"Hate Begets Hate" and Civil Politics

PoliTalker said:
Hello Fentoine Lum,



I think evince only heard what she wanted to hear. As soon as you mention anything bad about the Democratic Party then that's all she's going to respond to. She will come bounding forward to defend the Dem party from anything no matter what. It is as if the party is completely unable to do wrong.

Everything else will be disregarded.
Click to expand...

Pavlovianly.
 
Hello evince,

evince said:
that is where the public shaming comes in

that and teaching them that the FOUNDERS AND THE CONSTITUTION don't agree with them
Click to expand...

I disagree with public shaming. I think that is a good way to make enemies.

If people try that on me I simply stop talking to them.

My view is that once that begins, then rational conversation cannot possibly ensue.

So there is no point in continuing to talk to someone who does that. Also, by cutting people off permanently, it serves as a strong warning to others.

I know there are some who feel that I unfairly wrote them off. They probably carry on about how unfair I am being, telling everyone how wrong I was to do that. I tell you this. I am counting on that. Let them spread the message far and wide that PoliTalker will not bend on that. It all works in my favor. People know I am serious. I often warn people to back off or be placed on Permanent Ignore. That is their chance to avoid it. That's when I find out just how much they care about me. If they back off and admit they wish to continue talking, then we can do that. But if they double down, then it's POOF! And I just forget about them. There are plenty of posters here who don't tell me off. Actually, more than the ones who tried. There is always stirring discussion here for me with or without any particular individual. If people want to be nice I want to talk with them. If they just want to tell me off, then I would be a fool to set myself up for that.

Nobody is impressed with 'public shaming.' That's all too common here. Nothing special about that.

And it's not like this is the public, either. This is a very small club. Most won't come here because it is too rough for them, and they don't want to have to deal with it. At best, a few hundred people. Usually fewer than 50. That is a microcosm of the US public.

Maybe if this wasn't such a nasty place more people would participate.

Logically, it is more effective to talk about how good the policy on your side is, rather than how bad the people on the other side are.

This is your chance to talk about how good your ideas are. Talking about how bad those who disagree with them are detracts from that. Perhaps, by setting you off, evince, they are actually very successful in shifting the conversation away from how good your own policy might be, (if anybody ever heard anything about it.)
 
Hello evince,

evince said:
they cheat in elections and have done so for decades

thats treason huh
Click to expand...

They cheat in elections because they want to maintain power. They probably tell themselves the ends justify the means.

Much the same way you think you have to be cruel to be kind.
 
Hello Frank,

Frank Apisa said:
Poli...I am going to have to defend the site here.

As I mentioned once before, you are doing the equivalent of coming to a cigar lounge and complaining about the smoke.
Click to expand...

I know you like that analogy but it's not really accurate. I accept what this place is. I deal with it in my own way. I have a right to talk about what's going on here. I recognize that this place is what the participants make it. I'm not taking a weed whacker to the place. I'm just tossing out some seeds, hoping they might take root. Some seeds do grow, you know. But they never grow unless they are planted.

Frank Apisa said:
Look...there are dozens upon dozens of Internet sites that are moderated strongly enough so that the kinds of "unpleasant" discussions that take place here...CANNOT HAPPEN.

Go there...if this one bothers you so.
Click to expand...

You have no more right to tell me to go somewhere else than I have to tell you that.

Frank Apisa said:
This is one of the few places where the exchanges can be pursued with as much vehemence as desired...and it will be tolerated.
Click to expand...

That doesn't mean we have to do that. It's not a requirement.

Frank Apisa said:
I think your pontification that being pleasant and "cultured" rather than being "in your face" (in an Internet exchange)...is more effective in (ultimate) change...IS DEAD WRONG.
Click to expand...

You are, of course, just as entitled to your view as I am to mine.

Frank Apisa said:
I think nobody here is going to be significantly changed on the extreme left/extreme right continuum...the way you suggest or the way most here operate.

I think nobody here is going to be significantly changed on the "Trump is a jerk-off/Trump is the answer" continuum either.
Click to expand...

Maybe not, but we won't really know unless we try.

Frank Apisa said:
Continue the "drive to civilize" if you want...but I, for one, will fight you in that regard. A place like this...different from the MANY others that "REQUIRE" the kind of stuff you are touting...is needed.
Click to expand...

I don't know about that. The world got on just fine without it until the internet came along.

Frank Apisa said:
If you honestly do not like it...really, you should go elsewhere...rather than attempting to change a one-in-dozens spot to your liking.

This site is fine the way it is...more power to the people running it for giving an alternative way of doing things a chance.
Click to expand...

You've told me to leave before. I'm still here. If you don't want to read what I write there is a simple solution. You can either pass it by or put me on Ignore. You're the one who clicks open my threads about this to weigh in. Are you afraid I might make some headway on this and you might lose your precious trash mouth site? (I would not think that is a very real fear.)

From what I have seen, there are a lot of internet sites which either openly allow flame wars or have given up trying to moderate them out. From what I have seen, it's either participate on a site like this, or don't chat politics online.

You've claimed several times there are all these other 'clean' sites, but you've not once given a single link to any of them. From what I've seen this is par for the course. I like this site because it is not commercial, they don't try to sell you things you don't want, you don't have to give up an personal information, and they don't sell your name to marketing lists.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Frank,



I know you like that analogy but it's not really accurate. I accept what this place is. I deal with it in my own way. I have a right to talk about what's going on here. I recognize that this place is what the participants make it. I'm not taking a weed whacker to the place. I'm just tossing out some seeds, hoping they might take root. Some seeds do grow, you know. But they never grow unless they are planted.



You have no more right to tell me to go somewhere else than I have to tell you that.



That doesn't mean we have to do that. It's not a requirement.



You are, of course, just as entitled to your view as I am to mine.



Maybe not, but we won't really know unless we try.



I don't know about that. The world got on just fine without it until the internet came along.



You've told me to leave before. I'm still here. If you don't want to read what I write there is a simple solution. You can either pass it by or put me on Ignore. You're the one who clicks open my threads about this to weigh in. Are you afraid I might make some headway on this and you might lose your precious trash mouth site? (I would not think that is a very real fear.)

From what I have seen, there are a lot of internet sites which either openly allow flame wars or have given up trying to moderate them out. From what I have seen, it's either participate on a site like this, or don't chat politics online.

You've claimed several times there are all these other 'clean' sites, but you've not once given a single link to any of them. From what I've seen this is par for the course. I like this site because it is not commercial, they don't try to sell you things you don't want, you don't have to give up an personal information, and they don't sell your name to marketing lists.
Click to expand...

Okay, Poli...continue to tell us how civil you are...and lecture us on our need or responsibility to emulate you in order to bring order to chaos...or to make our political situation less grave.

Ain't gonna happen.

Never has been that way. Your thoughts that "The world got on just fine without it until the internet (sic) came along" are a departure from reality. Our political disagreements have often, if not always, been down and dirty...and some of the shit thrown in past elections makes the stuff happening here seem "the usual."
 
evince said:
did you support the Democratic party when they tried to get publically funded elections OVER and OVER again?
Click to expand...

We have had publicly funded presidential nominations and elections since 1976 and it has been a flop. All major candidates accepted the federal funding for the general election which means they were limited to spending that amount and could not raise private funds until 2008 when candidate Obama did not take the federal funds because he could raise and spend more than the limit.
 
I'm taking it at this point that nobody even bothered to *look* at the Civil Politics website link given in the OP.

There hasn't been one comment on it that I've seen.

No big surprise there.

I just thought it was cool that there was an entire organization devoted to it.

There's hope. People see what this polarization is doing to the country.

I don't see how a minority of people can realistically believe that they can force a policy on the rest of the country, and not have that challenged, not have that motivate the other side to try to do what they want instead. Back and forth the political pendulum goes, with neither side interested in trying to find more sustainable compromises. Everybody is on the roller coaster ride whether they want to be or not.

There are good people on both sides, but according to many on each side, the other side is horrible people. I suspect the reality is somewhere in between.

And what is this about disputing facts? I think a lot of that began with global warming. That wasn't always a left/right issue. But it became one, thanks to a lot of propaganda. What happened to all those conservatives who once believed human industrial activity is contributing to the warming of the planet?

And if we try to talk about that, why does that mean anybody has to call anybody else names?
 
Last edited:
PoliTalker said:
Hello Controlled Opposition,



I'm sorry. I did not intend to suggest that you had. I was speaking in the third person.



Myself. After all, we are only ultimately responsible for ourselves. Each of us has the power within us to change how we come across here. I decided long ago that I wanted to change my posting style. It was long ago on another board. I drew my inspiration from some other posters who always seemed to come across convincingly and respectfully.

I thought: 'Wow. I want to be like that.'

The changes were slow and did not happen overnight. But I'm really happy with what I did. All of the little personal jabs and innuendos were dropped. I learned to focus on the issues being discussed, instead of who is doing the discussing.

The only person who can change you is you.

The only way that can occur is if you want to.

I am not so much trying to change people as I am making people aware of reasons why one might want to change. Since I know these changes can only occur if the individual wants to, and gradually at that, it is understandable and expected that there is no instant gratification from pointing out that political conversations are more effective without insults. Who was it, Galileo, who said 'give me a long enough lever and a place to put the fulcrum and I can move the world?'



As I have said, it would be pointless to try to change someone who does not wish to change. It is more logical to toss out reasons why they might want to; and let them decide.

It's like when a boxed product is purchased which requires assembly. Of course you just want the thing all put together. And it may be tempting to try to jump ahead to the final step, but that almost never works. It is better to methodically read and complete each step, because the final steps require that the initial steps are already completed. There's no point in trying to put the wheels on the wagon if there are no axles yet.



I did appreciate that you said that. Sorry if I didn't realize you were looking for that recognition. Thanks for mentioning it.

I have to laugh a little, almost, sometimes. I put a thread out there to talk about something that interests me, and to see if others want to talk about it. I noticed that if MLK's words were applied to a modern chat site, that the functionality could be improved, so I wondered if anybody wanted to talk about that. Now, I can't help but notice that those who feel I am lecturing to them are perhaps moved by their own conscience to criticize my posts, instead of genuflecting? Does this line of conversation cause them to feel a bit guilty? Like, deep down inside they know I am right, but they don't want to admit it outright?

This all came about because I was reading something and learned about this group Civil Politics. I found their website and explored a little. I wondered if anyone here would have an interest, so I created a thread to talk about it. And now I've got all these people thinking I want to try to change them, thinking I am lecturing. Man, if the message is hitting home, then maybe it's something they needed to hear. And if they are feeling pressured to change, maybe some of that is coming from within. Sure, I would like to see more respect and civility on the board. Yes, I think respectful political discussions would be more productive than flame wars. Yes, I would enjoy the board more if we went that way. But I am under no delusion that such change would be so easy as telling people about it once and seeing them instantly change and promptly thank me for point it out.

When people resist a message like this, they are fighting their own inner rationale for the way they post. As if they know that what they are doing isn't very nice, so they are justifying it. I am just the messenger. I have no control.

And I have noticed that most of the posting here is all about: "Why should I change? I don't have to change!"

There has not been a single post about the OP link to the Civil Politics Organization.

It looks like nobody has gotten that far as to even explore that website. Mostly defending why they think it is OK to be rude and crude. No big surprise there.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your thoughtful reply.
 
PoliTalker said:
I'm taking it at this point that nobody even bothered to *look* at the Civil Politics website link given in the OP.

There hasn't been one comment on it that I've seen.

No big surprise there.

I just thought it was cool that there was an entire organization devoted to it.

There's hope. People see what this polarization is doing to the country.

I don't see how a minority of people can realistically believe that they can force a policy on the rest of the country, and not have that challenged, not have that motivate the other side to try to do what they want instead. Back and forth the political pendulum goes, with neither side interested in trying to find more sustainable compromises. Everybody is on the roller coaster ride whether they want to be or not.

There are good people on both sides, but according to many on each side, the other side is horrible people. I suspect the reality is somewhere in between.

And what is this about disputing facts? I think a lot of that began with global warming. That wasn't always a left/right issue. But it became one, thanks to a lot of propaganda. What happened to all those conservatives who once believed human industrial activity is contributing to the warming of the planet?

And if we try to talk about that, why does that mean anybody has to call anybody else names?
Click to expand...


Fair enough, PoliTalker. I took a look at "civil politics," and the next time I suffer a bout of insomnia, I will read it for a few minutes.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
Sounds like Pollyanna talk to me, Politalker.

If you can't recognize that people are not all the same and not all compatible, that's a perception issue.

If I acted civilly toward people like Banjofuck and Bullshit Blob and the present President of the United States,
I'd lose all respect for myself.

We tried that hippie flowers and love shit to save the country from vermin fifty years ago. I was there. Epic Fail.

Sometimes you just have to treat vermin like vermin.
And now the vermin infestation issue is much worse than it was then.
Trumpanzees represent a new low.
Click to expand...

My first marches were for Civil rights. It was not local to Dc or Mongomery. there were marches in many cities across America for quite a while. King gave his "I have a dream speech' in Detroit a few weeks before DC, at Cobo hall.

Marching was always dangerous. the rightys were nasty and vicious. We were urged to not respond in kind. We preceded marches with group singing like "we shall overcome" . tried to get a peaceful mindset before you went out. Some of us ,who were in really good condition, walked women and kids to their cars to fend off attacks after the marching was done. Protesting has a history of working.
 
I marched with Dr. King in Boston, Spring, I believe, of 1965.
I was a freshman in college.
There wasn't even a hit of trouble, though.
Not even a heckler as I recall.
 
Hello Nordberg,

Nordberg said:
My first marches were for Civil rights. It was not local to Dc or Mongomery. there were marches in many cities across America for quite a while. King gave his "I have a dream speech' in Detroit a few weeks before DC, at Cobo hall.

Marching was always dangerous. the rightys were nasty and vicious. We were urged to not respond in kind. We preceded marches with group singing like "we shall overcome" . tried to get a peaceful mindset before you went out. Some of us ,who were in really good condition, walked women and kids to their cars to fend off attacks after the marching was done. Protesting has a history of working.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your service to your nation.
 
Flash said:
We have had publicly funded presidential nominations and elections since 1976 and it has been a flop. All major candidates accepted the federal funding for the general election which means they were limited to spending that amount and could not raise private funds until 2008 when candidate Obama did not take the federal funds because he could raise and spend more than the limit.
Click to expand...

Has to be mandatory.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
I marched with Dr. King in Boston, Spring, I believe, of 1965.
I was a freshman in college.
There wasn't even a hit of trouble, though.
Not even a heckler as I recall.
Click to expand...

In Detroit the anti blacks were financed and organized. It was a group called breakthrough that went violent. I was not fun.
 
Nordberg said:
Has to be mandatory.
Click to expand...

Congress has no constitutional authority to require candidates to accept federal funding or limit their campaign spending (if they don't take federal funds). Also, it violates freedom of speech.

It is welfare for politicians forcing people to contribute to candidates they don't support. It would just result in more outside independent spending if they cannot contribute to candidates or parties.
 
Hints on conducting civil political debate:

"The issues confronting the country – immigration, the economy, growing income inequity, climate change – are complicated and none have perfect solutions. While it can be distressful to learn that your friends don’t believe the same things you do, recognize that everyone has an opinion based on their unique perspectives and experiences. Rather than trying to convert your friends or family members to your view, focus on understanding their views and the reasons behind them. Ask questions and listen closely to their explanations.

Don’t assume things about the views of your friends – the fact that you disagree on one topic does not mean you will disagree on others. If each party listens, and better understands the other’s perspective, you’re likely to find some consensus and possibly even a solution to which you both can agree. If you are listening just to find a point to argue about, hard feelings will probably result.

Asking “why” your friend holds a particular viewpoint encourages further discussion. Interjecting “but” followed by your opinion puts the other side on the defensive and shuts down communication. Similarly, be careful of your tone and facial expressions. A sarcastic, dismissive attitude wins no arguments and will harm your relationship with others.

Most of us suffer from confirmation bias, a tendency to search for and interpret information in a way that confirms one’s preconceptions. At the same time, we disregard or deprecate any information that conflicts with our opinion.

For example, according to the Pew Research Center, 60% of Fox News viewers describe themselves as conservative while only 10% call themselves liberals. By comparison, 32% of MSNBC viewers identify as conservative, while 36% say they are liberal.

This tendency to rely solely on a single source of news and opinions means that we get only one side of a story, a position that is likely to be prejudiced and may not be factual. It also means that it is more difficult to see another’s point of view. While it isn’t easy to avoid confirmation bias, knowing about it could prevent you from making statements about facts that may be questionable.

According to Debate.org, two well-respected news organization recognized for their objectivity are the U.K.-based Reuters and The Independent. Fact-checking websites such as PolitiFact.com and FactCheck.org are nonpartisan sources dedicated to ensuring facts that can be verified. Of course, it is important to look from time to time at the news sources that your friends and family view so you know the basis for their positions."

Money Crashers
Click to expand...
 
Okay.

But one should not attempt to do this kind of thing everywhere...for instance, in areas of Syria still be contested.

Perhaps at the UN it has meaning...on the battlefield...IT DOESN'T.

Even you, Poli, seem unwilling to live up to the spirit of the article.

I have attempted on a couple of occasions to engage you reasonably and intelligently on the question of whether this forum is the place for this mission of civility you seem to be on.

I feel strongly it is not.

You pretty much avoid confrontation on what you consider to be settled policy...namely, we should all be civil in our discussions of these contentious issues.

I'm saying there is no more value in doing what you propose than in allowing for a free-for-all. I am saying that you will not accomplish more in dealing civilly...than others will in dealing decidedly less than civilly.

In any case, I am saying that THIS FORUM...this unique forum...is not the place for it. This is one place where you can post damn near anything (except for Rule 12 material)...and not gigged, banned or scolded.

If you want to discuss this...lets do it. I SUGGEST you choose the one item I mentioned here you see as least "real"...and lets discuss it until we reach agreement (or agreement to disagree)...and then move on to another item.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top