Where do we draw the line between political discussion and ideological spam?
 

Where do we draw the line between political discussion and ideological spam?

IMO - the most frequent authors of political threads here are essentially using this forum as a personal blog space.

• Is this forum the appropriate place to establish such a soapbox?
• What are reasonable solutions or alternatives.
• Should these questions be raised elsewhere?

The answer for me is to ignore them and try not to be like them...because I'm also part of the problem if I participate at that same level.

i'm unclear what you are saying.

what exactly is "ideological spam"?
it sounds snappy but is lacking in the actual power to refer to something.
is it:
political views that you don't like?
long posts that you actually have to read to understand?
or is it the quality of "discussion" that ensues?

if it's the quality of "discussion" then the problem lay with each of us.
but somehow i dont think this is about self-criticism.

no, somehow i think this is a potentially not productive at all kvetch about other members----but if that's all this is--or if that's what this becomes---i'll shut it down in a heartbeat.

I agree with roachboy on most all of his points. I'm not sure what "ideological spam" is. Philosophical viagra? Socratic penis enlargement? Nigerian economics?

And he and I, along with the entire staff, especially agree with this part

If you think that Politics is being used inefficiently, you're more than welcome to try to use it more efficiently. This space - Tilted Politics - can be shaped in any shape the membership wants. So long as all users stay within the rules that are laid out in the stickies, it can be anything you want it to be. If you don't like what it is, change it.

Since you have the same freedom to post your opinions, I take it you disagree with the "frequent authors"? Why not become one of them so you can be heard as well? For every post, there are two sides.

Try not to take things personally. This is politics, after all. Things should get heated.

Or take your own advice and ignore them. :thumbsup:

I suspect one person's ideological spam here is another person's credible source to support an opinion.

If the forum ever becomes solely a place to share personal opinions without allowing any external resources (ideological spam?), I'll be gone.

I've become more informed as a result of many of the links provided here....from both sides of the political spectrum. I know which links are "ideological spam" and most other TFP politicos are equally intelligent and open-minded to evaluate the credibility of posted links. On the other hand, I've learned very little from undocumented, ideologically-drive personal opinions and snippy one-liners.

If I may kvetch at a general level, what I find frustrating here is when I respond to a post that I know is factually incorrect or a misrepresentation of the facts (and I can support with credible source information) and ask the person to reply to my documented response....and I am met with silence.

I have concluded that there are some here who dont want to debate and discuss the issues if their posts are questioned for credibility or if factual information is provided that is counter to their own opinions.

Welcome brother.

Sometimes its fun to poke their cages, but the chance of any serious political discussion here is pretty slim these days. This wasn't always the case, but I think its our reality for a while, current moderators and administrators don't' see it as a problem so instead we get what we have.

I found your PM to me sort of sad, but it only reinforces my opinion of you as no one with a full deck of cards would continue ;)

Don't do what others have and just bow out of TFP once they figure out how the politics board works, there can be some good posts on the rest of the board.

Ustwo.....help me understand how there can be more productive discussions here if some are unwilling to respond when their posts are questioned or challenged in a reasonable and respectful manner?

Or why "poking the cages" is the best way for some to contribute to this forum?

Again, this space is what you make it. If you the membership don't like it, then you have yourselves to blame. We do not pre-approve topics or require that everyone have the same views. We simply ask that you exibit a modicum of respect for each other and enforce that when necessary. If you could manage to keep personal insults out of the conversation, then you'd never see the colored script that we have to resort to using.

We'd love to see more debate and differing viewpoints. Let us know how we can attract that and still uphold the basic principles of the site. But don't blame us because you don't like the product you have created.

As long as this is the type of thing that this board brings...

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=129296

You will continue to lose moderate/right posters and just have a little daily KOS.

that's great ustwo.

please stop being coy.

if you have something to say--and can manage to say it without getting the thread shut down--just lay your cards on the table.

I have to agree with Jazz that the forum and the board in general is what you make of it. The mods and admin are here only to make sure some simple rules are followed.

You aren't always going to read things that you like. I read things on here from across the political spectrum that I don't agree with. Does it get my blood boiling? Sure. That's politics.

There are some people on here with varying degrees of knowledge and experience, from across the political spectrum. I have been sad to see some drift off over the last while. While it may seem that it has largely been those from the "right" that have left, I would say that we have also lost many from the "left" as well. These people have left for different reasons but from what I can see they have left for a couple of reasons:

1) People come here to give their opinion and when someone with a different point of view calls them on their opinion they don't like it. Many people do not like to be challenged in their world view. Some stick around to scrap for a while, other's leave right away.

2) People come here to have a discussion but find the discussion devolving into partisan squabbles, and quickly. I have feeling that many would like to have two Politics boards. One for the "left" and one for the "right" where each side can devour their own tails in endless backslapping and finger pointing at the other camp. The only way to solve this is for people to raise the level of discussion (i.e. where people actually discuss rather than just whip off one liners or post voluminous tracts that leave little room for debate). The key to debate/discussion is both reading the other person's words and making a genuine attempt to understand what they are writing before you reply.

3) Some people's tone of writing is extremely arrogant and off-putting. There is a reason why many moderates do not even dip their toes in the water here any more. The derisive and dismissive tone of many posters here is horrible. The arrogance that some have in their positions is unconscionable. The quickest way to lose a debate is to piss off your interlocutor.

There are other reasons but most boil down to these points.

Here is my New Year's wish...

Take these three points to heart and raise the level of discussion.

1) Respect the other person in writing even if you don't respect their point of view.

2) Support for your position is important but not always essential. The thing to remember is you can go too far in either direction.

3) Try to see things from the other person's point of view.


Happy New Year.

If you're disappointed by the fact that the politics board can't be brought into pep-rally formation at the snap of the fingers then i'm happy that you aren't satisfied with it.

I appreciate the work of the military, but i also think that it's important to acknowledge the murky moral and ethical areas in which their work and the desires of the people who make them do that work reside.

Ustwo, I happen to agree with everything that uber said in closing that thread. It was a drunken sailor. It had no idea where it was headed, only that it was lurching from side to side and spoiling for a fight. When I originally saw it, I thought very hard about moving out of Politics but decided that it was best left alone, which is what we do with over 99% of all the threads here.

I suppose I could throw this back in your lap and say that if you would actually speak your mind on subjects like you used to, you could have turned that thread into something interesting, but I won't. roachboy, ubertuber myself and the rest of the staff have had many discussions on how to build Politics. So I WILL throw this into your lap - how do you propose we do that? Or should we just get rid of it altogether since it's broken beyond repair. And please, no name calling and no driveby posts. They will irritate us equally.

We should all bear in mind that we live in the world that we've created.

