Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We don’t debate ideas anymore, we debate loyalties.

Whew. This says it all. Whoever you are, you’ve nailed it.

+100000

People are tribal. As more an Americans identify less with a religious identity, they replace their tribalism with a political identity.

And what happens when religious identity and positions are intertwined with politicians and policy? ie the Evangelicals

What about it? The point is the amount of people with strong religious identity is declining. Secular religion is the new wave.

Yet you ignore the fundamentalism and evangelicalism rampaging through our country courtesy the Republican Party. Why is that, why do you seek to pretend that reality isn’t what it is?

NP - even accepting that religious identity remains more significant for people on the right, the observation seems to be that people on the left are behaving in ways that seem religious / tribal (e.g., the pressure to confirm viewpoint, shaming, ostracizing non-conformists). These are all “tribal” behaviors. Us v Them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We don’t debate ideas anymore, we debate loyalties.

Whew. This says it all. Whoever you are, you’ve nailed it.

+100000

People are tribal. As more an Americans identify less with a religious identity, they replace their tribalism with a political identity.

And what happens when religious identity and positions are intertwined with politicians and policy? ie the Evangelicals

What about it? The point is the amount of people with strong religious identity is declining. Secular religion is the new wave.

Yet you ignore the fundamentalism and evangelicalism rampaging through our country courtesy the Republican Party. Why is that, why do you seek to pretend that reality isn’t what it is?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We don’t debate ideas anymore, we debate loyalties.

Whew. This says it all. Whoever you are, you’ve nailed it.

+100000

People are tribal. As more an Americans identify less with a religious identity, they replace their tribalism with a political identity.

And what happens when religious identity and positions are intertwined with politicians and policy? ie the Evangelicals

What about it? The point is the amount of people with strong religious identity is declining. Secular religion is the new wave.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think some people are upset they are catching heat for expressing opinions that are clearly the product of ignorance, and often malicious ignorance.

If you are going to open your mouth and claim space in the public sphere, try to inform yourself first. No shame in asking questions or not being 100% informed, but stop pretending your half-baked uninformed opinion is worthy of some special deference or respect.

In other words, vote the way you’re told not the way you feel.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ll try to make it as general as possible. What if there is a hot topic, A vs B. Say most people around you support A. You do, too, but you have questions or doubts about A, or you can understand (but not support) B’s reasoning. you don’t perceive A as something flawless.
However if you ask those questions, or even don’t support A with all your heart, you are labeled as (insert whatever insult du jour you can think of).
How to deal with it?
I find that in the most recent conflicts I can’t support one side without reservation, yet it seems like I am expected to. I am genuinely scared of all the silence is violence type tropes.

A different answer from me.

I think that the problems are:

1. Discussions occurring in places like this, instead of in person. So difficult to effectively convey nuance in written form.

2. The fact that people increasingly live and interact in bubbles of like-minded people. Lack of exposure to other ideas from friends/neighbors makes people intolerant.

3. The decline of liberal arts education. I learned to consider (and advocate for) both sides of every argument. People no longer receive training in having these kinds of discussions.

For me, it isn't about differing ideas. It is that one side simply doesn't want people like me to have the same freedoms as straight white males. So it is hard to be sympathetic to people whose tribe want me to be subjugated.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Had to memorize this in high school, and I can't even count the number of times I've thought about this poem in the last several years.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We don’t debate ideas anymore, we debate loyalties.

Whew. This says it all. Whoever you are, you’ve nailed it.

+100000

People are tribal. As more an Americans identify less with a religious identity, they replace their tribalism with a political identity.

And what happens when religious identity and positions are intertwined with politicians and policy? ie the Evangelicals

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ll try to make it as general as possible. What if there is a hot topic, A vs B. Say most people around you support A. You do, too, but you have questions or doubts about A, or you can understand (but not support) B’s reasoning. you don’t perceive A as something flawless.
However if you ask those questions, or even don’t support A with all your heart, you are labeled as (insert whatever insult du jour you can think of).
How to deal with it?
I find that in the most recent conflicts I can’t support one side without reservation, yet it seems like I am expected to. I am genuinely scared of all the silence is violence type tropes.

A different answer from me.

I think that the problems are:

1. Discussions occurring in places like this, instead of in person. So difficult to effectively convey nuance in written form.

2. The fact that people increasingly live and interact in bubbles of like-minded people. Lack of exposure to other ideas from friends/neighbors makes people intolerant.

3. The decline of liberal arts education. I learned to consider (and advocate for) both sides of every argument. People no longer receive training in having these kinds of discussions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ll try to make it as general as possible. What if there is a hot topic, A vs B. Say most people around you support A. You do, too, but you have questions or doubts about A, or you can understand (but not support) B’s reasoning. you don’t perceive A as something flawless.
However if you ask those questions, or even don’t support A with all your heart, you are labeled as (insert whatever insult du jour you can think of).
How to deal with it?
I find that in the most recent conflicts I can’t support one side without reservation, yet it seems like I am expected to. I am genuinely scared of all the silence is violence type tropes.

A different answer from me.

I think that the problems are:

1. Discussions occurring in places like this, instead of in person. So difficult to effectively convey nuance in written form.

2. The fact that people increasingly live and interact in bubbles of like-minded people. Lack of exposure to other ideas from friends/neighbors makes people intolerant.

3. The decline of liberal arts education. I learned to consider (and advocate for) both sides of every argument. People no longer receive training in having these kinds of discussions.

Anonymous wrote:I’ll try to make it as general as possible. What if there is a hot topic, A vs B. Say most people around you support A. You do, too, but you have questions or doubts about A, or you can understand (but not support) B’s reasoning. you don’t perceive A as something flawless.
However if you ask those questions, or even don’t support A with all your heart, you are labeled as (insert whatever insult du jour you can think of).
How to deal with it?
I find that in the most recent conflicts I can’t support one side without reservation, yet it seems like I am expected to. I am genuinely scared of all the silence is violence type tropes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We don’t debate ideas anymore, we debate loyalties.

Whew. This says it all. Whoever you are, you’ve nailed it.

+100000

People are tribal. As more an Americans identify less with a religious identity, they replace their tribalism with a political identity.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We don’t debate ideas anymore, we debate loyalties.

Whew. This says it all. Whoever you are, you’ve nailed it.

+100000

People are tribal. As more an Americans identify less with a religious identity, they replace their tribalism with a political identity.

Anonymous wrote:I think some people are upset they are catching heat for expressing opinions that are clearly the product of ignorance, and often malicious ignorance.

If you are going to open your mouth and claim space in the public sphere, try to inform yourself first. No shame in asking questions or not being 100% informed, but stop pretending your half-baked uninformed opinion is worthy of some special deference or respect.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hold the media largely to blame. It doesn’t engage in journalism anymore. No more: who, what, when, where.

It’s all opinion pieces with maybe some facts weaved in. If opinion is authoritative, then each opinion is equally valid. It just devolves into whose opinion has more adherents and is therefore correct.

Why do you blame the media when the media companies are doing what for-profit companies are primarily meant to do - namely profit off of you?

If opinion is what sells, then that's what the media companies will feed you.

Because it's false advertising when they act like they're neutral or objective instead of opinion or advocacy journalists.

Caveat emptor. Take the profit motive out and maybe you'll get something closer to what you ask of journalism.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hold the media largely to blame. It doesn’t engage in journalism anymore. No more: who, what, when, where.

It’s all opinion pieces with maybe some facts weaved in. If opinion is authoritative, then each opinion is equally valid. It just devolves into whose opinion has more adherents and is therefore correct.

Why do you blame the media when the media companies are doing what for-profit companies are primarily meant to do - namely profit off of you?

If opinion is what sells, then that's what the media companies will feed you.

Because it's false advertising when they act like they're neutral or objective instead of opinion or advocacy journalists.