Wait. Let me run out and smoke a joint.
That may help 
Doesn't that transform into the equally difficult problem of expanding the definition of "us."https://twitter.com/MJPiercello/status/1352326769534230529 …
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It's too abstract to meaningful (agree with you.) "If you are 'in a house' it makes a big difference whether you are in the kitchen or the bathroom." -ERH
-
(*be* meaningful) glasses!
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Easy. Us = human beings. Job done!
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Dear Mr. Peterson. I just want you to know I'm abolutely thrilled to see you engaging in public discussions again. We need great minds like yourself to overcome the madness that currently takes place. Stay safe! Greetings from the Netherlands.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Well if you expend the "us" too much then we fall into the tower of Babel issue, the individual cant identify himself in the group anymore
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It is gonna be difficult to expand our definition of US as long as ideology is the primary driver of our collective identities. Divorcing our selves from our political ideas should be the first step. Of course that seems hard given how tied together politics are tied to values.
-
Like so: A working "expanded definition of us" might be "ideology is the primary driver of our collective identities." Question is, why? Is it a problem to be solved, or a constraint to be worked around? If a constraint, then using "expanded us" gets even more critical, yes?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
- Show replies
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.