Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: The pitfalls of divisive interaction

Posted 6 years ago on Feb. 23, 2012, 12:09 a.m. EST by richardkentgates (3269)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

What is divisive interaction?


Definition of DIVISIVE

: creating disunity or dissension

— di·vi·sive·ly adverb — di·vi·sive·ness noun


Adjective divisive (comparative more divisive, superlative most divisive) Having a quality that divides or separates Rather than fostering unity, he becomes divisive.

Why does it matter?

It matters because it is a large part of why this forum is so slow right now.

It matters because divisiveness makes Occupy and anyone supporting it look as bad as you do when you take part in it.

It matters because you could be running off and thinning down the number of Occupy supporters.

What does it take to be divisive?

Buying into any thread or comment where arbitrary information has been added to the argument but is not in fact information relevant to the issue.


If it weren't for the Republicans....

The newest attack on women's rights by the conservatives...

The Jews are running the whole thing...

Even if you feel you are defending against said idea or arguing against it, your argument may be misread by someone from the opposing end of that argument and see you as the troll. By the way, disagreement or party affiliation does not make someone a troll. This may and should sound elementary to some of you, but I'm saying it because apparently it isn't so obvious to everyone.



Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 6 years ago

Sometimes "divisive" is a state of mind.

Sometimes simple statements of fact, will be taken as divisive.

Sometimes politicians make statements that can be construed as divisive.

Sometimes politicians pass divisive legislation.

Sometimes the subject itself, lends itself to divisiveness.

Sometimes statements of unity are reacted to in a divisive manner.

Sometimes folks in here are just plain contrary to anything you might say, leading to divisiveness

Unfortunately it would appear that divisiveness is the current state of political discourse.

I'm not so sure there is an easy cure for it on a public forum.

I don't care for walking on eggshells.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 6 years ago

Thank you. Sometimes THE TRUTH is divissive. No matter how much we wan't to be INCLUSSIVE, we can't be completely INCLUSSIVE, and still stand for ANYTHING. Therefore a certain amount of divissiveness is unavoidable.

By the way, were are tired of the thousand and one MINDFUCKS about divission and inclussion. Let's focus on truth and lies. It get's you further!

[-] 1 points by Chugwunka (89) from Willows, CA 6 years ago

And you are the one to distinguish between truth and lies.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 6 years ago

Yes, because their is a distinction, regardless of how hard you guys try to blurr it.

[-] 1 points by Chugwunka (89) from Willows, CA 6 years ago

And you are the one to distinguish between truth and lies. What would a Marxist liberal know about truth?

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 6 years ago

"Marxest Liberal" Just another lie, from the nutcase circus. How about Fascist Republican . . . that would be a LOT closer to the truth. But we're through here, you aren't intelligent enough to spend much time on.

[-] 1 points by Chugwunka (89) from Willows, CA 6 years ago

So you are a Fascist Republican?

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 6 years ago

I think eggshells may be overstating it.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 6 years ago

That is exactly where we are at.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 6 years ago

Being the bigger person does not mean you are walking on eggshells. That is the worst cop-out for personal responsibility ever made. Being the bigger means you believe in your movement enough to see that some with views not exactly inline with yours may be interested in supporting the same causes you support and you should be big enough to allow that to happen.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 6 years ago

BS. I sat here yesterday and every time the message was that there was no unity I found protests where all affiliations were present. Further, I found actions of involvement in communities which is where it starts. Deny, deny, deny.

I'm pretty straight up about where I am willing to meet someone. But, this, um.........you didn't say Democrats are guilty too is shit so I don't want to talk about it is crap.

See the following thread. Providing I have enough time, I like to back up my statements. These people are adults and should be able to provide statements that back those arguments so as to demonstrate how they arrived at their conclusions. Why was it not done? Because it was a bullshit thread. http://occupywallst.org/forum/public-schools-are-failing-horribly-what-should-we/

[-] 1 points by Chugwunka (89) from Willows, CA 6 years ago

Where we're all those affiliations present? What affiliations?

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 6 years ago

I'm not talking about the troll being divisive, they obviously are, and will continue to be. The only thing you have control over is how you allow that to make you and Occupy look. You make that decision with every post and reply.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 6 years ago

No, politics (which is what this IS) should be completely without division . . . IF YOU WANT TO KEEP THE STATUS QUO!

They are playing with your minds people! Trying to confuse you as to who we are and who our opponents are.

We are the ones that want change - they are the ones that do not. Trying to include them (The Republican Party) would be assinine, and yet this is the basis of the idiocy upon which they want to fool us. Should we be inclusive? YES! Can we include multiple points of view? Yes! Can we include our opponents? . . .duhh . . .NO!

