How the Covington Catholic firestorm reinforced America's divisions
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
When liberals looked at the videos shot near the Lincoln Memorial last Friday, they saw a smirking, entitled son of likely Donald Trump voters. Here was a Catholic school boy who seemed to enjoy a silent but disrespectful faceoff with an older Native American man and his drum, while the boy’s white classmates tomahawk chopped and jeered.
When conservatives looked at the same videos they saw a collection of kids waiting for a bus near the memorial after participating in the March for Life. The boys faced verbal goading by Black Israelites and were confronted by an unusual Native American man with a drum but stayed positive by doing spirit cheers. The Covington Catholic High School kids were the lambs, and the others were wolves circling them.
In the week since, it’s become clear that at least some of each of those perspectives is true, but virtually no one’s mind has been changed about what actually happened and what all of it means.
“It seems everyone wants a simple story,” said Matt Motyl, a political psychologist and assistant professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Motyl, who is also a research fellow at New York University, studies why people have a hard time talking about hot-button issues without conflict or are reticent to engage with those who contradict the views they already hold.
For all the unique and almost theatrical elements of the incident on the National Mall, it’s the reaction to the incident, and the reaction to that reaction, that seemed to compel many Americans to pick a side. If there is anything like a truth to be gleaned from the entire mess, it is that in this deeply divided America, most people live, work, learn, worship, protest and play inside of bubbles filled by people much like them. That dynamic contributes to clashes when the bubbles collide, resulting in viral moments of which no one should be proud and raising tensions around unstoppable demographic and social change.
We all tend to like and hold in greater esteem people who are like us, people in our “group.” In his research, Motyl uses a long-standing social science tool that can best be described as the warmth and regard scale, a kind of social thermometer. It ranges from a cold 0 to a very warm 100. That research has shown that for much of the last century, people, on average, regarded hypothetical people who shared their political views somewhere around an 80 and those who did not somewhere around 60, a figure not far from a neutral 50. But since the 1990s, something dramatic has taken shape: People’s average esteem for those who share their views has grown to around 90, while mistrust and “coldness” toward those who do not have slipped to an average of 10.
Put another way, when the initial video emerged showing a group of white teenage boys, many of them clad in Make America Great Again hats and some of them executing tomahawk chops, appearing to face off with an older Native American — all while standing near a monument dedicated to Lincoln, the emancipator — America reacted. In some cases, people picked the details that affirmed and aligned with the conversations already happening inside their bubbles and discarded the rest. And, since those on the other side of the political spectrum are no longer regarded as simply different but potentially evil or disreputable, many attributed the worst possible motives to those offering differing interpretations.
To many people, those MAGA hats visible in the video clips identified at least some of those students as willing characters in an ongoing culture war, said Robert Jones, founding CEO of the Public Religion Research Institute and author of the book “The End of White Christian America.”
The culture war began long before the young men of Covington Catholic were born.
Starting in the 1960s, many white Christian conservatives left the Democratic Party for the Republican camp in opposition to expanding civil rights to African Americans. They rejected the race mingling and other social changes that would follow.
And by the 1990s, when opposition to abortion, gay rights and later gay marriage ranked among the chief political concerns of conservative white Christians, right-leaning Catholics began to join this fold.
At the time, white Christians represented a true majority. As recently as 2008, white Christians — Catholics and Protestants — made up 54 percent of the country. Today, that figure is 42 percent.
“Demographic change is something you usually talk about in terms of a generation or two,” Jones said. “Demographic change that rapid can set off intense reactions, intense emotions.” Jones likened these emotions to the stages of grieving described by psychologist Elisabeth Kübler-Ross. Her model includes five stages: denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance. People do not always make linear or sustained progress.
“I’d say, right now, the conservative white Christian political movement moves back and forth between denial and anger,” Jones said. “In Trump and the decision to back a leader lacking in the very character the moral majority always put ahead of everything, they’ve entered into a kind of bargaining.”
That history has loomed in the backdrop as the parents of the Covington students have said that their children are the bias-free progeny of religious families trying to raise their sons with values. Over the course of the week, they’ve also become the subjects of intense national scrutiny, their churches, diocese and school subject to threats and shutdowns.
They’ve defended their children against accusations that they’re the type of entitled, aggressive young white American males free to operate with impunity, suggesting that they are the victims here.
“Everyone wants their side to be good, to be right, and the other to be clearly bad,” Motyl said. “But since we don’t watch the same news, we don’t read the same information and we don’t talk much to people with other perspectives, it’s as if we are actually living in different worlds where no one has really grasped the truth.”
Tags
Who is online
40 visitors
I found this Op/ed interesting since I saw it happening right on this very site. So I guess my question would be, can people with differing politics be friends? Can they even get along? Or do birds of a feather really flock together?
