I really want to know.....

[tecoyah]

A longstanding member posted a reply that really got me thinking, and promted me to make this thread. The premise of the post had to do with people settling into right or left...though they are in fact Moderate/Middle of the road, In order to be heard at all.

"And the moderates like me (socially very liberal, fiscally conservative) get attacked and attacked every time I try to debate so eventually it's take a side and fight to be heard or keep putting up with the bullshit."

I found myself thinking back on what prompted me to become unhappy with my party (yes, I was a republican), and then looking at the reality of the above statement.....it applies to me quite nicely. So my Question:

How many of us have drifted to an extreme (at least in practice), just to attempt to be heard?

[politicophile]

I fall into that category, at least to a limited extent. There is a tendency to label those who post on the Politics board as either left or right and I have been placed squarely into the "right" even though there is plenty of evidence in my post history that this is an oversimplification.

I've found that, as a result of this labeling, I typically am speaking in opposition to the same members over and over, and that I sometimes avoid publically disagreeing with others on my "side" so as to maintain unity.

My extreme tendency in practice, then, is to accept and reinforce the ridiculous dichotomy that predated my arrival at TFP. Perhaps by realizing that most of us are part of the problem, we can attempt to fix it?

[tecoyah]

Originally Posted by politicophile

Perhaps by realizing that most of us are part of the problem, we can attempt to fix it?

That is my Hope, to actually make a difference in the rift I see in this country, by understanding why it has appeared, and work towards bridging it......maybe a pipe dream, but....still gotta try.

[BigBen]

Absolutely. I feel that you have to label yourself before you post so that the reader has a frame of reference sometimes.

I am a Fiscal Liberal and a Social Conservative, with a hint of Nutjob American Freedom thrown in where I want it to.

It would be nice if a party matched my ideologies perfectly. The fact that one does not exist is a statement of character; I refuse to be brainwashed on certain issues to fit in.

We in Canada have 3 parties to choose from (4 in Quebec) and it is not always unheard of to have an independent run as well. They never get elected, but it does add spice during the race. Having 2 choices like the yanks would be even harder, I imagine.

Remember, the Communist party had elections; The state actually sponsored an opponent to run against the Communist block. They got about 300 votes while the Reds got 300 million.

I am looking forward to the day when politics no longer means anything. Is it possible for society to evolve past the "Party Politics" that plague the world?

[irateplatypus]

Originally Posted by tecoyah

That is my Hope, to actually make a difference in the rift I see in this country, by understanding why it has appeared, and work towards bridging it......maybe a pipe dream, but....still gotta try.

sorry if this sounds overly cynical tec... but i understand the nature of the rift and political goals of those i disagree with. the rift is there because my beliefs are antithetical to many on this board and vice-versa... no amount of understanding will shorten that, it's very likely that increased understanding will only make the atmosphere more polarized.

[JumpinJesus]

I find that when posting in politics, the more vitriolic and/or extreme the position taken, the more likely one is to get a response.

Like politicophile stated, once someone states a position on a particular topic, they are forever labeled with that position. For instance, I am against the war in Iraq and think that the Bush administration is one of the most corrupt in recent history. This should put me squarely in the liberal camp. However, I believe the Democractic Party is a weak-kneed excuse for a political party. They don't make a decision until they stick a wet finger in the air. They are the party that will let thousands upon thousands die because they don't have enough conviction to stand up and be counted lest they upset a person or two. They'll allow others to die so they can win an election.

One thing I don't think I'll ever understand is the amount of fervent support I often see from both sides. It seems that we are all too willing to support our party regardless of action. This also sickens me for it makes me believe that ideology is more important that integrity.

What I see happening here is much like what has happened with the Talking Head news shows. In order to be heard, you have to be louder and more obnoxious than those around you. So, on televsion all we see are shouters from both extremes while in here we just get the extremes. It's sad because what we lose in the process is insight, wisdom, and maturity. What we gain is tantrums, stubbornness, and extremism. Which of these do we honestly want guiding policy?

