@Julius: I think that the reason the other side has not won a complete victory is because they stick to tactics that limit their base.
The tactics of the GOP in outright lying and demonizing Democrats and their ideology involving making anyone who isn't a straight white rich Christian man a second-class citizen are two different things, and the former does not affect which demographics they can target.
If you demonize democrats you are not likely to convert many of them to your point of view.
"All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity; but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dream with open eyes to make it possible." - T.E. Lawrence
This discussion is about civility in discourse, as the title and the OP make clear. It's not only about politics! Trying to reframe the discussion such that I'm out of bounds isn't really going to fly.
If you think Obama is the true conservative in the race, how can you argue that progressives should support him? I know he's The One, but come on.
I mean God damn now. It's almost like you have no sense of shame.
You know what? You're right, that was a cheap shot. On a forum where Mittens is as common as Mitt, I ought to be better than that, especially when I'm asking others to.
If you demonize democrats you are not likely to convert many of them to your point of view.
That's not the goal? Both sides fight over the independent voters, and struggle to motivate their respective bases to get out and vote. This country has been polarized for a good while now and neither side can gain traction with partisans from the other side. Demonizing your opposition can convince independents that they should support you, motivates your base, and demoralizes your opponents so they are more likely to stay home on election day.
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
A bigger question: are we really going to start demanding that an internet forum attached to a video game web comic is to become the bastion of rhetoric and discourse in the age of new reason?
That's a bit like demanding Jon Stewart be a reliable journalist, is it not? The difference being I'm not in knowledge of any of us having a national platform.
A bigger question: are we really going to start demanding that an internet forum attached to a video game web comic is to become the bastion of rhetoric and discourse in the age of new reason?
That's a bit like demanding Jon Stewart be a reliable journalist, is it not? The difference being I'm not in knowledge of any of us having a national platform.
Well, what do you want out of the forum? A place where people feel like they can talk about issues from a broad spectrum of starting points and maybe learn something about how other people think? A mostly homogeneous discussion where people can examine the nuances of one set of opinions? Some third thing?
spool32 on
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
A bigger question: are we really going to start demanding that an internet forum attached to a video game web comic is to become the bastion of rhetoric and discourse in the age of new reason?
That's a bit like demanding Jon Stewart be a reliable journalist, is it not? The difference being I'm not in knowledge of any of us having a national platform.
Well, what do you want out of the forum? A place where people feel like they can talk about issues from a broad spectrum of starting points and maybe learn something about how other people think? A mostly homogeneous discussion where people can examine the nuances of one set of opinions? Some third thing?
I feel like in general we have a mix of both of those options, and quite often we're able to get the first (which would be the ideal). However, I come into this forum as a center right voter knowing that this is a left leaning board.
Just a few days ago I spent three pages in a debate with someone who was going after my opinions just because I had the gall to say "republican" in a post.
But those instances are rather few and far between. I think we should be cordial with each other, but I also think we should all have a bit tougher skin.
Basically, I don't expect the same level of courtesy on the internet as I do in real life.
I think this very thread is an absolutely stellar example of what I've been trying to say.
Go through a couple pages and take a look at the various mocking replies you'll find. And how many of them affected the conversation positively? Did any of them get their target to think differently or contribute more? As a bystander, how many of them really do anything to change your mind?
Maybe I've been too absolute. One in a thousand times, someone will craft a rock-solid pithy bit of satire that really just cuts to tge core of the matter. But how often do you really see that, honestly? Versus how often it just devolves into squabbling. How many of the cute mocking statements from this thread do you think improved the conversation?
@Regina: While what you are saying is true given your assumptions, I believe that people on the other side - not just the undecided - can be converted to your side.
Perhaps my homeland colors my views. I am from Israel. It is, politically, a post-apocalyptic setting. You can honestly say that the republicans won, without exaggerating. The political climate at the moment, and for the last few decades or so, is oscillating between far right and center-right. All the left is able to do is play the part of the meddling kid to slow everything down to a halt, pulling off a guerilla victory once in a blue moon.
So much of the country's population is right-leaning that, effectively, the only way for the left to win - for the left to have the possibility of winning in any meaningful fashion - is to convert a significant portion of the right-wingers. To believe this is impossible is to admit that the country is headed for certain ruin, as are the Palestinian people. It is not something I am ready to do.