As far as I'm concerned yes, absolutely.
I have two very close friends, the kind of friends that if needed, I or they wouldn't hesitate to give up a kidney for.
One is conservative and always willing to discuss politics in an enjoyable debate. The other is an absolutely staunch conservative liberal smacking unmovable statue.
Both know I love them to death and I know both love me. The latter and I tread carefully at times because we are deep set and that isn't worth our friendship.
There are a few polar opposites here that ai enjoy playing with too and they and I also know the difference between debate and dislike.
After the politics it's the personality that clinches the deal for me.
Hell! There's some liberals I can't stand for the same reasons that many conservatives dislike them.
Good for you!
I like you take friendship over politics. I don't even mind a respectful debate. But bottom line, if the person is a good person, and has my back, politics means nothing to me.
But you are right when you say:
Being an indie, I am never going to agree with anyone 100%, but I know when a person is obnoxious and that I can live without.
It depends. I only have a few friends who are ultra right wingers or ultra left wingers, but for the most part we don't discuss politics. I do discuss politics with my conservative and liberal friends who aren't fanatical about it, though. The ultra right wingers tend to start yelling if we disagree, as if being loud makes them correct, and the ultra left wingers tend not to yell but they still get pretty upset if I don't agree with them. There are plenty of other things to talk about or do with them. Someone whose politics make them a jerk, however - like the people who say they'll wear a MAGA hat just to piss other people off, or those who are racist - those people I will absolutely avoid.
But I think my ability to be friends with people with differing politics has to do with where I live, at least in part. I live in a small town but it's not all that far from DC, so you really can't avoid people who have different views. Being exposed to other views is good for people. Those who live in an isolated small town are going to be far more isolated and close minded, and if you throw in religion, it gets even worse. In larger areas it's not as easy to hide from differing opinions, since the population is so much more diverse. And if you throw in religion it doesn't matter as much, since there are bound to be people of lots of different faiths.
I have to agree with that assessment. The more exposed you are, the more likely your opinons will be tempered.
Of course they can be, I am friends with many people that have differing opinions, we don't let that get in the way of our friendship
I think that is a healthy attitude! I have friends that span the spectrum, many of them I met as an adult, and it's about the quality of the person that counts to me.
i don't understand why people with differing politics or opinions or beliefs couldn't be friends - variety is the spice of life and i don't want to live in a vacuum or echo chamber, i'd rather be challenged and learn new things. I have friends and family who are very conservative and some who are very liberal, others who are very religious and a couple that are complete 100% atheist. I don't let those beliefs nor opinions stop us nor get in the way of a friendship or family relationship - we are all going to be different, no matter who it is, since we all are wired differently and have different experiences throughout our lives, plus we deal with situations differently as well - that's called... being Human. I know some people tend to stick to their own "flock" and i think that's more of an acceptance thing, a comfort zone for them since they seem to have not accepted themselves and only view acceptance of themselves through the eyes of others (this is just my personal opinion based upon my own personal experience).
I prefer to continue to learn and grow - shape my views and reshape them accordingly as i get new information etc. I guess i'm part of a small crowd considering the comments that are on many articles on here from many members - it's a shame in my eyes. We can all have different beliefs (political or non) and still form good friendships and work together....
I couldn't have said it better Phoenyx. I like challenging my beliefs. Even in the years that I have spent on NV and NT, I have grown from getting out of my comfort zone.
Because huge numbers of these morons believe their political beliefs make them superior to those on the other side, which predictably alienates those people.
I had a lady come to a party at my house, where she met a liberal friend of mine. To minutes into their conversation, she actually said in front of a group of people that liberals were smarter than non-liberals. There wasn't an argument going on. She was just mulling over the buffet and said it as casually as people talk about the weather. It never even occurred to her that the remark was offensive, and she completely missed the irony of her being the least educated person in the room by far.
I have another RW friend who is a ton of fun in person...but get this idiot on Facebook and he loses his mind. Tons of posts about snowflakes needing safe spaces or other ways liberals are weak and bereft of common sense. No liberal who sees that on FB is going to want to have anything to do with this guy in real life. I don't blame them.
I have had similar things happen in real life, too and I have to admit that those types make it very hard to have a civil discussion. That being said, I think that about 60% of people could have a civil discussion outside of their bubble or at least be friends with people who disagree with them. Could you agree to that?
i agree with that statement - it applies to both the conservative minded and the liberal minded alike.
My daughter's BIL is like that...he brings up snowflakes and safe spaces and I think to myself that he's very cynical for someone's who had a relatively privileged life.
I've gotten to the point where people stop doing that kind of thing around me. I'm getting less patient with that kind of stupidity as I get older.
As Katrix says, it depends on the fanaticism of the people in question. In the 1980's and some of the 90's many conservative Christians saw those two descriptions as their identity. Today I see that more on the left.
In either case, it's difficult for people whose identity is tied up in a certain thing to understand that most people don't really care very much about that thing.
It's like being a Patriots fan, and being so focused on it that you can't talk about much else. After a while, the only people still left around you are other Patriots fans who want to talk about it all the time. There just isn't any room in that group for the guy who says, "I dunno, I don't really watch football...."
I don't understand. What descriptions do you see being used on the left?
I would have to agree with that, but on the other hand, what percentage of people do you think are truly committed to a POV?
Interesting analogy. I think that is true of the hardcore believers. Not sure about people who can think out of their comfort zone.
I see people who base their identity in their liberal politics. They go to protests as a social event. They talk about liberal politics at every happy hour/party/social gathering. Their FB feed is 98% political memes, usually factually incorrect.
They base their assessment of "right" or "wrong" according to how closely something aligns to liberal doctrine.
These folks have a quiver of catchphrases that comprise the language of that identity. They use words like "progressive" or "social justice" or "advocacy", and then they move on to the more hardcore verbiage like "resist" or "occupy".
These people use these words to identify themselves as followers of that religion, the same was Southern Baptists or Catholics used their own verbiage that only people in that particular club truly follow.
It's tough to say. If we go with the media, it would seem 90%, but it's important to remember that something must be unusual to be newsworthy. I dunno.
Jack,
I can say the same about both sides. The 'extremes" of both sides, do what you just pinned on one side. I think that is part of the problem. Optics. To a certain extent you have picked a side and so you find confirmation bias to prove that to yourself. To me, I see both sides doing it.
I can too, which is why I mentioned it in the earlier post. You then specifically asked about liberals, so I gave a response specific to liberals.
I originally pinned it on both sides.
one of the oldest sayings in the world....
if ya want to keep all of your friends do not discuss religion or politics.
when people forget the simple lessons of history... they repeat their mistakes.
there is nothing new about any of this.
I guess that is true, although I have discussed politics and religion with my friends who have differing POV's and we still walk away as friends. Maybe it's how we approach it. Maybe it's listening more and judging less.
same here..
that is why I assert the problem is not "we the people" we have not changed, our media has.
it is the leftwing MSM that starts all this crap.
in their rush to judge anything trump as hateful, racist, or whatever... they present an assumed or simply false narrative and allow no discussion other than the narrative they want to push while ignoring the bigger picture.
and now predictably it is biting them on the ass.
I can listen to my friends when they do not agree with me... no problem.
but listening to and then believing anything the MSM says is another kettle of fish.
the MSM are known liars with an agenda and nothing more. (not my friends)
I knew those kids did not confront that guy the second MSM said they did.
I always start with the MSM is full of crap and am right more often than not.
and yet people still wonder why only about 20% of the people trust today's media.
I feel like that 20% who trusts today's media are the same folks who can not tolerate opposing opinions and will try to belittle or silence those opposing opinions... in fact, id bet money on that. and I do not want those kinds of people as friends.
cheers
Sure we can be friends with those that are political opposites. To do so, requires tolerance, and a willingness to look first for the things in we have in common. We have remained friends with many we strongly disagree with politically. Where we draw the line with is racism. We have ended a couple of friendships over the last year once those differing views surfaced.
As I see it, the biggest thing dividing people is the truth. We have radio, TV and political types striving to continue to make their millions dividing us by shading/skewing it to the point to where it is hardly recognizable. I would be willing to bet that everyone here on NT would agree to getting money out of politics, yet we can't seem to do it out of the profit realized by the few wanting to sew fear in the many.
Even if we are able to get to truths between individuals, those truths will always be colored by the optics of our tribal glasses. That is a huge challenge that I don't see going away.
I have to agree with you there. The more different kinds of people you are exposed to, the more you can expand your opinions. It was one of the reasons I moved from NYC. The public schools by me were not the best since everyone pulled their kids out in lew of religious schools. So my choices were to stay and send them to a religious school (I didn't want them growing up in a vacuum), or moving out to Long Island and sending them to public school, which is what I did. My kids grew up with a more global view of the world and I am glad for that.
The Covington Catholic (diocese and high school) web site, which initially carried a severe condemnation of their boys' behavior, went down a few hours later... and is still down now.
The Bishop has an issued an apology for his "severe condemination"
To quote the Bishop:
"We should not have allowed ourselves to be bullied and pressured into making a statement prematurely, and we take full responsibility for it.”
Some thought the bishop's panicked reaction to the social media onslaught was dispositive of the kids' guilt. i look forward to their retraction.
I'd guess they're trying to find the right spin.
And you didn't answer the question either, Sean. Can you be friends with people who don't share your political ideals?
But that was not the question Bob. Can you be friends with a person who does not share your beliefs politically?
Bob and I have disagreed (but also agreed) on politics, religion and many other things for years. Still friends.
Well, that is good. So have we. I think he liked me better on the vine though. There I was just the "Right Wing Mole", LOL!
No, he did NOT. Can't imagine why.
I never discuss politics or religion with my Friends. My own religious beliefs and political views are mine, and I respect the same right of others.
Well, that is sure not going to bring you any grief that way. Good for you!
Wise choice. It is extremely difficult to disagree with most people and remain friends. That is, very few people have the emotional constitution to not get angry at their friend simply because s/he sees things differently.
Partisan politics and religion seem to be the hottest categories. Probably because both involve an element of stubborn belief. For example, there is no convincing a partisan R that Trump is an embarrassment to our country and there is no convincing a fundamentalist that the Bible is errant and thus not divine.
I guess that is true of hardcore believers. But do most people fall into that category, as this article implies? Is it truly impossible to get past our beliefs to other things we have in common?
I am always willing to listen to others, no matter what their beliefs or views are. I just don't share mine with them. I am not a member of any political party, nor am I affiliated with any organized religion. Most people do not understand Native American religious beliefs that are not based upon the Bible, and it is difficult to discuss them with those who see only their own beliefs and/or views as being the only right ones.
Thus, it is best to just listen if they wish to talk about politics or religion. While I may not agree with them, I respect their right to their own beliefs and views.
Based upon the comments made by some people here on NT, it would seem that is the case. Fortunately, that does not include most people. Just the hard core believers in both categories.
I am finding it interesting who isn't commenting. I guess that is an answer, too.
I was focusing on the hardcore. To me 'partisan' means hardcore party politics and fundamentalist means hardcore biblical advocate.
I like to think that most people are not hardcore and actually try to think for themselves.
As for being friends while disagreeing, I am not so sure. On social media sites especially mere disagreement can end a friendship in a heartbeat. Take two people who agree on most everything except something like abortion or the electoral college or ... It would surprise me not for someone to write: 'I cannot be friends with someone who holds such views'.
This is actually one of my pet peeves. Way too many people amplify disagreement. Two individuals might agree on 99 points but the one point of disagreement can be louder than the 99 points of agreement.
People are very strange.
Same here. Interesting is it not? I wonder why......
It is an excellent point. Why focus on what you don't have in common, while you could be focusing on what you do. I have no idea.
I think a lot depends on how those disagreements are verbalized. Take the abortion issue, for example. If I support choice, and a friend says "I disagree because I think abortion is the taking of an innocent life," - well, we can still have a respectful and rational discussion, and we might even find points on which we agree within the larger issue. If I support choice, and a friends says "I can't believe you'd support murder. Heartless immoral people like you are going to burn in Hell," - well, respect and rational discussion just became a lot harder, and I'm less likely to view someone who'd make such a negative statement about me as a friend.
The medium is a large culprit in this.... A screen has no feelings...
{chuckle} Just found the joint..... (long tiring drive) please pardon me for being late....
That is another reason I choose to simply listen when someone wants to discuss religion or politics. Once they tire of the one sided conversation they are then willing to move on to more mutual topics that we have in common.
There are far too many more mutual topics to engage in that are much more important to me than politics or religion. The world does not function on politics and/or religion alone.
Here is an example. I criticized Cortez' comment about not knowing how she is going to pay for room and board in D.C. prior to getting her first paycheck.
Obviously a freshman congressperson has immediate creditworthiness to resolve such a simple cash flow problem. Thus her expressing that publicly was stupid and I noted that. Yet my comment was interpreted by a few as though I was engaging in a partisan bad-mouthing ... with comments such as 'I would expect that from xxx but not from you' coupled with the inexplicable leap to the conclusion that I was a conservative and a R. Cortez will face much more difficult problems on behalf of her constituents. It was politically stupid to whine about a problem most of her constituents could easily resolve themselves. Them's the facts; that's reality.
Just reminded me of how deep people can get stuck in their partisan ways and not even know it.
I have had that happen, too. A position about something in one direction seems to paint you that way permanently, even if it is not true. People seem to need those labels and I have been labeled everything from neo-con to liberal and anything in between.
It really is very annoying.
I remember that conversation.
It's like those who don't support a concrete wall along our entire southern border being accused of wanting open borders.
Or those who didn't support the ACA (I didn't) obviously want everyone who's not rich to die from lack of access to health care.
Such polarization keeps some from listening to what their opponents in the debate actually think - assumptions are made, and they're generally assumptions which vilify the opponent.
Exactly! Extreme, binary partisan 'thinking'.
Well said Sandy. I have had these kinds of discussions and I find them maddening. As Tig puts it, very binary thinking.
That and a screen has no face where you can see the person's reaction to what you are saying.
That's why I get so quiet around my group these days. I know if I say what I truly believe I will be eviscerated and then I really won't feel like seeing these people again ever. I also don't spend all of my free time with them. I tend to stay away from social gatherings for the most part unless I can't avoid them like Christmas and Thanksgiving
The problem with this story was not what people saw differently. The problem was that the media told people what they were seeing without doing any investigation or vetting. They did this because the narrative suited their personal politics. Then, presented as an outrageous scandal, it was a dramatic enough story to guarantee clicks and viewers.
It only took a little bit of effort to find out there was another side to this story, but that effort didn't come from the mainstream media. The political and ratings agendas of the mainstream media is doing more to divide this country than anything else. And they don't care.
Tacos,
I would agree with you if every day we didn't see this kind of absolutism on the site. There is some truth to each narrative. Nothing in this world is black and white. Yet daily, we see people defend their POV till the end.
But look, they are black and white living on one beast, meaning that they coexist. And also if you cross your eyes it all becomes grey.
Pengy wants a hug.
I wanna hug him.
I love sardines!
[deleted]
Yuck
My parents ate those nasty little things on crackers for lunch some times...
Again, Yuck !
lol
John,
You comment is off topic. Please do not bring actual politics into this discussion.
You have, somewhat repeatedly on this thread, said that nothing is black and white.
I think current events disprove that.
That is a part of the blind followers ideal.... To be independent necessarily requires a bit of contrariness to the ingrained follow me meme partisan politics/dogmatic religions requires. A serious issue is when such is mixed with anonymity, which social media offers despite all its claims of not being private....
I think we all have family/friends that reside on the opposite sides of any discussion. the thing is we grew up with that and the emotional family connections override the personal belief system.......
Some of that is going on also we are all one family, we are going to bicker back and forth, do stupid sheet to each other, point fingers at each other and incessantly argue over such.
But an outsider slap one of us up side the head? you have a mob coming for yours...... Remember 911? for three weeks America was unified.....
WE are family even if we loudly and constantly proclaim otherwise....
Sad that it takes something as horrible as 9/11 for us to realize that, but I guess it is true.
Most of my younger friends hold liberal views. That doesn't affect our friendship. (I'm sure they will outgrow those notions eventually.)
That's a funny comment. You know, my POV evolved on some issues, but basically, I am pretty much the same person I was when I was 25. I think that some folks change and others don't or maybe even become more hardcore in their beliefs. But in any case, at least you like them for other reasons and that is the main thing.
Yeah? Show us old your membership card (you can cover your real name and write "badfish" over it, of course. That way we'll know it isn't one you got of the internet).
Got news for ya...
Being put in a tank and taken to elementary schools as an exhibit is NOT being a member.
Hahaha...backfired on me.
I bought my first house when I got out of college and had a great paying job. I discovered that paying the interest cut my taxes.
The whole next year I was paying double and triple payments every month and got a huge tax benefit.
The next year I resolved to outdo the previous year and made triple payments every month....January I get my statement from the bank.
I paid $132 in interest because I paid off all the interest the previous year. I got whacked for $4700 in taxes on top of what I had paid in.
LMFAO !
I've got news for you. Since you don't have dependents you wouldn't know that the deduction for them doesn't even begin to cover the cost of raising children. So, it's really just a sop. Matching them by income, single people or couples who do not have children are, as a group, wealthier than those who have them. So your complaint of paying higher taxes because get the deductions is just one more bogus anti-tax rant by people who are either, a) losers or b) just chronic whiners or c) both
The Covington Catholic High School pile-on actually highlights what our society has become. We are a society of instant judgement, because the original viral video showed a particular narrative without any lead-up or any context and the Covington Catholic students were judged, even by their own Diocese attacked them. Then, subsequent videos show that the Covington students were peacefully minding their own business while being insulted by another group. While this was going on, Phillips approached the students and waded into the middle of them. None of the students made any threatening moves or actions towards Phillips; but Phillips got into the face of one of the students. Phillips later had the audacity to tell the media that he felt threatened, when he was the one who not only instigated the entire "confrontation" but invaded the kid's personal space.
These are KIDS that are being blamed for the bad actions of ADULTS. All because the original video showed an incomplete and false narrative. New reporters are supposed to investigate and make sure they have all the facts. These kids are still being threatened due to the news going along with the first video that they saw instead of making sure they had the full story. We need to start holding reporters to a higher standard.
This is not the topic. Please refer to the opening of this discussion.
Perrie, if this wasn't the topic why seed an op/ed that discusses the incident and what it says about our society? Why not post the article as a seed separately and post an original article discussing whether people of opposing views can be friends?
You see the entire premise that is being ignored here is that we each disagree over many different issues and viewpoints and people still can be friends even if they disagree about whether one national chain of fast food is better than another. Long before this site was even created, I told people that "life is politics" because every day we have disagreements over minor and major issues. The problem is that most let their love of a particular political party override actual thought and reason. Just like you are declaring my point about our society being a reflection of the media's rush to report a single side without investigating it. We have all become lazy and it shows by people not taking the time to read entire comments to see what is exactly being talked about.
Let's take my article about what the wall is really about that I posted a few weeks ago. It was about getting people to try to see why we need to support the wall regardless of party and trying to explain a concept in two different ways about needing layers of security. The wall is a tool just like a hammer is a tool. The hammer is worthless as a tool without a nail to hit. The Border Patrol is weakened when they have to constantly patrol areas that could be protected with both a wall and technology. Seismographs can be used to detect those trying to tunnel under the wall, while cameras, drones, and motion sensors can be used to detect people trying to climb it. But, the sensors alone cannot stop or delay a person or people just crossing an area, let alone get them to turn back and enter legally; they are worthless tools without something else to help allow time for the Border Patrol to mobilize. Someone made a point about the latest wall prototype only slowing someone down for 4 hours. That's 4 hours more than without the wall. Unless the area is in such a remote area the nearest Border Patrol station is 4 hours away, then there is a near 100% chance that those people can be caught. Right now, we have way below 100% chance of catching anyone crossing illegally in areas without even the corrugated steel sheets as there is nothing stopping them. But, did people really read my article and THINK about it? I am pretty sure most of them did not as they kept spewing the same rhetoric as Pelosi and Schumer with barely a pause. Did you even think about what you wanted to discuss before posting the seed and then saying the seed was off-topic?
Here is something I forgot to mention previously.
A true friend is someone who will ALWAYS give you an honest opinion regardless of tact about your actions or words. That means they tell you the truth regardless of whether it makes you uncomfortable or not. You (in the general sense), have to be able to accept that truth and examine it to see if you can improve yourself. The problem is that we will put blinders on to see something that we want to see rather than seeing what is. This is true over the arguments over the wall, because people ignore the preamble of the Constitution and fail to think about using EVERY SINGLE TOOL available; and it is true about what happened with the kids from Covington Catholic High School. And, if you cannot stop to think about the full picture, then you should probably not say anything regarding any issue that you want to discuss as you will prove yourself the fool and remove all doubt that you are one.
Tom,
The reason I said it was off topic (and please note that most people were on topic), is that the article was not about which side was right, or why what happened, happened, but the reason that people formed opinions on what happened, and could not leave those opinions even when other information was brought to light. It is about a mindset and our comfort level with people who do not share our mindset. That birds of a feather flock together and thus reinforce each other's mindset.
I wanted to focus in on that specific aspect, and this article explained it well. And for the record, I would love to hear from you about your opinions on that.
I completely agree.
However, the question is can you be friends with someone with opposing views who gives you their honest opinion (with or without tact)?
I can if they can debate the positives and negatives of the position and the forces that shaped their perspective. This is why I have few friends and a lot of acquaintances. I prefer thinkers to followers and enablers.
Example - my lifelong best friend was physically abused by her alcoholic father, then her husband and raped by her father-in-law. Over a decade after her divorce, the ex-husband raped his teenage step-daughter. My lifelong best friend became my ex best friend after she defended her ex-husband raping the teenager.
For years, I had done my best to ignore her support of men who abused women because I knew how she was raised and I had also been raised with the same type of abuse and propaganda that "good" Christian women knew their place, obeyed men and were not abused. I honestly tried for decades to learn to be a submissive in order to be a "good" Christian woman like my best friend, but I am not a submissive so I never really fit in when my submissive "friends" gathered.
In 2009, I stumbled across Newsvine and promptly came at odds with women who feminists that trashed the patriarch society that I had been brainwashed into defending. We were not instant friends. In fact, we were at odds because I was defending a rapist who had made national news.
My life, and world, have completely changed since 2009 because I became friends with people of differing views.
About your example:
It is very hard to give up long held beliefs and I have to give you credit, for thinking for yourself and even harder when the outcome is giving up a relationship that you care about. Cudos to you!
I was a member of NV from 2007 till 2010. I met a lot of people there that presented good arguments that changed my mind on different issues on both sides of the political fence. I happen to know who you are referring to talking about the feminists on NV. The funny thing is that I had similar feelings toward them as you did, and you and I don't share the same background. I'm not sure how much I got out of them since I could never accept rape as being OK, but our discussions did affect how much we should put up with any behavior that violates a human being.
Exactly. We found common ground even when getting there from different directions. For me, the essential part was the depth of sharing very intimate details of their lives that allowed me to understand that it was a real problem throughout our society. Without internet access, I had lived in a very small bubble of societal understanding. Those women became my best friends even though we did not always agree, I respected them because I knew the forces that shaped their perceptions and perceptions.
Commenting on the internet has taught me to read, research (if needed), think and re-read fairly often before replying if I feel a reply is necessary. Off of the internet, I do not attempt to have conversations of any depth with anyone other than my younger daughter.
I recently learned about how cognitive bias shapes our lives. I have it on my to do list to learn more about them.
That is a big subject in my home. My daughter is involved in research in cog neuro psych. In research, this is the biggest problem. Going into an experiment with an expected outcome. They all have to battle this and rely on the hard science to back up the outcomes, but that is not easy to do.
I think this is part of human nature.
That may be a reason that scientists are always working to prove each other wrong.
Kudos to your daughter. I hope that she has a long, productive and enjoyable career in her chosen field.
LOL.. same here. Both daughters in medical fields; one getting a PhD and the MD/PhD in neurology. They send me their papers to read, and although I can get through them, they are mind-numbing to me.
My dad's family seem to produce nothing but doctors, teachers, and engineers. My mom's business folks. So I guess my kids are from my dad's side of the family like me
My nephew has Aspergers so I know what you mean.
My daughter who is getting her PhD is studying why people on the spectrum.
Well done!
I hate when "specialist" limit a kid before they even are out of the gate.
I was told that my girls were going to be learning delayed because they were preemies. That never happened and I just treated them like regular babies/ children.
First of all, part of the mindset that lead to the entire situation was that it was okay to attack children for their beliefs and for "looking arrogant", that cannot be ignored. The rest of the mindset is giving a free pass to adults for creating a confrontation with children who were doing nothing but waiting for a bus and chanting. The rest of it was a rush to judgement about the children and their "actions" rather than looking at the whole situation. That led to the forming of the criticisms of the children and the continued free pass to the adults.
Heck, right now there are pending lawsuits being filed by not only Sandmann and his family, but the families of the other students as well. Sandmann has a separate lawsuit pending than the rest of the students' families. These lawsuits are being filed in Kentucky and are against the libelous actions of the media that have yet to apologize and retract their stories regarding the entire situation and original reporting of it.
One thing in all of this that I have a habit of doing is playing Devil's Advocate. I try to see an issue from all sides and I state a side that I feel most people are ignoring. Can I be single-sighted in some of my positions and be focused on that? Yes, I can be. But, it really comes down to whether I feel that strongly in my soul about the issue or not.
I, also, try to be a friend to everyone.
Turns out that the early judgments about the first still pictures were confirmed by later ones and the videos. The many different views of the scene made it possible for MAGAs to lie about it for a few days but eventually Nick the Smirking Prick was exactly the right description for him.
The discussion is not about the events but rather how groups of people see events and can there people who have differing POV's be friends.
But there was a clear attempt by some of the usual suspects not to just respectfully disagree but to completely flip what was patently clear from the beginning into a politically motivated false narrative.
And your making Perries point perfectly.
And you choose to see it the exact opposite of almost everyone else, including the media that promoted the message your agreeing with.......
To you the false narrative is the correct one........ Your not the only one, but thankfully, there are very few that share your vision....
If people cannot be friends with others of differing POVs, they are in for a lonely life since they will have no friends whatsoever due to everyone having a different POV. Our experiences and beliefs are all different even with those that are in the same immediate family.
I see you're still peeing on your own leg. I put up an extended and un-edited video that showed exactly what Nathan Phillips said happened (not on this thread--but the other one devoted to trying to rewrite the facts about it). It blew all the Nick the Smirking Prick apologists' lies out of the water. But hey, keep on trying. It's fun to watch.
well, why don't you post it here, if you got such... Cause I'm sure you don't.... (at least one that hasn't been edited to kingdom come)
And there can be only two reasons your posting now on an article that hasn't been touched for two days....
A trolling tactic, (which I personally don't think your smart enough to know about), or you've been on site vacation.
You want me to keep on trying? thank you for the vote of confidence! At least your smart enough to see actual intelligence despite the disadvantages of not actually having any......
Nice insult, it's kinda a reflex from low intelligence types when they finally realize that they lost the debate, badly.....
And because of such late recognition, have you cleaned the brown streaks off your legs yet... (they've been there a while, the smell has faded)
some people know what fake news means.
the MSM starts and perpetuates the division. the idiots only follow their lead.
more people everyday realize that the MSM has TDS and is full of shit from the word go.
stories like this only help in that regard and will hasten the death of those media outlets.
and stories like this?
will make many people pay in many ways.
the lefts rush to delete posts online has begun - but is too late. the internet never forgets.
a SNL writer said and then deleted...
offering sex as a reward for assaulting a minor? I'm thinking that is illegal in any state.
This is off topic.
those bubbles are created and perpetuated by the MSM.
if that is off topic?
then just tell me what I am too say... so I can speak your mind.
To a degree, but remember we pick our poison, too. And it still doesn't answer the question of whether or not you can be friends with someone who doesn't agree with your POV's.
Wow.. that was really uncalled for.
I did not see where in the article that question was even asked.
Wow.. that was really uncalled for.
kind of like forcing a conversation to follow a predetermined determined narrative while ignoring the bigger picture expressed in the article that "the media firestorm" reinforced americas divisions?
I guess I can see your point.
cheers
I based my question on these paragraphs that talked about how we view people who share our viewpoints:
And so I wanted to talk about a different aspect about what happened with this story. It was my opening remark. We have discussed the other topic endlessly. This was supposed to be something different. In a way, you kind of proved my point. For you, this event was about the liberal MSM, and you totally went to that talking point. For me, this article presented a whole different aspect. How we divide ourselves.
Thanks for that.
I am watching one of the planet Earth shows. It is about chimpanzees.
Makes me wonder how evolved we really are.
The answer to this question is
a) probably less and less in an "information age" where people are encouraged to express all their thoughts
b) people who are close friends from before their politics were developed or expressed can survive political differences, but people who are less close may not be able to be long lasting friends if they argue about politics
-
Almost all of the current inability of people to get along about politics stems from the onset of right wing talk radio as a phenomenon, and that dates back to when Rush Limbaugh went national , which roughly coincides with the start of the Clinton presidency. For 25 years Americans have been subjected to more and more increasing factually inaccurate nonsense from the right. It has devastating for the country. Conservatism changed into confrontational expressions and weirdo conspiracy ideas and theories, and it's all been downhill since. Throw Fox News in there too. Right wing media is more responsible for the focked up condition of American discourse than any other reason, and I dont even think it's close.
Well, that is what they hear or read, but it has nothing to do with how they engage with each other.
That might be the case. Kind of hard to prove without an experiment of some sort.
The rest of your comment is off topic since it gets into who is to blame.
can people with differing politics be friends?
IMO" Yes but both people have to be open minded and both need to be respectful of the other.
We are more than politics, at least we were
24/7/365 trump doesn't help.
The article address that this goes back further than Trump, so that is not the reason why, but I am sure it is not helping.
Understood. We do seem to be going downhill though a step at a time.
Well, the article does seem to imply that.
I didn't really need an article to tell me. I've been watching it happen.
Nice that others are also noticing though.
We can always talk about fishing
I bet you got a big one!
I always catch the biggest!
It is easy for my generation to 'get along' with those who have differing political views. A good number of my friends and family are a mixture of dems, reps, and indies. Conversations can get heated...but never disrespectful. We watched the news and read the newspapers. No social media...no web. (I know - how on earth did we ever manage??!) We treated each other with respect and gave each other the right to voice opinions. Our advantage was being able to hear voice inflections and see facial expressions.
We now live in a world filled with Social Media platforms and the ability to obtain 'instant' news. That tends to lead to instant judgements and labeling...along with rather harsh, rude and hateful bickering because each feels that their 'side' is right. It takes too much time to look at something from all sides. We no longer seek to provide a viewpoint that is thoughtful and respectful. Shock and awe...Hit 'em and leave 'em...move on to the next bit of controversy. This is unfortunate for all 'sides'.
It's good to challenge others...it's what keeps us moving in a positive direction. What's missing is the ability or desire to do so as if we were 'face to face' with each other.
Since leaving the fold of Christianity, I have learned not to discuss religion or politics with most people. I have fundamentalist nieces and I accept that in them & attend services when their children are participating in something special. I first hid my beliefs from them because I was afraid they would not let me see my grand nephew and nieces. My sister (their mother) told me that they both know I am Wiccan and still include me in family get togethers. We just do not talk religion.
My best friend is a Trump supporter. After one big blow up in a Red Robin we have finally agreed to not talk about politics. If she forgets & says something I do not agree with I simply ignore it & change the subject. She does the same for me.
In this world we need to do these things. Accept others for what & who they are. You do not have to invite them to dinner or for an overnight, but damn we have got to learn that not everyone that disagrees with us is bad.
Spot on.
It is truly too bad that so many people prefer to keep a closed mind about how they think other people, and the world in general, should think the same as they do. And for those who don't they automatically choose to think they are bad people.
They, like all other human beings, will not know the truth until they cross over to the other side. Until that time, no one really knows the truth, they merely choose to believe what they think is right. However, just because they choose to think as they do does not mean they are the only ones who are right, or the only good people, as some seem to think.
And how they choose to believe does not give them the right to judge others who think differently than they do.