I say that this is the main reason why people are so divided nowadays. People can’t seem to accept that not everyone has the same viewpoints and likes.
Same way you can’t force a person to like a certain food they don’t like, you can’t force a person to believe in the same stuff you believe in. Trying to force someone to conform to an idea and or trying to censor someone for sharing an unpopular opinion is proto totalitarian in nature.
Even on the internet, it doesn’t matter how careful you try to not offend someone. People still try to find a reason to be offended. Political correctness and agreeing to disagree are two things that don’t match.
We all know we're going to disagree, the problem is the people on both sides who can't let the other exist and share space.
Gay person: breathes Maga troll: QUIT. THROWING YOUR GAYNESS IN MY FACE!!!😠
Comedian: tells joke Blue hair millenials: get out of my safe space im canceling you!😭
Everyones so much more sensitive and hateful online because you're not connecting ideas to faces and people. And there's no immediate social repercussions. Regardless we all need to stop it and let each other be.
People have so forgotten how to agree to disagree in a healthy respectful manner. Agreeing/ disagreeing, debating issues, even respectful argument's aren't the problem. Iit's when people have to resort to anger, false accusations/assumptions, name calling that the problem comes in. You can get your point across better if you don't resort to those tactics, because even if you have valid points if you come off like an irrational, out of control asshat who is really going to take your advice at that point?
I think this attitude is largely driven by the media, most of which has adopted a leftist agenda which includes trying to impose leftist beliefs on the masses.
Do you think maybe having a President who does name-calling like a 7th grader and belittles anyone who crosses him might also have something to do with it?
A simple "Yes" or "No" answer really does not do the question justice. In fact, to some extent, the question confuses the cause for effect and, in any case, it lacks any comparative metric.
You mean compared to the civil war when 650,000 Americans killed each other, so robust were they divided politically? Suffice to say, the nation has been here before. Indeed, the nation has been through much worse.
To start, it is well to keep in mind that the nation lacks historical perspective and because it lacks such perspective, the media focus makes every dispute look unprecedented. When you have no standard to judge against, each headline makes the world look new.
So part of that sense of division is born of the fact that Americans travel fast because they travel light. Without that sense of proportion and perspective that comes from an educated understanding of the past.
That said, the nation has been here before. The current social tensions and populism parallel the mood and tone of the 1960s and 70s. Distrust of elites and authority, A sense that liberty is an end in itself. Racial tensions, campus radicalism, assassinations, mass protests, race riots, etc. Even radical fashions. (Then the Nehru jacket, beads, tye die shirts and long hair, now colored hair, tattoos and beards.)
Speaking of political divisions, from the end of the Eisenhower administration to the beginning of the Reagan Administration, not one President successfully completed two terms in office. Kennedy is assassinated, Johnson is so unpopular that he is defeated in the NH primary election and is forced to withdraw for re-election. Nixon has the Watergate scandal. Ford is not only not re-elected, he is never elected, having been appointed VP in the wake of Agnew's resignation and then becoming President when Nixon resigns. Carter is defeated after one term of galloping inflation, foreign policy defeats and legislative gridlock.
The difference then is that the technologies tended to reinforce a common language and a common culture where now they tend to exacerbate those divides. Specifically social media which reinforces the very human habit of living in one's own head. Thus, there is even less perspective on the divides that, in fairness, do exist in the country. Even then, you can measure the differences with a micrometer.
That all said, the tensions are also intensified by changes in the economy. The economy is shifting from a manufacturing/extractions base to a service/high tech base. This putting enormous pressures, particularly on the lower middle class and blue collar workers, thereby intensifying social antagonisms.
Yet even here, there is a parallel to the 19th century. As the economy shifted from an agricultural/mercantile base to a manufacturing/extractions base social tensions rose. Hence one of the causes of the Civil War, and later the cries against the "Robber Barons" and "Yellow Journalism, " which you may note have their modern analog in "the Swamp" and "Fake news."
Disraeli said, "Finality is not in the vocabulary of politics." Lincoln said that the only words that were true for all times and all circumstances is, "This too shall pass away." Yet, Lincoln added, we can hope that it is not quite true. That certain principles may endure.
