Healing And Moving Forward - Thoughts? (2 Viewers)

timschochet said:

I agree. But he did so in such a negative, angry, divisive way. He reached out to them and said, “You are the real America, the rest of these folks are not.” 
What we need is someone who reaches out to these folks in a positive way, who will say “you guys are an important part of all of us; together we are ALL the real America.” 
 

Thats what I think Biden is trying to do right now .

Click to expand...

I agree with this.  Hope Biden does also.    I've bashed Biden may times here recently.   I am very encouraged by the tone and message he's had the last week.   I think his message the last week might even piss off his party because he seems more interested in healing and helping all of us.  Hope he does.

Couple things.

Joe keeps referencing that cracked article. I keep hoping Joe finds a better reference to serve as a jumping off point, because it's not the greatest article, but the main takeaway (and something I've come to understand these last few years through other sources) is this:

The rural folk with the Trump signs in their yards say their way of life is dying.... It's not their imagination....So yes, they vote for the guy promising to put things back the way they were...

Click to expand...

And this is true. I understand that, and I empathize with that. The question then becomes, what's to be done about it besides having empathy. What do we do to address this reality? Part of it is having more people recognize that that way of life is fading away, not because of any political plot to end it, but because things change. They always do. I understand that people that value that way of life are going to be upset about it being minimized. The answer isn't putting things back the way they were though. I don't know of too many historical examples moving back towards a more antiquated mode of existence being a promising path forward. The question is really how to adapt so that we're all (or the vast majority of us) moving forward together. How do we retain a small town feel while acknowledging it won't be exactly the same small town we're used to?

I think part of the answer is infrastructure, mainly energy generation and distribution combined with improving our networking infrastructure. If we could get high speed internet and reliable energy to run our technology out to "everywhere", then everywhere becomes a viable option in terms of residence,  as we'll be better able to work remotely most of the time, without sacrificing advancement of vocational goals. You could live in the country and still work in the city. I think lots of people would choose that option were it available, and if so, it would revitalize small towns (not all of them probably, but a decent amount of them). How do we sell that to the people who currently live there? Because, like it or not, that intial last mile work isn't going to get done by for profit corporations. There won't be money in it for them until the work is already done. It means government would have to either do the work or subsidize it. And that leans towards socialism. And the people in those towns seem to have gotten the notion that socialism in any form is pretty much evil, even though you could probably make the case that it is full throated capitalism that has resulted in a lot of the problems those towns are facing. Barring that I can't see a way forward for those towns unless they happen to be located near some resource needed for future production / advancement. The money just isn't going to land there, and we'll have to figure another way out for people in that situation.

I think an interesting connection that the cracked article fails to make, but is really important, is that in terms of not being seen, not being heard, not being felt, the complaints of the people discussed in the article have some similarity to the complaints of other minority groups. That these groups (black lives matter, all lives matter, etc.) are feeling the same things, probably have a lot in common. Yet, they're currently placed as at odds with each other and blame each other for their problems. All these groups would benefit from lower cost health care, lower cost education, improved mental health services, job training and placement, etc. Yet they are cast as diametrically opposed for many superficial reasons, like location, ancestry, etc. How do you break down that divide?

But there's another issue that @Ministry of Pain brings up. The Trump supporters aren't restricted to rural communities, they're in the big urban centers as well. Not as much as liberals, but they're there. They have to be, as 80% of the U.S. population is urban, and you don't get over 70 million votes in this country strictly on a rural constituency. And those Trump voters don't share the same concerns as the people the cracked article is talking about - they're not getting left behind to any greater degree than the Democrat voters in their area. Those Trump supporters are coming from a different place. I've tried to have empathy for that too, tried to understand it, but the conclusions I come to there aren't as charitable as the ones you can draw about the folks who are in those towns that are getting left behind. I think some analysis needs to be done in that area as well - what's the appeal of Trump brand Republicanism to this cohort? What's the connection that needs to be made there that might bend things somewhat away from buying into a candidate like Trump?

Getzlaf15 said:

I agree with this.  Hope Biden does also.    I've bashed Biden may times here recently.   I am very encouraged by the tone and message he's had the last week.   I think his message the last week might even piss off his party because he seems more interested in healing and helping all of us.  Hope he does.

Click to expand...

I think you know my thought about this: if what Biden is saying pisses off the Democratic Party, then screw the Democratic Party. 

Gr00vus said:

Couple things.

Joe keeps referencing that cracked article. I keep hoping Joe finds a better reference to serve as a jumping off point, because it's not the greatest article, but the main takeaway (and something I've come to understand these last few years through other sources) is this:

Click to expand...

Thanks. I keep referencing it because I think it's good. Apparently regular posters like @bigbottom had never seen it. If you're hoping I find another article, totally open to other articles that you think do a better job of helping people understand the voters.

The response to the article is always interesting to me. I've lived and worked with a pretty diverse group of people. Especially the rural folks described in the article. I don't think it's a coincidence that someone like @bigbottom who also has had a wide range of interactions saw it as useful too.

But I'm totally open to other article links that can help folks understand Trump voters. Please send along. I think it's important. Thanks. 

Gr00vus said:

But there's another issue that @Ministry of Pain brings up. The Trump supporters aren't restricted to rural communities, they're in the big urban centers as well. Not as much as liberals, but they're there. They have to be, as 80% of the U.S. population is urban, and you don't get over 70 million votes in this country strictly on a rural constituency. And those Trump voters don't share the same concerns as the people the cracked article is talking about - they're not getting left behind to any greater degree than the Democrat voters in their area. Those Trump supporters are coming from a different place. I've tried to have empathy for that too, tried to understand it, but the conclusions I come to there aren't as charitable as the ones you can draw about the folks who are in those towns that are getting left behind. I think some analysis needs to be done in that area as well - what's the appeal of Trump brand Republicanism to this cohort? What's the connection that needs to be made there that might bend things somewhat away from buying into a candidate like Trump?

