of Mars (just being absurd to avoid real politics), while Person B feels that's a ridiculous waste and we need to fix the planet we have already colonized, neither person's worries are make-believe; the concerns are the same for those to whom it matters. Person A can probably come up with Very Important Reasons we must colonize Mars, while Person B can probably illustrate Very Important Budget Realities that will show why colonizing Mars is not useful. So, on goes the battle.

[Carol in Cal.]

We lack a consensus on morals, values, facts, and truth.  And even on manners.

That's a lot of lack.

 

OTOH, we are mostly people of good will.  That's a lot of good.  Hopefully over time that will prevail.

Edited March 10, 2017 by Carol in Cal.

[Guest]

Because they leave the country? That's often a myth that is perpetuated in the US when states increase taxes on the wealthy, usually fueled by a few well known people moving. But actual research shows that in general wealthy people do not move due to higher taxes, family and business ties are much stronger pulls than lower taxes. Although it is possible to manipulate the data to show that taxes are the main reason by conveniently forgetting the natural churn that takes place. But maybe Canada is different.

I think she meant they are so heavily taxed, their wealth is lopped off, so then they aren't the 1% any more. But that's just my interpretation of what she said.

[Guest]

The first problem is that all the values seem to come in packages (package a or package b) which doesn't seem to make any sense. Are people really that simple? I would think that there are people who are pro-NRA and Pro-Choice or against refugees but for universal health care or whatever (the examples are just to illustrate what I mean not to blame anyone). But people can't just make choices for each of the topics on their own but have to take the whole package it seems. So everyone focuses on a couple that they feel are most important and ignores the rest. I guess the philosophical/value differences are such that most people would kind of align with one or the other but there would probably be more agreement if you took each of the areas separately.

 

I think a second problem is that people are not more pragmatic. It seems there are two camps (and they are pretty much evenly split)with completely different values and each insists that their opinions etc. are the right ones. Sometimes, this leads to "alternative facts". But then many seem to be too optimistic about human nature. Sure it would be great if everyone valued all religions, helped the poor, wanted equal rights for everyone etc. (and I do think we should aspire to this) BUT unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the reality. I think people have to start from where we are at not where we would like to be and people will have to make some unpleasant compromises.

 

Unfortunately, it doesn't seem that many want to do so...

I actually do think there are a lot of people who are not packaged up to fit ideology A or ideology B; I am one such person myself. It's just that when it comes to voting in the US, voters are "forced" to pick a package. So then, to use your own example, you have people who have to decide if they care more about being pro-NRA or pro-choice at this time. The number of people I just anecdotally know who, in the most recent election, did not fit the full ideology of *either* candidate was greater than I have experienced in any past election. The number of people I knew who were totally on board with their usual party candidate was vanishingly small this last election (speaking only from personal observation, although the case can be made nation-wide as well).

 

I think the extremely large original field of candidates in one party at the beginning of the election season is a vivid illustration that there ARE a lot of people who have a mash-up of concerns that don't fit neatly into one of two boxes.

[SKL]

I actually think most people don't fit into package A or B.

[BusyMom5]

No, we can't get along because one side is crazy and I refuse to normalize that.  I used to be able to get along, but with the hatred I have witnessed, it has changed the way I see people that I know IRL.  Their sharing of hateful blogs, memes, and comments is not okay with me and I am not going to go along with it anymore.  I have never been outspoken about my politics, but the last year has changed me.  I am no longer going to keep silent.  I am no longer going to just sit and hope that things right themselves.  I am no longer going to listen to a sexist or racist comment and stay silent jsut b/c there isn't anyone there to be offended (besides me).  I am going to politely disagree, or leave the room in a way that makes a statement that I will be no part of this.  I feel my country is being attacked- both from the outside and from within- and I need for my kids to know that in this time in history, I stood true to my values. 

[Carol in Cal.]

No, we can't get along because one side is crazy and I refuse to normalize that. 

QED

[Barb_]

Let me see if I can organize my thoughts. I want this to sound conversational rather than confrontational and it's hard to do without body language. I think I understand you to say that when people protest the current administration, the other side feels as if it's their personal worries and concerns (largely economic? maybe a few other things like abortion?) that are under attack. So they dig into the support of the administration even when evidence is mounting that this administration is actually working against those concerns and worries? Because backing away from the candidate is like giving up on one's beliefs and principles?

 

I can only speak for myself, but I'm resisting the cruelty, ignorance, hubris, mean-spiritedness, incompetence, and danger I see mounting. It's not about people who believe differently; it's about the willful dismantling of our government. Give me almost any other candidate (with a few notable exceptions) and I may grumble, but I will adapt and adjust. I won't be holding up signs in front of the courthouse.

