Founding president of the debate club at our school-I founded the club specifically to harp on this point! It doesn’t matter which side you align yourself with, most people want the same things at the end of the day. Whether you think the liberals are grooming the children or that the Conservative Party is beginning to resemble Hitler’s ride to power, you still probably can agree that we want to make everyone’s lives better, we want to preserve freedom, and we want to make better and more informed decisions. An exercise I’ve done for people is to take a given candidates speech and put a blank where they mention specific names and things-you’d be surprised at how many that you can’t distinguish between left or right
Tis the question-a lot of times people who say things like that legitimately don’t recognize that what they’re saying is harmful or controversial, so if it’s something that that’s a start. If it’s someone who legitimately has very strong beliefs that are misinformed (i.e. election deniers, 9/11 truthers, “transing the youths” types) the best thing you can do is back away and not engage at all, as to try not to give them more of a reason to back themselves into their beliefs-this is where you dip into the realm where anything you say can and will be used to justify their own beliefs. The fact you’re arguing with them means that you’re trying to suppress them, the fact you’re bringing up scientific evidence means you’re siding with the others, etc. I’d recommend the book “the misinformation age” which talks a lot about this whole process from an academic perspective-how do groups of people form views that are more or less correct or more or less false? Also the book “The Art of Debate” is nice
The division is intended, a unified people are too influential, next minute you'll have proper funded public services and an absence of super rich hoarding billions.
I don't see why politics should have anything to do with running a country. I know how it started and how easily it did, but it's not a needed thing in any country. Put all the laws directly to the people and let them vote on them before they can be enacted. Make them easy to overturn if they do end up being a terrible decision.
Direct democracy runs into a lot of feasibility problems-how will you get everyone to vote every other day, will more people even necessarily get a better outcome, and also if you’re having policies that are that fluid laws become so much harder to enforce and execute effectively As flawed as our current system is, there’s a reason most functional democracies are some derivative of a representative democracy Also, the term politics describes more than just partisan fighting, so you’d still have politics, it’d just be different
The big problem though is eventually when you have differing opinions there comes a point where violence is pretty much the only answer left because both parties are to different to coexist... there was a reason the founding fathers feared this country splitting into political parties... a house divided cannot stand it is as if you built your castle on sand
Founding president of the debate club at our school-I founded the club specifically to harp on this point! It doesn’t matter which side you align yourself with, most people want the same things at the end of the day. Whether you think the liberals are grooming the children or that the Conservative Party is beginning to resemble Hitler’s ride to power, you still probably can agree that we want to make everyone’s lives better, we want to preserve freedom, and we want to make better and more informed decisions.
An exercise I’ve done for people is to take a given candidates speech and put a blank where they mention specific names and things-you’d be surprised at how many that you can’t distinguish between left or right
Have no problem with disagreeing and having a civilized conversation, but what do you with people who express overt racist, sexist and hateful views.
Tis the question-a lot of times people who say things like that legitimately don’t recognize that what they’re saying is harmful or controversial, so if it’s something that that’s a start. If it’s someone who legitimately has very strong beliefs that are misinformed (i.e. election deniers, 9/11 truthers, “transing the youths” types) the best thing you can do is back away and not engage at all, as to try not to give them more of a reason to back themselves into their beliefs-this is where you dip into the realm where anything you say can and will be used to justify their own beliefs. The fact you’re arguing with them means that you’re trying to suppress them, the fact you’re bringing up scientific evidence means you’re siding with the others, etc.
I’d recommend the book “the misinformation age” which talks a lot about this whole process from an academic perspective-how do groups of people form views that are more or less correct or more or less false? Also the book “The Art of Debate” is nice
The division is intended, a unified people are too influential, next minute you'll have proper funded public services and an absence of super rich hoarding billions.
I don't see why politics should have anything to do with running a country. I know how it started and how easily it did, but it's not a needed thing in any country. Put all the laws directly to the people and let them vote on them before they can be enacted. Make them easy to overturn if they do end up being a terrible decision.
Direct democracy runs into a lot of feasibility problems-how will you get everyone to vote every other day, will more people even necessarily get a better outcome, and also if you’re having policies that are that fluid laws become so much harder to enforce and execute effectively
As flawed as our current system is, there’s a reason most functional democracies are some derivative of a representative democracy
Also, the term politics describes more than just partisan fighting, so you’d still have politics, it’d just be different
@@Emily-fm7pt yeah, makes sense. I didn't really think of how it'd actually work when applied. Lots of kinks...
he was in my math class last year!
The big problem though is eventually when you have differing opinions there comes a point where violence is pretty much the only answer left because both parties are to different to coexist... there was a reason the founding fathers feared this country splitting into political parties... a house divided cannot stand it is as if you built your castle on sand
The guy’s either gonna sellout or get into “unfortunate car crash”
That’s dope future is brighting up a little bit