ubertuber

This thread is inspired by a couple of posts by Seaver, Ustwo, roachboy, and politicophile in this thread.

Specifically,

and
Now that I've pulled these things out of context, I hope that you guys can see that what you just read is a problem. While people may be posting ideas without violating the letter of our forum guidelines, clearly writing each other off is in violation of the spirit of this place.

I think we need to have a conversation that has been a long time coming around here - namely about how we are relating to people that disagree with us. I've noticed both sides mark a territory around which they're willing to converse. If someone falls outside of these bounds, they're just "liberal" or "lumpenconservative" or some other label, and fair game for generalization or ignoring.

Honestly, I think this willingness to push someone's ideas out of bounds and then treat them differently once they are there is one of the most destructive phenomena here at TFP. It directly threatens our ability to have reasonable discourse, and has led to many a banning.

This forum has always been on the edge of acceptable TFP behavior - it goes back and forth, but never far from unacceptable behavior. I think clearing the air and agreeing about ways that we talk to each other might help. For quite some time, I’ve been beginning to think that Politics simply is not worthy of being hosted on TFP, as the discourse here runs counter to our forum’s stated goals of evolution, communication, and bringing people and ideas together. I'll be honest and say that it worries me that we hardly ever discuss anything here - only debate. The goal of understanding has not been taken to mean "understand other people's ideas" as much as "make others understand MY ideas". We can do better than this.

I'd like to initiate a sort of conversation about conversations - a meta-conversation about these modes of dialogue. Of course, this thread will be moderated, so don’t get any ideas about slinging mud in a safe place. If anything, I’m hoping we can learn something from each other here that might begin to put this place on a better path. I don't know exactly where to start, so I'm open to what people have to say here as long as it leaves room for others to have differing opinions.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

Ustwo

Uber tbh this is why I didn't post my other two posts last night.

There is no nice way to say 'so and so, you are batshit insane'.

I can debate some people, even those 180 degrees from my political perspective, hell my best friend (and best man in my wedding, and godfather of my first born) worked for moveon.org in the last election, but there has to be some common ground to do so. When people see dragons in every windmill, we truely have no debate.

At best I've tried to ignore them, but sometimes I get drawn out or egged on into responding.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

politicophile

I'm not sure why the admission that one is unable to understand how a rational person could hold Viewpoint X is a problem. My admission was certainly not intended to be any sort of normative statement.

I believe that there is a point at which dialogue breaks down. We would all agree (I think) that reasoning with someone who is physically attacking you is not always possible. Likewise, reasoning with those who completely reject the system within which the argument is occuring is sometimes not possible. In the specific instance above, I was relying on the following premise:

"It is always a bad idea for a people to topple their own functioning constitutional republic with the intention of replacing it, in the short term, with a non-elected government."

This is a difficult point to argue for because it is of such a foundational nature. The limited empirical argument (Allende in Chile, eg) seems to support this view. However, I am fully willing to admit I cannot prove the statement to be true.

If someone disagrees with the truth of the statement, the debate simply ends. Doubly so when I become derided with labels. There is a point where all of us, and I do mean all of us, step back and say "That's just crazy talk. I can't reason with someone who holds that opinion." My flattering quotation above is an example of me reaching that point.

__________________
The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

ratbastid

I think it's worse than that, Uber. As Ustwo demonstrates, any time we have a disagreement with someone, the thing to do is to call them names, and then blame the gulf in the discourse on them and their irrationality.

I'm no saint about this, God knows. But I'd love to see us shift into a paradigm where we're individually responsible for the discursive gulf. Like, maybe the reason they seem so damn wacky is because of the attitude I'm bringing to the conversation. Maybe if I could be a little open or flexible in my understanding, I could get something valuable from what they say.

I know, personally, I don't tend to operate from there, much as I'd love to see this section of TFP go that way. I notice that I'm pretty hesitant about taking such a position unilaterally, which I guess is because I don't trust those I typically disagree with to see any value at all in such an approach. (Edit: As demonstrated by politicophile! Look if you frequently end up saying, "Well, you're just crazy!", you might be wise to examine your own rationality.)

