| Political Debate Angst....
Posted: 12/19/2007 6:16:51 AM | I’m not sure how people ever resolved political differences throughout the existence of man. It seems today that there is so much antipathy and vitriol for any opposing political perspective; it makes any sort of meaningful discourse on the actual crux of an issue impossible. Almost without fail, the initial responses to any political post are laden with insults to intelligence, motive, morality, dignity, veracity and principles no matter which side of an issue one associates themselves with. When did we become so contemptuous of the rights of others to hold an opposing opinion? I realize we aren’t statesmen attempting to compromise on any of the political issues of the day, but does that mean we have the right to abuse and insult others simply because the life experiences that form political perspectives differ from our own?
I miss the days when political differences could be settled on the merits of the issue alone and there was no need to insult someone in an attempt to make them feel their position was the “incorrect” and “ill-informed” one….
 | |
|
| Political Debate Angst....
Posted: 12/19/2007 6:39:55 AM | Very few people are interested in political debate. The great majority of posters are motivated by one of two instincts:
1. To find community with like-minded people, and demonize a common target.
2. To post their views just to hear themselves talk.
Neither lend themselves to a civil, meaningfull debate and examination of ideas. I don't know where you go for honest discussion, but it's not here. | |
|
| Political Debate Angst....
Posted: 12/19/2007 7:04:32 AM | There are three sides to every debate.
Just like there are 3 ways to do things. The right way, the wrong way, and WHOS WAY.
WHOS pov is the right pov.
Regaurdless if WHOS pov is right or wrong. They are going to stay on that. Why because they can not be wrong.
No matter what you say or prove, on your point. They going to thrash it down.
When they have ran out of options , They have to try and discredit anything you said, even you.
There is no compromising. WHOS pov, is right no matter what anyone else says.
It WHOS WAY, WHOS OPINON. Even thought they may be wrong. You are not going to be able to get your point accross.
Does anyone like to admit that they were wrong on a subject or point of view? | |
|
| Political Debate Angst....
Posted: 12/19/2007 7:36:31 AM |
I realize we aren’t statesmen attempting to compromise on any of the political issues of the day, but does that mean we have the right to abuse and insult others simply because the life experiences that form political perspectives differ from our own?
I miss the days when political differences could be settled on the merits of the issue alone and there was no need to insult someone in an attempt to make them feel their position was the “incorrect” and “ill-informed” one….
It's simply a reflection of how modern politicians have corrupted the process. The "Rovian" tactics of smearing have long ruled the day - going back to Clinton's time in the White House.
It doesn't have to be that way, and it wasn't for most of American history. (By the way, Canada's politicians have followed a similar , if somewhat milder path.)
Another part is the "dumbing down" of news programs into infotainment over the years. People's attention spans have generally shortened, and the sound byte is the equivalent of a paragraph today.
It's easier to use an insult in a sound byte, then actually look at the issue.
We do need both sides, to get the best solutions. It's normal to have at least two views, because each party looks at a certain spectrum of reality - and overlooks the other.
Let's take something like minimum wage, and exaggerate the arguments on both sides. The "liberals" want everyone to make fifteen dollars an hour, and the "conservatives" say this will put every business into bankruptcy. (This again, is a dramatic over the top example).
Actually, neither is actually logical.
Working together , both sides CAN come up with a compromise. That allows for progress to be made. This is pretty much how it is supposed to work in a democracy, and how it USED to work.
No one party has all the answers, and one party rule is NOT good for anyone.
I still can't understand why people go postal here on each other in political debates. Insults do not advance your arguments, they weaken it. IF you want respect you have to give it too.
We can either fight one another, or try to find a way to work with one another. We can't always expect to win every argument every time. We also have to realize that different life experiences and our reaction to those experiences send us on different political paths. In taking those paths we place filters over our eyes that let us see only one side of an issue, and to minimize the other.
In a good political debate, each side tries to make the other aware of things they are missing because of those filters. We have to realize that , in the end, we still have to work and live with one another at ther end of the day - and that we are not REALLY that different in the things we want for ourselves, our families, and society.
We typically just disagree on how to get there. | |
|
| Political Debate Angst....
Posted: 12/19/2007 7:59:37 AM | It's simply a reflection of how modern politicians have corrupted the process. The "Rovian" tactics of smearing have long ruled the day - going back to Clinton's time in the White House.
This is precisely my point. Meaningful discourse cannot exist when the first statement is an attack on a particular person rather than on the perceived flaws of the issue. Neither Rove nor Clinton controls my thoughts, or my ability to vocalize my opinion. In my opinion, any post that makes reference to either party’s target or “poster boy” for malfeasance is a post to be ignored, primarily because the content after such a statement is generally not individual thought, merely a regurgitation of the extreme of their party line.
| |
|
| Political Debate Angst....
Posted: 12/19/2007 8:02:58 AM | One of the issues with political discourse is when one side starts using terms like "Traitor, treasons, fag, or idiot." because you don't agree with their position. It makes it very hard to sustain any sort of civility.
Can you blame a person for calling a person a fascist if they indulge in threats of violence and make statements about how they wish they could deport you? | |
|
| Political Debate Angst....
Posted: 12/19/2007 8:13:04 AM |
Can you blame a person for calling a person a fascist if they indulge in threats of violence and make statements about how they wish they could deport you?
That's like arguing with a road sign and going home lost. The word Facism is thrown around so much, one would think people actually knew what it meant.
Fascism - any movement, ideology, or attitude that favors dictatorial government, centralized control of private enterprise, repression of all opposition, and extreme nationalism. An example of fascism would be the abolishment of all but one political party, or the restriction of freedom of the press, and / or free speech. One example, the restriction / elimination of market supported talk radio is a step towards fascism. Doesn’t mean those who agree are fascists, more likely it means they don’t understand the concept of fascism because they don’t understand the true definition of the word. | |
|
| Political Debate Angst....
Posted: 12/19/2007 10:13:20 AM | | I happened across a show on the History channel the other night about a debate back in the 60's where the Mayor of Chicago told the speaker that he was a MF, and a slew of other epithets. I believe that we have become so bogged down with personal attacks and promises of retribution of all indiscretions that our government is placing it's citizens in peril. We've become insular in our opinions with the rich minority directing our attention down meaningless paths to divert our attention from what is actually occurring in our country. In so many instances, lobbyists are buying votes, elected officials have no idea what the common man is experiencing, etc... When the government becomes a corporation the futility that we feel digresses to the basest levels. | |
|
| Political Debate Angst....
Posted: 12/19/2007 10:50:04 AM |
It's simply a reflection of how modern politicians have corrupted the process. The "Rovian" tactics of smearing have long ruled the day - going back to Clinton's time in the White House.
It doesn't have to be that way, and it wasn't for most of American history.
For much - if not most - of American history, it was quite worse than it is today!
But I took the poster to be refering to these kind of forums, as opposed to 'organized' partisan things such as campaigns, events, talk radio, etc. One would like a more civil discussion of the issues, and one doesn't find it. Pick a political thread about a candidate at random, and you are more likely to find (1) cut-and-pasting of inflammatory pieces, or (2) childish name-calling about the other candidates, then you are to find any analysis about the candidate's campaign. Of the 3,752,567,432 Ron Paul posts, how many have actually discussed his campaign prospects objectively, outside of denouncing a media-led conspiracy? | |
|
| Political Debate Angst....
Posted: 12/19/2007 11:35:28 AM | Sometimes there is meaningful discourse in political discussions. To me it's a study of humanity and man's inability to govern man and individuals themselves (are they educated on the topic, etc.).
Factions disagreeing with one another is a philosophy that the U.S. was built upon actually, so it's interesting if you truly study governance including the many governments that have been in existence throughout history. I agree it is sad to see a lot of folks misinformed and defending positions from that vantage point. It happens with 'all' topics though...from toilet bowel cleaners to marriage. :-p | |
|
| Political Debate Angst....
Posted: 12/19/2007 2:29:24 PM | In ancient times, before there was a middle class, anyone not in the ruling class was probably more interested in getting food on the table, than politics, which seemed so far away from their reality (until the wars showed up, of course).
Political discourse among statesmen isn't all that stately, either. I remember the front page photo of Rockefellar flipping off a protester, there was the attack with a cane way back, before the American Civil War (one of the people involved was named Sumner, I think?)
Are things different now, or just shown on TV? | |
|
| Political Debate Angst....
Posted: 12/19/2007 3:23:04 PM | This stuff is a shifting of the issues, moving discussion away from debate and solutions for problems to a focus on the inflammatory and thus ignoring the issue.
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
Joseph Goebbels.
