ratbastid

Stop trying to coin a term. Your pet phrase "ideological spam" isn't going to catch on.

The more you push it, the clearer it gets: if host were right-wing, you'd have no problem with him. His posts would be a lot to digest, perhaps, but you wouldn't be calling it spam OR ideological. It's only ideological because you disagree with it. It's only spam because that's a good way to provoke emotion against it.

This WHOLE THREAD is made of 100% pure Grade A FAIL. It's a personal attack. Jesus Christ. You started a thread to complain about another member's posting style! It's against the rules and the spirit of the board--and I'd say that no matter what sides of what political fence you and I variously fall on.

host

Aren't you describing essentially this:
It starts to seem normal, mainstream....it isn't.

roachboy

the salon article host links above is really quite interesting...it's basic claim is that the american public--acting through a variety of mechanisms only one or two of which are actually present in the article--imposes a kind of filtering on information regarding the war in iraq, reacting in a strongly negative way to reports that demonstrate the illusory character of the various conservative cliches about "our troops" and their virtuous conduct in iraq and afghanistan.

it is well worth a read and perhaps a discussion--if not here, then in another thread.

i am a bit suspicious of the claims in the article in part because they are REALLY depressing if true---these claims would indicate a kind of collective refusal to see on the part of the american public (who are these people?) that makes them thoroughly complicit in maintaining the illusions fundamental to the marketing of the bush administration--second, the claims are based on anecdotal evidence that is at once interesting (in that it discusses a region of social conflict that i know little about) and problematic (in that it does not try to advance any theories as to the organization of these reactions) so leaves you thinking

"perhaps we, collectively, really are fucked because we, collectively, will not face the consequences of our own actions."

and perhaps we are.

and no, none of this is normal---but saying as much reminds me of what durkheim talks about in his book "suicide" concerning the problems that attend the claim that a given social-historical framework is pathological---particularly if that frame is also one's own---which follow from the simple fact that we are adaptive creatures and our frames move with the larger ones----so there is no obvious point of view outside from which to say:

"see? i'm standing here and just look......shit's moving thatta way------->"

what is clear is that most americans live in an ideological bubble. for me, the first and almost overwhelming demonstration of this came during the first gulf war----i happened to find myself in paris at the point when french tv began broadcasting live feeds from cnn as a broadcast options--you could switch into and back out of america-land, to french coverage and back again. on the french stations, you had the networks pet general standing near a relief map of kuwait moving little plastic models around with a croupier's stick--on cnn, it was all to wall flag graphics and martial music and jingo-coverage. wall to fucking wall.

the french stations were reporting on a war: the cnn coverage was selling that war.

you don't have to come out of a marxist background to see a problem in this--you just have to look from a position that affords a comparison.

my personal sense of political hope lay in the possibility that people are not replicating the fatuous ideological bubble within which they can operate if they let themselves--that people are smarter than they are treated as being.

and it is the case that in all the social networks i am part of this seems to be bourne out---but like anyone, i see these networks, know these networks----and the drop-off between them and this abstraction called "america" is pretty steep.

but you know, you assemble a sense of that abstraction from wandering around in public spaces and just taking in what people say---and it's pretty grim for the most part--but even so, there's generally enough noise about that one can maintain one's spirits and not simply get trashed because there seems no alternative.

and then an article like the salon piece host bit from above comes along and makes you wonder what you do this for.
so you have problems with the article.
maybe the same thing obtains for me: i dont want to see what this america place has become, is becoming, and it's polyanna of me to imagine that people hold the idiocy--and i mean that---of the ideological bubble apart from themselves----maybe it's the case that many many people simply replicate it, that they see the world in terms shaped by it. that is, they do not see it as stupid or even as a bubble: they see it as given.

blech.
because if this is true for most folk, then we are well and truly screwed.
we cannot adapt to changing and potentially scary realities because we cannot face them.
this is reflected in the narrow and empty realm of politics.
this is reflected in the flight into entertainments of various non-challenging varieties.
it is reflected in the debt bubble. it is reflected in the fact that people refuse to get rid of their suv's even when gas is 3.50 a gallon. it is reflected in everything. denial is the modus operandus. it's what makes america what it now is.

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

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

matthew330

This is not an attack on Host, this thread (IMO) is about host so here's my two cents: if host we're right wing, I would have a problem with it. I say that with certainty.

