Please be nice to each other, Americans!

[Friendly Engineer]

We all disagree from time to time, I get that
(Just to note, the [POLITICIAN] doesn't refer to a specific one, and female gender is just a random choice)
Let me tell you how a political conversation might go between me and a fellow Briton who has opposite views.

Me: "Alright mate, how you doing?"
Person 2 : "Yeah note bad, a bit miffed off about that mouthy tart on telly though"
Me: "What, [POLITICIAN]? No, I think she's decent. Her pro-nuclear policy is pretty bloody good."
Person 2: "Nah mate you can't start building nuclear reactors everywhere, and anyway her economic policy ain't doing me any favours"
Me: "Well I think [POLITICIAN]'s stance on the economy is good, she's pledged tax cuts across the board for businesses to tackle price rises"
Person 2: "Well let's agree to disagree, anyway how's your mum, getting on alright?"
Me: "Yeah she's alright thanks"
etc...

See, we were civil with each other throughout, despite having completely different political views. It isn't that hard, just listen to each others' opinions and respect it, you don't need to agree with it. You Yanks are more religious than us Brits so why don't you take a leaf out of the good book? "Love thy neighbour". Neighbour refers to everyone else so please be nice to each other, even if you disagree with their views. A country full of people who hate each other and refuse to listen to each other over political views just isn't sustainable.

TLDR: Remember this phrase "Let's agree to disagree". Use it from time to time.

 

[Friendly Engineer]

Also, before you jump in and say:
"But, but but... They're radicals! They don't know what they're saying! They're stupid! How can I listen to or respect their opinions??"
^^ Doesn't matter. They're your fellow Americans. Even if you don't like each other, learn how to co-exist peacefully by respecting each other.

 

[RiffRaff]

I do honestly try to abide by this, and I encourage it regularly. However, being human, I do occasionally fail at it. When that happens, I take a break, shake myself off, and jump back into the game again, trying to be the person I want to be.

I would add that the only people who win when Americans are divided to the point that they are calling for violence against each other are the politicians and other countries that want to see America fail. And it will, within the next few years, if we don't get our act together.

#MakeAmericaUnitedAgain

 

[Onoya]

Tbh, this could and should apply with every nations, for all people.
Usa isn't the only nation with internal tensions and divide,
In fact, in those difficults times ( financial and ecological crisis, world tension with Ukraine, Taiwan etc... ), a lot of nation have divided citizens ( with differences in term of how and intensity compared with USA ofc ).
So let's be nice to each others, let's debate with respect, it's ok to not always agree with each others

 

[intel-bank]

I try to be civil as much as possible. Sometimes, though, I wonder if it will be enough. If I start getting targeted by political violence, I'm going to react, ya know? I have considered taking a trip to Canada over the elections(midterms and 2024), do a drop off ballot or something. Aint too far to Canada for me, just need my states upgraded drivers license. I do not trust my fellow Americans not to fall into needless violence. Find out what a "revolution" really means.

Point is, I think this philosophy is great for conversation, but the political issues the US has right now arent going to be solved by telling people to be nice and respectful. America is too far gone, we don't understand these words. How can you tell someone to be respectful when they are targets of extreme disrespect even violence?

 

[RiffRaff]

I try to be civil as much as possible. Sometimes, though, I wonder if it will be enough. If I start getting targeted by political violence, I'm going to react, ya know? I have considered taking a trip to Canada over the elections(midterms and 2024), do a drop off ballot or something. Aint too far to Canada for me, just need my states upgraded drivers license. I do not trust my fellow Americans not to fall into needless violence. Find out what a "revolution" really means.

Point is, I think this philosophy is great for conversation, but the political issues the US has right now arent going to be solved by telling people to be nice and respectful. America is too far gone, we don't understand these words. How can you tell someone to be respectful when they are targets of extreme disrespect even violence?

First, I want to say that any person who attempts to get violent with me or my family will have their definition of "violence" redefined for them. I do not believe in the concept of proportional response; I believe in eliminating the threat. Once the line of violence has been crossed, there is no going back. As a juror, I would never vote to convict anyone who was acting in defense of themselves or others, no matter what.

