Audrey Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 (edited) My comment was based on I've edited out all the blatantly partisan political statements. You may want to consider editing your own posts. You do not speak for Canada. Your experience is not representative of my reality as a Canadian (and former American, so I do know the comparison quite well between the two). I'm refraining from countering any more of your statements. Edited March 11, 2017 by Audrey 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ElizabethB Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 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! But what if they are screaming? I disagree. :lol: :lol: :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 Whenever someone is afraid it is important to discuss. But it's also important to acknowledge the differences between fears that are based on generalized distrust and fears that are based on the person's own stated policies and actions. People's fears that the previous president was secretly in league with terrorists or was planning to mobilize an army of Chicago gang members to seize everyone's guns or declare martial law and not allow the 2016 elections are not the equivalent of specific fears of losing your insurance under the currently proposed Health Care law or fears that your husband will be deported because of the change in immigration priorities. And I'm not exaggerating, I know people who were afraid of those first three. For them to say "now you know how I felt the last eight years" to my sister who is trying to decide what to do if her husband's visa is cancelled/not renewed is obscene. Edit: and I know there are loonies on all sides. My question is how do you deal with the conspiracy theorists when you're respecting everyone's fears? On the bolded, I don't have a good answer, although I've given it much thought. I've actually been having this conversation with my daughter recently. She's young and she likes to engage in losing battles with people online sometimes. :) I think in those cases, sometimes you just have to be quiet and cast your ballot without engaging. Sometimes you have to be the bigger person and not engage, because what really, is the point? If you can find a point, then you have the start of an answer I would think. If say one's spouse is a conspiracy theorist, you would want to know how that came about, and hopefully questions would lead to some sort of understanding, if not agreement. But if it's the guy I worked with 10 years ago on a social media post- there would be no point. I believe in this, and many things, restraint is a virtue. I have to think that some people aren't my job to engage- I'm not adept enough at the arguments, composed enough in my responses, along with many other things- and I let myself off of the hook with attempting to have a discourse with those type of people. I guess I try to realize when I will do more harm to my cause than good when engaging with certain people. So I think with some people, we simply must choose NOT to engage. It's interesting, and I will use this board as an example- people here will discuss that chasing down a thief for a purse or money or something like that is physically dangerous and a bad decision. They say it's not worth the risk. I think the same mentality can be applied to political/moral/religious discussions too. Some are dangerous to chase after. Sometimes we need to let it go. And on that same line, some people are dangerous to engage with. In many cases a person will do more harm than good having the discussion if not done properly. Silence, I am learning, is indeed sometimes the best choice. I know that goes contrary to what 99% of people say these days- the "we must rail against" mentality. But I don't think that's always the answer. Sure, there is a time to not be silent. I'm not saying being quiet is always, or even most times, the answer. However, for your question, for say conspirarcy theorists, or radicals, I haven't often seen the point in engaging with them on a short term discourse. Other people may be more successful in those discussions, but I know where my weaknesses are, and thoughtful articulation on the fly is definitely one of them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 But what if they are screaming? As long as they are other people's babies and I can walk away, they are still cute. If they are my babies, well, my babies of course never screamed.... :leaving: 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 The world over, the question 'can't we all just get along ?' is the wrong one. A more productive one is 'What are the issues dividing us' ? Then..'What we can do about the issues that divide us?' I find the original question pretty passive aggressive, as it fails to acknowledge the possibility of real issues causing real division, and makes papering over the cracks of more importance than fixing them. It's not a personality issue, when two sides fail to 'get along'. It's not something your solve with better etiquette. I would never take something from Quill as passive aggressive though. I didn't take her question in that light or with that intent. I get what you are saying, but I interpreted her question as trying to seek answers on how we fix it. I do disagree with the etiquette not being part of the solution. It's hard to have a useful discourse without some etiquette. It might not be as bad in AU, but here people need some more work on that. Some people let it hang out a bit too much and brashly it seems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valley Girl Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 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. No, that's not quite what I mean. I'm sure I'm doing a poor job of expressing myself. What I'm seeing (again, trying to keep things general) is that Side A protests certain actions. Side A has real, visceral reasons for their concerns. It's upsetting to them when Side B--which happens to be in power--mocks