The 1% have a political party. It has a name. It's name is the Republican Party.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 6 years ago

You should try and separate the Republicans you see on tv and your neighbors.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 6 years ago

The point remains, the Republican Party is the party that represents the 1%. Therefore, the fact that they are our opponents precludes us from taking them under our banner. This is so clear as to be obvious.

To not recognize that irrefutable fact would be to completely abandon this movements goals, and so cloud the issues that nothing could ever be accomplished.

There are two separate issues here, which are being conflated in order to cloud our thinking. One is whether those of us with the same goals can unite, regardless of whether we believe in going through the existing political process, or whether we believe in direct action. I see no real conflict here, both are possible and both are already being done.

The other issue comes down to this; can we broaden our tent so far as to include our opponents. That question is rediculous, prima facia; but an effort to get these separate issues confused, and therefore cloud our judgement, is the objective of the movements opponents at the moment. It is up to us to not be allow ourselves to be confused.

Remember the fall of Troy, and the Trojan horse?

[-] 2 points by richardkentgates (3269) 6 years ago

Sure. I also know it took dems to vote in the 2012NDAA, and every other piece of legislation you complain about the republicans passing. If fact, if it has been in the last 6, you can blame the democratic majority in the senate. Do you somehow forget they have a hand is passing shitty laws as well?

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 6 years ago

No, I don't forget. But the Republican Party is the established party of the 1%.

[-] 2 points by richardkentgates (3269) 6 years ago

It's also the party of Lincoln.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 6 years ago

That was a really long time ago. Hey, maybe my great, great grandfather voted for the whigs? Doesn't have much to do with political reality at the moment.

[-] 2 points by richardkentgates (3269) 6 years ago

You make so many well formed arguments, do you really lose that much by just stepping off the party lines as a point? Would it really diminish your ability to make good argument? I'm just say'n...

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 6 years ago

I would if it didn't dillute the truth. I'm not being flippant here. The Republican Party is the party of the 1%. We can accept anyone into our cause other than our opponents. Conservatives are not our opponents, Republicans are. This is just an inescapable fact. If we dellude ourselves here than we simply won't know which end is up.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 6 years ago

"All of this energy is for naught if we don’t learn how to slay the dragon. And if you—Tea Partier, Occupier, citizen—aren’t in it to slay the dragon, then you—Tea Partier, Occupier, citizen—are the problem."


[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 6 years ago

I'm sorry, I'm suddely getting more serious interest in the question of finding unity between left and right that I have in all the time I've been on this forum combined, and I take the matter of being even the most informal liason between the two groups very seriously indeed.

Therefore I will have to come back to the forum after I've had some rest.

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 6 years ago


"For until the giant recognizes that she has two hands, a Left and a Right, and two feet, a Left and a Right, and two sides of a brain, a Left and a Right, and that she needs both, the giant will do nothing more than flail."

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 6 years ago

I agree with the spirit of this - turning it into practice, I believe, would be difficult. There is one issue I think we all agree on, as beautiful world said, and that is getting money out of politics.

I think the other, primary goals of us on the left are, addressing the income gap, so that there are no more homeless people on the streets, ever. ending corporate personhood, putting a generous, but sane limit of absolute personal wealth, so that people cannot build levels of wealth that challenge the power of government, and finally turning American forign policy into an instrument of peace and not war.

What are your thoughts on that?

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 6 years ago

There has always been an enormous income gap, ever since before the beginning of this country. We have survived just fine. I see that as a distraction from the real problem: the ability of that money to corrupt our politics. We can build consensus around that idea, but we're on much less stable ground if we start trying to penalize success.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 6 years ago

I am not in a position to speak for a broad, grassroots movment in regard to what they will or won't do, but you're comment has validity, and I'm sure it will be noted. Clearly, the more people onboard the better. If we could broaden this to a willingness to address corruption in general, we might acually come to a meeting of the minds.

But, as I say, this is a movement of individuals, and we will know more about specifics after Philidelphia.

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 6 years ago

I've been saying that for months, but some folks think that republicans and conservatives in real life are just like the ones on the magic talking box in their front room.

Maybe if they actually talk with their neighbors they could understand the people they claim to want to represent.

[-] 2 points by richardkentgates (3269) 6 years ago

It's like nobody has family of different party affiliations. Pretty narrow minded.

[-] 1 points by poltergist22 (159) 6 years ago

How about adopting this into OWS and UNIFYING EVERYONE??? www.nationalday911.org

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 6 years ago

Will we be unified with the Oligarchy, or without them according to www.whatever . . .humm, probably with . . . how did I guess.

Why not go ahead and post the link, and we'll see.