However, prior to that line being crossed, I would say lead by example and rationality. Trolls - both online and in real life - win when they get a desired emotional response from the people they are trolling. So deny it to them and respond to everything with a rational response.

Easier to say than do, I know. I wish I was better at it.

 

[Torch]

I thought it would be of interest to note that in August Americans set a new world record (Previously held by Americans in July) Civilians purchased over 1 million weapons in a month!
That’s outstanding!
Million and millions of guns in the US. Better be polite.

 

[Totality 🇺🇦 🇮🇱]

I do not believe in the concept of proportional response; I believe in eliminating the threat.

Yes, yes yes! The US needs to maintain that unspoken doctrine. You hit us and we will just end you right then there. (Talking militarily)

 

[ZedBoy]

Also, before you jump in and say:
"But, but but... They're radicals! They don't know what they're saying! They're stupid! How can I listen to or respect their opinions??"
^^ Doesn't matter. They're your fellow Americans. Even if you don't like each other, learn how to co-exist peacefully by respecting each other.

Tbh I enjoy the radicals within a political party because they will be the one who insta votes for one sided policy which enforces hardstanced votes. Polis that are radical that get voted in do represent the radical district.
It's also impossible by the laws of psychology and human nature to live at peace.

 

[RiffRaff]

Tbh I enjoy the radicals within a political party because they will be the one who insta votes for one sided policy which enforces hardstanced votes. Polis that are radical that get voted in do represent the radical district.
It's also impossible by the laws of psychology and human nature to live at peace.

Not impossible. Unlikely, yes. But not impossible.

 

[Totality 🇺🇦 🇮🇱]

I tolerate more here as I have to as a staffer so everyone here gets my respect & attention regardless. (To a point)

But on other platforms my tolerance or fuse is extremely microscopically short.

 

[ZedBoy]

Not impossible. Unlikely, yes. But not impossible.

It's just like the Russia situation not going to lie. It's justified for one nation to do it, but for other nations it's not.

For some whites it was okay to go lunch blacks, for some Germans it was okay to slaughter Jews. For some people it's okay to slaughter old people for ecology, for some people it's okay to slaughter animals, for some people it's okay to swipe and scam, for some people it's okay to indoctrinate kids in the military, for some people it's okay to enforce gender inequality and hostilities to trans aligning people, for some people america is the devil, for some china, for some Russia, for some Ukraine.

War is natural, Stereotypes are normal, moral righteousness is human. As long as we have differing ideas we will have radicals who will enforce their group's policy.

Example: "Chinese coronavirus", "Middle Eastern terrorists", "Police pigs", "Ecologist", "Greedy CEO" , "Unethical Company" , "capitalist swine", "socialist swine" ,"abusive dictatorship".

Nothing is 100% ever going to be supported by the masses and it's not going to be tolerable due to inherent differences in belief.

If you are an American and we raid Russia to protect Ukraine...what makes it justified? If you are Russian and you invade Ukraine what makes it justified? If you're an ethnic rewandan what makes it justified to kill your fellow rewandan based on a physical feature?

If you're high class what makes your life mean.more, if your low class what makes your life mean less, I'd your middle class what makes you important in the economy?

We use a lot of asbtract concepts as humans but we fail to.understand. as individuals that we all have a limit that will cause us to go radical or crazy...but no one wants to admit it.

Some members here will go shoot police officers and military members for coming for their weapons, some members will go ballistic if a dictatorship was forced, some members go ballistic if jewish ideals was enforced in the school, or Muslim beliefs.

Some christians are radical for some depiction of God, and others are for another which will lead to Christian on Christian fighting.

As long as we hold differing ideas, culture, race, and anything else we will have people who will kill and create radicals, or vocally speak and create physical radicals.

It is our core system to generalize something, and if you fail to respect this psychological topic you are failing to understand modern science that's producing us with the backbone of extremist groups, violent groups, and militaristic groups, violent individuals, rebellious individuals, and contemporary politics.

 

[intel-bank]

War is natural, Stereotypes are normal, moral righteousness is human. As long as we have differing ideas we will have radicals who will enforce their group's policy.

