Divisiveness is now...good?

[Losfer Words]

I would argue that American has been politically divided since the beginning. My in laws are hardcore GOP and my parents are hardcore libs. When they are not around each other they just rail the other side. Its like the other side is Death and their side is God. But when we all get together they have a great time with each other. Take out the politics and all of sudden people aren't really that divided and never have been.

the shift in "good" and "bad" is probably perceived and more of a result of who is in power than anything else.

 

[tehJameson]

But for the sake of the argument, it should be conceded that regardless of the cause of division, it is true that America was divided after Obama's presidency. I disagree with the reasons/motivations for the division offered by the right (it was self-inflicted), but the premise is that division has shifted from something that was bad to something that is now good, and this shift is not defensible except as a form of completely amoral political warfare.

America was only divided because Obama is black. The people saying being divided is good are the very same people that were butthurt because of a Presidents skin color.

 

[My Spot]

I would argue that American has been politically divided since the beginning. My in laws are hardcore GOP and my parents are hardcore libs. When they are not around each other they just rail the other side. Its like the other side is Death and their side is God. But when we all get together they have a great time with each other. Take out the politics and all of sudden people aren't really that divided and never have been.

the shift in "good" and "bad" is probably perceived and more of a result of who is in power than anything else.

The TS is shocked by hypocrisy in politics.

 

[Letssnuggle]

The fact this thread wasn’t created when Obama was president (after admitting he too was divisive)....I find divisive.

This is the biggest circle jerk thread.

 

[Fawlty]

I would argue that American has been politically divided since the beginning. My in laws are hardcore GOP and my parents are hardcore libs. When they are not around each other they just rail the other side. Its like the other side is Death and their side is God. But when we all get together they have a great time with each other. Take out the politics and all of sudden people aren't really that divided and never have been.

the shift in "good" and "bad" is probably perceived and more of a result of who is in power than anything else.

Sure we've been divided always, and even more so than the Founders intended. There was always meant to be a robust debate with major disagreements over serious problems, but when parties came along, shit got even realer.

Mudslinging has always been this bad (and worse).

But we've also gone a long time without this depth and duration of division (with the exception of Bush's Iraq which was for a damn good reason), and rather than seeing it as an unfortunate effect of politics, it's now actively sown as a means to an end, an effort to divide rather than division as a consequence. I think that's different than the norm, and we're in a serious position.

 

[gassius_clay]

People argue their case like adults all of the time, the problem is that some people don't like the arguments that are being made. Argue your case like an adult...but you can't use the following arguments: X, Y, Z. Well, if they can't use Arguments X, Y, Z then it seems like they're being asked to abide by some unspoken PC code.

You posted a wonderful diatribe but it completely sidestepped my point.

Only one side has an issue with PC speech. The side that is against PC speech shouldn't have a problem with the race card or with calling people Nazie regularly. They shouldn't have a problem with any language used in the public space. Asking any group to change how they about any subject is asking them to be PC.

A person cannot be against society becoming too PC and also upset about society's use of language directed against their preferred group.

Here's a simple example to help you stay on track. "Muslims are terrorists and can't be trusted." says Person X. When told that the statement is xenophobic, Person X says that it's the truth and the PC police are going overboard. When Person Y calls Person X a "racist", Person X says "Why do you call everyone racist, you shouldn't speak that way."

Person X doesn't see that the request for less volatile language contradicts the previous desire to express volatile language. Person X abhors the PC code when it restricts Person X's speech but implicitly appeals to it when the speech is directed at Person X.

That is the point that I am making.

Feels like you've completely ignored the issues with the other side of the equation. The side that supposedly favors PC seems to have no issues with spewing racist anti-white rhetoric. The Sarah Jeong fiasco is perfect example of this.

 

[Fawlty]

The fact this thread wasn’t created when Obama was president (after admitting he too was divisive)....I find divisive.

This is the biggest circle jerk thread.

I disagree that Obama was too divisive, but I grant that after his presidency, our country was too divided. And for the sake of argument, I accept the right wing position. That's neither here nor there, though, which I have been crystal clear about several times, and which you still refuse to see.

 

[Fawlty]

America was only divided because Obama is black. The people saying being divided is good are the very same people that were butthurt because of a Presidents skin color.

I do believe Obama's race is a major factor in today's division, but that's not relevant enough to the topic.

 

[gassius_clay]

Remember when the lefties said that proffering a market-based resolution to providing healthcare to the working class was communist government tyranny, would lead to government "death panels," and that the president pushing the plan was a Muslim Atheist Communist Kenyan?

Not so much. I do remember Obamacare was built on lies and the middle class were just "too stupid" to understand it was going to be bad for them though.

 

[Lead]

I voted yes in the poll but I think it's hard to keep that to a yes or no question because it's important to note the type of divisiveness, the means (lack thereof) it is serving, and the result it's producing.

Also, I think you can blame part of the level of divisiveness of the public as a whole than just the administration only. I think people are becoming more polarized to a degree.

Edit- meant to vote no

 

[bushman505]

This admin and this level of division is not really business as usual, it's a bit of a crazy outlier.

You should join Linda sarroaalour and “jihad” against this administration.

 

[Fawlty]

I voted yes in the poll but I think it's hard to keep that to a yes or no question because it's important to note the type of divisiveness, the means (lack thereof) it is serving, and the result it's producing.

Also, I think you can blame part of the level of divisiveness of the public as a whole than just the administration only. I think people are becoming more polarized to a degree.

You think the current level of divisiveness is good for the country?

Because that was the question. DOH!

 

[Lead]

You think the current level of divisiveness is good for the country?

Because that was the question. DOH!

Answered it wrong. I meant to vote no....

 

[Losfer Words]

Sure we've been divided always, and even more so than the Founders intended. There was always meant to be a robust debate with major disagreements over serious problems, but when parties came along, shit got even realer.

Mudslinging has always been this bad (and worse).

But we've also gone a long time without this depth and duration of division (with the exception of Bush's Iraq which was for a damn good reason), and rather than seeing as an unfortunate effect of politics, it's now actively sown as a means to an end, an effort to divide rather than division as a consequence. I think that's different than the norm, and we're in a serious position.

No doubt we are in a serious position; Trump is the sitting president. As much as I loved seeing Hilary get beat by Trump, having Trump as the sitting president is some next level crazy. However "norm" is sort of relative for me here because from my perspective things have been getting hotter and hotter since the start and really picked up steam at 9-11. I'm not talking about truther BS, I just mean in general society has only been getting more agitated and stupid since 9-11 and the cult of celebrity/money/consumption keeps demanding more and more of the POTUS. Celebrity presidents are the future. Fingers crossed I get to see Riff Raff and Paris Hilton hold office before my death rattle.

 

[Fawlty]

No doubt we are in a serious position; Trump is the sitting president. As much as I loved seeing Hilary get beat by Trump, having Trump as the sitting president is some next level crazy. However "norm" is sort of relative for me here because from my perspective things have been getting hotter and hotter since the start and really picked up steam at 9-11. I'm not talking about truther BS, I just mean in general society has only been getting more agitated and stupid since 9-11 and the cult of celebrity/money/consumption keeps demanding more and more of the POTUS. Celebrity presidents are the future. Fingers crossed I get to see Riff Raff and Paris Hilton hold office before my death rattle.

The mass media/social media progression (and personality cult/celebrity stuff) may indeed be responsible for most of this. I have absolutely no idea how to support that idea with any kind of perspective or solid data since I feel like we're so far into the middle of it that only future generations will be able to see it for what it is.

 

[all caps]

The mass media/social media progression (and personality cult/celebrity stuff) may indeed be responsible for most of this. I have absolutely no idea how to support that idea with any kind of perspective or solid data since I feel like we're so far into the middle of it that only future generations will be able to see it for what it is.

I, too, believe social media had a huge impact. I dont think it's any sort of conspiracy that people say "4chan memed trump to the presidency"

Thoughts and ideas begin on the internet now and spread to the real world. This is why the establishment is trying to control it. Theres no way to compete with an organic message for them.

 

[Fawlty]

I, too, believe social media had a huge impact. I dont think it's any sort of conspiracy that people say "4chan memed trump to the presidency"

Thoughts and ideas begin on the internet now and spread to the real world. This is why the establishment is trying to control it. Theres no way to compete with an organic message for them.

I never thought 4chan won Trump the presidency though. The target demo for political influence was definitely Facebook, which was targeted heavily by conservative groups, who to a large extent conspired with Cambridge Analytica, who appear to have illegally obtained information on upwards of a hundred million people. The extent of foreign involvement (esp. Russia) in that is significant, but I think unknown what the full extent was.

The 4chan/reddit/etc effect is small by comparison because it's a small demo with respect to who actually votes in this country (old fucks).

 

[Lord Commander Palis]

I never thought 4chan won Trump the presidency though. The target demo for political influence was definitely Facebook, which was targeted heavily by conservative groups, who to a large extent conspired with Cambridge Analytica, who appear to have illegally obtained information on upwards of a hundred million people. The extent of foreign involvement (esp. Russia) in that is significant, but I think unknown what the full extent was.

The 4chan/reddit/etc effect is small by comparison because it's a small demo with respect to who actually votes in this country (old fucks).

 

[Wingslaught]

The Trump administration is likely following the mold set by Obama, but from a Republican perspective. Obama bashed Fox News relentlessly (without a peep from anyone in the MSM by the way), Trump bashes CNN.

Obama certainly was divisive. He pitted man against woman, white against black, rich against poor, CEOs against employees, and everything in between. It probably had a lot to do with identity politics, but again no one on the left seemed to mind when it was Obama doing it.

To address the OP, divisiveness is bad for the country, imo, as it probably leads to conflict and is demoralizing for the nation.

 

[Losfer Words]

The mass media/social media progression (and personality cult/celebrity stuff) may indeed be responsible for most of this. I have absolutely no idea how to support that idea with any kind of perspective since I feel like we're so far into the middle of it that only future generations will be able to see it for what it is.

68' was super hot and probably the most recent truly unstable point in US history but it sure feels like we got a period of lunacy rolling down the hill towards us. I think we can survive Trump and maybe even the next person but I shudder to think who will be POTUS in 15-20 years. Seems like it will either be an AK47, a Prius or facebook.