those concerns and won't address substantive issues which need to be hashed out. Side B, however, faced a similar dynamic in previous years when Side A was in power. Side B's real, visceral concerns and protests were mocked, the result being that substantive issues and differences could not be addressed in a constructive way. And you can go back further with the roles being flipped. Whether or not any of Side A or B's fears actually materialize(d) doesn't change what happens in the moment when the concerns are current. Personally, I think we're missing huge opportunities. I'm betting that most people (not everybody) could find some common ground and common concerns on which to build, even when issues are contentious. (It's interesting to me how each side will utter similar sentiments.) But the hyperbole, hysteria, my-view-or-none thinking on all sides get in the way as does the resentment of that builds from the dynamic I mentioned above. Anyway, I'm not sure I'm helping the conversation here, and I don't want to derail things because the OP's question is important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caroline Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 Honestly? I don't want to just get along. I didn't before this administration, and I don't now. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
displace Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 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..... I remember NPR doing a self analysis of their reporting a few years ago. They are labeled liberal by some. They had a statistician analyze their reports and time spent on different presidents and different parties. I believe their stories were concluded to slightly lean conservative based on time spent on stories. As if they were overcompensating for being labeled one way, they may have unwittingly reported more from the other side they were accused of ignoring. I think introspection is good for everyone: news, business, politicians, individuals. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 Honestly? I don't want to just get along. I didn't before this administration, and I don't now. You get points for honesty :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emzhengjiu Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 Please limit discussion to issues. No political discussions regardless of the country! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audrey Posted March 11, 2017 Share Posted March 11, 2017 Honestly? I don't want to just get along. I didn't before this administration, and I don't now. I don't either. "Getting along" implies ignoring, at least on the surface, the issues at hand. It implies acquiescence. I welcome disagreement and discussion on disagreements. I welcome collaboration to find a middle ground that is viable, productive and sustainable for the larger populace. But I don't welcome "getting along just to get along." We do not need to like each other or even pretend to like each other in order to be able to come up with workable solutions to national problems. 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MercyA Posted March 11, 2017 Share Posted March 11, 2017 (edited) The desire for 'everyone to get along' without dealing with the issues of why everyone doesn't, can definitely be experienced as oppressive. 'Getting along' doesn't historically win much progress. Women didn't win the vote because suffragettes just 'tried to get along', for example. Injustices are never fixed by playing nice. I have to believe, though, that we don't have to compromise values and principles like kindness or non-violence to affect change. The civil rights protestors who held sit-downs in restaurants come to mind. They took their responsibility to affect change seriously, openly dealing with the issues and speaking with their actions to the point of civil disobedience, but they also remained peaceful and non-retaliatory. I guess they weren't "playing nice" or just "getting along," but they also held firmly to the ideal of peace. IDK. I used to be an abrasive protester myself. I thought I should do anything necessary to share facts and get my point across. It was--and is--that important, you know? However, I now regret not always being gentle--I shouldn't have compromised truth OR kindness. I wasn't consistent in applying all of the values I professed to believe, and that was wrong. I want to do better. Edited March 11, 2017 by MercyA 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
creekland Posted March 11, 2017 Share Posted March 11, 2017 Honestly? I don't want to just get along. I don't either - at least when it comes to some pretty major issues. Being silent to "just get along" when injustices are being done makes me part of those injustices. I want Universal Health care. I don't care which "side" does it. But for me to say I'll just go along with whatever (majority or otherwise) does because we need to get along - while someone else can't afford to take their kid to the doctor when needed... no, I'm not ok with that. One can put different issues besides healthcare in there. I want all humans considered equal regardless of color, culture, or birthplace lottery, etc. I don't want bullies at any level (not limited to politics). I don't want "lifestyles of the rich and famous" getting even wealthier while others struggle to eat and work oodles of hours just for the basics. There are plenty of things not worth "just getting along" over. There are many things that are worth standing up for. 12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MercyA Posted March 11, 2017 Share Posted March 11, 2017 (edited) Non-violent protest doesn't have anything to do with 'getting along'. Obviously, I don't believe in your abrasive protests (because they targeted vulnerable women, but really, let's not get into it again), but no, gentleness is not always required. Doing better doesn't always look like being sweet. I protested because vulnerable human beings were being harmed. But I agree, let's