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

[SKL]

As far as fears, it might be helpful to acknowledge that any and all of us may have fears, spoken or unspoken.  Vulnerability is often viewed as a one-sided reality, but a deeper investigation often proves otherwise.

[Frances]

57 minutes ago, SKL said:

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.

I don’t think there is really any dispute that The NY Times news is left leaning and that the editorial page is further left, not center. I would have to disagree though that outright lies are less dangerous. There is evidence all around us that many people do swallow outright lies whole on a regular basis. There is simply no way any media source can always report every single aspect of every single subject people think they should. But there is definitely a range on measures of both bias and reliability and I don’t believe that something generally rated center (or slight left or right) and reliable is more harmful than a source rated far right or far left and unreliable. The most dangerous thing in my opinion is that a significant portion of people prefer to stay in a biased media and social media bubble, often far from the center. I don’t think anyone reading these boards likely fits that profile though.

I often hear people attack MSM and wonder about two things. First, what exactly do they consider to be MSM? Is Fox News print online and/or broadcast news part of MSM? If not, why not? What media sources of any type do you consider to be the most center and reliable?

Edited November 9, 2020 by Frances

[Frances]

48 minutes ago, Carol in Cal. said:

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.

Isn’t that part of what generally gets them or anyone else a left (or right) leaning bias rating? Both the selection of what stories they cover and how they cover them? And the editorial page is considered to be even further left. Just as FoxNews goes from leaning right for print online, to further right for broadcast news, to even further right for editorial talkshows.

[Not_a_Number]

1 hour ago, SKL said:

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.

Did you read my post, lol? Did I make it sound like I thought they were free of bias? Which part of "they are 95% left-wing Ivy League types" makes it sound like they have a diversity of opinion on staff? 

However, I get much angrier at people telling me things that are outright FALSE, or at least things that imply a false sequence of events. I'll give an example from my side of the aisle, since I think that'll go down easier... I was watching a John Oliver clip about COVID, and he was complaining about people acting like COVID immunity ought to be taken for granted, them played a clip of Cuomo saying so. Well... Cuomo HAD said so, but it was like 2 months before the John Oliver clip aired, and as I was watching every single one of Cuomo's pressers, I knew very well that he had changed his tune quite a while back and was now going with what the scientists were saying (which is they weren't sure there was lasting immunity).

Anyway, that made me really annoyed, and made me feel like I need to check John Oliver's facts. It doesn't mean I'll never watch his clips again, but I'm going to check anything I'm dubious about from now on. My general stance is always "fool me once, shame on me, fool me twice, shame on you," and that's not a partisan stance -- I am not all that interested in paying attention to "news" sources that lie to me any serious fraction of the time.

Edited November 9, 2020 by Not_a_Number

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, Happymomof1 said:

So now we are having all sorts of Trump parades, car rallies, etc. around here. It is a long way from over in my neck of the woods.  So you don't want me to talk to the man. I can't do anything about all that other stuff. Yet, you guys want me to feel optimistic and happy about the outlook for our country??? Just don't get how in the world you can be optimistic. My state has a habit of saying, "Come and take it/ Come and make me." Sigh.

I'm not an optimist, I guess. The guy sounds ANGRY and I'm afraid of you being hurt. I've never had any luck arguing with angry zealots of either stripe. 

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, Happymomof1 said:

But he has been a friend and someone who wired a church in Central America for electricity...who cried with me over patients and orphans, etc.  I'm just having a really hard time reconciling the two if that makes sense.

I mean, you could certainly try 🙂 . But I'd keep expectations low if you do. 

[Soror]

The thread has diverged a bit but I want to see what should be obvious but I see as rampant on both sides. The name calling, the othering, you can't expect to be a part of unity when you are calling the other side various derogatory names and talking about them as alien creatures. I mean we learn in grade school that we shouldn't call names but it is sure satisfying to feel that self-righteous boost by putting down the other side. 

When trying to unite we are also going to have to actually listen to the other side and their motives instead of assuming that they must have this nefarious intentions for their views, again this is done both ways. Sometimes these people will have views that we find unacceptable but just because a person votes for Candidate A doesn't mean their views are all the same or their reasons.

 

[Not_a_Number]

2 minutes ago, Soror said:

Sometimes these people will have views that we find unacceptable but just because a person votes for Candidate A doesn't mean their views are all the same or their reasons.

