FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to Politics

Both sides not talking

Jump to newest
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

I’ve read and participated in a number of threads about politics on here and have noticed some intolerance towards others opinions. Now, I must admit I’ve displayed hostility myself on occasion and have probably been guilty of not understanding someone else’s view, I’m working on that.

Do you think we’ve arrived at a place and time where opposing views should lead to acrimony? Is there still a place to agree to disagree? Obviously those who believe (or know) they are always right are under no obligations to take on someone else’s opinion and can belittle an opponent as they see fit (I’m being sarcastic, not advocating that behaviour).

There are many talking points with a good degree of nuance that should allow for conversation to flow. Issues on defence, immigration, the economy, education as well as those topics that live within the sphere of what some might refer to as culture wars.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *otMe66Man
over a year ago

Terra Firma

If someone replies to a post with the intention of submitting an opinion which is not up for negotiation, or changing, it will become a pointless exercise to discuss that matter any further than stating an alternate view and leaving it there.

I think most conflict comes from an imaginary line in the sand, belonging to something no matter what, or not wanting to be part of something else and simply not letting go.

I can change my opinion on things, I often do if I read or hear something that I actually hadn't considered and it alters entirely my way of thinking. That is probably why I'm a floating voter, I want to hear the alternatives before I make up my mind.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago

Manchester

It appears our education standards need looking at especially in regards to cognitive thinking.

Bias media influence may also be a leading factor. Gone are the days of a newspaper actually reporting the truth in full.

It’s also the tendency to lie without and regard for integrity of our politicians. I don’t want to make this about Tories so we could find something about labour too, but the claim 20k new policeman should as we all know be 20k replacement policemen. But they repeat over and over its new because “technically” they are.

It’s misleading and leads people to a false impression of the reality of the situation.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *V-AliceTV/TS
over a year ago

Ayr

Both sides are talking - but at each other, not to each other - and even fewer people are listening.

Sadly, reasoned argument and critical thinking are no longer part of UK and US politics. They never have been in China, Russia, Iran, etc.

That's the danger we face - going down the "one true faith" route. It allows you, if you are in power, to deny facts for as long as you are able to - which can be decades, now; and has been centuries in the past.

There are, of course, some things that are unarguably wrong - Holocaust Denial, for one example - but it doesn't stop people adhering to their mistaken views.

Also, there's a limit to what you should have to tolerate when you know someone is lying to you, or that they are just plain wrong.

For example, I'd be happy to tell any anti-vaxer or climate change denier, to shut the fuck up and fuck the fuck off.

Why? Because they're proven, by weight of scientific evidence, gathered over decades, to be full of shit.

You only have to listen to an alternative view if there's any logic or common sense to it at all.

Not all issues lead to a parting of the ways and no common ground - but, far too many do, that don't need to.

It doesn't seem likely to change. Certainly not in the UK. The current Tory leadership contest is evidence enough of that.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *hetalkingstoveMan
over a year ago

London

"agree to disagree" is fine if you're debating the best pizza topping or something.

If it's a political issue, with a moral component, that affects people's lives, you can understand why it's not as easy.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"If someone replies to a post with the intention of submitting an opinion which is not up for negotiation, or changing, it will become a pointless exercise to discuss that matter any further than stating an alternate view and leaving it there.

I think most conflict comes from an imaginary line in the sand, belonging to something no matter what, or not wanting to be part of something else and simply not letting go.

I can change my opinion on things, I often do if I read or hear something that I actually hadn't considered and it alters entirely my way of thinking. That is probably why I'm a floating voter, I want to hear the alternatives before I make up my mind. "

I’ve found you to be quite non-partisan on the threads and have appreciated your input.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Both sides are talking - but at each other, not to each other - and even fewer people are listening.

Sadly, reasoned argument and critical thinking are no longer part of UK and US politics. They never have been in China, Russia, Iran, etc.

That's the danger we face - going down the "one true faith" route. It allows you, if you are in power, to deny facts for as long as you are able to - which can be decades, now; and has been centuries in the past.