Grey Paladin on
"All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity; but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dream with open eyes to make it possible." - T.E. Lawrence
A bigger question: are we really going to start demanding that an internet forum attached to a video game web comic is to become the bastion of rhetoric and discourse in the age of new reason?
I don't think it's unreasonable to expect an internet forum attached to a video game web comic to adhere to a minimal level of civil discourse, simply because I don't think it's unreasonable to ask all human beings to adhere to a minimal level of civil discourse.
We don't get a free ride from being polite and sensible just because we're gamers. (Though it might seem like it sometimes. :P )
(I just have a different idea from, say, Gandalf the Crazed, about what that minimal level should be.)
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
If you demonize democrats you are not likely to convert many of them to your point of view.
That's not the goal? Both sides fight over the independent voters, and struggle to motivate their respective bases to get out and vote. This country has been polarized for a good while now and neither side can gain traction with partisans from the other side. Demonizing your opposition can convince independents that they should support you, motivates your base, and demoralizes your opponents so they are more likely to stay home on election day.
And it's kind of killing American politics. So instead of trying to burn tge nearly fifty percent of the country that identifies as Republican, why not try to build bridges?
There are a whole lot of working class people that don't like government assistance because they work their asses off and get by without it, so they resent their neighbor that works way fewer hours, but has as much or more disposable income by picking up government assistance. Now, instead of ridiculing that person for being such a damn stupid bootstrapper, why not look for common ground? You probably have a lot of it.
"More fish for Kunta!"
--LeVar Burton
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
A bigger question: are we really going to start demanding that an internet forum attached to a video game web comic is to become the bastion of rhetoric and discourse in the age of new reason?
I don't think it's unreasonable to expect an internet forum attached to a video game web comic to adhere to a minimal level of civil discourse, simply because I don't think it's unreasonable to ask all human beings to adhere to a minimal level of civil discourse.
We don't get a free ride from being polite and sensible just because we're gamers. (Though it might seem like it sometimes. :P )
(I just have a different idea from, say, Gandalf the Crazed, about what that minimal level should be.)
I agree that a minimal level of decorum should be maintained, I just don't expect and internet forum to be brunch in the Queen's gardens. More PMQs at times, really.
I don't know about the lot of you, but I had a lot more civil discussions over the internet than I did in the dreaded physical realms dubbed reality.
"All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity; but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dream with open eyes to make it possible." - T.E. Lawrence
0
Options
SerukoFerocious Kittenof The Farthest NorthRegistered Userregular
Nope, passive voice gets you shitcanned up here in our northern institutions too.
What'ev. You can write things that ignore the point all day. Criticism of the person is not civil. Criticism of what is written is.
"How are you going to play Dota if your fingers and bitten off? You can't. That's how" -> Carnarvon
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
A bigger question: are we really going to start demanding that an internet forum attached to a video game web comic is to become the bastion of rhetoric and discourse in the age of new reason?
I don't think it's unreasonable to expect an internet forum attached to a video game web comic to adhere to a minimal level of civil discourse, simply because I don't think it's unreasonable to ask all human beings to adhere to a minimal level of civil discourse.
We don't get a free ride from being polite and sensible just because we're gamers. (Though it might seem like it sometimes. :P )
(I just have a different idea from, say, Gandalf the Crazed, about what that minimal level should be.)
I agree that a minimal level of decorum should be maintained, I just don't expect and internet forum to be brunch in the Queen's gardens. More PMQs at times, really.
Totally. Like what somebody (maybe Jeepguy? enlightenedbum? I forget) said earlier about how the forum doesn't have the manpower to vigorously police logical fallacies. Some arguments fly here that wouldn't fly in a court of law or a college debate class or a PhD defense.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
If you demonize democrats you are not likely to convert many of them to your point of view.
That's not the goal? Both sides fight over the independent voters, and struggle to motivate their respective bases to get out and vote. This country has been polarized for a good while now and neither side can gain traction with partisans from the other side. Demonizing your opposition can convince independents that they should support you, motivates your base, and demoralizes your opponents so they are more likely to stay home on election day.
And it's kind of killing American politics. So instead of trying to burn tge nearly fifty percent of the country that identifies as Republican, why not try to build bridges?