JustJess

As I've said before, I don't post in Politics very often. Mostly because I dislike being labelled and derided, and that's what I have read most often. There are other ways...

Perhaps we should approach things with no or new labels.

No labels:
Stop identifying yourself or others with "liberal", "conservative", "left", "right", etc. Because that means something different to all of us, especially as we are an international community.
OR:
New labels:
Put up a sticky or identify in each thread what these terms will mean in the context of the discussion. I would be hesitant to use this idea, however, since I can only imagine the insulting ways we can identify opposing views, or how we would limit others' beliefs by making them choose only one thing.

SO:

I would vote for NO LABELS, ever. I am not liberal, I am not conservative, I am just a person who has a variety of beliefs that don't usually conglomerate into one belief system. It's as bad as assuming all Catholics hate gay people or all Islamists want to blow other people up, or all white people are KKK, or all blond people are Aryans. It's ridiculous, and I believe that if we stop imposing labels on others - AND OURSELVES - and simply discuss each point on its merits, we can move further.

I know that while I disagree with many of Ustwo's points, if I make myself forget that he's labeled himself a conservative republican, I can see the validity of some of his points. Because in my mind, conservative republicans are a negative image. And that's not right. That devalues what would otherwise be a solid, intelligent point that I CAN AGREE WITH.

In this case, we have to be a little PC and stop with the labels and the pre-assumptive ideas.

__________________
My heart knows me better than I know myself, so I'm gonna let it do all the talkin'.

Charlatan

Ratbastid... I think the key is to take the unilateral step. Set an example of good debate (i.e. *try* not to get into the mud).

It's what I have tried to do (not that I am always successful).

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

ratbastid

I know. I know.

ubertuber

Ustwo and politico -

Don't get me wrong. I'd definitely agree strongly that there are points in this forum in which you can't discuss rationally any longer. However, this is a discussion forum... If you can't discuss, don't - or maybe say that you'd like to discuss but you just don't know how... My point is simply that I'd like to see more respect shown to views that you (and here I mean you inclusive of all sides and all posters) don't understand. I'll say again, this place is intended to be more of a discussion forum than a debate arena. There are no victors - it's not like we close threads when one side wins... I know we'll hardly ever all end up agreeing, but I'd like to see us at least consider all points of view. There has been a nice discussion about open mindedness in one of the other threads (I've forgotten which), and people have said that it is possible to be open minded without being weak or wishy-washy. Personally speaking, that's what I'd like to see more of here.

I'd like for Tilted Politics to be more similar to the rest of TFP than it is to other political sites on the web...

I appreciate the thoughts that everyone has posted so far. Please keep them coming...

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

Ustwo

Then honestly what you need to do as moderators is continue to move those points of view which can not be rationaly discussed to the forum where it belongs and operates on a 'lower' standard of logic.

I know this has been done to a good degree, but what politics has become is slightly better than parinoia. And when someone drops a giant pink whale in a thread, its hard to get back to the thread and ignore the whale.

Here is an example of a potential good TFP politics topic "Hilary Clinton, can she win in 2008?"

Here is an example of a bad TFP poltics topic "Is Bush a plant" (two points for the title though)

These types of posts and posters tend to push the already minority 'right' posters on this board away. Points of view can be different but we need a point where we say 'ok, thats nuts.'

Hell I'd like to see a lot more peoples thoughts and why they feel that way instead of needed to cut and paste a link from a website.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Charlatan

Ustwo if you don't like a thread. You have a few choices:

1) Post in the thread and bring it around to a discussion worth having.
2) Ignore it and hope it dies on the vine.
3) Start a thread of your own and set a good example.

Of course you (and I mean this in the general sense rather than the specific) can also get in the mud and sling it out. But we all know how far that gets us.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Poppinjay

I agree with this. Something that’s been on my mind lately is Bill Bennet’s book, “The Death of Outrage”. Here’s chapters 12-56 with highlights on what I think is the absolute gospel:

Just kidding.

That book has actually been on my mind because of some of the long cut –n- pastries I read in politics. It’s nice to have reams of facts and articles a person can link to that absolutely supports their version of the truth, but nobody is going to read it except for maybe one or two rock hard ideologues. There seems to be an overabundance of outrage within those types of posts and I’m not sure that’s a particularly useful emotion. I think it appeals to a low denominator. The facts are great, but when the entire presentation reads like an unhinged posit, it loses all its strength.

And I’m sure I’m guilty of outrage as much as anybody. But that’s something that is best left checked at the door 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

smooth

ah yes, the persecuted "minority 'right'" rears its head once again...

I think it's more accurate to say that when people openly declare that they consider fighting/inciting/ridiculing liberals/leftists to be fun, a sport, a war (figuratively and literally), as you have stated on mulitiple occasions ustwo, that does more to disrupt the desired tenor of this board than any threads/thread titles that may or may not be off-the-wall.

and there are perhaps a handful, and only that, of members who make it regular practice to drop one-liners in response to what others have taken the time to draft a lengthy response to what they consider a complex problem.

congrats on your mod-status, tuber, but this issue isn't even remotely new to this part of tfp. And I know you are aware of that, because you've been here forever (and I gauge that by placing the forever as beginning when this special section was created). So I don't know if this is something that other mods are discussing in the backdrop, but in the past it's been my understanding that this section had basically reached a pont where it was useful for seperating the wheat from the chaff, and pretty much only that.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

Ustwo

You know this 'be better people than them' thing gets old after I have been personally attacked in this forum so many times. Most of the time it doesn't even get noticed by the mods who are busy ignoring the threads themselves.

Often I don't see it unless someone else who is worth reading quotes one of the posters involved.

Hell I was trolled by a moderator in this forum in a thread started by another moderator.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Charlatan

Ustwo... I have seen you be "personally attacked" and the mods take no notice. Did you report it? I know that many mods have tried to work in this forum and they have ended by throwing up their hands. I can promise that if it is reported, or if I see it, I will deal with it (what more would you have a mod do?).

I for one do not see Politics as quite the cesspool that others do... perhaps I like to think that we are all adults with reasonably thick skin. Perhaps I like spending time here.

I stick by my assertion that we all need to pull up our socks and stay out of the mud is valid.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

BigBen

God yes.

My opinion is to ban someone who puts in shady quote after shady quote. From what I hear, there is enough of that on the rest of the Interweb, and I want the TFP to be the last refuge for the folks that want open discussion.

I have nothing to discuss when people post long-assed news quotes, and then others come back and question the validity of the source.

I like the ideas floating around here, and I continually wander back into Tilted Politics to see if there is something worth my time. I use the analogy of a yard sale. There might be something worth while in these boxes, and it is up to the potential buyer to find it; Ubertuber wants this place to be Tiffany's, where there is treasure everywhere one looks.

Yes, I want Tilted Politics to change.
Yes, I am willing to change in order to achieve the Evolution of Humanity, Sexuality, and Philosophy.
Yes, I have had my personal views challenged (and sometimes, changed for the better) by Tilted Politics.

I think a breath of fresh air is a good thing, and I like JustJess' idea about not using labels any more. I don't think I could do it, but I would be willing to try.

I would like to welcome all readers to contact me if they find anything I say offensive. I want to foster a sense of community and belonging, and that is hard when people are offended.

Now, is there anything I can do to make Tilted Politics a better place, other than enlightening the world in general with my brilliance?

__________________
3.141592654
Hey, if you are impressed with my memorizing pi to 10 digits, you should see the size of my penis.

JustJess

Here's some paranoia for you...
Ustwo, I hope you didn't take my using you as an example of the need for ditching pre-conceived ideas (in myself as well as others) as an attack on you in particular. You just happen to be vocal, so it's easier to use you as an example. Really vocal.

