Avoiding the Politics threads - You, too?

I think the thread is a good idea, Msolga, and find the contention that it maligns people to be absurd. Perhaps those who have posted here have had individuals in mind, but they've not named them, and to discuss political threads without taking cognisance of severl factors would be ridiculous. I am thinking of the difference between heated debate and tendentious posting, the difference between theoretical discussions and attempting to goad one's opposites with strawman arguments or wholesale condemnations of a class of people. There are those who do not argue logically, but rather engage in the "oh yeah, so's yer old man" type of mud-slinging, and there are those whose intent in starting a thread is to stir up trouble, or to vent their personal hatreds. One person here hates the French with a passion, and has admitted as much--and continues to start anti-French threads.

My participation is mostly limited by the factor which Sealpoet noted--cut and paste. I find that threads which have begun with a cut and paste job are often the ones most likley to entail a tendencious theme, using universal condemnations of a class of person, or the straw man, to malign all of the "infidels." I wade in quite often, but i really ought to know better.

msolga,

Again it's a matter of perspective. I hadn't seen my posts herein as being a "fuss".

I have no problem with this thread. I simply think there is a paradox inherent to calling people untoward.

And I think it's a paradox worth learning from.

I just heard "Trains, planes & Automobiles" (I don;t watch TV but if I am in teh same room I end up hearing it.

In the film Steve Martin tells John Candy how much of a pain he is. John Candy gives the "I like me" speech and says that despite his flaws he'd not have tried to hurt someone as Steve Martin had done in his criticism.

That is the situation I reference. In the film John Candy was a major pain, he not only acted in a manner that was begging to be punched he DID get punched (on the gut "Houdini died that way you know?"). But despite all of his shortcomings he never maligned others and when he had his faults thrown in his face he was hurt. Steve Martin's superiority complex for being less of a pain in the ass did nothing to preclude him from hurting someone's feelings.

I doubt anyone is offended by this thread. I do think there is an irony in saying that the politics discussions are untoward. It is, to some degree, a statement to the effect that the level of discourse is wrong. Interestingly much of the political discourse objected to herein is about persons being wrong.

Being that in some cases it's simply a different level of verbal wordplay than others appreciate I think you do run the risk of being the Steve Martin.

And I think the matters here have little to do with taking politics too seriously. I think it has to do with taking discussion in itself too seriously.

One could just as easily take a comment about a thread that criticizes other members too seriously and construe it as a "fuss" for example. ;-)

I'd initially thought that the people who shun the political discussions take it too seriously (I wondered why they bother some and not others) and it's odd to see the converse alleged.

Irony is good for the blood.

I hate the political threads, but I'm drawn to them like a mosquito to a bug zapper. I have always believed political and religious threads ought to have a seperate update list instead of being mixed with everything else. Probably impractical from Craven's point of view.

If you somone started following you around calling you a baboon and then came here to criticize the level of decorum referencing "The chortling baboon" would you feel unamed?

The irony I reference is that for some poeple here msolga's well-intentioned thread about the level of political discourse is being used for the very thing she has taken a qualm with.

She might not have noticed but a member used this thread as an odd validation for his dislike of a certain member and continued to denigrate him by calling him a chortling baboon here.

This is what I am talking about. The member denigrating the other member happens to be one of the only political posters who has used vulgar slurs against another member and is here, talking about how low the level of political discourse is by calling yet another member he dislikes a baboon.

I agree wholeheartedly with the rest of your post, but do you not think that if a member has a pet appelation for another member that is meant to disparage and came here to continue to disparage the other member that without naming names the effect was acheived?

Is it not ironic to lament the level of political discourse and in the same post call others babboons?

I wasn't addressing you CdK, although i did address your absurd criticism--i'll not respond to you any more than that, you love to argue too much, and your approach is always that of superior forensic skill, which is simply not the case.

Argue with someone else, there is nothing inherently offensive about this thread.

I was addressing you Setanta, and was not trying to argue.

Edit: I do not think there is anything wrog with this thread, just the use of it to engage in ad hominems.

Why don't we try the hebonics thread? It is very similar to this one in gently poking fun at Yiddish/American usage in this country. So far, no one has been insulted.

truth
Very helpful discussion, ladies and gents. I often LURK here, that is an ethnographic technique, you know, lurking. But I try to participate as much as I can because of the benefits to a retired former academic professional, i.e., writing and thinking on a daily basis. And the challenges presented by so many informed and bright people is not to be found anywhere else. I like very much that we are self-consciously discussing the problems of social interaction. I think Craven's diatribe was particularly helpful and insightful (what a subtle insight into his interactions with his brother). I began reading his post expecting him to act like an "asshole" but was so pleasantly surprised.

In case msolga has been wondering, I've never seen her post anything either rude or offensive. It's a good topic; sometimes good topics go astray.

JL wrote:

I think Craven's diatribe was particularly helpful and insightful (what a subtle insight into his interactions with his brother). I began reading his post expecting him to act like an "asshole" but was so pleasantly surprised.

Huh????Maybe you should go back and read the posts again---you missed something. I was the guy being called a "chortling Baboon" by Hobitbob and I appreciate Craven bringing it to the attention of the forum participants. Hobitbob also boasted of participating on forums where death threats were common place---see below. Now if anyone is serious about self policing our forum now is the time to start.



Posted: Sun Sep 21, 2003 11:32 pm Post subject:
this is much more mild than the forum I used to post at, where death threats beame common.

_________________
There have always been Starkadders at Cold Comfort Farm!

That would be why I left. I have no desire to participate in a forum where folks threaten each others life for being "unamerican," or for "Hating your country," etc... The threats were from a certain political viewpoint towards others of an opposing viewpoint. None of the threateners were liberals.

This is what the moderators are here for. Please don't take these matters into your own hands. Just report them to us. As stated before, please send a PM to Moderator. Thank you!

CdK, do forgive me for my rudeness. I had assumed that you condemned the thread for the indiscretions of a few.

Don't worry bout it, I had to edit out my first reply to it. ;-)

Since we are on the subject I'd like to ask if the members think the standard for political discussion needs improvement, and to which direction (e.g. higher or lower standard).

I don't know that there is much which could be done, except for policing the ad hominems, and i understand the limited resources for that effort. I read recently a very balanced, polite post by CodeBorg, and was abashed to think that i so often have failed to meet such a standard. Self-policing will be fine, so long as it is truely self-policing, and not simply bashing someone else for what they have written, indiscrete or not . . .

Now this is just my opinion, but I was amazed at how civil this particular discussion became once one person left it:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=12340

Self-policing is indeed the answer. There is nothing worse than getting sucked into a quagmyre of complete bullshit. You lose your mind....the attraction is there, that natural instinct to lash out at the insane, but some of us have to be better than that. After all, there really aren't any politics without diplomats. That is, of course, just my opinion

We're certainly in a double entendre on the word "flamer," and in the political discussions I think "blamer" is more appropriate. That would qualifty it -- a "blamer flamer!"

Or a "lamer blamer flamer..."

truth
I think that social ostracism (shunning)--an age-old form of social control-- might be an effective and way we can deal with the worst cases: just do not respond to them or their insults, as if they did not exist. But if and when a "flamer" shoud post a decent comment, we should respond to it by all means, in order to show our appreciation for their effort (and a bit of positive reinforcement as well).
By the way Perception, I AM shocked that the baboon epithet should have been directed to you. I've never seen you behave in anything but a civil manner, even when we have disagreed in the past. Please re-read Craven's use of the term, "asshole" (in his long post) and then revisit my comment. I hope you'll see some attempt on my part at ironic humor. Craven has my respect; he runs this operation like a mench.

Off the cuff, I am happy enough with the standard, given that there is site disapproval of ad hominems, which should be discouraged... mostly by community standard backed by moderators.

I feel like I saw rolling batches of adhoms from various povs this week in Religion and Politics and don't like it - as a reader - to go that far, becoming routine. I don't like it at all, but as a routine I really don't like it. While it is boring to me, and at least appears insulting to the person called the name, conversation degenerates.

Part of the problems lies wiht a few posters who have a specific axe to grind, and will not let go of the handle. These few also expressly resist any effort to have fun with the subjects.
Others of us are guilty of responding to them. Mea Culpa, etc..
I think it was LW who pointed out that most of us are not here to "win" at anything, but to discuss and learn and interact with interesting people.