Where is the answer to this mess?

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by spiritgide, Oct 13, 2021.

  1. spiritgide

    spiritgide Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2016
    Messages:
    14,751
    Likes Received:
    11,547
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I understand your point, and we argued things like that for a very long time. Answer-
    You don't convince them. You give them no other choice. And it has to be a deal they can't refuse without destroying themselves.
    You can see where that might take years to figure out how to do. It has.
     
  2. spiritgide

    spiritgide Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2016
    Messages:
    14,751
    Likes Received:
    11,547
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    and if you take that order without a fight you agree with them.

    The only reason the vaccine authoritarianism work is because people obeyed it. They were afraid not of the virus but a big bad government coming to shut them down.

    What would the government do if they ordered a lockdown and nobody obey arrest everyone in the state?

    Think about that every time someone demands you put a mask on and you do it instead of saying "make me" what if everyone said make me you really think these panty wastes could do it. You're going to call your names they're going to tell you you're killing people you just cough on them if they don't run away from you you aren't scared of the virus you've exposed to them.

    You can't kneel before the superiority and then complain about them being Superior you made them that way.
    okay people are willing to walk off of their jobs over this vaccine nonsense and I'm not talking about Mcjobs I'm talking about high paid high skill level jobs with benefits even pensions. This is what it takes if you are too scared then they've already conquered you it's over.

    Even if they win at getting there not to get them would you rather be the person that just lay down and let them or would you want people to think of you as someone who fought and died to stop them?

    Freedom Is Lost in a whimper. People know this. Right now our country is a breaking point over this vaccine mandate. To the point our president might just have a stroke over stress. He is raging at us because he is losing this is good. It is a reminder to politicians that they must know their place and it's not as emperors.

    If you've been your need to them you are making them emperors. Don't do that.
    are you prepared to walk off your job are you prepared to face hardship? Is there questions you need to ask yourself and if you're not I think I would give up this whole line of reasoning and just acquiesce.[/QUOTE]

    Unfortunately it is sort of a game. I see the problem not at having bad rules, but as having no way to enforce those rules. And while the people could indeed change things IF they all got on the same page, it's impossible to get them there. Governments versus people end in revolutions or other forms of destruction.

    An example I used to use teaching lifeskills was a technique of backing off. By that, I mean that when you are in middle of a situation, you never see the big picture- so back off, pretend you are a ball payer that leaves the field and goes up in the bleachers so he can see the whole game. When you can do that, different strategies come into view. We've all been doing something that continually fails to work- then somebody comes along with fresh eyes and sees what we have repeatedly overlooked, immediately. I agree with most of what you say.... but try the alternate viewpoint. Answers that don't work aren't answers, so we look beyond that- and you have to know that somewhere there's an alternative you missed. Always is.
     
  3. independentthinker

    independentthinker Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2015
    Messages:
    1,864
    Likes Received:
    850
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    So, we've got Democrats trying to strong arm the other side into submission, Republicans trying to strong arm the other side into submission, and your solution is to strong arm both sides into submission by not giving them a choice?
     
  4. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    38,132
    Likes Received:
    10,243
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    In this game you either play by your opponent's rules that they are going to make up so that you lose, or you make up your own rules.

    If nobody else isn't forcing the rules it is incumbent upon you to enforce them.

    This isn't governments versus people there seems to be a dragging of government particularly political parties into it.

    Strategies this isn't about strategies it's about power. More particularly power over you.

    People are going to try and dictate to you what you can wear what you can like what you can eat what you can drive where you can live how you can think and if you let them they have power over you that you gave to them.

    These people are bullies I was talking about this with someone else in another thread with regard to the Dave Chappelle Netflix thing.

    People were protesting because someone said I'd joke they don't like and it's not really about the joke that they didn't like it's about the audacity to think things that they don't like. That's what the protest is about. That's what BLM was about.

    The only way to defeat this is not to give in.

    Advantages are taken not handed out, and the second you acquiesce the second you've given inch 10 mi will be ripped away from you and the people that do it will spit in your face for your very decency.

