Pre-conventional morality is only concerned with power. People in this stage don't have genuine moral opinions, but only act off of reward and punishment. So, they will do whatever authority tells them to do, no matter how transparently stupid it is. The left must clearly be in this category, because they talk about equality, and then discriminate against white men. — Brendan Golledge

Talk about getting things ass-backwards. Leftists are trying (in their own inept way) to compensate for centuries of discrimination against women and minorities - imposed by the predecessors of MAGA.

They talk about saving the environment, and then burn electric cars. — Brendan Golledge

Who is this "they"? Millions of Americans are genuinely angry at Musk for destroying essential government programs that they rely on. A few disgruntled people are doing stupid shit. Leftists are still buying electric cars - just not Teslas.

Etc

I think MAGA is in the conventional stage of morality, which is concerned with law and order. I think "law" could be thought of as "consistent authority. It seems to me that MAGA are still waiting for other people (like Trump) to tell them what to do or to fix things, but at least they can see the inconsistency of the left and reject it. — Brendan Golledge

Talk about getting things ass-backwards. MAGA is totally about power - about obeisance to Trump. Virtually everyone Republican who has disagreed with Trump has been ejected from the party - Cheney, Barr, etc

The fact that seemingly intelligent people (like yourself) buy into this upside down view of reality is a tragedy.

Sure they do. They want the government to "fix the problem" of gay marriage by defining it as a union between a man and a woman. The Libertarian's stance is, "Why are we looking to the government to define marriage in the first place?"

They want the government to "fix the problem" of abortion and God being eliminated from public schools.

Both sides look to the government to "fix problems", either economic or social, depending on which side you are on. So yours, and others, tactic to put Libertarians on the right side shows that you all really understand what Libertarianism is. — Harry Hindu

Ok, with "the government" I'm more talking about the executive branch. Naturally the right wants there to be the legislature and the judiciary too. This complex relation is shown when especially the right wants to act legislation to protect the freedom's and the rights of the citizen from the government.

Left-libertarianism might sound as an oxymoron, but it isn't at all, especially outside the United States. In the US it is right-wing libertarianism that dominates libertarianism, but I guess both have strong roots in classic liberalism.

Yes, but most of the problems that need fixing were created by governments past, and/or a privileged class controlling some aspects of government. — Vera Mont

It is still going on today, building on what came before - thanks to the two-party oligarchy.

What it is is naive. The ideology can maybe work with groups of a hundred people, not in a large, diverse population, not in a capitalist society and certainly not in a nation with international relations. — Vera Mont

Ridiculous. If it works for a hundred people here and a hundred people over there, then why would it not be the same if those two groups interacted? It makes no difference in the size of the group. The difference is simply how you decide to treat other people - either by getting personally involved in their lives and making their life choices for them, or living your life and letting others live theirs.

Ok, with "the government" I'm more talking about the executive branch. Naturally the right wants there to be the legislature and the judiciary too. This complex relation is shown when especially the right wants to act legislation to protect the freedom's and the rights of the citizen from the government.

Left-libertarianism might sound as an oxymoron, but it isn't at all, especially outside the United States. In the US it is right-wing libertarianism that dominates libertarianism, but I guess both have strong roots in classic liberalism. — ssu

Yet the executive branch can only enforce the laws made by the legislature and interpreted by the judiciary.

Both the executive and legislature have expanded the powers of their branches, establishing precedence for when the other party takes power, essentially both parties working together to expand the powers of government influence in our lives.

Left-Libertarianism = moderate Democrats
Right-Libertarianism = moderate Republicans
Communists = extreme Democrats
Fascists = extreme Republicans

Left or right Libertarians can only be those that are abandoning Libertarian views in favor of more authoritarian ones, as in looking to gov. to solve their problems, when their problem is the need to tell others how to live and what "choices" they can make.

Ridiculous. If it works for a hundred people here and a hundred people over there, then why would it not be the same if those two groups interacted? — Harry Hindu

Interaction, no problem; merging, huge problem. That's what happened to tribal cultures when they became - or were subsumed by - nations.

