What can we, as individual US citizens do to improve the division (non-political)

[marbel]

8 minutes ago, SKL said:

Interestingly, one of the best experiences I've had with this has been working at the polls in the 2020 election.  Everyone knew everyone else's political affiliation, and yet there was no animosity.  We were all working together with the goal of making sure every citizen was able to cast a vote that reflected their conscience.

I guess this does require a belief that everyone is entitled to their own opinion and personal priorities (within the law of course).  But that shouldn't be such a hard thing to accomplish, should it?

I didn't work this election, though I have in the past and  hope to again. But I saw the same thing while voting. It was my daughter's first election, and all the workers in the room cheered when they heard it. (Here, you have to show your ID the first time you vote.) Everyone was very kind and enthusiastic, though I am quite sure some had the sense that her choices would not match theirs.  It was a great experience for her; she had been nervous that there would be unpleasantness, simply because of all the vitriol around this election.  

[Sneezyone]

I definitely had a great experience at the polls too. I hope more people do it and get involved. When you participate in and see the process up close, and how seriously people take it, how much they care and work to ensure access, I think it makes a difference. It’s harder to delegitimize something that you experience personally.

[SKL]

As for raising our kids, I think 3 things help a lot:

• Community service/involvement that involves getting very up close and personal with all kinds of different people.
• Travel to as many diverse places as practical.  (From the ethnic neighborhoods in a big city to the 6 populated continents - however much each family can manage.)
• University education, mainly because they will meet and live with people from all kinds of backgrounds.

And of course, having a home that does not tolerate [___]ism but provides space for honest discussion.

[Valley Girl]

30 minutes ago, marbel said:

I didn't work this election, though I have in the past and  hope to again. But I saw the same thing while voting. It was my daughter's first election, and all the workers in the room cheered when they heard it. (Here, you have to show your ID the first time you vote.) Everyone was very kind and enthusiastic, though I am quite sure some had the sense that her choices would not match theirs.  It was a great experience for her; she had been nervous that there would be unpleasantness, simply because of all the vitriol around this election.  

That was my new voter's experience as well. We all voted in person together. The election worker announced "We have a first-time voter!" The workers cheered and many others waiting in line--both R and D--clapped. Nobody cared about how he was casting his ballot. They welcomed him into the process.

[Guest]

49 minutes ago, SKL said:

As for raising our kids, I think 3 things help a lot:

• Community service/involvement that involves getting very up close and personal with all kinds of different people.
• Travel to as many diverse places as practical.  (From the ethnic neighborhoods in a big city to the 6 populated continents - however much each family can manage.)
• University education, mainly because they will meet and live with people from all kinds of backgrounds.

And of course, having a home that does not tolerate [___]ism but provides space for honest discussion.

I completely agree, especially with your last two points. IMO, the backlash against going to university is not helping the discourse in society. That is one of the *BEST* features of going to university, IMO. Meeting a lot of different people and having to get along with people who may be very different from you and whom you may legitimately not like at all. 

[Frances]

1 hour ago, Sneezyone said:

I definitely had a great experience at the polls too. I hope more people do it and get involved. When you participate in and see the process up close, and how seriously people take it, how much they care and work to ensure access, I think it makes a difference. It’s harder to delegitimize something that you experience personally.

Due to a recent move and ill health, this was the first presidential election in over 30 years where my 82 year old mom did not work at the polls. I’m just so thankful she was able to register to vote in her new state without having to go into an office during the pandemic and also to get an absentee ballot that she mailed before her recent hospitalizations. She would have been devastated had she not been able to vote.
 

[Frances]

58 minutes ago, Quill said:

I completely agree, especially with your last two points. IMO, the backlash against going to university is not helping the discourse in society. That is one of the *BEST* features of going to university, IMO. Meeting a lot of different people and having to get along with people who may be very different from you and whom you may legitimately not like at all. 

I agree and I think joining the military can also force one to experience what you describe in the last sentence.

[frogger]

2 hours ago, Quill said:

 Meeting a lot of different people and having to get along with people who may be very different from you and whom you may legitimately not like at all. 

That would be my extended family. 😂

But yes, I'm skipping the Thanksgiving torture this year.

[Carol in Cal.]

I think that this conversation has devolved into being largely one sided despite its stated intention, which is interesting.  It’s also fairly common in most of the places where I have historically seen large groups congregating.  The echo chamber thing absolutely rules.  And, to the OP, that’s the real issue that hurts what you’re after here.  We are in increasingly non-overlapping echo chambers to the point where shaming, demonizing rhetoric is so normalized that it’s not even recognized.  

[Amy Gen]

For me, it comes down to respect, humility and manners. 
 