Click to expand...

I went to Long Beach St.  Commuter school that is made up of all types of people. My frat was a little over 100 strong, and made up of all types of people. We are still very close group 40+ years later.    A lot of them are Trump supporters. Very well off people that have done well in life that simply don't like the message democrats are putting out. 

We as a group, do a very good job of reaching out and helping people less fortunate than ourselves. I think it's the belief that people should help people, and not the democrat message that government should help people as a big part of this. (Not saying that dems never reach out and help people, but the Dem message is that the govt should be more responsible for this)

Just look at this thread now......   Joe reaches out and helps people,  BB does.........   and we all have basically similar replies here.

Gr00vus said:

Part of it is having more people recognize that that way of life is fading away, not because of any political plot to end it, but because things change

Click to expand...

Exactly. Rural areas aren't in this position because of cities. They are in this position because people left rural areas to move to cities. 

timschochet said:

And I stand by that. But I also acknowledge that my own sources of news might not be free from bias as well. 

Click to expand...

I'm glad to see this. But a lot of dems in this thread don't see this.

I basically removed myself from being affiliated with either party five years ago.  That resulted in me seeing the news being reported in a much different way.  It's very clear to me these last five years that the sources dems trust might be way more accurate, but they will rarely write anything that is positive that doesn't fit the dem narrative. They just flat out ignore it. 

Getzlaf15 said:

We as a group, do a very good job of reaching out and helping people less fortunate than ourselves. I think it's the belief that people should help people, and not the democrat message that government should help people as a big part of this. (Not saying that dems never reach out and help people, but the Dem message is that the govt should be more responsible for this)

 

Click to expand...

These are the kinds of things I see.

Lots of people would rather do the "They won't even listen to FACTS" so they just ignore.

It's been my experience that sometimes this is accurate. The size of the crowd at a inauguration. Whatever. 

But it's been my experience what people want to call "facts" is way less clear. 

It's "We have poor people that need help".

One side says, "The government should solve this".

Another side, "Hang on, how much should taxpayers contribute to make this happen and exactly how and what will they do?"

Those are legit questions.

The trouble is that it's hard work to get to answers here.

It's a zillion times easier for one side to say, "If you don't agree with my side, you hate poor people and you enjoy being cruel".

While the other side says, "If you don't agree with my side, you love wasting taxpayer money and you're just enabling bad behavior"

So that's where it usually goes. 

I'd rather us do the harder work. 

Joe Bryant said:

I'd rather us do the harder work. 

Click to expand...

It's always the best work.  It brings out the most joy.

Getzlaf15 said:

We as a group, do a very good job of reaching out and helping people less fortunate than ourselves. I think it's the belief that people should help people, and not the democrat message that government should help people as a big part of this. (Not saying that dems never reach out and help people, but the Dem message is that the govt should be more responsible for this)

Click to expand...

I think what you're doing to help people is great.

Problem is, it's not enough. In most cases, people focus on triaging symptoms, which is a lot better than nothing. But the problems are systemic, and we're not addressing them at that level sufficiently. I don't think we will get there leaving it to just those like yourself who voluntarily engage. That doesn't seem to be working.

timschochet said:

The main problem is we’re getting our news from different sources.

Click to expand...

I think the Cracked.com article is very good. No, I didn't hover over the link to confirm that's what Joe linked to, but it's not exactly a wild guess.  As often as Joe has linked to the Cracked article, I've probably linked to this one even more often regarding our diverging media ecosystems. I think it's an accurate account of how we got here, and I believe it's an important part -- but only a part -- of understanding our cultural divide. For highly online people, the NYT vs. Breitbart stuff looms large. But as others have pointed out, being highly online is itself a weird quirk that signals a disconnect from much of the rest of the world. The Cracked article accurately highlights a lot of division that has nothing to do with being online.

I've linked to this article a number of times before as well. I think it does a good job of cataloging a large number of ways in which society has become more fragmented over the past half-century or so.

Scott Alexander and Paul Graham are two of my favorite modern essayists, and think both of the articles I just linked to are full of good insights.

Maurile Tremblay said:

I think the Cracked.com article is very good. No, I didn't hover over the link to confirm that's what Joe linked to, but it's not exactly a wild guess.  As often as Joe has linked to the Cracked article, I've probably linked to this one even more often regarding our diverging media ecosystems. I think it's an accurate account of how we got here, and I believe it's an important part -- but only a part -- of understanding our cultural divide. For highly online people, the NYT vs. Breitbart stuff looms large. But as others have pointed out, being highly online is itself a weird quirk that signals a disconnect from much of the rest of the world. The Cracked article accurately highlights a lot of division that has nothing to do with being online.

I've linked to this article a number of times before as well. I think it does a good job of cataloging a large number of ways in which society has become more fragmented over the past half-century or so.

Scott Alexander and Paul Graham are two of my favorite modern essayists, and think both of the articles I just linked to are full of good insights.

Click to expand...

Thank you Good Buddy. 

The "Social Dilemma” is real.

Todem said:

The "Social Dilemma” is real.

Click to expand...

There are some great podcasts that follow up on ideas from the doc and go into more detail.  Tristan Harris' pod Your Undivided Attention is a must listen for anybody interested in the ideas presented in the documentary.  

Getzlaf15 said:

I'm glad to see this. But a lot of dems in this thread don't see this.

