Willravel

Otto's earlier thread reminded me of something that's been in the back of my mind whenever I start or post in a thread here in Politics: we need to name a problem, provide evidence of the problem, discuss the reason it happened, and then how to improve or solve the problem.

I'll admit I don't always do this. I've been on TFP for years now and I've developed habits of arguing and arguing and arguing instead of solving, and I do a disservice to everyone here as well as myself when I get lazy or bitter or whatever and just jump in line.

We need to be solution based or we're damned to become sedentary and redundant. I've seen other political forums online give into this completely and they atrophy and die. And they deserve to die because they cease to be functional in any way. *Remember*, TFP is about the evolution of thought. This is characterized by adaptation, natural selection, mutation, and forward movement.

So I challenge everyone: be solution-centric in your posting.

Elphaba

I applaud your solution-centric approach of adding "DISCUSSION" to your topic heading. Those that might want an aggressive win/lose "DEBATE" might place that specific term in the title of their topic.

My apologies, Will, if you correctly detect my sarcasm, but be assured it is not directed at you. I made the above recommendations in ottopilot's topic.

Moving on...

I have always preferred a "discussion" based mode of political discourse. The win/lose function of "debate" isn't particularly useful unless logical fallacies are striped from both arguments. Given a respectful level of debate (absent the logical fallacies), something very intellectually compelling can occur that informs both positions above and beyond a closely held opinion.

But...a good debate requires a great deal of intellectual honesty and an investment in research. I attempted this once with Politicophile, and once again with a more formal debate hosted by Tecoyah, but I must be honest ..."discussion" is so much easier than the work required for "debate."

Of the political issues that concern me, I have little to offer in terms of solutions. I attempt to engage the members here to inform me as to what might be possible. There lies the discussion, imo.

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

Herk

I think the facts that we still have nuclear weapons, and military in other countries are problems. My thoughts on it boil down to; I think that no real purpose, including deterence, is served by wielding such large sticks, and constantly being in somebody else's front yard.

My solution - Decommission 100% of our nuclear weapons, immediately. Remove all troops abroad, except those deployed on active missions. Make a public release to the world that admits we have unnesicarily tried to exercise far too much power around the world, and that we now realize the precious relationship between borders and soveriegnity. We have now redirected our focus to better server people both domestic and internationally by increasing our involvement in many positive programs worldwide and devoting many resources into stabilizing the American economy.

Then we duck into the dark and focus very heavily on solving domestic problems and providing foriegn aid only where needed.

Ah, if only idealism played a larger role in life.

__________________
-Blind faith runs into things!-

host

Herk, 18 months ago, in this thread:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...24#post2073324

...I proposed a plan that is the mirror opposite of what you've proposed in your post. No one took me seriously. I was serious. I based my proposal on the practicalities as I assessed them, and on the risks of attempting to execute my proposal, vs. the consequences of not attempting it. I doubt that your proposal to do the opposite will be supported either.

From post #28 in the thread linked above:
I am convinced that the popular alternative, the "tweener"...a slow grind that bankrupts the US treasury and destroys the purchasing power of the US paper currency and the economy....we cannot expend $5 million to kill each "dead ender" in Iraq, Afghanistan, and where ever, and still spend 5 times as much on our military as our closest competitor does, with an aging population and a huge and ongoing accumulation of additional debt.....will trigger inevitable, more desperate aggressive military actions, when it is probably already too late to achieve the domination I think is entirely possible, if attempted ASAP.

Rationale for post #28, is described in this (#26) post:

ottopilot

will... very well said. Your template for starting new threads seems very reasonable and simple.
In this thread, would you like the discussion to continue exploring your proposal? I think it would be a very positive exercise.

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

Herk

I promise I'll be back to give this more attention but I just wanted to add, in reference to your mirror opposite, that I'd likely be nearly as apt to accept this in leui of inaction. We either need to get out and leave people be, which I honestly feel would please them, or we need to just go ahead and become full-blown colonialists, and try to take over the world like we mean it. Existing between the two is tough to understand for me.

__________________
-Blind faith runs into things!-

Willravel

Actually I intended this thread to be more of a non-moderator created sticky to help people stay on track. I don't want to have to leave Politics, but the way things are going my reason for being here is slowly dying.

At the end of the day, a lot of the time we're on the same side so far as a negative outcome... but we get hung up and bullshit in the *reason it happened* or *I'm right and you're not* stages so we never end up getting to viable solutions for problems (which gets back to Elphaba's point).

