What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

The Schism - an American Tale (1 Viewer)

Jayrod

Footballguy
In reference to the Great Schism of "the Church" that occurred in 1054, I feel like the US is on an absolute collision course for a similar divide and I'm starting to feel like it can't be stopped.  Not sure how or when it will play out, but our current level of discourse and differences seem untenable.

Here is just a summary list of things I think are absolutely splitting us in half.  I acknowledge that not all feel the same on all of these, but there is a pretty consistent grouping happening right now.

Left/Dem/Blue/Liberal/Irreligious 

  • Pro-Choice
  • Governmental oversight, taxation and redistribution of wealth
  • LBGTQ+ supporters
  • Open Borders
  • More gun control
  • Freedom from religion in schools & government
VS.

Right/Rep/Red/Conservative/Religious

  • Pro-Life
  • Limited government
  • Traditional Family values
  • Secured borders
  • 2nd Amendment rights
  • Freedom of religion
I know there are a hundred tangents out there off of these around specific peoples, policies, finger pointing, he said/she said, etc. but I feel like these issues are at the core of it all and I don't know if there is a way to compromise/bridge the divide on them all.  We have some serious, unresolvable disagreements here on the personal, social and national levels.  I'm sure there are a handful of people that are almost 50/50 on these issues, but the vast overwhelming majority fall mostly into one or the other with a large portion being 100% on one side or the other.  I hate doing this and trying to shoehorn people into buckets, but the divide is stark and growing.

I guess I just wanted to start a discussion that I'm hoping won't devolve into finger pointing and whataboutism.  I don't care who started what, but what do we do about it moving forward?  Can we fix this and hold this country together or is the dividing train moving too fast to stop?  I used to think it was just the fringe and edges of society and the majority were still reasonable and agreed on more than we disagreed on, but I don't know anymore.  I've seen and heard enough in real life to believe this isn't just a "corner of the internet" or anonymous voices on Twitter issue at this point. 

People really have settled into some pretty firm camps and aren't budging (on both sides, I think).  At least here where I'm at in the heart of the 2nd group, this is the real sentiment on the street.  People simply aren't going to let their kids be taught pro-LBGTQ+ stuff in school, they aren't giving up their guns, they believe abortion is murder and are acting accordingly and they are absolutely sick of/disgusted by the government's involvement in our lives and failures to maintain the economy and control immigration.  I'm talking about conversations at picnics and BBQ's and kids ball games.  If we aren't talking about entertainment or family, it eventually becomes about one of the above issues and the passion is unlike anything I've seen in my lifetime.  It even seeps into the workplace from time to time which used to NEVER happen.

In my 40+ years of life, I've never seen the American public be so upset and disgusted with the way things were going.  I'd like to discuss solutions and if anyone else sees/senses the same thing.

 
“Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever” lasted for maybe 20 years.  Sometimes what seems like an intractable position doesn’t stay that way.

 
An interesting thought exercise.  Assume for the moment that details such as the military, the national debt, federal lands, and anything related to individuals moving to their preferred "side" could all be worked out amicably.  Would it be better or worse for society and the people if the country split?  In the short run (let's call it 10-20 years?  In the long run (let's call this 100+ years)?  Why?

 
We've always had disagreements over policy.  Those are nothing new.  

What's different is that people now see all of these as existentially important, so they won't accept being on the losing end like normal people who get outvoted in a democracy.  That's why people storm the capital building in response to losing a close election and try to assassinate supreme court justices because they don't like a particular ruling.  Those are really extreme examples of course, but they follow logically from other violations of ordinary democratic norms, like refusing to vote on a president's supreme court nominee or trying to impose a vaccine mandate by EO that you openly acknowledge is probably unconstitutional.    

Basically, if your response to being on the losing end of abortion, gay rights, gun control, or whatever is that this must not stand and we must take the streets, you're part of the problem.

 
We've always had disagreements over policy.  Those are nothing new.  

What's different is that people now see all of these as existentially important, so they won't accept being on the losing end like normal people who get outvoted in a democracy.  That's why people storm the capital building in response to losing a close election and try to assassinate supreme court justices because they don't like a particular ruling.  Those are really extreme examples of course, but they follow logically from other violations of ordinary democratic norms, like refusing to vote on a president's supreme court nominee or trying to impose a vaccine mandate by EO that you openly acknowledge is probably unconstitutional.    

Basically, if your response to being on the losing end of abortion, gay rights, gun control, or whatever is that this must not stand and we must take the streets, you're part of the problem.
Yes to this and I'd add the underpinning of this attitude comes from the vilification of those with an opposing view. Listen to any news channel, talk radio station, political podcast and you hear folks being told how They want to destroy America and They are evil and need to not only be defeated but punished. It's awful the way conglomerate discourse is pushing us to fight.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
What do you mean by “irreligious” in regards to the left?

Do you think the right really supports limited government?
I'll speak for me, a lefty, and say I dont have an issue with this description. For the many lefty's I know the prevailing, though not all encompassing, view is to be non-religious or at the least non-affiliated.

 
This is an extremely thoughtful and interesting post @Jayrod and I agree with you.  Also The Schism comparison is a really good way to put it.

Definitely feel and see the same things and without getting too deep in the weeds with minor disagreements I think you broke things down fairly well when it comes to the 2 camps.  I live in a very red area, grew up voting red, and still hold onto a few 'red' values for sure...namely pro-life.  If you would've told me even say, 8 years ago, that things have degraded so quickly I wouldn't believe you.  Would've completely scoffed at the idea of a country split or any sort of cold or hot civil war.  Now I'm not very sure at all.  I wasn't around in the late 60's, so I can't discount it felt like this before, but the online/bubble/24-hour outrage aspect makes me worry this time period is much different. The psychology of hating a NPC "lib" or stereotypical "MAGA" guy is much easier and the way we digest media feeds that.  Far fringe folks are almost becoming the avatar for the entire left or right respectively.  Its interesting, though I've firmly moved in my political leanings, I can still hang out, enjoy the company of friends (even family, agh) who I know hold some MAGA views which I now find gross, particularly for the future of democracy in this country.  They might even make an off-handed remark in conversation and its laughed off.  They post that online I'd want to rip their heads off.  There is something psychologically de-humanizing to communicating online versus personally.  We're just not wired for today.