not get into it again. Gentleness may not always be required for you, and that's fine. It is for me. Jesus was gentle--at least at times--but I sure wouldn't call him sweet. :) But I appreciate your thoughts, as always, Sadie. Edited March 11, 2017 by MercyA 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lang Syne Boardie Posted March 11, 2017 Share Posted March 11, 2017 I protested because vulnerable human beings were being harmed. But I agree, let's not get into it again. Gentleness may not always be required for you, and that's fine. It is for me. Jesus was gentle--at least at times--but I sure wouldn't call him sweet. :) But I appreciate your thoughts, as always, Sadie. What about driving moneychangers out of the temple with a bullwhip? Or what about calling Pharisees whitewashed sepulchres and hypocrites and snakes? Jesus did that. There were certain types of injustices that he didn't tolerate nicely at all. 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MercyA Posted March 11, 2017 Share Posted March 11, 2017 (edited) What about driving moneychangers out of the temple with a bullwhip? Or what about calling Pharisees whitewashed sepulchres and hypocrites and snakes? Jesus did that. There were certain types of injustices that he didn't tolerate nicely at all. Oh, absolutely. That's why I edited my post after some thought. :) And Sadie makes a good point--doing better doesn't necessarily mean being "sweet" all the time. Truth can be spoken bluntly *and* gently. That said, Jesus is God and does "whatsoever he pleases, in heaven and on earth." I, on the other hand, am called to follow His instructions, which seem pretty clear: "Let your gentleness be known to all men. The Lord is at hand." "...Be peaceable, gentle, showing all humility to all men." "...Flee these things and pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, gentleness." "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control." "...Walk worthy of the calling with which you were called, with all lowliness and gentleness, with longsuffering, bearing with one another in love." "And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth." "But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, willing to yield, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality and without hypocrisy." "Do not let your adornment be merely outward—arranging the hair, wearing gold, or putting on fine apparel—rather let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God." What anyone else does is up to them. I'm going to try to err on the side of gentleness. Edited March 11, 2017 by MercyA 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 11, 2017 Share Posted March 11, 2017 (edited) Oh, absolutely. That's why I edited my post after some thought. :) And Sadie makes a good point--doing better doesn't necessarily mean being "sweet" all the time. Truth can be spoken bluntly *and* gently. That said, Jesus is God and does "whatsoever he pleases, in heaven and on earth." I, on the other hand, am called to follow His instructions, which seem pretty clear: "Let your gentleness be known to all men. The Lord is at hand." "...Be peaceable, gentle, showing all humility to all men." "...Flee these things and pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, gentleness." "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control." "...Walk worthy of the calling with which you were called, with all lowliness and gentleness, with longsuffering, bearing with one another in love." "And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth." "But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, willing to yield, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality and without hypocrisy." "Do not let your adornment be merely outward—arranging the hair, wearing gold, or putting on fine apparel—rather let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God." What anyone else does is up to them. I'm going to try to err on the side of gentleness. Amen. "A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger." Edited March 11, 2017 by texasmom33 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Janeway Posted March 11, 2017 Share Posted March 11, 2017 25+ years ago, you couldn't just go on the internet and anonymously blast everyone. And the only people you socialized with were in your physical vicinity. For most people, you wouldn't look someone in the face and tell them they are an idiot because they like the color blue, and rip them to shreds over it. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Janeway Posted March 11, 2017 Share Posted March 11, 2017 Also, it does not help when political campaigns switched from a candidate saying "I support XYZ so you should vote for me" or even "my opponent looks ugly in a swimsuit" to the newer tactics of "if your friend supports my opponent, then your friend is evil and mentally ill and likely a psychopath." Candidates who attack voters are just trying to pit the voters against each other. That is also not ok. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sdel Posted March 11, 2017 Share Posted March 11, 2017 Hmmm....10 - 15 years where the bulk of programming is reality TV designed for everyone to backstab, deceive, and/or be a generally nasty drama queen to everyone else. Is it any wonder we finally have a culture mirroring the antics of reality TV? That is what the state of things feels like to me. Stefanie 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joker Posted March 11, 2017 Share Posted March 11, 2017 I don't by any means feel we have a culture mirroring horrible antics of reality tv. I do think there are pockets of people who are not kind, respectful, or loving and those people can bring out fear and anger. My ds is met with mostly loving, kind, and respectful peers. Even in a deep red county the majority of his peers could care less where he goes to the bathroom. The problem is some of their parents who were raised without all the media and reality tv. Where are they getting the idea suddenly that it is okay to be so nasty? My experience is that they used to be able to be who they are and say what they want around most of their peers and that is changing as ideas, feelings, and beliefs evolve. Some of these people are taking that as some kind of religious persecution. I don't understand why they think they are persecuted against but refuse to see what they are doing to my ds. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sdel Posted March 11, 2017 Share Posted March 11, 2017 So, y'all don't get along because of TV ?! Maybe..... Aren't there a ton of studies out there that show how screens are bad for you? I don't keep up on all that generally, but kids especially mimic, trial, and expand on the behaviors they see around them. I don't see how that is necessarily different for adults. We seem to reward and idolize that those types of behavior. I don't think it's all that far-fetched. Have you seen who the president is (aka reality TV personality)? Have you not seen the media in a near constant meltdown over each new blip of a tweet? Honestly, it a dead ringer for a reality TV show....AKA, spout what ever gets you drama (ie. ratings) and when the drama (ie. ratings) dip up the ante. Anything to keep the cameras on you, your cause, your ideas, your whatever.....umm...anyone familiar with a certain conservative talk show host? But lest you think I'm picking....I'm conservative. I've paid enough attention to call the pattern in a lot of things, not just politics. Stefanie 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quill Posted March 11, 2017 Author Share Posted March 11, 2017 Maybe..... Aren't there a ton of studies out there that show how screens are bad for you? I don't keep up on all that generally, but kids especially mimic, trial, and expand on the behaviors they see around them. I don't see how that is necessarily different for adults. We seem to reward and idolize that those types of behavior. I don't think it's all that far-fetched. Have you seen who the president is (aka reality TV personality)? Have you not seen the media in a near constant meltdown over each new blip of a tweet? Honestly, it a dead ringer for a reality TV show....AKA, spout what ever gets you drama (ie. ratings) and when the drama (ie. ratings) dip up the ante. Anything to keep the cameras on you, your cause, your ideas, your whatever.....umm...anyone familiar with a certain conservative talk show host? But lest you think I'm picking....I'm conservative. I've paid enough attention to call the pattern in a lot of things, not just politics. Stefanie You might be onto something here... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sdel Posted March 11, 2017 Share Posted March 11, 2017 I don't by any means feel we have a culture mirroring horrible antics of reality tv. I do think there are pockets of people who are not kind, respectful, or loving and those people can bring out fear and anger. My ds is met with mostly loving, kind, and respectful peers. Even in a deep red county the majority of his peers could care less where he goes to the bathroom. The problem is some of their parents who were raised without all the media and reality tv. Where are they getting the idea suddenly that it is okay to be so nasty? My experience is that they used to be able to be who they are and say what they want around most of their peers and that is changing as ideas, feelings, and beliefs evolve. Some of these people are taking that as some kind of religious persecution. I don't understand why they think they are persecuted against but refuse to see what they are doing to my ds. Everyone lives in their own bubbles. Yours happens to be a bubble in which your peers have taken measures to curtail certain behaviors or were possibly never even exposed to them in the first place. I didn't say everyone was as horrible as reality TV, but I do believe it has made it easier to act that way generally and not get called on it. You actually prove my point in a way. We are exposed to certain behaviors and ideals and then we mimic, and/or expand on them (of course rejection is an option too). The younger generations have been much more exposed to the concepts of all kinds of civil liberties at a younger age and so have mimicked and expanded on them. My generation is a lot more integrated into diverse racial situations following the civil rights movements than my parents' and drastically more than my grandparents' generations were and the balance of my children's generation will be a lot more integrated than mine is. Its what we are seeing now with the gender issues. Its no surprise the younger generations out supports gender issues than the older ones. And I'd argue the older generation are now exposed to enough culture where it is acceptable to be throwing a rude and dramatic temper tantrum to be mimicking it. The older generations are plugged in these days and have been watching the same reality TV as everyone else. I bet quite a few of them have been exposed to the millions of views videos of kids encouraged to tantrum for Youtube and the fame of pot stirrers as well. Culture is developed through the media. Stefanie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucyStoner Posted March 11, 2017 Share Posted March 11, 2017 (edited) Someone spray painted "Holocaust is Fake History" on the side of a synagogue here. There are people with whom I have absolutely zero desire or need to get along. Edited March 11, 2017 by LucyStoner 12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ausmumof3 Posted March 11, 2017 Share Posted March 11, 2017 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. And yet a large part of the world is looking on and seeing something very different... 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 11, 2017 Share Posted March 11, 2017 OK, people, I was away from my computer most of yesterday, but HERE I AM descending to say... Take it to PM or to the appropriate social group. SWB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts