independent and unofficial
Prince fan community
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > Them vs US Republicans vs Democracts Left vs Right
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Reply   New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Author

Tweet     Share

Message
Thread started 08/03/20 12:14pm

OldFriends4Sal
e

avatar

moderator

Them vs US Republicans vs Democracts Left vs Right

*** there people who have sided and won't take part in this and that's ok. But if you do please don't come in with the take a side mentality, I would like to see individuals (as if you were going to the poles) express their thoughts, away from the group think mentality. And please No yeahthat which can be antagonizing at times. Hold your own opinion. No attacking a persons opinions or ganging up. Now this is not as much a 'political party' thing but a human expression. And I recognize I'm thinking as an American. If you are from a different country and ideals are much different please do create a seperate thread or at least indicate in your posts, where you are coming from. This thread is not actually about politics, but it's the clearest example I'm using to express this. But it's family, community, religious community, friends etc ***

My brothers and I were looking at what are the basic differences between Republicans and Democrats (We are Independants) and what is the reasoning between the two groups. The rationalizing of rules, laws and beliefs.

One of the main things we noticed is that one side has more of a teach a man to fish... thought and the other side is more like I'll share my fish. And what we've concluded that both are actually right. Which is why I believe the closer to center or Moderate people are the more likely they are to see things eye to eye. The further to the outter limits of either side the more extreme and opposing people are.

This I believe is why so many ideals and beliefs will have conflict, because no one party is 100%. It's just not. Just an example: How many Democrats are actually against same sex marriage how many Republicans support Civil Unions for same sex. How many Republicans are agnostic/atheist and how many democrats are fundemental Muslim, Christian, Jewish 'religious'

I've concluded that a lot, on the left approach things like a social worker, those on the right, like a gym teacher or drill sargeant. One side seems to look at the human race as inherently good, the other sees humans as inherently bad lol
.
.
I'm looking at few discussion like these two below and it spurred this post.
.
.

Reducing policing goes hand in hand with widespread decriminalization, then—of things like having an open container in your front yard or selling untaxed cigarettes.

Absolutely. It goes hand in hand with decriminalizing sex work, drugs, homelessness, mental illness. We don't really need a vice unit, we need a system of legalized sex work that's regulated just like any other business. We don't need school police, we need counselors and restorative justice programs. We don't need police homeless outreach units, we need supportive housing, community based drop-in centers, social workers.

How do you mesh the idea of police abolition with the need to address serious public safety threats like murder or aggravated assault (when those crimes are committed by the general public)?


The criminal justice system says there's one strategy for everything—make arrests, put them in prison. What abolitionists say is, Well, let's figure out why they're doing this and try to develop concrete prevention strategies. Not all homicides are the same. Is it a domestic violence case? Is it a school shooting? Is it a drug deal gone bad? We know, for instance, that in almost all the school shooting cases, somebody had a pretty good idea that this might happen, but did not tell anyone—or told the police and the police had no tools to do anything about it. What if instead, we had a system in place where when a young person thinks their friend might do something awful, can go and talk to a responsible adult without worrying that the police will get involved, that they will have ratted on their friend to the police, or that their friend will get expelled from school because of some zero tolerance policy?

https://www.motherjones.c...rge-floyd/


#2
Democrats approve defunding the police (55 percent) and reallocating it to mental health, housing and education programs (59 percent).

However, Democrats are more divided in backing the movement than Republicans and independents are in their opposition, with 43 percent and 41 percent opposing both defunding the police and using the funds for other purposes, respectively.

Meanwhile, Republicans almost uniformly disapprove of the movement (89 percent) and redistributing the money (86 percent).

#ALBUMSSTILLMATTER
if you ever try the lotus position
Try it while you're being strangled
Do U understand what I'm saying?

#IDEFINEME
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #1 posted 08/17/20 7:42am

OldFriends4Sal
e

avatar

moderator

Simply Psychology Logo

Social Identity Theory

By Saul McLeod, updated 2019


Henri Tajfel's greatest contribution to psychology was social identity theory. Social identity is a person’s sense of who they are based on their group membership(s).

Tajfel (1979) proposed that the groups (e.g. social class, family, football team etc.) which people belonged to were an important source of pride and self-esteem. Groups give us a sense of social identity: a sense of belonging to the social world.