Thus, Edmund Burke said, "A disposition to preserve, and an ability to improve, taken together, would be my standard of a statesman." Reform is to be preferred to revolution but society does not learn and impatience boils over and feeling takes precedence over reason.
Thus, the current times. As the Bible says in another context, "we know not the day nor the hour..." so the job of the good citizen is to ride out the storm and preserve what can be preserved, given primacy to reason and custom over emotion and trendiness.
The tumults of the 1960s and 70s led to the relative - and it is ALWAYS relative - stability, peace and prosperity of the 1980s and 90s. This may just be another swing of the pendulum, or the final swing. It is, to borrow one more quote - this from Dickens - "the best of times, it was the worst of times." Such is the way of the world.
Suffice to say, people have, to some degree, forgotten how to agree to disagree. However, that will wax and wane and the funny part is that they have forgotten today - but are apt to, in due course, remember how to do so. At least for a time.
I agree, in a general sense, that we seem to be having issues in agreeing to disagree with respect and kindness.
I don't agree that political correctness (not extreme political correctness, but just, y'know, respecting reasonable changes in offensive language) and agreeing to disagree aren't compatible.
If anything, political correctness - again, not the extreme kind, nor the absence of it - should encourage us to be able to agree to disagree.
I think censorship of certain topics - Nazism, rhetoric written to incite war and violence, etc - is acceptable. Often times, these people don't actually mean it - they just don't have access to the psychological or psychiatric treatment they need to be regular, functioning adults. Or they're young contrarians with, similar to the radical left and rad fems, too little work and too many fucks to give.
I may never agree with or support a Neo-Nazi or a radical feminist, for example, but I also have no interest in "fighting" one - I'm not their therapist. I might listen to them, attempt to talk with them, but if the conversation becomes clear they're not conversing, I'll just walk away.
I don't see a use trying to change the mind of someone who isn't listening in the first place.
That said, I've had many instances of agreeing to disagree online and they've been fairly okay. Mostly, people are unreasonable, but there have been enough good and respectful conversations to make it worth it for me to continue disagreeing agreeably online.
The very essence of political correctness is censorship
“The avoidance (often considered as taken to extremes) of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against.”
It's more like half of the population has been brain washed into Marxist ideology. Not that long ago our country was much different. Every class room had an American flag and a picture of Washington and Lincoln. Now perverts read to our children in libraries and they get sent home for wearing a US flag tshirt. Make no mistake this was all done slowly through our universities with the intent of destroying our country and rebuilding it into a Soviet style state. The "resist" crowd are communists or lean in that direction. They were fed Marxist ideology since they were children and never told what they were being taught. Only now when we've got communist hoards in our streets burning and looting are we starting to wake up to the threat we're actually under. Small wonder we've got armed citizens in Virginia wanting to take over the state capital and arrest the communist government.
What’s really funny is, both the left and the right have the same problems but we take different approaches. From my observation, the left goes about them by the concerns of the categories of people while the right seems to go by practicality and ethics.
The right doesn’t tend to oppose abortion because they hate women but because they think a fetus is a person and it is wrong to kill it.
The right also doesn’t oppose illegal immigration because they hate Mexicans. They are concerned that those who cross the border without going in though the point of entry would commit a lot of crime (MS-13 gang is really good example of this) or spread eradicated diseases like smallpox or polio and avoid the background wellness check to get in. Their skin color is coincidental and would have been just as problematic in their eyes if their skin was white or any other color. They see it as a threat to national security and not because they are racist.
To just outright dismiss their arguments as racist and sexist is just childish mudslinging and will only fuel further conflicts.
I think you and I have had our disagreements in the past, and I don't think that you ever resorted to calling me names, sooo... thank-you :) And I will promise to you to always have a civil conversation with you, Even if we don't agree. Agreed?
Maybe. Or maybe those intolerable to differences have been given a platform in a way they previously did not have, or maybe they're just shouting louder at the moment. Or maybe it is a combination of all these things. One thing is for certain, people of this generation much more debate to *be* right, rather than to find out what *is* right.
Which disqualifies the discussion before it has even begun, because it isn't about an exchange of views an ideas, it's just a matter of screaming out your values or lack thereof to each other.
