"Hate Begets Hate" and Civil Politics

[PoliTalker]

Hello Frank,

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.

A very good point.

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've made that quite clear. But I appreciate that you engage in civil discussions with me. And, after all, we do agree on many issues.

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 talking about it now. I don't consider it settled at all. I feel like an outlier because I'm not doing the thing that so many are. I do believe it would be much more productive if we conducted these discussions in a civil way, but I understand that is not happening and not likely to happen any time soon. I'm not advocating for changing the rules of this place. I am simply sharing reasons why posters might want to consider changing their posting style. For one thing, people who post in a civil way tend to have more people they are allowed to talk to. Those who are rude tend to find themselves on numerous Ignore Lists and thread bans lists.

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.

Well, you're certainly entitled to your own view on that. Naturally, I believe otherwise, but I have no power to prevent you from doing what you want beyond that of suggestion.

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.

I assure you I am not advocating for changing the rules of this place. I like it just the way it is. Nice little playground. I just have this wild idea that if a few seeds could be planted, and they take root, that over time people would decide on their own to be more considerate of others. Ya know, we like to malign the young for being in a ME generation, but it looks like there are a lot of older people here who are pretty much thinking only of their own concerns. That's one of the things I like about you, Frank. I know you think about others. You care about people and what happens to them.

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.

Oops. Sorry. I commented on just about everything you said. Why don't you pick one facet, if you like?

It is interesting the way these chat room conversations go. Each poster is free to comment on one phrase or an entire post. I'm certain I put more time into each post than most do. It is sometimes discouraging when I spend 25 minutes on a post and the response is two words. And unrelated to anything I said. But that's the chance you take...

 

[PoliTalker]

I've made the comment several times in this thread that MLK would not approve of hateful posting, but that doesn't seem to be a message anyone wants to hear.

Well, at least nobody has had the nerve to try to claim MLK supported hatred.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Hello Frank,



A very good point.



You've made that quite clear. But I appreciate that you engage in civil discussions with me. And, after all, we do agree on many issues.



I'm talking about it now. I don't consider it settled at all. I feel like an outlier because I'm not doing the thing that so many are. I do believe it would be much more productive if we conducted these discussions in a civil way, but I understand that is not happening and not likely to happen any time soon. I'm not advocating for changing the rules of this place. I am simply sharing reasons why posters might want to consider changing their posting style. For one thing, people who post in a civil way tend to have more people they are allowed to talk to. Those who are rude tend to find themselves on numerous Ignore Lists and thread bans lists.



Well, you're certainly entitled to your own view on that. Naturally, I believe otherwise, but I have no power to prevent you from doing what you want beyond that of suggestion.



I assure you I am not advocating for changing the rules of this place. I like it just the way it is. Nice little playground. I just have this wild idea that if a few seeds could be planted, and they take root, that over time people would decide on their own to be more considerate of others. Ya know, we like to malign the young for being in a ME generation, but it looks like there are a lot of older people here who are pretty much thinking only of their own concerns. That's one of the things I like about you, Frank. I know you think about others. You care about people and what happens to them.



Oops. Sorry. I commented on just about everything you said. Why don't you pick one facet, if you like?

It is interesting the way these chat room conversations go. Each poster is free to comment on one phrase or an entire post. I'm certain I put more time into each post than most do. It is sometimes discouraging when I spend 25 minutes on a post and the response is two words. And unrelated to anything I said. But that's the chance you take...

First, thank you for the many compliments, Poli. Be assured I feel them toward you in return.

Anyway...I WILL pick out one issue, although it is not the item I would most like to discuss with you. That item is for another thread.

Here, however, we have you responding to my,

"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"...

...with...

"Well, you're certainly entitled to your own view on that. Naturally, I believe otherwise, but I have no power to prevent you from doing what you want beyond that of suggestion."

Only the first part of your response is where I will focus.

By disagreeing, you are saying that you CAN accomplish more by dealing civilly...than others can while dealing less than civilly.

Whence cometh this?

What have you accomplished through civil discourse that has not been accomplished through less than civil? What have you even come close to accomplishing that way?

MY GUESS: Nothing of substance has been accomplished using either methodology.

This is not a site where substantive mind-changing will happen. This is a site where opposing ideologues go mano-a-mano...with all the trappings and dressings of a food fight in a freshman dormitory.

The reason for my initial statement is predicated on the notion that NOTHING of substance will be accomplished...and we are here only for the entertainment value. (Of which there is plenty.)

But I am willing to listen to why you think more can be accomplished using your take.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Frank,

By disagreeing, you are saying that you CAN accomplish more by dealing civilly...than others can while dealing less than civilly.

Whence cometh this?

What have you accomplished through civil discourse that has not been accomplished through less than civil? What have you even come close to accomplishing that way?