I’m really not going to discuss/argue with people I don’t respect. What is the point? In fact, I’ve had friends become so involved in doing this that from the outside, it looked almost like binge drinking to distract oneself from reality. When I gently inquired, is something going on? You seem not yourself lately. There really have been huge personal challenges with no real solution in my friends’ lives. Things were out of control, so they felt much better when they were self-righteously arguing on FB or news sites. 
 

if I am speaking to someone I respect, then I assume they have a good reason for their position. It might be something I don’t know about as far as past trauma or a secret, but it might also be that they have more experience and more facts than I have. 
 

That is why I have to approach the subject with humility. Real humility that says, “You may know something I don’t. I’m open to changing my opinion. I don’t actually have to be the smartest person in the room.” 
 

The idea of multiple bubbles made me think of an onion. We are on one level, but we don’t actually know if the person we are talking to is on a level we have seen before, or one we didn’t even know existed. We can’t have real humility when we really believe every issue is black and white and right and wrong and there is one right answer and we have it. We have to be open to opportunity costs and unintended consequences and new information that might not have been available when we first formed our opinion. 
 

I agree that we need to stop behaviors that we would correct a 6 year old for. Name calling is not okay for a 6 year old, and it is not okay for adults. It announces that the speaker has no respect, no humility and no manners. 
 

People need better boundaries about demanding to know and influence who other people vote for. It is fine for people to choose to keep that private. They don’t owe it to anyone to talk about it if they don’t choose too. 
 

I threatened to send several of my 22 year old’s friends copies of Miss Manners. 
 

Stay in your lane, People. 

[Amy in NH]

Return to the requirement for unbiased reporting on anything labeled "News".

Stop gerrymandering.

Actually listen to each other with compassion - which will never happen in a million years.

[Momto6inIN]

3 hours ago, Carol in Cal. said:

I think that this conversation has devolved into being largely one sided despite its stated intention, which is interesting.

I wonder and am interested in what makes you think so? I don't share my politics much on this board, but I'm familiar with many on here who do. And I've heard from posters in this thread who are definitely usually on the opposite side of the spectrum as I am.

[GoodGrief3]

Politics has become religion in modern society, and people are as irrational about their politics as they can be about their religion. They are quick to believe the worst about those in the other groups, but demand an impossibly high burden of proof for allegations against those with whom they are affiliated. In the mix are those with good intentions, and those who simply want control.

It's what humans do. Read through this thread. Is there anyone willing to admit they might be a problem themselves? Most of us think our ideals are righteous enough that the onus is on the other person to come around.

[Liz CA]

On 11/6/2020 at 8:15 AM, Not_a_Number said:

I’m very mindful of trying not to become part of that silent crowd. I agree that it’s the easiest thing in the world to do so. But is everyone else going to do the same thing? 

I often think of the principle "You can only control what you are doing, not what others will or won't do." But you can control if you are listening with an open ear, strive to communicate in such a way that others don't feel unheard or worse, put down. There are also culturally deep seated differences when you talk to people who have never experienced any form of persecution vs those who have.

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, Liz CA said:

I often think of the principle "You can only control what you are doing, not what others will or won't do." But you can control if you are listening with an open ear, strive to communicate in such a way that others don't feel unheard or worse, put down. There are also culturally deep seated differences when you talk to people who have never experienced any form of persecution vs those who have.

Hmmmm. What are those differences? 

[Sneezyone]

6 minutes ago, Liz CA said:

I often think of the principle "You can only control what you are doing, not what others will or won't do." But you can control if you are listening with an open ear, strive to communicate in such a way that others don't feel unheard or worse, put down. There are also culturally deep seated differences when you talk to people who have never experienced any form of persecution vs those who have.

ITA. I also think there are significant differences in the perception of what persecution looks like. There’s an element of power and control and raw force/violence/hatred directed toward individuals/groups. I don’t think, by and large, most Americans have ever been persecuted. That doesn’t stop folks from FEELING persecuted tho. Recognizing what’s objectively real and what’s not is a huge challenge right now. Even for me.

Edited November 9, 2020 by Sneezyone

[Moonhawk]

On 11/6/2020 at 11:23 AM, Pen said:

...

A big part of problem I am seeing is that each “side” sees itself as in the right and the other “side” as other than and wrong and potentially extremely dangerous. 

...

 

26 minutes ago, GoodGrief3 said:

...

It's what humans do. Read through this thread. Is there anyone willing to admit they might be a problem themselves? Most of us think our ideals are righteous enough that the onus is on the other person to come around.

So, I'm actually totally ready to admit I can do better. Have you seen the meme, "Are we the baddies?" I feel like I get to have this realization ever week or so. Maybe that's an exaggeration, but the feeling is so powerful in my recent experience I can't help but think it must be happening a lot. 

Right now I think all of my standings are correct. Otherwise I'd change them, obviously. I have some internal conflicts to work out, but not really cognitive dissonance. But I know I've been wrong in the past. In a lot of cases it's not my value that has changed as much as what I view the best road to get there. In other cases I know I was valuing the wrong thing. I am ashamed of some past actions and beliefs. 

