Personal Attacks

Its true, I think, that as a conservative you have a harder time here, simply cause theres more liberals, and thus greater a chance that you'll be burnt by someone's outburst. Cause thats the other thing: the personal attacks seem to occur almost only 'across the lines'. And another result of this liberal-conservative polarisation is some kind of instinctive urge to close ranks, and I think that just makes it worse, a lot worse.

If more people were able to go back sometimes and go, yo, I might have had the wrong end of the stick here - and if more people expressed their disagreement with the posters 'on their side' of the bi-polar concept as readily as with the 'opponents' - there would be a lot more tolerance. What I like about the conservative forum is that there, you do see more clearly the differences of opinion among conservatives, and the doubts they may have about earlier positions they took or things Bush said - and the same probably holds for the PUP forum of liberals here, the other way around - it makes posters seem a lot more human!

Whereas on the main board, I get this feeling that posters dont do that, because they dont want to give the 'other party' the chance to capitalise on such 'inconsistencies' ... But faced with posters who wont ever acknowledge any evidence against their case, and will insist on following the logic of their leaders of choice every contradictory turn of its way, and who never criticize their 'own' - you can get pretty frustrated ... banging-your-head-into-a-wall frustrated. I mean, George Bush might actually be wrong some time - or right! Whats the danger in admitting that? Not fighting a war, here ... We're no commandoes ...

I do still think, on the other hand, that if there were a forum specifically for rants and anger-trips, the 'normal' discussions might profit, cause they wouldnt have to be used for venting anymore (and we all need to vent, sometimes) ... but perhaps thats naive.

setanta

Well, we are probably somewhat more responsible for goings on within our own lifetimes than those which came before, think you?

You may perceive this particular period as more benign than do I. That's fine. I'm not certain my perception is more correct than yours, I just think it likely.

There is, arguably, a confluence (actually, let's use follow Cheney's lead and go with 'nexus') a nexus of factors which I think deserves concern - the increasing power of the the radical element within the Republican party, the increasing dominance of Republican organization and power in US politics, and the consolidation of media in the hands of a very few corporate entities (some 90% of major media controlled by five corporations) who are more closely tied to Republican machinery than to the Dems. I could chuck in a couple more elements, but I see those three as critical. And critical particularly as regards this discussion - the consequences to public discourse.

I haven't suggested that this period is benign, and would never describe it as such. I am saying that this one of many such vicious periods in public discourse, and that there is likely to be an oscillating effect--although how long it may last is anyone's guess. At a certain point, the hunger for yellow journalism fades, because the phony pundits and hatemongers loose their edge and their audience. After a time, they will arise again. Whether or not this is inimical to the survival of representative democracy in American society is something i don't believe anyone can say with certainty. My aunt once confided in me that people all over the country were horribly frightened during the McCarthy years (and she told me in confidence because it was the Nixon era, and that fear had not wholely vanished), because participating in socialist movements had been stylish for college students in the 1930's--a lot of people kept their mouths shut because while never traitorous, their "thoughtless" activities in their youth made them targets for the sort of innuendo which passed for evidence in those days. When i was a child in Eisenhower America, even small children would use "commie" as an epithet. I know you have tabled more than once the notion of a growing atmosphere in the United States of disagreement being equated with "un-American" activity. I simply don't see it as being even nearly as bad as it was in the 1950's. Just as the activism of the 1960's produced many liberal thinkers who now inhabit these boards, so the corelative effect will occur with the activists of this generation. Recall, if you will and agree, that there was, after the end of the Vietnam War, and the rise of "Reaganism" a generation of selfish, greedy focus. This had been succeeded by a new generation of activism. I never accept the notion that history repeats itself, that's ignoring the wealth of significant detail. But human nature repeats itself, and so does that oldest and hoariest of human contrivances, social association. Sure, every generation has greedy and hedonistic members--but there is a tone to the "fashions" of belief in each generation, and the college generation of today has an activist "tone." We may be obliged to winter a series of bad storms, but i just don't think it is as bad as is often painted by alarmed liberals . . . and "spring" is down the road, if not actually around the corner . . .

