The Surprising Cure for Political Division | Psychology Today

[Hume]

He is dividing it deliberately. He talked about us against them. He pushes, hating the left. and demonizes them with insulting and childish names which are used on this board tirelessly. Not buillshit, but a plan carried out by the right.

Like I said, it is Trump, not the nation.

 

[Scott]

I agree that injustices are frequently perpetrated because of previous injustices. The only thing we can do is try to stop the cycle of injustices- in general, people can't do that on the national level, but we -can- try to be nicer to the people we interact with and also refrain from responding in kind we are attacked verbally.

We can do it nationally but we don't have the stomach for it.

I think this very forum is a good example of the problem- both sides generally insist that the other side is the most if not all of the problem. It's certainly convenient, but it results in not much understanding taking place.

 

[Scott]

No, I'm not making that assumption at all. I'm simply saying that, prior to 2004, no U.S. state allowed same sex marriage. Now, every state allows it, with the only holdouts being the American Samoa U.S. territory and some native tribal lands.

Right and the law didn't prevent gay people from marrying because they were gay.

I suspect that, consciously or unconsciously, you're trying to avoid the point I'm trying to convey. The U.S. used to prohibit 2 people of the same sex from marrying. That's now changed for the most part. I for one think that's a good thing.

Also no state allowed marrying animals either should we legalize the too?

You are clearly trying to equate people of the same sex being allowed to marry with people being allowed to marry animals. I think it's safe to say that most people don't equate these 2 things.

 

[Scott]

the political division and split in American society is a deliberate design by the Federalist Society and Supreme Court Justice John Roberts.

It is directly tied to 'unlimited dark money in politics', and 'extreme gerrymandering'.

When you allow extreme gerrymandering creating safe seats it REQUIRES a politician trying to be successful to appeal and spur on the extremes in their party. You simply will not win trying to be a centrist or uniter.

the reason they are pushing is because they want to remake the US governance system of one of 'minority rule forever' seeing the threat that America was heading towards being a majority minority country.

That was something they could not tolerate as it was clear for the Republicans to continue winning they would have to embrace brown and black people and women voters and maybe even promote them to top positions including running for POTUS.

For the hard core right racists and misogynists (Steven Miller types) that was a no go. Better to break the system then embrace winning with a big tent diverse party, which they really had a good chance to do.

You seem to think that the problem is one mainly if not entirely caused by powerful men, whereas I think that the problem lies in pretty much all the people on both sides of the fence who dislike or outright hate each other because of their different views. This reminds me of a line from a movie I really liked, The English Patient:
**
We’re the real countries.

Not the boundaries drawn on maps, the names of powerful men.
**

Source:

The English Patient (1996) | Transcript - Scraps from the loft

At the close of World War II, a young nurse tends to a badly-burned plane crash victim. His past is shown in flashbacks, revealing an involvement in a fateful love affair.

scrapsfromtheloft.com

 

[Scott]

He is dividing it deliberately. He talked about us against them. He pushes, hating the left. and demonizes them with insulting and childish names which are used on this board tirelessly. Not buillshit, but a plan carried out by the right.

Are you suggesting that Trump is the only one who demonizes his opponents? I see such demonization here on both sides on a daily basis.

 

[QP!]

You seem to think that the problem is one mainly if not entirely caused by powerful men, whereas I think that the problem lies in pretty much all the people on both sides of the fence who dislike or outright hate each other because of their different views. This reminds me of a line from a movie I really liked, The English Patient:
**
We’re the real countries.

Not the boundaries drawn on maps, the names of powerful men.
**

Source:

The English Patient (1996) | Transcript - Scraps from the loft

At the close of World War II, a young nurse tends to a badly-burned plane crash victim. His past is shown in flashbacks, revealing an involvement in a fateful love affair.

scrapsfromtheloft.com

Those people have always existed but it is just that over the last few decades they were pushed further and further to the margins and felt it was necessary to not make their toxic views known in public. That was exemplified by shows like All in the Family, where Archie Bunker was portrayed as the somewhat lovable bigot that every family member and friend laughed at and tolerated for their bigoted views. They never had any delusions they were the main stream or should be shaping society.

What extreme gerrymandering has done has not only told all the Archie Bunkers, and much worse, that they are the ones who are right, but that they should be the ones shaping society. It REQUIRES politician run by feeding that type of sentiment and when you have the leaders, Politicians, campaigning to your worst instincts, telling you are right, and that they can implement your world view, you end up with intractable positions.

When those intractable positions are ones of bigotry, racism, sexism obviously then you will get extreme hate coming from the other extreme end and thus the wars we now see the US stuck in.

And it is going to get much worse as the Supreme Court is almost certain going to destroy the remnants of the voting rights act allowing the most extreme gerrymandering including race.

This is all by design by the SC who want to take the power away from the 'voters to choose their politicians' and instead want the 'politicians to choose their voters'. The end of true democracy in an attempt to secure minority rule as America continues towards being a minority majority country.

 

[Scott]

You seem to think that the problem is one mainly if not entirely caused by powerful men, whereas I think that the problem lies in pretty much all the people on both sides of the fence who dislike or outright hate each other because of their different views. This reminds me of a line from a movie I really liked, The English Patient:
**
We’re the real countries.

Not the boundaries drawn on maps, the names of powerful men.
**

Source:

The English Patient (1996) | Transcript - Scraps from the loft

At the close of World War II, a young nurse tends to a badly-burned plane crash victim. His past is shown in flashbacks, revealing an involvement in a fateful love affair.

scrapsfromtheloft.com

Those people have always existed but it is just that over the last few decades they were pushed further and further to the margins and felt it was necessary to not make their toxic views known in public. That was exemplified by shows like All in the Family, where Archie Bunker was portrayed as the somewhat lovable bigot that every family member and friend laughed at and tolerated for their bigoted views. They never had any delusions they were the main stream or should be shaping society.

What extreme gerrymandering has done has not only told all the Archie Bunkers, and much worse, that they are the ones who are right, but that they should be the ones shaping society. It REQUIRES politician run by feeding that type of sentiment and when you have the leaders, Politicians, campaigning to your worst instincts, telling you are right, and that they can implement your world view, you end up with intractable positions.

When those intractable positions are ones of bigotry, racism, sexism obviously then you will get extreme hate coming from the other extreme end and thus the wars we now see the US stuck in.

And it is going to get much worse as the Supreme Court is almost certain going to destroy the remnants of the voting rights act allowing the most extreme gerrymandering including race.

This is all by design by the SC who want to take the power away from the 'voters to choose their politicians' and instead want the 'politicians to choose their voters'. The end of true democracy in an attempt to secure minority rule as America continues towards being a minority majority country.

Alright, so I think you're saying that part of the problem is people who are on the extremes, whether left or right. Fine, but how about that a lot of the posters do here, which is the tendency to engage in personal attacks on each other- don't you think that's a big part of the problem?

 

[QP!]

Alright, so I think you're saying that part of the problem is people who are on the extremes, whether left or right. Fine, but how about that a lot of the posters do here, which is the tendency to engage in personal attacks on each other- don't you think that's a big part of the problem?

Civility or the lack thereof on chat sites and social media is a symptom and not a cause.

People are reacting to real world attacks going on, against the people they see imposing on them.

For example, if this Supreme Court was to take away gay marriage rights and other rights they have and also make it so black people their, one person, one vote, rights, the fact that gays and blacks might rage online against those cheering and justifying those rights losses is simply those people using their free speech rights to express their frustration and anger.

If you are trying to say 'ya but it would be nice if people were more cordial', i would say 'sure'. But there is also a time for cordiality to fall away in the face of true threats.

 

[Scott]

Civility or the lack thereof on chat sites and social media is a symptom and not a cause.

People are reacting to real world attacks going on, against the people they see imposing on them.

For example, if this Supreme Court was to take away gay marriage rights and other rights they have and also make it so black people their, one person, one vote, rights, the fact that gays and blacks might rage online against those cheering and justifying those rights losses is simply those people using their free speech rights to express their frustration and anger.

If you are trying to say 'ya but it would be nice if people were more cordial', i would say 'sure'. But there is also a time for cordiality to fall away in the face of true threats.

Alright, I can agree that there is a time when cordiality is more an impediment, especially if people just use it to take advantage of you. But I think that when it comes to conversations online, the reverse is generally true- that is, that engaging in personal attacks actually impedes us from making real progress in conversations.

First, I think we need to establish why we converse with each other to begin with. I'm no expert, but from where I stand, I think the main reason is to exchange information. The problem of insulting people we communicate with is that it tends to get us to "raise our defenses" and to automatically distrust what the insulter has to say.

This is why I've come to the conclusion that when it comes to online discussions, trying to establish a civility baseline is so important. Only then is it likely that conversations will actually lead anywhere productive instead of an endless cycle of insults.

 

[QP!]

Alright, I can agree that there is a time when cordiality is more an impediment, especially if people just use it to take advantage of you. But I think that when it comes to conversations online, the reverse is generally true- that is, that engaging in personal attacks actually impedes us from making real progress in conversations.