 

We're at a crossroads here. Our political differences don't define us. We all have to stand together and say we aren't going to tolerate ugliness and hatred, cruelty and mean-spiritedness, regardless of our political leanings. We can go back to bickering over ideology later. What we have going on right now is too important. Silence implies acceptance. I do not accept what is happening.

Edited March 10, 2017 by Barb_

[Barb_]

I understand what you're saying. Thing is, what you see as having been abstract maybe's were VERY real to those who worried about them. I guess that's my point. I'm not saying you're doing this, but in general I see a trend of "My concerns on whatever issue are real, but yours aren't/weren't." I'm talking general "you" here. Anyway, I'm not going to say more since it gets into waters I don't want to go wading in here. I'm just frustrated with the various sides being more concerned with scoring points than solving problems. It's truly discouraging.

I forgot to quote you on my reply just above this one. I was actually talking to you. I'm trying to find common ground while dancing around the topic, so bear with me lol.

 

Those worries were real to the people experiencing them. I understand that. But most of what they were worried about never actually happened, and was never going to happen. A lot of it was whipped up by the same people who are currently trying to take down our government. They used people's fears to manipulate them and are continuing to do so. It's not about scoring points anymore; it's about staunching the bleeding and salvaging what remains.

Edited March 10, 2017 by Barb_

[Guest]

Judging by some of the things said in this thread, I'm guessing that no, we can't just all get along.

[SKL]

I have many thoughts, but I do not believe my thoughts need to be shared with everyone in order for the world to feel right to me.  We have so much more in common than otherwise.  We just have to choose to see that part.

 

For starters, I do not watch TV.  I don't believe any politically-charged thing I see on the internet, no matter which side posts it.  I don't discuss politics with people I care to be friends with.  If a friend does voice political opinions I disagree with, I believe they are saying it in good faith whether it's true or not.  Political opinions do not define people IMO.  On the other hand, if a person I thought was a friend finds herself unable to resist hurting others on purpose in the name of politics, then that person is not my friend any more.

 

Most importantly IMO, I keep a sense of humor and perspective.

 

The US wasn't built in a day or a year or a decade, and it can't be destroyed that fast either.

[Carol in Cal.]

Judging by some of the things said in this thread, I'm guessing that no, we can't just all get along.

Yep.  Because clearly there are some concerns that are defined by some as inconsequential, delusional, meaningless, or trivial, while others are defined as crucial.  No effort made to understand means no mutual respect and no basis even for discussion, let alone relationship.

 

If we can't disagree and remain in relationship, then, no, we can't get along.

 

And that is a shame. 

Edited March 10, 2017 by Carol in Cal.

[Barb_]

I have many thoughts, but I do not believe my thoughts need to be shared with everyone in order for the world to feel right to me. We have so much more in common than otherwise. We just have to choose to see that part.

 

For starters, I do not watch TV. I don't believe any politically-charged thing I see on the internet, no matter which side posts it. I don't discuss politics with people I care to be friends with. If a friend does voice political opinions I disagree with, I believe they are saying it in good faith whether it's true or not. Political opinions do not define people IMO. On the other hand, if a person I thought was a friend finds herself unable to resist hurting others on purpose in the name of politics, then that person is not my friend any more.

 

Most importantly IMO, I keep a sense of humor and perspective.

 

The US wasn't built in a day or a year or a decade, and it can't be destroyed that fast either.

I agree with a lot of your post. Although it's not politically charged rhetoric I'm reacting to, it's the actual quotes from the actual politicians that speak for themselves. No one is trying to hide horribleness anymore.

 

Also, it's a lot easier to destroy than to build. It takes months to build a skyscraper and a day or two to bash it to pieces.

[Guest]

Barb, it's the terror of imminent disaster that was stoked up in a good part of the population that is precisely the problem. The same thing was done from 2001-2009 and 1981-1989. And now we are supposed to consider them paragons of restraint and virtue despite the press and *ahem* certain oppositional groups saying the exact opposite their entire administrations. Nuclear clocks, war mongers, haters of the poor and every ism, etc etc. It wasn't true then and it isn't true now.

 

You can say 'oh that felt different, this is different now! It's really real now'. But this is no different, and I think you're not being honest with yourself if you cannot see, objectively, that the story in your brain the facts of the present day are being worked into might not, in fact, be unbiased or clear headed.