We divided the world into “them” and “us” based through a process of social categorization (i.e. we put people into social groups).

Henri Tajfel proposed that stereotyping (i.e. putting people into groups and categories) is based on a normal cognitive process: the tendency to group things together. In doing so we tend to exaggerate:

1. the differences between groups

2. the similarities of things in the same group.

This is known as in-group (us) and out-group (them). The central hypothesis of social identity theory is that group members of an in-group will seek to find negative aspects of an out-group, thus enhancing their self-image.

Prejudiced views between cultures may result in racism; in its extreme forms, racism may result in genocide, such as occurred in Germany with the Jews, in Rwanda between the Hutus and Tutsis and, more recently, in the former Yugoslavia between the Bosnians and Serbs.

ingroup bias

We categorize people in the same way. We see the group to which we belong (the in-group) as being different from the others (the out-group), and members of the same group as being more similar than they are.

Social categorization is one explanation for prejudice attitudes (i.e. “them” and “us” mentality) which leads to in-groups and out-groups.

o Northern Ireland: Catholics – Protestants

o Rwanda: Hutus and Tutsis

o Yugoslavia: the Bosnians and Serbs

o Germany: Jews and the Nazis

o Politics: Labor and the Conservatives

o Football: Liverpool and Man Utd

o Gender: Males and Females

o Social Class: Middle and Working Classes

Tajfel and Turner (1979) proposed that there are three mental processes involved in evaluating others as “us” or “them” (i.e. “in-group” and “out-group”. These take place in a particular order.

Social identity theory

Categorization

The first is categorization. We categorize objects in order to understand them and identify them. In a very similar way we categorize people (including ourselves) in order to understand the social environment. We use social categories like black, white, Australian, Christian, Muslim, student, and bus driver because they are useful.

If we can assign people to a category then that tells us things about those people, and as we saw with the bus driver example, we couldn't function in a normal manner without using these categories; i.e. in the context of the bus.

Similarly, we find out things about ourselves by knowing what categories we belong to. We define appropriate behavior by reference to the norms of groups we belong to, but you can only do this if you can tell who belongs to your group. An individual can belong to many different groups.

Social Identification

In the second stage, social identification, we adopt the identity of the group we have categorized ourselves as belonging to.

If for example you have categorized yourself as a student, the chances are you will adopt the identity of a student and begin to act in the ways you believe students act (and conform to the norms of the group).

There will be an emotional significance to your identification with a group, and your self-esteem will become bound up with group membership.

Social Comparison

The final stage is social comparison. Once we have categorized ourselves as part of a group and have identified with that group we then tend to compare that group with other groups. If our self-esteem is to be maintained our group needs to compare favorably with other groups.

This is critical to understanding prejudice, because once two groups identify themselves as rivals, they are forced to compete in order for the members to maintain their self-esteem.

Competition and hostility between groups is thus not only a matter of competing for resources (like in Sherif’s Robbers Cave) like jobs but also the result of competing identities.

Conclusion

Just to reiterate, in social identity theory the group membership is not something foreign or artificial which is attached onto the person, it is a real, true and vital part of the person.

Again, it is crucial to remember in-groups are groups you identify with, and out-groups are ones that we don't identify with, and may discriminate against.

https://www.simplypsychol...%2Dgroups.

#ALBUMSSTILLMATTER
if you ever try the lotus position
Try it while you're being strangled
Do U understand what I'm saying?

#IDEFINEME
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #2 posted 08/17/20 11:53am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

The best way to find what is true is to say, what is received wisdom and say the opposite is prolly right and damn if it aint correct.

Free trade does suck.

Wars are bloody and wrong.

Tax cuts tend to not work.

The poor are not lazy. etc.

All you others say Hell Yea!! woot!
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #3 posted 08/17/20 3:06pm

IanRG

I declare that in the conversation about the perils of Them vs Us, I have been predetermined as a "Them".

.

If I was an "Us" and I am standing at the credenza near my front door looking at four items so I can be ready to vote:

.

1 A map to the new restricted number of polling stations because so many of the normal places to vote are closed this year.

.

2 My filled in postal voting form knowing that it is very possible that if I use this, with the impediments to counting that were put in place, the vote may never be counted.

.

3 My mask because I care about not spreading the virus to others.

.

4 My gun because I need to protect my family and friends from those others.

.

And I ponder which way should I vote - not just which person, but what method and with which two of these four items I will use. I reflect on a moral question: "Is it better to teach a person to fish or share your fish with them". In this I determine that both are good and it depends on the circumstance.

.

So I ask myself which candidate is more concerned with improving access to education for the disadvantaged, the down trodden, who may be able to lift themselves up if only they can figuratively learn to fish? Perhaps that candidate deserves my vote. Which candidate is the one that will share their "fish" with the down trodden and may even throw in some loaves: Perhaps that candidate deserves my vote.

.

Which two items will I choose?

[Edited 8/17/20 15:08pm]

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #4 posted 08/17/20 3:27pm

13cjk13

avatar

OldFriends4Sale said:

ngcb20

Social Identity Theory

By Saul McLeod, updated 2019

Henri Tajfel's greatest contribution to psychology was social identity theory. Social identity is a person’s sense of who they are based on their group membership(s).

Tajfel (1979) proposed that the groups (e.g. social class, family, football team etc.) which people belonged to were an important source of pride and self-esteem. Groups give us a sense of social identity: a sense of belonging to the social world.

We divided the world into “them” and “us” based through a process of social categorization (i.e. we put people into social groups).

Henri Tajfel proposed that stereotyping (i.e. putting people into groups and categories) is based on a normal cognitive process: the tendency to group things together. In doing so we tend to exaggerate:

1. the differences between groups

2. the similarities of things in the same group.

This is known as in-group (us) and out-group (them). The central hypothesis of social identity theory is that group members of an in-group will seek to find negative aspects of an out-group, thus enhancing their self-image.

Prejudiced views between cultures may result in racism; in its extreme forms, racism may result in genocide, such as occurred in Germany with the Jews, in Rwanda between the Hutus and Tutsis and, more recently, in the former Yugoslavia between the Bosnians and Serbs.

ngcb20

We categorize people in the same way. We see the group to which we belong (the in-group) as being different from the others (the out-group), and members of the same group as being more similar than they are.

Social categorization is one explanation for prejudice attitudes (i.e. “them” and “us” mentality) which leads to in-groups and out-groups.

Examples of In-groups and Out-groups

o Northern Ireland: Catholics – Protestants

o Rwanda: Hutus and Tutsis

o Yugoslavia: the Bosnians and Serbs

o Germany: Jews and the Nazis

o Politics: Labor and the Conservatives

o Football: Liverpool and Man Utd

o Gender: Males and Females

o Social Class: Middle and Working Classes

Social Identity Theory Stages

Tajfel and Turner (1979) proposed that there are three mental processes involved in evaluating others as “us” or “them” (i.e. “in-group” and “out-group”. These take place in a particular order.

ngcb20

Categorization

The first is categorization. We categorize objects in order to understand them and identify them. In a very similar way we categorize people (including ourselves) in order to understand the social environment. We use social categories like black, white, Australian, Christian, Muslim, student, and bus driver because they are useful.

If we can assign people to a category then that tells us things about those people, and as we saw with the bus driver example, we couldn't function in a normal manner without using these categories; i.e. in the context of the bus.

Similarly, we find out things about ourselves by knowing what categories we belong to. We define appropriate behavior by reference to the norms of groups we belong to, but you can only do this if you can tell who belongs to your group. An individual can belong to many different groups.

Social Identification

In the second stage, social identification, we adopt the identity of the group we have categorized ourselves as belonging to.

If for example you have categorized yourself as a student, the chances are you will adopt the identity of a student and begin to act in the ways you believe students act (and conform to the norms of the group).

There will be an emotional significance to your identification with a group, and your self-esteem will become bound up with group membership.

Social Comparison

The final stage is social comparison. Once we have categorized ourselves as part of a group and have identified with that group we then tend to compare that group with other groups. If our self-esteem is to be maintained our group needs to compare favorably with other groups.

This is critical to understanding prejudice, because once two groups identify themselves as rivals, they are forced to compete in order for the members to maintain their self-esteem.

Competition and hostility between groups is thus not only a matter of competing for resources (like in Sherif’s Robbers Cave) like jobs but also the result of competing identities.

Conclusion

Just to reiterate, in social identity theory the group membership is not something foreign or artificial which is attached onto the person, it is a real, true and vital part of the person.

Again, it is crucial to remember in-groups are groups you identify with, and out-groups are ones that we don't identify with, and may discriminate against.

https://www.simplypsychol...%2Dgroups.


wave
If your actions make the Moderators' job more difficult, it hurts the community. Participating in this site is a privilege, not a right—and everyone's cooperation and adherence to the above rules is an absolute necessity. - Of4$

"hey if you found out someone gave you a fake $20 would you be mad?"It is in fact #TRUTH.Mocha ObsidianˈN(y)o͞obēən Cocoa Noir...
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #5 posted 08/24/20 7:24am

OldFriends4Sal
e

avatar

moderator

If both sides just say the other is wrong, “this increases disharmony and pushback,” he said. People get increasingly defensive and get stuck in “aggrieved” mode.

But if there is an offer of absolution embedded in the discussion, people are more likely to listen to each other and not just shout at each other, he said.

“Anger is a wonderful spur to action,” he added. But, “while anger is essential for recognizing a problem — it’s essential — it’s not good for solving a problem.”

Sometimes a person is canceled for abhorrent behavior — for example, retweeting racist jokes and or making a false police report, as happened in New York City’s Central Park earlier this year.

But when a difference in beliefs is involved, cancel culture moves into another realm, one that is currently confronting the country as a whole: ideological polarization.

Robb Willer, director of the Polarization and Social Change Lab at Stanford University, contends that people of opposing ideologies should use a strategy called “moral reframing” in conflict. Simply put, this means to consider the values and morals of people with opposing viewpoints when trying to convince them of your view.

This leads to empathy, which in her speech at the Democratic National Convention former first lady Michelle Obama described as, “the ability to walk in someone else’s shoes; the recognition that someone else’s experience has value, too.”

Understanding the moral framework that underpins another person’s beliefs may reduce the vehemence with which other people denounce them, and remind critics that people cannot just abandon their principles because a crowd demands it.

As Douglas Murray wrote in his 2019 book “The Madness of Crowds,” “there is something demeaning and ultimately soul-destroying about being expected to go along with claims you do not believe to be true and cannot hold to be true.”

That’s similar to what Rowling said when she tweeted a quote by the late American playwright Lillian Hellman: “I cannot and will not cut my conscience to fit this year’s fashions.”

https://www.deseret.com/i...tywj3NuuyY

#ALBUMSSTILLMATTER
if you ever try the lotus position
Try it while you're being strangled
Do U understand what I'm saying?

#IDEFINEME
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #6 posted 08/25/20 2:25am

jaawwnn

avatar

Anyone who uses terms like "groupthink" should always be treated with suspicion imho.

As I said elsewhere, the idea of a "center" or "moderate" is a form of ideology that obfuscates itself by not admitting it.

Of course, all politics is about getting your idea across as the sensible one, win that argument and you win an election, but the problem with centrists and moderates is that they believe that they have already won that argument, that everyone who is sane agrees with them already and anyone who disagrees on their idea of what "moderation" is is a crank who should be ignored. Which is also why they always lose.

[Edited 8/25/20 2:32am]

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #7 posted 08/25/20 9:43am

OldFriends4Sal
e

avatar

moderator

Black Conservatives Debate Black Liberals on American Politics (Extended Version)

https://www.youtube.com/w...VIoC5ROaHk


13.2M subscribers
SUBSCRIBE
By popular demand, this is an extended cut of the original version of this debate we published here on YouTube (watch the original debate here: https://youtu.be/HGAsMtcPy_c) Who voted for Donald Trump? Who voted for Barack Obama? What’s it like seeing a black person wearing a MAGA hat? Has the black vote been taken for granted? Black conservatives and liberals hash it out in the VICE Office.

TIMECODES OF WHAT WAS DISCUSSED:

0:57 - What first comes to mind when you think of Donald Trump?

1:59 - "Drain the swap" and capitalism

3:28 - Who here voted for Donald Trump?

4:54 - What is your impression when you see a black person wearing a MAGA hat?

5:51 - Black conservatives talk about how they're treated in the black community

9:17 - Who here voted for Obama?

11:06 - Who was disappointed by Obama's presidency?

15:34 - Issues with the Trump presidency

16:28 - Why vote for Donald Trump?

19:55 - Disagreements on systems of oppression - welfare, taxes, etc

23:29 - Policies that Republicans and Democrats disagree on that help and hinder the black community

26:09 - Black wealth and reparations

29:24 - Black voters being synonymous with the Democratic party

32:26 - Student loans and college

35:22 - Should the black vote be courted?

#ALBUMSSTILLMATTER
if you ever try the lotus position
Try it while you're being strangled
Do U understand what I'm saying?

#IDEFINEME
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #8 posted 08/25/20 10:21am

OldFriends4Sal
e

avatar

moderator

"Most people want to build a better world, but just in disagreement on how to do that"

Conservatives and Progressives Debate Feminism (Extended Version)

https://www.youtube.com/w...Mvih_KEMWo

Progressive and conservative women hash it out in the VICE office. (Watch a shorter version of this debate here: https://youtu.be/LVXWPjxbLEY) What does it mean to identify as a feminist? How has Me Too impacted women around the world? Where does abortion wrap up into the broader idea of feminism? What about LGBTQ and trans rights? Who voted for Hillary Clinton, and who voted for Donald Trump?

TIMECODES OF WHAT WAS DISCUSSED:

0:57 - Who here identifies as a feminist?

1:11 - What does feminism mean to you? Why do you or do you not identify as a feminist?

4:59 - Is the term “feminist” inclusive of all women?

6:43 - If you aren’t a feminist, are you anti-women?

7:19 - Are feminists anti-men?

9:07 - Dissenting opinions on society being “dominated” by men

10:11 - How are we going to create the future we want?

11:13 - Women and the GOP

12:44 - Who here voted for Donald Trump?

16:12 - Hillary Clinton

17:55 - How have Trump voters been treated by progressive women?

19:27 - How does abortion wrap into the idea of feminism?

24:53 - Shaming moms and motherhood

26:43 - “Do you support the Me Too movement?”

27:36 - “Believe all women” debate and Me Too

28:43 - Has work culture changed after Me Too?

29:51 - Trump’s “grab ‘em by the pussy” comments

33:10 - Dating culture after Me Too

34:53 - Consent in relationships

36:14 - Are trans-women helping the women and gender equality movement?

37:59 - Do traditional gender roles have a place in society?

39:48 - Are there ways women are privileged?

#ALBUMSSTILLMATTER
if you ever try the lotus position
Try it while you're being strangled
Do U understand what I'm saying?

#IDEFINEME
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #9 posted 08/27/20 6:56pm

OldFriends4Sal
e

avatar

moderator

I'm not going to create a new thread for this. I thought there was a specific thread about the Nov 2020 election overall. But this fits here strongly

You Don’t Owe Your Vote to Anyone

Voters wait to cast ballots during the presidential primary election in Milwaukee, Wis., April 7, 2020. (Daniel Acker/Reuters)No one should be bullied into supporting one candidate or another by pundits who can’t be bothered to make substantive arguments for their positions.

Election years bring their own unique array of annoyances. When the most powerful office on the planet is on the line, partisans become more unbearable than usual, our televisions and laptops become inundated with ads, and our social-media squabbles increase in both volume and intensity. With Donald Trump up for reelection, 2020 has been and will continue to be exceptional in this respect.


Like the last election, and the one before that, this is the “most important of our lives.” Because of its importance, many in the pundit class have decided that you, the voter — sweet, innocent, stupid you — are incapable of making this consequential decision for yourself. But there are two problems for these pundits. The first is that they cannot make your choice for you. The second is that they are competing with other pundits, pundits who would have you vote for evil. To win, they need to make you feel bad enough to agree with them prior to November 3, and they need to be more forceful in their condemnations of any who disagree with them than their counterparts on the other side of the aisle.

Fox News mainstay Geraldo Rivera, who said Trump’s “critics were much more right than I” after Trump urged Representative Ilhan Omar (D., Minn.) and other members of “The Squad” to “go back” to their home countries last summer, has changed his tune now that Election Day is mere months away. On August 6, Rivera declared that “there are reasons to vote against Donald Trump. If he loses though, I’ll blame Republican traitors.” The candidate who gave Americans reasons not to vote for him would not be to blame, you see; it would be the fault of the “traitors” who took notice of those reasons and reached an informed decision to either stay home or vote against him.

The same sort of argument is common among the “traitors” to which Rivera was referring. Tim Miller of The Bulwark has decreed that “everyone who doesn’t support Biden has something to do with Trump.” By Miller’s logic, it’s not Joe Biden’s responsibility to appeal to conservative and moderate voters; it’s those voters’ responsibility to support Biden. Tom Nichols, a Never Trumper who is Twitter-famous for being Twitter-famous, is especially vexed by those conservatives who have resolved not to vote for either major-party candidate, but would, he suspects, prefer that Trump win. On Twitter, Nichols imagines how a conversation with one of these voters might go: “‘Fine, you’re not voting. Do you have a preference about how this election will go?’ And the bullsh** answer is: ‘My hands are clean’ which is a way of saying ‘Of course I do, but I’m ashamed of what it is.’”

I’ve never understood the fetish for increasing voter turnout. Voting is both a right and a responsibility; it should be easy for all Americans. But each additional vote is not some kind of victory for democracy; those who care enough to show up should and those who don’t should stay home. The sanctity of each individual vote, on the other hand, should be sacred. Americans who head to the polls should not allow themselves to be bullied or shamed into voting one way or another. Pundits of all stripes have increasingly fallen back on such tactics instead of working to persuade people to their side. Their understanding of who owes what to whom is backward: It is the job of candidates for public office to appeal to voters with their values, policies and behavior, not the responsibility of voters to get in line to prove their righteousness to Tom Nichols or Geraldo Rivera.

That supporters of both Biden and Trump would call you complicit in the other man’s victory if you decide to write in a candidate or vote for a third party should tell you everything you need to know about the quality of their arguments; they can’t both be right. This November 3, Americans should do what an earlier, better version of Ted Cruz told them to do in 2016 and vote their conscience.

https://www.nationalrevie...ign=morein

#ALBUMSSTILLMATTER
if you ever try the lotus position
Try it while you're being strangled
Do U understand what I'm saying?

#IDEFINEME
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #10 posted 08/31/20 5:22pm

OldFriends4Sal
e

avatar

moderator

Something caught my eye today while I was have a conversation with my cousin(F), that there are people pave their own way, and people that follow a paved path. I guess in some ways both are good. But can also be adversarial at the same time. Especially when it involves a battle within.

#ALBUMSSTILLMATTER
if you ever try the lotus position
Try it while you're being strangled
Do U understand what I'm saying?

#IDEFINEME
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #11 posted 09/01/20 6:29am

OldFriends4Sal
e

avatar

moderator

https://www.psychologytod...WsrQQzHSjw

.

Six Common Ways People Justify Unethical Behavior

Why we may feel good about ourselves even when we do wrong.

.

Most of us want to believe that we are morally upright people who act according to a strong sense of right and wrong. But when faced with temptations to derive personal benefit by violating moral principles, people do not always take the high road. Research suggests that lying, cheating, and other harmful acts are more common than we might hope.

How are people able to engage in unethical behaviors—often repeatedly—without being overwhelmed by guilt?

In many cases, psychological processes kick in that frame the behavior as less immoral and the self as moral. Researchers call these self-serving justifications , and they can take many forms. Sometimes they serve to rationalize a desired behavior before it takes place, making it easier to go through with it, while other times they help people feel better about something they have already done.

The following are six common strategies researchers have identified that people use to justify unethical behavior and maintain a positive self-view.

.

(explanation of each is included in the links article)

1. Viewing the behavior as a grey area

2. Believing the behavior will benefit others

3. Highlighting moral credentials

4. Symbolically cleansing

5. Partially coming clean

6. Demonizing those who have done worse
.
In summary, we often experience a conflict between a desire to see ourselves—and be seen—as good people, and a desire to behave in ways that don't necessarily align with that self-image. We may try to resolve this dissonance in a range of different ways, from changing the way we view the behavior to changing the way we view ourselves and others.

But as long as we are motivated more by a desire to appear moral than to actually be moral, these self-serving justifications are unlikely to promote behavior that serves our long-term interests, or those of our organizations and communities.

.

References

Shalvi, S., Gino, F., Barkan, R., & Ayal, S. (2015). Self-serving justifications: doing wrong and feeling moral. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(2), 125–130.

#ALBUMSSTILLMATTER
if you ever try the lotus position
Try it while you're being strangled
Do U understand what I'm saying?

#IDEFINEME
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #12 posted 09/01/20 8:50am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

Thom Hartmann had it right. The right think people are mostly bad, we think they are mostly good. That's if the society is formed right. Plus adequete nature/nurcher,.

All you others say Hell Yea!! woot!
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #13 posted 09/01/20 9:01am

OldFriends4Sal
e

avatar

moderator

2freaky4church1 said:

Thom Hartmann had it right. The right think people are mostly bad, we think they are mostly good. That's if the society is formed right. Plus adequete nature/nurcher,.

I wonder if more people who have kids/become parents become a bit more 'conservative' in how they view the world and see most people as potentially dangerous (even family)

#ALBUMSSTILLMATTER
if you ever try the lotus position
Try it while you're being strangled
Do U understand what I'm saying?

#IDEFINEME
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #14 posted 09/11/20 7:51am

OldFriends4Sal
e

avatar

moderator

Another interesting take on outside the box thinking (concerning political parties)


https://www.newsweek.com/secession-either-left-right-opinion-1530839

Secession, From Either Left or Right | Opinion

Michael Anton , Lecturer and research fellow, Hillsdale College and senior fellow, Claremont Institute
On 9/11/20 at 7:30 AM EDT

This is an excerpt from Michael Anton's new book, The Stakes: America at the Point of No Return, available now from Regnery Books.A widely repeated aphorism holds that anything that can't go on forever won't.

Since I expect to be accused of wishing for one or another of the possibilities sketched below, I may as well answer that charge now: My fondest political dream is for a restoration of the American constitutional order—an order under relentless attack by the Left for decades and defended fecklessly (if at all) by the Right. My purpose here is to deliver a warning to anyone who will listen.

#ALBUMSSTILLMATTER
if you ever try the lotus position
Try it while you're being strangled
Do U understand what I'm saying?

#IDEFINEME
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #15 posted 09/13/20 8:33am

OldFriends4Sal
e

avatar

moderator

‘Mighty Ducks’ child star turned billionaire seeks to upend presidential race

Enlarge Image




“Whether we go left or right, it doesn’t feel like we are making progress or going forward as a country. We need … game-changing change. It is time to upgrade the operating system of America. America 2.0,” Pierce told The Post, adding that neither Trump or Biden have a real “grasp of technology.”

“I think that neither candidate really connects with the younger generations,” Pierce said. “I am not hearing from either candidate any real vision. I am not hearing anything that really inspires me. I am hearing a lot of negativity.”

Enlarge Image

Pierce’s personal cash, however, tells a different story. He donated more than $100,000 to Trump’s campaign and the Republican National Committee in August, 2019, FEC records show. Pierce said the money was spent so he could lobby the president about Puerto Rican relief issues at a dinner with him at the home of hedge fund billionaire John Paulson.

“It was something done one time with one purpose,” he said emphatically, explaining the six-figure donation.

Pierce says he doesn’t expect to win, but rather jumpstart a viable, national third-party movement.

“In the year 2020, it is not our goal to win the general election. Our goal is to lay the groundwork for the future. I … turn 40 in November. I’m in this for at least the next 40 years. Time is on my side,” he said.

https://nypost.com/2020/0..._AySQj7fZI

#ALBUMSSTILLMATTER
if you ever try the lotus position
Try it while you're being strangled
Do U understand what I'm saying?

#IDEFINEME
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #16 posted 09/13/20 9:23am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

I believe most people *the vast majority* agree on most issues. Where we may differ is in approach and priority.

Most want: quality affordable health care, housing, food.. etc. But we also need to know that some will always have the ability to "better" and that is good for everyone.

Most want quality education.

Most want a fair means of immigration

Most want clean air and water.

Most want safe roads and clean streets and less crime.

I want a Tesla! I can not afford one. But in a few years the same tech will come down to a point where I will be able to afford it. People that pay extra for a fancy car or computer or house or gadget or medical equipment... all subsidise the over all improvement of those things and that helps everyone.


I stand with Ben and the Moderators!
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply   New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > Them vs US Republicans vs Democracts Left vs Right