There is one thing that seems the members here will never agree on:

1. Ignoring Host makes one lazy, incapable of political dialogue, and resigned to speaking into right wing talking points.

2. Hosts posting style isn't acceptable by even the trashiest of message boards, stifling, and most employed people don't have the time to take him seriously.

I obviously fall into camp #2, but Host is here to stay. The only thing that continues to annoy me is this board was revised with "HIDE" tags to accomodate Host, because the owner acknowledged to a certain degree "the #2 philosophy" (I lay claim to that term), and he mocks it by hiding 3 sentences in 1000 word quote.

But that doesn't seem to bother most here, and I'm not surprised. I think a compromise might be:

1. ignoring Host can't be used against someone
2. Hosts posting style should be ignored in the future (i.e. - not commented on)

look at me being the big diplomat

Ustwo

The only right wing host I know of is Anne Coulter and if she were posting here I'd be trying to get in her pants.

Thanks for telling Otto how he really feels though, your mind reading powers are legendary.

__________________
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.

Elphaba

I would like to draw attention again to roachboy's post #31 and #40, above.

What roachboy has identified within our microcosm of "conservatives" and "liberals" and the difficulties we create in either discussion or debate, closely mirrors the US macrocosm of political discourse. Conservatives do have a consistent view of the world that they hold as a group. Very effective leadership of the party has prevented strays from the accepted ideology with either the stick or the carrot. The elimination of dissent allows conservatives to speak as if from a single voice and contrary viewpoints are viewed as amusing, at best.

As roachboy clearly points out, conservatives assume that liberals are equally united in ideology and hold to a clearly defined and agreed upon platform. Again, this inaccurate assumption holds true in both the micro and macro world. Liberals only appear to be identical to conservatives in that they are all "not me" in their views. This is my greatest frustration in participating in Politics because I am immediately identified as holding specific beliefs that I do not, simply because I disagree with a single conservative belief.

This very fundamental difference between parties is addressed in roachboy's post #40. Is it even possible in either discussion or debate to bridge that divide in any meaningful way?

I support Baraka Guru's suggestion in post #15 that "discussion" topics and "debate" topics should be separated and moderated with a differing degree of formality. We tried to formalize debate topics in the past, but I think the attempt was abandoned too soon. (Very different time zones slowed down responses by a day or more).

Perhaps creating this somewhat artificial distinction would allow for a greater range of expression within the Politics forum. "Discussion" topics are a more appropriate place to post "feelings" oriented responses that are less acceptable to the more factually based "debate" topics. I believe that a range of formality for debate topics is possible and desirable.

Just a thought from one of those unpredictable independents.

__________________
"You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

ratbastid

You're thinking, "Ha ha I showed him". You're mistaken.

Elphaba

I believe roachboy has made a significant effort to turn a questionable topic into one that addresses a long-standing complaint of the Politics forum. If TFP can get critiqued every six months, I think we are overdue for a fresh look at Politics as it is and what it could/should be.

Ratbastard, don't let the perceived intentions of the OP sidetrack you. You have more to offer in a critique of Politics than any other member, imo.

__________________
"You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

ottopilot

Don't use the term if you don't like. But as they say, "if the shoe fits, wear it". You may have the marketing rights.

If you think this is all about host, then you would be wrong. I actually agree in principle with many of his general points-of-view, and I've often stated so without response or comment. But since you mention host specifically, I believe his carpet-bombing style and politically biased generalizations leave very little room for discussion. He thread jacks in much the same way when a topic is presented counter to his beliefs. If you want to make this literally about host, then you may have done so (as have others).

This thread was not started because of a vendetta against anyone. I hoped it would be more of a commentary of what is appropriate for a political forum if honest discussion is to take place... to at least get honest in-context topic-related feedback. I knew it would be controversial.

There are some very thoughtful posters here in Tilted Politics. There are also the carpet-bombers. There are the very dismissive and condescending. There are the pseudo-intellectual drive-by artists. There are the cheerleaders who sit back and let others do the talking for them, then chime in out of context to to feel good ... and various other styles.

I've been part of the problem too. I have often posted with extreme sarcasm and absurd humor, usually in opposition (IMO) of what I see as extreme or purposely divisive political rhetoric (derogatory blanket generalizations). I have been at times disrespectful and uncivil.

Are all these negative and combative posting styles/tactics to be simply accepted as the "nature of the beast", or do we attempt to be better?

