|
tecoyah:
since we are clarifying the new rules----and i just read them again----maybe the point made at the end concerning moving the forum more toward debate would be good to clarify.
does this have any implications for how arguments are presented?
not at the level of personal attack---whichis obvious enough---but at the level of content without regard for political viewpoint.
in the post above---which i vacillated about posting, but decided to do because and only because i thought myself being attacked in what i saw as a basically unfair manner---but whatever, i understood this as a potentially problematic post and so it was.
underneath it, however, is a directly political question that is not reducable to trivial personality conflict.
if you want to encourage debate across political divisions, does it not make sense to encourage, if not require, folk post more reflexive types of arguments--that is, spell out what prompts them to come to a particular position, lay out the logic behind it, etc.?
if posts are entirely worded in political code that is particular to a given position, where is the debate to happen?
this seems particularly important in that much ideological conflict that unfolds these days in the states is about shaping/controlling how issues are framed---so it would follow that debate would only really happen if folk stepped back a little from framing that is in itself already politcal and presented positions.
i would expect that you would find much of the snarkiness you complain about and claim to be moving toward elimination would disappear on its own if all parties invovled understood that each was taking the others seriously enough to actually think out and explain not only what their positions are but how they are arrived at.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|