Presidential election, 2016

[Classic-Xer]

(01-08-2017, 07:32 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(01-08-2017, 05:51 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Which group, the progressive voters or the Progressives themselves? I don't have you pegged as a freeloader or view you as progressive who's political views and ideological beliefs are exclusively tailored and more likely to attract freeloaders. I have no problem with safety nets. I have a problem with hammocks taking the place of/eliminating safety nets.

Good distinction between safety nets and hammocks.  There are notions, likely with at least some truth, that there are hammock cultures and politics in different parts of the country.  In reading "Hillbilly Eulogy" it was discussed as becoming part of the Scotts Irish Hillbilly and Rust Belt culture.  Allegedly California (and elsewhere) has urban minority hammock dwellers.  The two major parties might both be pursuing votes from these cultures in their own ways.  I would favor trimming hammocks to reinforce safety nets, regardless of state, culture or political affiliation.  Lots of devils need to be chased out of details, but we might agree on that in principle.

I am thinking I need a milder phrase to sometimes use instead of 'vile stereotype'.  Perhaps, 'false motivation'.   If there are people out there who believe most or all Democrats are freeloaders who vote for politicians who put up hammocks, this might be a false understanding of progressive beliefs while perhaps not counting as being vile.  On the other hand, the notion that anyone who favors gun rights has a sexual obsession with guns seems more disgusting, insulting and blatantly false.  That might still deserve a 'vile stereotype' label.

I like to think my own way of looking at the world is well thought out, logical, based on lessons from history, common sense and developed on reasonable teachings of my culture.  I also like to think that everybody thinks their values are such, well thought out, logical, based on lessons from history, common sense and developed on reasonable teachings of their cultures.  In the exchanges on this forum, most folks are quite able to defend their values, often very well.  

And yet, there is often little tendency to acknowledge there are valid reasons for why the other guy's values and culture came into existence.  Cultures a generally form to solve tough problems presented by history.  They absolutely make sense if one lives inside them.  Different times and different environments call for different ways of adapting and solving problems.  It is a basic premise of my own world view that cultures evolved for good reason, that growing up within a culture will make that culture seem sensible and right.

Not that the other guy's culture will seem sensible and right.  It seems natural to think that if one's own culture is loaded with common sense and valid lessons from history, and the other guy's culture conflicts, that something is wrong with the other guy.  Words like 'insane', 'stupid', 'evil', 'fanatic', 'moron' or others of that ilk spring quite naturally to mind.  If one assumes the other guy's mind doesn't function properly, one can smugly continue to practice one's own values without questioning them, without being open to change.

If person A calls person B from another culture stupid, I am inclined to think a good part of the problem lies in person A.  He is too closed to B's culture, too tightly committed to his own culture, unable to open up his mind and consider where the other guy is truly coming from.  Of course, this isn't unusual.  It is essentially the norm.  People immersed in one culture, committed to its perspectives and beliefs, find it very difficult to understand and respect where the other guy is coming from.  To understand and respect the other guy might be perceived as a letting go of one's own basic beliefs.  To many, such would be traumatic to impossible.

Too often this lack of understanding and respect leads to assumptions of mental incapably, false ideas of what his motives are, and sometimes vile stereotypes of what members of another culture are like.

To a significant degree I am more concerned with this inability to comprehend and communicate across cultural borders than I am with promoting blue values.  I am generally pegged as blue, not without reason, but the red - blue divide doesn't seem as important as understanding why the red - blue divide is so caustic and divisive.  

At the moment, I'm focusing on pursuing and getting a true understanding of motives while quashing false ideas of motives.  This might come across as my being motivated by a desire to become a nanny moderator.  Not quite my true motivation.  I'd like to go for real communication.

Minorities aren't the only ones who are interested in hammocks these days.