    This is a culture War whether you like it or not.
     
    roorooroo likes this.
  5. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    47,201
    Likes Received:
    14,150
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Pragmatism simply means putting material benefits to the lived human condition, ahead of all other considerations.

    That means the basics are given highest priority, and no focus or resources are lost to transient philosophical BS. IOW, the most number fed, housed, productive, and healthy. IOW structures which foster the pursuit of those goals in as many individuals as possible.

    The status of 'fed, housed, productive, and healthy' is the essential foundation for any successful nation, and provides the best possible platform for building individual happiness.
     
  6. Josh77

    Josh77 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2014
    Messages:
    7,248
    Likes Received:
    5,215
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    The problem we are talking about was the one in the quote presented earlier:

    “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage.”

    How is this trend fixed if not through changes in philosophy? This pattern has repeated itself over and over again throughout history, ever since there has been civilization. I don't see what feeding, housing, etc does to break the cycle. I think we are somewhere in the selfishness-apathy area now, with many slipping to dependence. China has more people fed, housed, productive and healthy than we do, but they certainly are not free society. So I don't see how materialism fixes things that are philosophical/spiritual in nature.
     
  7. spiritgide

    spiritgide Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2016
    Messages:
    14,751
    Likes Received:
    11,547
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Of course, I don't think anyone likes it, but I tend to believe it's more of a power battle than true cultural differences. But it's a very adversary game, and if you play a partner role while they make the rules- you get had every time. It's always right to be a nice guy, except when it's time not to be. I think we agree on that.
     
  8. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    38,132
    Likes Received:
    10,243
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It is a war for the power of who gets to dictate what culture is.

    The idea I think more than anything is to give quarter when it is asked. Purity spiraling is the worst thing that can happen to people during the culture War. Only one side of this is purity spiraling and we need to keep it that way.

    I would interpret that as being the nice guy.

    Giving an inch to those who would take 10 miles and then kick you in the teeth to mock your very decency that's not being nice that's being a victim.
     
  9. spiritgide

    spiritgide Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2016
    Messages:
    14,751
    Likes Received:
    11,547
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes, but not quite. No real strong-arm involved in our approach. No enemies; that insures you can't win. More like hey, we see your problem, we have faith in you; we're gonna help you out. Friendly persuasion....
    I'm serious. Ever been told you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar?
     
  10. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    47,201
    Likes Received:
    14,150
    Trophy Points:
    113
    1) The initial move to pragmatism is the only 'philosophical' consideration.

    2) You misunderstand. It would not be a Central Govt doing the feeding/housing etc .. it would be the citizens themselves (apart from those who are genuinely unable). When a Govt feeds and houses, you end up with the mess we have now. The cycle can only be broken by individuals choosing to break it. Provide the structures which support that choice (which is the ultimate grace), and leave the people alone to work it out for themselves.

    3) China has also produced the most fed, housed, productive, and healthy people on the planet. They're about to rule the world, as a result. There is no context in which that could be said to be a bad thing, unless your goal is to fete self-indulgence. And it's the feting of self-indulgence over the pragmatics, which has ruined the West and made us vulnerable to the pragmatists. You can't have the 'freedoms' you believe are important ... AND see the vast majority fed/housed/productive/healthy. They're mutually exclusive propositions.

    4) Govt is not and should not be involved in private thought (ie, spiritual/philosophical). Their job is to support us to support our bodies. Everything else is your own business.
     
    Last edited: Oct 24, 2021
  11. Adfundum

    Adfundum Moderator Staff Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2018
    Messages:
    6,216
    Likes Received:
    3,485
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If something is not negotiable, then the capacity to reason would be a moot point, wouldn't it?

    What we consider our non-negotiable rights are simply rights that we've grown up with and accept as absolutes. Those kind of things have evolved over time. There was a time when pretty much all humans considered hunting for food to be a non-negotiable right. Today, it's a privilege we usually pay for. As society changes, so to do our "non-negotiable" rights. We have to share this planet with a huge population, and as it grows, so too does the impact our freedoms have on others. I'm not anti-gun, but I see the effect of a growing population executing the freedom to use guns is having. One person's right to hunt (and miss the deer) impacted the wall of my house and left a hole in the wall. And as our local population grows, the exercise of certain non-negotiable rights gets limited.