So the OP may seem to pick on one style more than others... if you actually read the OP, you may have asked me why I started the thread. What in my comments leads you to believe I am a "right-winger" and (btw-I'm not) why would (or should) that matter? Do you have any answers to the specific questions I posed?

For consideration:
Should topics regarding Global Warming, Climate Change, etc. go in a special environment and science forum?
Should topics that assert that a conspiracy has taken place actually go in the paranoia forum?
Should linking and pasting of articles be restricted to promote conversation rather than litigation?

Please present any of your own constructive thoughts on the subject.

__________________
"It rubs the lotion on Buffy, Jodi and Mr. French's skin" - Uncle Bill from Buffalo

Willravel

1) Global warming policy belongs in Politics. Climate belongs in Knowledge.
2) Many conspiracies are not only not paranoid, but in fact true. Should a conspiracy be supported by facts, it is not paranoia.
3) People who don't link to source material often present unsupported arguments/discussion points. Unsupported arguments do each member and the forum a disservice by ignoring the best solutions and information. When was the last time you linked an article to show the factuality of your case?

Charlatan

otto... thank you for a very reasoned response and not rising the bait.

Well done.

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

ottopilot

Thanks for your response. Points 1 and 2 are well taken.

Regarding point 3, I most often used links and articles to support my positions. However, I felt like all the volume of "evidence gathering" that goes on kind of takes away from the conversation...like the one we are having now.

Regarding the OP...(I'm very tired and apologize if I'm rambling)... Admittedly, the set up for this thread was probably not the most tactful, but it appears to have been effective in shedding light on a real problem.

I was going to leave "Politics" altogether and (now regretfully) deleted the text of most of my posts. My reasons were out of frustration and realizing how I'm sometimes part of the problem too. I thought about it and decided to stick around and face what was bugging me. It's very possible that this is not the place for someone of my temperament, but I'll try a fresh approach.

Thanks... I admit being a little rough around the edges, so I really appreciate those who have remained open-minded.

__________________
"It rubs the lotion on Buffy, Jodi and Mr. French's skin" - Uncle Bill from Buffalo

Willravel

Regarding this, being a great chunk of the question, it's about posting style. I'll admit that I've had dozens, possibly hundreds of posts that read like a host post. They're thousands of words long with multiple links. One reason that I posted like that was because it's like condensing a dozen posts into one. In the GMO thread and depleted uranium thread, it was necessary for me to present large and extremely strong points with tons of evidence lest my points be taken as paranoia and dismissed.

I can probably go back and find a few old posts of mine that are necessarily gargantuan. Not all of my posts are this way, but frankly, a post in "The Dark Knight" in Entertainment doesn't need to me 12 pages long. If I only posted in Politics and only about things that absolutely needed a shit-ton of support, you may see me develop into host: the next generation. Unfortunately, I don't have the energy for that. I recognize that I don't know enough about the world on my own and that host happens to do a lot of legwork to help that. If you're bothered by host's style, think of him as a newspaper. He provides more information total than some people can take, so only read his posts in threads that interest you. Also, he does embolden the most important parts of the articles that he links, which can make reading his posts a lot easier for those who aren't capable of reading the whole thing (by capable I don't necessarily means stupid, some people simply don't have the time).

FoolThemAll

Eh... okay, it seemed like a little bit of a stretch, but I see the connection now. I'll sick my ravenous mouse wheel on Ustwo instead.

Tsst!

(I still think brevity would've been a massive boon, but... to each his own on that part.)

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

Elphaba

I continue to try to redirect this topic into something useful overall for the Politics forum, and the topic returns to host again and again.

Ok, I'm up for that "discussion" and better yet, I can debate host's contribution to this forum better than most.

If you have a personal bitch about host, I offer these alternatives:

- For all of those that are critical of host's posting style -- (which is what: too much information?) -- simply walk away, and have a happy day somewhere else in tfp world.

- For all of those that are critical of host's political bias -- (which is what: a simple confrontation of an unquestioned world view?) -- simply walk away, and have a happy day somewhere else in tfp world.

- If you are unwilling to address a topic started by host in anything other than an honest exchange of fact based dialogue, simply walk away, and have a happy day somewhere else in tfp world.

Can I make this anymore obvious to host's detractor's? Simply walk away.

