Something Very Troubling to Me, and Maybe Many Her. How With This Growing Problem?

[Tacenda]

31 minutes ago, pogi said:

Therefore...?

Most wars are started with that kind of mentality. 

If it's driving you crazy, probably best not to perpetuate it online. 

You would laugh at how many times I c/p'd it and deleted it before finally posting. I guess I should have kept it deleted.

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I have to be honest, I am kind of scratching my head given your last post.  While there are a few "wise" points in your post, it is overall very divisive, toxic, and demeaning towards most republicans who support Trump (oops, I said his name!).  Don't use his name?  Can you get more toxic than that?  If you want to unite the nation - don't post stuff like this.  If you truly believe that politics don't belong on this board - don't post stuff like this.  

 

Um, I think by any reasonable standard, this is something that everyone can appreciate. Even most if not all supporters of the POTUS will admit to some over-sharing on his part and a plethora of innappropriate energy that he conveys, and if you read that post, the entire thrust is about resisting the impulse to become a part of his over-sharing media and not feeding into his cycle of adversarial energy. Sure, this is written to an audience of people who disapprove of Trump and believe there is a cause higher than his agenda, and with one exception, that of not talking to his supporters (I disagree with that) it's actually advice that, if followed by everyone who opposed him, there would be in my opinion significant improvements. Heck, with my one exception, this'd probably be a vast improvement for online treatment of any POTUS. It decentralizes it, makes the political conflict less facile and reductive, and would make us a better electorate in my opinion.

[Calm]

1 minute ago, Meadowchik said:

Um, I think by any reasonable standard, this is something that everyone can appreciate. Even most if not all supporters of the POTUS will admit to some over-sharing on his part and a plethora of innappropriate energy that he conveys, and if you read that post, the entire thrust is about resisting the impulse to become a part of his over-sharing media and not feeding into his cycle of adversarial energy. Sure, this is written to an audience of people who disapprove of Trump and believe there is a cause higher than his agenda, and with one exception, that of not talking to his supporters (I disagree with that) it's actually advice that, if followed by everyone who opposed him, there would be in my opinion significant improvements. Heck, with my one exception, this'd probably be a vast improvement for online treatment of any POTUS. It decentralizes it, makes the political conflict less facile and reductive, and would make us a better electorate in my opinion.

The advice may more universal, the added digs are not.

Quote

they want the country to be angry and fearful because this is the soil from which their darkest policies will grow...

This is assuming and labeling the worse of the 'other'.

[Tacenda]

19 minutes ago, Calm said:

The advice may more universal, the added digs are not.

This is assuming and labeling the worse of the 'other'.

I agree, I didn't like that at all. Just the over all feeling of trying to come across more civil but this statement in particular was just like what the right say against the left.

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I agree, I didn't like that at all. Just the over all feeling of trying to come across more civil but this statement in particular was just like what the right say against the left.

You can always edit out if you like somethings a person says, but not the other...though I would make it clear you are doing that so those who go to the link and read the unedited version understand you disagree with that part and are intentionally not giving it a pulpit.

[Meadowchik]

46 minutes ago, Calm said:

The advice may more universal, the added digs are not.

This is assuming and labeling the worse of the 'other'.

Yes, sorry, (to you and Pogi, too), I overlooked that, but I would also take exception to that part, too, because it generalises especially if one takes the broadest meaning of those who "support him."  But it might be a fair description all of the hyperpartisans of either side, and so if applied to those on the right should also be applied to those on the left as well. We should all take out the othering, rejecting the animus that creates binaries in politics which ultimately end up serving career politicians and corporate agendas the most. Darn it to heck, though, it's hard.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

Um, I think by any reasonable standard, this is something that everyone can appreciate. Even most if not all supporters of the POTUS will admit to some over-sharing on his part and a plethora of innappropriate energy that he conveys, and if you read that post, the entire thrust is about resisting the impulse to become a part of his over-sharing media and not feeding into his cycle of adversarial energy. Sure, this is written to an audience of people who disapprove of Trump and believe there is a cause higher than his agenda, and with one exception, that of not talking to his supporters (I disagree with that) it's actually advice that, if followed by everyone who opposed him, there would be in my opinion significant improvements. Heck, with my one exception, this'd probably be a vast improvement for online treatment of any POTUS. It decentralizes it, makes the political conflict less facile and reductive, and would make us a better electorate in my opinion.

