Tips on how to help Democrats and Republicans have a better relationship

This morning I was researching the topic of what is a family. My research into the topic did not have to do with politics but after reading the article, I realized that it could apply to our political problems, so that our current political situation in the United States could get better, if these tips are followed. After all, we are supposed to be a family, aren't we? United being the key word.

Anyhow here it is for whatever it is worth

10 Tips for Healthy Relationships

1. Keep expectations realistic. No one can be everything we might want them to be. Healthy relationships mean accepting people as they are and not trying to change them.

2. Talk with each other. It can't be said enough: communication is essential to healthy relationships.

• 
  
  • Take the time. Really be there.
  • Genuinely listen. Do not interrupt or plan what you’re going to say next. Try to fully understand their perspective.
  • Ask questions. Show you are interested. Ask about their experiences, feelings, opinions, and interests.
  • Share information. Studies show that sharing information helps relationships begin. Let people know who you are, but don’t overwhelm with too much personal information too soon.

3. Be flexible. It is natural to feel uneasy about changes. Healthy relationships allow for change and growth.

4. Take care of yourself, too. Healthy relationships are mutual, with room for both people’s needs.

5. Be dependable. If you make plans with someone, follow through. If you take on a responsibility, complete it. Healthy relationships are trustworthy.

6. Fight fair. Most relationships have some conflict. It only means you disagree about something; it does not have to mean you don't like each other.

• 
  
  • Cool down before talking. The conversation will be more productive if you have it when your emotions have cooled off a little, so you don’t say something you may regret later.
  • Use “I statements.” Share how you feel and what you want without assigning blame or motives. E.g. “When you don’t call me, I start to feel like you don’t care about me” vs. “You never call me when you’re away. I guess I’m the only one who cares about this relationship.”
  • Keep your language clear and specific. Try to factually describe behavior that you are upset with, avoiding criticism and judgment. Attack the problem, not the person.
  • Focus on the current issue. The conversation is likely to get bogged down if you pile on everything that bothers you. Avoid using “always” and “never” language and address one issue at a time.
  • Take responsibility for mistakes. Apologize if you have done something wrong; it goes a long way toward setting things right again.
  • Recognize some problems are not easily solved. Not all differences or difficulties can be resolved. You are different people, and your values, beliefs, habits, and personality may not always be in alignment. Communication goes a long way toward helping you understand each other and address concerns, but some things are deeply rooted and may not change significantly. It is important to figure out for yourself what you can accept, or when a relationship is no longer healthy for you.

7. Be affirming. According to relationship researcher John Gottman, happy couples have a ratio of 5 positive interactions or feelings for every 1 negative interaction or feeling. Express warmth and affection!

 

At this point, I'm convinced that there is only ONE way to help Democrats and Republicans have a better relationship: persuade everybody to base everything they say on research and facts.

Democrats and Republicans live in different realities. But there is only ONE reality. The ONLY way to determine which one that is, would be to research and accept facts as they are first. Then we can express different opinions. But, at that point, all opinions would be based on the same facts. The problem is when one side jumps straight to the opinions without even bothering to look up the facts first.

 

Right now I am engaged in a argument about diversity. The fact of the matter is that diversity reduces social cohesion.

My conclusion is that diversity ought to be minimized to encourage a healthy society.

 

Well, you're wrong. It increases social cohesion by increasing both the gene and the meme pools. Both indispensable for the existence and advancement of society. What reduces social cohesion is intolerance. And intolerance is produced ONLY by those who seek to reduce diversity. Intolerance is a mental condition. Therefore, intolerant people will ALWAYS find something to be intolerant about.

But that's a different topic. Let's not derail this one.

 

No, I am right.

But a massive new study, based on detailed interviews of nearly 30,000 people across America, has concluded just the opposite. Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam—famous for “Bowling Alone,” his 2000 book on declining civic engagement—has found that the greater the diversity in a community, the fewer people vote and the less they volunteer, the less they give to charity and work on community projects. In the most diverse communities, neighbors trust one another about half as much as they do in the most homogenous settings. The study, the largest ever on civic engagement in America, found that virtually all measures of civic health are lower in more diverse settings.

https://wcfia.harvard.edu/publications/downside-diversity

I am demonstrating how you refuse to acknowledge the facts and hence your solution is one you refuse to follow.


And what I am talking about is directly related to the subject. The pathology in our society is directly caused by diversity and those who advocate for it.

 

1. Everything you believe to be true may be false.
2. Santa Clause isn't/wasn't real.

 

I made my point simply and clearly. And you're not addressing it. If you want to increase civic health, don't remove diversity (which is impossible to do anyway)... remove intolerance (which is difficult but doable)

To even attempt to remove diversity you would need to increase intolerance. And then, what are you going to do? Submit gay people to "conversion therapy"? Ethnic cleansing? Hitler tried some of the things... and failed. Better to educate the little "Hitlers" that exist in society than to pick and choose an "acceptable" skin color, an "acceptable" religion, an "acceptable" gender identity, an "acceptable" ... height.... Because, if you leave anything out, you can be sure that's what intolerant people will be intolerant of.

 

Segregation, which people are happy to do on their own.

It's multiculturalism that has failed.

 

So you just.... say it... No need to address facts and logic in my post, right?

Obviously you are not here for a serious debate.

 

No...he produced a study to confirm his hypothesis. You produced nothing and stated your opinion as fact. He was proving his point that you are not really serious about basing your opinions on facts, you have your opinions, and then hunt up facts later, or in this case, not even bother and you just declared your opinion as fact; discussion over.

Your original post in this thread...

...wasn't bad as far as it goes. The problem is that you did, only a few posts later, the exact opposite of what you claimed. So you really don't base your opinion on facts. And that's actually OK, but the problem is that you think you do, and that way leads to intolerance.

 

You asked for my solution and I gave it.

That multiculturalism has failed is a widely known fact:

Thirty years ago, many Europeans saw multiculturalism—the embrace of an inclusive, diverse society—as an answer to Europe’s social problems. Today, a growing number consider it to be a cause of them. That perception has led some mainstream politicians, including British Prime Minister David Cameron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, to publicly denounce multiculturalism and speak out against its dangers.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/western-europe/2015-02-18/failure-multiculturalism

 

No he didn't. He produced a study that confirmed MINE. Assuming the conclusion is true (and I don't know either way), it left two choices: either eliminate diversity or eliminate intolerance.

As I said, intolerance is a condition. People who are intolerant WILL find something to be intolerant ABOUT.

To eliminate diversity we choose an acceptable skin color, an acceptable language, religion, sexual preference, height, eye color, culture .... if you leave anything out, whatever you leave out that's what intolerant people will be intolerant about.

So what do you do with people who don't fit the standard? Racial cleansing? Forced relocation? Concentration camps?

Do you have an answer? That poster certainly didn't. I doubt very much YOU will do any better.

We have come a long way in ridding the world of intolerance. At least to make it unacceptable. The acceptance of gay people from when I was in school to what it is now is abysmal. Bullying in schools has not been completely eliminated, but it's very rare. You go to a school here in the deep south, and you'll see many more groups of blacks, Hispanics an white people hanging out together.

We're not even half way there yet. And the fact that there are some promoting intolerance even in this forum, is clear indication that we have a loooong way to go. But comparing the cultural and ethnic environment when I was young to now....leaves no doubt that it's doable. You see... this is not a matter of throwing in a study that might or might not be sound. You need to have a point. And the point here is what to do about it. There is waaaay more diversity now than there was back when I was young. More Hispanics, Asians, .... And the younger generations get along much better than we did at that age.

Which leads me to think that MORE diversity and less intolerance is the way to go.

I expect your answer to the question above. Because if you can't answer, then we will have established that eliminating diversity is NOT an option.

 

You presented a problem. You didn't give ANY solution. You didn't even try. I do hope @Lil Mike does have serious arguments. Because clearly you don't.

 

This is an interesting point; problem is determining what comprises facts? Key to that is deciding what comprises a reliable source? Most of here on the forum has a portfolio of sources they rely on. We see battles of dueling sources daily here on the Forum.
I've curated a list of sources over a long period of time and add or subtract from it continually.

 

I would quantify this point a bit; IMHO FORCED diversity, e.g. that done by formulas or ratios is toxic. At the same time EARNED diversity - a person having the desired skills, training, and experience should be a viable choice regardless of external characteristics.

 

There is waaay more diversity now.

And waaaay less social cohesion. It has been measured. It is a fact. Diversity leads to less social cohesion. You simply refuse to accept that fact because of your ideology. You can't negate that fact with anecdotal observations.

I would be delighted if Progressives accepted facts. They do not. For Progressives, ideology trumps facts.

Decrease diversity.
Shutdown illegal immigration.
Stop trying to integrate schools and communities.

 

It's easy: reality comprises facts.

If the source of your facts has been consistently proven right (which doesn't mean they can't make mistakes, but they shouldn't lie), then they are more trustworthy than one that is consistently proven wrong.

But don't believe a source is unreliable just because ANOTHER source tells you it's not. Do YOUR OWN research. And submit examples to the public (ie, this forum) to figure out if the source just.... made a mistake, if they corrected their mistake, how consistently they make these mistakes, how consistently they lie, how consistenly they defend OBVIOUS lies (including making up excuses),....