Tying this back to the OP:

It's not fun admitting to that type of stuff, which is why I think that pressuring people to admit it usually has a backlash effect. Where they hold on tighter to their sinking ship. 

The "We don't negotiate with terrorists" is a great sound bite, but too many people are trying to apply it to their everyday conversations. Why are we surprised then when things blow up?

From a negotiation standpoint, from an influencer standpoint, you don't back the other person into a corner. You de-escalate, you find common ground, you make them your friend. You don't give them a reason to fear you (and challenging them head on is fear inducing, btw). When you cease to be an enemy, most people have an instinct to grow the common ground.

In the end it may not be everything you want to convince them, but it will be more than before, and allows cooperation that wasn't possible at the beginning. 

The danger of this approach, though, is that you may find yourself changing your own mind as well. Which is why it usually isn't attempted, alas.

[Rosie_0801]

37 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Hmmmm. What are those differences? 

Think about the DV threads on here.

[Not_a_Number]

1 minute ago, Rosie_0801 said:

Think about the DV threads on here.

I haven't been on one, to be honest. I'm actually curious what the point being made was. 

[Liz CA]

11 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I haven't been on one, to be honest. I'm actually curious what the point being made was. 

Here is a (I hope) simple explanation:

Dh and I have two members in our family who lived during WWII. Uncle H participated in the Death March and the other relative fled across a continent trying to stay a step ahead of Hitler while she was trying to protect her two children.

These 2 people have lived through events and experienced things dh and I have never had to encounter. Therefore our sense of "safety" and their sense of "safety" differs significantly. 

Another example: I used to work with a Jewish woman. When someone left a - what I would have characterized - tasteless prank message on our voicemail, she called the police. She felt the need to explain this to me and said: "I know to you this must look like an extreme reaction but my grandmother was killed after having received a series of these kinds of phone calls..."

There are principles of safety we would likely all agree on and then there is that other kind of personal safety based on individual experiences.

[Sneezyone]

17 minutes ago, Liz CA said:

Here is a (I hope) simple explanation:

Dh and I have two members in our family who lived during WWII. Uncle H participated in the Death March and the other relative fled across a continent trying to stay a step ahead of Hitler while she was trying to protect her two children.

These 2 people have lived through events and experienced things dh and I have never had to encounter. Therefore our sense of "safety" and their sense of "safety" differs significantly. 

Another example: I used to work with a Jewish woman. When someone left a - what I would have characterized - tasteless prank message on our voicemail, she called the police. She felt the need to explain this to me and said: "I know to you this must look like an extreme reaction but my grandmother was killed after having received a series of these kinds of phone calls..."

There are principles of safety we would likely all agree on and then there is that other kind of personal safety based on individual experiences.

For a modern day example, I’m sure many people think my harping on LEO violence and hostility is mostly hyperbole. Today, a sheriff in my/DHs home state, a place I’ll be driving to for Christmas, resigned after calling for the literal execution of his political foes on Parler. My DD was recently very upset by the racist comments made by her cheer team captain. My reactions are in direct proportion to the risks/threats I perceive. It’s like sundown towns are back in vogue. I try to be sanguine but my risks, objectively, are different from others. I try to meditate, think on good things, enjoy my family, still...I have fear. I think it would be helpful to ppl to acknowledge that this fear is not, in fact, crazy or extreme.

Edited November 9, 2020 by Sneezyone

[Carol in Cal.]

25 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

For a modern day example, I’m sure many people think my harping on LEO violence and hostility is mostly hyperbole. Today, a sheriff in my/DHs home state, a place I’ll be driving to for Christmas, resigned after calling for the literal execution of his political foes on Parler. My DD was recently very upset by the racist comments made by her cheer team captain. My reactions are in direct proportion to the risks/threats I perceive. It’s like sundown towns are back in vogue. I try to be sanguine but my risks, objectively, are different from others. I try to meditate, think on good things, enjoy my family, still...I have fear. I think it would be helpful to ppl to acknowledge that this fear is not, in fact, crazy or extreme.

QFT.

I would like to add—after the George Floyd incident, my company had a series of optional group conversations about race.  Naturally I joined in on one. 

 

One of the most striking things to happen during the 2 hour zoom meeting was that one of the questions people were invited to comment on to the group was “What have been your experiences with the police?”  After some convo about that from a mixed set of voices, the moderator asked specifically that only POC comment for a while.  One man described being slammed on the hood of his car, sat on the curb in handcuffs, repeatedly, for no particular reason—not resisting, not having done anything wrong, just pulled over for ‘meeting the description’.  After his laconic description the moderator asked him how he sees the police now.  He replied that he lives in a mixed, upper middle class, white dominant neighborhood.  His car was stolen from in front of his house, and it never even crossed his mind to call the police. His neighbors kept saying, what did the police say?  Like calling them was normal.  And that’s when it hit home to him how differently he saw them.

