What is with the cultural divides?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by slooksterPSV, Nov 7, 2004.

  1. slooksterPSV macrumors 68030

    slooksterPSV

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Location:
    Nowheresville
    #1
    We all know the results of the polls and that. My question is, why can't people just let people be. I'm all for Gay rights and Gay marriage, but to be honest, it looks like the US hasn't grown up - don't get me wrong we've been through a lot, but if we have to ban what someone is and wants to do (as long as it abides by the law of not killing, stealing, etc.) that doens't really affect anyone else, that just shows that people are immature. Also, I have a sort of political question about it. 11 states banned gay marriage. The 11/11 that voted on it, 8 ban domestic unions (Utahns are idiots(if they voted yes), yes I'm a Utahn, but its true). What happened, or has happened with the other 39 states, and does it cost taxes if states did recognize domestic unions.

    Mods'll probably delete this post, but I'm just curious, and I've found nothing that helps out.
     
  2. slooksterPSV thread starter macrumors 68030

    slooksterPSV

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Location:
    Nowheresville
    #2
    Oh the other thing is (I was going to use this to relate it and that) the KKK is here in the states and that, we don't put bans in the constitution for this. We don't even try and stop them sometimes. But people are willing to stop Gay marriage, it just makes me angry that yeah, you get what I'm saying here. I think.
     
  3. dotnina macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2004
    #3
    To me, this sounds like it belongs in the Political Forum. However, the Political Forum is closed for the time being, so ... I guess you will just have to wonder about such things elsewhere.
     
  4. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #4
    slookster, the above poster is probably correct about this belonging in the Political Forum, which is taking a brief time-out.

    That said, I think it is an interesting topic and would love to discuss it further once the PF re-opens. Chances are this thread will just be moved there to await our eager keystrokes at a later date.

    As to your KKK comment, most states have Hate-crime legislation to address that issue.
     
  5. Lyle macrumors 68000

    Lyle

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Location:
    Madison, Alabama
    #5
    You live in Utah, right? Do you have any friends or associates on the "other side" of the political fence? Perhaps you could start by asking them why they believe what they believe, without presuming that since they hold a differing opinion that they must, by definition, be "immature" and "idiots".

    This isn't an attack, just some advice; and I would give the same advice to someone with more conservative values trying to understand how "those whacked-out liberals" can believe what they do. One of the reasons I hang out in this forum is that, in my usual peer groups, I don't get exposed to a lot of differing viewpoints. The participants in this forum tend a little more to the left, and by reading what they're saying I'm hopefully getting a little more insight into the source of our disagreements.
     
  6. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #6
    Lyle, respectfully, I am not sure that argument holds water in this particular case.

    To bar people who are different from you, that in many cases you have never met let alone got to know, from the right to legitimize their relationship in the eyes of Government, seems pretty immature thinking to me, if not petty and hateful.

    Although this has been (successfully) pitched as a defense of the institution of marriage and by extension traditional American values, the first argument is nonsense and the second selective in it's interpretation to say the least. To elaborate:

    To feel that your ability to have or maintain a marriage as a heterosexual is effected, let alone threatened by other people's choices to engage in the same activity seems foolish. Are people worried about divorce rates, the fact that people work longer hours and tend to marry later in life, if at all? No, because they do not involve homosexuals.

    As for defending American values, these propositions are at odds with the most fundamental American values as enshrined and outlined in the Constitution. I feel these values trump all others, as they are the basis for our very existence and character as a Nation. If you do not agree, then ask why a Constitutional Amendment is needed. I believe that speaks volumes about the truth here.

    This is not, of course, directed at you Lyle and I am glad you enjoy the forum and the opinions therein, as I enjoy your more conservative slant a great deal.
     
  7. Lyle macrumors 68000

    Lyle

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Location:
    Madison, Alabama
    #7
    I wasn't making an argument, just a suggestion. ;)

    I was just suggesting that if he wants to understand how someone with a differing viewpoint feels about a particular issue, he might want to try to (1) discuss it with people he knows personally, and (2) perhaps not phrase the question as, "Look, I know you haven't grown up, you're immature and an idiot, but I'd like to try to understand your point of view."

    And I guess I was addressing the larger question about how to bridge the cultural divide, if that's possible; I wasn't so much focusing on this particular issue. It seems that people on both sides -- myself included -- tend to make sweeping generalities about people who disagree with them.
     
  8. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #8
    My mistake Lyle...I guess I am a little out of practice after the time-out.

    Point taken.

    I would make a more sarcastic comment, but the collars the mods make some of us wear now would shock me for my trouble.
     
  9. Xtremehkr macrumors 68000

    Xtremehkr

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #9
    Depends on what political style you adopt

    Bush has been described as a Political Hedgehog and the cultural divide is a result of this political style.

    It's been fairly evident that he is not the bipartisan unifier that he claimed to be, every challenge has been met with a charge of it being "politics."

    I can't say that the villification of liberalism has helped much either, since the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine in 1994 there has been no need to present the view of the other side.

    When you have a 24 hour a day attack machine (Limbaugh, Hannity etc) working to undermine everything the other side proposes, almost to the point of inciting hate, you are going to get a cultural divide.

    Even here someone mentioned shooting liberals with no consideration to the fact that they have just as much right to be involved here as anyone else.

    I imagine this will backfire eventually though, people don't like to be pushed around, and in the end, Bushs policies are more than likely only going to benefit a few people rather than many.
     
  10. SPG macrumors 65816

    SPG

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2001
    Location:
    In the shadow of the Space Needle.
    #10
    This post I read on Sunday night really stuck out to me after reading a few red state vs blue state articles. Talk about where the divisiveness of "cultural issues" can take us.
     
  11. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #11
    Lyle, your posts are among the more rational things I've heard from anyone lately. That's why I hate all those negative, smearing campaign ads so much. They divide us, instead of getting us talking to each other.


    All right, call it cognitive dissonance if you like, but having agreed with Lyle, I also pretty much agree with everything blackfox said. I can't understand why conservatives can't just live and let live. If conservatives believe that gays are committing a sin, fine: but that's between gay folks and God, isn't it? They're certainly not harming anyone else. Last time I checked, they weren't coming into my bedroom to have gay sex.

    And like blackfox, I can't understand why conservatives champion the Constitution so much while simultaneously violating it with things like gay marriage amendments and the Patriot Act.


    My feelings exactly.

    (Did you see where Ann Counter said that John Walker Lindh (the "American taliban") should be executed as a warning to all liberals that this could happen to them? :eek: )


    Well, people think I'm nuts (well, some of them) when I talk about a possible secession from the union, but that link helps prove my point. Don't every say it can't happen, because the cultural divide has never been greater in my lifetime (and I'm 48). I've never seen this level of hatred and distrust between the Rs and the Ds. Frankly, I'm open to the idea of secession, because there just don't seem to be many people like Lyle anymore. And that I blame on Karl Rove, Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter and the rest of the conservative lie machine. Guys like William F. Buckley and George Will you may disagree with, but you have to admire their intellectual honesty. The others don't use reason, just hate.
     
  12. kettle macrumors 65816

    kettle

    Joined:
    May 12, 2002
    Location:
    England, Great Britain (Airstrip One)
    #12
    What's with cultural divide is like asking what's with death. Wouldn't it be great if we could all live forever.

    The divide is just potential difference, and the human race requires this to develop in new directions.

    A bad way of thinking about cultural divide is to assume that the proactive bridging of these divides is the only way for a person to score an IQ above 50.

    IMO cultural divide is a healthy thing. Even when a divide could be described as an intolerance of people who tolerate cultural divides.

    It's how nature works and how sytems find new ways of developing.
     
  13. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #13
    When have conservatives ever been ahead of the curve on civil rights issues? Opposition to civil rights has always been clothed in the rhetoric of protecting one "institution" or another, but in the end, it's also always about actively denying equal protection under the law to someone, and is founded on bigotry. If this is one element of the "culture war" we are supposed to be fighting today, then I say let the war begin. I know what side I'm on, and I know which side always wins. As Martin Luther King said, "The arc of history is long, but it bends towards justice."
     
  14. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #14
    In fairness, is this not the essence of Conservatism? I do not mean so much it's latest bastard incarnation, but the traditional definition. Conservatism is, as I understood it, always about preserving the status-quo, or meting out change in a slow and deliberate pace. The latter characteristic is actually quite attractive to me, as often radical change is unecessarily chaotic.

    The strange thing as of late, is the insistence by many Republicans that Liberal "activist" judges are circumventing the Democratic process by "legislating from the bench". I cannot count the times I have heard that argument. It is, of course, ridiculous, as certain rights are beyond democratic consideration as they are enshrined by our Constitution. Human rights and dignity are not among the things that should be subject to majority rule if they are guaranteed as unalienable.

    At it's core, conservatism is based on fear. Fear of change, which is a basic human tendency. This is not always necessarily a bad thing, however, as it is not always pathological in nature as it is in current times.
     
  15. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #15
    Yes. What we have now are radicals calling themselves conservatives.
     
  16. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #16
    Some contemporary conservatives might better be called reactionaries, but in reality, conservatives as a whole no matter what stripe aren't going to push the frontiers of civil rights. The Republican talking points during the debates over the renewal of the Voting Rights Act were that more Republicans voted for the original act than Democrats (or something to this effect). Never mind that (1) the progressive wing of the Republicans party no longer exists, and (2) the opposition to the Voting Rights Act was a coalition of conservative Southern Democrats and Republicans.
     
  17. dotnina macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2004
    #17
    I don't get why America seems so scared of gay marriage, either. We already let people walk down the street holding hands, we let them raise children, we let them share a house forever and ever ... it's as if something about the word "marriage" and "gay" scares people.

    The only objection I've heard that wasn't based on moral or religious beliefs is that allowing gay marriage will somehow open these floodgates where people marry dogs and inanimate objects and what-have-you. In my opinion, it's just laughable, baseless speculation to really believe something like that.

    You're making people happy and it's free (actually, it generates revenue for the local governments, because of marriage license fees). That's good enough for me.
     
  18. Xtremehkr macrumors 68000

    Xtremehkr

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #18
    I hadn't seen that, but it's actions like this that will eventually garner a reaction. "Liberals" are being made into a scapegoat for everything that is bad in the world.

    I don't like to call Bush a "Conservative" in the traditional sense of what it used to mean to be a conservative either.

    If their brand of politics was and has been the absolute best they would not have to rely on such massive distortions, and it would have prevailed hundreds of years earlier.

    The reason why it has not become the prevailing ideology is because it's not the best and just because every 40 or 50 years they can mislead a new group of people, eventually it only serves to strengthen liberal ideas like trying to achieve plurality in a Democracy.

    I guess we just ride this one out and try to find out why it is that it continues to happen.

    I would like to think that since the United States was a Democracy pretty much from the start that it is less susceptible to falling under the absolute power of one leader. Though some may have their way for a period, the country would be torn apart if anyone tried to do that.
     
  19. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #19
    The progressive wing of the Democratic party isn't doing so hot either! ;)


    :p Thank you! That was one of the best laughs I had all day.
     
  20. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #20
    In fairness, both Conservative and Liberal thought/ideology and notable individuals representing each have contributed to America's accomplishments and it's failures. Conservatism, in it's traditional sense, is a pretty good ideology as is Liberalism.

    It is really necessary to strike a balance between the two to bring out the best in each. If one side gains sufficient advantage and dominance at the expense of the other, then a whole host of problems pop up. Many of the problems we have currently are not so much resultant of a failure of Conservative thought (notwithstanding the bastardization of the term), but of the lack of balance to the forum of ideas or what is possible.

    This lack of egalitarism is expressed in the alienation and division of it's populace and the predjudice that both it and it's officials promulgate to obscure the essential truth that we all have something to bring to the table.

    So I would caution against championing one ideology at the expense of others, as this just adds to the problem. It may be true that a certain ideology set in policy is more practical and conducive to the needs of the people in a given time, but the other is also needed and desired to properly balance and add to the retinue of choices available to make good representative decisions.

    This is why I feel the Clinton Presidency was so successful. The groundwork, in terms of Economic Policy was set by GHW Bush, which probably spurred growth for Clinton in the 90's, as well as Bush's raising of taxes, which although they probably cost him re-election, restored Bugetary Health.

