1st, Steve, Chris, it was refreshing to read your well-spoken exchange this morning. It made me wonder if even though you superficially belong to tribes where many are at war with each other you agree on the idea that those wars are poison for the brain and that there is no rise to hostility in the subject of your differences of opinion.…
1st, Steve, Chris, it was refreshing to read your well-spoken exchange this morning. It made me wonder if even though you superficially belong to tribes where many are at war with each other you agree on the idea that those wars are poison for the brain and that there is no rise to hostility in the subject of your differences of opinion.
There lays the problem. The vast majority of what we see is not an effort at positively influencing the thoughts of the opposition, but rather to collect praise from the likeminded. People who with no apparent sense of irony display what they claim to oppose in their own behavior.
They are dangerous. I often express my thoughts on the demonization/dehumanization process used to condition otherwise peaceful to go to war and kill. One of my positive traits, if I do say so myself, is to try to understand why people hold the views that they hold. I might not convince me to change my view, but it does make me less likely to dehumanize them. That's important, at least in my thinking.
I've mentioned my MAGA buddy in the past. He dismisses everything he disagrees with as coming from Soros funded communists (Democrats/liberals) and RINOs. I don't actually have much hope in being able to convince him that Trump is a RINO who has created a cult around himself distributing toxic cool-aid for the mind. How do I express that thought to him without it being perceived as insult? Most non-MAGAs purposefully insult and demonize him. They harden his views without hope of changing them.
I don't mention him to demonize him. We have a near 30-year friendship founded in things other than politics. He is an intelligent man with double master's degrees caught up in a cult. I do understand where some of his views come from and actually don't disagree with him on all of them. I see those traits in people with opposing views. It is all too easy to switch our thoughts from ideas to people because it is so easy to demonize and dehumanize people. To see their membership in a group as the uniform of an enemy in a war.
A worthwhile quote for a pop-up on our computers when we go to social media; "𝓐𝓵𝓵 𝓱𝓸𝓹𝓮 𝓪𝓫𝓪𝓷𝓭𝓸𝓷 𝔂𝓮 𝔀𝓱𝓸 𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓮𝓻 𝓱𝓮𝓻𝓮."
[edit] I intended to mention that the pop-up would be to inspire us to seek to behave in ways to bring hope.
"There lays the problem. The vast majority of what we see is not an effort at positively influencing the thoughts of the opposition, but rather to collect praise from the likeminded. People who with no apparent sense of irony display what they claim to oppose in their own behavior."
Bullseye. And worse, the best way to earn praise from the likeminded is to shield them from the truth. Even if that means outright lying.
I remember when KellyAnne Conway first uttered the phrase "alternative facts" and everybody, most definitely including myself, laughed at how ridiculous it was. Today, it feels as if the idea that facts are optional if they conflict with your paint of view is just standard fare.
1st, Steve, Chris, it was refreshing to read your well-spoken exchange this morning. It made me wonder if even though you superficially belong to tribes where many are at war with each other you agree on the idea that those wars are poison for the brain and that there is no rise to hostility in the subject of your differences of opinion.
"𝘪𝘵'𝘴 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘩 𝘢𝘴𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘺𝘰𝘶'𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘭𝘶𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮 𝘵𝘰𝘸𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘴 𝘰𝘳 𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘱𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘷𝘪𝘦𝘸"
There lays the problem. The vast majority of what we see is not an effort at positively influencing the thoughts of the opposition, but rather to collect praise from the likeminded. People who with no apparent sense of irony display what they claim to oppose in their own behavior.
They are dangerous. I often express my thoughts on the demonization/dehumanization process used to condition otherwise peaceful to go to war and kill. One of my positive traits, if I do say so myself, is to try to understand why people hold the views that they hold. I might not convince me to change my view, but it does make me less likely to dehumanize them. That's important, at least in my thinking.
I've mentioned my MAGA buddy in the past. He dismisses everything he disagrees with as coming from Soros funded communists (Democrats/liberals) and RINOs. I don't actually have much hope in being able to convince him that Trump is a RINO who has created a cult around himself distributing toxic cool-aid for the mind. How do I express that thought to him without it being perceived as insult? Most non-MAGAs purposefully insult and demonize him. They harden his views without hope of changing them.
I don't mention him to demonize him. We have a near 30-year friendship founded in things other than politics. He is an intelligent man with double master's degrees caught up in a cult. I do understand where some of his views come from and actually don't disagree with him on all of them. I see those traits in people with opposing views. It is all too easy to switch our thoughts from ideas to people because it is so easy to demonize and dehumanize people. To see their membership in a group as the uniform of an enemy in a war.
A worthwhile quote for a pop-up on our computers when we go to social media; "𝓐𝓵𝓵 𝓱𝓸𝓹𝓮 𝓪𝓫𝓪𝓷𝓭𝓸𝓷 𝔂𝓮 𝔀𝓱𝓸 𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓮𝓻 𝓱𝓮𝓻𝓮."
[edit] I intended to mention that the pop-up would be to inspire us to seek to behave in ways to bring hope.
"There lays the problem. The vast majority of what we see is not an effort at positively influencing the thoughts of the opposition, but rather to collect praise from the likeminded. People who with no apparent sense of irony display what they claim to oppose in their own behavior."
Bullseye. And worse, the best way to earn praise from the likeminded is to shield them from the truth. Even if that means outright lying.
I remember when KellyAnne Conway first uttered the phrase "alternative facts" and everybody, most definitely including myself, laughed at how ridiculous it was. Today, it feels as if the idea that facts are optional if they conflict with your paint of view is just standard fare.
"what we see is not an effort at positively influencing the thoughts of the opposition, but rather to collect praise from the likeminded."
Likes and follows.
You rang the bell.