I had a thought about the way people argue about social problems and ideological disputes, and a problem I think with the way people do that is that there's actually an order of operations there that is kind of the opposite of what people experience in every day life
You know with a project or something or anything you're trying to do you want to start with the small stuff and get the ball rolling
And that works, because the whole frame of the world and your goal stays the same, so the small pieces fit with the big pieces at the end
But if your project is collectively changing the world for the better, then you can't actually start with the small stuff in order to get it done, because as you change the world you change everyone's conceptual understanding of the world and what they want out of it, so as you approach the biggest problems from this traditional method, the whole world is changing, and you have to go back and revise what you changed before
For example: a lot of the arguments about social issues is specifically about minor issues of courtesy and procedure, I'm not saying things like race, sexual orientation, gender and what have you aren't important, but I think we see them as more central than they really should be, because all those people, regardless of their relative standing and various issues in America, are still on a platform benefiting from dirt poor wages, slavery, and all kinds of suffering in the third world, and no matter how long we work tweaking these issues in our own country, we don't get to the big problem.
Which in an eternal sense is exploiting eachother for gain and more acutely the threat of environmental catastrophe.
And the thing is that fixing that, would involve changes that would radically change the nature of the US, in such a way that all our internal issues would have to be addressed in a totally different way.