Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by miloblithe, Dec 17, 2004.
I found the correlation between those who watch TV News, who believe (a) in more curtailing of muslim-american civil liberties, (b) that a terrorist attack in the continental US is likely to happen in the next twelve months, than those who do not, fascinating. It is an obvious, yet disturbing point; that the media sensationalizes and simplifies the truth of the matter and propogates an unrealistically fearful attitude amongst it's viewers.
I would be interested to see the correlation (if any) between the news sources Republicans watch, listen to, and read, and their resultant attitudes in comparison to those of Democrats and Independents.
Glad to see that 48% of the populace does NOT support the curtailing of civil liberties BTW...
Silber lining. Your glass is half full, mine is half empty. My reaction is that if only half of America thinks it's not cool to discriminate, then we're totally ****ed up.
It's a sad time to be a decent human being.
yeah, and we've been getting our way for a few years now, huh?
pseudo, I do choose to be optimistic, fair enough. I also look at the fact that of those who do favor some curtailing of civil liberties, there is a large gradient of degree. Of course, there is also the phrasing of the question, which can often be a stumbling block for surveys.
Zim, I am still hopped-up on Cold meds, so please make your point clearer, even if it diminishes your ascerbic wit...
i am inexplicably on my 38th hour w/ no sleep, so i think we're about even
you were pointing to 48% of the population being reasonable, but i was pointing out that that same 48% is being shut out of politics. i.e. we don't count.
More of that hypocrisy. Don't dare step over my rights and my religion, but I can step all over yours because I'm the majority. It's wrong when they do it to the minority religions in the Middle East, it's wrong when people try to take away Christians rights here, and it's wrong to do it to those who aren't Christians. I think these people need to re-read their history before we start putting Muslims and Homosexuals in "camps" or something.
I worry that there will be a backlash against the true believers when all the "false prophets" try to take things too far. Anyone who truly believes on freedom better speak up now. Once "they" start loosing their freedoms, who's to say "your" freedoms aren't next. That's why it's always important to protect the rights of the minority. "There but for the grace of God..."
Politics cannot sell "decent human being" as a cure.
You say that as if - only people of your own political persuasion fall into the category of "decent human being".
Personally I think that way of thinking is the key problem. You are looking for a one sentence answer to solve all problems. Your comment leads me to believe that in your own ideal world, a "decent human race" will only happen when we all look the same and think the same. (I know you would disagree with that, so I also know that your perfect world will have to be a world of contradiction, just like those who either do or don't share your politics or spiritual beliefs.)
Back in reality, we will need a different sentence for every single person, every single minute of the day. I believe a "decent human race" will only happen when we stop identifying ourselves as activist groups of minorities/majorities and get back down to the individual groups of one.
There is no everyone is equal, non discriminate rule. The further we pursue this goal, the further we clarify reasons to discriminate.
Lets just concentrate on the fact we're all different and we need to tolerate eachothers ways. Kindness is free but it is in short supply, and kindness is relative, so there will never be enough to fill any objective view of the world.
cherry on top...
Every baby born, is so at a cost to the environment. We are an integral part of nature, so we must stop trying to control it, we will ultimately be (and continually are) left with disappointment.
I just watched a re-accounting of the Christmas Day truce during WWI.
The Soldiers knew they didn't want to kill each other as individuals.(and they knew this despite being voters with views of different political polarities.)
They knew they were only doing what they had been ordered to do.
We know that there were human group pressures controlling the individuals on both sides.
My point is - a) making rules that one group must apply love or hate to another group is what is wrong with the world.
and - b) a group making rules that an individual must NOT love or NOT hate another individual is exactly what makes an individual want to act as a group to love or hate.
ie. self perpetuating
There should be rights to be as discriminate as a person wants to be on an individual to individual level whether that be with love or hate (they are relative). That right in itself would neutralise any desire to act as a group, be it with love or hate.
The worst group of people are the people who buy a ticket into power by telling everyone else that they can make an "Ideal World". As individuals I love them all, I just wish they would stop pretending they have answers to a problem that isn't really a problem, it's just nature and a set of dynamics that make being alive so amazingly wonderful. Despite accident of birth.
No one (politcal, religious or otherwise) will ever change the way it works.
it is bigger than all of us, as a group or as an individual.
Knowingly trading a promise, on which there can be no possible delivery, in exchange for group power, is exactly what is wrong with the world.
These groups are the source of RULES that make us want more group action. In a computer sense they are the Virus Software companies who write the viruses we pay them to remove.
So our choice is - the immediate horror of war on a day to day basis, individual vs individual or - the remote and periodical war of group vs group.
Whichever you choose, Energy will find its earth.
And that's what it is, a "Party" of individuals selling a promise that they connot possibly deliver upon.
That's why it's always important to protect the rights of the minority of ONE.
At very least we stop the market for a "Party" who will trade "False Prophesies" for power over a the remaining group.
No, you're reading into it too much.