Digging deeper on myself, I still find several things you've posted in the blue "camp" really annoying, silly, and things I flat out disagree with:  Woke culture, lack of grace and forgiveness for past slights, and intersectionality.  However, anymore I genuinely fear the progression of the red camp when it comes to the prospect of this country.   It really feels like its only about preventing the other side from any sort of a "win" no matter the cost.  Madison Cawthorn is a dreadful dude, but he succinctly put the red camp's goals today in one tweet after he won his first election:  "Cry harder, lib".  Studying history I feel like we've seen Trumpism before in other countries and it hasn't ended well.  We're really not that unique...just at a different spot in the timeline.  This strain of nationalism though has moved much more virulently due to the nature of how we communicate.  Democracy as we have known seems it could be a very much a darker strain in 'X' number of years.

I don't know how we pull out of this Schism (again, great term), but I'm far less optimistic than I used to be nor ever thought I'd ever be.  I've got young kids and I've honestly found myself wondering if I should be looking for alternate jobs out of the country.  Its not like its never happened...like all over the place throughout human history,

 
Last edited by a moderator:
What do you mean by “irreligious” in regards to the left?

Do you think the right really supports limited government?
Feel like @Joe Schmo articulated it well as basically non-religious affiliated...probably some sort of blending of atheist/agnostic.

And I think the right wants limited government in theory, but I'd completely agree their elected officials do not do this in practice.

 
Might work for a while but social media will soon have the right-right warring with the right-left, and the left-left at war with the left-right.  We love to fight, and social media has given us an infinite battleground.

 
Yes to this and I'd add the underpinning of this attitude comes from the vilification of those with an opposing view. Listen to any news channel, talk radio station, political podcast and you hear folks being told how They want to destroy America and They are evil and need to not only be defeated but punished. It's awful the way conglomerate discourse is pushing us to fight.
I do put some blame on the media.  More often than not they seem to want to stoke the flames rather than put them out as controversy breeds passion which means more media consumption which means more money.

That said, we also have social media available to all people everywhere.  People can now say whatever they want as often as they want and if they are interesting/thoughtful/funny/intriguing enough they can gain followers and traction and get a louder voice.  One thing I've seen there is that it isn't necessarily about who is correct, but who is more clever or cool and really becomes more of an echo chamber than people realize.

 
An interesting thought exercise.  Assume for the moment that details such as the military, the national debt, federal lands, and anything related to individuals moving to their preferred "side" could all be worked out amicably.  Would it be better or worse for society and the people if the country split?  In the short run (let's call it 10-20 years?  In the long run (let's call this 100+ years)?  Why?
I'm trying to find some historical examples where a nation just kind of divided itself.

  • Norway & Sweden split in 1905 amicably, but they had separate languages and even governments for the most part and never were fully unified after Sweden took Norway in 1814.
  • Czechoslovakia split in 1991 amicably, but had basically operated as two nations together rather than one nation since WWI.  Again, had 2 different languages and was more like a partnership than a single country throughout its existence which they basically just dissolved the partnership.
  • Panama left Colombia in 1903 after being one nation since they split from Spain in 1821.  France tried to build the canal and ran out of money and abandoned it and the US wanted to finish it.  Around this time there was a Civil War in Colombia and there was also never a land route from Panama to Colombia (still isn't today).  Basically, Panama declared independence, the US Navy stepped in and enforced it and it was basically a bloodless event that Colombia finally recognized in 1909 after getting paid $500K.
  • Partition of India is probably an interesting and somewhat applicable study.  It began in 1947 and really didn't finish until 1971 with the separation of Bangladesh from Pakistan after Burma (Myanmar) and Sri Lanka had separated earlier.  The biggest difference being it was all under the UK before this and was never a single self-governing nation.  There are language gaps throughout the region that have always existed and still do today, even within the nations involved so that may not have been as much as a factor.  The central reason for the divide between India & Pakistan was religion and it was far from amicable and bloodless as there were mass migrations and fights broke out in multiple places over multiple reasons and some still persist today (like Kashmir).
Honestly, I feel if something like this did occur in the US, it would either be a split similar to India/Pakistan with mass migrations and lots of skirmishes over specific regions and more than 2 nations coming to fruition.  I don't know how the East & West coasts would remain together based on geography alone.

Also, a big part of the problem is the urban/rural divide.  This is honestly a starker more accurate description of the splits than even East/West vs. South/Midwest.  Geographically a split would be extremely messy and nigh impossible without some actual military intervention.

 
Also, a big part of the problem is the urban/rural divide.  This is honestly a starker more accurate description of the splits than even East/West vs. South/Midwest.  Geographically a split would be extremely messy and nigh impossible without some actual military intervention.
Yes, definitely.  It's not something that would be easy or possibly feasible at all.  Where I was going with the thought exercise was to ignore all that and assume away the practical difficulties.  Assuming one could wave the proverbial magic wand and solve all the practical issues, would the people be better or worse off having the nation split?

 
In reference to the Great Schism of "the Church" that occurred in 1054, I feel like the US is on an absolute collision course for a similar divide and I'm starting to feel like it can't be stopped.  Not sure how or when it will play out, but our current level of discourse and differences seem untenable.

Here is just a summary list of things I think are absolutely splitting us in half.  I acknowledge that not all feel the same on all of these, but there is a pretty consistent grouping happening right now.

Left/Dem/Blue/Liberal/Irreligious 

  • Pro-Choice
  • Governmental oversight, taxation and redistribution of wealth
  • LBGTQ+ supporters
  • Open Borders
  • More gun control
  • Freedom from religion in schools & government
VS.

Right/Rep/Red/Conservative/Religious

  • Pro-Life
  • Limited government
  • Traditional Family values
  • Secured borders
  • 2nd Amendment rights
  • Freedom of religion


This leaves out the biggest one for me and many Americans, "economic competency"

 
While I get your point, I think there's 2 big flaws with this analysis:

  • You have a huge group of people that really are independent or not political.  Many millions of people literally don't give a ####.
  • There's a huge assumption that people in those 2 groups would all think alike for the full list of issues

 
While I get your point, I think there's 2 big flaws with this analysis:

  • You have a huge group of people that really are independent or not political.  Many millions of people literally don't give a ####.
  • There's a huge assumption that people in those 2 groups would all think alike for the full list of issues


Right, I don't fit into either party.

Economically I'm a Republican.

Most social issues I'm a Democrat.

I have no party.

 
Right, I don't fit into either party.

Economically I'm a Republican.

Most social issues I'm a Democrat.

I have no party.
Used to be a libertarian. Free trade. Pro choice. More immigration. Pro 2nd amendment. Don’t tell other people what to do if it isn’t hurting other people. 
 

Provide national defense. Enforce contracts. 

 
Even the staunchest Dems in my family and friends do not want open borders.  Not sure why the Dems want to die on this hill.  Makes no sense.

 
Right, I don't fit into either party.

Economically I'm a Republican.

Most social issues I'm a Democrat.

I have no party.
This also highlights one of the issues - I guarantee if we ran a pool and asked “Is Trip a Republican?”  You’d get a pretty overwhelming vote for Yes I would think.  I would vote yes based on your posting.  But people are unique and shouldn’t be pigeonholed in to views they don’t actually hold.  This is why I argue with Tim about how horrible our 2 party system is and why I refuse to call myself either a Republican or Democrat.  They both suck.

 
This also highlights one of the issues - I guarantee if we ran a pool and asked “Is Trip a Republican?”  You’d get a pretty overwhelming vote for Yes I would think.  I would vote yes based on your posting.  But people are unique and shouldn’t be pigeonholed in to views they don’t actually hold.  This is why I argue with Tim about how horrible our 2 party system is and why I refuse to call myself either a Republican or Democrat.  They both suck.


It's funny.  I voted for Bill Clinton and Obama(for one term).    

I find myself defending Trump more often than not in this forum because this board is delusional and unfairly negative when it comes to Trump(IMHO).  But really, I'm not a MAGA guy or a Trump guy.  I just want to see the country prosper and I thought Trump was easily the better of the two candidates and still is.  That doesn't mean it doesn't suck for the environment/education/pro-choice etc. etc...because it does suck.  Really unfortunate Democrats can't figure out a pro-business/economy platform and really unfortunate the Republicans get hung up on pro-choice, gun control, environment etc.   

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's funny.  I voted for Bill Clinton and Obama(for one term).    

I find myself defending Trump more often than not in this forum because this board is delusional and unfairly negative when it comes to Trump(IMHO).  But really, I'm not a MAGA guy or a Trump guy.  I just want to see the country prosper and I thought Trump was easily the better of the two candidates and still is.  That doesn't mean it doesn't suck for the environment/education/pro-choice etc. etc...because it does suck.  Really unfortunate Democrats can't figure out a pro-business/economy platform and really unfortunate the Republicans get hung up on pro-choice, gun control, environment etc.   
Good post.  I don't agree with you about Trump, but I didn't realize that this is where you were coming from.  Seems reasonable.

 
I’ve been warning about this since 2014.  People used to think I was crazy for predicting a breakup of the Union.  Today,  44 percent of Americans believe that the United States is headed toward another civil war, including 53 percent of Republicans and 39 percent of Democrats.

In my opinion the Media and Social Media are mostly to blame.  But there are other factors as well.  Nobody talks about this, but the trend away from religion has broken social bonds, replaced by tribalism rooted in politics.  I’ve also said for years that contrary to the bumper sticker platitude, diversity is not a strength.  When it comes to the reality of how human beings are programmed, diversity usually leads to conflict.  People want to be secure, and they will naturally surround themselves with what is familiar.  Americans have always been naive in this regard.

America used to be a melting pot.  Today it’s a beef stew.  People no longer want to assimilate, and modern Progressives have reinforced this with their obsessive focus on identity politics.  Liberals created this, and they need to own it’s terrible consequences.  I’ve said this a million times in here, but when you put people into groups based on immutable characteristics like race, and you create policies specific to those groups, don’t be surprised when whites begin to view the world through that same racial lens and organize accordingly.  It’s a natural outgrowth of a horrible policy.

Honestly, I feel like Obama and the Democrats  missed a golden opportunity to bring things together.  Unfortunately it went the opposite way.  This led to Trump, where things really went off the rails.  I was hoping Biden would be a moderating force, but he’s been horribly divisive.  At this point I think we’ve passed the Event Horizon.  I hope I’m wrong, but I fear I am not.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Feel like @Joe Schmo articulated it well as basically non-religious affiliated...probably some sort of blending of atheist/agnostic.
Yes, more atheist/agnostics are democrat than republican.  But that is also true for virtually every "mainline" Christian denomination (exceptions are the Anglicans and the United Methodists), as well as Jewish and Muslin populations.   Republicans are the "evangelical" offshoots of these mainline churches, plus the Mormons.

Of course, this is a broad brush, and democrat and republican are not perfect substitutes for left and right, and maybe one might argue that "evangelical" spinoffs are more religious than "mainline" varieties of the faith, so this isn't exactly a rebuttal, but more of a primer.

 
Yes, definitely.  It's not something that would be easy or possibly feasible at all.  Where I was going with the thought exercise was to ignore all that and assume away the practical difficulties.  Assuming one could wave the proverbial magic wand and solve all the practical issues, would the people be better or worse off having the nation split?
worst!

 
Feel like @Joe Schmo articulated it well as basically non-religious affiliated...probably some sort of blending of atheist/agnostic.

And I think the right wants limited government in theory, but I'd completely agree their elected officials do not do this in practice.
Don’t want to derail the topic, but realize the term “irreligious” can have negative connotations, while alternatives like secular do not. More importantly, a majority of liberals believe in god.

 
I’ve been warning about this since 2014.  People used to think I was crazy for predicting a breakup of the Union.  Today,  44 percent of Americans believe that the United States is headed toward another civil war, including 53 percent of Republicans and 39 percent of Democrats.

In my opinion the Media and Social Media are mostly to blame.  But there are other factors as well.  Nobody talks about this, but the trend away from religion has broken social bonds, replaced by tribalism rooted in politics.  I’ve also said for years that contrary to the bumper sticker platitude, diversity is not a strength.  When it comes to the reality of how human beings are programmed, diversity usually leads to conflict.  People want to be secure, and they will naturally surround themselves with what is familiar.  Americans have always been naive in this regard.

America used to be a melting pot.  Today it’s a beef stew.  People no longer want to assimilate, and modern Progressives have reinforced this with their obsessive focus on identity politics.  Liberals created this, and they need to own it’s terrible consequences.  I’ve said this a million times in here, but when you put people into groups based on immutable characteristics like race, and you create policies specific to those groups, don’t be surprised when whites begin to view the world through that same racial lens and organize accordingly.  It’s a natural outgrowth of a horrible policy.

Honestly, I feel like Obama and the Democrats  missed a golden opportunity to bring things together.  Unfortunately it went the opposite way.  This led to Trump, where things really went off the rails.  I was hoping Biden would be a moderating force, but he’s been horribly divisive.  At this point I think we’ve passed the Event Horizon.  I hope I’m wrong, but I fear I am not.
Hmm.  A couple things came to mind reading this.   We know my stance on organized religion, so of course my opinion is that a trend away from that is an overall positive.   That said, where I think we are at a disadvantage in comparison to other places that have largely gotten away from religion is that we are also individualistic to a fault as a country, and IMO that doesn't get talked about.   For example - our family units aren't the same.   We largely countdown to when our kids leave the house, ship the elderly into homes by themselves, etc.    Also, compared to other places we are way overworked, don't get vacations and the wealth gap is ever increasing.   Long story short, I think what we are seeing is the erosion of traditional support systems - religion provides that for people, but when that is not there AND no core sense of community and family is there to fall back on....  

I agree that SM becomes way to important for way too many people in filling that void.  

Just curious - what did you specifically think Obama and the Ds could have done better to bring us all together?   IMO that felt like the beginning of what we are seeing here with the hatred, birther crap, etc..   It also correlates to the time when SM really came into our lives and we started walking around with the internet in our pockets all day.    Do you think Obama could have overcome the negative consequences of that trend that you and I seem to agree is one of the major influences of what we are witnessing?

 
While I get your point, I think there's 2 big flaws with this analysis:

  • You have a huge group of people that really are independent or not political.  Many millions of people literally don't give a ####.
  • There's a huge assumption that people in those 2 groups would all think alike for the full list of issues
Absolutely.

Aside from covid, which shouldn’t be considered political imo, rarely are any of these hot button topics ever mentioned by my friends, family or coworkers. It’s actually pretty shocking how invested some of you are in partisan politics. We may need to remind ourselves this forum’s participants and their social media streams don’t necessarily reflect the country at large.

 
Hmm.  A couple things came to mind reading this.   We know my stance on organized religion, so of course my opinion is that a trend away from that is an overall positive.   That said, where I think we are at a disadvantage in comparison to other places that have largely gotten away from religion is that we are also individualistic to a fault as a country, and IMO that doesn't get talked about.   For example - our family units aren't the same.   We largely countdown to when our kids leave the house, ship the elderly into homes by themselves, etc.    Also, compared to other places we are way overworked, don't get vacations and the wealth gap is ever increasing.   Long story short, I think what we are seeing is the erosion of traditional support systems - religion provides that for people, but when that is not there AND no core sense of community and family is there to fall back on....  

I agree that SM becomes way to important for way too many people in filling that void.  

Just curious - what did you specifically think Obama and the Ds could have done better to bring us all together?   IMO that felt like the beginning of what we are seeing here with the hatred, birther crap, etc..   It also correlates to the time when SM really came into our lives and we started walking around with the internet in our pockets all day.    Do you think Obama could have overcome the negative consequences of that trend that you and I seem to agree is one of the major influences of what we are witnessing?
Appreciate your thoughtful response, as always.  You're a good dude, and I really do respect your perspective.  I'm just telling you what my gut tells me.  I voted for Obama.  I thought he'd be a transformational leader, perhaps one of the most consequential leaders in American history.  Maybe I was expecting too much.  The birther crap was aggravated by Obama not simply providing proof, when we know he had it.  Obama slow played it to make Trump look like an idiot.   That's my belief anyways.  But that's not what concerns me.  Obama had a golden opportunity to heal the historic wound of racism.   Think about this - a majority of Americans voted for a black man with limited experience and a Middle Eastern sounding name.  That in and of itself was an amazingly positive thing.  I believe it showed conclusively that America had indeed grown to the point to where  that it was judging people by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin.  Sounds sappy, but I cried the night Obama got elected.  It felt like such a seminal moment for America.  In hindsight I feel like I was duped.

