|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Nov 18, 2014 22:20:17 GMT -5
All right folks, let's try this again.
Some of my most memorable experiences belonging to CBR were the political debate threads that were in abundance at the Comm board; they were a great place to witness people I truly respected really let loose and express themselves. In that spirit I'd like to personally welcome every one back to the political arena; if you have a view on a current political event either foreign or domestic this is the place for you!
That said we previously had such a place of debate here that gradually fell off the tracks, as many of these types of threads sometimes can and so it was closed. This of course was no fault to any one user, it was something that had been brewing for some time that finally came to a head. In order to try and stop that from happening yet again it has been decided that if the thread is to live again then it must be more structured than it previously was and so I've come up with a take on Robert's Rules that will be strictly enforced here in the thread.
1.Listen to the other side: You are all expected to respect each other's right to speak even if the opinion being expressed is a minority one. You are also expected to hear each other out, allowing everyone their allotted time to get in their two cents in with out being rail roaded out of the thread. I stress this as rule numero uno as if you obey this one rule you may hear something that affects the way you think which is truly profound.
2.Focus on issues, not personalities: It’s best to just stick to the issues. You may disagree with someone's point, but you won’t feel personally attacked if you all stick to the issues.
3.Avoid questioning motives: This should go with out saying as a part of rule two, but sometimes this further explication can avoid some sticky situations. Despite what you may feel about why someone may hold a certain perspective always address each opinion as one that has been reached honestly and with out any ulterior reasons as the opposite only leads to personal conflict.
4.Address remarks through the chair. One of the best ways to keep your argumentation impersonal is to address the "chair" not another member directly during the conversation. as this isn't a formal debate we won't be having an official chair but if you attempt to present your argument to an anonymous third party rather than a specific member it will come off as being much less confrontational.
5. Keep conversation confined to specific topics, not generalities
6. Be polite: This is the final and ultimate rule, respect all members at all times.
It might be good to book mark this first post and read it before you respond as this thread will be heavily monitored and failure to abide by these rules will lead to deletion or possible disciplinary action. This isn't to say that your opinions will be censored, just that that way you express those opinions is expected to be civil at all times and that if it is not there will be consequences.
That all sounds draconian, I know, but with that out of the way I think this will all be more enjoyable for everyone.
|
|
|
|
Post by coke & comics on Nov 19, 2014 0:20:38 GMT -5
3.Avoid questioning motives: This should go with out saying as a part of rule two, but sometimes this further explication can avoid some sticky situations. Despite what you may feel about why someone may hold a certain perspective always address each opinion as one that has been reached honestly and with out any ulterior reasons as the opposite only leads to personal conflict.
Not that I plan to participate much in this thread, but enforcing rules like this is what created problems on other boards. Sometimes motives need to be questioned. Sometimes precisely what a poster is saying is less significant to the issue at hand than the misogyny or racism barely veiled by their words and views. |
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Nov 19, 2014 0:53:03 GMT -5
3.Avoid questioning motives: This should go with out saying as a part of rule two, but sometimes this further explication can avoid some sticky situations. Despite what you may feel about why someone may hold a certain perspective always address each opinion as one that has been reached honestly and with out any ulterior reasons as the opposite only leads to personal conflict.