There were lots of other stories like that, some from white women involving sexual overtures that were borderline assaultive, but mostly from men of color or from women of color describing their male acquaintances of color’s experiences, similar to or worse than the one in the last paragraph.

This one guy who identified himself as white (Midwestern, I think) spoke extremely sympathetically, saying that he believed all these stories and that that are completely outside of his experience, and shocking to him, and unacceptable, etc.  And I thought, well, this did some good then, but where has this guy BEEN?  

This kind of thing is why it is really important to speak up when you know of incidents like this, and to be willing to articulate and describe them.  There really are lots of different kinds of experiences along these lines, they really do divide along color and class lines, and it’s really true that this is both unacceptable and completely unknown to many.  If people don’t know, they can’t fix things.  We all need to know this, and call it out.  Flat out.  It’s part of our civic duty as Americans.

[Carol in Cal.]

3 hours ago, Momto6inIN said:

I wonder and am interested in what makes you think so? I don't share my politics much on this board, but I'm familiar with many on here who do. And I've heard from posters in this thread who are definitely usually on the opposite side of the spectrum as I am.

I’ve given this question quite a bit of thought, and I can’t think of a good way to answer it that keeps board rules.  I think if you look at the replies you will see a statistical bias.  That’s about as far as I can comment.

[Not_a_Number]

47 minutes ago, Liz CA said:

Here is a (I hope) simple explanation:

Dh and I have two members in our family who lived during WWII. Uncle H participated in the Death March and the other relative fled across a continent trying to stay a step ahead of Hitler while she was trying to protect her two children.

These 2 people have lived through events and experienced things dh and I have never had to encounter. Therefore our sense of "safety" and their sense of "safety" differs significantly. 

Another example: I used to work with a Jewish woman. When someone left a - what I would have characterized - tasteless prank message on our voicemail, she called the police. She felt the need to explain this to me and said: "I know to you this must look like an extreme reaction but my grandmother was killed after having received a series of these kinds of phone calls..."

There are principles of safety we would likely all agree on and then there is that other kind of personal safety based on individual experiences.

Got it. 

I'm in an interesting position where I've always felt safe before. Like, yeah, sure, my parents lived in a place where the fact they were Jewish was listed in their passport, and where there was lots of casual anti-Semitism, but I figured we were past that as a society as a teen. I was kind of snotty about it when my mom talked about it, honestly. 

The tragedy for me is that I no longer feel safe. Nothing has happened, really, but suddenly all of her stories and my grandparents' stories and World War II... they feel real and like they were relatively recent. They WERE relatively recent. When people think back fondly to the 1950s, well, that's just a bit after World War II, isn't it? 

None of it feels academic anymore. I'm sad about it, honestly. I liked feeling safe. 

Edited November 9, 2020 by Not_a_Number

[Sneezyone]

4 minutes ago, Carol in Cal. said:

QFT.

I would like to add—after the George Floyd incident, my company had a series of optional group conversations about race.  Naturally I joined in on one. 

 

One of the most striking things to happen during the 2 hour zoom meeting was that one of the questions people were invited to comment on to the group was “What have been your experiences with the police?”  After some convo about that from a mixed set of voices, the moderator asked specifically that only POC comment for a while.  One man described being slammed on the hood of his car, sat on the curb in handcuffs, repeatedly, for no particular reason—not resisting, not having done anything wrong, just pulled over for ‘meeting the description’.  After his laconic description the moderator asked him how he sees the police now.  He replied that he lives in a mixed, upper middle class, white dominant neighborhood.  His car was stolen from in front of his house, and it never even crossed his mind to call the police. His neighbors kept saying, what did the police say?  Like calling them was normal.  And that’s when it hit home to him how differently he saw them.

There were lots of other stories like that, some from white women involving sexual overtures that were borderline assaultive, but mostly from men of color or from women of color describing their male acquaintances of color’s experiences, similar to or worse than the one in the last paragraph.

This one guy who identified himself as white (Midwestern, I think) spoke extremely sympathetically, saying that he believed all these stories and that that are completely outside of his experience, and shocking to him, and unacceptable, etc.  And I thought, well, this did some good then, but where has this guy BEEN?  

This kind of thing is why it is really important to speak up when you know of incidents like this, and to be willing to articulate and describe them.  There really are lots of different kinds of experiences along these lines, they really do divide along color and class lines, and it’s really true that this is both unacceptable and completely unknown to many.  If people don’t know, they can’t fix things.  We all need to know this, and call it out.  Flat out.  It’s part of our civic duty as Americans.

And now I’m crying. Which I just don’t do. So, thank you. I feel heard.

[Not_a_Number]

3 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

And now I’m crying. Which I just don’t do. So, thank you. I feel heard.

I'm glad you feel heard, but this makes me feel sad, because it must mean that you don't usually feel that 😞 . 

[Sneezyone]

8 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I'm glad you feel heard, but this makes me feel sad, because it must mean that you don't usually feel that 😞 . 

