Is it possible to depolarize out politics?

[HaShev]

In this day and age, it is hard to ignore the increasing polarization in our political landscape. It seems as though every conversation about politics can quickly turn into a shouting match, with neither side willing to listen or compromise. But what if we decided to take a step back, to approach each other with honesty, sincerity, and a genuine desire to understand the thoughts and beliefs of the other? Is it possible that by lifting the fog of our biases, we might find that what remains is common ground enabling us to work towards a more unified society?

Imagine yourself in a discussion with someone whose political views differ significantly from your own. Instead of viewing this as an opportunity to prove the other person wrong or to aggressively defend your position, consider it as a chance to learn and grow. By making a conscious effort to be open-minded, you may discover that there is more that unites you than divides you.

Now, of course, before you quote some of my own heated exchanges with some on this forum, I do not pretend to be the paragon of virtue here, and as guilty as many on this forum. We're all human, it is natural to be affected by the heat in the kitchen, so to speak, and react aggressively before thinking about how the other will recieve our transmission when we hit the 'reply' button. Think of essay as an appeal by a guilty man to better things.

First and foremost, I think we should strive to be honest with ourselves and with the person we are engaging with. This means acknowledging our own biases and the areas where your knowledge may be lacking. Be willing to admit when we are uncertain, and do not be afraid to ask questions. In turn, encourage the other person to do the same, fostering an environment of trust and mutual respect.

In our conversations, make the sincere attempt to quit shouting or insulting each other. Remember that the person you are speaking to has their own experiences and perspectives that have shaped their beliefs. By approaching the conversation with empathy and understanding, we can work together to find commonalities in your beliefs and shared values.

As we both share our thoughts and feelings, it's important not to talk past each other. This means actively listening to what the other person has to say, resisting the urge to interrupt or dismiss their points. You may find that by being present and engaged in the conversation, you are better able to comprehend the motivations and reasoning behind their beliefs.

Throughout this process, the key is to struggle together to understand why each of you thinks the way you do. By attempting to see the world through each other's eyes, you are more likely to uncover the roots of your disagreements and identify areas where compromise may be possible.

Ultimately, the goal is to lift the fog of your biases and work together to find the truth that you both believe exists. When you are honest with yourself and each other, genuinely seeking to understand and be understood, the path to finding that truth becomes clearer. Though it may not be an easy journey, it is one that is worth undertaking for the sake of a more unified and compassionate society.

So, is it possible to depolarize our politics?

Realize that I'm not sure it's possible. and I tend to doubt it, I find it hard to resist the temptation to insult and ignore the other person as much as the next person does (not saying everyone does this, but some do), but I think we should at least get the conversation started. Who knows, maybe make a sincere attempt. Well, just a thought.

What do you think?

Only way to fix our system is like we do with monopolies, force a break up of the 1party er 2 party faux system by forcing Progressive Liberalism to run as a seperate party-the Communist party which masked itself behind the new term back around 1958 and used to run as a seperate party. By forcing the parties to be legitimately transparent and real to who they are and giving people a legit chance to accept or reject them, is what true democracy is about otherwise we never really had a democratic system. That would help to partially fix the Dems who used the fascists merely for voter base as did the fascist use the Dem party as a means to get a platform which was prevented by censoring all other challenging parties ftom having equal access to the process like debates and news cycles etc.
But to further fix the tug or war and get us back to doing for the citizens not the party, requires the FCC to start regulating the divisive and inciteful propaganda nonsense from msm that's ironically unified parroting by the 1party trying to be a 1 party totalitarian govt.
So there's many prongs of this problem that all need addressing to even remotely work. But don't hold your breath, this all requires cleaning up the corruption, and it's digging n deep and has a lot of money making schemes to buy everyone off, which is what happens the longer you tolerate and become complacent to these things.a seperate

 

[Kruska]

However, the core message of my essay was to emphasize the importance of open and respectful dialogue in our political conversations.

Who are you addressing? and what is your true purpose/agenda in this matter?

People who are educated and civilized don't need to be addressed - since they know very well as to how a civilized conversation/discussion is conducted.
Thank God there are quite a few of those around on this Forum.

Addressing (usually ill educated) fanatics, no matter their political or religious allegiance - doesn't serve a logical based reasoning, does it?

 

[Votto]

And what prompted your reply, Votto? I'm curious.

The Left taught us long ago that systemic racism controls all of us whether we realize it or not, that is, so long as you are not Black cuz they can never be racist.

The only obstacle is coming to accept this truth as fact.

