In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On January 31 2017 09:53 Nyxisto wrote: He actually has to govern the whole country, not just his supporters. That is the difference to the campaign. And his supporters constitute a small but very loud minority of the country. The EC might have won him the presidency but it hasn't magically won him the cities. I doubt very much that people are going to tolerate his nonsense.
Trump wins election, supporters have been relatively silent while these protests have been going on, yet you say "small but very loud."
Loud in the sense of portraying themselves as 'real Americans', the majority, the opposite of the 'elites' and so on. But it is becoming evident that this narrative is obviously not true. There are thankfully a lot of people in the US that Trump is not going to convince or sell that what he is trying to do as normal or decent.
If this is in reference to the travel ban EO, Rasmussen says most polled agree in principle with about a third actively opposing.
1* Do you favor or oppose a temporary ban on refugees from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen until the federal government improves its ability to screen out potential terrorists from coming here?
2* Do you favor or oppose a temporary block on visas prohibiting residents of Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen from entering the United States until the federal government improves its ability to screen out potential terrorists from coming here
Look at this please, not only does it omit the fact that the ban has affected people who hold legal visiting rights, it also presupposes that the US has not sufficient ability to screen potential terrorists.
That's why I said in principle, because the survey doesn't reference Trump's specific EO at all.
On January 31 2017 09:50 DannyJ wrote: and while all this is happening I'm sure Trump's approval rating is going up at least 15%, if the campaign showed us anything...
He actually has to govern the whole country, not just his supporters. That is the difference to the campaign. And his supporters constitute a small but very loud minority of the country. The EC might have won him the presidency but it hasn't magically won him the cities. I doubt very much that people are going to tolerate his nonsense.
I mean his voters were an electoral majority yet a ~3mil loss out of ~137mil. If 46% of the country is a small minority, you might want to reconsider your position on alternative facts.
That's just it, it's not 46% of the country, it's 46% of 2016 voters, I think a lot of people are going to get a lesson in what that difference means.
On January 31 2017 09:51 LegalLord wrote: Honestly, just because certain people are flopping mad about this doesn't mean that his supporters are turning against him.
He might even win more by following through on campaign promises that others doubted. Obama and Democrats were historically weak on taking terror threats seriously. Actions like last week first get the boost from seeing action taken on terror threats from abroad, despite mitigating factors like applying the rules to legal residents and current visa holders is dumb and sows chaos.
Now if Trump pushes the stories of foreign born terrorists from the 7 targeted countries that committed acts of terror in the US (e.g. Abdul Razak Artan), refugees in the US that killed our troops abroad (wait, let's make damn sure to restrict discussions to US attacks only! Waad Ramadan Alwan and Mohanad Shareef Hammadi killers of our troops in Iraq, only planners of further attacks in US, living in Kentucky), and the hundred foiled in their plans and/or convicted of terrorism offenses in the US (over 300 in senatorial investigation of justice dept records of foreign-born people convicted of terrorism-related offenses since 9/11) ... he would continue the gains among the American people. I don't really see any big wins for the opposition here.
Please, find me any evidence showing Trump has made any gains amongst the American people during his time in office for him to continue to make. I'm all ears.
I refer of course to first gaining back people who doubted Trump would make good on campaign promises (first paragraph and response to LL), then an "if Trump pushes ... he would continue." Perhaps read again to appreciate the words "might" and "if," like my previous response to you that you did not deign to reply to.
On January 31 2017 09:50 DannyJ wrote: and while all this is happening I'm sure Trump's approval rating is going up at least 15%, if the campaign showed us anything...
He actually has to govern the whole country, not just his supporters. That is the difference to the campaign. And his supporters constitute a small but very loud minority of the country. The EC might have won him the presidency but it hasn't magically won him the cities. I doubt very much that people are going to tolerate his nonsense.
I mean his voters were an electoral majority yet a ~3mil loss out of ~137mil. If 46% of the country is a small minority, you might want to reconsider your position on alternative facts.
46 % of 140 million voters is a quarter of the country's population. The US president cannot just represent the particular interests of such a group, he's supposed to unify the country. Donald Trump has gone as far as labeling political opponents and even the press as 'enemies'. This isn't how it is supposed to work.
On January 31 2017 09:50 DannyJ wrote: and while all this is happening I'm sure Trump's approval rating is going up at least 15%, if the campaign showed us anything...
He actually has to govern the whole country, not just his supporters. That is the difference to the campaign. And his supporters constitute a small but very loud minority of the country. The EC might have won him the presidency but it hasn't magically won him the cities. I doubt very much that people are going to tolerate his nonsense.
I mean his voters were an electoral majority yet a ~3mil loss out of ~137mil. If 46% of the country is a small minority, you might want to reconsider your position on alternative facts.