 

We all suffer from confirmation bias and preconceptions. Sorting through them is extraordinarily difficult. Generally speaking though, when one person sees an elephant in a room and someone else sees nothing, the one seeing the thing is the person hallucinating. If a good half or even 70% of your fellow Americans are all over the place on politics but don't see a war mongering Hitler, it's a lot more likely that the people seeing that are projecting and not that they've been blessed with special insight that all the other citizenry are lacking (beware any special insight or understanding, that way lies conspiracy thinking and propagandizing).

 

I'm positive this won't break the grip that fear has you in, but I'm praying for your peace nonetheless. :grouphug:

 

 

 

And yeah, cue pile on from the usual suspects.

Edited March 10, 2017 by Arctic Mama

[liber]

I feel the need to qualify: opinions are not alternative facts. Opinions don't lead to alternative facts unless one is deliberately trying to manipulate reality. Which is in fact, the fundamental problem this time around. This is why this time is different.

 

When there is no such thing as moral absolutes and truth is relative, what does one think the natural outcome of this thinking will be?  "alternative facts"  is just a symptom of this kind of thinking, imo.

 

[SKL]

I agree with a lot of your post. Although it's not politically charged rhetoric I'm reacting to, it's the actual quotes from the actual politicians that speak for themselves. No one is trying to hide horribleness anymore.

 

Also, it's a lot easier to destroy than to build. It takes months to build a skyscraper and a day or two to bash it to pieces.

 

With all due respect, I'm not going to argue about this.  :)

 

Aum .....   Aum .....

 

Surely we can agree on some things ... like, all babies and preschoolers are cute!  Education is important!  Sleep rocks!  When we have an opportunity to help someone in person, we help them!  Yay!  We don't donate expired food!  We watch for children while we drive!  I'm betting you agree with all those and more.

 

[Guest]

I forgot to quote you on my reply just above this one. I was actually talking to you. I'm trying to find common ground while dancing around the topic, so bear with me lol.

 

Those worries were real to the people experiencing them. I understand that. But most of what they were worried about never actually happened, and was never going to happen. A lot of it was whipped up by the same people who are currently trying to take down our government. They used people's fears to manipulate them and are continuing to do so. It's not about scoring points anymore; it's about staunching the bleeding and salvaging what remains.

 

To me,  your reply just made her point. I see the bolded is the equivalent of telling a child "yes I realize you are very afraid of Monsters and they seem very real to you, but they simply don't exist." It's patronizing. I know you probably didn't intend for that, but that is how it comes across. It is dismissive. Despite agreeing with anyone on any matter, the first step is to acknowledge that yes, what they think is a threat is important to discuss. Not that it's not really real and there are more important matters that really ARE important. Does that make sense? I'm not trying to pick on you Barb, I'm just saying how I perceive it. 

 

The following isn't addressed to anyone, just more thoughts on this. 

 

Things can't be fixed by dismissing views on either side. And I think both sides have a tendency to do this. I will use loose examples here. "People who are pro-immigrant don't care about security." "People who are against transgender bathrooms and locker rooms in schools are hateful and ignorant." "If you support strong borders you are a racist." "If you support universal healthcare you are a communist." There are millions of people who believe either side of all of those statements. Taking either position doesn't mean they are idiots. I am willing to bet a good portion of them have reasons for fearing/believing/acting as they do. That reasoning is what we need to get to and it can only be gotten to by asking questions, not making declarations about one's beliefs. If someone can't talk to you and do so knowing you will listen with respect, you will never get the chance to have those respectful conversations that might eventually (not instantly which is what too many people expect to happen) lead to a change of opinion on the topic.

 

So for me, a key in getting along is trying to purposely ask more questions of people I disagree with and am trying to understand. Instead of  explaining my political views to them and expecting some ray of brilliance to slap them in the head. As if my gift of wisdom was suddenly bestowed upon them and their life was a pit of ignorance and despair before I blessed them with some insight........ I think the later is how I expected life to be, and unfortunately acted, in my 20's. I am hoping to change that in my 40's. 

[SKL]

The feeling of impending disaster has happened many times in my 50 years.  That is why I am giving it the attention it deserves ... which isn't much.

[regentrude]

 I think people tend to romanticize the past too much. We weren't all singing kumbaya people.

 

This.

Civil rights movement was not too long ago. If there had not been a huge divide between people who had greatly differing opinions about the value of humans of different skin colors, it would not have taken a protest movement, violent clashes, assassinations and a lot of upheaval to establish the fact that African Americans are people with the same rights as Whites.