It makes no difference in the size of the group. — Harry Hindu

It absolutely does. You can know 99 other people, at least to speak to or work with; you cannot know millions. 100 people can form consensus on what's in their individual and collective interest, since these overlap to a great degree and the welfare of each is the welfare of all, so it's good for you to help your neighbour and be trusted by him. 1,000,000 people share very little of common interest; each depends on only a few others; they cannot know whom to trust nor have the same regard for all the others. The larger the group, the harder it is to communicate and keep track of what others are doing, harder to care what happens to each stranger. But much easier to lie, cheat and exploit.

The difference is simply how you decide to treat other people — Harry Hindu

No, it's not. What I decide doesn't influence people who want something different - like pillage the environment in which I live, limit my freedom of movement, foist their religious beliefs on me, or use my labour to enrich themselves. If they're stronger then me or have more friends, my decisions matter not at all.

Pre-conventional morality is only concerned with power. — Brendan Golledge

I see concern for liberty and justice for all, for which the US has stood for since its beginning. I do not see the connection between that and being a child because it comes with responsibility and the possibility of manifesting a better reality for all of mankind. Our democracy is supposed to be rule by reason, not authoritarian power over the masses.

To me, MAGA is equal to Hitler's propaganda used to manipulate the masses who have been prepared to follow, instead of lead, since the 1958 National Defense Education Act replaced the US model of education with the German model of education for a technological society with unknown values. Since that change in the purpose of education, we have left moral training up to the Church, and now the US is what we defended our democracy against. Church authority is based on superstition and myth and stands in the way of education for good moral reasoning that is essential to democracy. This has caused a moral crisis that threatens our democracy because it leads to authoritarianism.

Left or right Libertarians can only be those that are abandoning Libertarian views in favor of more authoritarian ones, as in looking to gov. to solve their problems, when their problem is the need to tell others how to live and what "choices" they can make. — Harry Hindu

I hate labeling! Politics needs to be about issues, not imagined divisions.

Only when our democracy is defended in the classroom is it defended, and we haven't done that since 1958. We need to know history and civics. We need literacy in great literature to have a great nation.

Thomas Jefferson believed that an educated citizenry is crucial for a free society. He famously stated, "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be". He also emphasized the importance of education for the general public, believing that an informed populace is necessary for a republic to function. AI

Democracy is based on the notion that we can learn and we can do better when all learn and share responsibility for self-government. This mentality is not about choosing sides and being winners or losers as though politics were a form of football.

Please, can we drop labels and talk issues?

I think MAGA is in the conventional stage of morality, which is concerned with law and order. I think "law" could be thought of as "consistent authority. It seems to me that MAGA are still waiting for other people (like Trump) to tell them what to do or to fix things, but at least they can see the inconsistency of the left and reject it. — Brendan Golledge

Democracy is rule by reason, not authority over the people. Not grabbing power like Trump is attempting to do. If that is not understood, we have fought every war for nothing.

Rule by law begins with reasoning. It is understanding logos, reason, the controlling force of the universe, and good manners. Science supports democracy, not Christianity with its superstition and myth.

Rule by law begins with reasoning. It is understanding logos, reason, the controlling force of the universe, and good manners. Science supports democracy, not Christianity with its superstition and myth. — Athena

Which is why the Trump miministration is in such a hurry to abolish science, education and free speech. Their aim is to reduce citizens to abjectly cowering serfs, fighting one another for crumbs off their oppressors' table.

conservatives can model what liberals think, but liberals have no idea what conservatives think and they think that conservatives are just evil. — Brendan Golledge

There are two moves made in this statement. First, liberals have no idea what a conservative thought process is or how conservative ideals can be rationally supported. And second, liberals conclude that conservatives are just evil. Both conservatives and liberals are too quick to make this second move, but I see it as more essential to way the left talks to conservatives (or won't talk to conservatives).