I basically removed myself from being affiliated with either party five years ago.  That resulted in me seeing the news being reported in a much different way.  It's very clear to me these last five years that the sources dems trust might be way more accurate, but they will rarely write anything that is positive that doesn't fit the dem narrative. They just flat out ignore it. 

Click to expand...

It's been said a bit before, and I posted a lot on it the other day, but we also can't confuse bias with facts and good, accurate reporting.   Those aren't one in the same, and I think part of the problem is people use them interchangeably.  

I think The Washington Post's Michael Gerson hit a home run with his most recent column:
 

This election was a reflection of who we are as a country

gianmarco said:

I have to agree with Tim here. It's really hard to try and understand the "other side" when we are dealing with different sets of facts.

I can't try to understand a different perspective of how to deal with Covid when the other person doesn't believe Covid exists. I'm not saying that's all Trump supporters, but it's an example.  It's not dissimilar to the anti-vaxx stance that I'm all too familiar with. When one side is using falsehoods as a basis of discussion, you can't move forward until you resolve those untruths.

There has to be a common basis of truth and facts in order to move forward and discuss. 

This era of disinformation and rejection of truth can't be reconciled until it's fixed.

Click to expand...

I disagree with almost all of this. It's not a matter of a "different set of facts" imo it's a different set of values. One side is saying two plus two equals four and the other side is saying blue and yellow make green and for the most part they're talking past each other. Attempts at compromising four and green are doomed from the start and mistrust is attached.. One side frequently focuses on the person "he's a horrible person and you can't trust him" and the other frequently focuses on policy "that's a horrible policy and you can't trust them". It only gets worse when one side tries to characterize what the other stands for. 

Aside from some fringe (that both sides are burdened with), no one believes Covid doesn't exist. Aside form some fringe, no one is anti-vaxx. If you claim that, then there will be those convinced you're the one spreading disinformation.

KarmaPolice said:

Todem said:

The "Social Dilemma” is real.

Click to expand...

There are some great podcasts that follow up on ideas from the doc and go into more detail.  Tristan Harris' pod Your Undivided Attention is a must listen for anybody interested in the ideas presented in the documentary.  

Click to expand...

It’s Very real.  Scary real.  

Doug B said:

I think The Washington Post's Michael Gerson hit a home run with his most recent column:
 

This election was a reflection of who we are as a country
 

Spoiler

Some presidential elections seem to change who we are as a people — or at least announce the arrival of a new order of things. The election of Franklin D. Roosevelt heralded a new, humane, larger role for government in a shattered economy. The election of John F. Kennedy marked the arrival of the generation that fought World War II into positions of power.

But 1932 and 1960 were exceptions. Most elections simply reflect who we are, like you’d expect from a vast mosaic of individual preferences.

The 2020 presidential election — conducted during a deadly pandemic, accompanied by racial protests, in the wake of massive economic dislocation — felt like it should be transformative. But what has unfolded is really a mirror. And most Americans seem happy with their reflected image.

Trumpians feel confirmed in their belief that a hostile establishment and hidden “deep state” are conspiring against their dignity and influence. Democratic progressives feel confirmed in their belief that the politics of compromise has gained liberalism nothing. Democratic centrists feel confirmed in their belief that they are saving liberalism from political oblivion. No large group of voters came away chastened or sobered.

More than any other reason, this is because politics has become a function of culture. A factual debate can be adjudicated. Policy differences can be compromised. Even an ideological conflict can be bridged or transcended. But if our differences are an expression of our identities — rural vs. urban, religious vs. secular, nationalist vs. cosmopolitan — then political loss threatens a whole way of life.

Donald Trump was elected to the office once held by Thomas Jefferson because he understood or intuited the cultural nature of American politics. His 2016 election was proof that a presidential candidate can win without proposing specific policies. His 2020 campaign was proof that an incumbent can nearly win reelection without having performed basic public duties. Policy and performance are irrelevant when there is only one political question: Is he on our side in the great cultural conflict?

This tendency is hardly new, but its tenacity is truly remarkable. It is one thing to keep your drunk uncle at the family picnic when he belches and swears. It is another thing when he starts urging family members to play Russian roulette and cages children from neighboring picnics. But this is what Republicans and conservatives have generally done. Since Trump is on their cultural side, the Fifth Avenue principle applies. He can cough on pedestrians all he wants and not lose any (or at least many) voters.

But I promised myself that I would not relitigate the election. (I have also promised myself not to eat leftover Halloween candy, to similar effect.) The more important questions are: How does a [new] president govern — and how does a democracy function in the face of cultural polarization?

It is the columnist’s prerogative to respond: Watch this space. It encourages me that President-elect Joe Biden [if he is elected], House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) share a small but important micro-culture: the legislative tribe. If they want to see progress in fighting covid-19 and addressing pressing economic problems, they know how to make deals.

It encourages me that organizations such as the American Enterprise Institute are producing the innovative policy proposals (see AEI’s “Governing Priorities”) that an ambitious Republican reformer might run with.

And there’s something practical that citizens can do to address political polarization. It is important to the cohesion of our society that people keep a portion of their deepest selves off limits to politics entirely — the place where kindness, decency and hospitality dwell. Any political belief (really, any belief) that causes us to refuse friendship or fellowship to nonbelievers is wrong and corrosive, no matter how noble or necessary it may seem.

This is not to argue for any lessening of political intensity. The pursuit of justice requires passion and commitment. But any serious conception of justice is universally applicable. And that means the person screaming in your face is equal in value and dignity to you or anyone in your tribe. Real justice implies mercy and compassion, because that is what we hope our own dignity would merit from others. Any political system that preempts the Golden Rule is an attack on the ideal of human equality at the foundation of democracy. If we hold to constitutional values, dehumanization is a dangerous and discrediting form of hypocrisy.