It's more their 2 core beliefs in America now. One wants the government to take care of them like they're a little kids the other wants to take care of themself and be left alone. These 2 ideas cannot coexist. Used to be fine when everything was left to the States but the group who wants to be taken care of realized the people who pay the bills for everything don't want to take care of them and move away so they have to make it in a way when you cannot run from their ideas and always have to take care of them by putting on the federal level. This is why we have so many problems nowadays there's no way these 2 groups can coexist if the ideas are not separated by the States
Yeah well the problem is nowadays the opinions are whether or not someone should have rights or not. Im not gonna peacefully agree to disagree with someone who thinks the fact that I love women is disgusting and I shouldn't have the right to do that. Im not gonna agree to disagree with someone who wants to ignore and deny that the world is burning up. Im not gonna agree to disagree with someone that racism isn't that bad. Im not gonna agree to disagree with someone who believes women dont have the right to control their own bodies.
The fact that you think that political opinions are the same as opinions on food shows that you aren't being effected by these laws all that much. These politics effect peoples lives, and 'agreeing to disagree' is a luxury a lot of us can't afford
The point is only a few extremists advocate those things you’ve mentioned.
Just cause someone doesn’t agree with radical leftist rhetoric doesn’t mean that they support infringing on your rights. What you are saying is nothing more than a false dichotomy and a baseless assumption.
I think people have forgotten this, but I don't think it's necessarily a problem, maybe a symptom of a larger problem. I think the biggest problem is that people don't talk enough with people they disagree with politically, or attempt to understand the opposing viewpoint to their own. This essentially puts us all in echo chambers where we are only hearing political viewpoints from people we already at least mostly agree with. I think media deserves some of the blame for this happening, but I don't think it's the only entity at fault, I think schools play a big role in it as well. Modern US politics is too much of an "us vs them" mentality. I think if you took the average Republican voter and the average Democrat voter in the same room and had them talk things out they would agree on a lot more things than they would anticipate.
It's so irritating, it's like even when you try walking around eggshells, it doesn't make a difference. This one girl tweeted saying she didn't like a game and people started attacking her and sending her death threats.. over her opinion on a game 🤦🏼♀️🤦🏼♀️
Agreeing to dissagree can only work if there are no stakes. Eg, you might like neopolitan ice cream. Now that would make you a disgusting, inhuman, degerate. But it really doesent matter to me either way, so we can agree to dissagree about your ice-cream tastes being the height of evil.
On the other hand, if you think putting refugees' children in cages, I will never let that go, it's demonstrably wrong and inhuman. The only concievable way to make that more vile is to feed those kids neopolitan ice-cream.
Can't agree with you on this one. Ofc we can agree to disagree, but only because this is a trivial, banal and theoretical discussion. I don't believe anyone in their right mind could expect a religion freak to "agree to disagree" with lgbtq, as to them gays and such are committing mortal sins which jeopardize the redemption of all Christians (to which they feel entitled for allegedly being good Christians). In the same manner, nobody could expect lgbtq to "agree to disagree" with religion freaks who want to force them into conversion treatments, reeducation and death camps. That's just one example. So no, the problem isn't that people "forgot to agree to disagree", it's that camps became too polarized.
Lmao at the video. The yamuke was just icing on the cake. Haha.
Its not as simple as agree to disagree when someone literally wants you dead or your property stolen from you. If someone breaks in my house with a gun im not going to say "i disagree with your intentions but you have the right..." fuck no im going to blast them in the face with a gun. So wtf am i supposed to think when these people want to increase my taxes to pay for tranny surgery and rebuilding every building in america and forcing my kids to learn about homo fag shit? I can't just agree to disagree, they need to be completely destroyed in one way or another. I would be completely for forced institutionalized gays and trannys and making socialism and communism a jailable crime.
I just think its sad that people have to judge things they don't relate to, experience or understand. Unless it's causing a negative impact on your life or hurting someone, why the fuck should it matter what people chose to do or what people are. That's what bothers me. I think it's good to have different outlooks, opinions and views on things, but it shouldn't prompt you to slander, be vicious or petty to people.