“A lie told often enough becomes truth”
Vladimir Lenin.
We all know that anyone that disagrees with anything is a traitor and lover of the enemy. | |
|
| Political Debate Angst....
Posted: 12/19/2007 4:35:20 PM |
This stuff is a shifting of the issues, moving discussion away from debate and solutions for problems to a focus on the inflammatory and thus ignoring the issue. “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” Joseph Goebbels. “A lie told often enough becomes truth” Vladimir Lenin.
We all know that anyone that disagrees with anything is a traitor and lover of the enemy.
Another backhand to the face of actual discourse... In my opinion, it's this type of smugness that undermines the expansion of minds. Clearly most of us agree that insults whether direct or implied produce the same negative results, the question, what is the reason? I’m perplexed, in that the quip currently recognized as the definition of insanity is “doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result each time”…… Clearly it isn't a viable method of persuasion, so what causes the perpetuation of such tactics? Insecurity? Inferiority? Abused as a child?
| |
|
| Political Debate Angst....
Posted: 12/19/2007 7:16:55 PM |
what is the reason?
To shift the focus away from the issues at hand whatever they are and mis or redirect the discussion.
And it works for the most part.
Discussions become mud slinging matches that contain no meat of the issues. Causing gridlock and a line in the sand to be drawn where parties line up separated from each other with more concern for the slanders and inflammatory statements then about the original issue.
Kind of like when one of two brothers will get into trouble without it being an issue he will divulge secrets of the other brother to shift the focus away from himself. | |
|
Hoop
|
Joined: 5/1/2006
Msg: 15 | |
| Political Debate Angst....
Posted: 12/19/2007 8:57:34 PM |
the question, what is the reason?
I think what we are seeing is that "political correctness" has had it's day in the sun.
:laugh: | |
|
| Political Debate Angst....
Posted: 12/19/2007 9:06:51 PM |
, so what causes the perpetuation of such tactics?
Having more than one child.
Or having somebody else to blame, take the heat or say well he did this thing thats much worse then what I did what about him?
In other words not taking responsibility for your own actions by bringing the actions of or imaginary actions of others into a discussion about your own actions.
Changing the subject.
Its pretty basic child rearing 101 but the parent must be smarter then the child and not allow the child to change the subject but remain on issue, taking notes however of the information provided of the other child's actions and addressing those issues at another time. | |
|
| Political Debate Angst....
Posted: 12/20/2007 5:43:44 AM |
I think what we are seeing is that "political correctness" has had it's day in the sun.
Dare we dream? | |
|
| Political Debate Angst....
Posted: 12/20/2007 6:50:36 AM | | Well said OP. I affiliate myself with no political group or persuasion for precisely these reasons. | |
|
| Political Debate Angst....
Posted: 12/20/2007 7:52:30 AM |
I miss the days when political differences could be settled on the merits of the issue alone and there was no need to insult someone in an attempt to make them feel their position was the “incorrect” and “ill-informed” one….
I would really like to know which utopian world that comes from since jefferson and hamilton damn near killed each other over political differences?
No one here that I am aware of is violating anyones rights?
Do you really think politics is about sitting around a camp fire and singing kum-by-ya together?
Just when were those days?
. | |
|
| Political Debate Angst....
Posted: 12/20/2007 8:45:28 AM | Certainly not in the creation of the U.S. as seen in the discourse of slavery and the civil war. There will always be a failure to resolve conflict where conflict exists amongst even the most alleged 'civil' of beings.
As stated above though, the U.S. was built upon the premise of competing factions and in this the 'majority' was alleged to obtain its will/desires in governance.
This theory however was altered with a failure to consider that many fail to 'care' (or even vote let alone educate themselves in government) as their time investments in family and work are aggregious in today's society.
The original theory also didn't include the electrol college and other strategies employed in the creation of the U.S.
For the most part 'angst' is either those who actually are informed and care (with a desire to educate voters and/or learn from others) or those who just desire 'to feel connected/as if they belong to a group or to feel their voice matters.' Either that or to work off frustrations with childish debate that usually lends little to nothing in the matter of political issues affecting citizens (mudslinging as mentioned).
What is worse than the general public angst is that we see politicians (on both sides of the coin) leading and acting as if the later mentioned amounts to truth and the well being of citizens is being considered or discussed. Citizens really have to listen carefully just to see 'issues' being discussed versus ill willed campaigning today...and in this they really have to research an issue themselves versus relying upon policians or a political parties and especially slanted media representatives...whose objective is often 'winning the vote at any cost.' | |
|
| Political Debate Angst....
