Advertisement

Register for free to remove this ad

The thing that disturbs me most about the political atmosphere here (and I've seen it elsewhere) is that staunch Republican and Democratic supporters are becoming more and more blind to anything that doesn't directly support their view. They are like fanboys on the GameFaqs boards, they don't present arguments in a manner that provokes thought; rather, they present what they believe as an absolute truth, and the rest be damned.

PS2 IS TEH ROXXXORZ!!!11 GAMCEUBE IZ TEH KIDDIZ!!11

BUSH IS RIGHT!!! KERRY IS SOFT!!
KERRY IS RIGHT!!! BUSH IS A WARMONGER!!!

I've had many animated discussions with a friend of mine that is a hardcore republican. Has been as long as I've known him, and I can remember him sprinting through the frat house banging on people's doors every time they predicted a Bush victory in the 2000 election (he banged on doors quite often that night). Out of these discussions came the prevailiing thought that things are black and white. Good and evil. It permeates a lot of Republican thought these days. There's no perspective on what is good, and what is evil. It is "I am right, I am all that is good, and those who oppose me are wrong, and all that is evil."

I've been a debater at heart for most of my life. I was a Junior Statesman in high school not for the experience, or for the "well rounded" appearance of my resume going into college, but for the fact that I enjoy seeing how people string together their arguments to present a cohesive thought. A good debater acknowledges the arguments of the other side and addresses them in a manner in which no party is offended; they create a comfortable atmosphere for people on both sides to approach the issue with less emotional content.

I don't see this kind of debate raging in this political atmosphere of "I'm right, you are COMPLETELY wrong / don't have a clue." That is sad. It prevents intelligent discussions and progress. Perhaps in a less combative atmosphere, even the people on these boards could have a good discussion about current events. As it stands, this is impossible.

you are COMPLETELY wrong.

j/k

I agree. I like to debate/discuss. I don't like to argue [I'm married, I get enough of that at home.]
To me, the goal of a debate/discussion is that all parties walk away feeling like A. they have learned something and B. the otherperson has learned something as well.
But political discussion in this day and age, both anonymous message-board discussion and in the media, has turned into 'You suck! We rock!' like you say, similar to console fanboys.

I disagree, however with this comment:

"he prevailiing thought that things are black and white. Good and evil. It permeates a lot of Republican thought these days. There's no perspective on what is good, and what is evil. It is "I am right, I am all that is good, and those who oppose me are wrong, and all that is evil." '

Those are two different things. I think some thigns *are* good, and some things/people *are* evil. [I'm thinking things like slavery, child molestation, Adolf Hitler, etc.] But I also think those two words are bandied about far too often. I'm not a moral relativist, but i think there are mitigating circumstances, exceptions, etc, in most cases. I think absolute perfection, or absolute horribless, is [luckily for us] few and far between. I very rarely rate a video game or movie a 'perfect 10.' There's always something to improve. I don't rate things 'totally worthless, 0/10' either, because there's a redeeming factor to most things. So while I do believe in good/evil, I don't think I'm necessarily 'good' and those who disagree with me necessarily 'evil.'

You make a good point--this is inherent to many of the issues that are relevant in politics, but a danger nonetheless--falling back on 'emotion.' Too many political 'debates' are emotion-laden or use words with a high emotional effect, without discussing any of the underlying facts or logic. It's like if i wanted to discuss war, and the other person just said 'War is for babykillers!' How does one 'debate' that?
When emotions are involved to that level, that blinds people to facts or logic, and turns the 'debate's goal of 'understanding issues' into an argument's goal of 'I gotta win.' No one really wins in that situation.

I agree. I'd like to think I'm not biased, but I probably am. The site that sums up my feelings best is http://www.johnkerryisadouchebagbuti...himanyway.com/ .

I don't think the issue is bias, at least at this level. Everyone has some level of bias, on some issues. People in certain professions [ie, journalism/news reporting] need to be able to distance themselves from their bias, much like doctors and cops have to distance their emotions from their job in order to do their job well.
The issue is manifold:

* Being openminded--which does *not* mean you cave to whatever anyone else is saying. It merely means you are listening openly, and will not automatically gainsay anything the other person says, after all, that's not an argument.
* Being respectful, and listening. I used to 'debate' with someone in high school. He would get on his soapbox and virtually preach at me his ideas/opinions. Which I listened to. Then when my 'turn' came, he either sat there rolling his eyes, or walked away. Why should I continue subjecting myself to that? Because he *had* to be right, he ended up losing a possible convert.
* Attack the idea/facts/logic, not the person or the messenger. If you say to someone, 'You're stupid' their first reaction is going to be, 'Well, F* you too.' Not real productive. But if you say, 'Your idea of so-and-so is interesting, but here's the problem I have with it' and then follow that up with ideas/facts/logics, you remove the ad hominem attack/defense cycle, and focus both parties attention on the issue. I just scanned the Fahrenheit 9/11 thread, and one big comment was 'Michael Moore is a fatass!' I don't like Michael Moore. He may be overweight. Lots of people are. But saying that does two things: removes the discussion from the issues, and attacks someone personally for something totally irrelevant to the topic at hand. If they said 'he's a registered Communist' and backed that up with logic/facts, that could be relevant. But juvenile namecalling does absolutely nothing.

"It permeates a lot of Republican thought these days."

And how bias is that?

I mean your right Republicans all yell and say everything they believe is right and nothing else matters.

Oh yeah and Bush=Hittler.

"'Michael Moore is a fatass!' I don't like Michael Moore. He may be overweight. "

But that is a valid point when Michael Moore is saying that Americans are evil because we over consume and take things from others who need. Apparently the only over consumption that is allowed is at the dinner table maybe. When you are a huge fat ass how do you go around telling others that they are wrong/evil because they are fat?

Just calling him fat is a lazy/weak way to make an argument but to point out he is a fat ass to show that he is a hypocrite is a valid point.

In all fairness I generally think the tone of arguments have been pressed by tactics and tones used by the left. Let me explain.

I think the general tone of modern incivility in politics and debate began in the 60's. The entire Vietnam experience here and abroad was influenced by leftist groups in how the debate was framed. "HEY HEY LBJ HOW MANY KIDS DID YOU KILL TODAY?". This completely minimized the aspects of the war and why it was being fought. That's where the trend begins. Frame the argument in a simple statement regardless of how much truth there is to it. The left pioneered this.

Now as a result of this you can move on to the 80's where more of the well spring of modern debate came. You have segments that decried Reagan as being a warmonger because he wanted a strong military. Hating gays for not immediately stopping and finding a cure for AIDS. Wanting to make people poor by cutting tax rates for "the rich". Every single debating point was lessened down to one soundbite worthy sentence.

During the time of Clinton the Republicans won elections that gave them control of Congress. However they never won an election. They "siezed power" they "took controll" and they didn't have an agenda to be voted on for consideration they had a "Contract On America". During the government shut down the budget wasn't put up for debate. The Democratic leaders sought out cameras and declared Republicans wanted to "Starve old people.", "Cut school lunch programs." and make people decide between food and medicine.

All through the 90's we, the right, asked why no one would stand up to these outlandish lies. Now we have. We do it by dominating talk radio, having a prominant series of news commentators and talking head shows on FOX News. Now that the right finally has some degree of a serious media presence it's too much for the left to handle.

As a result the attacks become more vitriolic. "Bush lied, people died." when there is no reasonable person that can't see that every major intelligence agency in the world was saying the same thing. Iraq had WMD or was certainly acting as if they had programs and materials worth concealing. The DNC and its leaders like Nancy Pelosi stated they would never lose an election again without getting their message out.

Well guess what. Their message is out and the degree of hostility is greater than it ever has been. They are being met as vehemently with people that disagree with them as they think they are right. This is the same group that last week had 150+ members of Congress vote to bring in UN inspectors to oversee US elections. That's the message we're getting and it's perceived as pure unadulterated contempt for American society as it exists today.

We no longer see each other as the loyal opposition. The tone makes people one of two things "War mongers for an exapnsionist imperialistic America where only the rich and coprorations have a say or "Peaceniks who want to make U.S. manifest destiny subservient to the UN and socialize an ever expanding base of the U.S. economy for an unsustainable socialist utopia."

Thats it. That's how the two camps are polarized anymore. It's to the point where Bush could say "Water is wet." and the Democrats would attempt to refute the statement because we're so in tune with immediate rejection to ideas that aren't our own regardless of whether or not they have merit.

I don't understand the sheer vitriol that carries into debates where people are automatically viewed as supsicious, the enemy or flat out liars. I will attempt to convert as many people as I can to my point of view as civilly as possible. I'm on another message board at uncledunkel.com and while I frequently disagree with the owner of the site and board we always discuss our issues with frank candor and a degree of respect.

Bottom line is that both sides think the other is against America "as they see it". When the reality is that the basis of America as it was intended was abandoned with the New Deal. Now we're working with a hybrid of socialism and regulated capitalism. The debate is generally down to what degree government participates in both.

Okay, end of rant.

Originally Posted by Steve Dave "It permeates a lot of Republican thought these days." And how bias is that? I mean your right Republicans all yell and say everything they believe is right and nothing else matters. Oh yeah and Bush=Hittler.

Sorry, I guess that slipped out. It was really a reaction to the whole "evildoer" angle that Bush propagates in his speeches. I recommend you all go read the Non-Sequitur comics from this week, where the little girl uses the flag as a defense for everything. "You disagree with me and you are unpatriotic; you are the enemy." It's that kind of polarization that made it next to impossible for legislators to stand up against any action the administration lumped under the "national security" banner. Voters wouldn't be so happy with a Senator who stood up against something billed as "patriotic," would they? Hence the overwhelming support of the war in Iraq.

Wow, just went off on a tangent there.

Pittsburgh and dtcarson: Those are exactly the kinds of posts I'm trying to encourage with this thread. Thanks.

PAD, your sig pretty much negates everything you just said.

Why? Because I quote a Democratic supporter? Those aren't my words my friend.

No, because you are using one left wing nutjob to discredit all Democrats. There are plenty of whackos on both sides.

Originally Posted by PittsburghAfterDark Why? Because I quote a Democratic supporter? Those aren't my words my friend.

"Go yourself" - Vice President, Dick Cheney

Originally Posted by PittsburghAfterDark In all fairness I generally think the tone of arguments have been pressed by tactics and tones used by the left. Let me explain. I think the general tone of modern incivility in politics and debate began in the 60's. The entire Vietnam experience here and abroad was influenced by leftist groups in how the debate was framed. "HEY HEY LBJ HOW MANY KIDS DID YOU KILL TODAY?". This completely minimized the aspects of the war and why it was being fought. That's where the trend begins. Frame the argument in a simple statement regardless of how much truth there is to it. The left pioneered this. Now as a result of this you can move on to the 80's where more of the well spring of modern debate came. You have segments that decried Reagan as being a warmonger because he wanted a strong military. Hating gays for not immediately stopping and finding a cure for AIDS. Wanting to make people poor by cutting tax rates for "the rich". Every single debating point was lessened down to one soundbite worthy sentence. During the time of Clinton the Republicans won elections that gave them control of Congress. However they never won an election. They "siezed power" they "took controll" and they didn't have an agenda to be voted on for consideration they had a "Contract On America". During the government shut down the budget wasn't put up for debate. The Democratic leaders sought out cameras and declared Republicans wanted to "Starve old people.", "Cut school lunch programs." and make people decide between food and medicine. All through the 90's we, the right, asked why no one would stand up to these outlandish lies. Now we have. We do it by dominating talk radio, having a prominant series of news commentators and talking head shows on FOX News. Now that the right finally has some degree of a serious media presence it's too much for the left to handle. As a result the attacks become more vitriolic. "Bush lied, people died." when there is no reasonable person that can't see that every major intelligence agency in the world was saying the same thing. Iraq had WMD or was certainly acting as if they had programs and materials worth concealing. The DNC and its leaders like Nancy Pelosi stated they would never lose an election again without getting their message out. Well guess what. Their message is out and the degree of hostility is greater than it ever has been. They are being met as vehemently with people that disagree with them as they think they are right. This is the same group that last week had 150+ members of Congress vote to bring in UN inspectors to oversee US elections. That's the message we're getting and it's perceived as pure unadulterated contempt for American society as it exists today. We no longer see each other as the loyal opposition. The tone makes people one of two things "War mongers for an exapnsionist imperialistic America where only the rich and coprorations have a say or "Peaceniks who want to make U.S. manifest destiny subservient to the UN and socialize an ever expanding base of the U.S. economy for an unsustainable socialist utopia." Thats it. That's how the two camps are polarized anymore. It's to the point where Bush could say "Water is wet." and the Democrats would attempt to refute the statement because we're so in tune with immediate rejection to ideas that aren't our own regardless of whether or not they have merit. I don't understand the sheer vitriol that carries into debates where people are automatically viewed as supsicious, the enemy or flat out liars. I will attempt to convert as many people as I can to my point of view as civilly as possible. I'm on another message board at uncledunkel.com and while I frequently disagree with the owner of the site and board we always discuss our issues with frank candor and a degree of respect. Bottom line is that both sides think the other is against America "as they see it". When the reality is that the basis of America as it was intended was abandoned with the New Deal. Now we're working with a hybrid of socialism and regulated capitalism. The debate is generally down to what degree government participates in both. Okay, end of rant.

Well, PAD, first off I think you and I have been having some pretty civilized debates in other threads on this site, so I don't think things are quite as dark as the person who started this thread believes.

However, I take issue with your statement that the current low level of the national discourse is the doing of liberals. Throughout all of Clinton's presidency, the American public was subjected to a continual drumbeat of negative, malicious and false rumors from the Republican Noise Machine. Whitewater -- turned out to be nothing but a bad land deal. Vince Foster -- turned out he was not murdered. Low, nasty, vicious rumors that made Clinton out to be some sort of mobster. The worst thing they found against Clinton that had any merit was lying about a blow job, and they tried to impeach him for it. I don't recall any other modern U.S. president being subjected to such a barrage -- not Reagan, and certainly not Bush I. Rush and his ilk get on the airwaves and spew these sort of nasty lies, and then try to turn around and say the liberals made them do it, and I am not buying it. If they want to be fair and balanced, then (1) start allowing other points of view on their shows and (2) stop the hateful rhetoric.

As far as asking UN inspectors to come in and observe our election, if an election in any third-world country went as badly as our last one did, I'm certain we would support sending inspectors there. Black voters disenfranchised due to a bad felons list in Florida. A recount that ping-pongs through the courts and then is quashed by the Supreme Court. And let's face it, with the presence of the new Diebold voting machines (which create no paper record from which to recount votes), the country is facing yet another electoral disaster this year. How is trying to head that off contemptuous? I think it shows more contempt to make no effort to try and stave off another constitutional crisis.

One final note -- I don't think that it's as simple as "Bush lied, people died," but by not acknowledging that he made decisions on the basis of faulty intelligence, Bush sure makes himself look like a liar. And I will repeat, had Bush allowed the weapons inspectors to finish the job in Iraq, he would have known there were no WMDs and we could have avoided the whole mess. But for some reason, he needed a war, so the weapons inspectors were pulled out and off we went.

Originally Posted by Quackzilla "Go shaq-fu yourself" - Vice President, Dick Cheney

Good point. I am tempted, in all of my political debates with Republicans, to end them with "Go shaq-fu yourself." I mean, if it's good for the VP, who couldn't bring himself to admit he'd lowered the national discourse.....

How to create a utopia in three easy steps:

Step 1: Create a good government: Get rid of all the politicians.

Step 2: Create a fair society: Get rid of all the lawyers.

Step 3: Create a peaceful world: Get rid of all the people.

Originally Posted by PittsburghAfterDark In all fairness I generally think the tone of arguments have been pressed by tactics and tones used by the left. Let me explain. I think the general tone of modern incivility in politics and debate began in the 60's. The entire Vietnam experience here and abroad was influenced by leftist groups in how the debate was framed. "HEY HEY LBJ HOW MANY KIDS DID YOU KILL TODAY?". This completely minimized the aspects of the war and why it was being fought. That's where the trend begins. Frame the argument in a simple statement regardless of how much truth there is to it. The left pioneered this. Now as a result of this you can move on to the 80's where more of the well spring of modern debate came. You have segments that decried Reagan as being a warmonger because he wanted a strong military. Hating gays for not immediately stopping and finding a cure for AIDS. Wanting to make people poor by cutting tax rates for "the rich". Every single debating point was lessened down to one soundbite worthy sentence. During the time of Clinton the Republicans won elections that gave them control of Congress. However they never won an election. They "siezed power" they "took controll" and they didn't have an agenda to be voted on for consideration they had a "Contract On America". During the government shut down the budget wasn't put up for debate. The Democratic leaders sought out cameras and declared Republicans wanted to "Starve old people.", "Cut school lunch programs." and make people decide between food and medicine. All through the 90's we, the right, asked why no one would stand up to these outlandish lies. Now we have. We do it by dominating talk radio, having a prominant series of news commentators and talking head shows on FOX News. Now that the right finally has some degree of a serious media presence it's too much for the left to handle. As a result the attacks become more vitriolic. "Bush lied, people died." when there is no reasonable person that can't see that every major intelligence agency in the world was saying the same thing. Iraq had WMD or was certainly acting as if they had programs and materials worth concealing. The DNC and its leaders like Nancy Pelosi stated they would never lose an election again without getting their message out. Well guess what. Their message is out and the degree of hostility is greater than it ever has been. They are being met as vehemently with people that disagree with them as they think they are right. This is the same group that last week had 150+ members of Congress vote to bring in UN inspectors to oversee US elections. That's the message we're getting and it's perceived as pure unadulterated contempt for American society as it exists today. We no longer see each other as the loyal opposition. The tone makes people one of two things "War mongers for an exapnsionist imperialistic America where only the rich and coprorations have a say or "Peaceniks who want to make U.S. manifest destiny subservient to the UN and socialize an ever expanding base of the U.S. economy for an unsustainable socialist utopia." Thats it. That's how the two camps are polarized anymore. It's to the point where Bush could say "Water is wet." and the Democrats would attempt to refute the statement because we're so in tune with immediate rejection to ideas that aren't our own regardless of whether or not they have merit. I don't understand the sheer vitriol that carries into debates where people are automatically viewed as supsicious, the enemy or flat out liars. I will attempt to convert as many people as I can to my point of view as civilly as possible. I'm on another message board at uncledunkel.com and while I frequently disagree with the owner of the site and board we always discuss our issues with frank candor and a degree of respect. Bottom line is that both sides think the other is against America "as they see it". When the reality is that the basis of America as it was intended was abandoned with the New Deal. Now we're working with a hybrid of socialism and regulated capitalism. The debate is generally down to what degree government participates in both. Okay, end of rant.

You blame the left for everything, but I wonder who the people who blow up abortion houses vote for?

You never hear of a militant group coming from the left, do you?

You sound like one of the reporters on Fox News bitching about the liberal media.

I think its funny that people say Kerry will do this and that. Do people really think that if he is elected, the next day, he would bring home all the troops?

What Kerry has said, if elected, he would work to get an international force into Iraq to relieve our guys there. It is going to be hard for Bush to do somethng like this since he basically spit in the world's face before we went in.

Originally Posted by ZarathosNY What Kerry has said, if elected, he would work to get an international force into Iraq to relieve our guys there. It is going to be hard for Bush to do somethng like this since he basically spit in the world's face before we went in.

and Kerry could make this happen how? Thats my point, how is he going to make all of his promises happen?

Kerry is saying what Bush said 4 years ago on the troop issue.

Everyone wants to bring home the troops. but it is not always a possability