"Us" vs. "Them"--I Dislike that Mindset

[Cool Hand]

I feel the compulsion to vent.

I am very disturbed by the "us" vs. "them" rhetoric in so many of the political posts on this board. It is very alienating to anyone who does not identify with the prevailing concept of "us," and it is by definition divisive. In context, I find it hypocritical as well.

Please allow me to explain.

In the past few days I have read many posts here that refer to what "we" have to do to reach "them," or about how stupid, ignorant, or just plain wrong "they" are. My response is that "they" are us. Please allow me to indulge in a bit of Americentrism for the sake of this thread, as I am necessarily referring to Americans in this political talk. I fully recognize, however, that American domestic and foreign policies often have subtle, moderate, or even profound effects on persons not living in the U.S. "They" are your family members, your neighbors, your co-workers, and your friends. "They" are not necessarily idiots, buffoons, ignoramuses, or selfish greedy bastards profiting from the broken backs of the little man by mere virtue of not supporting the same candidate as you. Demonizing or dehumanizing "them" is alienating and off-putting to them. When you do so, you are indulging in selfish, intolerant, hubristic, and offensive moral superiority.

Let me ask this: by what authority or virtue does the so-called "left" have a monopoly on being correct? Isn't it awfully self-righteous, and thus hypocritical in this context, to presume that one's own values, beliefs, and positions are superior to anyone else's who does not subscribe to the same?

I ask these things for a couple of reasons. One, I am personally alienated by much of the rhetoric I read here. To me, so much of it sounds mean-spirited, hubristic, or hyperbolic. Two, it is narrow-minded.

The mean-spirited stuff consists of comments like the idiots who voted for Bush, or what the fuck were they thinking. The hubristic is a broad category that includes most of the posts with the tone that we've got to teach them what we know, because we are right and they are wrong. The hyperbolic talk is of the type that essentially declares the U.S. has become Jesusland or those of us who get it should just leave, or the like.

The divisive "us" vs. "them" approach is narrow-minded because it is too binary. There is plenty of room in the middle for persons like me to choose some from Column A, some from Column B, and some from Column C. I like Chinese food, or at least what is called "Chinese Food" in most of the U.S. I don't have to eat just beef, or just chicken, or just seafood.

I like my politics the same way. I'm decidedly non-theistic and secular, for example, but I also tend to favor self-sufficiency over dependence upon the state. Those are not necessarily opposing positions, but if when voting I am required to choose between Republican or Democrat, I might choose to vote Republican in any given election (not necessarily the latest Presidential race) simply because I believe the GOP tends to support policies which are generally in keeping with the principle of being self-sufficient. That does not mean I subscribe to the theocratic state ideals that seem to predominate the current President's core beliefs, or to any particular position on any particular issue.

On social issues, I tend to support positions that are held mostly by persons who identify themselves as liberals. For instance, I am stridently in favor of decriminalization of not only marijuana possession and use, but also of all illicit drugs. I hold this position primarily from an economic market perspective. Remove the prohibition, and you eliminate the overwhelming profit incentives from dealing in drugs because you can substantially reduce or even eliminate the black market. Hell, I'm even in favor of possibly partially subsidizing the market (artificially keeping the prices low) in order to insure that no one can make a profit from dealing in drugs. I find the dealing and the ancillary crime it supports to be a far greater problem than the actual use or abuse of drugs. I also find the enormous diversion of law enforcement, judicial, and prison resources to the War on Drugs to be a huge waste and unjustified opportunity cost. Furthermore, it assaults basic, fundamental individual liberties and ruins millions of lives by stigmatizing, marginalizing, and/or imprisoning them, and by stigmatizing, destroying, and/or impoverishing their families.

I am pro-choice, but I fully recognize that the Supreme Court made up a previously non-existent right to privacy in Griswold that it extended to abortions in Roe v. Wade. That kind of judicial activism, despite the laudable ends it sometimes achieves, troubles me very much.

I loathe unreasonable governmental intrusions into free speech, the right not to practice or observe a religion, the right to be secure in one's person, house, papers, or effects, or any of the other rights in the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment. I cannot stand the concept of hate crime, as I find it to be uncomfortably Orwellian.

Much of the time I wish that the U.S. would refrain from playing its oft-chosen role as World Police. This can be a rightist or a leftist position, depending on the rationale for the action. For instance, American military support in Somalia in 1993 was mostly regarded as humanitarian aid at the time, and was thus a leftist position. The first Gulf War, however, was and is mostly regarded as being a selfish military action in order to maintain access to the region's supply of oil. Supporting it is mostly a rightist position. Other times I recognize that the post-WWII Western European theater during the Cold War was over-dependent on U.S. military support, and without it would have been overrun and occupied by Soviet forces. I recognize that many believe the U.S. has a moral obligation, as the only remaining world military superpower, to stop military bullying by naughty agents. This is why the U.S. got involved in Bosnia and Kosovo. I also recognize that from a selfish perspective, it is often in the U.S.' best interests to maintain or encourage political stability in most of the world. We depend on a global economy and relatively unrestricted international trade. Political instability upsets and threatens that order. Again, the former might be identified as a leftist approach, whereas the latter might be regarded as rightist.

In short, I'm not readily identifiable as a Democrat or a Republican simply by adherence to a laundry list of positions on a party platform. I hold values and beliefs which are embraced by both parties, but which are often identified with one or the other (I recognize that most of my beliefs make me into what most would call a libertarian with a little "l").

Don't I have a right to take offense at the rhetoric which alienates someone like me who might choose a little from each column? If I don't find Bush to be the Anti-Christ, does that mean I'm an ignorant, uninterested, uncaring, stupid, fundie buffoon? Why should I adhere to your orthodoxy? Aren't you trying to "convert" me? See any hyprocrisy?

Cool Hand

[livius drusus]

Great OP, Cool Hand, and deserving of a well thought-out reply. I'll get back to you shortly. Many thanks for posting it.

[The Lone Ranger]

I have little to add myself, except that I agree it's a great post.

Personally, I think that the willingness and ability to "pick and choose", rather than hewing to the "party line" (whatever it might be) shows an admirable willingness and ability to think for oneself. Would that more people were as politically aware.

But then, I've never voted a straight-party ticket in my life, to my knowledge.


If I may make a (probably trite) observation, it seems to me that most hard-core Conservatives assume that "Liberals" are basically well-meaning but naive people, with the notable exception of Religious Conservatives, who have a distressing tendancy to assume that anyone who disagrees with them is likely to be a bad person. Hard-core Liberals, on the other hand, have a distressing tendency to assume that anyone who disagrees with them must be either selfish or ignorant (at best). Because, after all, "If they knew what I know, they'd surely vote as I do."


I honestly think that there's much more difference between Traditional Conservatives and Religious Conservatives than between Traditional Conservatives and Traditional Liberals. Both Traditional Conservatives and Traditional Liberals tend to be concerned with making ours into a society that maximizes the well-being of the citizenry. They merely differ on what government's role is in this endeavor, and how it should be accomplished. Religious Conservatives tend to be far more interested in imposing their values on others -- by force of law, if possible -- than either Traditional Conservatives or Traditional Liberals.

In other words, both Traditional Conservatives and Traditional Liberals tend to be idealists who want to make our society work better. Religious Conservatives, by contrast, aren't so-much interested in making people happy or wealthy or safe as they are in making them behave properly. That's a fundamental difference in attitudes, I think.

Obviously, there's a much wider range in political attitudes than just "Conservative" and "Liberal"; I'm just using these terms as shorthand.

Anyway, I'm rambling and probably not making much sense, so I'll stop. The fact of the matter is, though, that good, intelligent and informed people can genuinely disagree regarding what's best for our country. It's something we should all keep in mind.

Cheers,

Michael

[Scotty]

I wish I was more conversant in this stuff, better able to debate.

I can say that if I have given the impression it is us vs them, then I am sorry about that.

It is possible that I can write things that way. I often feel like it is me against them because out of fear of saying I am an atheist I will then become outcast in some way (especially my family, not that they are "fundys" but most are into it for a lifetime).

So, yes, I do feel at least a me vs. them because from the vehemence of response to being non-religious from many people. I feel very alone.

It is really sad, and I don't really know how to make it better. I have few if any friends anymore because of this, the only person I have pretty much convinced that my position isn't some sort of derangement is my wife. She was pretty cool to begin with, so was an easier platform to work on, but that took me at least 6 years.

Nothing "we" can do to change attitudes would be a simple change, or a quick fix. It takes years to get past the attitudes, and how do you spend the time required on each individual to teach them it is okay?

I suspect many people here are just venting frustration over something that seemed so clear cut. It isn't, and that was hard to see right away. I think it will get better in short order.

I have to admit, you talk right past me many times, I have a hard time comprehending your posts, as they contain so much information!

-Scott

[viscousmemories]

I don't like the divisive rhetoric either, Cool Hand. I attempted to express as much with this bit of satire (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=941) that developed into an interesting discussion. I find dogmatic extremism distasteful even when the people are promoting values I happen to share. I am not so arrogant as to believe that my values are the "right" ones. I don't believe that I or anyone here has access to the "truth", and I cringe when people act as if they do - and I include myself in that because I know I do it too.

[Socratoad]

I'll risk saying that my values are the right ones. If I did not believe this I would not have spent a lifetime developing them.

Others may have values quite different from mine, but if they are diametrically opposed to all that I hold dear then I cannot respect that person, no matter how well meaning they may be.

[LadyShea]

I think you are are interpreting what I see as the simple use of convenient labels for discussion as some kind of indelible lines drawn in the sand. Of course differing interpretations are a fact of life, but I just wanted to let you know mine..



Please allow me to explain.

In the past few days I have read many posts here that refer to what "we" have to do to reach "them," or about how stupid, ignorant, or just plain wrong "they" are. My response is that "they" are us.

In this context, they are not us, IMO. My in laws, for example, are racist, homophobic, warmongers who think we should nuke the entire Middle East. They voted for Bush. "They" are not "us", and I would never want to be on "their" side on these topics.

"They" are your family members, your neighbors, your co-workers, and your friends. "They" are not necessarily idiots, buffoons, ignoramuses, or selfish greedy bastards profiting from the broken backs of the little man by mere virtue of not supporting the same candidate as you.

That doesn't mean they aren't those things either.I have met, talked to, am related to, and/or read the writings of many people who have some combination of or all of those traits. I do not base my labeling of them as "they" on who they voted for, but by what they say and how they act. That in large part all of the people I described DID vote for Bush is not merely a coincidence.

Demonizing or dehumanizing "them" is alienating and off-putting to them. When you do so, you are indulging in selfish, intolerant, hubristic, and offensive moral superiority.

I am morally superior to a racist who told me, to my face, that we should kill the Muslim babies before they grow into terrorists, and that's why the war is a good thing. If that's selfish or intolerant on my part, then so be it.

Let me ask this: by what authority or virtue does the so-called "left" have a monopoly on being correct? Isn't it awfully self-righteous, and thus hypocritical in this context, to presume that one's own values, beliefs, and positions are superior to anyone else's who does not subscribe to the same?

In some cases, the presumptions are based on concrete examples, like the one I mentioned above. So, I guess if I am self righteous for hating bigotry then I will simply accept the label.

I ask these things for a couple of reasons. One, I am personally alienated by much of the rhetoric I read here. To me, so much of it sounds mean-spirited, hubristic, or hyperbolic. Two, it is narrow-minded.

I am sorry you feel alienated. I feel alienated by people who think 10000 dead Iraqis is progress. The fact is some people have these strong feelings based on first hand experiences. If they sound one way or another to you, I can only assume it's because you have no similar experiences to relate it to and therefore can't empathize on this tipic.

The mean-spirited stuff consists of comments like the idiots who voted for Bush, or what the fuck were they thinking. The hubristic is a broad category that includes most of the posts with the tone that we've got to teach them what we know, because we are right and they are wrong. The hyperbolic talk is of the type that essentially declares the U.S. has become Jesusland or those of us who get it should just leave, or the like.

Again, these feelings are based on their own experiences in life. If I was unable to empathize with any of it, I might see it the same way you do.

I like my politics the same way. I'm decidedly non-theistic and secular, for example, but I also tend to favor self-sufficiency over dependence upon the state. Those are not necessarily opposing positions, but if when voting I am required to choose between Republican or Democrat, I might choose to vote Republican in any given election (not necessarily the latest Presidential race) simply because I believe the GOP tends to support policies which are generally in keeping with the principle of being self-sufficient. That does not mean I subscribe to the theocratic state ideals that seem to predominate the current President's core beliefs, or to any particular position on any particular issue.

Each of us has a personal list of issues, attitudes, experiences, and beliefs. That list is prioritized in order of importance. Your priorities differ from those who are reacting in the way you dislike. So, if I, for example, have "keep abortion safe and legal" at the top of my list, I am going to find anyone who votes for the person most likely to abolish abortion rights morally repugnant based on that one top factor.

I have no way of personally relating to your prioritization of self sufficiency over other issues, so you seem like a "they" to me at this moment in time. Perhaps if we discussed it further, I could begin to understand your views, but when it comes down to no more than a soundbite "I voted for <my value> to the detriment of <your value>" the natural reaction is to distance ourselves from "they". This may not be the ideal, but it is reality.

On social issues, I tend to support positions that are held mostly by persons who identify themselves as liberals. For instance, I am stridently in favor of decriminalization of not only marijuana possession and use, but also of all illicit drugs. <snip>

Perfect example. Though I favor the decriminilization and regulation of drugs, it is way down on my personal priority list

I am pro-choice, but I fully recognize that the Supreme Court made up a previously non-existent right to privacy in Griswold that it extended to abortions in Roe v. Wade. That kind of judicial activism, despite the laudable ends it sometimes achieves, troubles me very much.

Well, again, our priorities differ. I don't care how it got on the books, protecting the right for women to choose is near the top of my priorities list.

On the Bill of Rights and Global Policing we seem to agree.

Don't I have a right to take offense at the rhetoric which alienates someone like me who might choose a little from each column? If I don't find Bush to be the Anti-Christ, does that mean I'm an ignorant, uninterested, uncaring, stupid, fundie buffoon? Why should I adhere to your orthodoxy? Aren't you trying to "convert" me? See any hyprocrisy?

Cool Hand

Of course you have the right. Do others not have the right to feel alienated by 50+ million people whose values are so far removed from theirs as to seem alien?

If you voted for Bush, you voted against the values of the people who are making those statements. They/us feel threatened under Bush, and are venting. Now that you have explained your position, you might not be considered one of "them", but it's impossible to have this discussion with every person to reach understanding.

Again, I really think the generalizations are used more for convenience, labeling "us" as those who have similar values and priorities and "them" as those that oppose those values, makes discussion easier.

Great post, very thought provoking, thank you.

[trendkill]

I feel the compulsion to vent.

I am very disturbed by the "us" vs. "them" rhetoric in so many of the political posts on this board. It is very alienating to anyone who does not identify with the prevailing concept of "us," and it is by definition divisive. In context, I find it hypocritical as well.Well, in my case it's meant to be divisive. I think it's high time we had more division in this country. When I heard that Kerry asked to put division behind him and work with Bush, it made me sick (even though I didn't really expect any better). So bring on the division. I'm sick of tolerating evil. And it's not hypocritical at all, because I don't have any problem with proselytizing or thinking one is morally superior (except when one doesn't walk the walk, which is very often). Never have. If you don't think your beliefs and ideals are superior to the other guy's, then your beliefs are due for a change.

[Cool Hand]

I have little to add myself, except that I agree it's a great post.

Personally, I think that the willingness and ability to "pick and choose", rather than hewing to the "party line" (whatever it might be) shows an admirable willingness and ability to think for oneself. Would that more people were as politically aware.

But then, I've never voted a straight-party ticket in my life, to my knowledge.


Thanks, LR, and thanks to you too, Liv.

(BTW, I've never voted straight-party either, and I realize that my OP could be read as suggesting that I have. I meant that I tend to vote Republican as a general rule. I picked and chose candidates from different parties in this week's election, depending on what I knew and liked about them and their respective platforms.)


I honestly think that there's much more difference between Traditional Conservatives and Religious Conservatives than between Traditional Conservatives and Traditional Liberals. Both Traditional Conservatives and Traditional Liberals tend to be concerned with making ours into a society that maximizes the well-being of the citizenry. They merely differ on what government's role is in this endeavor, and how it should be accomplished. Religious Conservatives tend to be far more interested in imposing their values on others -- by force of law, if possible -- than either Traditional Conservatives or Traditional Liberals.


That's a good point. I agree that the middle by definition tends to be less dogmatic, and that the chief differences between traditional conservatives and traditional liberals, inasmuch as those labels are useful, might be boiled down to their differing views on the role of government in securing and protecting our liberties. As an aside, I think it's interesting that a libertarian approach to minimalist government necessarily means advocating positions usually opposed by either traditional conservatives or traditional liberals. Both conversatives and liberals sometimes advocate a large governmental role in promoting certain interests, which is generally contrary to most brands of libertarianism.

Cool Hand

[seebs]

You are not alone. (http://www.livejournal.com/users/gomichan/104090.html)

[The Lone Ranger]

I think that Bush is a whole 'nother breed of animal, and that's why he stirs such passion in those who disagree with him.

In the case of Bush I and even Reagan, while I disagreed with them on political issues, I could respect them as being (so far as I knew) basically decent people who wished me no ill.


Bush II, on the other hand, has made it pretty clear that he feels no respect for those who disagree with him, even if he must "make nice" on occasion for political reasons. But respect his opponents? Not that I've noticed. A number of people who've worked with him report that he becomes quite angry if anyone dares to disagree with him. Given that, and his nasty habit of openly mocking those who disagree with him, it seems quite clear that he has little or no respect for those who don't toe his party line.

So, while I deplore the tendency to demonize those who disagree, I don't think it's entirely irrational for those who disapprove of Bush's policies to fear that he (and by extension, at least some of his supporters) really is "out to get us." That, I think, is a big part of the reason so many people feel revulsion -- quite literally -- at the thought of Bush serving for another four years, and take it out on anyone they think might be sympathetic to Bush's goals.

Just a thought . . .

Cheers,

Michael

[Socratoad]

We must always remain civil. Is'nt that sometimes known as appeasement :chin:

[Cool Hand]

I wish I was more conversant in this stuff, better able to debate.

Oh, hell, Scotty, you're as conversant as anyone else. Anyone can debate this, but you don't have to, of course. Please, feel free to comment and participate if you wish.


I can say that if I have given the impression it is us vs them, then I am sorry about that.


I didn't have anyone in particular in mind. I just see a broad tendency for posters here to couch political rants in terms of "us" vs. "them." You don't have to apologize. I'm simply ranting myself, and if I provoke thought or discussion on the subject, great. I don't want anyone to feel bad about it.


So, yes, I do feel at least a me vs. them because from the vehemence of response to being non-religious from many people. I feel very alone.


Of course. Religious fervor is alienating to those of us who aren't spiritual. We are sailing in the same boat in that regard. I'm trying to point out that not all of us here subscribe to the same laundry list of other political beliefs, however. I'm neither an "us" or a "them" in many of these debates (mutual venting session is often more like it, as there appears to be so little dissent in so many of the political threads). Maybe you aren't either.


It is really sad, and I don't really know how to make it better. I have few if any friends anymore because of this, the only person I have pretty much convinced that my position isn't some sort of derangement is my wife. She was pretty cool to begin with, so was an easier platform to work on, but that took me at least 6 years.


Intolerance of non-belief is oppressive. It sucks, especially in the context of family and romance. I'm sorry it was that hard for you. I can sympathize with you, as I've been there too.


I suspect many people here are just venting frustration over something that seemed so clear cut. It isn't, and that was hard to see right away. I think it will get better in short order.


Yeah, I suspect the same, but I'm finding the level and homogeny of leftist political rhetoric stifling for me personally. I simply do not have the heart or the time to engage in some of the threads, as I sense the volume of antagonistic responses to some of my remarks to be overwhelming. It has induced me to engage in self-censoring more than once. I find that to be not conducive to free expression and open debate. It's oppression by gang bang.


I have to admit, you talk right past me many times, I have a hard time comprehending your posts, as they contain so much information!

-Scott

Sorry, Scott. I'm not trying to be elitist in how I write my posts. It's just how I tend to write. It's my fault if I'm unclear in expressing myself. Please, if you don't understand what I'm trying to say, feel free to call me on it.

Thanks for letting me know. I can be a blowhard sometimes. I'll try to keep that in mind.

Cool Hand

[livius drusus]

We must always remain civil. Is'nt that sometimes known as appeasement :chin:

Nobody that I know of said there are absolutely no circumstances under which civility should be set aside, nor is recommending civility in the furtherance of reasoned discourse on a discussion board anything like appeasement.

I don't think such an oversimplification addresses the meat of this thread, which as I take it, is mainly about acknowledging the individuality and diversity both between and among the people we know as "us" and the people we know as "them."

[The Lone Ranger]

We must always remain civil. Is'nt that sometimes known as appeasement :chin:

I don't see how saying: "With respect, I disagree with you, and here's why" could in any way be seen as appeasement. It does strike me as a great deal more civil than: "I disagree with you, therefore you're a jerk."

I doubt that the latter approach would prove very effective in helping the other person understand (and perhaps come to agree with) your point of view.

Cheers,

Michael

[Cool Hand]

You are not alone. (http://www.livejournal.com/users/gomichan/104090.html)

Thanks, seebs. That's a good link, and I like the points you make in your response.

One thing I notice is that you mention a police state mentality at CF. I've never been there, so I can't comment on that. I have to wonder, however, if someone who doesn't subscribe to the same leftist orthodoxy which seems to be so prevalent here at FF might regard this board as having a de facto police state mentality as well. That's sort of the feeling which provoked my making the OP.

(I say "de facto" because I recognize that the admins on this board are firmly committed to the principle of protecting the free expression of ideas. Liv and VM have been consistent in their lamenting the lack of dissent here, and also the apparent lack of tolerance for what little dissent there is.)

Cool Hand

[davidm]

The Us vs. Them trend is deplorable, if only human. We all tend to demonize those who disagree with us. It probably has something to do with an innate tribalism that, at least in part, is dictated by our genes.

What is the antidote to this? I, as a Kerry supporter, have decided to build bridges to the other side. In getting to know some of the addlepated chucklemonkeys who voted for Bush, I'm sure I'll get a clearer picture of where they're coming from. That can only be a good thing.

I even have a name for my project: "Hands Across the Red-Blue Divide." I'm convinced that it's possible to find common ground with the morally defective, trailer-park tosspots who make up the Southern and Rocky Mountain states (and Alaska, too).

One of the reasons I'm confident that my project will succeed is because I think Bush got votes for a variety of different reasons, and that his supporters were not part of some impermeable bloc. For instance, some people voted for the Mayberry Mussolini because they are salivating, slope-brained Gomers with monkey wrenches for minds. But other Bush supporters, being ethical dwarves, had different priorities. Still others -- zombielike, brain-eating, worm-covered, Satanic apparitions from Hell -- backed the president for reasons of their own. It's important to draw firm distinctions among these different Bush constituencies, and not to categotrize them all in simplistic, stereotypical terms.

I think that when I get to know my fellow men (and women) in the Red States, the barriers will come down, and I'll be able to glimpse the essential humanity, so like my own, of these tongue-lolling, knuckle-dragging, sodden-souled, feces-faced clusterfucks. As with any undertaking like this, empathy and charity are the keys.

:cuckoo:

[Socratoad]

We must always remain civil. Is'nt that sometimes known as appeasement :chin:

Nobody that I know of said there are absolutely no circumstances under which civility should be set aside, nor is recommending civility in the furtherance of reasoned discourse on a discussion board anything like appeasement.

I don't think such an oversimplification addresses the meat of this thread, which as I take it, is mainly about acknowledging the individuality and diversity both between and among the people we know as "us" and the people we know as "them."

I was not thinking primarily about discussion boards, nor was Cool Hand, unless I am mistaken. And if I am then I apologize. Rather I was thinking primarily about both Bush and Kerry, and of course the similarity to Neville Chamberlain ...... and where that little exercise in mutual respect ended up.

[livius drusus]

Cool Hand's OP and follow ups have been very much about this board and they way political threads seem to operate around here. How we relate to others irl is involved in that discussion, of course, but there is exactly nothing that I can see in this thread that is even remotely analogous to Munich.

[Cool Hand]

The Us vs. Them trend is deplorable, if only human. We all tend to demonize those who disagree with us. It probably has something to do with an innate tribalism that, at least in part, is dictated by our genes.

What is the antidote to this? I, as a Kerry supporter, have decided to build bridges to the other side. In getting to know some of the addlepated chucklemonkeys who voted for Bush, I'm sure I'll get a clearer picture of where they're coming from. That can only be a good thing.

I even have a name for my project: "Hands Across the Red-Blue Divide." I'm convinced that it's possible to find common ground with the morally defective, trailer-park tosspots who make up the Southern and Rocky Mountain states (and Alaska, too).

One of the reasons I'm confident that my project will succeed is because I think Bush got votes for a variety of different reasons, and that his supporters were not part of some impermeable bloc. For instance, some people voted for the Mayberry Mussolini because they are salivating, slope-brained Gomers with monkey wrenches for minds. But other Bush supporters, being ethical dwarves, had different priorities. Still others -- zombielike, brain-eating, worm-covered, Satanic apparitions from Hell -- backed the president for reasons of their own. It's important to draw firm distinctions among these different Bush constituencies, and not to categotrize them all in simplistic, stereotypical terms.

I think that when I get to know my fellow men (and women) in the Red States, the barriers will come down, and I'll be able to glimpse the essential humanity, so like my own, of these tongue-lolling, knuckle-dragging, sodden-souled, feces-faced clusterfucks. As with any undertaking like this, empathy and charity are the keys.

:cuckoo:


Thanks, DH. I'll break my own rule and post a smilie just for this occasion.

:D

To be serious for a moment, you're right that we all engage in demonizing from time to time. We ought to be called on it when we do it.

The reaching across the divide is a very good thing to do. For some reason, your remarks remind me of how radically different Vietnamese people must look to Vietnam vets from the U.S. when they meet them in unit reunions "in country." I've seen documentary television footage of former enemies meeting face-to-face and sharing tales and memories, good and bad. It's fascinating to watch each recognize the humanity and shared traits in the other, knowing that they once demonized each other and killed each others' comrades. We might all learn a lesson from those images.

Cool Hand

[Scotty]

Thanks Cool Hand, nice post. I think I am just a little depressed recently. You talk past me because you know more about the subject ;)

-Scott

[Cool Hand]

Cool Hand's OP and follow ups have been very much about this board and they way political threads seem to operate around here. How we relate to others irl is involved in that discussion, of course, but there is exactly nothing that I can see in this thread that is even remotely analogous to Munich.

Yeah, I agree, Liv.

Toad, I did have this board in mind when I wrote the OP. I'm having a hard time fitting the Munich analogy to anything I've seen anyone doing on this board.

Cool Hand

[Cool Hand]

I don't think such an oversimplification addresses the meat of this thread, which as I take it, is mainly about acknowledging the individuality and diversity both between and among the people we know as "us" and the people we know as "them."

It's also about recognizing and acknowledging that there is commonality among diverse individuals and groups. Chiefly, we are all human. We all have common, basic human wants and needs.

Sometimes the rhetoric sounds like anyone who dissents is the enemy and must be overcome by any means necessary. That's bullshit.

Cool Hand

[Roland98]

LadyShea summed up my sentiments on the issue better than I could have, although I should note that at least for this election, I wouldn't consider someone a "them' simply because they were a Republican or considered themself to be "right wing." In the previous weeks, a lot of even conservative Republicans have come out against Bush. I have a lot of respect for them for breaking with their traditional party and voting against him. Right now for me, "them" is anyone who voted for Bush. I've already said I won't and don't categorize all of them by any one label, but I do think they've done our country a great disservice. And like LadyShea, I certainly am all too aware that "they" are my friends and relatives (and in my case, many, many relatives, since I am from a very rural and very pro-Bush area of the country). In my case, it's probably worse for me that I do know so many who supported him, because it only enforces the stereotype of a Bush supporter in my head. Most of my relatives are, well, "ignorant rednecks." I can't count how many times I've heard "fucking faggots" at family gatherings; they were all openly racist until my one uncle married a black woman and adopted her children (one of whom has since married a Muslim and had children with him--ha ha ha! Now they can't even openly talk about the "towelheads" when they're at reunions. Now someone just needs to marry a dirty Spic and a fucking Jap and all their fun will be taken away...). They abhor the freedoms that I feel are essential, and since I am a highly educated woman with a demanding career, I of course am nothing but a "feminazi."

*sigh* I understand your feelings, Cool Hand, and I hate myself for thinking this way as well, but for the most part, I don't *want* to be a part of "them," any more than I'd want to be a part of the Klan or the Taliban or Fred Phelps' church.

[LadyXoc]

I think LadyShea and Roland summed up my own feelings pretty well, so I'll just add this :yup:

[Cool Hand]

I think you are are interpreting what I see as the simple use of convenient labels for discussion as some kind of indelible lines drawn in the sand. Of course differing interpretations are a fact of life, but I just wanted to let you know mine..


Thanks for responding, LS.

No, I'm not misinterpreting the use of labels. I find labels to be quite handy myself. I'm commenting on the angry rhetoric and the implication that anyone who disagrees with it is an idiot or worse.




Please allow me to explain.

In the past few days I have read many posts here that refer to what "we" have to do to reach "them," or about how stupid, ignorant, or just plain wrong "they" are. My response is that "they" are us.

In this context, they are not us, IMO. My in laws, for example, are racist, homophobic, warmongers who think we should nuke the entire Middle East. They voted for Bush. "They" are not "us", and I would never want to be on "their" side on these topics.


They are us in the sense that will all live on the same planet, and to the extent that your family, neighbors, etc. disagree with you, you might have too much in common with them to dismiss them altogether.

Assuming that your in-laws are indeed racist, homophobic warmongers, they are likely much more complex than that. They are still your in-laws, and at the very least that means you have a relative in common. It might also mean that you see each other at holidays and funerals.


"They" are your family members, your neighbors, your co-workers, and your friends. "They" are not necessarily idiots, buffoons, ignoramuses, or selfish greedy bastards profiting from the broken backs of the little man by mere virtue of not supporting the same candidate as you.

That doesn't mean they aren't those things either.I have met, talked to, am related to, and/or read the writings of many people who have some combination of or all of those traits. I do not base my labeling of them as "they" on who they voted for, but by what they say and how they act. That in large part all of the people I described DID vote for Bush is not merely a coincidence.


Do you see any bias in your statements? I could just as easily say that just because someone voted for Kerry doesn't mean that person isn't all of those things too. It doesn't follow, however.

Your comment about it not being merely a coincidence is perhaps an instance of what I'm commenting on. I don't think I'm any of those things. Isn't it possible for someone like me to vote for Bush for other reasons? Your remarks seem to disregard that I might vote for the President for other reasons. (I'm not going to engage in any discussion whatosever about why I might have voted for the President or why I shouldn't have, so no one even try.)


Demonizing or dehumanizing "them" is alienating and off-putting to them. When you do so, you are indulging in selfish, intolerant, hubristic, and offensive moral superiority.

I am morally superior to a racist who told me, to my face, that we should kill the Muslim babies before they grow into terrorists, and that's why the war is a good thing. If that's selfish or intolerant on my part, then so be it.


You're morally superior? In what respects? Don't you have some faults? How do you determine on balance that you are morally superior? Many people admire Malcolm X, for instance, because of his opposition to the prevailing racism and oppression against black persons in the U.S. at the time. This is despite his deliberately inciting violence and invoking change by "any means necessary." Is Malcolm X morally superior to you or not?


Let me ask this: by what authority or virtue does the so-called "left" have a monopoly on being correct? Isn't it awfully self-righteous, and thus hypocritical in this context, to presume that one's own values, beliefs, and positions are superior to anyone else's who does not subscribe to the same?

In some cases, the presumptions are based on concrete examples, like the one I mentioned above. So, I guess if I am self righteous for hating bigotry then I will simply accept the label.


Implict in your response is that there is some moral yardstick that declares that your brand of bigotry is morally superior to someone else's. I submit that your intolerance for Bush supporters is bigotry.


I ask these things for a couple of reasons. One, I am personally alienated by much of the rhetoric I read here. To me, so much of it sounds mean-spirited, hubristic, or hyperbolic. Two, it is narrow-minded.

I am sorry you feel alienated. I feel alienated by people who think 10000 dead Iraqis is progress. The fact is some people have these strong feelings based on first hand experiences. If they sound one way or another to you, I can only assume it's because you have no similar experiences to relate it to and therefore can't empathize on this tipic.


One man's 10,000 dead Iraqis is another man's martyrs to the cause of securing some degree of democratic participation in government for the Iraqi people. One can certainly argue that they did not die in vain. There are plenty of first hand accounts to support the notion that the U.S. is bringing about a seachange of positive social and political progress in Iraq.

The only moral difference in that and the bloody American Revolution for independence is that the former came from without and the latter from within.

Revolutionary change usually comes at the price of bloodshed. Few sane persons truly want others to die, or to die themselves, but they can understand that it is often the price of revolutionary change.


The mean-spirited stuff consists of comments like the idiots who voted for Bush, or what the fuck were they thinking. The hubristic is a broad category that includes most of the posts with the tone that we've got to teach them what we know, because we are right and they are wrong. The hyperbolic talk is of the type that essentially declares the U.S. has become Jesusland or those of us who get it should just leave, or the like.

Again, these feelings are based on their own experiences in life. If I was unable to empathize with any of it, I might see it the same way you do.


This makes me wonder how you think I see it. You don't see any mean spiritedness, hubris, or hyperbole in any of the leftist rhetoric on this board calling Bush supporters mass murderers and morons?


I like my politics the same way. I'm decidedly non-theistic and secular, for example, but I also tend to favor self-sufficiency over dependence upon the state. Those are not necessarily opposing positions, but if when voting I am required to choose between Republican or Democrat, I might choose to vote Republican in any given election (not necessarily the latest Presidential race) simply because I believe the GOP tends to support policies which are generally in keeping with the principle of being self-sufficient. That does not mean I subscribe to the theocratic state ideals that seem to predominate the current President's core beliefs, or to any particular position on any particular issue.

Each of us has a personal list of issues, attitudes, experiences, and beliefs. That list is prioritized in order of importance. Your priorities differ from those who are reacting in the way you dislike. So, if I, for example, have "keep abortion safe and legal" at the top of my list, I am going to find anyone who votes for the person most likely to abolish abortion rights morally repugnant based on that one top factor.

I have no way of personally relating to your prioritization of self sufficiency over other issues, so you seem like a "they" to me at this moment in time. Perhaps if we discussed it further, I could begin to understand your views, but when it comes down to no more than a soundbite "I voted for <my value> to the detriment of <your value>" the natural reaction is to distance ourselves from "they". This may not be the ideal, but it is reality.


Your apparent intolerance of dissent is what I find troubling. Can't we disagree without either of us being morally superior?


On social issues, I tend to support positions that are held mostly by persons who identify themselves as liberals. For instance, I am stridently in favor of decriminalization of not only marijuana possession and use, but also of all illicit drugs. <snip>

Perfect example. Though I favor the decriminilization and regulation of drugs, it is way down on my personal priority list


The decision to vote for a particular candidate doesn't have to boil down to a single hot button issue, does it?


I am pro-choice, but I fully recognize that the Supreme Court made up a previously non-existent right to privacy in Griswold that it extended to abortions in Roe v. Wade. That kind of judicial activism, despite the laudable ends it sometimes achieves, troubles me very much.

Well, again, our priorities differ. I don't care how it got on the books, protecting the right for women to choose is near the top of my priorities list.


It's not a matter of prioritizing rights. How the right to privacy "got on the books" is precisely the issue in this context. You are implicitly approving of disregarding the constitution and favoring making shit up to suit one's ends, as the Warren Court did in both those decisions. Read Griswold and explain to me the penumbra theory with a straight face. It's making shit up.

The Supreme Court took it upon itself to create super-legislation from the bench. Clearly, the founders did not intend for the Supreme Court to engage in legislating from the bench. Legislation is the exclusive province of the Congress. It's right there in the first words of Article I. That's what's troubling about Griswold and Roe v. Wade. It's simply recognizing that in the rule of law allowing the ends to justify the means undermines the entire foundation for the law.


Don't I have a right to take offense at the rhetoric which alienates someone like me who might choose a little from each column? If I don't find Bush to be the Anti-Christ, does that mean I'm an ignorant, uninterested, uncaring, stupid, fundie buffoon? Why should I adhere to your orthodoxy? Aren't you trying to "convert" me? See any hyprocrisy?

Cool Hand

Of course you have the right. Do others not have the right to feel alienated by 50+ million people whose values are so far removed from theirs as to seem alien?

If you voted for Bush, you voted against the values of the people who are making those statements. They/us feel threatened under Bush, and are venting. Now that you have explained your position, you might not be considered one of "them", but it's impossible to have this discussion with every person to reach understanding.


No one but me knows what statement I might have been making by voting. Millions of voters voting for the same candidate does not make for a monolith of ideology or expression.


Again, I really think the generalizations are used more for convenience, labeling "us" as those who have similar values and priorities and "them" as those that oppose those values, makes discussion easier.

Great post, very thought provoking, thank you.

Yeah, I agree that labels are fine for the sake of convenience. Divisiveness is not necessary for convenience, however. I'm more concerned with the attitude and mentality displayed than the use of the words "us" or "them."

Thanks, and thank you also for your thoughtful response. I hope you don't take my responses to be harsh. I'm a bit uncomfortable with what I perceive to be your persistence of an air of moral superiority in this thread. I think it's a fair topic of discussion, and that's why I'm responding to you in the manner I am.

I don't mean you insult or disrespect. Please feel free to disagree or to tell me I'm wrong.

Cool Hand

[wei yau]

A good topic and I think it's worth discussing. While I commend your desire for a more inclusive attitude when discussing differences in political views, I think I'm still a little confused.

First, I agree with Lady Shea's point that "us" and "them" are convenient labels. Just as I use "always" and "never" without literally meaning it. Just as I generalize without constantly adding the caveat "most" or "some". It's a way of communicating my thoughts without constantly tripping over qualifiers and exceptions.

But, I see that you've already acknowledge the convenience and natural use of such labels.

As for the rhetoric, part of is largely fueled by how recent the election has been. It's not even been a full week. Some of us have been hoping, working and striving for a different outcome for months and even years. Understand that for some us, the wound is still too raw. The anger and bitterness are still too fresh. Too work for a goal for so long, only to see it dashed...well, it's gonna take me a bit more time to get over my pain.

That's not all there is, of course. It's easy for me to say that those who do not hold my views are idiots when I'm amongst my like-minded friends. That's another aspect to consider. You yourself recognize that aspect, indeed it has prompted you to make this very thread. I am comfortable venting my frustration here and acting like a jerk. I know I won't be judged too harshly as others share my opinion.

But, if I were posting at a different forum, I would not behave in the same manner. I understand that civility aids discourse. However, sometimes I'm not looking for discourse. Sometimes I just want to rant.

I've tried my best to present why I think you see this type of rhetoric on this forum. I think that outside of this forum, most of us are not so crass or rude.

When engaged in a discussion with someone, I see the merit of agreeing to disagree when an impasse has been reached. I know I try my best to understand others, to put myself in their place. Sometimes I succeed too well and realize that I would behave no differently if I shared their values and beliefs. I acknowledge that understanding differences exists and that others hold to their opinons just as strongly as I hold to my own. And that they have arrived at their opinion with reasoning just as valid and justifiable as my own.

I don't know how that helps me. I don't know how that helps anyone. If all we're doing is talking about the issues, then having this attitude is valuable.

But, when we're discussing electing a President...well, there's so much more at stake. Now, you do not wish to discuss whom you voted for, nor your reasoning for your choice. I understand and respect that position. But, without specifics, what are we left with besides generalities, however broad and sweeping. How can we agree to disagree when we've not yet even begun really talking about it?

This does not mean that I intend to engage you in such a discussion. You don't want to and I respect your boundaries. All I'm saying is that give us the benefit of the doubt. Were someone to engage me in a reasoned discussion on a particular issue, I would do my level best to return the favor. I like to think that most other posters here would do the same.

But, when we're talking about a wide range of issues (and how can it be otherwise when discussing candidates for the Presidency), then generalities will fly. This will result in the rhetoric you decry because the only way to avoid is to talk about specifics.

[LadyShea]

Just for the record. I judge people by their behavior and words. That they may be more complex or hold some similar values as me, I find irrelevant if their behavior or spoken attitudes show the opposite. I am also a moral subjectivist, so my morals are the right ones, to me, and I fully understand that others hold their values just as dearly (think I even said that in another thread).


They are us in the sense that will all live on the same planet, and to the extent that your family, neighbors, etc. disagree with you, you might have too much in common with them to dismiss them altogether.

Assuming that your in-laws are indeed racist, homophobic warmongers, they are likely much more complex than that. They are still your in-laws, and at the very least that means you have a relative in common. It might also mean that you see each other at holidays and funerals.

Yes, I have to see them occasionally, I am civil towards them, and sometimes we even have fun. I still find them morally repugnant, however. Sure they might be more complex, but they never show it.

If we have kids, we have already decided they will never be alone with their grandparents.


Do you see any bias in your statements? I could just as easily say that just because someone voted for Kerry doesn't mean that person isn't all of those things too. It doesn't follow, however.

Your comment about it not being merely a coincidence is perhaps an instance of what I'm commenting on. I don't think I'm any of those things. Isn't it possible for someone like me to vote for Bush for other reasons? Your remarks seem to disregard that I might vote for the President for other reasons. (I'm not going to engage in any discussion whatosever about why I might have voted for the President or why I shouldn't have, so no one even try.)



Sure I am bias and sure I am generalizing when I make statements about Bush supporters. I don't claim not to be. If someone voted for Bush for other reasons, and wanted me to NOT think it was a stupid action, then they would need to explain to me what those reasons were, and how those values outweighed the fact that the man is a liar and demonstrably barely average with regard to intelligence, diplomacy, and leadership as well as dangerous to the value I personally hold dear.

You're morally superior? In what respects? Don't you have some faults? How do you determine on balance that you are morally superior? Many people admire Malcolm X, for instance, because of his opposition to the prevailing racism and oppression against black persons in the U.S. at the time. This is despite his deliberately inciting violence and invoking change by "any means necessary." Is Malcolm X morally superior to you or not?



I am morally superior within the context of those things I value. Others think their values and morals are superior to mine. It's all subjective.
Let me ask this: by what authority or virtue does the so-called "left" have a monopoly on being correct? Isn't it awfully self-righteous, and thus hypocritical in this context, to presume that one's own values, beliefs, and positions are superior to anyone else's who does not subscribe to the same?

Um, if one didn't beleive their morals and values were correct, why would they hold them? And, correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to be saying that it is always self righteous and hypocritical to find anything morally repugnant or be morally outraged ever, because all ideals are equally valid. How would that work within society? How could we make laws or set rules? A rapist feels he is justified in raping, am I a bigot for hating him?
Implict in your response is that there is some moral yardstick that declares that your brand of bigotry is morally superior to someone else's. I submit that your intolerance for Bush supporters is bigotry.

Yes, it's my moral yardstick. And I think my intolerance is due to the fact that, from everything I have found, Bush supporters oppose the ideals I hold most dear. If I could talk to every one, and be convinced by their reasoning that they do not hate what I love, I wouldn't need to generalize.


One man's 10,000 dead Iraqis is another man's martyrs to the cause of securing some degree of democratic participation in government for the Iraqi people. One can certainly argue that they did not die in vain. There are plenty of first hand accounts to support the notion that the U.S. is bringing about a seachange of positive social and political progress in Iraq.

And there are plenty of accounts of women being harassed and beaten in the streets because the Islamic extremists no longer have a government or law enforcement to keep them in check. There is no democracy, there is no functional government. They died so Halliburton could get contracts and Bushes cronies make money.

I have heard the arguments for the other view, and was not convinced :: shrug

The only moral difference in that and the bloody American Revolution for independence is that the former came from without and the latter from within.Revolutionary change usually comes at the price of bloodshed. Few sane persons truly want others to die, or to die themselves, but they can understand that it is often the price of revolutionary change.

And that is an enormous vast difference IMO. If the Iraqi people has started a Revolution, and we went in to support them, I would have no problem with it and would consider the deaths for a just and desired cause. Invading a soverign nation that posed no immediate threat is not even close to the same thing.




This makes me wonder how you think I see it. You don't see any mean spiritedness, hubris, or hyperbole in any of the leftist rhetoric on this board calling Bush supporters mass murderers and morons?



No more than I find among the Bush supporters. It's a war of values, and people get hurt in wars for those things they hold dear, as you pointed out yourself.


Your apparent intolerance of dissent is what I find troubling. Can't we disagree without either of us being morally superior?



We can disagree on many issues without me feeling morally superior. I cannot help feeling superior to someone whose morals on an issue I find repugnant. I feel superior to the rapist, yes. I feel superior to the racist, yes. How else can one live life? Just say "Oh, he's a rapist, but I am not better than him, so I can't be mean"?


The decision to vote for a particular candidate doesn't have to boil down to a single hot button issue, does it?

It can with some people, but it is often a list of issues and you have prioritized in your way of thinking...which ones are "must haves", which ones are "would be nice, but not necessary"

The drug issue, for me personally, is an "It would be nice...." line item.


It's not a matter of prioritizing rights. How the right to privacy "got on the books" is precisely the issue in this context. You are implicitly approving of disregarding the constitution and favoring making shit up to suit one's ends, as the Warren Court did in both those decisions. Read Griswold and explain to me the penumbra theory with a straight face. It's making shit up.

The Supreme Court took it upon itself to create super-legislation from the bench. Clearly, the founders did not intend for the Supreme Court to engage in legislating from the bench. Legislation is the exclusive province of the Congress. It's right there in the first words of Article I. That's what's troubling about Griswold and Roe v. Wade. It's simply recognizing that in the rule of law allowing the ends to justify the means undermines the entire foundation for the law.

I was 2 years old when Roe was argued. It's a right that has always been there in my lifetime and I don't want it taken away. Thats the extent of my concern.

I don't even have a clue what you are talking about in the above passage, and don't know anything about law, precedence, penumbra, etc. It obviously means something to you, you feel outraged that they "made shit up", are you morally superior to the justices who decided the case?




No one but me knows what statement I might have been making by voting. Millions of voters voting for the same candidate does not make for a monolith of ideology or expression.



Bush's platform contained items in direct opposition to many of my values. Voting for him means voting for that platform. I don't seem to have the capability of separating the two.

Thanks, and thank you also for your thoughtful response. I hope you don't take my responses to be harsh. I'm a bit uncomfortable with what I perceive to be your persistence of an air of moral superiority in this thread. I think it's a fair topic of discussion, and that's why I'm responding to you in the manner I am.

No worries at all from me, we can discuss all day and you can be as harsh as you see fit. That's a free exchange of ideas....another value of mine ;)

I don't mean you insult or disrespect. Please feel free to disagree or to tell me I'm wrong.

I know you don't, and hope you recognize that I do not intend insult or disrespect either. Hell, this is just talking with feeling and it's all good.

[D. Scarlatti]

Sometimes the rhetoric sounds like anyone who dissents is the enemy and must be overcome by any means necessary. That's bullshit.

Yes, it is, and that is precisely what we have been hearing from this administration at least since 9/11. Lest we forget:

MR. FLEISCHER: I'm aware of the press reports about what [Bill Maher] said. I have not seen the actual transcript of the show itself. But assuming the press reports are right, it's a terrible thing to say, and it [sic] unfortunate. And that's why -- there was an earlier question about has the President said anything to people in his own party -- they're reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do. This is not a time for remarks like that; there never is.

That was the spokesman for the President of the United States, seeking to chill what was clearly political speech, a species of expression that even Robert Bork agrees is guaranteed by the First Amendment.

Now look at what is happening to Arlen Spector, from within his own party, which he has served for decades, for simply referring to the objective difficulty Bush will face if and when he attempts to seat hard right ideologues on the federal bench.

Perhaps a bit more consideration should be given to exactly where the "Us" vs. "Them" mentality originates. There's a bit more to it than simply a reaction to the Warren Court's expansive reading of the Ninth Amendment. As far as I can tell, it's the political right in this country that broaches no dissent, not the left.

It sure would be nice if we could all just get along, but we won't until some people realize there's a world of difference between being righteous and being self-righteous.

[Corwin]

We're making this needlessly complex here.

Yes, there is an Us vs Them mentality in this country. There has been for some time now. We didn't start this, the right did. We were perfectly happy to live our own lives, leave our neighbors alone, and just generally live peaceably.

This wasn't good enough for them.

We are right, and they are wrong. Yes it really IS in fact that simple. We are right because we base our position on reason and facts. They are wrong because they base theirs on superstition and propaganda, and hound dissenters with character assassination and outright lies. Their actions have proven that they will go to any lengths to keep power, largely because without keeping this power they have no ability to enforce their will on us.

They are my enemies. They will be defeated. It really is that simple.

[viscousmemories]

We are right, and they are wrong. Yes it really IS in fact that simple. We are right because we base our position on reason and facts. They are wrong because they base theirs on superstition and propaganda, and hound dissenters with character assassination and outright lies. Their actions have proven that they will go to any lengths to keep power, largely because without keeping this power they have no ability to enforce their will on us.

They are my enemies. They will be defeated. It really is that simple.
If there are only two choices and that defines "us", I am very proudly one of "them".

[Corwin]

We are right, and they are wrong. Yes it really IS in fact that simple. We are right because we base our position on reason and facts. They are wrong because they base theirs on superstition and propaganda, and hound dissenters with character assassination and outright lies. Their actions have proven that they will go to any lengths to keep power, largely because without keeping this power they have no ability to enforce their will on us.

They are my enemies. They will be defeated. It really is that simple.
If there are only two choices and that defines "us", I am very proudly one of "them".

Thing is.... we didn't get to make that choice. We would have been perfectly happy for us to remain us. No them involved.

The right started making sides, and attacking anybody who wasn't on theirs.

[viscousmemories]

Thing is.... we didn't get to make that choice. We would have been perfectly happy for us to remain us. No them involved.

The right started making sides, and attacking anybody who wasn't on theirs.
You will never convince me that your brand of hostility and intolerance are reasonable because you are morally pure. But don't feel bad, I don't find it a convincing argument when religious fundamentalists use it either.

Cool Hand's point - if I understood his OP correctly - was that the so-called "Freethought Forum" should be a place where all ideas stand or fall on their merits, not where extremists on either side shout down dissenters with hyperbole and empty rhetoric. Obviously I'm inclined to agree with that.

Why not at least address him as though he's a fellow human who expressed a personal concern instead of treating his thread like a bully pulpit to advertise your scorn for his kind. Demonstrate some of that moral purity you seem to believe you possess.

According to my personal value system free thought and free expression are indispensible. I am not willing to put them aside for the good of your or anyone else's cause. They are not bargaining chips; they are the main reason I have any interest in politics at all. The day people who don't toe an extremist left or right-wing line here feel unwelcome to contribute will IMO be a sad day for this forum, and for the values I cherish.

[Corwin]

Thing is.... we didn't get to make that choice. We would have been perfectly happy for us to remain us. No them involved.

The right started making sides, and attacking anybody who wasn't on theirs.
You will never convince me that your brand of hostility and intolerance are reasonable because you are morally pure. But don't feel bad, I don't find it a convincing argument when religious fundamentalists use it either.

Cool Hand's point - if I understood his OP correctly - was that the so-called "Freethought Forum" should be a place where all ideas stand or fall on their merits, not where extremists on either side shout down dissenters with hyperbole and empty rhetoric. Obviously I'm inclined to agree with that.

Why not at least address him as though he's a fellow human who expressed a personal concern instead of treating his thread like a bully pulpit to advertise your scorn for his kind. Demonstrate some of that moral purity you seem to believe you possess.

According to my personal value system free thought and free expression are indispensible. I am not willing to put them aside for the good of your or anyone else's cause. They are not bargaining chips; they are the main reason I have any interest in politics at all. The day people who don't toe an extremist left or right-wing line here feel unwelcome to contribute will IMO be a sad day for this forum, and for the values I cherish.

Again... you're making this way the hell too complicated.

This isn't about one stripe of extremist against another. It's about one stripe of extremists against everybody else. And they're winning. Something has to be done to stop them.

Personally I'll be working with the Democrats to try to stop their insidious slide to the right. Your mileage may vary.

[lisarea]

I haven't read this whole thread closely yet, so forgive me if I'm repeating anything. It's late, and I do want to respond tonight.

No offense, Cool Hand, but I think you're being prickly. Us is just a plural first person pronoun. Them is a plural third person pronoun. Us, simply, means 'me and others who fall into a given category.' Us doesn't even assume that the second party is a member. It's just the first party and some other guys. That's all. 'Them' is any other category of people that doesn't include me. Iraqis, New Mexicans, men, teenagers, etc. This is a many-to-one communication model here. Were someone to PM you and refer to a group you belong to as 'them,' yes, that may be a slight of some sort, but in a public posting, it just means 'a group I don't belong to.' There's no intrinsic value judgement.

You can't really discuss any social phenomenon without taking a view of the 'them.' It's the nature of the beast. There is a great deal of confusion regarding recent events, and yes, people here and elsewhere have been doing a lot of talking about the 'them' that voted for Bush. I, for one, do not really understand how that happened, and I would like to. Frankly, the idea is foreign to me. People who voted for Bush are still very much a 'them.'

Of course there is some hostility, but it's not universal. In fact, I've seen plenty of discussion here where the subject came up in a decidedly non-hostile manner. And as far as the hostility does go, it's reciprocated. (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/08/politics/main641817.shtml)


On Thursday, the president discussed his priorities for the next four years at a White House news conference, saying, "I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it."

Mr. Bush pledged to aggressively pursue major changes in Social Security, the tax code and medical malpractice awards, working with Democrats if they are receptive and leaving them behind if they're not.

"I'll reach out to everyone who shares our goals," said Mr. Bush, who 24 hours earlier had promised to try to win over those who voted for his Democratic opponent Sen. John Kerry.


I think the anger and hostility is justifiable.

And yes, personally, I am hostile toward Bush and, to varying degrees, toward those who support him. I understand quite well the difference between conservative social policies and 'conservative' (actually neoliberal) economic policies. I think they both suck. In fact, I can't think of a single positive attribute of the man. And no, this is not some blind hatred that sprung, fully formed, from my head, or from some kind of blind affiliation to a political party I've never been a member of.

Which brings me to the fact that you seem to imply a sort of party line among Bush dissenters, and that, quite frankly, is offensive.

I would like to think I'm misunderstanding this:

The divisive "us" vs. "them" approach is narrow-minded because it is too binary. There is plenty of room in the middle for persons like me to choose some from Column A, some from Column B, and some from Column C. I like Chinese food, or at least what is called "Chinese Food" in most of the U.S. I don't have to eat just beef, or just chicken, or just seafood.

I like my politics the same way...

If I am reading this correctly, you seem to be saying that you believe posters here are simply party loyals of some sort, who don't so much consider their political opinions, but just pick a party and run with it. That's offensive. That's narrow-minded. That is divisive.

I don't read all of the threads here, but I haven't seen anyone cite you specifically as a 'them.' I reckon that people here have been hostile toward some of your ideas, and you recognized yourself, for one reason or another, as one of 'them.' If so, I can't imagine what is preventing you from addressing that directly as it happens, and defending your position in context, rather than taking it out separately and treating it as a broad personal attack. I'm reasonably certain it's not.

[viscousmemories]

Again... you're making this way the hell too complicated.
No, you're making this way too simple and then branding it with the misnomer "facts and reason". I prefer to think critically and for myself, paying attention to actual facts and reason. Including the uncomfortable fact that the world isn't black and white and there is no monolithic group of people with a set ideology to which I stand in proud opposition. I have only my own personal values and moral standards, which obviously differ quite a bit from yours despite our supposedly being on the "same side". I can only imagine then that the possibility exists that there are "others" who share more of my values than you.

You want to toe the Democratic party line, be my guest. I'll keep on making my own decisions.

[viscousmemories]

You can't really discuss any social phenomenon without taking a view of the 'them.' It's the nature of the beast. There is a great deal of confusion regarding recent events, and yes, people here and elsewhere have been doing a lot of talking about the 'them' that voted for Bush. I, for one, do not really understand how that happened, and I would like to. Frankly, the idea is foreign to me. People who voted for Bush are still very much a 'them.'
I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Cool Hand was objecting so much to the characterization of Bush voters as "them" per se, or to any attempts on the "us" who didn't to figure out how that happened and what we might do differently to win the hearts and minds of "them" next time around. I think he has a problem with the implications coming from some of "us" that we are somehow objectively morally superior to "them", strictly because we voted for the "right" guy. Surely the "us" who didn't vote for Bush aren't all sharing a brain, why do some of "us" seem to insist on viewing "them" as though they do.

And now a gratuituous friendly smilie for everyone, because I'm all about the love: :squeeze:

[Adora]

...simply because I believe the GOP tends to support policies which are generally in keeping with the principle of being self-sufficient.

And prejudiced, ignorant and assuming equalities within society that do not exist, so therefore defeating any attempts to create a self-sufficent society thanks to not knowing (or not wanting to know) the facts.

Scuse me if I shall continue to assume ignorance thanks to such blinkered views. I have trouble dealing with people who choose to be stupid, so its easier for me to polarise into "those who know the facts" and "those who don't". Also, the number of times in my country the Conservative powers at large are wrong tends to create a pattern of stupidity that you can only after a while assume is created through nothing except cynical ( and successful) attempts to retain power. Current "Abortion Debate" (and I use the term lightly) a prime example. It's either a) they lie, twist facts and cynically manipulate the public to their own ends or b) are just pig-ignorant and just as arrogant. Option a makes me more depressed than option b, so I try and go for b more often, though it is frustrating.

Yes, it's a simptom of a two-party capitalist democracy system. But that's all we got to work with currently, so what are you going to do? Vote Green? *snort*

I do consider individuals working to remove basic human rights and equality to be an enemy. Sexism, heterosexism and racism are the current greatest problems of the 21st century. When individuals in power care more about lining their pockets and helping their nepotistic brothers, I do get righteous. Especially when I didn't vote for the fuckers.

But gee, I'm a young university student. What ever would little old me know?

[Adam]

A few disjointed thoughts on the topic...

First of all, I'm in general agreement with the sentiment expressed in the OP, especially as it applies to conversations in an open forum, such as this one. Dividing the world into exclusive groups is a poor means to facilitate a productive exchange of ideas. Ideally, I don't think that any idea or policy should be beyond the pale for open, honst discussion. Politics may be another matter, though. I may be quite open, in theory, to personal dialogue about an issue, while at the same time I applaud a pundit who skillfully reduces a complex issue to a nice soundbite that favors my take on the issue. The problem with politics is that someone's values are always legislated on someone else (even civil libertarian values, usually preferred because they let each of us choose our ownvalues w/o government intervention, are despised by those who want to legislate their values on others), and in the fight to keep your values (not yours specifically, mind you, yours in the general sense) from being forced on me, I can't always take the luxury of philosophically ideal debate.

There's also something to the point made by LadyShea and lisarae that "us" and "them" identifiers are an unavoidable shorthand in many cases.

There's also quite a bit to Corwin's point that, politically, the far right wing in America has been doing its damndest for at least the last 30 years to draw distinct lines between "us" and "them", based on narrow value issues, and to exploit the artificial fault lines thus created in the electorate. While there is an element of "don't blame us, they started it!" whining to this, it remains a fact that, well, they started it, and they don't seem willing to let it drop. "They", in this case, mind you, refers specifically to the right wing strategists, politicians, and assorted talking heads who continue to exacerbate the so-callled culture war in America. While liberals are certainly not immune to the tribal tendency to divide the world into in groups and out groups, we're not the ones using it as a long term political strategy. Maybe we should be doing so. I don't know. There's a part of that says that if they want a culture war, I'm more than happy to give it to them.

As far as grouping all Bush supporters into one homogenous group to be despised, I don't personally do so. I can think of at least four distinct groups of Bush supporters:

The very rich tend to gravitate toward Bush & Co. simply because his policies uniformly favor the very rich. While I think that these polcies are harmful to the rest of us, I don't blame them for voting as they do. I do think that the very rich have different priorities and interests from the rest of us, so in that sense they are certainly a "them", but I can at least comprehend those interests and priorities, even if I am opposed to them, so these people are not entirely "them" to me. I loathe their politics, and their self centered greed, but it's not as though they are aliens.

Many people, who I consider moderately conservative, including, I suspect, you, as well as a number of friends of mine, and some of my family, seem to support Bush. This group is largely not a "them" to me, as I share a broad set of values and interests with them, and at least know where they are coming from when we disagree. While we have specific differences (for example, you place a high priority, so you say, on self sufficiency, while I think that self sufficiency in modern society is a myth), these are differences that can be discussed, and understanding, if not agreement, can be reached.

Many people seem to support Bush because they fear for their safety in the supposedly new and more dangerous world we live in since 9/11, and believe he is betetr able to protect them than Kerry would have been. This is something I can understand so, again, while I am disappointed in, and mildly disgusted with, many of these people for what I see as their failure to comprehend Bushco's gross negligence and mishandling of national security, they are not a "them".

Finally, a large chunk of Bush's support comes from Evangelical and other strongly religious types. As I said in a previous post here, I feel hopelessly out of touch with these people. I completely fail to comprehend why anyone would feel so strongly about whether or not the federal government recognizes a partnership between two gay people that they would base a vote on it, let alone in an election year where issues such as the president's basic honesty over a matter as grave as preemptive military action are involved. It simply does not compute. My brain apparently lacks the part that cares who's allowed to marry whom. These people are certainly "them" to me and, as far as these particular issues are concerned, will likely always be "them". Of course, I share many other values with this group of people, but there's definitely some issue of basic social wiring that's just not matching up between me and them. If the Democratic party moves further to the right on civil liberties to court these voters, as many have suggested, then the Dems and I may finally part ways for good. Personally, I'd prefer to focus on the values that are held in common between "us" and "them", specifically the value of earned money as opposed to nonearned. The details of that approach aren't really appropriate to this thhread, but I wanted to make the point that there are shared values that we can agree on, even when we are irreconcilably divided into "us" and "them" on other values.