It seems that as people feel more free to say what they think, the more offended they get, when someone disagrees with them! They have lost the ability to discuss, and debate, rationally, logically, and resort to name-calling and Kindergarten Playground bullying!! Grow UP!! Just because someone disagrees with you, doesn't mean you should punch them in the face!!!
See, it's not about making the town, state, country, or world a better place anymore, it's all about beating the enemy. It's all about the hit of dopamine people get when they feel like they've "won."
People don't even know why they support what they do, they can't back up their beliefs with reason. At some point along the line they just picked a side because they were told by someone its the "right" side to be on.
What is the point in arguing if not to force the opposition into admitting they were wrong and changing their mind? I think the real problem is people see altering their own views as weak and so hold fast to them no matter how much evidence is against them.
Yes, and it's gotten so even people in the same tribe can't disagree with a single issue or they're one of THEM! As in the Democratic debates when someone who questions how another candidate will pay for their proposals gets accused of "using GOP talking points". And of course anyone who disagrees with the President on anything "is a very stupid person". With small hands too, no doubt.
Yes, there is a lot of intolerance for differing views out there, and absolute refusal to even try to see anything from another person's point of view or even just respect their views.
You can't force two people, but you can try to logically convince them. If we stand by and not assert strong views then major issues will go unresolved.
I think lots of people are just nasty. I hear they're unhappy. Sure do seem angry and unhappy to me.
So a person with that inside their heart probably of course would start picking fights, putting others down and bullying others for any reason they can think of.
I'm open to explaining why my views are my views. But In return i get personal attacks and stupid comments. That's the main problem now a days. People are debating of conversing solely with emotion not reasoning.
Tbh the right wingers seem to be fine on this count, it’s the leftists that refuse to tolerate contradictory opinions. Which side is pushing for censorship? There’s the truth
A lot of the problem is mom and dad didn't put a boot in their ass and let them just have their way. People may be of an adult age, but they're still just spoiled little brats.
And here's where can agree, and disagree, perhaps. I disagree in that I don't think it has anything to due with the 1st amendment. I DO agree that the "radical left" is quite intolerant, as is the "radical right". But, the non-radical right, let's call them your "everyday Conservatives", are specifically the ones who refuse to tolerate what they don't believe in too, just to a somewhat lesser degree. Hence, everyone, and I DO mean everyone, that disagrees with them is branded "a liberal" like it's a disease and means you're anti everything "America stands for". They also fail to see the irony in that too! I don't get that from the moderate left. They are much more willing to "agree to disagree" and engage in "compromise" - which is now a dirty word to ALL Conservatives, it seems, of any degree. Guess who's been fostering that idea for the last 20 years?
I have t noticed that from the average conservative, every average conservative I’ve come across have actually been able to agree to disagree. While most moderate liberals I’ve come across tend to be pushy.
I guess what we are talking about here is based on personal experience.
Yes, it's all based on personal experiences, and I truly believe it has a LOT to do with the age group. The younger you are, the more idealistic you tend to be, and more head strong. Almost all of my experiences are with people 30 and up, and usually in the 40's. The moderate conservatives I know in that age range have bought into the hype that any compromise means they are weak and are willing to "sacrifice" their morals and beliefs. They think of a compromise as a total loss. Well guess what... a "good" compromise is when NEITHER party is completely happy, but it allows you operate. That's how it's supposed to be.
Odd, from what I’ve noticed it’s actually the conservatives who are willing to make compromises. Even the more moderate liberals tend to be more demanding in trying to get their way and when they don’t get their way, they resort to mudslinging.
I think "Conservatives" don't question the system because it agrees with them economically. I always say, whatever the system, whatever the question... follow the money. Your answer lies there.
My point is simply that the "system" favors those who are wealthy, regardless of their political preferences. There's no real difference except your personal outlook so long as the wealth you have is perpetuated by the people (you put) in power. One could also easily argue that once you reach a certain level of wealth, "politics" as it's discussed by us "wee people" or the masses, ceases to exist.
Progressivism is a mental illness. The moral majority use to be calm and patient, but I think they've reached their limit. You want civil war? Just keep it up. They will ultimately win.
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Most Helpful Opinions