RE: Polar Apposite? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


philosophy -> RE: Polar Apposite? (4/16/2012 8:45:08 AM)

FR

I left the thread alone for a few days to see what would transpire.

Wasn't expecting the learned discussion on jazz routes though.....lol



Seems to me that we could summarise the more directly apropos part of the discussion as follows........

There is a strong sense that polarisation, as a concept, has been with us for ever......which means we're probably looking at a human basic thing here. Something that arises as a constant across human experience.

Some trace the modern phase of US political polarisation to the rise of the 'religious right' under Reagan, some see that as a response to the protest politics of the 60's and 70's, some see that as a response to McCarthyism.......all of which tends to confirm the first idea.....polarisation is inevitable.


Now my next question is, as we've pretty much established the existence of polarisation as an inevitable element in out lives, is it possible to have too much or too little of it? Is there a goldilocks zone for polarisation?

I think we can all imagine the result of too much polarisation. Civil war, neighbour against neighbour, all that sort of thing.

However, too little may be unhealthy too. I wonder if, without at least some polarisation, we lose perspective culturally? Without having someone in our society who disagrees with us, do we lose the opportunity to test our truths.......the loss of which, I'd argue, is to our detriment.


Where's the sweet spot in this?




kdsub -> RE: Polar Apposite? (4/16/2012 10:19:31 AM)

I believe that through forethought or luck the organization of our congress and judicial system means that change will most often be slow. Slow change allows debate and ideas that may make for better decisions in the long run.

The danger today I believe is in the mass media and internet that allows and often pushes to rash decisions, by politicians because of public opinion… before they can be properly examined and debated.

How many times in the last 30 years has the media sensationalized a world event that has resulted in rash, poorly thought out, even wrong decisions.

I hope we, meaning as a nation or nations, realize this danger and take a step back from demanding immediate actions so we can get back to good decisions.

Butch




Musicmystery -> RE: Polar Apposite? (4/16/2012 10:20:58 AM)

In other words, we need actual Leaders.




kdsub -> RE: Polar Apposite? (4/16/2012 10:21:50 AM)

That would help




PatrickG38 -> RE: Polar Apposite? (4/16/2012 5:12:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy


quote:

ORIGINAL: PatrickG38


quote:

ORIGINAL: DarqueMirror

Apposite?


The title was probably a typo or poor usage and I imagine should have been 'polar opposites"



..it was quite deliberate.

Polar Apposite?

Is it meet and proper for things to be very, very far from each other?



Well then, just poor usage. It explains the confusion of several posters.




TheHeretic -> RE: Polar Apposite? (4/16/2012 8:39:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

Is there a goldilocks zone for polarisation?

Where's the sweet spot in this?



Quite a bit lower than the level we are hitting at, Phil.

I mentioned the Alinsky Rule earlier, and that keeps it cranked way too high. If automatic demonization is the baseline, we aren't going to achieve much in the way of communication. We have to be able to see each other as, people of good intent. That gets lost, or quite deliberately fed into the shredder, all too often in the current discourse.

On the other hand, I believe that discussion, disagreement, and dissent, are the obligations of a free people who wish to remain free.

It was Muse, I think, who pointed out on another thread of this general subject, that in the Reagan era, the opposing sides still drank together, so maybe the sweet spot is in the middle of a six-pack. Or maybe it is tighter still, and we need to not only be able to drink together, like the photo op disaster with the cop and professor, but laugh together sometimes as well.




VideoAdminGamma -> RE: Polar Apposite? (4/17/2012 5:37:08 AM)

Fast reply

Please move the discussion on music to the Off Topic section.

Thank you for being a part of CollarMe,
VideoAdminGamma




Zonie63 -> RE: Polar Apposite? (4/17/2012 6:34:33 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy
Now my next question is, as we've pretty much established the existence of polarisation as an inevitable element in out lives, is it possible to have too much or too little of it? Is there a goldilocks zone for polarisation?

I think we can all imagine the result of too much polarisation. Civil war, neighbour against neighbour, all that sort of thing.

However, too little may be unhealthy too. I wonder if, without at least some polarisation, we lose perspective culturally? Without having someone in our society who disagrees with us, do we lose the opportunity to test our truths.......the loss of which, I'd argue, is to our detriment.


Where's the sweet spot in this?


I think that there will always be some degree of polarization, and I agree that a certain amount is probably healthy for a functional free and democratic society. I think that it's only become an issue nowadays because we've lived in kind of an insular bubble these past decades, and now that the real world is starting to show through the cracks, people don't know what to do.

One thing I remember about the 1960s and 70s, as opposed to the 1980s and later, is that there was no political correctness (for lack of a better term) back in those days. Political speech seemed more frank and to the point, but at some point, it started to get watered down and sanitized for the public's comfort and protection.

Some in this thread mentioned McCarthy, and while he was most definitely polarizing, the fact that he was exposed in the light of day for who and what he was eventually brought about his downfall.

Overall, people tended to be straight talkers back then, whereas nowadays, people have to dress up their language and talk around issues in order to not offend anyone and (supposedly) cause polarization.

But it's also possible that by society making an active and conscious effort to avoid polarization, we may have unwittingly fed into it.

Because of an active effort to avoid saying anything offensive, insensitive, or mean-spirited, people might be more inclined to keep their thoughts to themselves on a public or mainstream level, while discussing issues privately or semi-privately (such as in internet forums) with those who are like-minded, creating an atmosphere analogous to groupthink. Like-minded people in the same place bouncing the same opinions off each other in a kind of feel-good circle jerk, without leaving much room for outside or opposing commentary. No wonder the fur and feathers fly when two opposing groups eventually come into contact with each other (or when one trolls another's message board).

Some of it may also be social as well. A lot of things have changed culturally and socially in this country. People don't know their neighbors like they used to. There's no real sense of community spirit or volunteerism or anything to pull people together. There doesn't seem to be any basis for unity anymore. Even within the major political parties, it seems more like a cacophony of different factions, each with their own individual pet cause. The reason why we end up with the politicians we do is because they're trying to please a disparate consensus within their own parties. The problem with that is that when you end up trying to please everybody, you end up pleasing nobody.

Other aspects of society which have changed might be shown in the way neighborhoods are built, then and now. I remember in some of the older neighborhoods I've been in, there were no fences between houses and yards. No real barriers, unless someone had a pool, in which case a fence was required by law. But in some of the more recent neighborhoods, every house has a walled-in yard. There were no homeowner associations or gated communities back in the old days either. Stores didn't have surveillance and shoplifter detectors all over the place. The friendly mom-and-pop type establishments have been replaced by corporate-defined forced courtesy drones. Dealing with any kind of corporate or government bureaucracy these days gives a new meaning to the word "hell." This may not be directly related to the potential for greater polarization, but it does seem to add to the overall tension in society, the "me first" mentality, and the general sense of "us vs. them" which exists.







dcnovice -> RE: Polar Apposite? (4/17/2012 6:50:02 AM)

quote:

It was Muse, I think, who pointed out on another thread of this general subject, that in the Reagan era, the opposing sides still drank together, so maybe the sweet spot is in the middle of a six-pack. Or maybe it is tighter still, and we need to not only be able to drink together, like the photo op disaster with the cop and professor, but laugh together sometimes as well.


I don't have a source handy, alas, but I've read periodically about how members of Congress used to actually move to Washington and get to know one another as neighbors and even friends. Today, though, many members leave the family back home and jet away from DC as soon as the workday ends.

Cokie Roberts touched on this a bit in her eulogy for Betty Ford. She said Mrs. Ford had specifically instructed her "to remind everyone of the way things used to be in Washington."

Roberts also quoted President Ford on the subject.

quote:

‘You know, Cokie, I just don’t understand what’s happened in Washington. When your father was Majority Leader and I was Minority Leader, we would get in a cab together on the Hill and we would go downtown to some place like the Press Club and we’d say ‘Ok, what are we going to argue about?’ Now, it was a real debate. We had different views about means to an end. We genuinely disagreed with each other, we were certainly partisans. But after we went at it, we’d get back in the cab together and be best friends.”




dcnovice -> RE: Polar Apposite? (4/17/2012 5:03:50 PM)

FR

Henry Fairlie argued that the best thing that ever happened to British journalism was paper rationing during World War II. Lack of space forced newspapers to focus on essentials and cover them concisely.

Today, of course, we face the opposite situation. Talk radio, 24-hours news channels, and websites have all proliferated, creating a bottomless maw for "content." I'm wondering if that might have something to do with the polarization we (almost?) all seem to be lamenting today.

The link, I'm hypothesizing, is that when outlets don't have enough actual news to fill the time/space, they turn to opinion. So folks are hearing/reading more and more material that aims not to inform them but to edge them in a particular, usually partisan, direction. Amid this cacophony, moreover, opinioneers try to distinguish themselves by being ever more provocative, sometimes (as we saw recently with Rush Limbaugh*) in extreme ways. It's not surprising that this culture of sharp, even extreme, partisanship would seep into our politics.

Another result of this content thirst and explosion of opinoneering is that stories of little real significance get revisited over and over and over, so that an increasing amount of our mental and political energy goes into relative trivia.

"We shape our buildings," said Winston Churchill, "and afterwards they shape us." I'm starting to think the same may be true of our media.


* There are, no doubt, left-leaning opinioneers who've been equally extreme as Limbaugh. He came to mind first, because of the recent Sandra Fluke kerfuffle.





LookieNoNookie -> RE: Polar Apposite? (4/17/2012 9:30:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

In recent months we've seen a number of examples of social polarisation, both in the US and further afield.

Whether it's the Occupy movements slogan of the 1%.

Whether it was partisan political polarisation, again not just in the US.

Whether it's in a recent study regarding employment trends, suggesting that jobs themselves are becoming more polarised with some earning loads, some earning little and not much in between.

The question I'd like to ask, is polarisation a culturally neutral trend, a dangerous one or a benign one?

Should we be concerned about this sort of thing, or should we simply allow things to take their course?


I think we should start a post on "polarization".... because you're certainly enamored of the word.




TheHeretic -> RE: Polar Apposite? (4/17/2012 10:12:08 PM)

Lookie, I'm no great fan of our international/non-US participants jumping into our domestic affairs like the hooligan soccer fans of some drab city where the jobs all left a decade ago, but spelling differences between people who share a language? Why even go there?




Hippiekinkster -> RE: Polar Apposite? (4/17/2012 10:56:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Given that fusion is a subset of jazz, that's a given.

I'm just havin' fun watchin' these kids goin' on about music I lived through. ☺

Moving along, while there have always been differences in political opinion (the Civil War, for example, which had the differing economic structures of the North and South as a precipitating factor, was also about the role of the Federal government, as well as the political decision to create a separate class of people (slaves) in the Conrtitution), and there have been differences in economic theory implementation (the IWW and the early Unions vs. unregulated mass Capital), I think that the merger of Capital and Religious Fundamentalism is unparalleled in our history. (One can go back to the 30s and listen to Father Charles Coughlin's political speeches for an early example of religious meddling in politics (fear of Communism, Nationalism, etc.))

The modern era, though, IMO, had its genesis with the Powell Memo, and Roger Ailes' work with Nixon's campaign. I've posted links before, not going to again. A bit later the Moral Majority joined up with Right-wing massed Capital. It was the wealth of the very rich right which funded the "think tanks" such as the Heritage Institute (see the Powell Memo for the plan). These, in turn, produced "studies" and "white papers" which were used by Ailes and others (Forbes; Washington Times, etc.) to slowly influence public opinion.

"Back in the early 1970s President Nixon's Attorney General, John Mitchell, predicted that "this country is going to go so far to the right that you won't recognize it."

A wealthy right-winger of the time, William Simon, President Nixon's Secretary of the Treasury, wrote a polemic declaring that "funds generated by business…must rush by the multimillions" to conservative causes. Said Business Week, bluntly: "Some people will obviously have to do with less…It will be a bitter pill for many Americans to swallow the idea of doing with less so that big business can have more.""
http://bigeye.com/revolution.htm






LookieNoNookie -> RE: Polar Apposite? (4/17/2012 11:03:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Lookie, I'm no great fan of our international/non-US participants jumping into our domestic affairs like the hooligan soccer fans of some drab city where the jobs all left a decade ago, but spelling differences between people who share a language? Why even go there?



Well, largely because He (or she) wasn't confused at all about 'there, their or they're".

Rather...they seemed to have an inordinate fascination with "polarization".




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875