I think you missed my point.  You admit that it was a political post, no?  My confusion was that she agreed this board should not be used for political discussions, right after posting a highly politicized post.  This was an anti-trump, and mostly anti-republican post.  It is highly divisive and toxic in many ways.  You are right that many supporters of the POTUS disagree with his style - yet this post suggest that all supporters of trump are part of the "regime" and are the enemy, should not be engaged in discussion with, and by making "Trump" a by-word that should never be mentioned, it ups the toxicity and disdain towards his supporters 100 fold.  How could anyone support that byword, after all!?  They're all the devil!  They are all the enemy!  

While there were some good points, the overall energy of that post was derogatory, divisive, and ultimately hypocritical.  It is engaging in the same toxic divisiveness and adversarial energy that Trump is, contrary to what they preach. 

Edited February 11, 2020 by pogi

[pogi]

50 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

 but this statement in particular was just like what the right say against the left.

Exactly!  Rep point.

Edited February 11, 2020 by pogi

[Meadowchik]

45 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Yes, sorry, (to you and Pogi, too), I overlooked that, but I would also take exception to that part, too, because it generalises especially if one takes the broadest meaning of those who "support him."  But it might be a fair description all of the hyperpartisans of either side, and so if applied to those on the right should also be applied to those on the left as well. We should all take out the othering, rejecting the animus that creates binaries in politics which ultimately end up serving career politicians and corporate agendas the most. Darn it to heck, though, it's hard.

 

31 minutes ago, pogi said:

I think you missed my point.  You admit that it was a political post, no?  My confusion was that she agreed this board should not be used for political discussions, right after posting a highly politicized post.  This was an anti-trump, and mostly anti-republican post.  It is highly divisive and toxic in many ways.  You are right that many supporters of the POTUS disagree with his style - yet this post suggest that all supporters of trump are part of the "regime" and are the enemy, should not be engaged in discussion with, and by making "Trump" a by-word that should never be mentioned, it ups the toxicity and disdain towards his supporters 100 fold.  How could anyone support that byword, after all!?  They're all the devil!  They are all the enemy!  

While there were some good points, the overall energy of that post was derogatory, divisive, and ultimately hypocritical.  It is engaging in the same toxic divisiveness and adversarial energy that Trump is, contrary to what they preach. 

Ah, okay, about missing your point. I think it could be improved, yes, but that it's still a much better approach (not at all the same as Trumps) than what seems to prevail these days, and with a little tweaking could be really good. 

Can we agree than, partisanship aside, Trump's online persona is really, really, really bad? Politician or not, it's the worst of the worst. Do I have to list all the ways? I think it would be helpful to concede that, to call him out on it, especially for his supporters to do so and not ignore it or try to paint it as beneficial or refreshing in some way. If we call every new low just an equivalence of the previous higher standard, there are no common standards at all.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

21 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

My recommendation would be that you avoid ever commenting on politics, here or anywhere else.  Your central concern should be the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and fulfilling the divine commission to take that Gospel to all people.

Getting enmeshed in political partisanship will not help you in that endeavor.

Good advice, but in part your previous comments in that unfortunate thread, in large part caused me to pose these questions. I found them so unnecessary and unwanted. Thus my question, (too paraphrase) why do we do this to those we call brother and sister? Also, what you implied was not true, which is why the house did not make this one of their “articles of impeachment”. As I do not wish to make this another political post, and never wish to have any more political threads, which is why I ask in this thread; why do we do this?  Also how do we in the future avoid it again? I think, we should respect the opinions of others, and also avoid “boiler plate” comments that are untrue, and designed to harm one another. Which of course means, doing as you say, keeping our comments, or my comments, our “central concern should be the Gospel of Jesus Christ”. Which by the way is very good advice for all of us, so thank you for pointing that out, or should I say, reminding us. 

[pogi]

13 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

 

Ah, okay, about missing your point. I think it could be improved, yes, but that it's still a much better approach (not at all the same as Trumps) than what seems to prevail these days, and with a little tweaking could be really good. 

