Divided and Conquered

[Michigan Swampbuck]

I was unclear, pardon me.

I said, "That is a question you should be answering, and once answered, it should be tied in with the thread topic. That would be a great way to return on topic and end derailing this thread."

You said, "It was you who claimed Trump is doing something about corruption. Why should I then be the one to answer how?"

I meant that it is not a question I need answered, as it is not relevant to the topic.

I also said, "Trump is dealing with the corrupt system", I never said how, and should have said "a corrupt system" to be more accurate. My apologies. So, Trump's corruption wasn't actually the issue in my statement really.

I do appreciate the info on Trump, even though I was getting at systemic corruption more generally. I must say, you sure spent a lot of time on a sideline issue, as I was making multiple points in my post that seemed more relevant, if off topic. Thus, making my thread about other issues that I am having trouble relating back around to the original topic of this thread. Although this has been quite illuminating for me, and food for thought.

[Michigan Swampbuck]

In my endeavor to get back to the topic of this thread, I will repeat my introduction and thesis statement.

Divide and conquer, a technique used to weaken the enemy is often applied to left/right politics. I hear the claims that the deep-state players are using this to control the masses by keeping them at each other's throats and distracted from the people behind the curtain pulling the strings.

I believe whoever is using this technique has succeeded. There is no middle ground now, there is no opinion, no matter how logical, fact-based, or unbiased, that will not be placed on one side or the other.

On rereading and giving consideration to the idea that the internet and social media are organically producing polarity, I can see that the thesis needs work. I would like to rephrase that to read, 

"I believe whoever would use this technique, to divide and conquer, now needs only to conquer. There is no middle ground . . ."

That might do the trick, esp. if we all agree that extreme polarity is an accurate description for public discourse these days. By making that change, "whoever would use" doesn't mean that anyone would use or is using, it's an open-ended statement concerning blame.

[TokenLiberal]

I was unclear, pardon me.

I said, "That is a question you should be answering, and once answered, it should be tied in with the thread topic. That would be a great way to return on topic and end derailing this thread."

You said, "It was you who claimed Trump is doing something about corruption. Why should I then be the one to answer how?"

I meant that it is not a question I need answered, as it is not relevant to the topic.

I also said, "Trump is dealing with the corrupt system", I never said how, and should have said "a corrupt system" to be more accurate. My apologies. So, Trump's corruption wasn't actually the issue in my statement really.

I do appreciate the info on Trump, even though I was getting at systemic corruption more generally. I must say, you sure spent a lot of time on a sideline issue, as I was making multiple points in my post that seemed more relevant, if off topic. Thus, making my thread about other issues that I am having trouble relating back around to the original topic of this thread. Although this has been quite illuminating for me, and food for thought.

Oh okay, that makes sense. No worries, I should have asked for clarification first.

I must say, you sure spent a lot of time on a sideline issue, as I was making multiple points in my post that seemed more relevant, if off topic

I asked about that statement in particular because it was the point I was most curious about and the most relevant to our discussion about corruption. I then spent time answering my own question because I thought you asked me to. As we now know it was all based on a misunderstanding. No harm done.

I do still think that the discussion around money in politics is actually a great example of what this thread is about, and it warrants exploring. After all it's something we all agree on ideologically, and yet we find ourselves divided (at least, FCD and I are). Why is that? This seems like a good question to explore. I already posted my thoughts on the two ways we could explore it. Then again I suppose that if you're not currently willing to go through the effort of researching the issue, we would soon run out of things to say. Maybe we can revisit it when you find the time.

[TokenLiberal]

100%.
I have a family member that seems to be on the autism spectrum; his whole personality revolves around  turning every singal conversation into a tit-for-tat argument. He really enjoys watching people implode when he pushes their buttons as he gaslights them with endless cirlce-jerk argunents.
I've found silence to be the best way to dealwith such stunted personality types; just nod, smile and keep on daydreaming of more pleasant things.

 
In my mind, when the conversation is rife with insults, snarky remarks and personal attacks on ones' intellegence it no longer qualifies as a discussion' or debate; it becomes a real thread killer.

While this is a perfectly reasonable point to make, it's rich coming from you. Since I've been here, very few have treated me with respect, and you least of all. When you engage in personal attacks, which is pretty much all you've done towards me, you don't even have the decency to address me directly. When I respond, you ignore me. This checks out at least; silence is the best way to deal with stunted personality types, right?

An example that ties back into this topic nicely is when I was in a discussion with FCD and you felt the need to butt in:

I could be wrong, but it sure seems like you've been arguning with an ATS mod who loathes America and thinks he knows far more than US citizens, even though he doesn't live here.

He mostly gets ignored on the other site these days, so may be looking for more fertile ground.

It was kind of you to indulge him for as long as you did, FCD; you're a much nicer person than I.

Where you got the notion that I'm an ATS mod is unclear, but the more relevant part is that you seem to think I loathe America. When I respond to point out that I don't, and in fact want America to succeed (link for posterity), explaining why, you ignore it.

This is not only disrespectful, it's also an example of polarization. You dismiss my perspective out of hand, refuse to even talk to me directly, and conclude that I must loathe America. Else I would agree with you, right? It's divisive to think that way. A more humble, empathetic way to approach it would've been to try and understand my perspective. Maybe then you would appreciate that we both want America to succeed, we just don't agree on the best ways to do so. I for one don't think Trump voters hate America. I think they just have a different perspective on the issues and what it would take to fix them. And the way we reach mutual understanding is by making a genuine effort to understand each other's point of view. Not by attacking people personally and then giving them the silent treatment.

In other words, I suggest you practice what you preach.

[TokenLiberal]

In my endeavor to get back to the topic of this thread, I will repeat my introduction and thesis statement.

On rereading and giving consideration to the idea that the internet and social media are organically producing polarity, I can see that the thesis needs work. I would like to rephrase that to read, 

"I believe whoever would use this technique, to divide and conquer, now needs only to conquer. There is no middle ground . . ."

That might do the trick, esp. if we all agree that extreme polarity is an accurate description for public discourse these days. By making that change, "whoever would use" doesn't mean that anyone would use or is using, it's an open-ended statement concerning blame.

I think this is right. Polarization is going to be there with or without nefarious intent by people in power, but they can and do use it for their benefit. A lot can be said about this topic, but I don't really feel qualified to make an attempt to tackle it properly. I wrote a bit about who actually benefits from polarization earlier, but it's not a passage I feel particularly good about; I think it needs further thought, and perhaps some reading.

Would you be interested in selecting a book about this subject and both reading and discussing it? I happen to be almost finished with my current book, so I'm in the market for a new one anyway.

Maybe one of these.

[Michigan Swampbuck]

I think this is right. Polarization is going to be there with or without nefarious intent by people in power, but they can and do use it for their benefit. A lot can be said about this topic, but I don't really feel qualified to make an attempt to tackle it properly. I wrote a bit about who actually benefits from polarization earlier, but it's not a passage I feel particularly good about; I think it needs further thought, and perhaps some reading.

Would you be interested in selecting a book about this subject and both reading and discussing it? I happen to be almost finished with my current book, so I'm in the market for a new one anyway.

Maybe one of these.

Thanks for the book references, the website looks interesting as well. I am fairly busy right now, and it will be more so when I get these damn stitches out of my leg in about a week, so this particular topic is going on the back burner for me right now. I have a deadline to meet and being careless with a chainsaw slowed me down, but time waits for no one.

[TokenLiberal]

Fair enough. Btw that's not an endorsement of that website, I don't know it, I just googled "books about polarization" and clicked the first link. But yeah it looks interesting

[Michigan Swampbuck]