Polar Apposite?

Polar Apposite? (Full Version)

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

Message

philosophy -> Polar Apposite? (4/13/2012 11:17:20 PM)
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?

Musicmystery -> RE: Polar Opposite? (4/14/2012 8:05:34 AM)
phil, It's not ideological---it's simplistic. Either this or that. No analysis. No middle ground. No other options. Just that simple. Polarization is a replacement for thinking.

PatrickG38 -> RE: Polar Opposite? (4/14/2012 8:16:32 AM)
It is a difficult question, but obviously polarization is a negative generally. Yet, in this case the fault for the polarization lies with one side and the reaction against it, which admittedly does seem to increase the polarization, is a absolutely needed counterbalance. See an excellent article on the Republican's party move to the far-right. http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/04/10/150349438/gops-rightward-shift-higher-polarization-fills-political-scientist-with-dread

kdsub -> RE: Polar Apposite? (4/14/2012 8:29:26 AM)
I believe this tendency has always been with us....but the internet allows instant transmission of information that makes social polarization possible. Do you think the occupy movement could have happened without the internet? I'm afraid this will continue in the future and is not a good thing. Opinions are made and actions taken without the proper time to understand and analyze a situation. Lets face it people are impulsive. Butch

Musicmystery -> RE: Polar Apposite? (4/14/2012 8:32:52 AM)
Polarization started in the 1980s, with the rise of the Religious Right as a political force, aided by President Reagan. Their ideology is unyielding compromise, as it's the way God wants it, and hence, polarizes. I switched from independent to Democrat then, exactly because I saw the danger. Ironically, of course, that increases the polarization. Things get done when people talk--or when they conquer the country. That's the choice now...do we move forward, or do we hash out who becomes the dictator?

kdsub -> RE: Polar Apposite? (4/14/2012 8:36:34 AM)
quote: Polarization started in the 1980s Hmmm… you seem to have forgotten the Civil war as an example... come on polarization has been with man since three moved in with each other. Butch

Musicmystery -> RE: Polar Apposite? (4/14/2012 8:37:49 AM)
See, I was silly and assumed he was talking about the current political polarization, not the history of polarization in North America. The current climate starts with the conservative backlash to the New Deal, which got a foothold in the White House with Eisenhower (however reluctantly) but remained a background element--until Reagan in the 1980s Did you forget the French and Indian War? Or the Iroquois driving out the Algonquin?

PatrickG38 -> RE: Polar Apposite? (4/14/2012 8:44:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Polarization started in the 1980s, with the rise of the Religious Right as a political force, aided by President Reagan. Their ideology is unyielding compromise, as it's the way God wants it, and hence, polarizes. I switched from independent to Democrat then, exactly because I saw the danger. Ironically, of course, that increases the polarization. Things get done when people talk--or when they conquer the country. That's the choice now...do we move forward, or do we hash out who becomes the dictator? That perfectly illustrated my point about the reaction against it. Thanks.

kdsub -> RE: Polar Apposite? (4/14/2012 8:46:50 AM)
quote: Did you forget the French and Indian War? Or the Iroquois driving out the Algonquin? No I did not and that is my point... social polarization is nothing new and the only change is how quickly it happens, is organized, and implemented and I believe the internet it the reason. Butch

Musicmystery -> RE: Polar Apposite? (4/14/2012 8:48:06 AM)
And I'm pointing out that this era of division started before we were all on the Internet. That the Internet exacerbates it, granted. Caused it, no. It was in full swing already.

kdsub -> RE: Polar Apposite? (4/14/2012 8:53:46 AM)
I never said it was the cause... or at least that was not my intent...Only that the internet allows this polarization almost instantly. The increase in social polarization is the result of this easy exchange of ideas and the ability to organize quickly. Butch

Musicmystery -> RE: Polar Apposite? (4/14/2012 8:54:51 AM)
[image]http://www.sitao.org/cms/images/stories/retro-circles.jpg[/image]

TheHeretic -> RE: Polar Apposite? (4/14/2012 11:41:50 AM)
Hi, Phil. I hope life has been treating you well. I'll agree with Muse on his initial comment about polarization destroying the common middle ground where we can find some compromise, and reject as nonsense the assertion that our modern version in the US started with with the right, and everything since is just reaction from the left. I would argue that the swing of the 80's was driven by a backlash to the social excesses of the the late 60's and 70's, and that Reagan capitalized on it beautifully. Polarization is the foundation of the Alinksy method. All the angels must be on one side, all the devils on the other. It's what I never liked about his theory.