[irateplatypus]

Originally Posted by JumpinJesus

One thing I don't think I'll ever understand is the amount of fervent support I often see from both sides. It seems that we are all too willing to support our party regardless of action. This also sickens me for it makes me believe that ideology is more important that integrity.

i think such a response is inherent in this medium. for a post to make it to thread it takes a long string of events. a TFP'er must first care enough about politics to enter this forum, he/she must find a current thread of interest, read all the responses (hopefully), form his/her own opinion, craft a response, and submit it and put themselves "out there" for all to rip to shreds. the nature of a online board such as this dictates only persons with strong opinions will do this on a consistent basis. only fervently held opinions will provide the motivation for going to all that trouble. there are a lot of people with very moderate opinions... however, those people simply pull a lever every other november and don't make much noise otherwise, much less cause a ruckus on TFP.


and i think you're crossing lines on the party/ideology discussion. i see very little support for parties in and of themselves, usually only as far as personal ideology will take them. i do perceive strong connections with personal ideology and political stances... but that does not (and cannot) trump integrity. if you believe a principle to be true (or right) then it will become a part of your ideology. you must defend such principles (that make up your ideology) or risk your integrity. to go against your ideology would be to betrary your integrity... the two are rarely at odds.

[Willravel]

I've drifted like Odysseus. When I entered the political arena at 14 or 15, I was a Republican through and through. My parents were Republicans and my grandparents were aswell. I thought Bill Clinton was the antichrist and he was the least moral man to ever walk the earth. I followed along the party line like so many do without a conscious thought. Was I wrong? Not necessarily. Bill Clinton's willingness to lie under oath was a serious breech in the trust between the American people and our president. Of course, I had no idea what effect he was having on the American or global econemy. I had no idea what he stood for or his party stood for. I was happy in my ignorance and I had my little soap box on which to preach supposed Christian morality (something with which I had little experience as I was so young). Had W. Bush been in office at the time, I would have been a die hard Right Winger with Jesus on my brain, 'morality' on my tongue, and Limbough in my ear. Then my grandfather told me he voted for Clinton. That opened my mind enough for reason to enter my thought process on politics. BTW, I am not suggesting that Republicans or right wingers are unreasonable, but by my logic, reasoning, and morality, I was on the wrong side. It took some time, but I slowly made my way from Republican to what I now know is Libertarian. Small government, limited involvement in other countries, depending on ourselves; these made sense to me (still do in fact). Since then I've gone Green (changed from Libertarian about 2 months ago over to the Green party), but I'm still in opposition to the right.

[dksuddeth]

All of this coercion to 'choose a side' would be easily laid to rest if people would STOP the thought process of lesser of two evils and just vote 3rd party or independent. Instead of looking at a non-majority party vote as a wasted vote, just vote your consience, all of us, and you just might be surprised. If a 3rd party/independent candidate (for any office) got elected or even caught a sizable vote percentage, you'd see the two major parties re-align their thinking and damn quickly I might add.

[JumpinJesus]

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

i think such a response is inherent in this medium. for a post to make it to thread it takes a long string of events. a TFP'er must first care enough about politics to enter this forum, he/she must find a current thread of interest, read all the responses (hopefully), form his/her own opinion, craft a response, and submit it and put themselves "out there" for all to rip to shreds. the nature of a online board such as this dictates only persons with strong opinions will do this on a consistent basis. only fervently held opinions will provide the motivation for going to all that trouble. there are a lot of people with very moderate opinions... however, those people simply pull a lever every other november and don't make much noise otherwise, much less cause a ruckus on TFP.


and i think you're crossing lines on the party/ideology discussion. i see very little support for parties in and of themselves, usually only as far as personal ideology will take them. i do perceive strong connections with personal ideology and political stances... but that does not (and cannot) trump integrity. if you believe a principle to be true (or right) then it will become a part of your ideology. you must defend such principles (that make up your ideology) or risk your integrity. to go against your ideology would be to betrary your integrity... the two are rarely at odds.