Don’t. I’m used to it. Our little family is a force unto itself and a minority many times over. We are scrappy and strong, just not invincible.

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, Sneezyone said:

Don’t. I’m used to it. Our little family is a force unto itself and a minority many times over. We are scrappy and strong, just not invincible.

I get it. I really do. I hope you do feel heard on here a reasonable fraction of the time. 

[Not_a_Number]

7 minutes ago, Happymomof1 said:

I'm fine. Really.  You guys just get to hear the vents I can say nowhere else. My blog post this weekend was actually quite positive.

Please do not quote this next part.

Trying to decide what to do. Middle son texted me if I saw a church member's post. No, since I'm not on FB. So I went on. A sweet young girl who used to be a member of our church, but moved to a neighboring town with her husband (mentor of this middle son). She wrote a post explaining to all of her conservative friends why they should not be afraid of the Democrats and listed out her beliefs and why from a Christian perspective. Didn't agree with all of it. Some of it was very naïve,  but gosh, weren't we all at that age? We were going to change the world when we were in our 20's! I'm going to make the world a better place!  Boy I wish I still had that kind of optimism.

Anyway, this man that was AWANA commander for 15 years at the church, who I've served with in overseas mission, just went on a rant. He was ugly. He was rude. He was so dismissive and how dare she presume to teach conservatives anything when blah blah blah. It was awful.  My middle son ( at seminary) posted a comment to his comment. It was not rude. However, he did ask him to please remember that he is a man that many of them looked up to. He is an example. The man's response was to be rude to my son and tell him he was too young to preach to him.. Called him names, etc.

So, I think this man lost his job 6 months ago. Not sure he has found another one.  This is just not the man I know. I don't have a clue what is going on. Wasn't at church yesterday.  I'm so in and out and with Covid, I don't have a clue. So, at the very least I am going to write something if only for me. The verse in Timothy about don't let others look down on you, about the importance of listening, about learning from those that are younger, about the tendency for some to get old and bitter. I may post the ideas (not referencing the man or the incident more as me wrestling) on my blog. 

He posted on his own page laughing about he has had enough and he posted on a liberal "woke" girl's page and got so many likes, but I'm not sure if they actually saw what he commented and how ugly it is. One person who is over our mission I'm going to write and give copies of the comments, and ask if that is really something he wanted to like? Trying to decide if I want to put some of my thoughts as a comment on the man's post or not. 

This is where I struggle. Hubby says to leave it alone. I won't change his mind. Something must have happened to him and he must be really hurting, not that it is an excuse. But if we don't say anything, are we being complicit? I am also going to reach out to the girl and thank her for wrestling with these issues. Now this man was the only one being hateful.  Most, even if they disagreed, were respectful. They eventually blocked him from the conversation. But gosh, he was their AWANA commander.... My son was right!  Anyway, just struggling with how to improve the division that is right in front of me.

Definitely reach out to the girl and support your son. I wouldn’t talk to the man.

[Not_a_Number]

1 minute ago, Happymomof1 said:

So, I just ignore what a leader of the church said, though I'm not sure how involved he is now. He resigned from being in charge of AWANA 5 years or more ago. I'm still going to make a blog post and maybe put thoughts on my Facebook page though not refer to him or the incident directly. 

He just sounds like he isn’t going to take it kindly. You could check if he’s OK, I guess, I just wouldn’t bring this up.

[Not_a_Number]

7 minutes ago, Happymomof1 said:

Ok, well maybe I will message all of the friends and churchmembers who liked his post bragging about putting down a "woke" young person.  This just cannot stand as being a Christian response.

You can if you have the energy. I’d guess this’ll involve fighting, though.

Definitely reach out to the girl, though. It’s really lonely and disheartening to be in her position.

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, Happymomof1 said:

Well, like I said, he was the only one on her thread.  EVERYONE else was either extremely supportive OR disagreed with points but thanked her for having a respectful dialogue. 

Oh, ok. Sorry, I misunderstood. Ugh.

Yeah, I dunno. Do you know anyone who knows him well?

[Not_a_Number]

3 minutes ago, Happymomof1 said:

Yes I do and my husband is pretty good friends with his brother. 

You could try reaching out. But only if you can stomach the fighting. So I’d think hard about whether you’re willing 🙂 .

[Carrie12345]

12 hours ago, Sneezyone said:

For a modern day example, I’m sure many people think my harping on LEO violence and hostility is mostly hyperbole. Today, a sheriff in my/DHs home state, a place I’ll be driving to for Christmas, resigned after calling for the literal execution of his political foes on Parler. My DD was recently very upset by the racist comments made by her cheer team captain. My reactions are in direct proportion to the risks/threats I perceive. It’s like sundown towns are back in vogue. I try to be sanguine but my risks, objectively, are different from others. I try to meditate, think on good things, enjoy my family, still...I have fear. I think it would be helpful to ppl to acknowledge that this fear is not, in fact, crazy or extreme.

