Dubya had a dream that it is.

It's good to know when arrows hit the desired target.

for this thread? Your reply here makes it look like you think we should be able to tell it from your OP and that you want a serious discussion.

Your reply seems to show that you expect serious answers to your OP, but what it is about? What group(s) coexisting with what group(s)? Until you specify that, you won't get serious discussion - just things like 'unrec'.

Different people interpreted my statement in different ways, as I intended. If you have a problem with that then it's your problem not mine.

Either you're serious in asking a specific question, or you're not.

To paraphrase another DUer, I do not coexist with you!

Often, when more than a few people are unable to understand my meaning, I blame myself for lack of clarity rather than blaming others simply to feel more clever or better about myself.

Clarity. You should attempt it more often. "If you have a problem with that then it's your problem not mine..."

It seems to go against our very DNA. Our culture has always had a fixation on conflict, death and an after-life. The only reason we haven't killed ourselves off yet is not because for lack of effort but lack of means.

As we have progressed technologically, we now have the means, so it is no longer a question of "if" but "when".

Until then, I'll be the best person I can be and teach my children to be the best they can be. It's all anybody can do. While there are good people in the world who do good things, as a race, that is not our destiny.

We have 150,000 years or so to go before we can claim to be a successful adaptation.

We have a long way to go before we have any conclusive proof we are evolutionary superior or another failed evolutionary off-shot.

But only if certain religions 'grow up' and stop with fundamentalism and bigoted beliefs.

What do you think?

And relevant, of course. But as I stated my own question is intentionally vague. Coexistence between whom? I was in my own mind referring to Sanders supporters and Democrats. But you perhaps can see why I was vague? I knew if I tried to define that I would get posters going off on my definitions.

I'm not interested in that. It.was better to ask a vague question because from the answers I can easily spot the individual interpretation and the choice of how to interpret the question is in fact the most telling information.

I am more interested in hearing others' answers than playing mind games with people who invariably insist upon changing the subject to "Cary sucks." That doesn't answer your question, sorry. But it does reveal something about me.

Do you want to have "bewildered sucks" discussions?

kind of quarrel you guys want, exchange addresses as needed, etc. If you're equipped with weapons of mass destruction, I suggest coexistence is critical, as well as keeping your actual identities and locations secret.

Invasive species take over and displace the native species, permanently altering the system. Winners take all, and damage their environment in the process.

Now we're causing entire species to be extinct forever.

We are nothing compared to scale of the universe. We don't matter.

Consider the alternative.

You have thousands of moments where you get older in negligible increments.

Also seen people die slowly.

Neither one has much to recommend it.

I wasn't thinking it fully through, of course people die suddenly.

I still have a problem with your analogy though. I don't think it's like growing older and dying but I have to run off to court now.

That's a little like growing old and dying.

With whom are we coexisting? Bigots? Liars? Thieves? Murderers? Rapists? Donald Trump supporters? Muslims? Christians? Wiccans? Buddhists?

...having a blood feud?

I was thinking of the ultra orthodox Jews in the neighborhood I grew up in. It was similar to your story.

But beyond just religion I was thinking of the dialogue between Neil Young and Stephen Stills. Neil wrote the song "Helpless." Stephen responded with this:

We are not helpless we are men
What lies between us
It can be set aside and ended

Everyday we learn more how to hate
Shut the door
And then we'll tell ourselves we can't relate
Only to the ones who are the same
Yet even they are different
And ever so they shall remain

All are strangers, all are friends, all are brothers
Open up my friend and learn to hear
For even lying
When it has nothing you should fear

I think successful co-existence could exist in a framework of basic rights. Start with something like Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Once the minimal for survival is considered satisfied, building on those needs would lead to healthier competition, which doesn't have to be greedy disruptive and destructive behavior, but rather a catalyst for the mind.

What is very necessary, in my opinion, and a for instance, is to co-exist with what's left of environmental culture, if we don't stop fucking with the ecosystems, we will pay, are already paying, a price far higher that what ensures survival.

Once you stop ensuring basic needs, or deny the need to co-exist with the environment in a healthier way. the question of co-existence is moot. Survival is essential to ponder existential questions.

So yes to all three parts of your question.

No, no we cannot.

There have been brief instances where humanities's existence was at stake where we put aside our differences to fight such as the Superbowl or March Madness.

We always return to then fighting for our own self interests which I have zero problem with. What I do have a problem with is people who loftily bleat on and on about the children or how they want to help people but are the biggest d-bags you will ever meet, not to mention selfish. I always fight for my own selfish interests first, if it comes out, that entirely by accident, that it helps someone else's problem, that is a happy coincidence as I am a lover of humanity.

Every couple of years we essentially have a coup de etat, do we not?

"Every couple of years we essentially have a coup de etat, do we not?"

By its definition, no. Definitions, unlike hiding behind implication, are specific and with meaning.

But again look at it from different perspectives. Our existence as a species is about 50,000 years, whereas the universe is 13.777 billions of years old. In the scheme of things a few hundred thousand years, even, is nothing. So if we managed to co-exist for a few hundred thousand years (which I doubt) have we actually co-existed?

Perhaps. I'm not sure where to draw that line.

It's unfortunate, but the only path to coexistence is the one where neoliberals capitulate entirely on what they believe and turn their fire on destroying the vampire squid within the Democratic party too. That's not going to happen.

So, there won't be coexistence and we all really need there to be. I'm not entirely sure why neoliberals value destroying America above victory...but they do.

Maybe it's not the fault at all of "Neoliberals?" Maybe non-"Neoliberals" themselves are incompetent holders of the truth and too dysfunctional to administer that truth?

I would think the truth would be a powerful thing, and that one who commands that power would have to be mighty incompetent to screw that up.

Don't you think?

I think that it is factually their fault...is an inherent first-principle that is beyond dispute.

Non-neolibs would be progressives. That's a much less awkward term than non-neoliberal and it makes clear that which seems to confuse some...neoliberals are incapable of being progressive. It's just another label they want to co-opt to make resistance to their seizure of this party and coup e'tat more difficult.

Incompetent? No.

Victims of subterfuge and oppression by the the alliance between neo-liberals and their kindred conservatives in the other party? Yes.

I'm not sure what that stuff you post has to do with my question except to say that alienating people for any reason or no reason at all is easy. I have to remind myself that reacting to nonsense is easy too.

No, we probably can't coexist. (Not within the same party anyways.)
Yes, it's desirable.
Yes, it's pretty necessary...which makes the fact it's probably impossible unfortunate.

But I will decide if I like or don't like something.

Neoliberalism (and neoconservativism) have nothing to do with partisan alignment.

Neoliberalism refers to economic liberalism - that is, lasseiz-faire economics. The difference between neoliberlaism and traditional liberal economics is that classical liberal economics is a philosophy divorced from the state, while neoliberalism advances the use of a strong state to create and enforce lasseiz-faire economic policy. Yes, there is a deep irony to it.

Neoconservativism is unrelated to neoliberlaism (though most neoconservatives are also neoliberals.) It is contrasted against traditional conservativism (or "paleoconservatism) because traditional conservativism is protectionist, isolationist, and disfavors a strong state. Neoconservativism on the other hand is socially conservative, yes, but favors a state that is strong in areas aside from economics, interventionist policy, and lacks even the slightest sprinkling of populism. Donald Trump and Ted Cruz are actually closer to Paleoconservatives like Pat Buchanan then they are to neconservatives like Dubya or Paul Ryan.

The name calling is a diversion.

Anyway, in terms of economics I am and adherent of modern mainstream neoclassical synthesis, salt water variety. People who actually understand economics will know exactly what that is. If people wish to brand that as "neoliberal" lotsa luck with that one.

Some things can co-exist better than other things, and while I believe it is possible I would qualify by saying its more likely that co-existence will fail or brake down over time.

Co-existence takes a lot of work and mutual respect as well as an acceptance that it might not last.

Seems to be a LOT of folks, cultures, groups etc. that subscribe to the credo of;

I'm not a bigot, I hate everyone equally

Post. I love it

I put my question out there just so I could get your approval. It means the world to me.

Ciao ciao.