BobbyLayne
Footballguy
In The Crack-Up, F Scott Fitzgerald famously wrote "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function."
Just as a thought exercise, it might be fun for people to try to explain the other sides position. The thing is, we have devolved into tribalism on so many issues, and we - wrongly, I believe - conclude the other side is absolutely bonkers for believing what they do. We expend a lot of calories trying to be understood. I wonder if we might find more commonality if we instead try to understand a little better.
Could you, without resorting to backhanded swipes, slipping into derision, or subtly mocking, fully explain a viewpoint which is diametrically opposed to your own beliefs.
For instance, let's say you are something of a social justice warrior. You recognize white privilege is a real thing. Now explain why you (hypothetically) believe in rugged individualism, talk about bootstrapping and equality of opportunity in America.
OR
You know the data strongly supports the concept that mass incarceration of people of color - particularly blacks - is the result of systemic racism resulting from which crimes we choose, as a society, to emphasize in law enforcement. Mass incarceration was ignited by the war on drugs (blame Nixon or Reagan), was pumped up by draconian sentencing and is now sustained by a “prison industrial complex” that puts profit before humane treatment and rehabilitation. Lay all that aside and argue in favor of longer terms of imprisonment, mandatory sentencing, capital punishment, and/or argue why incarceration is the most effective means of crime prevention.
Feel free to front load or append your actual position so as to not confuse anyone about what you actually believe.
Just as a thought exercise, it might be fun for people to try to explain the other sides position. The thing is, we have devolved into tribalism on so many issues, and we - wrongly, I believe - conclude the other side is absolutely bonkers for believing what they do. We expend a lot of calories trying to be understood. I wonder if we might find more commonality if we instead try to understand a little better.
Could you, without resorting to backhanded swipes, slipping into derision, or subtly mocking, fully explain a viewpoint which is diametrically opposed to your own beliefs.
For instance, let's say you are something of a social justice warrior. You recognize white privilege is a real thing. Now explain why you (hypothetically) believe in rugged individualism, talk about bootstrapping and equality of opportunity in America.
OR
You know the data strongly supports the concept that mass incarceration of people of color - particularly blacks - is the result of systemic racism resulting from which crimes we choose, as a society, to emphasize in law enforcement. Mass incarceration was ignited by the war on drugs (blame Nixon or Reagan), was pumped up by draconian sentencing and is now sustained by a “prison industrial complex” that puts profit before humane treatment and rehabilitation. Lay all that aside and argue in favor of longer terms of imprisonment, mandatory sentencing, capital punishment, and/or argue why incarceration is the most effective means of crime prevention.
Feel free to front load or append your actual position so as to not confuse anyone about what you actually believe.