 

[Rumpole]

Only way to fix our system is like we do with monopolies, force a break up of the 1party er 2 party faux system by forcing Progressive Liberalism to run as a seperate party-the Communist party which masked itself behind the new term back around 1958 and used to run as a seperate party. By forcing the parties to be legitimately transparent and real to who they are and giving people a legit chance to accept or reject them, is what true democracy is about otherwise we never really had a democratic system. That would help to partially fix the Dems who used the fascists merely for voter base as did the fascist use the Dem party as a means to get a platform which was prevented by censoring all other challenging parties ftom having equal access to the process like debates and news cycles etc.
But to further fix the tug or war and get us back to doing for the citizens not the party, requires the FCC to start regulating the divisive and inciteful propaganda nonsense from msm that's ironically unified parroting by the 1party trying to be a 1 party totalitarian govt.
So there's many prongs of this problem that all need addressing to even remotely work. But don't hold your breath, this all requires cleaning up the corruption, and it's digging n deep and has a lot of money making schemes to buy everyone off, which is what happens the longer you tolerate and become complacent to these things.a seperate

You've addressed the point that it is a complex issue, and of course, my OP posits something that is well-nigh impossible. However, the purpose was just to get the conversation started, focusing on open, honest, polite, discourse. and perhaps in that way, some common ground will have a hope of surfacing out of the fog of our anger, biases, and what not.

But, on your part of multiple parties, you do realize that there are a number of parties already? The problem is, they remain small and without power. This is simply market economics at play. There are two monopolies who take up all the oxygen, and since they do, they are the ones that dominate the media, which, in turn, reinforces their bigness.

In a free society, I don't see a way to fix that problem. But, personally, I prefer a two party system, and here's why. There basically are two sides ot the political spectrum, and varying hues on each side. Where I think the third parties exist, are on the extreme sides of each. The Libertarians are on the extreme right, the Greene party are on the extreme left, and the Socialist party way farther to the left, and then the communist party farther than that. But RNC and DNC occupy the rest of the space.

Now, if there were a centrist party that could attract right and left of center folks, there's room there, but did not Ross Perot try that? Trump tried it in 2000 with the Reform Party but it went nowhere fast.

I don't see anyway around the two party system and it mirrors our bicameral system very neatly.

Perhaps if the founding fathers adopted a parliamentary system, America might have developed as a coalition government, but, alas, they wanted something new.


Cheers,
Rumpole

 

[Rumpole]

Who are you addressing? and what is your true purpose/agenda in this matter?

People who are educated and civilized don't need to be addressed - since they know very well as to how a civilized conversation/discussion is conducted.
Thank God there are quite a few of those around on this Forum.

Addressing (usually ill educated) fanatics, no matter their political or religious allegiance - doesn't serve a logical based reasoning, does it?

First, just take the OP at face value. Second, you're right, of course, but no harm in making the attempt, given the incessant vitriol and indignities I've observed on this forum.

Cheers,
Rumpole

 

[skye]

Yeah, just fly all leftists into the sun.

Ouch!

but that's ok!

 

[skye]

Depolarize my eye!

Because the other you will nevah be able to depolarize!

Is it possible to depolarize out politics?​

 

[Rumpole]

The Left taught us long ago that systemic racism controls all of us whether we realize it or not, that is, so long as you are not Black cuz they can never be racist.

The only obstacle is coming to accept this truth as fact.

Votto, I would caution that the issue of systemic racism is a complex and multifaceted one that has been a topic of much discussion and debate in recent times. While some people may argue that it is not a real phenomenon, many others believe that it exists and exerts a pervasive influence on all of us in various ways. However, it is important to note that the left is not a monolithic group, and there are many different perspectives and beliefs within it.

One common view within certain leftist circles is that systemic racism is a force that controls and affects all of us, regardless of our race, ethnicity, or other individual characteristics. This view holds that racism is deeply embedded in the structures and institutions of our society, and that it can be perpetuated even by people who do not intend to be racist or who are not aware of the ways in which they are perpetuating it.

While there is certainly some truth to this perspective, it is also important to acknowledge that not all leftists hold this view, and that there is room for nuance and debate within the larger conversation about systemic racism. Additionally, it is important to avoid making sweeping generalizations about any particular group of people, such as saying that Black individuals can never be racist. Racism can take many forms, and it is important to address it wherever it exists, regardless of who the perpetrators are.

Ultimately, the goal should be to work towards creating a more equitable and just society for all, by acknowledging and addressing the ways in which systemic racism affects us all, while also recognizing the diversity of perspectives and beliefs within the larger conversation about this issue.

 

[Kruska]

First, just take the OP at face value. Second, you're right, of course, but no harm in making the attempt, given the incessant vitriol and indignities I've observed on this forum.

Cheers,
Rumpole

I see, so you are appealing towards humanity and it's natural diversity that comes along with it, to become a more homogeneous pulp - well good luck with that, especially in a democratic society.

 

[Kruska]

Depolarize my eye!

Because the other you will nevah be able to depolarize!

Is it possible to depolarize out politics?​

Maybe someone can develop a virus that instantly kills off all politicians - then normal people could finally get on with living normal lives.
BTW, Belgium did not have a ruling government for years - and guess what nobody in Belgium noticed.

 

[Votto]

Votto, I would caution that the issue of systemic racism is a complex and multifaceted one that has been a topic of much discussion and debate in recent times. While some people may argue that it is not a real phenomenon, many others believe that it exists and exerts a pervasive influence on all of us in various ways. However, it is important to note that the left is not a monolithic group, and there are many different perspectives and beliefs within it.

One common view within certain leftist circles is that systemic racism is a force that controls and affects all of us, regardless of our race, ethnicity, or other individual characteristics. This view holds that racism is deeply embedded in the structures and institutions of our society, and that it can be perpetuated even by people who do not intend to be racist or who are not aware of the ways in which they are perpetuating it.

While there is certainly some truth to this perspective, it is also important to acknowledge that not all leftists hold this view, and that there is room for nuance and debate within the larger conversation about systemic racism. Additionally, it is important to avoid making sweeping generalizations about any particular group of people, such as saying that Black individuals can never be racist. Racism can take many forms, and it is important to address it wherever it exists, regardless of who the perpetrators are.

Ultimately, the goal should be to work towards creating a more equitable and just society for all, by acknowledging and addressing the ways in which systemic racism affects us all, while also recognizing the diversity of perspectives and beliefs within the larger conversation about this issue.

The myth is that racism holds people down. If that were the case, Jews across Europe would have assumed the role of Blacks in the US but that never happened. No other people have been persecuted like the Jewish people in human history, with 400 years of slavery instead of 200 years, and then centuries of persecution in Western Europe, being kicked out of entire countries, more than once, placed in ghettos, or rounded up and killed in mass during that time. Then came the Holocaust as being the climax of it all.

But the reason they were persecuted was mostly due to the fact that they remained at the top of the socioeconomic side of the population, despite the persecution and racism. And they were able to bounce right back after the Holocaust.

Why? How did they do it? I can tell you, they did not do it by having 70% of their families absent a father. There is no real way for poor uneducated black women to ever escape poverty in a one parent home. Throw as much government money at them as you wish, they will always be poor. And their children will find that father figure on the streets, leading them to increased crime.

Then comes Leftists blaming the poverty on racism and not the single parent home and a culture than does not value education. In fact, the Left detests the Patriarchal family. It is almost as if they demand Blacks remain poor by in single parent homes so they can be used as political tools by spewing their demagoguery about the need for equity and redistribution for Blacks so that government can increase their power of us to "fix" it all, which they never do despite their increased power over the years to do just that. The icing on the cake is, the Left can point to the higher crime rates within the Black population on police targeting their population because of racism.

Racism is the human condition to various degrees, which encompasses all societies and peoples from the beginning of time until the end of time.

So what? Get over yourself and stop pretending that if it were not for whitey, none of it would ever have happened. Instead, you have Leftist loons like Whoopie telling the world that Hitler was not really a racist because the Jews were not Black. To her, it was just a white thing.

 

[task0778]

But, on your part of multiple parties, you do realize that there are a number of parties already? The problem is, they remain small and without power. This is simply market economics at play. There are two monopolies who take up all the oxygen, and since they do, they are the ones that dominate the media, which, in turn, reinforces their bigness.

In a free society, I don't see a way to fix that problem. But, personally, I prefer a two party system, and here's why. There basically are two sides ot the political spectrum, and varying hues on each side. Where I think the third parties exist, are on the extreme sides of each. The Libertarians are on the extreme right, the Greene party are on the extreme left, and the Socialist party way farther to the left, and then the communist party farther than that. But RNC and DNC occupy the rest of the space.

As I see it, we need a viable 3rd party that occupies the middle ground on a host of problems and largely avoids the most contentious social issues such as abortion and instead focuses on the constitutional functions that the federal gov't is supposed to perform. As unlikely as that scenario might be, it's hard to envision any other way out of the morass we currently find ourselves in short of a catastrophic depression or a war. The TEA Party might have been a forerunner, but the emphasis has to be broader than taxes; we need a good governance party (for lack of a better term) that doesn't put party above country. There is I think a deep dissatisfaction in this country with our gov'ts at every level. Somehow, someway we need to offer something better than what we have now.

