Originally Posted by ubertuber

Art,

This thread exemplifies some of what I believe we had discussed earlier in the Constructive Engagement thread. Specifically, your purposes in posting are not always compatible with the reasons and assumptions behind others' posts in this forum. I don't want to put words in your mouth, since I think you speak well for yourself, but it seems that when you see someone who disagrees with you, your first thought is not to treat them as a potential convert and argue with them. I think that you, like myself, try to see this person as a potential teacher and learn about their view points. If this is true, then it would make sense that you could make a post such as the one that started this thread and think that people will just accept it as a statement of your views which is intended more to illuminate your thoughts than it is to change theirs. At least, that is often how I post, and how I try to read the posts of others. Unfortunately, the common mode of dialogue here on TFP and in real life is to proceed to attempt to convince someone of the validity of your views as soon as a disagreement is discovered. I don't truly believe that the tension in this thread is due to arrogance or condescension. I think it has come from the fact that different people express themselves for different reasons - and when this isn't acknowledged the friction between modes of communication is frequently assigned to the individuals doing the communicating.

That said, I have to agree with Art's original post. I don't believe that he is preaching assent for the sake of assent. I do think that he is saying that because he (and I think so to) sees what appears to be much dissent for the sake of dissent, he feels that a balancing position is appropriate. I respect that there are people that strongly dislike our current president. In truth, I value that this is the case. However, I also value people who dislike or like GWB in the context of his position. I can say that I think the political atmosphere might promote more healthy discussion if we didn't seem to personalize our dissent or support for politicians as much as has become customary under Bill Clinton and George Bush. It is hard to say whether we are seeing a swing of the pendulum towards personalization (and I don't mean personal or negative attacks - I mean the type of opinion that people hold as individuals) or if we are witnessing the birth of a new mode of political awareness. Of course, it is always possible that this is and has been standard operating procedure in politics, and we are having a collective mismemory of the "good old days".

Also, I can sympathize with frustration over people arguing with what they think I believe rather than what I say. It happens to me quite often in real life, and I can't decide whether it is because I don't express myself well or if it is because people are not good at listening to each other. Probably some of both...