Good point, irate. I tend to interchange ideology and party during discussions. Something I should probably stop doing since most people here don't tend to identify by party.

I rarely, if ever, discuss politics outside this board. I used to love discussing politics, but I found that one rarely ever gets anywhere when discussing it in real life. I have changed my viewpoints over the years, but that has only happened after personal experiences caused me to rethink what I believed. I don't think anyone honestly ever gave me an argument that caused me to do this and I don't think I ever did the same to anyone else.

Discussing politics is very circular. While I enjoy some of the well-thought out and researched posts by some, I also enjoy some of the quick quips and one-liners by others. But rarely do I ever jump into the fray because I don't find that I have that strong of an allegiance to one particular ideology and wouldn't be able to hold a discussion long enough to lead it anywhere. Also, I feel that any comments I could possibly make would be just a regurgitation of comments already made by like-minded posters.

Strangely, many on this board feel the same way. In fact, many claim to be of the Libertarian persuasion yet, we still have near flame wars on a daily basis. I wonder why that is?

[raveneye]

Moderate, adj. Used to describe any political position held by myself. Syn. intelligent, educated, erudite.

Extreme, adj. Any position held by my adversary. Syn. blind, befuddled.

[Elphaba]

Thank you for starting this topic, Tec. I think it is an important discussion to have. I am also a social progressive and a fiscal conservative and I consider myself an independent or centrist/moderate. I have voted for independents, Republicans and Democrats over the years.

I have become as neutral as possible in the topics or posts that I make, even though I would prefer a well reasoned disagreement among forum members. Politicophile and I found ourselves to have similar political beliefs which led to our "debate" of partial birth abortion. We did our best to "win" our argument without being disrespectful of each other by resorting to mockery or worse.

I can be very passionate in my core beliefs, but I have found it best not to communicate that passion in this forum.

[pan6467]

Well you know how I feel Tec. since I am the one quoted.

I think the press has a lot to do with it also. Raise sales and get more attention by stirring up hate and creating divisiveness, then if you find common ground. And in all honesty, I think common ground can be found more often than not, but neither side right now wants to make any compromises and the more that happens, the more divisive the parties are the more power that can be had as people stop paying attention figuring they can't change anything.

[amonkie]

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

a TFP'er must first care enough about politics to enter this forum, he/she must find a current thread of interest, read all the responses (hopefully), form his/her own opinion, craft a response, and submit it and put themselves "out there" for all to rip to shreds. the nature of a online board such as this dictates only persons with strong opinions will do this on a consistent basis. only fervently held opinions will provide the motivation for going to all that trouble. there are a lot of people with very moderate opinions... however, those people simply pull a lever every other november and don't make much noise otherwise, much less cause a ruckus on TFP.

I wanted to point two things out in your post, Irate:

First, I would sincerely hope that the respect towards all members does not disappear out the window just because a Forum is labeled Politics. While it is well known it is perhaps the most heated place for discussion, making the assumption that it is acceptable to degrade posters is not conducive to solving any of the divisiveness on this board. A compromise might be reached if those who have a mindset of "I'm gonna get ripped to shreds" at least post with an open mind and the willingness to do more research based on what comes back : The repliers in turn need to lose the blinders that habit and misguided passion sometimes create, and realize that your positions and opinions really can be everchanging, if you are consistently reviewing and evaluating new information, and not just taking the bits and pieces that fit the mold you have created for yourself.

I am a Moderate (Social Liberal and Fisc Cons) and have been shifting from Republican to Independent/Libertarian over the last year. During my time as a hard blood Republican, I spent so much time campaigning that I lost my voice twice, and spent more time doing campaigning than I did work or school combined. My decision to step away from getting involved in TFP politics stems from the fact that I AM moderate, which would lead me to agree with the poster in the OP. Just because I do not post frequently in Politics, I would hardly call myself a simple lever pusher. I do not feel that I should have to be other than myself in order for my opinions to be valid, if expressed in a thoughtful and considerate manner.