Can we agree than, partisanship aside, Trump's online persona is really, really, really bad? Politician or not, it's the worst of the worst. Do I have to list all the ways? I think it would be helpful to concede that, to call him out on it, especially for his supporters to do so and not ignore it or try to paint it as beneficial or refreshing in some way. If we call every new low just an equivalence of the previous higher standard, there are no common standards at all.

I am not a Trump supporter, so I think we agree.  I think the problem is in vilifying those who support him by saying we shouldn't use his name, etc. It's just as toxic as anything he does. 

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

20 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

It had bothered me too. But I have an honest question. When the most powerful office in the land uses name-calling and disparaging nicknames as a political tool, how should those who aren't so powerful respond?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nicknames_used_by_Donald_Trump

My feeling is, until the leader of our nation takes a gentler tone with his opponents, and chooses the higher road, this is only going to get worse. So us "triggered" "snowflakes" better buckle up. 

I don’t need a link or a reminder, I am talking about what the members of this website can do. I am asking this because, unless he  (The President) is a recent member here, what President Trump does or says, does not make him a part of this discussion. Unless your argument is, that we can’t control ourselves, because of “his” behavior”. If so, it is a very weak argument or defense to the questions I posed. Nor is it a reason for behaving badly toward one another, it is like saying, “the devil made me do it”. 

[Rajah Manchou]

1 hour ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

I don’t need a link or a reminder, I am talking about what the members of this website can do. I am asking this because, unless he  (The President) is a recent member here, what President Trump does or says, does not make him a part of this discussion. Unless your argument is, that we can’t control ourselves, because of “his” behavior”. If so, it is a very weak argument or defense to the questions I posed. Nor is it a reason for behaving badly toward one another, it is like saying, “the devil made me do it”. 

So you're asking what we can do here to counter the name calling culture in politics?

Apart from not falling into the trap they set for us, we can stop supporting those people who use name calling as a political tool. If the politician you support uses name calling on a regular basis, then stop supporting that politician. Call him or her out on it. 

Beyond that, I don't think we here on this forum can do anything about it. We can only get tougher skin and learn to not take offense.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

21 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I hope it doesn't all turn into a civil war. I've said over and over that Pres. Trump needs to unite this country, not divide. 

This is what a Democrat FB site said today below, I c/p'd. Hopefully Papa doesn't mind that I'm giving the Democrat view, I'm neither side, I choose the person over party. It all feels so sad to me seeing our country go down this road, I'll bet our enemies love to see this.

Some Wise Advice Circulating:

1. Don't use his name;
2. Remember this is a regime and he's not acting alone;
3. Do not argue with those who support him--it doesn't work;
4. Focus on his policies, not his orange-ness and mental state;
5. Keep your message positive; they want the country to be angry and fearful because this is the soil from which their darkest policies will grow;
6. No more helpless/hopeless talk;
7. Support artists and the arts;
8. Be careful not to spread fake news. Check it;
9. Take care of yourselves
10. Resist!
11. Keep demonstrations peaceful. In the words of John Lennon, "When it gets down to having to use violence, then you are playing the system’s game. The establishment will irritate you - pull your beard, flick your face - to make you fight! Because once they’ve got you violent, then they know how to handle you. The only thing they don’t know how to handle is non-violence and humor."
12. When you post or talk about him, don't assign his actions to him, assign them to "The Republican Administration," or "The Republicans." This will have several effects: the Republican legislators will either have to take responsibility for their association with him or stand up for what some of them don't like; he will not get the focus of attention he craves; Republican representatives will become very concerned about their re-elections.
13. Keep paying attention, and keep up the pressure;
14. Practice self care;
15. Stay optimistic, but not complacent. If you won't fight for what you believe in, who will? It will take all of us. United together we can handle this.

(Copy and paste to your wall rather than sharing. If you share, only our mutual friends will see it.)

 

I was born in the 50’s, which means I experienced the entire 60’s, and the United States got through some serious turmoil. It is sad, but it is always the left who speak of war, leaving the U.S., if Republicans win elections. Those of us on the right, will always stay, and be a part of the Nation we love. I don’t care who wins an election, I will remain a loyal citizen, no matter what. Only cowards speak of desertion, as do all who do not love their country.. 

