cyrnel

I'll bother if life isn't commanding my attention. Usually though, I'm the one with less time to discuss and I'll end up leaving things unfinished. Better to lurk than start what I can't finish and in so doing hurt my position. With family, it's a batshit thing. We aren't going to convince each other of anything. Even if I manage to light a fire or two their pastor or Bible study will correct them next Sunday. What I get in return are messages about "evolution disproved" or other god-in-the-gaps silliness. And anyway, they're family. I don't _want_ to push their buttons even if they've been told it's their responsibility to push mine.

I read a blog a week or two ago that touched on this topic. It had to do with tolerance. That tolerance can be like a bad parent in allowing the nutballs free reign to screw with social and scientific progress. I know I don't have the time to get into that one.

__________________
There are a vast number of people who are uninformed and heavily propagandized, but fundamentally decent. The propaganda that inundates them is effective when unchallenged, but much of it goes only skin deep. If they can be brought to raise questions and apply their decent instincts and basic intelligence, many people quickly escape the confines of the doctrinal system and are willing to do something to help others who are really suffering and oppressed." -Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media, p. 195

rainheart

The problem as I see it is that people feel the need to back up their positions with quotes and events that have occured, because they have to prove that their position is in line with the realities of the world.

But the truth, it seems to me, is that because of the very reflexive nature of the world, it is most likely impossible to be able to predict every event that will happen in a given set of circumstances and then try to enact policies that discourage or eliminate the negative consequences of those events.

Comparable to trying to find the location of an electron orbiting an atom, I believe that we are pretty much limited to probabilities, there will always be uncertainty and you cannot be 100% sure.

And so, perhaps, there may always be evidence to support a contrary opinion.

The question is, for me- does the idea that it's practically impossible mean that it is not worth trying anyway?

That said, JustJess makes a very good proposition for us to begin taking up our own views and abolishing labels entirely. There was a period when my viewpoints started radicalizing (at least by the unstated standards of the majority of posters here) and I found that if I didn't have to resort to adopting such views on the world, I would make a great ... "conservative" (so much for abolishing labels). What I mean to say is that I would probably be identified as a conservative in some respects by others regarding some of my views, if I actually believed it would work (and these are views which I would personally hold in an ideal world). I would propose that the given country in which I reside retain a small government, lower taxation and cut a vast majority of what I believe to be unnecessary programs, and retain a fiscal economic policy.



On this bit about topics being more fit in paranoia- I gotta tell ya, even a logical and rational journey from viewpoint A to viewpoint B would have people believing you are a loon (or "batshit" as others are adopting this term, I love the zaniness) because they were never there in your shoes, because they have such a hard time understanding how one could hold viewpoint B that they reject it outright.

I wholeheartedly agree with what Charlatan said =o

Not that I disagree with you, but what you said did lead me to wonder: aren't you also in some lesser way denigrating someone's position by warning us to be on the lookout for ignorant radio show listeners?

And if you aren't, isn't it possible that what you said could be used to the same end, regardless?
And if that was true, what could be done about it?

red0blivia

though i am new to this forum, in reading through the political threads, something becomes quite apparent- there is a recurring theme to your posts.
you have a great skill for, indirectly, insulting others or their perspectives/ideologies.
i fail to see how this is constructive, and while i do not think it is at all right or necessarily justified, it is easy to see why some would be moved to 'personally attack' you (as you stated earlier in this thread)- because that is precisely what you do (albeit, in a more veiled manner).

when you, repeatedly, display such a, blatantly, exclusive and judgemental attitude, i don't see how you can really expect to have a productive discussion with anyone but the mirror or others who have a very similar or exact point of view.
it is really not my intention to be harsh or overly critical of you... it is just an objective observation from someone who is not involved.

i enjoy posts by people with a view that opposes my own, because it allows me to see the thinking behind their persective, when i previously may have not been able to fathom why someone would take that particular stance.
i agree that when insults and labels come into the mix, it often drowns out the actual points that were included in the post.
i think you (ustwo) could get opinions/points across much more effectively if you just went about it in slightly more open-minded and gentle way.

i very much agree with elphaba that the divisive nature of these threads is a reflection of the current political climate.
to a lesser degree, it is also just the nature of politics, in general. when people feel strongly about any given matter, discussion is bound to get somewhat heated.
but if you have valid points to support your perspective, then there is no need for demeaning the other's point of view (in an attempt to make yours appear superior).
i have, mostly, been impressed with the candor, respect, and rational tone of the people who discuss/debate in politics.
as many have stated, the discussions here are far more productive and civil than virtually all other political boards on the net.

of course, there is room for improvement, but realization of everyone's individual and collective potential for evolution/improvement seems to be the purpose of this site
i think this particualr thread is, effectively, doing that.

boatin

I love this comment, and couldn't agree more. I'd add that before I post a pro/con opinion about something current, I'll run it against my own hypocrisy check. For me, that check is: would I feel this way if someone I respect did it?

For example, there is a wiretapping thread going currently. I think it's outrageous and wrong that the NSA has taken such liberties. My check: I would feel the same if Clinton had ok'd it, without a doubt. In contrast, there are people supporting it ("it's no big deal!") that I think would have blood coming out of their eyes if it had happened on Clinton's watch.

While I fully confess I might be wrong on that particular point, there is no question there is a myteam/yourteam kneejerk that happens in political conversation. I think we all are better off if we can all police ourselves a little better.

edit: and just to be clear, I don't profess to be great at this. My point is that most all of us can probably do better.

Elphaba

In real life, pee breaks don't ordinarily occur in the middle of a conversation at the table. Hence the speedy change of topic is required for diplomacy.

Here, we can disappear for days and continue a conversation as if no time had past. At least that is my take.