There are, of course, some things that are unarguably wrong - Holocaust Denial, for one example - but it doesn't stop people adhering to their mistaken views.

Also, there's a limit to what you should have to tolerate when you know someone is lying to you, or that they are just plain wrong.

For example, I'd be happy to tell any anti-vaxer or climate change denier, to shut the fuck up and fuck the fuck off.

Why? Because they're proven, by weight of scientific evidence, gathered over decades, to be full of shit.

You only have to listen to an alternative view if there's any logic or common sense to it at all.

Not all issues lead to a parting of the ways and no common ground - but, far too many do, that don't need to.

It doesn't seem likely to change. Certainly not in the UK. The current Tory leadership contest is evidence enough of that."

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


""agree to disagree" is fine if you're debating the best pizza topping or something.

If it's a political issue, with a moral component, that affects people's lives, you can understand why it's not as easy. "

Yes, morality does seem to be the battleground and as another poster suggested on here, probably leads to drawing a line in the sand. Having said that, I’d like to think their is an acceptance that both opponents are entitled to their views without finger wagging.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *heNerdyFembyWoman
over a year ago

Eastbourne (she/they)

[Removed by poster at 26/07/22 18:52:44]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *heNerdyFembyWoman
over a year ago

Eastbourne (she/they)


""agree to disagree" is fine if you're debating the best pizza topping or something.

If it's a political issue, with a moral component, that affects people's lives, you can understand why it's not as easy.

Yes, morality does seem to be the battleground and as another poster suggested on here, probably leads to drawing a line in the sand. Having said that, I’d like to think their is an acceptance that both opponents are entitled to their views without finger wagging."

Is someone entitled to hold the view that an entire segment of society should be killed in a sweeping genocide without people finger wagging?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


""agree to disagree" is fine if you're debating the best pizza topping or something.

If it's a political issue, with a moral component, that affects people's lives, you can understand why it's not as easy.

Yes, morality does seem to be the battleground and as another poster suggested on here, probably leads to drawing a line in the sand. Having said that, I’d like to think their is an acceptance that both opponents are entitled to their views without finger wagging.

Is someone entitled to hold the view that an entire segment of society should be killed in a sweeping genocide without people finger wagging?"
everyone is entitled to there opinion I might not like it you might not but it's still there opinion.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *heNerdyFembyWoman
over a year ago

Eastbourne (she/they)


""agree to disagree" is fine if you're debating the best pizza topping or something.

If it's a political issue, with a moral component, that affects people's lives, you can understand why it's not as easy.

Yes, morality does seem to be the battleground and as another poster suggested on here, probably leads to drawing a line in the sand. Having said that, I’d like to think their is an acceptance that both opponents are entitled to their views without finger wagging.

Is someone entitled to hold the view that an entire segment of society should be killed in a sweeping genocide without people finger wagging? everyone is entitled to there opinion I might not like it you might not but it's still there opinion."

So yes you do think people should be able to want to have genocide performed without people finger wagging?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


""agree to disagree" is fine if you're debating the best pizza topping or something.

If it's a political issue, with a moral component, that affects people's lives, you can understand why it's not as easy.

Yes, morality does seem to be the battleground and as another poster suggested on here, probably leads to drawing a line in the sand. Having said that, I’d like to think their is an acceptance that both opponents are entitled to their views without finger wagging.

Is someone entitled to hold the view that an entire segment of society should be killed in a sweeping genocide without people finger wagging? everyone is entitled to there opinion I might not like it you might not but it's still there opinion.

So yes you do think people should be able to want to have genocide performed without people finger wagging?"
nope I said they are entitled to there opinion right or wrong it's there opinion.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *heNerdyFembyWoman
over a year ago

Eastbourne (she/they)


""agree to disagree" is fine if you're debating the best pizza topping or something.

If it's a political issue, with a moral component, that affects people's lives, you can understand why it's not as easy.