Thinking back, one would think this should have been obvious - but quite obviously it wasn't to a large segment of the population.

 

Nope, the good old times never were.

[Guest]

Last thought - I think when we engage in hyperbole and charges rhetoric we lose the ability to see the actual issues. There are actual, real policy issues to work out on both sides - screeds and drama and all manner of villainizing do jack to actually create solutions for the public. And yet that is what all manner of media traffic in and peddle because terror and fear sells. Drama sells. Constant mountains out of molehills sell big.

 

Jobs numbers, education policy, regulatory reform? Snooze. And most of the American public doesn't care about the actual technical running of government precisely because of the nuance and complexity. But I really wish we could let the boring policy discussions be the focus and keep the fomenting politics at the margins, so people could move on with their daily lives without the hit of visceral excitement they get from political football matches in headlines and on tv. We would get a whole lot more done with a whole lot less angst.

 

But that's wishful thinking, unfortunately.

[regentrude]

Surely we can agree on some things ... like, all babies and preschoolers are cute! 

 

I disagree. 

[BusyMom5]

For those that say they do not automatically believe either side- neither do I.  I have made it a point over the last few months to try to understand how this all happened, so I've been reading FOX news, PBS/NPR, and MSNBC... and then I go to actual people's websites, twitter and FB accounts.  You don't need to listen to any news program to see the crazy, and I don't believe politics were like this 15 years ago- I tend to agree with both sides on a lot of issues, but what is going on now it's even about politics, it's about the health of our nation (that wasn't ment as a pun, I'm not even talking about the ACA, I'm talking about our freedoms, rights, ect.).  If you think it won't be dismantled quickly, I hope you are correct.  HOnestly, I'm worried, and I'm not one to worry.  What I am seeing- coming out of the mouths of politicians- is dangerous to my country, and I am not sure why we do not have people on both sides of the isle coming forward and yelling "NO, not in my country!"  Instead I hear partisian politics.  I have wondered over and over why certain issues are even partisan- aren't our waterways about ALL Americans?  HOw is this even happening?  Aren't good schools and a healthy education budget important to ALL Americans?  Climate change is affecting us all- RIGHT NOW- we've had the warmest February on record and that is a FACT, no spin needed.  This isn't a partisan issue.  How is bringing back jobs in a dead industry- like coal- really helpful to America?  Clean energy is the future, all of Europe is trying to be the first to make clean cars, trains, solar-powered energy.  Instead we are doubling down on old technology in the name of money- greed and corporations.  We will fall behind as a country if we don't get our heads in gear- we need to look forward, not backward, and realize that if we are not on the front line of technology, someone else will be.  America was founded on innovation, and instead of embracing it we are trying to stifle it!  This isn't a partisan issue either, it's the future.  We can't stop it, but we can help shape it- give those upcoming jobs to Americans. 

[Guest]

Disagreeing, even strongly, doesn't necessarily mean we don't get along.

 

So yes. But expect to still deal with objectionable rhetoric every now and then.

 

I'm not immune, of course, to some ppl denigrating something dear to me too much or too often, and consequently I simply can not be friends with them. But that's OK. We don't have to be friends with everyone.

 

That's the difference between irl and online. Irl I can sit at the table with a closeminded relative, or whoever, and disagree all day. But as long as I don't clobber anyone upside the head with a drumstick, or start naming all their physical and personality flaws...We are still "getting along," being civil.

 

Online, otoh, the ONLY thing going on is this back and forth between us. If I start getting too derisive or even deliberately obtuse, we aren't getting along any more because the back and forth has been ended. I'm right, you're wrong, the end.

 

Fwiw, I think finding common ground is overrated.

[SKL]

I was on a page where the owner says no politics and you can be deleted and blocked if you bring up politics.

 

I started a post that was not political, but someone decided to comment with political comments and links.  As this went on I felt some responsibility to the page owner for my post that had taken on a life of its own and was now breaking the rules.  I decided to delete the post (and I explained why to those commenters who might care).

 

So, the person who had posted the political links got on another page and started a post about how awful it is for people to delete their posts.  In deference to his point of view, the owner of that 2nd page made a rule that you are not allowed to delete anything you post, for any reason.  :P

 

Some people just can't be happy unless they are angry or fighting.

 

PS I reserve the right to delete this post later .....

[Carol in Cal.]

I think that we had major populist trends in both parties in the last election cycle, and in the reactions to the primary and general election results, and that to a large extent they have been coopted (on all sides) by powerful corporate and other international interests and agendas.