    Once in Office, Clinton pursued a fairly moderate and conservative Policy, especially in Fiscal issues, and a slightly more Liberal Social Agenda. This course of action was largely to do with the Republican Senate which would've not allowed a more Radical Liberal Agenda. A balance was struck, which proved to give us one of the more successful decades America has seen. It took work by both Parties to acheive this goal. That is America working to me, however imperfect.

    Take what you will...
     
  21. Xtremehkr macrumors 68000

    Xtremehkr

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #21
    I agree, except I don't think Bush is a conservative. No conservative of old would have let the national debt get away from us like it has been lately.

    I guess if Alexander Hamilton were the father of American conservatism you would have to compare the two, they are not much alike in many many apsects.

    Of course, Clinton has also been described as being our "best republican President" as well by some commentators who are further to the left. When you consider some of his policies, he was very center of the road at best.

    Even Bush Sr. was restrained enough to raise taxes when he needed to and made efforts to curb the debt.

    Even so, that would mean we have a centrist party and a right leaning party. Which may explain the growing divides between the haves and the haves nots and the wealthiest nation in the world also having the highest incarceration rate.

    A lot of social services, including education are getting worse as we go on, and less available at higher levels. It's been trending that way for quite some time now.

    I agree with your point on ideologies balancing eachother out, but the two have not been balanced in quite some time. The country really needs to figure out how to work together, otherwise the emerging EU is going to spank us. I hate to use a Basketball analogy, but while the Pistons had fewer stars, the team worked together and won.

    The United States are formidable, a nation of red and blue states are much less so.

    But goodness, we can't let those gay people get married now. What does it say when this is the biggest issue in the country? Of all the things going on in the world we're fighting over whether or not gay people can get married.
     
  22. Chip NoVaMac macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    #22
    In having a few days to "cool down", I see the "divide" being a new beginning of the possibility of the "States Of America", much like the the State of Israel - being one based on religious beliefs, not in our case of Constitutional law that we should be based upon.

    I seem to remember seeing a figure that 20% of the voters felt that "morals" was a deciding issue. And that 80% voted for Bush. And both sides of the press seem to be beaming in the "Evangelical" response to Bush winning the election.

    Before the election the Republicans warned us of the Democratic Party that wanted "activist" judges deciding the the likes of Roe V. Wade, and Gay Rights. Yet they want to appoint judges that hold their views, to be "activists" judges to rule in their favor. You can't have it both ways.

    The Canadian immigration website had a 6x increase in the number of hits the day after the election. I am hearing from friends across the globe from Americans that are looking for information on leaving the US.

    A day or two after the election, would be a sign of sour grapes. But while the "hits" are down, the inquiries are up. The realities will hit. That many looking towards other countries are over the age of 40. $5 is the cut off for NZ for the "professional" jobs.

    Then you have the realities that it takes 6 to 12 months to gain "access" to some countries. And even then it is not a given.

    Which raises a question in my mind. Why do the politicos fight for free trade, but not free immigration at the same time. Is it that the US would become the third world nation faster than it thinks?
     
  23. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #23
    i'd like to examine this idea that balance is achieved by cooperation between liberals and conservatives, especially when the example is clinton and the GOP congress.

    might this more accurately be described as cooperation between the parties? many will probably see this as the same thing, but i see far fewer politicians voting their conscience than vote w/ their party.

    i'll also submit that balance is really achieved via bureacracy, regardless of ideology. this is why i find the bush administration so frightening, because they've shown a tendency to skirt bureaucracy, bypassing both congress and the courts.

    though bureaucracy always seems to be thought of as bad, it does serve the noble purpose of slowing down the process, hopefully resulting in a thoughtful decision. i'll cite the patriot act as something which could have benefitted from such slowing down.
     
  24. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #24
    Interesting amendment of my point, zim.

    It may very well be the tug-o-war between Party's and their self-interest that add to the deliberative pace of bureaucracy.

    In any case, excellent points.
     
  25. Chip NoVaMac macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    #25
    Zim, you point to a big difference between Clinton and Bush, and that is that Clinton IMO reached out in the beginning to "moderates". Bush, until now seems to have only courted the "extremist" element.

    And that seems to be be the big disconnect.
     

Share This Page