Anyway, I'm going to bed.

[LadyXoc]

Finally, a large chunk of Bush's support comes from Evangelical and other strongly religious types. As I said in a previous post here, I feel hopelessly out of touch with these people. I completely fail to comprehend why anyone would feel so strongly about whether or not the federal government recognizes a partnership between two gay people that they would base a vote on it, let alone in an election year where issues such as the president's basic honesty over a matter as grave as preemptive military action are involved. It simply does not compute. My brain apparently lacks the part that cares who's allowed to marry whom. These people are certainly "them" to me and, as far as these particular issues are concerned, will likely always be "them". Of course, I share many other values with this group of people, but there's definitely some issue of basic social wiring that's just not matching up between me and them.

That is the problem. I used to call myself a moderate conservative. There doesn't seem to be such an animal anymore. This appears to be all about holy war, god, and hatred of gay people. What the fuck has this got to do with modern government? We seem to be in the damn Middle Ages. This administration's social agenda is completely revolting, and given that they call themselves conservatives, they spend money with wild abandon. For me, it's not so much an "us" versus "them" mentality as a "WHAT THE FUCK WERE YOU THINKING TO VOTE FOR THAT LUNATIC" mentality.

Yes, I used to be a lot more tolerant, but when the situation is this dire, I think it's not only possible to take a strong stand on these issues, but necessary. Look, I realize the *cough*idiots*cough* people who voted for Bush all have their various reasons, but I really do think many of these reasons were based on ignorance and bigotry. And I do condemn any support of that.

If someone on the opposite side of any of these issues wants to interpret that as "us" against "them," they are taking a rejection of concepts that I find utterly unacceptable or disgusting as rejection of them as a person. Hmmm. Is that disturbing to them? Now perhaps they understand how it feels to be discriminated against. As other people have already said much more eloquently on this thread, I can agree to disagree with moderates, but not people I feel are bigots or extremists. I mean, hell, Unity Mitford was a person with many complex reasons for doing what she did, but do I really, deep down, give a flying pterodactyl shit. It was simply fucking appalling and disgraceful.

And that's not a Hitler reference. It's a Mitford reference. HA.

[Dingfod]

Dawn. On Old Cemetary Road. Matched duelling pistols at 20 paces. We'll end this us vs them mentality thing once and for all.

[Cool Hand]

Thing is.... we didn't get to make that choice. We would have been perfectly happy for us to remain us. No them involved.

The right started making sides, and attacking anybody who wasn't on theirs.
You will never convince me that your brand of hostility and intolerance are reasonable because you are morally pure. But don't feel bad, I don't find it a convincing argument when religious fundamentalists use it either.


Same here, VM. Hostility and intolerance are ugly in the hands of whomever uses or displays them. They are not uniquely traits of extremists on the right or the left, or in the middle for that matter.

The reason I find much of it here hypocritical is that many of the persons displaying those traits in posts here are denouncing their political dissenters ostensibly for being hostile and intolerant.


Cool Hand's point - if I understood his OP correctly - was that the so-called "Freethought Forum" should be a place where all ideas stand or fall on their merits, not where extremists on either side shout down dissenters with hyperbole and empty rhetoric. Obviously I'm inclined to agree with that.


You read me very well.


Why not at least address him as though he's a fellow human who expressed a personal concern instead of treating his thread like a bully pulpit to advertise your scorn for his kind. Demonstrate some of that moral purity you seem to believe you possess.


Yes, that is my plea. There are already a few posts that are instances of using this thread as a bully pulpit. They are illustrating what I'm objecting to. Unfortunately, the irony is most likely lost on the posters.


According to my personal value system free thought and free expression are indispensible. I am not willing to put them aside for the good of your or anyone else's cause. They are not bargaining chips; they are the main reason I have any interest in politics at all. The day people who don't toe an extremist left or right-wing line here feel unwelcome to contribute will IMO be a sad day for this forum, and for the values I cherish.

I couldn't agree more. Freedom of expression is our most valuable liberty in modern Western societies. Without it, all other liberties are severely curtailed and everyone lives in fear and suspicion.

As for the day when people who don't toe an extremist left line here feel unwelcome, it is here, my friend. I am one of those persons, as I have expressed in this thread and in other instances. Although I can sometimes be too sensitive depending on my mood, I have consistently felt shouted down by a majority of hard liners from the left in my posts throughout this board, not just in this particular forum. I happen to be relatively strong-willed much of the time, and the shouting down hasn't kept me from posting altogether. Nevetheless, I have found myself refraining from posting and also censoring myself out of dread for the inevitable shouting down I will receive. I have to wonder have many lurkers or posters here haven't posted on controversial topics because of the same or similar chilling of their speech. We probably won't ever know.

For Ed's sake, I'm not an extremist on the right or the left. I didn't "invade" this board seeking to cause trouble. I came here by invitation. I had met the founders of it at other skeptic boards. I am a skeptic, and I probably subscribe to many of the same beliefs and perspectives that are common to posters here. Where we seem to depart is in adherence to a strict leftist ideology.

I know that I'm am not alone here in this regard, but there is a distinct, vocal set of posters who oppress, unwittingly or not, dissension from the prevailing political opinion on this board. As a result, I feel shouted down. My speech has been chilled. Does that say more about me, or more about the prevailing culture of this forum?

Do the vocal left posters truly want this to be merely a haven for self congratulation and mutual back slapping? I've read some suggestion of that notion in this thread and in others. To their credit, there have been many posters who seem to identify with the left who have thoughtfully and respectfully addressed those who disagree, including those who have done so in their posts to me. Unfortunately, I have seen what I deem to be too little board self-policing of, or peer pressure against, the shouting down of dissent. I'm also referring to that lack of peer pressure as part of the prevailing culture of this forum.

Don't misunderstand. I am not calling for admin action or for the institution of mods. Self-policing is just that. In my opinion, it's entirely up to each individual poster to determine how to post or respond. It is my sincere hope and wish, however, that more posters will consider before or while posting that they may be shouting down others with their rhetoric and scorn.

Cool Hand

[D. Scarlatti]

You excoriate against "rhetoric and scorn," and when a few people engage your point and try to elucidate their rationale behind this so-called "rhetoric and scorn," you label it more "rhetoric and scorn," and furthermore accuse them of not comprehending the irony. And if you're not willing to cite specific examples, and why exactly the proffered rationale is nothing but "rhetoric and scorn," I fail to see the point to any of this.

[LadyXoc]

I am totally aware of the irony. I just don't fucking care any longer. I've tried to see both sides of the situation for the last four years. Look, bigotry is wrong. Chipping away at civil rights is unacceptable. Invading other countries on trumped-up charges and killing civilians is a fucking disgrace. If my getting bent out of shape over that results in people saying mean things about me, cool. At least we're discussing it. I want to discuss it. Endlessly. Until people wake the fuck up. And btw, saying "us" against "them" is a gross generalization anyhow. The "us" is as varied a group as the "them." People who voted against Bush run the gamut from borderline socialist to former Republican (like me).

I hold this administration and what it stands in for in utter contempt, damnit. It is entirely possible to see Bush supporters as a varied group, talk to them at great length, and even have some understanding of their motives, and still hold this entire gang of crooks in complete contempt and regard the people who put them in power with shock and dismay. Which. I. do.

[viscousmemories]

As other people have already said much more eloquently on this thread, I can agree to disagree with moderates, but not people I feel are bigots or extremists.
I don't get why you think you can claim that everyone who voted for Bush is a bigot or extremist without earning the label yourself. Since when are sweeping generalizations about the moral character of a heterogenous group of people an example of anything but? If you're willing to eschew tolerance to promote your values, what values do you have that aren't expendable?

[wei yau]

Yes, that is my plea. There are already a few posts that are instances of using this thread as a bully pulpit. They are illustrating what I'm objecting to. Unfortunately, the irony is most likely lost on the posters.

A few? Some, perhaps. But, certainly not all. I'm not quite sure I get you here. Some posters have addressed your concerns. Some of tried to show why the rhetoric is the way it is right now. A few may have used this as a bully pulpit. So what? Are you expecting conformity? On a freethought forum?

Display the tolerance you are asking from others. Redirect the conversation. Engage the poster in a civil discussion. Ignore them if you have to. But, continually pointing to the behavior you don't like without acknowledging the behavior that you do like leaves the impression that you feel this entire forum is of a single mind. Even in the area of politics this is not the case, not to my eyes.

As for the day when people who don't toe an extremist left line here feel unwelcome, it is here, my friend. I am one of those persons, as I have expressed in this thread and in other instances. Although I can sometimes be too sensitive depending on my mood, I have consistently felt shouted down by a majority of hard liners from the left in my posts throughout this board, not just in this particular forum. I happen to be relatively strong-willed much of the time, and the shouting down hasn't kept me from posting altogether. Nevetheless, I have found myself refraining from posting and also censoring myself out of dread for the inevitable shouting down I will receive. I have to wonder have many lurkers or posters here haven't posted on controversial topics because of the same or similar chilling of their speech. We probably won't ever know.

Perhaps this is simply another by-product of these political times in the US. But, extremist left? Really? Here?

I've not heard cries for proletariat revolution. I've not heard declarations of anarchy. I've not seen pictures of Chairman Mao.

If voicing displeasure at the outcome of the elctions qualifies as extreme left...well, hell I don't know what to say.

I'm new here and haven't been around lately due to other committments. But, I've not seen anything in this forum that can paint the majority of the posters here as extreme left. Look at your own thread on the "Commerce clause". I've stayed out of it as I do not fully understand the issues. But, bey seems to be engaging you in a reasoned and civil discussion.

For Ed's sake, I'm not an extremist on the right or the left. I didn't "invade" this board seeking to cause trouble. I came here by invitation. I had met the founders of it at other skeptic boards. I am a skeptic, and I probably subscribe to many of the same beliefs and perspectives that are common to posters here. Where we seem to depart is in adherence to a strict leftist ideology.

Well, I think I'm going to ask you to define and cite what you see her as extreme or strict "leftist" ideology. I've not seen any of that here, sure it can be evident over at IIDB, but that's not here.

Also, I've not seen anyone who thinks you're anything other than a poster with a difference in opinion. I've not heard anyone hurl the "troll" accusation at you, so I'm curious as to why you feel defensive about that score.

I know that I'm am not alone here in this regard, but there is a distinct, vocal set of posters who oppress, unwittingly or not, dissention from the prevailing political opinion on this board. As a result, I feel shouted down. My speech has been chilled. Does that say more about me, or more about the prevailing culture of this forum?

Can it be both?

You say you feel shouted down, but I've not seen you engage in dissension. Other than posts about how dissension is impossible due to a culture of leftist oppression, that is.

I mean it when I say I must have missed something. I've not seen the specific threads in which you feel intolerance.

Do the vocal left posters truly want this to be merely a haven for self congratulation and mutual back slapping? I've read some suggestion of that notion in this thread and in others. To their credit, there have been many posters who seem to identify with the left who have thoughtfully and respectfully addressed those who disagree, including those who have done so in their posts to me. Unfortunately, I have seen what I deem to be too little board self-policing of, or peer pressure against, the shouting down of dissent. I'm also referring to that lack of peer pressure as part of the prevailing culture of this forum.

This is what I really don't get.

I don't understand how an idea or post can stand on its own merit without discussion. And if that discussion involves a difference in opinion, there will be disagreement.

So what?

Are we talking "tone" here? In this particular thread, I've seen few instances of what I would consider rude and insulting rhetoric. I see reasoned positions presented cogently and coherently.

Don't misunderstand. I am not calling for admin action or for the institution of mods. Self-policing is just that. In my opinion, it's entirely up to each individual poster to determine how to post or respond. It is my sincere hope and wish, however, that more posters will consider before or while posting that they may be shouting down others with their rhetoric and scorn.


I don't misunderstand. I think I'm simply failing to understand.

Is it something along the lines of...you take offense, you feel shouted down when one of us rails against a Bush supporter for whatever reason?

I mean, if that's the case, I have some advice. I don't get all pissed off when someone says all atheists hate God. I know that they are not talking about me. And if the opportunity presents itself I tell them why they're not talking about me (or, in this case, any atheist). When someone (ANN COULTER) says that liberals hate America, I know she's not talking about me because that's simply not the truth. And I'll tell that to anyone who will listen.

So, when I shout that Bush supporters are God-addled, small-minded and selfish...you can tell me why that's not you. And there'll be a reasoned discussion...you'll tell me why you support Bush despite the perception I hold. And you'll listen to why I believe that perception certainly holds true for others, if not for you.

I think it comes to the individual versus the group. I can't talk about a group with adequate details about every individual in the group. And I know that an individual within a group doesn't share ALL of the same traits of the entire group. I can say that, as a group, Bush supporters have made what I believe to be a wrong choice. But, I'm willing to listen to you, as an individual, about why you felt it was the right choice.

(Again, I am not implying that you necessarily voted for Bush. But, the election is prevalent topic, no?)

[Socratoad]

Toad, I did have this board in mind when I wrote the OP. I'm having a hard time fitting the Munich analogy to anything I've seen anyone doing on this board.

Cool Hand

Sorry, I do seem to have misunderstood (again) I'm well aware of my Achilles heel, the tendency to extrapolate until only I know what I'm talking about.

But if I may digress for a moment: I do not see fundies and neo-cons as just merely misguided neighbours. I see them as the greatest threat I have known since the third Reich. If that sounds a little too strong then so be it.

No I do not hate them. If one were in trouble, you can be damned sure that I would be the first to offer a helping hand, as I would for anyone. However I am fully cognisant of the danger such wilfully ignorance and malevolence poses to society as a whole.

Methinks that we must try to reason with the youth because I have seen no evidence that goodwill and reason will get through to such people that readily dismiss fact and look upon empathy as weakness. Hence my obtuse remark about about Neville Chamberlain.

I may be paranoid, but that does not negate the fact that the bastards are threatening all that I hold dear, and I do not even live in your country.

[LadyXoc]

As other people have already said much more eloquently on this thread, I can agree to disagree with moderates, but not people I feel are bigots or extremists.
I don't get why you think you can claim that everyone who voted for Bush is a bigot or extremist without earning the label yourself. Since when are sweeping generalizations about the moral character of a heterogenous group of people an example of anything but? If you're willing to eschew tolerance to promote your values, what values do you have that aren't expendable?

Where have I claimed that everyone who voted for Bush is a bigot? Some of them are physicians who believe Edwards would drive up their malpractice insurance. Some of them voted for Bush because they believe he is good for the market and that is their most important indicator. Some of them voted for him because they are deathly afraid of terrorists. Some of them voted for him because they don't listen to anything but Fox news and believe all Kerry supporters are liberal elitists who look down on working class people. Some people voted for Bush because they think he stands for strong family values. Some voted for him because they think religion should have a stronger presence in public life. Some voted for him because they are anti-choice and for no other reason. Some voted for him because they think he should clean up the mess he made in Iraq. Some of them voted for Bush because of the constitutional amendment to restrict marriage to a union between a man and a woman. Some voted for Bush because they think he will restore morality to the country. And some for any combination of the above.

These are all people I know personally. Some of them I can reason with. Some of them I can barely have a conversation with. Some of them, unfortunately, are just plain fucking bigots. I can argue about the economy, the market, I can argue about the war, but I cannot reason with someone who says "the fucking gays are taking over," or "the baby-killers should all be executed." As I said, I can reason with moderates. Not bigots or extremists. I have learned this after four years of endless discussion. That is the statement I made. I stand by it. To interpret what I said any differently implies that the person reading my statement is lumping all of those people into one group, yes?

Btw, part of the problem I have with the current Republican party is that I feel they have dismissed moderates in favor of some sort of "holy war" approach. I don't see where there is any place in their plan for anything but total agreement with an agenda that I feel is extremist. This is very disturbing, because I feel very strongly that the differences between people, parties, and groups within political parties provide a vital balance. This balance has gone wildly askew and I think the bitter divisions you see are a result of that.

[Cool Hand]

You excoriate against "rhetoric and scorn," and when a few people engage your point and try to elucidate their rationale behind this so-called "rhetoric and scorn," you label it more "rhetoric and scorn," and furthermore accuse them of not comprehending the irony. And if you're not willing to cite specific examples, and why exactly the proffered rationale is nothing but "rhetoric and scorn," I fail to see the point to any of this.

You want an example of rhetoric and scorn? I gave broad examples in my OP, such as posts that embrace the notion that Bush supporters are mass murderers and morons. I didn't cite to any particular post or any particular poster because I'm not interested in inviting a flame war in this thread.

My take is that your remarks to me in general, and in this thread in particular as well, have been laced with hostility and accusations of my being dishonest and having impure motives in posting. Mostly, I've tried to refrain from responding to you primarily because of it. I don't take your attempts to engage me in good faith. Sorry, that's just how I perceive your tone. You are free to disagree or to persuade me otherwise.

Look no further than your ostensibly good faith attempt to engage my point above.

Perhaps a bit more consideration should be given to exactly where the "Us" vs. "Them" mentality originates. There's a bit more to it than simply a reaction to the Warren Court's expansive reading of the Ninth Amendment. As far as I can tell, it's the political right in this country that broaches no dissent, not the left.

It sure would be nice if we could all just get along, but we won't until some people realize there's a world of difference between being righteous and being self-righteous.


The lack of reflection on your own prejudices displayed in your remarks above is noteworthy. I submit that your post is itself a fine example of not recognizing the difference between being righteous and being self-righteous.

You asked for it.

The point of this, of course, is that you and some others have made it clear that disagreement with your self-proclaimed moral superiority is not to be tolerated on this board. I could insert some choice words at this point, but I won't. Take it however you like.

Cool Hand

[lisarea]

I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Cool Hand was objecting so much to the characterization of Bush voters as "them" per se, or to any attempts on the "us" who didn't to figure out how that happened and what we might do differently to win the hearts and minds of "them" next time around. I think he has a problem with the implications coming from some of "us" that we are somehow objectively morally superior to "them", strictly because we voted for the "right" guy. Surely the "us" who didn't vote for Bush aren't all sharing a brain, why do some of "us" seem to insist on viewing "them" as though they do.

OK, well, then maybe this is just one of those cases where everyone else is talking about some specific thread, and I'm the only one who didn't read it.

But I haven't seen anything like the phenomenon he's describing.

[HelenM]

For me, it's not so much an "us" versus "them" mentality as a "WHAT THE FUCK WERE YOU THINKING TO VOTE FOR THAT LUNATIC" mentality.

Yes, I used to be a lot more tolerant, but when the situation is this dire, I think it's not only possible to take a strong stand on these issues, but necessary. Look, I realize the *cough*idiots*cough* people who voted for Bush all have their various reasons, but I really do think many of these reasons were based on ignorance and bigotry. And I do condemn any support of that.

I've been reading this thread...I think what bothers me is when people define an "us" and "them" and aren't really interested in trying to understand "them".

For example, the above " "WHAT THE FUCK WERE YOU THINKING TO VOTE FOR THAT LUNATIC", would actually be a good question to ask if it were asked respectfully and not in caps and without swearing at the other person. The one asking might learn something then which could lead to better understand.

But, given the caps and swearing, it doesn't seem to be a real question; the asker doesn't seem to be looking for an answer.

Which causes me to wonder why people who claim to be freethinkers wouldn't want to ask the very people whose vote they are having trouble understanding, why they voted that way. That seems anti-thetical to freethought, to me - because to me, freethinkers are people who want to learn and want to understand things as well as possible.

O this thread and other recent ones about the election result I'm sensing that "I don't understand these people" doesn't seem to be leading the one saying that to embark on a genuine quest to understand better.

Helen

[viscousmemories]

Where have I claimed that everyone who voted for Bush is a bigot? <snip> As I said, I can reason with moderates. Not bigots or extremists. I have learned this after four years of endless discussion. That is the statement I made. I stand by it. To interpret what I said any differently implies that the person reading my statement is lumping all of those people into one group, yes?
Apparently I did misread you, I apologize. I thought you were labeling everyone who voted for Bush as a bigot or extremist when you said:
This appears to be all about holy war, god, and hatred of gay people. <snip>

Look, I realize the *cough*idiots*cough* people who voted for Bush all have their various reasons, but I really do think many of these reasons were based on ignorance and bigotry.
Your clarification makes a lot more sense to me.

[LadyXoc]

For me, it's not so much an "us" versus "them" mentality as a "WHAT THE FUCK WERE YOU THINKING TO VOTE FOR THAT LUNATIC" mentality.

Yes, I used to be a lot more tolerant, but when the situation is this dire, I think it's not only possible to take a strong stand on these issues, but necessary. Look, I realize the *cough*idiots*cough* people who voted for Bush all have their various reasons, but I really do think many of these reasons were based on ignorance and bigotry. And I do condemn any support of that.

I've been reading this thread...I think what bothers me is when people define an "us" and "them" and aren't really interested in trying to understand "them".

For example, the above " "WHAT THE FUCK WERE YOU THINKING TO VOTE FOR THAT LUNATIC", would actually be a good question to ask if it were asked respectfully and not in caps and without swearing at the other person. The one asking might learn something then which could lead to better understand.

But, given the caps and swearing, it doesn't seem to be a real question; the asker doesn't seem to be looking for an answer.

Which causes me to wonder why people who claim to be freethinkers wouldn't want to ask the very people whose vote they are having trouble understanding, why they voted that way. That seems anti-thetical to freethought, to me - because to me, freethinkers are people who want to learn and want to understand things as well as possible.

O this thread and other recent ones about the election result I'm sensing that "I don't understand these people" doesn't seem to be leading the one saying that to embark on a genuine quest to understand better.

Helen

And if I directed in such a tone toward an actual person, they may well have good reason to be angry with me. It may depend on the circumstance. But there is a difference between a vigorously expressed vent on a discussion board and actual abuse toward an individual. Anyway, I may not really qualify as a freethinker so much as an opinionated pain in the ass.

There are things I simply do not understand. I am willing to tolerate those things as long as they do not do grave, mass, irreperable harm to others. But at some point, really, don't you yourself find you have to speak out on some issues? And "WTF WERE YOU THINKING" while tearing out large chunks of my hair is really no more than a wild expression of despair. If you feel I'm condemning you as a person, for example, it is nothing of the kind. It's more of a wail of agony beginning at my gall bladder and ending at my keyboard.

(and btw, Helen, I swear pretty much constantly, in case you hadn't noticed. I really wouldn't attach much significance to it.)

[Cool Hand]

I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Cool Hand was objecting so much to the characterization of Bush voters as "them" per se, or to any attempts on the "us" who didn't to figure out how that happened and what we might do differently to win the hearts and minds of "them" next time around. I think he has a problem with the implications coming from some of "us" that we are somehow objectively morally superior to "them", strictly because we voted for the "right" guy. Surely the "us" who didn't vote for Bush aren't all sharing a brain, why do some of "us" seem to insist on viewing "them" as though they do.

OK, well, then maybe this is just one of those cases where everyone else is talking about some specific thread, and I'm the only one who didn't read it.

But I haven't seen anything like the phenomenon he's describing.

Maybe that's because you subscribe to the prevailing leftist orthodoxy here. I don't know, do you? If so, are you perhaps being less than objective about your ability to detect such a phenomenon here?

Cool Hand

[LadyXoc]

Maybe that's because you subscribe to the prevailing leftist orthodoxy here. I don't know, do you? If so, are you perhaps being less than objective about your ability to detect such a phenomenon here?

Cool Hand

Ok, sorry if this is OT, but as a former Republican, I am getting a real kinky kind of thrill out of being described as subscribing to leftist orthodoxy.

You may resume.

[LadyXoc]

Apparently I did misread you, I apologize. I thought you were labeling everyone who voted for Bush as a bigot or extremist when you said:
This appears to be all about holy war, god, and hatred of gay people. <snip>

Look, I realize the *cough*idiots*cough* people who voted for Bush all have their various reasons, but I really do think many of these reasons were based on ignorance and bigotry.
Your clarification makes a lot more sense to me.


I wasn't labeling everyone with the *cough* so much as just being irritable. I suppose I should try to be more clear. I do think a substantial part of Bush's support came from the holy war/god/gay issues, though. At least from what I can tell from my online and RL interactions over the last few years. And that disturbs the hell out of me.

(edited. because. more words.)

[LadyShea]

Same here, VM. Hostility and intolerance are ugly in the hands of whomever uses or displays them. They are not uniquely traits of extremists on the right or the left, or in the middle for that matter.

The reason I find much of it here hypocritical is that many of the persons displaying those traits in posts here are denouncing their political dissenters ostensibly for being hostile and intolerant.


Are you not also being hostile and intolerant of those you see as hostile and intolerant? Have you tried to view the issues from the side of the people you are labeling, in very general terms, self-righteous hyprocrites, to see if they might also have merit? You have so far set apart your own "them" to be angry with and rant against.

You have exhorted "us" to consider various reasons someone might have supported Bush, other than those we are ascribing to them, then refuse to discuss your own reasons. How can we consider views we have not been exposed to?

Yes, that is my plea. There are already a few posts that are instances of using this thread as a bully pulpit. They are illustrating what I'm objecting to. Unfortunately, the irony is most likely lost on the posters.

Again, the irony plank seems stuck in your own eye just as deeply. In this sentence you just generalized an entire group of people, those reading this thread, as "likely to miss the irony".



As for the day when people who don't toe an extremist left line here feel unwelcome, it is here, my friend. I am one of those persons, as I have expressed in this thread and in other instances. Although I can sometimes be too sensitive depending on my mood, I have consistently felt shouted down by a majority of hard liners from the left in my posts throughout this board, not just in this particular forum. I happen to be relatively strong-willed much of the time, and the shouting down hasn't kept me from posting altogether. Nevetheless, I have found myself refraining from posting and also censoring myself out of dread for the inevitable shouting down I will receive. I have to wonder have many lurkers or posters here haven't posted on controversial topics because of the same or similar chilling of their speech. We probably won't ever know.

Shout back :: shrug or only respond to those that aren't shouting. You have a case of confirmation bias going here I think. Several posters in this thread have explained their positions to you in a fairly calm and thorough manner, considering how high the emotion is on this topic, yet you are concentrating on one or two who purley emoted without substance

Free speech is free for all, they are free to shout you down, you are free to shout back, everyone is free to ignore, respond, stay, leave. How you can feel unwelcome when you have been engaged rather than ignored, and have not once been told "Get the hell out of here", I do not understand.

For Ed's sake, I'm not an extremist on the right or the left. I didn't "invade" this board seeking to cause trouble. I came here by invitation. I had met the founders of it at other skeptic boards. I am a skeptic, and I probably subscribe to many of the same beliefs and perspectives that are common to posters here. Where we seem to depart is in adherence to a strict leftist ideology.

Who called you an extremist or accused you of invading this board? Who is guilty of hyperbole now?

I depart from many on this board on several topics, and let my feelings be known and we debate or discuss or fight about them. I can have a discussion with the exact same person, on another topic, that has no contention at all.

You are free to discuss any topic and on some you will agree with others, some disagree....that's totally normal for all kinds of groups of people; families, neighborhoods, friends, whatever.

I know that I'm am not alone here in this regard, but there is a distinct, vocal set of posters who oppress, unwittingly or not, dissension from the prevailing political opinion on this board. As a result, I feel shouted down. My speech has been chilled. Does that say more about me, or more about the prevailing culture of this forum?

I think it says more about you. The "prevailing culture" you speak of is with regard to politics only. Do you think your speech is being chilled when you discuss art or movies or your pets or any of the other myriad topics we have here?

Also, as was pointed out, some of these people spent the last 4 years trying to get Bush out; their money, their time, their emotions all invested and they lost. That hurts, there are bound to be some high emotions for a time as this is a fresh wound. It will scab over and heal, leaving a scar, but you're seeing the blood running right now.

I don't think the best time to judge any groups' overall culture is when they are dealing with a highly stressful issue. I certainly wouldn't base my opinion of a company's culture, for example, on my observations the week massive layoffs were announced to be impending.

Do the vocal left posters truly want this to be merely a haven for self congratulation and mutual back slapping?

Who's backslapping or congratulating? I see people in mourning trying to make sense of what they see as a tragedy. Again, I accuse you of the mischaracterizations you have been accusing others of.

I've read some suggestion of that notion in this thread and in others.
To their credit, there have been many posters who seem to identify with the left who have thoughtfully and respectfully addressed those who disagree, including those who have done so in their posts to me. Unfortunately, I have seen what I deem to be too little board self-policing of, or peer pressure against, the shouting down of dissent. I'm also referring to that lack of peer pressure as part of the prevailing culture of this forum.

If you dissent, then dissent, and be prepared to defend your views...why should you expect any kind of policing of ANYONE'S expressions? Free speech means free speech for all. What is your disconnect here?

Don't misunderstand. I am not calling for admin action or for the institution of mods. Self-policing is just that. In my opinion, it's entirely up to each individual poster to determine how to post or respond. It is my sincere hope and wish, however, that more posters will consider before or while posting that they may be shouting down others with their rhetoric and scorn.

Cool Hand

And that is their right, just as it's your right to call them on it. Self policing is just that; A says something, B responds or doesn't respond or calls A an asshole or whatever. A can then choose to respond, not respond, counter asshole with fucktard, whatever. C can jump in with whatever as well.

And technically, one cannot be "shouted down" in this medium. Live, yes, nobody can hear you if you are being shouted down and so your views remain unknown. In this medium though, your words can be read anytime, by anyone. There is no way for any number of opposing posts, no matter what they say, to hide your words or stifle your speech.

[Socratoad]

The way Toad decides upon whom to vote for is to carefully examine the whole package,and with that criteria firmly in mind, I cannot possibly see why any discerning and empathetic person could have voted for Bush.

Its about much much more than just right-wing, left-wing perceptions and ideologies

[Cool Hand]

Dawn. On Old Cemetary Road. Matched duelling pistols at 20 paces. We'll end this us vs them mentality thing once and for all.

Yeah, but I'm afraid recent polarization requires that both sides endlessly check and recheck that the pistols are actually matched. They'll scrutinize them for proper loading, they will disassemble them to check for a hammer spring, they will check the barrel for obstructions, and then they will repeat everything ad naseum until the duellists give up and go home to eat breakfast.

Cool Hand

[lisarea]

Maybe that's because you subscribe to the prevailing leftist orthodoxy here. I don't know, do you? If so, are you perhaps being less than objective about your ability to detect such a phenomenon here?

And there we have it. This is precisely what I find offensive about your attitude.

You suspect I subscribe to the prevailing "leftist orthodoxy" here?

So, my initial interpretation of your attitude was correct, then? You at least suspect, if not outright believe, that the people who post here are motivated by peer pressure, and you have implied at least that I am one of them.

It's funny you should talk about irony, when you have discounted so broadly the political opinions of others based on your interpretation that it's nothing more than some kind of orthodoxy, as opposed to YOUR political stance, which is, of course, sincere and well-reasoned and, as you're so proud of pointing out, 'nonconformist.'

You know what? I guess I just don't care. You've made some very vague and very broad accusations in this thread, and have, at least for the most part, refused to back them up and address them directly. I can't imagine how you expect people to address your issues if you won't cite directly what you're talking about.