Yes, morality does seem to be the battleground and as another poster suggested on here, probably leads to drawing a line in the sand. Having said that, I’d like to think their is an acceptance that both opponents are entitled to their views without finger wagging.

Is someone entitled to hold the view that an entire segment of society should be killed in a sweeping genocide without people finger wagging? everyone is entitled to there opinion I might not like it you might not but it's still there opinion.

So yes you do think people should be able to want to have genocide performed without people finger wagging? nope I said they are entitled to there opinion right or wrong it's there opinion."

So is it they are not allowed to express it without the finger wagging?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


""agree to disagree" is fine if you're debating the best pizza topping or something.

If it's a political issue, with a moral component, that affects people's lives, you can understand why it's not as easy.

Yes, morality does seem to be the battleground and as another poster suggested on here, probably leads to drawing a line in the sand. Having said that, I’d like to think their is an acceptance that both opponents are entitled to their views without finger wagging.

Is someone entitled to hold the view that an entire segment of society should be killed in a sweeping genocide without people finger wagging? everyone is entitled to there opinion I might not like it you might not but it's still there opinion.

So yes you do think people should be able to want to have genocide performed without people finger wagging? nope I said they are entitled to there opinion right or wrong it's there opinion.

So is it they are not allowed to express it without the finger wagging?"
finger wag all you like I don't think they would be bothered if they were happy for genocide

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago

milton keynes


"I’ve read and participated in a number of threads about politics on here and have noticed some intolerance towards others opinions. Now, I must admit I’ve displayed hostility myself on occasion and have probably been guilty of not understanding someone else’s view, I’m working on that.

Do you think we’ve arrived at a place and time where opposing views should lead to acrimony? Is there still a place to agree to disagree? Obviously those who believe (or know) they are always right are under no obligations to take on someone else’s opinion and can belittle an opponent as they see fit (I’m being sarcastic, not advocating that behaviour).

There are many talking points with a good degree of nuance that should allow for conversation to flow. Issues on defence, immigration, the economy, education as well as those topics that live within the sphere of what some might refer to as culture wars. "

To listen to others points of view or opinions is not a sign of weakness, in fact I would say it's the opposite. To insult others for holding a different view is more a sign of weakness in my thinking

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *heNerdyFembyWoman
over a year ago

Eastbourne (she/they)


"I’ve read and participated in a number of threads about politics on here and have noticed some intolerance towards others opinions. Now, I must admit I’ve displayed hostility myself on occasion and have probably been guilty of not understanding someone else’s view, I’m working on that.

Do you think we’ve arrived at a place and time where opposing views should lead to acrimony? Is there still a place to agree to disagree? Obviously those who believe (or know) they are always right are under no obligations to take on someone else’s opinion and can belittle an opponent as they see fit (I’m being sarcastic, not advocating that behaviour).

There are many talking points with a good degree of nuance that should allow for conversation to flow. Issues on defence, immigration, the economy, education as well as those topics that live within the sphere of what some might refer to as culture wars.

To listen to others points of view or opinions is not a sign of weakness, in fact I would say it's the opposite. To insult others for holding a different view is more a sign of weakness in my thinking"

On the contrary I think there is a moral imperative to shut down some thinking before it gets anywhere close to being more than thinking.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"I’ve read and participated in a number of threads about politics on here and have noticed some intolerance towards others opinions. Now, I must admit I’ve displayed hostility myself on occasion and have probably been guilty of not understanding someone else’s view, I’m working on that.

Do you think we’ve arrived at a place and time where opposing views should lead to acrimony? Is there still a place to agree to disagree? Obviously those who believe (or know) they are always right are under no obligations to take on someone else’s opinion and can belittle an opponent as they see fit (I’m being sarcastic, not advocating that behaviour).

There are many talking points with a good degree of nuance that should allow for conversation to flow. Issues on defence, immigration, the economy, education as well as those topics that live within the sphere of what some might refer to as culture wars.