Obama had a great opportunity to heal the sins of racism in America.  Instead, he doubled down on the belief that Americans were hopelessly racist.  In controversy after controversy, Obama defaulted to the belief that white Americans were acting with hatred in their heart.  Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, Henry Louis Gates, Freddy Gray - just about anything related to police brutality - Obama always believed the worst - that white Americans were racist at their core.  He did this despite evidence to the contrary, and he was wrong each and every time.  Instead of learning from it, he doubled down on it.  And look - he was dead wrong on each of these four issues, and the evidence proved it.  He showed his true colors, and unfortunately the only thing I can call it is what the data points to - Obama had racist biases.  I don't know how anyone can dispute this given the facts.  It was such a gut-punch to people like me who believed in a post-racial America.  We have to evaluate Obama fairly here.  In issues of racial conflict he sided with black grievances on all four issues, and he was wrong each time. That's not an accident.  That is a failing of one being able to evaluate things fairly.  History will show that this failing of Obama had terrible consequences.  It led to an idiot like Trump being elected, and the fundamental abandonment of truth.  I honestly believe that if Obama had fairly evaluated those issues the country would be in a far better place today.

I've said this before and I'll say it again - I don't believe Conservatives have hatred in their hearts toward minorities or gays.  I really don't.  I talk to these people every day.  They are fair.  What they don't want is reverse discrimination - paying for past racial sins by giving blacks a leg up.  They believe in fairness - in evaluating people based on the content of their character and not the color of their skin.  They reject identity politics because it flies in the face of this principle.  And for that they are called racists.  And that's where the hate begins.  When you assume hateful intent, people will live up to your expectations.

Conservatives are no angels.  I always say this, but in the 80's I was a Liberal because I hated the narrow views expressed by the Religious Right.  I have gotten into one violent altercation in my life.  In my Freshman year at Penn I was at a frat party and talking to one of the bothers.  We were talking about Reagan and at some point in the conversation the drunken idiot yelled out "F*&% the poor!"  I was from a lower Middle Class background, and that statement flew I the face of everything I believed in.  So I confronted him on it - basically calling him an ignorant SOB.  Before I knew it I was going at it with about 5 frat boys.  Got my ### kicked, but I also got in a couple of good shots on the ignorant mf-er.

I believe Conservatives today are much more aligned with my belief system, which mostly consists of personal freedom.  I don't like big Government.  I don't trust it.  Like Ronald Reagan said, I believe in the goodness of the American people.  I can't believe that I hold Ronald Reagan in such high esteem, but I do.  The older I get, the more I appreciate what a great man and a great leader he was.  In my opinion, he and Teddy Roosevelt were the 2 best Presidents of the 20th century.

Anyways, that's where I'm at.  Of course I could be completely full of ####.  I acknowledge that.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
We know my stance on organized religion, so of course my opinion is that a trend away from that is an overall positive.   That said, where I think we are at a disadvantage in comparison to other places that have largely gotten away from religion is that we are also individualistic to a fault as a country, and IMO that doesn't get talked about.   For example - our family units aren't the same.   We largely countdown to when our kids leave the house, ship the elderly into homes by themselves, etc.    Also, compared to other places we are way overworked, don't get vacations and the wealth gap is ever increasing.   Long story short, I think what we are seeing is the erosion of traditional support systems - religion provides that for people, but when that is not there AND no core sense of community and family is there to fall back on....  
Hey - I want to acknowledge this part of your post as well.  I'm ambivalent on religion.  I've had bad experiences with it, and I've also had some good ones.  A Priest once made a move on me and that really spoiled it for me.  I put the dude in his place, believe that.  But I also had some wonderful experiences with the Catholic Church.  I really do believe it gave me a moral compass and a sense of belonging.  Overall I am a better person for it.

Nietzche once said that "Religion is the opiate of the people."  It's one of my favorite quotes.  My only point in bringing ups religion is that I don't think we have fully comprehended what its absence means to the social fabric.  I'm a different person, and America is a different place, from the 1970's and 80's.  My son doesn't have that religious upbringing, and it often makes me wonder if its one of the areas where I have fallen short as a parent.  Catholicism taught me how to love and forgive.  That seems to be in short supply today.

 
Nietzche once said that "Religion is the opiate of the people."
Marx, GB. He is the one generally credited with that sentiment. 

Nietzsche said "God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him!" 

I had to look these up to be sure, so it's a common mistake. And I belabor the point because I've always tended to agree with Nietzsche. When man stops aspiring to the heavens and is turned loose upon man without reverence of anything, there will be wars and death to rival any wars and death that have come beforehand. We saw the systematic destruction of people, especially in WWII where movements had taken root among the populace as a living thing, an entity almost. From the Stalinist purges to the Nazi camps, ideologies rather than Gods had become the animated force of the their respectively huge populaces. So many people lost because of ideology. 

Organized religion hasn't been something to escape the microscope (that's an understatement), but for democracy, it is better to have a separation of church and state wherein most people have faith in a almighty God than to have a condition where passions and ideology rule the day in statecraft and there is no belief in a higher power. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I've said this before and I'll say it again - I don't believe Conservatives have hatred in their hearts toward minorities or gays.  I really don't.  I talk to these people every day.  They are fair.  What they don't want is reverse discrimination - paying for past racial sins by giving blacks a leg up.  They believe in fairness - in evaluating people based on the content of their character and not the color of their skin.  They reject identity politics because it flies in the face of this principle.  And for that they are called racists.  And that's where the hate begins.  When you assume hateful intent, people will live up to your expectations.
I don't think this is right, mostly because there is no monolithic "Conservatives".  Lots of people have hatred towards minorities and other marginalized groups.  Lots of people don't.  Lately, those who do have gotten more headlines, more screen time, and, importantly, more influence.