Unless you're willing and able to make some concrete argument and defend your position, rather than just making vague and unsupported accusations from afar, I can't imagine why I should bother.

Of course, everyone has their controversial issues. There are plenty of times that I refrain from commenting on a topic because I know that it's unusually controversial, and sometimes, I just don't feel like putting the time and effort I know it's going to require. It would never occur to me to consider this oppression, nor to whine about being shouted down. It's my choice to address the issues or not, just as it is yours.

It's nobody else's fault if you don't feel like defending your positions.

[HelenM]

For me, it's not so much an "us" versus "them" mentality as a "WHAT THE FUCK WERE YOU THINKING TO VOTE FOR THAT LUNATIC" mentality.

Yes, I used to be a lot more tolerant, but when the situation is this dire, I think it's not only possible to take a strong stand on these issues, but necessary. Look, I realize the *cough*idiots*cough* people who voted for Bush all have their various reasons, but I really do think many of these reasons were based on ignorance and bigotry. And I do condemn any support of that.

I've been reading this thread...I think what bothers me is when people define an "us" and "them" and aren't really interested in trying to understand "them".

For example, the above " "WHAT THE FUCK WERE YOU THINKING TO VOTE FOR THAT LUNATIC", would actually be a good question to ask if it were asked respectfully and not in caps and without swearing at the other person. The one asking might learn something then which could lead to better understand.

But, given the caps and swearing, it doesn't seem to be a real question; the asker doesn't seem to be looking for an answer.

Which causes me to wonder why people who claim to be freethinkers wouldn't want to ask the very people whose vote they are having trouble understanding, why they voted that way. That seems anti-thetical to freethought, to me - because to me, freethinkers are people who want to learn and want to understand things as well as possible.

O this thread and other recent ones about the election result I'm sensing that "I don't understand these people" doesn't seem to be leading the one saying that to embark on a genuine quest to understand better.

Helen

And if I directed in such a tone toward an actual person, they may well have good reason to be angry with me. It may depend on the circumstance. But there is a difference between a vigorously expressed vent on a discussion board and actual abuse toward an individual.

But I thought Cool Hand's point was that you might run into Bush voters on a discussion board such as this. Or at least, that vm and liv would like it to be diverse enough that you would, even if it isn't at present.

Anyway, I may not really qualify as a freethinker so much as an opinionated pain in the ass.

I doubt that would be a fair summary of the entirety of who you are :)

There are things I simply do not understand. I am willing to tolerate those things as long as they do not do grave, mass, irreperable harm to others. But at some point, really, don't you yourself find you have to speak out on some issues? And "WTF WERE YOU THINKING" while tearing out large chunks of my hair is really no more than a wild expression of despair. If you feel I'm condemning you as a person, for example, it is nothing of the kind. It's more of a wail of agony beginning at my gall bladder and ending at my keyboard.

I don't really want to talk about how I voted. Suffice it to say that I didn't take anything you wrote personally - I try not to do that whether I am in the "them" being addressed or not, unless the writer indicates that I am the intended target of their remarks.

Anyway, yes, I recognize that emotions are still running high and that it may be too early to expect people devastated by the election result to do much other than express anger and disappointment.

(and btw, Helen, I swear pretty much constantly, in case you hadn't noticed. I really wouldn't attach much significance to it.)

Ok, fair enough. When some people do it expresses anger but I shouldn't have inferred you were one of them.

Helen

[viscousmemories]

Yes, that is my plea. There are already a few posts that are instances of using this thread as a bully pulpit. They are illustrating what I'm objecting to. Unfortunately, the irony is most likely lost on the posters.

Again, the irony plank seems stuck in your own eye just as deeply. In this sentence you just generalized an entire group of people, those reading this thread, as "likely to miss the irony".
You misread him, Shea. He meant he thought the irony would likely be lost on anyone who is using this thread as a bully pulpit, not on everyone reading the thread. In other words anyone using this thread to further villify "them" isn't likely to recognize the contradiction.

I happen to be relatively strong-willed much of the time, and the shouting down hasn't kept me from posting altogether. Nevetheless, I have found myself refraining from posting and also censoring myself out of dread for the inevitable shouting down I will receive. I have to wonder have many lurkers or posters here haven't posted on controversial topics because of the same or similar chilling of their speech. We probably won't ever know.

Shout back :: shrug or only respond to those that aren't shouting. You have a case of confirmation bias going here I think. Several posters in this thread have explained their positions to you in a fairly calm and thorough manner, considering how high the emotion is on this topic, yet you are concentrating on one or two who purley emoted without substance

Free speech is free for all, they are free to shout you down, you are free to shout back, everyone is free to ignore, respond, stay, leave. How you can feel unwelcome when you have been engaged rather than ignored, I do not understand.
He isn't just talking about this thread or this topic, though. I think it's pretty obvious that the vocal majority on this board are social and fiscal utterly anti-Bush liberals, including you and me. So even if only a couple people attack his position with angry rhetoric (which has happened to him numerous times that I've seen) the rest of us are less likely to come to his defense and he will be shouted down. That to me is the antithesis of freethought and rational debate.

Who called you an extremist or accused you of invading this board? Who is guilty of hyperbole now?
He's not being hyperbolic, he has been accused of those things here.

I don't think the best time to judge any groups' overall culture is when they are dealing with a highly stressful issue. I certainly wouldn't base my opinion of a company's culture, for example, on my observations the week massive layoffs were announced to be impending.
On this point I don't disagree. Election season is probably not the best time to get a general feeling for the political climate of a forum.

Do the vocal left posters truly want this to be merely a haven for self congratulation and mutual back slapping?

Who's backslapping or congratulating? I see people in mourning trying to make sense of what they see as a tragedy. Again, I accuse you of the mischaracterizations you have been accusing others of.
Again he's talking about his interactions on political issues here in general - and the fact that he's a distinct minority simply because he's not a dyed in the wool liberal - over the last couple of months, not only on the topic of the election. I think there's been plenty of backslapping and congratulating that goes on. Maybe it is just the result of the election season emotional intensity. I dunno.

I've read some suggestion of that notion in this thread and in others.
To their credit, there have been many posters who seem to identify with the left who have thoughtfully and respectfully addressed those who disagree, including those who have done so in their posts to me. Unfortunately, I have seen what I deem to be too little board self-policing of, or peer pressure against, the shouting down of dissent. I'm also referring to that lack of peer pressure as part of the prevailing culture of this forum.

If you dissent, then dissent, and be prepared to defend your views...why should you expect any kind of policing of ANYONE'S expressions? Free speech means free speech for all. What is your disconnect here?
I assume he expects policing for the same reason I do. As he explicitly said he's not talking about moderators or admin intervention, he's talking about members of the community speaking out in defense of the principles we built this forum around, instead of letting dissenters get gangbanged into silence. Free speech for all is exactly the point.

And that is their right, just as it's your right to call them on it. Self policing is just that; A says something, B responds or doesn't respond or calls A an asshole or whatever. A can then choose to respond, not respond, counter asshole with fucktard, whatever. C can jump in with whatever as well.
That isn't self-policing, that's a clusterfuck. Just because a free speech environment allows such interactions doesn't by any stretch make them the preferred choice for me. I would much rather listen to the reasoned opinion of a Republican than the vitrolic screaming of anyone, personally.

And technically, one cannot be "shouted down" in this medium. Live, yes, nobody can hear you if you are being shouted down and so your views remain unknown. In this medium though, your words can be read anytime, by anyone. There is no way for any number of opposing posts, no matter what they say, to hide your words or stifle your speech.
I completely and vehemently disagree with that. It is easy and common for people to be shouted down on discussion boards. When a thread becomes too long, diffused or polluted by vitriol people stop reading and it falls off the page into relative oblivion. The fact that the posts are still available to those who search for it in no way nullifies the fact that for all intents and purposes the person has been silenced. That precise dynamic has run me off a board or two before, and I'm about the most thick-skinned, stubborn poster I know.

[Cool Hand]

lisarea and LadyShea,

I suspect both of you are reading into my words things that simply aren't there.

I've written enough in this thread already in a short period of time, so I'm not going to go into further detail at the moment. If I feel up to it, I will return later, although probably not today, and try to address specific points you make. In the meantime, I can only suggest that you re-read the OP if you care to, and then read VM's thoughtful responses, and HelenM's as well, as they seem to have grasped what I'm trying to say better than anyone else who has posted here.

One more thing. Please read in context. Both of you have extrapolated things from my remarks that are not reasonable inferences from them. In short, I haven't said or implied many of the things you claim I have, and it's not fair for you to demand that I answer for charges I haven't made. If you wish to drop it, that's fine with me. Otherwise, I suggest that you are misunderstanding me and my point. That may be because I've been unclear, or because you haven't given my comments due care in reading them, or possibly some of both. If you think I'm being snide in that last remark, for instance, you're mistaken.

Cool Hand

[LadyXoc]

But I thought Cool Hand's point was that you might run into Bush voters on a discussion board such as this. Or at least, that vm and liv would like it to be diverse enough that you would, even if it isn't at present.


I'm perfectly comfortable with any Bush supporters reading my posts, after all, it's a public board. And it's certainly no secret that I'm crushed by the appalling way this election has turned out and what I feel it will mean for our country. :(

[viscousmemories]

There's a bit of sad irony for me in this thread.

Livius and I met Cool Hand when we were the newcomers in another forum, and he stood by our side - against some of his good friends - to defend our right to express our vocal disagreement with the "in-crowd" on a particular issue. While many of them ridiculed us and dismissed us as trolls and whiners who didn't have the constitution to stomach their brand of "free speech", he didn't make the same mistake about us.

Watching some of my friends make the same mistake about him is disheartening. It makes me wonder if there isn't some way to overcome the apparently natural inclination to withold the benefit of the doubt from someone who doesn't conform to the prevailing memes. I may disagree with a Cool Hand's politics, but I can attest to the quality of his character.

[LadyShea]

[quote]He isn't just talking about this thread or this topic, though. I think it's pretty obvious that the vocal majority on this board are social and fiscal utterly anti-Bush liberals, including you and me. So even if only a couple people attack his position with angry rhetoric (which has happened to him numerous times that I've seen) the rest of us are less likely to come to his defense and he will be shouted down. That to me is the antithesis of freethought and rational debate.

Well, I haven't seen it, and so far we have not been given any links or examples.

And freethought and rational debate are two different ideals. If someone disagrees with A (freethought), what should compel them to jump to As defense if they do not value rational debate as well?


He's not being hyperbolic, he has been accused of those things here.

Where?


Again he's talking about his interactions on political issues here in general - and the fact that he's a distinct minority simply because he's not a dyed in the wool liberal - over the last couple of months, not only on the topic of the election. I think there's been plenty of backslapping and congratulating that goes on. Maybe it is just the result of the election season emotional intensity. I dunno.

For the last 4 years, this has been an intense subject due to the extreme polarization caused by the war, the economy, 9/11 and ensuing Patriot Act, homosexual rights, abortion rights etc. Sides were taken, lines in the sand drawn. I don't see how it could have been anything but intense...it's an intense period in our country's history and the most intense and issue filled 4 years in my life to date.

I think this whole "coming to a head" is a reflection of the seriousness of the situation for all of us. Basically, who can be completely rational in the face of chaos?

That isn't self-policing, that's a clusterfuck. Just because a free speech environment allows such interactions doesn't by any stretch make them the preferred choice for me. I would much rather listen to the reasoned opinion of a Republican than the vitrolic screaming of anyone, personally.

VM, I included the most innocuous and general options of "respond", "not respond" and "whatever" in my list of possible actions. I have to assume you saw "Call them an asshole and counter with fucktard" and missed the rest. I made no mention at all in that comment of vitriolic screaming


I completely and vehemently disagree with that. It is easy and common for people to be shouted down on discussion boards. When a thread becomes too long, diffused or polluted by vitriol people stop reading and it falls off the page into relative oblivion. The fact that the posts are still available to those who search for it in no way nullifies the fact that for all intents and purposes the person has been silenced. That precise dynamic has run me off a board or two before, and I'm about the most thick-skinned, stubborn poster I know.

Well, I am comparing this medium to live protests. If you have never participated in any kind of demonstration, then you can't understand how VASTLY incorrect it is to call any written vitriol "shouting down". We will just have to disagree on this based on our experiences.

[Corwin]

There's a bit of sad irony for me in this thread.

Livius and I met Cool Hand when we were the newcomers in another forum, and he stood by our side - against some of his good friends - to defend our right to express our vocal disagreement with the "in-crowd" on a particular issue. While many of them ridiculed us and dismissed us as trolls and whiners who didn't have the constitution to stomach their brand of "free speech", he didn't make the same mistake about us.

Watching some of my friends make the same mistake about him is disheartening. It makes me wonder if there isn't some way to overcome the apparently natural inclination to withold the benefit of the doubt from someone who doesn't conform to the prevailing memes. I may disagree with a Cool Hand's politics, but I can attest to the quality of his character.

It isn't about his character, it's about the arguments being made.... and people are responding to those arguments. I don't see any of us getting on coolhand's case and shrieking 'OMFG YOU FUCKING MORON!!!!!!!!!!' I do see people responding to the points being made.

BTW coolhand.... just curious.... coolhandluke? Paltalk?

[Socratoad]

Vm, I really don't think anyone here, certainly not me, are questioning Cool Hand's character. But why is is somehow perceived that when several, in fact most, people, on a given board happen to have the same values and or perceptions that they are not being fair. I really see no way to prevent conversations developing the way they do, without insisting that the board consists of equal numbers of factions from each camp. Anything else may end up with the board becoming so restricted as that we might just as well have moderators. As long a we do not personally attack one another I fail to see the problem.

[LadyShea]

There's a bit of sad irony for me in this thread.

Livius and I met Cool Hand when we were the newcomers in another forum, and he stood by our side - against some of his good friends - to defend our right to express our vocal disagreement with the "in-crowd" on a particular issue. While many of them ridiculed us and dismissed us as trolls and whiners who didn't have the constitution to stomach their brand of "free speech", he didn't make the same mistake about us.

Watching some of my friends make the same mistake about him is disheartening. It makes me wonder if there isn't some way to overcome the apparently natural inclination to withold the benefit of the doubt from someone who doesn't conform to the prevailing memes. I may disagree with a Cool Hand's politics, but I can attest to the quality of his character.

Personal knowledge of and experience with someone does make it more difficult to see them receive negative reactions. I perfectly understand that and am sorry y'all feel uncomfortable about this. But really, nobody has told him to get the fuck out, as far as I know nobody has called him any heinous names, and I have yet to see a thread that was NOTHING but "shouting down" of his views.

The fact is, I have no clue what Cool Hand's politics even are, and I for one have no recollection of responding to him in any negative way on any thread. In fact, I think my personal posts on the issue have been pretty calm and reasonable considering the depth of my personal investment in this election (please point out specific examples if I am wrong on either of the above points).

I was offended by being grouped, once again, into some kind of crowd or clique, and accused of oppressing people simply because of who I voted for. I think Cool Hand is guilty of the same generalizations he is railing against.

Lisarea has stated again and again that she is not a Democrat, dislikes Democrats, is an independent voter, explained her views and reasons for wanting Bush out, yet Cool Hand dismissed her as a leftist oppressor too. Has he not read her posts?.

[LadyShea]

lisarea and LadyShea,

I suspect both of you are reading into my words things that simply aren't there.

I've written enough in this thread already in a short period of time, so I'm not going to go into further detail at the moment. If I feel up to it, I will return later, although probably not today, and try to address specific points you make. In the meantime, I can only suggest that you re-read the OP if you care to, and then read VM's thoughtful responses, and HelenM's as well, as they seem to have grasped what I'm trying to say better than anyone else who has posted here.

:: sigh

I have read every post in this thread. If I am misreading you it's because you are being vague, or I am being dense or something. I would prefer we continue to discuss it until I understand. That VM and Helen are the only ones who you feel are grasping what you're saying, then I will continue to discuss with them and maybe a different perspective will make more sense to me. Telling me to re-read isn't helpful.

One more thing. Please read in context. Both of you have extrapolated things from my remarks that are not reasonable inferences from them. In short, I haven't said or implied many of the things you claim I have, and it's not fair for you to demand that I answer for charges I haven't made. If you wish to drop it, that's fine with me.

Please point these items out specifically so we can discuss them. I can't do anything with this vaguery. I have no idea what you think I have misintepreted or what I implied that you didn't mean, or I wouldn't have posted as I did.

I am not purposefully trying to be obtuse or contrary for contrariness' sake here Cool Hand. I am not trying to shout you down or oppress you...I am trying to have a discussion and understand your view and help you understand mine. That can take a long time and often does and misundertandings abound and must be addressed individually.

Otherwise, I suggest that you are misunderstanding me and my point. That may be because I've been unclear, or because you haven't given my comments due care in reading them, or possibly some of both. If you think I'm being snide in that last remark, for instance, you're mistaken.

Cool Hand

Misunderstanding is always a two way street. I am willing to continue if you are.

[viscousmemories]

Ladyshea, Corwin and Toad:

I don't mean to trivialize any of your comments by responding to you en masse, but hopefully you'll forgive me if I don't respond to each point you've made. It's hard to respond to multiple simultaneous responses.

To me the essence of this discussion is that there seems to be an atmosphere of not just disagreement with, but hostility toward people who don't subscribe to a particular brand of "leftist" (and I use the term very loosely) ideology here. People have made frequent comments - not just recently but for months - that equate all adherents to any Republican policy with right-wing, fundamentalist, inhuman religious zealots.

One important lesson I took from the 'clique' debate at the original FF and the recent discussions of the same was that a forum atmosphere is virtually impossible to prove using any sort of empirical method. I could cite quotes of people making hostile comments in general or directed toward Cool Hand, but we would inevitably get bogged down in a semantic analysis of the individual components and neglect the important point. Atmosphere is a matter of personal perception most often invisible to the people who comprise it.

I'm all about passionate defense of principles and a community that rallies around some shared ideals. It's just that among those ideals, for me, are free expression and reasoned discourse. No matter how much I might agree with the people shouting down a dissenter, if I am going to be true to my values I have to fight for his right to have a voice. And that means speaking up like I am now to condemn what I see as - to a degree - just more of the same.

[livius drusus]

Vm, I really don't think anyone here, certainly not me, are questioning Cool Hand's character. But why is is somehow perceived that when several, in fact most, people, on a given board happen to have the same values and or perceptions that they are not being fair. I really see no way to prevent conversations developing the way they do, without insisting that the board consists of equal numbers of factions from each camp. Anything else may end up with the board becoming so restricted as that we might just as well have moderators. As long a we do not personally attack one another I fail to see the problem.

The problem is that I don't want an echo chamber forum. I want to be challenged and I want to think. Now more than ever I need to hone my analytical skills and reading comprehension, to examine starkly, to test my understanding in every possible way. That cannot happen in an environment where challenges are viewed with default suspicion and challengers are treated as kinds instead of as individuals and fellows.

I don't want posters to behave like there are camps in here that match whatever camps they envision are out there. I'd rather discuss if the notion of camps in any way reflects reality, much like this thread attempts to, in fact.

The thing is, if someone posts the equivalent of "there are camps because there are camps: <insert personal definition of Camp X and Y>", then they aren't really addressing the underlying issue; and in the context of this discussion board, generalized hostility at a camp can be particularly damaging because it so easily translates into a hateful environment for anyone who doesn't really dig on camps period, or isn't remotely comfortable with the one she's been placed in.

(X-post with vm but I'm posting it anyway.)

[viscousmemories]

Lisarea has stated again and again that she is not a Democrat, dislikes Democrats, is an independent voter, explained her views and reasons for wanting Bush out, yet Cool Hand dismissed her as a leftist oppressor too. Has he not read her posts?.
Actually he didn't dismiss her at all. He asked her if she subscribes to the prevailing leftist orthodoxy he sees here and then suggested that if she does, she consider the possibility that she might therefore be less than objective about it.

Maybe that's because you subscribe to the prevailing leftist orthodoxy here. I don't know, do you? If so, are you perhaps being less than objective about your ability to detect such a phenomenon here?

I can see how you would have misread it, but that's probably why Cool Hand suggested you go back and re-read. We all misread things from time to time.

[LadyShea]

Ladyshea, Corwin and Toad:

I don't mean to trivialize any of your comments by responding to you en masse, but hopefully you'll forgive me if I don't respond to each point you've made. It's hard to respond to multiple simultaneous responses.

To me the essence of this discussion is that there seems to be an atmosphere of not just disagreement with, but hostility toward people who don't subscribe to a particular brand of "leftist" (and I use the term very loosely) ideology here. People have made frequent comments - not just recently but for months - that equate all adherents to any Republican policy with right-wing, fundamentalist, inhuman religious zealots.

One important lesson I took from the 'clique' debate at the original FF and the recent discussions of the same was that a forum atmosphere is virtually impossible to prove using any sort of empirical method. I could cite quotes of people making hostile comments in general or directed toward Cool Hand, but we would inevitably get bogged down in a semantic analysis of the individual components and neglect the important point. Atmosphere is a matter of personal perception most often invisible to the people who comprise it.

I'm all about passionate defense of principles and a community that rallies around some shared ideals. It's just that among those ideals, for me, are free expression and reasoned discourse. No matter how much I might agree with the people shouting down a dissenter, if I am going to be true to my values I have to fight for his right to have a voice. And that means speaking up like I am now to condemn what I see as - to a degree - just more of the same.

Understood, but since my points aren't remotely like either Soctratoad's or Corwin's, I have to assume you are ALSO lumping together anyone who doesn't share you view or who is questioning Cool Hand, disagrees with his points, or is trying to get his points clairified. By trying to "defend" his voice you become guilty of generalizations, labeling and "us and them" too.

Am I the only one that sees this? If this whole debate isn't one on one we are all, including Cool Hand himself, part of the problem Cool Hand was talking about in the first place.

[LadyShea]

Maybe that's because you subscribe to the prevailing leftist orthodoxy here. I don't know, do you? If so, are you perhaps being less than objective about your ability to detect such a phenomenon here?

I can see how you would have misread it, but that's probably why Cool Hand suggested you go back and re-read. We all misread things from time to time.

My question was WHY doesn't he know? WHY did he have to ask the question? He is the one making accusations, does this mean he hasn't taken the time to read all the threads and points made by the people he is discussing? Is it possible he read a few posts, decided he was being shouted down, and based his opinion on an incomplete sampling?

[lisarea]

Livius and I met Cool Hand when we were the newcomers in another forum, and he stood by our side - against some of his good friends - to defend our right to express our vocal disagreement with the "in-crowd" on a particular issue. While many of them ridiculed us and dismissed us as trolls and whiners who didn't have the constitution to stomach their brand of "free speech", he didn't make the same mistake about us.

I'd appreciate it if someone would humor me here. Personally, I tend not to focus much on personalities, except in social contexts. As such, I frequently get into disagreements with people, or read threads in which people are disagreeing, and don't really make much note of who the participants are. I realize this is somewhat unusual, as I've frequently had people respond to me in unrelated contexts as though they've been harboring some kind of grudge against me for some disagreement that I don't even remember.

What I'm saying here is that I still have NO IDEA what y'all are talking about. I guess we are to assume that someone has called CH names, or that he's been picked on somewhere. I honestly have no idea where, when, or how that happened.

As I mentioned, I do not read every thread here, nor do I read every post in every thread. Maybe it really did happen. But I do tend to make a mental note when I see someone being personally attacked, and I had no preexisting mental notes regarding CH.

All I've seen here is CH making vague complaints about something he has perceived as a general attitude here, but he hasn't really backed them up. Then, I saw him PREDICTING a hostile reponse to something he posted and getting angry about it, despite the fact that it never actually happened. I completely understand this phenomenon, and I've done it myself, even. I've found myself imagining some situation in which someone does or says something offensive or outrageous, and then actually getting mad at this imagined transgression. But I recognize it as silliness, and I don't think I treat people in a hostile manner because of something they never did outside of my imagination.*

And I have seen CH speculate on others' motives, including mine, and then refuse to address the issues directly. Yes, I am very offended by that, and as such, I have discounted his objections pending some kind of solid complaint.

To be blunt, I think he's being a little paranoid.


Watching some of my friends make the same mistake about him is disheartening. It makes me wonder if there isn't some way to overcome the apparently natural inclination to withold the benefit of the doubt from someone who doesn't conform to the prevailing memes. I may disagree with a Cool Hand's politics, but I can attest to the quality of his character.

I can't speak for anyone else, but until his recent attacks--yes, attacks--in this thread, I never made any judgements about his character at all.

Who is he complaining about? I kind of suspect he might be complaining about me in part, based on his speculations about my politics and my interpretations. But he's refused to be any more specific than that, and as such, I interpret his complaints as kind of underhanded and disingenuous. If he has actual complaints about actual events, he should address them directly and honestly, rather than just casting aspersions to see if they stick.

* Except that one time I had that dream about the ODB and the "free enterprise windows" scam he was running with that John Bunnell guy from Real Stories of the Highway Patrol. I use that for leverage fairly frequently.

[viscousmemories]

I'm not trying to call you out lisarea, but did you read my last couple of posts? In one I mention that I agree with Cool Hand's general impression of a prevailing left-oriented atmosphere here and I suggest that proving such a thing empirically is generally very difficult, if not impossible, because of the semantic bogging that occurs. If Cool Hand, livius and I (and maybe others?) all say we believe such an atmosphere exists are we all being paranoid or might there be something to it?

In the last post I suggest that LadyShea misread Cool Hand's comments to you, and now I suspect you misread them too. I think he phrased it poorly but I don't think at all that he was ascribing any particular beliefs or motivations to you.

[Cool Hand]

There's a bit of sad irony for me in this thread.

Livius and I met Cool Hand when we were the newcomers in another forum, and he stood by our side - against some of his good friends - to defend our right to express our vocal disagreement with the "in-crowd" on a particular issue. While many of them ridiculed us and dismissed us as trolls and whiners who didn't have the constitution to stomach their brand of "free speech", he didn't make the same mistake about us.

Watching some of my friends make the same mistake about him is disheartening. It makes me wonder if there isn't some way to overcome the apparently natural inclination to withold the benefit of the doubt from someone who doesn't conform to the prevailing memes. I may disagree with a Cool Hand's politics, but I can attest to the quality of his character.

Personal knowledge of and experience with someone does make it more difficult to see them receive negative reactions. I perfectly understand that and am sorry y'all feel uncomfortable about this. But really, nobody has told him to get the fuck out, as far as I know nobody has called him any heinous names, and I have yet to see a thread that was NOTHING but "shouting down" of his views.


VM isn't simply suggesting that you and perhaps others are engaging in wearing down my OP and turning this thread into yet more partisan discussion. His "sad bit of irony" refers also to my lamenting that this freethought forum has at least a twinge of discouraging dissent within it, and that some of the responses in this very thread are evidence of that. Indeed, my character is being questioned simply for bringing that up and trying to explain it in the context of chilling of speech by shouting it down. That's what's ironic about it. I'm trying to remind us that this board champions free speech. If you have not gathered yet that my comments in this thread have been about that lament, then I suppose no amount of trying to explain further is going to help. We simply aren't understanding each other.


The fact is, I have no clue what Cool Hand's politics even are, and I for one have no recollection of responding to him in any negative way on any thread. In fact, I think my personal posts on the issue have been pretty calm and reasonable considering the depth of my personal investment in this election (please point out specific examples if I am wrong on either of the above points).


My politics are immaterial, except for my own perception that they differ from the prevailing views here and they seem to be unwelcome here, at least to me. That is not to suggest that they are unwelcome by any particular lurker or poster, but rather by the board's "culture," if you will, as a whole.

I never said you responded to me, LS. I didn't mention anyone by name. I thought I was quite clear that I was referring to a prevailing culture here. That doesn't mean it necessarily includes you or anyone else. Later I did mention D. Scarlatti in a response to him, but as far as I know, he is the only poster I mentioned. If he wishes to correct me or to demonstrate that he isn't hostile to my posts almost as a matter of course, then I invite him to do so. Then again, this thread isn't about him.


I was offended by being grouped, once again, into some kind of crowd or clique, and accused of oppressing people simply because of who I voted for. I think Cool Hand is guilty of the same generalizations he is railing against.


That's not justified, in my opinion, LS. Why should you be offended? How did I group you into any crowd or clique? This thread isn't about you or directed at you.

I'm not generalizing at all, except for expressing concerns about what I see as a prevailing culture here. What am I railing about except for the chilling of opposing speech on this board?

I didn't accuse you or anyone else of oppressing anyone based on who you voted for. I'm suggesting that some posters in some of their posts are discouraging dissent on this board. That's it. Again, I urge you to read more carefully.


Lisarea has stated again and again that she is not a Democrat, dislikes Democrats, is an independent voter, explained her views and reasons for wanting Bush out, yet Cool Hand dismissed her as a leftist oppressor too. Has he not read her posts?.

I did not dismiss Lisarea at all. I now see that VM has already accurately addressed this point. He's right; I merely asked her questions. I wasn't dismissive of her. Context is important.

I'm not hostile to you, LS. I'm not hostile to lisarea, either. I don't know where either of you is getting that impression, other than my own speculation that you are misreading me.

Cool Hand

[viscousmemories]

My question was WHY doesn't he know? WHY did he have to ask the question? He is the one making accusations, does this mean he hasn't taken the time to read all the threads and points made by the people he is discussing? Is it possible he read a few posts, decided he was being shouted down, and based his opinion on an incomplete sampling?
He never accused everyone here of having a particular slant to their POV, so I don't know why he should have to know what everyone's stance is. Have you never been involved in a thread where it was you against a dozen people - some of whom you aren't really familiar with? Sometimes you have to ask where people are coming from, which is what he did with lisarea. He said (roughly) he felt there was a prevailing leftist orthodoxy here, and lisarea disagreed. It seems reasonable that he would say "Well are you one of them? Because if so maybe that's why you don't see it."

[Cool Hand]

There's a bit of sad irony for me in this thread.

Livius and I met Cool Hand when we were the newcomers in another forum, and he stood by our side - against some of his good friends - to defend our right to express our vocal disagreement with the "in-crowd" on a particular issue. While many of them ridiculed us and dismissed us as trolls and whiners who didn't have the constitution to stomach their brand of "free speech", he didn't make the same mistake about us.

Watching some of my friends make the same mistake about him is disheartening. It makes me wonder if there isn't some way to overcome the apparently natural inclination to withold the benefit of the doubt from someone who doesn't conform to the prevailing memes. I may disagree with a Cool Hand's politics, but I can attest to the quality of his character.

Thank you very much for your kind words, VM. I certainly appreciate your taking note of my support of yours and Liv's remarks and positions regarding free speech on the other board. You are right that I challenged my friends there. Hell, I was one of the in-crowd. You, Liv, and I were all shouted down there, in effect, for challenging the admin and the mods. It's too bad they couldn't see past their own noses on the issue. It was ironic then and there too, as that issue was about chilling speech too.

I appreciate your expression of friendship, and I return the same to you.

Cool Hand

[LadyShea]

VM, I really truly think you might be too close to this one and are misreading us based on your desire to defend your friend, or the "underdog" as you see it.

