Oh, Irony, thy name is Mandelstam: #1) The only political rhetoric here was yours. No-one discussed who’s presidential-wanna-be was better until you chirped in with your sprited defense of your father-substitute.
#2)You aren’t supposed to figure out where I stand on global warming, because, outside of your hijack, no-one was talking about it. If you wished to discuss the ramifications of the election on the ongoing international debate about global warming, why didn’t you just start a thread about it?
Do you realize how annoying it is to have zealots like you popping into every conversation to debate candidates, regardless of the subject at hand?
I see that you’ve ventured little outside of the Pit. Perhaps you are unaware that there’s a form more suited, nay intended for such, shall we say, “debates”? Here, I’ll even point you to it…
Anyway, I’ve long been sick of listening to the hype on both sides. One would think that at a supposed institution of higher learning one could get away from incessant cries of “Bush will take away a woman’s right to choose!” and “Gore will ban all firearms”. But no, so I’ve given up talking politics to anyone save my roommate, and precious little even then. I, too, appreciate Ankh Too’s rant.
“…will summon demons to arise from the nether-dimensions and eat the faces of innocent children. Al Gore on the other hand, if he becomes president will condem everyone to hell, where they’ll be forced to drink molten lead through cast-iron straws for all eternity. We’ve heard this before.”
Then obviously Bush is the superior president because children arent voters. Of course gore does promise eternal life…
I have no problem at all agreeing with the general tenor of this. I am a very, very well-informed citizen. I can name all of my city council representatives, I know how long all of them have been in office, I know their general political biases. I know my county, state, and national legislators. I’ve voted on every race, levy, proposal, etc. in my area in the last, oh, ten years.
Problem is, it’s irrelevant to what I was talking about. I have no difficulty whatsoever being vocally partisan on specific issues – environment, social reform, foreign policy, etc. – because those issues lend themselves to analysis and conclusion. I’m particularly vehement on the current hot-button issue of violence in the media; search on my name for past threads.
What I was specifically getting at in my previous post, nestled as it is in this individual thread on this particular topic, is that I don’t feel like I would add anything by weighing in on debates about how this specific election is proceeding. I have a strong partisan position favoring one side. I believe the other candidate will not be healthy for the country. I have a vested interest in the outcome.
Therefore, I strongly suspect my bias negatively impacts my ability to stay objectively informed. I am very well informed on the arguments favoring my side, because they support my position. I am not as well versed in the arguments favoring the other side, because I dismiss them; I listen to them and know them only insofar as I must in order to formulate a counterargument. Because of my strong partisan bent, I have no way to know for certain if my view is based on strong, clear, empirical data, or if I am subconsciously filtering information in order to bolster my position. (See Robert Anton Wilson’s “reality tunnel.”) I believe the vast majority of people who take one side or another are falling victim to this phenomenon, and my only advantage is that I recognize the danger of same in myself.
When I take a step back and look coldly at the election brouhaha, the only conclusion I can reasonably support as having any measure of objective evidence is that the vote in Florida is, mathematically, a tie. Out of six million votes, a difference of 500 or 700 or 300 or wherever it stands now is less than the degree of measurement error. Mathematically, there isn’t any way to concretely determine a winner, because with those figures, it’s impossible to count that many votes with a margin of error that’s less than the margin of victory.
And in light of this, I recognize that as I follow the back-and-forth legal maneuvering, as I cheer when one position prevails and then weep when the other comes superior, I am not basing my position on objective analysis, but on my own political preference. Any position that “interprets” the vote margin one way or another must be based on political and legal maneuvering, because it sure as hell isn’t based on mathematical and statistical reality. I see that in others, and further, I see it in myself.
Wipe your chin, the “vomit of rhetoric” was yours. Perhaps your post was intended differently than Fenris and other have interpreted it, but in any case, the first three paragraphs relating to your ecological objections to a Bush Presidency are not only irrelevant to the issues set forth in the original post, but a tangential example of what prompted the post in the first place. You’re afraid of the outcome of a Bush Presidency. We get it. I could weep for you, truly. But it doesn’t have anything to do with the original topic of the thread. Your ideas about “understandable frustration” and “substantive difference” may be a wonderful topic of either a rant or a debate, I really can’t tell what you’re trying to say with it, but in either case, it has nothing to do with what I was trying to say.
My frustration stems out of the behavior of a number of posters who seem to drag every single attempt at a serious discussion regarding the election outcome into a morass of partisanship bickering. I really don’t give a good goddamn how strongly someone feel that Vice President Gore would be a better president. It has nothing to do with the underlying problems regarding how the vote in Florida will or should be resolved. In discussing the outcome of the election counts, bringing up the perceived stupidity of Governor Bush or the assumed duplicity of Vice President Gore is utterly and completely out of place. But there are some who cannot seem to resist the emotional reward of inane and juvenile attacks of this nature.
I realize that people feel strongly regarding the issue of who will be the better president. But we are watching the election system working itself out the way it was designed to do. Debating the merits of the various challenges and cases is wonderful and I, for one, very much enjoy that aspect of it. But I am sick and tired of people blithely assuming that anyone who doesn’t agree with their analysis must automatically be either liars or thieves. Rational and intelligent people can look at the situation and come to different conclusions. And while I acknowledge the idea that everyone brings their own values and preconceptions to any review of this situation, I refuse to believe that either side has a monopoly on the TRUTH.
Jodie touched briefly on the issue of civility, specifically the lack of it in many of the discussions and debates that have erupted over the handling of this election. And while I have been raised to be polite and obey all the forms, particularly in intellectual discourse, the lack of civility is less important to me in this situation. What I see as the most frustrating part of this entire episode is the intellectual dishonesty that seems to be rampant in these threads. The inability for people who hold one particular belief to step back and admit that someone who disagrees might possibly still be a rational and intelligent individual who simply draws different conclusions from the same information frustrates the hell out of me. For example, it seems that some supporters of Governor Bush are incapable of viewing Vice President Gore’s position as anything other than an attempt to “steal” the election from the “rightful winner”. On the other hand, some of Democrats feel it’s impossible that the Republicans could honestly believe that the recounts are not warranted because the ballots were designed and approved in advance by a Democrat.
I do not discount a strong thread of self-interest that runs throughout the positions on both sides of the issues. But I also realize that people can simply disagree on an issue without either side being liars, fakers or simply out for their own power. I simply wish others would be able to make this adjustment to their thinking when they sit down to post their positions.
And I would like to thank everyone who chimed in with their support on this thread. I had worried that some would feel that I was trying to proscribe limits to the discussion of the issues at hand, which is obviously not the case. It’s simply the frustration of watching smart people do things that I think are beneath them.
As flattering as that is, it frightens me more than anything you mentioned in the TMI thread. The day that I’m viewed as the “Voice of Reason” must be one of the signs of the coming Apocalypse. But thanks.
I’m constantly held up as the #1 example of a rabid partisan on this board. I will not, because I cannot, argue with that. I absolutely am. (And I don’t apologize for it. [sub] But I will not take on the mantel of the rudest or nastiest. All my mud is slung exclusively at public figures, never, ever at my fellow dopers…again, something for which I shall not apologize [/sub] )
However… I just can’t let this go by without pointing out one little post I made that absolutely NO ONE acknowledged or responded to (that I can see or recall). It was a momentary lapse of insanity, but here it is, and I would simply like to remind one and all that I made it, and I meant it:
Again, while there are those on this board who seem to spend all their time tracking my every word in order to attack it, not one person even NOTICED that I posted this. It was disheartening.
So I sez to myself I sez, Screw it! And went back to bickering in a rabidly partisan way.
Phillbuck, Thanks for the advice about posting in GD. I don’t really want to debate environmental policy. I brought it up, with TVeblen’s post in mind, as an example of why presidential politics matter so much to some people. When Fenris responded that I was being just another zealot, his (her?) response seemed excessive to me b/c I was attempting to explain the objective basis that such seeming zealotry can be predicated on. Fenris’s level of animosity struck me as entirely disproportionate to what I was trying to say and the way in which I was trying to say it.
Cervaise. Thanks for the clarification of your position. I never doubted for a second that you were a good citizen, I only felt that maybe you were selling short your ability to be objective even while being partisan. I understand what you mean about cheering one court decision and lamenting another on purely partisan grounds. Still, I believe that even the most partisan person can rise above such personal investment and make reasonably objective evaluations even in what may seem to be (in Ankh’s term) a “morass.” For example, much though I would personally prefer a Gore presidency to a Bush presidency, I thought the Seminole County case (regarding the ballot application irregularities) was a weak one. Had Judge Clark ruled to throw out 15,000 absentee ballots on the merits of that case I would have disagreed with her even though, as a partisan, I would have liked the outcome. So that was my meaning.
Ankh_Too. Perhaps the reason you don’t understand the distinction I’ve been trying to make (b/w “understandable frustration” and “meaningful difference”) is that it wasn’t a direct response to your OP. I agreed with your OP but was attempting to explain why someone like me isn’t likely to desist from partisan speech that you and some others might find disheartening.
Let me try to put this another way. “Partisan bickering” exists and it’s irritating and that was the subject of your post. Fair enough: but (and here was the point of my reply) not every partisan bickers from a non-objective standpoint.
Let me go a step further (and this may piss off some of you).
As I said above, I introduced the global warming example purely to give an example to TVeblen of why who’s president really matters. My intent was not to insist on the superiority of any particular environmental position. But let’s say that it had been. Let’s say, for argument’s sake, that my main purpose had been to speak as a concerned environmentalist whose point was something like, “It’s true, bickering sucks and is annoying, but maybe it stems from the fact the future of the environment is so incredibly important. Why just a few weeks ago at the Hague [blah blah, blah]”
Ankh, have you really lost so much patience with political argument that this kind of reply, if made politely and reasonably, would have been intolerable to you?
Is it possible that some of people’s negative response comes not only from a dislike of unreasonable hostility, but also from frustration with issues themselves. With issues that can seem depressing, divisive or just plain-old boring and confusing?
This kind of alienation from politics interests me more than some of the debates themselves.
Which is one of several reasons why I prefer posting here, in a pit of disaffection, than in a locale like GD.
Of course it’s important who’s President! My entire point is that the system is multi-layered, and it’s damned important who federal and state legislators, governors, and all officials on down are, too.
The Presidency seems to be the lightning rod for opinion, which is somewhat understandable for the chief executive. But it concerns me that so many people either don’t vote at all, or only in “high hype” elections.
I’m sorry, not voting at all isn’t “the will of the people”. It’s plain damned laziness and a disgrace in a democracy. Not a candidate you like? Get involved, get vocal, get moving. Talk about the lack of civic impulse! In the immortal words of Pogo, “we have met the enemy and he is us”.
I’m a hardliner on this. People have fought, bled, died, sweated and broken their hearts and health to create this system and make it work. Didn’t vote? Never written, called or emailed a Congressman? Just wanna sit back and passively wait for a miraculous perfect party and candidate to drop in your lap like a candygram? Then, to me, your opinion ain’t worth a cup of warm spit.
Yes, I do believe this election tripped a long-needed overhaul of the system. It’s been creaking at the seams as long as I can remember: the electoral college question, voting machines that don’t work, which machines work better, how much will better machines cost, the media “calling” elections based on eastern projections well before polls even close in west and coastal states, etc.
This is the first time a high-profile election was so close the inadequacies in the system couldn’t be ignored any longer. The legal confusion and brouhaha are messy–but necessary–pains while the problem heals.
And I still maintain that the civic duty requires consistentent, informed participation as well as a basic respect for those who disagree. It’s almighty hard, with hype and hate-that-sells and hoopla poisoning the atmosphere, but there has to be room for honorable disagreement.
SPOOFE: g’head and quote at will; I’m flattered. And still pity whichever hapless soul “wins” this mess. I wish I saw more signs of strength in either, or in us.
Mandelstam, I wasn’t asking for anyone to desist from partisan speech. I was expressing my frustration that it keeps being used in an attempt to rationalize why the various court cases should be decided one way or the other. Partisan and politically oriented speech is one of the bedrocks of this board and I have absolutely no desire to have anyone refrain from expressing their political beliefs and attempt to convince others that they are the “right” ones. I have a problem and become incredibly frustrated when someone says that the disputed votes in Miami-Dade County should be included because “Dubya is going to ruin the country and he’s a pinhead to boot.”
I don’t see how one person’s highly subjective political fortune-telling of the next four years is relevant in a discussion about the legal standing of the undervotes, Almost everyone who participates in these threads support one or the other of the candidates, sometimes passionately and vocally, which is certainly as it should be. Those people who participate are the most interested in the subject. My objection comes about only when the partisanship obscurs the underlying issue. It does occur in nearly every political discussion in one form or the other, but for some reason, this topic seems to bring out the worst of it.
The election of a president is important; I’ve never denied that fact. But the party policies and tendencies don’t really impact on whether or not the votes in Miami-Dade county were counted correctly or whether the overseas absentee ballots should be counted without a postmark or not. When someone’s objection to the outcome of these questions is based on their interpretation of either the Republican or Democratic party’s perceived policies, they completely obscure the underly issue and becomes not only a logical fallacy but utterly disheartening to everyone who wants to talk about the legal or technical issues.
If the discussion has to do with the why you voted for one candidate over the other and wished that others did as well? Had I been involved in that discussion I almost certainly would have replied. However if it came up in a discussion concerning the specifics of the Florida election and it’s confusions, I would have had the urge (figuratively at least) to slap you upside the head and tell you to stick to the point of the discussion. My point is that people should refrain from espousing support for one person or the other as the basis for resolving the current conflict within the Electoral process in Florida. To continue with your example, if you want to climb up on a soapbox and rail against the ecological disaster that is about to befall us due to the Bush Presidency, go right ahead. But stick it in another thread since it doesn’t have anything to do with the resolution of the voting problems.
I fear you’re missing my point; perhaps I haven’t been completely clear. I don’t have a problem with people who do find themselves frustrated by the current political situation. It’s the idea that because someone believes that Governor Bush is a moron or that Vice President Gore is a liar, it is reason, in and of itself that this court case should be found in favor of Vice President Gore or that case should be decided for Governor Bush.
This was actually the minor point in my original rant, because it’s something that I think is less prevalent here on SDMB than in most of the other conversations I’ve had elsewhere. My biggest problem was the way people seem to feel that their side is the only possible interpretation and that anyone who opposes them is automatically either mentally deficient or dishonest.
I’m glad you said at the end that you find this less prevalent here, because I can’t recall seeing this at all. Sure, the topic of Dubya’s being an idiot and Gore’s being a liar * comes up * in the election threads, and people even say that these issues (or whatever others) are the REASON they’d like the resolution to go their way…but I can’t recall anyone actually arguing that the election should go one way or another because of the relative failings of either candidate. Just about everyone tries, as much as they can, to argue the particulars of the case. And of course, they argue from their own bias most of the time, but that’s not the same thing.
I, too have been frustrated at the ever-increasing levels of bile and vitriol in the political discussion threads. I have, for the most part, refrained from posting in most of the political threads. I have made every effort to look past the response I’d like to post, to evaluate the potential reactions and consequences, and alter my reply accordingly (G-d bless the preview function). I have tried to keep my replies as neutral as possible, not because I do not hold strong opinions, but because I respect your right to your own opinion. One thing I’ve kept in mind is that when the inauguration comes, someone will be raising his right hand and taking the oath of office.
The day after the inauguration, I don’t want to have to mend fences with someone who’s only “fault” is not seeing things my way. We will have a president. He will not be “my” president or “your” president. He will be our president (non-Americans excepted, of course ;)). In the meantime, I do not intend to unecessarily damage friendships or alienate acquaintences I have made here at the SDMB.
The rules of civil discourse do not exist just to make it difficult for you to prove your point, or even to ensure the “correct” conclusion is arrived at. They exist so you may participate in a debate with someone else and still be friends with them when the debate is over. I see nothing wrong with that.
I forgot one other point–when I was griping about that other e-mail list to my spouse, he suggested that the sort of people who “like” politics and are drawn to the debates about it might the sort of people who enjoy discord. Some people really do thrive on the sort of debate that has the element of exaggeration and button-pushing. While I might think that’s just awful, inconsiderate, and uncivil, for them it’s just part of the appeal. They don’t find it upsetting or insulting or a reflection on the character of the participants–it’s simply the discourse of politics. And they probably think I’m a real sniveler who doesn’t get it.
He is. (I don’t know about your being a sniveler) I would modify it a little, though.
People who enjoy discord and people who enjoy debate are not the same thing. I have always enjoyed debate, ever since I was a kid. I grew up in a house where the conversation was always lively and interesting, even heated. I’ve always hung out with people who enjoyed a good debate.
Discord is different. While I enjoy debate, I deeply dislike true conflict. There are people in this world who seem perfectly content to scream at the people they love at the drop of a hat, turn minor disagreements into major fights, and enjoy, to use a phrase “fuckin’ n’ fightin’”. There are people who appear not to feel fully alive unless they are pissed off about something. None of that is me. I’m a peacenik. Love makes the world go 'round, baby. Make love, not war… you get the picture.
For folks who do not fall into * either * category, the distinctions may be fuzzy. But to those of us who fall into one or the other, they are crisp and clear.
TVeblen: Apologies if I overstated the extent to which you were minimizing the importance of who is President in order to maximize the importance of paying attention to other levels of government. I do occasionally exaggerate my points (although I have only seldom claimed to have invented the Internet). Under different circumstances I’d want to converse with you about the issue of laziness and those who choose not to vote. But to explain my opinions on this subject, I’d have to launch into a sea of leftist social criticism that would have Fenris believing that Al Gore is not only (as he alleged) my father-substitute but also my astrologist, stock broker and personal savior. (For the record, Fen, I am anything but a Gore-worshipper.)
Ankh_Too: You’ve clearly spent a lot of time responding to my posts, which I very much appreciate, but I think I’ve still failed to convey my intentions to you. I know you are not trying to silence political speech. Your OP, with which I entirely sympathized, was very clear on that point.
You began by denouncing what you (very colorfully) described as “the depressing emergence of self-righteous venom that seems to leak into every single fucking [election-related] discussion.” My sole intention was to provide the viewpoint of someone whom you may have felt to have engaged in such discourse and, in my second post, to insist that partisanship does not necessarily preclude objectivity. This was offered in a spirit of intellectual exchange; not negativity. May the force be with you.
I also understand, Ankh, that you are saying that partisan speech is most inappropriate when it’s introduced to justify a position with respect to the election aftermath as in…
“[(Fill in) Gore/Bush] doesn’t support [(Fill in) Issue]; therefore I insist that dimpled chads:
a) register the intent of a voter so forcefully that they can be perceived at a distance of 5,000 yards by graduates of schools for the blind; or
b) have been found by infallible machinery and certified by the entirely impartial Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris to reflect no discernible mark of any vote whatsoever (except insofar as they have been wildly mishandled by Democatic partisans locked alone in rooms with sharp instruments.”
Despite the justice of your condemning such reasoning I have to agree with Stoidela that 1) I haven’t observed too much of this kind of thing on this board and 2)that it is possible to take a position on the matter of chads, court decisions, etc. without necessarily succumbing to partisan mono-vision. Indeed, Cervaise has illustrated such judgment in coming to the very reasonable conclusion that the election is (statistically speaking) a tie.
This brings me (thank god) to my final point. What I’ve learned from reading (and, gasp, re-reading) this thread is that things look very different depending on one’s level of political engagement. Cranky’s husband is ready to assert that people who “like” politics “enjoy discord.” By contrast, I’m foolish enough actually to set a great store by politics and to believe in some better way of doing things that might lessen discord.
I still tend to believe that the more one knows about a subject, the more genuine and substantive one’s political engagement; and the less dispiriting political argument (even of the vitriolic kind) becomes.
TVeblen: On a personal note, is that like Thorsten Veblen??
This is my fault for not writing very clearly–but I didn’t mean this to be some sort of dichotomy (those who like politics are one way–argumentative, say; and then there’s everyone else). I meant (and what I think my husband’s point was) that debating about politics is for some people a great arena for them to indulge in a practice they love: arguing, debating, indulging in a little hyperbole, tweaking noses, etc. Some people thrive on that. Others don’t. I don’t.
Thus, I stay out of debates, and I’ve tended to feel disheartened when I see people behaving in ways that (to me) rude. That doesn’t mean I am disengaged, nor does it mean that I don’t see the practice of politics as a pretty fascinating circus to watch–and a remarkable means to get things done. I suspect I’m not the only one. I don’t like the way it makes people behave when they talk about it, but I’ve been encouraged to see it as a place where the discussion rules are different and behavior can be, too. It’s not a matter of character, which was the mistake I was making when I was getting bummed out seeing otherwise nice people saying total jackass things.
I was starting to feel cranky about the misreading of my muddled post, until you threw in the Thorstein Veblen reference. swoon
Whee! Here’s a cure for what ails you. If you’re sick of the talking heads as well, listen in on the Supreme Court proceedings. Those robed ones don’t suffer fools gladly, and they cut down b.s. as soon as it passes the lips of the lawyers.
Yepper, Thorstein Veblen. In stern practical terms, I’m actually female and not bearded, not matter vicious rumors to the contrary.
Always had a sneaking admiration for the eccentric old poop; gotta admire a misanthrope who indentified conspicuous consumption slam in the middle of the Gilded Age. Or maybe my fugue state was worse than usual when trying to come up with a screen name.
CrankyAsAnOldMan wrote:
I was starting to feel cranky about the misreading of my muddled post, until you threw in the Thorstein Veblen reference. swoon
::snickers:: This from a fellow gender-bending poster?