There are a whole lot of working class people that don't like government assistance because they work their asses off and get by without it, so they resent their neighbor that works way fewer hours, but has as much or more disposable income by picking up government assistance. Now, instead of ridiculing that person for being such a damn stupid bootstrapper, why not look for common ground? You probably have a lot of it.
Building bridges, right. Because that was oh-so-effective the first half of President Obama's first term. Oh wait, it wasn't at all. It worked horribly, made him look utterly ineffective, and while we might have lost the house in the mid-term either way, it didn't need to be such a landslide.
Where do you build a bridge to when the other side has, as their entire platform: "We will not compromise or negotiate on anything because we want government to grind to a halt and this President to fail so we can win next time."
If we had spent more time calling them out on that, and less time trying to build failbridges, we would have fared better in the mid-term.
@Julius: I think that the reason the other side has not won a complete victory is because they stick to tactics that limit their base.
If someone is lieing, point out the inconsistencies in their claims. If the other side attacks, point out that this has nothing to do with the debate at hand, and that they are avoiding the subject. Both are purely factual rebuttals. You can do a whole lot of propaganda without dissing the enemy. Propaganda can be focused on showing the benefits you offer. All in all, I just think it is possible to do better.
Maybe such a tactic limits their base, but it seems that at least gives them more of a base then they'd have if they remained polite. There is a regression on social issues despite all indicators pointing towards the idea that there should be progression.
Anyway, you're acting like this only applies to the left-right political landscape. But you can see clearly in the current Republican Primary that attacking your opponents works. People swing from candidate to candidate because their flaws are pointed out in increasingly dirty attacks.
Seriously, we're arguing about maybe being a bit more honest and ballsy with one's opponents while there are ads right now downright insulting people.
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
If you demonize democrats you are not likely to convert many of them to your point of view.
Well yeah.
But currently guys like Romney and Santorum are not talking to democrats, they're not even talking to independents. They're talking to republicans. They're fighting against eachother. They want to get eachother's supporters.
Like, they attack the other for working with the democrats. The badness of the democrats is already a given.
A bigger question: are we really going to start demanding that an internet forum attached to a video game web comic is to become the bastion of rhetoric and discourse in the age of new reason?
That's a bit like demanding Jon Stewart be a reliable journalist, is it not? The difference being I'm not in knowledge of any of us having a national platform.
Well, what do you want out of the forum? A place where people feel like they can talk about issues from a broad spectrum of starting points and maybe learn something about how other people think? A mostly homogeneous discussion where people can examine the nuances of one set of opinions? Some third thing?
I'd like this to be a forum where I can call out someone for ignoring about 3 pages of people asking him to give examples of this board's total echo-chamber thing.
Basically, I don't expect the same level of courtesy on the internet as I do in real life.
why not?
(I realize the practical answer to this is that experience forms out expectations and that it's easy to be an asshole on the internet)
but still, why not?
At the same time, the relative anonymity of the internet gives us the freedom to break down assumptions and have an actual discussion in a way we would never do in real life, because in real life those kind of foundational conversations are awkward and you probably aren't really interested in digging into why your buddy has formed the preconceived notions about whatever issue that he has.
There is some happy medium between the average real life conversation and what passes for dialogue on most of the internet; on a good day this forum hits it, on a bad day, eh
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
You can read through pages 73-76 of the current [chat] wherein someone asks for explanations of some logical fallacies, and all the replies except mine have a clear leftward tilt.
Or you can read through the last couple of debate threads. Heck, just read the last 100 page GOP Primary thread, and tell me what you think about the overwhelming balance of opinion. The idea that this forum is a dramatically left-leaning place, where most people are people on the left and they mostly talk about things from a leftly slanted perspective, is well-established.
Left-leaning and echo-chamber are completely different things.
Freep is an echochamber, because anyone who expresses a liberal view will quickly be banned. Right-wing people might feel outnumbered or picked on here, but they can stay as long as they like, and espouse their opinions, and thus it is absolutely not an echo chamber.
that you think this forum is overly leftist (aside from on a couple of specific issues that skew with common tech/youth demographics) just tells me that you haven't spent much time reading actual, honest to god leftist forums
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Left-leaning and echo-chamber are completely different things.
Freep is an echochamber, because anyone who expresses a liberal view will quickly be banned. Right-wing people might feel outnumbered or picked on here, but they can stay as long as they like, and espouse their opinions, and thus it is absolutely not an echo chamber.
"A dollar a day keeps the liberals away - Donate Now!"
0
Options
Captain Marcusnow arrives the hour of actionRegistered Userregular
that you think this forum is overly leftist (aside from on a couple of specific issues that skew with common tech/youth demographics) just tells me that you haven't spent much time reading actual, honest to god leftist forums
It is pretty leftist. Spool, you and Modern Man are like the only two right-leaning people here.
that you think this forum is overly leftist (aside from on a couple of specific issues that skew with common tech/youth demographics) just tells me that you haven't spent much time reading actual, honest to god leftist forums
Also, this.
While my nominally centrist views on certain issues cause friction for me here from time to time, and there was that occasion where some people in [chat] thought it would be cute to start a meme that I am a puritan prude, I mostly get along OK.
Not so in a real left wing environment, and I have the scars on my backside from being chased out of a couple of those forums in the past.
that you think this forum is overly leftist (aside from on a couple of specific issues that skew with common tech/youth demographics) just tells me that you haven't spent much time reading actual, honest to god leftist forums
It is pretty leftist. Spool, you and Modern Man are like the only two right-leaning people here.
TNC is well to the right of all of them, and you forgot KevinNash also.
I wouldn't say this is a leftist forum. There are a ton of centrists here. It just so happens that the Republican party has moved so far to the right, that many many centrists are Democrats now, and feel completely pushed out of and cut off from the Republican party.
that you think this forum is overly leftist (aside from on a couple of specific issues that skew with common tech/youth demographics) just tells me that you haven't spent much time reading actual, honest to god leftist forums
It is pretty leftist. Spool, you and Modern Man are like the only two right-leaning people here.
I am not sure how you have arrived at the conclusion that I am right leaning
I mean I guess the forum is leftist in the sense that it rejects the views of mainstream american republicanism as pretty much categorically nutso, but if that is your criteria for leftism you need to re-evaluate your understanding of the term
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Seriously. The mainstream Democratic party is overwhelmingly centrist, and even has a number of center-right people. You can identify a liberal quite readily because they almost invariably feel ambivalent about the actual Democratic party, in that it is not liberal enough.
Republicans who consider themselves centrist are likely either confused about where the center is, or have certain key issues that they absolutely will not budge on (such as abortion) and thus remain Republican.
Left-leaning and echo-chamber are completely different things.
Freep is an echochamber, because anyone who expresses a liberal view will quickly be banned. Right-wing people might feel outnumbered or picked on here, but they can stay as long as they like, and espouse their opinions, and thus it is absolutely not an echo chamber.
OK. What I mean when I say this is that most comments echo the prevailing opinion, and opposing ones are rare. Silencing opposing views via moderation is a new requirement for my experience with the term. Isn't that what you'd like to see, though? Cutting deployment of ridicule and humiliation, here on these forums, until all the opinions you disagree with have been silenced and all the people converted through shame and guilt to new opinions you agree with?
Maybe that's a little extreme, but it seems in line with the kind of place you're arguing we should have here.
that you think this forum is overly leftist (aside from on a couple of specific issues that skew with common tech/youth demographics) just tells me that you haven't spent much time reading actual, honest to god leftist forums
It's no DU, but come on; it's clearly a left-leaning space. This is like saying "apartment fire? pssh, calling that a fire just tells me you've never stood inside a volcano before."
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I don't think you can bring up any commentary on the current primary as evidence that PA is a lefty echo chamber.
This primary is run by nutcases. All of them are far to the right of the majority of Americans on pretty much every issue. I'd say most people are centrists, a few of the more vocal ones are left leaning, there's some right siders, and a few outliers from both sides.
0
Options
Captain Marcusnow arrives the hour of actionRegistered Userregular
The "you" was directed at Spool.
Regina Fong- the centrists sometimes get drowned out by the "Not voting for Obama because he isn't Leftist Jesus" people.
TNC is off in a class by himself, having rejected capitalism/democracy and reverted to feudalism. I forgot about KevinNash. So that makes 3 right-wingers here. Not really a non-partisan/balanced forum, but people aren't sitting around in a circlejerk all the time so I guess it's alright.
