Divisiveness is now...good?

Is the current level of divisiveness good for the country?


  • Total voters
    58
Are you saying that both sides haven't been a part of it in both the mentioned cases? If you aren't saying that then there's no point in bringing it up as it won't affect the question, since it's just asking if the same criticism is valid when the roles are reversed in the same kind of problematic context.
"Dont talk about it be about it"

I'm done
 
Trump is president. The libs have nothing to run on so they try to impeach him for anything. No ones cares about hoes he banged 20 years ago, we only voted for him to trigger you

So you voted for him based on his divisiveness. Confirming the premise of the thread?
 
The division is beyond broad or narrow interpretation now, though. That's why I chose this to draw a box around, because it's the most obvious and undeniable feature of today's politics, and because it eclipses any political division we've seen in a long time, with the exception of Bush/Iraq War, which is a more normal and necessary subject for division.

I think that's a really good distinction you made between Obama & Trump. It's another way of saying that "division is now good" because it's considered an end in its own right, a desirable political climate rather than a byproduct of controversial leadership.

Yea, after I posted, I realized you were trying to frame a prior line of thinking you saw others make and that's why you phrased it that way rather than it being your own opinion.

I'm just trying to say it isn't inherently bad as unity might not be inherently good either. The purpose does matter and I think that's where we are seeing the largest change from past presidents to this one. Problem is, some people see being unapologetic as great even if the substance of what is being said isn't that great. They take more value in the presentation.

I also think what you find with this thread is the people who found Obama divisive will think it's okay to counter back with being divisive (fight fire with fire). If they truly thought divisiveness itself was the problem with Obama, then I don't see how that could be defended.
 
Are you saying that both sides haven't been a part of it in both the mentioned cases? If you aren't saying that then there's no point in bringing it up as it won't affect the question, since it's just asking if the same criticism is valid when the roles are reversed in the same kind of problematic context.
To tag this & reiterate from the OP, I'm fine with accounting for some of the natural partisan hypocrisy, it happens. This is probably the strongest case of role reversal we have available, made stronger by taking it as a given (for the sake of argument) that Obama was divisive.
 
Shit is ugly right now I don't know what else to say?

<{hfved}>

Only hope now is an alien invasion.

UnfoldedOrganicAcornweevil-size_restricted.gif
 
Yea, after I posted, I realized you were trying to frame a prior line of thinking you saw others make and that's why you phrased it that way rather than it being your own opinion.

I'm just trying to say it isn't inherently bad as unity might not be inherently good either. The purpose does matter and I think that's where we are seeing the largest change from past presidents to this one. Problem is, some people see being unapologetic as great even if the substance of what is being said isn't that great. They take more value in the presentation.

I also think what you find with this thread is the people who found Obama divisive will think it's okay to counter back with being divisive (fight fire with fire). If they truly thought divisiveness itself was the problem with Obama, then I don't see how that could be defended.
You couldn't criticize Obama for ANYTHING on here without people like the TS pulling the R card. Now they want to play nice after throwing gas on the fire.
 
Yea, after I posted, I realized you were trying to frame a prior line of thinking you saw others make and that's why you phrased it that way rather than it being your own opinion.

I'm just trying to say it isn't inherently bad as unity might not be inherently good either. The purpose does matter and I think that's where we are seeing the largest change from past presidents to this one. Problem is, some people see being unapologetic as great even if the substance of what is being said isn't that great. They take more value in the presentation.

I also think what you find with this thread is the people who found Obama divisive will think it's okay to counter back with being divisive (fight fire with fire). If they truly thought divisiveness itself was the problem with Obama, then I don't see how that could be defended.
I agree, this appears to be very reactionary, which could explain how it persists despite being nakedly hypocritical. I also don't think any serious person could equivocate between the symptomatic nature of Obama's leadership woes and the causal nature of Trump's (intent is a clear difference here).
 
You couldn't criticize Obama for ANYTHING on here without people like the TS pulling the R card. Now they want to play nice after throwing gas on the fire.

Rephrase this for me. What's the R card?
 
Let's assume this is true, that the attempts at creating an equitable society on the grounds of race were misguided, naive, failed, whatever.

That's bad, correct? It's bad to divide the country racially. So what then is the excuse? Does that make today just a tantrum?
Today's climate is certainly not productive; however, today's "tantrum" is more or less the result of trump supporters sick of the bullshit.

Look no further than the reaction to Trump being elected. All we saw in the news was how awful everyone was for voting for Trump. Huff Po said Trump voters were guilty of a hate crime, college professors were filmed calling Trump supporters terrorists, etc.

Even in this thread a deranged person just casually throws out: "They are lying, racist scumbags with no sense of decency at all."
 
"Dont talk about it be about it"

I'm done

That's just running away from my question. You always need reasoning before action, otherwise it's just fumbling blindly, so to say that one shouldn't talk about things is anti-intellectual nonsense. We also need accountability, and if people aren't willing to be consistent they are hypocrites.
 
"RACIST!!!"

Ha oh. Well that's something that I have trouble drawing a line on with this thread. I don't want to be pulled into the idea that divisive in itself is bad because that just empowers the act of being offended which isn't grounds for being right or wrong. But the racist card would play into the unapologetic angle I brought up earlier. I think sometimes the media tries to pin Trump as a racist in certain events. He reacts by staying on the offense ("Fake news", "So and so is a lair", etc) and not directly defending himself ("I'm not a racist", "what I meant to say was.."). This is part of the unapologetic angle which, whether intentional or not, continues to fuel the divisiveness because he's getting his base all gung ho while also getting his opposition pissed off he isn't treating the situation in a defensive manner. The danger in the whole thing is all actors in this scenario are somewhat talking past each other imo.
 
You couldn't criticize Obama for ANYTHING on here without people like the TS pulling the R card. Now they want to play nice after throwing gas on the fire.
Prove it.

You just did it:
Trump is easily the most divisive President of all of our lifetimes. There is no close second, and Obama was not divisive at all. He was just black, and a lot of Americans couldn't, and still can't, handle it.
 
Back
Top