 
Used to be a libertarian. Free trade. Pro choice. More immigration. Pro 2nd amendment. Don’t tell other people what to do if it isn’t hurting other people. 
 

Provide national defense. Enforce contracts. 
This is me for the most part and I feel like I've remained as consistent as I can throughout this fiasco.  I've come to realize two things in recent years where I thought the two parties were different, but aren't:

1.  Economic Policy - The ONLY difference here is who/what they are going to spend on.  Neither part is fiscally responsible.  It's not even debatable anymore.  If you're hitching your wagon to either party because of economics, you're not doing it right.

2.  Immigration Policy - Neither party wants to "solve" it.  They both need it as a wedge issue to rile up their bases.  They have convinced a lot of people that it's "too complicated/complex" to fix.  While I agree that it has a BUNCH of facets, all those facets are solvable.  If you're hitching your wagon to either party because of immigration, you're not doing it right either.

My vote for Joe Biden is the first time I've ever pulled the lever for a candidate from either major part and I did it purely on moral grounds.  I don't particularly care for his policies but I sure as hell am not throwing my vote towards a morally corrupt disgusting human being who makes decisions based on what benefits him first.  That said, if these two dopes are the nominees again, I'm not voting for either one....back to third party for me.

 
Appreciate your thoughtful response, as always.  You're a good dude, and I really do respect your perspective.  I'm just telling you what my gut tells me.  I voted for Obama.  I thought he'd be a transformational leader, perhaps one of the most consequential leaders in American history.  Maybe I was expecting too much.  The birther crap was aggravated by Obama not simply providing proof, when we know he had it.  Obama slow played it to make Trump look like an idiot.   That's my belief anyways.  But that's not what concerns me.  Obama had a golden opportunity to heal the historic wound of racism.   Think about this - a majority of Americans voted for a black man with limited experience and a Middle Eastern sounding name.  That in and of itself was an amazingly positive thing.  I believe it showed conclusively that America had indeed grown to the point to where  that it was judging people by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin.  Sounds sappy, but I cried the night Obama got elected.  It felt like such a seminal moment for America.  In hindsight I feel like I was duped.

Obama had a great opportunity to heal the sins of racism in America.  Instead, he doubled down on the belief that Americans were hopelessly racist.  In controversy after controversy, Obama defaulted to the belief that white Americans were acting with hatred in their heart.  Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, Henry Louis Gates, Freddy Gray - just about anything related to police brutality - Obama always believed the worst - that white Americans were racist at their core.  He did this despite evidence to the contrary, and he was wrong each and every time.  Instead of learning from it, he doubled down on it.  And look - he was dead wrong on each of these four issues, and the evidence proved it.  He showed his true colors, and unfortunately the only thing I can call it is what the data points to - Obama had racist biases.  I don't know how anyone can dispute this given the facts.  It was such a gut-punch to people like me who believed in a post-racial America.  We have to evaluate Obama fairly here.  In issues of racial conflict he sided with black grievances on all four issues, and he was wrong each time. That's not an accident.  That is a failing of one being able to evaluate things fairly.  History will show that this failing of Obama had terrible consequences.  It led to an idiot like Trump being elected, and the fundamental abandonment of truth.  I honestly believe that if Obama had fairly evaluated those issues the country would be in a far better place today.

I've said this before and I'll say it again - I don't believe Conservatives have hatred in their hearts toward minorities or gays.  I really don't.  I talk to these people every day.  They are fair.  What they don't want is reverse discrimination - paying for past racial sins by giving blacks a leg up.  They believe in fairness - in evaluating people based on the content of their character and not the color of their skin.  They reject identity politics because it flies in the face of this principle.  And for that they are called racists.  And that's where the hate begins.  When you assume hateful intent, people will live up to your expectations.

Conservatives are no angels.  I always say this, but in the 80's I was a Liberal because I hated the narrow views expressed by the Religious Right.  I have gotten into one violent altercation in my life.  In my Freshman year at Penn I was at a frat party and talking to one of the bothers.  We were talking about Reagan and at some point in the conversation the drunken idiot yelled out "F*&% the poor!"  I was from a lower Middle Class background, and that statement flew I the face of everything I believed in.  So I confronted him on it - basically calling him an ignorant SOB.  Before I knew it I was going at it with about 5 frat boys.  Got my ### kicked, but I also got in a couple of good shots on the ignorant mf-er.

I believe Conservatives today are much more aligned with my belief system, which mostly consists of personal freedom.  I don't like big Government.  I don't trust it.  Like Ronald Reagan said, I believe in the goodness of the American people.  I can't believe that I hold Ronald Reagan in such high esteem, but I do.  The older I get, the more I appreciate what a great man and a great leader he was.  In my opinion, he and Teddy Roosevelt were the 2 best Presidents of the 20th century.

Anyways, that's where I'm at.  Of course I could be completely full of ####.  I acknowledge that.
Interesting - thanks for that reply.   I might have to continue thoughts later in the day, so apologies in advance if this is only 1/2 of what is floating through my head currently.  

It is going to sound like a cop out or a link cop response, but do you have examples of the type of language and speak that Obama was using that brought you to those conclusions during his term?   I don't doubt it at all, I was just curious.  I didn't vote for him, and his first term came at a time of being way more busy and stressed than I am now - new jobs, helping the family business, first kid born, etc..   I have never followed political figures that much - no speeches, campaign trails.   Mostly during that time I was just reading about topics and digging into my 3rd party views and voting.   I missed a ton.  