Posted: 12/20/2007 8:46:30 AM |
I would really like to know which utopian world that comes from since jefferson and hamilton damn near killed each other over political differences?
No one here that I am aware of is violating anyones rights?
Do you really think politics is about sitting around a camp fire and singing kum-by-ya together?
Just when were those days?
It appears we can't even discuss why rational behavior in adult discussion is essential without attracting negative discourse...
For the record, the concept of mature adult discussion, regardless of topic, is not a utopian notion; it's something our parents taught us was a fundamental and essential means of communication. Absolutely there have always been hot button issues that cause some people to revert to a primordial level equal to the poo slinging monkeys at the zoo, but does every single issue have to digress to that point?
As for violating rights, this is an International site, so “rights” vary … have we “evolved” to a point where such inane, rude, degrading and insulting behavior is acceptable so long as rights aren’t violated?!?!?!?!
| |
|
| Political Debate Angst....
Posted: 12/20/2007 9:53:38 AM | | The politics of division are as successful as the apathy of its constituents. Vitriol and rhetoric have worked well from both sides of the aisle for sometime. Some of us are more emotional than others and some of us are more honest with ourselves than others, and then there's the rest of us drowning in patisanship and generally unwilling to look within. Humility seems to go more and more out of fashion, and I am of course no more innocent than most for I am human. | |
|
| Political Debate Angst....
Posted: 12/20/2007 9:59:52 AM | I'm going to quote Marshall MacLuhan - the medium is the message.
When you look at the history of political discourse, the dominant medium tends to shape the nature of debate. Early in your history there were lots of very partisan newspapers that made outrageous accusations. That settled down, and for a long time people got their news and opinions from pretty balanced newpapers. TV followed the model of the newspapers when it started.
Now you have vitriolic radio, and of course, the internet. Now none of us here has ever posted anything rashly that they regretted after sober second thought, but I've heard it happens. | |
|
| Political Debate Angst....
Posted: 12/20/2007 1:28:38 PM | | Oh I like this topic, here's a fun little test, see all those folks above who posted their opinions on this topic? You can go back through all their posts and low and behold many of them are the very people the OP was talking about LMAO. You will find many were the ones to sling mudd right off when they encountered someone with an opposing belief. Before I even opened this topic I knew some of the posters that would post on this one and claim their Own moral High Ground with sayings like you see above this post.OP Thank You, and some of you other posters Thank You, this topic was beautiful and revealing. | |
|
| Political Debate Angst....
Posted: 12/20/2007 3:17:32 PM |
Oh I like this topic, here's a fun little test, see all those folks above who posted their opinions on this topic? You can go back through all their posts and low and behold many of them are the very people the OP was talking about LMAO. You will find many were the ones to sling mudd right off when they encountered someone with an opposing belief. Before I even opened this topic I knew some of the posters that would post on this one and claim their Own moral High Ground with sayings like you see above this post.OP Thank You, and some of you other posters Thank You, this topic was beautiful and revealing. Oh I'll be the first to admit I'm guilty of it, and possibly one of the worst offenders of applying an over abundance of sarcasm when I feel I can get away with it … I just woke up one morning and decided if I didn't at least try to get something more meaningful out of the experience then why bother. I'm not that familiar with many of the responders, but I have a good bit of experience going toe to toe with Half and DC on numerous political “hot” issues. While I am almost always at odds with their opinions, we seem to be able to keep our debates at an intelligent level and factually based. Yes occasionally one of us will lob one across the others bow, but there is no malice involved in the exchange, which generates a great deal of respect for the others opinion. I don’t want to turn this post into a hug fest, but I know both approach an issue with facts in hand, not just conjecture, and are not so rigid that they are unwilling to explore and consider facts supporting the opposing position.
I think the others responding in the thread probably feel the same as I do about the digression of political debate here, and since this thread began have made a concerted effort to curb the urge to get down and dirty when addressing what they perceive to be obvious failings of the opposing position.
With regard to moral high ground, I don’t believe there actually is any when discussing the approach to political conversation, but there is a “high road” as to how you express and maintain your opposition, which is what the thread was intended to suggest.
| |
|
Home
login 
