To help both remind ourselves and the other side

So often we use labels, like progressives and conservatives, democrats, republicans, and we do so to describe the volatile actions and beliefs of what is ultimately an extreme minority of said group that screams the loudest, often actually with the intent of painting both themselves and their opposition in negative light. Often the political leaders of said groups act to further this divide themselves, acting in deplorable ways while proudly holding labels.

As a result when talking with each other, to save time, we tend to just use these labels when discussing what we dislike from the the other side, painting each side with the deplorable actions and beliefs of the very very very few. This of course creates resentment, anger and causes the other side to get defensive and go on the counter offensive. Rightly so even, most of us on all sides are simply regular people, and it's all bull#.

So it's become clear, as silly as it sounds, we need to come up with an alternate way to communicate these thoughts and feelings. Our natural propensity to defend ourselves clearly is stronger than our ability to give each other the benefit of the doubt. So here's one idea. Please feel free to come up with other ideas, let's brain storm together so that we can in the future encourage more open dialogue without taking offense so easily and going on the defense.

The truth is, all sides have a blight within them tearing us apart. Parasites using us and feeding off us. Many of us want to be able to move past this, to communicate and work together to remove these parasites. The wrongs we all feel by these extreme few are legitimate, a few can cause a big disruption. In fact most of the worlds major problems are caused not by the many, but an extremely small percentage of the worlds population.

So let's find ways to bridge the gaps, extend each other an olive branch to a better way, learn to talk to and communicate with each other about those within each others respect groups we feel are causing problems without painting each other in a broad brush.

So here's my silly idea, since as many keep saying, we tend to use our labels to save time, cause it's easier to say Progressives for example, than specify every time that you mean the leaders and extreme minority each and every time. Unless of course we all come to an agreed upon short hand.

For example instead of progressives. EProgressivesM. Short for Extreme Progressive Minority. This as as silly as it is should help both remind the user that, their problem is actually with a very small number of the opposition, and hopefully remind the opposition that the people the person is talking about is the extreme fraction of themselves that are creating trouble for both them and their opposition.

Basically adding a E before and a M after any label in which it's extreme minority problem.

Or when talking Leadership or including leadership add an L to the label.

I know it all sounds silly. I think it's silly.

But it really does seem we need to figure out a way to get past this so we can communicate again without being constantly on the defensive and offensive with each.

All houses are plagued with trouble makers creating problems on all sides. We need to find a way to be able to communicate our frustrations and work together to defeat these people turning us against each other.

And please people don't jump in on this saying it's unnecessary because you clearly don't mean everyone and your opponent is just being unreasonable by applying the label with a broad brush when you use it. I've not seen a single side of any aisle that does not take offense. Every single side is guilty.

So this is my idea, what do you think of it, and if you don't like it or think you have a better idea, please do share it. Let's work together to solve this problem and make a stride forward in communication, mutual respect and understanding.

Chill dude. What's the rush?
Been working on it for 10,000 years or so.

a reply to: Phage

Call me an idiot if you wish, but I'm failing to translate the meaning...

a reply to: Puppylove

People is people.
Strife is part of people. It makes us what we are as well as what we can be.

I'm not sure turning it off would be a good thing.

a reply to: Phage

Seriously? People being in oppsition, at war and tearing people apart is good, but encouraging communication and working together is bad?

Do you just argue to oppose things for the # of it or something?

I mean really, trying to find ways to work together, and communicate, get past minor differences, and combat the worst of us and you're opposed to it?

a reply to: Puppylove

Seriously? People being in oppsition, at war and tearing people apart is good, but encouraging communication and working together is bad?

No. Denying our nature is futile.

Your OP is the epitome is what is now called political correctness. While I'm fine with being polite, pretending that there are built in antagonisms that can go away through politeness is ... naive.

a reply to: Puppylove

Heck this is still strife, it's not like this doesn't require combating those causing these problems. It's just more constrictive strife that deals with combating the actual issues.

a reply to: Phage

That's just absurd.

There's a difference between recognizing ones problems, and enabling them.

All people lie, stating that is true. But you have a choice you can strive to do better, and fight that natural inclination and hold people responsible when caught doing it. Which will lessen the amount of lying that occurs.

Or you can excuse lying because all people do it, let people off the hook, and watch as lying becomes more and more common til it gets out of control.

Yes strife is the natural human inclination, there will always be strife.

How much of it there is however is directly affected by how much effort we put into reducing and combating it rather than excusing and enabling it.

a reply to: Puppylove
Lying? Society could not exist without it. The truth can easily do as much damage as a lie.

But this is what I was talking about:

So here's my silly idea, since as many keep saying, we tend to use our labels to save time, cause it's easier to say Progressives for example, than specify every time that you mean the leaders and extreme minority each and every time. Unless of course we all come to an agreed upon short hand.

Basically adding a E before and a M after any label in which it's extreme minority problem.

Yes. It's silly.

a reply to: Phage

Yes society couldn't exist without lying, but that does not mean all lying is acceptable, nor that people should not be encouraged and held to standards of truth.

Is not an all or nothing thing.

a reply to: Puppylove
And we've been doing it for 10,000 years. Or so.

a reply to: Phage

Also I agree it's silly. But people seem unwilling to give the benefit of the doubt without some kind of qualifier. I'm not even sure this would work. You know what I'm done with you. I offered my idea to fix a communication issue we all seem to have, said straight up, don't like offer a better solution, and here you are for no other reason than to nay say. This is here for brainstorming, being constructive, and offering solutions, not to simply say, no, nope, no, don't like, no, can't work, humanity sucks, deal with, stop trying to find solutions to anything, just sit around and do nothing.

Cause that's what you're doing. I'm not going to stop looking for solutions to issues and problems because people like you come along that rather than add anything constructive or offer other solutions exist only to be a critic.

a reply to: Puppylove

You know what I'm done with you. I offered my idea to fix a communication issue we all seem to have, said straight up, don't like offer a better solution, and here you are for no other reason than to nay say.

Thank you for your very original idea which has never been considered in 10,000 years (or so) and which, as has been evidenced, denies human nature.

a reply to: Phage

Yes and we've had times where there's been more or less of it throughout society, we've had times were people were held more accountable and times were they were held less accountable.

We've had times perjury was strongly enforced, and times where it's been ignored completely with people being allowed to simply slide. We've had times where a politician caught lying on a major issue resulted in them getting the boot, we've had times were politicians could lie about anything and get excused.

Yes we've been lying for our entire existence. But how lying has been treated has changed often.

a reply to: Puppylove

And no matter where you go, there you are.

Too cynical? Sorry, people are too complicated for simple solutions. Unless you believe Trump, of course.

a reply to: Phage

It doesn't deny human nature. All of human existence is trying to find a balance between our base human nature and society.

We have rules and laws and morality to help keep our baser natures in check, existence is a struggle with ourselves, between our best and worst traits, trying to find a way to rise above for the better of all.

If you want to stop denying our human nature than you want pure one hundred percent anarchy, completely drop society entirely.

But that won't work either because we'll just band together again to fight those darker base natures in defense of one another and society will be born anew.

a reply to: Puppylove

If you want to stop denying our human nature than you want pure one hundred percent anarchy, completely drop society entirely.

No. But ignoring human nature and thinking that putting an E or M in front of word will have any effect on anything is ... dumb. Because polite society has been doing essentially that for 10,000 years (or so). See, there are people who are not polite in this world and they've always been there and they always will be. No matter how polite you are.

a reply to: Phage

Well offer up something CONSTRUCTIVE for once. Ok you don't like my idea to lessen the vitriol and open up a path to communication to help get past this attempt at division by people trying to manipulate us.

Just one actual idea forward. Something, anything. Please just demonstrate for me you can be constructive. It's easy to tear an idea apart, to say why something can't be done. It's much harder to solve a problem or propose a solution.

If all we ever focus on is why we can't solve a problem, if all we focus is on why something cannot be done, then nothing will be.

If we were a society of critics we wouldn't be a society at all because we'd never advance having argued ourselves out of ever doing anything.

a reply to: Puppylove
As I said, your idea is nothing new. It is simple politeness. Which is often referred to (often as an epithet) as political correctness. As I said, I'm all for politeness. But politeness is no match for human nature.

If we were a society of critics we wouldn't be a society at all because we'd never advance having argued ourselves out of ever doing anything.

I disagree. I think that without argument we would be "living in caves" with Goomork as our tribal leader and the shaman Mooble telling us that if we don't get in step evil spirits will eat us. Criticism is critical.

a reply to: Phage

I'm not going to continue this with you. Ok we've got your side, you don't like it, you think it's a bad idea, and you neither have nor care to offer a better one. I think we've about covered all you or any critic has ever contributed to anything.

One can argue always argue against something. That's never the way forward.

Constructive is, I don't think that will work because of this, but perhaps if we...

If your only purpose is to nay say, then it's just, well kind of annoying more than actually helpful. At least if you offered alternatively constructive we could get somewhere.

Just because a problem hasn't been solved doesn't mean it can't be. The world has come a long way, and we've solved quite a bit of problems in our time on this planet. A lot of things that "couldn't" be done have been.