To help both remind ourselves and the other side

a reply to: Puppylove

One can argue always argue against something. That's never the way forward.

Right. Agreement is the ideal. No matter who disagrees. Everyone is right.
No, argument is good. It stimulates thought.

he world has come a long way, and we've solved quite a bit of problems in our time on this planet.

Yes. In the past 10,000 years (or so) we've come a long way. Didn't I say that?

a reply to: Phage

When your main disagreement seems to be human nature.

Well we've fought human nature and won many times. It may be a constant battle but it's often worth it when we succeed.

We may not stomp out our worst traits completely, but we've often manage to lessen them or constrain them, or find ways to work around and bypass them.

When your main argument is you cannot deny human nature or fight it, well that's clearly absurd, we've been doing it successfully with mixed results our entire existence. Some attempts have been more successful than others, and many have been outright failures, but we have succeeded in some cases astoundingly so. It's a constant struggle, but certainly one worth pursuing.

I never asked you to agree with my solution to the problem, but I did ask that if you disagree with my solution to help with brainstorming a different one. If you disagree that there even is a problem, well I'm not going to get into a Rabbit Season, Duck Season argument with you on a thread on constructively trying to solve a problem.

You don't think a problem exists, fine, noted, moving on.

a reply to: Puppylove

Well we've fought human nature and won many times.

No. If that ever happens we cease being human.

When your main argument is you cannot deny human nature or fight it, well that's clearly absurd, we've been doing it successfully with mixed results our entire existence.

Do you deny human nature? Where did I say we cannot fight it? There are parts of human nature that we can suppress, surely. But they are still there. To deny it would be foolish.

You don't think a problem exists, fine, noted, moving on.

I don't think "a problem" exists. I think there are many problems. I think there will always be many problems. If you think there is "a problem" you are terrifyingly naive. If you think that there is any way that people will not argue about those problems, you have an argument on your hands. Like it or not.

a reply to: Phage

You can't fight all problems at once. Of course there are many problems. This is one of them, a big one, which needs to be fought on multiple fronts. Part of the point of brainstorming is hopefully others would or could contribute other ideas and solutions to attack said problem, maybe from different angles entirely.

There's no delusion I or we could eliminate the problem completely. But the hope is we could find a way to reduce or work around the problem to facilitate some better communication across lines so we could help root out the trouble makers on each others respective sides and work together to combat the divide and conquer strategies of our enemies.

Perhaps also find a way to expose these people when they show up to cause problems in a way their own side will recognize them and what they are trying to do.

a reply to: Puppylove
We've been working on it for 10,000 years or so.

a reply to: Phage

Define human nature, because I'm not sure we're on the same page as to what that means. Any natural human impulse I would define as human nature. Any act we do to combat that base impulse I would argue as fighting human nature, and any time we succeed, winning against it. Of course you could also argue that that's not fighting human nature so much as giving into our better nature. Which means both the impulse and fighting it are human nature. At which point, what we're really doing in all this is trying to appeal to, enforce and hold people to their better natures, while discouraging and holding people accountable for giving into their baser natures.

a reply to: Phage

Right we have been, all I've done is started a thread so that we can brainstorm and add to the collective pool of "working on it" not sure why that hurts anything? More heads working on the same problems isn't bad.

We've both had many successes and failures which we hopefully learned from, over these 10,000 or so years trying to solve these problems. None of these success or failures came about from people not trying to do so.

Do I expect to have the magical cure or answer? Nope, but I'm at least willing to try and work with like minded individuals towards doing so. Will I succeed? Most likely not. But it's better to try and fail than not try at all. If nothing else is a good brainstorming activity and exercise for the mind.

a reply to: Puppylove
Love?
Sure, pure love is a very wonderful concept. Is it real? If you're a saint, maybe.
Love without want. Love without envy? Good luck with that.

So, let's do away with love.

a reply to: Phage

That makes literally no sense with anything I just said. Unless... Oh ok, you're now trolling me. You're purposely taking things overly literal and not considering simplification over actual intent.

Obviously giving into base desires is not always bad, emotion is not bad to have. I'm far from promoting going full Vulcan. That's silly. What I'm promoting is fighting those negative impulses that cause you to make dumb mistakes and harm others, to think, reason and have some measure of self control when it warrants it. To to better reduce when things get out of hand, and promote increasing when things go right. Not eliminate that's impossible, but reduce the bad and encourage the good clearly is.

I'm so sorry I didn't think I had to specify in such detail. Maybe this isn't enough either. Would you like me to write you a 100 page dissertation on human nature as I define it and what fighting it means, and when it's appropriate to do so, when it's not, etc, etc, etc. I mean I don't want to accidentally not specify something. I'd really hate to get into an infinite back and forth where I need to keep explaining a ultra super complex issue to you, bit by bit by bit.

I kinda hoped you'd get the basic gist.

a reply to: Puppylove

I logged in to reply to your post. I understand Phage's point, but I think it's very brave and thoughtful of you to bring up this topic and want to discuss it. It's big of you. I really mean that. You're reaching out in hopes of a better discussion and I think that's admirable. It's what ATS used to be about. Discussion. Anyone can throw insults at each other, like schoolyard children, which is what the membership here has sunk to.

Unfortunately, for the most part, I think you're casting your pearls before swine... But I hear you. I agree with you - if not with the specifics of your proposal, with the spirit of it. I'm sick to death of being thrown in a box and labelled as the enemy, simply because I don't support Trump. And I'm absolutely certain others are, too, on both sides. That's why I need regular breaks from here and why others have given up altogether on ATS.

Using your example (progressives) I don't know why ANYONE has to use labels as insults. I lean liberal, but everyone here is just sure I'm a nasty SJW and love political correctness and want "safe spaces" for everyone. NONE of that is true, but I've been thrown in the box labelled "Progressive" and no one gives a # about the details of what I believe or really support. Who I am is not important. Only my label. I am the enemy. That's all that matters.

Yeah, we have to find a better way to communicate or else ATS becomes like every other stupid social media site on the Internet. It's within an inch right now. I've lost hope that the membership will rally and have mature discussion again... But I really appreciate your attempt to move it in that direction.

Don't expect a lot of support, however. People LOVE insulting others online. There are no consequences. What you are suggesting IS political correctness, though. It's being polite, thoughtful and respectful of other people. That's all PC is. And the membership here (the EmembershipM) have no interest in being kind and respectful. They find hatred and insult to be much more personally satisfying.

But I think it's cool that you're trying. My advice is to stop labeling. Why does anyone need to talk about progressives (or Trump supporters, Clinton supporters, or conservatives) as a group? We don't all think alike. There's just no need to bitch about the extreme minority of ANY group. If we were all more CURIOUS instead of looking for someone to insult, we'd have a LOT of good, and maybe even productive, discussions here.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

I'm aware I'm probably attempting lost causes here. But I'll keep trying, hopefully if I do, a group of brain stormers that like discussing potential solutions, or simply exercise their mind in a bit of problem solving back and forth will form. Perhaps I'll get lucky and we can start real discussions again. Maybe a forum for this purpose. One where a person proposes a problem and people come together to offer solutions and go back and forth on ideas to solve said problem.