    The whole point being that we may have "non-negotiable" ideas in mind, but those ideas do change over time, and we do have to adapt to the current world.


    The idea of sports was meant to point out the psychology in the sense that it is a starting point--something we have to understand about ourselves before we can talk about fixing society. I don't see that sports mentality as harmless--at least not as it's being used today. It puts us into that mindset of being on teams. Team Right vs. Team Left, etc... That isn't a harmless thing because we get fixated on being the winners and in the political stadium. We are encouraged to be on one team or the other, not as sports fans, but as enemies. We don't want a tie, we want to win, to teach the others a lesson, to kick-butt. It's become more and more real over time. And it is too bad that we can't see ourselves on a single team.

    And yes, absolutely, we need to be able to look at ourselves and see our flaws. To look in that mirror and see that all the things we criticize "them" for are also part of "us". One of the key flaws in us is that we are victims of our biases. We can't help that, but can be aware that we do form opinions based mostly on our biases. I think accepting that as a flaw in our reasoning is certainly a starting point to lead us away from "this mess."
     
  12. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    39,138
    Likes Received:
    14,481
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well no more screwed than we've always been.
     
  13. Josh77

    Josh77 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2014
    Messages:
    7,248
    Likes Received:
    5,215
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I guess we’ll know soon.
     
  14. independentthinker

    independentthinker Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2015
    Messages:
    1,864
    Likes Received:
    850
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    But neither the Democrats or the Republicans in power believe they have a problem. They both believe they can win in a winner take all.
     
  15. spiritgide

    spiritgide Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2016
    Messages:
    14,751
    Likes Received:
    11,547
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    Being non negotiable means your position isn't open to change. That doesn't mean you can't try to get others to support it rather than fight it. Discussing to help people understand why something is crucial and not negotiable should reduce conflict. That's my point.
     
  16. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    38,132
    Likes Received:
    10,243
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I agree with your point.
     
  17. spiritgide

    spiritgide Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2016
    Messages:
    14,751
    Likes Received:
    11,547
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    Actually, the indeed know they have a problem. Of course they con only blame it on someone else- that is the human nature of people who are faking it, gaming the system.
    You can lie to others and begin to convince yourself the lies are true- but you always know they are lies, and you always know you are insecure. The stronger that feeling, the more important is it to dominate other to prove you are not weak. Truly strong people don't need to bully and intimidate, only weak people need that- and they know it. They would love to break that fear, but they would need to do that without losing face; actually be able to claim credit for their accomplishment in the process. An offer they can't refuse. Win-Win.
     
    Last edited: Oct 24, 2021
  18. spiritgide

    spiritgide Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2016
    Messages:
    14,751
    Likes Received:
    11,547
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    This might explain.
    A long time ago I had a construction services business, and was trying to get a contract for some work on a new courthouse. The person in charge of contract management was also the project architect, and my salesman had called on him three times without getting more than a few minutes of contact, or any interest in our proposal. The fourth time, I went along, told my salesman to just watch. We sat in the architects lobby for awhile, then got in, and he said "I have an appointment in 10 minutes, so make it short". I said, before we get to business, I've got to ask you one question.

    We spent the next 30 minutes talking, but not a word of it about the work or contract. Then, he said "I'm late, have to go. Let me see your proposal" He didn't read it- he signed it. We all left.
    You have to know how to ask the right questions to get the right answers. No strong arm needed.
     
  19. independentthinker

    independentthinker Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2015
    Messages:
    1,864
    Likes Received:
    850
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Anecdotal story. I have to respectfully say that you have some arrogance in believing that you can accomplish more than you actually can. Or maybe it is naivety. Past performance does not guarantee future results.

    May I ask who you are actually going to specifically talk to in order to implement your plan?

    If your plan does not work is that all she wrote or will you have a plan B?