The only interpretation of the problem issued by the OP I can come up with is this: The creation of discussions in Politics is done with a distinct bias. There is no debate structured without bias--it is always leaning in one direction; it is framed in such a way that disagreeing with the OP is inherently divergent of what is "acceptable."

In a way, it reminds me of Foucault's concept of Gouvernementalité in that the threads created in Politics act as a form of overreaching governance in which the OP (and its adherents, no matter how loose) seeks to control the detractors through means of restricted and exclusive "knowledge" (savoir). Anything that disagrees with this knowledge is not only automatically wrong, it is already accounted for with a complex system of watchers who refer to the OP as the single source of power.

Basically, to disagree with the OP is to be wrong....because the OPer is not only entitled to their ideas, they hold the power over the ideas and how they govern the thread. This causes the thread to go nowhere (logically) and no real debate can arise.

If we want debates in Politics, we need them to be formally set up through a panel of moderators, and the posting needs to be done formally and with a sense of order.

So, the question is: Do we want to go that far? Or, we could ask: How can we move closer to the formal model without losing the accessibility of the medium of Internet forums?

EDIT: This does not refer to all Politics threads, merely threads that the OP would consider "ideological spam."

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=106130 post #11

The key, host, is to be able to tell which is which and respond accordingly.

Sooooo... I guess we're all going to close our eyes and pretend that the OP isn't a veiled personal attack on host? Or is it just veiled enough to fly? Has it successfully tested the line? Is it just vague enough that only 90% of regular Politics posters know who he's talking about?

It's a shame. If the people who whine about the length of his posts actually read them, the foundation of their views would be utterly rocked. Sadly, his medium makes his message all but indigestible. He and I have talked about that in PM, I'm pretty sure I'm not surprising him by saying this is how I feel about his posting style. The content he posts is challenging and hard for people to deal with, AND you couldn't really do it justice any other way, AND doing it this way ensures they don't have to deal with it but can instead bitch about their worn out scroll button. Catch-22.

Laying that aside and addressing the "issues" raised in this hit-job of an OP:

This is really simple. It's not like TFP is going to run out of threads. Don't like threads others started? Start some of your own. Ain't nothing perfect in this world, and TFP Politics is DEFINITELY in this world.

Trying to change the way others post is as futile as trying to push water back into a fire hose. And when the ones you're complaining about happen to disagree with you, it's just downright suspect. So stop either a) whining or b) trying to put a fence around content you disagree with, and start generating some content of your own.

Ustwo: Just because the world has provided ample evidence that now makes it impossible to defend your beliefs doesn't mean there's no quality discussion anymore. It just means it's gotten vanishingly difficult for you to win an argument. Blaming it on the damn liberals is poor sportsmanship. And it's just inaccurate. You'd do better to blame it on reality--which as Colbert points out has a well-known liberal bias.

Personally, I think the Christmas-to-the-troops-in-Politics thread was really interesting. The big reaction to how political it got was SO perfect, given what people were posting about how politicized the troops have become. That thread TOTALLY illustrated its own point. We hardly ever get anything so symmetrical around here.

Ratbastid, I think yes, the post is directed mostly at host, however, I have been following ottopilot's posting here and don't feel it was an attack per se. Rather, I feel it was a genuine query (unless I have completely misread ottopilot).

dc_dux, if this is in reference to me, I apologize because I left the house for several hours (computer on).

These are the questions I asked:

1. Is this forum the appropriate place to establish such a soapbox (idealogical spam)?
2. What are reasonable solutions or alternatives?
3. Should these questions be raised elsewhere?

What are your responses to the questions? Here are some brief answers from me.

1. I see some frequent OP authors as very agenda driven with deep biases. The delivery and shear volume of information reminds me more of political blogging with comments rather than trying to foster a genuine discussion. A "discussion forum" is not the appropriate place to establish a personal blog. Would it be more appropriate to blog in the journal spaces provided? You can disagree with that assessment, agree, and we can discuss it if you like.
2. I edited the OP with this response regarding some of the comments that followed. Until things change, here is my response: "The answer for me is to ignore them and try not to be like them...because I'm also part of the problem if I participate at that same level." Only a few responses have attempted to provide any feedback regarding reasonable solutions or alternatives. Besides what I may think, I hoped to get some constructive input.
3. I'm letting the moderators know that I understand how this thread may not be appropriate for politics, and that I am cool if they move it or shut it down. What do you think, should this be discussed elsewhere?

dc I have only so many hours in the day. I say my peace and sometimes respond but if I responded to every liberal who decided I was wrong about something on this forum it would be a full time job and fruitless. As a habit I've ignored some posts as by not reading so I don't feel the need to respond. Since I know I'm pissing into the wind here anyways, I don't feel too bad about it either. There are certain posters I do always read, as they often have something interesting and perhaps not typical to say, but that list has gotten smaller and smaller since I joined tfp. Again back when I joined tfp and had more energy for this I quickly discovered the moderators at the time didn't read a lot of the posts either from certain posters with perhaps the most amusing being I had to point out to moderators that telling me to 'get Karl Roves cock out of your mouth' wasn't in fact to board protocol, and that they had to even defend me as not trolling by predicting Bush would win in 2004.

As for poking the cages, sometimes its fun to point out some follies on the other side, even if I know it will get the expected response. When someone says 'hey remember the troops on Christmas' and you KNOW how it will end before the first response, there is a problem.

Sadly I don't think the problem can be solved. The politics board seems to have attracted some rather vocal members of the far to ultrafar left, people who really have no bearing on politics in the US. It is impossible to have a real conversation with them as their points of reference are to far out for there to be a dialog. It would be like trying to have a conversation on the finer points of evolution with a creationist. There is no middle ground.

If you can't be bothered to read an OP or a response directed at you, there are lighter parts of TFP—General Discussion, Nonsense, Entertainment, etc.—that can engage you and that you can engage in a smaller time. I can't see myself making a 12,000 word post in Found on the Net, but here? It's happened. If, for example, host created a thread which has several linked and posted articles along with a great deal of his own thoughts, and you can't see yourself giving that your full attention and reading it, there's a nice thread about the new Batman movie in Entertainment. Posting "I didn't have time to read the OP, but..." is a disservice to everyone.

To address the OP, this is a highly subjective question. One man's 'ideological spam' is another man's brilliant thesis on life. Aside from infantile posts including things like name calling, personal attacks, fallacies, etc., many of which break the rules of TFP, it's hard for us all to come to a decision about the quality of a topic.

I'll blame 90% of it on my own unrepentant laziness, but as for the other 10%...

Sometimes host's multipage sources just don't bear any significant relevance to the topic at hand. Sometimes I'll take the time to peruse what he's posted and I'll come up empty-handed. I'll cite that Haggard-themed post of months ago - and I'll search it up if you want - where his lengthy reply to me didn't actually address my argument whatsoever.

