Very few bears in RI. Way too urbanized. NH is full of them, though. As ubiquitous as squirells where I used to live.
I believe it is part of a greater societal problem where we are all conditioned to avoid conflict instead of being taught how to handle it with respect and success. A great portion of management/leadership literature that's being thrown at me deals with trying to "undo" this conditioning and teach how to handle conflict, and how to benefit from it. This aversion doesn't only prevent political discussions - it is far more destructive. I am quite certain it's got an influence on why more and more people internalize issues, blame themselves instead of facing them and end up damaging their own mental health. It also supports polarization - when you retreat from discourse and debate, all you will subject yourself to will be your own opinions re-hashed and perhaps in a slightly more extreme coating. Last, there's also the issue of people letting conflict spoil and fester until it is too great to avoid - and by that time it becomes more explosive and volatile than Balkans politics in the 1910s. It's a theme I love exploring in my writing. Make it part of a societal downfall where disagreements are buried and no longer remediated. Highlight the point where politics changes from disagreements on solutions to disagreements on causes and finally, to the denial of the issues others has. As someone who's frantically tugging on conflict wherever, the vast majority of times it is easily revealed that both sides agree on fundamental things and the disagreement is in small, miniscule details. Conflict aversion and polarization has led us to thinking what Homer wrote above - the "other side" living in a different reality.
That sounds really interesting to read! Send some my way because I love discussion of politics. I feel like because I haven't adhered to any institutional understanding of politics I tend to be ok consuming any political views. Not that I accept them, but just to understand how it ticks from their perspective. One observation I have found is that usually political views are a summation of people more than any other beliefs, it almost encapsulates people's identity (even more than religion, people tend to be private about religion but political views are also influenced by religious ones). Even if you choose to not choose a "side", it shows your character in some way. Or when usually apathetic people vote, it shows what belief motivates them. So having wrote that, I think it takes a strong character to be able to talk about politics without getting emotional.
I opened up Getabstract for reference and there really are dozens of books / works. One of the links was a ted talk that should be available on youtube - so I typed in the title (What productive conflict can offer a workplace) and I got 8 Ted talk videos on benefiting from productive conflict (and I didn't even continue scrolling down). But here's the /specific/ TED talk. I don't quite agree there. There certainly are people defined wholly by their political identity but I'd fear they were extremists - it's worthwhile to poke, because a strong identity does sometimes manifest as enthusiasm to engage in the topic. My own perception is that people share 95% of political opinions, goals and motivations, but their upbringing and surroundings have pushed them to "identify" with one side or another, leaving them largely passive / apathetic fearing that disagreements over the 5% might explode into a debate with the other side.
Actually maybe you are right, I was a bit overzealous trying to categorise people based on political views. But there is this saying, we judge others by their actions and ourselves by intentions. I think the outward appearance of "identifying with one side" is also an aspect of your character. The "inaction" or agency required to have a political view which is extremely important. I'm not saying that you have to be an extremist, but the idea that you can passively decide to choose a side is a part of your character without doing your own research still says a lot about you.
Interesting to listen about productive conflict. I've worked a lot of supervisory role and the worst places to work have been when productive conflict did not result in productive results. People usually stopped caring to complain and most things tended to slide into pit of workers despair. It's quite difficult to find productive conflict in the nursing sector IMO, we are in a constant state of overwork and underpay (my wife regularly has to stay back right now to finish documentation and she will not be paid for it, but she isn't going to risk patient care and hand it over either).
To quote Cole Phelps from Rockstar's LA Noire: "Ralph, friends who want to stay friends don't discuss religion or politics." On the one hand, you wanna still stay friends. On the other hand, isn't it kind of good to know who you want to associate yourself with? If you find yourself being a friend with a raging bigot because your conversation about politics ended with them going on a tirade about how minorities are destroying the country... Wouldn't that be good to know as, well, you might be friends with the very minorities they rail against. Minorities that might be upset that you tolerate this bigoted asshole because you're not one of them. I'm reminded of an episode of Golden Girls where the conversation goes like this: Lady: "Is [your friend] Jewish?" Dorothy: "Yeah, why does it matter?" Lady: "Because the group I'm in hate them." Dorothy: "Why are you in that group?" Lady: "Because they have free parking and delicious food. Besides, that's their policy, not mine." Dorothy: "Yeah, but you tolerate it. You're not the kind of person I want as a friend. Go to hell." Ah, found the clip. Dorothy lets Barbara Thorndyke have it - YouTube
it’s because of two reasons: Some people become abusive talking politics, especially on the internet. Other people don’t want to be abused so they stay silent. Some people just can’t believe someone can be so evil and wretched as to have the wrong opinions, and simply just don’t want to talk to evil, wretched people, you know, the ones who vote... Spoiler on American Idol
I think Politics is a topic that leads to confrontation. Not always, but maybe many times. On the one hand, as you already said, many people just do not like talking about it. But also, on the other hand, some people just don´t like confrontation. Those are the reasons that come to my mind. Now, you may be wondering. Why so many people just don´t like to talk about politics, or anything related to it? That is a good question. I also wonder about it. Usually, people regard politics as something closely related to government. And, this is something that I´m not sure about. But, in some polls, the numbers indicate that, in general, most of the people, all over the world, just don´t trust the government. Is this true or not? I really can´t tell you that. I´m not an expert on the subject.