To listen to others points of view or opinions is not a sign of weakness, in fact I would say it's the opposite. To insult others for holding a different view is more a sign of weakness in my thinking

On the contrary I think there is a moral imperative to shut down some thinking before it gets anywhere close to being more than thinking."

Who would arbitrate on what is acceptable thought? I would suggest issues that both sides of the political spectrum can agree on. I suggest that we can shut down any idea that calls for the killing of a group of people solely based on their identity or political ideology. I also suggest we shut down paedophiles and their ideas. That’s as close to shutting down I’m prepared to go.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *AFKA HovisMan
over a year ago

Sindon Swingdon Swindon

Within any given topic there are a range of views, and a range of approaches people have taken to form their views. People's views probably have their own subtlety and context and underlying motivation

However debate too frequently doesn't seek to understand anyoro this. It's simplified into trope like argumenst and questions aren't there to understand but more often with a gotchya agenda. They often pike at the extremes of a case rather than the middle.

I fear I am as bad as everyone as I don't have a "ohh, good point" moment often enough.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *heNerdyFembyWoman
over a year ago

Eastbourne (she/they)


"I’ve read and participated in a number of threads about politics on here and have noticed some intolerance towards others opinions. Now, I must admit I’ve displayed hostility myself on occasion and have probably been guilty of not understanding someone else’s view, I’m working on that.

Do you think we’ve arrived at a place and time where opposing views should lead to acrimony? Is there still a place to agree to disagree? Obviously those who believe (or know) they are always right are under no obligations to take on someone else’s opinion and can belittle an opponent as they see fit (I’m being sarcastic, not advocating that behaviour).

There are many talking points with a good degree of nuance that should allow for conversation to flow. Issues on defence, immigration, the economy, education as well as those topics that live within the sphere of what some might refer to as culture wars.

To listen to others points of view or opinions is not a sign of weakness, in fact I would say it's the opposite. To insult others for holding a different view is more a sign of weakness in my thinking

On the contrary I think there is a moral imperative to shut down some thinking before it gets anywhere close to being more than thinking.

Who would arbitrate on what is acceptable thought? I would suggest issues that both sides of the political spectrum can agree on. I suggest that we can shut down any idea that calls for the killing of a group of people solely based on their identity or political ideology. I also suggest we shut down paedophiles and their ideas. That’s as close to shutting down I’m prepared to go."

You took my comment out of the context of which it was given, and IO think we are actually on the same page mostly.

I am saying if people express thoughts which are actively harmful there is a moral imperative to not listen but to actively oppose those views.

Think what you like, but the only way you can go 100% unchecked is to keep the thought to yourself.

It is like the old saying your right to swing your fist stops where my nose begins.

That counts for more than just fist swinging.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"I’ve read and participated in a number of threads about politics on here and have noticed some intolerance towards others opinions. Now, I must admit I’ve displayed hostility myself on occasion and have probably been guilty of not understanding someone else’s view, I’m working on that.

Do you think we’ve arrived at a place and time where opposing views should lead to acrimony? Is there still a place to agree to disagree? Obviously those who believe (or know) they are always right are under no obligations to take on someone else’s opinion and can belittle an opponent as they see fit (I’m being sarcastic, not advocating that behaviour).

There are many talking points with a good degree of nuance that should allow for conversation to flow. Issues on defence, immigration, the economy, education as well as those topics that live within the sphere of what some might refer to as culture wars.

To listen to others points of view or opinions is not a sign of weakness, in fact I would say it's the opposite. To insult others for holding a different view is more a sign of weakness in my thinking

On the contrary I think there is a moral imperative to shut down some thinking before it gets anywhere close to being more than thinking.

Who would arbitrate on what is acceptable thought? I would suggest issues that both sides of the political spectrum can agree on. I suggest that we can shut down any idea that calls for the killing of a group of people solely based on their identity or political ideology. I also suggest we shut down paedophiles and their ideas. That’s as close to shutting down I’m prepared to go.

You took my comment out of the context of which it was given, and IO think we are actually on the same page mostly.

I am saying if people express thoughts which are actively harmful there is a moral imperative to not listen but to actively oppose those views.

Think what you like, but the only way you can go 100% unchecked is to keep the thought to yourself.

It is like the old saying your right to swing your fist stops where my nose begins.

That counts for more than just fist swinging.

"

So where do we agree to draw the line? I proffered two suggestions that I think all on here would agree to, are there other areas we can draw the line?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

In my opinion, it's totally down to the internet. Starting from west, the problem of political polarisation is spreading to East too.

I have very close school friends who fall into all ends of political spectrum. We have political debates. But we all love each other in spite of our different opinions. We only swear at politicians when it comes to debates, not at each other. We do swear dirty at each other during other times though

My point is that when you really know a person, you know that the person is actually nice and his political views aren't coming out of bad motives. You try to understand the person. Even if you are talking to a stranger in real life, you tend to have a polite debate. Internet debates fail in both ways. You don't have any empathy for the faceless person on the internet. You also don't care enough to be polite. So it leads to dirty debates which leads to more polarisation.

For context, I come from a state in India where no political party has won two consecutive elections except once. A party that wins one election loses it by landslide in the next. People tried to find the right person for that time instead of blindly aligning with a single party or ideology for the whole life. I have an old couple in my family who always voted for the opposite parties every election I think such a thing is close to impossible here. People have pledged their lives to ideologies too much that they started hating fellow people because of it. The politicians will be happy though because their vote banks are strong in a polarised society.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *heNerdyFembyWoman
over a year ago

Eastbourne (she/they)


"I’ve read and participated in a number of threads about politics on here and have noticed some intolerance towards others opinions. Now, I must admit I’ve displayed hostility myself on occasion and have probably been guilty of not understanding someone else’s view, I’m working on that.

Do you think we’ve arrived at a place and time where opposing views should lead to acrimony? Is there still a place to agree to disagree? Obviously those who believe (or know) they are always right are under no obligations to take on someone else’s opinion and can belittle an opponent as they see fit (I’m being sarcastic, not advocating that behaviour).

There are many talking points with a good degree of nuance that should allow for conversation to flow. Issues on defence, immigration, the economy, education as well as those topics that live within the sphere of what some might refer to as culture wars.

To listen to others points of view or opinions is not a sign of weakness, in fact I would say it's the opposite. To insult others for holding a different view is more a sign of weakness in my thinking

On the contrary I think there is a moral imperative to shut down some thinking before it gets anywhere close to being more than thinking.

Who would arbitrate on what is acceptable thought? I would suggest issues that both sides of the political spectrum can agree on. I suggest that we can shut down any idea that calls for the killing of a group of people solely based on their identity or political ideology. I also suggest we shut down paedophiles and their ideas. That’s as close to shutting down I’m prepared to go.

You took my comment out of the context of which it was given, and IO think we are actually on the same page mostly.

I am saying if people express thoughts which are actively harmful there is a moral imperative to not listen but to actively oppose those views.

Think what you like, but the only way you can go 100% unchecked is to keep the thought to yourself.

It is like the old saying your right to swing your fist stops where my nose begins.

That counts for more than just fist swinging.

So where do we agree to draw the line? I proffered two suggestions that I think all on here would agree to, are there other areas we can draw the line?"

I am saying if you want to vocalise a thought, then anyone else has the right to push back on that, if they choose.

No-one has the right to vocalise their thoughts without any chance of pushback.

Not You, Not Me.

It is the very nature of the concept of free speech.

People are free to say what they want, in response to what other people say just as much as the person has the right to say it in the first place.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"I’ve read and participated in a number of threads about politics on here and have noticed some intolerance towards others opinions. Now, I must admit I’ve displayed hostility myself on occasion and have probably been guilty of not understanding someone else’s view, I’m working on that.

Do you think we’ve arrived at a place and time where opposing views should lead to acrimony? Is there still a place to agree to disagree? Obviously those who believe (or know) they are always right are under no obligations to take on someone else’s opinion and can belittle an opponent as they see fit (I’m being sarcastic, not advocating that behaviour).

There are many talking points with a good degree of nuance that should allow for conversation to flow. Issues on defence, immigration, the economy, education as well as those topics that live within the sphere of what some might refer to as culture wars.

To listen to others points of view or opinions is not a sign of weakness, in fact I would say it's the opposite. To insult others for holding a different view is more a sign of weakness in my thinking

On the contrary I think there is a moral imperative to shut down some thinking before it gets anywhere close to being more than thinking.

Who would arbitrate on what is acceptable thought? I would suggest issues that both sides of the political spectrum can agree on. I suggest that we can shut down any idea that calls for the killing of a group of people solely based on their identity or political ideology. I also suggest we shut down paedophiles and their ideas. That’s as close to shutting down I’m prepared to go.

You took my comment out of the context of which it was given, and IO think we are actually on the same page mostly.

I am saying if people express thoughts which are actively harmful there is a moral imperative to not listen but to actively oppose those views.

Think what you like, but the only way you can go 100% unchecked is to keep the thought to yourself.

It is like the old saying your right to swing your fist stops where my nose begins.

That counts for more than just fist swinging.

So where do we agree to draw the line? I proffered two suggestions that I think all on here would agree to, are there other areas we can draw the line?

I am saying if you want to vocalise a thought, then anyone else has the right to push back on that, if they choose.

No-one has the right to vocalise their thoughts without any chance of pushback.

Not You, Not Me.

It is the very nature of the concept of free speech.

People are free to say what they want, in response to what other people say just as much as the person has the right to say it in the first place."

That sounds like debate, pushback is just another way of arguing the point.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"In my opinion, it's totally down to the internet. Starting from west, the problem of political polarisation is spreading to East too.

I have very close school friends who fall into all ends of political spectrum. We have political debates. But we all love each other in spite of our different opinions. We only swear at politicians when it comes to debates, not at each other. We do swear dirty at each other during other times though

My point is that when you really know a person, you know that the person is actually nice and his political views aren't coming out of bad motives. You try to understand the person. Even if you are talking to a stranger in real life, you tend to have a polite debate. Internet debates fail in both ways. You don't have any empathy for the faceless person on the internet. You also don't care enough to be polite. So it leads to dirty debates which leads to more polarisation.

For context, I come from a state in India where no political party has won two consecutive elections except once. A party that wins one election loses it by landslide in the next. People tried to find the right person for that time instead of blindly aligning with a single party or ideology for the whole life. I have an old couple in my family who always voted for the opposite parties every election I think such a thing is close to impossible here. People have pledged their lives to ideologies too much that they started hating fellow people because of it. The politicians will be happy though because their vote banks are strong in a polarised society. "

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan
over a year ago

golden fields

It's sad that we have two sides between ordinary people.

We should all be on the same side.

The government, media and whomever has all the money wants to keep us divided. We argue about what the problems even are, while those at the top continue to keep the cash rolling in.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"It's sad that we have two sides between ordinary people.

We should all be on the same side.

The government, media and whomever has all the money wants to keep us divided. We argue about what the problems even are, while those at the top continue to keep the cash rolling in."

Not sure we will all be on the same side on every issue but there will be occasions we will all stand together shoulder to shoulder. I think on same issues we all agree on a desired outcome but our prescriptions to achieve that may differ. We can keep talking and bridge the gap. There is already evidence of left and right talking together as well as people in the centre.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan
over a year ago

golden fields


"It's sad that we have two sides between ordinary people.

We should all be on the same side.

The government, media and whomever has all the money wants to keep us divided. We argue about what the problems even are, while those at the top continue to keep the cash rolling in.

Not sure we will all be on the same side on every issue but there will be occasions we will all stand together shoulder to shoulder. I think on same issues we all agree on a desired outcome but our prescriptions to achieve that may differ. We can keep talking and bridge the gap. There is already evidence of left and right talking together as well as people in the centre."

