Republican National Convention

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gugi

I think most people have the capacity to be generous, respectful, and understanding towards those they may disagree with and also have the capacity to be inconsiderate, divisive, and abusive.
It is a matter of choice whether one follows their baser impulses and builds their camp to war against the others or whether they follow their 'better angels'. This thread (and others) has plenty of examples of either approach.

---

It seems to me that you are far too optimistic Gugi - in my experierience people gravitate towards their basic instincts - or baser impulses as you call them. I think this thread proves that regardless of the strength of your argument, you are unlikely to change an entrenched opinion. It's almost as if people have an inborne impulse to react one way or another - another version of nature versus nurture if you like. I have no idea as to the conditions that caused you to think one way and (for example) FAL to think the opposite - but what I do know is that there is zero chance of you ever changing each other's opinion, no matter what arguments you put forward.

Personally, I cannot remember a single occasion that someone has changed my mind or, vice versa during a debate, argument, fisticuffs etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScoutHikerDad

Thanks Gugi for the Lincoln reference-"The better angels of our nature." I enjoy all kinds of quotes from literature and history, have them all over the walls in my classroom for kids to think about (when they're not playing on their phones under their desks, that is!).

---

Yeah, America's favorite president and here's another rather telling response from him to the objection of calling the Southerners 'fellow human beings who were in error' and that he should see them 'as enemies who must be destroyed'

"Why, madam, do I not destroy my enemies when I make them my friends?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UKRob

It seems to me that you are far too optimistic Gugi - in my experierience people gravitate towards their basic instincts - or baser impulses as you call them. I think this thread proves that regardless of the strength of your argument, you are unlikely to change an entrenched opinion. It's almost as if people have an inborne impulse to react one way or another - another version of nature versus nurture if you like.

---

I don't care at all about people changing others' political opinions. The primary thing I hope to get out of these threads is for people to realize that even if they have different political views they can still share the same fundamental values and suffer from same weaknesses. And that ultimately it is better to act as a decent human being than the opposite.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenngun

Thanks Gugi for attempting to address my original question. I guess it's just too difficult for everyone to stay away from picking sides. I really was serious about this question. It actually has a lot to do with Gssixgun letter below. Why do we keep supporting groups who have shown to continuously lie to us over significant time without penalty?






Gssixgun, Although you may not believe me I actually agree with the majority of your comments in this letter. The only question I have for you is would you vote for him if was running as an Democrat? Or a Libertarian? Or any other party affiliation? And what about the congressional members etc......

Before you answer let me ask another question. How can any of us expect to see real change. I mean the kind of change your outlining in your letter. If the people we put in charge to make these changes are part of an historical hypocrisy of organized control then can it really happen. I think not. Regardless of how much one would claim to be unaffected by the tentacles, when you lay with dogs you wake up with fleas.

3 thoughts: Strict 1 term limit for all politicians, abolish the party system and remove the money. Each politician would have the freedom to represent the opinions and values of their constituents and then spend 100% of their time in office working on what would benefit the country.

Now that's a system I could get behind but do "we the people" have the balls to make it happen"?

---

if you give a politician 4 years to do something, the first year will be spent undoing whatever the last one did, 2 years putting plans into place and 1 year getting it started, just in time for the next round..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by edhewitt

if you give a politician 4 years to do something, the first year will be spent undoing whatever the last one did, 2 years putting plans into place and 1 year getting it started, just in time for the next round..

---

Politicians; the only profession that spends more time keeping/getting their job than doing it

Honestly I blame it all on our electronic world and the Internet and Social Media. For all the good it does it does equally bad things too.

Back in the day folks got their news from Newspapers and News Departments on TV were a public service and money loser but they gave pretty fact based reporting. Sure you could find right and left wing media but you had to really look for it and there were always folks fanning the flames but most were looked upon as crazies.

You could discuss politics and folks did change their minds.

Now with 24 hour stations with a profit motive and a "news cycle" and highly partisan media folks get suckered in like getting caught in a maze and you can't find your way out. Folks can tweet their opinions and start rumors and make up lies and millions instantly read it and become brainwashed. It all feeds upon itself and gets worse.

People have lost the ability for critical thinking and are allowing others to do their thinking for them and that never turns out good.

From an Anthropological viewpoint humans evolved in small family related groups and it's hardwired into us to view with suspicion anyone outside that group and the more outside they are the more we dislike them. It's only society and laws and social customs that have allow the populace of this world to exist together without killing each other and it has been tenuous at best. Human society is and has always been on the brink.

The current political climate just feeds off this hard wiring and makes it easier to brand this person or that person.

The solution? Maybe a few hundred thousand years of evolution if we survive that long. Maybe natural selection will take the mean out.

My buddy Mr L. (the guy on my avatar) tells me he's been on extended vacation for years now. He doesn't have to do anything cause we're doing a better job on our own than he ever could.

The democratization of media isn't the problem, it's just something that empowers people. What they do with that power is a reflection on the personal choices they make, nothing more and nothing less.

May be in some idyllic version of America the media was a public service committed to decency and profits were secondary, but that's not the real history.

The raise of newspapers actually corresponded with political campaigns just as vile as some corners of present-day twitter. One doesn't even need to go to the library to see that - a lot of this is digitized and accessible almost instantaneously from the comfort of our couches.

This country, just like any other has come from far far worse place and it most certainly has the capacity to get to a much better place.
Critical thinking will tell one if that happened through "crushing your enemies, seeing them driven before you, and hearing the lamentations of their women" or it was some other way.

A Conan quote in this thread...that is awesome! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gugi

The democratization of media isn't the problem, it's just something that empowers people. What they do with that power is a reflection on the personal choices they make, nothing more and nothing less.

May be in some idyllic version of America the media was a public service committed to decency and profits were secondary, but that's not the real history.

The raise of newspapers actually corresponded with political campaigns just as vile as some corners of present-day twitter. One doesn't even need to go to the library to see that - a lot of this is digitized and accessible almost instantaneously from the comfort of our couches.

This country, just like any other has come from far far worse place and it most certainly has the capacity to get to a much better place.
Critical thinking will tell one if that happened through "crushing your enemies, seeing them driven before you, and hearing the lamentations of their women" or it was some other way.

---

During the 1950s and 60s and probably the 70s news shows on TV were not profit driven and that is a fact not fantasy.

I grew up in NYC and we had...well The NY Times, The Herald Tribune, The World Telegraph and Son, The Daily Mirror, The Post, The Daily News and then there were more local papers like the Brooklyn Eagle and the Long island press. There were many more but that's what I can remember. Most are all gone.

Most had very well balanced reporting even if the editorial page leaned one way or the other.

Of course you can find examples of "the yellow press" but I'm talking about how the average joe got his daily news back then and it's a far cry from the situation today.

If you traveled within the N.Y Transit System during rush hour just about everyone was reading a newspaper. That is not the case these days.

I say this not from a research and theoretic view point but from living through it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

During the 1950s and 60s and probably the 70s news shows on TV were not profit driven and that is a fact not fantasy.

---

In 2016 there are hundreds and probably even thousands times more non-profit shows than there were in the 1950s, 1960s, and the 1970s.

Lack of freedom and access to diverse viewpoints is one thing, lack of intellectual curiosity is completely different.

Arguing that one is better for the society than the other is, how shall I put it, perhaps 'shoveling the ocean'?

I'm also not quite sure why reading yesterday's news in this morning's newspaper on one's commute is supposed to be better than getting the up-to-the-minute news on one's phone, or reading a magazine, a book, listening to music, playing a game, or any other way that one sees on the NY transit these days.