This is where I’m trying to figure out what it is that I can do as an individual for individuals.  A Muslim friend of mine posted about her son’s fears.  On her personal FB page, of course she had some understanding and supportive responses. But, also on her personal FB page, she had people she knew dismissing her family’s fears with “but abortion”, “but BML”, “but all these other things I don’t like are bigger than your family’s safety” (yeah, I’m paraphrasing there.)
That’s not faceless, nameless dismissal. That is personal, direct invalidation.  If they can’t hear their “friend’s” pleas, how can mine possibly have any impact?

[TravelingChris]

On 11/6/2020 at 7:33 AM, Not_a_Number said:

Coming back to the question, I think the best thing to do is to work on having interest-based communities that aren’t split by politics.

This,  It is the only kind of thing I do that is pleasant and usually no one mentions politics.  My book clubs (one virtual, one spaced well and masked), the birding trips, gardening community (mostly Facebook), all sorts of nature groups (a lot on Facebook), my disease groups (mostly Facebook), the history group I am on in Facebook, etc.etc.    

But as to our country------ no, it will not be less divided.  Lots of people on the other side are saying things like now we can  start uniting, etc.  Are they kidding?  Their party isn't united at all- the left wing is calling out the centrists and the other way around.  

[Not_a_Number]

2 minutes ago, TravelingChris said:

This,  It is the only kind of thing I do that is pleasant and usually no one mentions politics.  My book clubs (one virtual, one spaced well and masked), the birding trips, gardening community (mostly Facebook), all sorts of nature groups (a lot on Facebook), my disease groups (mostly Facebook), the history group I am on in Facebook, etc.etc.    

But as to our country------ no, it will not be less divided.  Lots of people on the other side are saying things like now we can  start uniting, etc.  Are they kidding?  Their party isn't united at all- the left wing is calling out the centrists and the other way around.  

Well, maybe not fully united 🙂 . But then there’s supposed to be room for disagreement in our society.

[Carol in Cal.]

1 hour ago, Carrie12345 said:

This is where I’m trying to figure out what it is that I can do as an individual for individuals.  A Muslim friend of mine posted about her son’s fears.  On her personal FB page, of course she had some understanding and supportive responses. But, also on her personal FB page, she had people she knew dismissing her family’s fears with “but abortion”, “but BML”, “but all these other things I don’t like are bigger than your family’s safety” (yeah, I’m paraphrasing there.)
That’s not faceless, nameless dismissal. That is personal, direct invalidation.  If they can’t hear their “friend’s” pleas, how can mine possibly have any impact?

This is real life, though.

I’m not saying that it’s good to invalidate someone’s family’s safety issues, by any means.  But it’s not possible to vote purely.  There are always trade offs and they are always bad.  That is the nature of our fallen world.  

It might really be that they are not hearing their friend’s plea, or it may be that they are parsing the horrible choices before them and ending up with a different answer than you would.  If that second thing is what they are doing, I would hope that at the same time they would actively work for changes that would allay the fears and dangers of their course of action, but I would not necessarily consider them dismissive or evil.

[Not_a_Number]

36 minutes ago, Carol in Cal. said:

This is real life, though.

I’m not saying that it’s good to invalidate someone’s family’s safety issues, by any means.  But it’s not possible to vote purely.  There are always trade offs and they are always bad.  That is the nature of our fallen world.  

It might really be that they are not hearing their friend’s plea, or it may be that they are parsing the horrible choices before them and ending up with a different answer than you would.  If that second thing is what they are doing, I would hope that at the same time they would actively work for changes that would allay the fears and dangers of their course of action, but I would not necessarily consider them dismissive or evil.

Except that I’ve seen very little of that. The same people being dismissive have also been enabling of the excesses and busy making excuses. I don’t know why it’s true, but I see it everywhere, including this board.

[Carol in Cal.]

1 minute ago, Not_a_Number said:

Except that I’ve seen very little of that. The same people being dismissive have also been enabling of the excesses and busy making excuses. I don’t know why it’s true, but I see it everywhere, including this board.

I see it here, and it’s disturbing.

[Not_a_Number]

5 minutes ago, Carol in Cal. said:

I see it here, and it’s disturbing.

Here, as in on the board?

[Carol in Cal.]

8 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Here, as in on the board?

Yes

[Carrie12345]

1 hour ago, Carol in Cal. said:

This is real life, though.

I’m not saying that it’s good to invalidate someone’s family’s safety issues, by any means.  But it’s not possible to vote purely.  There are always trade offs and they are always bad.  That is the nature of our fallen world.  

It might really be that they are not hearing their friend’s plea, or it may be that they are parsing the horrible choices before them and ending up with a different answer than you would.  If that second thing is what they are doing, I would hope that at the same time they would actively work for changes that would allay the fears and dangers of their course of action, but I would not necessarily consider them dismissive or evil.

I’m not talking about voting, as this thread specified non-political. I’m talking about what to do to improve the division.

