Kamala Trump
Verified User
how would you summarize his position on "choosing sides"?
Anti Semitist Means A Person Who Is Against Being Divided And Conquered By Religious
- Thread starter David Jeffrey Spetch
- Start date
how would you summarize his position on "choosing sides"?
Kamala Trump
Verified User
Wow, me, guno, Nifty, and leaningright all on the same side.
Of one issue, that is.
yes. this should give you pause.
He believes people should pick one. He was very concise as to why he believes that. From post #6:
**
Neutrality is not a trait which was respected much in my upbringing.
Neutral people are prey for both sides.
That's the theory.
Some people still think that "right and wrong" apply.
Others like myself can only see an "us and them" dynamic
because that's simply how everything appears to work in this universe.
**
I found his response to be -very- informative, because he spoke of how picking a side was essentially treated as the right thing to do when he was growing up, and people who were neutral were "prey for both sides". For me, these few short sentences explained volumes as to how his mind operates when it comes to taking sides on issues and his aversion to allowing doubt when it comes to what side he should take. In essence, I think that he believes that allowing doubt and trying to become neutral in an argument will expose him to risks that can be avoided by taking a side.
I've also deducted some things from what he said- by mentioning his upbringing and also saying that that some like himself can only see an "us and them" dynamic and that this is "how everything appears to work in this universe", I believe that he's allowed for a small sliver of doubt in his reasoning. That perhaps right and wrong really do apply even if he may find it dangerous to believe that, and that neither "side" of an issue is completely right or wrong.
As may perhaps be evident in my tagline, I frequently find great value in doubt. While it -can- lead to paralysis in times when that's the last thing you want, it can also lead to seeing very important things that are impossible to see if one doesn't allow for the possibility that one may be mistaken. To clarify a bit further, I believe that Andre Gide's line about doubting those who find truth to apply to everyone, including oneself.
Kamala Trump
Verified User
right.
that's retarded and stupid.
it makes society (and individuals in it) vulnerable to the divide and conquer tactic used by propagandists.
that's the point of the thread.
I explained this once before.
many "choices" are false dichotomies, in fact.
everything is NOT an 'us and them' dynamic.
that's NOT how the universe works.
It's a Bushism.
I agree that the truth is not an "us and them" dynamic, that it is used by the powerful to divide and conquer. That being said, I can certainly understand how people may believe it safer to go for this dynamic, for reasons that I think Nifty expressed concisely. To this, I'd say that it can certainly be safer at times, until it's not. When it comes to the middle east, I suspect that the "until it's not" part may be fast approaching. Looking over the years of the Israel/Palestine conflict, it seems that the violence has been escalating after the past 2 decades, with the total for this year being well over anything recorded in CNN's charts since 2008:
Charts show a stark difference in the human cost of Israeli-Palestinian conflicts over the years | CNN
There's a very real danger that the current massacre in Gaza may get another middle eastern country to intercede directly. So far it hasn't happened, and it may well not happen, but the possibility is there.
Last edited:
Kamala Trump
Verified User
yes.
stupid people go for this dynamic.
i prefer educating them over letting them wallow in dum dum sauce.
I think that's a harmful oversimplification. I'll say right off the bat that I've always been leary of looking at things as if they were black and white, but I've seen many people fall for this false dichotomy. The allure and pressures to agree with your friends and family despite contradicting evidence can be very strong.
I'm all for educating people as to the complexities of political situations, but I also think there are better and worse ways at attempting it. William Buckley Jr. once said “Truth is a demure lady, much too ladylike to knock you on your head and drag you to her cave. She is there, but people must want her, and seek her out.”
I believe that not only is truth frequently like his analogy describes, but that the only way to teach someone truths is to also be gentle about it. Insult them while trying to do it I find that it may actually get them to dig in their heals to their current beliefs even more. But if you try to walk in their shoes and gently try to point out where they may be in error, it may go a long way to getting them to see things that may be difficult for them to see.
Kamala Trump
Verified User
NiftyNiblick
1960s Chick Magnet
Sometimes purporting to find gray area is a great excuse to not take a meaningful stand.
I usually understand my black and white mortal enemies
more than I understand most fence sitters
who'll bend over backwards to not definitively take a side.
There are more than "facts" to consider.
There are human tendencies to factor in as well.
Some people find timidity more disturbing than malfeasance.
Perhaps I'm one of those.
I agree wholeheartedly. To give an example, I think that anyone who says that both Israel and Hamas have killed civilians so therefore they are equally in the wrong could be doing exactly as you say. It's not just the type of thing they've done, but the amount, as well as the reasons.
I can certainly agree that some fence sitters are trying to avoid committing to a given position to avoid problems. The issue becomes, are their reasons for wanting to avoid problems valid? I'd need a specific example of someone fence sitting on an issue to say what I think of them.
I think we might be able to agree that it depends who's being timid, on what issue(s) and why.