I brought this up earlier this thread, and I'm not sure anyone has engaged with it, but what if I think Person X may vote for Candidate A for the best of reasons, and that Person X is a lovely person in private life, and yet Candidate A is proposing policies that actively harm me and make me feel unsafe? How am I supposed to feel about Person X in this context? I may still think that they are a lovely person in private life, but am I wrong to conclude that they aren't particularly interested in my safety? 

[Jean in Newcastle]

My two cents:  

the pandemic will work out one way or another. I can give my opinion but I can’t force people locally or globally to follow my lead. In the meantime I do what I can to be safe and put the rest in God’s hands. 
 

the election will work out one way or another. Again, I can only be responsible for my own response. 
 

I try to choose news sources that are as neutral as possible. I believe that being well informed (relatively) helps me to make good decisions. I try to “live peaceably with all men”. I try to be a good neighbor. I try to be charitable in word and deed. I try to be honest but I do avoid arguments for the sake of arguments. I try to keep the focus on my responsibility (“to do justice, to love kindness and to walk humbly with your God”). I try to leave the rest in the hands of a sovereign God. 

[Carol in Cal.]

8 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I brought this up earlier this thread, and I'm not sure anyone has engaged with it, but what if I think Person X may vote for Candidate A for the best of reasons, and that Person X is a lovely person in private life, and yet Candidate A is proposing policies that actively harm me and make me feel unsafe? How am I supposed to feel about Person X in this context? I may still think that they are a lovely person in private life, but am I wrong to conclude that they aren't particularly interested in my safety? 

Short answer--Yes, I think so, if you really know they are a lovely person.

Either they think that there is something about your safety that you're not parsing quite right, and hence don't feel like they need to be bound by it or they are really concerned about something that Candidate B is doing or proposing that is even more alarming for some reason.  It doesn't necessarily mean that they don't care.  It means that there is something else in play that is unknown to you.  

[Not_a_Number]

4 minutes ago, Carol in Cal. said:

Short answer--Yes, I think so, if you really know they are a lovely person.

Either they think that there is something about your safety that you're not parsing quite right, and hence don't feel like they need to be bound by it or they are really concerned about something that Candidate B is doing or proposing that is even more alarming for some reason.  It doesn't necessarily mean that they don't care.  It means that there is something else in play that is unknown to you.  

So I have to assume their judgment is better than mine is what you're saying. 

I don't actually think "lovely people" are particularly likely to make good decisions, to be honest. Or to have unbiased news sources, or to be evidence-based. So you're right that they might very well care about my safety in the abstract, but they also might not believe me if I tell them otherwise. Again, I would guess @Sneezyone has much more visceral experiences of this type than I do. 

Edited November 9, 2020 by Not_a_Number

[Junie]

12 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I brought this up earlier this thread, and I'm not sure anyone has engaged with it, but what if I think Person X may vote for Candidate A for the best of reasons, and that Person X is a lovely person in private life, and yet Candidate A is proposing policies that actively harm me and make me feel unsafe? How am I supposed to feel about Person X in this context? I may still think that they are a lovely person in private life, but am I wrong to conclude that they aren't particularly interested in my safety? 

Yes, you are wrong to conclude that.

I am not sure what specific policy you are referring to that actively puts you in danger (and that probably doesn't belong here, because politics) but I did not vote for one candidate over another because I don't care about your (or anyone else's) safety.

 

[Not_a_Number]

1 minute ago, Junie said:

Yes, you are wrong to conclude that.

I am not sure what specific policy you are referring to that actively puts you in danger (and that probably doesn't belong here, because politics) but I did not vote for one candidate over another because I don't care about your (or anyone else's) safety.

I wasn't referring to a specific policy, actually. And no, I don't expect you'd vote for someone because you don't care about my (or anyone else's) safety, but I would also guess that someone telling you that your vote makes us them safe doesn't change your mind. Or am I wrong about that? Would you dig deep and try to see where they were coming from when they said that, or would you just assume they were wrong? 

Edited November 9, 2020 by Not_a_Number

[Not_a_Number]

3 minutes ago, Junie said:

I am not sure what specific policy you are referring to that actively puts you in danger (and that probably doesn't belong here, because politics).

Also, I'm going to quote this again, because it's remarkable. If there was a specific policy that was hurting me, that would be politics? I would like to think that it isn't. I would like to think that specific policies are actually matters of FACT and that if you have a feeling about a policy that's irrespective of the party proposing it, and that moreover, that policy PUTS YOU IN DANGER, then it ought not to be relegated to the realm of politics. 