    How many people will actively participate in promoting your plan?

    Does your plan involve changing any laws and, if so, who is going to change them?
     
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2021
  20. Adfundum

    Adfundum Moderator Staff Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2018
    Messages:
    6,216
    Likes Received:
    3,485
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I don't disagree with the idea of discussing a topic, but again, if it's non-negotiable, we're not going to get very far. The idea of convincing others seems a bit of a Socratic ideal, and from what I see, not terribly effective. Issues like abortion and 2A are so polar that the thought of rational discussion changing anyone's mind triggers some eye-rolling. My point is that if we start out by saying "we can talk about this issue, but I'm not going to change my mind," then the whole point of discussion becomes a waste of time.

    Usually what happens is we throw out an argument to explain or convince others that we are right, and the others reject it with arguments like, "why can't you see ...?" Then we dive into the angry attacks and insults, which leads to the "it'll be a cold day in a hot place before I agree with anything you say," attitude. And it's at that point that we start taking very divisive sides.

    So, my question is how do we discuss the issues as team mates instead of opponents?
     
  21. spiritgide

    spiritgide Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2016
    Messages:
    14,751
    Likes Received:
    11,547
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Good questions for sure. Ones we have asked ourselves many, many times.

    Of course, you don't know what I can accomplish- and in this effort, neither do I. And it's not me, it's a small group of citizens working together; I'm just a more vocal one.
    Every other effort attempting to bring order and principle back to politics has failed. I don't see that as proof it can't be done, but as proof of what does not work, and is a waste of time to repeat.

    I posted the "anecdotal story" to point out that sometimes, a bigger hammer is not the answer at all- but an altogether different tool can be.
    I'm fully prepared to accept that this is likely to fail. Not fail to work- but fail to be put in place so it can work. IF that succeeds, I have total confidence things will change- so getting it in place is the big challenge.
    Those who accept defeat before trying always fail. Thus it has far better chances of success than any of those things we deem impossible, or that have been tried and failed repeatedly for decades.
    It does, like everything else- ultimately depend on people. As it is the decisions and choices of people that has allowed this mess to develop and exist, one has to be pretty optimistic to believe they will support any working solution. Nothing makes everyone happy. It will take huge public support of the concept.

    I don't have a plan B; and I don't think there is one.

    Promotion... that depends on how many accept the advance invitations and like the idea. With a few exceptions, the list will include everybody with major influence and political clout that we think is still rational.
    Myself and friends are just ordinary people- successful in our own lives, but certainly amateurs in political movements like this. So we're looking to recruit those who are pros and have access to the means to promote. Ideally- this will be a hand-off where we give others that have the power to fuel a movement the tool to support. No profit for us, no credit expected. I'd just be tickled pink to know I actually helped make a difference. Wouldn't you?

    The plan does not involve changing existing laws. It does create one; and that is the active element of the plan. Congress is going to pass it.
    It does not create new rules or standards. Doesn't dis-empower politicians, actually improves their situation- and it does empower the people.
    We deserve that.
     
  22. spiritgide

    spiritgide Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2016
    Messages:
    14,751
    Likes Received:
    11,547
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes, we pretty much do things as you describe, and I think all of us do at times. First response to most things is somebody eager to point out where you're wrong.

    How do we discuss as team mates?
    Start by not calling the other side names before you get to the issues. Create a safe place to discuss issues rather than the person. Discuss mutual benefits, common interests. Recognize their position- (not the same as approving or accepting.) This isn't as team mates, but is is as people who are all residents of the same country, passengers on the same vessel. Partners in the larger sense.

    Lawyers do this all the time. Fight like jackals in court, go to lunch together during the break and work out settlements. Not ALL lawyers of course, but many are capable of that.
    I always liked Teddy Roosevelt's advice. "Speak softly and carry a big stick"... Meaning be nice, respectful and reasonable, but obviously not weak or submissive.

    Isn't a guarantee of success of course, but works better than throwing rocks on sight.
     