I'm not trying to call you out lisarea, but did you read my last couple of posts? In one I mention that I agree with Cool Hand's general impression of a prevailing left-oriented atmosphere here and I suggest that proving such a thing empirically is generally very difficult, if not impossible, because of the semantic bogging that occurs. If Cool Hand, livius and I (and maybe others?) all say we believe such an atmosphere exists are we all being paranoid or might there be something to it?

Nobody has said there isn't a prevailing left-orieneted atmosphere. I agree there is one. Cool Hand went far beyond pointing out that most of the active members of this board are left oriented, he accused them of oppression, stifling, and shouting down then you told me you had seen this happen directly to him for being a dissenter. Those assertions are easy, and in my opinion necessary, to demonstrate empirically.

[Corwin]

The thing is that this board doesn't 'shout down' a right wing perspective. However, the leftists on this board aren't running away with our collective tail between our legs either. In the current discourse in american society, (which ranges from slightly to extremely right wing) this seems like 'leftist oppression.' The right has gone for so long with no real opposition, that the minute opposition shows up they get defensive.

When everybody's taken it easy on you for so long, a level playing field seems oppressive.

[lisarea]

I'm not trying to call you out lisarea, but did you read my last couple of posts? In one I mention that I agree with Cool Hand's general impression of a prevailing left-oriented atmosphere here and I suggest that proving such a thing empirically is generally very difficult, if not impossible, because of the semantic bogging that occurs. If Cool Hand, livius and I (and maybe others?) all say we believe such an atmosphere exists are we all being paranoid or might there be something to it?

Come on, you know I don't mind being called out. And no, I hadn't at that point. I have a habit, annoying or otherwise, of hitting reply, then going to make a sandwich, dicking around for a while, maybe cleaning the toilet or something, then coming back and replying without checking to see if there are intervening posts. So I hadn't seen them at that point.

But I still don't see how CH was oppressed or stifled in any way. I would never argue that this isn't a left-leaning forum. It is. I even like that about it. Which is not to say that I think dissent should be discouraged. Not at all. But you know, I could just as easily cry oppression myself when my opinion is in the minority, as it frequently is. As I said, there are even times that I refrain from discussing an issue where I know I'm in the minority, and I don't feel like dedicating the time and effort to defending my position, or even when I realize that I'm not really able to discuss an issue reasonably for one reason or another. That's not anyone's fault but my own, though. Nobody's oppressing me but me.

If Cool Hand is feeling picked on directly, I have yet to see where that's happened. I have not seen a personal attack. That's not to say they don't exist, but I haven't seen one. And I still don't see anything wrong at all with attacking ideas. Ideas should be attacked.


In the last post I suggest that LadyShea misread Cool Hand's comments to you, and now I suspect you misread them too. I think he phrased it poorly but I don't think at all that he was ascribing any particular beliefs or motivations to you.

No. Not necessarily, but it struck me as disingenuous. I questioned his assessment, and rather than clarifying his position, he made some dismissive and groundless speculation that my perception was flawed by some personal shortcoming on my part. (And yes, partisan hackery is a particularly odious shortcoming in my book, and I take great offense that he would see fit to even ask me such a question. It is roughly akin to asking me, "Well, is it possible that you're just uninformed and incapable of forming your own opinions, and that colors your perceptions?")

Now, you know perfectly well that I respect your opinions as a rule. But that doesn't mean that I automatically take them as gospel. I'm not discounting anyone's assessment, but I have yet to see evidence of anything I'd characterize as oppression or silencing of his opinions.

I realize I have less of a tendency to avoid controversy than probably most people have, but I don't consider that a handicap, and I question the basic premise that there's any direct correlation between attacks on ideas and attacks on people. As such, barring real evidence of personal attacks, I'm interpreting the complaints here as prickliness and hypersensitivity.

And y'all are all delicate little flowers. Yeah, I'm calling ALL OF YOU out.

[wade-w]

I can certainly see where you'd get the idea that there is a strong Liberal bias here. I see it myself. I have personal experience with being "shouted down" for voicing an unpopular opinion, so I know exactly how that feels.

Cool Hand, I think that much of what you are seeing is people venting their disappointment over the outcome of the election, and is not meant to be taken personally. I also submit that a comment you made about a "liberal elite" that is "out of touch with Middle America" may have struck some nerves and exacerbated the situation.

I generally stay out of political arguments. In fact, the posts I've made here in the last week or two are the first time I've ever posted on politics in any forum anywhere. This is mostly because while I am liberal on social issues (I am what might be called a "social libertarian"), the rest of my personal political philosophy is ill defined and still in flux; the only definite thing about it is that it's a work in progress. I don't say anything about these other issues since I am not sure yet what I think. But, to be frank, I mostly lean towards a more conservative attitude than most of the posters here seem to have.

I, for one, hope that you will stay and continue to provide, at the very least, a dissenting opinion.

Edited after reading several cross posts

[viscousmemories]

Cool Hand: Thanks for the acknowledgement. :)

Shea, Corwin and Lisa: I think the key to our disagreement may be here in lisarea's post:

As I said, there are even times that I refrain from discussing an issue where I know I'm in the minority, and I don't feel like dedicating the time and effort to defending my position, or even when I realize that I'm not really able to discuss an issue reasonably for one reason or another.
IMHO the fewer dissidents a forum has the less likely an ordinary poster is going to be willing or able to stand against the mainstream. So as far as I'm concerned those of us who are swimming in the mainstream have the option of writing them off or maybe playing a bit of the Devil's Advocate and taking up their side. Again IMHO, I think the latter furthers "freethought" and the former stifles it.

Even now - though nobody is "attacking" me per se, and I am a very thick-skinned and determined debater - I am feeling fatigued by having to defend my every post against 3 or 4 interlocutors. That's just how it works. As far as I'm concerned each of us has the option of standing against this natural tendency to bury our discursive opponents alive or going along with it. Right now - to me - you guys seem to be going along with it.

But as I said I'm getting burned out, so it's probably the frustration talking.

[Farren]

CH, I've followed this thread with interest but not necessarily clarity (on account of some hard partying and other factors) and I have the following thoughts:

First off, I think you're a nice person and would probably enjoy your company in the flesh. Nonetheless I think your politics are misguided and suffer from both a paucity of knowlege and logic.

I don't think that niceness and good intentions necessarily correlate to an ideology and etc that is beneficial to human society. I believe many well-intentoned people are paving the road to hell with their good intentions.

My feelings regarding Bush supporters reflect this. I believe, as others have stated here and elsewhere that support of Bush is the fruit of

a) ignorance (of both the motives and effects of his policies and what his policies actually are).
b) poor logic.
c) self-imposed ideological blindness. This last category requires a bit of explanation. Its essentially the offspring of (b) and (a) above but assumes its own seperate nature from the fact that, once a position is adopted due to poor logic and ignorance, it perpetuates itself due to the natural human tendency to first adopt a position, then defend it at all costs long after thought on the issue has ceased.

Since I can conceive of someone being loving, well-intentioned and consciencious BUT... ignorant, illogical or ideologically blind, I can conceive of someone being a "good" person perpetuating a "bad" meme.

My own sister is an exemplary example. A former athiest, she has become a fundamentalist Christian while oddly enough marrying an avowed athiest. Her hubby is a prick in my book while I still dearly love her.

Her bohemian past has left lingering fingerprints. She's far more amenable to dialog with her kids that my brother in law. She has no problem with her oldest son (16) wearing an earring and sleeping over with his gay friend from art school.

On the other hand she unapologetically agrees with Bush's decision to invade Iraq. Opinion polls show that Bush is hugely unpopular in my country and his decision to go to war in Iraq is equally unpopular. She is not only an anomaly in my country's demographic but an anomoly in my family. To the last one, every single member of my mothers vast (11 brothers and sisters) , largely Irish-Catholic family and their offspring believe chimpy is an arsehole and the war in Iraq was wrong.

When challenged on these views she has no coherent reasoning whatsoever for this belief other than "God told me he's right". She's outright admitted to this. When asked to expand, she admits complete ignorance of international law and politics and sums up her position like this: "When I'm confused about something I ask God for guidance. I felt that GW was striking a blow against evildoers and in my prayers asked God if I was wrong. He never answered so I presume I'm right". IOW, "I had a preformed opinion and because God said nothing to me I assume its right"

So I would say

a) My sister is pig-ignorant and
b) she suffers from cognitive dissonance and vindicates it with her religious views and a non-existent God.

99% of the evidence suggests that I am right in this scenario and she is wrong.

What's important here is that I still love her and enjoy her company immensely. We have an honest, open relationship. She knows that one of the reasons I have an aversion to siring children is my inability to set limits and moderates my influence on her children accordingly (she wouldn't, for instance, let them stay with me for more than a day because she knows I'd happily let them smoke weed in my care).

On the other hand, she values the fact that they have an intelligent uncle who stimulates their minds and treats them as a friend rather than an authority figure and is happy to cede care to me within the boundaries she's imposed. She's gone so far as to say she enjoys the fact that they're exposed to a wide range of views and largely come out in favour of her own (the two youngest are fundies, the oldest is an agnostic and sometimes athiest), because it speaks for the strength of each view.

Similarly, she loves me and enjoys my company (and vice versa) and doesn't allow it to be a relationship destroying interaction when I'm honest and say she's pig-ignorant and ideologically blinded and I'm giving up on discussing something with her because I can't argue with unreasoning faith.

On a different but related tangent, your habit of posting "let's have a hands around the world moment" OPs would normally resonate with my peacemaking way of thinking but in recent times I've been struck by an, IMHO, ugly tendency in political discussions.

That tendency is the harmful practice of regarding all opinions as equally valid and consequently apportioning them equal value and consderation. I've seen an immense number of threads where people say "but that's just your opinion". "I have the right to my own opinion". "Don't persecute me just because I have an unpopular view" and etc. I mean, for fucks sakes: "I like eating babies at Candelmas. Shocked? Don't be such a bigot! its a vald opinion!"

Validity itself is a human concept so there's some surface merit in this practice. However, I have a little book of Logic somewhere here (the academic subject of Logic as studied by Lawyers and Computer Scientists - I think its actually an academic textbook) which says (paraphrase) the following:

"Logic is not about truth or falsity. Its not about moral right or wrong. Its not about whether you have the right to an opinion or not. Its about whether the premises are congruent with the concluson or vice-versa. Its about whether a set of ideas can, possibly, all be true at the same time. A man in a court case may say 'Your honour, I've had ten accidents this year but I'm not a bad driver. I've simply been unlucky!' and he wouldn't be illogical. Unreasonable, yes, unlikely, yes, but not illogical because logic only demands that the premise (or its consequence) fits the conclusion and there is a conceivable scenario where he has simply been unlucky. Thus the premise and the conclusion can be coherent",

People like to believe that all views have equal merit but they don't when logic and reasonableness are combined. The allowance of reasonableness allows likelyhood to be summed with logic in such a way that some views are inherently more reasonable than others. They are both more "likely" true and more self-consistent (coherent, i.e. logical).

Thus we do have a means of discerning both logical and reasonable views from less logical and reasonable views (by summing information, which gives likelihood, with logic, which gives a value and culture-independent view of consistency). All positions are evidently not equal to the reasonable thinker. In consequence, it's inherently un-reasonable to demand that they are equally validated in all discussion.

A more fruitful approach is to understand the real value of discussion, which is to mutually examine both likelihood and consistency and (hopefully) influence all particpants in a way that favours first logic, then reason. This "everything is equal" approach is just. Plain. Dumb. and would ultimately favour molestation, murder as a valid tool of debate and a host of equally onerous interactions as 100% valid, opening the field to a completely Straussian political landscape, to the detriment of every participant.

In conclusion: I'd love to have a beer with you, but I think opposition to your onerous (if well-intentioned) ideology is both valid and desirable, even if its a little personally hurtful at times.

[LadyShea]

VM isn't simply suggesting that you and perhaps others are engaging in wearing down my OP and turning this thread into yet more partisan discussion. His "sad bit of irony" refers also to my lamenting that this freethought forum has at least a twinge of discouraging dissent within it, and that some of the responses in this very thread are evidence of that. Indeed, my character is being questioned simply for bringing that up and trying to explain it in the context of chilling of speech by shouting it down. That's what's ironic about it. I'm trying to remind us that this board champions free speech. If you have not gathered yet that my comments in this thread have been about that lament, then I suppose no amount of trying to explain further is going to help. We simply aren't understanding each other.



No, we're not, because I perceive you have shifted the goalpost from "The self righteous leftists are oppressing dissent" to "Dissenters must be defended or else its not freethought" to now a discussion about marginializing cliques and "if you can't see it you must be a part of it".

My politics are immaterial, except for my own perception that they differ from the prevailing views here and they seem to be unwelcome here, at least to me. That is not to suggest that they are unwelcome by any particular lurker or poster, but rather by the board's "culture," if you will, as a whole.

So, are you saying you assume dissent isn't welcome here and you avoid discussing your personal views for fear of being shouted down, or are you saying you have expressed your views and were shouted down (in which case examples would be appreciated)?


I never said you responded to me, LS. I didn't mention anyone by name. I thought I was quite clear that I was referring to a prevailing culture here. That doesn't mean it necessarily includes you or anyone else.

So how does one exclude themselves from the group you claim is being oppressive if you don't give examples or name names? How am I to know you aren't talking about me?



That's not justified, in my opinion, LS. Why should you be offended? How did I group you into any crowd or clique? This thread isn't about you or directed at you.

You grouped me into the leftist oppressors that are angry with Bush supporters, because I am a leftist that is angry with Bush supporters. You gave no way for any individual to exclude themselves from the group unless they were Bush supporters, IMO.

I'm not generalizing at all, except for expressing concerns about what I see as a prevailing culture here. What am I railing about except for the chilling of opposing speech on this board?

By not providing examples, you are generalizing based on your perceptions. When anyone asks "hey, can you show me" then you tell them to reread your vague OP and explain that if they can't see the problem, they must be part of the problem. I have seen none of this shouting down....so either show me what I am missing, or explain who you are talking about so I can understand.

I didn't accuse you or anyone else of oppressing anyone based on who you voted for. I'm suggesting that some posters in some of their posts are discouraging dissent on this board. That's it. Again, I urge you to read more carefully.

I still see you as moving the goalpost and this is far away from your OP. I am not illiterate. If I am misreading you, isn't it just possible its because you aren't being clear and concise, and that by refusng to show examples you appear to simply be ranting against ghosts?


I'm not hostile to you, LS. I'm not hostile to lisarea, either. I don't know where either of you is getting that impression, other than my own speculation that you are misreading me.

Cool Hand

Your OP contained hostile language, thats where I got the impression.

[Socratoad]

Dammit all Farren, you've done it again. I wish I had said that. Hows about you, Cool Hand, me and just about everyone else here sit down to a few jars of suds. Methinks we could cut to the chase in no time and all depart with more understanding and be even better friends.

[LadyShea]

Even now - though nobody is "attacking" me per se, and I am a very thick-skinned and determined debater - I am feeling fatigued by having to defend my every post against 3 or 4 interlocutors. That's just how it works. As far as I'm concerned each of us has the option of standing against this natural tendency to bury our discursive opponents alive or going along with it. Right now - to me - you guys seem to be going along with it.


Now how does that work, only the minority can defend themselves otherwise they are "going along"? I am tired of defending myself too in this thread, VM, but why should I be the one to give in or give up or whatever just because others seem to be sharing my position? Just because its 3 against 1 means the 3 are wrong and only attempting to "bury discursive opponents"?

I don't give a shit who agrees with me on this issue, I am debating for myself and my own knowledge and understanding....I am not "going along" with anyone. The fact is I was the first to respond in any kind of depth to Cool Hand, I did so reasonably IMO, I participated in a free exchange of ideas, and now I am being told I am "going along"? Is that REALLY what you're telling me?

I fully concede I may have way misread this post of yours, and if so please clairify.

[Cool Hand]

I can certainly see where you'd get the idea that there is a strong Liberal bias here. I see it myself. I have personal experience with being "shouted down" for voicing an unpopular opinion, so I know exactly how that feels.

Cool Hand, I think that much of what you are seeing is people venting their disappointment over the outcome of the election, and is not meant to be taken personally. I also submit that a comment you made about a "liberal elite" that is "out of touch with Middle America" may have struck some nerves and exacerbated the situation.


I think you're right, wade. I think also that some took my careless dropping of those two phrases and ran with them as if I had just nuked Hiroshima.


I generally stay out of political arguments. In fact, the posts I've made here in the last week or two are the first time I've ever posted on politics in any forum anywhere. This is mostly because while I am liberal on social issues (I am what might be called a "social libertarian"), the rest of my personal political philosophy is ill defined and still in flux; the only definite thing about it is that it's a work in progress. I don't say anything about these other issues since I am not sure yet what I think. But, to be frank, I mostly lean towards a more conservative attitude than most of the posters here seem to have.


Well, see, that's related to my point. It feels as if it's hard to make any political post here that isn't a dominant view without being jumped on by at least 3 or 4 other posters, and often more than that. The dissenting poster then finds himself or herself defending on three fronts. It's exhausting and not conducive to freely and openly sharing ideas or opinions.

It's easier just to stay out of political discussions. Sometimes, however, someone like me wants to comment. That seems to be a big mistake, however, unless the poster posts something that is in keeping with the prevailing views.


I, for one, hope that you will stay and continue to provide, at the very least, a dissenting opinion.

Edited after reading several cross posts

Thanks, wade. I'm not trying to pull some drama-queen thing about how I'm leaving because X, Y, or Z. I'm just expressing my concerns and engaging in discussion about them. I don't have any other agenda, except perhaps to call attention to what I perceive to be a problem. Apparently, some others recognize that it might be a problem, and some others disagree that it is a problem, and some might not care.

Cool Hand

[LadyShea]

I can certainly see where you'd get the idea that there is a strong Liberal bias here. I see it myself. I have personal experience with being "shouted down" for voicing an unpopular opinion, so I know exactly how that feels.

I absolutely agree there is a Liberal bias here. But, I disagree that dissenters are being shouted down. I am wondering, after reading this from you and VMs last post, if those who hold, and voice, a minority opinion amongst any group simply feel "shouted down" due to the sheer number of mere responses. I can understand that having 5 people disagree with you may feel like a group attack, but I don't think that it's a concerted or purposeful effort to oppress, so much as the simple fact that 5 people disagree with 1. Unless the majority elected a spokesperson to engage a person with a minority view, I don't see any way around that. Isn't it better to engage each person as an individual rather than viewing it as a pack of wild dogs? Is it possible some people are missing the trees for the forest?

Cool Hand, I think that much of what you are seeing is people venting their disappointment over the outcome of the election, and is not meant to be taken personally. I also submit that a comment you made about a "liberal elite" that is "out of touch with Middle America" may have struck some nerves and exacerbated the situation.

Thank you, this is a very reasonable assessment I think

I generally stay out of political arguments. In fact, the posts I've made here in the last week or two are the first time I've ever posted on politics in any forum anywhere. This is mostly because while I am liberal on social issues (I am what might be called a "social libertarian"), the rest of my personal political philosophy is ill defined and still in flux; the only definite thing about it is that it's a work in progress. I don't say anything about these other issues since I am not sure yet what I think. But, to be frank, I mostly lean towards a more conservative attitude than most of the posters here seem to have.

Do you avoid discussing your views for fear of being shouted down?

I, for one, hope that you will stay and continue to provide, at the very least, a dissenting opinion.

I hope he stays too. I don't think anyone hopes he leaves and if he does leave I, myself, will not feel like I have "won" anything...I will have lost

[LadyShea]

Well, see, that's related to my point. It feels as if it's hard to make any political post here that isn't a dominant view without being jumped on by at least 3 or 4 other posters, and often more than that. The dissenting poster then finds himself or herself defending on three fronts. It's exhausting and not conducive to freely and openly sharing ideas or opinions.

As I asked wade, what way is there around this other than stifling the free expression of those who happen to share the view of the majority? Do we need to have a meeting to say "Oh, so-and-so holds a minority opinion, so some of us can't voice our own because that would be jumping on him"

[livius drusus]

Farren, you know virtually nothing about Cool Hand's so-called ideology. The only thing he has stipulated to is a preference for policies that promote self-sufficiency and the rest is all projection. Your sister is not even remotely analogous and besides, I find your analysis of the deficiencies of Bush voters unsupported factually and unpalatable ethically.

On what basis do you conflate Cool Hand and Bush supporters? The same question goes for you too, Toad.

[LadyShea]

livius, I believe Farren was talking about CH's apparent idealogy of all views being equally valid and not making any moral judgements on others, not his individual politics. This as well as his discussing his sister, addressed the OP and a few of the earlier posts.

[Socratoad]

Farren, you know virtually nothing about Cool Hand's so-called ideology. The only thing he has stipulated to is a preference for policies that promote self-sufficiency and the rest is all projection. Your sister is not even remotely analogous and besides, I find your analysis of the deficiencies of Bush voters unsupported factually and unpalatable ethically.

On what basis do you conflate Cool Hand and Bush supporters? The same question goes for you too, Toad.

Oh dear what have I done .... I seem to have projected Farren's writing style that I admire onto Cool Hand :( I really have no excuse as I'm almost sober.

I'm sorry Cool Hand and Liv. I too am a mere mortal and so I have mistaken style for substance. But I really do fail to see your point Cool Hand

Now don't you too be pissed off Farren .....you do have a great writing style.

[livius drusus]

As I asked wade, what way is there around this other than stifling the free expression of those who happen to share the view of the majority? Do we need to have a meeting to say "Oh, so-and-so holds a minority opinion, so some of us can't voice our own because that would be jumping on him"

That whole question is a strawman, Shea. Look, remember when we were moderating at IIDB together and all the splitting and locking, editing, specific warnings, moves to Elsewhere and all the shit I had to do in order to keep discussions positive in an environment where people who expressed constant, daily contempt for theism/theists of all stripes but most virulently for Christians/Christianity? Ignoring it and responding on topic was never enough because the culture had been set to pissy from day one when it was the lower forum MRD.

It's not some meeting where people are made to feel bad for generally identifying with the majority. That's not what this thread is. It's an appeal. It's a commentary from someone who has felt marginalized by repeated expressions of generalized hatred as well as from the disproportionate amount of suspicion and snapping he's encountered when questioning the prevailing politic. It's an attempt to confront a developing culture and address undercurrents before they calcify like they have in GRD.

I've felt compelled to post on threads where he was being snapped at because it's not the kind of thing I like to see so I speak up about it. Cool Hand bringing up how he feels at the very least raises awareness. I bet if you see a bunch of people inveighing against the idiots and assholes who voted for Bush and then see a couple of them demand that Cool Hand tell them how he voted (complete with caps and cusses), it might impress you in a different way because of this thread.

If, as I strongly suspect, you would speak up against it, that wouldn't be because Cool Hand or your peers or anyone pressured you, but because your own sense of justice required it, just as mine (and Adam's) did when it actually happened. In other words, nothing that implies censorship of your opinion at all.

[Roland98]

Well, see, that's related to my point. It feels as if it's hard to make any political post here that isn't a dominant view without being jumped on by at least 3 or 4 other posters, and often more than that. The dissenting poster then finds himself or herself defending on three fronts. It's exhausting and not conducive to freely and openly sharing ideas or opinions.

Forgive me for being so dense, but what do you expect exactly? We're all fairly opinionated here, we all like to debate and examine not only others' views, but our own as well. Debating those who have opposite viewpoints allows me to strengthen my own arguments by having others point out the weaknesses in them. I like and enjoy this; it's caused me to search out issues and references I may not have found if I was always discussing the issues only with those who agreed with me. But when I have opinions that differ from the majority in any group, I also enter a discussion with the understanding that I am in the minority, and as such, I have to be prepared to "take on" multiple people and defend my view against them. I don't see the big deal.

And it's not as though I can't sympathize. Though I may be to you an "extreme leftist" (*chuckle*), I have lots of debates with a few RL friends where they chastize me for my "conservative" ideals. And my very first forum was a right-wing Christian one, where I was one of the few scientists posting in their science forum (now since dismantled because even though they were the large majority, they admittedly couldn't defend creationism with enough vigor), and I constantly argued with them over abortion, homosexuality, Bush, etc. Yes, every time I posted I was dogpiled, but I could and did defend my views with facts and logic, something that pissed many of them off time and time again (until I was eventually banned for being "anti-Biblical.") My point is that it seems (to me, from this thread; and admittedly I can't really recall reading many threads where you were involved before, Cool Hand, so I guess I have a bit of that lisarea "I don't know the backstory of all this" mystification going on) that what you're describing happens anywhere that you're the minority on any viewpoint. It's your choice to either defend your views (which of course, I prefer) or to just refrain from posting (which I think is quite unfortunate). But if you're looking for a one-on-one debate, there are places for that, but don't expect it in the regular part of any message board community.

[Cool Hand]

CH, I've followed this thread with interest but not necessarily clarity (on account of some hard partying and other factors) and I have the following thoughts:

First off, I think you're a nice person and would probably enjoy your company in the flesh. Nonetheless I think your politics are misguided and suffer from both a paucity of knowlege and logic.



Thanks Farren. I read the rest of your post, and I hope you don't misunderstand and think that I'm dismissing it by not responding to each point, because I'm not. I don't wish to discuss the rest mostly because it's about your impressions of Bush supporters as whole, and your illustrations using your family. That's fine, but it's not really on topic with what I had in mind in my OP. That's why I'm not going to address it.

(Aren't there already plenty of threads decontructing everything that is wrong about Bush Co ad naseum?)

Now, please allow me to address your comment that you think my politics are misguided and suffer a paucity of knowledge and logic. First, probably the most substantive political post about my views I've made to date at this board is in my OP in this very thread. None of it relates to what you expressed about Bush supporters. If you have read it, you should have surmised that the President and I depart very substantially on many domestic issues, particularly social ones. Apart from what I expressed in that OP, can you tell what exactly my positions are?

I ask that rhetorically because I really haven't done that much discussing of my own views except in my critiques of comments others have made. Necessarily, some of my own views get expressed in those critiques, but I've done little actual preaching or expressing of them. When I have expressed them, most of those views have proven to be very different from those of the President. That doesn't mean I'm demanding his head or that I desperately want him out of office, however. I have tried to be careful to note that my critiques of rhetorical attacks on the President and his administration are not necessarily endorsements of the President or support for his positions. I suspect that you are confusing the two when you claim that my politics are misguided, because I suspect you do not know what my politics are.

I have also suggested in this thread that one might have voted for the President for many possible reasons other than an outright agreement with the positions he expressed during the campaign. Consider this. I have read at least a few posters here explain that they were voting for Senator Kerry not so much as an endorsement of him, but rather as a protest against the President. That's fine. My point is that a vote for one candidate is not necessarily an expression of agreement with his or her campaign platform planks. Therefore, if I told you I voted for the President, then that does not mean that I hate gays, that I want to ban abortion, that I believe in God, or any number of things that some persons who dislike the President infer his supporters believe. It means I choose him over the others as my executive leader. That's all.

I've enjoyed your posts and find them to be thoughtful and respectful. I would be happy to share a few pitchers with you.

Thanks again for your kind remarks.

Cool Hand

[livius drusus]

livius, I believe Farren was talking about CH's apparent idealogy of all views being equally valid and not making any moral judgements on others, not his individual politics. This as well as his discussing his sister, addressed the OP and a few of the earlier posts.

That's not how I understood it at all. First he says he's sure Cool Hand is a good person. Then he talks about how people can be good, all kinds of fun to have a beer with, and still be ignorant, illogical and blinded my ideology. He uses the example of his sister to illustrate how he knows ignorant, illogical, ideologically blind people can be perfectly good and loveable.

After an exploration of the sideissue of whether all views are equally to be respected - which I don't actually see Cool Hand raising in his OP, which seemed to me about respect for people, not ideologies - Farren closed by reiterating the opening theme: Cool Hand is good, his ideology is not.

Since Cool Hand has never said he was a Bush supporter, and has in fact several times raises problems he has with Bush, I question that Farren has any grounds at all to project any kind of political ideology on him.

You may be right though, Shea. Am I misreading you, Farren? What ideology is to be eschewed vociferously: Bushism (for lack of a better word), all views being equally worthy of respect (I'd need a quote from to see where Cool Hand suggested that they were), something else entirely?

[LadyShea]

That whole question is a strawman, Shea.

I didn't mean for it to be. Reading VMs, wades and CHs comments on the issue, I really do not know what expectation they have or how to prevent this from occuring. Sure, my example was a bit over the top, I was just trying to illustrate the difficulty in preventing the necessity of responding to/defending yourself from more than one person when more than one person disagrees with you. I was open to ideas.

Look, remember when we were moderating at IIDB together and all the splitting and locking, editing, specific warnings, moves to Elsewhere and all the shit I had to do in order to keep discussions positive in an environment where people who expressed constant, daily contempt for theism/theists of all stripes but most virulently for Christians/Christianity? Ignoring it and responding on topic was never enough because the culture had been set to pissy from day one when it was the lower forum MRD.

It's not some meeting where people are made to feel bad for generally identifying with the majority. That's not what this thread is. It's an appeal. It's a commentary from someone who has felt marginalized by repeated expressions of generalized hatred as well as from the disproportionate amount of suspicion and snapping he's encountered when questioning the prevailing politic. It's an attempt to confront a developing culture and address undercurrents before they calcify like they have in GRD.

I've felt compelled to post on threads where he was being snapped at because it's not the kind of thing I like to see so I speak up about it. Cool Hand bringing up how he feels at the very least raises awareness. I bet if you see a bunch of people inveighing against the idiots and assholes who voted for Bush and then see a couple of them demand that Cool Hand tell them how he voted (complete with caps and cusses), it might impress you in a different way because of this thread.

If, as I strongly suspect, you would speak up against it, that wouldn't be because Cool Hand or your peers or anyone pressured you, but because your own sense of justice required it, just as mine (and Adam's) did when it actually happened. In other words, nothing that implies censorship of your opinion at all.

Okay, obviously we have disconnected through the course of this thread and gone off on various tangents.

Cool Hand, Wade, and VM all expressed frustration of having to respond to 3 or 4 or more people when expressing a minority view for whatever community they are participating in, and I was only addressing THAT in my post.

If individuals are being assholes on the boards, then they need to be addressed as assholes individually. Calling "Bush Supporters" idiots is probably an unfair generalization, yes, but we cannot engage with individuals of that group as a whole on any meaningful level. Saying "Most of the people in this room (or on this board) are assholes" is NOT the same thing, because they ARE people you can engage with directly. To say "I am being shouted down" is to insinuate there is a group think....which may not be the case. I am far more inclined to believe there is just a bunch of individuals who happen to agree then there is some Borg hive mind shouting "jump the diessenter"

I have addressed the rest of the topics to the best of my ability throughout this thread and am starting to resent being told I either don't get it, or am being obtuse.

[Cool Hand]

As I asked wade, what way is there around this other than stifling the free expression of those who happen to share the view of the majority? Do we need to have a meeting to say "Oh, so-and-so holds a minority opinion, so some of us can't voice our own because that would be jumping on him"

That whole question is a strawman, Shea. Look, remember when we were moderating at IIDB together and all the splitting and locking, editing, specific warnings, moves to Elsewhere and all the shit I had to do in order to keep discussions positive in an environment where people who expressed constant, daily contempt for theism/theists of all stripes but most virulently for Christians/Christianity? Ignoring it and responding on topic was never enough because the culture had been set to pissy from day one when it was the lower forum MRD.