In a divided nation, Americans need to defend a space in their lives where cable news does not reach, where social media does not incite, and where the basic, natural tendency is to treat other people like human beings. This offers not just the prospect of greater tolerance, but the hope of healing.

Click to expand...

He lost me with the opening of "Donald Trump was elected to the office once held by Thomas Jefferson because he understood or intuited the cultural nature of American politics. His 2016 election was proof that a presidential candidate can win without proposing specific policies. His 2020 campaign was proof that an incumbent can nearly win reelection without having performed basic public duties."

Part of why people loved (and hated) Trump was he said he was going to implement a lot of policies and he did a lot of what he said. https://www.promiseskept.com/

One can certainly argue the merit of the things done. But to base an argument that he didn't do anything seems sloppy by the writer. 

Joe Bryant said:

He lost me with the opening of "Donald Trump was elected to the office once held by Thomas Jefferson because he understood or intuited the cultural nature of American politics. His 2016 election was proof that a presidential candidate can win without proposing specific policies. His 2020 campaign was proof that an incumbent can nearly win reelection without having performed basic public duties."

Part of why people loved (and hated) Trump was he said he was going to implement a lot of policies and he did a lot of what he said. https://www.promiseskept.com/

One can certainly argue the merit of the things done. But to base an argument that he didn't do anything seems sloppy by the writer. 

Click to expand...

I would not use a site paid for by Trump as a reliable accurate measure of what he accomplished. I would hope we can agree that it's unlikely to be fully truthful.

That said, here's an independent source that details what he accomplished with regards to his campaign promises.

He certainly delivered on some of them. More than I expected. Whether or not they were good accomplishments can be debated, but that's not the point.

Joe Bryant said:

He lost me with the opening of "Donald Trump was elected to the office once held by Thomas Jefferson because he understood or intuited the cultural nature of American politics. His 2016 election was proof that a presidential candidate can win without proposing specific policies. His 2020 campaign was proof that an incumbent can nearly win reelection without having performed basic public duties."

Part of why people loved (and hated) Trump was he said he was going to implement a lot of policies and he did a lot of what he said. https://www.promiseskept.com/

Click to expand...

To be fair, the author didn't write, "...can win without EVER proposing ANY specific policies."

Yes, Trump was specific on some things (the wall, for example) but not so much on lots of other issues which have been standard bearers for political candidates over the past 80 years (health care, for example).

gianmarco said:

I would not use a site paid for by Trump as a reliable accurate measure of what he accomplished. I would hope we can agree that it's unlikely to be fully truthful.

That said, here's an independent source that details what he accomplished with regards to his campaign promises.

He certainly delivered on some of them. More than I expected. Whether or not they were good accomplishments can be debated, but that's not the point.

Click to expand...

Of course. It's just the easiest list. Bottom line he did a lot. The argument can be if it was good or bad. But I lose interest pretty quick when the premise of an essay is he didn't do anything. 

Joe Bryant said:

Of course. It's just the easiest list. Bottom line he did a lot. The argument can be if it was good or bad. But I lose interest pretty quick when the premise of an essay is he didn't do anything. 

Click to expand...

Agreed.

Which is why facts matter.

A lot of discussion about that today. It's hard to come together when we don't deal with truth. The erosion of truth these last 4 years is the biggest problem, IMO. And that won't easily be fixed. That horse is out of the barn.

gianmarco said:

Agreed.

Which is why facts matter.

A lot of discussion about that today. It's hard to come together when we don't deal with truth. The erosion of truth these last 4 years is the biggest problem, IMO. And that won't easily be fixed. That horse is out of the barn.

Click to expand...

I think that's tons easier than most though.

Way more of the disagreements are less about literal facts and more about different ideas. Like the best way to handle immigration or homelessness or taxes. But it's much easier to disengage and claim the other side won't accept facts. I hope we can move back towards nuance and not trying to draw a black and white line to every single issue or idea as fact or fake. 

Joe Bryant said:

I think that's tons easier than most though.

Way more of the disagreements are less about literal facts and more about different ideas. Like the best way to handle immigration or homelessness or taxes. But it's much easier to disengage and claim the other side won't accept facts. I hope we can move back towards nuance and not trying to draw a black and white line to every single issue or idea as fact or fake. 

Click to expand...

But how do you begin to address issues like systemic racism or climate change if we can’t even agree that they exist?

Joe Bryant said:

I think that's tons easier than most though.

Way more of the disagreements are less about literal facts and more about different ideas. Like the best way to handle immigration or homelessness or taxes. But it's much easier to disengage and claim the other side won't accept facts. I hope we can move back towards nuance and not trying to draw a black and white line to every single issue or idea as fact or fake. 

Click to expand...

I really wish this were true but it isn’t. I would love it if our disagreements were mostly about ideas. But you can scroll every page of this politics forum looking rather vainly for discussions about ideas and they’re very rare. Most of the discussions here are “Trump said this”, “well he didn’t mean that” and “Biden did this”, “no he didn’t” etc etc. 

Maybe we can return to discussing ideas now like how to deal with immigration and the rest. I hope so. 

Hasn't all the bad aspects of the Cracked article pretty much existed in the entirety of American history? The writer of the article isn't really treading new ground; people from different regions of the country see other regions as weird - a frontier or rural life is always on the razor's edge in regards to prosperity - large population densities are often going to be at the forefront of "leisure" (be it art/fashion/entertainment/education etc. etc.) - and humans (and probably a bit more accurate....Americans) are in love with heroes who break convention and stand up to the "oppressor"....by any means necessary. 