Again, it's mainly laziness... but it's also a not entirely unreasonable fear of wasted time. I don't buy it - I think increased brevity could do more justice to his posts in at least a few cases.

Why post in the discussions if you consider them impossible? Is there a reason, other than trolling, that I'm not seeing?

Ustwo, consider that, compared to your posted POV, the reactions in the last two quote boxes in this post is quite a bit closer to what a reasonable person might think after reading what is REPORTED between this point in this post, and the two quoted "considerations" of the troops. I read that the troops are "fighting to preserve our rights and to keep us safe", in Afghanistan and in Iraq. I know I have less rights and there is no evidence that combat in either country has contributed to "our safety" here in our "homeland". In fact, the record supports the opposite conclusion.

We don't want harm to come to them, we just cannot support, in view of the record, their decisions to be part of what has and is still happening. They volunteered to do this, and, at least since then end of 2003, they had the potential to be aware of what they have been volunteering to do:

The 9/11 attacks, if you accept the government's official accounts, took place because 19 airline hijackers, 15 of them from Saudi Arabia, were able to breech airport security and then muscle their way into the cockpits of 4 large airline passenger jets....
And this is what it costs because industry lobbyists bought congress in the name of the greedy agenda of airline execs, instead of emulating Israeli airline security experience of nearly 30 years:

<a href="http://appropriations.house.gov/pdf/WarFundingFactSheet11-20-07.pdf">$66.8 billion</a>

<a href="http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:bP6f4YxuicEJ:www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm%3Findex%3D7506%26type%3D1+war+appropriations+since+2002&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us">Estimated Appropriations Provided for Iraq and the War on
Terrorism, 2001-2006
(Billions of dollars, by fiscal year)
</a>

Spending since 2001 on Iraq war and the rest of "war on terror" will reach $600 billion, in addition to a rise in annual military spending to nearly $500 billion annually. It was $250 billion in year ending 9/30/00.

The expenditures for the war do not include more than $100 billion that the VA will require to provide medical care and benefits for wounded troops.

...and the president's family and cronies make a mint off of the war spending:
(Documented in the lower portion of the post): http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...08&postcount=8

Consider that, with the exception of Bush's uncle, his brother, father, and numerous cronies began to make huge amounts from war related opportunities, by late in 2003. Four years have passed since most of the details reported at the above link.

Bush administration approved, human rights violations and a vigorous coverup that dumped the consequences on enlisted military personnel have been well publicized:
The flawed post invasion planning, in both Afghanistan and Iraq, and lack of justification for invading two sovereign nations which never attacked the US, has resulted in tragic loss of life to 4000 US troops, with 12 times as many injured, huge numbers of foreign civilian casualties, and as close to the opposite of what our elected officials claimed to be achieving, as it is possible to measure, at this point:

<h3>Consider that the US now has 26,000 troops in Afghanistan, plus much smaller forces fielded by NATO allies, and remember that in 2001, US "victory" over the Taleban government in all of Afghanistan was accomplished with several Special Forces "A" teams, a rag tag indigenous rebel army, which was nearly eliminated by the Taleban just before 9/11, and by the US air power available to the "A" teams coordination.</h3>

Consider that US administration threats against Iran and it's nuclear threat and involvement in Iraqi resistance was intentionally exaggerated:

Consider the waste, corruption, and lack of progress achieved in two avoidable invasions and occupations "of choice", versus unmet needs of our own domestic population:
Consider "the troops"....since as far back as late in 2003, did they sign enlistment contracts in the midst of an information embargo, or did they know what they were likely to be doing, and the ethics and motivations of who would be commanding them? Are they responsible individual adults? Is it not possible to be ambivalent about them, and their "service", under the circumstances I have just outlined and documented, while neither "supporting them in their decision to participate in this ongoing clusterfuck, nor wishing them harm, and NOT be LABELLED "Far Left", or a "Traitor", or "unAmerican"?
This is how it "works" here. "Ustwo" makes "everybody knows" statements, that turn out not to be what he believes that everyone "knows" or "should" conclude. "Host", labelled and consigned by Ustwo to a slot in the "far left" category, responds with a thoroughly and reliably documented (ALMOST all sources are from government and major news linked pages.) "presentation" that a reasonable person could identify with, that is nearly the mirror opposite of what Ustwo believes is "centrist".

Otto.....My comments about persons who participate in a thread discussion but then choose not to continue if/when a post of theirs is questioned for credibility was a general observation with one particular person in mind (not you).

As to the questions raised, I already answered indirectly (see #5).

I would just let the thread play out at this point.

Ustwo....I have to say I find this response a bit disengenuous....particularly in light of your active participation in this forum at various times of the day and night and the fact that the volume of posts here has not been overwhelming in numbers lately. It seems to me to be a convenient cop-out ("I'm too busy to reply to every post") when you dont care to respond to a post that challenges your position or sources.

In any case, I'm still interested in your response to my direct questions to you in the Interesting Climate Model thread since it is a topic in which you have expressed interest. You suggest others here only represent an extremist position. You might review your own posts and honestly acknowlege that most of your links represent the other extreme.

But its cool if you dont want to reply to my post about reasonable proposals to address the US' 25% contribution of the world's CO2 emisisons...it just reaffirms my belief that you have no real interest in discussing moderate solutions, but would rather continue the battle of the extremes.

I must admit that my response to your post in the 1000 Attorneys thread was a poke at your cage....since your post was a baseless misrepresentation of the facts....something which you seem to attribute only to the far left :)

Heh, it would be ridiculously easy to troll this forum if thats what I intended. No, I still reserve the right to drop off my opinions now and then, even if the responses will be predictable, and every now and then I try something different for fun (which is usually what gets called trolling). Interestingly some people think if you don't include a link with your post it doesn't belong in politics.

Just imagine a politics board where no linking was allowed. If you wanted to bring in an outside source you had to type out the important parts yourself, where a posters opinion is what we talked about instead of some reporters.

--> post deleted because it didn't make sense when I went back and read it

Don't have to imagine it.....this is a variation on "how it's done", too many times to count:

It stands on it's "own two feet", or it doesn't. Every post on every thread is it's own "display window".

Again, are we having a discussion here, or is this an individual blogging or spamming a discussion forum? How should we classify posts from individuals who camp out on political threads for the purpose of dumping volumes of copious articles and links?

Post #24 http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...6&postcount=24

spam.

host was post 24 meant to be ironic?

If, not, well, ok then.

ok so let me see if i can sort this out so far.
i'm going to try to keep this neutral, put it out as an assessment of the thread so far. please tweak what you think needs tweaking.

