WorkingTogether: Difference between revisions

From Traxel Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 107: Line 107:
** Go Be Religious, Fine, But Leave Me Alone: https://old.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/170l1j1/americas_nonreligious_are_a_growing_diverse/k3l6zvb/
** Go Be Religious, Fine, But Leave Me Alone: https://old.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/170l1j1/americas_nonreligious_are_a_growing_diverse/k3l6zvb/
* Commentator: Be Religious, but Leave Me Alone: https://old.reddit.com/r/SipsTea/comments/1734bws/this_woman_is_awesome/
* Commentator: Be Religious, but Leave Me Alone: https://old.reddit.com/r/SipsTea/comments/1734bws/this_woman_is_awesome/
* Belief Maintenance Comparison: https://old.reddit.com/r/clevercomebacks/comments/17p1dem/definitely_atheists_that_do_this/

Revision as of 15:45, 6 November 2023

Working Together

  • vegan / pro-life
  • anti-gun / anti-car
  • religious freedom / lgbtq freedom

Theme

Option: "So I married an axe murderer..."

Tongue-in-cheek - Oh no - I found out I believed something that was not true. How do I deal with that?

Presidential Libraries

Concern for U.S. democracy amid deep national polarization has prompted the entities supporting 13 presidential libraries dating back to Herbert Hoover to call for a recommitment to the country’s bedrock principles, including the rule of law and respecting a diversity of beliefs.

The statement released Thursday, the first time the libraries have joined to make such a public declaration, said Americans have a strong interest in supporting democratic movements and human rights around the world because “free societies elsewhere contribute to our own security and prosperity here at home.”

“But that interest,” it said, “is undermined when others see our own house in disarray.”

The joint message from presidential centers, foundations and institutes emphasized the need for compassion, tolerance and pluralism while urging Americans to respect democratic institutions and uphold secure and accessible elections.

Vegan v. Pro-Life

Anti-Gun v. Anti-Car

Self Care v. Other Blame

The topic for this section isn't great, but I'm leaving it like that for now.

Note: OP = Poster = the person describing the problem.

Some key points:

  1. Every person has a right to exit a romance at any time for any reason or no reason.
  2. If the situation is exactly as the OP described in the Reddit post, then there is little to disagree with.
  3. Even if the situation is not objectively as described; if the relationship is not working and the path to making it work is unclear, blocked, or too costly - leaving is good.
  4. Critical Analysis
    1. People tend to see things 30% in their own favor.
    2. The post could have been written from a place of hurt and that could color the narrative.
    3. The poster may need support and affirmation to do what needs to be done, and that might lead them to color the narrative to ensure that they get the support they need.
    4. The poster talks about telling their partner about their needs, but does not mention asking about the partner's needs.
  5. Possible Causes
    1. The situation is exactly as described. The partner is a narcissist. Exit post haste.
    2. The situation is mostly as described. The partner has problems, but so does the poster. The relationship is toxic, even if the partner is less completely to blame than presented. Exit because the relationship doesn't work, but vilifying the partner may be unwarranted.
    3. The partner has a reason for using those lights that is important to them. The partner is wounded and aggrieved, perhaps as much or more so than the poster. It still may be best to exit the relationship, but the poster may have problems finding a healthy relationship.
  6. About the TwoX Response
    1. It could be helpful. If TwoX is meant to be a safe space where you don't get kicked when you're down and you get support when you need it to get through hard things, it did that admirably.
    2. It could be harmful. If TwoX is meant to help people grow and develop, being challenged is a necessary part of the process.
    3. It could be an echo chamber. If a collection of people coalesce around a set of ideas, they may be inclined to see the world in a particular way. This can lead to monoculture problems, such as being an enabler even while thinking you are being appropriately challenging.
    4. Do you need to be hugged, heard, or helped?
    5. When does support become indulgence? When does indulgence engender entitlement? How should indulgence echo chambers be identified and improved?

Party versus Party

John Fetterman

John, I want to be with you, but there is a foreign policy matter that is associated with professional demeanor. I'm not going to go all the way out to requiring a suit, but I do think that professional attire is warranted for Senators. If you want to change the limits of the Senate dress code, start with something less far out than a hoodie. This isn't about civil rights where the right answer is absolutely equality and its just right to expect the whole thing, this is a debate we should have as a society. I can understand opening that discussion, but why not open the discussion by wearing an open-neck button up shirt with no jacket?

When a tradition is not significantly harmful to a human right, it is better to show a degree of respect for others with whom you disagree, while clearly expressing your disagreement. That can be done without a significant cost to anyone by dressing in a fashion that supports our intended foreign image projection without meeting the Senate Dress Code. It may be necessary to be sufficiently visual that it can be seen on C-SPAN live coverage of the floor. But it doesn't have to be sportswear to make the point, unless there is some specific harm from the inability to wear hoodies, which I would need to hear strong evidence to believe.

LEOs

What are the ideal societal guardrails for behavior around LEOs? How do we recognize LEOs who are exceptional representatives of policing, and how do we "manage out" those who dishonor the badge?

Positivity About LEOs

I want people who are vocally critical of LEOs, whose identity is associated with seeking justice on behalf of those who believe they have been victimized by LEOs, to present cases where police officers have done good under difficult circumstances, especially above and beyond the call. I also want the stories of LEOs who were accused, and who may even be guilty, but who should be afforded the benefit of the doubt. I want to hear sympathy for the person who wears the badge, presented by people who are not naturally sympathetic.

Critical Evaluation of LEOs

I want people who are vocally supportive of LEOs, people whose identity is associated with seeking justice for LEOs, to present cases where police officers have done wrong when they had a clear opportunity to do right, especially when doing right would have been the easier thing. I also want to hear stories of LEOs who have benefited from the Blue Wall of Silence and are are guilty of crimes. I want to hear support for punishment of those who have dishonored the badge, presented by people who believe those cases are exceptionally rare.

Religious Liberty v LGBTQ Liberty

  • Ezekiel 16:49-50: "the sin of Sodom was pride, laziness, and gluttony, having abundance but not helping the poor."

Reddit Links

Retrieved from "https://wiki.traxel.com/index.php?title=WorkingTogether&oldid=3314"