Amaras

Due to popular acclaim () I am trying to open a thread about HOW we go
about discussing differing ideas.

Synopsis of the genesis of this thread:

On the Politics/2008 Election Coverage area of the board debate can often get VERY
heated. Diametrically opposed folks go at it hammer and tong, each accusing the other of not getting their facts straight, ignoring the obvious, hypocrisy, and so on.
Personally, I love the heat of battle. Since I'm too old to bash heads on the football field, I suppose (at least some of) my aggression is channeled thus.
Abaya, our lovely Mod (from the land of the ice and snow with the midnight sun where the hot springs flow, copyright Led Zepplin) started a thread titled "TFP women don't like politics?" in the Ladies Lounge.

Up to that point, I had been elbow deep in outrage over what I perceived to be ignorance and prejudicial thought in the debate I was in.

Then I read her thread. And as I read the reactions to Abaya's plea to understand why the ladies were not participating in political debates, I felt kind of like a brutish, bullying sort of guy. Like I had a club and was gnawing on red meat (mmm, bacon).

It dawned on me, as I read, that I wasn't in a debate, more of a sniping exercise.
I wasn't really open to others ideas, I was trying merely to shoot them down, convert them, or somehow WIN. This type of mentality caused many of the respondents in the LL thread to decide it wasn't worth their while.

Read it here: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/ladies-...-politics.html Men, remember, read don't post.

To me, any discourse that effectively (not intentionally) precludes a large portion of brainpower from participating is saddening. Worse than saddening, one shoots oneself in the foot when one does NOT keep the door open to different perspectives. It means you can't learn anything new. It means only having your own, narrow perspective reinforced. It means possibly never learning about the joys of chocolate pudding.

So, I put this to whomsoever wishes to respond:
-Are there noticeable differences in how the majority of men and women communicate contentious ideas (like politics, sex, and religion?
-Do you ever find yourself getting so caught up in what you have to say that you forget to listen (I know I do)?
-Is it more important to prove you are right, or to try see the other side?
-Can our positions' evolution be improved through opposing points of view?
-Do you think your positions CAN evolve, or do you not WANT them to?

Or anything else having to do with rubbing up against those who disagree with you...

Feel free to take this wherever you wish, but I personally would prefer to avoid descending into a "technically, debating occurs in such and such a format..." sort of thing.
Then again, this will go wherever it goes.

__________________
Propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state.
-Noam Chomsky
Love is a verb, not a noun.
-My Mom
The function of genius is to furnish cretins with ideas twenty years later.
-Louis Aragon, "La Porte-plume," Traite du style, 1928

jewels

-Are there noticeable differences in how the majority of men and women communicate contentious ideas (like politics, sex, and religion?
Although this may be a sexist statement, men generally try to keep it factual and logical and attempt to keep emotions out of it, whereas women may be more likely to put emotion first. Personally, I think men or women who fight tooth and nail based on facts and stats which are easily twisted towards any direction are just expressing their emotions in a different, more socially acceptable way.

-Do you ever find yourself getting so caught up in what you have to say that you forget to listen (I know I do)?
I think we all like to think we listen, but when we feel strongly about something or skim through and/or ignore posts that follow an OP. But here again, I think the ladies are more apt to be open-minded. One like me, who's not as educated as some/many of you, would tend to listen to what everyone's got to say before they form a strong opinion about something. I think things are changing, but when I was growing up, the men talked politics while the women talked housekeeping.

I believe this point is crucial. Often times, we catch an OP and skim or choose one aspect of the statement or question to respond, ignoring the intention of the post to put forth our own platform. Becoming a more familial and tolerant society, both at TFP and in the world, would suggest we need to listen to one another, not pick and choose what we want to hear.

-Is it more important to prove you are right, or to try see the other side?
I love to see the other side. If it makes sense, I'm easily won over. Maybe a competitive nature would make some feel like they "lost" if they admitted a different opinion had some validity?

-Can our positions' evolution be improved through opposing points of view?
Definitely! A great debate can lead to discovery, which opens minds and hearts. Heck, it could lead to world peace.

-Do you think your positions CAN evolve, or do you not WANT them to?
Yes! I love to grow and learn and understand where others are coming from. If someone can argue a point while listening to others' opinions without imposing condescending tones, I think even the superior politicos can learn something.

__________________
We are always more anxious to be distinguished for a talent which we do not possess, than to be praised for the fifteen which we do possess.
Mark Twain

shakran

This is one of the better definitions of politics that I've seen.

Since when did you see a candidate say "Well here's my idea, but I want to hear what my opponent says, and I might just agree with them!"

He'd be laughed off the stage before losing his shirt at the polls.

We've had discussions about that board both in public and back in the moderator hidey hole, and in every one of them (that I saw, anyway) I've said. . Look. It's politics. It's a place for strong, opinionated, even fiery debate. Some of us find that really fun. Some of us don't. It is not required that everyone love every part of this board. I personally don't have much time for the Nonsense forum. Not my thing. I don't particularly like nonsensical bullshit. Shall we march in there and rip that board's structure and flavor apart, merely to appease me? No. Nor should we get upset that some people don't like the politics forum. They have lots of other forums to play in. It is not required that Politics have universal appeal.