[Sneezyone]

8 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

So I have to assume their judgment is better than mine is what you're saying. 

I don't actually think "lovely people" are particularly likely to make good decisions, to be honest. Or to have unbiased news sources, or to be evidence-based. So you're right that they might very well care about my safety in the abstract, but they also might not believe me if I tell them otherwise. Again, I would guess @Sneezyone has much more visceral experiences of this type than I do. 

My experience with very lovely people is that they say, “You know I love you” while LITERALLY espousing the view that BLM protesters, of which I am one, are thugs and racism is NBD because babies. My babies didn’t factor into that very lovely person’s assessment. We are no longer friends.

Edited November 9, 2020 by Sneezyone

[Sneezyone]

3 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Also, I'm going to quote this again, because it's remarkable. If there was a specific policy that was hurting me, that would be politics? I would like to think that it isn't. I would like to think that specific policies are actually matters of FACT and that if you have a feeling about a policy that's irrespective of the party proposing it, and that moreover, that policy PUTS YOU IN DANGER, then it ought not to be relegated to the realm of politics. 

A specific example: the refusal to honor consent decrees that LEO organizations entered into or use the tools of DOJ to investigate offenses.

Edited November 9, 2020 by Sneezyone

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, Sneezyone said:

My experience with very lovely people is that they say, “You know I love you” while LITERALLY espousing the view that BLM protesters, of which I am one, are thugs and racism is NBD because babies. My babies didn’t factor into that very lovely persons assessment. We are no longer friends.

I am sorry 😞 . It's like the anti-Semites who claim they can't possibly be anti-Semitic because they have their one Jewish friend. At some point, being the "exception" to that person's thinking doesn't cut it. 

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, Sneezyone said:

A specific example, the refusal to honor consent decrees that LEO organizations entered into or use the tools of DOJ to investigate offenses.

And given that I've heard horrifying stories both from EVERY SINGLE person of color that I know, and from DH, who is white but went to UChicago, where he saw a LOT of stuff... that one is real and urgent and heartbreaking. 

I was actually really ignorant of these issues a few years ago. I'm glad I'm not anymore. 

[Carol in Cal.]

10 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

So I have to assume their judgment is better than mine is what you're saying. 

I don't actually think "lovely people" are particularly likely to make good decisions, to be honest. Or to have unbiased news sources, or to be evidence-based. So you're right that they might very well care about my safety in the abstract, but they also might not believe me if I tell them otherwise. Again, I would guess @Sneezyone has much more visceral experiences of this type than I do. 

No, not that their judgement is better, but that they have a reasonable difference of opinion.  That's different than necessarily being right.  It's more like, this is a person that I trust and like, who likes me as well, and we have different view of this, and I accept them like that, different views and all.  

I mean, what is the alternative?  One is to give them more information and hope to reach agreement.  Another is to decide that they are not a lovely person after all.  

[Sneezyone]

Just now, Carol in Cal. said:

No, not that their judgement is better, but that they have a reasonable difference of opinion.  That's different than necessarily being right.  It's more like, this is a person that I trust and like, who likes me as well, and we have different view of this, and I accept them like that, different views and all.  

I mean, what is the alternative?  One is to give them more information and hope to reach agreement.  Another is to decide that they are not a lovely person after all.  

That part. There are a lot of very lovely people that really aren’t. Some things aren’t up for negotiation and my family’s humanity and safety is one of them.

[Carol in Cal.]

11 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I wasn't referring to a specific policy, actually. And no, I don't expect you'd vote for someone because you don't care about my (or anyone else's) safety, but I would also guess that someone telling you that your vote makes us them safe doesn't change your mind. Or am I wrong about that? Would you dig deep and try to see where they were coming from when they said that, or would you just assume they were wrong? 

You didn't address this to me but I wish to answer--yes, I would absolutely dig deep and try to see where that person was coming from, and I would hope that they would do the same for me.  And also, I do go out of my way to speak up for people who are endangered by things, particularly to others who are less likely to know this.  That goes for class, poverty, and race/ethnicity.  

[Not_a_Number]

4 minutes ago, Carol in Cal. said:

No, not that their judgement is better, but that they have a reasonable difference of opinion.  That's different than necessarily being right.  It's more like, this is a person that I trust and like, who likes me as well, and we have different view of this, and I accept them like that, different views and all.  