Really the only thing that has changed is that infrastructure has become good enough that BOTH sides can tell the other side exactly how they feel about them without fear of getting punched in the face. 

timschochet said:

I really wish this were true but it isn’t. I would love it if our disagreements were mostly about ideas. But you can scroll every page of this politics forum looking rather vainly for discussions about ideas and they’re very rare. Most of the discussions here are “Trump said this”, “well he didn’t mean that” and “Biden did this”, “no he didn’t” etc etc. 

Maybe we can return to discussing ideas now like how to deal with immigration and the rest. I hope so. 

Click to expand...

I'm with timschochet on this one.  Most of the disagreement these days appears to me to be disagreement on factual things, not ideas and policies.

Joe Bryant said:

We'll see. We may very well have to live where half the discussion is described as fake news. I hope not but maybe you are right. 

Click to expand...

I don’t want to be right.

timschochet said:

I really wish this were true but it isn’t. I would love it if our disagreements were mostly about ideas. But you can scroll every page of this politics forum looking rather vainly for discussions about ideas and they’re very rare. Most of the discussions here are “Trump said this”, “well he didn’t mean that” and “Biden did this”, “no he didn’t” etc etc. 

Maybe we can return to discussing ideas now like how to deal with immigration and the rest. I hope so. 

Click to expand...

Sigh. You're doing it right there.

I said, "Way more of the disagreements are less about literal facts and more about different ideas. Like the best way to handle immigration or homelessness or taxes. But it's much easier to disengage and claim the other side won't accept facts. I hope we can move back towards nuance and not trying to draw a black and white line to every single issue or idea as fact or fake. "

You then just claimed what I said wasn't true. When you start the argument claiming I'm either a liar or ignorant, we get what we have. 

Joe Bryant said:

Sigh. You're doing it right there.

I said, "Way more of the disagreements are less about literal facts and more about different ideas. Like the best way to handle immigration or homelessness or taxes. But it's much easier to disengage and claim the other side won't accept facts. I hope we can move back towards nuance and not trying to draw a black and white line to every single issue or idea as fact or fake. "

You then just claimed what I said wasn't true. When you start the argument claiming I'm either a liar or ignorant, we get what we have. 

Click to expand...

Please don’t put words in my mouth. I don’t think you’re a liar and I don’t think you’re ignorant. I disagree with your take on this issue. I expressed my disagreement and offered reasons for it. What would you have me do? 

timschochet said:

Please don’t put words in my mouth. I don’t think you’re a liar and I don’t think you’re ignorant. I disagree with your take on this issue. I expressed my disagreement and offered reasons for it. What would you have me do? 

Click to expand...

 

I said, "Way more of the disagreements are less about literal facts and more about different ideas. Like the best way to handle immigration or homelessness or taxes. But it's much easier to disengage and claim the other side won't accept facts. I hope we can move back towards nuance and not trying to draw a black and white line to every single issue or idea as fact or fake. "

You responded: "I really wish this were true but it isn’t."

Sadly, I don't have to put words in your mouth. You're writing them for everyone to see. 

When that's how you "discuss", it just kills any reasonable discussion. And we get exactly what we have.

You're providing a real time example of precisely the problem I'm talking about. I'm done with this tonight. I'm discouraged.

Joe Bryant said:

 

I said, "Way more of the disagreements are less about literal facts and more about different ideas. Like the best way to handle immigration or homelessness or taxes. But it's much easier to disengage and claim the other side won't accept facts. I hope we can move back towards nuance and not trying to draw a black and white line to every single issue or idea as fact or fake. "

You responded: "I really wish this were true but it isn’t."

Sadly, I don't have to put words in your mouth. You're writing them for everyone to see. 

When that's how you "discuss", it just kills any reasonable discussion. And we get exactly what we have.

You're providing a real time example of precisely the problem I'm talking about. I'm done with this tonight. I can't recall being this discouraged about this forum.

Click to expand...

Yes I disagree with you. You made an assertion that I disagreed with. I didn’t call you a liar. I didn’t call you ignorant. But I think you’re wrong. 

I honestly don’t understand why that is discouraging to you. I guess I’m missing something here. That would not in itself be surprising; I miss stuff all the time. But here I really don’t understand what I possibly could have written that has you as upset as you seem. Is there someone else reading this that could explain this to me? I don’t get it. 

I think extending a little more grace and expressing a little less righteousness would help calm things down a bit in terms of the division in this country. The trick is that you have to extend that grace to the person who is being obstinately righteous. In other words, someone has to go first. Consider being the person who goes first. 

edit:  This was not in response to the most recent posts. 

bigbottom said:

I think extending a little more grace and expressing a little less righteousness would help calm things down a bit in terms of the division in this country. The trick is that you have to extend that grace to the person who is being obstinately righteous. In other words, someone has to go first. Consider being the person who goes first. 

edit:  This was not in response to the most recent posts. 

Click to expand...

gianmarco said:

I have to agree with Tim here. It's really hard to try and understand the "other side" when we are dealing with different sets of facts.

I can't try to understand a different perspective of how to deal with Covid when the other person doesn't believe Covid exists. I'm not saying that's all Trump supporters, but it's an example.  It's not dissimilar to the anti-vaxx stance that I'm all too familiar with. When one side is using falsehoods as a basis of discussion, you can't move forward until you resolve those untruths.

There has to be a common basis of truth and facts in order to move forward and discuss. 

This era of disinformation and rejection of truth can't be reconciled until it's fixed.

Click to expand...

