4 ms·
The more I think about the results of the US elections the more my conclusion is that it doesn't yield itself to simple explanations. This is not about some du
by YZF 10y ago
The more I think about the results of the US elections the more my conclusion is that it doesn't yield itself to simple explanations. This is not about some dude who lost his factory job and feels he is being patronized. I'm not denying this dude's existence or his feeling but there are a lot of people here with different feelings. For sure the lines of communication need to remain open to deal with the divide and as you say, this is a one person at a time thing. Another part is communication from the top which we haven't seen enough, both words and actions.
I would say the overall trend though is still towards a more unified humanity. Yes, there are bumps on the road, but if you look at the world today people are a lot closer than they ever were in history. The consume the same products. The cultural gap is much smaller.
Racism and xenophobia were always there. I think these are weaker forces today then they were historically. The world economy is changing but that is only partly due to globalization and more due to changes in technology, demographics, global warming and other factors. This change is certainly impacting individuals who need solutions.
This is a complicated problem that needs complex solutions. Neither candidate in the recent US elections offered any. Some of the problems in the US, e.g. racial tensions and inequality go back more than 100 years. Some of the economic problems go back more than 20 years. There's been a lot of kicking the can down the road and eventually things catch up with you.
- rhizome 10y agoTo be fair, portraying global unity as an unalloyed good is an ideological stance.
- YZF 10y agoIt needs to be a rational discussion. If we don't have unity then what do we get instead? If different nations aren't equal partners than what are they? I do realize though how difficult it is for people to agree on these things, partly because of their beliefs that at times seem to override any rational argument. That's partly where we need more and better leadership to demonstrate that things can actually work out and be win-win.
- rhizome 10y agoIf we don't have unity then what do we get instead? Difference. Diversity. If different nations aren't equal partners than what are they? I can't think of a definition of "equal partners" that makes sense here. partly because of their beliefs that at times seem to override any rational argument This is a condescending and bad-faith argument.
- YZF 10y agoIt wasn't my intention to be condescending. Are you saying that rationality always wins in humans over belief? I think I'm just making a statement about all of us as humans here and I'm possibly sometimes just as guilty.
- rhizome 10y agoYou're saying you know why these arguments are being made, and furthermore that they're motivated by irrational beliefs.
- YZF 10y agoIt's a recurring theme. Whether we talk about global warming, science, evolution, woman's rights, racial relations, human rights. There are beliefs and beliefs almost by their nature are irrational. Try having a rational discussion with a religious Jewish person about why they can't turn the light on or off in their home on Sabbath. And that's an easy topic. Some arguments are made from a rational position but many are not. Some are from an emotional position. Some are based on beliefs that don't care about the rational argument. Now to be honest judging things by rational arguments is a belief on its own.
- rhizome 10y agoNo, I get it. For whatever controversy, there's a "the" rational argument, you know what that one rational argument is, and all these dummies aren't interested in learning what that is. Kind of evangelical if you think about it. So on what basis are emotion and rationality being separated here? Common sense?