For those that might see some value in what host presents as background to his assertions, I can affirm that you shouldn't dismiss a word or link of what he posts. He predicts political outcomes six months to a year before most of us consider the possibility. Over and over again, host has spoken the truth that we need to know, but haven't been told in our commercially owned press. Time and time again, host has asked all of us, "how do you know what you know?"

Host, no matter the attributed failings of posting style, contributes more to the Politics forum than any other poster here. Although I may not always agree with his conclusions, I have never failed to gain a more informed understanding of an issue from reading his topics and provided links. Thanks to host, I am better able to critically analyse a political position that goes beyond the intended public message.

Host has been belittled, mocked and criticized by both mods and members from the day he joined tfp. I can't think of a greater injustice, when u2 was applauded today by a mod for making one acceptable post.

If this topic is about host, applaud him rather than ridicule him. If this topic is about problems with the Politics forum, CAN WE PLEASE MOVE ON?

__________________
"You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

ottopilot

IMO This statement is exactly why we need to reexamine how debate is conducted on Politics. That kind of behavior is highly unfortunate and host is not the only one who gets slammed. By the same token, host sometimes does his fair share of slamming (possibly as a defence mechanism? a zealous reaction? who knows).

If you want this to not be all about host, then perhaps you should stop bringing him up. For instance, here are some quick questions on the topic...would you like to address any of these or pose some of your own?

• What is it about any post that draws such anger and insensitivity? Is it the desired response of the author? Can we truly know this kind of motivation and can this motive be productive anytime?
• Have we fostered an environment where we can't propose something controversial without getting slammed for just bringing it up?

For myself, and in general, I will continue to ignore any thread that is authored as an intentionally disguised, yet thoroughly researched political spin piece. However, on other threads, It may be difficult for some to not engage others that inject themselves with extreme and voluminous bias. Although data may be accurate in some context, when the message is crafted without attention to actual context, balance, or historical precedence, others will take that author to task. Hopefully in a civil manor.
I'm not sure where ustwo was applauded anywhere on this thread, but anyway...

Elphaba, do you mean could we please move on with discussing problems on Politics, or just move on in general?

__________________
"It rubs the lotion on Buffy, Jodi and Mr. French's skin" - Uncle Bill from Buffalo

host

This is what she actually posted:
....and her description seems accurate:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...3&postcount=26

ottopilot

Yes... you are right that it was posted on another thread.

__________________
"It rubs the lotion on Buffy, Jodi and Mr. French's skin" - Uncle Bill from Buffalo

The_Jazz

So now I'm the embodiment of The Man because I found something Ustwo wrote a profound statement about an event and I didn't say the same thing about host? And this is taking sides?

You've got to be fucking kidding me. This is the kind of thing that my 7 and 10 year-old nephews do if one of them things I'm paying too much attention to the other.

You are all supposed to be at least 18 to be on TFP. It's time you all started acting like it.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

loquitur

For what it's worth, let me offer something for people to think about apropos the OP:

If you are composing a response to a post, is it your objective to discuss the issue or to "win?" If it's to discuss the issue, you'll address it one way, but if it is to "win," you'll formulate the post in a very different way. I try to discuss, usually, but if I see a thread is turning into people battling over who wins, I drop out; life's too short to spend it trying to do battle over stuff like this, and no one ever wins anyway.

Unfortunately, that happens all too often around here, which is why I don't post very often.

ratbastid

The_Jazz wasn't writing in yellow on that post. So it's not "praised by a moderator", it's "praised by a member". Mods wear two very distinct hats, so don't get the contexts of those two hats mixed up. The_Jazz has the right--as a member--to say whatever he wants without it becoming TFP Policy Canon. Also, I agree with his comments on Ustwo's post. What Ustwo said captured why I haven't posted anything in that thread.

We're now officially Far Afield.

jewels

*nodding head*

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

dc_dux

loquitor...I dont believe its a matter of winning or losing. Personally, I dont give a crap about winning a war of words on a message board.

However, I do feel strongly about getting the truth out and challenging blatantly false information that is perpetuated on message boards. If that persistence appears to some to be an effort to "win", so be it.

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

highthief

If everyone with the letter "O" in their names were banned, we'd all get along much better.

I blame the letter "O" and declare a jihad.

__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.

roachboy

well, let's see.

otto: interesting turn in the thread. thanks for pushing this away from where i was pretty sure it was initially headed and mea culpa if that assumption as to where the thread was heading was wrong.

