Building a Better World Through Tolerance and Love--"Live and Let Live" Allows All to Thrive

Two years ago I first posted this article about the role of free speech in a democracy. I am reprinting it yet again because the message is needed now more than ever. "Live and Let Live" is a meme that is absolutely central to a functioning democracy. Every American citizen is entitled by the law of this land to hold and express their opinions. It is only through exchange of information and assistance that the big jobs get done. Read on for the why's and how's:

The Simple Explanation's theory of memes uses the term "meme" to stand for a belief or a tidbit of knowledge. These memes are passed around to our friends like trading cards--most of our close friends hold the same meme cards we do; that's why they are our friends. The more memes you hold in common with someone else, the more you like them. The opposite is also true--we have a difficult time relating to people who hold a different set of memes.

Here is the bottom-line of the previous Apocalyptic Visions article:

The Simple Explanation suggests that "live and let live" would be a great meta-meme for everyone to adopt. If we could appreciate the fact that each of us has a unique perspective, then perhaps we could allow each other to hold the memes that make the most sense for our lives. This is my meme chord; that is your meme chord. If I don't like your meme chord then I can talk it over with you and see if we can move our meme chords closer to one another in agreement. If neither of us is able or willing to swap memes with the other, then so be it. Either accept the other person, memes and all, or move on. Find someone else who more closely agrees with your memes. There is enough room in this world for each of us to hold our own chords, but only if "live and let live" is an overarching meme.

We are now in the midst of a social epidemic of intolerance. Intolerance is the opposite of "live and let live." When we are intolerant of others' memes, we are declaring that our memes are correct and their memes are wrong. And then we take it a step further--we refuse to "tolerate" the others' memes. We throw up resistance, we throw up roadblocks, we close our ears and refuse to listen to the other. We do not merely disagree, as reasonable people may do from time to time. 

When we are intolerant, we look for ways to force others to abandon their memes and adopt ours. We shout them down because we feel we are shouting the right memes and theirs are not only wrong, they are evil and have no right to be heard. And once you declare the other people as "evil," it is no longer a disagreement in good faith, but a fight for the soul. "God is on our side, therefore we can do whatever it takes to crush the opposition," is a dangerous and usually delusional meme to hold. And if it entitles the holder to disregard rule of law, then it is not a democratic ideal and it has no place in American politics.

Once words can no longer be exchanged, frustration builds and violence follows. This is what we are seeing now in the U.S.  Free exchange of memes has been thwarted because of intolerance, and intolerance has led to violence. 

Exchange of ideas is the key. You needn't agree with the other person, but you must hear them out. Because, once you agree to sit and exchange ideas and concerns, whether or not you adopt the other's ideas, the very act of hearing each other out creates a shared space that acts as a balm to soothe both your soul and theirs. When you are too angry, frustrated, or afraid to listen to the other, you perpetuate the intolerance that leads to violence. This intolerance is not helpful. 

 Maxine Waters calls followers to adopt intolerance of others' right to disagree. Her call to action in favor of intolerance has now become the norm on the Left. [cnn photo credit]

We hear a lot about the importance of "diversity" nowadays in America. True diversity can only thrive if we allow each other to "live and let live." Diversity allows people to hold their own opinions and beliefs without incurring punishment from either the powerful or the mobs.

When you seek to silence those with whom you disagree, you are not encouraging diversity; you are actually partaking in fascism. Fascism advocates the forced suppression of those who express opposing views. Disagreement, on the other hand, is not forced suppression, it is merely disagreement.  Shouting others down when they have the floor, shunning those with whom you disagree, refusing service in a restaurant to paying customers who voted for a different candidate--this is not the side of the angels, folks. This is not helping us come together to get the job done.

Groupthink Is Counter to Democracy. Censorship Divides.

 Two years ago I wrote this article called "A Simple Explanation of Groupthink." Since that time, groupthink has become the standard of the land. I am reprinting this article with further commentary. Please come to your senses before it's too late. Wake up!

My friend. Consider this article an invitation to take a deep breath and relax a bit. I am writing to you because my heart is saddened by your current level of fear, anger, and confusion. There is a primal level of angst in the land, with ever-deepening divisions. Our political meme chords are hardening into a primitive form of brutish tribalism through the force of rhetoric and propaganda. If we aren't careful, violence will increasingly replace vitriol. My friend, this is not the American way. 

*In the two years since this article was posted, riots, burning, and looting have raged across America. Divisions have widened to the point where neighbors can no longer speak to one another. Social media censorship has ensured that people can not read each other's posts, preventing us from widening our range of thinking and stopping us from discussing important social and political events with one another.

"Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one." [Charles Mackay, 1841, "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds"]

Negative effects of groupthink on teamwork, Dale Carnegie Institute

Let's talk about "groupthink" for a minute. Groupthink is when individuals stop thinking for themselves and adopt memes that are held and propagated by the group as a whole. Grouppthink occurs, for example, when you read an article or a facebook post and believe everything in it, no matter how outrageous, and then endorse it with a thumbs-up and send it on to your friends. Contrast that with coming across the same information and weighing it rationally, using due diligence to verify claims and consider opposing arguments, and then endorsing or rejecting the memes, irrespective of who said what. Not nearly as much fun, is it?

Groupthink memes rely upon mass delusion for energy; and the end result is never good. Oftentimes, groupthink memes would be literally unthinkable if it were not for the influence of the group over personal will. Mob violence is a perfect example of groupthink--no one in their right mind would pick up a stone and throw it at their neighbor for no reason whatsoever... were it not for the fact that twenty other neighbors were already throwing stones at the poor soul.

The particular groupthink I'm concerned with in this article has to do with your enthusiastic endorsement of political and economic philosophies you know nothing about in your effort to speak truth to power. Have you actually studied history? Do you understand the effect of various political and economic memes on societies in the past or halfway around the world? Do you have a working knowledge of economics? I think it's safe to say that few of my friends have studied these subjects in depth. (Of course, out there in the larger webiverse I know a few of you have, so don't take offense.) All I'm saying is now that social media and the web have given voice and influence to any fool with a cellphone, it's more important than ever to do your research. 

*The strategy currently adopted by social media is not to give voice and influence to "any fool with a cellphone" as I originally put it, but to only give some fools with cellphones voice and influence in order to slant the coverage of current events. Over the past couple of years social media has decided to actively block everyone the elite at the top disagree with, including yours truly on occasion. Even mainstream media openly blocks and slants coverage of the news to ensure compliance with elitist goals. If I were to chat with my neighbors about current events and politics, at least half of them would have never even heard the topics I'm raising. 

Now, let's imagine our country is a large organization that needs to function well in order to survive and prosper so that we all may reap the benefits. Surely, that is a goal we all share.

*We all share the desire to be safe in our homes, to prosper at work, to freely assemble with others, and to speak our minds without being hit on the head with a brick.

Consider the following advice for overcoming groupthink, from Dale Carnegie Institute's article, "The Curse of Teamwork: Groupthink":

• Create an organizational environment where individuals can freely voice their ideas, challenges, and concerns. Individuals must feel comfortable with taking interpersonal risks, admitting hesitations, and challenging one-another. Absent an inclination to avoid conflict, a team can easily discuss and debate different perspectives.
• Think about the right information required to make sound decisions. Consider the strongest counter-argument to every idea.
• Do not suppress disagreements or dominate the dissenters. Carefully examine the reasons and implications of alternate viewpoints.

Now think about this: have you really stopped to consider the other side of the political debate? Have you really tried to see why half of your neighbors disagree with your position? Can you explain their memes in non-inflammatory language? In other words, do you understand what the adversary is saying and the facts behind their claims? If not, why not?  (One reason why not, as we all know by now, is due to the ideological filters social media platforms put on posts to keep us sorted into tidy categories. Another, self-selected, filter is the one-sided news channel you choose to watch.)

My brother, Dr. Bill Puett, used to share the following advice about critical thinking with his departing Philosophy students. Sounds a lot like Carnegie's anti-groupthink lesson.

"Other than your living a loving and compassionate life, I wish for you more than anything that you become autonomous. Be fully informed on all important matters and apply critical thinking before making choices. Regard no one as an authority, challenge all beliefs, but listen to others before reaching decisions. Before offering criticism, know an opposing position so well that you can argue it better than the opponent proposing it. In so doing, you may risk your own position. ..."

I think it is time for us to settle down and return to reason. Emotion, particularly fear and righteous indignation, is not getting us anywhere except upset. A steady diet of inflammatory rhetoric is ruining our faith in the nation. And it's not doing any favors for your health or mental well-being, either. Step One is stop feeding the fear. 

*Hate and anger cannot build; they can only destroy. Hatred tears down and rips apart; love builds and brings together. Do not expect that building a better America will rise from the ashes of hatred; it will not. Hatred brings ruination, less security, less prosperity, and ever increasing divisions that cannot heal. Look inside yourself--are you operating out of Hatred?

"We go out of our course to make ourselves uncomfortable; the cup of life is not bitter enough to our palate, and we distill superfluous poison to put into it, or conjure up hideous things to frighten ourselves at, which would never exist if we did not make them." [Charles Mackay, 1841, "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds"]

Remember the Simple Explanation's Golden Rule:

Our job is to reach out to others with love, information, and assistance to build something greater than ourselves.

