Finding Common Ground

[Frustration he/him]

So I got the idea to make this thread after President Nelson made a talk about avoiding contention, and finding ways to disagree without anger. So I decided to make this thread, where either you can bring disagreements, or even state an opinion and ask for the thoughts of people who disagree with you, and you can each explain your thoughts and then find some way that you agree.

Ultimately my goal with this is to find some common ground between us, in this polarized world.

[Werewolff Studios he/him]

This is an awesome concept @Frustration. I look forward to seeing what discussions this opens up. I don't have anything to talk on right now, but happy to listen to others.

[Elf They/them]

Unpopular opinion: in this world, ambition or a thirst for power is often looked down upon. You'll find an example of that in many books (such as Bartimaues) where his ambition leads to his downfall 

Why? Why do we as society look down upon the urge to better ourselves? (i know many dont feel this way, i mean anti heros and underdogs exist) (but still) 

Why do we shame wanting more? And being willing to work for it?

 

[Mason Wheeler]

Largely because of how common it is for that "more" to come at the expense of others.  This isn't always the case by any means, but it's common enough that everyone's familiar with plenty of examples of rapacious people who climbed to the top over a pile of unfortunate victims one way or another.

The real problem comes when people weaponize these well-understood concepts to sow discord and ill will with malicious lies.  For example, you've probably heard some variation on "how can [person] have [amount of money] and honestly say they're making the world a better place, when we've got [number] starving people in the world?  Don't they know that it would only take [smaller amount of money] to cure world hunger?"  This is obviously completely false — even the most simplistic understanding of supply and demand will tell you exactly how that scheme would fall apart if someone actually tried to buy up [smaller amount of money] worth of food all at once — but it sadly doesn't stop people from saying things like that to prey on people's emotions.

It seems to me that finding common ground and peaceful unity really requires calm, sober reflection and analysis of the world around us, which is really not in fashion in these days of outrage and inflamed passions.  I once heard someone lament that "too many people not only don't know how to think, they don't even know what thinking is.  They confuse it with feeling."

[Lord Gregorio he/him]

On 4/3/2023 at 6:09 AM, Cruciatus_heart said:

Unpopular opinion: in this world, ambition or a thirst for power is often looked down upon. You'll find an example of that in many books (such as Bartimaues) where his ambition leads to his downfall 

Why? Why do we as society look down upon the urge to better ourselves? (i know many dont feel this way, i mean anti heros and underdogs exist) (but still) 

Why do we shame wanting more? And being willing to work for it?

 

Because as I think Mason stated above. As humans, ambition often leads to destruction and evil wishes. Ambition can be good, but a thirst for power is most often not. Pairing the two together is often what results in destruction and what is bad. 

It's not necessarily the urge to better ourselves society or people look down on. It's the pairing of ambition and thirst for power. The pairing of ambition and humility or charity or love is a much better pairing/grouping. This can result in self improvement along with the ability to stay morally pure. As well as being looked at as a good person.

Helping others is often as good a way to improve yourself as going after power, even better probably.

This is where religion comes in really handy, because a lot of religions acknowledge that serving others is better for self improvement than serving yourself.

[Szeth's Facepalm]

York peppermint patties are kind of gross.

[The Paradoxical Phenomenon he/him]

Bro… I just don’t know if it’s possible to have common ground on that…. Jk, I guess you could be right even if you are wrong.

[The cheeseman Sola Scriptora]

I believe men should adhere to traditionally masculine values. Things such as physical strength and prowess, stoicism, mental fortitude, and self-reliance.

Physical strength and capability does not mean I am violent, it means I am capable of swift and great violence if the need arrives.

Stoicism does not mean that I force down my emotions, that I am not emotionally available, it means that I have a mastery over my emotions, not the other way around.

Mental fortitude does not make me manipulative or controlling, it allows me to have an intelligent conversation and it means I can well defend, through debate and rhetoric, the beliefs that I hold.

Being self-reliant does not mean I believe that I, or men in general, should be the sole breadwinners of their households, self-reliance means that I am able to sustain myself, without needing much or any help from the government or other authorities.