 

Now, it's the nature of powerful interests to attempt to coopt populism in any society with some democratic governance.  After all, the popular vote is one of the seats of real power.  

 

The extent to which any of us chooses to participate even when somewhat coopted is a good thing to consider.  

 

The extent to which we expose, identify, and resist cooption is what will make the difference between those interests having ALL power and those interests just have SOME power.  That's where I think we should all focus.  But instead we are being distracted, and I really don't think that is accidental.

[Barb_]

To me, your reply just made her point. I see the bolded is the equivalent of telling a child "yes I realize you are very afraid of Monsters and they seem very real to you, but they simply don't exist." It's patronizing. I know you probably didn't intend for that, but that is how it comes across. It is dismissive. Despite agreeing with anyone on any matter, the first step is to acknowledge that yes, what they think is a threat is important to discuss. Not that it's not really real and there are more important matters that really ARE important. Does that make sense? I'm not trying to pick on you Barb, I'm just saying how I perceive it.

 

The following isn't addressed to anyone, just more thoughts on this.

 

Things can't be fixed by dismissing views on either side. And I think both sides have a tendency to do this. I will use loose examples here. "People who are pro-immigrant don't care about security." "People who are against transgender bathrooms and locker rooms in schools are hateful and ignorant." "If you support strong borders you are a racist." "If you support universal healthcare you are a communist." There are millions of people who believe either side of all of those statements. Taking either position doesn't mean they are idiots. I am willing to bet a good portion of them have reasons for fearing/believing/acting as they do. That reasoning is what we need to get to and it can only be gotten to by asking questions, not making declarations about one's beliefs. If someone can't talk to you and do so knowing you will listen with respect, you will never get the chance to have those respectful conversations that might eventually (not instantly which is what too many people expect to happen) lead to a change of opinion on the topic.

 

So for me, a key in getting along is trying to purposely ask more questions of people I disagree with and am trying to understand. Instead of explaining my political views to them and expecting some ray of brilliance to slap them in the head. As if my gift of wisdom was suddenly bestowed upon them and their life was a pit of ignorance and despair before I blessed them with some insight........ I think the later is how I expected life to be, and unfortunately acted, in my 20's. I am hoping to change that in my 40's.

Yeah, I'm having trouble communicating my thoughts. One last shot:

 

Before November, I feel like a lot of fears--not distaste or dislike or disagreement with policies, but fears that I've heard expressed--were based on purposeful manipulation. The fears were real, but many of them were fabricated by people with nefarious intent. I concede I may be thinking of examples that are removed from examples that other people are thinking of. It's difficult to come to understanding when you can't back up opinions with concrete examples, but that makes things too political and we're skating on the edge of being shut down as it is. That's probably why we're talking past one another.

[Guest]

.

 

We all suffer from confirmation bias and preconceptions. Sorting through them is extraordinarily difficult. Generally speaking though, when one person sees an elephant in a room and someone else sees nothing, the one seeing the thing is the person hallucinating. If a good half or even 70% of your fellow Americans are all over the place on politics but don't see a war mongering Hitler, it's a lot more likely that the people seeing that are projecting and not that they've been blessed with special insight that all the other citizenry are lacking (beware any special insight or understanding, that way lies conspiracy thinking and propagandiz

More likely that a few people have insider knowledge, a few have tin hats, and the rest do not have the education or experience to figure out who is who.

 

Have you read Elie Wiesel's book 'Night'?

 

 

Or how about boots on the ground? what happened to the education of children from literate cultures In your neighborhood? In mine, some parents knew the past, read the board minutes and didn't let their children fall thru the cracks all the while requesting that ALL children receive instruction, not just those below grade level. Most others decried them as racists or xenophobes. Guess which set is holding $20k parent loans for children who were too underprepared to finish two 15 credit semesters at college.

[Barb_]

Barb, it's the terror of imminent disaster that was stoked up in a good part of the population that is precisely the problem. The same thing was done from 2001-2009 and 1981-1989. And now we are supposed to consider them paragons of restraint and virtue despite the press and *ahem* certain oppositional groups saying the exact opposite their entire administrations. Nuclear clocks, war mongers, haters of the poor and every ism, etc etc. It wasn't true then and it isn't true now.

 

You can say 'oh that felt different, this is different now! It's really real now'. But this is no different, and I think you're not being honest with yourself if you cannot see, objectively, that the story in your brain the facts of the present day are being worked into might not, in fact, be unbiased or clear headed.

