Is it wise to be open-minded anymore?
I used to think it was the best thing you can do, and only idiots would feel otherwise. But with all the hate, caustic discourse, strict political atmosphere, massacres, social unrest, toxic ideologies, so much more in the world right now -- I'm starting to believe that being open-minded is a dangerous thing.
Overtraining is a thing. You need to have discretion in who you listen to, yes.
You wouldn't know it, but we technically live in one of the most peaceful eras in history. The 'problem' is really that we expect so much more from reality, and it doesn't accommodate us. So close, yet so far.
That's why there's so much unrest- people want to realize the world they desire, but that's hard. We don't live in a world where everyone's just going to listen to you. They have their own lives, concerns, moral code, history. The only thing you really can do is literally be yourself- and that's harder than you think. It's not like a switch you turn on, like gurus tend to act like it is. You come to terms with who you are over time, and develop that image as you grow as a person and age.
What you need to be open-minded about is the idea that maybe you really do need to fix something about yourself. But you can't become a 'perfect' person within a lifetime, much less immediately. THAT's something a lot of these people need to realize. They expect everyone else to change to fit their worldview. That's not going to happen, nor should it. It's a self-centered perspective in an age where we're able to bark out our opinions constantly and people are looking for guidance, acknowledgement, and satisfaction in a fast-paced world. Those things don't just fall into your lap- and people HATE that.
>but we technically live in one of the most peaceful eras in history
/his here, FFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK NO, lol. Not even technically.
But we're definitely not in the worst era, though.
Naame a more peaceful era.
Probably going to go with something pre-agriculture, which is sort of like saying the easiest part of stunt flying is getting in the plane
>renaissance era
>27bc to 180ad rome
>the tokugawa shogunate
>ottoman empire 16-17 century
>end of the cold war
Whatever peaceful era we had died with both 9/11 and the Great Recession. We have too many conflicts, authoritarianism, resurgence in fascism and racial supremacy, terrorist attacks, and domestic massacres to be peaceful.
Only faggots are open minded.
>should I think all black or all white guys???
I don't think you actually know any history lol
You clearly don't yourself.
I feel like those are people who have a grudge against the world, be it because something bad happened to them or they just hate happiness. I don't think being open-minded is a key factor in mass murderers, but it's possibly an influence. Just keep in tune with your sanity. You can do that AND be open-minded; doesn't have to be black and white.
Open mindedness is good. But whites need to have their shit together and stop letting everyone walk straight over them. Love thy enemy and show the other cheek means to let your enemy humiliate himself by showing his own evil and to love your enemy even as you kill him. But people took it as BE THE NICEST PERSON EVER AND ALWAYS AND LET EVIL WIN YAAAASS
You displayed your lack of knowledge clearly, you're making baseless assumptions about me.
>too many conflicts
only in the middle east, it was like that in pre 911 era too
>fascism
where?
>racial supremacy
where?
well maybe South Africa
>terrorist attacks
well true, but right cently there haven't been any
>domestic massacres
you probably mean school shootings
it's not even a recent trend, it's the media reporting on it over and over because if there are kids it sells well
gangbangs kill more people every day than school shootings in a year, but nobody cares because lady on tv/twitter didn't mention it
it's nothing new
I used to be very open-minded and tolerant of a lot of shit. Or at least I tried to be, because I wanted to stamp out bigotry and hate, and did all I could to not fall into the same traps. But after going to so many protests that turned out violently, trying to counter neo-nazis who use the guise of free speech and open-mindedness to front their hate, blatantly inciting violence, and suffering physical injuries as a result, etc. My ability to be tolerant and open-minded has significantly dwindled.
>You wouldn't know it, but we technically live in one of the most peaceful eras in history.
Hasn't been true for at least ten years now.
Isn't close-mindedness the reason for all that toxic discourse culture?
>You displayed your lack of knowledge clearly
The irony of your statement.