***************

Cyd Ropp has a Ph.D. in Rhetoric from The University of Memphis. Her specialty is meta-level analysis of ideological divides and their ultimate resolution.

 Buy the Simple Explanation book by clicking here.

The Misplaced Hopes of Progressives

It's difficult for me to resist writing political articles because we live in such interesting times.  So, please forgive me if I offend at least one half of my readers with this post, but I must share this insight with you nonetheless.

The Progressive Democrats who are currently wresting power from America's traditional Democratic Party are, bless their hearts, way off base. No need for me to go into particulars; you can read other people's books and columns for details. 

Here's my take on it. The Progressives are mistakenly trying to usher in a Utopian society that is not possible to achieve in this fallen world. 

It appears to me that the Progressives are mistaking earth for heaven. History proves over and over again that the Progressive ideals, such as socialist redistribution of wealth, open borders, and "free" government programs never achieves its objectives. 

Hope springs eternal, yet those who forget the lessons of the past are condemned to repeat them.

Yes, the Progressive ideals are, for the most part, lovely thoughts. Yet, they are impossible to bring into reality. The reason is that human beings are too easily corrupted, and the politicians you trust today will become the dictators you fear tomorrow. Why? 

Because absolute power corrupts absolutely.

As I watch the promises pour out of the lips of the younger Progressives, I admire their egalitarian ideals. But, unfortunately, that is not the way the world works. It is the way heaven works. 

I believe the young Progressives are mistaking the hope for Utopia as something that can be achieved. It cannot. Again, the problem is not the ideals, for they are indeed heavenly. The problem is the fallen nature of humankind and the hard, sad fact that wealth and power corrupt those entrusted with ushering in Utopia. 

The older Democrats running for President who are now changing their stripes to appear more Progressive are not Progressives--they are politicians pandering to the youth vote. You young idealists are being played by the old men and women who pretend to agree with you. They do not. They only seek power and dominion over you. This is the sad the truth of the matter, and anyone who has been alive on this planet for any length of time knows it.

The Progressive ideals will quickly turn ugly as unintended consequences take over the agenda. Here's just a few off the top of my head--

I could go on. The point I am trying to make is that things don't turn out the way you hope they will. 

I used to teach college. I have a pretty good idea of your reasoning abilities. You are not smarter than the writers of the American Constitution, and neither are the politicians you trust. It's tragic. Your motives are noble, but the results are not achievable. 

No, it's not a good idea to try anyway, because civilizations do fail and governments do fall. It can happen here and then we will have the post-apocalyptic scenarios that are so popular on television and in the game worlds. Anarchy is not better than our Constitutional government; don't fool yourself.

*****************

Below is a reprint of my article, "Live and let live is the Democratic Ideal," in case you haven't read it.

I am reprinting this column about tolerance of those with whom you disagree. "Live and Let Live" is a meme that is absolutely central to a functioning democracy. Every American citizen is entitled by the law of this land to hold and express their opinions. It is only through exchange of information and assistance that the big jobs get done. Read on for the why's and how's:

The Simple Explanation's theory of memes uses the term "meme" to stand for a belief or a tidbit of knowledge. These memes are passed around to our friends like trading cards--most of our close friends hold the same meme cards we do; that's why they are our friends. The more memes you hold in common with someone else, the more you like them. The opposite is also true--we have a difficult time relating to people who hold a different set of memes.

Here is the bottom-line of the previous Apocalyptic Visions article:

The Simple Explanation suggests that "live and let live" would be a great meta-meme for everyone to adopt. If we could appreciate the fact that each of us has a unique perspective, then perhaps we could allow each other to hold the memes that make the most sense for our lives. This is my meme chord; that is your meme chord. If I don't like your meme chord then I can talk it over with you and see if we can move our meme chords closer to one another in agreement. If neither of us is able or willing to swap memes with the other, then so be it. Either accept the other person, memes and all, or move on. Find someone else who more closely agrees with your memes. There is enough room in this world for each of us to hold our own chords, but only if "live and let live" is an overarching meme.

We are now in the midst of a social epidemic of intolerance. Intolerance is the opposite of "live and let live." When we are intolerant of others' memes, we are declaring that our memes are correct and their memes are wrong. And then we take it a step further--we refuse to "tolerate" the others' memes. We throw up resistance, we throw up roadblocks, we close our ears and refuse to listen to the other. We do not merely disagree, as reasonable people may do from time to time. When we are intolerant, we look for ways to force the other to abandon their memes and adopt ours. We shout them down because we feel we are shouting the right memes and theirs are not only wrong, they are evil and have no right to be heard. And once you declare the other "evil," it is no longer a disagreement in good faith, but a fight for the soul. "God is on our side, therefore we can do whatever it takes to crush the opposition," is a dangerous and usually delusional meme to hold. And if it entitles the holder to disregard rule of law, then it is not a democratic ideal and it has no place in American politics.

Once words can no longer be exchanged, frustration builds and violence follows. This is what we are seeing now in the U.S.  Free exchange of memes has been thwarted because of intolerance. 

Exchange of ideas is the key. You needn't agree with the other person, but you must hear them out. Because, once you agree to sit and exchange ideas and concerns, whether or not you adopt the other's ideas, the very act of hearing each other out creates a shared space that acts as a balm to soothe both your soul and theirs. When you are too angry, frustrated, or afraid to listen to the other, you perpetuate the intolerance that leads to violence. This intolerance is not helpful. 

 Maxine Waters calls followers to adopt intolerance of others' right to disagree. [cnn photo credit]

We hear a lot about the importance of "diversity" nowadays in America. True diversity can only thrive if we allow each other to "live and let live." When you seek to silence those with whom you disagree, you are not encouraging diversity; you are actually partaking in fascism. Fascism advocates the forced suppression of those who express opposing views. Disagreement, on the other hand, is not forced suppression, it is merely disagreement.  Shouting others down when they have the floor, shunning those with whom you disagree, refusing service in a restaurant to paying customers who voted for a different candidate--this is not the side of the angels, folks. This is not helping us come together to get the job done.

"Live and Let Live" is the Democratic Ideal

I am reprinting this column about tolerance of those with whom you disagree. "Live and Let Live" is a meme that is absolutely central to a functioning democracy. Every American citizen is entitled by the law of this land to hold and express their opinions. It is only through exchange of information and assistance that the big jobs get done. Read on for the why's and how's:

The Simple Explanation's theory of memes uses the term "meme" to stand for a belief or a tidbit of knowledge. These memes are passed around to our friends like trading cards--most of our close friends hold the same meme cards we do; that's why they are our friends. The more memes you hold in common with someone else, the more you like them. The opposite is also true--we have a difficult time relating to people who hold a different set of memes.

Here is the bottom-line of the previous Apocalyptic Visions article:

The Simple Explanation suggests that "live and let live" would be a great meta-meme for everyone to adopt. If we could appreciate the fact that each of us has a unique perspective, then perhaps we could allow each other to hold the memes that make the most sense for our lives. This is my meme chord; that is your meme chord. If I don't like your meme chord then I can talk it over with you and see if we can move our meme chords closer to one another in agreement. If neither of us is able or willing to swap memes with the other, then so be it. Either accept the other person, memes and all, or move on. Find someone else who more closely agrees with your memes. There is enough room in this world for each of us to hold our own chords, but only if "live and let live" is an overarching meme.

We are now in the midst of a social epidemic of intolerance. Intolerance is the opposite of "live and let live." When we are intolerant of others' memes, we are declaring that our memes are correct and their memes are wrong. And then we take it a step further--we refuse to "tolerate" the others' memes. We throw up resistance, we throw up roadblocks, we close our ears and refuse to listen to the other. We do not merely disagree, as reasonable people may do from time to time. When we are intolerant, we look for ways to force the other to abandon their memes and adopt ours. We shout them down because we feel we are shouting the right memes and theirs are not only wrong, they are evil and have no right to be heard. And once you declare the other "evil," it is no longer a disagreement in good faith, but a fight for the soul. "God is on our side, therefore we can do whatever it takes to crush the opposition," is a dangerous and usually delusional meme to hold. And if it entitles the holder to disregard rule of law, then it is not a democratic ideal and it has no place in American politics.

Once words can no longer be exchanged, frustration builds and violence follows. This is what we are seeing now in the U.S.  Free exchange of memes has been thwarted because of intolerance. 

Exchange of ideas is the key. You needn't agree with the other person, but you must hear them out. Because, once you agree to sit and exchange ideas and concerns, whether or not you adopt the other's ideas, the very act of hearing each other out creates a shared space that acts as a balm to soothe both your soul and theirs. When you are too angry, frustrated, or afraid to listen to the other, you perpetuate the intolerance that leads to violence. This intolerance is not helpful. 

 Maxine Waters calls followers to adopt intolerance of others' right to disagree. [cnn photo credit]

We hear a lot about the importance of "diversity" nowadays in America. True diversity can only thrive if we allow each other to "live and let live." When you seek to silence those with whom you disagree, you are not encouraging diversity; you are actually partaking in fascism. Fascism advocates the forced suppression of those who express opposing views. Disagreement, on the other hand, is not forced suppression, it is merely disagreement.  Shouting others down when they have the floor, shunning those with whom you disagree, refusing service in a restaurant to paying customers who voted for a different candidate--this is not the side of the angels, folks. This is not helping us come together to get the job done.