==========================

it seems though that we're still dancing around.

one of the most basic conflicts that happens across discussions is over the terms within which arguments will happen. this because it is simply often the case that the most basic elements of arguments from opposing political viewpoints are mutually exclusive.
so much of the wrestling is about which terms, which logic, which information.
i think this gets misinterpreted as a desire to "win" an argument--when it's more often about "how do you get from a to b?" followed by "explain this please" one way or another.


if this was understood for what it is, i think things would go much more smoothly here.

on the other hand, to be honest i think about discussions here as little chess games. whether i am interested or not in the discussion usually has to do with whether i think the little chess match is interesting or not. so maybe there is a dimension of wanting to win behind that. there is definitely an interest in setting and springing traps, as there is in any chess match. i modulate the style of posts to function as better traps. sometimes they work, sometimes they dont. but they're kind of fun to build.

my complaint really about some of the comrades who post from more conservative positions is basically that they will not set back from their political logic and play with it. it's like playing chess with someone who plays but only understands one level of the game. thing is that i actually think that most of the comrades who post from conservative positions are intelligent and interesting people (otherwise i wouldnt bother, trust me) so it's frustrating. but it is always the case that there is the game and the meta-game: whether you are aware of it or not, the meta-game shapes the game. from this viewpoint, political choices are strategy choices and that's it.

so i would prefer, basically, that politics debates be understood as a serious game. serious in that there are some rules concerning the relation of arguments to information, there are better and worse interpretations and that any interpretation can and should be defendable. a game in that it is ultimately playing. again, for me there is a remove between my personal political committments and what makes sense to me to do here---i might be interested in revolution, for example, but it aint happening by way of a messageboard--this is not and cannot be the center of my political life. so it's playing more--circulating ideas, generating takes on a shifting informational context, seeing if they work, seeing what others make of that context, testing them out.

so to say the obvious, different styles are different strategies.

maybe this is a proposal for a way to take what we collectively do here that'd maybe open things up a bit---if we treat it more as a kind of chess game involving words. to formalize the game too much would narrow the range of objectives in playing---leaving it as a metaphor means that endgame is not necessarily the point. tussles can take place anywhere on the board and can be ends in themselves. and everyone can find themselves pinned at one point or another, with no good moves available---which is fine. the world does not end. no-one is diminished by it. it's just something to think about maybe, why it happened.

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

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

dksuddeth

whew, saved.

__________________
"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."

loquitur

DC_Dux, there is nothing wrong with pointing out inaccuracies of fact. Facts trump argument every time, or should. But an opinion -- which is a conclusion drawn from a fact or an inference, not a fact itself -- is just an opinion. An opinion isn't a lie; it can't be. If you disagree with it, that means you find other inferences more persuasive, or you think the person didn't take into account things you think s/he should have. It doesn't mean the person is lying.

Let me give you an example. Remember that brouhaha about what the role of taxation is? My view was that the role of taxation is to finance government operations, while a number of people here felt that at least part of the role was to redistribute income or wealth. (Strictly speaking, if you think part of the role of government is to redistribute income and wealth, then taxing for that purpose IS funding govt operations, but that's a semantic point). There is no "true" or "false" view on that; people will feel differently about the issue depending on their view of the proper role of government generally. That issue has been batted around for centuries and we still don't have a better answer than Rousseau or Mill or Adam Smith had, we just have different incarnations of the old arguments. But neither view is "false," in the sense that it can be shown not to be true -- it's just a preference issue that will vary based on whether what you value more greatly is liberty or equality; whether what you value more is stability or growth; whether what you value more is philosophy or utility.

That's why trying to "win" is futile. My usual response to proposals I disagree with is "it doesn't work." To me that's the acid test, and the basis for agreement or disagreement. If it's tried and it DOES work, then I was wrong and will admit it. But if your response to my proposal is "it's immoral," what the heck am I supposed to do with that? Obviously I didn't think the proposal was immoral, or else I wouldn't have put it forth -- and I am not a bad person. So what does that sort of an argument bring about?

Is this making sense?

dc_dux

loqutor....I agree with you about facts vs opinion. I would never call someone here a liar for expressing an opinion that I find flawed for whatever reason.

But I will pointed out when the facts are counter to that opinion.