I've been doing this for years. But it's a long hard process.

Don't do that just because the source agrees with your political positions. In fact, be PARTICULARLY suspect of sources that agree with your political positions UNLESS they have passed the above test.

If your criteria to make it to that list is in ANY way that they agree with you politically, that list is not worth much. I trust the Wall Street Journal way more than I trust the Daily Kos. But mine is not a black vs white list. There are gradients of trust. Even the sources I trust the most have been known to make mistakes.

 

That's comical.
So you are more likely to get phished if you were raised in a non diverse environment huh.
If you are dumb enough to not distrust every stranger equally regardless of the color of their skin, you deserve what you get in my opinion.

 

Decrease diversity? Well lets start with the most dangerous group, Males.
Illegal immigration will always be a thing as long as prohibition remains policy.
And your last request goes against capitalism. Which is blind to social politics, they happen to be integrated because its just the physics of trade.

 

False. The newer generations are just starting to learn about tolerance. And they are giving us old folk a whooping. The future of this country is not in the hands of those who laughed our heads off at gay or black or "dumb broad" jokes. It's in the hands of people who had a black President, a black female vice President, and have seen gay marriage become an every day thing.

But, again, .... you have YET not provided a solution. And I just can't take you seriously until you at least TRY

Read the post you responded to again and answer the question!

This is pathetic. "Decrease diversity" is the question. NOT the answer. Integrating schools has been a HUGE success. Have you even visited your local school? And what does that even accomplish? Are you going to create schools for Hispanics, for Asians, for gay people? And it is not possible to shut down illegal immigration. Which, in any case, is a drop in the bucket. And does not address ethnic diversity.

Again: HOW do you get rid of ALL diversity? What are you going to do with gays, transgenders, ... What do you do with different cultures from the west coast to the east coast that we have now?

And, as I said, diversity means an increase in the gene and the meme pools. If the gene pool becomes less diverse, recessive genetic diseases become more and more frequent. If the meme pool becomes less diverse, innovation becomes more and more scarce. So you may have more people participating in community activities. That doesn't mean society will be more cohesive if it becomes just a stagnant blob of people who have stopped producing new ideas. THAT would lead to way more loss of social cohesion when Mexico invades us because THEY got all the geniuses from other countries.

But I think this explanation may be over your pay grade. Given that you can't answer the question in the post you responded to. So you can just respond with your one-liners and I'll know you're not even paying attention.

 

I don't think it's quite that simple. air it were we'd have a lot less disagreement.

Agree.

That's what I referred to as "curating", if a source I trust lets me down I'll either stop using it or be more discriminating in doing so. However, this forum is for entertaining not academic labors. Examples are sometimes worthwhile, but I look as the Forum as a discussing not a battle of dissertations.

Yeah, a few more years and you'll have it. :rolleyes"

And you follow this? It's not noticeable.

Fine.

 

I don't think 1950s or earlier thinking is the way of the future for America or the world.
It has shrunk immensely with technology, travel, etc.
We are all in this world together and we will all have to figure out how to interact with all different types of people.

No longer is the neighborhood the vast expansion of one's daily life. Ala 1950s and earlier.

 

No it freaking isn't.

What reduces social cohesion is a non-homogeneous culture. Social cohesion is an organic process, which only happens in social mammals when the social mammals themselves are COHESIVE. As in all the same. And being all the same has nothing to do with imutables like appearance. It's 100% behavioural.

This guy is 100% Japanese, for example:



And this guy is Scottish:



And this guy is Jamaican:



Come back with a better argument. Because all the above is the reality you claim to care about.

 

Obviously. That's why there are black Scotsmen.

It's not about race, it's about CULTURE.

 

No. Air it where you have MORE disagreement. But listen to the facts and learn to identify the logical fallacies and ignore them.

Right. But I don't stop using a source. Breitbart is among the most unreliable sources I know. But if even Breitbart admits to some negative news about Trump (for example), you can be sure that is very likely true.

Well.... that's the point. If you are here only for entertainment purposes, and don't care that much about facts, then you're going to get more entertainment than facts. And even though, to me, the BEST entertainment is getting facts right, the majority here are more entertained by confirmation bias.

And this whole thread is meaningless to them. I think it would be great if there were more people here who tried to get fact right, instead of promoting a pre-established partisan agenda that is not based on facts (a pre-established partisan agenda that IS based on fact is fine)

I guess I come from the Academic BBs in the 80s, where it was FACTS that mattered.

I most definitely try very very hard to