I said it as if only people who believe that it's wrong to discriminate against other people because of their religion or race fall into the category if "decent human being."
There's nothing partisan about my statement at all.
But you're as free to put words into my mouth as am I to disregard said words.
Who's proposing such a rule?
Just because someone's an inhuman xenophobe doesn't mean I think they should be forced to conform. I just think they have no right to apply that hatred into the public.
I may not think much of Klansmen, but I'll be damned if I'll support legislation or "making rules" that they can't hate. Hell, I support their right to freedom of assembly just as much as any other group, racist or not. That still doesn't make them decent human beings.
perhaps kettle is referring to me because of the first three words of the thread's title. (Kettle seems to have missed the next two though).
Kettle, there are problems with conceiving everything through the lens of individual rights. There are also group/collective rights. Both of these constrctions has drawbacks, which is why using both is necessary for balance.
Who's proposing such a rule? - It's in the very nature of group activity, I was simplifying it for ease of identification. How can 2 main parties cover every individuals opinion, equally how can anyone pinpoint "American Values" as if there is only one set.
Anyone who makes promises based on "American Values" is being so vague, it may as well be deception.
People under the "Group" xenophobe -
A person unduly fearful or contemptuous of that which is foreign, especially of strangers or foreign peoples.
maybe a person who organises discrimination against a group of individuals with distinguishing feature x in common.
Two friendly neighbours become angry with eachother over an issue of an overhanging tree near the division of their neighbouring property. Both men with firery tempers set to blows and both men use their visual identity as verbal attacks on eachothers validity. Is the man visually identifiable as common with the majority in the region a xenophobe for fighting with a man visually identifiable with a minority for the region?
- You don't have to be a scientist to predict what will happen to the negative energy contained in the man from majority if he becomes labeled as a xenophobe. Despite being two once friendly neighbours who could have come to an agreement and reconciliation over the "offending tree" the two men will now me marked adversaries because there is no solution for not being in eachothers particular visual identity group.
So whether you vote one way or other. Group control wether little v Large or Big v small, it just perpetuates the availability of a dynamic to control other groups.
Even the title of this thread is immediately divisive amongst people who identify with "American Values"
I am fully aware that the "Group" mechanic and "Individual" mechanic are required for our society to find balance. This again is just a model I put forward to highlight the twisted nature of political parties. They all sell their manifesto with Promises they cannot possibly keep, and then make the mistake that people are actually voting for the party for these false promises.
Most people didn't vote for bush because they wanted a war with iraq. They voted on many many criss-crossing issues that are common amongst both Political polarities in America.
The thing with the media that supports the Political process, is that it can't find an easy way of communicating the subtle criss-crossing issues that are common amongst both Political polarities in America.
The people who want power will get it, the two parties in America will use any leverage point they require to take power. The power is there for grabs and the competition just legitimises one or other party's right to be there.
The two Parties are essentially fighting for the the one group of people who recognise "American Values" the truly horrible thing is it is just the same mechanic as the more "popular" forms of discrimination.
The politicians who compete for power use the energy created by division/discrimination to energize a population who basically all want to live a very similar, inter-compatible lifestyle. The population are now tricked into recognizing differences that at heart are inconsequential to daily life, but become a permanent label to harness support for an irrelevant allegiance to a party.
So, if two visually separable people are in fact equal, surely they should be able to "hate eachother" or "love eachother" without being identified as visually separable to go with the actual reason they are either loving or hating eachother.
Surely the logic of discrimination should extend all the way down to identical twins using who was born first as a hurtful method of attack. If this seems ridiculous then shouldn't all individual based discriminations be as ridiculous?
Imagine a group of people (party) who propagated the idea that all elder identical twins should have more human rights than elder identical twins. That would be silly unless you imagined that what if every person born was one of an identical twin. At this point we would have a serious leverage point to secure group support for a party election into power.
All I'm trying to say is the removal of a human's right to be discriminate against a fellow human on an individual day to day basis is perpetuating the real problems of group division in society. The collectives taking away this right are indifferent because the result actually produces more political activity and more authority for the ruling/elected group to do what the hell they like.
And the actual "what the hell they like" in the USA today is a two party structure that does sod all to distinguish or provide voting options on a day today individual level. The level at which a population who basically all want to live a very similar, inter-compatible lifestyle is at.
Amen to that! Was very disturbed by the info. In the 70's I saw hope that we were a nation coming together by ethnic, religious, and other diversity lines. I just can't believe how we have grown apart since then.
What I want to know is...where the hell were these people when we were learning about the Constitution in school? And is this going to just get worse by reinforcement through right-wing propaganda and home schooling?
I didn't title this thread. My arguments were made in reference to the article itself.
I have a problem with people being racist, sexist, or hateful. As long as they don't act on that hatred, though, I won't act to counter it.
I'm not really sure where you're going with this. Are you suggesting that we as a society should tolerate hate speech without condemning it?