Perhaps something to think about: Passion alone is not the Key. Passion provides a motivation, but so does Natural Inquiry, Neccessity, Fear, and even Fun. There is an element of skill involved when making posts - while the motivator gets the ball rolling, it cannot BE the argument. Understand everyone will have a different perspective. Sometimes civilly asking someone why they feel the way they do, giving them a chance to respond, and asking questions where things don't make sense to you goes a LOT farther than Proclaiming your side as truth and hotly contesting any other opinions ... who knows ... maybe they know something you don't. Wouldn't hurt to listen and take that into consideration.

[host]

As far as current political events in the U.S. capitol, the status quo cannot be described as "moderate". The 9/11 attacks, war in Afghanistan and Iraq, the revelation that there were no WMD, and the "one party" control of all elected branches of the federal government, crowned by the unprecedented, Dec. 2000 ruling by the SCOTUS that had the effect of determing the POTUS in a hotly contested election that was too close to call by routinely counting the votes,
has understandably set the stage for heated exchanges in this forum.

To maintain an informed opinion; (silly me....I cannot participate here if I am not in command of the details that I respond to, or post about).... now takes an effort, in time and in scope, that requires posting here, to be at least a hobby, and sometimes even more.

irateplatypus posted some good observations about how posts end up on these threads. This place is a crossroads where the effects of the inputs of unprecedented volumes of government sponsored propaganda, biased or spotty MSM reporting, partisan agendas and rhetoric, religious influenced politics, and preconceived notions of race, class, and sexuality, are processed by our brains and our hearts into sentences or graphics, spilling out as messages on the threads of this forum.

If you live in a world where most people who you interact with are of the same mind as you are, politically, this may not be the place for you. I think that the "draw" here is the opportunity for exchanges with people who hold views that seem suprisingly foreign to yours. Is it reasonable to expect the exchanges that result to be characterized as "moderate"? Respectful and measured, yes; civil and restrained, yes; but....."moderate"....no.

[flstf]

Originally Posted by tecoyah

How many of us have drifted to an extreme (at least in practice), just to attempt to be heard?

I have drifted to the extreme of having disdain for both major parties. They are both in favor of growing the government larger and larger and taking care of their friends, families and contributors at our expense.

When I read or hear debates between Democrats and Republicans it seems like gray wolves and brown wolves arguing over which one gets to dine on us sheep in this election cycle. The wolves have fixed the elections so that only they can win and our fate is the same no matter which one is in power.

I am surprised that more people are not fed up with both major parties and the bogus elections which insure that one of them will always win. We seem to get distracted by thinking that there are major differences between them.

[ubertuber]

I actually find that I am forced into one party's camp more often in real life than on TFP. I live in NY and have attended (and now work at) an arts school. I'd say Democrats outnumber Republicans by roughly 25:1 here. So last year when I proved willing to criticize and praise both sides, it was only my opposition to the overwhelmingly mainstream dialogue that was heard. Thus, even the Republicans think I'm one of them. At one point, I was asked to start a group for conservatives on campus.

My concern with the larger world is mostly that the two party system is so entrenched that it has grown an immune system to protect itself. The fact that the barrier is so high for a third party entry into the presidential debates is one way of seeing the effects of this. At this point, I'd say that American elections have more to do with luring voters in than courting them. Politicians and parties (yes, BOTH of them) think nothing of making promises that can't be kept, that they know they shouldn't keep, or that they have no intention of even trying to keep.

I also think roachboy is right in his assessment that our two parties are essentially the same. I agree with this - they don't offer significantly different visions of the future, apart from one or two specific issues (like Iraq, and even this split has only emerged AFTER the fact). That this is the case should be obvious - after all, you get elected by mobilizing your base and taking the centrist swing voters. This is also the very reason for the deep partisanship and polarization of the dialogue here. When both parties are substantially similar, they have to resort to increasingly poisonous histrionics to vilify the other side - to deprive their opponents of the center by depicting them as extremists. Since we all think our own guys are perfectly reasonable, we are all also willing to believe that the other side is filled with ideological zealots. And then we show up on TFP and treat each other that way.