Even that old gobshite Newt has tried to take up a more centrist opinion, and for whatever one may hold against him for his past policies, he's deserving of the accolade of a very canny politician. I've been greatly amused to hear his recent pronouncements, because i think he's angling for "elder statesman" status. But i find it significant that so many old line conservatives are increasingly embarrassed by the "loose cannon" nature of the neo-cons.

Additionally, it's late, and i'm rambling . . .

okbye

Deb

I'm sorry, but I haven't had much time lately, and you'd made a very nice point regarding McG's posts which I wanted to underscore. You said something to the effect that McG's posts sometimes took the shape of a generalized attack/insult, as in 'liberals always (fill in blank).

I think this is actually a much more egregious failing than an angry shout, though I'm aware I'm in the minority with that opinion. I'm not bothered if someone suggests my mother wears army boots - she looked very handsome in them. And I'm not bothered if someone gets angry, that's just honest, and anger usually dissipates. Then the communication can continue.

But it is very much more difficult to deal with someone who argues using generalities ("everyone knows you can't trust gypsies") because it is an inexact idea which is usually fixed in the user's noggin as something like a 'truth'. What does one do with that? You can offer up a lovely example of how it isn't so, and get a 'well, it usually is that way'....and off the fellow goes again. I actually had one fellow respond with "Well, that is the exception that proves the rule, Bernie".

nimh--
Very logical, thoughtful insights.
I agree we lose vigorous, searching debate to the Circle Your Wagons type polarization.

Set

Oscillations is it, yes. And of course I remember Kent State and Ed Meese very well. Perhaps we can settle on the simple notion that I'm unpleased with the rate of oscillation at present and am thus doing my little bit to speed it up. And yet, media consolidation is a new factor in the mix. One consequence is that some huge percentage of Americans STILL believe 9-11 and Sadaam are meaningfully linked. When the political faction in charge can manipulate the population that thoroughly, the available pool of activists will diminish, which is precisely the intent.

What I don't understand is why shouldn't we call our president the way we observe him as our president? If he lead us into war by telling us that Saddam has tons of chemical and biological weapons that he can use against us within 48 hours, what's wrong with challenging him on that by calling him a liar? Especially now when the intelligence agencies are claiming they never told GWBush or anybody in his administration about Saddam's WMD's current program, and his connection to al Qaida? If I remember correctly, both GWBush and Powell's speeches stated they knew the location of those 'hidden' WMD's. Their intelligence was supposed to share that information with our military to seek them out, but guess what? A big blank. Even if it was a little fib, it ended up killing thousands of innocent Iraqis, and hundreds of our own military, plus thousands of untold Iraqi soldiers. If we are unable to call em like we sees em, something is drastically wrong - even if it hurts the side that supports this president and his administration. c.i.

That World War II generation, they're dying off . . . the Korean War generation--those who didn't have to go, and could comfortably back the "anti-commie" mood--they're going to be dying off. That will leave us with the right wing members of my generation, and the members of the "greed" generation. The available pool of the credulous and mentally lazy will diminish as well . . .

As the proctologist advises, when no other remedy is at hand--this too will pass.

Consider me a laxitive.

heeheeheeheeheeheeheehee . . .

I borrowed this link from Tartar's post from another forum, but it's appropriate to my post above. c.i.
http://www.counterpunch.org/leopold06272003.html

Never!!! Not a chance Roger!!! I haven't lost a friend yet over politics! We'll be friends forever ;-)

In the wake of the "sodomy" decision yesterday in the Supreme Court, there were some really interested discussions on NPR. The consensus -- a really surprising degree of agreement shown by liberal and conservative commentators -- seemed to be that a) it was a huge victory for "liberal culture," b) that liberals still feel beleaguered and shouldn't. Which I bring up here because -- whether liberals perceive it or not -- liberal culture in general terms has won and is winning. WHAT??!! Yes. I keep thinking that this is a point which needs discussion but that discussion would require liberals (moi aussi) to examine and confront that culture head-on. In the same way, non-liberals need to examine their own basic assumptions. For example, I'd say falling back on the Bible as "law" is something which need some hard questioning.

What does this have to do with anger in A2K? Everything. The spiteful anger one sometimes sees here is less a clash of politics than of culture. We are simply appalled, much of the time, at each others' basic assumptions. The disagreement between, say, "gay sex, who cares!" and "the Bible says!" is a very basic and divisive one. To be honest, I'm surprised there hasn't been more nastiness... Screaming and shouting is much, much better than trying to kill the other's culture and way of life.

Well said, Tartar. Not very many cultures in this world allows this kind of discourse without physical harm. c.i.

Well said, Tartar. Not very many cultures in this world allows this kind of discourse without physical harm. c.i.

Ah, Cicerone -- I think you've raised something I didn't say but have wanted to. It's not the culture which "allows"... Living in a country which at present is deeply divided culturally, we liberals are aware that if they could get away with it (and they're trying), the radical right would wipe us off the map, change things back to a distant past. So it isn't culture which allows this kind of discourse, it's THE LAW. And that was one of the interesting things to come out of those discussions I heard yesterday, THE LAW in this case is in the hands of 9 people who are more independent than we liberals feared. We also have to remember that there will be repercussions from the decision -- cultural repercussions which threaten our laws. There's going to be a REALLY angry effort to change the Court, to make it a cultural sure-thing for the Right. And that's the point at which yesterday's NPR discussions seemed to grind to a halt (after moments of optimism) -- with the prospect of a change in the Court. And let's not forget that Federal Appeals courts are increasingly backstopping legal decisions which are favorable to "our side." Bottom line: Do we adapt our culture so as not to offend theirs, or do we put up a real fight to save the original, secular, open-minded law stemming from the Constitution?

HIJACKED THREAD ALERT, HIJACKED THREAD ALERT

Kindly take the politics to a political thread, i just mopped in here . . .

Set, You missed some spots, so let me clarity this once: no matter which country a person of another race might live, they still live in that "culture." When I say culture, it's all inclusive of the religious, political, and it's laws. Too many countries to list. Okay Set, you may mop over what you missed before. c.i.

Actually Bernie,

Exceptions disprove the rule.......that's science. So the argument is as irrational as the claim must have been.

IRISH MOPSTER ALERT
(no defensive action necessary - this one is kindly, if now and again a big grump)

Lola
Some crazy world, hey? I imagine moon-children, camping out on a summer evening, looking up at the Big Blue Planet and passing on the old notion that earth is actually made of fruitcake. Which would make them arguably closer to the truth than earth children got.

Tartarin

A phrase, depressingly common, and one which has come up more than a few times following the sodomy decision is truly one of the most intellectually egregious notions kicking about... "imposing liberal moral values". It is laws which DISALLOW OR CRIMINALIZE a behavior that function as a state imposition. Revoking such laws or rules allows liberty. Scalia loves liberty much less than he imagines (I'm proud to say that in his opinion, he mentioned Canada as a bad example - legalization of same sex marriage). In what possible way is he, or anyone else, less free because a couple in Florida are now legally entitled to engage in sodomy in their bedroom? He is only less free in one sense - he is no longer free to bring the state control mechanisms into that bedroom, thus he is no longer free to impose his moral standard on others.

We have made progress, particularly during the sixties, in the direction of a morally liberal society. The folks who don't like that change are really not fans of freedom and individual liberty at all. They do not (following the lead of Augustine and others) trust that individuals CAN make moral sexual decisions on their own (though oddly, if the context is business and wealth accumulation, there's little problem).

But these guys/girls are a powerful and well organized force now. And the folks you heard on NPR are surely correct...the battles about to ensue regarding the next SC nominations will be fights to the death. We'd better win. And it sure would be helpful if we could get more folks to understand the logical point above.