Let me give you an example....a recent post of Ustwo:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo I do have to wonder, what do you think congress is afraid of that would make them so reluctant to nail a political opponent? They never had such reservations in the past, look at all the investigations done 'just because' by prior past democratic congresses of republican presidents.

He is not a liar...there are just no facts to support his opinion about past Democratic Congresses.

Perhaps he read it on another message board or blog or just decided that its true and didnt bother to fact check...or perhaps someone will read it here and spread it further on other boards. Is the truth served by spreading opinions that have no basis in fact?

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

loquitur

heh..... I doubt any person with partisan views will ever admit that an investigation of his side by the other side was other than "just because......."

Just take a look at the opinions of Dems v. Reps as regards filibusters in 2007 versus 2005 and you'll see how this works.

dc_dux

Only if you consider Congressional investigations of Iran/Contra (Reagan), BCCI/Iraqgate (GHW Bush) and CIA spying on Americans and assassinating foreign leaders (Nixon/Ford) ..."just because".

Good example.

Look at how many filibusters (cloture votes) were conducted by Democrats between 2000-2006 as opposed to Republican filibusters in just the first term of the 110th Congress (2007).



It would be factually correct to say, regardless of one's political persuasion, that Republicans have used fillibusters/cloture votes to block legislation far more than Democrats

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

loquitur

yep, they have. But you should gather quotes from Reps about how they characterized filibusters in 2005. And gather quotes from Dems about how THEY characterized them in 2005.

Now flip the party labels and you'll see what I'm talking about.

The flaw in your post is that it assumes there is some "ideal" level of filibuster. There isn't. It gets used when the minority thinks it can get away with using it. It's like earmarks - the current Congress has used them in numbers never used before, because they can. Is there a proper level of earmarks?

There was an energized Dem majority this year, it tried passing a lot of stuff, and the Reps filibustered. Flip it around on the judges back before 2006, when filibustering appointments was supposed to have been some sort of unprecedented breach of legislative decorum. The howls out of the Reps were pretty much the same.

The absolute level of the filibustering isn't revealing of very much other the legislative dysfunction, which we have known about for a long time. But let me throw out this bit of speculation for you to chew on: maybe the Reps are filibustering stuff because they don't trust Bush to veto stuff? I have no basis for this, just an unconventional bit of speculation. Or they might be "protecting" him from having to veto. Either scenario is plausible.

If a filibuster is obstructionist, then it's obstructionist if it's used twice or 200 times. The principle doesn't change.

dc_dux

You're right. It is a good example of how there are no winners/losers in such discussions based on one's partisan perspective.

I move that we end this particular debate since we're getting off topic...unless you want to filibuster

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

Elphaba

Wow...I don't know how to respond to something as over the top as this. Please consider the possibility that my comment isn't "all about you" and get a grip. Do you consider your post to be an example of maturity?

Bangs head on desk

Bangs head on desk again
I must be posting with invisible print.


Otto, I take you at your word that your OP is about Politics in general and not about host in particular. Over and over I have tried to redirect this thread from being about host and back to the issues you listed in your OP. I have posted at length about what I see are problems within Politics and what one possible solution might be. Did you miss that?

I finally threw up my hands in the futility of the effort and addressed the ever reoccurring host criticism. My opinion is that if you don't like him, don't read him. Boy, howdy...does *that* get attention.

Bangs head on desk

__________________
"You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

ubertuber

I know we've moved on, but loquitur, this is an excellent summation of my feelings. It's also the reason I don't get too involved in posting here anymore. There isn't much to learn when the conversation becomes about winning at any cost.

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

roachboy

general question:

i dont really understand the notion of "winning" in a context where there is no defined game.
what would it mean?

particular:

loquitor: in the thread you referenced, i decided to take on one or two of your posts because i thought they were interesting enough to do that with...and it was self-evident that we were circling around classical positions with respect to the theory of the state (btw there have been a number of newer ones, since mill, but tant pis it's not germaine)....you built a historical argument and i thought it was wrong...but it was just a parlor game so far as i was concerned--i happened to have a bit of time and there was your post and there we are.

so if that's what you refer to as an example of this "win at any cost" thing, i think you're mistaken, at least as concerns anything that crossed my mind as i was writing.

but maybe you got the idea from my tone, i dont know--and that concerns me a little----i think my writing is particularly sensitive to waves of exasperation that flow from my brain toward my hand, sometimes so fast i dont realize it. and there are things that make me impatient...

but even with that said, i would assume that "winning at any cost" would entail some sense of a game, and so sense of which moves could and could not advance that end, and a sense that there is an opponent playing the same game--without which there is no point at all--and so would entail some degree of intent. there wasn't any. but i do get annoyed by arguments that appeal to "throughout history" or "human nature" because i dont think they mean anything. maybe the problem lay there. i dont know.

i say all this because i wonder if and how i too am no implicated at one level or another in the problems that politics, am a generator of them (and dont see it).

