OK, to get back on topic for a minute:
One thing that REALLY turns me off, politics-wise, is when personality conflicts are the thing, more than the issue. I made a point that was actually agreeing with someone, but that was ignored in favor of trying back an antagonist into a corner. Sighh.
I WONDER:::
Can men and women have sane arguments?
soz, yours is a very valid complaint and real concern. As a Conservative, I find myself at odds with the majority on most political threads. While not unsullied by forays into questionable behavior, I try to maintain a level of decorum and intellectual honesty which I hope will gain wider practice.
Perhaps one of the most off-putting things about The Political Threads is that in a given discussion there may be several sub-interactions ongoing, almost as sidebars to the main discussion. It is often these sub-discussions which become the most rancorous.
I find value in the discussion of opposing points of view and differing assessments of events and conditions. Many others are similarly inclined, though there are the few who as opposed to exchanging ideas shout their own exclusionary concept of reality with total disregard for the reasoning abilities and perceptions of others. Those sorts are not limited to either The Left or The Right, and to my mind, "Talk At" people, rather than "Talk With" people.
In the long run, the interaction of those sorts neither advance nor seriously impede the development of the discussion. Every garden has a few weeds. One does what one can to discourage the weeds and to nurture and enjoy the crop of interest.
timber
sozobe
I know. It can become a 'gotcha' battle of one-upmanship or a "I'm not giving an inch of territory to the enemy". I think this is indeed something we can and should coach along. It'll not only make the place more agreeable to visitors, but will have the advantage of getting folks to broaden their intellectual scope. I think it is a very good point.
Maybe not logical, but sane.
c.i.
blatham - get outta here. I'm late, as usual, but I'm here.
sumac
sumac
Late!? My God man! The wedding party has gone, the church torn down, and the divorce already finalized (he gets to keep the Audi, she gets to keep his brother).
But actually I'm pleased you've given this thread a little poke, as I had been meaning to ask sozobe and the other ladies who posted here what their present thoughts might be. It continues to be, or seems so, that these political discussions somehow push women aside, and I continue to feel uncomfortable about that.
I guess I am a proponent of passive-aggresive action,. not very effective, but the only thing I can do. Just as I can't influence our medical/health/insurance business - I refuse to participate. Just as I can't influence national politics -I refuse to participate. I cry for our Canadian brothers and sisters, and all of our friends. I cry for ourselves, as well. I cry, above all else, for the choices that need to be made. I am reminded of WWII, would we have had an obligation to act, at that time of pre-knowlege, if we could have prevented?
Push me, I push back.
I've been participating in most of 'em, I think. It's a function of lots of different things; whether I think my words will be heeded or lost in the shuffle; if there are more personal animosities at work than discussion of issues; what kind of a day I'm having and how overwhelmed I am at the state of the world (if too overwhelmed, seriously don't want to talk about it and would prefer goofiness and word games.)
Well, that eases my worries. But now I find myself concerned about how much crying sumac has been getting up to.
I think it worth noting at this juncture, that the two most likely subjects for inflamatory exchanges are the possibility of war, and a posited right-wing religious agenda. In my recent experience, the first subject is so much on everyone's minds, that it crops up again and again, in many threads the topics of which are completely unrelated. The second topic seems only to come up in threads in which religion is already the subject, but the exchanges can be strained.
Perhaps some decorum will return when the possibility of war is not so much on everyone's mind.
Don't worry about me, blatham. I'm a nut case anyway. But I didn't find that the poll gave me the option to respond the way I would like to. Basically, I don't get involved in politics/religion because there is no give and take. People have their dug-in views and aren't looking for any new information, or views.
sumac, Your observation is the correct one; nobody is willing to give and take, only give. Maybe, somewhere in this mire will result in somebody's change of mind. Not likely, but possibly. c.i.
Don't they just keep moving the war?
I don't get involved in political threads lately because I'm not informed enough. I find, much to my dismay, that I can't do everything. So instead of contributing to the threads, mostly I read them. It's a very fast way to keep up. Given more time, I would be in there with the rest. I enjoy the political threads. It doesn't bother me if there is an occasional heated moment. These interchanges indicate that there's conviction behind the participant's arguments. Debate without passion is dead. It's the chronic rudeness, misinformation and chip on the shoulder attitude of a few specific contributors that annoy me. But even they don't annoy me much. People have to be themselves and when a person is a jerk, well, what else can we expect? I think the political threads are fun. I only wish I had more time to read up and participate more actively.
Lola, If you think you're uninformed, you should see what our president is getting this country into! He still hasn't gotten over the boogy man under his bed. Whoe be us~! c.i.
This link from sozobe...and everyone should look at it
http://www.nationalphilistine.com/baghdad/index2.html
blatham, That just breaks my heart. c.i.