I actually think this is part of the root issue.  We aren’t even hearing each other nowadays — and candidly, part of the challenge is that my family & friends who support Trump are unbelievably inarticulate about their actual views.

COVID is an example.  What people hear from Trump folks is:  “it’s just the flu.”  Or “the media is the virus.”   And then liberals extend that to mean that Trump supporters believe COVID is actually fake.

What I hear from friends on “the other side” is much more nuanced.  I hear people really saying “I get that it’s real, but how long will it take to get a vaccine?  What are we all supposed to do if our jobs can’t be virtual — are we supposed to just become unemployed?   Live off the govt dole?   What happens when everyone is locked down for 3 months and depression, substance abuse, and domestic violence skyrocket?”

THAT would be a discussion and debate worth having.  But.....we don’t spend enough time asking each other enough clarifying questions to ever get to these real discussions.  These real issues.

I’m as guilty of it as anyone.  Some days I try hard, other days, frankly it is exhausting.

I can certainly read the article from the OP and appreciate the message behind it.  I have no idea what its like to grow up in a rural area. I can certainly see how those folks would feel hopeless and cling to anything or anyone who will "promise" things will get better.

If the overarching goal is well paying jobs that provide economic stability and the necessary resources to improve their communities and preserve the positives aspects of their culture (such as religion, if that's your thing).....I think anyone can get behind that.  But blue collar manufacturing simply isn't coming back at the scale needed to make that happen. We're not going to close the wage gap with less developed countries and we're less than a generation from robots/AI doing pretty much everything anyway.

So yeah.....I dont know how anyone can "heal" the divide between the rural areas and suburbs/cities without promising things that are basically impossible. 

Better infrastructure would certainly help. But that costs money and a LOT of it.  The primarily democratic areas already provide most of the tax revenue. At some point, the well runs dry.  Ideally, more of the money going to welfare, food stamps etc. would be redistributed to education and infrastructure improvements that would provide long term developmental benefits for these areas. But that's a BIG ship to turn.

So yeah, I dont have an answer. I sympathize with these folks on the economic side of things and can understand (although not necessarily agree with) their stance on some social issues (like abortion).

If preserving their way of life means small town living, a decent paying job and Sunday church....great. Do what makes you happy. Doesn't really affect me. But when those same folks are against gay marriage because "the bible says" or argue that they need an AR 15 for "hunting" or "home security".....its just really hard to take them seriously.

And of course the "why the hell Donald Trump???" question will always stick in my head. I get that he promised the world. But he's the literal embodiment of the godless heathen city dweller that the article claims all these folks despise. He doesn't care about them and I'll never understand how he tricked so many people into thinking that he did.

gianmarco said:

I have to agree with Tim here. It's really hard to try and understand the "other side" when we are dealing with different sets of facts.

I can't try to understand a different perspective of how to deal with Covid when the other person doesn't believe Covid exists. I'm not saying that's all Trump supporters, but it's an example.  It's not dissimilar to the anti-vaxx stance that I'm all too familiar with. When one side is using falsehoods as a basis of discussion, you can't move forward until you resolve those untruths.

There has to be a common basis of truth and facts in order to move forward and discuss. 

This era of disinformation and rejection of truth can't be reconciled until it's fixed.

Click to expand...

You don’t have to talk to everyone about every topic. If you and someone else have a disagreement on basic facts and that prevents having fruitful discussions, then don’t talk to that person about that thing. 

TLEF316 said:

I can certainly read the article from the OP and appreciate the message behind it.  I have no idea what its like to grow up in a rural area. I can certainly see how those folks would feel hopeless and cling to anything or anyone who will "promise" things will get better?

If the overarching goal is well paying jobs that provide economic stability and the necessary resources to improve their communities and preserve the positives aspects of their culture (such as religion, if that's your thing).....I think anyone can get behind that.  But blue collar manufacturing simply isn't coming back at the scale needed to make that happen. We're not going to close the wage gap with less developed countries and we're less than a generation from robots/AI doing pretty much everything anyway.

So yeah.....I dont know how anyone can "heal" the divide between the rural areas and suburbs/cities without promising things that are basically impossible. 

Better infrastructure would certainly help. But that costs money and a LOT of it.  The primarily democratic areas already provide most of the tax revenue. At some point, the well runs dry.  Ideally, more of the money going to welfare, food stamps etc. would be redistributed to education and infrastructure improvements that would provide long term developmental benefits for these areas. But that's a BIG ship to turn.

So yeah, I dont have an answer. I sympathize with these folks on the economic side of things and can understand (although not necessarily agree with) their stance on some social issues (like abortion).

If preserving their way of life means small town living, a decent paying job and Sunday church....great. Do what makes you happy. Doesn't really affect me. But when those same folks are against gay marriage because "the bible says" or argue that they need an AR 15 for "hunting" or "home security".....its just really hard to take them seriously.

And of course the "why the hell Donald Trump???" question will always stick in my head. I get that he promised the world. But he's the literal embodiment of the godless heathen city dweller that the article claims all these folks despise. He doesn't care about them and I'll never understand how he tricked so many people into thinking that he did.

Click to expand...

That's the question I've asked since the beginning.  

Rich Conway said:

I'm with timschochet on this one.  Most of the disagreement these days appears to me to be disagreement on factual things, not ideas and policies.

Click to expand...

As an example here, right now, the lead headline on foxnews.com reads:

Biden's first priority? Require face coverings when Americans step outside their front door

I'm sorry, but that's just not true.  Literally baseless, and something that is made up out of whole cloth.  We can't even have what should be a reasoned discussion on when masks are appropriate and when they aren't because we first have to disabuse Fox News readers of the premise that Biden intends to institute a nationwide policy requiring masks 24x7 when you're not inside your own house.

Alex P Keaton said:

I actually think this is part of the root issue.  We aren’t even hearing each other nowadays — and candidly, part of the challenge is that my family & friends who support Trump are unbelievably inarticulate about their actual views.

COVID is an example.  What people hear from Trump folks is:  “it’s just the flu.”  Or “the media is the virus.”   And then liberals extend that to mean that Trump supporters believe COVID is actually fake.

What I hear from friends on “the other side” is much more nuanced.  I hear people really saying “I get that it’s real, but how long will it take to get a vaccine?  What are we all supposed to do if our jobs can’t be virtual — are we supposed to just become unemployed?   Live off the govt dole?   What happens when everyone is locked down for 3 months and depression, substance abuse, and domestic violence skyrocket?”

THAT would be a discussion and debate worth having.  But.....we don’t spend enough time asking each other enough clarifying questions to ever get to these real discussions.  These real issues.

I’m as guilty of it as anyone.  Some days I try hard, other days, frankly it is exhausting.

Click to expand...

Yea. And I think Joe is misunderstanding what Tim and others are saying because he probably doesn't spend a lot of time on social media or watching certain media outlets. 

I have a cousin who apparently has been posting all over facebook since April some pretty outrageous things about COVID. I don't have social media but my sister shows me some of it. My cousin thinks that COVID and the messaging around it is a leftist experiment to see how they can use mind control to keep everyone in their houses so we all become dependent on the government a communist regime can be instated. Funded by George Soros, I'm sure. She links to "articles" on the internet about how the messages asking people to "stay home, stay safe" were leftist mind control tactics. So starting from that point, how do you have a nuanced discussion about the best way to handle the pandemic?

And what has happened in more recent times..... these types of ideas are not fringe beliefs; they are becoming more and more mainstream each day fueled by conservative media, foreign actors, and in a lot of cases the POTUS. Right now we are having discussions where nearly half the country probably believes there is a coup in progress. Where is the jumping off point from there to unification?

And I know someone will bring up the Russia hoax, so I will just comment on it preemptively. The Russia Investigation was a legitimate investigation initiated by the Republican led DOJ. There are dozens of indictments and thousands of pages from both the DOJ and the Sentate Intel committee documenting Russia's actions to interfere with the 2016 election, the Trump campaign welcoming the help, and then efforts by the White House to obstruct the investigation into it. It is not a hoax. It is a real thing that happened. And yes, many on the left were over-confident that it would somehow bring Trump down. But that is very different than rumors that get made up, spread, and propagated on the internet based on evidence from homemade youtube videos. 

I'll just add that all I want right now is for our country to be back to normal and unified. The pandemic should have driven that unification where we are all fighting for a common goal of beating this thing. But it went the opposite way, again because we can't even agree on whether the virus itself is not an overblown hoax. I don't think empathy, or grace, or reaching across the aisle can fix this. 

I said 10 years ago that I thought social media would lead to the end of our civilization as we know it. I hope I'm wrong but things aren't looking good.

Rich Conway said:

As an example here, right now, the lead headline on foxnews.com reads:

Biden's first priority? Require face coverings when Americans step outside their front door

I'm sorry, but that's just not true.  Literally baseless, and something that is made up out of whole cloth.  We can't even have what should be a reasoned discussion on when masks are appropriate and when they aren't because we first have to disabuse Fox News readers of the premise that Biden intends to institute a nationwide policy requiring masks 24x7 when you're not inside your own house.

Click to expand...

That's a great example. And I'm sure I will talk to my mom this week, who ironically was more liberal than I was before she started watching Fox about 12 years ago, and she will repeat this exact thing that you posted with the added commentary about the leftists instituting a communist regime. She will bemoan the "fact" that she can't even sit on her porch anymore without the government trying to interfere. And then I will try to explain to her that it isn't true. And she'll say I'm wrong. And then I'll ask her for some specifics around a video of Biden saying that or it being posted on his website as a policy and she'll just brush all that off because Biden doing that makes sense to her so she believes it because she saw it on the internet. And I can't show her proof that she is wrong, because nearly impossible to "prove" something didn't happen. And then I'll hang up and wonder what the hell is going on and how we are ever going to get to normal. 

And for the record, the family members I am talking about are not country folk. They live in the NY/NJ area. So while Joe's original cracked article is fantastic and I found it insightful when I first read it a couple of years ago, there's a lot more going on with our nation's divide than just city and country dwellers not understanding each other.

TLEF316 said:

And of course the "why the hell Donald Trump???" question will always stick in my head. I get that he promised the world. But he's the literal embodiment of the godless heathen city dweller that the article claims all these folks despise. He doesn't care about them and I'll never understand how he tricked so many people into thinking that he did.

Click to expand...

I’ve wondered this as well and think this 8 minute podcast by Sam Harris last week had some insight. I thought it was worth a listen and would be interested in others opinions.

https://samharris.org/podcasts/224-key-trumps-appeal/

gianmarco said:

Agreed.

Which is why facts matter.

A lot of discussion about that today. It's hard to come together when we don't deal with truth. The erosion of truth these last 4 years is the biggest problem, IMO. And that won't easily be fixed. That horse is out of the barn.

Click to expand...

You mean your version of the truth? Always kills me when people are so uppity about their opinions and tell anyone who disagrees with them that they aren't dealing with the truth. 

Example is climate change. For every scientist one side presents as "truth" the other side can produce a scientist to invalidate that opinion. Problem is people decide their scientist is telling the truth while the other guy is a wacko. No grey area at all. No one will listen to anyone with another opinion because they know the "Truth".

That's the whole problem with society today.

TLEF316 said:

I can certainly read the article from the OP and appreciate the message behind it.  I have no idea what its like to grow up in a rural area. I can certainly see how those folks would feel hopeless and cling to anything or anyone who will "promise" things will get better.

If the overarching goal is well paying jobs that provide economic stability and the necessary resources to improve their communities and preserve the positives aspects of their culture (such as religion, if that's your thing).....I think anyone can get behind that.  But blue collar manufacturing simply isn't coming back at the scale needed to make that happen. We're not going to close the wage gap with less developed countries and we're less than a generation from robots/AI doing pretty much everything anyway.

So yeah.....I dont know how anyone can "heal" the divide between the rural areas and suburbs/cities without promising things that are basically impossible. 

Better infrastructure would certainly help. But that costs money and a LOT of it.  The primarily democratic areas already provide most of the tax revenue. At some point, the well runs dry.  Ideally, more of the money going to welfare, food stamps etc. would be redistributed to education and infrastructure improvements that would provide long term developmental benefits for these areas. But that's a BIG ship to turn.

So yeah, I dont have an answer. I sympathize with these folks on the economic side of things and can understand (although not necessarily agree with) their stance on some social issues (like abortion).

If preserving their way of life means small town living, a decent paying job and Sunday church....great. Do what makes you happy. Doesn't really affect me. But when those same folks are against gay marriage because "the bible says" or argue that they need an AR 15 for "hunting" or "home security".....its just really hard to take them seriously.

And of course the "why the hell Donald Trump???" question will always stick in my head. I get that he promised the world. But he's the literal embodiment of the godless heathen city dweller that the article claims all these folks despise. He doesn't care about them and I'll never understand how he tricked so many people into thinking that he did.

Click to expand...

I live in this area.

In my opinion, it's less about keeping things exactly as they are as it is regaining respect and stopping the flood of insults.

Flyover country, hicks, hillbillies, rednecks, morons, white trash, backwoods, racist, bigots, ignorant, out of touch, out of date, old fashioned, etc.

All said with disdain and an air of superiority over and over and over in the media, on mainstream TV, by sports figures and actors/actresses.  They feel "dissed" by the country many of them and their families fought in wars for and pay a lot of taxes for.

Trump was the winner due to the anger of hard working people who are sick of being insulted.  Sure there were some actual racists and bigots and some people who were buying some false problems to bring back jobs, but the biggest group were successful people who were just happy to have someone who wasn't insulting them.

Mr.Pack said:

You mean your version of the truth? Always kills me when people are so uppity about their opinions and tell anyone who disagrees with them that they aren't dealing with the truth. 

Example is climate change. For every scientist one side presents as "truth" the other side can produce a scientist to invalidate that opinion. Problem is people decide their scientist is telling the truth while the other guy is a wacko. No grey area at all. No one will listen to anyone with another opinion because they know the "Truth".

That's the whole problem with society today.

Click to expand...

Yep.  This is a great example.  You used the word “opinion” 3 times.  Does it frustrate you if people don’t agree with your opinion?   Or is it your fact-based perspective that you want them to agree with?

Cuz when it comes to serious issues like climate change, I’m interested in facts.  Or perspectives shaped by facts.  I’m not interested in my Uncle George’s uninformed opinion on the topic of climate change — because I may as well flip a coin or roll dice to arrive at an answer.

Opinions are fun if we are talking about something like, oh, the best movies of the 70s.  Or a favorite type of donut.  Those issues lend themselves better to opinion than fact.  

Climate change?  Not so much.  Economic recovery?  Ditto.  How to combat a global pandemic?  Check.

Mr.Pack said:

You mean your version of the truth? Always kills me when people are so uppity about their opinions and tell anyone who disagrees with them that they aren't dealing with the truth. 

Example is climate change. For every scientist one side presents as "truth" the other side can produce a scientist to invalidate that opinion. Problem is people decide their scientist is telling the truth while the other guy is a wacko. No grey area at all. No one will listen to anyone with another opinion because they know the "Truth".

That's the whole problem with society today.

Click to expand...

Except sometimes there are objective truths.  For example, Donald Trump's inauguration did not have the largest crowd ever; we know this objectively.

Rich Conway said:

Except sometimes there are objective truths.  For example, Donald Trump's inauguration did not have the largest crowd ever; we know this objectively.

Click to expand...

Exactly...there aren’t two sides to that...there aren’t two different truths.

Jayrod said:

I live in this area.

In my opinion, it's less about keeping things exactly as they are as it is regaining respect and stopping the flood of insults.

Flyover country, hicks, hillbillies, rednecks, morons, white trash, backwoods, racist, bigots, ignorant, out of touch, out of date, old fashioned, etc.

All said with disdain and an air of superiority over and over and over in the media, on mainstream TV, by sports figures and actors/actresses.  They feel "dissed" by the country many of them and their families fought in wars for and pay a lot of taxes for.

Trump was the winner due to the anger of hard working people who are sick of being insulted.  Sure there were some actual racists and bigots and some people who were buying some false problems to bring back jobs, but the biggest group were successful people who were just happy to have someone who wasn't insulting them.

Click to expand...

Do you think they, maybe not on the "celebrity" level......but both IRL and on the line on the individual level, throw out the insults and generalizations as much as they get them? I'm an avid consumer of   Conservative political media.....and I know there's a pretty prevalent stereotyping and generalizing of "AVERAGE COASTAL LIBERAL"; that, while includes "blouses on men" jokes.....also accuses urbanites as actively seeking to destroy the country; to the point that I get much more of "these people are the enemy" vibe from an increasing portion of the Right.