On the quoting thing... I definitely think that while supporting your position is important... unleavened amounts of quoting verbatim from 10 sources convinces no one, as most of us do not have the time to read all of that in a discussion thread. As an example only, and not to point at anyone.... our most verbose poster, host, has points that I can agree with (and some I don't, of course), but even when I agree, I don't want to wade through all that. That's not his post, that's quoting someone else's. Perhaps a bit less quoting and a bit more discussion would be in order in those cases.

So no one wants to ditch the liberal/conservative crap, eh? I suppose it's comfort food at this point...
EDIT: Nevermind. Thanks, BigBen, I knew you were brilliant!

__________________
My heart knows me better than I know myself, so I'm gonna let it do all the talkin'.

Charlatan

I think we can all agree with Ustwo on his point about discussion vs. cut and pastism.

The thing is, cutting and pasting to support your position can be a good thing if you take the time to post *your* position on the matter at hand.

Write a paragraph or two. Distill, condense, make a point. Then, offer some links that support your position, heck paste a quote or two to underscore what you are saying. But first and foremost say something, anything.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

ubertuber

Ustwo, I apologize if I was unclear, but I meant that if you (a specific poster) can't discuss anymore, not if no one could discuss it anymore. And I do think you're right that the line between politics and paranoia can seem fuzzy - but that's just the nature of the beast... 6 months can make topics from paranoia into headline news, or valid discussions into the territory of tinfoil hat wearers.

I'm completely with you on this one - and I'm not saying that as a jab at any one or two posters. Outside of a thread starter, links and quotes should be like footnotes to a book - supporting the point described in the poster's own words. That's the meaning of a discussion forum.

Obviously you are exactly correct... Politics has been a concern for years now (we've all seen the new stickies at the top and the new policies that have come and gone). It would be sad to me if we were nothing more than a ban-trap though... In terms of forum goals, Politics has tremendous potential for growth. It's a good place for people to learn to understand each other. I'm just looking to foster some discussion on ideas to realize that potential. As I said before, suggestions and ideas are quite welcome.

With that said, I'd like to get this thread back on track and hear more about modes of dialogue.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

BigBen

How about some tounge-in-cheek humour in here?

There was a thread (or two) where I thought to liven the situation up with a joke. It was not taken well.

I am a funny guy by nature, and when I stop laughing at something, I want to die. Yes, some of the shit is not funny. Yes, I know that in advance. Yes, I am trying to make a political point by posting that unfunny joke.

But it is still a joke.

Hence, I have tried to keep Tilted Humour and Tilted Politics seperate. It is not by my nature, but I don't want to piss away good and honest discussion by making clown faces and putting whoopee cushions under

Ustwo
Host
Politicophile
Smooth
(insert your name here, if I have offended you by not including you in this prestigous list)

Personally, I wouldn't mind if some more people took my light-hearted attitude towards life. I like it when people are having fun, but I don't like it when it is fun at other's expense.

__________________
3.141592654
Hey, if you are impressed with my memorizing pi to 10 digits, you should see the size of my penis.

stevo

I think Tilted Politics is probably the best political discussion board on all the internets. Have you ever tried to have anything close to political discussion/debate on another site? It just doesn't happen, they are usually all left or right leaning and the mods on those boards only enforce their (or their site's) view. I know the politics board is different from the rest of the tilted forums, but its still the best politics board there is. To cut tilted politics would be a shame.

I think if you really want the politics board to improve it starts with the OP. Some shouldn't be in politics and some seem to be created to flame. I think a better focus of topics would add to the discussion and lead us away from "bat-shit insane" posts.

__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

Charlatan

I was making this exact point in chat today.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Elphaba

Uber, I wonder if that is even possible. Politics is an animal of a different kind. Select any other TFP forum and attempt to envision it as a model for Politics and the type of discussions that should be held here. I think it safe to assume that you will not find one.

