I totally agree... I'm trying to work it from our current starting point tho... (haha As if I was an American or even in the US... sigh... Slight cry...

I disagree. Art, philosophy and spiritual people do have empathy, not just a slightly sense of sympathy like most people do. That's why I'm suggesting it, it like I fusing the current structure with a dose of empathy so we can have it both ways...

@A1fredo I know, but the connection you are making doesn't exist outside your own desire. none of the attributes you mention suggest any sort of additional ability to empathize or genuinely care for others.

@solopro I won't be able to argue my way against that point. Take into consideration though: that's what you would say if you just didn't share the gift, wouldn't you? My saying it is so, I realize it isn't worth much if anything at all. So... I guess I'll just shut up and hope that you -feel- something deep down telling you that you are wrong. If not, you win.

@A1fredo I had a personal experience that may shed some light on where I'm coming from.

my car broke down in front of a church. my car was in the center lane for left hand turns and I was blocking the lane church goers used to get into the church parking lot.
every
single
one
of the people trying to get to church honked and yelled and spat that I was in their way. dozens of cars filled with multiple people on their way to worship the lord and not a single one asked if I needed help. not a single person offered condolences or even asked to pray with me about my clearly awful current circumstance. so no... "spiritual" people don't have something to offer simply because they consider themselves spiritual.

@solopro Man... sigh... its such a stereotype, but people calling themselves something doesnt make them so. Antifa? Hello. Religious people aren't spiritual people necessary. And I mean well, but if you don't get what its like to be empathetic, that means you can't really complain about them, can you? my point being, I understand we need you, less emotional people, to thrive, and you need us not to have your children burn it all down. But since your culture forgot about our side, and we get mocked if trying to promote actual values and emotional development, what other way is there to bring them back than to hope you have faith in what we say? I personally can't make you feel it. A woman probably could, bur not in the situation we are in right now, so we are a bit out of options...

@A1fredo dude, you have made so many assumptions about me, it's crazy. but that actually explains a lot ! you've just said that people calling themselves a thing doesn't make it so, and you've also suggested nuance between religious and spiritual... and yet you put arbitrary values on qualities for no other reason than you like the look. suggesting an artist isn't bitter or that a philosopher isn't corrupt simply because you regard art or philosophy is folly.

@solopro I'm not suggesting that, I'm saying that I'm not talking about those people, but the real deal. You can't easily tell from one to the other, but that's a whole different conversation

@A1fredo why do you think those people are not the real deal ?

@solopro ...? Because if their actions don't correspond to those that an empathic person would take, they are not feeling the same way. Behaviorism. Its like the left going around bullying everybody claiming victimhood. victims don't act that way. they either shy away or snap with decisive precise and likely mortal action. somebody snapping isnt playing around. the left is. therefore, not victims. religious acting like assholes, therefore no spirituality. artist making empty song, therefore corporate sellout. thats how it works.

@A1fredo you seem attached at the hip to the idea that empathy is the cure all for humanitys problems. I'm not sure why, but its a good thing you get to decide how things work, otherwise you would have a hard time explaining why an artist doing something you disapprove of completely negates their skillset. trying to explain how a belief can't exist without a specific attitude is something that isn't possible to anyone who doesn't get to decide how things work. you sure scored on that one !

@solopro I'm open to better suggestions if you have one.

@A1fredo step one would be protect the integrity of the voting system.
step two would be to make politicians accountable to the people that vote for them.
step three would be for people to stop outsourcing their own circumstances
step four would be for people stop holding others to a standard they don't hold themselves to... the list goes on.
growing a pair of balls would help with many of these things

@solopro I'll try to be respectful, but this just... you can't make politicians good people, nor make people grow up, let alone grow balls. That is what we have tried throughout history. You know that. Something is missing in your paradigm, so I am proposing something you just don't have the personality to perceive easily. I am tone-deaf, none of us is perfect. Can't you at least acknowledge the possibility for a chance we might make it through the cycle. Because if we just stay the same as you suggest, we know exactly what's going to happen. It's happened one too many times before already.

@A1fredo well you've said it, you just don't know you said it. take a philosopher, take an artist or whatever and make them a politician.... guess what happens...

@solopro You don't "make" a politician because it's not the polititian's fault there is only one kind of person that can make it in that environment. Go ahead, try to push a philosopher trough the politics den, see how many positions he manage to get ellected to. Once you realize it's not the person, but the system, you give me a call.

@A1fredo I'm starting to think you've lost sight of what we are talking about. we were talking about expanding the opposition system. you said you wanted a certain class of people to represent the powerless, which makes them politicians, community organizers at the very least, and we all know how that turns out lol

@solopro no, I didn't say "represent the powerless," I said "understand what the powerless want and need." The difference is that they wouldn't have power themselves, but would be merely influencial/annoying. And act as counsels to the obes actually handling the power. Power corrupts, and we are not good at handling it. I guess the easiest way to think of it would be thinking of society kinda like an old-fashiones married couple where the government right now represents the husband, and it's missing the wife. You need to take all the communism (social programs and stuff) out of the current structure and place then under the new "wing" of the social structure, alongside with many other things. They would be the ones, for example, handling the equivalent of judicial procedures for the ones that are emotional in nature, like drug addiction or crimes of passion to determine they should be handle by the actual judicial system, or helped out by then somehow.

The thing is, about a third of the population handle themselves emotionally and the current structure doesn't work for them. Jailing people for drug addiction for example, when they are suffering that as a consequence of the lack of a father figure, or other reasons, that's unjust. And they would actually have the time to handle cases on a personal basis. You see, not everyone needs or really wants the money or power, but the recognition and social status of a high position would do, and creating such a thing would help them get it and do good by doing the social maintenance work, as opposed to be within the current system frustrated because they don't like what they are doing, and fighting against men trying to fit it. Women used to have their world, and shouldn't be working alongside men (or effeminate men, and vice versa).

Not sure I'm explaining myself well...?

@A1fredo i think you are explaining yourself just fine. but it seems you don't realize what you are saying or that youre, at best; unaware that your ideas will make things significantly worse

@solopro It may, given the current belief system of our cultures... but I think it;s better to do any thinking outside of the box so we can start trying new stuff. My suggestion may be shit, but I really think there is something to taking that neglected side of our human nature into account when setting up the basis for society. Maybe others more competent than myself can deploy it better.

@A1fredo lol, you can rest assured, people these days think they are of utmost importance. the neglecting of ones self is not something I have seen prevail in a very long time. I would argue that it is exactly why people spend so much time neglecting each other.

@solopro Forget it, man. I give up.

I agree. But that is like saying that femininity describe women in the current environment. The left right now is corrupt and does not count with the necessary talents to perform its job well, as they let themselves get greedy and follow the path of masculine notion of success, just as women indoctrinated by faminism do. But nobody is going after happiness, that's why they are so bitter out there just burning it all down without even knowing why. Cuz police brutality is just an excuse, we know it.

@A1fredo, The "Left" in the US is two components: The power-hungry leadership, and their gullible idealistic utopian base, to which they pander.

The base believe in their hearts that they are good people and that people who disagree with them are dangerous lunatics. And that is because their leadership does not want to be seen as who they are, and blame the results of what they actually do on Republicans. Their base actually believes this.

Democrat leadership founded the KKK in 1868 to intimidate Southern blacks from voting for Lincoln, and assert that Republicans are KKK based. If you check, you will find almost no Republicans in the KKK, and mostly Democrats. So Democrats secretly form an organization and wear hoods to prevent being identified, and blame it on Republicans.

That is not the only case that can be squarely made that the Democrat leadership is the party of deception. "Black Lives Matter" and Antifa are probably also probably leftist based, and the center of the Left in the US is now the Democrat party.

Most of their followers have no idea, and think those of us trying to preserve the Constitution to protect THEIR rights, as well as our own, are obstructing their leadership in building an alternative government that will make everyone happy, and that they must try to force it on us "for our own good."

That base is mainly composed of people who decide based on their feelings, and not facts. They are the perfect victims of their leadership, who has convinced them that everyone else is corrupt, so that their own corruption - when seen, seems unimportant.

Their base of "sensitive" people are completely unequipped to understand and deal with the level of deception and cynicism of their leadership. Their leadership knows that they will be in power no matter what system prevails, so they don't care what it is or who they have to fool.

@TimTuolomne I... Well... Yeah... I think we are talking past each other. But I actually take back this post. I was making the mistake of considering what they say they want as the problem, which is foolish. It's clear that's not the case and it's a waste of time to approach it that way...

@A1fredo, my impression is that we are both concerned about the same thing. But the filters through which we perceive what is happening are really important. There is a lot of deception coming from the Left, and the tactic is to get their opposition (us) to agree to any part of it, then find ourselves stuck in the web of confusion they have spun.

"Accuse your opposition of what you are doing as you are doing it, to spread confusion." - Josef Stalin.

The central tactic is to destabilize society and get us to abandon what actually works for lots of alternatives which we are unaware have already been tried before and have failed. So much the better to provide socialism as the answer.

@TimTuolomne I honestly think it may be already too late. We screwed up by letting the ideology trickle dowb from universities to younger students. Our brains are malleable, and even when presenting them with the right information, it will physically take time to untangle their ideology from their neurons, do I make sense? Plus we need to figure out which is the correct message. I have a very elaborate idea, but... in my opinion, the ideology is much more than we can see, and even more subtle societal attitudes like considering emotions not as important, or even bothersome is a real problem; for me specifically as it is based in ideas that will sound very... Er... Ideological? Childish? Naïve? To the contemporary listener... I don't really see many other suggestions out there though.