Civil Discourse - Are You Red Team Or Blue Team?

Mark introduces the topic of civil discourse and reads the definition

He classifies it as a worldview topic and asks Jim to chime in

Jim tells the story about how he and Mark met and that the original topic of the podcast was going to be civil discourse

Jim takes us around the wheel and explains where our worldview comes from. Our childhood and our political views

Jim cites the current problem that we have in our country with being decided

He also suggests that some of the conspiracy theories out there might likely be true

Jim says we all are formed by what’s happening in our own back yard. Mark agrees

Jim references our wheel again and then asks Mark to share the story that originated the topic

Mark says in order to have civil discourse you need to be intentionally civil and kind

Both guys agree they are slightly misaligned with regard to optimism and pessimism

Jim doesn’t think “the other side” is willing to do this. They simply want to be critical

Mark asks a lot of questions and stays away from accusations

Mark tells his “yard sign” story

He responds to 3 Harris/Walz signs his neighbors dropped with his own sign response

Mark explains his positions and his take on the political argument landscape

Jim jumps back in with his take on our national elections. He likes using the phrases “red team and blue team”

He talks about the pandemic and the BLM riots influencing the 2020 election

Mark says the division is in pursuit of control. It was purposeful and it worked. He says the blue team is better at the game

Mark talks about the political terms that no longer mean anything

He cites the difference between knowing, feeling and thinking

Jim thinks we no longer vote “for” people, we vote “against” the other guy

Mark tries to take the person out of the discussion

Jim agrees, but doesn’t think people can.

Jim uses the word polarization and suggests that younger people don’t concern themselves with politics. They’re focused on getting their lives in order. He then distinguishes different generations

Marks shares a bit about speaking with his daughters

He calls civil discourse “mental gymnastics”

Jim sees people changing the topic when they get frustrated

Mark agrees and suggests people should just admit when they don’t know

People who are not able to support their positions are’t willing to admit they don’t know

Mark talks about the importance of speaking up

Jim talks about the media. Mark says there is no objective news anymore

Jim brings up Johnny Carson and his objectivity because that’s what his dad watched before bed time

Carson laughed and made fun of both sides

Mark says Carson had a singularity of purpose…to make people laugh

The guys then bring up the current late night hosts and how biased they are

Mark mentions that one group that is bringing us back is the stand up comedians

They discuss Bill Maher, Seinfeld and Joe Rogan

Mark brings up Jordan Peterson as a great civil discourse practitioner

Mark bring in RFKJr and Tulsi Gabard

Jim brings up the women of The View and Mark talks about how people love to stir shit. Bad news sells

Mark makes a suggestion to the audience about being more intentional regarding being civil

He says we spend too much energy on winning and convincing

Jim recommends not using people’s names. He likes the blue red team approach. He also recommends not watching the news and just repeating talking points

Mark recommends to not react to new things immediately. Wait, pause. Allow for context to be discovered

Don’t make assumptions and get context

Jim says you often have to simply stop talking about it

Change takes place over time, not in one conversation