===================================================
what it seems is happening is basically a strange plea from some of the more conservative types for agreement about how to approach political questions that would come from their side of things.

this is the only way i can interpret the business above complaining about "political bias" in threads or posts---"political bias" appears in the context of this thread to apply only to the views/positions of people who are not deep in conservativeland---so then it appears that both ustwo and otto, each in a different way, posits themselves as the non-bias point and judge everything relative to themselves, and so everyone but each of them appears with a warp or bias.

interesting trick.

then we have a second complaint about style of argument.

what ustwo in particular seems to be asking for, in a roundabout kinda way--or fantasizing about at the least--is a politics area in which the community had agreed that information from outside sources was not to be allowed.
but this is to my mind just another way of saying the first point.

what we have is a curious little view of how larger ideological patterns operate.

here i abandon summary-boy for a moment:
i find the mode of argument adopted by ustwo and others to be unproductive at a number of levels:
at the individual level
1. that ustwo fro example will post---repeatedly---that he hasn't read the material relevant for a debate, but will participate in that debate anyway.
"my scroll wheel..." is not an argument.

but moving to a more collective level:
2. there is a basic difference between the way some of the conservative folk here argue and the ways that others do. there is also a difference in the ways of handling information.
a. arguments operate within a frame of reference that individual conservative posters refuse to acknowledge and/or cannot defend.

---->from the start of my engagement here, my operating assumption about contemporary conservative ideology has been simple: it is primarily an identity politics. so the central feature that orients at least some conservatives is the fact that they identify as conservative---this functions as a sorting mechanism. it seems that particular political contents are presented within the conservative ideological apparatus as simply following from "being-conservative" and so can be taken over without accompanying argument.

this seems to me ustwo's basic mo. there are a few others who operate in the same basic way. the characteristics of their posts fall coincide with the above.

but when i started here, i would tend to assume that this WAS conservative politics--and in this i was wrong, at least insofar as the microcosm of tfp was concerned.

there are--or were---or sometimes are, it's hard to say--a number of other folk who identify on the right (at one level or another) who tend to be foreign policy "realists" in more or less a neocon sense. this group of folk works from entirely different premises and it is possible to have often quite interesting debates across political divisions with these folk, once the sparring that seems to characterise the beginning of any debate settles down.

and there are yet other folk who post and who seem to be relatively conservative==on the order of loquitor--who i have trouble pinning down but whose contributions are often, to my mind, quite interesting and varied.

so we are not talking here about a conservative bloc, and we are not talking about one type of posting style--what we are talking about in this thread is the objections of folk who have adopted a PARTICULAR type of persona which is linked to the PARTICULAR TYPE of conservative each is.

so what we have so far in the thread that hasn't been touched on but which lay at the bottom of ustwo's posts (and to a lesser extent otto's posts, because of the qualifications added since i last looked in on this) is the claim that they ARE the conservatives in the tfp-ishbowl. and a symmetrical claim, regarding "the left"...

because we are also talking here about a highly reductive understanding of the politics of this fiction called "the left" here.

it appears that when ustwo or otto (it's harder to say in otto's case because the persona varies with the issue--on climate change, there is one set of premises, for example, while on other issues, he appears differentially, with less information presented, for example) look at the politics forum, all they see is their word "the left" or, in ustwo's delightful terms "communists"....

which is curious.
1. i dont see anything like the identity assumptions that support the construction of political positions from the range of folk who comprise "the left" in this fishbowl....so i dont really have a sense of how much agreement there really is amongst us. it seems that if you look at what "the left" contains here, there are folk who are progressive democrats, quite a few who would probably be social demcrats in the context of an actually pluralistic political context (which the americans do not have, fundamentally)....and a few who one might position further to the left than that, myself included.

2. speaking for myself, i operate here mostly in critique mode. my own politics are caught up in a theoretical project which is informed by the assumption that the older forms of left politics have collapsed and that there should be a new type/new types of oppositional politics...so much of what i am do links to that. here, what that entails is a suspension of belief in most operative political alternatives and an attempt to sort out how they function. so my politics are fashioned as a kind of experimental project.
there are assumptions that i think important, and i have positions on particular issues, but not on all, and they are not necessarily consistent one to another.

host for example works in a very different way----and his political views seems shaped by assumptions that i understand but no not necessarily share--but i appreciate the work he puts into his posts. they could be edited in a tighter manner, but as a messageboard phenomenon, host can be forgiven that, i think. his posts require critical reading. i think being awake requires critical reading, and i dont see the point of constructing oppositional political viewpoints that disable critical reading.

this last sentence loops around to my primary objection to the populist conservative mode of "debate"--the refusal to enter into a self-reflexive mode of writing, the refusal to examine their own premises, the preference for towing the party line. that is how i see it. what obscures matters is that the populist conservatives here also project this onto those who oppose them politically, so in their imaginations the conflict is symmetrical, with two clear, easy sides engaging in mutually exclusive forms of empty interaction.

but i dont see the projection as legitimate.
i suppose here the question would devolve onto perceptions and the relation between perception and political committments, which is complicated....but i don't see the problem in the terms outlined just above.

no the problem seems to me that debates always engage in the same way, that there are mutually exclusive styles, but they are not symmetrical one with the other. i think that the populist conservative emphasis on identity as the central organizing feature of political committment simply provides no prompt to trawl widely for information--rather the opposite--identity-as-conservative seems to come with filters that prompt one to look mostly at friendly press sources, when information from "outside" is required to make a point or refute another's.

so there is a differend concerning what constitutes legitimate information, how to use it, when to use it---a differend concerning the basic rules of the game.

debates themselves unfold in a more or less static fashion as well.

contextual factors play a role in all this as well, i think.
speaking for myself, there is a kind of exasperation with the populist right. i look around and i see an ash-heap left in the trail of neoliberalism in general, and by the bush administration in particular. i see a broken administration floating like debris after a shipwreck, held in place SOLELY because the machinery of governance itself has no mechanism for dealing with political implosion in the context of a very closely divided congress--the system is designed to simply repeat this. the persistence of the bush administration is a function of this repetition.

i see an entirely delegitimated administration floating atop a debris field of its own making and nothing to be done about it because we're free that way in america. the situation is also structured so that none of us can actually say or do anything to change the present pathetic state of affairs--so some of the exasperation plays out across debates in the microcosm.

there seems to me little doubt that this is the case and this perhaps explains something of the tone that conservatives are greeted with from time to time.


it seems clear that while some of this we can do something about, some of it we cant, we should consider what we can do and implement it.

so what do we do?

roachboy, I think the best recent examples of what you describe are the answers to the death penalty and the taxes questions in the "6 questions" thread. Those who favor the death penalty and believe that taxes are only for the purpose of raising enough revenue to fund government operations, mostly shun discussion of whether any authority is uncorrupted or reliable enough to be entrusted by "the people", with the authority to determine who is guilty and administer a non-revocable (death) penalty. The soluition for most is to refuse to consider it as a significant consequence or as a problem.

On the problem of growing wealth inequity and the role of politics in confronting and attempting to mitigate it, there is a refusal to link it as a consequence of taking the position that taxation is not to be used as a tool to remediate inequirty. From this POV, there seems to be a refusal to accept or discuss what politics is...that it is the peaceful way of dealing with power and wealth sharing, as opposed to the alternative....violence coming from factions that eventually anticipate no possibility of a political remedy. When it is an increasingly vast and poorer majority, the consequences of a POV that refuses to consider politics as a solution to the problem, will result in shocking effects on the wealthy minority.

But they do it....the death penalty and taxation are compartmentalized neatly away from the way they actually influence the social structure. I don't know how or if, in this compartmentalization, the issues of wrongful or unequal capital punishment or growing wealth inequity could or would ever be addressed.....and it's a similar compartmentalization....decoupling of almost every issue we attempt to discuss, solve, identify.

Again, ottopilot, what is the appropriate way, in your opinion...to respond to this?
Did you read and think about my response (post #24). If you did, what do you think my strongest or weakest point was? If you had to choose a post that could be called "name calling", would it be #21, or #24. Which of the two more closely approximates "discussion", as in, sharing opinions, making your points of fact, and backing them up?

If you "operate" in a different way here, than I do....if it is more like the way the statements in the quote box are "structured", than what is it? What do you call it? Is it political discussion, "chatter", "hot air", slurs and more, or slurs and nothing more?

What does "quality of discussion", mean to you? Is it closer to name calling, labeling, or "this is my opinion", and these are the influences shaping it. Did you read them, what do you think? Do I have it mostly right or wrong? Are my sources weak, are the authors of the pieces I excerpted, biased? Do you have other examples of their bias or unreasonableness? Or....do you use a different process to digest the posts of others? I show you how I do it.

Post #24 potentially brings details to you that you may not have already been aware of. They either affect your opinion of "how things are going", or, they don't. If they don't, do you ignore them without weighting them or trying to refute them....or do you operate in a different way?

Is the "war on terror" going well? Is it too expensive to be sustained, considering the "progress". Is the US military and diplomatic effort exacerbating or diminishing the "threat". Do you have anything I can read that tends to counter what I've posted in #24, <h3>or, do you agree that I'm "ultraleft" because of some reasoning process that you've gone through that you cannot or choose not to post here?

What is it? All of my cards are ALWAYS on the table, are yours? Are Ustwo's?
</h3>
This could be a simple of a process as "raise", "call", or "fold". Pick one and show your cards. If you won't show your cards, you fold by default, or does it work some other way?

This is kinda what I was talking about. It has nothing to do with the collective good and everything to do with you disliking a fellow member's posting style.

This thread should be closed. Immediately. It seems to essentially be a veiled personal attack on a certain member.

When you post with the conviction that you'll get predictable responses and no real discussion, you self-fulfill that prophecy. You help. Your one-liners may not injure my mouse wheel, but brevity/laziness create something different from host-at-his-worst that is just as useless to real discussion.

Maybe it's not quite trolling, but in light of your comments in this thread, I think it reeks of a "can't beat 'em, join 'em halfheartedly" mentality. And that's assuming that 'they' are really as closed to discussion as you say.

Do you consider post #24 to be on-topic? I mostly don't agree with otto's critique, but what I see is host providing one great anecdotal example for otto's argument in this very thread.

Let's be perfectly clear about something here - spam has a very strict definition. There is no spam in this thread.

That said, the staff has been watching this thread very carefully (as roachboy warned you all the way back in post #2) for personal attacks. Thus far we've seen none.

Post #24 may not (or may, if you read it in a certain light) be perfectly on the topic posed in the OP, but if we handed out warnings for wandering off the topic as posed in any OP, we would have no one left. host was well within the rules of both TFP in general and Politics in particular to post that comment. Anyone who thinks differently should PM me with the exact rule that he's broken, and we can discuss it in that format rather than here.

FoolThemAll, it is as if there is no recognition, or a deliberate refusal to recognize that "post #24" is the "bastard child" of post #21:
....because there is no right or wrong way to respond to "post #21", so, the choices made in what to include in "post #24" are as good, as any.

I'll be blunt. There would be no post #24, authored by "host" on this thread, if post #21 did not exist, or did not contain:
...and we go through it, again and again, because there is no right or wrong way to respond to statements such as the one above. They are "beyond the pale", IMO.

Over and over:, "YOU ARE AN EXTREMIST"....ohhhh, no I'm not, "HERE IS WHY I AM NOT". The underlying current...."the sources of information about the outside world have a liberal bias", is always open to dispute. Since it is always there, and since I believe that it is the opinion that is at the root of the disconnect, I think that it should be challenged relentlessly.

there is no reason to allow the projections from ustwo to shape how this conversation unfolds.
the point has been made in a number of ways that these projections are particular to him.


i would think, ustwo, that the responses to the thread indicate that, despite everything, your posts are taken a bit seriously.
perhaps it is time for you to reciprocate.

For my own part, I'm not concerned with whether post #24 breaks any rules. I wasn't arguing for any disciplinary action, even if warranted. I was only agreeing with otto's 'spam' label - or the thrust of that label, if 'spam' isn't quite the right word - and I stand by that agreement, although I'll agree with host that he wasn't really responding to much of a post either.

And on that note, I'll only add that two wrongs don't make a right, and that ignoring #21 would have been much more efficient and much kinder to (brace yourself for the hilarity) my poor little mouse wheel. Better than going off on a tangent, especially when that tangent already has four or five topics at arm's length.

In legal proceedings if a topic is brought up in questioning it can be brought up again in cross. Ustwo brought up a topic and host responded.

it's the case that the thread is basically nothing but tangents at this point.
but there are underlying issues that might be worth pushing through the tangents to get to.

summary:

a. there is no agreement about what constitutes a political discussion.
that is obvious.
what do we do about this?
anything?

b. there is equally obviously a conflict happening within the thread about how to frame this problem.

ustwo (for example) invokes an imaginary "mainstream of american politics" and then uses that "mainstream" image to argue--=-well what really? the actual argument is not even made--there's just an annoying coyness game in which he runs up to the edge of saying something, then runs away from it again. given the vacant space where argument should be, i figure that what he's saying is that there are folk are here who should not be allowed to speak--this because the "mainstream" as ustwo asserts it (without content) is basically the range of acceptable opinion AND relations to opinion.

others, including myself, raise questions about this move---they are ignored.

c. so there's a third dimension to what is happening here: a mounting irritation over the fact that discussion is problematic, but one in which the real problems are in fact being demonstrated live---and the problem is not only host's posts, their length and their organization--the problem is every it as much the refusal to engage on the part of the house populist conservatives--who paradoxically are the ones doing the complaining about how their positions are not taken seriously.

d. but none of this is what bothers me about this thread.

what bothers me is the following: i think the real complaint that prompted the thread is that the range of political positions represented in the tfp-microworld is too wide for the personal and political tastes of some.

in this view, host is a whipping boy-----the real problem is that there is a plurality of views---and that this pluraity extends outside the confines of cnn/fox news presentations of the boundaries of "legitimate debate".

but if that's correct, then the entire thread is a tangent simply because the comrades from the right do not avow what they seem to actually want--a shutting down of the range of debates.

but that's basically what i see this thread as doing--arguing for the narrowing of the range of political options---but it's an argument made by folk who do not want to accept responsibility for that argument by making it outright--so this is what we get: nothing but tangents.

but hey, maybe that's a misreading.
feel free to correct it.
i'm just working off what i read.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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

Well done.

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.

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).

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 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?

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?

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

*nodding head*

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.

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.

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.

whew, saved. :thumbsup:

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?

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?

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.

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).

http://media.mcclatchydc.com/smedia/...filiate.91.jpg

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

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.

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 :)

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

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I'll add my 2 cents before I go to work....

For the first time in a very long time I am very optimistic for our future. I believe we have some very good, rational people coming up on both sides (the Presidential field excluded).

The problem with TFP Politics anymore is there is a certain faction that takes over and is truly negative in everything they post. They denigrate others, mock others and talk down to others.

We are all adults here, none of us are going to agree on all things but to talk down to do the above causes people to get defensive.

The guilty say "that's politics and if you don't like it leave." Well, many GREAT posters have left because of this bullshit.

But by my saying that I'll now get 1000 word linked articles telling me why I'm wrong, I'll get that controlling group mocking me and telling me I'm wrong and I'll state my case again.... again the attacks will be worse... and nothing will be accomplished except I'll probably say something stupid... and I'll get the "well, it's politics and if you can't hang leave."

A great example:

It's like wishing the military a Merry Christmas. I am not in support of the war, i don't in any way support Bush but I wore the uniform, I have total respect for those that do and I value them. Wishing them a Merry Christmas without getting political is just the right thing to do. There are countless anti war thread to post your political views in.

So these people in turn with their holier than thou "I know more and my opinions matter more" chase off more GREAT posters.

I find myself actually agreeing with USTwo more and more on here..... TFP will lose a the moderates but not just the moderate right, they'll lose the moderate left also.

TFP Politics used to be fun and now it's just war. You cannot build on hatred which seems to be what the "elite" wish to promote here.

My opinion is if Politics continues down this road it will die (you can see it coming by fewer and fewer posts).

If Politics dies..... the only thing that will keep TFP afloat is the Titty Board.... and for that many of us can go elsewhere.

What's sad is when these "elite" have driven any opposing viewpoints away, what will they do then? My forecast is some will become even more radical and they will feast on each other. All the while TFP will be dying and the Mods that cared and could have stopped it before it got that far were afraid to speak out or chose not to.

Well, sure. Absolutely true. But the reason that is true is because there are competing values, and the "side" that gets to frame the debate in terms of its own preferred set of values will usually control the discourse. That doesn't mean that the choice of which values to use isn't a matter of opinion - it has to be. And the decision you ultimately make will come down to a matter of which values you find more important.

I do a lot of reading, and the reason is that I always want to be checking my premises. I resist visceral reactions on most things (though some things I just won't tolerate, bigotry being the biggest one). My reaction normally is, "give me more information."

pan:

i'm not going to respond directly to your post--i've already deleted 2.
for what it's worth, i find it really difficult sometimes to respond to you when you adopt this attitude of being the victim of persecution and remain civil.
call it a quirk.


so instead, i'll make a broader point:

probably the most productive point this particular thread has gotten to is the realization that if there are problems with this forum--and there are (some internal, some situational, i think at least)----that each of us bears a certain degree of responsibility for them.

if things are going to change, we have to change them ourselves.


there is no difference of essence between political viewpoints--it is not the case that one kind of person sees the world one way and another kind another.

there are differing positions which present each of us with choices to make about how to interact, how to proceed.
there are disagreements about values.
there are disagreements about hierarchies of values.
there are disagreements about whether information is required to make a political claim.
there are disagreements about what constitutes legitimate information.
there are disagreements about how to interpret information, how to organize it.
there are disagreements about what relation should obtain between information and the world that it purportedly describes.
there are disagreements about what matters in the world.
there are disagreements about policies, about political personalities, about institutions, about the nature and state of the american political order.
there are disagreements about whether subjecting the premises of your arguments to discussion is or is not part of political debate.
there are differing levels of skill in argumentation (and if you dont think this is a skill, you're deluding yourself--it takes work. it is not obvious how to make arguments with any degree of clarity.)

there are going to be disagreements, then, and about very basic issues, very basic procedures.

i dont see the problem with that.
it is because that's possible that i hang around here.

if you think the forum is in trouble and that bothers you, do something to change it.
if we want to change it, each of us should start with our own posts.

basically, this either is a community or it isn't.



personal aside: i am not committed to the notion of unity.
i think communities with vibrant internal debate are stronger than communities that lack it.
this is directly linked to my interest in direct democracy--which is not at all a peaceful kumbaya kinda set-up---but it DOES presuppose that all members of the polis (the deliberative body) are aware, despite their disagreements, that they operate in the context of a community and that they disagree in part BECAUSE they operate within the context of a community and BECAUSE they care about what happens to that community.

it's kinda like that here, without the exercise of actual power part.

Where exactly in my reply in this thread have I adopted a role of personal persecution and made it about me..... except for my opinion on what needs fixed?

If you cannot point it out specifically for all to see, I believe this to be a personal attack because you are insinuating things with no facts to base them upon.


And if you want to use this.... which I used as an example to prove my point, it happens to a lot of people here, but since the post was based solely on MY opinion, I used first person as a reference.

As an aside, I do believe in my humblest opinion your response proved my point.

Pan, I love you dearly and so with respect I answer your challenge. The above statement by you shouts of the victimhood that roachboy mentioned. I hope that you don't consider me one of the controlling group that mocks you. That is certainly not the case. It is true that I don''t understand the anger that you express in this forum, and I would like to better understand your thoughts.

If not here, call me. You have my number.
Pen

Pan, I agree with this post and support your position. However, I am very sorry that I do not have enough links or sources to "back up" or support my OPINION. In any event, I feel the problem you are addressing is the biggest problem of tfp politics today.

ok so first off i dont see politics as being particularly war-like---it's certainly more civil than it was before the 11/06 midterms. i took a little while off from here earlier in the month after an exchange with jorgelito via pm and just read what was being posted---i dont see it.

but i do see contextual changes that could make what seems to me to be a pretty stable overall tenor seem different/more antagonistic....

so i wonder if there is a situational driver behind some of the responses from the more conservative comrades to this thread, in the sense that the ideology has definitely take a pounding in the world, even if the congressional numbers do not reflect that (go figure)...the administration is to my mind dead in the water, the sense of momentum that conservatives may have been able to derive before 11/06 is shot to hell---but it's not that different from how folk on "the left" reacted to the shock of a second bushterm--except that this time the shoe's on the other foot, and i dont remember seeing threads like this from anyone on "the left" complaining about how it is that the conservatives were acting. i mean, i used to get thrown out of the united states by various rightwingers here on a regular basis--it usually just made me laugh, but it is also a mirror image of the sort of thing that some of the more conservative comrades are now complaining about. this is why i wonder about situational drivers, frankly.

something to consider.

another change is the number of people who post here regularly--there are definitely fewer than were active before the november elections of last year--though it has bounced back a bit from its lowest point.

i have taken periods away from here, and sometimes think it might be good to do that more often....what has in the past prompted me to stop was (a) changes in my schedule and (b) boredom.

there is a certain stasis in general viewpoints--and with fewer people posting than posted say a year and a half ago, less in the way of new circulation of ideas in general (simply because there's less churn in the discussions). so the forum as a whole seems to have more stagnant phases than it once did. so there's less churn happening and few change their views really---with the exception of pan, who has been vocal about this political drift and whose transformation is interesting.

the situational factors seem beyond the control of any of us, really, since we are still in that torpor that sets in between the single days in the course of which americans are actually politically free. paralysis at the congressional level seems to piss everyone off to one extent or another, right and "left" (for symmetrical reasons)...the war in iraq continues with very little popular support, which creates yet another grind that i think affects everyone, one way or another.

the shrinking of the number of fish in the pond exposes the simple nature of the messageboard beast--people generally do not approach this game with the idea that their views are actually at stake--rather, they tend to seek confirmation of their views. debates are not cumulative and happen without any particular shape or end. patterns of usage play into this as well--when you post, where you are, how much time you have, whether you're at work or at home (or both...)...


so beyond what's been suggested so far here and in will's parallel thread, i dont know what there is to be done.

maybe it's time to end the metagame and just enact what we are thinking could happen that'd make this a more interesting space--re-open the discussions periodically as a way of talking about what has or has not been put into motion.

this because there's no way that disagreements are avoidable, nor is it desirable that they be avoided. it's all in how we play them.

==================
but there is one other issue....it's been touched on repeatedly and doesnt seem to be going away, so we might as well address it directly--writing or posting style. from the beginning of this thread, the varying styles of writing that different folk deploy here has been an obvious issue, but because it is difficult to discuss writing style without naming names and from there tipping into personal attack, it has been a recurrent subtext.
i am not sure what to do about this.
part of me thinks it might be a good idea to just have at it--say what bugs you. part of me thinks this is a bad idea. so i dont know--if it didnt keep coming up here i wouldnt bother to mention it--but it has over and over and over, most recently in pan's post, which just reappeared in jorgelito's.

thing is that i dont see anyone changing how they write because how they write doesnt appeal to everyone-----it's possible to change your writing style, but it takes work, persistence and time--i've undertaken this as a project and so speak from my own experience.

the problem is motivation.

maybe ask a question then: since so much has been referenced concerning antagonisms that operate because the way x expresses him or herself irritates a b or c (and vice versa) any ideas about what to do?

there are comrades whose writing irritates the shit out of me, and i have no doubt that my writing irritates the shit out of people as well. it seems like something that grownups learn to put up with, but maybe the fact that this is a written form of communication which people tend to treat as though it was oral (or an extension of email, which is a hybrid writing space for many) is itself part of the explanation for the style issue.

keep in mind that there is a thin line between asking someone to modify their way of expressing themselves and disabling their ability to state their views. this is not an easy problem to manage. if we aren't careful in what follows, we'll end up arriving at this realization collectively after going through a pointless, avoidable donnybrook.

so what do you propose?

Roachboy, on another postboard where I'm a conference host (similar to a mod here) I used to beseech everyone (in order to get to one person in particular) that if they think an article is cogent, post an excerpt from the article and a link, so that people can decide for themselves how much to read and don't get hit with long blocks of text to scroll through. I kept after her for a while but after a bit she got it. What I found is that usually, an article will have one or two or three paragraphs that get almost the entire point across and maybe the entire point, so with just a bit of judgment in terms of how much you excerpt, and with a link, the post becomes much pithier and easier to read, plus it lets your own thoughts shine through.

On a somewhat different subject, I think you're freighting 11/06 with way too much significance, but that's an issue for another day. History has a way of turning that makes fools out of all of us, you know...........

on 11/06--it's just something i noticed...

11/06 certainly changed the Politics forum. The most vocal conservatives simply disappeared for a period of time, only to return later to complain that the forum was entirely populated by "liberals." Until this post, that nonsense has not be challenged.

Post or don''t post. Your presence or absence is your choice. "Liberals" didn't do *it* to you, ok? :rolleyes:

I had to check when I took my break from TFP, and it was on 11/06. You know if I didn't predict the democrats would take the house ahead of time I'd put more significance on it, and looking back to check I saw you left a typical smarmy one liner, 2 posts after a mod said exactly not to do that, but that doesn't matter really.

Funny thing about that was tfp at the time was getting boring for me, and I'm sure I didn't want to deal with gloating from communists and their dependents, but there was something more important at the time.

It was the start of the BoB ASCN war in EvE, which took up so much of my posting and free time. The fallout of the war still rages today but I got bored of it, and quit playing, pretty much right about the time I started posting again.

But to claim it was just 11/06 that did it is only partially true. Perhaps you can come up with a list of those who quite after 11/06?

Ummmmm that would be true but I'm one who has pointed out the excessive hate, belittling and so on..... and I am very much a Liberal. So what excuse do you have for me?

I feel personally slighted? No. I have nothing to prove, there is no "personal satisfaction" nor "personal loss" for me here.

I want to be holier than thou? No, because I'm not, actually I'm probably just as bad in some ways as those I condemn in trying to make a point, however, I don't belittle, challenge intelligences and try very hard to keep from personalizing or personal attacking...... which the "elite" love to focus their replies doing.

I want attention and am trying to piss people off..... no, I feel no need for attention, I truly have no desire to make strangers pissy and I have no intention of trying to be a martyr.... martyrs in my experience may stand for good purposes but in the end they still die. I have no intention of "dying" (being banned) and the only purpose behind my posts are to express MY OPINIONS, I don't want to have to prove anything, I don't want to have to write or read a ten page research paper on why I believe a political view and belief is right and everyone else's is wrong.

I did that here.... learned a lot in my researches but I didn't change many opinions, looked only for info that suited my purpose so wasn't all that informed on the "other side" and when the other side did try to show me, I didn't want to listen because I had "all this proof". In the end all that ever came out was bad feelings on both sides because neither side gave the other a chance to be heard and personal attacks ensued.

