Could we not "fight back"? Could we, as you said, live our lives and try to figure out the best way to do that, and do the right things without fuss and fanfare and all the attention getting tactics? Because things *are* serious now. If you're fighting, you're not uniting Americans, but dividing them. You can't win without consensus. Con…
Could we not "fight back"? Could we, as you said, live our lives and try to figure out the best way to do that, and do the right things without fuss and fanfare and all the attention getting tactics? Because things *are* serious now. If you're fighting, you're not uniting Americans, but dividing them. You can't win without consensus. Consensus isn't arrived at during a fight. Consensus is found when people agree on things, and we need people to agree.
The perception of "fighting" is sometimes erroneous. For instance, protesting is not fighting. Protesting is useful for drawing attention to possible cracks in the societal foundation. It points, it doesn't punch. Thinking you're fighting when you're protesting is erroneous. If you're using protesting effectively as something that draws the attention that otherwise wouldn't be given, great! If you're protesting thinking you're changing the world, you're next to useless.
Most of the discussion I've seen about fighting is actually about going through motions to help relieve feelings of helplessness. It's a coping mechanism, not an effective strategy. We've told the voters for ten years that we see things we consider bad, and the voters response was to vote for Trump in greater numbers. This is not an effective strategy. What is effective is engaging with others to create a consensus, and that is done by showing a benefit. Telling people Trump is bad is not of benefit to them because they want Trump to do things. If you're only dividing people into groups of good people and bad people, you can't create the unity of consensus. You can't fight; you have to agree.
Dissent is very important. We now need leadership to gain traction for opposition to start being heard and noticed. So big NO! We can’t just keep “living our lives without fanfare …” the division amongst Americans exist because of disinformation, corporate corruption and one sick Ketamine junky with too much money to buy the country with his new cheating golf buddy. I see consensus to put an end to the current cruelty. Make change positive and address real problems. Dogs aren’t eating cats, but corporations and billionaires are consuming our freedoms now.
I think you are confused about what dissent is. Dissent can be very quiet but very effective. Maybe you might want to read some books about historical dissenters and see how they began.
Could we not "fight back"? Could we, as you said, live our lives and try to figure out the best way to do that, and do the right things without fuss and fanfare and all the attention getting tactics? Because things *are* serious now. If you're fighting, you're not uniting Americans, but dividing them. You can't win without consensus. Consensus isn't arrived at during a fight. Consensus is found when people agree on things, and we need people to agree.
I don't understand this comment
The perception of "fighting" is sometimes erroneous. For instance, protesting is not fighting. Protesting is useful for drawing attention to possible cracks in the societal foundation. It points, it doesn't punch. Thinking you're fighting when you're protesting is erroneous. If you're using protesting effectively as something that draws the attention that otherwise wouldn't be given, great! If you're protesting thinking you're changing the world, you're next to useless.
Most of the discussion I've seen about fighting is actually about going through motions to help relieve feelings of helplessness. It's a coping mechanism, not an effective strategy. We've told the voters for ten years that we see things we consider bad, and the voters response was to vote for Trump in greater numbers. This is not an effective strategy. What is effective is engaging with others to create a consensus, and that is done by showing a benefit. Telling people Trump is bad is not of benefit to them because they want Trump to do things. If you're only dividing people into groups of good people and bad people, you can't create the unity of consensus. You can't fight; you have to agree.
Dissent is very important. We now need leadership to gain traction for opposition to start being heard and noticed. So big NO! We can’t just keep “living our lives without fanfare …” the division amongst Americans exist because of disinformation, corporate corruption and one sick Ketamine junky with too much money to buy the country with his new cheating golf buddy. I see consensus to put an end to the current cruelty. Make change positive and address real problems. Dogs aren’t eating cats, but corporations and billionaires are consuming our freedoms now.
Not confused- I agree that dissent comes in many different flavors! Let’s discuss more on this.
I think you are confused about what dissent is. Dissent can be very quiet but very effective. Maybe you might want to read some books about historical dissenters and see how they began.