Do you like the taste of blood?

[Lark]

Guess what, the Soviet Union might no longer exist and quite a few things have changed, but Russians aren't stupid and they did take note, of that I am sure. What do you think is the point behind all those kremlin-led misinformation and agitation campaigns all over the Western world? There is a clear geostrategic interest in this kind of destabilization.


Edit: I must have misread and now see we were making the same point.

I dont think the Soviet Union went away.

I also think it had nothing to do with socialism and everything to do with a bunch of gangsters who hijacked the zeitgeist.

The more things change the more they stay the same I guess.

 

[anticlimatic]

Clash of cultures As I said in my previous post, only a true clash of cultures has the ability to split society. Here's an easy example of a clash of cultures: If a college girl gets too drunk at a party and a college boy affectionately gives her a kiss and squeezes her tiddy, it's pretty much expected that she should be able to march down to the cop station the next day and have him locked up just on her say-so. If a male coworker tells a secretary that she's looking good, she should be able to get him fired; if he's a client or a customer, she should be able to launch a media campaign against him and have his livelihood taken away. And so on. You get the picture. There's a social consensus that people should be able to live trouble-free, harassment-free lives. And it's a nice idea. But where do all those legal and interpersonal conflicts end up? In the laps of the cops and the courts. And guess what? There is also a social consensus that cops are jack-booted murderers and that the courts are unfair or downright corrupt. So what do you have? The cops are stuck in the middle of these two vastly different pictures. They are depicted as white knights, riding to the honor of women in the event of every little incident of harassment, every little drunken caress in a college. But at the same time they are also depicted as out-of-control murderers on a rampage. So what happens in the real world? They go out to pick up a dude on a sexual assault charge. But the dude resists and goes for a weapon… So which are they? Which story applies to the cops in this situation? Are they white knights protecting some woman's honor? Or are they out-of-control murderers casually executing someone just because of the color of his skin? This is just one example. But these are the kinds of things that need to be worked out in order to restore or build a new social consensus. This is what the MAGA boys and BLM folks are fighting over, though they probably can't even really articulate the problem properly.

Mannnnn I hope you're right. I'm completely over the lack of consensus, and I have zero faith that one is ever coming. I just don't see how we get from here to there. People don't even speak the same language anymore, and can't even agree on definitions of words. Sometimes fighting can vent frustration, stake out healthy boundaries, and pave the way for respectful negotiations- but sometimes it turns into a multi generational blood feud. What separates one from the next? Which are we going through?

 

[Jaguar]

Again, spin and messaging.

Most people get it: There are plenty of peaceful protesters, and there are legitimate problems that need solving. You don't need to spoon-feed people simple truths like that.

But still, some demonstrations spin out of control, and it's not always the fault of right-wing agitators. So all sides are to blame to some extent.

You're wasting your time on me with that narrative.

 

[Tennessee Jed]

Mannnnn I hope you're right. I'm completely over the lack of consensus, and I have zero faith that one is ever coming. I just don't see how we get from here to there. People don't even speak the same language anymore, and can't even agree on definitions of words. Sometimes fighting can vent frustration, stake out healthy boundaries, and pave the way for respectful negotiations- but sometimes it turns into a multi generational blood feud. What separates one from the next? Which are we going through?

Well, I already talked about how the violence in the US was much, much worse in my youth in an earlier post. Link: https://www.typologycentral.com/for...-events/106947-taste-blood-3.html#post3252528

How did we fix it? Here's what happened in my day (from Wikipedia):

The National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, known as the Kerner Commission after its chair, Governor Otto Kerner Jr. of Illinois, was an 11-member Presidential Commission established by President Lyndon B. Johnson in Executive Order 11365 to investigate the causes of the 1967 race riots in the United States and to provide recommendations for the future.[1]
The report was released in 1968, after seven months of investigation. For causing the riots, it blamed lack of economic opportunity, failed social service programs, police brutality, racism, and the white-oriented media. The 426-page report was a bestseller.

Link: Kerner Commission - Wikipedia

and

The U.S. National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence (National Violence Commission) was formed by President Lyndon B. Johnson in Executive Order 11412 on June 10, 1968,[1] after the assassinations of Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. and Senator Robert F. Kennedy.[2]

Link: U.S. National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence - Wikipedia

I'm not saying that these commissions were a magic wand. But they were a start, and the violence slowly dwindled across succeeding years. Those commissions started the US on the path of a new consensus and desire to understand what was happening.

Also:

Here's a good model for productive debate. Scott Adams (creator of the Dilbert cartoon) has a good blog post about how people arguing either side of the gun debate are basically dishonest. Both sides try to argue that they alone are on the side of the angels, and the other side is on the side of the devil. The result is divisiveness and dishonesty. Adams argues that it would be more honest, and thus conducive to real debate or negotiation, if both sides would admit that their own arguments aren’t ideal and will likely result in the deaths of a number of people on the other side of the debate. That at least would be a starting point for a more honest debate.

Here are the first two paragraphs of that blog post:

The most common view of the gun debate in the United States is that one side is sensible and factual — and quite attractive — while the other side is a pile of meat that has been sitting in the sun too long. The main source of disagreement about guns has been narrowed-down to this key question: “Which side is the rotting meat side?” But I think most people agree on the big picture — that one side is completely batsh*t crazy while the other team is brilliant, well-informed, and inexplicably sexy. You’re lucky you’re on the good team! Pity the people on the other side. Losers!

But that’s not how the Persuasion Filter sees it. The Persuasion Filter sees nothing remotely like rational debate happening on either side. The persuasion filter sees individuals with different risk profiles favoring policies they feel will keep them safer even if it makes someone else less safe.

See the entire post here: The Fake Gun Control Debate - Scott Adams' Blog

 

[Tennessee Jed]

You're wasting your time on me with that narrative.

Whatever. Until your side is ready to step up to the plate and admit to some of the fault, I'm not much interested in what you have to say either. I don't like people who argue that they--and they alone--are on the side of the angels. See my last post for more on that.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Note [MENTION=195]Jaguar[/MENTION], this is a perfect opportunity to put your love of unity to the test. You aren't really engaging with OldFolksBoogie at all, yet he's being pretty polite.

 

[Jaguar]

Whatever. Until your side is ready to step up to the plate and admit to some of the fault, I'm not much interested in what you have to say either.

My side. What side?

 

[Jaguar]

.

 

[Tennessee Jed]

My side. What side?

Whatever the hell you've been arguing for the last hour or two. (Though I have no clue what you were arguing--I wasn't listening.)

 

[Jaguar]

Whatever the hell you've been arguing for the last hour or two. (But don't ask me what you were arguing--I wasn't listening.)

Yeeeeeeeaaaaaah, I thought you might refrain from choosing one for me.

 

[Tennessee Jed]

Yeeeeeeeaaaaaah, I thought you might refrain from choosing one for me.

Yeah, I know. You just do dumb nitpicking of everyone else's arguments.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Yeah, I know. You just do dumb nitpicking of everyone else's arguments.

He's only doing it because he believes in unifying the country.

 

[Tennessee Jed]

He's only doing it because he believes in unifying the country.

We're a happier and more peaceful nation because of him.

 

[chickpea]

i can't wait for discobiscuit to shoot and kill me from his lawn chair

 

[Jaguar]

Yeah, I know. You just do dumb nitpicking of everyone else's arguments.

Oh, I see. You're bummed out I'm not in a tribe. Sorry to make your life more difficult.

 

[chickpea]

Oh, I see. You're bummed out I'm not in a tribe. Sorry to make your life more difficult.

can i join the jaguar tribe?

 

[Jaguar]

can i join the jaguar tribe?

It doesn't exist. Nor will I start one.

 

[anticlimatic]

Well, I already talked about how the violence in the US was much, much worse in my youth in an earlier post. Link: https://www.typologycentral.com/for...-events/106947-taste-blood-3.html#post3252528 How did we fix it? Here's what happened in my day (from Wikipedia): and I'm not saying that these commissions were a magic wand. But they were a start, and the violence slowly dwindled across succeeding years. Those commissions started the US on the path of a new consensus and desire to understand what was happening. Also: Here's a good model for productive debate. Scott Adams (creator of the Dilbert cartoon) has a good blog post about how people arguing either side of the gun debate are basically dishonest. Both sides try to argue that they alone are on the side of the angels, and the other side is on the side of the devil. The result is divisiveness and dishonesty. Adams argues that it would be more honest, and thus conducive to real debate or negotiation, if both sides would admit that their own arguments aren't ideal and will likely result in the deaths of a number of people on the other side of the debate. That at least would be a starting point for a more honest debate. Here are the first two paragraphs of that blog post: See the entire post here: The Fake Gun Control Debate - Scott Adams' Blog

So perhaps after this next election is settled, and the protests/riots subside, then the aftermath with settle on some kind of commonality with a bit of measured grinding - culturally, legally, politically. I'm skeptical, but I'd like to believe it so I'll take your word for it.