    Adfundum likes this.
  23. independentthinker

    independentthinker Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2015
    Messages:
    1,864
    Likes Received:
    850
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Is the small group of citizens you are working with all in one geographic area or spread out and are you from all walks of life or concentrated in a particular field?

    I'm not so sure how many with major influence and political clout could be classified as rational but I don't think I would have to spend much time trying to count them all. A very huge majority are blinded by their ideology and are pre-programmed to be a part of their collective.

    Are any in your group actually worthy enough on paper to be taken seriously by those with major influence and political clout or are you just hoping that your idea is so great that they will take notice?

    If you happen to send an invitation to an "enemy" of your idea what are the chances that they could torpedo your plan?

    Can you expand on the new law that you want to create and why you feel so certain that Congress would actually pass it?

    An observation that I have made from your posts is that you seem to lean right. I lean right and agree with many of the things you have said but I don't believe those on the left would agree with your positions on some things. I know you are trying your best to shoot straight down the middle but I thought it was worth mentioning my observation to you.
     
  24. Adfundum

    Adfundum Moderator Staff Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2018
    Messages:
    6,216
    Likes Received:
    3,485
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Totally agree. It's crazy that we get so offensive with others because they disagree with our opinions. One of your previous comments about getting off the ball field and sitting in the stands for a while is a good way of pausing before responding to posts we disagree with. IMO, there are times when people word things that trigger an emotional response, even if they didn't mean to do that. In such cases, it's best to just step back and take a breath. But it's hard to do that.

    Another thing is that we spend more time on the things we disagree with rather than establishing that common ground that puts us all on the same team. I'm reading a lot of comments here that I agree with. If we could work forward from that it would be great.
     
  25. spiritgide

    spiritgide Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2016
    Messages:
    14,751
    Likes Received:
    11,547
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You ask a lot of good questions.

    Members of this group have come and gone, but it's been going on a long time. One whom we lost recently (passed away) had been a professor of political science, who had substantial experience and contacts in washington. He caused all of us to feel shock now and then, telling us how things actually happened in congress. Had a constitutional lawyer involved for a couple years too.
    We do have enough savvy on the movers and shakers we need to be able to contact and get some involved. Ideally this is a contagious thing. If one major voice talks it up, others will be taking it seriously. In my business, I have dealt with a fair number of very successful people, CEO's, entrepreneurs, and had personal discussions with many. I feel comfortable knocking on their doors, done it many times. Doesn't always work, but it doesn't have to here, there are a lot of doors.

    Contact the enemy- we have not overlooked what that might result in. One thing for sure- if you don't invite your "enemy", you have told him you are his enemy. The solution must be non-partisan, so you have to ignore most of the politics. The objective would be to avoid inviting radicals, the tunnel-vision people.

    We aren't yet ready to expand on the description of the law. Doing so early would give advantage to the people who are radical and just seek to destroy everything. Want to line up the ducks first.
    As far as why congress would pass it- Comes down to having two factors in favor of that. One, it would improve the environment they operate in. Their situation is one of continuous hostility too, and nobody enjoys that as a constant. It also frees them of a situation that is totally unworkable, has plagued them since day one and that they currently have no way to deal with. Finally- the inability to object without shooting yourself in the foot. This is simply offering a deal they can't refuse. It's not like the question the lawyer uses "Have you stopped beating your wife" but definitely such that rejection of the concept is a lot like inviting political suicide. Now it has to come to a vote first, and that is where the battle is. People opposed would make their fight at the committee level, before they are put in the public position of voting against it on the floor. Intense public support is the magic that forces the bill past that obstacle.

    I'm a definite conservative. Not a republican. I have always voted for the person I thought most qualified, and of course I haven't always been right. But I don't believe we should impose our beliefs and values on others; we should advocate and model what we believe in.

    Yes, a lot of people would object to my positions on issues, but issues are not really involved in this one way or another. While I am a critic of the human condition, I also believe we are the answer as well as the problem. The answer to resolving the issues is to resolve the animosity that pervades politics, and getting both sides to work together. I have confidence that 100 people working together will invariably produce better results than 100 people feuding, and I'd bet you do too.
     

Share This Page