Sat Dec 22, 2012, 06:50 AM
Tuesday Afternoon (48,763 posts)
Regarding Terminology and The Present State of Affairs -
Last edited Sat Dec 22, 2012, 06:55 AM - Edit history (2)
Could one say that we are in triangulation regarding the current issue of:
1. Second Amendment
2. Gun Control
3. The Health and Well Being of Our Nation's Mentally Ill.
Has it been positioned such that the one has pitted each against the other?
Triangulation is the name given to the act of a political candidate presenting his or her ideology as being "above" and "between" the "left" and "right" sides (or "wings") of a traditional (e.g. UK or US) democratic "political spectrum". It involves adopting for oneself some of the ideas of one's political opponent (or apparent opponent). The logic behind it is that it both takes credit for the opponent's ideas, and insulates the triangulator from attacks on that particular issue.
Triangulation is most commonly used to express a situation in which one family member will not communicate directly with another family member, but will communicate with a third family member, which can lead to the third family member becoming part of the triangle. The concept originated in the study of dysfunctional family systems, but can describe behaviors in other systems as well, including work.
Triangulation can also be used as a label for a form of "splitting" in which one person plays the third family member against one that he or she is upset about. This is playing the two people against each other, but usually the person doing the splitting, will also engage in character assassination, only with both parties.
Thoughts, Comments, Discussion and Suggestions on How to resolve the conflict going forward.
3 replies, 536 views
Regarding Terminology and The Present State of Affairs - (Original post)
|Tuesday Afternoon||Dec 2012||OP|
|Tuesday Afternoon||Dec 2012||#1|
|Tuesday Afternoon||Dec 2012||#3|
Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Original post)
Sat Dec 22, 2012, 01:16 PM
discntnt_irny_srcsm (6,954 posts)
2. I wanted to add some thoughts
1. A large group of people in the US won't be ignoring mass shootings (4 or more) anytime very soon in spite of the fact that mass shootings are a small percentage of firearm murders. Persons perpetrating these types of crimes are generally seeking attention. They may be mentally ill or they may be terrorists (or even both) but they are usually looking for attention. The media is part of the problem. The systematic lack of options for those with mental and/or drug issues is part of the problem. Those that say all of this is caused by firearms or accessories are part of the problem.
2. Those on either side of the laws/rights issues that refuse to compromise won't be part of the solution. These folks are just another group of attention seekers. They might be celebrities, politicians, religious leaders... but their only contributions will be to distract from actual progress, usually for sort type of selfish gain.
3. Sometime during the 80s cuts were made in publicly funded mental health care caused a number of the ill to lose some measure of treatment/care/support. This happened at a time when drug issues were becoming more widespread and more of a problem.
4. For the most part state level initiatives will be the most help in these crimes.
The most successful tyranny is not the one that uses force to assure uniformity but the one that removes the awareness of other possibilities, that makes it seem inconceivable that other ways are viable, that removes the sense that there is an outside.
Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #2)
Sat Dec 22, 2012, 01:28 PM
Tuesday Afternoon (48,763 posts)
3. thanks for posting. some cogent thoughts. seems imperative to me - Dialogue needs to kept open -
and this triangulation needs to kept a minimum.