A Hearty, Political Fuck You.

The BBQ Pit
21

John, if you aren’t a member of the Giant Stuffed Tickle-Me-Elmo Fancier Faction, then yer goin’ straight to hell, boy. And while I’m up in heaven throwing my victory party and chowing down on the free manna with the other Fanciers, I will spit on your head. And then I’ll laugh.

But aside from your ill-judged remarks about the Fanciers, I thought you made some good points. I’m a newbie on the boards, especially when it comes to posting, so I can’t speak about the good old pre-October days, but I can say this: GD is frustrating. There often seem to be only four choices on those threads:

  1. Not post at all.
  2. Post once, read the responses, shriek in despair, and depart, gibbering, for MPSIMS or the Pit.
  3. Fight a losing and pointless battle against people who would rather yell than debate.
  4. Start yelling yourself.

But having said that, I also want to say this:

GD does serve a purpose. I’m not the most flexible person when it comes to my opinions and beliefs - you could even call me downright stubborn - but I have been known to change them when presented with solid, reasoned, logical arguments. And that’s happened to me at least once already while reading a thread in GD. So to all those people who manage to stay coherent and intelligent and rational in the face of annoying background noise: thanks. You are accomplishing something, even if you never hear about it.

(And to all you non-Giant Stuffed Tickle-Me-Elmo Fanciers, all I can say is: you’ll see. And who’ll be laughing then, boyo?)

22

Beautifully said, JC. If you weren’t a guy, I’d give you a big ol’ Bugs Bunny type kiss on the forehead…
…Aw… whaddahell - MMMMMMMMMMMMWAHHHH!!!

23

I think the point Sterra was trying to make (and please correct me if I’m wrong, Sterra) was that if you go into a debate with the mindset that there is no evidence or argument that could ever make you change your mind, then you are not debating, but only evangelizing. That is not to say that you actually expect someone to come up with evidence or an argument that will change your mind, but that you intend to listen to opposing arguments and evidence and test them against your own opinions and facts. You can believe that it is extraordinarily unlikely that anyone will come up with something that shakes your opinions. But if you believe it is impossible, then you have no real reason to listen to the opposing arguments, and you will be likely to end up engaging in the behavior that John has ranted about so beautifully.

24

“Up to a point, My Lord.”–Evelyn Waugh, Scoop

I post in GD for two reasons. One is to sort out what I really think about a subject by honing my arguments in open debate where I am ready to be persuaded I am wrong. There are many areas, such as immigration, where I can be enlightened and have actually had my mind changed by superior arguments. I have been wrong on issues and I have never been afraid to say so. I really do try to be a reasonable person; I don’t call names; I don’t swear, even in the Pit; I try to learn from my opponent’s arguments. On the majority of issues, one can disagree vehemently with an opposing position, and still be respectful to the poster.

However:

My other reason is to defend causes on which I know I am absolutely, incontrovertibly correct, such as equal rights for homosexuals. There is no argument that will make me scratch my head and say, “You know, I never looked at it that way, I SHOULD be treated like a second-class citizen, thanks for showing me the light.” Does this make me a fanatic? I believe that some people are irrational and some arguments are stupid, and they should, like Rumpelstiltskin, be called what they are.

25

Fine and good . . . but it is essential, even imperative, that you remain willing to understand the arguments of others, to listen to them with an open mind, to realize that others might believe what they believe with as much conviction and assurance as you. If you ithen*, after listening and striving to understand, decide that you still should not be treated as a second-class citizen, excellent.

It’s the difference between dogma and thought, and it’s a subtle point. But I believe it to be fundamental to empathy, critical thought, and understanding between people.

The odds against my suddenly believing that blacks are inferior humans are infinitesimal. But I’m damn sure going to read The Bell Curve, if only to add more weight to my convictions. The odds against my suddenly beginning to disparage gays is likewise ludicrously small–but it is incumbent upon me to listen respectfully to what others say, even if I consider them to be Total Fucking Idiots, understand what they’re saying and why, and then reevaluate my position.

26

I think we live in exceptionally interesting times b/c people who live maybe a few blocks from each other inhabit wholly different realities. In my reality and that of many “liberals” I know, we are living in a very critical period. Democracy is utterly dysfunctional; mass media, while sometimes interesting and fun, tends to produce a very underinformed, atomized and materialistic populace; decisions of world-historical importance (on the environment, on international affairs, on social welfare, on the judicial system) are being made and typical Americans either don’t know, or don’t know and think they know, or know but think they can’t do anything about it, or don’t care and would much rather watch wrestling.

So for me it isn’t just, as some have said, that there are different moral viewpoints; there are also underlying differences in consciousness or state of mind. For example…

Poster A, let’s call him “Cosmodude” has been reading about globalization for the last 5 years and has become intimately familiar with the environmental, economic and human (domestic and international) impact of various policies. He has come to the conclusion that free trade is a deceptive myth, that the way things are being done isn’t good for the US or for foreign nations or the environment but is good only for a very small number of shareholders and politicians. He is not anti-globalization, but his positions are often mistaken for that, because he is adamantly opposed to the status quo.

Cosmodude ends up in a debate about politics with Poster B, let’s call her “DotCom.Chick” DotCom.Chick has worked her butt off in college and business school (she also works her butt off in the gym, and has a very nice butt were you able to see it) She has done very well for herself in the last few years through her hard work. She faces constant pressure to produce; to keep her bosses happy; to keep investors happy; to find ways to improve the bottom line. DotCom.Chick is rewarded for her hard work but she knows that she, like anyone else who ceases to carry their own weight, can get the axe. In the meantime, Cosmodude is getting a Masters Degree in environmental science. While DotCom.Chick works hard to survive, perhaps to make her mark in the corporate jungle, Cosmodude works hard to get fill in more and more of the global picture that both fascinates and worries him.

Now if I were writing a novel, sappy romantic that I am, I’d have have Cosmodude and DotCom.Chick meet and blow each other’s minds. (I forgot to mention that Cosmodude, like most sensitive enviro types, looks vaguely like Ralph Fiennes.) But, as I’m not that much of a hijacker, I’ll return them to their political thread where, rather than ignite sparks, they proceed to frustrate and piss each other off.

Is it surprising, given their day-to-day realities, to find that CosmoDude comes off sounding smugly superior and woefully impractical from DotCom.Chick’s point of view? That DotCom.Chick comes off seeming narrow and self-involved from where CosmoDude stands?

So I’d say that the challenge for us as posters isn’t to try to deny or overcome our deep moral convictions, but to recognize them as a function of our reality. If we want to communicate our convictions we need to communicate the underlying reality as well; and (and this is the hardest part) to recognize the other person’s reality.

27

and won’t that be so much easier to accomplish if we refrain from oh, say “Jane you ignorant slut” ?

28

There has been a bunch of threads about this basic beef, in one form or another. I did one, Fenris did one, I think Scylla did one.

Bitching about it obviously hasn’t had an impact.

So how about this: shunning. I already do it (and get ragged for it, but it saves my sanity). The minute someone starts to attack posters and not posts, they are ignored. Period. When people start to make it personal and vicious, they are shunned, leaving the Insult Brigade talking to no one, or simply exchanging personal insults with people who like to do the same.

And eventually, one hopes, it will become understood by the whole board that certain kinds of behavior will get them shut out of discussions they would probably like to participate in, and we’ll see a great deal less of it.

Of course, as we’ve already seen in this thread, there are differences of opinion about what sort of behavior is intolerable (I’m still amazed that you think “decent” people don’t high – five each other… man, you live in a really, really polite universe! Are you Japanese by any chance? My in-laws are…) but I think we all agree that name-calling and personal insults are unacceptable. That’s one place to start. That’s my own yardstick.

Hey, just a thought.

Stoid

29

[quote]

Fine and good . . . but it is essential, even imperative, that you remain willing to understand the arguments of others, to listen to them with an open mind, to realize that others might believe what they believe with as much conviction and assurance as you.

[quote]

I agree and disagree. I agree that empathy and a willingness
to understand the other guy’s POV are vital to having a mature discussion. I disagree, however, that it is possible to do that with every issue.

With gay rights, for example, I don’t get hysterical or call
my opponents Nazis, per Godwin’s Law. I listen to their arguments to make sure I’m attacking them accurately, not because they have a chance in hell of convincing me that being gay is evil. Simialrly, I will debate creationists to pick apart their arguments, not because I am willing to reconsider my position in each and every creationist thread. On that issue, my mind is made up.

What I try to keep in mind (not always successfully, I’m sorry to say) is that I am debating the post, not the poster. I try to be nice to people, even when they spout utter bilge. I think that’s what John Corrado had in
mind. I disagree with much of what the GOP today stands for, but I loathe people who think calling Republicans “Repugnicans” is clever.

30

And I disagree with much of what the Democrats stand for, but I abhor people who think calling them “Dumb-o-crats” is witty.

Goboy, I believe you and I have single-handedly healed the incivility between our two parties! Wanna see if we can bring peace to the Middle East next? :smiley:

Fenris

31

This “I’m ok, your ok” bullshit is all well and good if you’re one of those snivelling fools that doesn’t have enough neurons in their braincase to form a valid opinion and stick to it.

Sometimes two intelligent people may have differing opinions because of their individual circumstances. Yeah, yeah, yeah. That’s fine. We have to be nice and understanding. I know.

But you can take this stuff too far. Not all opinions are valid. Sometimes there really is only one best answer.

Validating a bankrupt standpoint as a worthy opinion doesn’t change the fact that it’s a bankrupt standpoint.

For example:

I really don’t respect the opinions of the Ku Klux Klan.

Gore was wrong to not concede much sooner, and that Bitch in Florida should have used her discretion and avoided a supreme court case.

If you disagree then you are obviously impotent or frigid.

32

If life has taught me one thing (other than don’t set yourself fire,) than it’s that things are rarely equal and there is usually a best way to do something.

Oh, sure it’s possible to do things more than one way, but there is almost always a best way.

Figuring out the best way to do something usually takes a lot of effort. For this reason I’m usually skeptical about opinions that come from sources that have not proven themselves reliable.

I have a lot of faith in my own opinions, because I’ve spent my whole life forming them. Quite often a reasonable person may say something that causes me to reevaluate my opinion, and my opinions are subject to change and being constantly upgraded based ion new data and thought.

Most people just form their opinions early on and stick with them beceause they are theirs and they figure their entitled.

I used to be like that. Then I got into the investment business.

My viewpoint started to change. I noticed that people in the business had opinions. They even had strong opinions. Those opinions usually got put to the test pretty quickly though.

In that kind of an environment people learn very quickly how to form a valid opinion. They openly look for other valid opinions and viewpoints. They are no longer married to their opinions. They don’t identify with them. They look to upgrade, and they what seems to be the rarest quality of all: They are skeptical of their own opinions.

Obviously there are other business like this that engender similar viewpoints, but I tend to think an opinion is really only worth something if it comes from somebody who is used to having their opinions put to the test.

33

Um, yes, thank woo Babwah… ? ? ?

wring, I’m not sure how to read this reply. That is, it’s for me to believe that you thought that I was suggesting that people would communicate better if they insulted each other. So I’m guessing you just had one of those gotta-relive-Saturday-Night-Live reruns moments. In which case, sure…

Let’s have Cosmodude and Dotcom.chick debate, um, Violins on TV or Presidential Erections.

(Come to think of it, that last one was pretty prescient!)

34

Sorry, that first line should have been “It’s *hard * for me to believe…”

35

Actually, one of the things I find cool about this place is that you are taught all your life not to talk about religion and politics in mixed public … and we do it here for entertainment!

There’s nothing at all wrong with spirited debate and spirited disagreement. There are a few people here with whom I disagree intensely on most all political issues, but who I have come to both respect and like. And while a complete transformation from a pre-debate stance doesn’t often happen, you do frequently add some new facets to factor from a thoughtful post of a differing viewpoint.

And those who don’t do that aren’t worth sweating over. Let them recite their “I’m right; I rock” mantra in front of their mirror. At the end of the day, they’re just another schmuck like me who has an unusual job situation that allows them to hang out at Cecil Adams’ message board way, way too much.

However strongly I may disagree with some people here, at least they care, like me, right? I can’t engage in an interesting political discussion with an awful lot of people, outside of this board.

36

Please disregard ingracious tone of my previous two posts. It seems there’s a rather large bug up my ass in need of extraction.

37

Personally I didn’t think the hostitity or ingraciousness was exceedingly high. Barely registered, as a matter of fact. And, also, I agree with you. FWIW.

38

geez, I havta explain myself again?

I didn’t think you were suggesting that people would communicate better w/insults. I was agreeing with the stance that calling some one a name (ignorant slut) would not help. I’m sorry I wasn’t more clear about it. Twit. (joking, really.) :wink: I try very hard to not insult people in GD. OK? clear?

39

wring, of course I understand you weren’t counseling insults! When someone says something (“The sky is blue”), and you respond with something along the lines of (“So you’re saying the sky isn’t red?”) you’ve either got a passion for stating the obvious, or you’ve gotten the wrong end of the stick somehow, or you’re making some kind of ironic joke. I assumed it was the third since you were using the old line from Saturday Night Live. No grief whatsoever intended, I swear it. :slight_smile:

40

First reaction, assuming ‘bug’ as in ‘insect’:
Ooohh, another Urban Legend in the making.

Second reaction, assuming ‘bug’ as in ‘listening device’:
Now there’s a refreshing variation on the old ‘The Illuminati implanted a programmable microcontroller in my butt cheek’ theme.

Either of which would probably constitute an inappropriate response, but then I’m kind of, uh, socially challenged.