Herk, I'd love to post in a thread about viable solutions for MAD, which is an unsustainable circumstance.

host

Herk, we agree that the risk of embarking on either or our proposals is less than the risk of current US foreign and military policy.

willravel, can you post how what you described wanting to do in response to the pressing issues of these times, differs from what pan has been posting about for a long time now? You sound, as pan sounds.... centrist, which is the status quo, more of the same. I see radical departure away from the center, which is away from the right, or nothing changes. We need a populist militancy, not seen since the 1930's through the '60's.

The eroding of the US and world economy will bring it about. It will be angry, loud, and probably violent. If I'm correct, as we've experienced here, it won't run it's course via calm discussion. We don't experience calm discussion here, we have "moderated" discussion. Keeping cool heads, being the "adults" acting "reasonably" by "keeping impeachment off the table", for example....what has that achieved, besides turning the vetoless president, into the president who vetoes every bill that reaches him?

Unrest is described as unrest, for a reason. It disturbs, it gets attention, it influences shifts in policy and power. When Huey P. Long started making noise, the poor school children had no books, and there were only 300 miles of paved roads in Louisiana, and just one bridge crossing the Mississippi river. A "mass movement" is a populist movement. They are the only ones witht the sheer numbers to bring one about. They impose change by political leverage. The centrists have already embraced an opinion, a way of doing things or not doing them.

Huey Long drew on the support of the people who had been uninvolved, were not aware that they could be part of a movement that could make a difference. Long did not make speeches about "getting along" with the dominant opposition, and the corporations that backed it. He organized his movement, and he used it to impose change on the oppostion. It was confrontational all of the way, and his constituency kept gaining as Long's political power grew from their support.

No state has ever experienced the publics works gains that happened in Louisiana between 1928 and the last 1930's. The money to do it all did not come from Long's supporters. It came from the people and the corporations who opposed him. After he died, they got to write the history, but the people got to ride on the newly paved roads, newly bulit bridges, and were treated in the newly built hospitals and schooled with the books he forced corporations to pay for. He didn't do it all by being nice, reasonable, or compromising.

This is the dirty little secret that the establishment has spent 70 years trying to remove from our political psyche. Huey Long pressured Roosevelt into reforms like Social Security. Long was killed in Sept., 1935. Who knows how much more Long could have pressured Roosevelt into doing to stave off Long's competition in the 1936 presidential race.

Willravel

I'd hardly call solution centric discussion status quo. In fact, I'd say it's a rarity. It's less about getting along and more about asking yourself "Why am I posting here?". When I ask myself that question, the answer I arrive at is: to learn, to teach, and to solve problems.

Militancy doesn't work on a forum because there's nothing to blow up. You can't have a sit in. Civic disobedience (breaking the forum rules?) really would have no effect on the discussion. The only thing that has a hope of working is rational, well supported cases. The only time militancy would work in a forum would be if there was a problem with the forum that needed addressing. Say, hypothetically, there was a mod who was a complete jackass and who banned people for no good reason and he/she was protected by the admins and owner. Then a little civil unrest would make sense to bring about change. The problem is that that's not the case. The things that you and I may seek to change are only reflected in the micro-community of TFP. The Huey Long contingent would only work in the real world to solve real world problems.

loquitur

Willravel, that's a great suggestion. I'd expand the template somewhat, but I like the idea.

Here's a partial expansion:

1. is this a problem? what makes it a problem? is it a feature rather than a bug? why?

2. if it is indeed a real problem, is it likely to work out on its own? Many problems do.

3. if it's not going to work out on its own, what is the best way to fix it? are we creating new problems by trying to fix this one?

4. is the problem something we're better off just living with?

5. is the problem something that needs to be addressed with a permanent solution, or should we revisit the issue after a while?

6. should we try having different solutions in different places so that we can see what works?

7. who should be coming up with the solutions? who should be administering them?

Elphaba

Excellent additions, loquitur.

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

Willravel

Agreed, loquitur's additions make sense.

The point is simply that armed adversarial combat here seems to make discussions stand still. It wastes everyone's time and it wastes server space. Right now there is a thread about a guy flashing his junk that I'm trying desperately to prevent becoming another gun thread because *someone* can't put down his weapon and play nice.

loquitur

that must be some junk if it makes people discuss guns.

roachboy

nice thread, will.

i'm still active in otto's thread at the moment, and have been putting some things there that run in the same direction as what's here.
i'll push over into this thread to continue, if need be, from this point.

=============================
my basic point over there has been that if we are going to maintain the community--and this subsection of the community--then we have to alter it ourselves.
change it by changing how we interact.

other types of political action may be ineffectual in a messageboard, but the flip is that they can give hope to anarchists simply because it is the case that with minimal formal structures in place, change has to come from below. and we are all below.

there's nowhere else to look to, no-one else to appeal to.
we make this thing (goes to show that labor makes value, not capital--but that in the present order, capital is required for labor to make value. if capital made value, the board wouldn't need us to participate in it.)
if we want to make it differently, we just have to do that.

i too have found my interest waning over time. it think it just happens like that. time corrodes. activity undermines itself.
thinking about it in more paranoid long-term ways: we gradually wear down the floors we walk on as well: hypothetically, if we walked the same path in a room in our dwellingplaces long enough, we'd just fall right through.
that's one of many reasons why it's better to vary your path.

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

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

dc_dux

With all due respect, I think this is an overreaction.

We have a template....the protocols for discussion in the sticky.

I dont have a solution every time I post and I dont want threads to be structured by "10 questions that should be addressed when posting on the political board."

I post here to express my thoughts on the political issues of the day raised by others. Not every discussion thread needs to be so structured or solution-oriented. Is that how you discussed the issues when standing around the office water cooler (when we had water coolers in the office)?

I may just want to raise awareness about the latest action by the White House and why I think its wrong. I dont have a solution...other than counting down the days. Others may call that "Bush-bashing". Thats cool, as long as they dont insult me personally.

Or I may post when I see something posted by others that I agree with and can offer further insight...or something I know is false of a misrepresentation of the facts and I can document it.

Or I may just want to offer a personal opinion on one or more the candidates for Pres.

This is a free-wheeling discussion board, not a classroom on political management.

IMO, the only template requirement is civil discourse.

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

Willravel

My point, DC, is that without direction we get messes. I can't tell you how many times one threadjack or tangent has ruined a discussion. Many threads are now closed for just such a reason.

dc_dux

Will....political discussions are by their very nature likely to be messier than discussion of what I got for Christmas or your favorite sexual position.

Perhaps the solution is having the originator of a thread take a greater role in keeping it focused, with mods only stepping in when the rules are clearly broken, but also keeping in mind that tangents arent always a bad thing.

IMO, any more structure will stifle discussion.

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

Willravel

A sweater and missionary (there's more than one?). Yes, that's true.
You think that being aimed at a solution is stifling? What's the point then?

dc_dux

Will....whats the solution to Bush lies, malfeasance and corruption when some view such charges as politically biased "commie-speak" and any discussion of impeachment as political retribution and jealousy of a Pres who is more effective than Congress?

Is there a solution to global warming if some say there is no problem?

Would the country be better served by Ron Paul/Dennis Kucinich or Romney/Clinton...there is no correct "solution" to the 08 election.

IMO, the political forum provides a place to discuss one's position on issues and support that position with facts with the intent or hope of raising awareness among those who follow the thread (particularly the silent majority that read the threads but never post) so that we can all become more informed and better prepared to evaluate any solutions proposed by those to whom we entrust the power.

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

Willravel

There are many. Currently, I am supporting Kucinich in his attempt to impeach Bush (it won't be successful, but the longer it goes on the more publicity it will get), I am educating as many people as possible about said malfeasance, I am writing my representatives often, when I get new information... the list goes on and on.
No one listens to Ustwo or the 300 or so economists that say there's no global warming except people who are already living not only in ignorance but are people who still think Iraq had something to do with 9/11. The solutions to global warming are numerous: reduce/reuse/recycle, alternative energy, subsidies for green companies, blah blah blah. I mean that's the easy part.
I don't know of any threads that say "You need to vote for this person".
Learning and teaching are an important part of Politics, but it's not the only thing. It's just an intellectual circle jerk if nothing is ever done.

dc_dux

Will.....What you're saying is that we should continue what we are doing here....informing, educating and enlightening each other and the TFP community, each of us with our own perspectives and biases...and each of us with the hope that we are the most convincing among the competing arguments/solutions.

You and host will make your case for impeachment and the steps we need to take...and Ustwo and Ace (where is Ace?) will mock it. The readers will decide for themselves who is "right."

I'll go round and round with Ustwo on reasonable solutions to global warming and the readers will evaluate our posts and our sources and make their own informed decision.

You and I will promote universal coverage as the solution to the country's health care crisis and cynthetiq will call it socialist claptrap......the readers will decide what they think is in the best interest of themselves and the country.

That is how the forum works and I just dont see the need for more structure.

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

ottopilot

Oh no, the NASCAR analogy.

(once again, it's late, and I'm a bit slap-happy, but here goes...)

I'm wondering, is the concept of solution-centric discussion less appealing to some because it's like watching NASCAR without crashes? I don't mean that in a demeaning or derogatory sense, but some may engage strictly for the adrenaline rush or in anticipation of something vicariously dramatic. With NASCAR there are fiercely loyal fans with cultish attachment to drivers and racing teams, the enthusiasts of the technology and strategy, those who just like cars and going fast, the exhibitionists and people watchers, and those who just want to see crashes. Drama.

Even solution-centric political discussion can be dramatic... because we struggle to achieve something beyond winning today's pissing match.

...speaking of struggling, I'm out of gas If this was too strange, I'll take a look at it tomorrow.

BTW - great thread everyone! Kind of amazing stuff. So after this is played out, how do we proceed without returning to old habits? Is the concept of this thread practical in application? I'd like to see the spirit of this concept take root however it evolves.

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

Willravel

Ace has been known to make good arguments. I really appreciate those, because it's clear that he's making an honest effort to find a solution (instead of flaming and making personal attacks). Even adversaries can get somewhere when they're both solution centric. Ustwo and I are even known to agree when we respect each other and are looking for viable solutions.
Not to disrespect Cynth, but many of his posts in that particular thread were "Well I don't want it because I don't need it" types of things instead of addressing everyone. It wasn't about a solution to the problem (45m Americans that don't have healthcare). Had he gone down that road, I suspect that the discussion would have ben more productive.

dc_dux

will...I tried leading UStwo down the road to a what I believe is reasonable discussion on climate change....you tried leading Cynth down the road to what you believe is a reasonable discussion on universal health care.

They disagree with us and wont go down those roads and more rules wont change their opinions or the nature of the discussion.

My point is we make our case and let the readers decide for themselves. I just dont understand how more rules or structure will make for a better discussion forum?

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

Willravel

It's not rules and structure. It's no more stupid threadjacks. It's no more underhanded insults. It's ending the idea that we're adversaries and reinforcing the idea that we both want "what's best", no matter what that is. We don't have to be aimed at the same solution, of course.

I was just called "ignorant" and told to "stfu" by dksuddeth for the Nth time, and I just keep thinking, if he didn't think this was some sort of stupid competition, would he still be so stubborn and angry? I arrive at the same answer every time: no. If we view this is an exercise in learning and finding solutions, maybe we can reduce the adversarial garbage that clogs on Politics.

ottopilot

dc... In law, legislation, contracts, and home owners associations, we often deal with both the letter of the law and the spirit of the law.

I think regarding how the forum works, the spirit of how we conduct ourselves is what can make a positive difference. I'm sensing some unity among posters expressing a desire to make this a more civil environment. We can have all sides make their cases, but let's perhaps strive for (at least) some common ground in our differences, or respectfully agree to disagree. It may be an unrealistic goal, but only good (IMO) can be gained by trying.

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

Willravel

Otto and I, people of very different political leanings, both seem to agree on this point (and respectfully). That alone makes this thread worth it to me and I think illustrates the point I'm trying to make.

I suspect that we can get along when our attention is on the problem instead of winning or beating the other guy.

ottopilot

Will... did you see these questions from my NASCAR post? This is kind of where I'm concerned going forward.
roachboy, Elphaba, loquitur, dc_dux, host, Herk, any ideas on how to implement or maintain this concept going forward? ...pardon if I missed some recommendations you may have shared... I need to quit staying up so late.

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

Willravel

This only works if the big players are interested in making the change. This includes everyone from you and I to host, rb (roachboy and ratbastid), elphaba, Charlatan, Pan, Loq to Ustwo, Ace, and others. And DC, of course. It doesn't work without DC! The idea of making politics less adversarial and more educational/cooperation-al/solutionary (new term, coined!) is simply about removing some ongoing problems and making sure that we're not here just to attack one another.

ottopilot

Agreed... everyone you mentioned has to be on-board. The list I made previously where just the names that have commented on this thread so far.

good night.

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

Elphaba

Consider me on board for any change to Politics that causes a better opportunity to learn from others, and to test my own preconceptions. How that might be structured is simply the vehicle, not the destination.

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

dc_dux

I am all for a reaffirmation of civility, respect for a diversity of opinions and an emphasis on avoiding adversarial confrontations.

But if "breaking old habits" infers that contributors should be encouraged to reconsider their posting style if it includes numerous wordy links or just one line quips, then you are attempting to limit personal expression.

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

Halx

The concept of solution-centric discussion thrills me. It is the only type of discussion I enjoy. Like a typical man, if you present me with a problem, I will try to find a solution. So, you can guess that my underlying intention for this forum is to create a place where great minds get together and create solutions. The next step would obviously be putting those solutions into action, but... one step at a time. For those who would rather just discuss, I have not included any rules in the forum that would add structure to the discussion. But it is boring. To strive to be productive with collaboration - that is the pinnacle of relevance.

__________________
You have found this post informative.
-The Administrator
[Don't Feed The Animals]

Ustwo

A solution centric discussion only really works if we see the problem as the same.

We as a rule, don't.

Lets take my pet topic, global warming. I've been doing this on the internet since there has been an internet. It used to be more specialized but as the internet expanded and global warming became a political tool so has the debate expanded. In these last 18 odd years I haven't seen anything that leads me to think that humans are causing it. Since I don't see humans as the problem, there can't be a solution centered debate.

Only those who blame humanity for the weather can have a solution centered debate.

Likewise I'm close to a true libertarian when it comes to economic matters. I believe in safe guards to protect the consumer, so not 100% but close. There can be no solution centered debate when so many of the tilted left think someone like Kucinich is their version of good government, or event that he isn't far left enough. There can be no 'solution' only argument.

So while I could have a solution centered debate with Cythethic or Otto, Sever and others here, and roachboy and host and willravel could have one as well, as a group we can not.

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

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Willravel

I never said we had to have the same solution. You probably have a different solution from me on at least three subjects, so go for it. The idea is to make this place less hostilely adversarial. The best way I can think to do that is to keep your eyes on the prize, even if it's not everyone looking at one prize.

Elphaba

Ustwo, is it necessary to agree upon the primary source of global warming to have a solution-centric discussion?

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

ottopilot

Perhaps an OP should request that the discussion be conducted as solution-centric (SC). I don't know how that would be managed, but it seems that partisan debate is inevitable depending on the topic.

Should SC be considered more of a semi-philosophical discussion based in political premise?

Would it be more attractive for those of us wanting to experiment with SC topics to establish a new forum?

This may satisfy both the partisan urge and the altruistic with political leanings.

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

Willravel

Aside from breaking forum rules, which falls under moderator/admin jurisdiction, a discussion should be ultimately managed by the original poster.

I love the idea of (SC) as a suffix to the thread topic. Very good idea, otto.

roachboy

i dont understand how that would work, though.
speaking as memberboy, i have a couple divergences---
a) i understand politics as a type of philosophy.
b) i do not like situations in which we collectively confuse this messageboard with the bigger world, and from there act as though a solution to a problem developed in the course of a conversation actually resolves the problem. there are comrades who post as if posting was like being broadcast on a worldwide network of jumbo television sets, being viewed by billions---where i tend to assume almost the exact opposite, that no-one reads this, that it's just a parlor we hang around in having debates to while away extra time we happen to have in a manner that is arguably more productive than watching tv or getting baked.

i dont object to the idea, i'm just wondering what you have in mind in more detail.

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

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Willravel

TFP may exist in the ether, but we don't. When I mentioned above the ways in which my political philosophies are part of my function of trying to bring about change, I was trying to make clear that while what happens on the board seems to stay on the board it actually doesn't. I'll bet you $5 and a cookie that host doesn't do all the work he does to just post here on TFP. I suspect that he may write reps even more than I do.

At 24 I'm still in my political adolescence but because of that I'm still inventing myself. When I ask myself why I'm interested in politics, the answer isn't just academic; it's functional in the real world. I don't just want to be an arm-chair debater, I want there to be positive change. Back in the debate team this was my biggest complaint. I could rape people soundly in debates, but sometimes I'd be wrong despite winning. What kind of horrible waste of time is that? The adversarial system is intended to function as motivation for all parties so that justice can be served, but it also means that unfortunately sometimes the best sportsman wins. That's not realistic when the intended outcome should be justice or progress or what have you.

The idea behind this thread is to remove some of the adversarial nature from Politics. When one removes that nature, one also weakens the stranglehold of partisanship. When partisanship leaves, then stuff can finally get sorted without stupid preconceptions or biases. At least in theory.