That's the contradiction. I have a problem with people being racist, sexist, or hateful also. The very important difference is that I deal with the "group" and "individual" occurrences in different ways.
Any organised group activity to direct actions toward another group is pretty bad.
an individual should be able to exercise a level of verbal hatred toward another individual without restriction based on racial sexual or whatever. dissipate energy and walk away. Again, the identical twin will use a minute separation in age as the spiteful stab. There are differences at all levels accident of birth is particularly potent and we should do our best to prevent it from being carried into group activity. WWI Christmas 1914, the soldiers knew that they had so much more in common than they were fighting about. It was the transmission of energy through groups that left us with Germans vs Britain 50 feet apart, soldiers that even at that late stage, didn't really know why they were killing each other. These soldiers were manipulated by group mechanisms.
This sounds nuts, but not as nuts as today where certain people depending on their circumstances are obliged to be more polite than they otherwise would be to another person in an offensive situation.
I don't want anyone to be hateful of another, it's just this is real life and that is what humans sometimes do.
To maintain true equality between people there should be no artificial immunity from hatred or any other emotion. This would just make the situation worse.
In a group situation it makes perfect sense to restrict any group from actively contriving circumstance against another group, especially in the sense of physical human form.
I just want true equality not artificial equality. I don't want an argument between two individuals to be contrived by "manipulating bastards" (usually organisers of groups) as an attack from one group to another. All it does is ignore the individuals actual problems and validate the manipulating group.
The sooner we have it, the sooner we can forget about the need for groups.
The manipulators and the group formers are the true problem in any society.
No, I'm suggesting that in true equality, what does the physical form have to do with how rude an individual can be to another individual. I'm suggesting hate speech is still something to be condemned, but we are free humans and hate is hate as love is love. You cannot put quotas on it, at any level. The only realistic thing you can do is prevent it happening on on a grouped physical human stereotype basis.
With any luck the need for groups like this will be redundant because petty squabbles between individuals can expend their energy without one or either individual taking the energy elsewhere (for group action).
This is simplistic, but this is a model of what is happening in the world today. I just think the alternative should be noted.
Double think at its best/worst.
BTW pseudo, I didn't think you titled the thread, I'm not trying to prove you wrong, catch you out or score a point, I'm just trying to add a variation of ideas for a discussion, I think discussion works better that way. (I read this forum more than I ever post btw)
The title suggests this is a problem depending on group allegiance, I suggest it's a problem of "group a" hitting "group b" over the head with something both groups hold dearly. Which manipulating group of swine conducted the survey in the first place? On a group level what was the point, if not solely to validate the existence of groups involved?
Like my usual complaints of MR being a "lefty hot bed" or "liberal think tank", It's not a problem with liberal or lefty, it's the fact that the discussion is predictable. It just turns into a back slapping exercise. I would equally troll an alternatively stale thread on any discussion forum and tip another colour into the the mixing tank. I am a paint factories worse nightmare. Things are rarely what they say on the tin. (I also qualify that by adding my knowledge of this colour spectrum has plenty of room for improvement)
I'm not expecting a "thankyou oh learned one", I'm just expending the energy the thread generated in me.
yeah, I predict that too.
Let's not be too down on home schooling, people. Depends who's doing the schooling. I taught my children at home, and they'd never vote for Bush.
This is where we'll have to disagree then. I believe that equal verbal action is warranted against the hate speech.
If the Klan is marching through town (which they should be able to), I like the NAACP on the sidewalk challenging their message of hate (if they choose to do so).
I realise where you're coming from -- the idea that intolerance of intolerance is intolerant -- but it's not cylical.
What is cyclical is intolerance of the intolerant. For example, the Klan marches spouting anti-black racism and the Nation of Islam gathers on the corner spouting anti-white racism. This will lead nowhere.
But so long as we confine our intolerance to the hatred itself and not those expressing it, it won't simply spiral. Look at what's happened to drink driving once it became socially unacceptable.
I predict that you're joking.
So the voting pattern of a pupil is the measure of successful home schooling? Are your children also taught that someone with an alternative opinion is always less intelligent?
Yeah, uh, that sounds exactly like what he was saying.
No, he might be saying that he teaches his children to be open-minded, critical thinkers...and that means that they naturally turn away from Bush.
All the same, I think the majority of home schoolers do it because they don't want their children learning "that secular/liberal stuff those pointy-headed intellectuals teach them"...and that's why I said that.
Well, thank you all for your various interpretations.
FYI, my children, now 29 and 30, are open-minded, curious, enthusiastic and thoughtful. Home schooling in the UK obviously doesn't have the kookier associations it seems to have in the US.
In the US, home schooling is practiced almost entirely by religious conservatives.
At least in the DC area, I am not sure that I would use the word "religious" to describe the home schooling effort. It is even the non-religious conservatives that desire to protect their children from the influences of the world around them. But at the same point they want their children to participate in the after-school programs that are offered to "public school" children. Go figure.