@Stingray3906's banner p

Stingray3906


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2024 May 30 22:05:31 UTC

				

User ID: 3082

Stingray3906


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2024 May 30 22:05:31 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 3082

I don't know what I'm a member of anymore, but I will grant you that I didn't read the room and probably should have just posted it here.

I don't perceive him as not being gentle. I have no issue with his his comment. And yes, a lot of what I'm feeling is burnout.

Yes, it is, and respectfully, I'm not looking to have my mind changed on it.

I have to give you points for sheer balls making this post. I'm still not sure if it's genuine or intended as Motte-bait. Lines like the below are almost tropes of exactly what not to say on the Motte:

I can assure you, I'm not trying to bait anyone. I'm fully aware statements like that aren't well received here, but I came to to The Motte because folks here are genuinely insightful and responsive to what I have to say. I came here to escape Reddit, essentially. I was tired of the echo-chambers. Sometimes out of shear desperation to be heard, I post over there thinking someone would understand where I'm coming from, but it never seems to be fruitful. At least here, people are thoughtful and respectful, even if we disagree. I don't have much to lose, at this point.

Here's a question that can maybe be of help; if you believe that you are not alone in your frustration (which is true), and that a whole lot of people feel similar, then why do so many more people continue to engage in political firefights? Are they simply demented non-humans? Or they radical zealots? Or are they mostly normal people?

I think that the people you see out there engaged in political firefights represent a small fraction of political viewpoints. The loudest people in the room are the ones waging the culture war. I think that most people are more concerned about getting up, going to work, putting food on their/their family's table, their finances and their social life than they are with waging the culture war. The people out there making the most noise, I believe, are drowning out the voices of those who would take a more gentle and pragmatic approach to politics. You should know that I'm an introvert. I tend to keep my thoughts to myself and only speak when I feel confident I can put together a cohesive statement of opinion. I also tend to regress if a conversation gets too heated. So, my personal biases are definitely influencing how I feel about this.

I'm not necessarily looking for guidance from a progressive perspective, nor was I really looking for a conversation about what "loving your neighbor" means. I'm quite convicted in my position on the latter and not really interested in having my mind changed on that.

I like to think that someone might understand how I'm feeling and give genuine, constructive responses. And if you read through what I wrote, I address my issues that I have with folks on the left, too.

No, I'm honestly just emotionally over it all.

The basic point you need to understand is that people argue and fight for reasons. It's not just random, and it's not just because people are stupid. You can't just have someone come along and say "have you all just tried respecting each other instead?" and then everyone claps and goes "ah, how could we have been so blind, if only we had just tried respecting each other instead then we could have avoided all this mess".

It's not arguments in general that I take issue with, its how those arguments are conveyed. I think that you can argue while being respectful, but it seems like politicians have moved away from that.

Maybe I'm just projecting my own desire for people to be civilized when addressing conflict. When people start escalating their arguments into ad homs and inflammatory rhetoric, I disengage, I distance myself from them, or just stop talking to them all together.

I posted this on a progressive Christian subreddit yesterday, only to have it removed a few hours later. Frankly, I don't know what I expected to gain from speaking my mind there, because aside from a few people who asked genuine questions, everyone else was annoyed. Probably should have just posted it here.

--

Title: Emotionally drained by politics

For some context, I consider myself to hold left-leaning Christian and political viewpoints. I have gone through a journey of faith that has led me to re-evaluate conservative teachings and doctrine, which I no longer support or believe in. One of the most important values for me is mutual respect. I react negatively towards people who don't actively listen and hear out people who's values and beliefs are different than theirs. To be clear, active listening isn't tantamount to listening to agree, but rather listening to understand. It appears to me that this kind of listening is severely lacking not only in Christian circles, but in much of society today. I also hold above all other Scripture, the Great Commandment, and believe with my whole heart that loving your neighbor as yourself means loving every neighbor.

It of course bothers me greatly when I see Donald Trump calling Kamala Harris "mentally unwell since birth" or Donald Trump and JD Vance proclaim as fact that Haitian migrants in Springfield, OH, are eating dogs. But it also bothers me when I see pro-Palestinian activists circulating posters depicting a university president with devil horns and missiles (https://www.courant.com/2024/09/19/uconn-leaders-refuse-to-meet-with-pro-palestinian-protest-group-following-grotesque-antisemetic-imagery-depicting-university-president/), or those times when both Marjorie Taylor Green and Jasmine Crockett go back and forth taking personal jabs at each other, or even something like Tim Walz telling JD Vance to "get off the couch" and debate him. From my lived experience, acting in the manner that some of our politicians do is not fruitful and is not loving.

