This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
sarabee1995 · 26-30, F
1-25 of 31
Kwek00 · 41-45, M
@sarabee1995 👫
Kwek00 · 41-45, M
@sarabee1995 No, it's the: "I understand and feel for you / we are all in the same boat" emoji.
I'm not really the "lets all get along" type of person, altough I believe sometimes that idea is nescessary to get along. But we are talking about politics here... if everyone gets along, there would be no political discussion to be had. So yeah, I would never think like that in a political storie.
I'm not really the "lets all get along" type of person, altough I believe sometimes that idea is nescessary to get along. But we are talking about politics here... if everyone gets along, there would be no political discussion to be had. So yeah, I would never think like that in a political storie.
sarabee1995 · 26-30, F
@Kwek00 [quote][i][b][c=#003BB2]"...if everyone gets along, there would be no political discussion to be had."[/c][/b][/i][/quote]
Oh I so disagree. I grew up in a family with many varied political persuasions from card-carrying NRA conservatives to the most progressive Massachusetts liberals. Were there some who boycotted holidays? Sure. But mostly we all got along and politics were common discussions at holiday mealtimes. And my grandfather (the card-carrying NRA conservative) insisted that everyone be treated with respect and that all opinions deserved to be heard. It is possible.
Oh I so disagree. I grew up in a family with many varied political persuasions from card-carrying NRA conservatives to the most progressive Massachusetts liberals. Were there some who boycotted holidays? Sure. But mostly we all got along and politics were common discussions at holiday mealtimes. And my grandfather (the card-carrying NRA conservative) insisted that everyone be treated with respect and that all opinions deserved to be heard. It is possible.
Kwek00 · 41-45, M
@sarabee1995 Did the NRA conservative also stopped having political discussion? And if he has a political discussion, doesn't that discussion always represents a situation where the NRA-conservative defends his position versus the position that is not NRA-conservative?
Because that's the nature of politics... it divides people in "for" and "against". That's why votes in parliament are "for" and "against". That's why Brexit was "for" and "against". The nature of politics is always devisive. And if everyone got along, there would be no vote, because everyone would vote the same way. No one would defend their position, because everyone agreed with the one position. If everyone thinks and feels the same about every subject out there, there would be no politics.
Because that's the nature of politics... it divides people in "for" and "against". That's why votes in parliament are "for" and "against". That's why Brexit was "for" and "against". The nature of politics is always devisive. And if everyone got along, there would be no vote, because everyone would vote the same way. No one would defend their position, because everyone agreed with the one position. If everyone thinks and feels the same about every subject out there, there would be no politics.
sarabee1995 · 26-30, F
@Kwek00 "Getting along" does not mean agreeing. Not at all. Getting along means showing mutual respect. It means understanding that one is not always right and that all deserve to be heard. Yes, advocate for one's position, discuss points and debate (respectfully) the impacts of each other's ... but nothing here says all need to agree on one position. That is silly.
Kwek00 · 41-45, M
@sarabee1995 Well, the "getting along" feeling kinda blows up in peoples faces when a real political problem occurs. You know, those problems with a capital P of politics. Then the getting along turns quite bitter, even around the christmas dinner table. Because that is by defenition, the nature of politics SB. That's why people get angry, that's why people argue, that's why people leave friends behind, that's why people break up, that's why civil wars break out. Because capital P political problems that turn emotional.
This "getting along" narrative only excists for those annekdotes you bring up where people don't loose their cool. But just look at political stories on this site alone... people don't stay cool. Certain political problems can also not be understood, without emotionality on the background, it's perfectly normal. Because not everything can be proven by correct science. When Catalonia feels that they are a seperate nation from the Spanish one, and has it's own destiny, and Spain feels that they need to subdue this insurgence of evil ideas because they fear they will loose a part of the country and their taxes... Crazy shit happens. Capital P problem... purely Political.
This "getting along" narrative only excists for those annekdotes you bring up where people don't loose their cool. But just look at political stories on this site alone... people don't stay cool. Certain political problems can also not be understood, without emotionality on the background, it's perfectly normal. Because not everything can be proven by correct science. When Catalonia feels that they are a seperate nation from the Spanish one, and has it's own destiny, and Spain feels that they need to subdue this insurgence of evil ideas because they fear they will loose a part of the country and their taxes... Crazy shit happens. Capital P problem... purely Political.
sarabee1995 · 26-30, F
@Kwek00 Yes and no. Your Catalonia example and similar civil wars can not usually be resolved through reasoned discourse. But that is not what we are talking about (I think). You said there would be NO political discussion to be had if everyone got along and to back that up you bring up a most extreme case of civil war.
