December 2, 2017
Just to spite me, obviously.
I agree that it would be difficult to find such people on a message board.
However, the OP expressed an odd opinion about what different people believe a response that the posts on this board indicate that no common thoughts can be found is hampered by the nature of the group examined. It is rather like asking the American public in 1972 whether they prefer Arsenal or Manchester United. Any thread on the topic would have included a lot of rage, but it would hardly represent American opinion.
I’m sure the right and left can agree on having nothing to do with Deez Nuts.
Or the ambush-kisser-of-Samantha-Bee, Gary Johnson.*
*Cool - I somehow initially mistyped “Johnson” as “Johnskin”.
Where else do you find opinionated people? We definately have daily proof that both/all sides do not see eye to eye on pretty much every major issue. We don’t have proof that there are unshared opinions suggesting that side A and side B can agree on much of anything. Some people may suggest/hope that there are still people who are willing to accept the fact that there are reasonable opinions other than their own. The old “Why can’t we all get along” or “Live and let live” is only applied to their own side. Those other guys are not only wrong but evil incarnate.
Clothahump provided an excerpt from the Townhall website. Issues that actually apply to Americans. Personally, I do not see a future where side A/side B will ever agree with, or accept, the ideas/wishes/demands of side B/side A.
meh
Why are you fixated on opinionated people? There are a lot of people, on both sides, who are not narrowly opinionated. Northern Ireland put up with 30+ years of intransigence until an actual majority decided to ignore the opinionated people and hammer out workable compromises. And that country had much deeper social divisions, going back much further in history, (along with armed factions), than does the U.S.
Clothahump’s quoted source was one of the extremists, (unlike anyone with whom I work or associate), who deliberately created “beliefs” that are distortions of the beliefs that each side actually holds. I am sure that we could find a Left wing pundit (or Left wing member of the SDMB) who could create equally dishonest “beliefs” for each side to hold, but those are not real beliefs, so the fact that a bunch of people are arguing about those distortions says nothing about how the majority of the country views those issues.
Mostly because Side A and Side B presented by the Townhall website were from a completely alternate reality. If they actually presented those ideas as their genuinely held beliefs in *this universe, they’d be laughed at. By their own “side” of the political aisle.
Because opinionated people provide the only source of people’s opinions? If “opinionated” still means someone who has strong opinions that they feel free to express publically. It’s difficult to fathom the opinions of those who keep their own council.
Must a person’s beliefs be considered “dishonest” if they honestly believe them to be true? Does such a claim encourage open communication with the loyal opposition or curtail it? And why would a normal person on the left, or right, wish to be subjected to hate speech, inuendo, and name-calling unless they are opinionated?
Over the last decade and a half, I have noticed fewer examples of people requesting clarification of news stories and public speaker’s statements. In spite of the fact that many stories/rumors have either proven to be untrue, or are as-of-yet-undetermined. Some people chose to simply accept whatever their particular Groupspeak tells them. Others may question the apparent SOP of circulating stories/rumors without knowing the Who, What, Why, When, and How that legitimate journalism would requre.
I wish that a climate existed where the left and right could agree on something, but that train has long left the station. I believe that what this country needs now is a strong leader that can bring both sides together. Unfortunately, both sides are so far apart on the major issues, and no one is willing to accept any compromise. IIRC, a sucessful Democracy requires compromise.
Depends on how many people are on their council I suppose.
D’oh! I hate when that happens. What I meant to say was, “It’s difficult to fathom the opinions of those who keep their own council locked in a cage under the floorboards of their vacation home in Eau Clair, Wisconsin”. 
or maybe I meant to say, “counsel”? Either way, I hate getting old. Thanks for taking the time to respond. (Seriously.)
I do not know when opinionated ever meant what you have said, much less that the meaning has changed. Opinionated indicates unduly holding personal opinions and preconceived notions or stubbornly holding views in despite of facts, being close minded, not simply being willing to express one’s opinions.
If one expresses ideas that are clearly distant from the facts, one may be ignorant and honest or be dishonest. The opinions expressed in the quoted portions of the OP are not true, objectively, and are also not genuine beliefs held by thinking persons regarding their political opponents.
A normal person on the left or right may express their opinions and recognize that if they are attacked with “hate speech, innuendo, and name-calling,” the people launching those attacks are opinionated and may be dismissed as unworthy of response.
I also find this unfortunate, but people and their attitudes seem no different, to me, than they did during the Civil Rights battles, the Vietnam War battles of the later '60s, the “persecution” or defense of Nixon, the various beliefs fostered and opposed by Reagan era speakers, etc. I was a bit young to recall it first hand, but I have found evidence of similar expressions from the 50’s (red scares, blacklists, etc.).
I recall people declaring the doom of the U.S. in every decade since I was a teen because “those guys” are just greedy, stupid, unreasonable, racist, Commie, whatever, and they have always found sources for their unconsidered beliefs.
Can we agree that the Cambridge Dictionary seems like a reasonable source of information.
Opinionated -
adjective us
having strong opinions that you feel free to express:
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed by a Republican Congress and signed by a Democrat President. A compromise was reached. The “persecution” and defense of Nixon was settled by a persistent and comprehensive investigation into his behavior. Nixon WAS a crook. I’m not sure which Reagan era belief(s) you’re referring to, but, if I remember correctly, Democrats and Republicans were still able to discuss the issues in a more civil, but typically politicized manner, than they are today. “Red scares” were made plausible by the murderous actions of the current Communist leaders. Did American communists have sufficient support to over throw the U.S. government? The answer proved to be a resounding NO, but did require an investigation to settle the issue.
Currently, I’m seeing rumors, ideology, piss poor journalism, bias, rush-to-judgment, bullshit, horseshit, and moose shit being substituted for compromise, honest and legitimate investigation, and keeping an open mind until all of the actual facts are in.
I don’t see any possibility of the left and right agreeing on any major point. Aka - all of those other people are assholes and should be ignored. Certainly no room for compromise with that attitude. We are left to bide our time until something truly significant occurs, or someone new appears on the scene, that enables most of the members of both sides to unify in their dislike for something else.
Asking a British dictionary about an American adjective? Let’s see what an American dictionary has to say.
I do not know. It disagrees with every American dictionary I have seen. However, my responses were based on an understanding that is explicitly negative in its indication that the opinions are not justified or supported by facts. If you used the word as noted in the Cambridge dictionary, then we were simply talking past each other in that exchange.
I am not sure what your point is. It almost seems as though you were not in the U.S. during those years.
The Civil Rights Act did nothing to calm the conflicts over the busing of students away from their neighborhoods, it did not prevent the murder of Martin Luther King jr and the conflicts that accompanied that action, it did not ease conflicts arising from Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke, it did nothing to stop multiple school districts to ignore or oppose Brown v Board of Education of Topeka well into the 1970s, Nixon’s resignation continued to be argued as harassment into the 1980s, Reagan was loudly praised and excoriated for refusing to address Civil Rights issues, waging war on smaller countries, ignoring the AIDS crisis, building a wasteful “600 ship navy,” pretending that busting the budget and draining money from other scientific efforts to build an unworkable “Star Wars” program made any sense, and promoting trickle down economic policy, etc. You begin by asserting that there is more personal conflict, now, that there was in earlier times, then switch gears to claim that specific events were resolved, ignoring how they played out in private discussions. You are correct that partisan politics has again risen to the levels of the 1850s, but the topic was whether citizens could come to agreements in discussions and none of your individual points actually address those issues.
And you really think that waiting for facts or keeping an open mind were hallmarks of the discussions of the events (among others) that I have noted?
I do not see any movement with the current crop of congresscritters or an executive branch that fosters such division, but I do not believe that either the Right or Left are monolithic structures that cannot change if enough people see the results of the current political standoffs. There is a growing movement among Ecumenicals, for example, to oppose the anti-science movement currently leading much discussion vs pollution and climate change.
In Columbus, OH, both right and left will agree on Fuck Michigan in the fall.
It’s a start.
Well, actually it’s more of a tradition, but it proves that there are still people who can find common ground.
How does one “firmly or unduly adher(ing) to one’s own opinion or to preconceived notions” if one does not freely express those opinions? Who will know that you’re opinionated if you don’t share your opinions with others?
(post shortened)
Waiting for the facts and keeping an open mind is not a bad thing. It allows people to continue having open, if (mean?) spirited, conversations. Investigations provide facts. The possibility of compromise provides a little something for me, and a little something for you. That’s got to be better than our current updated 1850’s attitude?
Over time, and by keeping the lines of communication open, the handling of past events has resulted in minds being changed, attitudes were adjusted, and things got better. Not perfect, but better.
Currently, neither side is willing to even listen to the other side. There are people who actually believe that by ridiculing the other side they are actually changings people’s minds. Nothing could be farther from the truth. It’s only served to end the possibility of further conversations.
Is that kind of like how you call our party the “Democrat” party even though we’ve specifically asked you to use the official title of the party (the Democratic party)?
'Cause when members of the other side are unwilling to even extend that most minor and effortless of courtesies, it’s hard to see how engagement and exchange of ideas is possible.
Ask Webster, that’s been their definition for 100 years.