That said, our experiences seem to be a bit different when it comes to the general voting public, conservatives, and religion.   It's interesting to me, as I think at our cores we seem to agree way more than we disagree, but it seems like those life experiences and encounters gave us some fairly different outlooks on certain data points.   Again, I come from WI - mostly conservative,  just outside of Madison - which is quite liberal.    What I experienced was surprising amount of sentiment like:  "ugh - people just voting for somebody because he was black" or an general idea like because we voted in a black POTUS it proves how non-racist we are as a country, so we got to our goal - why are you bringing up this other race stuff??!!    Stuff like that.  I want to be crystal clear - this is not a lot of people, just grumblings, comments, and sentiments that I picked up on.  My personal belief is (and I could be very wrong on this) I fully don't believe that represents all the people who think like that - it is just the people who are willing to say it out loud.    Like I hinted at in my post you responded to, what I believe happened is that explosion of SM and internet in our pockets created a perfect storm with all those sentiments (and like you are saying Obama himself with his talk probably fueled some further negativity), and now those people could find other like minded people online.    I still get prejudice rumblings towards the Latin people we hire and other groups around here.   Also comments about Native Americans and the casinos (there is a bit of Native American culture and themes around here with town names, history, etc.. ) Now, I think it's inaccurate to say that I think our country is racist at it's core, especially when you are talking about people and their beliefs - but my experience is that there is still an uncomfortable number of people have have these types of beliefs and thoughts.    I brought up where I was from also to put in perspective when I think about this, I put this in context that I am way up north, not in an area where we would both probably expect there to be more of those types of people and beliefs.    Again, SM just let's these people find each other and gives them group/family that might be missing for other reasons.   

Largely what I am saying with this part is I believe that you represent a certain demo of voters.  But I also saw a fair amount of people who were not so happy from day 1 about Obama being elected.  It was still only 53% of the vote, and IMO what the 15 or so years have shown me is that we farther from healing from those types of racial divides and thoughts than we probably thought in 2008.   There is still a lot of bubbling resentment on both sides of the equation that needs to be talked about and addressed.  

As far as the bolded section, I wanted to quickly address that too.   NO - I don't believe conservatives have hatred in their hearts as you say.   But I think way too many people still do (notice I didn't bring up party here).    I honestly don't think you are accurate with all that section either.  I think if we sat down and hammered out some things you and many conservatives would agree that SOME things needed to be corrected from our past, or maybe still do.   So I don't think the idea of anti-reverse discrimination applies.  We discriminate for all sorts of things and reasons.  What I think is going on is through all the identity politics and demands from others, a harder line has been drawn in the sand and there is a feeling that we have either gone too far, or are right there.   IMO that is where I disagree with that side of the aisle - I look around and think we still have work and healing to do.  Unfortunately the only way to get there is by continuing to talk about it, which largely gets met with frustration and anger from opposing people because of sentiments like "why does EVERYTHING have to be about race!!!??" .  

Gotta run to work...

 
I believe Conservatives today are much more aligned with my belief system, which mostly consists of personal freedom.  I don't like big Government.  I don't trust it.  Like Ronald Reagan said, I believe in the goodness of the American people.  I can't believe that I hold Ronald Reagan in such high esteem, but I do.  The older I get, the more I appreciate what a great man and a great leader he was.  In my opinion, he and Teddy Roosevelt were the 2 best Presidents of the 20th century.

Anyways, that's where I'm at.  Of course I could be completely full of ####.  I acknowledge that.
This is another one that I don't think is accurate.  Conservatives preach small government and personal freedom, but they don't practice it.  There are state governments and GOP coalitions today attacking personal freedom on a daily basis.  Look at the Texas GOP just this week.  They added an attack on homosexuals to their 2022 platform.  Kansas outlawed same sex marriage in 2019 by virtue of a 19-page bill that consisted of little more than namecalling.  Red states across the country have been competing to see who can attack transgender the most spectacularly.  Red states and locales are banning books.  Largely red states/towns are militarizing police in small communities.  All of these things are before we even get to the growing group of fringe clowns like MTG who seem to be pushing for a theocracy.

 
Organized religion hasn't been something to escape the microscope (that's an understatement), but for democracy, it is better to have a separation of church and state wherein most people have faith in a almighty God than to have a condition where passions and ideology rule the day in statecraft and there is no belief in a higher power. 
If we have true separation of church and state, then its nobody's business if an individual has faith in a god. That's the beauty of the 1st A. Religion is private and you're free to practice whatever you choose - including none at all.

That said, you're entitled to your opinion but I disagree. IMO the best society is one completely free of organized religion. 

 
If we have true separation of church and state, then its nobody's business if an individual has faith in a god. That's the beauty of the 1st A. Religion is private and you're free to practice whatever you choose - including none at all.
Right. There is nothing in what I said that would contradict this. I'm talking about the voluntary adoption among the populace of a Abrahamic, monotheistic God. Or a God that isn't Abrahamic, but has similar values. Zoroastrianism, for example. Anything that preaches a general tolerance of good and evil where killing is condemned. So maybe not all the Abrahamic religions, but I don't want to start that discussion up. 

IMO the best society is one completely free of organized religion. 
That sort of thinking always seems to be in places with uniquely diabolical mass murder. In addition, an anti-religionist attitude is almost always state-enforced. We see it in the PRC right now with the mass slavery and harvesting of organs by those members practicing a theology opposed to statism. 

Same story, different year.  

 
IMO the best society is one completely free of organized religion. 
That sort of thinking always seems to be in places with uniquely diabolical mass murder. In addition, an anti-religionist attitude is almost always state-enforced. We see it in the PRC right now with the mass slavery and harvesting of organs by those members practicing a theology opposed to statism. 
If I understand this correctly, you're saying atheist attitudes are responsible for mass murder? Can you provide examples? And I'll counter that  by saying religious attitudes are almost always state enforced. That's a theocracy. We're not a theocracy and no one is trying to enforce an anti-religious attitude. A belief or defense of "god" has always been at the root of mass murder, even today. Take religion out of the equation and most people would get along. 