Which brings me to TFP. I'm a living refutation of one of Irate's points. I don't come here to TFP with my mind already made up - nor do I come to any specific thread already knowing who will be "my side". I read almost every post of every thread to learn what other people think the issues are. When I see what I think are relevant points, I research them myself. This works because any side is more willing to try to criticize and "tell the truth" about its opponents than about itself. Then it is up to me to separate the wheat from the chaff. I enjoy host's posts - they teach me a lot, though it is nearly impossible to read them and all of their links in time to reply before the discussion has moved on. So, I don't post because I'm here more to learn from people who I might disagree with than to teach them what I think they should believe.

I'll be perfectly honest and blunt: another reason I don't post often in this forum even though I read every thread is that I find many of the ways that people talk to each other to be distasteful and not worthy of engaging in. Why would I want to put myself in the middle of some of this ugliness? Thus, only those extremely invested in a side are vocal. I know, I know, it is easy to impose judgement from the outside... I apologize for not having a more constructive solution to offer along with my criticism.

[denim]

Originally Posted by tecoyah

How many of us have drifted to an extreme (at least in practice), just to attempt to be heard?

I don't care if I'm heard. I try to make life better for me. While I think the world would be happier if it listened, I'm not holding my breath in anticipation of it doing so.

That makes me sound selfish. So be it. I am what I am. The world is what it is. I can't change but my own bit of it, and even then I can only change it once I've got myself under control. So I concentrate on what I should be able to do, and let the rest of the world continue burn in the meantime. It insists on burning, after all.

[roachboy]

i do not see the necessary value of being a moderate.
but then again, i do not see political positions as being defined by abstract notions like "moderate" or "extreme"--these relational terms are themselves the outcomes of political conflict, not terms that can be used to evaluate political conflict.
if moderate means in the present context more or less what amonkie said when characterizing herself above, then it is a fairly narrow spectrum of opinion defined mostly by the overlap/gaps that intertwine fiscal and social conservatism at the moment.
what this type of moderate would necessarily do is find that the existing range of political options constitutes a coherent range of options in general.
this only makes sense to me if you take the american political spectrum as a kind of natural horizon for plotting out political positions.

form time to time, i repeat my favorite short characterization of the american political system: a single party state with two right wings.
to say this, you would have to relativize the spectrum of options that is available in the states, juxtaposing it with that which one might find in other countries, or against a range of options that had obtained previously in the states itself.
but it seems that if you do relativize the existing american political spectrum, you are necessarily understood as an extremist by folk who operate within it as if it was absolute.
from this it follows that the term "extreme" denotes almost nothing.
except that the positions outlined do not slot neatly into the existing--hopelessly narrow--range of "legitimate" political positions that obtain at present here.

so these terms--moderate and extreme--seem to me worthless except as they indicate relations to a spectrum that i take as being itself arbitrary.

when i was more inclined to participate here on a regular basis, i would adopt fairly consistent positions in debates that to some extent reflected my actual politics--however my political positions in 3-d life would be bent into the situation that obtained within particular arguments in the board. so they did not really give an index of who i am or how i think about things in 3-d life: in the world, conservative discourse is simply not a frame of reference that impacts on me at all. it is much more relevant in posts i make here. i find it debilitating intellectually to waste my time taking conservative ideology seriously, except as a kind of socio-political problem, a kind of social laboratory experiment in the engineering of viewpoints.
which i suppose would mark me as "extreme" here.
but the term means nothing.
seriously, folks, it means nothing.

[politicophile]

Originally Posted by roachboy

i find it debilitating intellectually to waste my time taking conservative ideology seriously, except as a kind of socio-political problem, a kind of social laboratory experiment in the engineering of viewpoints.

One driving force behind ideological bipolarization is the refusal by people on virtually all sides of the debate to take seriously the positions espoused by their opponents. We all know that there are legitimate arguments against and in favor of pretty much every political position and pretending otherwise is a form of self-deception.