Most liberals can't (or won't) think like a conservative at all. It's why they are shocked Trump won both elections. It is more essential to the leftist methodology to put people into buckets and baskets, and when the people in those baskets won't use leftist language to reason and argue their way out of the simplistic bucket, the leftist can quickly conclude that such people must simply be deplorable, or evil, or just stupid. So the explanation for how Trump won is that, most of America is stupid and/or evil. There is no rational explanation.

But conservatives know how to behave and think like a leftist, and can even see the justification and rationality of leftism. There is much room for negotiation and an ability to compromise with a conservative; there is nothing to negotiate (only absolutes exist) to a leftist. And compromise is only defeat to a leftist (unless it is one leftist compromising with another leftist, presumably to fight another day anyway).

I’m just trying to wrap my head around the image of Brendan sitting in the middle of a group of MAGA supporters and saying to himself “Gee, these people are so much more morally developed than leftists!”. — Joshs

I don't know if you (or Brendan) are liberal or conservative, but this quote sounds like an example that "liberals have no idea what conservatives think and they think that conservatives are just evil."

MAGA is not equivalent to conservative, just like Marxist or Socialist aren't equivalent to liberal. So maybe this doesn't really address the OP.

And maybe it doesn't help anyone to manage the border, and so the US, they way Biden did. Maybe Maga is onto something moral? To better the planet? Impossible to conceive? How about China - no reason whatsoever to be suspicious of their progress around the planet?
____________

it doesn't seem normal to me that a person ought to put killing their babies on the top of their priority list. — Brendan Golledge

Because you're a man. You take bodily autonomy for granted. And you also can't think. You will never be raped and forced to carry the rapist's child to term. Can you imagine how awful that would be? No, because your posts show a total lack of imagination. There are nine states with laws like that on the books. The fact you can't understand why women are passionate about abortion rights tells me your level of moral development is very low. — RogueAI

This is a great example (assuming Brendan is the conservative and RogueAI is the liberal). Brendan maybe shouldn't have said "killing their babies" and should have just said "terminating pregnancy", but he is discussing priority lists. RogueAI responds to the idea that abortion may be bad, or a lower priority issue with "because you're a man" putting Brendan's whole thought process and his humanity in a bucket - men - and downgrading that bucket with "you take...for granted" and "you can't think" and "you will never be...forced" and "lack of imagination" and "you can't understand" and "level of moral development is very low."

Brendan is sub-human now - no reason to argue an opposing point with him. Who would want to debate anything with such a "man"?? Who would want to use their imagination to understand how Brendan could say killing human fetuses isn't normal or good? What kind of human could think abortion rights is not a priority? Rhetorical questions in no need of exploring - because liberals have no idea how conservatives think, or if they think at all.
_______________

There are as many political beliefs as there are people, and the term “Left” and “Right” are by now slurs meant to impugn another, or otherwise to signal one’s political purity, and not much else. A whole host of fallacy results. — NOS4A2

Spot on. There are no true baskets of people. The basket called "maga" is smaller than any one of its members. Just like the basket called "marxist" is antithetical to the individual working man or woman. We are each a political party of one member, or we should be, resisting anyone who thinks they know anything important about us because we registered "democrat" or "republican", and resisting our own biases when we learn someone else is registered some other way.

Which is why the Trump miministration is in such a hurry to abolish science, education and free speech. Their aim is to reduce citizens to abjectly cowering serfs, fighting one another for crumbs off their oppressors' table. — Vera Mont

Okay, but this shift does not begin with him, and we can not resolve the problem without a better understanding of it. Eisenhower warned us of the Military Industrial Complex and we need to be aware of it and the changes in education that led us to electing our own Hitler. And preachers are telling us Trump is so strong because God stands by Trump. This is the Germany that followed Hitler because we adopted the German models of bureaucracy and education. We internalized our enemy to have the strongest military force on earth.

conservatives can model what liberals think, but liberals have no idea what conservatives think and they think that conservatives are just evil.
— Brendan Golledge

There are two moves made in this statement. First, liberals have no idea what a conservative thought process is or how conservative ideals can be rationally supported. And second, liberals conclude that conservatives are just evil. Both conservatives and liberals are too quick to make this second move, but I see it as more essential to way the left talks to conservatives (or won't talk to conservatives). — Fire Ologist

