This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Who is the enemy?
I feel like as humans we tend to label a group or a person as "the enemy" and proceed to disagree with everything they say or do regardless of merit. Republicans and Democrats, atheists and believers, pro-life and pro-choice, etc. etc. I mean really, anything the NRA says is instantly ridiculed in some circles and anything President Obama does is destroying America in other circles. I've seen this in families, even.
So who is the real enemy here? Are there such things as enemies in the end? I'm not just talking politically, but in all phases of life. Is there anybody that should be labeled as an enemy?
It would also be interesting if you give examples of kinds of enemies you've seen other than those listed above.
Pabitra Mukhopadhyay 30+
Steven Pinkham
A short quote that drives the limitations of that mode of thinking home:
A good place to look for wisdom, therefore, is where you least expect to find it: in the minds of your opponents. You already know the ideas common on your own side. If you can take off the blinders of the myth of pure evil, you might see some good ideas for the first time.
--Happiness Hypothesis: Finding Modern Truth in Ancient Wisdom, Page 242
carolyn mcauley 20+
Vincenzo Sergi
cheers
Noel Rojo
Grace Greene 10+
es mi vida
if someone hurts us physically we should call them an enemy because they showed their hate in a very clear and defensive way , but if they hurt us emotionally , it doesn't have to be a sign of hate ! some people say things they don't mean , we gotta know why they said these things before labeling them as enemies because an enemy is someone who is trying to destroy us , someone who's trying to hurt us on purpose , someone who wanna make us suffer , when someone does that , then that's the enemy .
carolyn mcauley 20+
Scot Wilcox 10+
Shaun Myers
Salim Solaiman 50+
Dan Clarke
edward long 100+
Fritzie Reisner 100+
There is a connected concept in psychology called thick or thin boundaries but is measured on a scale rather than binary.
Someone with thick boundaries tends to separate people and ideas into distinct groups with sharp lines separating the groups. Those who lump people together as if they are fundamentally homogeneous because of, say, political affiliation or occupation are on the thick boundary end of the scale. Those who recognize variation within such categories and indeed overlaps among them and who resist categorization and one-size-fits all conceptual formulations are on the thin boundary end of the scale. Someone who hates labeling people would be on the thin boundary end.
Those more toward the thick end are more likely, probably, to see and identify various groups as enemies.
Scot Wilcox 10+
Fritzie Reisner 100+
Still there is empirical evidence that open-mindedness can be cultivated.
Scot Wilcox 10+
Gail . 50+
I wonder how much dissent would be erased if government called any religious institution that talked about any political party or political position a PAC and taxed it as such. When one group insists that those who disagree are not disagreeing with them, but are disagreeing with God, the fight is unfair and unresolvable. Dissension grows.
I found Mr. Haidt's speech almost laughable. His suggestion that strengthening marriage will not only reduce income inequality but significantly improve most of our social ills is profoundly naive.
If a rapist is going around raping people, are women supposed to support his ideals? Women are being metaphorically raped (as are blacks, hispanics, and the LBGT community) by the conservative Christian community. How can Mr. Haidt truly expect those who are being raped and deprived of basic human rights and essential equality, to work with those who are raping them?
I don't label the xtians "enemy". I don't have enough political power where I live to bother. I do KNOW that I am considered to be in THEIR enemy camp. This is made abundantly clear in so MANY ways!
Feyisayo Anjorin 50+
es mi vida
an imagined enemy is bad but the enemy within is the worst !
Krisztián Pintér 200+
Farokh Shahabi Nezhad 10+
If they can mange their relation and find out that the other group don't want to destroy them, They can have better relationship, discussion and so on.
Ken brown 30+
The great gun debate:
The NRA, Citing Switzerland and Israels gun laws and Inalienable rights.
In the middle = Obama's recommendations.
Those against escalation and more controls on guns.
?
Who's the enemy? What enemy? I am my enemy.
I could launch into a grand explanation but it would only come across as patronizing, other than that refer to Pats comment.
george lockwood 30+
Barry Palmer 50+
Who is challenging YOUR well being? Since you ask the question, I conclude you have no obvious enemies.
Would you consider the following as enemies:
People who destroy the natural environment for selfish gain, thus threatening the survival of your descendants
People who get rich by causing the economy to collapse, putting millions of people out of work.
Politicians who support laws that are sought by their financial supporters, regardless of the harm done to the people who they should be representing.
Employees who perform minimally, not caring who is harmed by their negligence.
Then there are the common murderers, rapists, thieves and other criminals.
I can remember when the phrase "political enemy" was understood as hyperbole. It was taken as a figure of speech. Political enemies were not real enemies, just fellow citizens who disagreed about the best path toward progress. Apparently that is no longer true.
Scot Wilcox 10+
Barry Palmer 50+
I do not care whether THEY are bad.
I do not know what you mean by treating them as enemies. They are my enemies, so however I treat them is how I treat enemies.
Scot Wilcox 10+
Kate Blake 50+
Our own inability to deal with our thoughts and emotions constructively. We tend to give them full reign and although we are aware that some are destructive we still dont have the tenacity to try to monitor them.
All those other things you list are our perceived enemies that only act as a distraction from dealing with the real one.
Scot Wilcox 10+
Kate Blake 50+
I've heard this related to dogs, unless specifically trained as guard dogs, most larger dogs are quite docile in manner. Not aggressive or loud barking. Where as most little dogs, due to the insecurity/fear of their small stature feel the need to bark, yap, nip and carry on every chance they get.
They feel threatened by others and so are always on the defensive - says it all?
Scot Wilcox 10+
pat gilbert 100+
E.G. people will say that a Muslim terrorist is aiding the survival of his group and getting rid of infidels. But what is wrong with this assessment is that he is not aiding the people of the world. Hitler had a similar perspective.
As to the political ideals you have to ask which ones aide the survival of that nation. People will say this is accomplished through socialism but the reality when you actually LOOK at this is greater debt and less economic activity than countries that have freer markets.
Look at this index to see what system is the enemy:
http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking