- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
You're a Trump supporter and Conservative/Republican right? So, the wall was something that you wanted? And now you're getting it fixed up, expanded and the gaps closed, right?
So, isn't that a good thing for you?
I mean, I don't know about you but for example I was not much of a Trump fan when he was in office, but I was thrilled that he was taking China to task on a lot of things towards the end of his Presidency, even if I didn't think he was the best leader, personally.
Is it possible that you prefer the thrill of chasing divisions and criticising "the left" more than you actually want to see the realisation of the policies you support and desire?
And is it also possible that this is a part of the issue to begin with of why the US seems so polarised at the moment?
I don't know about everyone else but I'm pretty exhausted of the "culture war", toxic neomarxism/feminism/identity politics vs science denialism/anti-humanism/religiosity.
Where's the common ground? We've got to all sit down like adult human beings and speak with common sense.
I mean, you're right. Adding pieces to a wall is by definition building a wall. But if that's what you wanted and it saves even one more vitriolic argument, then why be so intent on creating the vitriolic argument? Where is the adult in all of this at this point?
I agree with most of this, but the US was always a secular nation with special protections for freedoms that a lot of other countries at the time didn't have. One of those was freedom to practice any religion, or irreligion.
That being said, I do reckon an agreed upon moral framework is necessary. I won't say objective because I can't be certain objective morals exist. But what I do know from travelling is that Western societies are far more developed, advanced, free and safe than almost all others. So, what is that unifying moral code that helped them get there?
Well, I might argue it's freedom of expression, open debate, individual rights, the rule of law, and self determination under the protection of constitutionally engrained legal axioms. What does that look like on the day to day? Respectful debate; moderation of mind; varied education; individualism; free markets for commerce and ideas; accountable polity; and some unifying force.
America right now is really missing that unifying force element. What unites Western countries and gives them something to strive towards together? That's the big question right now. Whoever finds the answer will rule the free world. But I can tell you that it's no longer Christianity (if it ever was at all).
Perhaps it's the idea of positive endeavour towards creating stable democracies and free societies at home and around the world. That's something that can unite people with the right motivations and speeches and redirections of people's attention Or perhaps it's something else.
But whatever the answer is: at the moment, social media, virulent neomarxism and a slew of other inner problems make common ideals seem naive, even trite to a lot of people.
Too many opinions and not enough mediation, for my taste. Honestly, people need to be willing to conscience firstly that they may be wrong about some hard-held beliefs (not just leftists or rightists but everyone), and secondly, people need a moderating voice, a central man or woman, a third option.
This left-right thing is only getting more polarised and extreme in my view and you're completely right that such a schism destroys countries. So, the question becomes: how can I start bridging ideas and having open, respectful debates, even if it means considering and making concessions to some views or ideas that on first glance make me cringe or recoil.
Surely it's better than the alternative?
Abortion up to a limit - moderate
Common sense regulations on guns for a "well regulated militia" as per Great Amendment Number Two - moderate
Disallowing kids from being maimed by gender nutcases but still allowing adults to be trans if they themselves choose - moderate
Opposing mass migration but still giving people opportunities to come across the border to escape violence and go through proper channels - moderate
Giving women equal pay for equal work but also giving men more rights in divorce and whatnot - moderate
Banning anti-democratic indoctrination in schools but teaching anti-democracy through the lens of the historical failures of communism and authoritarianism in general - moderate (and extremely necessary)
This is what we need, really. Middle ground. A compromise.
This is a pretty simple and correct observation. Guns make killing easier purely by the nature of their proliferation and form. Replace every gun with a knife and you are statistically certain to have less murders, purely because knives are harder to kill people with, especially lots of people at once.
But let's be honest, the States will never abandon guns. The best a sane populace can hope for is a "well regulated militia" as the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution states it. But for that, you first need some form of regulation.
I agree America seems to be currently going to hell in a hand-basket and into neomarxist madness but I'm not convinced it's to do with "big corporate America". Seems to me to be more to do with culture war instigated by internet troll armies in authoritarian countries; that and the neofeminist distraction that's being played out in the open nut-house.
Saying that, protections from malicious foreign investment wouldn't hurt the cause of protecting democratic societies. The UK are about to pass a huge bill attempting to future proof the educational system, politics, social media and businesses from neomarxist foreign influence, cancel culture and attacks on freedom of expression, free speech, rule of law and malicious foreign investment. I believe the US government also recently passed some legislation about protecting intellectual property rights and privileged university research from espionage by foreign students (mainly Chinese) and corrupt professors and whatnot.
I can see your point about the communists seemingly playing the Western leaders but I also see the intelligence agencies and lawmakers behind the scenes very lucidly aware of these threats, too.
I hope this whole gender madness and the veil lifting away from "developed China" narratives can open people's eyes a bit.
Anyway, I don't know if you remember me but I left this site a few years ago, moved to an ex communist country, and came back changed.
Check out "wumao" on Google. And down the Rabbit Hole you go.
It depends what you mean by liberalism. Classical liberalism or modern liberalism? Free speech/expression/market based society or neomarxism/neofeminism/identity politics?
Because those are two very different ideological frameworks. The former works well everywhere it has been adopted.