-Are there noticeable differences in how the majority of men and women communicate contentious ideas (like politics, sex, and religion?
Sometimes. Sometimes not. I don't think it's necessarily a men vs. women thing. I think that in our case we have set up a system in which the women can segregate themselves in a forum that men cannot post in, and therefore we tend to assume that only the women have whatever opinion we see in there. There are probably men on the TFP who don't like politics. That's ok too.

-Do you ever find yourself getting so caught up in what you have to say that you forget to listen (I know I do)?
"Know thine enemy." I always listen to the other side. It's just that, since the neocons have taken over the other side, it's made less and less sense, and therefore my opinions tend to remain fairly unchanged.
-Is it more important to prove you are right, or to try see the other side?

It is more important to find the truth. Am I going to listen to the other side with regards to the economy? No. They had 12 years, then another 8 to try their trickle down theory. It lead to ballooning debt and an economy in the crapper both times - this time especially badly. Real world evidence tells me their plan doesn't work, so I'm not interested in considering the theories behind that plan - they're obviously badly flawed.

-Can our positions' evolution be improved through opposing points of view?
Assuming those points of view make sense. . Yes.

-Do you think your positions CAN evolve, or do you not WANT them to?

Sure they can evolve. Show me a better idea than the one I'm supporting and I'll go with it. But to put that into practice in the current political environment, it's rather like handing someone a plate of steak, and a plate of crap, and asking if they could ever decide to try something other than steak. Sure. Give me a viable alternative.

roachboy

this is an interesting moment for the periodic meta-discussion to happen.
tfp is as a whole is shaped by the bush administration, which was around longer than the community.
political debates have been shaped by the way the administration framed itself and the world---for it or against it, cheerleading or digusted, it was the dominant frame of reference, not only in shaping what was discussed but also (perhaps more importantly) how discussions happened.

when i started playing here in 2004, the population that would float about in political debates was very different than it is now---there were different approaches amongst conservatives, some more concerned with realpolitik, some with economic liberalism, others systematically right libertarian, and yet others who generated the appearance of only repeating the line of the moment. against them you would find a range of perspectives--but the debates ended up having a similar shape to them, even then.
over time, the population has changed...
but there has been a consistency to how debates happen and i don't think gender is an explanatory aspect of this.

thinking back on it, i see this as a function of the dominant political/ideological climate---from my viewpoint, populist conservatism was about identity.
centering political arguments on a sense of who you *are* rather than on what you think about x or y obviously blurs out the distinction self/argument.

a second feature of the frame that was dominant for most of the lifespan of tfp as a whole has been the tendency to collapse political argument into statements about things, which are understood as having essences. capitalist cycles and crises and routine abuses/contradictions are like the weather. like it or not, it's inevitable because, well, it's Nature. good/evil, elite/the Volk, us/them, us/terrorist, america/other...simple-minded binaries that function to exacerbate differences and reduce them to matters of essence at the same time.

with the end of the bush period and the large-scale situations which have enframed it, this old populist conservative ideology is coming apart. i think the election cycle--endless and stupid tho it was--served to keep the corpse of it animated as the dominant ideological frame--and because dominant, the necessary referencepoints of claims and arguments about them.

but that's ending now. all of it is dissolving.
in the microcosm of tfp, this is an interesting moment because, if we choose to do it, we can remake how we interact across questions political. i think it will happen anyway, but there is the option of taking control of it and trying to make things otherwise than they have been. which would mean, in a sense, breaking with the history of the community itself and launching an experiment in making something else--because what shapes and reinforces habit does not have to be big, it just has to be integrated into a routine.

speaking for myself, i welcome the change.

i have found and still find the language of populist conservatism to be dangerous in its structure and problematic at the level of contents--between the two, the first has been mostly what i've been thinking about in the context of debates here. i've found it difficult to take conservative arguments seriously because so many reproduce the language of populist conservatism and seem to require it---it's been difficult to get folk to step back from it, and i'm far more interested in why folk think as they do than anything else.

and i'm pretty sure that my personal sense of being stranded in a version of the united states that i did not recognize, of moving through a system indulging a long flirtation with a kind of war-hysteria that was like the theater of what'd happen if the front national got power in france, did not help my attitude. and the sense that there was nothing to be done about it in reality i am sure contributed a bit of extra vigor to debates here.

i have other stuff to say, but i'll leave it here for the time being.
i think we're in an interesting position at an interesting moment.
i think we should take advantage of it.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

skizziks

I´m always open to new ideas, different ideas, chaning my mind if the arguement is persuasive enough. I am happy to change my position on something if given a solid reason to, I dont believe I am right on everything, quite the opposite, and I´m good with that.

For me the frustrating thing about "discussion" is, it seems sometimes that even if I provide what I believe to be damn solid evidence to support an opinion or idea, some others are not open to seeing it my way, they refute with false logic, they appear closed minded, and I just don´t care enough to try to prove them wrong.

Somewhere, someone deeply believes the sky is plaid and polka dots, and I will try to show them it´s not, but if they cannot understand what I´m am saying, I wont waste my time pressing the issue. If they feel better being "right" then they can rock on with thier bad selves. I´m not gonna fight a battle of wits with an unarmed man (or woman, or mythical beast)

ItWasMe

So you're open to new ideas...but if someone doesn't see your point of view you think they are "unarmed" as far as wits go?

__________________
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .


"Ok, no more truth-or-dare until somebody returns my underwear" ~ George Lopez

I bake cookies just so I can lick the bowl. ~ ItWasMe

Amaras

I think he might be saying that if their responses lack coherence, logic, or at least a semblance of fact then.... well, they're unarmed.

Merlinau posted this elsewhere, i thought it applies;
Online Etiquette: How To Behave On An Internet Forum

__________________
Propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state.
-Noam Chomsky
Love is a verb, not a noun.
-My Mom
The function of genius is to furnish cretins with ideas twenty years later.
-Louis Aragon, "La Porte-plume," Traite du style, 1928

dc_dux

If the focus in political discussions, I would agree they are not as gentile as other discussions here...perhaps because some might believe there is more at stake.

I think its important to debunk political myths and falsehoods that make their way from a media personality to the blogosphere and then around the political forums...with a goal of gaining credibility through wider exposure.

I will call someone out if I see a post I know is factually incorrect and I'll question a poster's opinion and ask if they have facts to support. It is not a personal attack, but rather a straight forward question to get to the heart of the issue.

In fact, personal attacks in TFP politics are rare. What we often see is a charge of "personal attack" because it provides an easy way out from defend one's convictions when it flies in the face of the facts.

If that is playing hardball, thats life.

I know I didnt address the gender issue....I dont think it is a gender issue.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Poppinjay

You are all a bunch of fartknockers.

In another board dealing a certain collegiate football team, one poster brought up the election and how they were all depressed. That went on for a few comments, getting more heated about Obama being a socialist, communist, what have you.

I posted that I didn't really like politics with my football. Then an Obama guy chimed in, and was called idiot repeatedly. The thread ended when I posted that they were all idiots because they didn't vote like me, shop where I shop, go to my dentist, and weren't (presumably) married to my wife.

I think the TFP politics arena is the least trollish I've ever seen. The most polite. I'm sure some will disagree, and some intelligent right leaning posters have left because they felt like an outcast here.

__________________
I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet

roachboy

a political discussion can be any number of things.
for the most part, i treat political questions as information assemblage and interpretation first--so there are procedures (like the source, the relation of information to context in terms of the way bits are framed, how they stage this relation) and logic (interpretative moves, linkages to context that you or i bring into the game, background knowledge) which are informed by one's committments but are not the same as one's committments.

at that level, i see no problem with playing hardball sometimes, even as the format of a messageboard comes with constraints. information can be better or worse, interpretations legitimate/coherent or not.

then there are discussions about one's committments, which are different in kind.

in other words, i do not think politics is simply a matter of one's opinion, man.
and it's because i do not think politics is simply a matter of opinion--and more that it *cannot* be simply that or it is not politics but more an illusion of politics, a symptom of an authoritarian information system---that it is possible to treat statements or arguments as simply wrong *if* you can demonstrate that they're wrong.

debate is healthy, i think. so what if it gets a bit rough and tumble.

where this comes from, really, is my committment to the idea of direct democracy as at least a normative standard. if we lived in a democratic regime--which we really really do not---information would matter, it's interpretation would matter, debate would matter and would be serious because we, collectively, would be in the position of having to make decisions that *would be* the direction in which our collective would move, and that movement *would be* an element in the history of the collective and that history, and our relation to it, would re-define who were *are.*

so i see debate as an aspect of taking power, even if that taking power operates in the context of discussions in a teacup, which can (depending on what you do in 3-d) bleed over into counter-discourses that operate politically in a wider sphere of the world.

and debate--informed, vigorous debate--should be fundamental to *any* democratic polity, even in a less-than-democratic context.

so there has to be dimensions of it that are not simply arbitrary assertions about how one feels---because if that's all there is, then the game is up. we give away our capacity to deliberate. we reduce ourselves to shopping rather than thinking. we do what we are encouraged to do when we conflate politics and consumer choice, views of the world with aesthetic preferences. we disempower ourselves, in a small but telling way, when we give away our ability to engage in this manner.

i have understood conservative identity politics to be the antithesis of democratic process and debate, and adopting that position tantamount to giving yourself a lobotomy. i am glad to see that it's period of being the dominant political discourse in the united states is at an end. i look forward to its disappearance---NOT of people who think differently, NOT of people who are conservative---but of the style of argument that exempts positions from critique because they're all just my opinion, man.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite