Why can't we all just get long... w/o hating?

Great Debates
21

I think this is more reflective of the marketplace of political ideas than anything else. People feel strongly about issues, and they start off debating nicely. But when you start to worry about losing, you start pushing more, and ramping up your attacks, and before you know it everyone’s calling everyone else a baby-eating monster.

This is not new. Hundreds of years ago there were ‘pamphleteers’ who were the equivalent of today’s bloggers, spreading scurrilous lies and reasonable arguments in equal measure. In fact, some of those old pamphleteers said things far nastier than what is common today.

McCain was accused of fathering a black baby in 2000 - and Thomas Jefferson was accused of the same thing in 1800.

22

Honestly, I think it’s because we’re animals at heart, and the first instinct of an animal is self-preservation. Everything else flows from that first idea. We tend to believe and want and work for the things we think will help us live longer better lives. Obviously we don’t always do this rationally (see fast food) but in the end it’s what makes us so hostile to each other. Me first, my family, my clan, my nation.

23

Well, granted, perhaps I should have said that “Democrats and Republicans SHOULD agree on these issues”, because it’s true (IMO, of course). I realize that there are fundamental differences in liberal and conservative views on issues like healthcare (or, more specifically, who should pay for what on a national level), the legality of abortion, immigration policy, foreign policy, and many other things about which the various parties will probably never agree on. However, when political tribalism threatens reasonable discourse on issues that everyone should be on the same page with, that is when I get very worried about our system of government. Yes, everyone should agree that we need to do our best not to destroy the planet, because if it goes down the crapper, then we’re all screwed no matter what party we align ourselves with. Everyone should be looking into alternative energy, because there is a finite amount of oil to be had on this planet and no amount of tax breaks for the petroleum companies is going to change that. Everyone should be concerned about how our soldiers are treated, because if they make a commitment to serve their country, then their country needs to make good on the promises they made to ensure their well-being. Whether or not someone is anti-war shouldn’t matter to this particular discourse.

This isn’t even taking into account the idea that politicians will make hollow promises simply for political gain. Without a doubt this is a big part of the problem with partisanship. However, if we are to even hope for a civil political discourse in this country, then we must be able to realize that we fundamentally agree on more issues than many are currently willing to admit.

24

But these are the times that try men’s souls. There were others, these are some more. As much as I may mourn the loss of civility, its seems a pretty minor issue in comparison. It isn’t simply an issue of ideological and intellectual differences, would that it were. It isn’t merely that I disagree with the people who have buggered our country for the last eight years, it is that I despise them. I have ample reason. Jesus will forgive them, no doubt, but I’d prefer to wait until they are hanged.

Have I become, perhaps, harsh in my criticism of them and those who defend them? Oh, dear. Rather a pity, that.

25

[QUOTE=smiling bandit]
Something has been bothering me an awful lot in the modern world, and it’s something which ahs essentuially never changed since humans were around. It seems like groups of uhmans cannot disagree without imputing insanity, smallness of character, gross stupidity, the most flagrant acusations of evil, and . In many of these cases, I think the accuser is either projecting or simply making the worst possible reading.
[/QUOTE]
Something I’ve noticed is that people think in absolutes. If their opponent had two bad ideas and one good idea, the two bad ideas make the opponent bad. People refuse to consider that one or two flaws does not turn a person into a monster. It’s all or nothing.

26

I know this is going to sound dumb, but the golden rule is a good place to start. I haven’t always abided by it but lately it is something that I’m trying more and more to institute into my life. It’s not always easy but I have to push myself harder to do it. I imagine it’s not for everyone, but this me, me, me, shit is what is dragging the world down. It’s a hard MF’r though. I’m going to keep working on it till I get it right.

27

[QUOTE=Sam Stone]
McCain was accused of fathering a black baby in 2000 - and Thomas Jefferson was accused of the same thing in 1800.
[/QUOTE]

Except in Jefferson’s case it was true.

28

[QUOTE=mswas]
Except in Jefferson’s case it was true.
[/QUOTE]

Cite? (Not TV bushwa.)

29

Well… I tend to think that the very process of politics and political machinations corrodes people’s integrity, morals and sense of what is right and proper.

That being said, I’m not surprised very much when a politician of either party is caught doing something shady, going 180 degrees to something they said a while back, etc…

Basically, politics is a necessary evil, and it taints those who get caught up in it, regardless of their beliefs.

I don’t hate anyone from either party- it’s more a feeling of sadness that politics has f-ed them up to the point that they’ll waffle so much or go back on things they said.

I don’t really pity them though; nobody is forced to be a politician, and by now, they damn sure ought to know what they’re getting into.

All that being said, I don’t get worked up over much of this shit; despite how much some of the more crazed posters here would like it, nobody’s going to prosecute Bush, he’ll still make millions on the lecture circuit, etc… And, regardless of whoever’s elected in November, there will still be poor people, still be rich people, Exxon will still make lots of money, etc…

I’m worth one vote, and that’s about how much I worry about it.

30

[QUOTE=bikebloke]
Cite? (Not TV bushwa.)
[/QUOTE]
Not from TV :

[QUOTE=New York Times]
DNA tests on the descendants of Thomas Jefferson’s family and of Jefferson’s young slave, Sally Hemings, offer compelling evidence that the nation’s third President fathered at least one of her children, according to an article in the scientific journal Nature.
[/QUOTE]

31

TWEEEEET!

I am almost tempted to declare that the current presidential candidates are not to be mentioned, further, in this thread. (I know: the OP started it. :stuck_out_tongue: )

The point of the OP was the failure of civility in discourse, particularly political discourse. It was not an invitation to start one more wearying thread of “Well, of course, your candidate is the suxxors.”

Likewise, I see no need for any of the personal shots in this thread that demonstrate the point of the OP without actually discussing the point of the OP.

If you want to argue that passions run too high to allow civil discourse or even that the issues demand that civil discourse be abandoned, do it in conceptual or hypothetical terms and leave the concrete examples from current events for all the other threads intended as pep rallies or tar-and-feathers parties on the various issues.

[ /Moderating ]

32

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
TWEEEEET!

I am almost tempted to declare that the current presidential candidates are not to be mentioned, further, in this thread. (I know: the OP started it. :stuck_out_tongue: )

The point of the OP was the failure of civility in discourse, particularly political discourse. It was not an invitation to start one more wearying thread of “Well, of course, your candidate is the suxxors.”

[ /Moderating ]
[/QUOTE]

Makes good sense as the OP is valid. But will likely take the fun out of the discussion for a few.

I am just a stick in the mud and no fun!

Some observation I have relative to GD ‘hate’ postings are:
A majority of posters here are Obama supporters,
Obama is a native son of chicago/ILL,
Chicago has never had a president,
Chicago is alone and can’t identify with the northeast cities, the left coast cities, deep south cities.
Chicago’s history as gangster town and hog butcher continues to tarnish Chicago’s reputation
so there is a great deal of pride and ‘chip on shoulder’ thing going on here.

Each party to the religious debate uses logic to argue the sides
Arguing religion is as much an emotional debate as it is logical
Faith in logic to arrive at the correct answer to all social questions is vested in emotion as well

Fear of the future runs strong but has never been brought into the light of day!
A logical discussion of the candidates platforms on the boards is rare.
An emotional discussion of religion on the boards is also rare.

Some initial Conclusions:
Emotional investment in Obama going beyond rational thought.
Failure of logic to sway the believer challenges the faith in logic.
Fear is an emotion and can control beyond reason.
Emotional investment tends to evoke emotions and in particular ‘hate’

Some suggestions to reduce the hate
Discuss the tradeoffs and ramifications of whose platform is best for the majority and why.
Discuss the feelings that religion evoked and whether they are good or bad in perspective.
Discuss fears of the future and hurts of the past. See http://www.moretolife.org/courses.cfm
Ignore the pot stirrers and the very extreme and the hate mongers.

And most importantly never take gratification from your post. Self gratification is a hungry monster and always wants more. It is an emotion. If it does not get fed it tends to evoke emotions of ‘hate’.

Hate will not go away until you practice your practice of dispelling it. Again See http://www.moretolife.org/courses.cfm

33

Don’t people just automatically organize themselves into conflicting groups which clash and struggle in terms of their interests, and status relationships?

34

The use of propoganda in campaigns still bothers me. Ageism. Sexism. Racism. We have it all in this campaign. The use of labels where they are virtually meaningly builds a wall for me. Maybe someone can thing of examples where Clinton and McCain have been branded so that this doesn’t seem one-sided.

The word elitist doesn’t seem to fit. I think that it is meant by his opponents to built a wall between some voters and one of the candidates without the voters thinking about what it really means. When a voter repeats it and says that that candidate is an “elitist,” I wonder what they are really saying.

And I don’t hear liberals refer to themselves as “intellectuals.” So why do conservatives refer to them a “pseudo intellectuals”?

I have voted for a Republican in an election. (Fred Thompson made a wonderful Senator.) Have any of you Republicans ever voted for A Democrat? I don’t think I’m conservative on any issues though.

I would still save Bush and Cheney if a bulding were on fire, but they would be the last ones – right after Charles Manson and Rush Limbaugh.

There are several conservative Dopers that I like. And there are one or two liberals who suck. It doesn’t matter.

35

[QUOTE=Zoe]
I would still save Bush and Cheney if a bulding were on fire, but they would be the last ones – right after Charles Manson and Rush Limbaugh.
[/QUOTE]

This statement just demonstrates the OP. This is your ‘hate’.

Why are you unable to respond to an OP about hate w/o ‘hate’.
You just could not help yourself. Your automatically built a wall to protect yourself.

Are those the people you fear or are you protecting yourself from other posters?
Did you make that statement just because you could.( Self gratification)?
Did you have a bad childhood experience with fire?
Were you labeled unfairly as a child?
Or are you just playing me for a sucker? (elitistism)

I was labeled as a child and it hurt then. I have, with my practice, reigned in that automatic uncontrolled self protection monster.

[QUOTE=Zoe]
Have any of you Republicans ever voted for A Democrat?
[/QUOTE]

Yes. Would I vote for a hate filled extreme liberal or conservative? No.

[QUOTE=Zoe]
I don’t think I’m conservative on any issues though.
[/QUOTE]

When you say 'I don’t think ’ is hate blinding you to not thinking!

Hate will not go away until you practice your practice of dispelling it. Again See http://www.moretolife.org/courses.cfm

36

[QUOTE=Burton]
Don’t people just automatically organize themselves into conflicting groups which clash and struggle in terms of their interests, and status relationships?
[/QUOTE]

They don’t, if they desire to avoid the dangers of inbreeding!

37

I haven’t read the whole thread but Zoe made me laugh which prompted more reading.
IMHO one of the main problems with politics is the acceptance and encouragement of dishonesty as a tool for politicians. Also in recent elections we see that dishonesty not only reflected in issues that matter but we see it in dishonest malicious personal attacks on opponents. We are distracted and led away from serious issues that have a profound impact on our lives and encouraged to focus on emotional trivial BS. I hope we’re beginning to see a trend in which the public rejects these tactics and those that eagerly use them.

Talking to a friend of mine we both acknowledged that once you pick a side, republican or democrat, then it’s our human nature to want our “team” to win which can lead to putting some blinders on. We tend to overlook and excuse the mistakes of our team while focusing on and decrying the mistakes of the opposition. Once we head down that path it can lead to more dishonesty and justification as we strive to elevate our team and bring down the other.

I think if we can alter our attitude a bit we might see that as citizens we are all on the same team even if we don’t all agree. Dishonesty and corruption reside in both parties and I hope we can develop an attitude where our common goal is to root out corruption and hold politicians responsible for their excessive dishonesty even if they’re on our “team” I hope we can also realize that the beauty of our system is that we can have discussion and debate to hear and consider other views and that aides us in finding solutions to issues.

If we hold a common goal of the advancement and improvement of our society then we don’t have to see people who hold opposing views as the enemy that needs to be defeated at all cost.

Daniel Ellsberg said decades ago that our political system is set up to corrupt or discourage honest hard working politicians who sincerely want to serve those they represent. In that we as citizens have failed to protect our own democracy. We don’t consistently pay enough attention to what is actually going on. We’ll see if new leadership will change that.

38

“It’s not just rhetoric - your candidate really is evil, and if you won’t admit that, then you must be evil too!”

The failure point of the discussion comes when the jump is made from “your policies are bad” to “you are bad”. And on the SDMB, this point happens usually in the first three sentences of an OP (not yours, smiling bandit). On the SDMB, it happens mostly on one side, because it is mostly a one-sided board. The demonizing process is happening mostly on one candidate, because that candidate is running against the SDMB’s Chosen One. If and when that candidate drops out or is finally defeated, then the same process will be invoked against the opponent in the general election. And so on, and so on, world without end, amen.

Regards,
Shodan

39

Well, I wanted to thank you all for listening. There are some interesting issues here and I will think about some things and get back later.

40

[QUOTE=smiling bandit]
Well, I wanted to thank you all for listening. There are some interesting issues here and I will think about some things and get back later.
[/QUOTE]
One thing I’ve been mulling over in my mind that may be of interest to you, but I think you also have to consider the medium also. The internet is tailor made for the “Springer” reaction, of animosity, namecalling, and demonization to any discussion. The anonymity of the internet, mixed with the high emotion of politics, is a combination that will inexoribly lead to the lowest common denominator of discussion. Although this board is still a step up from some others.

On an even more philosophical realm, I think that people, especially in the US, look for things to be offended by, so they can express their righteous indignation. Personally, I think many Americans have become emotionally stunted; never growing out of the emotional stability of a 3 year old. So, rather than intellect, emotion takes over. And it’s not just politics, although that is the big one. It’s religion, science, hell pretty much anything.

I know I’m rambling, but I just thought I’d throw out a few things.