My opinions on polarization... and its dangers · 1:54am Jan 22nd, 2017
Short journal blog post before I finish my readings and get back to ECQ&tAE.
What is polarization by the way? Welp, the definition of polarization that i'm talking about, according to Wikipedia anyway, is the process in which public opinion splits into two... and goes to the extremes.
What the heck are you talking about vren55?
Well... almost every major political issue right now has underwent, and very rapidly I think, a process of polarization in which you end up with two camps, and both of them believe each other is:
The US election is an obvious example, especially if we compare the fierce and continuing retorts between anti-Trump and pro-Trump supporters. However, this trend extends to a variety of issues.
Abortion versus anti-abortion.
LGBT rights vs. anti-LGBT
Right vs. Left.
Those are just a few. And in this age of rapid communication, people form opinions VERY quickly without a lot of reading/research. I admit, I do this as well at times. Furthermore, news organisations do all to much to encourage this polarisation. It gets them political brownie points for hitting out that sensationalist good versus evil story taken out of a bastardized version of WW2 history rather than actually taking the middle road. Moreover, because supporters of a particular cause are so eager to distinguish themselves from the other, they paint the other in as evil terms as possible. The US election is definitely a good example of that, but I reiterate, it's NOT the only example. Just one of many. As such, those listening and who want to choose a side are given a choice. Us or them. Right or wrong. Nazi or Traitor!
I'm not joking here with the Nazi or Freedom thing. Very quickly accusations of treason or nazi end up flying when two polarized sides slam into each other. Which highlights the major problem with the polarization of public opinion... it kills actual discussion.
If we look at the US, and, because I know this as a Canadian historian in training, Canadian constitutions and how they came to them, their's always an element of compromise, of discussion, with people having to concede things. It's one thing I try to reflect upon in my stories. The idea that not one person is right. Characters like Alternia may be more right b/c she has more experience in the political field, but she makes mistakes and cannot always get her way.
However, when one side views the other as evil, and sees no way to compromise with them, then productive discussion is killed. People are stubborn. It's necessary to have to affirm their opinion even when they are wrong because frankly, one cannot simply paint an entire group of people as evil. There are always outliers in a sample size.
So when I look at news organizations like the BBC, comments in youtube, people around me, and hell even what I sometimes blurt out unthinkingly, I lament that this actual discussion is becoming increasingly rare. Thanks to the extreme polarization now so evident in our public, I contemplated for a long time about whether the Catholic Church I'm a part of was actually a productive organisation because some members extreme anti-abortion and anti-gay views (including that of my relatives TBH) seem incredibly unmerciful and counter to teachings of that same church.
My point is, in a world and public that increasingly splits into two immovable sides on many issues, it becomes all the more necessary to be easygoing and actually walk across the no-man's land in order to have a christmas truce. (A WW1 event reference, look it up). Edit: I don't think people are going to convince Trump supporters that he's said some pretty worrying things about human rights and policy by burning limousines and neither do I think Trump supporters will convince LGBTQ and feminist activists of the value of economic development Trump proposes (NAFTA does need some renegotiating...) by ignoring what Trump has said about women. As the good show My Little Pony teaches us, it's alright to have a different opinion on issues, and be different. But well once you sit down and refuse to see things from the other point of view... well you get what nearly happened to Appleloosa back in Season 1... a bloody war, and frankly I don't think anybody wants that.
The movie All Star Superman might have pointed out, and rightfully so that "when the irresistable force collids with the immovable object" they'll both surrender, and yes, they'll have to because the two would probably get tired of butting it out. But frankly, the sparks that fly from the collision will be damaging enough.
Sincerely,
vren55
P.S. Your opinion?
Not just Canadian history, look at the compromises that went into crafting the US Constitution.
*sigh* You are right, I am so Goddamn tired of all the crap going around and when the sides start sounding alike you know things are getting bad.
4391497 *nods* Oh they may say they are completely different and their opinions are different... but well when they start talking about the other side and portray them as evil and idiots....
Well it's not entirely different isn't it?
4391508
No it ain't, no it ain't.
Compromise and compassion are both massive building blocks toward peace and understanding, I completely agree with you on that.
There have been loads of times where I've written three to five paragraphs on my personal point of view before my brain bucket kicked back in, I realized there is no possible way that this person is ever going to see things my way, or arguably even agree to disagree and promptly deleted the thesis-in-waiting without ever posting it to go have a pint.
I realize that is no better at encouraging intellegent discussion, but polarizing issues are just that. They tend to invoke a strong emotional reaction, and most people lose the desire to listen to the other persons point of view when they feel with every fibre of their being that the opposing side is utterly wrong.
I do wish it were otherwise though.
The problem that also plagues this is how heavily, 'compassion' and 'compromise' are viewed as weakness, not as part of discussion. Neither side on the arguments wants to be the one do either. And because of that, no one is willing to try bridging the gaps. Obama tried this for eight years in the realm of US politics. He tried to work with both, and both sides practically turned on him for doing so.
Alas, this current 'ceo' is so set on the mindset that failure or compromise is anathema, that he will go to any lengths to 'win' as its seen. No matter the cost.
But i'm hoping that they see the great equalizer when its far to late to lie, cheat, and bribe their way out of it. Because they need to learn to fear again. And if they lash out in that fear, it will galvanize the people into doing something drastic.
The representatives we have. They've lost touch with their base, on both sides. And its sad, i'm just waiting for the bang, because thats about the only good way I can see it ending. These folks dont and wont compromise, they wont try to negotiate. It's going to end up being someone staring down the barrel, and the hammer falls. And two lives end.
It's morbid, horrible, but I don't see any bloodless way to solve this. Nothing else tried has worked.
I agree on some points, and diasgree on others. While dialog is good, I would refuse to hold it with anyone who wants to become a Nazi supporter. I don't care if I am polarising, because Nazi had a simple goal, to make Aryan race the only dominant race in the world, with others in slavery or eliminated. With a setup like that there can be no dialog. Alos, if USA is is great and Russia is so evil, why don't Americans bring more proof of our evil ways? Yeah, no government is clean, but there is a good video. "I'm a Rusiian occupant". Look it up. So, I'm as polarised as can be, and there is no changing it.
4391953 It's not that I think people ought to change their views and not be stubborn. If you're anti-Trump, Anti-Russian, and you think Nazism is wrong... I think that's fine, even justified. What I'm worried about is that if we paint all Nazis as nazis, all anti-trump as anti-trump, and refuse to even try to convince them that they're wrong, then are we really any better? While most (nearly all) Nazis were terrible, there were cases of people who were members of the Nazi party doing great things for Jews and minorities.
But *shrug* that's my approach to things and no, you don't have to agree with it. But I'd do my own ideals poorly if I didn't propose to people like you what I think is dangerous about polarization, though I understand why you don't agree with it.
Compromise is needed and is usually a good way forward.
A thing I would hope to see in America instead of having two political camps would be the opening of a third party. Widen the perspective and hopefully cause the argument to de-escalate. Because where I live we've had a one party government in Ireland for good stretches of time but we've always had viable alternatives. We could always go to Fine Gael, Labour or Sinn Féin if we didn't like Fianna Fáil. (Labour has collapsed recently because of their failure to follow through when they were elected they had 37 in the election before instead of 7) And when we didn't like any of them we went to the independents (Candidates without a party) and elected 14% independents to the Dáil (Parliament). Our independents got 23 seats out of 158 and were joint third in popularity. Fine Gael and Fianna Fail had 50 and 44 seat respectively. But our independents were needed to form a coalition government.
I think that America needs to break out of its two party system. Widening the position in government may help broaden the discussion. Also it might shock the current parties to get their act in gear. They'll notice they're messing up when they start losing votes to a third party. They need those votes remember. If you don't agree with either side then find someone you do agree with. And don't just stop there see if you can get people you know are fed up with it too. Even if it's just a protest vote, if you can make the splash big enough that someone starts to notice then maybe the situation will find compromise. Because if the parties have to form a coalition to get in power they have to agree (at least with some points) with the other party.
Also the presidential election was not between two candidates, Clinton and Trump. There were four with a fifth coming in too late but hoping to split some of the vote so neither Trump nor Hillary could win. Were these other candidates candidates so terrible to not warrant a mention? I had to go and look them up to find out about their existence.
This is about his comment on the Catholic Church here. Just ignore it:
If you are willing to dismiss the Catholic Church as a productive entity based on two things, I don't think that is entirely fair. What about the charities it runs? Sense of community it can provide? If you are willing to dismiss it on those grounds I'd say that would be better. I still wouldn't agree but that's neither here nor there.
But every ideology and organisation will have its extremists and if you'd dismiss them even democracy could be dismissed on those grounds where in France the "Committee of Public Safety" executed over 16,500 people in a period of about a year. Or over sixteen a day. Do you judge democracy or movements that want to give power to the people by the actions of these Frenchmen? I'm guessing it rarely factors in. (Also if anyone wants context look up the French Revolution)
4391969 Those who supported jews weren't TRUE Nazis. There are soldiers who might disagree with what they're doing, and just following the sistem because othervise they'll be in trouble. I'm talking about those who made the Nazi movement. I'm really against only those, who seek crisis and power/money. You get me some good Americans, I'll be friends with them. I'm against the politics of the countries. Those just CAN'T be reasoned with, and I don't think we should waste our breath, trying to do so. We might want to go to PM to continue, I can rant a LOT about modern politics. =)
4392030 I agree with you mostly. And hey... i didn't dismiss the catholic church, but like every believer, I got doubtful at some points.
4392040 I think I see what you mean... and no need to rant about modern politics, I'm a history masters... I get enough info about terrible past politics XD
It's a phenomenon I've seen popping up in the last couple decades, especially here in the good ol' U S of A. People are unable to debate or talk candidly about differing opinions any more, and to even debate is looked down upon. It's bad enough at the civilian level, but now we're seeing Congress itself practically riot every time someone tries to reach across party lines. To even make that attempt can be enough for some people to lose the backing of their own parties.
It's my way or the highway now, nobody wants to listen.