The Right and the Left need each other - debate

[nickle7]

I feel a big post coming on here...

This thread is coming from somewhere deep for me.
It's really about this forum... and it's about Dan Carlin and what he has been trying to achieve.
It's about what happened to the former DCF and what's happening to the USA and in some ways the rest of the world.

What I want the MHF to be is a life raft.... but more than that a seed that grows.
I want this place to allow the left and right to cooperate rather than tear each other to shreds.
Dan and I believe that there is common ground.
That the left and right may differ in their values, but that many problems impact the left and right equally and that compromise and shared solutions are the answer.

Here on the MHF we have long time posters on the left and the right... but we have bridged the gap of mutual respect in a lot of cases.
That being said, I can't help but think that what happened on the DCF is that our differences led to a meltdown that brought the place down.
Obviously we can all see in retrospect that we lost something precious.
We don't want that happening to this place and we don't want that happening to the USA or anywhere else.

The right can teach us about strength. It is in on the side of power. Power is not a bad thing. It protects the engine of the nation and majority culture from decay. The weak should not defeat the strong, they should only hold them accountable. The right protects the state and the culture from unnecesarry revolution. It is a counterrevolutionary principle, holding back the chaos of endless self editing and self destruction that the left can bring if unchecked.

The left can teach us about compassion. It is on the side of the potentially downtrodden. It protects the "losers" in a society. The strong should not completely oppress the weak. However the weak in a society must not drag the entire society down with them. They should not overthrow the strong and cannibalize them. They depend on the strong. The weak are a societies continuous source of renewal and the bedrock of humility and empathy. They understand what the "losers" in a society understand... how bad it can get. The strong can lose touch in their gated communities. The left holds the strong accountable.

Therefore I propose that the right and the left need each other. The left might call the right all sorts of names - like "privileged" or assholes or racists... But the left needs the right. The right might call the left "pussies", SJWs, betas or cucks, but the right needs the left. That all being said there are differences in values and how to get from point a to point b and each side has the potential to dominate in an unhealthy way.

I propose that we allow healthy conflict and vigorous debate. The thrill of battle in each thread is what we are all here for! But let us also identify common enemies where we band together. Let us see each other as brothers in arms as well as sparring mates!

Let's not tear each other apart any more than is healthy for us.

Let's fight for our nations together and let us fight for the world.

Who's with me!!

Well put. I was relatively new to DCF and I joined because I saw it as a place which was representative of everything you've laid out. I suppose I was too new to be able to say that it had changed into something other than that but I was saddened to see it come to an end, but so glad to be here now.

As things stand now, I think it's fair to say that the right and left need each other in the sense that they exist for each other. They build off of each other. An action on one side can't pass without an equal or greater action/reaction from the other side. Sort of a feedback loop. I'm all about spirited debate, of course why I'm here. But when it comes to the point where the debate exists only for itself, seemingly only out of some sort of self preservation, there is no possibility of a constructive solution. A solution is the death of a debate.

So it seems that feedback loop needs to be interrupted somehow. As I see it, the sort of discussion that happens here is a step in that direction. I find value in it because rather than a debate that goes back and forth between two people or two ideas, it's a web. There's no "left" and "right" camps. We don't just need the opposing side of our views, we need and have a web of nuanced adjustments, challenges, and addendums to our own views. So good and so needed in our national dialogue.

Ok, enough of the wishy-washiness. Just the thoughts of a relative newcomer...

[Montegriffo]

I feel a big post coming on here...

This thread is coming from somewhere deep for me.
It's really about this forum... and it's about Dan Carlin and what he has been trying to achieve.
It's about what happened to the former DCF and what's happening to the USA and in some ways the rest of the world.

What I want the MHF to be is a life raft.... but more than that a seed that grows.
I want this place to allow the left and right to cooperate rather than tear each other to shreds.
Dan and I believe that there is common ground.
That the left and right may differ in their values, but that many problems impact the left and right equally and that compromise and shared solutions are the answer.

Here on the MHF we have long time posters on the left and the right... but we have bridged the gap of mutual respect in a lot of cases.
That being said, I can't help but think that what happened on the DCF is that our differences led to a meltdown that brought the place down.
Obviously we can all see in retrospect that we lost something precious.
We don't want that happening to this place and we don't want that happening to the USA or anywhere else.

The right can teach us about strength. It is in on the side of power. Power is not a bad thing. It protects the engine of the nation and majority culture from decay. The weak should not defeat the strong, they should only hold them accountable. The right protects the state and the culture from unnecesarry revolution. It is a counterrevolutionary principle, holding back the chaos of endless self editing and self destruction that the left can bring if unchecked.

The left can teach us about compassion. It is on the side of the potentially downtrodden. It protects the "losers" in a society. The strong should not completely oppress the weak. However the weak in a society must not drag the entire society down with them. They should not overthrow the strong and cannibalize them. They depend on the strong. The weak are a societies continuous source of renewal and the bedrock of humility and empathy. They understand what the "losers" in a society understand... how bad it can get. The strong can lose touch in their gated communities. The left holds the strong accountable.

Therefore I propose that the right and the left need each other. The left might call the right all sorts of names - like "privileged" or assholes or racists... But the left needs the right. The right might call the left "pussies", SJWs, betas or cucks, but the right needs the left. That all being said there are differences in values and how to get from point a to point b and each side has the potential to dominate in an unhealthy way.

I propose that we allow healthy conflict and vigorous debate. The thrill of battle in each thread is what we are all here for! But let us also identify common enemies where we band together. Let us see each other as brothers in arms as well as sparring mates!

Let's not tear each other apart any more than is healthy for us.

Let's fight for our nations together and let us fight for the world.

Who's with me!!

Well put. I was relatively new to DCF and I joined because I saw it as a place which was representative of everything you've laid out. I suppose I was too new to be able to say that it had changed into something other than that but I was saddened to see it come to an end, but so glad to be here now.

As things stand now, I think it's fair to say that the right and left need each other in the sense that they exist for each other. They build off of each other. An action on one side can't pass without an equal or greater action/reaction from the other side. Sort of a feedback loop. I'm all about spirited debate, of course why I'm here. But when it comes to the point where the debate exists only for itself, seemingly only out of some sort of self preservation, there is no possibility of a constructive solution. A solution is the death of a debate.

So it seems that feedback loop needs to be interrupted somehow. As I see it, the sort of discussion that happens here is a step in that direction. I find value in it because rather than a debate that goes back and forth between two people or two ideas, it's a web. There's no "left" and "right" camps. We don't just need the opposing side of our views, we need and have a web of nuanced adjustments, challenges, and addendums to our own views. So good and so needed in our national dialogue.

Ok, enough of the wishy-washiness. Just the thoughts of a relative newcomer...

Well put to you too.
From one noob to another.

[Haumana]

Well put to you too.
From one noob to another.

Get a room, you two.

[DrYouth]

Get a room, you two.

Or keep it in the van?

[DrYouth]

Just the thoughts of a relative newcomer...

Great thoughts nickle...

+1

[TheReal_ND]

How about you stop with the inside jokes you aren't a part of? I still have your twitter account followed from that time you tried to steal my colors. I can make twitter life very hard for you.

[LVH2]

I think different political perspectives might be something like different legs on an animal stumbling about in the dark. Each includes different tools for arriving at the truth, and different ideals for human behavior. Each plays a role in the functioning of a tribe. Something like how Plato divided society into The Guardians, The Nerds, The Art Fags, The Valley Girls, etc.

It's most obvious with liberal/conservative. Sometimes, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Other times a new idea is better, or even essential to survival. We like to think we sit back and make objective evaluations of these situations, but in reality our default settings tend to pull us in one direction or the other most of the time. So we step this way and there's a hole and that way find firm ground and, hopefully, find the best path for the whole body.

[nickle7]

I think different political perspectives might be something like different legs on an animal stumbling about in the dark. Each includes different tools for arriving at the truth, and different ideals for human behavior. Each plays a role in the functioning of a tribe. Something like how Plato divided society into The Guardians, The Nerds, The Art Fags, The Valley Girls, etc.

It's most obvious with liberal/conservative. Sometimes, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Other times a new idea is better, or even essential to survival. We like to think we sit back and make objective evaluations of these situations, but in reality our default settings tend to pull us in one direction or the other most of the time. So we step this way and there's a hole and that way find firm ground and, hopefully, find the best path for the whole body.

Seems like a good way of looking at it.

Gosh, Plato really was ahead of his time... using terms like "nerds," "art fags," "valley girls."

[LVH2]

Oh yeah, the Dan/Dr Y. POV comes in where there is no authentic expression of these tendencies, at least in the world of policy makers. Instead of trying different ways to deal with problem X, elites simply chose whatever they believe will benefit them in the short run. e.g. open borders.

That's why I'm somewhat happy about Trump. Whatever he is, his win signifies a will to take back politics from the elites, and make it an expression of a real political perspective.

I want Trumpers and Bernie Bros slugging it out. Not Hillary and Jeb colluding to fist us all.

[Penner]

Okay, so I didn't read this whole thread but here are my thoughts:

Yes, they need each. In my mind, it's an imbalance thing. If one party has control 100% then it's shit. If both parties have 50%/50% control then at least that means that compromise can happen and we get a middle ground. Everybody, in theory should be happy.