Sex, Religion and Politics.

I think it has already been explained, really - deeply held, "core" beliefs - highly cathected.

I believe we tend to view contradictions to these beliefs as threats to our view of reality and hence to our security and self.

If you are used to vigorous debate on these things, then it is easier to remain calmer. It is also easier to remain calm if the tone of other debaters remains calm.

I DO change my mind about things! However, it tends to occur when I go away and think, rather than in the heat of battle, as it were....

Oh - these things often get discussed in my social groups.

Ah, the big three. I agree, for a lot of people there's an emotional investment and then, when someone disagrees with them, they take it personally, whereas the disagreer didn't mean anything personal whatsoever.

And communications are stymied. Unlike in face-to-face contact, it's hard to get across tone, intention, subtleties, etc. And another thing I've noticed is that a lot of folks online fill in the blanks when there's really nothing to fill them in with.

Let's say, for example, that you and I were typing online and I wrote, "You're the greatest!" You might pull back and think - is she flirting with me? But you don't ask, because it feels good to be flirted with, or you want me to flirt with you or whatever. And so suddenly everything I write is, in your mind, fraught with meaning. I write: "Thank you; you're very kind." and you take that to mean that I like you. You know, like you. etc. But I'm just typing; I don't mean it as flirting. Far as I'm concerned, I'm just being friendly. But you take it to mean more. And so it goes. Don't laugh; this is how long-term chat rooms sustain interest and membership - with the underlying possibility of flirting.

But you've created a "relationship" out of nearly nothing - just me being nice to you and paying some attention, nothing more.

The opposite, of course, is also true. You read that someone disagrees with your spiritual beliefs, and it cuts you to the quick. But that person wasn't trying to hurt you; they were just stating their beliefs and nothing more. But you have filled in the blanks with your emotions. And, once again, communications are stymied.

One thing I have tried for quite a while now is to mean what I write and write what I mean, and to take what other people write at face value, too. I don't try to fill in the blanks. Instead, I just assume there are no blanks and that my peers have written all they're going to write and that's it. And, yeah, sometimes it results in misunderstandings ("But I really meant ___". Me: "Well, then why didn't you say so in the first place?"), but I've found that it tends to work in terms of limiting misunderstandings.

This is one of the reasons why my posts are usually so dang long. I want to get things across and be understood, and I want to fill in the gaps so that those who read what I'm writing don't trowel on layers of meaning that I don't intend. So far, this system works pretty well for me.

dlowan- I think that in one sentence, you have gotten to the essence of this whole issue!

Personally, I enjoy engaging in discourse with those with whom I may disagree, that is the flame of this place for me. (Fortunately, I can always find someone with a contrary view! )

If all I wanted was to hear my thoughts and opinions bleeted back at me, I would just go to my Bund meeting.*



* This joke is the property of kuvasz, all rights reserved.

jespah--

Thought you were right on target!

Tone? On a keyboard? I went back and looked at some of my posts from a month ago, and got a mental picture of a steamroller. Funny, when I was writing it, did not see it as I see it now....

This certainly isn't against any rule, but I was really surprised at how gruff they seemed. All it was was my opinion, completely devoid of the nicities we try to practice; no self-deprecating comment, no humor, no emoticons. I was interested in speaking to the issue, and didn't think about dressing it up with pictures and statements designed to take the 'edge' off of my comment. A politics board is not a garden party, or so was my reasoning. But, looking back, I had no idea my opinions sounded like they did.

So even though I didn't insult anyone, a negative impression could be derived solely from the lack of something intentionally added to the opinion to 'make nice.'

I do, however, believe those who step over the rudeness boundary should be held responsible for their breach, and not to point to 'tone' of someone else as an excuse.

Additionally, while in Wonderland, I have also learned that humor goes a long way in making me feel happier with my posts.

Now, for my clean up.
Oh well, just MHO.

Good question Phoenix. To begin with I like to remember, hard as it is, that each of us is different. The way in which our ideas about sex, religion, and politics are formed is probably not completely understood. I know that I am a liberal, but I'm not sure why. For some mysterious reason liberal positions appeal to me, and conservative positions seem mean spirited. I don't think that logic and rationality is at the root of my thinking. The same is the case with sex and religion.

If I am this way, and if I am right in assuming others are as irrational as I am, then it stands to reason that when I talk to someone who is of a different persuasion than myself, I am not going to convert himer to my position, and hiser effort to convert me will be equally futile. And, indeed, I know of not one person whose deep seated opinions on any of these three subjects has ever been changed by the sterling arguments with which I have confronted himer!

What I have come to believe, in part as a result of arguments on Abuzz, and as a result of arguing in other situations is that, to my amazement, that most conservatives are good people, as are most liberals. They really are people of good will. There are bad eggs in both camps that resort to ridiculous language. These I consider incorrigible and simply ignore. In my case, when arguing with a conservative of good will, I aim not for conversion but for understanding. This is the best we can achieve in almost all cases, and if it is achieved, that is really quite a bit. That means that humanity is just slightly less polarized.

I appreciate the comments of Jespah about saying what you mean and meaning what you say, and not trying to read in unintended meaning.

Ego and Emotion are huge parts of all three. Often, far bigger parts than reason or logic. Passions can become heated as folks encounter things contrary to their own mindsets. I often try to inject humor ... it is so much less inflamatory than open censure or confrontation, and often prevents misperception of same where none was intended. I far prefer civility, and promote it enthusiastically. Perhaps some skins are too thin, perhaps some egos are specially prickly. Most Cyberfights stem from misunderstandings of one sort or another. Clarity of thinking is critical. I'll debate just about anything with anyone, and I get really silly on some of the Digression Threads ... Well, I get silly on most types of thread, I guess ... but that's the point of it to me. We're here to have fun. I have no use at all for the small minority of truly vile developmentally challenged cretins with keyboards, but, hell, folks have a right to be unpleasant. We all are unpleasant from time to time ... we're human (except maybe for the keyboarded cretins). If it isn't hate, Vulgarity for its own sake, Porn, Personal Invective (which usually involves some combination of the preceeding), or SPAM, I figure I can pretty much pick and choose my own comfort level of unpleasantness, and most other reasonable folks can too. Most of the time, folks don't even have to be reminded to be civil if everyone around them is civil.

On the otherhand, I've been "On The 'Net" for a while ... Bulletin Boards (Orange letters on a black background, 4800Baud ... ugh), UseNet News Groups, lots of Member Forums. I'm flame proof, and some folks consider me a fair practioner of the art. Maybe its like some wierd form of intellectual Martial Art ... I can, I can do it pretty well, but I'd really rather not do it in anger.

And if you REALLY piss me off, I'll track down your personal e-mail address and hit your account with 10,000 e-mails an hour for a day or so.



timber

Here's where I really get to scare people.

Lash, are you flirting with me? j/k :-D

But on a more serious note, vis a vis what timber wrote - time online makes a biiiiig difference. I've been online in one form or another since 1997, with little bits before that, back in the early '80s, in a college system. So I've seen a lot, and it doesn't faze me as much as it probably would faze someone who just got online last week.

Oh!

Those of us who are socially challenged are always worried... Did he think I was flirting? Did that compliment sound insincere? Why did he PM me? Exactly what did he mean by that?

Probably why I am such a promoter of 'absolute truth'. Its hard enough to write very clearly what I mean. To have to run interference for any possible misinterpretation is beyond my ability.

(Of course, since I am told there is no absolute truth, I am SOL)

Hazlitt said:

In my case, when arguing with a conservative of good will, I aim not for conversion but for understanding. This is the best we can achieve in almost all cases, and if it is achieved, that is really quite a bit. That means that humanity is just slightly less polarized.

To me, this is what we all should aim for. Anyone who thinks he or she can convert the other person, is terribly naive or terribly arrogant.

As others have said, I have learned so much on a2k because the level of civility allows ideas to be expressed clearly and calmly, which gives me time to consider them in depth. When threads are interrupted by spammers or obscene comments, concentration is broken and I, for one, just want to leave without having to read anymore inanity.

Getting back to the original question, I think the group has a lot to do with the topics of discussion. Most of the groups I'm in enjoy discussing all three topics.

The essence of civil discussion is a humble awareness of how little one individual knows, and how beneficial it is to get several diverging opinions, and as many facts as possible, on the table. That's almost impossible when it concerns things close to the bone like sex and religion, which are so tangled into our emotional selves, and trigger off reactions before we know it.

Politics is like that, too, because we seem to choose 'sides' and base our choices on emotional ideals and/or fear of what we may lose if the other side gets the power.

That's why I love this website. There are a great many people here who are genuinely curious about the world, and genuinely want to glean and/or share knowledge.

Personally, I come to this forum with the attitude that I can always learn "something". That "something" can either modify my present views, or reinforce them.

The older I get, and the more I learn, the more that I realize that I DON'T know everything, or close to it. One of MY joys is exploring ideas that are enotionally charged, with people of differing attitudes. It is a way to check my own premises, and determine if I need to change any of my stands on certain issues, or keep them just as they are.

I think that when people only communicate with people who think as they do, it creates a staleness, an inability to think "out of the box".

Short answer: everyone thinks they are impartial and objective while the opposite is closer to the truth.

Shorter answer: I don't think I am impartial or objective.

I might think I am right - but I don't think the other two!

PS I have realized that it might be hard to grasp from the words above that I think Craven's answer far too simple...

There's this thing called "chunking", which has nothing to do with regurgitation but a lot to do with how we process information. For example, if you show someone a bunch of random lines on a piece of paper, put it away, and ask them to copy it, the'd have limited success. But if those same lines are arranged as an archetypical house, they can copy it easily.

We are constantly chunking, in order to organize and navigate the vast amount of information coming at us. I think we do this with things like liberal/ conservative, Jewish/ Christian, and on down to Pepsi/Coke. It's a coping mechanism, and not inherently evil. Some people don't have the energy to keep breaking up their chunks and re-assembling them. In a perfect world, they would constantly be seeking all possible sources of accurate information so as to render their decisions as objectively reasonable as possible, but I think we all find our comfort level, or go batty.

Sozobe- I agree with you about the process of "chunking". I don't think that people are so fragile though, that they cannot examine their own conclusions about important issues from time to time.

Seems to me that on a very small scale, we can all contribute to a more peaceful world. Talk to one another, understand the other person's point of view, listen and learn.

Prejudice happens when people are divided into "us and them". Let's celebrate our commonalities, and if not respect, understand each others differences!

Oh, examination is definitely important. And one would hope that people would do it often and rigorously.

But, just for example -- one type of chunking I do fairly regularly is to believe what I read in the New York Times. I have lots of friends who don't, and who scour the internet and alternative news sites, actually go to hotspots (one of 'em is a documentary filmmaker) etc., to get to the Truth. I don't have enough energy for all of that right now, though if I were a better or nobler person I would. I just trust the Times, unless compelling evidence to the contrary surfaces (through no doing of my own.)

sozobe- Maybe I am getting jaded, but I tend not to believe much of anything that I read, until I read the story from various sources from a wide spectrum of thought. Of course I don't do this with everything. If I did I would be reading 24/7. But if something is REALLY important, I want to see the issue from many sides.

I think sozobe makes a good point with some, who are unwilling to chink off some chunks, and I hope Phoenix is right, also.

I think we are all chunks, and some are more willing to chink.

I also think, getting back to the header, that good behavior can make a huge difference. There is no reason to personally insult people, just because you disagree with their beliefs.

I know this has been stated, but unfortunately, it bears constant repeating. Let chunks chink at their own discretion; no need to go at them with an axe.

I tried the Utopian media contrast. Have six different papers I try to look at, to determine how they headline and write on the same event. It is time consuming. Sometimes, you can see the spin, sometimes you can't. Sometimes, the spin may be going on in your head...