I also believe that the "problems" of the politics forum are greatly exaggerated and are primarily due to failing to see how much progress has been made in only one year. I fully agree that it is a difficult forum to moderate, compared to the other tfp forums. Is it an impossible forum to moderate? Of course not.

Tecoyah started a topic some months ago and commented after numerous posts that we were capable of engaging each other in a discussion that was not likely in another political forum that he visited. He shared the url with me, and I would agree just by a quick sampling of the responses to topics there. Should I ever find a better politics forum than this one, I will leave in a heartbeat, but I have yet to find it.

I would like to make one last very important point. The partisanship that you find in this forum is merely a reflection of the great divide that currently exists in the US. This forum represents the very principle of TFP and offers the opportunity to rise above the national discord.

My challenge to the new Mods is to establish a new framework of appropriate posting to this forum, and then publically hold us to your expectations.

Pen

Aladdin Sane

The problem is one of personal attacks.
Here is my proposal: Any personal attack, any at all, is called by the other participants in the discussion who recognize the personal attack. In calling "personal attack," all you have to do is quote the offending message and write "Personal Attack" underneath it. Once a poster is called for making a personal attack, no one would make any further responses to that person in that thread. Period.

__________________
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

shakran

My two cents. ..

It is not possible to have a politics discussion without having a lot of debate. That is the point of a politics forum, and some people LIKE debating. It draws people to this forum, especially since we can debate in here without a bunch of jackasses pulling juvenile bullshit like they do on other political forums.

I've gotten into a few scraps in here about the 2nd amendment. They've gone into several pages worth of threads, all full of debate. Do that elsewhere and you'll get nothing but 500 people posting "gun banner" and 500 more people posting "insane militant," and no actual debate takes place.

Put another way, i don't think having debates in here really damages TFP. It's not like people are running around in other forums on TFP calling each other names because of what's posted in here. And for the most part even in here, the debate is kept civil. I challenge you to find another political discussion forum that does not have some variant of the phrase "you fucking moron" typed in hundreds of posts.

Other forums such as Motors invite discussion. Politics invites debate. Those who don't like it don't come in here. I don't see where debate is hurting anything.

ubertuber

Clarification: This is in no way about eliminating politics from TFP. Re-reading my starting post, I can see how some might think that this is where I'm headed. It's not. I'm just trying to gather and share thoughts about productive modes of discussion - and it was prompted by the excerpts that I put in the starter post. Many interesting ideas have already been posted, and I appreciate that.

Please don't take this discussion as a sign of impending doom. As I said before, I'm just soliciting some opinions about how we relate to each other when we reach the point that we can't relate to each other. (doesn't make sense, does it?) Sorry to cause alarm, it wasn't intended.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

Ustwo

You know Ben I know a Canadan poster who got pretty pissed off someone said something bad about Canada several posts back

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

shakran

It makes sense, but I'm not sure that it's something you should lose much sleep over. Look at it this way. Ustwo and I don't exactly relate to each other on a political level. It's at the point now where if he posts something I agree with, I'll usually respond noting my surprise that he and I are on the same page. But you don't see us running around the forum being dicks to each other. I mean, I respect him even though he is wrong most of the time

jwoody

Just Jess Por El Presidente!

Abandon your labels and stop quoting other (non-connected to TFP) people's opinions.

I'd vote for that.

__________________
.

tecoyah

I have to agree that this is by far, the most productive Politics forum I have yet come across (and I have joined a few in order to understand ours better), the issue isnt how good our politics board is, it is the way it fits into TFP as a whole. There are some really good Ideas put forth in this thread, but I think it important to point out no one thinks the board is "Broken", we just want it to become better.
As mentioned above , it does take quite a bit of work to maintain the level of civility we enjoy in our version of political debate here, from both the staff of TFP and the membership.....I honestly think most of us try very hard to help keep the balance in here. That said, I hope we can try to improve the interaction in here by moving away from the left/right mindset, and the inevitable boundaries this creates.
Over the last year I have been accused of Bias in my Moderation by both sides....(14 times, yes I save the PM's)...8 are from the right...six from the left, but the point here is not Who complains...but instead the fact the complaints take place. I have no issue with bieng called out for blatant favoratism when it occurs, but this is rather silly, as I dont think my party is Demopublican. In the context of how we all interact, this is an indication to me of a mindset we have here.....either with us or Agin us.