Musicmystery -> RE: Polar Apposite? (4/14/2012 1:23:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Hi, Phil. I hope life has been treating you well. I'll agree with Muse on his initial comment about polarization destroying the common middle ground where we can find some compromise, and reject as nonsense the assertion that our modern version in the US started with with the right, and everything since is just reaction from the left. I would argue that the swing of the 80's was driven by a backlash to the social excesses of the the late 60's and 70's, and that Reagan capitalized on it beautifully. Polarization is the foundation of the Alinksy method. All the angels must be on one side, all the devils on the other. It's what I never liked about his theory. Had you continued reading, you'd have seen where I went back to before to the New Deal. You know...FDR? 30s?

Fellow -> RE: Polar Apposite? (4/14/2012 2:00:14 PM)
I think the signs of polarization in general reflect the social system failure. In politics it is usually called radicalization. I do not see it as a negative phenomenon in current situation. To me it basically means throwing off the nonsense and focusing on basic principles and what is important. One can not compromise on basic principles he/she believes are true. The process in the US is actually surprisingly mild. It could be explained by a general degeneration of the people and society, unable to react adequately to changes.

TheHeretic -> RE: Polar Apposite? (4/14/2012 2:11:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Polarization started in the 1980s, with the rise of the Religious Right as a political force, aided by President Reagan. Their ideology is unyielding compromise, as it's the way God wants it, and hence, polarizes. I switched from independent to Democrat then, exactly because I saw the danger. Ironically, of course, that increases the polarization. Things get done when people talk--or when they conquer the country. That's the choice now...do we move forward, or do we hash out who becomes the dictator? Are you feeling ok, Muse?

Musicmystery -> RE: Polar Apposite? (4/14/2012 2:13:46 PM)
quote: Had you continued reading, quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery The current climate starts with the conservative backlash to the New Deal, which got a foothold in the White House with Eisenhower (however reluctantly) but remained a background element--until Reagan in the 1980s

TheHeretic -> RE: Polar Apposite? (4/14/2012 2:33:55 PM)
Which brings us right back to your claim that the modern incarnation of it began with the Reagan period, which I think is nonsensical. I trace it back to the deliberate use of polarization as a tactic in the left's efforts of the 60's and 70's, and which continues to this very day. I referenced Alinksky's angels and devils rule already, but I'll bring it up again, since we seem to be hitting a communication barrier today.

Musicmystery -> RE: Polar Apposite? (4/14/2012 2:39:16 PM)
Sigh. You don't think McCarthy was polarizing?

Edwynn -> RE: Polar Apposite? (4/14/2012 3:01:29 PM)
Well, I for one am just happy that the excesses of the '60s and '70s' were finally given proper response and counteracted by the more moderate, respectful and unifying '80s: Punk rock, Madonna, NWA, worst sitcoms of all time (Married w/ Children, etc.), moderately ubiquitous indulgence in cocaine among the upper echelon and Republican party functionaries (white lines for the white collars), far more extensive than drug usage of the prior decade, puritanical government sales of guns to an enemy almost immediately after holding US embassy hostages for well over a year, moderate excess of S&L failures after temperate wild RE and development speculation, the Richard Simmons Show, Baywatch, well mannered support of bloody Central American dictators, disciplined government importation of cocaine into the US, frugal consumerism, judicious flooding of the airwaves with shrieking religious con artist nutjobs, the non-polarizing Moral Majority, the community minded Rush Limbaugh ... What moderate person seeking closer community would not have welcomed all that? The '60s and '70's could never have come up with such a program.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875