A serious curiosity derived from something I’ve noticed more and more often lately:

What the hell has happened to nuanced thought? It seems every day- more and more, it’s either this or that, with us or against us, black or white. What happened to the complexity of thought? Why have we come to be so polarized about every single thing that exists? And it seems it doesn’t matter the subject! The moment a topic is brought up. Sides are immediately taken in the War of Being Right.

It used to be that we considered things. We were rational. Logical. Contemplative.

Now? Everyone seems so quick to arrive at hastily constructed arguments that have to be either for or against- where no argument was necessary or even called for to being with!

It seems to me, that we need to relearn what was once so easily understood, and it’s that life exists between the boundaries of one and the other.

  • MourningDove@lemmy.zipBannedOP
    46·
    14 hours ago

    Again, nuance. There are people from ALL political affiliations, and all walks of life that do this- not just MAGA.

    I’m not going to turn this into a political debate as it’s not a political post. The point is that people seem to be too quick to argue, and not quick enough to use rational and nuanced thought before arriving at their conclusions.

    • AdolfSchmitler@lemmy.world
      4·
      13 hours ago

      I mean, that kinda sounds like whataboutism. The other person was talking about maga specifically and you said “people from…all walks of life do this”

      But I think nuanced conversation is so much work. It takes so much energy and patience and attention and people just don’t have those things anymore.

      edit just realized in this micro example that you were trying to speak in broad terms, and they were trying to be specific. So even tho you were trying to talk about the same idea, your scales were different. Now you have to spend time addressing this discrepancy instead of what you actually want to talk about.

      • MourningDove@lemmy.zipBannedOP
        3·
        13 hours ago

        That, but also- I don’t want to turn this into a giant political soapbox for people to air their grievances. The point is the lack of nuance, not let’s circlejerk about MAGA.

        But yeah. It is a pretty good micro example.

        • echo@lemmings.world
          1·
          9 hours ago

          What do you want to talk about, then?

          let’s circlejerk about MAGA.

          I agree. There’s no debate to be had. Just like there is no debate to be had about whether vaccines cause autism. However, you are refusing to engage. You could have said, "Yes, MAGA is awful and that’s not the conversation I’d like to have. However, you didn’t do that. You literally (intentionally or unintentionally) defended MAGA and then complained again that there just isn’t any nuance.

          You aren’t seeing nuanced conversations because you’re watching one side disavow law, science, and decency and then pretending that we should give a rat’s ass what they have to say.

          Again… you’re asking for rational people to play a high-stakes game of chess with a pigeon and then getting upset that, instead, they shoo away the pigeon. You need to respond that you understand this, that you disagree with it, or something. Again, your very behaviors are why you’re not seeing nuanced conversations – giving you the benefit of the doubt that this is actually what you want.

    • echo@lemmings.world
      11·
      9 hours ago

      And, I propose that what you are doing is part of the problem and why you’re not seeing the nuanced conversation you’re seeking. You’re literally making excuses and space for MAGA. You are deflecting and changing the topic. You are coming across as disingenuous. Part of having a nuanced conversation is that you must participate in it and do so in good-faith. Don’t waste my or anyone else’s time with this virtue signaling. You are why people aren’t having the conversation you profess to want to see happening. Any further questions?