First, I think we need to establish why we converse with each other to begin with. I'm no expert, but from where I stand, I think the main reason is to exchange information. The problem of insulting people we communicate with is that it tends to get us to "raise our defenses" and to automatically distrust what the insulter has to say.

This is why I've come to the conclusion that when it comes to online discussions, trying to establish a civility baseline is so important. Only then is it likely that conversations will actually lead anywhere productive instead of an endless cycle of insults.

I agree generally but with a huge caveat.

What you say requires good faith actors on both side of the conversation.

We have some here who will argue one day, 'No victim, No crime' when it comes to Trump defrauding banks and insurance companies by submitting fraudulent loan docs, and then argue the very next day that 'Letisha James committed fraud for submitting fraudulent docs (not proven) despite the FACT the banks have got all their payments.'

When you are engaged with that level of pure dishonesty civility is irrelevant to the good faith exchange of information.

There are other online spaces you can find that type of real debate, in good faith, win or lose on your position.

 

[Scott]

Alright, I can agree that there is a time when cordiality is more an impediment, especially if people just use it to take advantage of you. But I think that when it comes to conversations online, the reverse is generally true- that is, that engaging in personal attacks actually impedes us from making real progress in conversations.

First, I think we need to establish why we converse with each other to begin with. I'm no expert, but from where I stand, I think the main reason is to exchange information. The problem of insulting people we communicate with is that it tends to get us to "raise our defenses" and to automatically distrust what the insulter has to say.

This is why I've come to the conclusion that when it comes to online discussions, trying to establish a civility baseline is so important. Only then is it likely that conversations will actually lead anywhere productive instead of an endless cycle of insults.

I agree generally but with a huge caveat.

What you say requires good faith actors on both side of the conversation.

We have some here who will argue one day, 'No victim, No crime' when it comes to Trump defrauding banks and insurance companies by submitting fraudulent loan docs, and then argue the very next day that 'Letisha James committed fraud for submitting fraudulent docs (not proven) despite the FACT the banks have got all their payments.'

When you are engaged with that level of pure dishonesty civility is irrelevant to the good faith exchange of information.

There are other online spaces you can find that type of real debate, in good faith, win or lose on your position.

I don't follow a lot of what Trump has or hasn't done, let alone what his supporters think of each thing- I'm pretty sure that part of the reason is that I'm not American. But what I can say is that generally speaking, the truth is much easier to uncover when people refrain from insulting each other. The reason is relatively straightforward- insults tend to distract from the actual subject being discussed.

 

[QP!]

I don't follow a lot of what Trump has or hasn't done, let alone what his supporters think of each thing- I'm pretty sure that part of the reason is that I'm not American. But what I can say is that generally speaking, the truth is much easier to uncover when people refrain from insulting each other. The reason is relatively straightforward- insults tend to distract from the actual subject being discussed.

What you say is a general truism but with one deep flaw. It requires people on the other side who are open to the 'truth' and 'facts' and 'data' and the Magats here are cultists who are not interested in any of it.

It is absolutely accurate to say if they were standing outside in the sun beside Trump and he said it was raining, they too would say it was raining and no amount of civility would get them to acknowledge anything else.

They reverse on the position they took yesterday, when Trump reverses and then switch back the next day, when Trump again switches.

 

[domer76]

Like I said, it is Trump, not the nation.

I’ll have to disagree. Trump didn’t create these people. He revealed them. These fucks have always been here. Trump just normalized their behavior. It became permissible for them to crawl out from under their rocks

 

[Scott]

I don't follow a lot of what Trump has or hasn't done, let alone what his supporters think of each thing- I'm pretty sure that part of the reason is that I'm not American. But what I can say is that generally speaking, the truth is much easier to uncover when people refrain from insulting each other. The reason is relatively straightforward- insults tend to distract from the actual subject being discussed.

What you say is a general truism but with one deep flaw. It requires people on the other side who are open to the 'truth' and 'facts' and 'data' and the Magats here are cultists who are not interested in any of it.

Don't you see that you're falling into the same trap as so many others here? If you'd simply said Magas without the t, it would been ok, but by adding that one t, you insult everyone whose professed goal is just to Make America Great Again. I'm fine with criticizing Trump's policies and saying that he didn't live up to his promise to "Make America Great Again", though I do think he did -some- good things, such as nominate RFK Jr. as Secretary for HHS. But it's another thing entirely to insult everyone who believes or at least believed in the MAGA slogan. The sad thing is that this may galvanize people who are actually becoming somewhat disappointed in Trump and his Administration to keep on defending him.

I think you know that I have positions on the left and the right, which in a way makes it absolute poison for me to blanket insult either side, as I'd essentially be insulting myself to some extent. But even if you are "fully" left or right, insulting the other side only makes it harder to have productive discussions with those we disagree with on any given subject.

It is absolutely accurate to say if they were standing outside in the sun beside Trump and he said it was raining, they too would say it was raining and no amount of civility would get them to acknowledge anything else.

They reverse on the position they took yesterday, when Trump reverses and then switch back the next day, when Trump again switches.

I've seen posters in this very forum who were pretty strong Trump supporters now acknowledge that they have become disappointed in Trump, especially concerning his handling of the Epstein issue. But remember, I see those on the right as allies on some issues, so it stands to reason that I'm much more attentive to any changes of opinion when it comes to what I'll call the dark side of Trump. I think of all of this a little like Luke Skywalker coming to terms that Vader his father as well as coming to terms with the darkness within himself. It was these twin acknowledgements that finally led to Luke's realization that his father, though clearly wrong in many things, still had something worth saving and this realization, in turn, led to Vader doing something heroic during his final moments. I think Friedrich Nietzsche's following lines also go a long way to what I'm trying to convey here:
**
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
**

Source:

https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/friedrich_nietzsche_124387

 

[Scott]

I’ll have to disagree. Trump didn’t create these people. He revealed them.

I agree with that, in part. But Trump certainly wasn't the only force involved. I think that Chris Hedges, who's on the left, wrote a good article on what drove many to support Trump. It's here:

Chris Hedges: The Politics of Cultural Despair

It is despair that is killing us. It fosters what Roger Lancaster calls “poisoned solidarity,” the intoxication forged from the negative energies of fear, envy, hatred and a lust for violence.

scheerpost.com

 

[QP!]

Don't you see that you're falling into the same trap as so many others here? If you'd simply said Magas without the t, it would been ok, but by adding that one t, you insult everyone whose professed goal is just to Make America Great Again. I'm fine with criticizing Trump's policies and saying that he didn't live up to his promise to "Make America Great Again", though I do think he did -some- good things, such as nominate RFK Jr. as Secretary for HHS. But it's another thing entirely to insult everyone who believes or at least believed in the MAGA slogan. The sad thing is that this may galvanize people who are actually becoming somewhat disappointed in Trump and his Administration to keep on defending him.

I think you know that I have positions on the left and the right, which in a way makes it absolute poison for me to blanket insult either side, as I'd essentially be insulting myself to some extent. But even if you are "fully" left or right, insulting the other side only makes it harder to have productive discussions with those we disagree with on any given subject.



I've seen posters in this very forum who were pretty strong Trump supporters now acknowledge that they have become disappointed in Trump, especially concerning his handling of the Epstein issue. But remember, I see those on the right as allies on some issues, so it stands to reason that I'm much more attentive to any changes of opinion when it comes to what I'll call the dark side of Trump. I think of all of this a little like Luke Skywalker coming to terms that Vader his father as well as coming to terms with the darkness within himself. It was these twin acknowledgements that finally led to Luke's realization that his father, though clearly wrong in many things, still had something worth saving and this realization, in turn, led to Vader doing something heroic during his final moments. I think Friedrich Nietzsche's following lines also go a long way to what I'm trying to convey here:
**
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
**

Source:

https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/friedrich_nietzsche_124387

Like i said, you seem to be making the mistake that these magats are good faith actors and think if we deal with them with them in a more cordial way, then we will get better results in debate.

The magats on this forum are not here to discuss anything in good faith.

They will literally swing from saying 'grooming and pedophilia is one of our biggest issues', to 'we do not care about grooming and pedophilia and you can even give people arrested for it special treatment', one day after saying the former, if Trumps position has swung.

As Trump now aligns with John Bolton, who is cheering as Trump moves to a NeoCon wet dream of projecting outward power in our hemisphere, these same America First magats, who pretended they were so, SO against any foreign entanglements and wanted a focus at home now are in full support mode of the NeoCon wet dream as Trump threatens Venezuela and countries in Africa.

You are seeing posters here i am not with regards to them veering from Trump.

 

[Scott]

Like i said, you seem to be making the mistake that these magats are good faith actors and think if we deal with them with them in a more cordial way, then we will get better results in debate.

I certainly believe that many of those who profess to want to Make America Great Again, aka MAGA, are good faith actors. I'll be removing the t from your insult word to try to foster some constructive dialogue from this...

The [magas] on this forum are not here to discuss anything in good faith.

They will literally swing from saying 'grooming and pedophilia is one of our biggest issues', to 'we do not care about grooming and pedophilia and you can even give people arrested for it special treatment', one day after saying the former, if Trumps position has swung.

So you say, but I've actually seen posters in this very forum express disappointment in how Trump has been handling the Epstein issue, and that's also been expressed in the wider MAGA movement as well.

As Trump now aligns with John Bolton, who is cheering as Trump moves to a NeoCon wet dream of projecting outward power in our hemisphere, these same America First magats, who pretended they were so, SO against any foreign entanglements and wanted a focus at home now are in full support mode of the NeoCon wet dream as Trump threatens Venezuela and countries in Africa.

I'd say that Venezuela is at least on the American continent. I still think what Trump is doing there is dumb, but it's at least on the same continent.

You are seeing posters here i am not with regards to them veering from Trump.

On that, we are in agreement.

 

[QP!]

I certainly believe that many of those who profess to want to Make America Great Again, aka MAGA, are good faith actors. I'll be removing the t from your insult word to try to foster some constructive dialogue from this...



So you say, but I've actually seen posters in this very forum express disappointment in how Trump has been handling the Epstein issue, and that's also been expressed in the wider MAGA movement as well.



I'd say that Venezuela is at least on the American continent. I still think what Trump is doing there is dumb, but it's at least on the same continent.



On that, we are in agreement.

Ya we definitely are not seeing the same thing. If you can find an Epstein chat and quote a post of these people you say are breaking away, i would love to see it?

Or the Ghislaine Maxwell chats? You have one of the most notorious groomer/pedophiles meeting with Trumps personal attorney/DoJ and getting a an absolute sweet heart deal after FOR WHAT? Why move her to a club Fed, she is otherwise banned from being in and then supply her, in that facility perks that regular prisoners in even that prison do not get?

Try and find any magat outrage over that? Try and find them even saying it is wrong???

If this was any POTUS but Trump these same magats would rightly lose their mind over this. What could be more blatant than giving a notorious pedophile suspected of having compromising information on wealth men, such special treatment she has no business getting???

 

[Yakuda]

I think this very forum is a good example of the problem- both sides generally insist that the other side is the most if not all of the problem. It's certainly convenient, but it results in not much understanding taking place.

Well I'd agree both sides play the name game but that doesn't necessarily mean the effect of that behavior is the same. Can you honestly say that democrats have done anything to cooperatively work with trump? Or is it more that the left has done nothing but thrown obstacles in his way? Be honest.

 

[Truth Detector]

I definitely think more of this is needed. Quoting part of it that I thought was quite interesting, followed by a bit of commentary...

**
A real example: How money brought two political opposites together

Before the last presidential election, I attended a personal finance conference. I spent time with a podcaster I admire—someone who sees the world the way I do when it comes to money, family, meaningful work, and the value of helping others. We were part of the same community of purpose.


When he casually mentioned he supported a presidential candidate I strongly opposed, I was stunned.

If the conversation had taken place online, I probably would have unfollowed him. If he’d been a stranger, I might have dismissed him as uninformed or malicious.

But he wasn’t a stranger. I knew him. I trusted who he was.


Instead of shutting down, we talked. Really talked.

Our conversation wasn’t tense. It wasn’t angry. It wasn’t about humiliating or converting the other person. We were curious. We tried to understand. And even though neither of us changed our mind, both of us walked away feeling respected and strangely optimistic.

There’s a name for what we created in that moment: Common ground.

Common ground doesn’t require agreement

It just requires humanity.

And yet, this type of connection is becoming rare. We’re more isolated than ever. Social media replaced social clubs. Streaming replaced community gatherings. Many of us left organized religion, long-term corporate culture, and neighborhoods where people once actually talked to each other.


Even when we want connection, we don’t know where to find it anymore.

A 2025 report from the Urban Institute put it bluntly: Americans now spend less time with other people than at any point in the last 60 years. Social connection is “in decline.”

Of course, politics feels toxic. We’re arguing with strangers, not neighbors. We are debating without relationships, without trust, without grace.
**

Source:

The Surprising Cure for Political Division

Bridging America’s political divide starts with purpose-driven communities that connect through shared passions to foster understanding, dialogue, and empathy.

www.psychologytoday.com

Now, here, in this forum, we may never meet a single other poster in person. However, I think that if we try to approach the problem in the same way, we could still get similar results. In other words, to try to see where we agree, not just where we disagree and to give others the benefit of the doubt instead of automatically believing that because they hold x or y believe that we don't agree with, they must automatically be someone to be looked down on or ignored.

How does one debate or agree with mentally unstable morons on the left claiming anyone who disagrees with their Socilaistic failures is a Fascist, a Hitler, a Dictator?

You have a very misguided and naive point of view that one hopes with age you will grow out of.