I recognize that the policies of the GOP are dangerous to minority groups in this country. I recognize that a Donald Trump presidency would threaten American democracy. But at the same time, I cannot help but feel like politics as a whole has become more about being right instead of making our country better. And part of making it better, I feel, is listening to not only people who hold the same values and beliefs, but also to people who don't. It appears to me that politicians are very quick to assume that all people who support the opposing party live in a vacuum, so they don't bother to hear them out. I have not seen a single Democrat or Republican candidate try to build bridges across the aisle in an effort to win over their vote. It seems like they're all cooped up in their respective echo chambers, only really caring about what it takes to get elected and nothing more.

I've actually decided not to vote at all this election. Respectfully, I am not looking to have my mind changed on this, as I've already heard and considered most of the usual arguments for why I should ("it's your civic duty" "Trump will win if you don't", "Vote the issues, not the person", etc). I live in a solidly blue state in New England. My congressperson has been in office for the past 15 years and has always won by a wide margin. Sure, there are my state and local offices, but I'm not convinced that anyone who's running would actually listen to the ideas that I have to make out state better. I think they're too busy catering to the interests of the party and wealthy donors.

I don't know, maybe what I'm seeking with this post is more understanding about my frustration than actual guidance. It's very hard for me to want to be invested in politics when it seems like all everyone wants to do is yell and scream at each other.

TL:DR This election season, due to all the personal attacks and inflammatory rhetoric and lack of mutual respect, has left me very politically disillusioned to the point where I don't want to vote anymore. Any understand or gentle guidance is appreciated.

Not voting at all

OK. I agree with you on Section 5, but your argument in Section 7 feels very weak to me. I'm 31M, I live in a solidly blue state, the people representing my Congressional District are all career politicians and have been so for decades. I have never had anyone come to my door canvassing for a candidate, and even if they did, I'd be as blunt about my decision to not vote as I am being with you. If a party wants to listen and understand what their constituents want, they would be holding open forums across the country where people can get together and actively listen and respond to each other's ideas. I see very little of that going on.

I'll be straight up with you too, I'm 100% politically disillusioned thanks to all the rage-baiting and bitterness and snark everyone is throwing at each other on social media. No one is critically thinking about making things better. It's all just mud-slinging and about who slings the most of it. I have ideas about how to make the issues facing our country better, but who in the hell is going to listen to me? I don't have money. I don't have power and influence. I mean nothing to the people we elect. And when we get third-party candidates who try to run, we get told "don't vote for them, you'll take votes away from my candidate hurr durr." So I ask you, what am I supposed to do with that? Because it seems like everyone wants me to keep endorsing our election system though it's clearly flawed. Well, if that's the case, then I choose not to participate in it anymore.

I'm sorry if it sounds like I'm rambling, but this a very emotional topic for me.

I'll be honest, your video didn't move me away from my decision to not vote this November. You regurgitated the same talking points that I've heard read online and I've heard from my own friends and family about why my decision to abstain is wrong. I get it. I understand that perspective completely. But I think that most people who will abstain from voting are doing so because (1) the politicians in office now, and the candidates running for office are more concerned about making personal or inflammatory or rage-bate-worthy attacks at the opposition as opposed to addressing specific matters of policy; and (2) our election system is no longer appropriate for how globalized, multicultural and nuanced Western society has become in the past century.

You offer no solution to either of these problems. You suggest nothing of platforming politicians who can actively listen, practice mutual respect, have kindness and compassion towards all people, that aren't funded by corporations or special-interest groups. What you are suggesting is just the status quo; you appear to want nothing more than the continued waging of the war between the two major parties and demanding everyone fall in line.

If I'm wrong in any of this, please tell me.

Jesus healed sinners and the demon-possessed with the instruction to sin no more. His miracles weren’t meant to be a blank check to go out to continue to sin.

I certainly agree with that. But the issue then, as with many others in the Christian ethos, is what does constitute sin? A traditionalist perspective is going to pull from orthodox teachings about sin, whereas a more liberal approach would involve understanding and analyzing the cultural context of the scripture that proports to declare something is a sin, and also through the lens that the Bible is the inspired word of God, written by people who were imperfect and may have embellished, editorialized, or understood God in a different perspective, while still viewing it in an overall authoritative light.

Im afraid i have to disagree. Partially for the reasons @ThisIsSin describes below, but more so because the entire theory and praxis of "Social Justice" revolves around tearing people down and promulgating individual injustices in the name of some greater good. I do not get the impression that Jesus would've been down with that at all.

Would you say that ending police brutality fits into this praxis? Would you say that ensuring low or no-cost healthcare for everyone fits into that praxis? Wouldn't these issues be something where Jesus would take the side of minority group?

Jesus explictly tells us that he doesn't hang out with whores, sinners, and tax-collectors (ie those who collaborate with the occupying regime) because he thinks that it is totes ok to be whorish, sinful, or a collaborator. He does it because it is the sick who need a doctor the most.

Yes, and I would consider that to be an example of intersectionality. He's bringing everyone in from all walks of life and instructing them on not only how to become better people, but to follow Him in all that they do.

Jesus accommodated every social standard of the day except for the ones he was explicitly sent to overturn [almost like trying to overturn others would be counterproductive in this regard]. You can see that by how He talks to women at fountains;

Interesting. What do you think of the times that he heals people -- people he knows to be sinners, unclean, or undesirable -- or when he calls Matthew, a tax collector, someone who at the time people viewed as an "elite" to follow him?

Coming from a Christian mindset, social justice is simply one of the many things Jesus would engage in during his time here on earth. People want to appropriate social justice to whatever philosophical ideology suits their worldview, and I just don't understand it. "Do the needful" comes to mind.

Thank you, that makes sense. It seems like the cultural Marxist in your example might be exaggerating the concerns of the parents whereas the traditionalist might be restraining the autonomy of the woman.

I apologize if this is too basic of a question, but why do any of these italicized concerns need to be associated with cultural Marxism? These all seem like legitimate issues that could be addressed without such a label. Like, each one of these probably happens at least once per day somewhere in the US.

So then, to you, what would not be an ideologically-driven narrative?

Chuck Todd wrote a fantastic op-ed about the current state of our political polarization: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/chuck-todd-unite-nation-trump-harris-election-rcna171303

It comes down to (1) Our acceptance embrace of inflammatory rhetoric to "own the [other side]", (2) our ever-present, chronically online culture, and (3) the spread of inflammatory rhetoric and disinformation propagate by big tech.

Some notable quotes:

"The problem with political discourse in America right now is that we are all stuck in a social media funhouse mirror booth. What we see isn’t what is, and how we’re seen isn’t who we are. And yet, here we are."

"But just because Trump started it doesn’t mean his opponents have the high moral ground when they single out him and some of his supporters for personal derision. I still want to live in a society where “two wrongs don’t make a right.”

"Come Jan. 21, we all are going to be living in the same country and sharing the same group of people as our elected representatives. We need leaders who accept that there are major political differences between us and that governing needs to be incremental and not radical.

"Right now, our political information ecosystem doesn’t reward incrementalism or nuance, instead punishing both and, more to the point, rewarding those who make up the best stories.

"Most Americans have an instinct of de-escalation when things get heated, and yet most elected officials in the modern era are incentivized to behave the opposite way."

MeToo platformed high-status women and gave them a voice to speak out about the corruption in the upper echelons of show business. It completely ignored the everyday people who have been victims of sexual assault, as well as the marginalized. It didn't do anything (or did the bare minimum) to help cis or trans men who were raped, prisoners who are raped, victims of human trafficking, victims who are poor and/or uneducated, or victims of child sexual abuse.

My favorite has been, "If Kamala wins, you get free healthcare," as if free healthcare for all would be a travesty of the common man.

Trump is winning among blue collar workers by nearly 20 points,

That's quite a stark contrast from the traditional Democrat playbook. IIRC Obama always polled well with blue-collar workers.

Very little, to be honest.

I mean, I don't like any of those things because I'm asexual, but even if I wasn't, I wouldn't take such a hard-line stance against such things. I don't understand the fixation that conservative Christians have with sex acts that aren't PIV. I just don't get it. If you don't like them, don't partake in them, but don't try and make someone else's life miserable just because you ascribe to those beliefs.