How can we defeat "us vs. them" mentality?

[RCSaunders]

Truthfully there is NO "them" existing anyway.

That's right. And no, "we," or, "us," either.

[Sculptor]

Trying to defeat an us verses them mentality is self contradictory since you have to set your store with the "us " that believes that an "Us vs Them Mentality", and against the people the 'them' that think a "Us vs Them Mentality" is a perfectly good way to go about things.

[Age]

Truthfully there is NO "them" existing anyway.

That's right. And no, "we," or, "us," either.

If there is no "us", then what is there (or here)?

[Nick_A]

The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism. Karl Marx

The answer is to make sure by all means possible that everyone obeys the laws and dictates of your socialist leaders assuring a glorious time of peace.

In a glorious time of peace there's no human need for any laws thus 'obedience' and 'opposition' lose their meaning.

Rinse. Repeat.

You forget that mother nature is female so there will always be trouble. Men will be gathered around the campfire talking of peace as they enjoy some cold ones and assorted foods. But then a cute blonde will walk by shaking her attractive behind and the men being seated will enable her to make a vivid impression. Then all the men will have the same thought: MINE. Thoughts of peace will be postponed

[RCSaunders]

Truthfully there is NO "them" existing anyway.

That's right. And no, "we," or, "us," either.

If there is no "us", then what is there (or here)?

I do not mean they do not exist, but the way of looking at people as anything other than individuals is the root of the so-called us vs. them problem.

Most people view people, including themselves, as members of some group, collection, or class of people such as national origin, race, or culture, and judge them as superior or inferior on the basis of those collective identifications. The only solution to the problem, which can only be implemented by individuals is to only recognize others as individuals and to judge them solely on basis of what they do and make of themselves. No one is better or worse, including ourselves, because they belong to or are assigned to some group.

That is what I mean when I say I am not a member of any "us" or "we."

[Nick_A]

R C

Most people view people, including themselves, as members of some group, collection, or class of people such as national origin, race, or culture, and judge them as superior or inferior on the basis of those collective identifications. The only solution to the problem, which can only be implemented by individuals is to only recognize others as individuals and to judge them solely on basis of what they do and make of themselves. No one is better or worse, including ourselves, because they belong to or are assigned to some group.

That is what I mean when I say I am not a member of any "us" or "we."

Be careful or you will earn the wrath of progressives who seek uniformity in thought. They will turn college students into mindless snowflakes devoted to the goals of their collective. You will be reeducated and forget all about individuality. Your purpose will be to serve your political party. Never let anyone get the impression that you believe Simone has a point. It will not be tolerated.

"When a man joins a political party, he submissively adopts a mental attitude which he will express later on with words such as, ‘As a monarchist, as a Socialist, I think that …’ It is so comfortable! It amounts to having no thoughts at all. Nothing is more comfortable than not having to think." Simone Weil

Don’t think – be comfortable. Let your progressive superiors think for you, It is for your own good. Your progressive government will know best. Those who disagree will be eliminated and peace will reign

[Skepdick]

The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism. Karl Marx

The answer is to make sure by all means possible that everyone obeys the laws and dictates of your socialist leaders assuring a glorious time of peace.

In a glorious time of peace there's no human need for any laws thus 'obedience' and 'opposition' lose their meaning.

Rinse. Repeat.

You forget that mother nature is female so there will always be trouble. Men will be gathered around the campfire talking of peace as they enjoy some cold ones and assorted foods. But then a cute blonde will walk by shaking her attractive behind and the men being seated will enable her to make a vivid impression. Then all the men will have the same thought: MINE. Thoughts of peace will be postponed

OURS

And they shared the spoils in raunchy orgy in their socialist sexist Utopia!

[Dubious]

Can't happen, since there will always be an US (whoever we are) and a THEM (whoever they are). The former seems indigenous to itself while the latter looks alien. Is it even desirable that it should be defeated?

[RCSaunders]

Be careful or you will earn the wrath of progressives who seek uniformity in thought.

Please don't tell them. I know you're right.

[Belinda]

The most contentious form of "us versus them" mentality is climate change denial. To use this form of tribalism as an example, one way to overcome tribalism is to understand the history of anti-intellectualism in the US, and the distribution patterns of anti-intellectualism on the map of the USA.

The US is not the only nation where climate deniers can be found however it is a glaring example of anti-intellectualism formally headed by President Trump.

[Age]

Can't happen, since there will always be an US (whoever we are) and a THEM (whoever they are). The former seems indigenous to itself while the latter looks alien. Is it even desirable that it should be defeated?

Why will there ALWAYS be an "us" and a "them"?

Who/what is said to be "us" and who/what is "them"? If that can not be defined, then how could there even be an "us" and a "them"?

To me there is no "them".

What is being proposed as being the distinguishing mark?

[-1-]

nuclear weapons and mutually assured destruction...

-Imp

... in the hand of every citizen. Not just of the prez.

[-1-]

Can't happen, since there will always be an US (whoever we are) and a THEM (whoever they are). The former seems indigenous to itself while the latter looks alien. Is it even desirable that it should be defeated?

Thanks for putting this down, Dubious, I was going to say something to the same effect.

[-1-]

The most contentious form of "us versus them" mentality is climate change denial. To use this form of tribalism as an example, one way to overcome tribalism is to understand the history of anti-intellectualism in the US, and the distribution patterns of anti-intellectualism on the map of the USA.

The US is not the only nation where climate deniers can be found however it is a glaring example of anti-intellectualism formally headed by President Trump.

What about abortions. Climate change might change, as it is prone to change. Abortions are here to stay.

[Nick_A]

Is it possible to break down "us vs. them" mentality? How?

I suggest:

* Ban on team sports on large/nationwide levels.

* Ban on non-professional uniforms (police officers should carry a uniform as part of their profession, but uniforms symbolizing an ideology or religion should be banned - like Ku-Klux-Klan-uniforms and niqab etc.). Also, school uniforms should be banned.

* Abolish conscription in countries where any such thing exists.

* Make it legal to desecrate private possessions of national symbols (ie. if you own a flag of your own country, you should be free to burn it).

* Other bans on nationalism.

You are suggesting something that isn't wanted and unnatural for humanity as we know it. Breaking down "us vs. them" mentality would require depriving Man of two of his greatest psychological needs: power and prestige. Man is denied both in the absence of us vs them. George Orwell explains power:

“Now I will tell you the answer to my question. It is this. The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from the oligarchies of the past in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just around the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now you begin to understand me.”
― George Orwell, 1984

With power comes prestige. All those in positions of power do so by being attracted to power and prestige. You could make all women dress alike in burkas so they cannot be recognized so the us and them doesn't exist but it cannot last other than in slavery simply because of the need to express individuality beginning with body type.

The real question for me is how power and prestige become positive qualities but it has been proven over the years that this question can easily get you killed so must be rejected. When a seeker of truth has the courage to look out into the world objectively and sees it for what it is, it is suicide to tell others. Just think what happened to Socrates. Even the boy who innocently said the emperor has no clothes was never seen or heard from again.

The "people" must be denied their attraction to individuality and just think us: the grand collective. Those in power are the individuals and they have the prestige to keep it. Power and prestige are their own rewards and are made possible by the demand for the worship of the grand collective: the glorious "us" leaving the questions of individuality to those having acquired power and prestige.