[-] 1 points by poltergist22 (159) 6 years ago

we would be unified with ...them ...as you put it but ...they ...would also be united with us,,,,understand?

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 6 years ago

No, you'll have to explain how they would be unified with us? They have shown no desire, heretofore to be unified with us.

As George F. Will once said (and this is perhaps the only thing I ever agreed with him on) "We have the only society in the world in which profits are private, and losses are socialized."

Perhaps he was gloating.

[-] 1 points by poltergist22 (159) 6 years ago

Gypsy okay let me explain ,my attitude isnt' about class struggle,I support some of the ideas OWS has but not this ...them against us theme...I'd like to see corruption curtailed I'd like to see everyone with JOBS I'd like to see that an average Joe in this country has some input into how this country is run and not let Company's or Corporations pay for politicians, or be above the law. The way it would unite THEM to us is simple GREED...it is the heart of capitalism it is BUSINESS it is what made this country. If we could convince them to contribute one days profit on every September 11th I mean every domestic corporation and company and we chime in with one days wages or entitlements . The only way to get them to do that is to show them we will make a list of AMERICAN companies and guarantee we will shop that list. There's the greed they would see that donating one day might give them a 5% ( guess) year end profit. It is business! and it is honest business. What would it do for us? JOBS, UNITY, a lessened deficit for future generations.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 6 years ago

You know, I really don't want to exclude conservatives from this conversation, even if I could. In fact, it would be stupid to even try to do so, given the great numbers of conservatives in America. But I think what would be needed would be some kind of actual, formal diplomacy, where we might work to arrive at a program that was acceptable to all.

I say formal diplomacy, because sometimes I think the American Left and right wings are as far apart as foreign countries.

It is certainly a question beyond my ability to solve, and even the idea of it seems problematic. How does one go about that process in a leaderless movement? These are profound questions. I don't have the answers, but the only way to ultimately find answers is to such questions is to ask them.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 6 years ago

You may be interested in Lawrence Lessig's new pamphlet/book, One Way Forward. It's short, it's cheap, and it's about everything that you just mentioned.


[-] -1 points by debndan (1145) 6 years ago

The biggest source of divisiveness are these two Ideas held by a small group of narrow minded individuals which are namely

1.)A purported series of 'scientific' studies that said that conservatives and religious folks are low in intelligence and racists.

I warned people not to put stock in these and that it would be divisive. Conservatives make up 40-60% of the population, depending on how the question is asked, and religious people make up 60-90% also, dependent on how it's asked.

When you demonize the very people you claim to represent (the 99%) then don't be surprised when said people go elsewhere.

2.)That religion and politics should be separate

This is the most radical dogmatic bullshit I've seen replicated throughout this forum. Religiously held beliefs are what bring many people here, then to say welcome but don't speak your mind flies in the face of democracy.

And again, religious folks make up 60-90% of the general public. Not to mention that it's a lack of religion, ethics, and morality in our leadership that has gotten us where we are as a society.

And it takes religious/ moral speech to counter the culture of hypocrisy, lies, and greed that we have today. When we take the moral high ground with regards to our elected officials, the only danger we present to the movement is actually convincing the public we are right, and getting something done.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 6 years ago

The Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy, president of Interfaith Alliance, said he has been "deeply disturbed by the disproportionate role religion has played during recent election cycles with some candidates seeming to be running for ‘pastor-in-chief’" and that "a line is crossed when a candidate implies that they should receive your vote because of their faith."

75% of Democrats and 58% of Republicans believe a candidate should not use their religion or faith to influence voters to support them.

More Democrats (85%) than Republicans (68%) believe the next president should pick justices who will protect the separation of church and state.

You - are in the minority. Thank goodness. Hopefully our separation of church and state will be protected from people like you.

You are full of illogical thoughts and contradictions. Not the least of which is you should make a post about divisiveness at the same time that you compared me to Hitler. Because you had no other logical argument so instead resorted to fear mongering and divisiveness.


[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 6 years ago

please don't group lack of religion with lack of ethics

[-] -1 points by debndan (1145) 6 years ago

I grouped them together like that because many times it goes hand in hand as far as those that want religion out of politics, also want morality and ethics out of political discourse.

Not saying ethics is owned by religious folks only, many atheists are highly moral/ ethical, and many religious folks are immoral/ unethical.

Which is one of the many reasons that religion/ morality belongs in the political discourse. And that is to point out the hypocrisy of those in power that claim morality, yet lie, cheat, and steal.

[-] -1 points by debndan (1145) 6 years ago

If people here wonder where everyone went, but yet engaged in number one or number two, may I suggest that your not as smart as you thought.

And I WARNED about this a month ago when these two cropped up, (shaking head) I warned ....