 

We all suffer from confirmation bias and preconceptions. Sorting through them is extraordinarily difficult. Generally speaking though, when one person sees an elephant in a room and someone else sees nothing, the one seeing the thing is the person hallucinating. If a good half or even 70% of your fellow Americans are all over the place on politics but don't see a war mongering Hitler, it's a lot more likely that the people seeing that are projecting and not that they've been blessed with special insight that all the other citizenry are lacking (beware any special insight or understanding, that way lies conspiracy thinking and propagandizing).

 

I'm positive this won't break the grip that fear has you in, but I'm praying for your peace nonetheless. :grouphug:

 

 

 

And yeah, cue pile on from the usual suspects.

I managed to trip right past your post. I appreciate the hugs :)

[Bluegoat]

Well, FWIW, I am not against taking refugees into Canada, though I worry about people coming across the uninhabited areas of the border in the winter, or trying to sneak through the US to Canada.  In the end, we are lucky we aren't in the position that many European countries are.

 

 

More generally, I have a few thoughts.

 

One is that I think it's really important to try and have concrete, physical contact with people of various political and other perspectives.  Membership in community groups, and that sort of thing, where you can start to see people as whole.

 

I think it helps to remember that even with really hard to understand viewpoints, there is almost always a kind of logic

 

But as far as the nature of the crisis, I do think, maybe along the same lines as Farrar, that there is a kind of new challenge involved.  Maybe not worse than earlier ones, but new.  There is something of a crisis of confidence about the meaning of western civilization, and how it should go forward in the conditions we find ourselves in. 

 

An example we hear about pretty commonly is what do we do with newcomers from non-western peoples when their ideas seem opposed to our ideas - there is a tension between our views on universal humanity and cultural tolerance on the one hand, and then what that means concretely when a group may have ideas that seem to be incompatible.  Or, on the right, the idea of the free market vs the effects of globalism.  It's as if the conventional political approaches are themselves confused or vague about what to do or say, and it creates all these unresolvable tensions.

 

Certainly I see this for myself in my political involvement - I tend to be pretty far left in a lot of ways and support a party that isn't a major player, and yet it seems to me the left as a whole has just been falling apart, turned against itself, and is at the best unable to present a real way forward or useful balance to the political right.   And I think - I feel - it must be my responsibility to try and deal with that, and maybe that will help things overall.

 

 

Edited March 10, 2017 by Bluegoat

[Meriwether]

 

 

I'm well aware of our history and how differences between different groups of European immigrants were part of our history and how those differences were, at the time, seen as just as disparate as the differences between groups now. I think the issue is that they simply were not. While Pennsylvania Quakers and Maryland Catholics at the turn of the 1800's felt at the time that they had a huge gulf of history, tradition, and belief between them. I would argue that the difference in values and experience between an evangelical, young Earth Christian in Alabama and a recent Sudanese immigrant in Maine and a young queer atheist in Oregon are gulfs that are much bigger.

 

I disagree with this. The only reason my family emigrated from their country of origin was religious persecution. They had family and friends being tortured and killed. So, now while the difference between Protestant (or in our case, Anabaptist) and Catholic may not seem (or be) a big deal, it was a huge gulf then.

[Guest]

More likely that a few people have insider knowledge, a few have tin hats, and the rest do not have the education or experience to figure out who is who.

 

Have you read Elie Wiesel's book 'Night'?

 

 

Or how about boots on the ground? what happened to the education of children from literate cultures In your neighborhood? In mine, some parents knew the past, read the board minutes and didn't let their children fall thru the cracks all the while requesting that ALL children receive instruction, not just those below grade level. Most others decried them as racists or xenophobes. Guess which set is holding $20k parent loans for children who were too underprepared to finish two 15 credit semesters at college.

I think your general premise holds - do you think the few people with inside knowledge are acting in your best interests, their own, or some other agenda? Finding out what perspectives are most accurate to reality is easiest to do in hindsight, but it can still be done with some success in an active manner - hence why a few people predicted what was happening in the population and the most recent election and most missed it.

 

This is skirting the edge of politics, but since you bring up Night (an excellent book, I agree!), I think it's a suitable response on the topic and a sober assessment of the narrative vs historical fact:

https://regiehammblog.wordpress.com/2017/02/01/this-hitler-nonsense/

 

If anyone wants to discuss the content instead of just reading and digesting it privately you can PM me so we don't derail the thread. I have a little time later today to do some more responding.

[Guest]

Oh I meant also to say that everyone has a right to their personal anger. And why people not feeling anger at that exact moment always seem SHOCKED that someone else is, is beyond me.

 

Iow, people keep getting upset that someone else is upset.