I would think that a “friend” who intended to actively work for changes would include that in their message of “this issue is more important to me” rather than just stating what is more important to them. If their “friend’s” distress is a genuine concern, why not mention that?

And then, as the topic asks, what can I do to facilitate more productive conversation about that divide?

[Pen]

1 hour ago, Carol in Cal. said:

This is real life, though.

I’m not saying that it’s good to invalidate someone’s family’s safety issues, by any means.  But it’s not possible to vote purely.  There are always trade offs and they are always bad.  That is the nature of our fallen world.  

It might really be that they are not hearing their friend’s plea, or it may be that they are parsing the horrible choices before them and ending up with a different answer than you would.  If that second thing is what they are doing, I would hope that at the same time they would actively work for changes that would allay the fears and dangers of their course of action, but I would not necessarily consider them dismissive or evil.

 

I don’t know what is allowed as to no politics rule. The title says “non political” — but the division itself seems to be political-ish.  If this is too political please tell me and I’ll delete, or a moderator can. 

A concern I have in terms of division and fears is that people I know irl experience things differently.  

For example, one Muslim person I know is afraid of negative repercussions towards their  family much like reported in the post you were replying to. Yet others (more in number) I know irl want much more stringent limits and vetting precautions in place for arrivals to USA — because they came here to *avoid* extremism and persecution and their sons being forced into soldiering or similar — and they do not want that here. 

I have Jewish family and friends who fear problems in one direction, the one that goes with what seems to be the predominant WTM view, but quite a few others (especially Ones who were alive through Holocaust Times) who feel exactly the opposite, that the actions and approach in recent couple of years is exactly what is needed. (Note- weird mid sentence capitals are being put by my mobile phone.)  Some especially younger Jewish people I know irl are equating a certain US leader with being like a certain historical dangerous German dictator—yet other Jewish people I know, especially older ones who actually lived through that are saying, no, they have it exactly backwards. The one they see as good is the Neville Chamberlain wishy washy talk a good talk but let it happen, while the one who they accuse of being the problem is actually keeping us safer and is actually the one refusing to take as much centralized power as they would like, who could have taken far more central control for state of emergency but instead left much to states and local administration.  And many on  both of these “sides” are very fearful.  

Similarly, most people on here seem to have friends who want racism handled as it was ~ 4.5 to 12 years ago (trying to avoid politician name references), whereas I have a lot of family and friends (who are POC) who feel that the approach more recently taken was giving them and their kids the best job situation of their lives, and a feeling of hope for better education and participation in the pursuit of “the American Dream”. 

 

And in many of these cases it isn’t just a mental abstract situation of thinking  the “other side” is off base and wrong, but it is more deeply gut wrenching, as far as I can tell—like each thinks the other does not care about their lives at all / or even wants them dead. 

I do not know how the division can be healed where we cannot even acknowledge how much the fears of many people are very very very serious life and death or total future existence type fears, and that that is on both “sides” (and so far as I can tell with validity on both).  We have often in my life probably had a roughly 50-50 divide. However, it is a different level of division to have it be significantly about such life and death matters.   Including also life and death of country/countries, as well as of people.  And possibly life and death in global environment.  

 

 

Edited November 9, 2020 by Pen
Typos that caused incomprehensible parts.

[Carol in Cal.]

47 minutes ago, Carrie12345 said:

I’m not talking about voting, as this thread specified non-political. I’m talking about what to do to improve the division.

I would think that a “friend” who intended to actively work for changes would include that in their message of “this issue is more important to me” rather than just stating what is more important to them. If their “friend’s” distress is a genuine concern, why not mention that?

And then, as the topic asks, what can I do to facilitate more productive conversation about that divide?

What I think is:
--Avoid sarcasm and put downs

--Think through whether you could state the other 'side's' position to their satisfaction

--Avoid calling people dishonest or implying that they are.  If one thinks that someone else is dishonest, what is the point of conversing with them in the first place?  

--Considering whether one's own assumptions need to be stated and whether they are common within the conversants.  For instance, either earlier in this thread or in another one with a similar topic, someone said that the New York Times is a center position factual news source.  I would debate that, and so would many who used to work there.  That might be a particular person's assumption, but it's not necessarily true and it's not necessarily the assumption of others in the convo.  Ditto The Wall Street Journal.  Ditto The Washington Post.  etc.

--Light rather than heat

--Join in lamenting the need to make very hard choices, none perfect.  It IS very lamentable.  Similarly, avoid being a single issue voter, and advocate for others not being one as well.  More than anything, what we have now is single issue stuff competing for attention/focus/priority.  Almost all the time that is a big mistake, and all of the time it creates the kind of division that the OP is bringing up.

Edited November 9, 2020 by Carol in Cal.