General openness and respect of alternative points of view is a prerequisite for meaningful, civil discussion.

To quote the Philosopher: "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

[tecoyah]

I just want to thank everyone who posted in here already.....you may not know it, but all this really helps me understand part of the reason our board functions the way it does. One of the reasons I made this thread was to compare another politics board to our own....and let me tell you something. This thread could never happen there.

I wish to commend our membership for the obvious intellect we have here....you people are truly, the best.

[Aladdin Sane]

Me, I started out at the TFP posting mainly in Politics.
I have some strong opinions that are, by the way, quite different than those I held twenty years ago. My political outlook has evolved very dramatically over the years.
After a few months on the TFP I came to realize that very few people ever change their mind on political matters and that it is a waste of time and effort to discuss politics here or anywhere else. In twenty something years of debates, discussions, arguments, and shouting matches I have never, not once, seen someone become convinced of the wrongheadedness of their position. It has never happened. Most discussions become angry shouting matches with each side squared off against the other. I could spend an hour typing a defense of a particular position, only to have it ignored as the debate raged on. The purpose in these forums isn't an exchange of ideas, but an attempt to show the other person how wrong they are. Some would call it "a pissing match."
Today I rarely venture into the Politics forum. I just don't see the point, and I lack the energy. I know where I stand, and you know where you stand, so what's the point of discussing matters that only serve to divide us? There are other things to talk about.

[Elphaba]

Originally Posted by tecoyah

I just want to thank everyone who posted in here already.....you may not know it, but all this really helps me understand part of the reason our board functions the way it does. One of the reasons I made this thread was to compare another politics board to our own....and let me tell you something. This thread could never happen there.

I wish to commend our membership for the obvious intellect we have here....you people are truly, the best.

While I agree that we are the best , I'm not so certain that the other politics board you mentioned doesn't have the same opportunity to evolve into something more than it is now. Granted, I have only spent half a day perusing that board, but my initial impression is that it is not unlike our politics forum back in January of this year.

We received a major slap down by Hal to clean up our act (mea culpa) or lose the forum entirely. That, followed by some very assertive policing of our posts by the moderators, with a banning or two drove home the point. I think that one of the differences in the two boards is the investment our mods make in keeping things civil. There is behavior on the part of posters at the other board that would never be tolerated here.

My 2 cents.

[roachboy]

politicophile: don't collapse yourself and the political frame of reference that may inform some (or all, i dont know) of your positions--this disinction is fundamental--if i meet someone in 3-d life who happens to be conservative in some or all ways, the conversation that happens may be marked by disagreement, but it would nonetheless involve listening and taking seriously what the other person would say. i do not conflate political opposition to an ideology with anything involving how i interact with folk as human beings. maybe it's a function of the gap between this roachboy fellow and who i am pulling his strings. maybe it's a function of how writing is in this kind of space: people are much more nuanced, much more complex than they appear in these tiny green boxes. many people express themselves in a much more interesting and thoughtful way in real time than they do when they write in general--maybe these features explain something of the reduction to caricature that every one of us undergoes via these personae that we write through. a couple friends who had thought about this kind of thing themselves have argued that this is a function of messageboards themselves, how they are structured and how they are used (e.g. at what points during a day people write)

sometimes i get the impression that folk across the political spectrum use this kind of space to experiment with political identities. i get the sense that there are folk here, for example, who are far more consistently conservative than they can be in their regular lives--maybe for personal reasons, maybe professional, maybe situational, i dont know. i say this because, from time to time in other forums, you see very different sides of them peeking around what they write. so you wonder how these elements fit together. maybe that is one way it happens.

fact is that there is a distinction--and a fairly hard one--between interactions in this kind of space, in this space, and those the same folk carry on every day in the 3-d world. there is no 1-to-1 relation between them. you really can't judge who people are in real life from how they appear here--this is not transparent.

i probably write too much when i post, so maybe when i say that i go after the ideology and not the person in debates here what i mean by that gets lost or overlooked. but this is what i do and why. so you are not the ideology, politicophile--you are not even politicophile----any more than i am roachboy, any more than what roachboy says gives you a view of who i am.
so i pass no judgement on you as a human being because this board--which is better than most nonetheless--does not permit it.

as for being able to dismiss conservative ideology: it's pretty easy--there is not much there there. maybe sometime we could have a general debate about this, even as this doesn't seem an optimal thread for it....