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
that you think this forum is overly leftist (aside from on a couple of specific issues that skew with common tech/youth demographics) just tells me that you haven't spent much time reading actual, honest to god leftist forums
It is pretty leftist. Spool, you and Modern Man are like the only two right-leaning people here.
TNC is well to the right of all of them, and you forgot KevinNash also.
Also spacekungfuman.
But we got an entire thread for talking about how guns are awesome and a lot of posters that are quite religious and a bunch that are conservative.
I'd consider this place overwhelmingly Democratic. But the democrats are the centre with regards to possible opinions on a subject. In the Netherlands I identify centre-right usually, and that's also because I'm young and non-religious thus have to swing left a lot. On economics I find myself siding with the classical-liberal party (which is the most right in that regard) most of the time. And I find myself quite at the centre here, left of it actually.
For a leftist echo chamber you guys surely don't feel very leftist to me. :P
Left-leaning and echo-chamber are completely different things.
Freep is an echochamber, because anyone who expresses a liberal view will quickly be banned. Right-wing people might feel outnumbered or picked on here, but they can stay as long as they like, and espouse their opinions, and thus it is absolutely not an echo chamber.
OK. What I mean when I say this is that most comments echo the prevailing opinion, and opposing ones are rare. Silencing opposing views via moderation is a new requirement for my experience with the term.
But your experience with the term here largely consists of you saying it, and other people telling you that you are applying the term improperly. So I'm a little confused here. Or did you just assume people who tell you "this is not an echo chamber, Spool" were just being dishonest?
Isn't that what you'd like to see, though? Cutting deployment of ridicule and humiliation, here on these forums, until all the opinions you disagree with have been silenced and all the people converted through shame and guilt to new opinions you agree with?
Maybe that's a little extreme, but it seems in line with the kind of place you're arguing we should have here.
I think what we have here right now is pretty swell! I am not eager to see it change, and certainly do not desire some enforced sense of faux-niceness. I do not want to see people get infracted for being conservative or anti-abortion or whatever. That would be silly. But it would also be silly if someone got punished every time you cried out that you were being oppressed. So I do not want to see a tyranny of the minority either.
A bigger question: are we really going to start demanding that an internet forum attached to a video game web comic is to become the bastion of rhetoric and discourse in the age of new reason?
That's a bit like demanding Jon Stewart be a reliable journalist, is it not? The difference being I'm not in knowledge of any of us having a national platform.
Ironically Stewart is a better journalist than many actual journalists in the media.
We're ovewhelmingly Democratic, but there's fairly broad spectrum from right wing independents who voted for Obama (Salvation), center-right people who voted for Obama (ElJeffe, AMFE), centrist Dems (Speaker), lefty Dems (OK, there's a lot of us), and more militant liberals of various bents (say, Thanatos).
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
If you demonize democrats you are not likely to convert many of them to your point of view.
That's not the goal? Both sides fight over the independent voters, and struggle to motivate their respective bases to get out and vote. This country has been polarized for a good while now and neither side can gain traction with partisans from the other side. Demonizing your opposition can convince independents that they should support you, motivates your base, and demoralizes your opponents so they are more likely to stay home on election day.
And it's kind of killing American politics. So instead of trying to burn tge nearly fifty percent of the country that identifies as Republican, why not try to build bridges?
There are a whole lot of working class people that don't like government assistance because they work their asses off and get by without it, so they resent their neighbor that works way fewer hours, but has as much or more disposable income by picking up government assistance. Now, instead of ridiculing that person for being such a damn stupid bootstrapper, why not look for common ground? You probably have a lot of it.
Building bridges, right. Because that was oh-so-effective the first half of President Obama's first term. Oh wait, it wasn't at all. It worked horribly, made him look utterly ineffective, and while we might have lost the house in the mid-term either way, it didn't need to be such a landslide.
Where do you build a bridge to when the other side has, as their entire platform: "We will not compromise or negotiate on anything because we want government to grind to a halt and this President to fail so we can win next time."
If we had spent more time calling them out on that, and less time trying to build failbridges, we would have fared better in the mid-term.
I wasn't suggesting building bridges with John Boehner. That wouldn't work.
But your experience with the term here largely consists of you saying it, and other people telling you that you are applying the term improperly. So I'm a little confused here. Or did you just assume people who tell you "this is not an echo chamber, Spool" were just being dishonest?
I think what we have here right now is pretty swell! I am not eager to see it change, and certainly do not desire some enforced sense of faux-niceness. I do not want to see people get infracted for being conservative or anti-abortion or whatever. That would be silly. But it would also be silly if someone got punished every time you cried out that you were being oppressed. So I do not want to see a tyranny of the minority either.
Just to chime in, I agree with the bolded despite being myself on occasion called retarded by all number of people here. I just shrug it off, try to consider the validity behind what was said, and typically fire back with my own snark if I feel justified in doing so. All it takes is a little adaptation and even if you hold some views others might consider on the wing-nut side of the spectrum co-existence is still possible within the great Circle-Of-Online-Forum-Life!
If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"
Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
If you demonize democrats you are not likely to convert many of them to your point of view.
That's not the goal? Both sides fight over the independent voters, and struggle to motivate their respective bases to get out and vote. This country has been polarized for a good while now and neither side can gain traction with partisans from the other side. Demonizing your opposition can convince independents that they should support you, motivates your base, and demoralizes your opponents so they are more likely to stay home on election day.
And it's kind of killing American politics. So instead of trying to burn tge nearly fifty percent of the country that identifies as Republican, why not try to build bridges?
There are a whole lot of working class people that don't like government assistance because they work their asses off and get by without it, so they resent their neighbor that works way fewer hours, but has as much or more disposable income by picking up government assistance. Now, instead of ridiculing that person for being such a damn stupid bootstrapper, why not look for common ground? You probably have a lot of it.
Building bridges, right. Because that was oh-so-effective the first half of President Obama's first term. Oh wait, it wasn't at all. It worked horribly, made him look utterly ineffective, and while we might have lost the house in the mid-term either way, it didn't need to be such a landslide.
Where do you build a bridge to when the other side has, as their entire platform: "We will not compromise or negotiate on anything because we want government to grind to a halt and this President to fail so we can win next time."
If we had spent more time calling them out on that, and less time trying to build failbridges, we would have fared better in the mid-term.
I wasn't suggesting building bridges with John Boehner. That wouldn't work.
Ironically, when congress under Gingrich stonewalled Clinton, he built bridges with regular every day Americans by blaming Republicans and calling them out on their bullshit, it wasn't easy but he made it stick. He didn't call them poopyheads, but neither was he nice about it. Obama and the Democrats didn't try that this last time, everyone was too hopped up on hope and bridge-building to read the writing on the wall.
Which is sad because Boehner was actually really honest about what his intentions were early on.
Posts
You know what? You're right, that was a cheap shot. On a forum where Mittens is as common as Mitt, I ought to be better than that, especially when I'm asking others to.
That's not the goal? Both sides fight over the independent voters, and struggle to motivate their respective bases to get out and vote. This country has been polarized for a good while now and neither side can gain traction with partisans from the other side. Demonizing your opposition can convince independents that they should support you, motivates your base, and demoralizes your opponents so they are more likely to stay home on election day.
That's a bit like demanding Jon Stewart be a reliable journalist, is it not? The difference being I'm not in knowledge of any of us having a national platform.
Well, what do you want out of the forum? A place where people feel like they can talk about issues from a broad spectrum of starting points and maybe learn something about how other people think? A mostly homogeneous discussion where people can examine the nuances of one set of opinions? Some third thing?
I feel like in general we have a mix of both of those options, and quite often we're able to get the first (which would be the ideal). However, I come into this forum as a center right voter knowing that this is a left leaning board.
Just a few days ago I spent three pages in a debate with someone who was going after my opinions just because I had the gall to say "republican" in a post.
But those instances are rather few and far between. I think we should be cordial with each other, but I also think we should all have a bit tougher skin.
Basically, I don't expect the same level of courtesy on the internet as I do in real life.
Go through a couple pages and take a look at the various mocking replies you'll find. And how many of them affected the conversation positively? Did any of them get their target to think differently or contribute more? As a bystander, how many of them really do anything to change your mind?
Maybe I've been too absolute. One in a thousand times, someone will craft a rock-solid pithy bit of satire that really just cuts to tge core of the matter. But how often do you really see that, honestly? Versus how often it just devolves into squabbling. How many of the cute mocking statements from this thread do you think improved the conversation?