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

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

ubertuber

Whether or not there is a defined game, I think the idea of "winning" is pretty clear. Winning is about converts vs. dissent. Posts, posters, and threads that operate from a winning standpoint don't allow for any alternate views, they don't consider any alternate views, and their raison d'etre is to eliminate dissent while creating converts. Views that don't fall into that paradigm are marginalized.

It's not a black and white thing -- and I'm not arguing for the relativist position that all opinions are equal. However, this sort of thing is really off-putting if you come here to learn and discuss.

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

Charlatan

This is something I have been trying to articulate for a while.

One of the issues I have is the attitude that spills forth from many posters here. A position is taken and no attempt is made to understand any other position. As a result the original positions become further entrenched and inflexible.

From this springs anger and attitude.

I won't argue that some positions can possible meet in the middle. Some just can't reconcile. That said, there is a respectful manner in which that irreconcilable difference can be pointed out without further inflammation.

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

loquitur

roachboy, you really don't want me, or anyone else, to start commenting on individual people's argument styles, do you? What would be the point?

I know there are complications and new wrinkles in political theory, but fundamentally the idea that political views can be boiled down to differences in preferences as between clusters of competing values isn't anything new. There are lots of nuances but the old grid that has at four corners authoritarian v laissez faire opposite each other and liberty v equality at the other is a pretty good summary.

The point is that none of these is necessarily WRONG. Each one of these aspects has its place. The issue is each person's default choice, and each will be correct in certain times and places and applications.

roachboy

well, none of them are wrong in principle.
but in principle there's also no basis to choose between them: all turns on the question of what material/evidence you present and how you use it.
and argument would center as much on the information presented and the way inferences are drawn as on the conclusion--because in that sort of argument, the work is done in the logical machinery and not in the conclusion.

so the structure of the argument and the information provided to support it are fair game.

here's why i say this: there ARE better and worse ways to use information about the social world as the basis for political argument.
there IS coherence and there IS incoherence and even at the level of debate ABOUT policy or actions there are ways to distinguish the coherent from the incoherent that are NOT reducible to one's party-line views.

and this is the case without it following that therefore anyone has access to an unproblematic truth about the world--it aint like that--what we have are arguments about the world---->so these arguments matter.

this is the case in building analytic arguments in a historical context, and it is the case in building political arguments.

within these arguments, there are areas that can be evaluated: the information brought to bear; the way that information is interpreted; the pattern into which it is inserted; the consequences of that pattern transposed into political action.

the political is a type of argument from correspondence to information about the world.
politics IS NOT a type of argument that can be reduced to a matter of simple opinion.

i see attempts to reduce political argument to a matter of simple opinion to itself be a political argument--either as an unacceptable naive view of the political or as a view of politics centered on undermining politics itself. so i fundamentally do not accept the tendency to close oneself off in a particular information stream and then to defend that self-enclosure by saying "well its all just opinion man." it'd be better to argue outright "my political position is that there are no political positions, only opinions." and from there "my opinion cannot be subjected to criticism because in the end what matters is not its coherence, not its correspondence to the world, but my ownership of that opinion, which is like a lawn ornament. politics is like alot of lawn ornaments..."

but if you're going to do that, you might as well also own the consequences: "so therefore there is no possibility of coherent political action. everything must remain as it is because all information is mutually exclusive. information is problematic: only the real is rational."

but if you really believed that, then i dont understand why you'd participate in political debate at all.
why would it be important to you to advance arguments whose only grounds is opinion in a political context, given that the reduction of politics to opinion amounts to the erasure of politics itself? you'd be better posting about your car in another place.