I don't think there are wrong opinions per se. I think the only negative opinion is via miscommunication or ignorance. The only way to combat that is by talking.
You are probably right, confrontation can be difficult. Even for me, but there are rare moments when I've had time to talk to people who I vehenementally disagree with and try and understand them. Sometimes they make me rethink a little. Other times I hope they rethink a little based on what I said. Either way, if we never talked, no one would ever change. Peaceful conflict is important to improving human nature.
Definitely. I agree on that. Although I would say it´s important to improve our life in general. Not sure about the fact that human nature can be changed.
There's folks who don't understand base principles and form opinions that clash with them. And by base principles I mean core axioms of the society, not even ideals or morals. I mostly avoid those folks who stick to ideals that clash with these core principles. Eg, I really don't enjoy discussion with people who claim we're in some post-scarcity world or that we could afford everything to anyone if it wasn't for [insert blamed portion of society either based on class, religion or ethnic belonging].
That’s definitely a Wrong Opinion and your moral relativism is KILLING unborn babies and putting CHILDREN into CAGES. Spoiler this is my high sarcasm, as was my previous point about wrong opinions
one of the things we come across often in moderation (both here and elsewhere) is people who think that any opinion that disagrees with their own is wrongthink... its not limited to any given position on the political spectrum or any age bracket. its a sad fact of life that a goodly chunk of the population are unable to accept that people can honorably hold differing opinions likewise the concept of loyal opposition seems to be being eroded with people on both sides of most major differences unable to accept that people who think differently can also be patriots or loyal citizens of xyz country or group.
But that's the thing, self improvement is rarely enjoyable or pleasant. Also, nature-human or otherwise is about change and transience. There are no core axioms in politics, just presumptions and rhetorics. Otherwise we would still be stuck at axiom where we thought slavery was OK.
I don't think sarcasm works in this context because a significant portion of the population "do" actually believe what you said and how you said it. That's why I'll take your responses seriously. As to moral relatism, it's not that I'd stand by and let people be raped or murdered because, hey, they may have a good reason for doing so. But, I think there is no wrong in trying to understand the reasoning behind peoples actions even if I disagree with it on the onset. Without challenging my views like that, how do I even know I am right? It's just a fragile world view that apparently I'm not even confident in allowing to contend with someone else. That's just narrow-mindedness.
Ouch. I'm American and I make it a policy to question everything. But, I think what you mean to say is, people lack critical thinking skills and the ability to civilly discuss anything political without screaming, "You're (an) x!" Anyway, that's my 2 cents.
Then your house would most likely catch on fire and you'd have to leave. I mean, for me, politics in the US have gotten so annoying that I decided to just leave my political junkie life behind me. I said, "that's it. I quit." And I most likely shouldn't be posting on this politics thread, but it feels safe to do so.
I tried pointedly to not discuss politics here. it was mostly a discussion on the mechanics going on here.
No that's not what I meant. I think your comment was fine. Just explaining why you'd probably feel OK about it.
I cant speak for "people" but PERSONALLY, its a topic i rather avoid. Not because others political beliefs may not allign with mine, but more so because others may not be as tolerant of different view points and may get combative. It has happened to me before. Certain political (and "political") beliefs that ive been asked about and have answered, i got figuratively jumped on. In one instance, i was neither for or against a stance (and explained why) and the person called me names and said if i wasnt FOR it, then i was AGAINST it and called me trash. Another time, i shared a video of a cop dancing with kids at a BBQ. A person i THOUGHT was a friend publicly blasted me for it saying i was pro-cop and spreading propaganda. He deleted and blocked me. Now, i know those people ended up not being good friends to begin with, but i rather not go through that. Even some viewpoints my parents have, i stay away from. Its kind of like my avoidance of the Debate Room on here. I like you guys. You are helpful and thoughtful and interesting. I dont want to NOT like you guys by seeing how you interact with each other over certain things.