We can preach a general tolerance of good and evil where killing is condemned without a belief in gods. Don't most religious texts, including the bible, promote killing of non-believers?

“If there is found among you, within any of your towns that the Lord your God is giving you, a man or woman who does what is evil in the sight of the Lord your God, in transgressing his covenant, and has gone and served other gods and worshiped them, or the sun or the moon or any of the host of heaven, which I have forbidden, and it is told you and you hear of it, then you shall inquire diligently, and if it is true and certain that such an abomination has been done in Israel, then you shall bring out to your gates that man or woman who has done this evil thing, and you shall stone that man or woman to death with stones. -Deuteronamy

Personally, I find it highly offensive when people suggest we need god to be good. We don't. God is evil and vindictive. 

 
If I understand this correctly, you're saying atheist attitudes are responsible for mass murder? Can you provide examples?
He mentioned China in the post you quoted.  The USSR would be another good example. 

The usual rejoinder here is that those countries aren't murderous because they're atheist -- they're murderous because they're communists.  Which is fine on a superficial level, but I think our experience over the last 5-6 years should provide strong evidence that when people ditch organized religion, they typically don't replace it with a well-formed, healthy set of ethics.  The hole left by religion tends to get replaced by some kind of political pseudo-religion.  Communism played that role in many countries up until 1990 or so.  Woke-ism is playing that role for secular progressives in today's US.  Those are really ####ty versions of religion that cater to people who think that they're irreligious.  

 
That sort of thinking always seems to be in places with uniquely diabolical mass murder. In addition, an anti-religionist attitude is almost always state-enforced. We see it in the PRC right now with the mass slavery and harvesting of organs by those members practicing a theology opposed to statism. 

Same story, different year.  
There isn't another thing in the history of the world that has led to more murder and restriction on human rights than religion. I'll counter with Japan, Australia, Canada and the Scandinavian countries to your PRC.

 
Take religion out of the equation and most people would get along.
Wow, is this ever a fundamental misunderstanding of history. I'm not sure how I could possibly respond to this declaration that would do its staggering ignorance justice. 

So let's look at the two biggest mass murderers of the twentieth century, the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, who both tried to take religion out of the equation to the point that practicing religion was almost criminal. Those states were pretty good at mass murder of their own people and others. In fact, they almost dwarfed history's wars and crusades with modern technology and their body count. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Soviet_Union

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Religion_in_Nazi_Germany&action=edit&section=3

I think your view of history is rather warped by your incorrect opinion about religion when two obvious examples like this are right in recent memory, yet they're ignored to make a broader point about the efficacy of atheism. 

 
There isn't another thing in the history of the world that has led to more murder and restriction on human rights than religion. I'll counter with Japan, Australia, Canada and the Scandinavian countries to your PRC.
The Soviet Union murdered over 30 million of its own citizens, plus countless others in their purges. 

Nazi Germany is responsible for the deaths of probably ten-fifteen million people. 

What on earth is everybody smoking? 

Japan was on the axis side in WWII and was fascist. They started WWII in full effect by drawing the U.S. into it with Pearl Harbor. 

Australia, Canada, and Scandinavian countries all have populaces that practice Christianity to varying yet majoritarian degrees within their own societies. 

 
He mentioned China in the post you quoted.  The USSR would be another good example. 

The usual rejoinder here is that those countries aren't murderous because they're atheist -- they're murderous because they're communists.  Which is fine on a superficial level, but I think our experience over the last 5-6 years should provide strong evidence that when people ditch organized religion, they typically don't replace it with a well-formed, healthy set of ethics.  The hole left by religion tends to get replaced by some kind of political pseudo-religion.  Communism played that role in many countries up until 1990 or so.  Woke-ism is playing that role for secular progressives in today's US.  Those are really ####ty versions of religion that cater to people who think that they're irreligious.  
You don't even need to make that fine distinction. Communism and fascism each actively have sought to destroy the religious impulse within their own sphere of power because religion separates people, in their view, from becoming a true member of the political entity that each ideology seeks to establish. It is not for nothing that both movements in the USSR and Nazi Germany had names for their programs to get people away from religion. Religion, they felt, usurped authority of and fidelity to the state. 

It is odd we do not know how much of a role religion has played in freedom, not to mention security and stability, in the modern state. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
He mentioned China in the post you quoted.  The USSR would be another good example. 

The usual rejoinder here is that those countries aren't murderous because they're atheist -- they're murderous because they're communists.  Which is fine on a superficial level, but I think our experience over the last 5-6 years should provide strong evidence that when people ditch organized religion, they typically don't replace it with a well-formed, healthy set of ethics.  The hole left by religion tends to get replaced by some kind of political pseudo-religion.  Communism played that role in many countries up until 1990 or so.  Woke-ism is playing that role for secular progressives in today's US.  Those are really ####ty versions of religion that cater to people who think that they're irreligious.  
Examples please? I'll provide many examples of religious people committing atrocities in the name of their god. It is extremely arrogant to think "believe in my god or else you can't be a moral person". But religions, including Christianity, have promoted this idea for centuries. So long that the people who follow their preferred dogma believe its true. Its brainwashing and offensive.

Religion and the people who practice it have been responsible for far more atrocities than anything else. Although our dependence on oil may be catching up.

 
Examples please? I'll provide many examples of religious people committing atrocities in the name of their god. It is extremely arrogant to think "believe in my god or else you can't be a moral person". But religions, including Christianity, have promoted this idea for centuries. So long that the people who follow their preferred dogma believe its true. Its brainwashing and offensive.

Religion and the people who practice it have been responsible for far more atrocities than anything else. Although our dependence on oil may be catching up.
30 million in the USSR

10-15 million worldwide in Germany. 

Way more than the Crusades or Inquisition or anything else could ever even imagine. 

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top