[MiserereNobis]

29 minutes ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

It is sad, but it is always the left who speak of war, leaving the U.S., if Republicans win elections. Those of us on the right, will always stay, and be a part of the Nation we love. I don’t care who wins an election, I will remain a loyal citizen, no matter what. Only cowards speak of desertion, as do all who do not love their country.. 

The Right has talked about leaving, too. A simple google search will show all sorts of tweets of people who threatened to move away if Obama was reelected in 2012. Even Bill O'Reilly, in 2016, got in on the "I'm leaving America if someone I don't like is elected president": Bill O’Reilly will flee to Ireland if Sanders is elected. Do you consider Bill O'Reilly a coward? Does he hate his country?

You paint with a huge broad brush: It's the Left who want to leave, it's the Right who are patriotic. It's the Left who hate America, it's the Right who love it.

It's this type of characterization and generalization that leads to the problems we are discussing right now: polarization and dismissal of the other.

I ask you to please retract your claim that the Left are cowards and the Right are loyal patriots.

[Calm]

39 minutes ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

Those of us on the right, will always stay, and be a part of the Nation we love

Some of those on the Right are inclined to kick out those who disagree with them which I see as little different to claiming to leave in protest.

  "Love it or leave it" was not an anthem of the Left back then.

Edited February 12, 2020 by Calm

[MiserereNobis]

37 minutes ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

It is sad, but it is always the left who speak of war, leaving the U.S., if Republicans win elections.

I forgot to address this part. The Right also speaks of war. Here is from Obama's reelection:

Quote

Bryan Fischer of the evangelical group the American Family Association reportedly said last week, "I think there will be blood" if Obama wins. In north Georgia, the president of the Cottages of Woodstock homeowners' association, a residential community for the elderly, said he would shut the complex's gates for fear of "negative repercussions (that) may occur because of the results of the election," The New York Times reported. 

In August, Lubbock County, Texas, Judge Tom Head warned that the country could descend into civil war if Obama was re-elected and, as the county's emergency management coordinator, he considered whether he'd have to "call out the militia" if Obama ordered U.N. troops to quell the uprising.

And let's not forget that Trump himself has warned many times that there would be civil war if he were impeached or if he were not reelected. Google: trump civil war

 

[Rajah Manchou]

1 hour ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

It is sad, but it is always the left who speak of war, leaving the U.S., if Republicans win elections. Those of us on the right, will always stay, and be a part of the Nation we love. I don’t care who wins an election, I will remain a loyal citizen, no matter what. Only cowards speak of desertion, as do all who do not love their country.. 

Wow, that escalated quickly. I thought the question in your OP was how can we avoid hurting one another in political discussions?

Might I suggest refraining from saying things like "it is always the left who speak of war and leaving the country...while the the those of us on the right always stay loyal and patriotic. The cowards on the left speak of dissertion...while the patriots on the right will always be true"

After reading your OP and making an effort to empathize, that's an awkward paragraph. But I know you didn't intend to offend anybody here with it, just like I don't think the poster that offended you meant anything personal by it.

Edited February 12, 2020 by Rajah Manchou

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

9 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

I thought the question in your OP was how can we avoid hurting one another in political discussions?

Might I suggest refraining from saying things like "it is always the left who speak of war and leaving the country if... while the the those of us on the right always stay loyal and patriotic. The cowards on the left speak of dissertion... while the patriots on the right will always be true"

After reading your OP and making an effort to empathize, that's an awkward paragraph. But I know you didn't intend to offend anybody here with it, just like I don't think the poster that offended you meant anything personal by it.

I was speaking of how we can avoid it on this website, and I only posted what I did, because a poster mentioned such things. Also, you added to my comments, I said nothing that I recall that only those on the right are patriotic, nor always true. You could have quoted me directly, without additions. Also, I  have served in the Army, and being retired police, many on the left, with whom I served, are are as loyal and patriotic to their core, as those on the right. I at least deserve to be quoted verbatim, and my comments were in answer to a particular post. I did not go looking to just say what I did out of boredom. 

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

49 minutes ago, Calm said:

Some of those on the Right are inclined to kick out those who disagree with them which I see as little different to claiming to leave in protest.

  "Love it or leave it" was not an anthem of the Left back then.

There are just bigots, that does not mean they are on the right. Sad but, “Hatters are gonna hate”, left or right. 

[Rajah Manchou]

Just now, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

I at least deserve to be quoted verbatim, and my comments were in answer to a particular post. I did not go looking to just say what I did out of boredom. 

"It is sad, but it is always the left who speak of war, leaving the U.S., if Republicans win elections. Those of us on the right, will always stay, and be a part of the Nation we love. I don’t care who wins an election, I will remain a loyal citizen, no matter what. Only cowards speak of desertion, as do all who do not love their country."

What I'm saying is that it is easy to (mis)read what you said as an attack. I certainly understood it that those on the left are cowards and do not love their country.

But I know you didn't intend it as an offense to me, as someone who leans left, personally.

No offense intended, no offense taken. I think the same could be said of the comments that you described in your OP.

[Calm]

33 minutes ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

There are just bigots, that does not mean they are on the right.

When they were saying that in the context of being prowar back then, I think that qualifies them as on the Right, though it certainly has never been all the Right who indulged in such.

 Maybe it was because I was in California and Illinois during the 60s and 70s even if I was too young until 68 or so to start registering politics much, but I remember the "Love it or leave it" refrain as well as the attacks on "draftdodgers" quite well.

https://www.thepublicprofessor.com/america-love-it-or-leave-it/

Quote

America, love it or leave it!

That’s been a popular rallying cry of Conservatives well for over half-a-century.

Its peak of popularity came during the late 1960s and early 1970s when Americans divided sharply over the Vietnam war.  That, and its kissin’ cousin My country, wrong or right, were common retorts to war protestors.  But over the years it’s also been hurled at progressives who have advocated everything from civil rights to renewable energy.

Last year, Michael Sigman offered a brief rundown of some of the phrase’s most iconic usage over the years.  Journalist Walter Winchell first popularized it in his defense of Joseph McCarthy’s anti-communist witch hunt.  Country music legends Merle Haggard and Ernest Tubb sprinkled it into their lyrics; Tubb even made it the title of a song.  New York City construction workers shouted it during their violent riot against anti-war protestors in in 1970, just four days after the Kent State massacre.  Today there’s even a Facebook page called AMERICA LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT (all-CAPS).

 

Edited February 12, 2020 by Calm

[MustardSeed]

FWIW I’ve talked about leaving and I’m not left. 
 

never say always. 

[The Nehor]

In an anthropological sense “cult” might be accurate but only in the same sense that antis try to explain they are not using it as a pejorative.

Both are using it because it is a pejorative.

[Robert F. Smith]

18 hours ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

Good advice, but in part your previous comments in that unfortunate thread, in large part caused me to pose these questions. I found them so unnecessary and unwanted. Thus my question, (too paraphrase) why do we do this to those we call brother and sister? Also, what you implied was not true, which is why the house did not make this one of their “articles of impeachment”. As I do not wish to make this another political post, and never wish to have any more political threads, which is why I ask in this thread; why do we do this?  Also how do we in the future avoid it again? I think, we should respect the opinions of others, and also avoid “boiler plate” comments that are untrue, and designed to harm one another. Which of course means, doing as you say, keeping our comments, or my comments, our “central concern should be the Gospel of Jesus Christ”. Which by the way is very good advice for all of us, so thank you for pointing that out, or should I say, reminding us. 

You have a political addiction, just as surely as someone else has a cocaine addition, or an alcohol addiction, and so here you are again playing that dangerous game of political suicide.  It's like going to  a sports bar, getting plastered, and then shamelessly arguing about your favorite team.  Those are your buddies, and yet fights break out, and soon the police arrive to break it up and send everyone home.  Next morning, with a hangover, everyone wonders why their friends would treat them that way.

I recommend giving up the figurative bar and the booze, and going about more worthwhile pursuits.  Expend your energy on something which all agree is indeed a godly enterprise.  That may be an EQ assignment, an endowment session at the temple, or choir practice.

If you ever get the uncontrollable urge to discuss politics, do it in a class in political science at your local university.  Otherwise, do some genealogy instead.  You and everybody else will be much better off, and definitely much happier.