 

We collectively really need to do a better job of letting angry people just be angry and dig into their actual complaint instead of reacting to the feeling they're emoting.

 

That feeds into indignation being the only thing that gets anyone's attention, which is A, boring and B, not getting anyone anywhere.

[Barb_]

I think your general premise holds - do you think the few people with inside knowledge are acting in your best interests, their own, or some other agenda? Finding out what perspectives are most accurate to reality is easiest to do in hindsight, but it can still be done with some success in an active manner - hence why a few people predicted what was happening in the population and the most recent election and most missed it.

 

This is skirting the edge of politics, but since you bring up Night (an excellent book, I agree!), I think it's a suitable response on the topic and a sober assessment of the narrative vs historical fact:

https://regiehammblog.wordpress.com/2017/02/01/this-hitler-nonsense/

 

If anyone wants to discuss the content instead of just reading and digesting it privately you can PM me so we don't derail the thread. I have a little time later today to do some more responding.

Not a Hitler, but I think reasonable people can agree he's at least a Nixon.

 

...and that didn't end so well.

Edited March 10, 2017 by Barb_

[Bluegoat]

I disagree with this. The only reason my family emigrated from their country of origin was religious persecution. They had family and friends being tortured and killed. So, now while the difference between Protestant (or in our case, Anabaptist) and Catholic may not seem (or be) a big deal, it was a huge gulf then.

 

I think maybe what she meant was that when you get right down to it past the prejudices, the beliefs and customs of these people were actually pretty compatible.  Catholics and Protestants might have hated each other, but when you get down to it their values were not radically different.

 

And even up until fairly recently, I think you could say the west broadly accepted Enlightenment values. 

 

But, what happens when suddenly, there are people in the mix that don't seem to accept that broad set of values anymore?  Maybe their values aren't actually compatible enough to create a functioning society.  How do you make laws about something like marriage when groups of people have three or more views about it's social role and purpose?  What if you really can't agree about what it means to be a person, or what political rights should attach to that?

 

THat being said, writing this, I am thinking maybe it isn't so much changes to cultural make-up or religious belief that have created this, though it may seem that way at first glance.  I wonder if it isn't more directly a crises over those Enlightenment values from within the west. 

[Guest]

Not a Hitler, but I think reasonable people can agree he's at least a Nixon.

 

...and that didn't end so well.

Interesting comparison - you may not be able to get into it here without breaking the rules, but do you want to explain the parallels you see in those two privately? The only ones I can think of don't fit what I think you're getting at, so I'm interested in what your perspective is on this.

 

If you have time, of course :)

[Joker]

Part of the problem for me is that I'm on a side I've never been on before and I'm being lumped in with people I've never been before. I voted differently in this election than any other election prior. Part of my problem is that even when "my person" lost prior, I didn't feel like I do now so I admit to not understanding why some felt actual fear before as I was on their side of things at that time. Hopefully that's not too confusing the way I wrote it. I tried not to mention actual sides/names. There are things going on now that directly affect one of my children and there is fear here. 

 

I don't have much faith we will all be getting along anytime soon. I've been on FB for years and have never had to unfriend anyone. The past month I've had to unfriend several for the hateful, cruel memes and words being posted that directly relate to my son. It seems, at least in my real life world, that some have just decided it's okay now to say and do those things and I'm called a snowflake/whiner/baby if I have a problem with it. 

 

ETA: Also, I have a very bad reaction when people say our issues are that we've lost our morals. They usually are always including people like my son in what they mean by that and it isn't going to garner a good response from me. We are a Christian family and our faith is just as important to us as to them but we don't see eye to eye on certain issues and I don't see that changing anytime soon either. 

Edited March 10, 2017 by Joker

[SKL]

I do agree that the behavior of the press feels different - more desperate and less adaptable than I've noticed it before.  I'm not sure why - I have some theories and some curiosity, but mostly I'm just observing it to see how it ends up.

[Barb_]

Interesting comparison - you may not be able to get into it here without breaking the rules, but do you want to explain the parallels you see in those two privately? The only ones I can think of don't fit what I think you're getting at, so I'm interested in what your perspective is on this.

 

If you have time, of course :)

I'll pm you tonight once I get the kids to bed. That's going to take some time to do right :)

[Barb_]

Part of the problem for me is that I'm on a side I've never been on before and I'm being lumped in with people I've never been before. I voted differently in this election than any other election prior. Part of my problem is that even when "my person" lost prior, I didn't feel like I do now so I admit to not understanding why some felt actual fear before as I was on their side of things at that time. Hopefully that's not too confusing the way I wrote it. I tried not to mention actual sides/names. There are things going on now that directly affect one of my children and there is fear here.