Violence is a mental condition. We all have the capacity for it, yes, but the vast majority of people don't naturally want it. It becomes naturalized by society and parents.
Some sociopaths will always be there but if the public didn't find violence acceptable, they would not be able to do anything outside of break a few small laws. We wouldn't have Putins.
Radicals are made. It is entirely possible to avoid radicalization by making it clear it is unacceptable for generations. But it takes change and peacetime (we have already became a lot less violent living in peaceful times up until now)

War is not natural. We think war is natural. But its only a violent fantasy of the sociopaths who use it. The public doesn't like it, but the public thinks "wars happen, nothing new. No problem. I'm sure the other guy started it, my government/people would never do the evil of starting it". So they don't do anything about it.

Only when the public stops believing war is a natural, necessary evil do we wake up and see we really do have the power to end it. Because its not natural. Whats natural is humans opposition to it.

 

[ZedBoy]

It becomes naturalized by society and parents.

This is the only part I'm able to agree with because under modern psychological concepts it's applicable.

It's always the other guy started it. Look at ww2, the war on terror, the civil war, look at any war and see how it evolves to finger pointing due to a creation of a community. Communities are group based individualisms and this creates the need for us as humans to generalize even more. You notice a lot of white people will say they don't like BLM: not a subsection, but all of blm. You see how some blacks will say they hate white people because they are racist: not a subsection, but generalize as all. You'll see how Indians hate Pakistanis, but once again it's not a subsection. You'll see how the American public will say they hate Mexicans a lot of the time, but won't specify the illegal group, and within that group you have other groups. You see people say they hate cops and military, but not a specific group.
We as humans generalize because topics are too abstract for us to understand, and this is amplified by survivors bias, and the bias of individualism when there is no real individualism: you are associating with a pre-established community or ideal and simply revising it.

Example that I've had to use a few times in psychological studies.
A terrorist from Canada who's an environmentalist extremist comes to America and bombs a facility at which your family or kids are at. One of your family members die (one that's close to you, just for a vivid understanding). What's going to happen to you after you find out the info on this person being an environmental extremist? You're going to have environmental extremists, but there's a bunch of environmental extremists. You can't put what one EnviroExtrem does onto all of the other ones because each group...and within that group each group of people will do something different.
Break it down into modern applicable deduction and we'll see this with middle eastern terrorists. There are groups who wish to do America harm, yes. Not every member within those groups wish to do America harm or do anything outside of their region: they just want to make their home stable again. We bomb them, they bomb us...it's always the other sides fault.
Should the American people be punished for what the American government does, no. The reason this happens is because of generalizations... they are Americans and they fund that government...why don't we just kill them since they all support it. Next, we have "terrorists' from the middle east who are affiliated with a group that has done bad things...but these individuals aren't directly interested in global warfare or problems, they simply joined so they can make an impact at home and gain control of their home again. We use propaganda to make every member of that group look bad: just as fox makes every member of BLM, LGBTQIA+, PROUDBOYS look bad.

Where is the fine line between us breaking down groups into people who are individuals and don't hold a full belief system as said group? You can see this in modern day ecologists, modern day repubs/dems, modern day science, modern day everything has groups that split and have people that don't follow 100% of what's projected within their groups.

When you generalize random and innocent people will get hurt: let's not talk about the camera crew that got bombed by US planes, let's not talk about the families who died during the war on terror due to mistaken identity. What makes our acts of war over there any better than their generalization act of war over here? how do we know all of them are bad? is it because someone tell us? Is it because (can't remember the study) the higher power told us they are bad so it's okay for us to not consider them individuals so we must do what we believe is right? Are we simply just going to accept the Harvard prison experiment and what it's shown us about generalizing people, and people in power being able to enforce generalizations of whole groups of people and organizations?


This entire posting name is a generality which emphasizes my point. "Americans". You just tried to generalize to create a rapport, but it doesn't work for informed masses. We have many subsections of Americans and calling on the main section only appeases to the ones who use that as their only identifier. The better you target a group by name such as... "Democrat, Republican, Ect Americans" Stand up to this problem that's creating a putrid division within our country. You have to address the subgroups because the subgroups won't identify with just "Americans". You can get closer to the main group by stating more intricate groups such as "Gun toting Republicans, Ecology Democrats" because it creates better rapport than just hoping people will classify as Americans.