--LeVar Burton
Perhaps my homeland colors my views. I am from Israel. It is, politically, a post-apocalyptic setting. You can honestly say that the republicans won, without exaggerating. The political climate at the moment, and for the last few decades or so, is oscillating between far right and center-right. All the left is able to do is play the part of the meddling kid to slow everything down to a halt, pulling off a guerilla victory once in a blue moon.
So much of the country's population is right-leaning that, effectively, the only way for the left to win - for the left to have the possibility of winning in any meaningful fashion - is to convert a significant portion of the right-wingers. To believe this is impossible is to admit that the country is headed for certain ruin, as are the Palestinian people. It is not something I am ready to do.
I don't think it's unreasonable to expect an internet forum attached to a video game web comic to adhere to a minimal level of civil discourse, simply because I don't think it's unreasonable to ask all human beings to adhere to a minimal level of civil discourse.
We don't get a free ride from being polite and sensible just because we're gamers. (Though it might seem like it sometimes. :P )
(I just have a different idea from, say, Gandalf the Crazed, about what that minimal level should be.)
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
And it's kind of killing American politics. So instead of trying to burn tge nearly fifty percent of the country that identifies as Republican, why not try to build bridges?
There are a whole lot of working class people that don't like government assistance because they work their asses off and get by without it, so they resent their neighbor that works way fewer hours, but has as much or more disposable income by picking up government assistance. Now, instead of ridiculing that person for being such a damn stupid bootstrapper, why not look for common ground? You probably have a lot of it.
--LeVar Burton
I agree that a minimal level of decorum should be maintained, I just don't expect and internet forum to be brunch in the Queen's gardens. More PMQs at times, really.
What'ev. You can write things that ignore the point all day. Criticism of the person is not civil. Criticism of what is written is.
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
Totally. Like what somebody (maybe Jeepguy? enlightenedbum? I forget) said earlier about how the forum doesn't have the manpower to vigorously police logical fallacies. Some arguments fly here that wouldn't fly in a court of law or a college debate class or a PhD defense.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Building bridges, right. Because that was oh-so-effective the first half of President Obama's first term. Oh wait, it wasn't at all. It worked horribly, made him look utterly ineffective, and while we might have lost the house in the mid-term either way, it didn't need to be such a landslide.
Where do you build a bridge to when the other side has, as their entire platform: "We will not compromise or negotiate on anything because we want government to grind to a halt and this President to fail so we can win next time."
If we had spent more time calling them out on that, and less time trying to build failbridges, we would have fared better in the mid-term.
Maybe such a tactic limits their base, but it seems that at least gives them more of a base then they'd have if they remained polite. There is a regression on social issues despite all indicators pointing towards the idea that there should be progression.
Anyway, you're acting like this only applies to the left-right political landscape. But you can see clearly in the current Republican Primary that attacking your opponents works. People swing from candidate to candidate because their flaws are pointed out in increasingly dirty attacks.
Seriously, we're arguing about maybe being a bit more honest and ballsy with one's opponents while there are ads right now downright insulting people.
Well yeah.
But currently guys like Romney and Santorum are not talking to democrats, they're not even talking to independents. They're talking to republicans. They're fighting against eachother. They want to get eachother's supporters.
Like, they attack the other for working with the democrats. The badness of the democrats is already a given.
I'd like this to be a forum where I can call out someone for ignoring about 3 pages of people asking him to give examples of this board's total echo-chamber thing.
why not?
(I realize the practical answer to this is that experience forms out expectations and that it's easy to be an asshole on the internet)
but still, why not?
At the same time, the relative anonymity of the internet gives us the freedom to break down assumptions and have an actual discussion in a way we would never do in real life, because in real life those kind of foundational conversations are awkward and you probably aren't really interested in digging into why your buddy has formed the preconceived notions about whatever issue that he has.
There is some happy medium between the average real life conversation and what passes for dialogue on most of the internet; on a good day this forum hits it, on a bad day, eh
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
You can read through pages 73-76 of the current [chat] wherein someone asks for explanations of some logical fallacies, and all the replies except mine have a clear leftward tilt.
Or you can read through the last couple of debate threads. Heck, just read the last 100 page GOP Primary thread, and tell me what you think about the overwhelming balance of opinion. The idea that this forum is a dramatically left-leaning place, where most people are people on the left and they mostly talk about things from a leftly slanted perspective, is well-established.