[JumpinJesus]

Originally Posted by politicophile

One driving force behind ideological bipolarization is the refusal by people on virtually all sides of the debate to take seriously the positions espoused by their opponents. We all know that there are legitimate arguments against and in favor of pretty much every political position and pretending otherwise is a form of self-deception.

This is a very true statement, politicophile. There is too much of the "Gotcha" game in politics. Making one misstatement leads to the deductive (or is it inductive? I can never remember) reasoning that if one is wrong in this statement, then we can dismiss all other statements made by said person as also being wrong. This makes a person very unwilling in many cases to retract a statement. It also causes us to spend too much time looking for every semantic bumble in those we oppose.

Also, we are often unwilling to accept the statements of our opponents because by doing so, we somehow feel as though we give more credence to their other ideas which we may find abhorent or just simply objectionable.

However how wrong someone may be with one idea does not necessarily make them wrong with every idea. We need to give more credit to the good that others do. When was the last time we watched a political debate between two people who expressed a genuine mutual respect for each other? Or, when was the last time we saw two political opponents who were very good friends demonstrate their friendship during a campaign?

One of these days, politics may move in a more dignified direction.

[raveneye]

I think a more fundamental cause of the polarization is psychological: political disagreements function as an outlet for displaced anger. The more demonized your opponent, the more satisfying is the expression of anger and hostility. I think psychologically it is often exactly the same as a sporting event, even down to the peanut gallery of spectators.

It's probably a good rule of thumb that the more personal hostility there is below the surface (sometimes not too far below), the more serious the problems at home are . . . .

[stevo]

Originally Posted by roachboy

politicophile: don't collapse yourself and the political frame of reference that may inform some (or all, i dont know) of your positions--this disinction is fundamental--if i meet someone in 3-d life who happens to be conservative in some or all ways, the conversation that happens may be marked by disagreement, but it would nonetheless involve listening and taking seriously what the other person would say. i do not conflate political opposition to an ideology with anything involving how i interact with folk as human beings. maybe it's a function of the gap between this roachboy fellow and who i am pulling his strings. maybe it's a function of how writing is in this kind of space: people are much more nuanced, much more complex than they appear in these tiny green boxes. many people express themselves in a much more interesting and thoughtful way in real time than they do when they write in general--maybe these features explain something of the reduction to caricature that every one of us undergoes via these personae that we write through. a couple friends who had thought about this kind of thing themselves have argued that this is a function of messageboards themselves, how they are structured and how they are used (e.g. at what points during a day people write)

sometimes i get the impression that folk across the political spectrum use this kind of space to experiment with political identities. i get the sense that there are folk here, for example, who are far more consistently conservative than they can be in their regular lives--maybe for personal reasons, maybe professional, maybe situational, i dont know. i say this because, from time to time in other forums, you see very different sides of them peeking around what they write. so you wonder how these elements fit together. maybe that is one way it happens.

fact is that there is a distinction--and a fairly hard one--between interactions in this kind of space, in this space, and those the same folk carry on every day in the 3-d world. there is no 1-to-1 relation between them. you really can't judge who people are in real life from how they appear here--this is not transparent.

i probably write too much when i post, so maybe when i say that i go after the ideology and not the person in debates here what i mean by that gets lost or overlooked. but this is what i do and why. so you are not the ideology, politicophile--you are not even politicophile----any more than i am roachboy, any more than what roachboy says gives you a view of who i am.
so i pass no judgement on you as a human being because this board--which is better than most nonetheless--does not permit it.

as for being able to dismiss conservative ideology: it's pretty easy--there is not much there there. maybe sometime we could have a general debate about this, even as this doesn't seem an optimal thread for it....

This is an excellent post (except for the last sentance ). I understand entirely what roach is saying here, and it got me to think a little more about this subject. I'm not sure how much more "to the right" I present myself on this board than I do in real life, I'm pretty far to the right in real life as well, but you would not know it from looking at me or even conversing with me.

Perhaps how I come across on these boards is a function of the boards themselves; the restrictions they place on dialogue, the place, setting and time of day I choose or am able to post, and ultimately my perception of others on this board. I feel as if I post to counter what I perceive to be the far left speak, that in most (if not all) cases I find absurd. I feel as if I'm driven to get louder and stick up for what I believe - not as much to change minds of those I'm arguing against, but to present what I see as the correct version, because there are many self-proclaimed moderates (who I suppose could go either way on any given issue) that need the whole story.

What mostly ends up happening is a muddled mess of a thread that gets tired and old and drops down the list, within a few days another one comes to take its place and the circus starts all over again. That's not to say the threads are pointless at all - if find quite a few of them engaging and most of the time I feel that I got my voice out. Not to say I get several good laughs every day from posters on this board. Sometimes though, I think people take the forum a bit too seriously (I know I have, at times).

[alansmithee]

Originally Posted by tecoyah

A longstanding member posted a reply that really got me thinking, and promted me to make this thread. The premise of the post had to do with people settling into right or left...though they are in fact Moderate/Middle of the road, In order to be heard at all.

"And the moderates like me (socially very liberal, fiscally conservative) get attacked and attacked every time I try to debate so eventually it's take a side and fight to be heard or keep putting up with the bullshit."

I found myself thinking back on what prompted me to become unhappy with my party (yes, I was a republican), and then looking at the reality of the above statement.....it applies to me quite nicely. So my Question:

How many of us have drifted to an extreme (at least in practice), just to attempt to be heard?

I recently read a book that talked about this very phenomena. It was about game theory and strategic thinking. What they said ends up happening is that people often are forced to misrepresent their beliefs (by being more extreme) to get movement to their side. Because the closer to center you are, the less your position will cause change. So people will take the most extreme position possible without going "over the edge" and being considered a crackpot. Even if you would be happier at a more central point on the idological spectrum, you will go farther than that to counteract such behavior from the other side.

I remember coming to the same conclusion myself before, but not putting it in the same way. I've always said the biggest problem with the Civil rights movement was that instead trying to convince people that blacks were equal, it was necessary to take a position of black superiority. Then there is room for movement to/compromise at black equality. As it stands, by taking a central position of black equality, the extremes at the other end (white supremacists) are able to move the position to blacks being seen as slightly less than whites.

And I've taken extreme positions often in an attempt to be heard, but I also tend many times to favor extreme positions as being necessary for true change.

[ubertuber]

Originally Posted by alansmithee

I recently read a book that talked about this very phenomena. It was about game theory and strategic thinking. What they said ends up happening is that people often are forced to misrepresent their beliefs (by being more extreme) to get movement to their side. Because the closer to center you are, the less your position will cause change. So people will take the most extreme position possible without going "over the edge" and being considered a crackpot. Even if you would be happier at a more central point on the idological spectrum, you will go farther than that to counteract such behavior from the other side.

I remember coming to the same conclusion myself before, but not putting it in the same way. I've always said the biggest problem with the Civil rights movement was that instead trying to convince people that blacks were equal, it was necessary to take a position of black superiority. Then there is room for movement to/compromise at black equality. As it stands, by taking a central position of black equality, the extremes at the other end (white supremacists) are able to move the position to blacks being seen as slightly less than whites.

And I've taken extreme positions often in an attempt to be heard, but I also tend many times to favor extreme positions as being necessary for true change.

That's really interesting alansmithee, and it helps put a lot of things into perspective. Thanks for writing that.