Not that I plan to participate much in this thread, but enforcing rules like this is what created problems on other boards. Sometimes motives need to be questioned. Sometimes precisely what a poster is saying is less significant to the issue at hand than the misogyny or racism barely veiled by their words and views. I agree. I can see a way in which this view and the concerns expressed in thwhtguardian's point 3 might be reconciled, but it wouldn't be easy and I can't say for sure I'd be able to stick to it myself. To give an idea of what I'm thinking of, let me state my own view that racism and misogyny are so widespread throughout human culture, that I think we have to accept the probability that each of us as individuals has incorporated misogynistic and racist ideas from an early age without always being aware of it. We may think we've expunged them from our individual minds, but concepts assimilated from an early age don't go away so easily and can sometimes make themselves felt when least expected. Which is a roundabout way of saying that, when we see some thinly-veiled racism or misogyny behind another poster's words, maybe we can draw their attention to that without making it a personal attack, chastened by the knowledge that we too are capable of doing the same. Yeah, I know, sometimes the racism or the misogyny is the actual, though veiled, point and the poster is well aware of it. Speaking to him or her as if they weren't would be the hard part. Like I say, not sure I'll be able to do it myself. |
|
|
|
Post by Randle-El on Nov 19, 2014 1:05:17 GMT -5
Not that I plan to participate much in this thread, but enforcing rules like this is what created problems on other boards. Sometimes motives need to be questioned. Sometimes precisely what a poster is saying is less significant to the issue at hand than the misogyny or racism barely veiled by their words and views. I agree. I can see a way in which this view and the concerns expressed in thwhtguardian's point 3 might be reconciled, but it wouldn't be easy and I can't say for sure I'd be able to stick to it myself. To give an idea of what I'm thinking of, let me state my own view that racism and misogyny are so widespread throughout human culture, that I think we have to accept the probability that each of us as individuals has incorporated misogynistic and racist ideas from an early age without always being aware of it. We may think we've expunged them from our individual minds, but concepts assimilated from an early age don't go away so easily and can sometimes make themselves felt when least expected. Which is a roundabout way of saying that, when we see some thinly-veiled racism or misogyny behind another poster's words, maybe we can draw their attention to that without making it a personal attack, chastened by the knowledge that we too are capable of doing the same. Yeah, I know, sometimes the racism or the misogyny is the actual, though veiled, point and the poster is well aware of it. Speaking to him or her as if they weren't would be the hard part. Like I say, not sure I'll be able to do it myself. In an ideal world, we would all be so humble as to acknowledge our own shortcomings and be firm yet gracious in pointing out the same in others. But in practice, more often than not people tend to be self-righteous and sanctimonious when calling out racism, mysogyny, and other societal evils. And we tend to give them a free pass on it because the thing they are calling out is so reviled. That's not to say that we should therefore not challenge people regarding their views -- just that it's difficult to do so in the manner that you describe. In the same way that racism or misogyny is ingrained in our thinking, so I would submit is a tendency towards an attitude of moral superiority. |
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Nov 19, 2014 1:30:11 GMT -5
I agree. I can see a way in which this view and the concerns expressed in thwhtguardian's point 3 might be reconciled, but it wouldn't be easy and I can't say for sure I'd be able to stick to it myself. To give an idea of what I'm thinking of, let me state my own view that racism and misogyny are so widespread throughout human culture, that I think we have to accept the probability that each of us as individuals has incorporated misogynistic and racist ideas from an early age without always being aware of it. We may think we've expunged them from our individual minds, but concepts assimilated from an early age don't go away so easily and can sometimes make themselves felt when least expected. Which is a roundabout way of saying that, when we see some thinly-veiled racism or misogyny behind another poster's words, maybe we can draw their attention to that without making it a personal attack, chastened by the knowledge that we too are capable of doing the same. Yeah, I know, sometimes the racism or the misogyny is the actual, though veiled, point and the poster is well aware of it. Speaking to him or her as if they weren't would be the hard part. Like I say, not sure I'll be able to do it myself. In an ideal world, we would all be so humble as to acknowledge our own shortcomings and be firm yet gracious in pointing out the same in others. But in practice, more often than not people tend to be self-righteous and sanctimonious when calling out racism, mysogyny, and other societal evils. And we tend to give them a free pass on it because the thing they are calling out is so reviled. That's not to say that we should therefore not challenge people regarding their views -- just that it's difficult to do so in the manner that you describe. In the same way that racism or misogyny is ingrained in our thinking, so I would submit is a tendency towards an attitude of moral superiority. Well, you're right, and that reminds me of another point I meant to get to. I think there are two reasons people tend to get very upset in political arguments: One is that for many people, their political views are an extension of their most deeply-felt sense of identity, so that an attack on a political stance is felt at a visceral level as an attack against that personal identity, which automatically sets the fight or flight mechanism going - and since this is the internet we're all very brave so it's the "fight" part that comes to the fore. The other reason is that political questions aren't just some abstract intellectual game (though policy wonks may beg to differ): the answers we - as societies, nation-states, cultures, etc - come up with to those questions are literally life and death to millions of people all over the world, the difference between getting blown to pieces by a bomb or living another day. Or if not life and death, the difference between freedom and slavery - however those words should be defined, a huge philosophical and political question itself. |