So why does it seem like traditionally masculine traits and values like these are always labeled as toxic, or sexist, or misogynistic? Why are men who hold these values immediately deemed as women-hating anti-feminists who only care about having status being a stud?

[EmulatonStromenkiin he/him]

2 hours ago, cheeseman said:

I believe men should adhere to traditionally masculine values. Things such as physical strength and prowess, stoicism, mental fortitude, and self-reliance.

Physical strength and capability does not mean I am violent, it means I am capable of swift and great violence if the need arrives.

Stoicism does not mean that I force down my emotions, that I am not emotionally available, it means that I have a mastery over my emotions, not the other way around.

Mental fortitude does not make me manipulative or controlling, it allows me to have an intelligent conversation and it means I can well defend, through debate and rhetoric, the beliefs that I hold.

Being self-reliant does not mean I believe that I, or men in general, should be the sole breadwinners of their households, self-reliance means that I am able to sustain myself, without needing much or any help from the government or other authorities.

So why does it seem like traditionally masculine traits and values like these are always labeled as toxic, or sexist, or misogynistic? Why are men who hold these values immediately deemed as women-hating anti-feminists who only care about having status being a stud?

Principle of too much of a good thing. The way I see it, every virtue has a flip side, where those same traits are often taken too far and so it is no longer a virtue. Also, generalizations.

[Frustration he/him]

1 minute ago, EmulatonStromenkiin said:

Principle of too much of a good thing. The way I see it, every virtue has a flip side, where those same traits are often taken too far and so it is no longer a virtue. Also, generalizations.

But you would agree that they are all virtues?

[EmulatonStromenkiin he/him]

1 minute ago, Frustration said:

But you would agree that they are all virtues?

Certainly, given the precise explanations provided by @cheeseman. Lack of explanations and jumping to conclusions cause many problems.

[The cheeseman Sola Scriptora]

37 minutes ago, EmulatonStromenkiin said:

Principle of too much of a good thing. The way I see it, every virtue has a flip side, where those same traits are often taken too far and so it is no longer a virtue. Also, generalizations.

What do you mean by generalizations?

[EmulatonStromenkiin he/him]

People assume that if one guy took it too far, everyone else will, and so it is bad.

[Szeth's Facepalm]

4 hours ago, cheeseman said:

I believe men should adhere to traditionally masculine values. Things such as physical strength and prowess, stoicism, mental fortitude, and self-reliance.

Physical strength and capability does not mean I am violent, it means I am capable of swift and great violence if the need arrives.

Stoicism does not mean that I force down my emotions, that I am not emotionally available, it means that I have a mastery over my emotions, not the other way around.

Mental fortitude does not make me manipulative or controlling, it allows me to have an intelligent conversation and it means I can well defend, through debate and rhetoric, the beliefs that I hold.

Being self-reliant does not mean I believe that I, or men in general, should be the sole breadwinners of their households, self-reliance means that I am able to sustain myself, without needing much or any help from the government or other authorities.

So why does it seem like traditionally masculine traits and values like these are always labeled as toxic, or sexist, or misogynistic? Why are men who hold these values immediately deemed as women-hating anti-feminists who only care about having status being a stud?

You are making very broad generalizations. I know plenty of people- men, women, whatever- with those attributes who i would certainly not label as any of the things you have mentioned. The main reason someone would label another person as "toxic, or sexist, or misogynistic" is if they behave in the manner that that label suggests. Any of the behaviors and attributes you have described are fine as you have described them, but when they get to an extreme, that's when they become bad. I've seen those behaviors go out of control with my own eyes and it's not pretty. Obviously having mental fortitude does not automatically make you manipulative, but if you use it to be manipulative, then, well, there you go. Physical strength and capability for violence is fine, cool, even (not to necessarily to me but I know there are people with other valid perspectives on that front), but when you start to glorify violence and enjoy it, it's no longer something helping you to better yourself. Stoicism is good when it allows you to be mature and not over indulge in negative emotions, but when it gets to the point where you can't properly experience them, that's just going to make it harder for yourself. Self-reliance is a wonderful trait, but if you never trust or rely on others, you'll probably start to feel alienated and burned out. So yeah, these are fine- even great- attributes, but only at a reasonable level. It's when they get out of control that the people exhibiting them can appear to be "toxic, or sexist, or misogynistic".