I mean, what is the alternative?  One is to give them more information and hope to reach agreement.  Another is to decide that they are not a lovely person after all.  

I don't want to write off every single person who votes in a way that may harm me, because that's a lot of people. And I think people's private and public behaviors are often at odds. 

But I have seen no evidence in my years of life that lovely people are always well-informed, or that lovely people are usually able to look ahead to what their vote may mean for me, or that lovely people in general see things clearer than I do. Frankly, my life experience has taught me to trust my own judgment. 

Edited November 9, 2020 by Not_a_Number

[Sneezyone]

4 minutes ago, Happymomof1 said:

Then I have no friends.  Not wearing a mask puts me in danger, right????  So basically according to the rest of you I just dump them all and sit in my house all by myself. I don't know if I can do that.

All dangers aren’t created equal. If you’re willing to accept that difference then you do. It’s possible to maintain friendships with those people b/c you can work around it by meeting outdoors or donning your own mask.

Edited November 9, 2020 by Sneezyone

[Carol in Cal.]

2 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I don't want to write off every single person who votes in a way that may harm me, because that's a lot of people. And I think people's private and public behaviors are often at odds. 

But I have seen no evidence in my years of life that lovely people are always well-informed, or that lovely people are usually able to look ahead to what their vote may mean for me, or that lovely people in general see things clearer than I do. Frankly, my life experience has taught me to trust my own judgment. 

And there is nothing wrong with that unless you think that you and your friends have to agree about everything.  I trust my own judgement too, and also I'm willing to consider things that I may not have thought of, and also, I am often around people that I disagree with and somehow we are still friends.

[Not_a_Number]

3 minutes ago, Happymomof1 said:

Then I have no friends.  Not wearing a mask puts me in danger, right????  So basically according to the rest of you I just dump them all and sit in my house all by myself. I don't know if I can do that.

Well, that's a hard one. My friends don't all skew one direction, and I've definitely forgiven my friends for being anti-vaxxers or for doing things that may harm me. It's always a judgment call and a balance. 

I cut people a lot of slack for being tribal and not always having good sources. But that kind of forgiveness also comes with a certain lack of respect. If I think I'm right that people are endangering me, and if I forgive them on the basis of their ignorance, then I no longer feel like we have an equal relationship, frankly. 

[Not_a_Number]

4 minutes ago, Carol in Cal. said:

And there is nothing wrong with that unless you think that you and your friends have to agree about everything.  I trust my own judgement too, and also I'm willing to consider things that I may not have thought of, and also, I am often around people that I disagree with and somehow we are still friends.

No, but we all have red lines that we don't want to see crossed. There are things that are reasonable to disagree on, and then there are the things that change our opinion of people for the worse. And "for the worse" can either mean "I think you don't care about my safety" or "I think you aren't well-informed," but either way, that's a downgrade. 

Edited November 9, 2020 by Not_a_Number

[Sneezyone]

1 minute ago, Happymomof1 said:

Yes, but they probably hold beliefs that would be a danger to you. So it is ok for me to be friends with them, but not you? I shouldn't be friends with them either then, right?  And if I put that criteria, there are very, very, very,very very few people that would pass that test here.

Everyone has their non-negotiables. For my former friend, unborn babies took priority over live ones. My hardlines may not be where yours are. I’m not gonna tell you what you should do.

[Not_a_Number]

3 minutes ago, Happymomof1 said:

I want these wonderfully, close friends that are so wonderful that all of you seem to have. I don't know how to find them. Especially by myself.

I don't have a ton of close friends, for the record 😉 . Many more acquaintances and people I put up with. And my good friends took work to find and are work to maintain. And we aren't always good at doing the work, since none of us are currently local to each other. 

[Guest]

39 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I brought this up earlier this thread, and I'm not sure anyone has engaged with it, but what if I think Person X may vote for Candidate A for the best of reasons, and that Person X is a lovely person in private life, and yet Candidate A is proposing policies that actively harm me and make me feel unsafe? How am I supposed to feel about Person X in this context? I may still think that they are a lovely person in private life, but am I wrong to conclude that they aren't particularly interested in my safety? 

The large majority of people want good things, not bad things. The large majority of people don't know to place themselves in someone else's shoes and see some policy from that person's perspective most times. They may have an epiphany, or maybe some issue will affect someone they personally know and they'll be like, "OH! I get it now!" But those are somewhat rare; people are biased to prefer the status quo of their own reality and experiences. 

