Index"Why America Self-Segregates" - Stressing the Importance of Diversity "The Other Side Is Not Stupid" - the state Current American Youth "Why Rural America Voted for Trump" - Opposing Political Views Explained "One Tax System Against the 99%" - a Series on Inequality Conclusion As diverse as it is, the United States is very divided. This separation is evident in multiple aspects of society. This is why it is important to close the gap for social progress. “Why America Self-Segregates” by Danah Boyd, “The Other Side Is Not Stupid” by Sean Blanda, “Why Rural America Voted for Trump” by Robert Leonard, and “A Tax System Against the 99% ” by Joseph E. Stiglitz are four articles that address specific aspects that determine the distance between people, in which they break down the rudimentary need for empathy to bring people together to resolve these concerns. Based on their claims, I will make a summary of these articles to delve deeper into the importance of empathy, as well as state the contrasting justification as to why this may never work. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay “Why America Self-Segregates” – Stressing the Importance of Diversity “Why America Self-Segregates” by Danah Boyd explains what is happening in modern America and why tension is so high between races, cultures and political parties. Mention four key points that contributed to this self-segregation; technology, privatization of the military, university life and the difficulties of diversity. Boyd looks back to the unraveling of the historical institutions through which Americans achieved their achievements. These institutions are higher education and the U.S. military. Technology is also an industry that encompasses America's unity. While many tech entrepreneurs thought the Internet itself could help bring people together, in reality it and other technologies tend to amplify divisions and lead to polarization. Democracy requires diversity, and two previously working tools of diversification and bonding no longer do their job. This is why Boyd examines the U.S. military and campus housing at some colleges and universities to illustrate how these environments have become opportunities for self-segregation rather than an opportunity to promote tolerance. As the United States has remained diverse but a segregated country, it has shaped American politics as it has grappled with divergent opinions and viewpoints, experience, and political ideologies that function as one country. Most institutions in the United States force individuals to encounter differences that do not produce results and tolerance in healthy resolution, thus oppression and enslavement of people by others based on difference. Boyd says residential life at universities is often student therapy as students have complained about their roommates. Therefore learning to negotiate diversity and conflict, just as in the military, is extremely useful in stitching together social fabrics. Danah says U.S. higher education has historically offered social network diversification with the belief of increasing job prospects. However, I would argue that working with and meeting diverse experiences and perspectives is a daunting, emotionally exhausting, and uncomfortable task. In response to this, it is evident that much of the differences are due to differences between races. As for the US military, I suggest that they wage more fights against theprejudices. Beyond that, the morale of these soldiers should be questioned and raised so that there is trust among the soldiers and comfort for them to receive and give protection to the rest of the unit. Boyd did a good job of raising concerns about this segregation and stating some solutions for them, as well as highlighting the difficulties of maintaining diversity. It all comes back to the fact that “most people don't try to self-segregate, but they do it anyway.” Once again, Boyd does a good job in this article of not ignoring the fact that his plausible plan has additional factors hindering it. It can be argued that as society develops, the separation of people increases. People attract and interact with those who are most like them, and technology allows us to choose and filter what we want. Much of my position is on the side of this rhetoric, and Boyd does a great job throughout the essay making a case and raising the extensive requirements for eventually resolving it and explaining why even this may not be possible. “The Other Side Is Not Stupid” – The Current State of America's YouthSean Blanda, “The Other Side Is Not Stupid,” uses cultural examples regarding the younger American generation involving media influence and peer pressure compared to the facts and evidence involved to form a personal opinion. The author highlights how the effects of pressure from our surroundings, such as friends, the media and much more, adapt our vision of political and social issues. It includes multiple instances where personal ignorance can hinder learning and interaction with others. If a negative outlook persists towards people who disagree with you, you will never be able to progress through curiosity and will not be able to converse with people from other communities. Blanda explains how other people's thinking may not be wrong. He advises the reader to evaluate himself and determine his own opinions on controversial topics. It's trying not having the ability to have or see an alternative point of view. He then logically states that what is emerging is the worst kind of echo chamber, where everyone shares their own view of the world. His goal is to legitimize this notion as an ethical part of the public. Every point in Sean Blanda's article directly conveys its message, that we and our friends, or people who believe as we do, can sometimes be wrong, and that the other side is not stupid, we are just bigots in the sense vaguer than the term. Everyone has their own specific reasons for believing a certain way, just like us. He argues that individuals should be themselves and think for themselves. Seek access to opposing points of view and “Don't score points by mocking them to your colleagues. Try “losing” instead. Listen to them. Ask them to convince you and mean it.” Much like Boyd, Blanda believes that current social media behavior is unproductive and selfish at the expense of engagement, and if we want to see online participation as productive, we need to move past this. There is no doubt that our friends can catch us off guard and over time we tend to believe that we are no different from them. By considering the productivity of online discourse and social media behavior, Blanda helps us understand that the other side is just as educated and informed as we are. Blanda creates awareness in the reader that, if he finds himself in a discussion involving disagreements, he should not try to convince or win or mock his teammates to score but should instead try to lose. This is where I very much agree. Boyd took the same approach and subsequent articles adopt it as wellthis approach. Blanda