[Jean in Newcastle]

Pray

[Not_a_Number]

36 minutes ago, Carol in Cal. said:

Considering whether one's own assumptions need to be stated and whether they are common within the conversants.  For instance, either earlier in this thread or in another one with a similar topic, someone said that the New York Times is a center position factual news source.  I would debate that, and so would many who used to work there.  That might be a particular person's assumption, but it's not necessarily true and it's not necessarily the assumption of others in the convo.  Ditto The Wall Street Journal.  Ditto The Washington Post.  etc.

I think the NYT can spin but is relatively responsible with their actual facts. When it comes to things like this, it’s not exactly a matter of opinion... it ought to be a matter of evidence.

[Carol in Cal.]

1 hour ago, Not_a_Number said:

I think the NYT can spin but is relatively responsible with their actual facts. When it comes to things like this, it’s not exactly a matter of opinion... it ought to be a matter of evidence.

I am not sure what you mean by your last sentence.  Are you saying that I need to provide you with evidence that the NYT is biased before you will consider that possibility?  Because if so, you could just ask.  And here is some:  https://www.bariweiss.com/resignation-letter

However, the issue is, there are assumptions that are always in play in a conversation, and some of them are surprising to some.   Hence the idea that stating assumptions even if they are at the level of 'of course!' is pretty important to having a better conversational effectiveness, all the more so because divisions are to a large at the 'I can't even' extent.

For instance, I don't believe every article on CNN to be a balanced and complete reporting of facts.  Even if facts are cited, they are not necessarily all of the relevant facts.  So I use CNN as a source but almost never as an only source.  I regard almost all outlets the same way.  I don't know of any that don't demonstrate at least a bit of an ax to grind as to their selection among the facts available.

Edited November 9, 2020 by Carol in Cal.

[Not_a_Number]

1 hour ago, Carol in Cal. said:

I am not sure what you mean by your last sentence.  Are you saying that I need to provide you with evidence that the NYT is biased before you will consider that possibility?  Because if so, you could just ask.  And here is some:  https://www.bariweiss.com/resignation-letter

However, the issue is, there are assumptions that are always in play in a conversation, and some of them are surprising to some.   Hence the idea that stating assumptions even if they are at the level of 'of course!' is pretty important to having a better conversational effectiveness, all the more so because divisions are to a large at the 'I can't even' extent.

For instance, I don't believe every article on CNN to be a balanced and complete reporting of facts.  Even if facts are cited, they are not necessarily all of the relevant facts.  So I use CNN as a source but almost never as an only source.  I regard almost all outlets the same way.  I don't know of any that don't demonstrate at least a bit of an ax to grind as to their selection among the facts available.

Yeah, I saw the Bari Weiss thing. She’s an opinion writer. She’s not alleging that they are getting facts wrong, just that they slant left and that they engage in annoying groupthink. I already know that like 95% of their writers are Ivy League left-wing types. But for me to decide that their facts are wrong, I’d need evidence that they lie as opposed to spin. In my experience, they are decent on the facts themselves — if they write something, it’s probably been fact-checked.That’s not enough for them to be a sole source, but it’s also not nothing. 

Edited November 9, 2020 by Not_a_Number

[Carol in Cal.]

24 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Yeah, I saw the Bari Weiss thing. She’s an opinion writer. She’s not alleging that they are getting facts wrong, just that they slant left and that they engage in annoying groupthink. I already know that like 95% of their writers are Ivy League left-wing types. But for me to decide that their facts are wrong, I’d need evidence that they lie as opposed to spin. In my experience, they are decent on the facts themselves — if they write something, it’s probably been fact-checked.That’s not enough for them to be a sole source, but it’s also not nothing. 

I've seen them state facts wrong, and correct them on page 29 later.  Stuff that I was pretty surprised that they got wrong in the first place.

But my point was more subtle, actually, but I think still important--that the selection of which facts to emphasize is not without bias.

And while Bari is an opinion generator, the atmosphere of 'this is the range of opinions that we can allow, and this is the range of facts we can emphasize' excluded her contributions both as to her own stuff and as to what she brought in from others.  People's specific objections are telling.  "I'll lose my sources if we entertain this view even if it's a minority outside opinion piece."  That kind of thing.  Given the lack of even familiarity with the basics of a lot of American cultures, it's not surprising that there would be factual errors AND unconscious selectivity in which facts to report, but it also means that the paper is not a neutral, reliable source of facts as a whole.

[SKL]

31 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Yeah, I saw the Bari Weiss thing. She’s an opinion writer. She’s not alleging that they are getting facts wrong, just that they slant left and that they engage in annoying groupthink. I already know that like 95% of their writers are Ivy League left-wing types. But for me to decide that their facts are wrong, I’d need evidence that they lie as opposed to spin. In my experience, they are decent on the facts themselves — if they write something, it’s probably been fact-checked.That’s not enough for them to be a sole source, but it’s also not nothing. 

Sometimes selective fact reporting is more misleading and thus more dangerous than outright lies.  Because it's "true!"

Spinners gonna spin, but let's not fool ourselves into thinking any of their reporting is free of bias.