Freep is an echochamber, because anyone who expresses a liberal view will quickly be banned. Right-wing people might feel outnumbered or picked on here, but they can stay as long as they like, and espouse their opinions, and thus it is absolutely not an echo chamber.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
"A dollar a day keeps the liberals away - Donate Now!"
It is pretty leftist. Spool, you and Modern Man are like the only two right-leaning people here.
Also, this.
While my nominally centrist views on certain issues cause friction for me here from time to time, and there was that occasion where some people in [chat] thought it would be cute to start a meme that I am a puritan prude, I mostly get along OK.
Not so in a real left wing environment, and I have the scars on my backside from being chased out of a couple of those forums in the past.
I am not sure how you have arrived at the conclusion that I am right leaning
I mean I guess the forum is leftist in the sense that it rejects the views of mainstream american republicanism as pretty much categorically nutso, but if that is your criteria for leftism you need to re-evaluate your understanding of the term
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Republicans who consider themselves centrist are likely either confused about where the center is, or have certain key issues that they absolutely will not budge on (such as abortion) and thus remain Republican.
OK. What I mean when I say this is that most comments echo the prevailing opinion, and opposing ones are rare. Silencing opposing views via moderation is a new requirement for my experience with the term. Isn't that what you'd like to see, though? Cutting deployment of ridicule and humiliation, here on these forums, until all the opinions you disagree with have been silenced and all the people converted through shame and guilt to new opinions you agree with?
Maybe that's a little extreme, but it seems in line with the kind of place you're arguing we should have here.
It's no DU, but come on; it's clearly a left-leaning space. This is like saying "apartment fire? pssh, calling that a fire just tells me you've never stood inside a volcano before."
This primary is run by nutcases. All of them are far to the right of the majority of Americans on pretty much every issue. I'd say most people are centrists, a few of the more vocal ones are left leaning, there's some right siders, and a few outliers from both sides.
Regina Fong- the centrists sometimes get drowned out by the "Not voting for Obama because he isn't Leftist Jesus" people.
TNC is off in a class by himself, having rejected capitalism/democracy and reverted to feudalism. I forgot about KevinNash. So that makes 3 right-wingers here. Not really a non-partisan/balanced forum, but people aren't sitting around in a circlejerk all the time so I guess it's alright.
Also spacekungfuman.
But we got an entire thread for talking about how guns are awesome and a lot of posters that are quite religious and a bunch that are conservative.
I'd consider this place overwhelmingly Democratic. But the democrats are the centre with regards to possible opinions on a subject. In the Netherlands I identify centre-right usually, and that's also because I'm young and non-religious thus have to swing left a lot. On economics I find myself siding with the classical-liberal party (which is the most right in that regard) most of the time. And I find myself quite at the centre here, left of it actually.
For a leftist echo chamber you guys surely don't feel very leftist to me. :P
But your experience with the term here largely consists of you saying it, and other people telling you that you are applying the term improperly. So I'm a little confused here. Or did you just assume people who tell you "this is not an echo chamber, Spool" were just being dishonest?
I think what we have here right now is pretty swell! I am not eager to see it change, and certainly do not desire some enforced sense of faux-niceness. I do not want to see people get infracted for being conservative or anti-abortion or whatever. That would be silly. But it would also be silly if someone got punished every time you cried out that you were being oppressed. So I do not want to see a tyranny of the minority either.
Ironically Stewart is a better journalist than many actual journalists in the media.
I wasn't suggesting building bridges with John Boehner. That wouldn't work.
--LeVar Burton
Just to chime in, I agree with the bolded despite being myself on occasion called retarded by all number of people here. I just shrug it off, try to consider the validity behind what was said, and typically fire back with my own snark if I feel justified in doing so. All it takes is a little adaptation and even if you hold some views others might consider on the wing-nut side of the spectrum co-existence is still possible within the great Circle-Of-Online-Forum-Life!
Ironically, when congress under Gingrich stonewalled Clinton, he built bridges with regular every day Americans by blaming Republicans and calling them out on their bullshit, it wasn't easy but he made it stick. He didn't call them poopyheads, but neither was he nice about it. Obama and the Democrats didn't try that this last time, everyone was too hopped up on hope and bridge-building to read the writing on the wall.
Which is sad because Boehner was actually really honest about what his intentions were early on.