It's not some meeting where people are made to feel bad for generally identifying with the majority. That's not what this thread is. It's an appeal. It's a commentary from someone who has felt marginalized by repeated expressions of generalized hatred as well as from the disproportionate amount of suspicion and snapping he's encountered when questioning the prevailing politic. It's an attempt to confront a developing culture and address undercurrents before they calcify like they have in GRD.

I've felt compelled to post on threads where he was being snapped at because it's not the kind of thing I like to see so I speak up about it. Cool Hand bringing up how he feels at the very least raises awareness. I bet if you see a bunch of people inveighing against the idiots and assholes who voted for Bush and then see a couple of them demand that Cool Hand tell them how he voted (complete with caps and cusses), it might impress you in a different way because of this thread.

If, as I strongly suspect, you would speak up against it, that wouldn't be because Cool Hand or your peers or anyone pressured you, but because your own sense of justice required it, just as mine (and Adam's) did when it actually happened. In other words, nothing that implies censorship of your opinion at all.

Thanks again, Liv. You, VM, Adam, and HelenM have done a very good job summing up what I've been trying to get across. I suppose without the backstory, as LS says, it might be hard to understand my point.

I hope you understand that I have noticed your weighing in due to your sense of injustice. Your doing so is noble and principled. I'll try to do a better job of acknowledging it when I see it again.

I hope that no one will take offense if I step back from this discussion now, as I've been repeating myself. It seems as if with each new post I make in this thread I confound or offend someone else. That was never my intent*.

Cool Hand

*(Except for my sharp response to D. Scarlatti, who frankly has gotten under my skin lately. I might be misreading him.)

[wade-w]

I'm going to address several posts here. FIrst, LadyShea, yes, I do refrain from participating in political discussion in part because I don't want to be shouted down. But that's not the main reason. It's mostly that on many issues, my opinions are not fully formed, and I'm not sure myself what I think, so I cannot really defend whatever position I might take.

Next, I worded that last sentence poorly. I did not mean to imply I thought Cool hand might leave FF completely, but that I hoped he continued to post on political topics.

Last, I wholeheartedly endorse livius' post. Every single word is spot on. Of course if one expresses a minority opinion they can expect many replies, and will have to defend on more than one front. That is, or should be, expected. But I have seen more than just a few isolated responses that I felt were unnecessarily rancorous. When you add that tone being taken in some of the rebuttals to the sheer volume, it is easy to feel like you're being ganged up on.

Edited to add: Like livius, I had to deal with GRD at IIDB. Frankly, the prevailing attitude and frequent witch hunts there sickened me, and I was one of the atheists. I'd hate to see something like that develop here.

Edited yet again to add that the post of liv's that I endorse is not the one addressing Farren's post, but the one previous to that.

[LadyShea]

You may be right though, Shea. Am I misreading you, Farren? What ideology is to be eschewed vociferously: Bushism (for lack of a better word), all views being equally worthy of respect (I'd need a quote from to see where Cool Hand suggested that they were), something else entirely?

I may also be wrong, but if you look at the exchange CH and I had about my considering myself morally superior to my in-laws, I think you'll see at least the connection I was making, even if it turns out to be incorrect.

[viscousmemories]

Forgive me for being so dense, but what do you expect exactly? We're all fairly opinionated here, we all like to debate and examine not only others' views, but our own as well.
I don't understand your hostile tone, Roland. When did Cool Hand ever imply that anyone here is dense, much less you? And who is the "we all" you presume to speak for? Several members here have expressed a profound dislike for debate, and in my opinion there are some people who are as dogmatic and narrow-minded as they come - at least on some issues.

Debating those who have opposite viewpoints allows me to strengthen my own arguments by having others point out the weaknesses in them. I like and enjoy this; it's caused me to search out issues and references I may not have found if I was always discussing the issues only with those who agreed with me. But when I have opinions that differ from the majority in any group, I also enter a discussion with the understanding that I am in the minority, and as such, I have to be prepared to "take on" multiple people and defend my view against them. I don't see the big deal.
Obviously Cool Hand enjoys debate too, and I have never found him to be as thin-skinned as you seem to be implying he is. But the fact remains that if you have to deal with 4 or 5 antagonists everytime you veer even slightly right of the prevailing ideology eventually you'll probably decide it's best to say nothing at all. This is why, for example, there was almost never any substantial political debate at HH (before I left, that is - which is all I can speak for).

This isn't as you might think because HH is primarily a social forum, but because the prevailing atmosphere is so staunchly leftist more conservative types don't even bother to speak up. That subject came up more than once and like everyone else at the time, my response was "c'est la vie, we like it that way". I don't feel that way about this forum. I would actually prefer to see it not fall into the same pattern.

I think it's a simple matter of degree, to be honest. If Cool Hand were to come in here posting some crazy right-wing rant about why Bush is going to lead America to the Holy Land and he got a hostile response from numerous people I would totally understand. But the fact is he has never said anything remotely like that, and he has been treated as though he has.

In fact the closest he has come to saying anything remotely like that was his "liberal elite" musing (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=922&page=2) in this thread - which he has since expressed regret for having said - that garnered a couple of angry posters asking him in harsh terms who he voted for and "WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU?!" if it was Bush. Is that the kind of reasonable examination of alternative viewpoints and rational introspection you think we're all engaged in here? That's just the most salient example of Cool Hand being attacked for expressing an unpopular political opinion here, btw. I could find you a number of other examples but as I told LadyShea earlier I don't really want to get bogged down in a he-said, she-said hyperanalysis mess.

Yes, every time I posted I was dogpiled, but I could and did defend my views with facts and logic, something that pissed many of them off time and time again (until I was eventually banned for being "anti-Biblical.")
Again this is where I think it's a matter of degree. It isn't that Cool Hand is taking a diametrically opposite position like "Bush is a great President" and getting dogpiled for it. It's like he's getting dogpiled for saying, "Maybe Bush's re-election isn't the end of the world". That isn't my idea of encouraging the open sharing of ideas and rational introspection and self-assessment. That's the antithesis: reactionary, hostile opposition to dissent.

[wei yau]

I don't even know what we're talking about anymore.

Maybe it's because I'm new here. Maybe it's because I find it so cozy and personal here. But, I've not seen any evidence of being shouted down by anyone.

Frankly, there aren't enough of you to shout anyone down. Seriously. We're talking what? 3 against 1? Hell, those are almost even odds in a debate forum.

I don't know if there anything else to be added. CH brought up that fact that he believes there's a climate that will brook no dissension here. Others, including myself, do not see any evidence of it...and maybe we can't because we aren't the dissenters.

Whatever.

Can we just stop talking about oursleves and start talking about the issues? I'll pay extra attention to spotting oppression and shouting down and dissension crushing, okay? And when I see it, I'll do my best to call someone out on it.

But, seriously, all this talk about ourselves...all this navel gazing and the like serves no productive purpose.

Agreeing to disagree is what the OP asks for. Fine, let's agree that this forum is left-leaning. Let's disagree on whether or not dissenters are shouted down. Then let's move on and start talking politics.

And the first one to crush a dissent will be severly dealt with... :whup:

[LadyShea]

Again this is where I think it's a matter of degree. It isn't that Cool Hand is taking a diametrically opposite position like "Bush is a great President" and getting dogpiled for it. It's like he's getting dogpiled for saying, "Maybe Bush's re-election isn't the end of the world". That isn't my idea of encouraging the open sharing of ideas and rational introspection and self-assessment. That's the antithesis: reactionary, hostile opposition to dissent.

I understand VM, but please, he made that comment during the election. Remember we talked about intensity of emotion and timing? I made the analogy of a company having layoffs?

How nice of a reception do you think I would get if I announced "It's not the end of the world. You people are just a teeny bit to attached to your paychecks" to the roomful of people who just got their pink slips? I believe this is basically what happened in that thread.

I know you didn't want to get into specific details, but don't you think context is important to this discussion?

[viscousmemories]

I understand VM, but please, he made that comment during the election. Remember we talked about intensity of emotion and timing? I made the analogy of a company having layoffs?

How nice of a reception do you think I would get if I announced "It's not the end of the world. You people are just a teeny bit to attached to your paychecks" to the roomful of people who just got their pink slips? I believe this is basically what happened in that thread.

I know you didn't want to get into specific details, but don't you think context is important to this discussion?
Hehe. See, this is exactly why I didn't want to get into having to provide specific examples. Because yes, I'm sure that if we analyze every example of people being shouted down or otherwise criticized for expressing a dissenting viewpoint we can find root causes and/or post hoc rationalizations for each of them. But none of that will change the fact that combined, these things contribute to the existence of a very real atmosphere, even if many or most of us are acclimated to it.

This was the whole point I missed during the first round of "clique" debates at the original FF. I was in the clique, and as such I didn't recognize any of the negative effects others pointed out. But these effects were very real and obvious for the people who were affected by them, despite the fact that I couldn't see them. So it is here, I think.

[LadyShea]

Gotcha. Consider it dropped because I am sick of the whole meta-issue I think.

[Roland98]

Forgive me for being so dense, but what do you expect exactly? We're all fairly opinionated here, we all like to debate and examine not only others' views, but our own as well.
I don't understand your hostile tone, Roland. When did Cool Hand ever imply that anyone here is dense, much less you? And who is the "we all" you presume to speak for? Several members here have expressed a profound dislike for debate, and in my opinion there are some people who are as dogmatic and narrow-minded as they come - at least on some issues.

*sigh* That came across as hostile? It should have been more "cautiously poking my head back in here." I just honestly don't understand the arguments about the whole "dogpiling" and "clique" stuff. I never said he or anyone else implied I was dense; I simply am acknowledging that I am not understanding one of his complaints, and as such, am probably being dense. Period. (Recall please that I am very straightforward and will not put something there to read between the lines--and if I'm hostile, I won't preface it with something like "forgive me," but likely "hey there fuckface" instead. ;) )

And if anyone on here doesn't like debate, then why post in these fora at all? Again, maybe this is just my personal preference, but if you have an opinion on something, shouldn't you be able to back it up? And isn't this the essence of debate?

Debating those who have opposite viewpoints allows me to strengthen my own arguments by having others point out the weaknesses in them. I like and enjoy this; it's caused me to search out issues and references I may not have found if I was always discussing the issues only with those who agreed with me. But when I have opinions that differ from the majority in any group, I also enter a discussion with the understanding that I am in the minority, and as such, I have to be prepared to "take on" multiple people and defend my view against them. I don't see the big deal.
Obviously Cool Hand enjoys debate too, and I have never found him to be as thin-skinned as you seem to be implying he is. But the fact remains that if you have to deal with 4 or 5 antagonists everytime you veer even slightly right of the prevailing ideology eventually you'll probably decide it's best to say nothing at all. This is why, for example, there was almost never any substantial political debate at HH (before I left, that is - which is all I can speak for).

I am not implying he's thin-skinned at all (if I wanted to say that, I'd have said it. C'mon, you should know me better than this by now). I'm not implying anything about him at all; as I said, I don't know much about him, period, and I don't really recall discusing anything with him before this thread, ever. I am simply giving my take on being in the minority viewpoint. Period. And no, I personally would not decide to refrain from posting; if I hadn't been banned from cbbs, I'd still be there trying to show my side of the story today. I like being in the minority, actually, but then again, I enjoy challenges and realize that may be a personal idiosyncrasy.

This isn't as you might think because HH is primarily a social forum, but because the prevailing atmosphere is so staunchly leftist more conservative types don't even bother to speak up. That subject came up more than once and like everyone else at the time, my response was "c'est la vie, we like it that way". I don't feel that way about this forum. I would actually prefer to see it not fall into the same pattern.

*shrug* If you say so. I know I don't think I've ever debated there, because I see that board as the place I go to get away from that kind of thing and just "hang out."

I think it's a simple matter of degree, to be honest. If Cool Hand were to come in here posting some crazy right-wing rant about why Bush is going to lead America to the Holy Land and he got a hostile response from numerous people I would totally understand. But the fact is he has never said anything remotely like that, and he has been treated as though he has.

Sure he hasn't said that, but he still keeps using phrases like we're the "extreme left" and "elitists," etc. I'm not saying that means he can be attacked, but perhaps if he wants to keep this from becoming an "us vs. them," he would do better to try to avoid that mentality himself as well, even if it's not directed toward a particular person? Again, one thing I've learned from having the minority viewpoint is that often, you have to be more careful about what you say and who you may offend if you want to efficiently get your point across. I certainly wouldn't go on a Christian board and even mention "fundies" if I wanted anyone to take my points seriously, for example.

In fact the closest he has come to saying anything remotely like that was his "liberal elite" musing (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=922&page=2) in this thread - which he has since expressed regret for having said - that garnered a couple of angry posters asking him in harsh terms who he voted for and "WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU?!" if it was Bush. Is that the kind of reasonable examination of alternative viewpoints and rational introspection you think we're all engaged in here? That's just the most salient example of Cool Hand being attacked for expressing an unpopular political opinion here, btw. I could find you a number of other examples but as I told LadyShea earlier I don't really want to get bogged down in a he-said, she-said hyperanalysis mess.

Well, I haven't read that thread at all and don't plan to, but I think right there he's made an "us vs them" characterization based on very little information. Again though, no, obviously that is not the kind of discussion I'd want to have here with shouting and accusations and what not; rather, I think a rational exchange of ideas, asking Cool Hand to elaborate on why he thinks that etc. would have been the proper route to go. But I also think there's a difference between "WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU" and a general rant of "WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH THEM" as a starting point in a conversation when discussing Bush supporters in general.


Again this is where I think it's a matter of degree. It isn't that Cool Hand is taking a diametrically opposite position like "Bush is a great President" and getting dogpiled for it. It's like he's getting dogpiled for saying, "Maybe Bush's re-election isn't the end of the world". That isn't my idea of encouraging the open sharing of ideas and rational introspection and self-assessment. That's the antithesis: reactionary, hostile opposition to dissent.

And I'm not defending it; all I'm saying is that he expresses a view that's contrary to most of the board, he shouldn't be surprised when he's expected to defend it (even if it's on "3 or 4 fronts"). Isn't that the point of a "discussion board?" :eh?:

[Socratoad]

Just one more post here cuz I wanna get the last word in :yup:

I have been listening to my favourite radio station via the net, BBC Radio4. I noticed that I was getting very agitated ..... then I realized they were having a debate about the US election that in comparison makes our little thread here appear to have been a gentle loving picnic in the park. :eek:

Thank Dog the program ended just as I was about to turn off the speakers.

[wade-w]

And I'm not defending it; all I'm saying is that he expresses a view that's contrary to most of the board, he shouldn't be surprised when he's expected to defend it (even if it's on "3 or 4 fronts"). Isn't that the point of a "discussion board?" :eh?:

If that was his whole point, you'd be right. But there has been a lot of hostility shown. That changes everything. As I've already said, this was not completely one sided, but I also think that many over reacted. Roland, I think your position on this and similar issues is dangerously close to a "blame the victim" mentality.

I quit moderating at IIDB mostly because I finally realized that the admins there are either blind to the negative effects of this dynamic, or don't care. I'd hate to see the same kind of culture become the norm here as well.

[viscousmemories]

*sigh* That came across as hostile? It should have been more "cautiously poking my head back in here." I just honestly don't understand the arguments about the whole "dogpiling" and "clique" stuff. I never said he or anyone else implied I was dense; I simply am acknowledging that I am not understanding one of his complaints, and as such, am probably being dense. Period.
Oops. I totally read it as "Well excuuuuuuuse me for being stooopid Mr. High and Mighty King of the Forum World, but what EXACTLY do you EXPECT from a discussion board, hmm?"

Sorry. :blush:

And if anyone on here doesn't like debate, then why post in these fora at all? Again, maybe this is just my personal preference, but if you have an opinion on something, shouldn't you be able to back it up? And isn't this the essence of debate?
I'm not such a person so I don't really understand the argument, I just know more than one person has mentioned a preference for 'discussion' over 'debate'. I prefer debate, personally.

I am not implying he's thin-skinned at all (if I wanted to say that, I'd have said it. C'mon, you should know me better than this by now).
Okay, sorry I misread you again. I understand your position better now.

Sure he hasn't said that, but he still keeps using phrases like we're the "extreme left" and "elitists," etc. I'm not saying that means he can be attacked, but perhaps if he wants to keep this from becoming an "us vs. them," he would do better to try to avoid that mentality himself as well, even if it's not directed toward a particular person?
I'm not sure what you mean that he keeps using phrases like that. Has he used any phrases like that in his responses in this thread? I'm asking honestly because I just don't remember, but I haven't gotten the impression that he has shared much of his political views in this thread at all.

Again, one thing I've learned from having the minority viewpoint is that often, you have to be more careful about what you say and who you may offend if you want to efficiently get your point across.
But as he has pointed out, and which others of us have noticed too, is that no matter how cautiously someone approaches offering a dissenting political view here there is a good chance they'll get ignored at best, gangbanged at worst. Is it possible that the environment here is not as conducive to the sharing of alternative viewpoints as we think?

And I'm not defending it; all I'm saying is that he expresses a view that's contrary to most of the board, he shouldn't be surprised when he's expected to defend it (even if it's on "3 or 4 fronts"). Isn't that the point of a "discussion board?" :eh?:
As I said If he expressed a view that was clearly contrary to what most people here think (like Bush is the Messiah), then sure, I would expect him to get dogpiled. But like I said I think it's worse than that. I think people tend to get dogpiled around here for straying even slightly from the prevailing viewpoint. Also I'm not saying everyone does the dogpiling or even that it's the same people every time. In fact most of his posts where he says something not blatantly liberal are largely ignored by the majority of posters. But still that only speaks to the degree of oppression, not whether any exists.

To be clear I don't think there's a liberal "them" here that work in synchrony to stifle conservative views, and I didn't perceive Cool Hand's OP as implying that there was. I think he's pointing to a cultural trend that comes about as a result of having a majority who are similarly politically aligned and who have been less than diligent about giving dissenting opinions a fair hearing. I don't think he's saying we the membership or this forum in general is a lost cause or anything, I think he's pointing out a negative trend and suggesting we consider taking steps - individually - to avoid falling into complacency. I really don't think it's as personal as some seem to be taking it.

[Roland98]

And I'm not defending it; all I'm saying is that he expresses a view that's contrary to most of the board, he shouldn't be surprised when he's expected to defend it (even if it's on "3 or 4 fronts"). Isn't that the point of a "discussion board?" :eh?:

If that was his whole point, you'd be right. But there has been a lot of hostility shown. That changes everything. As I've already said, this was not completely one sided, but I also think that many over reacted. Roland, I think your position on this and similar issues is dangerously close to a "blame the victim" mentality.


And how so? I'm not "blaming" him for anything, with the exception of throwing out some phrases that I myself would have chosen to avoid if I were in his position. I said multiple times that I am not supporting the hostility he received, but I do think we all need to be aware of our own actions when we are the recipients of hostility as well, and take a look at why our posts drew that kind of reaction, rather than simply go back into our corner with a "poor me" attitude.*




*And no, I am not saying that Cool Hand or anyone else has done this, but that's what I see as a "victim mentality" and I encountered it fairly often on another forum I post on, and I don't think it's conducive to good discussion.

[Roland98]

I'm not such a person so I don't really understand the argument, I just know more than one person has mentioned a preference for 'discussion' over 'debate'. I prefer debate, personally.

Okay, and I guess I just don't see much of a difference between the two. But that's probably for another thread.



I'm not sure what you mean that he keeps using phrases like that. Has he used any phrases like that in his responses in this thread? I'm asking honestly because I just don't remember, but I haven't gotten the impression that he has shared much of his political views in this thread at all.

Um, yes.

As for the day when people who don't toe an extremist left line here feel unwelcome, it is here, my friend. I am one of those persons, as I have expressed in this thread and in other instances.

Thus, those of us who do feel welcome apparently "toe an extremist left" position. That's why I (and others) laughed because among many friends, I'm the conservative. So as I said, he's engaging in a bit of "us vs. them" himself. I think there were other examples as well, but being on dial-up, I just do not have the patience to go through the entire thread again.


But as he has pointed out, and which others of us have noticed too, is that no matter how cautiously someone approaches offering a dissenting political view here there is a good chance they'll get ignored at best, gangbanged at worst. Is it possible that the environment here is not as conducive to the sharing of alternative viewpoints as we think?

Well, isn't that possible on any forum and with any view, "dissenting" or not? Sometimes you'll get ignored, sometimes you'll get your teeth kicked in by a dozen people. 'Tis the nature of the boards.


As I said If he expressed a view that was clearly contrary to what most people here think (like Bush is the Messiah), then sure, I would expect him to get dogpiled. But like I said I think it's worse than that. I think people tend to get dogpiled around here for straying even slightly from the prevailing viewpoint. Also I'm not saying everyone does the dogpiling or even that it's the same people every time. In fact most of his posts where he says something not blatantly liberal are largely ignored by the majority of posters. But still that only speaks to the degree of oppression, not whether any exists.

I'm not getting it again. It's bad to get dogpiled, and it's bad to get ignored, and both of them mean that he's being oppressed?

To be clear I don't think there's a liberal "them" here that work in synchrony to stifle conservative views, and I didn't perceive Cool Hand's OP as implying that there was. I think he's pointing to a cultural trend that comes about as a result of having a majority who are similarly politically aligned and who have been less than diligent about giving dissenting opinions a fair hearing.

And while I agree that there are many here who have similar views to mine, for example, I disagree that with the latter and not giving dissenting views a fair hearing. I'm more than happy to listen to dissenting opinions, but the person posting them should realize that s/he is in the minority, and as such will probably have a lot more people posing questions and asking that person to support his/her views than if they were posting on a forum in which their views were in the majority. Again, the same that I would expect if I was posting on a board where I knew I held minority views on many issues. What doesn't advance discussion is a nebulous accusation that he is unwelcome in some manner, when I for one have no idea even what his views are, other than apparently he is not in the "extreme left." *shrug again*

I don't think he's saying we the membership or this forum in general is a lost cause or anything, I think he's pointing out a negative trend and suggesting we consider taking steps - individually - to avoid falling into complacency. I really don't think it's as personal as some seem to be taking it.

And I think that's a fine thing to do, but it would behoove him (or anyone else, since I am certainly guilty of it as well) to be very careful to avoid the thing they're accusing others of doing as well.

[viscousmemories]

I'm more than happy to listen to dissenting opinions, but the person posting them should realize that s/he is in the minority, and as such will probably have a lot more people posing questions and asking that person to support his/her views than if they were posting on a forum in which their views were in the majority. Again, the same that I would expect if I was posting on a board where I knew I held minority views on many issues. What doesn't advance discussion is a nebulous accusation that he is unwelcome in some manner, when I for one have no idea even what his views are, other than apparently he is not in the "extreme left." *shrug again*
I think we largely understand each other, but this part may be the source of some disagreement in our opinions.

First I want to make it clear that I'm talking about an "us vs. them" climate as described in the OP, and not about Cool Hand personally. I know he used his own anecdotal experience of this dynamic to bring it up, but I'm addressing my arguments to the existing culture he describes, not to any particular treatment of him that anyone has participated in.

It doesn't make any sense to me that a person subscribing to a particular school of political thought would be a de facto minority in a "freethought" forum. Shouldn't the FF of all places be a place where any idea that doesn't fly in the face of broadly accepted societal norms is given a fair treatment by the majority instead of being aggressively attacked? I mean that's the whole point of "freethought" as I see it.

I'm not suggesting that it's always wrong to attack ideas or even for groups of like-minded people to attack particular ideas. I'm sure both are warranted under certain circumstances. But I'd rather see the ideas attacked on their merits than for their deviation from the prevailing political climate.

CF exists to promote Christianity. Naturally anyone who chooses to argue from a position antagonistic to Christianity should expect a gunfight there. Similarly, IIDB exists to promote Naturalism, and anyone who chooses to argue from a position antagonistic to Naturalism should expect a gunfight there.

The FF on the other hand - contrary to what some seem to think - exists to promote "freethought", not John Kerry and/or liberal values in general. So why should anyone expect a gunfight here for taking a position fully in line with the notion of "freethought" but perhaps antagonistic toward John Kerry and/or liberal values in general?

[Goliath]

Cool Hand,

"They" are not "us" by definition. Insisting otherwise is an unforgivable insult.

If you ever again insinuate in any way, shape, or form that I am a Bush supporter, you will go on my ignore list and never come off of it.

[Cool Hand]

It doesn't make any sense to me that a person subscribing to a particular school of political thought would be a de facto minority in a "freethought" forum. Shouldn't the FF of all places be a place where any idea that doesn't fly in the face of broadly accepted societal norms is given a fair treatment by the majority instead of being aggressively attacked? I mean that's the whole point of "freethought" as I see it.


That's exactly right, VM. Free thinking and skepticism are not synonymous with subscribing to any political ideology. I've never understood skepticism to be associated with any political bent. Skepticism is a methodical approach to thinking and analysis.

There is some very good political analysis here. Most of the good analysis is relatively dispassionate and well reasoned. Generally, the less editorializing it contains, the better reasoned it is.

Unfortunately, there is also a lot of political discussion here that passes for analysis but isn't. I won't comment on specifics, but I will say that some of us could stand to exercise our skepticism in political matters more often. Bias often prevents us from being less than objective. Sometimes we don't even recognize that our own biases are interfering with our objectivity. Please note that I said "we," "us," and "our," which includes I, me, and mine.


I'm not suggesting that it's always wrong to attack ideas or even for groups of like-minded people to attack particular ideas. I'm sure both are warranted under certain circumstances. But I'd rather see the ideas attacked on their merits than for their deviation from the prevailing political climate.


That's what should occur, VM. The converse is true as well, of course. One of my observations is that too little attacking of ideas occurs when those ideas conform to the prevailing doctrine, even when some of them should be questioned or challenged. Frankly, a lot of what passes here relatively untouched by criticism is poorly reasoned or worse; sometimes it's nonsense. The most common nonsense posts I see here might be broadly labeled conspiracy theories.

When I've dipped my toe in here to make my own comments, most of them have been of the critical variety. That is to say I've been attacking someone else's thoughts or ideas. Some posters have been thoughtful and skeptical in responding. Others have been less thoughtful, and others still have responded with almost rabid biting of my toe, some apparently trying to take it clean off. It's the last category of posters which disturbs me the most, and that they often seem to get a pass (not from all posters, of course) helps skew this place and make it less skeptical than it should be, in my opinion.

I've learned since I got here that many posters here have known each other for a while. Some apparently knew each other from II or similar boards. I have since learned also that some of those other boards shared a similar political slant.

I used to frequent a skeptic board that is often seen as an atheist site. It suffered a malady similar to the one this board appears to suffer from. On that board, spiritual or religious beliefs of any kind were routinely mocked and ridiculed. I was in the vast majority of those with no spiritual or religious beliefs, so I wasn't directly affected. I did see several thoughtful, intelligent Christian skeptics get laughed off the metaphorical stage, however, and it didn't feel very good to witness it. Actually, it was shameful. In retrospect, I feel bad for not standing up to it.

At that board, there seemed to be a much greater diversity of political expression and tolerance than I see here. That is not to say that the political debates weren't heated, as many of them certainly were. It seems to me, however, that there wasn't a strong, deeply held prevailing doctrine or hostile majority viewpoint. I have to say that it makes me very uncomfortable to see those things here. I don't know what to do about it other than to continue to raise criticisms, or to be a good boy and keep my mouth shut. I suppose another alternative--one I will surely not take--would be to adopt and express views which I believe to be safely within the bounds of accepted doctrine, even when I do not agree with them.


CF exists to promote Christianity. Naturally anyone who chooses to argue from a position antagonistic to Christianity should expect a gunfight there. Similarly, IIDB exists to promote Naturalism, and anyone who chooses to argue from a position antagonistic to Naturalism should expect a gunfight there.

The FF on the other hand - contrary to what some seem to think - exists to promote "freethought", not John Kerry and/or liberal values in general. So why should anyone expect a gunfight here for taking a position fully in line with the notion of "freethought" but perhaps antagonistic toward John Kerry and/or liberal values in general?

Excellent point, VM. Personally, I never expected to see what I regard as a pervasive, open hostility here. When I first got here, I was very impressed with the overall atmosphere of thoughtfulness and reasoned discussion. I still see plenty of that atmosphere, but too often it is tainted with hostility.

Some of it is just hateful (I don't mean hateful towards me or any given poster; I mean hateful towards off-site groups of persons, large or small, or towards individual persons like the President, for example). I see it expressed almost exclusively in political matters, but such political matters find themselves appearing in several forums other than just Politics and Law. I've seen them in the Watering Hole, in Philosophy, and in Sexuality, for some examples.

Cool Hand

[Cool Hand]

Cool Hand,

"They" are not "us" by definition. Insisting otherwise is an unforgivable insult.

If you ever again insinuate in any way, shape, or form that I am a Bush supporter, you will go on my ignore list and never come off of it.

Hi Goliath. I don't think we've ever directed remarks at each other, so I'll take this opportunity to share something we apparently have in common. Actually, it's two things.

First, I understand that you are a math professor at a university. Although your education in math must be much more extensive than mine, we share math in common. I have a B.S. degree in math, and like I presume you do, I tend to think rationally and analytically, sometimes to a fault.

Second, if your avatar is any guide, we apparently are both big fans of the movie Fight Club. I say the movie, because I've seen it probably 12 times or more, but I've never read the book. I am Jack's lazy, couch potato, illiterate, boob tube watching ass.

I have a sense of humor, so I will assume you are being funny above. I get that you are a vehement anti-Bush person. That's fine.

There is something else you should know about me, however. I do not take kindly to threats. I do not give in to them. In fact, I can be a prickly son of a bitch when threatened, and I've been known to be defiant just to call someone's bluff, not giving a shit whether that someone is bluffing or not. In other words, don't fucking threaten me again, ever.

If you like, go ahead and put me on your ignore list. Otherwise, have some respect and don't say something like that to me again.

Cool Hand

[Socratoad]

It doesn't make any sense to me that a person subscribing to a particular school of political thought would be a de facto minority in a "freethought" forum. Shouldn't the FF of all places be a place where any idea that doesn't fly in the face of broadly accepted societal norms is given a fair treatment by the majority instead of being aggressively attacked? I mean that's the whole point of "freethought" as I see it.


That's exactly right, VM. Free thinking and skepticism are not synonymous with subscribing to any political ideology. I've never understood skepticism to be associated with any political bent. Skepticism is a methodical approach to thinking and analysis.

There is some very good political analysis here. Most of the good analysis is relatively dispassionate and well reasoned. Generally, the less editorializing it contains, the better reasoned it is.

Unfortunately, there is also a lot of political discussion here that passes for analysis but isn't. I won't comment on specifics, but I will say that some of us could stand to exercise our skepticism in political matters more often. Bias often prevents us from being less than objective. Sometimes we don't even recognize that our own biases are interfering with our objectivity. Please note that I said "we," "us," and "our," which includes I, me, and mine.


