The ultimate stupidity of partisanship...

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Disclaimer 1: I know what I am about to write is pie-in-the-sky.

Disclaimer 2: I don't care that it "will never happen". Change only arises out of vision.

So, I've been thinking about the 'two tribes' mentality that we see all around us - on this message board, and out there in the real world of politics, economics, sociology, science, etc etc. You name any human activity and you will find that humans group ourselves into tribes, whether they be for social reasons, ideological reasons, economic reasons, whatever, and usually over time the smaller tribes migrate into two uber-tribes like Democrat v Republican, or in my country Liberal (conservative) v Labour (humanist), left v right, hawk v dove, hyper-consumer v greeny, etc.

Thinking about this led me to one standout question - WHY DO WE DO THIS? Why must we polarise everything? Why do we constantly seek to redefine the world as black/white, us/them? It seems to me that the oppositional, polar nature of the two tribe mentality leads not fruitful compe ion or good compromise, but rather to ideological entrenchment on both sides, regardless of the practicalities. In the end, being a member of one tribe means that you can't agree with anything the other tribe says, EVEN IF IT MAKES PERFECT SENSE!? WTF?

Something that gets lost in the 'two tribes' mentality is the fact that WE ARE ALL HUMANS - we come from the same species, we share roughly the same needs (food, water, shelter, something to do, someone to love), we have no choice but to share the same planet. And yet, we forget these very simple realities which are at the core of our being, and instead we lie, cheat, bicker and fight each other over trivialities like ideology or money. Again, WTF?

This century, humanity is going to face the greatest series of crises we have faced in the history of our species - overpopulation, resource depletion, climate change (which will result in mass-migration and famine), resource wars, social, international and intergenerational inequity, the spectre of nuclear conflict, just to name the big ones - and yet our two tribes mentality will actively hinder finding and implementing solutions to these problems.

In the second season of Battlestar Galactice, the cylon Sharon says to Adama:

"Humanity never stopped to ask itself the question why it deserves to survive."

Adama's answer was nebulous, but what he should have said is that there is no "deserve", there is just life, and life in all its forms fights to live on, and so that's what we do. There is no greater reason for it as far as I can see, although that is only my very personal, agnostic perspective on the issue, and I'm not trying to push it on anyone else. I'd love to hear how others respond to Sharon's statement.

Personally, I think humanity at its best is an absolute marvel, and to look at all that we humans have collectively achieved in the last 2000 years astonishes me. And therein lies the key - collectively (and no, I'm not suggesting communism), when we work together, we humans can do wonderful things. However, our partisanship continues to push us further from one another and break down our collective action.

We must be cognisant that we are entering a new age, an age where the planet we live on can no longer be considered an infinite and unperterbable resource for our exploitation, and an age in which we have to work out a way to balance the interests of ourselves against those of the next generation and the generation after them (and the one after them, etc.), but it is going to end horribly if we continue to think like two tribes and fight each other the whole way.

I know it will never happen (thus the opening disclaimers), but somehow we need to break down the partisan lines we stand behind and get together to find solutions to the crises we will face this century. How is the real question.

Comments?

[PixelPusher]

I agree with nearly everything you've said (I'm also glad to know someone else besides me loves the new Battlestar Galactica), but after you strip away every manner of tribal affiliation from the human race, there is still one very basic division that remains between two kinds of people:

Group A: Those who have empathy for others; who value people and things outside of themselves.

and

Group B: Those who lack empathy; who live as though the universe revolves around them. Utterly narcassistic.

Group A has the capacity to be just as self-centered as Group B (selfishness is a survival instinct), but is leavened by empathy, another survival instinct (necessary for complex social interaction and cooperation) that is also present in many other primate species.

For whatever reason, nature or nurture, Group B lacks the capacity for empathy. They can understand what it means, understand that others value it, and that pretending to care about others can benefit them personally, but at the end of the day, It is only all about them. It is not an accident that most positions of power are occupied by people from Group B.

I don't know the numbers, but I would guess that most of humanity falls into Group A. A's have a hard enough time grappling with, and rationalizing the contradictory aspects of our nature(good vs. evil?), but B's don't suffer that sort of inner turmoil, and thus seem to have an advantage over the rest of us. But that's a HUGE problem for the human race; B's will alway be limited in knowledge and ideas to that which only affects them personally, where as A's can include ideas beyond their personal sphere, thus increasing the chance for our survival.

Humanity has attained an ever increasing capacity to affect our environment, either accutely (nuclear war) or gradually (global warming, pollution, over-farming/fishing, etc.). A's share in the responsibility, to be sure, but at least their capacity for empathy gives them a chance to attain and apply the wisdom neccessary to survive. B's offer no chance.

[xrayzebra]

Well my friend from Down Under. I guess the same reason that the brides family
sit on one side of the church and grooms sits on the other.....

People are people. Birds of a feather flock together, heck, you know what
I mean.

Politics and politicians are mean, unforgiving things. Always have and
always will. Because both crave and demand power.

[Extra Stout]

Humans are provincial. Craven actors in power can prey upon our tribal instincts to turn us against our own interests.

[101A]

I agree with nearly everything you've said (I'm also glad to know someone else besides me loves the new Battlestar Galactica), but after you strip away every manner of tribal affiliation from the human race, there is still one very basic division that remains between two kinds of people:

Group A: Those who have empathy for others; who value people and things outside of themselves.

and

Group B: Those who lack empathy; who live as though the universe revolves around them. Utterly narcassistic.

Group A has the capacity to be just as self-centered as Group B (selfishness is a survival instinct), but is leavened by empathy, another survival instinct (necessary for complex social interaction and cooperation) that is also present in many other primate species.

For whatever reason, nature or nurture, Group B lacks the capacity for empathy. They can understand what it means, understand that others value it, and that pretending to care about others can benefit them personally, but at the end of the day, It is only all about them. It is not an accident that most positions of power are occupied by people from Group B.

I don't know the numbers, but I would guess that most of humanity falls into Group A. A's have a hard enough time grappling with, and rationalizing the contradictory aspects of our nature(good vs. evil?), but B's don't suffer that sort of inner turmoil, and thus seem to have an advantage over the rest of us. But that's a HUGE problem for the human race; B's will alway be limited in knowledge and ideas to that which only affects them personally, where as A's can include ideas beyond their personal sphere, thus increasing the chance for our survival.

Humanity has attained an ever increasing capacity to affect our environment, either accutely (nuclear war) or gradually (global warming, pollution, over-farming/fishing, etc.). A's share in the responsibility, to be sure, but at least their capacity for empathy gives them a chance to attain and apply the wisdom neccessary to survive. B's offer no chance.

So, who falls into group B - please name names - celebrities, politicians, posters on this board; I dont' want to hit too hard if I misunderstand who you are talking about.

[xrayzebra]

^^you cant figure that out. The Dimm-o-craps are group A and
the Republicans are group B. Obvious to the most casual observer.

[101A]

^^you cant figure that out. The Dimm-o-craps are group A and
the Republicans are group B. Obvious to the most casual observer.

I assumed, obviously, but didn't want to rail too much on his bigoted myopic selfrighteousness without confirming it.

[PixelPusher]

I assumed, obviously, but didn't want to rail too much on his bigoted myopic selfrighteousness without confirming it.

I purposely didn't make any associations because it's hard to distiguish the selfish behavior of both groups. Remember A's can be just as selfish and provencial as B's, it's just that A's can also be altruistic. As much as I oppose most of what the Bush Administration is doing, I'd bet money he's an "A".

[JoeChalupa]

Can't we all just get along?

[Zunni]

^^^^ THAT is naive.

[Guru of Nothing]

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Can't we all just get along?

That pretty much sums it up. If we could all get along, we could do great things, but because we can't we're ing the world up horribly.

As for your ideas pixelpusher, I think it's shades of grey from "utterly without empathy" to "obsessed with giving to others". An extreme example of the former is Charlie Manson, the latter Mother Theresa. I think it's a bit different to what I'm talking about tho.

I guess I'm more thinking about the way we adopt ideology and symbolism and icons in one frame of thought, and then exclude everything that is outside that frame, to the detriment of us all. We all do this to a greater or lesser extent. I guess I'm rebelling against the limitations of parochialism.

I'll use an example, basketball fans. Now as a Spurs fan I naturally don't like the Mavs for 100 reasons, the main one being my allegiance to the Spurs, but on the other hand I can admit that they have a fine team (Iespecially love to watch Howard), that AJ is a great coach who will have a long career in the NBA, and even that Mark Cuban's shaking things up has led to some good (and bad) for the NBA. Some people can't seperate their allegiance or parochialism from a more objective truth, see both sides in other words.

And in the context of the crises facing the world, there aren't just two sides to every problem, there are 10 or 20 or 50, and to solve these problems over the long-term we all need to do better at seeing all those different angles and appreciating the other side if we are ever to agree on things and make meaningful change for the better of all.

Oh well.

[turambar85]

That pretty much sums it up. If we could all get along, we could do great things, but because we can't we're ing the world up horribly.

As for your ideas pixelpusher, I think it's shades of grey from "utterly without empathy" to "obsessed with giving to others". An extreme example of the former is Charlie Manson, the latter Mother Theresa. I think it's a bit different to what I'm talking about tho.

I guess I'm more thinking about the way we adopt ideology and symbolism and icons in one frame of thought, and then exclude everything that is outside that frame, to the detriment of us all. We all do this to a greater or lesser extent. I guess I'm rebelling against the limitations of parochialism.

I'll use an example, basketball fans. Now as a Spurs fan I naturally don't like the Mavs for 100 reasons, the main one being my allegiance to the Spurs, but on the other hand I can admit that they have a fine team (Iespecially love to watch Howard), that AJ is a great coach who will have a long career in the NBA, and even that Mark Cuban's shaking things up has led to some good (and bad) for the NBA. Some people can't seperate their allegiance or parochialism from a more objective truth, see both sides in other words.

And in the context of the crises facing the world, there aren't just two sides to every problem, there are 10 or 20 or 50, and to solve these problems over the long-term we all need to do better at seeing all those different angles and appreciating the other side if we are ever to agree on things and make meaningful change for the better of all.

Oh well.

Bravo.

[turambar85]

Yes, I picked a pink ribboned chearleader to express my feelings...

Its not my damned fault we don't have a clapping smiley!

[turambar85]

Oh, there is a clapping smiley.

Well, its not my fault I'm a jackass!

[AFE7FATMAN]

Every single day, it's the same old shiznett. Bush sucks. No, CLINTON sucks. No, BUSH SUCKS! NO CLINTON SUCKS!!!! Blame this, blame that. Post an opinion, have it ripped apart by people who don't agree with you. Isn't this getting tiresome?

I mean, I know the election is coming up fast, and Dems are frothing at the jowels anticipating what could be called an upset, but they'll refer to as "common sense finally prevailing". So I can see why we're posting the way we do.
But there's no give or take. It's either black or white. You're either Republican or Democrat. Dumb or Dumber

And if you bother to halfass support someone's argument that you don't usually agree with,well it's ignored.

And I got to tell you.....normally I don't give a sh-it, but all these posters with not more than 5 years more or less of experience in ANYTHING other than going to school spouting their yaps, constantly on the offensive, insulting members who don't agree with them.

What's up with that? I've said many many times that I don't think military service should be a requirement to lead the country, but should it be required
before hyperventilating from people whose only true knowledge of Iraq was watching "Three Kings" while drunk....the more I just wish there was a draft.

I mean, you don't have to agree with me. , I think it's grand that you don't.

America wasn't founded on a bunch of nitwits sitting around a bar agreeing with one another. It's the radical concept that ideas matter.

That to disagree is a healthy thing. But somewhere along the line, we forgot what it means to "give and take".

It's all give give give give give or take, take, take take and if you don't like it you're an idiot who should STFU.

Oh, and the insults. I'm guilty at times, I admit it. I get carried away and throw out the "shut up you smucking jackass. But Jesus Henry Christ. Can you freakin' disagree with out referring to someone as an idiot?

Or how about someone disagrees with you, you take the time to understand why instead of reverting to "STFU about stuff you don't know about."

Well, .....I could tell you from memory how to get from the Cam Rahn Bay to Nha Trang and back with a stop at a local village for some goodtimes. I can tell you where you'd better be looking out, and where you can doze off. I can tell you exactly what the sound of an IED going off is like or an AK-47 being fired at you.

Yet, my support for the war is met with STFU most days and accusations of being a Republican lackey who gets all his news from Fox News (which, by the way is not the only news source that is biased and makes sh-it up).

Now, you don't have to care that I've been there and you haven't been in a BDU.
I don't ask that you be impressed. It doesn't impress me.

What DOES impress me is how many that support this thing that are written off as hacks or idiots and those that don't as un-american.

We've got 10 post wonders who post tiresome drivel about how they hate Bush.

Posters that mention in every thread how Rumsfeld is an idiot, which dam well might be true.

Posters who don't make a lot of/or any sense, but somehow manage to carry on.

, we've even got posters that defend trolls if their material fits an agenda they're supporting.

Maybe it's just me. Probably I'm just whining to whine and see my own words before me. I'm so impressed with myself, I can hardly stand it.

But the feeling I'm getting is that despite what the polls say or what the election result will be.

Come November 8th, we're not going to be on the way to anything better. Because I hate you and you hate me (what a fu-cked up coun-ta-reee!) and it's not going to change anytime soon.

If this forum is a reflection of us as a society, then we're fu-cked. No, really. One half hates the other half and is doing whatever it takes to ruin/mock their opposition.

Maybe it's just the pre-election blues.

How gawddamned depressing it is to see what really gets these clowns elected.

It's not about America anymore. It's about the party.

Which smells of Communism....where our loyalty to party stands higher than our loyalty to God and Country. OOPS! Mentioned God. Sorry all you atheists, but I believe in God.

That does not make me a right wing extremist.

Tell you what. You want to go to the polls in a couple Tuesdays and vote down the line for a "D" or an "R". That's your perogative.

Can't stop ya. But as for me and what you know about me from my tiresome and trite postings.....don't think you know who I am.

Yes I watch Fox News, listen to Bill O'Reilly, I never listen to Rush and I think Karl Rove is creepy, if not a criminal. I dis-like John Kerry, long time grudge,
can't stand Wes Clarke, respect John McClain, for where he has been, but won't vote for him, and to tell the truth, right now I'm leaning to Hillary

I think we need to CHANGE THE COURSE in Iraq, but I believe in what we're trying to do, as I Understand it. I dam well support the troops.

And MY votes on November 7th will be for the slightly lesser of two evils in an attempt to get this country in a good direction, and you can dam well bet it won't be based on sound bites, and I'll admit my emotions might just get envolved.

Regardless of the PARTY affiliations I see before me.

[turambar85]

Thanks, I just lost 3 hours of my life reading your novel of a post.

In all seriousness, though I disagree with a bit of it, and think that most of your ire, though cleverly disguised, is aimed towards the left, it is a solid, thoughtful post.