 

I don't have much faith we will all be getting along anytime soon. I've been on FB for years and have never had to unfriend anyone. The past month I've had to unfriend several for the hateful, cruel memes and words being posted that directly relate to my son. It seems, at least in my real life world, that some have just decided it's okay now to say and do those things and I'm called a snowflake/whiner/baby if I have a problem with it.

 

ETA: Also, I have a very bad reaction when people say our issues are that we've lost our morals. They usually are always including people like my son in what they mean by that and it isn't going to garner a good response from me. We are a Christian family and our faith is just as important to us as to them but we don't see eye to eye on certain issues and I don't see that changing anytime soon either.

:grouphug: I'm sorry.

[SeaConquest]

Part of the problem for me is that I'm on a side I've never been on before and I'm being lumped in with people I've never been before. I voted differently in this election than any other election prior. Part of my problem is that even when "my person" lost prior, I didn't feel like I do now so I admit to not understanding why some felt actual fear before as I was on their side of things at that time. Hopefully that's not too confusing the way I wrote it. I tried not to mention actual sides/names. There are things going on now that directly affect one of my children and there is fear here.

 

I don't have much faith we will all be getting along anytime soon. I've been on FB for years and have never had to unfriend anyone. The past month I've had to unfriend several for the hateful, cruel memes and words being posted that directly relate to my son. It seems, at least in my real life world, that some have just decided it's okay now to say and do those things and I'm called a snowflake/whiner/baby if I have a problem with it.

 

ETA: Also, I have a very bad reaction when people say our issues are that we've lost our morals. They usually are always including people like my son in what they mean by that and it isn't going to garner a good response from me. We are a Christian family and our faith is just as important to us as to them but we don't see eye to eye on certain issues and I don't see that changing anytime soon either.

I'm with you. I've held my nose and voted for my party's candidate before, or voted third party in protest. I've never crossed party lines. Until now. And that scares me. I'm very very worried. And, at least in my neck of the woods, most of us feel that we are being held hostage by forces and values that are unrecognizable to us and the antithesis of America. I feel like a stranger in my own country.

[Barb_]

I do agree that the behavior of the press feels different - more desperate and less adaptable than I've noticed it before. I'm not sure why - I have some theories and some curiosity, but mostly I'm just observing it to see how it ends up.

Being called "the enemy of the American People" and having the government declare war against you tends to make you a little twitchy, I would think.

[Guest]

I do agree that the behavior of the press feels different - more desperate and less adaptable than I've noticed it before.  I'm not sure why - I have some theories and some curiosity, but mostly I'm just observing it to see how it ends up.

 

That's a very interesting topic in and of itself.

 

The press is interesting, because we vest so much in it and the idea of it, and how important it is to a functioning democracy. Yet is is a profit driven, corporately controlled entity in almost all cases. I mean we have PBS I guess, but.....they're not immune to politics, you know? It seems like a giant conundrum. And now, with newspapers and magazines struggling to even exist, they are even more profit and fear driven to survive. Perhaps that's where some of the desperation is coming from? You also have less chance or adaptability when a board is determining what you can cover and how you can cover it......or worse yet an activist investor hoping to tip your stock price so they can sell off your company. All of that HAS to weigh in somehow on the people that are the press. At least it would seem.....

[Guest]

:grouphug: I'm sorry.

Me, too. That makes my heart hurt.

[Audrey]

I'm not supposed to get into politics, but maybe taxes don't count. Justin is taxing all the rich 1% of Canadians. That eliminate any rich Canadians that we might of had. ;)

 

 

This *IS* blatantly political, as well as egregious misinformation.  Yes, taxes will increase on the top 1% of earners, but it does not in any way imply that the rich will be eliminated.  There is a whole stream of tax cuts, rebates and incentives for middle income earners, AND for corporations in addition to the increase on the 1%ers. 

[Audrey]

I'm sorry about the issues you are facing in the US. Please stop walking across the boarder into Canada, though. It's no better here, AT ALL. Seriously. Love you all, but we can't afford refugees from the US. 

 

 

Of course we can afford refugees.  Refugee aid is built into the budget at the fed level and provincial levels.  This includes fed support for emergency situations.  

 

You know what we really can't afford?  We can't afford the trauma of what we'll find in the fields along the border once spring thaw comes.  There was a huge blizzard that passed the SK/MB borders earlier this week.  Another two dozens refugees made it across.  Who else didn't?