Oh yeah, there would be disagreement about the way forward. But at the moment, we (not you and I, but as a population) can't even agree what the problems are that we need to tackle.

The easiest example is Brexit, splitting the population was one of the objectives, and it was extremely effective, a divided population is easier to control and manipulate.

So now we have some people who want the government to be honest and try to mitigate against the damage that's being done. Other people think brexit is great and just want to shout at those who think the government needs to try to limit the damage being done.

Until we can agree a starting point, I don't know how we can get anywhere.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"It's sad that we have two sides between ordinary people.

We should all be on the same side.

The government, media and whomever has all the money wants to keep us divided. We argue about what the problems even are, while those at the top continue to keep the cash rolling in.

Not sure we will all be on the same side on every issue but there will be occasions we will all stand together shoulder to shoulder. I think on same issues we all agree on a desired outcome but our prescriptions to achieve that may differ. We can keep talking and bridge the gap. There is already evidence of left and right talking together as well as people in the centre.

Oh yeah, there would be disagreement about the way forward. But at the moment, we (not you and I, but as a population) can't even agree what the problems are that we need to tackle.

The easiest example is Brexit, splitting the population was one of the objectives, and it was extremely effective, a divided population is easier to control and manipulate.

So now we have some people who want the government to be honest and try to mitigate against the damage that's being done. Other people think brexit is great and just want to shout at those who think the government needs to try to limit the damage being done.

Until we can agree a starting point, I don't know how we can get anywhere. "

A fair point, I agree

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *oxychick35Couple
over a year ago

thornaby


"I’ve read and participated in a number of threads about politics on here and have noticed some intolerance towards others opinions. Now, I must admit I’ve displayed hostility myself on occasion and have probably been guilty of not understanding someone else’s view, I’m working on that.

Do you think we’ve arrived at a place and time where opposing views should lead to acrimony? Is there still a place to agree to disagree? Obviously those who believe (or know) they are always right are under no obligations to take on someone else’s opinion and can belittle an opponent as they see fit (I’m being sarcastic, not advocating that behaviour).

There are many talking points with a good degree of nuance that should allow for conversation to flow. Issues on defence, immigration, the economy, education as well as those topics that live within the sphere of what some might refer to as culture wars. "
it’s most impossible to have an opinion on here as there is far too many fake experts who are never wrong and if you disagree with them they gang up and smother the other opinion out we all know who they are

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *uddy laneMan
over a year ago

dudley


"I’ve read and participated in a number of threads about politics on here and have noticed some intolerance towards others opinions. Now, I must admit I’ve displayed hostility myself on occasion and have probably been guilty of not understanding someone else’s view, I’m working on that.

Do you think we’ve arrived at a place and time where opposing views should lead to acrimony? Is there still a place to agree to disagree? Obviously those who believe (or know) they are always right are under no obligations to take on someone else’s opinion and can belittle an opponent as they see fit (I’m being sarcastic, not advocating that behaviour).

There are many talking points with a good degree of nuance that should allow for conversation to flow. Issues on defence, immigration, the economy, education as well as those topics that live within the sphere of what some might refer to as culture wars. it’s most impossible to have an opinion on here as there is far too many fake experts who are never wrong and if you disagree with them they gang up and smother the other opinion out we all know who they are "

That never happens in the virus forum.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *heNerdyFembyWoman
over a year ago

Eastbourne (she/they)


"I’ve read and participated in a number of threads about politics on here and have noticed some intolerance towards others opinions. Now, I must admit I’ve displayed hostility myself on occasion and have probably been guilty of not understanding someone else’s view, I’m working on that.

Do you think we’ve arrived at a place and time where opposing views should lead to acrimony? Is there still a place to agree to disagree? Obviously those who believe (or know) they are always right are under no obligations to take on someone else’s opinion and can belittle an opponent as they see fit (I’m being sarcastic, not advocating that behaviour).