 

[HaShev]

You've addressed the point that it is a complex issue, and of course, my OP posits something that is well-nigh impossible. However, the purpose was just to get the conversation started, focusing on open, honest, polite, discourse. and perhaps in that way, some common ground will have a hope of surfacing out of the fog of our anger, biases, and what not.

But, on your part of multiple parties, you do realize that there are a number of parties already? The problem is, they remain small and without power. This is simply market economics at play. There are two monopolies who take up all the oxygen, and since they do, they are the ones that dominate the media, which, in turn, reinforces their bigness.

In a free society, I don't see a way to fix that problem. But, personally, I prefer a two party system, and here's why. There basically are two sides ot the political spectrum, and varying hues on each side. Where I think the third parties exist, are on the extreme sides of each. The Libertarians are on the extreme right, the Greene party are on the extreme left, and the Socialist party way farther to the left, and then the communist party farther than that. But RNC and DNC occupy the rest of the space.

Now, if there were a centrist party that could attract right and left of center folks, there's room there, but did not Ross Perot try that? Trump tried it in 2000 with the Reform Party but it went nowhere fast.

I don't see anyway around the two party system and it mirrors our bicameral system very neatly.

Perhaps if the founding fathers adopted a parliamentary system, America might have developed as a coalition government, but, alas, they wanted something new.


Cheers,
Rumpole

The reason 2parties hog the platform is because we don't give equal rights to the other parties, and we pay the price for it, and that can be fixed with MSM being regulated and that includes noticing they are violating campaign finance laws as advertising=money And networks publicity & propaganda is campaign tactics to try and get around campaign finance laws.
Then there is restrictions on debates to third parties, which once again can be blamed on corrupt media and election corruption in general. A country based on group affiliation pride over Citizen's well being, is a failed country in the same way religion based on pride over it's followers & humanity is failed.

 

[zaangalewa]

You think I read that text brick?....LMAO!

Dude, this question has gone around this board, like a bottle of whiskey at a camp fire, so many times over the years that it's not even funny....You've said nothing new.

You want a respectful dialogue, start by being respectful like the aforementioned three democrats were....With today's democrats, there's no disagreeing with them on any issue, that doesn't devolve into there being something morally wrong with anyone taking a differing viewpoint (republican, libertarian, moderate, whatever) in about two or three exchanges, if the demagoguery doesn't come straight out of the gate.

IOW, go clean your room.


View attachment 772838

Depolarized it would be 69, sixist.

 

[DudleySmith]

Yes. The U.S. needs to take a lesson from the Founders and deport commies, faggots, and Democrats.

 

[zaangalewa]

... So, is it possible to depolarize our politics?

Hopefully. It exist always much more ways than only one way and one not-way. And a compromise between a way and no way is a half way. But a half way is also no way.

 

[task0778]

Then there is restrictions on debates to third parties, which once again can be blamed on corrupt media and election corruption in general.

While I understand and agree with you in principle, the other side of the coin is that you can't allow some schmuck with no standing among the voters to share a stage with the other candidates who do have substantial support. Why take our valuable time away from people who do have enough standing to be viable? There has to be some threshold of legitimacy, similar to what Ross Perot had in 1992. Why should anybody listen to somebody who has no support? Otherwise you could have somebody with a hate for one of the major parties to attack that person instead of offering any meaninful platform of his/her own.

 

[initforme]

While I understand and agree with you in principle, the other side of the coin is that you can't allow some schmuck with no standing among the voters to share a stage with the other candidates who do have substantial support. Why take our valuable time away from people who do have enough standing to be viable? There has to be some threshold of legitimacy, similar to what Ross Perot had in 1992. Why should anybody listen to somebody who has no support? Otherwise you could have somebody with a hate for one of the major parties to attack that person instead of offering any meaninful platform of his/her own.

We don't need all Uber wealthy people running things. But that's what we get.

 

[task0778]

We don't need all Uber wealthy people running things. But that's what we get.

I don't think so, but everybody has their own opinion and I am well aware that I am often wrong. I think the wealthy people and the big corps are somewhat equally divided, with some on the Right and some on the Left. So, I am not persuaded that the ultra-rich are running things.

 

[HaShev]

While I understand and agree with you in principle, the other side of the coin is that you can't allow some schmuck with no standing among the voters to share a stage with the other candidates who do have substantial support. Why take our valuable time away from people who do have enough standing to be viable? There has to be some threshold of legitimacy, similar to what Ross Perot had in 1992. Why should anybody listen to somebody who has no support? Otherwise you could have somebody with a hate for one of the major parties to attack that person instead of offering any meaninful platform of his/her own.

They already do that with 20 people on stage, one dumber than the next.