I think conservatives, liberals and MAGA are all thinking ‘morally’ according to different schemes of understanding. The key word here is understanding, not morality. They all want to do good, but their ways of figuring out how others think differs in its effectiveness at anticipating such behavioral processes. I think of such skills at ‘mindreading’ as products of philosophical worldviews thar develop over human history. In theory, then, we get better and better over the course of cultural evolution at making sense of of each other in ways that allow us to avoid the moral condemnation that comes from utterly failing to grasp how the other sees things. This development can be thought of as subsuming, with each new advance in understanding including within itself the essentials of the previous stage.

I am partial to liberal political approaches, taking on a ‘post-woke’ perspective ( as opposed to the pre-woke perspectives of conservatives and MAGA). Post-woke means I have assimilated the philosophical underpinnings that ground wokism, but move beyond its moralistic blame and finger-pointing. I view my perspective as subsuming the essentials of wokism, and see the progressivism out of which it emerged as subsuming the essentials of conservatism-libertarianism. And I see conservatism ( the socially moderate variety represented by National Review , now called RHINOS) as subsuming the essentials of MAGA. That means that of this whole developmental spectrum of political thought, MAGA is the least well-equipped to make sense of alternative ways of thinking and post-wokism is the best equipped to do so. But if this is the case, then why does it appear that conservatives can model what liberals think better than liberals can model what conservatives think? After all, if liberalism subsumes the essentials of conservatism and goes beyond it, then conservatism should be quite familiar to liberals.

Let me suggest that the issue is less that of understanding conservative positions than it is of not getting why conservatives would want to hold onto what liberals see as outdated, anachronistic, regressive thinking. It would be like visiting with a group of ultra-orthodox jews or an amish community and finding their ways quaintly familiar, a return to an older and simpler time and belief system. But at the same time, there might be puzzlement as to why these people would want to hold onto a worldview that appears from a modern vantage as unenlightened concerning important aspects of how to get along with others without the need to repress difference.

I get along well with my MAGA acquaintances. I understand well where they are coming from, and have no need to condemn them from a moral perspective. But they don’t strike me as very adaptive in their ability to connect with others unlike themselves, to skillfully see the world from the other’s point of view. I have to walk on tiptoe not to say or do the wrong thing. In this way there is a superficial resemblance to the hypersensitivity of wokism, but in the later, the finger-pointing moralism reflects a lack of empathy for those who aren’t able to live up to high standards of mutual understanding and acceptance of difference. In the former, the standards of human conduct are much lower; humans are seen as basically fortresses of selfishness. The healthy social sphere is expected to be dominated more by zero-sum competition and rivalry than by cooperation, which is to be approached with suspicion and cynicism.

Okay, but this shift does not begin with him, — Athena

No, it's been building for some time, but it may end with him or his successor.

and we can not resolve the problem without a better understanding of it — Athena

Understanding isn't difficult. Which 'we' is it that wants to, and is willing to make the hazardous and arduous effort to resolve it? Trump still has a 42% (!!wtf?!!) approval rating.

We internalized our enemy to have the strongest military force on earth. — Athena

yes. I wonder which way the armed forces will choose when (not if) it comes to the point.

Interaction, no problem; merging, huge problem. That's what happened to tribal cultures when they became - or were subsumed by - nations. — Vera Mont

You're straw-manning. As I was saying - the two groups were made up of Libertarians, so why would there be a problem in two groups of 100 Libertarians each merging together? If they all share the same mindset of "live and let live", then what is the problem? There is none. The problem arises when others in the group abandon Libertarianism in favor of living how they want but imposing their standards on others. In a society of "Live and Let Live" no one's rights will ever be infringed upon.

The issues you speak of are the problems if an authoritarian society (either communist, fascist or theocracy) where you attempt to force everyone to think the same way. Libertarianism is far less dependent on people thinking the same as everyone can have different means and methods of obtaining happiness - only as long as those means and methods do not infringe on anyone else's goals. In this type of society everyone gets more of what they want, even if it differs, without fear of oppression.