That's just it, it's not 46% of the country, it's 46% of 2016 voters, I think a lot of people are going to get a lesson in what that difference means.
You fail to provide any rationale for why people who fail to vote both differ wildly from the 46% Trumpers that do, or why the population that doesn't vote should also demand disproportionate representation. I mean, a republic certainly biases people that select their representatives to those that would rather stay home, right?
On January 31 2017 09:50 DannyJ wrote: and while all this is happening I'm sure Trump's approval rating is going up at least 15%, if the campaign showed us anything...
He actually has to govern the whole country, not just his supporters. That is the difference to the campaign. And his supporters constitute a small but very loud minority of the country. The EC might have won him the presidency but it hasn't magically won him the cities. I doubt very much that people are going to tolerate his nonsense.
I mean his voters were an electoral majority yet a ~3mil loss out of ~137mil. If 46% of the country is a small minority, you might want to reconsider your position on alternative facts.
That's just it, it's not 46% of the country, it's 46% of 2016 voters, I think a lot of people are going to get a lesson in what that difference means.
I'm no statistician but I sense that if a third of the population voted we can infer pretty easily on the rest. It is actually the most accurate poll we have.
On January 31 2017 09:51 LegalLord wrote: Honestly, just because certain people are flopping mad about this doesn't mean that his supporters are turning against him.
He might even win more by following through on campaign promises that others doubted. Obama and Democrats were historically weak on taking terror threats seriously. Actions like last week first get the boost from seeing action taken on terror threats from abroad, despite mitigating factors like applying the rules to legal residents and current visa holders is dumb and sows chaos.
Now if Trump pushes the stories of foreign born terrorists from the 7 targeted countries that committed acts of terror in the US (e.g. Abdul Razak Artan), refugees in the US that killed our troops abroad (wait, let's make damn sure to restrict discussions to US attacks only! Waad Ramadan Alwan and Mohanad Shareef Hammadi killers of our troops in Iraq, only planners of further attacks in US, living in Kentucky), and the hundred foiled in their plans and/or convicted of terrorism offenses in the US (over 300 in senatorial investigation of justice dept records of foreign-born people convicted of terrorism-related offenses since 9/11) ... he would continue the gains among the American people. I don't really see any big wins for the opposition here.
Please, find me any evidence showing Trump has made any gains amongst the American people during his time in office for him to continue to make. I'm all ears.
I refer of course to first gaining back people who doubted Trump would make good on campaign promises (first paragraph and response to LL), then an "if Trump pushes ... he would continue." Perhaps read again to appreciate the words "might" and "if," like my previous response to you that you did not deign to reply to.
Sorry, I legitimately missed your response about the mass quittings. It is true that this what one would expect after mass resignations.
And I didn't link your possibilities properly, I apologize for that too. Guess I'm just getting trigger happy on the "gaining support" stuff because it irritates me in the same way that the country-of-origin ban even being called a Trump campaign promise despite him arguing against it in favor of his Muslim ban irritates me, it just seems directly contrary to demonstrable reality in a way I dislike.
On January 31 2017 09:50 DannyJ wrote: and while all this is happening I'm sure Trump's approval rating is going up at least 15%, if the campaign showed us anything...
He actually has to govern the whole country, not just his supporters. That is the difference to the campaign. And his supporters constitute a small but very loud minority of the country. The EC might have won him the presidency but it hasn't magically won him the cities. I doubt very much that people are going to tolerate his nonsense.
I mean his voters were an electoral majority yet a ~3mil loss out of ~137mil. If 46% of the country is a small minority, you might want to reconsider your position on alternative facts.
That's just it, it's not 46% of the country, it's 46% of 2016 voters, I think a lot of people are going to get a lesson in what that difference means.
I'm no statistician but I sense that if a third of the population voted we can infer pretty easily on the rest. It is actually the most accurate poll we have.
Unfortunately, having a self-selected 46% of people can still lead to nasty selection bias. And it's pretty murky how many of his supporters are still supporters.
On January 31 2017 07:52 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
So this Stephen Bannon guy believes people must form a church militant. Oh and he's also on the highest security council of the US right now while the intelligence and military leaders are not.
I found this interesting read about the actions of last week being the administration testing the waters of how far they can go in grabbing uncontested power. It's far out there, but quite well sourced and with how fast changes are being made already it doesn't feel like it's 100% conspiracy bs either anymore to be honest.
I mean if this is really how the state department looks right now then wow. Blue crosses are unfilled positions, red are purged positions. There's not much left.
Boy, that's a spooky article. I mean, supposing Trump did want to seize complete and unchecked power, he'd basically have Congress, the courts, and the military able to oppose him. If he can normalize total contempt of court, that's one of three that can no longer stop him.
They say executive branch power is on a slow march upward, looks like Trump is going to test it to its limits. They have a "shadow cabinet" in each department - senior advisers who will essentially have to sign off on the cabinet secretaries' decisions, and who will presumably have a direct line to Trump's inner circle. This is, reportedly, unprecedented. Inner circle is also consolidating power in other ways, like with the NSC. Of course those moves are all within the executive, I guess the real test is what they do with Congress and the courts.
I've been thinking about reading some histories of the Nazi movement. Obviously a fair number of people on the left think Trump is literally Hitler, and that often gets written off as wingnut insanity. I'd certainly still grant that possibility seems remote, and that in all likelihood the Trump presidency will be perhaps the worst our nation has seen, but in fairly mundane ways.
But he's shown a clear interest in creating state-manufactured propaganda, frequently unambiguously false, and going full attack-mode on any news outlet that questions the state narrative (admittedly I haven't seen him question the patriotism of anyone trying to fact check him - yet); he's shown clear intention to pursue his policies by whatever unilateral power he can muster, and fight any other branch of government that tries to restrict him on Constitutional grounds; his policies draw a sharp distinction between Americans and non-Americans, and are explicitly advertised as pursuing benefits for Americans at the expense of everyone else; while that circle of who qualifies as "American" is incrementally narrowed (a fair number of permanent legal US residents just found themselves moved to the other side).
I'm not familiar with these tactics in American politics. The only place I know them from is Nazi history. That alone does not prove any moral equivalence between the German far-right movement of the 30's and the American one of today; but if anybody still feels like the country will surely remain within the normal parameters of peaceful political action that have typified the United States up to this point, they must recognize that we are looking at something unprecedented, and whatever has historically kept us within those parameters may no longer be able to impose the same restraints.
At what point do we think minorities must, for their own safety, keep tabs on the tenor of politics, and consider an exit strategy if things get too bad? There are quite a few Muslims with green cards that already got burned for not keeping their ear to the ground; in retrospect, any non-citizen Muslim, even with proper papers, should not have left the country any time after January 20th.
The loud minority did in fact elect Trump (and a lot of other Republicans in both states and federal) because of primary elections. After primaries, most people vote on party line. I believe over 90% of Repub voters voted Trump and over 90% of Dems voters voted Clinton.
In the primaries, only the loud minority votes. That's why Republicans have gained so many seats under Obama, and why the tea party formed - a reaction against Obama and Obamacare.
If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn’t thinking. General George S. Patton
Whether with President Trump, certain celebrity speakers at the Women’s March or disagreements with family or friends — each of us must decide how we respond to differences that offend us: Do we continue this game or change it? Louder shouts, more offensive language, more aggressive tactics are part of the current game that magnifies the conflict and escalates the arms race. It is a game this country knows: duels killing the likes of Alexander Hamilton, bloody civil war, deadly gang-wars in Chicago, political gridlock. Differences grow into dysfunction, then destructive conflict by herding everyone into a forced-choice of “us” and “them.”
Destructive Escalation
This game has a name, Destructive Escalation and it is a psychological process that moves opposing parties down a path of growing conflict and carnage. It has been oft studied, the steps are widely known and highly predictable (Cait Malek) [...]
2.Diversify your relationship portfolio.
In investing, diversified portfolios are recommended to avoid the risk of asset concentration. Concentrated relational portfolios (only hanging-out with those “like-us”) are no different. If you were surprised by Trump’s Presidential victory, the size of the Women’s March, or the rise of Black Lives Matter, it probably means your relational portfolios and the media you absorb have limited or even blinded you.
It is time to intentionally diversify your relationship portfolio. Rather than reinforcing our own views and attempting to convert others, how about we invest more to understand those different from us — first understand, then be understood. Many of us are stuck in “convenient” diversity — diversity of demography but sameness of belief. How about diversity of belief?
Robert Putnam warns us that with diversity come challenging side effects; often sub-groups fracture, participate less and are less engaged. Similar to investing, the goal is to optimize the gain from a balanced relational portfolio of both difference and sameness.
3.Understand: often your most passionate disagreements are rooted in your deepest wounds.
The big question is how do I tolerate “those people” whose ideas seem dangerous or unjust? It starts with understanding your own passion. What is it about your beliefs that stirs-up emotions? Often we find underneath our passion are old wounds. Maybe we or someone we love was bullied or treated with contempt. Think about and name those old wounds foundational to your fear or loathing of certain groups or beliefs.
Next seek to understand the wounds of those you disdain. Chances are they too were bullied or injured. Notice how often successful athletes cite past “injustices” as a source of their passion. Understanding others’ wounds can change the game.
De-legitimized differences and destructive escalation produces losers. It is time to change the game.
HuffPo rarely publishes gems and this is one of them. It's worth reading in its entirety. Diversity of thought and opposition are worthwhile purely for development if not further, and we should resist labeling and dismissing in the wake of this election (put islamophobia and xenophobia and racism in the dung heap where they belong).
On January 31 2017 09:50 DannyJ wrote: and while all this is happening I'm sure Trump's approval rating is going up at least 15%, if the campaign showed us anything...
He actually has to govern the whole country, not just his supporters. That is the difference to the campaign. And his supporters constitute a small but very loud minority of the country. The EC might have won him the presidency but it hasn't magically won him the cities. I doubt very much that people are going to tolerate his nonsense.
I mean his voters were an electoral majority yet a ~3mil loss out of ~137mil. If 46% of the country is a small minority, you might want to reconsider your position on alternative facts.
That's just it, it's not 46% of the country, it's 46% of 2016 voters, I think a lot of people are going to get a lesson in what that difference means.
I'm no statistician but I sense that if a third of the population voted we can infer pretty easily on the rest. It is actually the most accurate poll we have.
Well... that is rather obvious... So because 46% of the voting population supported Trump you conclude that also about 46% of the nonvoters did? o.O Spectacular...
A lot of people don't vote exactly because they don't support the candidates available... Neither of them.
On January 31 2017 09:50 DannyJ wrote: and while all this is happening I'm sure Trump's approval rating is going up at least 15%, if the campaign showed us anything...
He actually has to govern the whole country, not just his supporters. That is the difference to the campaign. And his supporters constitute a small but very loud minority of the country. The EC might have won him the presidency but it hasn't magically won him the cities. I doubt very much that people are going to tolerate his nonsense.
I mean his voters were an electoral majority yet a ~3mil loss out of ~137mil. If 46% of the country is a small minority, you might want to reconsider your position on alternative facts.
That's just it, it's not 46% of the country, it's 46% of 2016 voters, I think a lot of people are going to get a lesson in what that difference means.
I'm no statistician but I sense that if a third of the population voted we can infer pretty easily on the rest. It is actually the most accurate poll we have.
Well... that is rather obvious... So because 46% of the voting population supported Trump you conclude that also about 46% of the nonvoters did? o.O Spectacular...
A lot of people don't vote exactly because they don't support the candidates available... Neither of them.
There's self selection bias vs the sheer power of number of votes. Pretty sure the number of votes wins out.
If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn’t thinking. General George S. Patton
Whether with President Trump, certain celebrity speakers at the Women’s March or disagreements with family or friends — each of us must decide how we respond to differences that offend us: Do we continue this game or change it? Louder shouts, more offensive language, more aggressive tactics are part of the current game that magnifies the conflict and escalates the arms race. It is a game this country knows: duels killing the likes of Alexander Hamilton, bloody civil war, deadly gang-wars in Chicago, political gridlock. Differences grow into dysfunction, then destructive conflict by herding everyone into a forced-choice of “us” and “them.”
Destructive Escalation
This game has a name, Destructive Escalation and it is a psychological process that moves opposing parties down a path of growing conflict and carnage. It has been oft studied, the steps are widely known and highly predictable (Cait Malek) [...]
2.Diversify your relationship portfolio.
In investing, diversified portfolios are recommended to avoid the risk of asset concentration. Concentrated relational portfolios (only hanging-out with those “like-us”) are no different. If you were surprised by Trump’s Presidential victory, the size of the Women’s March, or the rise of Black Lives Matter, it probably means your relational portfolios and the media you absorb have limited or even blinded you.
It is time to intentionally diversify your relationship portfolio. Rather than reinforcing our own views and attempting to convert others, how about we invest more to understand those different from us — first understand, then be understood. Many of us are stuck in “convenient” diversity — diversity of demography but sameness of belief. How about diversity of belief?
Robert Putnam warns us that with diversity come challenging side effects; often sub-groups fracture, participate less and are less engaged. Similar to investing, the goal is to optimize the gain from a balanced relational portfolio of both difference and sameness.
3.Understand: often your most passionate disagreements are rooted in your deepest wounds.
The big question is how do I tolerate “those people” whose ideas seem dangerous or unjust? It starts with understanding your own passion. What is it about your beliefs that stirs-up emotions? Often we find underneath our passion are old wounds. Maybe we or someone we love was bullied or treated with contempt. Think about and name those old wounds foundational to your fear or loathing of certain groups or beliefs.
Next seek to understand the wounds of those you disdain. Chances are they too were bullied or injured. Notice how often successful athletes cite past “injustices” as a source of their passion. Understanding others’ wounds can change the game.
De-legitimized differences and destructive escalation produces losers. It is time to change the game.
HuffPo rarely publishes gems and this is one of them. It's worth reading in its entirety. Diversity of thought and opposition are worthwhile purely for development if not further, and we should resist labeling and dismissing in the wake of this election (put islamophobia and xenophobia and racism in the dung heap where they belong).
When Trump went on The View in 2011 and talked about Obama's birth certificate, he got claps. Racism and xenophobia are alive and well outside of the dung heap.
On January 31 2017 09:50 DannyJ wrote: and while all this is happening I'm sure Trump's approval rating is going up at least 15%, if the campaign showed us anything...
He actually has to govern the whole country, not just his supporters. That is the difference to the campaign. And his supporters constitute a small but very loud minority of the country. The EC might have won him the presidency but it hasn't magically won him the cities. I doubt very much that people are going to tolerate his nonsense.
I mean his voters were an electoral majority yet a ~3mil loss out of ~137mil. If 46% of the country is a small minority, you might want to reconsider your position on alternative facts.
46 % of 140 million voters is a quarter of the country's population. The US president cannot just represent the particular interests of such a group, he's supposed to unify the country. Donald Trump has gone as far as labeling political opponents and even the press as 'enemies'. This isn't how it is supposed to work.
On January 31 2017 09:50 DannyJ wrote: and while all this is happening I'm sure Trump's approval rating is going up at least 15%, if the campaign showed us anything...
He actually has to govern the whole country, not just his supporters. That is the difference to the campaign. And his supporters constitute a small but very loud minority of the country. The EC might have won him the presidency but it hasn't magically won him the cities. I doubt very much that people are going to tolerate his nonsense.
I mean his voters were an electoral majority yet a ~3mil loss out of ~137mil. If 46% of the country is a small minority, you might want to reconsider your position on alternative facts.
That's just it, it's not 46% of the country, it's 46% of 2016 voters, I think a lot of people are going to get a lesson in what that difference means.
You fail to provide any rationale for why people who fail to vote both differ wildly from the 46% Trumpers that do, or why the population that doesn't vote should also demand disproportionate representation. I mean, a republic certainly biases people that select their representatives to those that would rather stay home, right?
I get bio, but I would think this is something you are aware of.
Most non-voters also have no regrets. Among citizens who say they did not cast a ballot in the presidential election, 55% say they do not wish they had voted. Some of the top reasons given for not voting are that they did not like the candidates (26% selected this as a reason they did not vote), they felt their vote would not matter (25%), or they were not registered or eligible to vote (22%).
About four-in-ten citizen nonvoters (41%) are under 30 years of age, compared with only 16% of all registered voters. And Hispanics make up a greater share of nonvoters than registered voters (20% vs. 11%); conversely, while 70% of all registered voters are white, just 52% of nonvoters are.
Non-voters have very different demographics than voters, and their reasons for not voting don't suggest they share the popular opinions of either candidates supporters.
As for why their opinions matter, whether they vote or not. I'm sure the mobs will explain politely why they disagree with your perspective.
On January 31 2017 09:50 DannyJ wrote: and while all this is happening I'm sure Trump's approval rating is going up at least 15%, if the campaign showed us anything...
He actually has to govern the whole country, not just his supporters. That is the difference to the campaign. And his supporters constitute a small but very loud minority of the country. The EC might have won him the presidency but it hasn't magically won him the cities. I doubt very much that people are going to tolerate his nonsense.
I mean his voters were an electoral majority yet a ~3mil loss out of ~137mil. If 46% of the country is a small minority, you might want to reconsider your position on alternative facts.
46 % of 140 million voters is a quarter of the country's population. The US president cannot just represent the particular interests of such a group, he's supposed to unify the country. Donald Trump has gone as far as labeling political opponents and even the press as 'enemies'. This isn't how it is supposed to work.
On January 31 2017 09:50 DannyJ wrote: and while all this is happening I'm sure Trump's approval rating is going up at least 15%, if the campaign showed us anything...
He actually has to govern the whole country, not just his supporters. That is the difference to the campaign. And his supporters constitute a small but very loud minority of the country. The EC might have won him the presidency but it hasn't magically won him the cities. I doubt very much that people are going to tolerate his nonsense.
I mean his voters were an electoral majority yet a ~3mil loss out of ~137mil. If 46% of the country is a small minority, you might want to reconsider your position on alternative facts.
That's just it, it's not 46% of the country, it's 46% of 2016 voters, I think a lot of people are going to get a lesson in what that difference means.
You fail to provide any rationale for why people who fail to vote both differ wildly from the 46% Trumpers that do, or why the population that doesn't vote should also demand disproportionate representation. I mean, a republic certainly biases people that select their representatives to those that would rather stay home, right?
Because there is a huge difference between governing for 50% of the electorate or against the other 50%. The worst thing Obama, in eight years, forced upon the people who did not like him was healthcare. The worst thing they had to say about him was that he does not understand them or ignored their problems.
This is not what Trump is doing. He is actively messing with the people who opposed him because his whole election is a stupid revenge fantasy of the disenfranchised.
If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn’t thinking. General George S. Patton
Whether with President Trump, certain celebrity speakers at the Women’s March or disagreements with family or friends — each of us must decide how we respond to differences that offend us: Do we continue this game or change it? Louder shouts, more offensive language, more aggressive tactics are part of the current game that magnifies the conflict and escalates the arms race. It is a game this country knows: duels killing the likes of Alexander Hamilton, bloody civil war, deadly gang-wars in Chicago, political gridlock. Differences grow into dysfunction, then destructive conflict by herding everyone into a forced-choice of “us” and “them.”
Destructive Escalation
This game has a name, Destructive Escalation and it is a psychological process that moves opposing parties down a path of growing conflict and carnage. It has been oft studied, the steps are widely known and highly predictable (Cait Malek) [...]
2.Diversify your relationship portfolio.
In investing, diversified portfolios are recommended to avoid the risk of asset concentration. Concentrated relational portfolios (only hanging-out with those “like-us”) are no different. If you were surprised by Trump’s Presidential victory, the size of the Women’s March, or the rise of Black Lives Matter, it probably means your relational portfolios and the media you absorb have limited or even blinded you.
It is time to intentionally diversify your relationship portfolio. Rather than reinforcing our own views and attempting to convert others, how about we invest more to understand those different from us — first understand, then be understood. Many of us are stuck in “convenient” diversity — diversity of demography but sameness of belief. How about diversity of belief?
Robert Putnam warns us that with diversity come challenging side effects; often sub-groups fracture, participate less and are less engaged. Similar to investing, the goal is to optimize the gain from a balanced relational portfolio of both difference and sameness.
3.Understand: often your most passionate disagreements are rooted in your deepest wounds.
The big question is how do I tolerate “those people” whose ideas seem dangerous or unjust? It starts with understanding your own passion. What is it about your beliefs that stirs-up emotions? Often we find underneath our passion are old wounds. Maybe we or someone we love was bullied or treated with contempt. Think about and name those old wounds foundational to your fear or loathing of certain groups or beliefs.
Next seek to understand the wounds of those you disdain. Chances are they too were bullied or injured. Notice how often successful athletes cite past “injustices” as a source of their passion. Understanding others’ wounds can change the game.
De-legitimized differences and destructive escalation produces losers. It is time to change the game.
HuffPo rarely publishes gems and this is one of them. It's worth reading in its entirety. Diversity of thought and opposition are worthwhile purely for development if not further, and we should resist labeling and dismissing in the wake of this election (put islamophobia and xenophobia and racism in the dung heap where they belong).
Do you deny that racism, islamaphobia, and xenophobia exist? And if not, how do you think that imposing such an aphasia would help in opposing them? If Republican politicians from the last 8 years talking about "Islamic terrorism" are to be believed, it's impossible to fight something if you can't name it.
If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn’t thinking. General George S. Patton
Whether with President Trump, certain celebrity speakers at the Women’s March or disagreements with family or friends — each of us must decide how we respond to differences that offend us: Do we continue this game or change it? Louder shouts, more offensive language, more aggressive tactics are part of the current game that magnifies the conflict and escalates the arms race. It is a game this country knows: duels killing the likes of Alexander Hamilton, bloody civil war, deadly gang-wars in Chicago, political gridlock. Differences grow into dysfunction, then destructive conflict by herding everyone into a forced-choice of “us” and “them.”
Destructive Escalation
This game has a name, Destructive Escalation and it is a psychological process that moves opposing parties down a path of growing conflict and carnage. It has been oft studied, the steps are widely known and highly predictable (Cait Malek) [...]
2.Diversify your relationship portfolio.
In investing, diversified portfolios are recommended to avoid the risk of asset concentration. Concentrated relational portfolios (only hanging-out with those “like-us”) are no different. If you were surprised by Trump’s Presidential victory, the size of the Women’s March, or the rise of Black Lives Matter, it probably means your relational portfolios and the media you absorb have limited or even blinded you.
It is time to intentionally diversify your relationship portfolio. Rather than reinforcing our own views and attempting to convert others, how about we invest more to understand those different from us — first understand, then be understood. Many of us are stuck in “convenient” diversity — diversity of demography but sameness of belief. How about diversity of belief?
Robert Putnam warns us that with diversity come challenging side effects; often sub-groups fracture, participate less and are less engaged. Similar to investing, the goal is to optimize the gain from a balanced relational portfolio of both difference and sameness.
3.Understand: often your most passionate disagreements are rooted in your deepest wounds.
The big question is how do I tolerate “those people” whose ideas seem dangerous or unjust? It starts with understanding your own passion. What is it about your beliefs that stirs-up emotions? Often we find underneath our passion are old wounds. Maybe we or someone we love was bullied or treated with contempt. Think about and name those old wounds foundational to your fear or loathing of certain groups or beliefs.
Next seek to understand the wounds of those you disdain. Chances are they too were bullied or injured. Notice how often successful athletes cite past “injustices” as a source of their passion. Understanding others’ wounds can change the game.
De-legitimized differences and destructive escalation produces losers. It is time to change the game.
HuffPo rarely publishes gems and this is one of them. It's worth reading in its entirety. Diversity of thought and opposition are worthwhile purely for development if not further, and we should resist labeling and dismissing in the wake of this election (put islamophobia and xenophobia and racism in the dung heap where they belong).
Do you deny that racism, islamaphobia, and xenophobia exist? And if not, how do you think that imposing such an aphasia would help in opposing them? If Republican politicians from the last 8 years talking about "Islamic terrorism" are to be believed, it's impossible to fight something if you can't name it.
You can't. The solution to beating ISIS isn't to drone strike them endlessly while killing civilians which just causes recruitment of more militants. It is a battle of ideas, the direct confrontation of this cancer on an ideological level is necessary. This was realized by many americans, but the last 8 years was just silence, a purposeful ignorance or a level of naivety a president should not have.
I've always wondered what the differences are between voters and non-voters. sadly I don't think there's polls that look at how non-voters would vote if they did. I wonder who would do a better job on average at selecting leaders, those who currently vote, or those who usually don't. it could go easily be either way.
If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn’t thinking. General George S. Patton
Whether with President Trump, certain celebrity speakers at the Women’s March or disagreements with family or friends — each of us must decide how we respond to differences that offend us: Do we continue this game or change it? Louder shouts, more offensive language, more aggressive tactics are part of the current game that magnifies the conflict and escalates the arms race. It is a game this country knows: duels killing the likes of Alexander Hamilton, bloody civil war, deadly gang-wars in Chicago, political gridlock. Differences grow into dysfunction, then destructive conflict by herding everyone into a forced-choice of “us” and “them.”
Destructive Escalation
This game has a name, Destructive Escalation and it is a psychological process that moves opposing parties down a path of growing conflict and carnage. It has been oft studied, the steps are widely known and highly predictable (Cait Malek) [...]
2.Diversify your relationship portfolio.
In investing, diversified portfolios are recommended to avoid the risk of asset concentration. Concentrated relational portfolios (only hanging-out with those “like-us”) are no different. If you were surprised by Trump’s Presidential victory, the size of the Women’s March, or the rise of Black Lives Matter, it probably means your relational portfolios and the media you absorb have limited or even blinded you.
It is time to intentionally diversify your relationship portfolio. Rather than reinforcing our own views and attempting to convert others, how about we invest more to understand those different from us — first understand, then be understood. Many of us are stuck in “convenient” diversity — diversity of demography but sameness of belief. How about diversity of belief?
Robert Putnam warns us that with diversity come challenging side effects; often sub-groups fracture, participate less and are less engaged. Similar to investing, the goal is to optimize the gain from a balanced relational portfolio of both difference and sameness.
3.Understand: often your most passionate disagreements are rooted in your deepest wounds.
The big question is how do I tolerate “those people” whose ideas seem dangerous or unjust? It starts with understanding your own passion. What is it about your beliefs that stirs-up emotions? Often we find underneath our passion are old wounds. Maybe we or someone we love was bullied or treated with contempt. Think about and name those old wounds foundational to your fear or loathing of certain groups or beliefs.
Next seek to understand the wounds of those you disdain. Chances are they too were bullied or injured. Notice how often successful athletes cite past “injustices” as a source of their passion. Understanding others’ wounds can change the game.
De-legitimized differences and destructive escalation produces losers. It is time to change the game.
HuffPo rarely publishes gems and this is one of them. It's worth reading in its entirety. Diversity of thought and opposition are worthwhile purely for development if not further, and we should resist labeling and dismissing in the wake of this election (put islamophobia and xenophobia and racism in the dung heap where they belong).