I would hope we all step back for a second and think about the preconceptions in our political stance, and realize there are very few people who spend the day leaning against only one wall....right or left. And please do not treat your new Mods poorly, we all do this because we want to....not because we are required.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

Charlatan

An interesting idea but I don't think it's all that practical. Unless there was consensus about a "persoal attack" I could see most threads devolving into debates about whether or not what was written constitutes a personal attack.

I can see this as being more divisive than not.

I think if someone feels they are being personally attacked they need to report it to the mods. Rarely does one mod make the call. There is a lot of discussion "behind the scenes" so to speak.

The other thing is to simply get thicker skin and ignore the "personal attack".

I don't know. I can't think of a time where I've been attacked personally were I was either offended enough to report it, or didn't just call the poster on it. I have always found it effective to just address the discussion and ignore the attack.

Perhaps I don't get attacked all that much.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

roachboy

politics is a strange place--i find that i have a number of modes in which i operate here, at least one of which (the denunication of the lumpenconservatives) i see as not really functioning as i would prefer.
i think i am going to retire it.
but i should explain why that move happens.

for marx, the lumpenproletariat was a social group that he understood as having "no political consciousness" that moved "whichever way the wind blows"---he calls them a "sack of potatoes" at once point. which i like. i adapted the term to dismiss the type of post that i find the most irritating---those which simply recycle the conservative talking points of the moment, that offer no background, demonstrate no thought, provide no possibility of interaction beyond name-calling and spitball throwing.

i take this style of posting to be little more than trolling--but i also suspect that the folk who pull the string sbehind this type of posting persona are smarter than they let on, so it becomes sometimes interesting to see if they will come out to play a little and actually lay out arguments and defend them.
usually they do not, and it is across the exchanges that happen at the point where this becomes clear that complaints about pesonal attack come in.

there is nothing to do with these posts.
to my mind, they function to drag down the level of discourse in here.
so they become annoying.
from time to time, i drop my usual baroque niceness and move into total dismissal mode.
so it is within that that the category operates.
i generally know exactly who i am referring to when i use the term--but this limited usage does not translate when i write---i have registered this (sometimes, like anyone else, i am slow to see things), so i'm retiring it.

mea culpa, i guess: but the fact is, so far as i am concerned, that the irritant is the lowering of the quality of discussion and the solution is to raise the quality of the posts.

i do not see the usefulness of requiring, or even trying to require a greater level of tolerance for stupid posts. i do not think politics a simple matter of opinion. i think there is a social world..i think politics is about the social world...i think it is legitimate to gather and present information about the world, process the politics of folk with whom i disagree, and juxtapose that processed understanding with information about the world with the aim of generating a basic critique of the position.
that is what political discussion is about.
and i would find it far less alienating to still be here if there was a more consistent possibility of the same kind of approach being taken by folk who disagree fundamentally with my positions.

so if the collective wants to change something about the politics forum, perhaps it could start with some kind of pressure being exerted to raise the intellectual quality of the posts. once that started, i think you would find the flaming to stop---there'd be no need for it---no place for it---because conversations could actually happen.

so it follows that i fundamentally reject the attempts to reduce politics to a matter of opinion, and to attempt, on that basis, to talk about "respect for the opinions of others" not because the politics articulated in a given post is coherent, but simply because it is the opinion of another.

concretely, if i could ask one thing it would be for folk from the right to stop posting as if the discursive framework within which they operate is some kind of natural horizon, is self-evident--when they do that they are not talking to anyone except themselves.

you do not see this kind of approach from the various positions that work outside the conservative frame of reference. this is not a request that anyone abandon their basic positions: more that the assumption be in place that conversation in this space involves a diversity of positions and that it is therefore a good thing if something like a complete position is outlined--because politics is about debate/conversation across positions, not simply within them.

so: you can complain about the lack of consistent respect shown across postions in the context of an increasingly impoverished intellectual space, or you can try to address that impoverishment that is the source of the snippiness. personally, i think that the former is the wrong way around.

but hey, that's just my opinion, man.