It absolutely does. You can know 99 other people, at least to speak to or work with; you cannot know millions. 100 people can form consensus on what's in their individual and collective interest, since these overlap to a great degree and the welfare of each is the welfare of all, so it's good for you to help your neighbour and be trusted by him. 1,000,000 people share very little of common interest; each depends on only a few others; they cannot know whom to trust nor have the same regard for all the others. The larger the group, the harder it is to communicate and keep track of what others are doing, harder to care what happens to each stranger. But much easier to lie, cheat and exploit. — Vera Mont

If I can't know millions then that means I never interact with millions, only the 100 I am a part of.
Over 70 million shared a common interest that either Kamala Harris or Donald Trump should be president of the U.S., millions of people are part of political parties that share common interests, so you claim that 1 million people share very little is bogus. In a democracy, it seems to me all that matters is what the majority wants. If what you said were true then all elections could never be decided because too many people think differently - there would never be a majority vote for one candidate. What you're saying just does not fit with reality.

No, it's not. What I decide doesn't influence people who want something different - like pillage the environment in which I live, limit my freedom of movement, foist their religious beliefs on me, or use my labour to enrich themselves. If they're stronger then me or have more friends, my decisions matter not at all. — Vera Mont

Maybe it's your delivery. I have been able to get others to change their mind, or at least to consider other opinions and options as valid. It certainly helps that the other person is open-minded and intellectually honest. For those that aren't that is what your voice and vote are for - to reach other open-minded and intellectually honest people in an effort to help them see the ever-growing danger of a two-party political system ruled by elites that keep expanding their power while manipulating their constituents to demonize any opposition in an effort to close their minds to listening to and considering anything other than what the Party says.

I hate labeling! Politics needs to be about issues, not imagined divisions. — Athena

I knew I wouldn't have to go far (your post right above your reply to me) to find you contradicting yourself:

MAGA is equal to Hitler's propaganda used to manipulate the masses who have been prepared to follow — Athena

:roll:

Labels is what the left is all about with their focus on racial and gender identities. The right is focused on religious identities. Libertarians could care less about labels and identities - other than authoritarian and liberal - the main gist of what I've been saying recently is that the term "liberal" is being misused, and to correct that.

Democracy is based on the notion that we can learn and we can do better when all learn and share responsibility for self-government. This mentality is not about choosing sides and being winners or losers as though politics were a form of football. — Athena

No it's not. Democracy is based on the idea of majority rule and the minority has to suck it up. A democracy only works when the citizens are educated and informed, which most of the U.S. citizenry is not. Most Americans live in political bubbles formed by listening sources that only affirm what they think and don't bother exposing themselves to new ideas (because that would be heresy).

Please, can we drop labels and talk issues? — Athena

You first.

Whatever happened to open and honest debate on a level playing field? The major media outlets claim that they are unbiased and have representatives of other views but they are often outnumbered and interrupted when speaking.

Whatever happened to interactions like this:

(sorry for the video quality. it's old)

It's funny watching the Rep and Dem trying to interrupt Stewart to get their talking points in. They aren't interested in discussion. They are only interested in being "part of their [party's] strategies", as Stewart put it. The part that is "hurting America" as Stewart put it is the inability to see the person on the other side as a person and trying to understand where they are coming from and why they believe what they do. Only then will you be able to find common ground and compromise.

You're straw-manning. As I was saying - the two groups were made up of Libertarians, so why would there be a problem in two groups of 100 Libertarians each merging together? — Harry Hindu

There wouldn't be. The problem emerges when you discover that not all people are Libertarian.
If everyone were a dedicated environmentally conscientious, compassionate, vegetarian socialist, I would have no problem, either.

The issues you speak of are the problems if an authoritarian society (either communist, fascist or theocracy) where you attempt to force everyone to think the same way. — Harry Hindu

(You left out capitalist.) They invariably do, and quite successfully.

Over 70 million shared a common interest that either Kamala Harris or Donald Trump should be president of the U.S., millions of people are part of political parties that share common interests, so you claim that 1 million people share very little is bogus.

That statement is bogus. All those people did not share those opinions. They chose the agenda that they thought more closely aligned with their own interests. Many were wrong in their assessment; many are now regretting their choice. I fully agree that those two options were insufficient to cover all the issues and concerns of the population, and that the system needs a serious reformation. I do not believe that yours could cope with the the reality of where the US is at this moment in history.

Libertarianism is far less dependent on people thinking the same as everyone can have different means and methods of obtaining happiness - only as long as those means and methods do not infringe on anyone else's goals. — Harry Hindu

They invariably and inevitably do. Not to mention the logistical difficulty arising from hundreds or thousands attempting to build roads and bridges all their own, any place they liked. All those unfinished projects would waste a lot of resources and clutter up the landscape.

I have been able to get others to change their mind, or at least to consider other opinions and options as valid. — Harry Hindu

You may have persuaded some of your peers to consider this option, but I'm not aware of the actual functioning society you established thereby. I considered it intensively in the late 1960's. Sounded good, superficially; could not bear scrutiny.

RogueAI responds to the idea that abortion may be bad, or a lower priority issue with "because you're a man" putting Brendan's whole thought process and his humanity in a bucket - men - and downgrading that bucket with "you take...for granted" and "you can't think" and "you will never be...forced" and "lack of imagination" and "you can't understand" and "level of moral development is very low." — Fire Ologist

There are plenty of men who understand why women place such a high priority on reproductive freedom. This man,

Kohlberg was probably right that women on average have a lower level of moral development than men — Brendan Golledge

is not one of them. His posts are garbage. If he keeps up in this vein, he'll be banned. Good riddance. Do we really need more misogynists?

There wouldn't be. The problem emerges when you discover that not all people are Libertarian. — Vera Mont

I think that most people are Libertarians. They just don't know it because they've been conned by the two-party system into believing that the other side is trying to take your freedoms away. This is the fear-mongering that both sides propagate. They don't scare people into voting for them because the other side wants you to be more free. They are scaring you into believing that the other side wants to take away your freedoms. not the other way around, which is evidence that most people are Libertarian-minded.

That statement is bogus. All those people did not share those opinions. They chose the agenda that they thought more closely aligned with their own interests. Many were wrong in their assessment; many are now regretting their choice. I fully agree that those two options were insufficient to cover all the issues and concerns of the population, and that the system needs a serious reformation. I do not believe that yours could cope with the the reality of where the US is at this moment in history. — Vera Mont

I have a feeling that many would regret their choice no matter who ended up being president, given our (only two) choices. Mine is not a coping mechanism for reality as it is. It is the idea that we need to change reality as it is by abolishing political parties. Being that the two-party system is the status-quo, and continued support would be considered "conservative" in nature rather than "progressive".

They invariably and inevitably do. Not to mention the logistical difficulty arising from hundreds or thousands attempting to build roads and bridges all their own, any place they liked. All those unfinished projects would waste a lot of resources and clutter up the landscape. — Vera Mont

"Live and let live" does not necessarily mean Libertarians do not work together to better the lives for themselves. This is a typical straw-man argument against Libertarianism.

Yet the executive branch can only enforce the laws made by the legislature and interpreted by the judiciary. — Harry Hindu

That would be the idea, which obviously US Presidents and especially Donald Trump doesn't understand with his "executive orders".

Both the executive and legislature have expanded the powers of their branches, establishing precedence for when the other party takes power, essentially both parties working together to expand the powers of government influence in our lives. — Harry Hindu

Even in a multiparty system this happens. Imagine a Parliament that would some day just declare: "Got it! All laws that we need have been done. We'll go home now, call us if we are needed." :wink:

Left or right Libertarians can only be those that are abandoning Libertarian views in favor of more authoritarian ones, as in looking to gov. to solve their problems, when their problem is the need to tell others how to live and what "choices" they can make. — Harry Hindu

I'm not sure if libertarians themselves see it like that.

That would be the idea, which obviously US Presidents and especially Donald Trump doesn't understand with his "executive orders". — ssu

..a precedence that has been established since the country's founding and expanded upon by both parties.
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/data/executive-orders

Even in a multiparty system this happens. Imagine a Parliament that would some day just declare: "Got it! All laws that we need have been done. We'll go home now, call us if we are needed." :wink: — ssu

I'm not talking about multiparty either. I'm talking about NO parties.

"However political parties may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion."
-George Washington (the only U.S. President to not be a member of a political party)

Not many laws are needed in a limited government - just an independently monitored police and defense force and a judiciary with term limits to interpret the laws, and a "head of state" for international representation.

I'm not sure if libertarians themselves see it like that. — ssu

I would have to question whether they are actually Libertarian or not. The more they agree with what is outside of the Libertarian box, the less Libertarian they are, and more authoritarian they are, by definition. If we don't have clear definitions then we risk talking past each other.

Which is why the Trump miministration is in such a hurry to abolish science, education and free speech. Their aim is to reduce citizens to abjectly cowering serfs, fighting one another for crumbs off their oppressors' table. — Vera Mont

Trump is a good Christian. :grin: We should all live by faith and stop attempting to reason. Leave everything up to God and Trump. All we need do is obey.

It's funny watching the Rep and Dem trying to interrupt Stewart to get their talking points in. They aren't interested in discussion. They are only interested in being "part of their [party's] strategies", as Stewart put it. The part that is "hurting America" as Stewart put it is the inability to see the person on the other side as a person and trying to understand where they are coming from and why they believe what they do. Only then will you be able to find common ground and compromise. — Harry Hindu

That is a culture change following the change in education. We changed how we teach young minds to work. They are no longer prepared for good reasoning.

Does anyone else object to the monetary changes in college football? The media is very much part of this problem, making a big deal out of ball games and totally ignoring high school and college debates. Indeed, today, high schools have ball games but not debate teams.

Democracy has nothing to do with football, but debating is essential to democracy. I want a Statue of Liberty put in schools to remind us of what debating and good reasoning have to do with our liberty and justice. Football is a substitute for war. Winners and losers. You are wrong and I am right. Dominate or serve. God of Abraham religions are divisive, not inclusive. This is a cultural problem.

yes. I wonder which way the armed forces will choose when (not if) it comes to the point. — Vera Mont

Here is the worst problem! Trump is getting rid of all those who do not salute him and march with his agenda. In the past, when a king died, that was the end of him. Modern bureaucracy does not die with the leader. Trump is not all wrong in his efforts to disrupt that bureaucratic reality. But by replacing the old regime with his regime, he may not be giving us a better reality, and his control of military men in controlling positions is a threat to the democracy we inherited, especially because we stopped defending that democracy in the classroom.

Trump is a good Christian. — Athena

:rofl:

I think that most people are Libertarians. — Harry Hindu

Most people are tribal to some degree.

They just don't know it because they've been conned by the two-party system into believing that the other side is trying to take your freedoms away. — Harry Hindu

The two-party system is American. Most other nations have several parties represented in their legislatures, so that minority voices are also heard - indeed, if one of the largest parties does not get a clear majority, their administration depends on support from the minor ones.
(Please don't tell other people what they know or think!)

It is the idea that we need to change reality as it is by abolishing political parties — Harry Hindu

You have my blessing to do that.

"Live and let live" does not necessarily mean Libertarians do not work together to better the lives for themselves. — Harry Hindu

The operative word there is bold. They might beable to, sometimes, if a competent leader is acknowledged by all participants and they are all equally willing to do their part. But in order for that that to happen with any reliable frequency, the people involved would have to be very much in agreement about all kinds of fundamental things. What you have in your little coloured chart is aparty platform, not a formula for most people's actual lives. Once a political party gains power, it's not eager to cede to any other organizing entity.

In the past, when a king died, that was the end of him. — Athena

But not of his regime: there was usually a recognized successor to carry on. Otherwise, bloody civil war. That, I'm afraid, is what will happen in the disunited states of America.

Trump is not all wrong in his efforts to disrupt that bureaucratic reality. — Athena

Yes, he is. He and his henchmen are disrupting exactly those departments that have done the best job. A whole lot of people will suffer for a long time as a result.

Trump is getting rid of all those who do not salute him and march with his agenda. — Athena

Top brass. Not all the men and women who obey the top brass - or refuse to. My feeling is that armed forces will split along ideological and/or ethical lines (Remember, they swore to uphold the constitution.) Civil War reboot.

Labels is what the left is all about — Harry Hindu

Oh crap. I am sorry, but I have lost patience.

On the light side, after one of my letters to the editor was published, I was invited to join a group of mostly men who had lunch together while someone presented an issue of interest, and everyone discussed it. That was before the internet, and I was intellectually. starving, so I was thrilled to join. :lol:
These guys had served in WWII and they were sexist, Christian conservatives. Originally, they called their club the John Birch Society.

Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › John_Birch_Society
The John Birch Society (JBS) is an American right-wing political advocacy group. Founded in 1958, it is anti-communist, supports social conservatism, ...

When I joined, they called themselves the Cicero Society, and they eventually included their wives in the meetings. To my horror, their wives were like little dependent girls. My point is, it took me a while to understand I was not one of them! :lol: OMG I was not one of them. Neither was the Jew who had been a long-standing member, and that means I was not the only one with a different point of view. The dear man who read my letter to the editor assumed I was conservative.

Frankly, this lift-right thing baffles me. I so much wish people would give up their imagined left-right thinking. I most certainly am not a conservative, but have old-fashioned values regarding what democracy is and what our civic responsibilities are, based on the philosophy of pagans. Stop creating a false notion of reality by labeling people. Talk about the issues. Not the football teams.

Satan is a reality because people make that so. :brow: When we make up boogie men, we are not dealing with the reality and developing a consensus.

Most people are tribal to some degree. — Vera Mont

All people are tribal. That is becoming more obvious every day. We are social animals and have a need to belong, and that leads us to conform to the ideals of others so we are accepted, and consequently also define who is not one of us. That was the main focus of the Nazis and today is the main focus of Trumps agenda. Hating those who are not one of us is important to this agenda. Hmm, that could make a good thread. How do we come to grips with being one of us and not one of them? who defines the agendas that separate us?

In this thread, people are working hard to prove that people can be categorized as one of us or one of them.

Stop creating a false notion of reality by labeling people. — Athena

If someone identifies as MAGA, you have a very good idea of what they're about: anti-vax, stolen election, climate change denialism, cultish adoration of Trump, xenophobia, etc. Hillary was right about these people being deplorable, but wrong about their numbers- They're all deplorable cult members who cheer Trump's cruelty. Maybe some are "fine people", but I haven't met one yet.

We are social animals and have a need to belong, and that leads us to conform to the ideals of others so we are accepted, and consequently also define who is not one of us. — Athena

A good - that is, well functioning - society does not require compliance and conformity, but rather a consensus on matters of common interest. Belonging to a community does not entail rejection of other communities, unless there is a strong motive to do so, such as conflict over water and territory. Pre-European societies did a lot more trading and intermarrying than fighting. Even if you fight with another tribe, you're not required to hate its members: you can respect an enemy and become trading partners or allies after peace is made. ( see Haudenosaunee Confederacy)
The modern version, both in so-called advanced societies and former European colonies, is a bastardized form of tribalism, brought about by artificial divisions within a larger polity.

In this thread, people are working hard to prove that people can be categorized as one of us or one of them. — Athena

I don't see a hard work here. A social conservative does not necessarily align with the platform of a political party that calls itself Conservative (like the odious Polievre, who wants to conserve all the wrong things, like plastic straws), but in an all-pervasive capitalistic culture, a conservative outlook is assumed to be pro-business and anti-welfare. A person who calls himself Christian and behaves in ways that would make Jesus weep can be classified, but not as a Christian.

We cannot know millions of people as individuals and judge them each according to their degree of Trumpism or whatever. So we categorize people according to how their words and actions compare with our own mind-set, expectations and aspirations.