Do you deny that racism, islamaphobia, and xenophobia exist? And if not, how do you think that imposing such an aphasia would help in opposing them? If Republican politicians from the last 8 years talking about "Islamic terrorism" are to be believed, it's impossible to fight something if you can't name it.
You can't. The solution to beating ISIS isn't to drone strike them endlessly while killing civilians which just causes recruitment of more militants. It is a battle of ideas, the direct confrontation of this cancer on an ideological level is necessary. This was realized by many americans, but the last 8 years was just silence, a purposeful ignorance or a level of naivety a president should not have.
why do you feel a need to continue to lie about this? obama WAS working on it, he WAS doing some of the things that actually win fights like this. and the claim of naivete is quite absurd. seriously man, repeating a lie doens't make it true, and your claims here have been addressed many MANY times in this thread. if you awnt to continue your claim, you should counter the points made that disprove you, instead of just oging quiet for awhile and then repeating your claim awhile later.
On January 31 2017 11:07 zlefin wrote: I've always wondered what the differences are between voters and non-voters. sadly I don't think there's polls that look at how non-voters would vote if they did. I wonder who would do a better job on average at selecting leaders, those who currently vote, or those who usually don't. it could go easily be either way.
Well we know at least 25% wouldn't vote for either Hillary or Trump, probably closer to 50% really.
If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn’t thinking. General George S. Patton
Whether with President Trump, certain celebrity speakers at the Women’s March or disagreements with family or friends — each of us must decide how we respond to differences that offend us: Do we continue this game or change it? Louder shouts, more offensive language, more aggressive tactics are part of the current game that magnifies the conflict and escalates the arms race. It is a game this country knows: duels killing the likes of Alexander Hamilton, bloody civil war, deadly gang-wars in Chicago, political gridlock. Differences grow into dysfunction, then destructive conflict by herding everyone into a forced-choice of “us” and “them.”
Destructive Escalation
This game has a name, Destructive Escalation and it is a psychological process that moves opposing parties down a path of growing conflict and carnage. It has been oft studied, the steps are widely known and highly predictable (Cait Malek) [...]
2.Diversify your relationship portfolio.
In investing, diversified portfolios are recommended to avoid the risk of asset concentration. Concentrated relational portfolios (only hanging-out with those “like-us”) are no different. If you were surprised by Trump’s Presidential victory, the size of the Women’s March, or the rise of Black Lives Matter, it probably means your relational portfolios and the media you absorb have limited or even blinded you.
It is time to intentionally diversify your relationship portfolio. Rather than reinforcing our own views and attempting to convert others, how about we invest more to understand those different from us — first understand, then be understood. Many of us are stuck in “convenient” diversity — diversity of demography but sameness of belief. How about diversity of belief?
Robert Putnam warns us that with diversity come challenging side effects; often sub-groups fracture, participate less and are less engaged. Similar to investing, the goal is to optimize the gain from a balanced relational portfolio of both difference and sameness.
3.Understand: often your most passionate disagreements are rooted in your deepest wounds.
The big question is how do I tolerate “those people” whose ideas seem dangerous or unjust? It starts with understanding your own passion. What is it about your beliefs that stirs-up emotions? Often we find underneath our passion are old wounds. Maybe we or someone we love was bullied or treated with contempt. Think about and name those old wounds foundational to your fear or loathing of certain groups or beliefs.
Next seek to understand the wounds of those you disdain. Chances are they too were bullied or injured. Notice how often successful athletes cite past “injustices” as a source of their passion. Understanding others’ wounds can change the game.
De-legitimized differences and destructive escalation produces losers. It is time to change the game.
HuffPo rarely publishes gems and this is one of them. It's worth reading in its entirety. Diversity of thought and opposition are worthwhile purely for development if not further, and we should resist labeling and dismissing in the wake of this election (put islamophobia and xenophobia and racism in the dung heap where they belong).
Do you deny that racism, islamaphobia, and xenophobia exist? And if not, how do you think that imposing such an aphasia would help in opposing them? If Republican politicians from the last 8 years talking about "Islamic terrorism" are to be believed, it's impossible to fight something if you can't name it.
You can't. The solution to beating ISIS isn't to drone strike them endlessly while killing civilians which just causes recruitment of more militants. It is a battle of ideas, the direct confrontation of this cancer on an ideological level is necessary. This was realized by many americans, but the last 8 years was just silence, a purposeful ignorance or a level of naivety a president should not have.
Then do you agree that Danglars is wrong to say we should abandon the words "racism," "islamaphobia," and "xenophobia" entirely? Assuming (and I hope this is common ground) those are bad things, then by the same principle, won't that render us unable to fight them?
EPT![[image loading]](https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/600/1*8IDunC3Egvsw1Lr9_o6yxA.png)