|
|
|
Post by Randle-El on Nov 19, 2014 1:44:08 GMT -5
Well, you're right, and that reminds me of another point I meant to get to. I think there are two reasons people tend to get very upset in political arguments: One is that for many people, their political views are an extension of their most deeply-felt sense of identity, so that an attack on a political stance is felt at a visceral level as an attack against that personal identity, which automatically sets the fight or flight mechanism going - and since this is the internet we're all very brave so it's the "fight" part that comes to the fore. The other reason is that political questions aren't just some abstract intellectual game (though policy wonks may beg to differ): the answers we - as societies, nation-states, cultures, etc - come up with to those questions are literally life and death to millions of people all over the world, the difference between getting blown to pieces by a bomb or living another day. Or if not life and death, the difference between freedom and slavery - however those words should be defined, a huge philosophical and political question itself. I agree, and I'll go one step further. For many people, politics essentially serves as a proxy for religion, especially these days when 1) we tend to be more polarized than ever, and 2) people are more secular than ever. There is a kind of intensity with which people are holding to their political views that mirrors the dogmatism that we typically associate with religious zealotry. And the same fervor with which one clings to his/her party or platform typically results in an equally intense disdain for, not just the opposing view, but the people who hold to the opposing view. Mind you, I live in the Washington D.C. area where discussing politics is the norm, and a ton of my friends and acquaintances work in or for the government, lobbying, or think tanks. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2014 9:25:01 GMT -5
I agree. I can see a way in which this view and the concerns expressed in thwhtguardian's point 3 might be reconciled, but it wouldn't be easy and I can't say for sure I'd be able to stick to it myself. To give an idea of what I'm thinking of, let me state my own view that racism and misogyny are so widespread throughout human culture, that I think we have to accept the probability that each of us as individuals has incorporated misogynistic and racist ideas from an early age without always being aware of it. We may think we've expunged them from our individual minds, but concepts assimilated from an early age don't go away so easily and can sometimes make themselves felt when least expected. Which is a roundabout way of saying that, when we see some thinly-veiled racism or misogyny behind another poster's words, maybe we can draw their attention to that without making it a personal attack, chastened by the knowledge that we too are capable of doing the same. Yeah, I know, sometimes the racism or the misogyny is the actual, though veiled, point and the poster is well aware of it. Speaking to him or her as if they weren't would be the hard part. Like I say, not sure I'll be able to do it myself. In an ideal world, we would all be so humble as to acknowledge our own shortcomings and be firm yet gracious in pointing out the same in others. But in practice, more often than not people tend to be self-righteous and sanctimonious when calling out racism, mysogyny, and other societal evils. And we tend to give them a free pass on it because the thing they are calling out is so reviled. That's not to say that we should therefore not challenge people regarding their views -- just that it's difficult to do so in the manner that you describe. In the same way that racism or misogyny is ingrained in our thinking, so I would submit is a tendency towards an attitude of moral superiority. Next up: Take a Klansman (or the non-hooded near-equivalent of same) to Work Day? Uh ... no, thanks. With that, I hope I'm pretty much done in this one (& not, I stress, because of anything you or anyone else has said, but rather what others are likely to say at some point). Y'all have fun. |
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Nov 19, 2014 11:03:13 GMT -5
I agree. I can see a way in which this view and the concerns expressed in thwhtguardian's point 3 might be reconciled, but it wouldn't be easy and I can't say for sure I'd be able to stick to it myself. To give an idea of what I'm thinking of, let me state my own view that racism and misogyny are so widespread throughout human culture, that I think we have to accept the probability that each of us as individuals has incorporated misogynistic and racist ideas from an early age without always being aware of it. We may think we've expunged them from our individual minds, but concepts assimilated from an early age don't go away so easily and can sometimes make themselves felt when least expected. Which is a roundabout way of saying that, when we see some thinly-veiled racism or misogyny behind another poster's words, maybe we can draw their attention to that without making it a personal attack, chastened by the knowledge that we too are capable of doing the same. Yeah, I know, sometimes the racism or the misogyny is the actual, though veiled, point and the poster is well aware of it. Speaking to him or her as if they weren't would be the hard part. Like I say, not sure I'll be able to do it myself. In an ideal world, we would all be so humble as to acknowledge our own shortcomings and be firm yet gracious in pointing out the same in others. But in practice, more often than not people tend to be self-righteous and sanctimonious when calling out racism, mysogyny, and other societal evils. And we tend to give them a free pass on it because the thing they are calling out is so reviled. That's not to say that we should therefore not challenge people regarding their views -- just that it's difficult to do so in the manner that you describe. In the same way that racism or misogyny is ingrained in our thinking, so I would submit is a tendency towards an attitude of moral superiority. I'll almost certainly follow Dan's tack and bow out of this particular thread. I argued politics for years at CBR, but that was different. This board is largely made up of a core group of exiles that left there because of the changes in policy. I don't want to see this become CBR II and I don't want to have anything to with it becoming that. And, quite frankly, the day that I don't feel fully justified in feeling morally superior to fascist mouth-breathers is the day we can dig a hole and fill it in on top of me. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2014 11:10:56 GMT -5
Also, that^^^^. Not a fan of moral & political relativism, personally.
|
|
|
|
Post by Randle-El on Nov 19, 2014 11:45:06 GMT -5
Also, that^^^^. Not a fan of moral & political relativism, personally. I am not suggesting either, though I'm probably more flexible on the latter than the former. My point regarding "moral superiority" was not that it's never possible to actually have a position which is morally superior to another, but that people often tend to have a kind of self-righteousness about it, as if they could never ever possibly have arrived at the opposing view, that we are perfectly justified in painting in broad strokes without nuance and labeling it all as evil. Sure, there are certain positions that are clearly identifiable as evil or racist, but the kind of political self-righteousness I observe on a daily basis occurs in debates that are far more nuanced and complicated than those. And even in positions that are clearly evil or racist, I would argue that in most cases, it's because the person holding them often times started out with good (or at least understandable) intentions -- self-preservation, a desire for equality, etc. Anakin Skywalker didn't become Darth Vader because he wanted to be evil -- he started out with good intentions but they went terribly awry because the good things he wanted had to be obtained at any the cost. Are we all so certain that we would never sell our souls to the devil if we were subjected to the same kinds of pressures as those who have? I'm just suggesting that, even when we denounce things we disagree with, I think we ought to do so with a little more humility. There are many things I disagree with -- even strongly disagree with -- but in most cases I can see why a person would have arrived at that position. I think having that kind of humility would enable more productive political discussion. |
|
|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on Nov 19, 2014 11:49:05 GMT -5
In an ideal world, we would all be so humble as to acknowledge our own shortcomings and be firm yet gracious in pointing out the same in others. But in practice, more often than not people tend to be self-righteous and sanctimonious when calling out racism, mysogyny, and other societal evils. And we tend to give them a free pass on it because the thing they are calling out is so reviled. That's not to say that we should therefore not challenge people regarding their views -- just that it's difficult to do so in the manner that you describe. In the same way that racism or misogyny is ingrained in our thinking, so I would submit is a tendency towards an attitude of moral superiority. I'll almost certainly follow Dan's tack and bow out of this particular thread. I argued politics for years at CBR, but that was different. This board is largely made up of a core group of exiles that left there because of the changes in policy. I don't want to see this become CBR II and I don't want to have anything to with it becoming that. And, quite frankly, the day that I don't feel fully justified in feeling morally superior to fascist mouth-breathers is the day we can dig a hole and fill it in on top of me. Slam, good point. There are some positions, groups, affiliations, that are so loathsome that it's basically impossible to not feel morally superior to them. Of course, the flip side it that the loathsome ones think they have the moral high ground too. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2014 11:50:24 GMT -5
And to be honest -- I should have clarified this above; it occurred to me, but I'm actually fairly busy with work right now -- I'm not saying you were ... but at the same time, I see the position you're staking out as potentially establishing the slippery slope that leads to them.
Given where & when I grew up, in particular, could I have turned into one of my virulently racist & reactionary childhood friends or the Tea Party types I regularly come into contact with around here as an adult, not to mention online? Of course I could have. Does that make me think at all kindly about their hatefulness?
No. No, it doesn't.
I suppose that makes you a better man than me. I can live with that, though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Randle-El on Nov 19, 2014 12:04:38 GMT -5
And to be honest -- I should have clarified this above; it occurred to me, but I'm actually fairly busy with work right now -- I'm not saying you were ... but at the same time, I see the position you're staking out as potentially establishing the slippery slope that leads to them. Given where & when I grew up, in particular, could I have turned into one of my virulently racist childhood friends or the Tea Party types I regularly come into contact with around here as an adult? Of course I could have. Does that make me think at all kindly toward their hatefulness? No. No, it doesn't. I suppose that makes you a better man than me. I can live with that, though. No sir, I am definitely NOT the better man. I have often reacted poorly in these types of discussions with those whom I disagree, so it's not as if I say these things from "on high" -- nor was it my desire to give that impression. If anything, I have had to learn to temper my responses with greater understanding and patience of the opposing views. And in the process, I've actually learned that my opponents were not the demons I made them out to be -- or at least, not as bad of a demon as I once thought.  And regarding your example of overt racism -- as the child of first-generation immigrants, I have experienced racism first hand, and there are few things that can make one burn with anger than being made to feel less than human in that particular way. To a small degree, I can understand why they feel that way. They think I'm taking jobs away from good Americans (read: white folks). They think I look strange, or that I eat strange food. They think I came from that backwards country where that oddball dictator lives, and so I must be a little backwards myself. Yet these days, I find that I don't get angry anymore at those to cling to such views. Instead, I pity them. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2014 13:01:14 GMT -5
And to be honest -- I should have clarified this above; it occurred to me, but I'm actually fairly busy with work right now -- I'm not saying you were ... but at the same time, I see the position you're staking out as potentially establishing the slippery slope that leads to them. Given where & when I grew up, in particular, could I have turned into one of my virulently racist childhood friends or the Tea Party types I regularly come into contact with around here as an adult? Of course I could have. Does that make me think at all kindly toward their hatefulness? No. No, it doesn't. I suppose that makes you a better man than me. I can live with that, though. No sir, I am definitely NOT the better man. I have often reacted poorly in these types of discussions with those whom I disagree, so it's not as if I say these things from "on high" -- nor was it my desire to give that impression. If anything, I have had to learn to temper my responses with greater understanding and patience of the opposing views. And in the process, I've actually learned that my opponents were not the demons I made them out to be -- or at least, not as bad of a demon as I once thought. And regarding your example of overt racism -- as the child of first-generation immigrants, I have experienced racism first hand, and there are few things that can make one burn with anger than being made to feel less than human in that particular way. To a small degree, I can understand why they feel that way. They think I'm taking jobs away from good Americans (read: white folks). They think I look strange, or that I eat strange food. They think I came from that backwards country where that oddball dictator lives, and so I must be a little backwards myself. Yet these days, I find that I don't get angry anymore at those to cling to such views. Instead, I pity them. I can empathize to a certain extent, I think. For me, it's not a matter of race, but rather of class. I've noted before that I grew up rather poor, to the point of being the only white kid in my class in 6th grade to qualify for the free lunch program. At times I felt very inferior because of that, though I don't think anyone really looked down on me. (Being from an economically depressed town, county & state was part of that, of course -- I'm sure the families of the "richest" kids I knew were only scraping the bottom of upper middle class, at most.) I did, however, undergo some insults from a few lamentable individuals because of my sister, who's Down syndrome. And of course it's hard to shake those early orientations, or at least it is for me. People who pay more for a single comic than I've got in my savings & checking accounts combined? *smh*, as the kids say. (Not to pat myself on the back or anything, but even though I'm close to broke & wondering how in the hell I'm going to swing my trip to Shreveport & Arkansas in about 3 weeks to see my sister & buy her Xmas presents, a couple of days a local FB friend came to me with a story about having no heat [because of inability to pay the gas bill] & needing $80 or so to buy a couple of space heaters not only for her & her husband but, more importantly, for their grandchild. She could've been scamming me, but from previous posts I'm pretty sure she wasn't; I gave her $100, & I don't expect to be repaid, though I sure as hell wouldn't object if it happened. That's, what, a small portion of what various people here would pay & have paid for some comic book? More power to them, but my own feeling is that if I'm going to give lip service to the ideal of a world in which no one has more [or less] than anyone else, I should do what little I can to address other people's misery. It's not a matter of morality, I don't think, but rather perhaps of priority.) Not that I regret any of that (well, except, of course, for the fact that my sister is profoundly disabled). If I weren't an anti-authoritarian hater of elites & the system in general, I wouldn't be who or what I am ... for better &/or worse. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2014 13:40:42 GMT -5
I'm pretty close to Trebor, of course, & not just geographically (if memory serves, he's in Mobile; I'm in Montgomery). I often have to remind myself, though, that some of my heroes -- Gandhi, most obviously, & Martin Luther King, as well as Tolstoi (politically; his fiction I couldn't care less about), Philip K. Dick (in his own cracked way), etc. -- were profoundly religious, not to mention various personal friends of mine. And of course the whole millenarian strain of Christian anarchists circa the English Civil War. Diggers FTW!
|
|
