Political safe space thread.

weso1

weso1

<B>Clique Leader</B>
I have an interesting idea. Let's make a thread where any political thought isn't taboo and sarcasm is shunned. My goal with this thread is that any reasonable hypothesis is taken seriously and any comments trying to score points are ignored and hopefully deleted by mods. The goal of this thread isn't to score points but just to have a thought provoking discussion.

My first hypothesis is that if every kid grew up with two loving parents then we would have relative peace in the world. And this is the ultimate result we should reach in our society.
 
weso1 said:
I have an interesting idea. Let's make a thread where any political thought isn't taboo and sarcasm is shunned. My goal with this thread is that any reasonable hypothesis is taken seriously and any comments trying to score points are ignored and hopefully deleted by mods. The goal of this thread isn't to score points but just to have a thought provoking discussion.

My first hypothesis is that if every kid grew up with two loving parents then we would have relative peace in the world. And this is the ultimate result we should reach in our society.
Click to expand...
I think you are saying that we should try and have a sincere, intelligent, honest discussion. I'm all for it. Not a fan of internet sarcasm. I just learned that there are sarcasm symbols, ~., /s., etc.

As for the first topic, every family in one society having 2 loving parents would not lead to world peace. The two aren't related at all and besides, plenty of bad people grow up with good parents.

I think the only thing that could lead to such a utopia would be a deep, underlying sense of unity and connectedness between all Humanity. A willingness to share life's wealth and blessings is the way to increase the well-being for all. Seems like common sense to me.
 
Great thread.

A coworker and I have a tradition of discussing how we would view any political debate if the US was a small island with 50 people. We both lean toward a mix of socialist and libertarian results when we view it that way. If Jenny on the other side of the island broke both of her legs in a fall from a coconut palm, well, we know Jenny and she works hard, so we can all take her a little bit of extra fish while she heals. And if Wes that lives over by the reef likes to smoke some of the local weeds every night, well, remember how much he helped Jenny when she had her fall? So leave him alone, he isn't hurting anyone.

This makes me wonder if the problem with national politics is just that the electorate is too large and disconnected.
 
or perhaps too many displaced slaves ?

Why not just say it, there are too many black people
#sugarcoat

more to the point calling the thread "dog whistle"
 
Well first we need to define loving. Second I can't fathom any way we can manipulate people into being loving parents. A lot of parents have done horrible things to their kids out of love. Good intentions don't always equal good results.

Having a two parent household has shown in studies to be very beneficial. It has also shown that it does more damage to take a child from abusive biological parents and give them to a non abusive foster parent unless it's sexual abuse. Your theory is one of the many reasons the world seems to be going to tell in a handbasket but it's far more complicated than any one issue.
 
The intended tone ?

I read the intended tone as "if onlly they were like us"

Pretty good idea who "they" are
 
57 = Dick Cheney on how I view people and people know how much I detest Cheney.

His main goal is to piss people off and ruin threads and like clockwork he does it again.
 
Runnin said:
I think the only thing that could lead to such a utopia would be a deep, underlying sense of unity and connectedness between all Humanity. A willingness to share life's wealth and blessings is the way to increase the well-being for all. Seems like common sense to me.
Click to expand...

It's interesting to me that the sense of national unity is strongest either during or right after a major disaster, September 11th, WW2, etc. I wonder if we faced some type of long term existential threat that was easily identified, would that actually improve civility and political discourse. At times it seems like we have already gone too far over the edge to ever bring it back.
 
Jaw said:
It's interesting to me that the sense of national unity is strongest either during or right after a major disaster, September 11th, WW2, etc. I wonder if we faced some type of long term existential threat that was easily identified, would that actually improve civility and political discourse. At times it seems like we have already gone too far over the edge to ever bring it back.
Click to expand...

It's always been my belief that our only hope for world peace would be an alien invasion.
 
I've always like the idea of having a ranking system for voting. Much like voting for the MVP.

The theory would be that most people would agree on the 2nd place candidate (indicating the most tolerable candidate for all people), and therefore that person would actually win the election.
 
Jaw said:
It's interesting to me that the sense of national unity is strongest either during or right after a major disaster, September 11th, WW2, etc. I wonder if we faced some type of long term existential threat that was easily identified, would that actually improve civility and political discourse. At times it seems like we have already gone too far over the edge to ever bring it back.
Click to expand...

Not being sarcastic at all, but that's what virtually every alien invasion films seems to posit, ultimately: only an outside threat, bigger than humanity's threats to itself, can bring us together. I'd like to think we can establish a unified sense of mutual respect and care-taking without the executioner's axe hanging over our necks.
 
Jaw said:
Great thread.

A coworker and I have a tradition of discussing how we would view any political debate if the US was a small island with 50 people. We both lean toward a mix of socialist and libertarian results when we view it that way. If Jenny on the other side of the island broke both of her legs in a fall from a coconut palm, well, we know Jenny and she works hard, so we can all take her a little bit of extra fish while she heals. And if Wes that lives over by the reef likes to smoke some of the local weeds every night, well, remember how much he helped Jenny when she had her fall? So leave him alone, he isn't hurting anyone.

This makes me wonder if the problem with national politics is just that the electorate is too large and disconnected.
Click to expand...

Paging [MENTION=54]50PoundHead[/MENTION] to reference The Big Sort.

I do agree that building empathy across broad swaths of far-flung folks is probably our biggest hurdle. One would think (as McLuhan did, in his theorizing regarding the Global Village) that rapid-fire telecommunication technologies, like the internet, which collapse time and space, would have massively assisted in that process; but heretofore they've seem to only galvanize old prejudices and inflame old wounds.
 
This brouhaha over sleeveless women in Congress is one of the silliest things I've ever heard and a perfect example of how senseless Republican men can be when it comes to anything dealing with women. Perhaps there's more to it than I'm aware of but on its surface it seems a LOT like another part of the world where they force women to cover up.

Are bare arms on women that big of a problem? From what I read congressional members rarely come to work anyway.
 
Runnin said:
This brouhaha over sleeveless women in Congress is one of the silliest things I've ever heard and a perfect example of how senseless Republican men can be when it comes to anything dealing with women. Perhaps there's more to it than I'm aware of but on its surface it seems a LOT like another part of the world where they force women to cover up.

Are bare arms on women that big of a problem? From what I read congressional members rarely come to work anyway.
Click to expand...

I agree. They're supposed to be fixing health care, cutting spending, and lowering my taxes. Instead they decide to spend time starting silly fights that they won't win. It's frustrating.
 
Jaw said:
I agree. They're supposed to be fixing health care, cutting spending, and lowering my taxes. Instead they decide to spend time starting silly fights that they won't win. It's frustrating.
Click to expand...
So it's a calculated distraction. Perhaps they are learning from their crooked leader.

nho9w6yfyxrptbszuhuu.jpg
 
So many of my existential anxieties for our species tallied together in one essay.

The apocalyptic spectre of global climate decimation, when fairly considered, alternatingly fills me with paralyzing ennui or a hedonistic, carpe voluptatem disregard for our collective future and my fellow anthropoi; it's everything I can do to hold onto either basic motivation or concern for the well-being of others, given our global prospects, merely a few decades down the line. It's harrowing, in equal measure, to feel so few amongst us maintain the appropriate level of perpetual, low-level panic for the coming catastrophes, and low-key despondency for the incipient desolation to both natural wonder and human progress—and even more depressing to see how many ignore, or outright deny, the dark clouds on the horizon.

It's also why I personally only formulate short- and medium-term ambitions.

Discuss.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top