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

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

smooth

there is precedence for this.
in the past, people were concerned about "great tits!" or "nice ass!" posts in the titty board to maintain access. as well as similar one-liners in other areas to drive up post counts and gain further access.

I don't know how analogous some of the reasons are to those earlier times, but this was definately a concern and was discussed for a while when the board went to tiered access.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

Elphaba

Tecoyah, you can't be serious. How could we be mean to Spudly and the guy on the scooter?

dksuddeth

I've said it before and I'll say it again. All this BS about 'left' and 'right' is nothing more than the wedge used to force the logical minded center to vote one extreme or the other. They can't let anyone think for themselves nor can they let 3rd parties with more moderate and 'centrist' views in the political arena for fear of losing the power they currently hold.

I'm hoping that civil war crap starts sooner rather than later. I'm close to getting to old for this shiat.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Astrocloud

I'm breaking my general ban on the politics forum to discuss this issue. (As if anyone cares).Since this is a meta conversation about modes of dialogue -I will not get into detail about "a political debate" more than the act of having a political dialogue. That being said here there are one observation that I would like to make:

TFP as a forum is dominated by United States Citizens. TFP as a Political Dialogue is dominated by United States Politics. United States Politics is dominated by mudslinging, name calling and polemics.

This mudslinging and name calling is very un-TFP-like behavior. Yet somehow this behavior is allowed to exist on TFP because you can disguise it as something else. For example, when someone refers to a "moonbat liberal" they are denigrating an opponents position:

1) Regardless of whether or not the TFP member actually holds that position
2) Without refering to an actual other TFP member by name (thus finding a "loophole")

If any of you study logic then you know that this is an Ad Hominem fallacy. The reason that it represents bad thinking -is that it undermines the content of someone's actual words without actually addressing their issue. In TFP-Land it is simply insulting to deal with those people.

But again, in American Politics you can turn on any AM radio and hear the pundit-du jour rant against their political enemies... And it's completely acceptible to the listener. So there are obviously going to be some problems on TFP when those radio listeners (or whoever) come on and repeat what they hear -because it's insulting.

loganmule

I've followed this forum for a while, and this thread is long overdue. I hope something good comes of it.

Although I have posted a few times and even started a thread once, I probably fall into the category of "long time listener, first time caller". Even so, and although I did my best to be respectful to other posters, I have been slammed personally for expressing an opinion (I know...who hasn't?), and believe it on not, I took a hit, on at least one occasion, for not agreeing with someone else enough. I also ran into a few posters (none mentioned or posting on this thread) who were clearly only trying to pick a fight.

Honest debate is one thing, and should be encouraged, but at some point, if a member unambiguously takes a position which is in direct contradiction to your own, it's time to simply agree to disagree, break clean (a boxing expression meaning no parting cheap shots), and go your separate ways. I would like to think that we members can do this on our own, without the intervention of the mods, but they appropriately step in from time to time, and no doubt will have to continue to do so.

Still, my suggestion to everyone would be to adopt the "agree to disagree" rule. Recognize and respect the right of another member to disagree with you. Don't take it personally that someone else holds a contrary opinion. Don't take upon yourself the obligation to change another's opinion. Take a last look at proposed post, to edit out any personal digs, before actually posting on a thread. Finally, when all else fails, simply agree to disagree, and refrain from further dialogue...what would be the point?