Also, these are all fine attributes to strive for in yourself, in moderation, as stated, but why should other men have to adhere to them as well? Why do you think there should be a standard for what attributes you should strive for if you're a man in the first place? What makes them all necessary masculine attributes?

[Morningtide she/her]

On 4/8/2023 at 9:00 AM, Szeth's Facepalm said:

York peppermint patties are kind of gross.

FACTS THO. I have nothing else to say, I just agree with this. 

This thread is a good idea!

[Mason Wheeler]

14 hours ago, EmulatonStromenkiin said:

Lack of explanations and jumping to conclusions cause many problems.

Like I said above, all sorts of problems come from substituting feeling for thinking.  It would be a lot easier to find common ground with people if, when someone said something they don't like, people would stop for a moment and think about whether it's true or not, and whether part of it is true or not, before responding with an emotional reaction.

[The cheeseman Sola Scriptora]

On 4/9/2023 at 10:23 PM, Szeth's Facepalm said:

Also, these are all fine attributes to strive for in yourself, in moderation, as stated, but why should other men have to adhere to them as well?

Because these are traits that, in the right amounts and with the right intent, make a good man, a strong man. Other men should strive for them because, as men, we are responsible for the safety and freedom of society.

But cheesesman, why is it men that are repsonsible?

It is because men are, for the most part, much more physically powerful than women. I believe that humans have a moral obligation to protect the rights and well-being of those weaker than us. So, as a man, it is your duty to protect people who are not as strong as you; be them other men or women. In the United States, only men are eligible for mandatory military service (the draft). Women, under Federal law, are exempt from being drafted. Now, a woman can still volunteer to serve in the US armed forces, she can still fight on the frontlines and give her life, but she cannot be forced by the government to do so. Men can, have, and will be required to join the military, to fight, to kill, and to die. The reason mandatory service exists is because for centuries, for millennia, men have been expected to fight in wars. We have held the responsibility to fight for our nations for as long as nations have existed.

Wars are horrific. A British officer on the frontlines of WWI said, "Anyone who says he enjoys this sort of thing is either a liar or a madman." A sane human being does not want to be shot at, see mutilated corpses, or kill another human. But it happens anyway. In the Second World War, five-hundred thousand American servicemen were killed in action. For the Russians, the number was more than triple that. They knew there was a chance they were going to die, that they would never again see their homes, their friends, or their families.

But they went anyway.

They went, fought, and died not because they wanted to, not because of the little sums of soldiers' pay, not because they wanted to see the world. They went because it was necessary. Because it was their duty, their responsibility. If something must be done, you do it because it must. And those men did.

Why? Simply put, they were men. They recognized the moral obligation put on them by being stronger than others; an obligation, as I said earlier, to protect the rights and well-being of those weaker than you.

A weak man who is also an evil man is far, far more dangerous than a strong man who is also a good man.

On 4/9/2023 at 10:23 PM, Szeth's Facepalm said:

Why do you think there should be a standard for what attributes you should strive for if you're a man in the first place?

I don't quite grasp what you're trying to say here, but I'll answer as best I can.

I believe that there should be standards for everyone. Since we're in a Sanderson forum, Ideals, if you will. Those things that I listed are ideals that I strive for. I workout and do combat sports so that I can be physically capable, I do competitive debate so I can have mental strength and fortitude, I am very reserved and calm in my demeanor so that I will be calm in the face of adversity, and I hone my professional skill so that I can have self-reliance and be financially secure.

Again, I'm not quite sure what you're asking with that second question, but that's the best answer I'm able to give.

On 4/9/2023 at 10:23 PM, Szeth's Facepalm said:

What makes them all necessary masculine attributes?

Did you mean necessarily or is what you wrote what you meant? If it's the latter, I would direct you to my first answer.

But here I'll answer if it's the former.

The reason these are masculine attributes is because they are the attributes that you see traditional men have. My grandfather is the best embodiment of all them. He was a Marine, so he was (he's 71 now, but still awesome) physically capable; he does not let his emotions control him, even though they run deep and strong in him; he is a very quietly intelligent man, and well able to hold a philosophical conversation or defend his beliefs and his faith; and he grows and hunts his own food on his own land.

I am not saying every man should be like my grandfather, but I am saying that what I listed are the foundations of a good, strong man. You can embody those ideals and be extremely different from the men I know. You can be any political party, any race, any sexual orientation, any religion, and still strive to be a good, strong man.

Those attributes are also the sum of great men from history; men like Caesar, Alexander the Great, Richard the Lionheart, William Wallace, Leif Erikson, George Washington, Horatio Nelson, Napoleon Bonaparte, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Desmond Doss, Martin Luther King, Jr., and scores more.

I believe we should strive to be like great men from history. And those attributes are what will start you on that path.

Edited April 12, 2023 by cheeseman
grammars

[Wittles he/him]

On 4/9/2023 at 1:35 PM, cheeseman said:

I believe men should adhere to traditionally masculine values. Things such as physical strength and prowess, stoicism, mental fortitude, and self-reliance.

Physical strength and capability does not mean I am violent, it means I am capable of swift and great violence if the need arrives.

Stoicism does not mean that I force down my emotions, that I am not emotionally available, it means that I have a mastery over my emotions, not the other way around.

Mental fortitude does not make me manipulative or controlling, it allows me to have an intelligent conversation and it means I can well defend, through debate and rhetoric, the beliefs that I hold.

Being self-reliant does not mean I believe that I, or men in general, should be the sole breadwinners of their households, self-reliance means that I am able to sustain myself, without needing much or any help from the government or other authorities.

So why does it seem like traditionally masculine traits and values like these are always labeled as toxic, or sexist, or misogynistic? Why are men who hold these values immediately deemed as women-hating anti-feminists who only care about having status being a stud?

I agree. Toxic masculinity is definitely a thing, but that is when masculinity is abused. Masculinity in and of itself is by no means a bad thing. A very masculine person is a person who has all of these traditional masculine attributes, but actually uses them for the good of others and does not use them to hurt others

[Frustration he/him]

27 minutes ago, cheeseman said:

It is because men are, for the most part, much more physically powerful than women.

Not just that, but when it comes to the survival of a species men are quite frankly more disposable.

Losing one male hurts a population a lot less than the loss of one female.

[Szeth's Facepalm]

I'm gonna nope out of here cause this is the Sanderson fan website and i did not sign up for a convo like this when i made an account. Adios fellers

(And no one wanted to try to find common ground with me about york peppermint patties )

Edited April 11, 2023 by Szeth's Facepalm

[Wittles he/him]

1 minute ago, Szeth's Facepalm said:

Honestly this conversation is freaking me out a bit. I'm gonna nope out of here cause this is the Sanderson fan website and i did not sign up for this when i made an account. Adios fellers

(And no one wanted to try to find common ground with me about york peppermint patties )

I object, york peppermint patties are not in fact that bad.

(sorry facepalm)

[Frustration he/him]

3 minutes ago, Szeth's Facepalm said:

I'm gonna nope out of here cause this is the Sanderson fan website and i did not sign up for a convo like this when i made an account. Adios fellers

(And no one wanted to try to find common ground with me about york peppermint patties )

Gonna be real I forgot that those things even existed.

They're alright, I wouldn't go out of my way to eat them, but they aren't horrible.

[The cheeseman Sola Scriptora]

29 minutes ago, Frustration said:

Gonna be real I forgot that those things even existed.

They're alright, I wouldn't go out of my way to eat them, but they aren't horrible.

My mom loves them and my dad always gets her a bunch of them for Mothers Day or her birthday. It's awesome because I like them too.

[S. Stormy she/her]

On 4/8/2023 at 8:00 AM, Szeth's Facepalm said:

York peppermint patties are kind of gross.

Bless. Your. Stars.

[Cinnamon]

37 minutes ago, Shallan Stormblessed said:

Bless. Your. Stars.

I’m confused, are you agreeing with Facepalm or are you going all Quirk and passive aggressively not-insulting (but totally insulting) them?

Edited April 12, 2023 by Cinnamon