Therein lies the problem..... you cannot grow a political forum and keep up debates unless you give the other side a legitimate chance to be heard and shown respect. Yet, the "elite" here refuse to let go of the control they have over this forum.

When I first started TFP Politics, the place was fun. Yes, people ranted and raved and personal attacks were thrown about, but in the end I would have loved to have met anyone here left or right and shared drinks.

Those days seem to be gone. Learning from the Right and seeing that there could be common ground to work with ended when a certain faction became so into belittling, attacking and controlling that truly GREAT posters who I respected and loved to debate became tired of the attacks and left... or fellow Libs that got tired of the BS and left.

I was there almost.... my interest had waned not because of my political views but because I was tired of every post being taken over, turned around and taken in a direction that had nothing to do with the OP. But the "elite" were able to get away with it because they just belittled people and chased them away.

BUT the straw that has broken my back, the straw that I won't let go of and will use to point to how if TFP truly wants to keep good people and be interesting, have a growing and fruitful political forum and not be just another titty board will be the Christmas to the troops thread started by Deltona Couple.

This is EXTREMELY personal now. You see I was in the military.... unlike most of those who tried so hard to turn it into a political anti war thread or get it shut down (and succeeded)...... I remember what being away from home was like on Christmas. Hell, I went to bootcamp 12/24/88. I wasn't in a war zone but I spent the Christmases I was in away and I would have and did love to hear and see strangers wishing me a Merry Christmas while I served. It helped me keep my spirits up.

So Deltona Couple made an innocent thread and stated put down you partisan arms, your political hatreds for just 1 GODDAMNED thread and take the time to wish the troops a Merry Christmas.

And it seemed he no sooner posted it than the Anti-War comments and essays had to come out.

It could have been moved to General Discussion and made non political but the powers that be kept it here and allowed it to become basically an anti-war thread. In the end all that became of that was people too self righteous shouting anti-war slurs and attacking those who pointed out that was inappropriate.

Now who lost?

Not the people who believe in the war. THE INNOCENT MEN AND WOMEN IN UNIFORM and the casual observer who saw that TFP can't even have a post to wish the men and women in the military a heartfelt Merry Christmas.

It's sad to believe but probably true that the vast majority of those posters who could not wish the military a true heartfelt Merry Christmas and turned that thread into a political grandstand, were wishing strangers at the stores they shopped at, people walking down the street and at work a Merry Christmas.

Now, those casual observers, those thinking about posting new threads with new ideas and thinking about becoming members are probably looking at that thread scratching their head, seeing all this hate and anger and wondering if they want to contribute anything..... doubtful. They'll just go to the titty board, look at Halx's hat, have a little nonsense fun and go elsewhere for better more civil and respectful political discussion.

And as far as any military supporters, active members, family members or veterans.... we've probably pissed them off to where they'll just go elsewhere period and we may lose what they have to share forever.

Hey it's ok, we had another anti-war thread and showed them war mongers. We proved we were right. We proved we were better informed, more educated and sanctimonious.... didn't we?

But then again what do I know? I just wrote a heartfelt passionate essay on what I believe is wrong here and in the end I'll get..... "Don't like it leave".... "you're personally attacking me"....... "you talk about self righteousness and look at yourself".... etc.

"you talk about self righteousness and look at yourself".... that's the one there, I probably do fall into that.... no probably about it. I do. But I also cannot keep quiet and allow a great forum to die in disgrace because certain people wish to control the direction of every thread.... wish to degrade and belittle people into leaving.... and destroy this place further.

This is not going to stop, is it....? In the spirit of this thread, I'm reminded of this classic:
Mooorrrre ideological spam, mom !!! Puh-leeze !!!
<center><img src="http://www.appscout.com/images/spam%20boy.jpg"></center>

How about moving from this copy/paste quote format currently used, he make an argument of his own writing and then post the link only to the websites he wants to use as source info. People are more than free to click and investigate themselves and does not kill the argument.

geez.

you go to a party, stand around on a balcony watching the snow fall, manage somehow to drink too much wine. eventually you go home and fall asleep on the couch, wake up not feeling as bad as you thought you would and you think:

"it's 2008.
what happened?
where does time go and who keeps speeding it up?"

you remember standing on a balcony the night before watching the snow fall and you remember thinking "i keep speeding toward getting older" and "but it doesn't seem so bad so long as i wear a tiara" and you remember looking at yourself in the glass door, at the ridiculous cardboard tiara you're wearing and that behind the tiara you could see people moving around in the livingroom, where the party is.

you watch them move, doing whatever they are doing, and you think:
"i dont know these people at all."
and its true.
and you say out loud: "i keep speeding toward getting older"
while you ask yourself inwardly: "what am i doing here?"

the party was fun but then it wasn't. or maybe it was the same the whole time and you are the one who changed. or maybe new years eve is the kind of occasion that prompts alot of people to wonder what the hell they are doing and that's why they make resolutions, these little bromides concerning Achievement that you chant to yourself between glasses of scotch, during that phase characterised by the increasing elusiveness of normally stable factors like your name and the name of the person you were talking to, the one who is sure she knows you from somewhere.

so you turn around and look at the snow falling and at the abandoned newspaper building that functions as regional ornament, the weathervane with the automobile atop it.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1307/...fafa998049.jpg

it is quiet on the balcony.
the snow makes sound bend around you.

a bit past the newspaper building, you remember looking at a bridge and thinking that the far end of it seems to disappear into fog and that strangely this make you realize that the world is big.

so you make a little list: what am i doing and why am i doing it?

and you arrive at tfp, eventually.
it's not that different from the party that you are and are not attending: i mean, you're at the party, but you're also standing on the balcony and have been standing on the balcony for a very long time. you dont really know the people. they seem nice, but you dont know them and they dont know you.

and it's late and you're bored and you're cold.

you remember tossing a cigarette over the edge of the balcony.
you remember not deciding anything in particular, just opening the door to walk back into the party.
you remember standing inside the door and that the others are all gathered at the far end of the room and that they are chatting amongst themselves and you think:

"i could leave now. this is as good a time as any."

but you dont make up your mind.
you just notice how easy it is to decide to leave.
you wonder whether the conversations that are happening across the room are the same conversations as they always are, whether this is not a discrete party but one of a seemingly endless series of interchangable parties, always with the same cast of characters, always saying more or less the same things. you remember thinking something like this in philadelphia: there is only one party that ever happens. it just changes location.

and so you walk back into the main room, but have no idea why.
inertia probably.

and you remember this the next morning, when the situation repeats.

Well said, roachboy. Thank you.

happy new year !

edit -> deleted off topic comments

I think this thread has run it's course. Some will attempt to make things better, some won't.