"you want information about the vehicle?"
"nope, information is a problem."
"why's that?"
"dont need it. i only need to go look at my vehicle. i just went and looked at it. it's pretty nice."

so in my view the political is a particular type of argument.
there are procedures involved with making these arguments, and these procedures are public knowledge and not all such procedures are equal simply because they exist. there are rules which shape selecting and handling information, there are rules as to logic and there are rules that enable you to derive outcomes from political logic.

in the end, though, there is a question of desirability of outcomes--once you isolate a pattern and apply it to an information base and by doing that extract a sense of consequences, it is entirely possible that one could present those consequences and that different people holding different political views will not agree on their desirability.

for example, i have a hard time imagining how anyone possessing any real information could support the neoliberal policies of the imf/world bank/related development banks in the southern hemisphere. debates about this generally oppose folk who are committed to the metaphysics of capitalist markets to folk who have researched the consequences of neoliberal actions on the ground. if it is in fact the case that politics is simply a matter of opinion, it would follow that there'd be no grounds for challenging the flight into metaphysics of a neoliberal. and there'd be no grounds for a neoliberal to say anything about the social and political consequences of neoliberal policy.

there'd be no point in any of this.
intellectual self-disempowerment is in a sense more creepy and ugly than political self-disempowerment in the world because the intellectual self-disempowerment is a gratuitous act.
the reduction of politics to a space of opinion is an act of intellectual disempowerment.
personally, i want no part of it.

the typical argument between conservatives and others really involves the question of who gets to control the frame of reference on a particular topic.
if you can control the frame of reference, then you can impose coherence on your arguments/procedures.
so political arguments--which can be won or lost--are won or lost at the level of imposing a frame of reference THEN asserting a sequene of interpretive procedures.
to my mind, that's how political argument works. it works this way in the outside world, and it works in micro-manner in our collective political fishbowl.
the real problem with all this lay in the simple fact that the frame of reference operates as axiomatic. it is presupposed by arguments, and political positions can be distinguished one from the other on the basis of which frame of reference each tries to impose.

i like to think of this little fishbowl as a kind of democratic space.
in a democratic space, simple opinion means nothing--what matters is your ability to argue that opinion as a political position.
of course this isn't really a democratic space because it isn't connected to any deliberation--and these debates are not themselves deliberation because they do not issue into any action, real or potential.
so things can dissolve.
so things do dissolve.
but 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

host

roachboy, around here, and in the US today, this seems to be a description of the unsettled questions (issues?). They seem settled, in comparsion, in northern Europe, and even in Canada.

I think that we "go nowhere", because, for some of us, the definition of politics is the reasoned or peaceful process by which a determination of how power (and, by extension....wealth) is distributed, and for others, the definition is much less settled.

Simply, if you object to what Nader describes politics to be about, maybe a second forum would be the best answer, or...you could stay here, and we could go there.

The convincing thing for me is that, when I ask those who do not accept that redistribution of wealth is a mechanism of the political process, just as redistribution of power is (from where it is now, to where a consensus decides it should be....) what they believe is an alternative solution to the problem of inequitable wealth distribution, they do not recognize that it is a problem, or that any increase in the extreme of the inequity would merit political intervention.

We have no agreement here that politics is the only alternative to resolution of stresses caused by imbalances of power and wealth by force. So, we don't agree on what it is to be "civilized".

If a dwelling was constructed of wood, and it was on fire, I think there would be universal agreement here that the obvious solution would be to put the fire out.

In my mind trends toward growing concentration of wealth and power into fewer hands, or into exclusively the hands now holding the most of it, is equivalent to the fire consuming the dwelling, because, left unchecked, the trend will consume the existing political accord, or "the peace".

I recently posted a description of what keeps political systems intact, from the standpoint of the losing side(s) accepting the outcome of elections. They view their chances of prevailing at the next election opportunity, to be promising enough to overcome the urge to refuse to accept the current election outcome, and bring the system down in a revolt that would result in an unpredictable and riskier outcome.

If the political landscape leaves a large enough group with the impression that they have less to lose by revolting against it, than by staying with it, "until next time", "the fire"consumes the dwelling.

Some may see this as a threat, coercion that they are free to dismiss or condemn. It isn't. It is what happens. Ignoring it as part of your politics, in a system trending the way ours is in the US, is to bring it about.

So, I think that we will, and that the concerns raised here are misplaced. Where would a discussion on firefighting be, if there was no common agreement that smothering the flames is the first step in putting the fire out?
We're still not in agreement that any fire exists, or is likely.