IMO, very few people really have a heart of stone and would say (or even think), "Well, I'm voting for Candidate A and I don't give a cheese sandwich if my friend, Not A Number, feels threatened by Candidate A's proposals." In most cases, they do not know about the proposals you find threatening, and/or they think the thing that is scaring them is more pressing. Lovely or not, most people are not truly altruistic and a really large number of people don't easily imagine the situation of others, especially if it is a situation in which they will never find themselves. (Like, for instance, they will never become Muslim, so they don't pay attention to policies that could negatively affect Muslims.) 

[Not_a_Number]

1 minute ago, Quill said:

The large majority of people want good things, not bad things. The large majority of people don't know to place themselves in someone else's shoes and see some policy from that person's perspective most times. They may have an epiphany, or maybe some issue will affect someone they personally know and they'll be like, "OH! I get it now!" But those are somewhat rare; people are biased to prefer the status quo of their own reality and experiences. 

IMO, very few people really have a heart of stone and would say (or even think), "Well, I'm voting for Candidate A and I don't give a cheese sandwich if my friend, Not A Number, feels threatened by Candidate A's proposals." In most cases, they do not know about the proposals you find threatening, and/or they think the thing that is scaring them is more pressing. Lovely or not, most people are not truly altruistic and a really large number of people don't easily imagine the situation of others, especially if it is a situation in which they will never find themselves. (Like, for instance, they will never become Muslim, so they don't pay attention to policies that could negatively affect Muslims.) 

Oh, I know 🙂. You should know very well that I don't demonize people who vote differently from me, Quill. It's just that I don't expect most people to care more about people in the abstract than they do about their friends and family. And that, for me, is a conundrum. How do we heal divisions when most of us utterly reject the idea that we may be complicit in terrible things, however nice and lovely we are in real life? I don't reject that idea, but then I've always known it. 

[marbel]

1 minute ago, Quill said:

The large majority of people want good things, not bad things. The large majority of people don't know to place themselves in someone else's shoes and see some policy from that person's perspective most times. They may have an epiphany, or maybe some issue will affect someone they personally know and they'll be like, "OH! I get it now!" But those are somewhat rare; people are biased to prefer the status quo of their own reality and experiences. 

IMO, very few people really have a heart of stone and would say (or even think), "Well, I'm voting for Candidate A and I don't give a cheese sandwich if my friend, Not A Number, feels threatened by Candidate A's proposals." In most cases, they do not know about the proposals you find threatening, and/or they think the thing that is scaring them is more pressing. Lovely or not, most people are not truly altruistic and a really large number of people don't easily imagine the situation of others, especially if it is a situation in which they will never find themselves. (Like, for instance, they will never become Muslim, so they don't pay attention to policies that could negatively affect Muslims.) 

This.  And...  a thoughtful voter weighs many things before choosing a candidate. What if candidate A has a policy that might harm one friend, while candidate B has a policy that might harm a different friend?  Or candidate A has policies that may harm some, and help others?  

It would be impossible to vote if a person had to consider every candidate's proposals based on every other person they know.  

In recent years, my basic voting plan is to choose the candidate who seems likely to do the least harm overall.  Not always easy.

 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Oh, I know 🙂. You should know very well that I don't demonize people who vote differently from me, Quill. It's just that I don't expect most people to care more about people in the abstract than they do about their friends and family. And that, for me, is a conundrum. How do we heal divisions when most of us utterly reject the idea that we may be complicit in terrible things, however nice and lovely we are in real life? I don't reject that idea, but then I've always known it. 

Well, certainly I have been exhausting some brain cells on this issue here recently. I don't have a definitive answer. Over 70 Million Americans voted for someone whose policies I reject, and over 70 Million voted for the other person whose policies they reject. Sure, some of those people simply picked the one they think is closer to "okay," and not someone they whole-heartedly support, but still. We see enough flag-waving and horn-honking to know that there are passionate people in both camps. 

I certainly want to help stitch the sides together and not push them further apart, but it is hard to do, being one little person with no public platform. 

[Not_a_Number]

5 minutes ago, marbel said:

It would be impossible to vote if a person had to consider every candidate's proposals based on every other person they know.  

Obviously not. Which is where I wish we'd at least agree on a few guiding principles. I would like to think that there are some things that are off-limits to most of us, but I haven't found that to be true, and it's been disappointing. 

It's interesting, because I've already been disappointed a few times in things like this. I have very pro-Putin family members, who argue that "Russia needs a strong leader." They watch the state television stations. They are very vehement in defending him. And that's despite ALL the awful stuff he's done. But if you choose your news sources wisely, you can apparently decide that a former KGB thug who poisons his political opponents is fine and dandy. 

They are smart, educated people, by the way. 

Edited November 9, 2020 by Not_a_Number

[Not_a_Number]

2 minutes ago, Quill said:

I certainly want to help stitch the sides together and not push them further apart, but it is hard to do, being one little person with no public platform. 

I do, too, but the problem is that I don't want to meet in the middle. I'm wrong about some stuff, I'm sure, and I'm very open to other people's points of view, but my list of non-negotiables currently means the midpoint isn't viable for me. 

[Carol in Cal.]

2 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Obviously not. Which is where I wish we'd at least agree on a few guiding principles. I would like to think that there are some things that are off-limits to most of us, but I haven't found that to be true, and it's been disappointing. 

It's interesting, because I've already been disappointed a few times in things like this. I have very pro-Putin family members, who argue that "Russia needs a strong leader." They watch the state television stations. They are very vehement in defending him. And that's despite ALL the awful stuff he's done. But if you choose your news sources wisely, you can apparently decide that a former KGB thug who poisons his political opponents is fine and dandy. 

They are smart, educated people, by the way. 

I think Putin is awful BUT I don't know what the alternative is like.  Even worse maybe?  Dunno.  That's why these things get so messed up.

You know, I think that our whole political system is so toxic now that I can't see why anyone is even willing to run for office.  It's been quite a long time since I've voted more for someone than against their opponent.  That's pretty troubling, really.

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, Carol in Cal. said:

I think Putin is awful BUT I don't know what the alternative is like.  Even worse maybe?  Dunno.  That's why these things get so messed up.

Well, this is where some research may help. Why would you assume that? Is it clear to you that people would never vote for a "strong leader" over someone with actual democratic principles? Because it isn't at all to me. 

[Not_a_Number]

2 minutes ago, Carol in Cal. said:

You know, I think that our whole political system is so toxic now that I can't see why anyone is even willing to run for office. 

That's a self-fulfilling prophecy. The more people say stuff like this, the more decent people will stop running for office, because they will get tarred with the same brush. 

[prairiewindmomma]

I'm trying to find niche areas where I have both interest and time and I'm spending there---working on public school issues in the area of curricula choice, working on solving hunger and clothing needs for families in the school district, advocating for those with special needs, etc. I'm mixing with a wide range of people who have a wide range of political views.  Trying to find areas where I overlap and can interact with others to do good and to build a sense of community is important to me.

I think one of the things that has changed in the last twenty years is our sense of community. Rather than tying our sense of community to a physical location (ie, where we reside, where we are from), we've fallen into a type of ideological tribalism.  Building a sense of community that is not tied to ideology is important.

[hopeallgoeswell]

For me, I try to focus locally.

I got off of all social media almost two years ago.  It has freed up time and mind-space to focus on my family, friends, and local community.  I see media, social and news, as intentionally divisive, polarizing, and manipulative.  Views/clicks make money.  When you talk to your family/friend/neighbor face to face, meaningful conversations can be had, mostly due to the fact that tone is less likely to get misinterpreted, people are more likely to not say things that are explosive, and you realize that you are interacting with an actual human being.  I learned quickly that even though we don't agree on everything, no one is a monster, we can always find common ground, and we are not as divided and hateful as the media would have us believe.   

I homeschool my kids.  They are taught, among other things, critical thinking skills, debate, basic statistics/research design, and basic psychology so they are less likely to be manipulated by a narrative.  They are taught that everyone has a right to voice their opinions so people are heard and not shut down (no getting offended because someone holds a different point of view).  I include them in my adult life and model respectful behavior.  Even though they are only teenagers now, I can see that they have a wide range of friends and can discuss challenging topics in a thoughtful manner.  

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, prairiewindmomma said:

I think one of the things that has changed in the last twenty years is our sense of community. Rather than tying our sense of community to a physical location (ie, where we reside, where we are from), we've fallen into a type of ideological tribalism.  Building a sense of community that is not tied to ideology is important.

Except that currently, location is very correlated with how you vote. Cities are blue. Rural areas are red. 

[Guest]

 

4 minutes ago, Carol in Cal. said:

I think Putin is awful BUT I don't know what the alternative is like.  Even worse maybe?  Dunno.  That's why these things get so messed up.

You know, I think that our whole political system is so toxic now that I can't see why anyone is even willing to run for office.  It's been quite a long time since I've voted more for someone than against their opponent.  That's pretty troubling, really.

I think it is toxic, too. And, as I have said many times, our primaries are so late, I never really get to "pick" my nominee. It hasn't been the person I would "pick"...ever, maybe?  I think one time, the person I wanted did, in fact, get to be the nominee for my party. Usually, that isn't the case, though. 

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, hopeallgoeswell said:

They are taught that everyone has a right to voice their opinions so people are heard and not shut down (no getting offended because someone holds a different point of view). 

See, this is where things get tricky. Any opinion? You should never get offended? Not shouting down, yes, I agree with that. But perhaps sometimes it's worth getting offended. 

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, Quill said:

I think it is toxic, too. And, as I have said many times, our primaries are so late, I never really get to "pick" my nominee. It hasn't been the person I would "pick"...ever, maybe?  I think one time, the person I wanted did, in fact, get to be the nominee for my party. Usually, that isn't the case, though. 

I don't think it's a good idea to think of political culture as toxic. The more you think of it as toxic, the more toxic it will be. 

[Junie]

1 hour ago, Not_a_Number said:

I wasn't referring to a specific policy, actually. And no, I don't expect you'd vote for someone because you don't care about my (or anyone else's) safety, but I would also guess that someone telling you that your vote makes us them safe doesn't change your mind. Or am I wrong about that? Would you dig deep and try to see where they were coming from when they said that, or would you just assume they were wrong? 

Yes, if someone I know talked to me about their safety I would absolutely consider changing my vote (or at least not voting for Candidate X).

I have been attending a Spanish church service for the past year.  We have never talked politics, but if any of them had told me "please don't vote for Candidate X because I fear for my safety" I would have absolutely considered that.

[Not_a_Number]

1 minute ago, Junie said:

Yes, if someone I know talked to me about their safety I would absolutely consider changing my vote (or at least not voting for Candidate X).

I have been attending a Spanish church service for the past year.  We have never talked politics, but if any of them had told me "please don't vote for Candidate X because I fear for my safety" I would have absolutely considered that.

I'm glad 🙂 . 

OK, I gotta actually do some work tonight, lol. I'll come civilly debate with y'all later 😉 . 

[Junie]

1 hour ago, Not_a_Number said:

Also, I'm going to quote this again, because it's remarkable. If there was a specific policy that was hurting me, that would be politics? I would like to think that it isn't. I would like to think that specific policies are actually matters of FACT and that if you have a feeling about a policy that's irrespective of the party proposing it, and that moreover, that policy PUTS YOU IN DANGER, then it ought not to be relegated to the realm of politics. 

I was just trying to keep the thread from being shut down.  It's hard to talk about policies without talking about politics.

[Mommalongadingdong]

I haven't read the whole thread yet.... 

But why would you need someone you know to tell you they feel unsafe to see that a specific candidate or their policies cause specific groups to feel unsafe? Do you just not believe it until you see it first hand? I mean, if one candidate hypothetically refused to denounce a hate group, I'd equate that with support of said group, but that's just me I guess.

 

[Not_a_Number]

1 minute ago, Mommalongadingdong said:

I haven't read the whole thread yet.... 

But why would you need someone you know to tell you they feel unsafe to see that a specific candidate or their policies cause specific groups to feel unsafe? Do you just not believe it until you see it first hand? I mean, if one candidate hypothetically refused to denounce a hate group, I'd equate that with support of said group, but that's just me I guess.

 

I'm pretty much off, but this will get the thread shut down, so let's not. 

[marbel]

23 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Obviously not.

<snip>

Oh, OK then.

[Mommalongadingdong]

49 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

For my former friend, unborn babies took priority over live ones.

This one cracks me up. I would straight up FIGHT to prevent someone from killing another. But no, people aren't going around doing that. They're suppressing proven ways to fight those "deaths" and just like, complaining and making people feel bad and putting unnecessary buderns. Like, where are the people out there giving out condoms and allowing ALL persons access to birth control? Oh right, they're on the other side. Keep religion OUT of politics. 

Y'all want this to not be political. What a joke.