MY GUESS: Nothing of substance has been accomplished using either methodology.

This is not a site where substantive mind-changing will happen. This is a site where opposing ideologues go mano-a-mano...with all the trappings and dressings of a food fight in a freshman dormitory.

The reason for my initial statement is predicated on the notion that NOTHING of substance will be accomplished...and we are here only for the entertainment value. (Of which there is plenty.)

But I am willing to listen to why you think more can be accomplished using your take.

Thanks for sharing that view. I do appreciate it.

Certainly if the metric used to decide if a posting style is accomplishing anything is whether or not the views of others have been changed, then I would agree nothing has been accomplished.

But that's not the only thing that could possibly be accomplished.

As you say, we are here mainly for entertainment purposes. But I think I get more out of this place than that, and I suspect others do as well.

What I get is insight as to why others hold their views. I learn the motivations and reasoning.

I believe that by being civil, I don't come across in a personally challenging way. People can sort of 'drop their guard' when talking to me. They know I am not going to take a cheap shot.

That way, people tend to open up a little more. So I gain more insight, learn more about what makes our politics tick.

Another thing that is accomplished is getting informed. Since we engage in all these conversations about anything that affects our government and lives, I often find myself wondering, as I formulate a post, if what I am saying, what I believe, is accurate. So I am forced to do a bit of research to verify my post. Through this process, I sometimes learn that I had something wrong, had an incorrect impression of something or incorrect assumption. That causes me to rethink my position, adjust it for the new information. The whole process results in my being better informed.

That's an accomplishment, too.

When I share my views with others (and people are talking about an issue instead of name-calling, etc) then my views are challenged again. Sometimes I have to defend them. And I get to learn how other people see things differently. I can then consider if I think they have a better understanding than I do. I'm not always right. If I get something wrong I appreciate it when somebody else points that out. Naturally I appreciate it more if they stick to talking about the issue, instead of me because after all, I am not the subject.

By being civil, even if people disagree, they may soften their feelings about the 'other side.' That's important. There needs to be more dialog across the aisle. When people only talk to like-minded others, they tend to come out of the conversation with a more extreme view. But if they talk to opposing-minded others who treat them well, and show genuine concern for their well-being, their sanctity, their right to exist and hold their view, then they often come out with a less disfavorable view of the other side, and a greater willingness to listen. Changing feelings may not be much, but in my view, that is also an accomplishment.

 

[Nordberg]

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.

How does not permitting the wealthy to select our presidents, limit free speech? we should have a far shorter election period. Any who can qualify should have the same access to advertising and campaign funds. that would include 3rd and 4th parties. We could call it democrracy, a new experience to Americans.,

Supremes were wrong. Money does not equal speech.

 

[Flash]

How does not permitting the wealthy to select our presidents, limit free speech? we should have a far shorter election period. Any who can qualify should have the same access to advertising and campaign funds. that would include 3rd and 4th parties. We could call it democrracy, a new experience to Americans.,

Supremes were wrong. Money does not equal speech.

Did the wealthy determine your vote?

Was there any difference in the way the system operated when both major candidates were accepting the federal funding and spending limits for both the nomination and/or general election from 1976-2008? There was still all the squealing about the rich buying the election even though candidates were taking only limited federal funding for the general election.

It is not democracy when voters are required to contribute to candidates they oppose and especially 3rd party candidates who have no chance of winning. Free speech means you cannot restrict my speech or compel me to speak against my wishes.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Hello Frank,



Thanks for sharing that view. I do appreciate it.

Certainly if the metric used to decide if a posting style is accomplishing anything is whether or not the views of others have been changed, then I would agree nothing has been accomplished.

But that's not the only thing that could possibly be accomplished.

As you say, we are here mainly for entertainment purposes. But I think I get more out of this place than that, and I suspect others do as well.

What I get is insight as to why others hold their views. I learn the motivations and reasoning.

I suspect you get no more insights into why others hold their views...or about their motives and reasons...by being "civil" than (the ones who are being "less than civil") get using that method.

I suspect you are committed to being civil and attempting to get others to be civil...so you are using this as a form of rationalization.

I believe that by being civil, I don't come across in a personally challenging way. People can sort of 'drop their guard' when talking to me. They know I am not going to take a cheap shot.

That way, people tend to open up a little more. So I gain more insight, learn more about what makes our politics tick.

I suspect this is what you "hope" because you are so committed to "civility." I doubt it actually happens any more frequently than it happens in conversations between people who are "less than civil."

Another thing that is accomplished is getting informed. Since we engage in all these conversations about anything that affects our government and lives, I often find myself wondering, as I formulate a post, if what I am saying, what I believe, is accurate. So I am forced to do a bit of research to verify my post. Through this process, I sometimes learn that I had something wrong, had an incorrect impression of something or incorrect assumption. That causes me to rethink my position, adjust it for the new information. The whole process results in my being better informed.