goes further than before sharing a link on social media about current events, one should ask herself why she wants to do so. It goes as far as reigniting our emotions to consider how the other party feels. The use of logic and reasoning is helpful in considering how the other party feels and I can characterize this article as addressing a current problem that occurs in all social forms of social media. “Why Rural America Voted for Trump” – Opposing Political Views Explained “Why Rural America Voted for Trump” by Robert Leonard explains why rural regions of America are active in supporting the Republican political party because they feel they can relate with the party. Trump's popularity is mainly attributed to the economic anxiety of many of them and Trump's many promises to alleviate it. The bad economy leads to unemployment for rural Americans, and therefore they believe that Trump is the only one person who focuses on the rural regions of America and not just the urban areas. Rural Americans have been raised from childhood to believe that they have a greater connection with Republicans. However, the curiosity to understand his (Republican) neighbors was born in 2015, when he heard JC Watts can rationalize their beliefs Rural Americans believe that liberals are responsible for creating rules and regulations that are unnecessary and therefore paralyzing the economy. He gave some examples of why Trump receives so much support. One includes the fact that Trump has promised to fight for the employment status of those living in rural areas. Compared to the previous two articles that ranged from social media and the military, Leonard focused on the two prevalent issues dividing the country, the Democrat and the Republican. Party. Although there are many other parties, such as the Libertarian Party, the Green Party and many others, the chances for them to be elected into respected political figures are slim and this raises problems. Leonard supports JC Watts talking about filming at the cinema to have him record the other part. Just like Blanda, Leonard recognizes that the other side is in fact not unintelligent, but that “we live in different philosophical worlds, with different fundamental principles.” It dives deeper into the narrative of our bigotry. The need to feel correct and to be willfully unaware of things that concern us. Being a spectator of other issues and not indulging in comparisons between struggles, which only makes things worse.“A Tax System Stacked Against The 99 Percent” - a series on inequality“A Tax System Stacked Against The 99 Percent” by Joseph E . Stiglitz, demonstrates how and why our current economy and government are a mess and how they have increased inequality, including widening the opportunity gap. It highlights the gap between the top 1% of society and the remaining 99%. The point he makes is exemplified during tax season. Depend primarily on statistics and facts to demonstrate the regression of the US tax system that works against the middle and lower class, in favor of the rich. Stiglitz especially highlights the fact that there are many loopholes within the tax system that allow many advantages for the 1%. Causing those below to feel preferential towards those in the upper class, especially when this is not necessary. The consequences for moving forward on this issue will be difficult if much hope is lost for those who are not part of the 99%. Stiglitz suggests that the need for solidarity between all classes as well as government recognition and involvement will create apossible fairness for all. The key thing is that the benefit of wealth must be distributed more widely. Today's fiscal policies encourage the concentration of capital wealth and property, generating, on the one hand, an enormous government bureaucracy to regulate centralized economic activity and, on the other, an ever-increasing number of economically dependent people who need another huge government bureaucracy to administer to their needs (the other 99%). The economic, social, and legal injustices of our society are fueled by tax policies that allow the rich to get richer, while most workers, seniors, small business owners, family farmers, and the poor pay taxes. Put bluntly, “the richest do not pay their fair share” (Stiglitz xxx). However, what Stilglitz fails to do compared to the previous three articles is approach from the other side. For this particular article, the other side would consider nothing wrong with a few people controlling all the wealth. We want as much wealth as possible to be present in the economy and this happens by not consuming it. The tax strategy for accumulating wealth is to overwhelm a few people with more money than they can spend. Works. But according to Stiglitz, we are generating capital too quickly to absorb it. I agree with Stiglitz's statements, but I would like him to explain why this system is in place. Since his goal in addressing this issue is to understand all sides, but he himself has not done much when talking about the alternative side. Basically, the goal is to know how America can be economically progressive and equitable. Conclusion Each article is linked to the desire to bridge the gap through empathizing with each other's struggles and opinions. I agree that this is the bare minimum to be able to close this bridge. When people from different backgrounds come together, understanding how societies are based on fundamental cultural patterns becomes essential at all levels of human interaction. A Ted Talk with Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist, who breaks down this communal divide through tribalistic views constructed by society for people, explains this separation. I believe the underlying need to thrive is through cross-cultural understanding and communication. What you need to do is recognize the fact that there are differences between you and the other. This is important because much of our opinions are due to our culture and it is important not to base judgment before knowing the person. Tribalism has allowed us to create large societies and band together to compete with others. This has taken us out of small groups, but it means we have an eternal conflict. In other words, the nature behind the conflicts between the left and the right today is simply tribal behaviors in modern society. Throughout our history, from generation to generation, both parties have found ways to grow and overcome stalemate to move the country forward. Every generation of Americans and their representatives must do this. Each generation does its best and passes it on. Now it is our turn to elect candidates who will not only compromise effectively, but will also find common ground and pass legislation that embodies the values ​​of both parties and the American people. And we citizens are part of it. We see that we already have within us the ability to listen, to understand others and their values, to listen and be listened to, and sometimes to find common ground. We can join the people of our generation who are finding.