There are many talking points with a good degree of nuance that should allow for conversation to flow. Issues on defence, immigration, the economy, education as well as those topics that live within the sphere of what some might refer to as culture wars. it’s most impossible to have an opinion on here as there is far too many fake experts who are never wrong and if you disagree with them they gang up and smother the other opinion out we all know who they are "

if you remotely think it is only one side that does this, you are just not noticing it when people you agree with do it.

It is a natural part of online discourse, you will occasionally get bouts of groups of people responding at the same time.

Are you saying they do not have the right to do this?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan
over a year ago

golden fields


"I’ve read and participated in a number of threads about politics on here and have noticed some intolerance towards others opinions. Now, I must admit I’ve displayed hostility myself on occasion and have probably been guilty of not understanding someone else’s view, I’m working on that.

Do you think we’ve arrived at a place and time where opposing views should lead to acrimony? Is there still a place to agree to disagree? Obviously those who believe (or know) they are always right are under no obligations to take on someone else’s opinion and can belittle an opponent as they see fit (I’m being sarcastic, not advocating that behaviour).

There are many talking points with a good degree of nuance that should allow for conversation to flow. Issues on defence, immigration, the economy, education as well as those topics that live within the sphere of what some might refer to as culture wars. it’s most impossible to have an opinion on here as there is far too many fake experts who are never wrong and if you disagree with them they gang up and smother the other opinion out we all know who they are "

You should try questioning the government or the wisdom of brexit, and see the abuse roll in via DMs and on the forums.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *oxychick35Couple
over a year ago

thornaby


"I’ve read and participated in a number of threads about politics on here and have noticed some intolerance towards others opinions. Now, I must admit I’ve displayed hostility myself on occasion and have probably been guilty of not understanding someone else’s view, I’m working on that.

Do you think we’ve arrived at a place and time where opposing views should lead to acrimony? Is there still a place to agree to disagree? Obviously those who believe (or know) they are always right are under no obligations to take on someone else’s opinion and can belittle an opponent as they see fit (I’m being sarcastic, not advocating that behaviour).

There are many talking points with a good degree of nuance that should allow for conversation to flow. Issues on defence, immigration, the economy, education as well as those topics that live within the sphere of what some might refer to as culture wars. it’s most impossible to have an opinion on here as there is far too many fake experts who are never wrong and if you disagree with them they gang up and smother the other opinion out we all know who they are

You should try questioning the government or the wisdom of brexit, and see the abuse roll in via DMs and on the forums.

"
id guess it’s nothing like the abuse leavers get on here lol

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By *heNerdyFembyWoman
over a year ago

Eastbourne (she/they)


"I’ve read and participated in a number of threads about politics on here and have noticed some intolerance towards others opinions. Now, I must admit I’ve displayed hostility myself on occasion and have probably been guilty of not understanding someone else’s view, I’m working on that.

Do you think we’ve arrived at a place and time where opposing views should lead to acrimony? Is there still a place to agree to disagree? Obviously those who believe (or know) they are always right are under no obligations to take on someone else’s opinion and can belittle an opponent as they see fit (I’m being sarcastic, not advocating that behaviour).

There are many talking points with a good degree of nuance that should allow for conversation to flow. Issues on defence, immigration, the economy, education as well as those topics that live within the sphere of what some might refer to as culture wars. it’s most impossible to have an opinion on here as there is far too many fake experts who are never wrong and if you disagree with them they gang up and smother the other opinion out we all know who they are

You should try questioning the government or the wisdom of brexit, and see the abuse roll in via DMs and on the forums.

id guess it’s nothing like the abuse leavers get on here lol"

Both sides have good faith actors, and both sides have bad faith actors.

It is humanity, the reason people don't see it on their own side is because it is their own side, every one of us is predisposed to see things we agree with in a different light.

Now if you want to get into a conversation about quantity of bad actors and how much vitriol they can spew. Follow the media. Historically the side which the media agrees with are far worse. Because they take media agreement to mean they are right and get emboldened.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top