>you're making baseless assumptions about me
In order for it to be baseless, it first has to be based on nothing.
>only in the middle east
Europe, South America, North America, East Asia, Russia, etc.
>where?
See above.
>where?
The recent upticks in white nationalism across the world, predominantly first world nations. The recent El Paso, for one example. Christchurch, another. Dylann Roof. Tree of Life. Finsbury Park. Orlando nightclub. Alexandre Bissonnette. Anders Behring Breivik. And those are in the last decade.
>but right cently there haven't been any
The recent mass shootings have been qualified as terrorist attacks from international organisations.
>you probably mean school shootings
Mass massacres, typically those done by lone wolves. Not just school shootings, or even shootings in general.
>it's not even a recent trend
The uptick is a recent trend unique to this era.
>gangbangs kill more people every day
Gangbangers kill as much as petty criminals, which isn't a lot. And petty criminals can rarely nab multiple victims in one go.
Usually when people say they want open-minded ness, they mean they want you to be open-minded towards their viewpoint.
What you need to do instead is critically think about every viewpoint. This sort of involves being open-minded, where you listen to other people's arguments, but it also involves purposefully asking questions about the viewpoint instead of taking its narrative at face value. Instead of being completely open and just absorbing new ideas, think about where these new ideas came from, how you learned about them, why someone would want you to agree with these ideas, etc... Basically, challenge the idea with facts and your own moral compass.
After doing this for a while you should be able to build up a nice core set of beliefs. Oh and don't forget to do real research otherwise none of this matters
Being open minded is fine. The problem is that you base your reality on the internet.
A lot of you sound like you've never heard of the paradox are tolerance. Or you have, and you think that means you have a right to clamp down on everything you don't like. Tolerance of certain things are more important than others, and 90% of the time you lot and all the other crazies in the world pick the wrong ones. That, and the fogies over the economy is how you get the rise in Authoritarianism enabled across the world.
Oh, you're one of those. How are terrorist attacks a proof of a political shift? Do you know how many whites are killed, have their land taken, chased away. South African government does that. Where are the news? Nowhere, because whites are a scapegoat for US left politics, who want Hispanic and black votes. White nationalism is not a thing, but if this keeps up it will. How long do you think you can call half of the country devils? Of course US politics seeps into Europe and their own little authoritarian project called the EU.
I bet you believe muh russia conspiracy too.
>gangbangs kill criminals and only one at a time
I'm done, don't (You) me anymore
Oh, you're one of those. I think have some place for you:
This. The internet allows us to become wrapped up in problems which have absolutely no bearing on our daily lives. Disconnect from the internet for a few days and watch those problems disappear from your life, along with the caustic attitudes that accompany them. Be open minded in life and be intransigent online, basically.
*shhhhh* You're not allowed to say something that makes sense.
I just think that you're retarded and have no idea of what you're talking about. It's almost like humanity hasn't learned a damn thing about political extremism since WWII.
To be fair you're also fucking retarded. You're trying to disprove that today's world is the most peaceful era there's ever existed by mentioning self contained eras within countries or regions, and not the fucking world in general. The advent of war between major powers is extremely unlikely now and this is an unprecedented long peace in the history of humanity due to the existence of a little thing called nuclear deterrence. It's also retarded that you're trying to compare much less developed eras with the current one when the scale of the wars these eras could wage are laughably smaller compared to today. Even the end of the cold war is a joke by today's standards since then militaries have evolved and countries are starting to consider even more domains of war besides land, air and sea based operations. We have the capabilities to end the world in many more ways than we've ever had through the advent of another World War, yet this doesn't happen. If this isn't the closest thing we've had to world peace besides jerk off tribalism era bullshit then I don't know what is.
>To be fair
Pic related.
>You're trying to disprove that today's world is the most peaceful era
Because it isn't. That ended in the post-9/11 days.
>and not the fucking world in general
Which has plethora of wars, conflicts, economic turmoil, and climate change ramping up lately.
>due to the existence of a little thing called nuclear deterrence
That hasn't been a concern since the fall of the wall. Though China and Russia's recent development might bring that back. And the DPRK still concerns a number of international entities, even if the credibility of their threat seems dubious.
>It's also retarded that you're trying to compare much less developed eras with the current one when the scale of the wars these eras could wage are laughably smaller compared to today.
Absolutism.
>Even the end of the cold war...
... kicked off the era of peace you're thinking of. But that era began dwindling in the early-2000s.
>We have the capabilities to end the world in many more ways than we've ever had through the advent of another World War, yet this doesn't happen.
a). That threat is still a major concern for various international entities (ex.: NATO).
b). We have environmental debacles currently doing that job for us.
>If this isn't the closest thing we've had to world peace besides jerk off tribalism era bullshit
That would be the 1990s (especially in America). But few plane crashes, wars that followed, and economic retrogrades had other plans.
>Because it isn't. That ended in the post-9/11 days.
Newsflash, America isn't the world.
>Which has plethora of wars, conflicts, economic turmoil, and climate change ramping up lately.
Only wars are valid to this discussion, and no major powers are in any wars with each other for the past 70 years.
>DPRK
>concerns
Have you even been alive for the past 3 years? While there's 'concerns' about NK still developing nuclear weapons from a few months ago there's been significant diplomatic breakthroughs which are unprecedented in your darling end of the cold war. Implying that nuclear deterrence hasn't been a concern is also retarded since it's a major reason as to why the first world has been at peace, with the EU, ONU and NATO being a few others.
>Absolutism.
My ass. It's disingenuous to compare the two, it's almost like you're trying to ignore context to make a point.
>But that era began dwindling in the early-2000s.
There's only 10 wars currently being waged around the world. While after 1991, the end of the cold war, there's been over 50.
>a). That threat is still a major concern for various international entities (ex.: NATO).
I'm sure that big boy NATO is worried about the thing it was designed to prevent to begin with.
>b).
Irrelevant.
>That would be the 1990s (especially in America).
Again, not true.
>America
Sasuga Amerifag. Just because you decided to send a couple thousand troops to foreign countries to secure your economic interests unconstitutionally, since you're reliant on a war economy and the petro-dollar, that doesn't mean that the rest of the world isn't experiencing peace.
>America isn't the world.
When America catches the flu, the world coughs.
>Only wars are valid to this discussion
How racist.
>and no major powers are in any wars with each other for the past 70 years
America and Russia have been involved in a number of conflicts and wars in the mid-east for the past decades. And even European powers got in on that action during the post-9/11 wars.
>Have you even been alive for the past 3 years?
Where everyone has been freaking out over them?
>While there's 'concerns' about NK still developing nuclear weapons from a few months ago there's been significant diplomatic breakthroughs which are unprecedented in your darling end of the cold war.
Too little information to make such a determination.
>Implying that nuclear deterrence hasn't been a concern
It stopped being a concern after the fall of the wall because one of the major powers stopped being a threat momentarily. No one cares about ND anymore.
>since it's a major reason as to why the first world has been at peace
ND never put the world at peace. It just held it hostage for fear of causing a chain reaction.
>It's disingenuous to compare the two
It's completely reasonable to compare the two. In fact, it's irrational not to. And subject to absolutism and bigotry.
>There's only 10 wars currently being waged around the world.
There needs to be next to zero wars in order to have a peace era. The total amount of (known) world history with actual peace only amount to 300+ years.
>I'm sure that big boy NATO is worried about the thing it was designed to prevent to begin with.
They've expressed worries over Russia since the Obama administration.
>Again, not true.
You're probably too young to remember.
>that doesn't mean that the rest of the world isn't experiencing peace.
It isn't anymore due to other factors, not just American.
>America and Russia have been involved in a number of conflicts and wars in the mid-east for the past decades. And even European powers got in on that action during the post-9/11 wars.
Those were proxy wars and again they're not fighting each other directly.
>Where everyone has been freaking out over them?
I haven't and most of the freaking out is mostly because of 'muh trump'.
>Too little information to make such a determination.
An American President in office has gone to North Korea, has talked to Kim several times and has made agreements with him (even if some of them were being skirted around by NK previously). This is more than all the relevant previous presidents have done combined. I'd say that's significant and unprecedented enough.
>It just held it hostage for fear of causing a chain reaction.
t. peace.
>It's completely reasonable to compare the two.
Let's compare the bronze weapon era to ICBM's and 5th generation fighter jets. While you could do this, you're not doing it properly by not addressing any of the challenges of making these two eras fairly comparable in any meaningful way.
>There needs to be next to zero wars in order to have a peace era.
Shit, then why is the period between 1945 and today called the Long Peace?
>They've expressed worries over Russia since the Obama administration.
Just like they've been doing when it was still called the USSR.
>It isn't anymore due to other factors, not just American.
If it's not a war then I don't want to ear it.
The Long Peace has been the single most prosperous era of human development in the history of the world both in first and third world countries. This was only possible precisely because there was peace between all major powers. This 1st world peace has afforded relative world peace and stability and as we go forward by continuing to resolve problems as an international community through diplomacy and minimal overt military action the world will become even more peaceful in coming years.
Yes but u also need to encourage others to be open minded
The Rennaisance was decidedly not peaceful
The wars just didn't involve large permanent territorial changes
The French Italian expedition comes to mind immediately, not to mention the Wars of the Roses
Lmao no. Hunter-Gatherers went to war, they did it enough that we have plenty of battle sites from these times.
1/2
>Those were proxy wars and again they're not fighting each other directly.
So was the Cold War, and that was an era of terror for everyone, especially the major powers.
>I haven't and most of the freaking out is mostly because of 'muh trump'.
Everyone freaks out about DPRK whenever they make the news. They always have since the Songun days.
>An American President in office has gone to North Korea
A POTUS who's been going down as the US most illegitimate and abusive.
>has talked to Kim several times and has made agreements with him
That whatever little information to gleam out of the region shows that they're not keeping up their end of the bargain.
>This is more than all the relevant previous presidents have done combined.
Hitler started the first anti-smoking campaign. That's a tiny accomplish to the rest of their otherwise oeuvre.
>This is more than all the relevant previous presidents have done combined. I'd say that's significant and unprecedented enough.
See above.
2/2
>peace
An era where two sides are worried of nuclear strikes from each other, and where the rest of the world is held hostage by that, is not peace.
>Let's compare the bronze weapon era to ICBM's and 5th generation fighter jets.
You can for the respective and relative place in their time period. Otherwise that's absolutism and choroncentrism.
>you're not doing it properly by not addressing any of the challenges of making these two eras fairly comparable in any meaningful way.
If you're an absolutist, perhaps.
>Shit, then why is the period between 1945 and today called the Long Peace?
The Long Peace has been cited to end in the 90s, or as recent as the 2010s. But that era died in the last two decades. And the general concept of the LP these days is fallacious at best.
>Just like they've been doing when it was still called the USSR.
When it was relevant. But the new concerns have been focused on the current regime, even before the election meddings (which didn't just happen to the US).
>If it's not a war then I don't want to ear it.
Then you're a bigot.
>The Long Peace has been the single most prosperous era of human development in the history of the world both in first and third world countries.
Up until recently.
>This was only possible precisely because there was peace between all major powers.
When there was genuine, legitimate peace. Not what we have now.
>This 1st world peace has afforded relative world peace and stability
For a while.
>and as we go forward by continuing to resolve problems as an international community through diplomacy and minimal overt military action the world will become even more peaceful in coming years.
The conflicts, economic drops, and social upheavals in even first world countries have shown that the pendulum has started swinging in reverse.