I think I know how to fix it

How we got here and where we're as societies of the West really are in our trajectory is not the question I'm interested in with this discussion,
but
The problem and how to fix it.

It's as always in reality actually more than one issue, depending on how you look at it. But it's probably cascading from one communication flaw that starts with little things like on ATS.
Some of you are not capable of leaving the discussion in the thread it belongs to. That's imho wrong because everybody should at least be capable to compartmentalize the social interactions into several topics. I can disagree strongly on one issue, yet it's possible on the next one we totally agree.

That's not only good for the climate (lol) it's the only way how we can deal with a society as wealthy as we are. We got time to reflect and pursue interests and ideas. I think that also means we got a real philosophical responsibility. One we can't afford to screw up.
But what keeps us in large parts from fulfilling that is because we locked ourselves into tiny cages, where you disagree once and almost everybody immediately goes into shut down mode, even though we are totally in line on another question.

On the example of me, because that's the experience I can talk about:
Most of you know me as liberal, I mean I am an unashamed humanist. To me that means I see every person as a story, experiences piled up to make the mess you are (lol). If I would have been through and seen what you did, I might be just like you.
But I am also fairly anti migration for nothing but prosperity. I am responsible for the country I 'belong to', I have to be willing to die for that country/society and to contribute to make it as strong and righteous as it can be.
If I run away, I failed as a citizen.
That would make me pretty right for a lefty right?

In summary, we as societies rich enough to not be stupid, with the luxury of having time to discuss more abstract topics, should first and foremost stop pretending that we amongst ourselves could be the enemy just because on one issue we strongly disagree.
Tolerance yes. Submission no.
That is I think the natural motivation behind it, a game of dominance.
Entirely unnecessary.

Now back to you, Bob:

a reply to: Peeple

The phrase "lets agree to disagree" could be used far, far more often on here. I completely agree.

a reply to: Peeple

Id say you’re more of a traditional “lefty”, which according to twitter makes you an ultra right wing, trump supporting, racist, homophobe. Now prove how woke you are and go flaunt your junk to kids, take the knee, send money to Ukraine, burn down some buildings, dress all in black, dye your hair pink, start a riot, mutilate your genitals and screech about gun control. Then you can retreat to your safe space to smoke some crack and post all over the internet about how virtuous you are.

It’s impossible to reason with uncompromising zealots. Many have tried but their agenda just becomes more and more extreme. I have lost old friends recently as I simply don’t enjoy their company anymore, they’ve bought the propaganda and are now just hive minded drones.

a reply to: Grenade

But that's probably a natural instinct to subject yourself to a group for strength in numbers, safety basically, the group is the strength.
And to look at it that way you'll notice 'the right' is the same way. A safe space for a more conservative crowd. Both feel equally threatened by eachother, because both want to dominate the public playing field with their ideas of several questions, mostly about what the society we share should be focused on.
But I don't think that is actually something that needs to be discussed, that's not just an opinion, that's something where people literally are 'born like that', ultimately an extrapolation of something very fundamental in the direction of introvert / extrovert, with reservations.
Both need eachother. They look opposite but I think they should be looked at as complimentary, for the struggle to find balance between too strict and too lose if you will.

I know not only have you given up on your liberal friends, the left has given up on the right too, because the need for dominance and 'being the only one right' has entirely eclipsed any cultural similarities that never the less still exist.

uncompromising zealots

I think that's true for both sides of the divide.
I don't really have even a theoretical solution for that.

a reply to: Peeple

Except the right don't really hunt in packs, generally we want to be left alone with our freedoms in tact and our way of life preserved. I'm a conservative, not a lunatic. The current ultra left leaning morons running the US have no logic or rational thinking when it comes to policy, it's all a power grab with divisive propaganda aimed at the destruction of traditional Christian values while exploiting the stupid, weak and vulnerable.

I can think for myself, it's society who choose to stereotype and characterise those opinions as being part of the "right wing".

Truth be told i no longer involve myself with politics, the right and left are wings of the same bird. I will however get behind people who defend the constitution with honesty and integrity. When i see people burning old glory then claiming to be anti-fascist it makes me cringe at their stupidity. That flag represents unity and these scummy socialists will use any and all dirty tactics to manipulate people into divisive actions.

Newsflash to the Biden supporting, Democratic party loving fools, historically the democrats are the racists and fascists.

a reply to: Grenade

For someone 'no longer involved' you sure seem to have a strong emotional response.

a reply to: Peeple

Stupidity and ignorance have nothing to do with politics.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: Grenade

But that's probably a natural instinct to subject yourself to a group for strength in numbers, safety basically, the group is the strength.
And to look at it that way you'll notice 'the right' is the same way. A safe space for a more conservative crowd. Both feel equally threatened by eachother, because both want to dominate the public playing field with their ideas of several questions, mostly about what the society we share should be focused on.
But I don't think that is actually something that needs to be discussed, that's not just an opinion, that's something where people literally are 'born like that', ultimately an extrapolation of something very fundamental in the direction of introvert / extrovert, with reservations.
Both need eachother. They look opposite but I think they should be looked at as complimentary, for the struggle to find balance between too strict and too lose if you will.

I know not only have you given up on your liberal friends, the left has given up on the right too, because the need for dominance and 'being the only one right' has entirely eclipsed any cultural similarities that never the less still exist.

uncompromising zealots

I think that's true for both sides of the divide.
I don't really have even a theoretical solution for that.

No you're wrong. IMO , the 'right' ( conservatives ) just want to be left the F alone!

The left keeps pushing their radical ideas and opinions on us , and they want to change the very basics of what keep a society stable, such as anti hetero marriage/family life, anti having kids, anti having choices and freedom (was it the Arnold S who said 'screw your freedoms' ) , anti work (UBI etc ) , anti self reliance/independence, anti small business, anti higher pay for more advanced work , etc etc.

Basically if it was up to them they'd collapse the current civilization and rebuild into their dystopia where nobody works and yet everything that's needed falls from the skies !!! Amazing. "Free" healthcare, "free" college (student loan forgiveness) , we'd all be 'equalized' (re-distribution of the 99%ers wealth) . Nobody wins in that scenario , except tptb the 1%ers that are behind this current division.

as liberal, I mean I am an unashamed humanist
[/quote

Humanism
Philosophical school of thought emphasizing the value of human beings and focusing on rationalism and empiricism

Roe v Wade?

Empiricism
Theory that states that knowledge comes only or primarily from sensory experience.

Christina Aguilera rubbing her giant glittered phallus while performing in front of an audience full of children?

Rationalism
Philosophical view that reason should be the chief source of knowledge.

Violent riots have taught society much in the way of knowledge.

Contradiction
Logical incompatibility between two or more propositions.

'Peace can only be achieved if done our way' group think.


Hypocrisy
Pretense of virtue; failure to follow one’s own expressed moral principles.

Self explanitory.

The only way to fix it is with a blow torch.

a reply to: SeriouslyDeep I'm still stuck on the first line. Are you gonna eat that?