I'm not suggesting that it's always wrong to attack ideas or even for groups of like-minded people to attack particular ideas. I'm sure both are warranted under certain circumstances. But I'd rather see the ideas attacked on their merits than for their deviation from the prevailing political climate.


That's what should occur, VM. The converse is true as well, of course. One of my observations is that too little attacking of ideas occurs when those ideas conform to the prevailing doctrine, even when some of them should be questioned or challenged. Frankly, a lot of what passes here relatively untouched by criticism is poorly reasoned or worse; sometimes it's nonsense. The most common nonsense posts I see here might be broadly labeled conspiracy theories.

When I've dipped my toe in here to make my own comments, most of them have been of the critical variety. That is to say I've been attacking someone else's thoughts or ideas. Some posters have been thoughtful and skeptical in responding. Others have been less thoughtful, and others still have responded with almost rabid biting of my toe, some apparently trying to take it clean off. It's the last category of posters which disturbs me the most, and that they often seem to get a pass (not from all posters, of course) helps skew this place and make it less skeptical than it should be, in my opinion.

I've learned since I got here that many posters here have known each other for a while. Some apparently knew each other from II or similar boards. I have since learned also that some of those other boards shared a similar political slant.

I used to frequent a skeptic board that is often seen as an atheist site. It suffered a malady similar to the one this board appears to suffer from. On that board, spiritual or religious beliefs of any kind were routinely mocked and ridiculed. I was in the vast majority of those with no spiritual or religious beliefs, so I wasn't directly affected. I did see several thoughtful, intelligent Christian skeptics get laughed off the metaphorical stage, however, and it didn't feel very good to witness it. Actually, it was shameful. In retrospect, I feel bad for not standing up to it.

At that board, there seemed to be a much greater diversity of political expression and tolerance than I see here. That is not to say that the political debates weren't heated, as many of them certainly were. It seems to me, however, that there wasn't a strong, deeply held prevailing doctrine or hostile majority viewpoint. I have to say that it makes me very uncomfortable to see those things here. I don't know what to do about it other than to continue to raise criticisms, or to be a good boy and keep my mouth shut. I suppose another alternative--one I will surely not take--would be to adopt and express views which I believe to be safely within the bounds of accepted doctrine, even when I do not agree with them.


CF exists to promote Christianity. Naturally anyone who chooses to argue from a position antagonistic to Christianity should expect a gunfight there. Similarly, IIDB exists to promote Naturalism, and anyone who chooses to argue from a position antagonistic to Naturalism should expect a gunfight there.

The FF on the other hand - contrary to what some seem to think - exists to promote "freethought", not John Kerry and/or liberal values in general. So why should anyone expect a gunfight here for taking a position fully in line with the notion of "freethought" but perhaps antagonistic toward John Kerry and/or liberal values in general?

Excellent point, VM. Personally, I never expected to see what I regard as a pervasive, open hostility here. When I first got here, I was very impressed with the overall atmosphere of thoughtfulness and reasoned discussion. I still see plenty of that atmosphere, but too often it is tainted with hostility.

Some of it is just hateful (I don't mean hateful towards me or any given poster; I mean hateful towards off-site groups of persons, large or small, or towards individual persons like the President, for example). I see it expressed almost exclusively in political matters, but such political matters find themselves appearing in several forums other than just Politics and Law. I've seen them in the Watering Hole, in Philosophy, and in Sexuality, for some examples.

Cool Hand

I suppose I am ranked among the foremost of those you are pointing your finger at as being hateful towards "the President" and others holding the same values. Do you really expect me to show respect to those whose values I hold in disdain. I have not come to my present view of neo-cons out of a vacuum.

If I understand you correctly there was a golden age on this board before an uncouth band of ruffians began to drag it all down into the mud by daring to say what they actually mean.

[Roland98]

It doesn't make any sense to me that a person subscribing to a particular school of political thought would be a de facto minority in a "freethought" forum. Shouldn't the FF of all places be a place where any idea that doesn't fly in the face of broadly accepted societal norms is given a fair treatment by the majority instead of being aggressively attacked? I mean that's the whole point of "freethought" as I see it.

I'm not suggesting that it's always wrong to attack ideas or even for groups of like-minded people to attack particular ideas. I'm sure both are warranted under certain circumstances. But I'd rather see the ideas attacked on their merits than for their deviation from the prevailing political climate.

CF exists to promote Christianity. Naturally anyone who chooses to argue from a position antagonistic to Christianity should expect a gunfight there. Similarly, IIDB exists to promote Naturalism, and anyone who chooses to argue from a position antagonistic to Naturalism should expect a gunfight there.

The FF on the other hand - contrary to what some seem to think - exists to promote "freethought", not John Kerry and/or liberal values in general. So why should anyone expect a gunfight here for taking a position fully in line with the notion of "freethought" but perhaps antagonistic toward John Kerry and/or liberal values in general?

It's a nice ideal, but we're still people with our own opinions and biases. One thing I like about this and other boards is that I get to examine and further flesh out my opinions, and to deconstruct other peoples' arguments if I choose to as well. As such, I think of myself as a "freethinker," because I do indeed try to weigh any idea on its merits rather than my own preconceived ideas. It's not easy and I don't always succeed, but I certainly try. But you also have the whole "think what you like, and say what you think," motto, y'know. Perhaps that's not always compatible with freethought as you're defining it here? Maybe you need to figure out which is a loftier goal to you and for this forum: promoting freethought, or allowing and encouraging everyone to speak their mind, even if it results in some people's feelings being hurt, or feeling unwelcome?

But again, maybe this is more for another thread.

[Goliath]

I have a sense of humor, so I will assume you are being funny above.


Such an assumption is dead wrong. I am insulted by your assertion that "us" and "them" are the same as far as "them" being Bush supporters. I am NOT a Bush supporter, and I would rather die than forgive you for insulting me in such a way. (No, I'm not kidding about that, either).



There is something else you should know about me, however. I do not take kindly to threats.



I'm not threatening you. I'm merely saying that I will put you on my ignore list permenantly if you ever again insinuate that I'm a Bush supporter.



Otherwise, have some respect



For you? I don't. Why should I?

[wade-w]

It's a nice ideal, but we're still people with our own opinions and biases. One thing I like about this and other boards is that I get to examine and further flesh out my opinions, and to deconstruct other peoples' arguments if I choose to as well.


Do you like doing so in a hostile environment?


But you also have the whole "think what you like, and say what you think," motto, y'know. Perhaps that's not always compatible with freethought as you're defining it here? Maybe you need to figure out which is a loftier goal to you and for this forum: promoting freethought, or allowing and encouraging everyone to speak their mind, even if it results in some people's feelings being hurt, or feeling unwelcome?


I'd like to think that both are possible. Why do you see these goals as opposed?

[viscousmemories]

Maybe you need to figure out which is a loftier goal to you and for this forum: promoting freethought, or allowing and encouraging everyone to speak their mind, even if it results in some people's feelings being hurt, or feeling unwelcome?
I'm not confused about our goals for this forum, they are explained in detail here (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=51). The "think what you like and say what you think" motto was something of an afterthought, but I don't see that it contradicts the principles described there.

I don't know why you contrast promoting freethought with allowing and encouraging people to speak their mind, I don't think those goals contradict each other. But moreso I don't understand how that addresses what I said in my post. My argument was that knee-jerk, hostile antagonism to any viewpoint that strays slightly right of liberal is antithetical to my understanding of freethought, that I and others think the existing culture here supports rather than challenges this tendency, and that each of us might want to consider what - if anything - we can do to improve things.

[Roland98]

It's a nice ideal, but we're still people with our own opinions and biases. One thing I like about this and other boards is that I get to examine and further flesh out my opinions, and to deconstruct other peoples' arguments if I choose to as well.
Do you like doing so in a hostile environment?

As I said earlier, actually I do. :) I find it much more interesting to get a bunch of people who are diametrically opposed to me in practially every area all worked up until they become blathering idiots and then I can call them on their mistakes. But then again, I've never claimed to be normal.


But you also have the whole "think what you like, and say what you think," motto, y'know. Perhaps that's not always compatible with freethought as you're defining it here? Maybe you need to figure out which is a loftier goal to you and for this forum: promoting freethought, or allowing and encouraging everyone to speak their mind, even if it results in some people's feelings being hurt, or feeling unwelcome?
I'd like to think that both are possible. Why do you see these goals as opposed?

I did not say they are opposed; I said they may not always be compatible. Slight but important difference there. I say it because of threads like this one has turned into, I guess. If you encourage everyone to speak their minds, inevitably someone's thoughts are going to offend others. Some people will be hostile. Some people will be opinionated and not want to look at opposing viewpoints. Some people will tell others to shove it. What some people have to say may not reflect "freethought" at all, but they are "speaking their minds" when stating their opinions, nevertheless. *shrug* Just a musing.

ETA:

My argument was that knee-jerk, hostile antagonism to any viewpoint that strays slightly right of liberal is antithetical to my understanding of freethought, that I and others think the existing culture here supports rather than challenges this tendency, and that each of us might want to consider what - if anything - we can do to improve things.

And I agree with your summation that that particular reaction probably isn't "freethought" either; but "freedom of expression" is one of your pillars listed as well. Which includes language that may offend others, which then goes against your pillar of "community." Hell, how does any of this not contradict each other? :)

Anyway, apologies because I didn't mean to sidetrack this into a discussion of forum policy or anything; just some random musings as I was thinking about your post. Please feel free to re-rail the discussion, again with my apologies for getting off on a tangent.

[viscousmemories]

And I agree with your summation that that particular reaction probably isn't "freethought" either; but "freedom of expression" is one of your pillars listed as well. Which includes language that may offend others, which then goes against your pillar of "community." Hell, how does any of this not contradict each other? :)
Maybe I'm just being more idealistic than typical, but I really think people are drawn here by a desire - like yours and mine - to participate in the free and critical sharing and exploration of our own and others ideas in a welcoming community with a minimum of authoritarian oversight. Of course that means people are going to get hurt feelings and sometimes people will feel unwelcome. As we've seen in the recent past, some might even leave over it. I disagree that we have to accept this as an unavoidable given, though. I believe we can do things - each of us - to help prevent such failures.

Anyway, apologies because I didn't mean to sidetrack this into a discussion of forum policy or anything; just some random musings as I was thinking about your post. Please feel free to re-rail the discussion, again with my apologies for getting off on a tangent.
I don't think it was too much of a tangent at all. I'm happy to discuss it. Of course it's Cool Hand's thread so I should defer to his opinion on that. Anyway the key to me is this (and these are just meant to be thought-provoking rhetorical questions for everyone, please don't answer them for me):

Is the environment I describe above important to you? If so, are you convinced that you are doing everything you can - as a member of the community - to help nurture it? Is it possible that there's something to Cool Hand's point that ideas that deviate slightly from the status quo are stomped to death? Even if you haven't seen it happen and you have never participated in any such thing yourself, is it possible? If so is there anything you could do differently to improve the situation?

[Socratoad]

Edited because I do not wish to cause further discord or burn my bridges.

[viscousmemories]

Edited because I do not wish to cause further discord or burn my bridges.
Don't worry, Toad. Message received.

[Socratoad]

Edited because I do not wish to cause further discord or burn my bridges.
Don't worry, Toad. Message received.

Thanks, its too late for me to be posting

[Cool Hand]

Such an assumption is dead wrong. I am insulted by your assertion that "us" and "them" are the same as far as "them" being Bush supporters. I am NOT a Bush supporter, and I would rather die than forgive you for insulting me in such a way. (No, I'm not kidding about that, either).


Lighten up, Francis.

Cool Hand

[Goliath]

Such an assumption is dead wrong. I am insulted by your assertion that "us" and "them" are the same as far as "them" being Bush supporters. I am NOT a Bush supporter, and I would rather die than forgive you for insulting me in such a way. (No, I'm not kidding about that, either).


Lighten up, Francis.

Cool Hand

:eyebrow2:

Try again. My name isn't Francis.

[Farren]

Cool Hand and Liv

This thread moved on quite a bit in the little time thats elapsed since I posted, but I feel obligated to reply to the comments of two pages back.

I wrote my previous post while excessively tired and in consequence rambled a bit and mixed up some things. I don't actually find your political positions particularly onerous, CH, so I'm sorry for communicating that. To a certain extent I conflated your views on discussion with the kind of views I believe it validates. I do, however, believe that there's a danger in the "all views are equally valid" way of thinking, as I indicated in that post.

I went back and searched for threads you've participated in to glean where I got the general sense about your political leanings and came across quite a number of statements implying political leaning without being particularly commited about it. In fact, you appear to be centrist almost for the sake of being centrist. Criticising Clinton for his populism on the one hand and immediately feeling compelled to criticise Bush in the next para. And so on, and so on.

I just feel this kind of overly polite and non-committal way of discussing things dilutes interesting discussions too much and is the reason the American news magazines I used to enjoy (and now can't stand) feel its "good journalism" to present "I invaded a sovereign state and caused the death of 100,000+ people on false premises" as being equally valid to "Lets stick to the conventions on war we actually signed and are, in fact, legally bound by, in the wake of our previous experience of the ravages of global war". They're not equally valid. And its truly crappy journalism. Fairness and evenhandedness reduced to pandering to two views simply because each has a large audience.

I stand by that component of my original post. I'm quite comfortable saying "You're pig-ignorant", "That's just racist", "Sexist pig" and "Wow, that was some spectacularly faulty logic right there" to people I dearly love - and endure the same kind of abuse from them. Usually its done with a smile and that, I feel, is the component that's sometimes difficult to communicate across the Internet. Then there are times when a smile isn't appropriate. If someone said "I just raped a child", my response would be both angry in words and body language.

Being freethinking enough to actually listen to and understand an opposing position, being open to the possibility of changing your view, doesn't imply automatically validating other views, saying they're a different but equally valid perspective. For one thing, some views are flat out illogical in the strictest technical meaning of the word. Namely, the conclusions are not congruent or consistent with the premises or each other.

For instance, if I said "Here in South Africa its 9am GMT +2 and its 11:53am GMT +2 right now" its simply not logical. It's "valid" only in the sense that I can think it and say it without my head exploding. But were you to accuse me of being illogical, you'd be one hundred percent correct.

Similarly, there are tests for reasonableness. They are well-established in our western legal systems and if the vast majority of us didn't accept that they are good tests, there'd be a lot less faith in the law. Since international law is to a large extent founded on those same principles, when someone says "We can flout IL because our position is more reasonable even though we have zero evidence which is, in fact, the means to test reasonableness" they are clearly being unreasonable. Their view isn't equally valid simply because they are capable of holding an unreasonable opinion.

Politeness and an accomodating tone are, in fact, welcome components in any discussion. But my objection is to the alteration of actual reasoning in order to make those accomodations. Its just plain dumb to say two views are equally logical when one is logical and one isn't, or that two views are equally reasonable when there's a vast amount of evidence supporting the one and very little supporting the other.

In the interests of good neighbourliness it behooves us to

a) Be polite in expressing our disagreement. This doesn't necessarily mean stripping our dialog of all ad hominem, which is a venerable and at times fun and creative part of human communication. Rather, it imposes the burden of choosing when we vent and who we vent at according to how well we know them. Most of the people I know in the flesh enjoy a bit of friendly insult-flinging and there are some here I'd feel comfortable doing it with, secure in the knowledge that they'd take it as intended. Obviously, however, that requires context and its generally wise to avoid hyperbole and focus on the actual meat of the discussion when chatting to strangers.

b) Concede parts of a particular position that appear reasonable to you, even if you disagree with the bulk of it. This is beneficial to both yourself as a mental habit and to whatever position you're trying to further. I've seen so many people, myself included, tie themselves in a knot because they inadvertedly threw the baby out with the bathwater and find themselves defending the indefensible after rejecting some component of someone else's position that is an implicit requirement of their own.

c) Recognise the indefensible nature of our positions when it becomes apparent and gracefully concede to both ourselves and the other people we're interacting with that we recognise it, else we're hindering our own ability to learn and grow and fostering mindless partisanship.

I'm sure there are many more good practices that can be applied to dialog, especially around controversial positions. These are a the components of being openminded and fostering a culture of lively and useful discussion.

But when its simplified down to all views having equal merit, especially when the views under consideration are views that affect the lives of more than the viewees, its essentially the dumbing down of culture, the reduction of moral values to inanimate values like a bunch of colour swatches. Its not only fruitless but downright dangerous to a healthy society, because it validates even the most sick and unhealthy positions.

That said, I could be wrong in inferring this latter kind of evenhandedness and I'd like to make it abundantly clear that I generally enjoy your levelheaded temprament and posts, even though I admittedly think you validate (as opposed to defend) what I consider indefensible and undesirable in some of your political commentary (for instance, the implication that "Clinton and Bush are equally bad" in the post I cited above).

I'd just like to be crystal clear and say this criticism wouldn't even have surfaced were it not for this thread. Its a disagreement with a particular (perceived) methodology. You strike me as a sterling individual in many respects, especially the underlying motives of that methodology, which seem to be your desire for greater respect and harmony.

p.s. I don't mind if you don't post point-by-point responses. In fact I sometimes feel breaking up what people say has a deleterious effect by making the context of statements meant to be considered all together less apparent.

[Cool Hand]

Such an assumption is dead wrong. I am insulted by your assertion that "us" and "them" are the same as far as "them" being Bush supporters. I am NOT a Bush supporter, and I would rather die than forgive you for insulting me in such a way. (No, I'm not kidding about that, either).


Lighten up, Francis.

Cool Hand

:eyebrow2:

Try again. My name isn't Francis.

Um....maybe you should watch the movie Stripes sometime.

Cool Hand

[livius drusus]

Sorry, Farren but I have no idea where you get the notion that Cool Hand or I suggested handling all beliefs with care out of some American magazine's notion of even-handedness. I think you have inferred this on basically no grounds, so if you could quote something that advocated such a thing, I'd appreciate it.

As far as I can see, what CH (and vm and wade and Helen and others) and I have been saying is precisely what you advised here:

Being freethinking enough to actually listen to and understand an opposing position, being open to the possibility of changing your view, doesn't imply automatically validating other views, saying they're a different but equally valid perspective. For one thing, some views are flat out illogical in the strictest technical meaning of the word. Namely, the conclusions are not congruent or consistent with the premises or each other.

The fact that Cool Hand criticized Clinton and then Bush in one post looked to me far more like someone trying to prevent accusations of Bush-loving which, as you might have noticed in this very thread, start off ugly and only get uglier, than someone being even-handed to the point of principle loss.

As for me, I think you know I have no difficulties calling a Nazi a Nazi when occasion rises. It just has to actually rise before I do it.

[lisarea]

Some of it is just hateful (I don't mean hateful towards me or any given poster; I mean hateful towards off-site groups of persons, large or small, or towards individual persons like the President, for example).

Wow. I just assumed that this whole complaint was based on some perceived injustice I was not privvy to directed at posters here.

This is something completely different, though. I mean, I can see the argument that people should be willing to consider that, for example, Bush supporters are not all stupid or evil or something, and that might even be a legitimate argument.

But if you're suggesting that Bush supporters feel oppressed or silenced by the fact that people actually express hostility toward Bush himself--the man who stole the 2000 election and who may well have stolen the 2004 election as well, the man who lied his way into a personal war and is in the process of lying his way into the next--well, tough shit.

I'll be happy to entertain the idea that Bush supporters are not necessarily stupid or evil, and that they may have had somewhat legitimate reasons for supporting him, but they're still wrong, and they're still supporting an evil, dissembling little fuck who has done everything in his power to destroy everything this nation stands for.

[Cool Hand]

Cool Hand and Liv

This thread moved on quite a bit in the little time thats elapsed since I posted, but I feel obligated to reply to the comments of two pages back.


That's cool, Farren, although in my opinion this thread has outlived its usefulness. I'm sorry to say that you and a few others have misunderstood several things I've said in it. Some have reached unfounded conclusions about my political leanings, and some have taken insult where there was none intended. This kind of stuff is exactly what makes posting here about political matters so dicey. I've tried to be as clear as I can, but by virtue of saying things that aren't in the manual for left thinking persons, they somehow come out as endorsements for murdering innocent Iraqis, hating gay persons, and standing up for stupidity.


I wrote my previous post while excessively tired and in consequence rambled a bit and mixed up some things. I don't actually find your political positions particularly onerous, CH, so I'm sorry for communicating that. To a certain extent I conflated your views on discussion with the kind of views I believe it validates. I do, however, believe that there's a danger in the "all views are equally valid" way of thinking, as I indicated in that post.


I understand the posting when tired business, as I've done it plenty of times myself. Sometimes what you meant doesn't quite come out that way. No big deal.

Now, allow me to point out a strawman that I've seen you and LadyShea build in this thread. I did not mean to imply that "all views are equally view." In fact, I very much reject that bit of nonsense.

I can only guess where you got that idea, and my best guess is that it came from some discussion I had with LadyShea in this thread about her determining that her opinions are morally superior to someone else's. I mentioned "moral yardstick" and made some other comments. I can understand how that might be misunderstood, so I will indulge in a bit of over-explanation here if it might clear things up. I find explaining things that are taken out of context to be tiresome and tedious, and even unnecessary most of the time. I will do this here out of respect for you, however, as I believe your intentions are pure.

My questioning LadyShea was meant simply to demonstrate to her that perhaps she is being self-righteous and judgmental. Here is part of our exchange:

LadyShea wrote:

I am morally superior to a racist who told me, to my face, that we should kill the Muslim babies before they grow into terrorists, and that's why the war is a good thing. If that's selfish or intolerant on my part, then so be it.


I suspect that LS has an inadequate basis for declaring that such person is a racist or is morally inferior to her. In all likelihood, the person she refers to has made an emotional response to Muslims due to fear of more terrorism by Muslims in the U.S. Is that fear rational or irrational? It's grounded in fact because the 9/11 terrorists were in fact Muslims and they did profess to kill innocent persons for personal glory before Allah. It's not rational to conclude that all Muslims are terrorists, of course. Nevertheless, I'm not in any position to declare that the person she calls a racist is morally inferior to LS. I don't think she is either.

I asked LS if she had any moral faults. Of course she does, as do all of us. Which faults count against us and which one are insignificant when weighting our moral worth on balance? Who decides who's morally "better" than the next guy? How do you measure?

I asked similar rhetorical questions of LS simply to provoke some thought about the matter of being so quick to engage in moral judgment about a person as a whole. Persons are usually more complex than simply dismissing them as "racist," "sexist," "bigoted," or whatever lends itself to an "ism." LS seemed to be declaring herself to be morally superior on the basis of one arbitrary acid-test for moral superiority. Personally, I find doing so to be a bit uncritical. A less charitable view might be that it's self-righteous and arrogant to do so.

It does not follow from my stance that there are no morals or right or wrong. I simply doubt that most of us are high and mighty enough to be able to judge others on balance from one little glimpse into one bias or prejudice they might hold. Make no mistake; we all suffer from our own idiosyncratic biases and prejudices. If you think you don't have them, then you aren't being critical enough of yourself.

Cool Hand responded with this:

You're morally superior? In what respects? Don't you have some faults? How do you determine on balance that you are morally superior? Many people admire Malcolm X, for instance, because of his opposition to the prevailing racism and oppression against black persons in the U.S. at the time. This is despite his deliberately inciting violence and invoking change by "any means necessary." Is Malcolm X morally superior to you or not?


Do you understand why I asked those rhetorical questions? Malcolm X is sometimes placed on a pedestal next to Martin Luther King, Jr. for being a prominent leader of the civil rights movement in the U.S. in the 1960s. X advocated a violent struggle "by any means necessary," however, in marked contrast to MLK's dream of achieving a color-blind society by passive resistance.

One could label Malcolm X a hate-mongering, riotous, violent criminal. Doesn't that unfairly dismiss his courage and ability to inspire minorities to be assertive and to take responsibility for inducing change? Isn't LS's approach to dismissing persons' with "isms" too simple?

That's my point. I wasn't embracing and never have embraced any doctrine of moral equivalence or equal validity of all views. I find it vacuous. Of course, I also find it ironic that such a charge would be leveled against me in this context. The reason is that you seem to have concluded that I'm conservative, and the doctrine of moral equivalence emerged from the left, mostly in universities, and mostly as part of the political correctness movement of the late 80s and early 90s. If you think I'm conservative, then suggesting that I embrace moral equivalence is a bit incongruous.


I went back and searched for threads you've participated in to glean where I got the general sense about your political leanings and came across quite a number of statements implying political leaning without being particularly commited about it. In fact, you appear to be centrist almost for the sake of being centrist. Criticising Clinton for his populism on the one hand and immediately feeling compelled to criticise Bush in the next para. And so on, and so on.


I'm not even sure I comprehend what being centrist for the sake of being centrist might mean, especially given that I'm not a politician. If you have gathered that I hold some views which are usually regarded as conservative, and some which are usually regarded as liberal, then you are right. I am somewhere in the middle, to the right of far-left, and to the left of far-right.

Isn't it possible to criticize both Clinton and Bush and remain principled? Goodness, I didn't feel compelled to criticize them both. I earnestly believe those criticisms. I don't have to swallow Clinton's policies in toto, or Bush's either. That would be dogmatic. I can take or leave any of them on the basis of whether I find them meritorious, or I can even like or dislike them on a gut level, without a solid intellectual basis from a thorough analysis. I can also choose one leader over another on an overall visceral like or preference, without embracing any one or group of beliefs such leader has endorsed.

It's no so black and white to me. In other words, I don't buy the "A vote for Bush (or Kerry) is a vote for X, Y, and Z" campaign rhetoric.



I just feel this kind of overly polite and non-committal way of discussing things dilutes interesting discussions too much and is the reason the American news magazines I used to enjoy (and now can't stand) feel its "good journalism" to present "I invaded a sovereign state and caused the death of 100,000+ people on false premises" as being equally valid to "Lets stick to the conventions on war we actually signed and are, in fact, legally bound by, in the wake of our previous experience of the ravages of global war". They're not equally valid. And its truly crappy journalism. Fairness and evenhandedness reduced to pandering to two views simply because each has a large audience.


This again is a strawman argument. I don't subscribe to a belief that all positions are equally valid, and I wish you would quit asserting that I do.

Furthermore, you examples are so biased that no one can reasonably draw any inference of "validity" from them. You are editorializing, not merely stating facts.


I stand by that component of my original post. I'm quite comfortable saying "You're pig-ignorant", "That's just racist", "Sexist pig" and "Wow, that was some spectacularly faulty logic right there" to people I dearly love - and endure the same kind of abuse from them. Usually its done with a smile and that, I feel, is the component that's sometimes difficult to communicate across the Internet. Then there are times when a smile isn't appropriate. If someone said "I just raped a child", my response would be both angry in words and body language.


That's just a matter of style, Farren. To each his own. I don't see why attempts to be polite and respectful should be sneered at.


Being freethinking enough to actually listen to and understand an opposing position, being open to the possibility of changing your view, doesn't imply automatically validating other views, saying they're a different but equally valid perspective. For one thing, some views are flat out illogical in the strictest technical meaning of the word. Namely, the conclusions are not congruent or consistent with the premises or each other.


Of course. Relevance? Aren't you building another strawman?



That said, I could be wrong in inferring this latter kind of evenhandedness and I'd like to make it abundantly clear that I generally enjoy your levelheaded temprament and posts, even though I admittedly think you validate (as opposed to defend) what I consider indefensible and undesirable in some of your political commentary (for instance, the implication that "Clinton and Bush are equally bad" in the post I cited above).


Thank for for the kind words. If I have implied that I see any equivalence in Clinton and Bush, it was not my intent. I don't subscribe to a belief that I or anyone else has access to a precise yardstick by which to measure objective worth. That doesn't mean I can't determine for myself whether I think Bush or Clinton is/was a better President. President Bush is still in office, and we have yet to see the full impact, for better or worse, of his Presidency. President Clinton's record is not nearly as distinguished as his supporters wanted to believe while he held office. Indeed, he may be remembered in history (Clinton was overly concerned with his "legacy" while in offcie) most for two things: His failure to gain sufficient support for his proposed overhaul of the medical care industry, and his passage of welfare reform. I sincerely doubt that many liberals or moderate liberals find either of those matters to be great accomplishments or sources of pride.


I'd just like to be crystal clear and say this criticism wouldn't even have surfaced were it not for this thread. Its a disagreement with a particular (perceived) methodology. You strike me as a sterling individual in many respects, especially the underlying motives of that methodology, which seem to be your desire for greater respect and harmony.


My approach to posting on political matters here has been mostly as a critic of others' posts or links. That's the majority of it. Criticizing comments as unfounded, unreasonable, exaggerations, misstatements, rhetoric, or whatever does not imply endorsement of any opposing or differing view. Criticism is criticsim. It isn't endorsement of opposition, or even rejection of the underlying position expressed. It could be simply criticism of the way a viewpoint is expressed. For example, "WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE???" is something I might criticize for its excessive tone and offensive nature. How does my doing so imply agreement or disagreement with the underlying message?

As for my desire for greater respect and harmony, I'm sure some others might reach a different conclusion from yours. Indeed, I've been accused of being dishonest, disingenuous, disrespectful, hypocritical, and other things I cannot recall at the moment. Let's just say that some other posters have not found my remarks to be indicative of respect or a desire for harmony.

Anyway, I do wish for greater respect and harmony in political discussions. It is wholly unnecessary, and often counterproductive, in my opinion, to employ harmful, mean-spirited, or disrespectful rhetoric in a political discussion or debate. Oh, I've been guilty of it too. That doesn't mean I can't point it out where I see it, and I expect others to point out my use of it.

As for anything else, I'm not clear on what you mean by my methodology.

Bah, this is beating a dead horse anyway. I look forward to discussing more with you later, hopefully in other threads, Farren. Thanks for posting.

Cool Hand

[HelenM]

I feel like somewhat of an outsider here because of my theism rather than my politics.

Although to the extent "moral values" voting is being discussed, there is some overlap.

I feel disappointed to read comments like Adam's earlier in this thread, because he says he doesn't understand strongly religious people, yet doesn't demonstrate any interest in understanding them.

Finally, a large chunk of Bush's support comes from Evangelical and other strongly religious types. As I said in a previous post here, I feel hopelessly out of touch with these people. I completely fail to comprehend why anyone would feel so strongly about whether or not the federal government recognizes a partnership between two gay people that they would base a vote on it, let alone in an election year where issues such as the president's basic honesty over a matter as grave as preemptive military action are involved. It simply does not compute. My brain apparently lacks the part that cares who's allowed to marry whom. These people are certainly "them" to me and, as far as these particular issues are concerned, will likely always be "them".

I find it hard to relate to an apparent lack of interest in gaining a better understanding why an issue might matter so much to 'them'.

Here's just one aspect of it which Adam has ignored or missed, based on the above. People who oppose same-sex marriage consider it is their business because they think it contributes to the breakdown of society.

A personal frustration of mine here is that I feel, rightly or wrongly, that any attempt on my part to promote better understanding of a 'them' such as theists (by trying to explain theist POVs) will be turned into a debate about why theists are wrong. I'd like to see more evidence of people wanting to understand 'them' rather than simply argue 'them' down.

Helen

[Roland98]

I've tried to be as clear as I can, but by virtue of saying things that aren't in the manual for left thinking persons, they somehow come out as endorsements for murdering innocent Iraqis, hating gay persons, and standing up for stupidity.