Jinn

I was reading through the "armed overthrow" post for the first time, and somehow ended up here. So I decided to chip in for clarity's purpose, perhaps revive an ideal of improving conversation.

And... I agree with just about everyone in this post.

At first glance, I thought Ustwo's point was perhaps too pessimistic. Is there really a time when your "frame" for viewing the world is so different than someone else's that you can't argue with them in a civil manner?

Are there truly viewpoints or opinions that you immediately think "BATSHIT INSANE" when you hear them? I think after enough time, even the most accepting of readers will admit that there are just some positions that are just "BATSHIT INSANE" when you hear them. Think about it, right now. What positions are so trite or false to you that you think "BATSHIT INSANE" immediately?

For me personally, it's Intelligent Design. For you, it could be President Bush. Or 911. Or Michael Moore. Jesse Jackson. Oprah. Jerry Fallwell. Rush Limbaugh. Whomever or whoever it is, keep that subject in mind. I'll offer you my own interpration of ID:

When I first heard of it, I was willing to discuss the argument on it's merits and discuss why I felt historical anthropology offered a better discussion. After about 15 or so "discussions," I'm to the point where I should not discuss it with someone who truly believes in it. The mature action for me would be to not post in a thread about it.

What I detailed above I believe to be THE problem present in Politics.

A great deal of posters in Politics could benefit from this viewpoint upgrade; there ARE things you are going to 100% disagree with someone about, and you will NOT be able to convince them of the validity of your opinion.

Consequently, there ARE posts that you should not participate in. Degrading the poster's intelligence, reasoning skills, or even unfavorably linking them to an extremist group on either side will NOT convince them, and it'll just make you look like an asshole.

Why then, do I still feel compelled to post in a thread regarding something I feel so strongly opposed to? I think the explanation of this is a very interesting part of human pyschology--

We know from emprical proof of living that we can convince other people things. We also know that we CAN sway those who disagree with us completely.

What's my point? Consensus CAN arise from civility, but if potential posters so vehemently disagree at the outset that they can't be civil - don't post. When you see a post about something that you included in your "BATSHIT INSANE" post above, don't even try. You know at your core that you won't be able to convince them. If you feel the need to post, merely to contribute to the other contributors, then address them directly and let the opinion of someone you consider to be BATSHIT INSANE unaddressed. If they egg you on, I propose a shorthand of sorts to indicate your unwilligness to address that specific poster anymore regarding that given issue;

ATD. Agree to disagree..

In short, this means "I think we'd never come to an agreement no matter how much we hashed it out, and I'd prefer to address the other contributors to this thread in a civil matter. Thanks."

Yes?

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

cyrnel

You just described a strategy I learned the hard way through "batshit" conversations with family. Not just immediate family, but family far and wide. Basically, no politics or religion at the dinner table. My rule of course, not theirs. Forced me to learn the art of speed-segue. Online I try not to bother.

__________________
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

Jinn

so I was just peeing and I thought of a great real life example that makes this more clear:

You're talking with your coworkers about a new business plan. It feels like about half of you are agreeing and half of you are disagreeing, and you've got about 10 minutes to choose one. You know that this coworker (who you've argued with before) will probably just keep disagreeing with you, no matter how hard you try. At this point you could try and convince him with logic, and consequently win him and the rest of those that agree with him over.

OR -- you could address another member of his "group" who seems more amiable to his position.

You: But... I think this model would be better for X reason.
Disagreeable: NO NO -- this is better.
You to a new person: I heard you say Y earlier, does it make sense why this way is better?

Mr. Disagreeable gets to sit there and listen, unless he wants to become the asshole himself. And in doing so, he just alienated those who agreed with him before.

It's much easier to just "I hear what you're saying, but I'm going to talk to someone who's a little more rational" in person just by shifting your body weight or listening to another person. On TFP? Just don't address them anymore. Or specifically preface your comments with a Name: to the person you ACTUALLY want to talk to.

Yea, it sounded good when I was peeing.. maybe not.

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

Jinn

Okay, why?

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel