Solutions Oriented Approach to Restoring Meaningful Civil Discourse

IT WONT WORK!....we live in a world where our White House uses alternative fact! NOT POSSIBLE

 

What won't work?

 

I applaud the sentiment but unfortunately these forums are not conducive to civil discourse for any number of reasons, anonymity being primary among them.

 

I find this relative to the OP.

 

Such a subforum would probably not reach critical mass to be sustainable.

Unfortunately, most posters are rather interested in making the point that their side is good and the other side is bad, no matter the facts.

That's where the uncivil debate is coming from. If you feel deeply that the other side is morally deficient, there can be no consensus. In addition, posters are mostly just lumped in with "their side". It doesn't matter if I have nuanced views of, let's say, abortion or the federal deficit, posters have adopted the view that I am a raging leftist, if not outright communist, so every reply to my posts is based on that premise, and not the post itself.

I am guilty of that behavior too, and have lumped others into "their side".

 

You know, I don’t think so. We have become so divided that it is hard to get back. The extremes are so great. A wonderful example is my dentist. I would go to him and we would banter about Obama. He was a Republican and we would laugh about our differences . Last time I went to him I asked him what he thought about trump....he got defensive as hell and said “ he is my president” and in a hostile way. We cannot banter anymore

 

I don't agree with that. I am conservative about some things, moderate on others, and independent. I can think of 2 progressive liberals off the top of my head with whom I've had really good discussions, and I continue to. Staying on topic and being respectful are choices we can make in spite of our anonymity, and I would like to think - in fact I know - that discussions like that are interesting and stimulating to some members here. I think if the sub-forum was tightly moderated, the right people would gravitate to it and enjoy it.

If only a dozen members participated, I think it would be interesting. It could be set up so non-participants could look, but not comment until or unless they were given that privilege. That way, they could see what they were missing and decide if it was for them or not. If they liked what they saw, they could request access from the moderator and be given a shot.

Which I find boring. Look ... On any given topic, you and I and most everyone here could recite verbatim the talking points of both sides. B-O-R-I-N-G! Finding solutions and points of agreement - Challenging, difficult, but far more interesting.

I've been lumped in to a particular side by other members as well. But why should we let that stop willing members from trying to get beyond that? I think it would be nice to have a place to go on the forum where the conversation is on a higher level than the usual mish-mash of the regular forum with its graffiti, derailments, snide remarks, snarky passive-aggressive behavior, and boring, predictable, partisan talking points.

Seth

 

No..they’re not being taught all that you fear. I love it when people who have no idea about curriculums tell us what the curriculums are. How are the attempting to supplant parental authority? I think the problem is teachers are educated therefore they must be liberal in your world and of course “elite”

 

Yes but anonymity also has the advantage of allowing people to express themselves in ways they might not otherwise. It does have pros and cons though I agree.

 

Yeah, Al Gore did it.

 

Only cowards who are unwilling to stand behind what they say.

 

Obviously.

As you can tell by all of the 3 seconds that it took for the RW Usual Suspects to enter the thread and start shading The "Left".

 

If you knew what my job was at this point in my life you would realize I'm quite familiar.

Going to college doesn't necessarily make you educated, at least not in anything that is important.

For example, many colleges are now dropping math and economics requirements. That is not an education.

https://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/25/us/education-the-mainstreaming-of-marxism-in-us-colleges.html

https://www.forbes.com/sites/george...osion-of-the-college-curriculum/#4cd56a45ebb7

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b23a/6f6b18ed27a7ccb0d44659fa27f44e9c7549.pdf

 

How does one stand behind what they say on the internet.

How hard is it to present what looks real, but isn't, in a Facebook profile, for example.

Just because there is an appearance of non-anonymity doesn't not mean it's not anonymous.

It also allows us to remove all visual bias, and examine someone's ideas purely on the basis of those ideas.

 

One says what he says on the internet, everywhere, as opposed to hiding behind expressing themselves in ways they might not otherwise on the internet.

I don't do Facebook and would never pay attention to what anyone slaps up there.

Word, man your deep. Wtf are you going on about now?

Well I can see how you might benefit from that bit, yeah, you always have time for that post the first couple of phrases.

 

The confederacy lost the first CIVIL War, and they will go down to perdition again. When you follow the devil, you get the horns.

 

I have to agree that the first problem here is that you wrote a book, and nobody here is going to read it. I often write long posts, but nothing like this- it's too much for most people to take interest in.

However I will add one comment in an effort to shed some light on your concerns.