I've had MANY reasoned and respectful political discussions (debates?) on topics ranging from abortion to healthcare to immigration and just about every other hot topic in America today. If both parties realize that what they have is an OPINION and that the other side also has an OPINION and that both deserve to be heard, then reasoned discourse can happen in a respectful manner.
And before you laugh at me on this, yes, I do realize that this is not what usually happens in the world today. But it is possible and it is how I was raised.
I've had MANY reasoned and respectful political discussions (debates?) on topics ranging from abortion to healthcare to immigration and just about every other hot topic in America today. If both parties realize that what they have is an OPINION and that the other side also has an OPINION and that both deserve to be heard, then reasoned discourse can happen in a respectful manner.
And before you laugh at me on this, yes, I do realize that this is not what usually happens in the world today. But it is possible and it is how I was raised.
Kwek00 · 41-45, M
@sarabee1995
[quote]You said there would be NO political discussion to be had if everyone got along and to back that up you bring up a most extreme case of civil war.[/quote]
I find it hard to understand... that we are not on the same page on the "getting along" terminology. If you say to me: "I think Pizza shouldn't have pineapple on it and I want to make a federal law about it.". And I'm sitting next to you and say: "Well SB, I don't like pineapple on my pizza, but I don't really see that we need to go that far to make it a criminal offense.". At that moment, you and me, have a disagreement. We might like eachother, we might go to drink afterwards, but if we really feel this conversations needs to be have, we'll just go at eachother. At that point, on the subject that is centerpiece of of our discussion, we are not getting along at all. I might like you for manny other things, we can still go out, but on the pineapple thing we are not on the same page. That's why we have a discussion, because we are not getting along. If I totally agreed with you, there would be no discussion, there would be no division and thus... there would be no political conversation.
The same annalogy is right about the abortion debate you propose. "Getting along" and "not being respectfull"... is not the same thing. even the more respectfull orrator can keep liking you, you can keep breaking bread, but if you disagree on abortion. On that particulair political subject... you are not getting along. The moment war breaks out on pineapples or abortion, the things become crystal clear, that you, me and that other person depending on the political toppic... will be standing on diffrent sides. Because war (which according to Clausewitz) is an extension of politics by diffrent means... then things become crystal clear. When things heat up, things become crystal clear. But when you can make up and be friends afterwards, it kinda obfusgates that you came out of a discussion that you disagreed with. You can still "go along", but not on the political toppic you were discussing. Why not? Because you disagree.
[quote]You said there would be NO political discussion to be had if everyone got along and to back that up you bring up a most extreme case of civil war.[/quote]
I find it hard to understand... that we are not on the same page on the "getting along" terminology. If you say to me: "I think Pizza shouldn't have pineapple on it and I want to make a federal law about it.". And I'm sitting next to you and say: "Well SB, I don't like pineapple on my pizza, but I don't really see that we need to go that far to make it a criminal offense.". At that moment, you and me, have a disagreement. We might like eachother, we might go to drink afterwards, but if we really feel this conversations needs to be have, we'll just go at eachother. At that point, on the subject that is centerpiece of of our discussion, we are not getting along at all. I might like you for manny other things, we can still go out, but on the pineapple thing we are not on the same page. That's why we have a discussion, because we are not getting along. If I totally agreed with you, there would be no discussion, there would be no division and thus... there would be no political conversation.
The same annalogy is right about the abortion debate you propose. "Getting along" and "not being respectfull"... is not the same thing. even the more respectfull orrator can keep liking you, you can keep breaking bread, but if you disagree on abortion. On that particulair political subject... you are not getting along. The moment war breaks out on pineapples or abortion, the things become crystal clear, that you, me and that other person depending on the political toppic... will be standing on diffrent sides. Because war (which according to Clausewitz) is an extension of politics by diffrent means... then things become crystal clear. When things heat up, things become crystal clear. But when you can make up and be friends afterwards, it kinda obfusgates that you came out of a discussion that you disagreed with. You can still "go along", but not on the political toppic you were discussing. Why not? Because you disagree.
sarabee1995 · 26-30, F
@Kwek00 Okay, I see now. We have different definitions regarding what "getting along" means. I think this is a difference between American English and British English (which you are likely more exposed to).
You are equating "getting along" with "agreeing" where I see no correlation at all between the two.
Rather, I think most Americans perceive the expression "getting along" to mean not fighting. You and I can discuss any manner of political topic respectfully and without fighting and I would say we are getting along despite our disagreement on the topic at hand. You would say that because we disagree that, no matter how amicable our discussion, we are not getting along because we harbor different views. I understand now.
You are equating "getting along" with "agreeing" where I see no correlation at all between the two.
Rather, I think most Americans perceive the expression "getting along" to mean not fighting. You and I can discuss any manner of political topic respectfully and without fighting and I would say we are getting along despite our disagreement on the topic at hand. You would say that because we disagree that, no matter how amicable our discussion, we are not getting along because we harbor different views. I understand now.
Kwek00 · 41-45, M
@sarabee1995 Do you think that a discussion is not at all relateble to a fight? I always thought people perceive discussion as a more noble higher ideal instead of war and physical fights. But discussion can still have a lot of struggle involved. It should challenge both sides to listen and think and try to figure out if their own ideas hold against scrutiny... It's kinda tiring.
But I also find it a bit strange that you put it like that now. Because when I talk about "politics" or "the political". These are terms that only function inside a framework.
Like... Politics is the way that people amass power to subjugate other people (or to use power they amassed) to create/establish certain goals the person that is wielding the power wants to pursue for him/herself and the whole.
The political is the subject that divides a group between those that are pro and those that are against. Which is a part of politics.
if the political wouldn't excist, if everyone would agree on every toppic, no one would feel the need to do politics. Because a political stance is always something that devides.
So your "getting along" is placed outside the political subject that is being discussed. Since people get along after the discussion, and for you the discussion was respectfull so we are all getting along. But on the political subject, what I'm trying to point at, the point were we engage in politics and try to persuade eachother on what is right... on that subject, we are not agreeing so we are not "getting along".
if you had people, like pure hypothetical, where everything you say and everything you do creates conflict where one person wants something but you want something else. They would probably not be your friends. And with those people, everything is a political struggle since you are always on opposite sites and there is no way of getting along. At some point you go left and they go right. And you can still be respectfull, but if everything becomes a political cleavage, if you never agree, it becomes tiring and you'll just let eachother go and not get along annymore. You can tollerate eachother, but you rather won't be in eachother pressence unless you are a massochist.
But I also find it a bit strange that you put it like that now. Because when I talk about "politics" or "the political". These are terms that only function inside a framework.
Like... Politics is the way that people amass power to subjugate other people (or to use power they amassed) to create/establish certain goals the person that is wielding the power wants to pursue for him/herself and the whole.
The political is the subject that divides a group between those that are pro and those that are against. Which is a part of politics.
if the political wouldn't excist, if everyone would agree on every toppic, no one would feel the need to do politics. Because a political stance is always something that devides.
So your "getting along" is placed outside the political subject that is being discussed. Since people get along after the discussion, and for you the discussion was respectfull so we are all getting along. But on the political subject, what I'm trying to point at, the point were we engage in politics and try to persuade eachother on what is right... on that subject, we are not agreeing so we are not "getting along".
if you had people, like pure hypothetical, where everything you say and everything you do creates conflict where one person wants something but you want something else. They would probably not be your friends. And with those people, everything is a political struggle since you are always on opposite sites and there is no way of getting along. At some point you go left and they go right. And you can still be respectfull, but if everything becomes a political cleavage, if you never agree, it becomes tiring and you'll just let eachother go and not get along annymore. You can tollerate eachother, but you rather won't be in eachother pressence unless you are a massochist.
Kwek00 · 41-45, M
@sarabee1995 Yeah, I agree, that is possible. But I was talking about the quote you only took after the [b]"..."[/b] Maybe I should have copy paste it in full:
[quote][b]But we are talking about politics here[/b]... if everyone gets along, there would be no political discussion to be had.[/quote]
the bold part, wasn't in what you pasted. It was kinda important.
What I'm saying is that the nature of a political conflict, is because on a certain point, you dont "agree" (or get along).
If anny political subject becomes so important and so emotional... it can turn in the hyperbolical (as in civil war). Because the nature of politics is that on the political, people don't get along. If everyone gets along all the time, there is no political conflict, the issues would just resolve themselves or be none excisting, because everyone things the same way about it and would act accordingly [i](which is actually one of the key concepts fascists wanted to do, they believed in the abolishment of politics inside the nation and thus everyone had to think the same way, that was literally their argument)[/i].
[quote][b]But we are talking about politics here[/b]... if everyone gets along, there would be no political discussion to be had.[/quote]
the bold part, wasn't in what you pasted. It was kinda important.
What I'm saying is that the nature of a political conflict, is because on a certain point, you dont "agree" (or get along).
If anny political subject becomes so important and so emotional... it can turn in the hyperbolical (as in civil war). Because the nature of politics is that on the political, people don't get along. If everyone gets along all the time, there is no political conflict, the issues would just resolve themselves or be none excisting, because everyone things the same way about it and would act accordingly [i](which is actually one of the key concepts fascists wanted to do, they believed in the abolishment of politics inside the nation and thus everyone had to think the same way, that was literally their argument)[/i].
sarabee1995 · 26-30, F
@Kwek00 Circular logic. You are saying that if people get "so emotional" then it can turn hyperbolic. Yes, of course. I've not disputed this.
I'm simply saying it does not need to be so. Cool heads (on both sides) can prevail and respectful discourse among disagreeing parties can take place. It is possible.
I'm simply saying it does not need to be so. Cool heads (on both sides) can prevail and respectful discourse among disagreeing parties can take place. It is possible.
Kwek00 · 41-45, M
@sarabee1995 yeah, but that wasn't what we were discussing. It's the hyperbolic situation when something goes to far. At the souce of this conflict is a political (or several political questions) things you don't agree with and what doesn't make you go along.
sarabee1995 · 26-30, F
@Kwek00 🤦♀️
No no no. That's not what WE have been discussing. That's where YOU keep trying to bring the discussion.
In an effort to prove your point that it is not possible to get along while disagreeing, you keep citing the example of the hyperbolic. I have already said we do not disagree on that. Now, let put that aside.
I am talking about your original statement where you said that if everyone gets along, there would be no political discussion to be had. It is my opinion that reasonable people can get along quite well and discuss issues of disagreement without becoming disagreeable. I know it doesn't happen often anymore, but there was a time when it was far more common in politics.
And with that, I think we understand each other (although we may disagree) and have certainly beaten this horse dead! :)
No no no. That's not what WE have been discussing. That's where YOU keep trying to bring the discussion.
In an effort to prove your point that it is not possible to get along while disagreeing, you keep citing the example of the hyperbolic. I have already said we do not disagree on that. Now, let put that aside.
I am talking about your original statement where you said that if everyone gets along, there would be no political discussion to be had. It is my opinion that reasonable people can get along quite well and discuss issues of disagreement without becoming disagreeable. I know it doesn't happen often anymore, but there was a time when it was far more common in politics.
And with that, I think we understand each other (although we may disagree) and have certainly beaten this horse dead! :)
Kwek00 · 41-45, M
@sarabee1995 I'll more agree with your innitial idea then:
[quote]Rather, I think most Americans perceive the expression "getting along" to mean not fighting. You and I can discuss any manner of political topic respectfully and without fighting and I would say we are getting along despite our disagreement on the topic at hand. You would say that because we disagree that, no matter how amicable our discussion, we are not getting along because we harbor different views. I understand now.[/quote]
that it was a semantics problem. I can live with that. Since I've never tried to steer annything. I don't think I pivoted away from my initial point. But yeah, it's okay. There are more horses where that came from. Steak?
[quote]Rather, I think most Americans perceive the expression "getting along" to mean not fighting. You and I can discuss any manner of political topic respectfully and without fighting and I would say we are getting along despite our disagreement on the topic at hand. You would say that because we disagree that, no matter how amicable our discussion, we are not getting along because we harbor different views. I understand now.[/quote]
that it was a semantics problem. I can live with that. Since I've never tried to steer annything. I don't think I pivoted away from my initial point. But yeah, it's okay. There are more horses where that came from. Steak?
This message was deleted by its author.
Kwek00 · 41-45, M
@sarabee1995 We have a horse... I'll get the knife the butter and the frying pan. 🐴
sarabee1995 · 26-30, F
@Kwek00 Wait! What?? A horse steak?!?! I thought you were talking about a nice 🐄. Oh I get it … "beat a dead horse" … sorry, I'm a bit slow on the uptake here. 🤦♀️
Kwek00 · 41-45, M
@sarabee1995 yeah horse steak... it's so good 🤤
A pepper-cream sauce, some frenched fries with a bit of mayo and a leaf of lettuce. 🤤
A pepper-cream sauce, some frenched fries with a bit of mayo and a leaf of lettuce. 🤤
sarabee1995 · 26-30, F
@Kwek00 I've tried a lot of different kinds of steak, but never a horse. You have? For real?
Kwek00 · 41-45, M
@sarabee1995 I know a really good restaurant out here, where horse-steak is the specialty. It melts like butter on your tongue 🤤
I even have Horse-Filet in my fridge from time to time.
I even have Horse-Filet in my fridge from time to time.
sarabee1995 · 26-30, F
@Kwek00 Cool.
1-25 of 31