That's an accomplishment, too.

And that is an accomplishment that happens with me (and others) while being "less than civil" also. You are counting that as an accomplishment for posting "civilly" when it is an accomplishment of someone being careful, whether posting civilly or not.

When I share my views with others (and people are talking about an issue instead of name-calling, etc) then my views are challenged again. Sometimes I have to defend them. And I get to learn how other people see things differently. I can then consider if I think they have a better understanding than I do. I'm not always right. If I get something wrong I appreciate it when somebody else points that out. Naturally I appreciate it more if they stick to talking about the issue, instead of me because after all, I am not the subject.

Name-calling and view challenging are not mutually exclusive either.

By being civil, even if people disagree, they may soften their feelings about the 'other side.' That's important. There needs to be more dialog across the aisle. When people only talk to like-minded others, they tend to come out of the conversation with a more extreme view. But if they talk to opposing-minded others who treat them well, and show genuine concern for their well-being, their sanctity, their right to exist and hold their view, then they often come out with a less disfavorable view of the other side, and a greater willingness to listen. Changing feelings may not be much, but in my view, that is also an accomplishment.

I see you are determined to post (what you deem to be) civilly...and to suppose it to be superior to the kind of freedom to do what often happens here.

Fine.

My wife and I frequently go on boat cruises on the Hudson River during summer evenings. Large, large boat. Only one small deck, clearly designated, where smoking is allowed...and I truly enjoy a cigar while aboard. Many people do...and we people that deck.

I've had occasions where people complain that we are smoking. There are a dozen non-smoking decks where they can go...but instead they come to the smoking deck and complain about the smoke.

That is the basis for my "don't go to a cigar lounge and complain about the smoke."

After my initial complains about the tone and content of a couple of posters (AND MODERATORS)...I came to the conclusion that the freedom notion being attempted here is worthwhile...even welcome. And that the idea that idea that "civility" in discussions of this sort is vastly over-rated.

I guess we will have to agree...civilly, of course...to disagree on this issue, Poli.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

How does not permitting the wealthy to select our presidents, limit free speech? we should have a far shorter election period. Any who can qualify should have the same access to advertising and campaign funds. that would include 3rd and 4th parties. We could call it democrracy, a new experience to Americans.,
Supremes were wrong. Money does not equal speech.

What an excellent idea. I would be suspicious of anyone who would be against such a plan, and want to know why.

 

[PoliTalker]

I think a lot of people would be favorable to some kind of limits on campaigning. It would be in the better interest of the nation if our elected officials did their job most of the time instead of trying to get reelected. and it might tone down some of the poison rhetoric that is getting way too old.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Frank,

I suspect you get no more insights into why others hold their views...or about their motives and reasons...by being "civil" than (the ones who are being "less than civil") get using that method.

I suspect you are committed to being civil and attempting to get others to be civil...so you are using this as a form of rationalization.




I suspect this is what you "hope" because you are so committed to "civility." I doubt it actually happens any more frequently than it happens in conversations between people who are "less than civil."



And that is an accomplishment that happens with me (and others) while being "less than civil" also. You are counting that as an accomplishment for posting "civilly" when it is an accomplishment of someone being careful, whether posting civilly or not.



Name-calling and view challenging are not mutually exclusive either.



I see you are determined to post (what you deem to be) civilly...and to suppose it to be superior to the kind of freedom to do what often happens here.

Fine.

My wife and I frequently go on boat cruises on the Hudson River during summer evenings. Large, large boat. Only one small deck, clearly designated, where smoking is allowed...and I truly enjoy a cigar while aboard. Many people do...and we people that deck.

I've had occasions where people complain that we are smoking. There are a dozen non-smoking decks where they can go...but instead they come to the smoking deck and complain about the smoke.

That is the basis for my "don't go to a cigar lounge and complain about the smoke."

After my initial complains about the tone and content of a couple of posters (AND MODERATORS)...I came to the conclusion that the freedom notion being attempted here is worthwhile...even welcome. And that the idea that idea that "civility" in discussions of this sort is vastly over-rated.

I guess we will have to agree...civilly, of course...to disagree on this issue, Poli.

Agreed!

 

[TTQ64]

What an excellent idea. I would be suspicious of anyone who would be against such a plan, and want to know why.

And everyone should have the entire day off to vote.

Voting day should be a celebration!

 

[Life is Golden]

Civil politics? Change your name to PollyAnna, please. There is no such thing.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

And everyone should have the entire day off to vote.
Voting day should be a celebration!

Wouldn't that be both awesome and an incentive to get to the polls? And/or change it to a weekend day.

Or make it a combination National Election and Ice Cream Day.... everyone who votes gets a free cone. lol

 

[TTQ64]

Wouldn't that be both awesome and an incentive to get to the polls? And/or change it to a weekend day.

Or make it a combination National Election and Ice Cream Day.... everyone who votes gets a free cone. lol

1 person 1 vote...…..would be fun.

 

[Adolf_Twitler]

Hate is the only thing to hate! [Adolf Twitler]

And you may quote me on that if you like!

 

[rjhenn]

The problem with this viewpoint is it's an appeal to glittering generalities. The whole "they're anti-American, they're anti-Christian!" It's propaganda. They say the same exact thing about your side, almost word for word actually. This is the very nature of political discourse in this country. An appeal to symbolic nothings, rather than intelligent debate about the the actual issues we face.

You'd be surprised to find your cognitive bias about Trump supporters only describes a small, loud minority. Unfortunately, most of that crowd love to get on political forums like this one and dick with people. That has colored your perception of reality and made enemies out of a group that is largely made up of regular, everyday Americans.

Actually, it's based on what they claim to support. Their views on how to treat people who aren't exactly like them would have had Jesus flogging them out of the temple.

 

[Nordberg]

Did the wealthy determine your vote?

Was there any difference in the way the system operated when both major candidates were accepting the federal funding and spending limits for both the nomination and/or general election from 1976-2008? There was still all the squealing about the rich buying the election even though candidates were taking only limited federal funding for the general election.

It is not democracy when voters are required to contribute to candidates they oppose and especially 3rd party candidates who have no chance of winning. Free speech means you cannot restrict my speech or compel me to speak against my wishes.

Hell yes. the wealthy have PACs with unlimited money they use in politics.

free speech is just about speech, not money. Fair and equall speech is the ultimate goal. the founders sure as hell did not try to give more power to the wealthy. If they did, they would have said so. It takes right wing Supremes with a plutocratic end goal to decide that.

 

[Flash]

Hell yes. the wealthy have PACs with unlimited money they use in politics.

free speech is just about speech, not money. Fair and equall speech is the ultimate goal. the founders sure as hell did not try to give more power to the wealthy. If they did, they would have said so. It takes right wing Supremes with a plutocratic end goal to decide that.

You are saying the wealthy decided your vote? Which candidate(s) did you switch to or away from before money changed your mind?

I meant did people view the system any differently with public financing. People still thought big money bought elections. However, the wealthy still had PACS because they could spend the money on the campaign but just could not contribute to the candidate or party.

It is not just the wealthy who have PACs. 10 million people contributing $5 each becomes a wealthy PAC. To think money from wealthy people is any more influential than money from the middle class is irrational. Large influential PACs composed of ordinary citizens joining together contribute large sums--unions, NRA, environmental, and ideological groups are examples.

Under what congressional power can Congress regulate how much a person can spend? That was struck down long before Citizens United.

 

[Fentoine Lum]

You are saying the wealthy decided your vote? Which candidate(s) did you switch to or away from before money changed your mind?

I meant did people view the system any differently with public financing. People still thought big money bought elections. However, the wealthy still had PACS because they could spend the money on the campaign but just could not contribute to the candidate or party.

It is not just the wealthy who have PACs. 10 million people contributing $5 each becomes a wealthy PAC. To think money from wealthy people is any more influential than money from the middle class is irrational. Large influential PACs composed of ordinary citizens joining together contribute large sums--unions, NRA, environmental, and ideological groups are examples.

Under what congressional power can Congress regulate how much a person can spend? That was struck down long before Citizens United.

Let's recall the founder's vision, it was never to actually have an equally representative democratic form of governance. Only white land holding males of the aristocracy were to have a voice. "The people" just had to swallow something that worked against them, thus the lofty rhetoric.

Privately:

“[A social division exists] between the rich and the poor, the laborious and the idle, the learned and the ignorant. … Nothing, but force, and power and strength can restrain [the latter].” —John Adams in a letter to Thomas Jefferson (1787)

 

[Flash]

Let's recall the founder's vision, it was never to actually have an equally representative democratic form of governance. Only white land holding males of the aristocracy were to have a voice. "The people" just had to swallow something that worked against them, thus the lofty rhetoric.

Privately:

“[A social division exists] between the rich and the poor, the laborious and the idle, the learned and the ignorant. … Nothing, but force, and power and strength can restrain [the latter].” —John Adams in a letter to Thomas Jefferson (1787)

There is nothing in the Constitution limiting power to white land holding males. Voter qualifications were left to the states and they could have said only females could vote. Some states from the time of the Articles of Confederation allowed free blacks to vote and some allowed property holding females to vote. So, any discrimination based on sex, property, occurred only in the states--the Constitution makes no such distinctions.

But you are correct that they clearly made the decision to not create a democracy in which the majority could impose its will on the minority.