There are many factors involved- but they have less to do with the individual issues you have mentioned that with some fundamental ones.
A society works best when people recognize their common ground, their fundamental values. In the last few generations, some of those things have shifted.

We have a split in ideological values, and that can make rational discussion impossible. This has come about, possibly as a consequence of the breakdown of principles in raising children. The old school required discipline, respect for elders and obedience from kids. While the kids didn't understand until later, they grew up realizing this was preparing them for adult life, helping them gain the ability to manage life on their own. Starting around the hippie times, this began to change. After the war and in a time of good economics, parents who had grown up through the depression and WWII wanted their children to have so much more than they had known, and part of that was to give them more- more things, more freedom, all kinds of thing. A lot of those kids grew up without understanding the value of being self sufficient, without understanding the concept of self-respect, of paying your own way, and most importantly of being responsible for yourself- all that you say, do, think or feel. It became popular to blame things on external sources. Thus- society is to blame, those who have more than I must have cheated, and in general- the world owes me. This is an attitude that can be rationalized, but it is one that steals an individuals power to control their own life. It is dependency- blaming others for your financial state, for your career limits, for your personal frustrations.... and feeling that the only way to change that is to force those who control you to do it... Because you have no power to. Now those first generations have become three generations, and those raised with excuses rather than constructive discipline raised kids the same way, because you can't give what you don't have- and they didn't. Think of the boom in child psychology and diagnoses of things always seen as bad conduct, becoming issue to be treated with drugs. We quit spanking brats, and gave the Ritalyn. We quit requiring kids to pay attention, and decided they had an attention deficit "disorder". We gave them excuses for all the childish conduct that had been being corrected with family structure and discipline for centuries. Those kids have now grown up, with that kind of mental attitude intact.

The truth is that the individual is the only one who has the power to control their own life. If they chose not to accept that and use it correctly, they will be controlled by outside forces. Not as a result of a plot or anyone's desire to control them, but more like being on the wrong bus and winding up in places you don't want to be- but blaming the bus, instead of yourself. Expecting the world to accommodate you, instead of learning how to navigate the world you live in. The result is that it is always about somebody else. Controlling what they do, getting their wealth, forcing them to adjust their world so your world will become suitable to you. It's about changing the scale, lowering the bar if you will- so where they are is good enough. After all, it's not their fault, and the world owes them. Beneath every argument, that point will be consistent.

We have a large number of people who are not mature intellectually in this way, who expect the challenges of life to step out of their way rather than them learning how to cope with the challenges. It's virtually a subconscious concept that controls the logic of the conscious- and the person believes they are absolutely right. That makes it very, very hard to reason with, and limits their ability to even consider other viewpoints. All of us tend to be our own worst enemies, but it's far worse for such people, they are the only ones who hold the key to the self-imposed prison they think they are in.

I don't know if there is a solution here. I do know that accommodating the immature position is the worst thing we can do, that only serves to re-enforce the belief in it.
As you can tell by the forum posts, there is a fundamental gap in the logic between these positions. While you see some agreement on points from the conservative side- you almost never see one from the liberal side. Don't expect that to change anytime soon. Do expect it to pose risk and danger to the nation's stability

 

The overton window has shifted too far for meaningful discourse. Collectivism and Individualism are on a collision course of 'unstoppable force vs immovable object' proportions.

The ideological foundations of each are irreconcilably opposed.

Its down to a race between colonizing space and realizing true Artificial Intelligence.

Space is a limitless source of resources and room for these opposing, mutually exclusive ideologies to coexist within the same reality, room enough for the individuals and the collective to both exist without necessitating tolerance of eachother.

The relentless logic of the collective that AI will almost assuredly demand can never tolerate the wastefulness of an individual existing in a condition of limited resources.

As it seems that the focus of the scientific and industrial elite is most heavily centered on AI and collectivization, I think its clear that all individuals will find themselves in a defensive war for their very existance before escape into the vast universe is feasible.

 

Its not even that so much as it is about introversion.

Introverts are more expressive in this format. Not because they are scared, but because they are introverted.

My comment about facebook is not about facebook. It's about the fact that you can present yourself in a false way which looks like it's not anonymous, but really is.

 

Presenting yourself in a false way which looks like it's not anonymous, but really is, is still anonymous.

 

Exactly. That doesn't mean you'll realize that though.

 

It's getting to the point that you can't trust the fact checkers who are checking the fact checkers.

Say that 10 times real fast for bonus points.