Why Is It That There Is No Discussion on Politics Threads?

[host]

On this TFP politics thread:
<a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=110043">
in the hopes of On topic discussion, a continuation</a>
....I posted a column written by a former white house speech writer, published recently in a local Virginia newspaper that contained this:

http://www.fredericksburg.com/News/F...inter_friendly

.....First, knowing what every intelligence agency was sure it knew by early 2003, it would have been criminal negligence had the president not enforced the U.N.'s resolutions and led the coalition into Iraq......

I countered that assertion with this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm
Thursday, 16 September, 2004, 09:21 GMT 10:21 UK
E-mail this to a friend Printable version
Iraq war illegal, says Annan

..........The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.

He said the decision to take action in Iraq should have been made by the Security Council, not unilaterally.....

.......When pressed on whether he viewed the invasion of Iraq as illegal, he said: "Yes, if you wish. I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."

Seaver added this to the discussion:

Originally Posted by Seaver

Oh yeah, nice host.

Ignore that that came out the same week the Oil-for-Food scandal came out. Ignore the fact that Kofi Anan and his son were proven to be recieving funds from Saddam to keep the Oil-for-Food illegal weapon purchases quiet.

Sorry, for some reason Kofi's claiming that the war was illegal does not trumpet "legitimate" for me.

<b>I responded with this, and other information, along with a liberal dose of my own comments, narrative, and opinion:</b>

Could Bush Be Prosecuted for War Crimes?
By Jan Frel, AlterNet
Posted on July 10, 2006, Printed on October 29, 2006
http://www.alternet.org/story/38604/

.....Most Americans firmly believe there is nothing the United States or its political leadership could possibly do that could equate to the crimes of Hitler's Third Reich. The Nazis are our "gold standard of evil," as author John Dolan once put it.

But the truth is that we can, and we have -- most recently and significantly in Iraq. Perhaps no person on the planet is better equipped to identify and describe our crimes in Iraq than Benjamin Ferenccz, a former chief prosecutor of the Nuremberg Trials who successfully convicted 22 Nazi officers for their work in orchestrating death squads that killed more than one million people in the famous Einsatzgruppen Case. Ferencz, now 87, has gone on to become a founding father of the basis behind international law regarding war crimes, and his essays and legal work drawing from the Nuremberg trials and later the commission that established the International Criminal Court remain a lasting influence in that realm.

Ferencz's biggest contribution to the war crimes field is his assertion that an unprovoked or "aggressive" war is the highest crime against mankind.

Interviewed from his home in New York, Ferencz laid out a simple summary of the case:

"The United Nations charter has a provision which was agreed to by the United States formulated by the United States in fact, after World War II. Its says that from now on, no nation can use armed force without the permission of the U.N. Security Council. They can use force in connection with self-defense, but a country can't use force in anticipation of self-defense.

Regarding Iraq, the last Security Council resolution essentially said, 'Look, send the weapons inspectors out to Iraq, have them come back and tell us what they've found -- then we'll figure out what we're going to do. The U.S. was impatient, and decided to invade Iraq -- which was all pre-arranged of course. So, the United States went to war, in violation of the charter."

It's that simple. Ferencz called the invasion a "clear breach of law," and dismissed the Bush administration's legal defense that previous U.N. Security Council resolutions dating back to the first Gulf War justified an invasion in 2003. Ferencz notes that the first Bush president believed that the United States didn't have a U.N. mandate to go into Iraq and take out Saddam Hussein; that authorization was simply to eject Hussein from Kuwait. Ferencz asked, "So how do we get authorization more than a decade later to finish the job? The arguments made to defend this are not persuasive."


Writing for the United Kingdom's Guardian, shortly before the 2003 invasion, international law expert Mark Littman echoed Ferencz: "The threatened war against Iraq will be a breach of the United Nations Charter and hence of international law unless it is authorized by a new and unambiguous resolution of the Security Council. The Charter is clear. No such war is permitted unless it is in self-defense or authorized by the Security Council."

.....<b>then, the discussion turned into this:</b>
(I don't mean to "single out" one poster, but I want to use this example of an oft repeated phenomena here, on these threads. I want to know why comments like these are chosen, and posted, if the motivation to do so is other than to end the discussion? Is this tactic fair? Is it constuctive? If it is, why.....how? If it isn't....why does it keep happening? I know why I'm singled out for this.... I'm perceived as the "poster boy" for this particular "offense"...

But is it an "offense"? Is discussion sacrificed so that folks can communicate that they want to see less information, less documentation, in posts, and more "I'm guessing that...." or my undocumented misconception that I can't (or won't) cite the sources of, is....." ?)

Host please <b>with your mighty cut and paste</b> prove to me that the Iraqi invasion was illegal.

If you can not please stop calling it that, and by the way you can post opinions, <b>cut and paste till your fingers fall off</b> from anyone you like, because thats all they really are OPINIONS.

Ill post one reason why it was legal:
Saddam violated the terms of a cease-fire, and in the terms of said cease-fire he knew what would happen if he was not in compliance.

So that right there makes it perfectly legal to invade.

Is there any need for me to <b>cut and paste</b> the cease-fire and waste bandwith because I am sure you know all about it?

....In the post that preceded the quote above, I had responded to Seaver's criticism of the reliability of the opinion that I had cited, from Kofi Anan.
I perceived that Seaver was challenging me to "raise the bar"....and I thought that I had.....after all....I followed with citations of quotes from the premier, living, US legal expert on international war crimes.....the legal opinions of the last, living US Nuremberg Chief Prosecutor, Benjamin Ferenccz.

If the post that followed my "Benjamin Ferencz" post, was intended to counter my arguments, and continue the discussion, why didn't it's author do that? Instead, he made his post about me....he criticized "how" I posted, and not my arguments or citations. He challenged me to <b>"prove to [him] that the Iraqi invasion was illegal."</b>

Since he didn't challenge anything that I posted, and did not question the credibility of expert Benjamin Ferencz, or his opinion, or mine...for that matter, what do you think that the purpose of his post was? Does he want more information (he challenged me to "prove"....)....wouldn't that require posting even more, in the way that he objected to?

I don't know what he is requesting, or what his point is? It seemed to me to be contradictory. I want to discuss issues, and I certainly don't want an effort to promote further discussion that includes posting/sharing more information, to instead, end the discussion. Bulky posts with numerous citations seem not to hinder discussion in other threads....the long running "9/11" thread on the TFP Paranoia forum, comes immediately to mind, as an example of that.

So.....what is it that will promote discussion and yet allow for "on topic" information sharing. In the recent "stem cell" thread, I perceived a lack of understanding about what motivated the "ballot issue" coming into being as an amendment to the Missouris state constitution....so I tried to provide the background that motivated the drive for an amendment, instead of legislation as a solution. Here.....I posted an extreme rant from a former Bush admin. official, and I attempted to counter it's core contentions....the assertions made by it's author that attempted to legitmize his reasons for "ranting".

Why couldn't the poster who resorted to the "cut and paste" criticism, in lieu of posting an argument that is counter to my argument....like I tried to do after reading the former speech writer's "rant"....just do what I did, and what Seaver did? There was a discussion.... I posted an argument, Seaver poked some holes in one of my strongest citations, he challenged me to "raise the bar".....I came back....thinking that I did just that....and, with the next post, the discussion ended.....I'm not yet willing to accept that this is the way it has to be....on this forum.....are you?

[Elphaba]

I guess I have accepted that there will be no discussion of any topic that can be construed to be even remotely partisan. There would need to be members of the moderate right present for discussion to occur, and they do not appear to be present in the Politics Forum. I have lost any interest in posing here for that reason.

[Charlatan]

People have already made up there minds.

The result is people take a defensive position rather than opening themselves to another point of view.

The only way to have a discussion (rather than a debate) is to completely ignore those who do not share your point of view.

[Ustwo]

Originally Posted by Charlatan

The only way to have a discussion (rather than a debate) is to completely ignore those who do not share your point of view.

Subtle change.

Replace point of view with assumptions, and I'd think that was spot on.

[Charlatan]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Subtle change.

Replace point of view with assumptions, and I'd think that was spot on.

Good point.

[Seaver]

If the post that followed my "Benjamin Ferencz" post, was intended to counter my arguments, and continue the discussion, why didn't it's author do that? Instead, he made his post about me....he criticized "how" I posted, and not my arguments or citations. He challenged me to "prove to [him] that the Iraqi invasion was illegal."

Since he didn't challenge anything that I posted, and did not question the credibility of expert Benjamin Ferencz, or his opinion, or mine...for that matter, what do you think that the purpose of his post was? Does he want more information (he challenged me to "prove"....)....wouldn't that require posting even more, in the way that he objected to?

I worked 36 hours this weekend in 3 days. Sorry I could not answer your post to your acceptance.

[jorgelito]

Originally Posted by Elphaba

I guess I have accepted that there will be no discussion of any topic that can be construed to be even remotely partisan. There would need to be members of the moderate right present for discussion to occur, and they do not appear to be present in the Politics Forum. I have lost any interest in posing here for that reason.

We are present Elph, we are either ignored or aren't heard. Just like in real life. No one listens to us precisely because we are moderate. Rational, reasonable. To get any kind of attention, one must be extreme or inflammatory. Also, discussion rarely occurs anyways, it's just a bunch of people posting their views without any real interaction save for the same old people looking to argue with each other every opportunity they get.

Thankfully, there's the pet thread.

[Elphaba]

I wish to differ with you, jorgelito. I have often found myself in agreement with your posts, and other moderates on the right. Charlatan may have a valid point in that we moderates get disgusted with the noise and simply choose not to participate.

Oh, and lest I forget...Yo mama.

[dc_dux]

Originally Posted by jorgelito

We are present Elph, we are either ignored or aren't heard. Just like in real life. No one listens to us precisely because we are moderate. Rational, reasonable. To get any kind of attention, one must be extreme or inflammatory. Also, discussion rarely occurs anyways, it's just a bunch of people posting their views without any real interaction save for the same old people looking to argue with each other every opportunity they get.

I thought we had a rational, reasonable, albeit brief discussion of photo IDs for voting

But I agree, discussion here is not easy. I would like to see more discussion and less cut and paste, particularly when it is selective and incomplete...and yes, I admit to not always contributing in a way that encourages civil discourse, but I will try harder

[jorgelito]

Originally Posted by Elphaba

I wish to differ with you, jorgelito. I have often found myself in agreement with your posts, and other moderates on the right. Charlatan may have a valid point in that we moderates get disgusted with the noise and simply choose not to participate.

Oh, and lest I forget...Yo mama.

Oooh, sounds like "fightin'" words...for a discussion? Ok, ok, differ away. Honestly, at the end of the day, maybe we just ought to take ownership of our own posts and not shy away so much. Maybe we're being too....moderate.

[Elphaba]

dc, I do make the effort to read any information provided to support a member's position. My annoyance stems more from the little or no effort in responding to a given position. Discussion is valuable, but so is "Debate" if it is done in other than a "oh yeah, sez you" fashion.

[jorgelito]

Originally Posted by dc_dux

I thought we had a rational, reasonable, albeit brief discussion of photo IDs for voting

But I agree, discussion here is not easy. I would like to see more discussion and less cut and paste, particularly when it is selective and incomplete...and yes, I admit to not always contributing in a way that encourages civil discourse, but I will try harder

Yes, I did very much enjoy the photo ID discussion and yes it was too brief. I think it may have just gone to sleep or it may have died. I don't think you need to try harder, but rather, come in at a different angle. Perhaps we should spin off the photo id thread and continue. But it would be nice if others participated too.

[Elphaba]

Originally Posted by jorgelito

Oooh, sounds like "fightin'" words...for a discussion? Ok, ok, differ away. Honestly, at the end of the day, maybe we just ought to take ownership of our own posts and not shy away so much. Maybe we're being too....moderate.

This would be the "fightin' moderates" of the forum? I can jump on that team, bring pom poms and such...

Originally Posted by jorgelito

Yes, I did very much enjoy the photo ID discussion and yes it was too brief. I think it may have just gone to sleep or it may have died. I don't think you need to try harder, but rather, come in at a different angle. Perhaps we should spin off the photo id thread and continue. But it would be nice if others participated too.

I was ready to respond to jorgelito's question about what harm ID's might have and deleted the post. I expected a partisan pounding and didn't see the point of the effort.

"Fighting Moderate" is beginning to have some appeal.

[jorgelito]

Originally Posted by Elphaba

This would be the "fightin' moderates" of the forum? I can jump on that team, bring pom poms and such...



I was ready to respond to jorgelito's question about what harm ID's might have and deleted the post. I expected a partisan pounding and didn't see the point of the effort.

"Fighting Moderate" is beginning to have some appeal.

Hmmm....how about "Extreme Moderates"?

[Elphaba]

Your oxymoron is irresistable. I suggest the "party" color should be purple, a blending of red and blue. (The latest Time magazine demonstrated that we are purple, county by county and state by state).

Horrible theme songs are coming to mind...and much more deserving in Nonsense. Don't let me go there, Charlatan!

[Charlatan]

Elph... you are a freak.

[highthief]

Originally Posted by host

So.....what is it that will promote discussion and yet allow for "on topic" information sharing.

1. Banning of the word "liberal".

2. Banning of the word "neo-con".

3. Shorter posts.

[Elphaba]

Originally Posted by Charlatan

Elph... you are a freak.

Most that know me usually come to this conclusion.

[roachboy]

if you find the demands the posts place on you to be a problem, read something else.
or watch tv.
tv never places undue demands on you.
it never burdens you with reflexive problems.
tv is your friend, your nice, amiable, one-dimensional friend, the affable guy at every party who is always having fun but never too much, who keeps conversation light and everything moving, who talks over other folk but compensates for it by being vaguely ironic (but not too much) and kinda hip (but not threateningly so). and sometimes it's amusing to talk with him--but not if you listen too hard--if you listen too hard (and there is no reason to, really, given what an affable fellow he is) you discover that he never really says anything. but then again, he places no real demands. and he is *so* flatteringly proactive. he tells you when you want a drink and suggests myriad appropriate possibilities, he tells you about the cars that you might like and the heroic lifestyle you get for free along with each and every car. he compliments your shoes and suggests some others that might also go with your outfits and fit with your busy life. he introduces you to people and then you get to watch them interact: the best part about that is you never have to worry about missing the jokes because he always laughs at just the right moment.

if you are concerned with questions concerning your sex appeal, he is right there to suggest that you to drink bud lite because everybody knows that drinking bud lite indicates that you are open to chance encounters with desirable others in ways that indicates to them that taste really is not your biggest concern----and that puts everyone at ease, dont you think?

he affirms your distractedness and your short attention span and assures you that despite that you are not missing out on anything.

after all, what is a party about if not affirmation?
why else would you go to a party?
can there be a party without it?

[stevo]

I like beer too.

[Willravel]

It's all about the indoctorinization of both sides and the clashing of doctrines. I work my doctrines, you work your doctorines, and nothing gets discussed.
They started to work your doctorinization, so I started to work my doctorinization, to counter their doctorinization, then we got cross-doctorinization and their heads began to explode.

[roachboy]

stevo:

i wasn't talking about beer.
i was talking about bud lite.

see i like beer--you know, beer...ales.....stuff that has a beer-like flavor to it...preferably something that requires a bit of work to understand, something that does not give everything away in the first 3 seconds (during which you find out that there is nothing being given away because there is nothing to give away)---good or bad, it is at least a discrete experience. none of this "engineered around the latest determinations of the minimal information required to enable the drinker to determine that he or she is drinking beer and not something else, useful in marketing beverages to billions because you dont want to give the least cause for the least offense"---a kind of inverted platonic beer-form--dessicated, abstract, only having contact with beer-ness because the fucking can says beer on it---beer should make you commit, even for the duration of a pint, to a specific kind of experience (preferably one involving trappist monks but maybe that is because i enjoy the veering off after one or two into speculations about the relationship between not talking and this fine nearly- hallucingenic beverage they produce)----beer should be a somewhere, not a bland nowhere.

but i digress.

not quite done:

i used to apply this general attitude to amounts as well, but that seemed to run me into other...um...regions of non-being....but now as i slide into my dotage, i can be militant about 3 beers in a way that i was once militant about 30.

done now.

[pan6467]

Originally Posted by Host

So.....what is it that will promote discussion and yet allow for "on topic" information sharing.

There will always be discord when talking politics. It comes from the same mindset we get with religion debates. People do not like being told what they believe in is wrong.

Most debates get to the point where it boils down to philosophical arguments. It comes down to belief systems. And most of them are theory and not truly put into practice, because of compromise.

The problem today is compromise has become a sign of weakness and thus neither side is willing to compromise and thus the beliefs have to go more and more extreme because the people putting forth the ideas are no longer being held to finding a middle ground.

Once, we get a Congress and President of differing parties, I truly believe we will either see both sides work fast for compromise (because it is in the country's and their best interest).... or you'll see both sides continue a power struggle and make outrageous demands to the point a 3rd party truly becomes viable and thus put into power.

[Ustwo]

Originally Posted by stevo

I like beer too.

I'm a fan of blue moon. And yes I like it with an orange slice, and if that makes me a little bit fruity so be it, man law be damned!

[roachboy]

you are more complex than i imagined, ustwo.

[jorgelito]

Cool metaphor roach, nicely written too.

Do you like Yuenling? Have you been to City Tavern?

Ustwo, I think that consitutes alcohol abuse (man laws exist for a reason) LOL

I like Belgian white ales too.

[host]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I'm a fan of blue moon. And yes I like it with an orange slice, and if that makes me a little bit fruity so be it, man law be damned!

Please don't do what you do, to this thread, too.....

Originally Posted by jorgelito

Cool metaphor roach, nicely written too.

Do you like Yuenling? Have you been to City Tavern?

Ustwo, I think that consitutes alcohol abuse (man laws exist for a reason) LOL

I like Belgian white ales too.

jorgelito....you were away for a few months....while you were gone, this "game" was already played on a TFP thread:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=107526
with graham cookie products, instead of beer/alcohol. Please take this line of posting to the "graham" thread, or over to the "members playground"...please?
I'd appreciate it if it doesn't turn into the same thing, on this thread....

Originally Posted by Seaver

I worked 36 hours this weekend in 3 days. Sorry I could not answer your post to your acceptance.

Seaver, I would appreciate it if you would continue to post on this thread. You seem to have misunderstood my reference about you.....here is the last paragraph of this thread's OP:

Originally Posted by host

Why couldn't the poster who resorted to the "cut and paste" criticism, in lieu of posting an argument that is counter to my argument....like I tried to do after reading the former speech writer's "rant"....<b>just do what I did, and what Seaver did? There was a discussion.... I posted an argument, Seaver poked some holes in one of my strongest citations, he challenged me to "raise the bar".....I came back....thinking that I did just that</b>....and, with the next post, the discussion ended.....I'm not yet willing to accept that this is the way it has to be....on this forum.....are you?

Seaver, please consider that I held our exchange up, as an example of actual discussion.....

[Elphaba]

Host, please accept my apology for sliding off into some lunacy of my own. This is a thread worthy of serious discussion.

[pig]

Why isn't there much discussion in TFPolitics? I actually think there's a good bit more here than there is walking down the average street. People aren't face to face, they don't pussyfoot around, and the gloves come off. I don't think a lot of people are open to new ideas, I don't think people frequently position themselves to make it easy for others to interact with, and I think people frequently orient their OP / regular P such that its directly inflammatory. I have to say that you're as guilty as anyone host. I don't personally care how many links you throw into a thread, and I try to read / skim them if I have the time. However, you know that the affect that has is to eliminate about 75-80% of the people who read your posts. You might not like that. roachboy might not like that. i might not like that. will might not like that. its still a fact. if you to want engage people, you have make yourself engageable. we all know the usual suspects on any given issue, and we can pretty much anticipate how they will respond. i think if you want to get people into an actual discussion, you might have better luck if you don't intentionally push their buttons. or, if you intentionally push their buttons, get ready for the response we both know you're going to get.

i think a great example of this is the thread about your step-son calling you. the thing i didn't understand about that thread was why you wanted the conservative / OperationIraqiFreedom supporters to regurgitate a list of the positions they have for the war, so that you can shoot them down... in that thread....again. I would have thought that would have been more useful as a completely non-political slinging, type thread. But it honestly felt like just another thread on politics. I think if you had engaged that thread differently, you might have received some more open responses from the "other side," but it wasn't positioned that way. It happens often, and the strong proponents on both side do it time and again. I just don't understand why they bother. Ergo, why yon pigglet posts infrequently around here, because its boring.

edit : now that i've typed the above, i feel that i have contributed enough to say that somehow i even disagree with ustwo on beer choice. i know the bluemoon w/ orange is supposed to be the way and truth, but i always think it tastes like soapy water. same thing with the leinenkugels that are so big up there. either taste like budweiser or soap. when i was up that aways, I had the hots for the Rogue. God that beer is good.

[Ustwo]

host seriously, your assumptions are so far out there that discussion is not possible really. Its that simple. When you posted the Bush is involved in child sacrifice thread, which was thankfully moved to parinoia, it was pretty apparent that any serious discussion with you about, well anything involving Bush would be impossible.

So perhaps we could have a beer together in some future, but I'd be sure to never discuss anything remotely political with you.

[Seaver]

Seaver, please consider that I held our exchange up, as an example of actual discussion.....

Ah, sorry I misinterpretted.

[highthief]

Originally Posted by roachboy

if you find the demands the posts place on you to be a problem, read something else.
or watch tv.

...he affirms your distractedness and your short attention span and assures you that despite that you are not missing out on anything.

So, if one dares voice the opinion that there is an abundance of overly long posts here, one should get out and watch TV because one is obviously not smart enough to understand what those with too much time on their hands have to say?

Nice. You wonder why there is little debate ...

[aberkok]

Originally Posted by highthief

So, if one dares voice the opinion that there is an abundance of overly long posts here, one should get out and watch TV because one is obviously not smart enough to understand what those with too much time on their hands have to say?

Nice. You wonder why there is little debate ...

Not because they're not smart enough, but because they won't take the time to read the contribution. Sometimes...it takes time to read, but these issues are complex and that's what it takes to understand the situation. A political discussion is never going to be light.

[pig]

Of course it won't be light aberkok, but I think that when everyone comes to the politics board guns blazing looking for a pissing match, it's sort of disingenous to act surprised when you get peed on. It certainly isn't just host, but host was the one asking the question. In the specific case of host's posting style, while it doesn't bother me in the least - I think its false to try to state that it doesn't hinder discussion. I'm not saying its good or bad, but facts is facts. I'd guess that more quick exerpts and hyperlinking might work better, but maybe the articles aren't available for extended periods of time, etc. I think an approach that draws people in, and entices them to follow your links would work better for host. If someone just wants to start the discussion with a short, bare bones cut of his point, that might get more people into the discussion.

2. Everyone on TFPolitics pretty much: you know how the people who "disagree" with you respond. You can almost write the response for them. The graham cracker thread demonstrated that. So why not skip it? As I said before, if you want people to engage you, you make to make yourself engageable. I'm not making this shit up off the the top of my head. Its middle school behavior stuff.

Johnny: why won't the other kids play with me?
Guidance Counselor person: do you make yourself approachable? Do you make eye contact? Do you start conversations with them? Do you smile when you talk to them?

Its the same crap. I think host comes up with some great information. I sometimes go back to threads and don't reply to them, just so I can follow the links and so forth. I honestly think the second trend is more important than the first. Most people just come here, after they see a story linked on their favorite news source. They come in, they've already made up their minds, and they know how their "opponents" are going to respond. Its like a quasi-rehearsed play. And that's fine - sometimes interesting things slip out of the cracks. For the most part, its boring and I can certainly see how people might not perceive it as real discussion. Real discussion involves some level of mutal respect, and what usually happens around here is mutual condescension that masquerades as something looking like "respect." in order to stay within the rules of TFP.

[JustJess]

^^ Yep. Ditto. A lot.

I often agree with Host, and pan, and Will, and many others. On social issues, I even agree with Ustwo a lot. But the posts are not communicated well.

Let me explain something that I *do* know a lot about:
People all have their own ways of communicating ideas. Obviously. But if you are aiming for anything other than a rant, you need to tailor your communications to appeal to and be well understood by the greatest amount of people. We're not dumb, we're *busy*. And we want to talk about this stuff as much as you do. But we can't when every response leads to a avalanche of information, my dear Host. Some of your opinions are a bit out there for me, but I'm mostly agreeing with you. But you are doing yourself, and your cause, and those that agree with you, a disservice by drowning us in information.

May I suggest a style?

Summary: Based on reading link,link, link and link, I believe that these things are true. I'm interested in xyz occurring next. I'm concerned about abc, because I think it sets a bad precedent. See quotes below. ... Or Wow, this happened today. AGAIN. Can you believe it??? Check out this link for details!

And then quote the parts you've been bolding. If we need more, we'll go to to the links.

I want more people to get your information, Host. Most of the time, I think it's important. But you need to learn to communicate in a way that your audience can receive it. No, I don't want you to dumb down your posts, or treat us like we're infants. But to be an effective teacher, you have to modify your style.

It's that simple. Please know that I say this with a lot of affection. I read your stuff almost every day, along with most Politics threads...

[Kaliena]

JustJess, please post your last post in all of the forums, including general discussion, it just hits the nail on the head for me completely.

[roachboy]

if your characterization of posts was correct, pigglet, i can assure you that i would not bother with this forum.

the politics forum is a type of game.

every player comes to it with a little discursive machine or three that they like and that often they revert to letting that machine run and the results are the logic of that machine. however, it seems to me that each situation presented, each thread, is a different game, and so each is a space adaptation of these machines....and they do not always work....

for example: one aspect of playing the game here for me is a long series of little skirmishes with ustwo. persona-wise, each of us is the reverse of the other: politically we are very far apart, in terms of how and what we write, we are antithetical to each other--most of the time, ustwo's posts leave their assumptions assumptions, they do not spell them out--and most of my responses are about trying to get him to spell them out---with varying degrees of expectation that the ploy will work (some mornings the sun is out, some mornings it is not, some mornings my husky is bothering me, some mornings he is asleep etc.)--i find that i often assume it wont work and so proceed on that basis...for better or worse.

i tend to lay out much more of the logic behind what i am doing, mostly because that i just how i think about things (well, roachboy is a version of how i, the other guy, think about things--roachboy is much more limited--this format is really quite limiting--but i, the other guy, find working with constraints interesting and so here i am, trailing roachboy behind me)---and i am sure that ustwo wishes i would just shut the fuck up sometimes.

the result of this is more often than not little irony duels, which can be funny but often are just snippy seeming.

it is part of the game--every game includes the possibility of standoff, of non-conclusive sequences. just as every game includes the possibility of something strategically interesting or challenging--just as every game includes the possibility that you will loose.

at bottom, whether you play or not it is a matter of whether you find the game as a whole interesting.

every game is about constraints: this one is about lots of them--how where and why each player uses the board, how much time they have, when they post, what the situation around them in 3-d is when they post, how that situation effects what they post. it happens that my 3-d life finds me writing alot on my home computer and that i find this forum an interesting distraction from stuff i should be doing---it is also the case that you can see this in how i write, in what i write because the type of writing that i do is heavily analytic and requires that i spell out the arguments, and if i shift from a project to here (which i do more often than not) the way of thinking i had been locked into while working drags into here. this is not the case with everyone--each person wedges their play in this game into their own schedules and in their own way. navigating the divergence ways in which people use this space----when they use it and why they use it---is essentially one of the constraints of playing here over any period of time.

i think players like to imagine that the forum is like a table and that everyone is sitting around it in the same way and that discussion happens amongst people who are fully present--but it aint like that. not necessarily. it is as if by sitting around a table in 3-d there is a series of tacit agreements that obtain concerning interactions--what they entail, what kind of attention you can expect--all of which follow from a particular way of being in a shared space. here, the only shared space is the sequence of boxes containing posts, and the only agreement about what kind of interaction can be expected is the one that emerges across sequences of these boxes. this is a community, but a very particular kind of community, one that you really cannot think about using 3-d communities as a guide--if you do that, you will just get frustrated, you will rationalize that frustration by assuming that everyone else is a fuckwit and you will stop sooner or later.

this space is what it is.

i find the messages from most of the other players here to be interesting enough to keep me hanging around....i expect this holds for the other players as well....the varying worldviews that you run into here are interesting in their variety, even if there are points of fundamental disagreement or incomprehension that separate them....otherwise none of us would be here.

i find the recurrent calls for short posts annoying because being able to stretch things out is one of the features that keeps me interested enough to play here at all.

sheesh, another long post....

[JustJess]

Originally Posted by roachboy

i find the recurrent calls for short posts annoying because being able to stretch things out is one of the features that keeps me interested enough to play here at all.

sheesh, another long post....

(Not asking for shorter posts. Just ones with more of the poster's opinions and less of some other group of people's opinions. I.e. if Host (as this is his thread, after all) were to write stuff that long about HIS thoughts on stuff, I think it would go further. Plus, you're not worried about the state of discussion. He is.)

[pig]

Originally Posted by roachboy

if your characterization of posts was correct, pigglet, i can assure you that i would not bother with this forum...
sheesh, another long post....

Holy crap, like, I know

Seriously roachboy, I'm personally not of the opinion that every post needs to be a typed out sound bite. I just read your entire post, and found it to be quite interesting. You also didn't come out with something like

"jesus pigglet, is it even partially conceivable that someone who hasn't suffereed a partial lobotomy might want to post on these boards, and that some of us might actually enjoy some aspects of this format? well, i suppose that what's what one might expect given the current status of informational discourse these days" which is more in-line with how i see most positions layed out around here.

i also think my point stands in relationship to the general question of why more discussion doesn't occur in the politics forum. i think the general issue of not showing others basic respect, of pretending there is a conversation going on when frequently its just mutual political masturbation is a problem that drives people away.

and yes, particular to host's posting style, i think that the multiple instances of drawn out quote-boxes, interspersed with sometimes condescending commentary, random highlighting and so forth, leads to a distracting presentation which can be overhwhelming for many. i'm not saying you, in particular (obviously), but the question was "why isn't there more discussion," not "why isn't there some discussion" or even "why isn't some of the discussion of high quality?"

you and ustwo can have all the fun you want, but i frequently wouldn't really call it discussion. i almost always find your posts interesting, as i've told you before, and i occasionally find ustwo's interesting as well, although the one-liners he throws out are less useful to me. but on many subjects i can't pretend i'm watching a reasoned debate. its just not structured that way.

[roachboy]

just jess: i didnt see your post above mine--i was going back and forth between things---so i wasnt reacting to it---kinda wish i had seen it, though.