See, this is exactly what I mean. IMO, I wouldn't expect a lot of respect from those "left thinking persons" when you make remarks like this.

[viscousmemories]

I've tried to be as clear as I can, but by virtue of saying things that aren't in the manual for left thinking persons, they somehow come out as endorsements for murdering innocent Iraqis, hating gay persons, and standing up for stupidity.

See, this is exactly what I mean. IMO, I wouldn't expect a lot of respect from those "left thinking persons" when you make remarks like this.
If that's all you have to say about that entire post, I think you've just helped him make his point. Are you actually interested in understanding him or just looking for a chink in his armor? Because it sure seems like the latter.

I'm beginning to think the moral of this thread is freethought and politics are incompatible. That isn't meant as a criticism of you or anyone, I'm just honestly wondering if the binary nature of a two-party political system forces people into taking sides and assuming the moral superiority of those on their own.

[Cool Hand]

Some of it is just hateful (I don't mean hateful towards me or any given poster; I mean hateful towards off-site groups of persons, large or small, or towards individual persons like the President, for example).

Wow. I just assumed that this whole complaint was based on some perceived injustice I was not privvy to directed at posters here.

This is something completely different, though. I mean, I can see the argument that people should be willing to consider that, for example, Bush supporters are not all stupid or evil or something, and that might even be a legitimate argument.

But if you're suggesting that Bush supporters feel oppressed or silenced by the fact that people actually express hostility toward Bush himself--the man who stole the 2000 election and who may well have stolen the 2004 election as well, the man who lied his way into a personal war and is in the process of lying his way into the next--well, tough shit.

I'll be happy to entertain the idea that Bush supporters are not necessarily stupid or evil, and that they may have had somewhat legitimate reasons for supporting him, but they're still wrong, and they're still supporting an evil, dissembling little fuck who has done everything in his power to destroy everything this nation stands for.

Lisa,

Can you even see the hatred and bias you express you in this very post? Can you understand why it might be regarded as ugly and unbecoming?

This is precisely the kind of shitty post that turns me off. Yep, it's shitty. You should be ashamed of yourself, especially given that you are posting here, in the context of a thread that is a plea for posters to think twice before posting this kind of rhetorical, hateful, divisive, nonsense.

If you can't understand how a prevalence of posts exactly like your own above on this board might chill the posting of something that a poster suspects might draw the kind of ire you express above, then I believe there is little chance of my reaching you on this issue. I've tried to be as clear as I can in this thread about this topic. I understand how the message can get lost in a big thread with a lot of posts in it, but it is indeed ironic that you are posting hateful rhetoric in it, whether you realize it or not.

Cool Hand

[Roland98]

I've tried to be as clear as I can, but by virtue of saying things that aren't in the manual for left thinking persons, they somehow come out as endorsements for murdering innocent Iraqis, hating gay persons, and standing up for stupidity.

See, this is exactly what I mean. IMO, I wouldn't expect a lot of respect from those "left thinking persons" when you make remarks like this.
If that's all you have to say about that entire post, I think you've just helped him make his point. Are you actually interested in understanding him or just looking for a chink in his armor? Because it sure seems like the latter.

I'm beginning to think the moral of this thread is freethought and politics are incompatible. That isn't meant as a criticism of you or anyone, I'm just honestly wondering if the binary nature of a two-party political system forces people into taking sides and assuming the moral superiority of those on their own.


Yes, I read the rest of the post, but when I got to that point it ticked me off. I have never claimed any kind of moral superiority and I realize that I have my biases and weakness as well. But I did not start a thread decrying the "us versus them" mentality, only to enforce it in my posts, either. I've emphasized in earlier posts about personal responsibility and realizing how the nuances of your word choice in posts will affect those who read them; and the above is a perfect example of a dig that colored my view of not only the post, but Cool Hand as well. So any point he may make in the rest of the post (and certainly there were good ones) are (for me, anyway) somewhat nullified by his characterization of all "left thinking persons" as having some kind of "manual" where all approved thought comes from.

[livius drusus]

I'd like to see more evidence of people wanting to understand 'them' rather than simply argue 'them' down.

I would too.

[Cool Hand]

I feel like somewhat of an outsider here because of my theism rather than my politics.

Although to the extent "moral values" voting is being discussed, there is some overlap.


Actually, I find your feelings to be very relevant to this discussion, Helen, and I appreciate your bringing it up from a theistic perspective. It is directly relevant to the issue of divisiveness and "us" vs. "them." It is a real shame that even couching the issue in those terms brings out a lot of defensiveness.


I feel disappointed to read comments like Adam's earlier in this thread, because he says he doesn't understand strongly religious people, yet doesn't demonstrate any interest in understanding them.


Again, that's a good point, and it also illustrates that not all theistic persons belong to a monolithic group who adhere to a orthodox set of beliefs and doctrines, just as those members of one political party do not.


A personal frustration of mine here is that I feel, rightly or wrongly, that any attempt on my part to promote better understanding of a 'them' such as theists (by trying to explain theist POVs) will be turned into a debate about why theists are wrong. I'd like to see more evidence of people wanting to understand 'them' rather than simply argue 'them' down.

Helen

Yes, I agree. "Them" discussions do seem to turn very quickly into shoutfests about why "they" are wrong, stupid, evil, ignorant, or whatever.

It's dehumanizing. That's why I noted in my OP that "they" are "us." We are all humans and all of us deserve at least of modicum of respect because of it.

Dehumanizing opponents is the first step to being able to dispense with traditional notions of respect or decency. Carrying that to its logical extreme, dehumanizing groups is necessary, but of course not sufficient, in order to wish them bodily harm or even kill them en masse. I don't mean to imply that any one here is behaving like a Nazi, but a deliberate campaign of dehumanizing and demonizing propaganda took place in 1930s Germany for years. It conditioned much of the population to blame certain groups of persons for Germany's ills and to regard them as subhuman. Indeed, they were conditioned to regard them as vermin to be gotten rid of.

On second thought, perhaps the analogy is somewhat apt, but to a much, much lesser degree. Dehumanizing Bush supporters has been going on here since people started posting in the Politics forum. (I haven't seen any evidence that anyone here is systematically rounding up Bush supporters and gassing them, and I'd appreciate it if no one would suggest that I am implying such a thing.) Of course, it's reflective of what goes on IRL political rhetoric too, but it seems to be easier to be vitriolic on the internet. Isn't that what has contributed substantially to the nasty atmosphere here, if you agree that there is a prevailing culture that discourages dissent?

Sorry for the tangent, Helen. Although I haven't followed any theistic discussions at FF, as far as I recall, I don't doubt that you may have encountered the same kind of dehumanizing "us" vs. "them" approach. It's ugly and antithetical to reasoned debate or freethought.

Cool Hand

[viscousmemories]

Yes, I read the rest of the post, but when I got to that point it ticked me off. I have never claimed any kind of moral superiority and I realize that I have my biases and weakness as well. But I did not start a thread decrying the "us versus them" mentality, only to enforce it in my posts, either. I've emphasized in earlier posts about personal responsibility and realizing how the nuances of your word choice in posts will affect those who read them; and the above is a perfect example of a dig that colored my view of not only the post, but Cool Hand as well. So any point he may make in the rest of the post (and certainly there were good ones) are (for me, anyway) somewhat nullified by his characterization of all "left thinking persons" as having some kind of "manual" where all approved thought comes from.
I understand and agree with you for the most part, I think that generalization was a poor choice of words on his part. But I guess I don't see why you would let your interpretation of his character or personality "somewhat nullify" the rest of his comments. Some of the most brilliant stuff I've read has come from people whose personality grates on me, but as much as I'm tempted to do so I don't chuck the baby out with the bathwater. To me that's what thinking critically is all about - being able to separate the idea from the emotional context and judge it on its merits.

And I'm not trying to lecture you, honestly. I'm sure you know that's what thinking critically is about and that you have chosen to respond this way in this circumstance anyway, I guess I'm just asking why. He has already admitted that he's guilty of engaging in these behaviors himself, I have never seen him claim moral superiority to anyone (though I've seen the converse several times). Why have you apparently prioritized illuminating that fact over engaging him on the points of his post you agree with?

[Socratoad]

I'd like to see more evidence of people wanting to understand 'them' rather than simply argue 'them' down.

I would too.


:deepsigh: I understand them quite well. Years of research has done this for me. I do not hate "these" people, but I have come to detest the results of their value systems/ beliefs. I do not speak of conservatives here nor religious persons in particular. Its both fundamentalists and neo-con philosophy in particular. Where would I start to catalogue the things I both detest and fear about these people? The environment, international law, interference in the lives of those they have chosen to disapprove of, their seemingly blind spot when it comes to corporate swindles, militarism, simple fairness ........

All these fundies and neo-cons have access to the same information I have and so if they choose to be so selective in their search for the truth why should I respect them? Other than the respect I already give to any sentient being.

Are any of you suggesting that if only I got to know them better then I would actually like them? Methinks not. Having been raised in a whole community of like-minded people and having interacted with them in the armed forces and in the business world. I have already heard toooooo much from them. And the neo-cons have gone all these people one better in being beyond the pale. Its certainly not that "they" are some sort of persecuted minority, at least in North America.

And so I ask your forgiveness and indulgence in advance if I am incapable of understanding what is the purpose of trying just one more time to understand that which I already understand. If this sounds like arrogance to some of you, then I will just have to accept that that is the way it will be.

If my perception of what is right and what is wrong is a detriment to the smooth operation of this board then I will willingly withdraw in an effort not to be a hinderance to its stated purposes.

[viscousmemories]

All these fundies and neo-cons have access to the same information I have and so if they choose to be so selective in their search for the truth why should I respect them? Other than the respect I already give to any sentient being.
See Toad, I fully understand that perspective and I would say you're right on if all (or even most) people who voted for Bush were fundies or neocons. But that doesn't seem to be the case, so the argument isn't really relevant.

[Roland98]

I understand and agree with you for the most part, I think that generalization was a poor choice of words on his part. But I guess I don't see why you would let your interpretation of his character or personality "somewhat nullify" the rest of his comments. Some of the most brilliant stuff I've read has come from people whose personality grates on me, but as much as I'm tempted to do so I don't chuck the baby out with the bathwater. To me that's what thinking critically is all about - being able to separate the idea from the emotional context and judge it on its merits.

And I'm not trying to lecture you, honestly. I'm sure you know that's what thinking critically is about and that you have chosen to respond this way in this circumstance anyway, I guess I'm just asking why. He has already admitted that he's guilty of engaging in these behaviors himself, I have never seen him claim moral superiority to anyone (though I've seen the converse several times). Why have you apparently prioritized illuminating that fact over engaging him on the points of his post you agree with?

Well, obviously the parts I agree with don't really need much engaging on my part, do they? I don't feel the need do go "yup" "yup" "yup" to the rest of his post or to whatever parts I agree with. As for the part I bolded in your statement above, he may not have claimed it directly, but look at his last post to lisarea.

Lisa,

Can you even see the hatred and bias you express you in this very post? Can you understand why it might be regarded as ugly and unbecoming?

This is precisely the kind of shitty post that turns me off. Yep, it's shitty. You should be ashamed of yourself, especially given that you are posting here, in the context of a thread that is a plea for posters to think twice before posting this kind of rhetorical, hateful, divisive, nonsense.

Cool Hand, can you see your own biases in your posts as well? Can you see how your combining all of "we leftists" into one monolithic group, even though several of us on here have said that's just not so, and then accusing us of some kind of large-scale groupthink, is also shitty? Can you see how you're accusing some posters of something, chastizing them even, and yet are guilty of a lot of the same behaviors?

*sigh* I guess I will just retreat back into my cynical little corner and work to scrub away any of my last vestiges of optimism...

[lisarea]

Can you even see the hatred and bias you express you in this very post? Can you understand why it might be regarded as ugly and unbecoming?

Hatred, sure. But what bias? Are you talking about my ability to process existing data and base my conclusions on that data? Where did this bizarre notion come about that it's somehow unfair to base opinions on past performance and reliable data? When did 'freethinking' come to imply thinking in a vacuum? I have no interest in pretending to be a blank slate or a newborn babe.

Or are you still just assuming that anyone who dislikes, even HATES, Bush is simply a party loyal of some stripe? Do not for a moment underestimate how offensive that position is.

Because that's ugly. That's stupid. That's hypocritical. And it's dead wrong to boot.


This is precisely the kind of shitty post that turns me off. Yep, it's shitty. You should be ashamed of yourself, especially given that you are posting here, in the context of a thread that is a plea for posters to think twice before posting this kind of rhetorical, hateful, divisive, nonsense.

How is it nonsense? How can you NOT be hostile toward someone who has behaved in this manner? How can you NOT be hostile toward someone who lied to the American people time and time again? Who sent people to die for his lies? Who rose to power by actively undermining the democratic principles this nation was founded on?

Support for a man like that IS hostile to the American people, to everything this country is supposed to stand for. Are there other reasons that someone might support Bush? Of course. I've said so myself. I would welcome a reasoned analysis of the issues from someone who does support Bush.

Rather than actually attempting to defend your positions, though, you choose to whine about someone, somehow 'oppressing' you by expressing passion on a subject you disagree with. I consider that disingenuous and petulant.

If you don't like that, tough shit.

I came into this willing to accept your claim that you were being silenced somehow. Sure, I asked for some kind of evidence, but I only asked because I was willing to entertain the notion.

I saw no evidence of any kind of oppression. I saw some passion on the issue, yes. I consider the passion justified. I saw you backing off any direct discussion of the issues, time and time again, and just dragging everything into some overwrought metaanalysis of the tenor of the rhetoric, as if to distract from the actual content of the argument.

I saw you actually admit to constructing an imaginary misinterpretation of something you said, and then actually express anger and frustration about it, despite that fact that IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.

I've reached my conclusions based on the evidence I've seen, and I don't think your argument has merit. I don't think you've been shouted down or oppressed. I think you've imagined you would be, and are basing your objections on that fictionalized scenario.


If you can't understand how a prevalence of posts exactly like your own above on this board might chill the posting of something that a poster suspects might draw the kind of ire you express above, then I believe there is little chance of my reaching you on this issue. I've tried to be as clear as I can in this thread about this topic. I understand how the message can get lost in a big thread with a lot of posts in it, but it is indeed ironic that you are posting hateful rhetoric in it, whether you realize it or not.

I never said I wasn't posting hateful rhetoric, and you really need to go look up the term irony.

I do not misunderstand what you're saying. I think you're wrong.

You know, if you don't want to discuss your political opinions, you're not required to. But if you are not willing to discuss them, you don't really have much ground to complain that you're being oppressed because you don't have the integrity to make your own arguments, even when you're afraid of how people might react.

[Cool Hand]

Yes, I read the rest of the post, but when I got to that point it ticked me off. I have never claimed any kind of moral superiority and I realize that I have my biases and weakness as well. But I did not start a thread decrying the "us versus them" mentality, only to enforce it in my posts, either. I've emphasized in earlier posts about personal responsibility and realizing how the nuances of your word choice in posts will affect those who read them; and the above is a perfect example of a dig that colored my view of not only the post, but Cool Hand as well. So any point he may make in the rest of the post (and certainly there were good ones) are (for me, anyway) somewhat nullified by his characterization of all "left thinking persons" as having some kind of "manual" where all approved thought comes from.

Roland98,

Often people take offense where they are looking for it. In my opinion, that's presumptuous and even rude. I'm guilty of it myself from time to time, and I recognize that when I do it it's presumptuous and rude.

It's easy to seize upon a few words in a post and respond to them without making a genuine effort to keep context in mind. I think that's all you've done here. Although I'm tired of explaining myself in this thread, I'll tell you there is a very simple explanation for why I wrote "manual for left thinking persons," despite the substantial risk in doing so that someone (not you, I'm thinking of a couple of other posters who have done this and being pre-emptive) will accuse me again of back-tracking or engaging in revisionism.

Quite simply, I've written "prevailing culture" and "leftist orthodoxy" and similar phrases so many times now that in this instance I reached for a quick, handy phrase as a replacement. "Manual" seemed apt to me simply as a tangible replacement for "orthodoxy." I'm sorry you take offense, but I don't think it's reasonable in context to conclude that I'm implying that you or anyone else in particular subscribes to a monolithic set of beliefs without thinking. Nor is it reasonable to conclude that I'm taking a dig at you or anyone else.

There simply is no better way I can think of to describe what I see as a prevailing political culture, slant, bent, tendency, or whatever you prefer to call it here. For Batman's sake, it's shorthand. It's not a dig. What else can you call it? I've now seen people taking offense at "liberal," "left," "leftist," "Democrat" and any other label that means to the left of center, as that is generally understood in the U.S. (I fully understand that defining that center, or what is to the left or right of it is a nebulous concept. It's useful nonetheless).

Is there a better way to describe political leanings without being derogatory? If so, I'd love to hear it. It seems that whatever words I use to describe it, someone takes offense. The aggregate effect of those who take offense and say so, is the chilling of speech. That's because it seems to be the prevailing culture. Without trying to be melodramatic about it, it's an instance of tyranny by factionalism. I'm nearly ready to abandon my own attempts to discuss politics here because of it.

My points are not nullified by my use of a handy label to identify a prevailing culture of political beliefs that seems to stifle and discourage dissent here. That is my point. The more you take offense and posture in your emotive reactions to my posts in this thread, the more you are illustrating it.

Cool Hand

[viscousmemories]

Cool Hand, can you see your own biases in your posts as well? Can you see how your combining all of "we leftists" into one monolithic group, even though several of us on here have said that's just not so, and then accusing us of some kind of large-scale groupthink, is also shitty? Can you see how you're accusing some posters of something, chastizing them even, and yet are guilty of a lot of the same behaviors?
I hope you're not one of those people who gets bent out of shape at the sound of Latin, 'cause this is just an ad hominem tu quoque argument. At most all it can show is that Cool Hand is a hypocrite; it says nothing about the accuracy of his comments.

To be honest I agree that lisarea's post was full of hate and bias. And in fact I'm quite sure she's aware of that and fine with it. That's lisarea and because I know and love her I understand that while she is a person of good character she's also a passionate person who doesn't pull any punches when expressing her opinion.

However, it's pretty obvious to me that if a majority here were as vocally against the Bush administration as she is (and hey, they are!) someone who might veer slightly right of that opinion might be wary of expressing himself - thus effectively making this a bastion more for reactionary liberalism than for freethought (IMHO).

*sigh* I guess I will just retreat back into my cynical little corner and work to scrub away any of my last vestiges of optimism...
I really don't get why you're saying that. What was pessimisstic about what I said? :?

ETA: Oops, cross-posted with lisarea. Apparently she would not agree that there was bias in her statements.

[Roland98]

I hope you're not one of those people who gets bent out of shape at the sound of Latin, 'cause this is just an ad hominem tu quoque argument. At most all it can show is that Cool Hand is a hypocrite; it says nothing about the accuracy of his comments.

And did I ever suggest if had anything to do with the accuracy of his comments? I'm starting to understand how Goliath feels.

[Socratoad]

All these fundies and neo-cons have access to the same information I have and so if they choose to be so selective in their search for the truth why should I respect them? Other than the respect I already give to any sentient being.
See Toad, I fully understand that perspective and I would say you're right on if all (or even most) people who voted for Bush were fundies or neocons. But that doesn't seem to be the case, so the argument isn't really relevant.

I don't know whether it is a generational thing but my reasoning powers seem so very different to many on the web and so its probably not that my argument is irrelevant but rather that I am irrelevant.

Its my understanding that the moral thing to do before one votes is to look at the overall package being presented, and so to me its irrelevant as to whether the majority of people voting for Bush were or were not fundies or neo-cons, for they are all just as guilty, perhaps even more so if they voted just for their own narrow interest.

I am well aware that not all Germans who voted Hitler into power were rapid Nazis, some deplored his views on human rights but voted because they were proud of the new plans to build autobahns, etc.

[livius drusus]

I see we have achieved Godwin. Perhaps a little late lunch and a nice Barbera d'Alba would be in order?

[viscousmemories]

I hope you're not one of those people who gets bent out of shape at the sound of Latin, 'cause this is just an ad hominem tu quoque argument. At most all it can show is that Cool Hand is a hypocrite; it says nothing about the accuracy of his comments.

And did I ever suggest if had anything to do with the accuracy of his comments? I'm starting to understand how Goliath feels.
*sigh*

Well I thought the point of debate was to challenge arguments. If you weren't attempting to challenge the accuracy of his comments, I have no idea why you said anything at all.

Nevermind, though. If you insist on attacking me I'll just bow out.

[Cool Hand]

I understand and agree with you for the most part, I think that generalization was a poor choice of words on his part.


VM,

If you or anyone else can come up with a choice of words to express the prevailing culture on the left or however your choose to put it (and I think you fully understand the gist of what I'm trying to describe) that will not offend or royally piss off a lot of posters here, then I'd love to here it. I'm beginning to wonder if that's even possible, precisely because any attempts to describe a prevailing culture seem to offend a substantial number of posters. Those taking offense seem to take it as an affront to their ability to think for themselves. They seem to think I'm implying that they all respond in a knee-jerk fashion, in step, without engaging in rational thought. I'm not implying that, and I'm not at all happy with the inferences some posters are drawing. We're just talking past one another here, and further discussion is devolving into trading insults. It's frustrating.

Look, I get that those who are accusing me of hypocrisy think I'm dividing the board into an "us" and a "them" by trying to describe a prevailing culture. I get it. I haven't answered the charge because I don't know how to do so in this context. Doing so would require dispensing with the notion that there is a prevailing culture here. I can understand not believing that there is one. If one does accept that there is a prevailing political culture here, however, how else can one who does not self-identify with it describe it without referring to it somehow? Those accusing me of being hypocritical seem to be not allowing for any way for me to describe it without being hypocritical. Thus, discussion of the problem, if indeed there is one, becomes impracticable by anyone outside of that prevailing culture.

If you believe you are a member of the prevailing culture, then you can discuss it with impunity. I cannot, on the other hand.

Does that make sense? Doesn't it illustrate my point again?

Cool Hand

[Socratoad]

I see we have achieved Godwin. Perhaps a little late lunch and a nice Barbera d'Alba would be in order?

I'm sorry to see that my evaluation of the situation is seen as little more than formulaic, especially as I was trying my very best to be sincere. First what I said was not relevant and now Godwin.

I take my leave of all of you, not in anger, but simply because my reasoning is out of step.


I just am unable to understand the points you are making.

[Cool Hand]

I see we have achieved Godwin. Perhaps a little late lunch and a nice Barbera d'Alba would be in order?

I'm sorry to see that my evaluation of the situation is seen as little more than formulaic, especially as I was trying my very best to be sincere. First what I said was not relevant and now Godwin.


For the record, Toad, I'm the one who invoked Godwin, not unwittingly. I mentioned Nazis in the context of dehumanization and demonization of opponents, which certainly has occurred in this forum when discussing Bush supporters.

Cool Hand

[Roland98]

Roland98,

Often people take offense where they are looking for it. In my opinion, that's presumptuous and even rude. I'm guilty of it myself from time to time, and I recognize that when I do it it's presumptuous and rude.

It's easy to seize upon a few words in a post and respond to them without making a genuine effort to keep context in mind. I think that's all you've done here. Although I'm tired of explaining myself in this thread, I'll tell you there is a very simple explanation for why I wrote "manual for left thinking persons," despite the substantial risk in doing so that someone (not you, I'm thinking of a couple of other posters who have done this and being pre-emptive) will accuse me again of back-tracking or engaging in revisionism.

Quite simply, I've written "prevailing culture" and "leftist orthodoxy" and similar phrases so many times now that in this instance I reached for a quick, handy phrase as a replacement. "Manual" seemed apt to me simply as a tangible replacement for "orthodoxy." I'm sorry you take offense, but I don't think it's reasonable in context to conclude that I'm implying that you or anyone else in particular subscribes to a monolithic set of beliefs without thinking. Nor is it reasonable to conclude that I'm taking a dig at you or anyone else.

There simply is no better way I can think of to describe what I see as a prevailing political culture, slant, bent, tendency, or whatever you prefer to call it here. For Batman's sake, it's shorthand. It's not a dig. What else can you call it? I've now seen people taking offense at "liberal," "left," "leftist," "Democrat" and any other label that means to the left of center, as that is generally understood in the U.S. (I fully understand that defining that center, or what is to the left or right of it is a nebulous concept. It's useful nonetheless).

Is there a better way to describe political leanings without being derogatory? If so, I'd love to hear it. It seems that whatever words I use to describe it, someone takes offense. The aggregate effect of those who take offense and say so, is the chilling of speech. That's because it seems to be the prevailing culture. Without trying to be melodramatic about it, it's an instance of tyranny by factionalism. I'm nearly ready to abandon my own attempts to discuss politics here because of it.

My points are not nullified by my use of a handy label to identify a prevailing culture of political beliefs that seems to stifle and discourage dissent here. That is my point. The more you take offense and posture in your emotive reactions to my posts in this thread, the more you are illustrating it.

Cool Hand

Heh. First, I have not taken offense. As a general rule, I cannot bother myself to be offended by anything I read on this or any other forum, or I'd probably be a walking nutcase. So you misunderstand why I'm ticked off. I'm ticked off because of the attitude you've shown to others here, accusing them of not understanding irony or being hypocrites, while you yourself do the exact same thing.

Second, I don't know what you could have used. I'm not sure why you felt you had to bring "left" into it at all; you could have made the same point by simply saying "I've tried to be as clear as I can, but my statements somehow are misconstrued as endorsements for murdering innocent Iraqis, hating gay persons, and standing up for stupidity, simply because of my perceived support of Bush" (or something along those lines) and leaving the whole political leaning characterization out of it, if you truly wanted to help eliminate the "us vs. them" attitude. Instead, you enforced it, as I read that paragraph.

And I shouldn't have used "nullified," because I agree that your points stand or fall on their own merits; rather, what I meant was that your comment overshadowed the rest of your post for me.

[Roland98]

I hope you're not one of those people who gets bent out of shape at the sound of Latin, 'cause this is just an ad hominem tu quoque argument. At most all it can show is that Cool Hand is a hypocrite; it says nothing about the accuracy of his comments.

And did I ever suggest if had anything to do with the accuracy of his comments? I'm starting to understand how Goliath feels.
*sigh*

Well I thought the point of debate was to challenge arguments. If you weren't attempting to challenge the accuracy of his comments, I have no idea why you said anything at all.

Nevermind, though. If you insist on attacking me I'll just bow out.

vm, where did I attack you? What I meant is that again, you're reading more into it than what I've written, which is one of Goliath's oft-cited frustrations. Honestly, this whole thread is getting surreal to me. My point was to show that he's being hypocritical, and perhaps that if he wants to eliminate some of the "us vs. them" feel of this forum, it would benefit him to begin with himself. That is all.

[viscousmemories]

vm, where did I attack you? What I meant is that again, you're reading more into it than what I've written.
Well given the frequency with which Goliath has accused me of stuffing words in his mouth, deliberately misinterpreting and libeling him, I took it that you were implying I was doing as much to you when you said you're starting to understand how he feels. I'm glad to hear you weren't. :)

Honestly, this whole thread is getting surreal to me. My point was to show that he's being hypocritical, and perhaps that if he wants to eliminate some of the "us vs. them" feel of this forum, it would benefit him to begin with himself. That is all.
Fair enough, but he has already mentioned several times that he's aware of the fact that he does it himself and that he's not above his own comments. Seriously if someone says "I think it would facilitate discussion if people didn't interrupt each other, like I've noticed people around here tend to do". What is the point of responding with, "Well you do it too, maybe you should stop it."?

ETA: Also, why do you seem to assume he's talking about you when he says people who subscribe to a leftist orthodoxy or something?

Edited again... this is the final draft I promise. :)

[Cool Hand]

Liv and VM,

I hope you understand and believe that I didn't start this thread to generate a flame war with anyone. My intent and feelings expressed in the OP were sincere and earnest.

Unfortunately, I think you might be right about the moral of the thread, VM.

I didn't start this thread in some attempt at taking a swipe at any poster or group of posters. I didn't start it in some ill-begotten, self-fulfilling, pathetic attempt at achieiving some kind of martyrdom. I meant exactly what I said. At least you two and a few others seem to have gathered some coherent point from it. I'm glad for that.

What I am not happy about is that in trying to express myself sincerely, I have inadvertently offended and insulted (OK, a few later posts weren't so inadvertent) several posters, probably lots more lurkers, and earned the derision of some of them. Thus, I've poured more gasoline on the fire. My thread has been counterproductive and appears to have achieved the opposite result from the one I intended.

I can reach only three possible conclusions. One, I'm just incapable of engaging in even meta discussions of politics without pissing a lot of people off. Two, I'm right and there is a prevailing culture that suppresses and discourages dissent. Three, there are elements of both present.

Whichever conclusion is most likely, I have to say that frankly I'm sick of this shit.

Although I do not suspect either of you, or any other posters exercising diligence in trying to understand this issue, assuming there is one, of being tempted to hurl any taunts at me, I have little doubt that someone will. I fully expect remarks like "Tough shit," "Go home little boy," "Cry me a river," or some other immature taunt from someone. If they do materialize, then I submit that they are a symptom of some pathology on internet boards in general, and likely of some pathology that has infected this board too. It's a shame.

Cool Hand

[LadyShea]

ETA: Also, why do you seem to assume he's talking about you when he says people who subscribe to a leftist orthodoxy or something?



Jumping back in to answer this, maybe it will clear up a lot of confusion.

Cool Hand hasn't given anybody a way to exclude themselves from his generalizations, starting with his OP. His determination not to be specific or provide examples means anyone who voted against Bush or has any anger towards those that voted for him, must assume they are included.

ETA: I fully expect remarks like "Tough shit," "Go home little boy," "Cry me a river," or some other immature taunt from someone. If they do materialize, then I submit that they are a symptom of some pathology on internet boards in general, and likely of some pathology that has infected this board too. It's a shame.

This is the second time I am aware of you have predicted the responses and behavior of others and reacted to that prediction preemptively (as lisarea has pointed out twice). Do you think maybe that by expecting the worst, and telling people "I expect the worst from you", you create a problem where there might not have been one?

[Roland98]

Fair enough, but he has already mentioned several times that he's aware of the fact that he does it himself and that he's not above his own comments. Seriously if someone says "I think it would facilitate discussion if people didn't interrupt each other, like I've noticed you and I both tend to do". What is the point of responding with, "Well you do it too, maybe you should stop it."?

I dunno; what's the point of someone pointing it out to someone else when they're unwilling to change their own behavior?

ETA: My point being, why do you seem to assume he's talking about you when he says people who subscribe to a leftist orthodoxy or something?

Well, I don't assume he's necessarily talking about me in particular, but as he posted earlier, he said that only "extreme leftists" are welcome here (or something to that effect). Since I feel welcome here, it follows that I must be an "extreme leftist." As such, I assume I am part of the group he's discussing. I also have obviously ranted about Bush and his policies (and, of course, his supporters).

[wade-w]

Roland, the phenomenon that Cool Hand is talking about began well before the recent election threads and his "liberal elite" comment. Your suggestion is off the mark, and to me sounds not a little condescending. But then again, it's all his fault for bringing it up in the first place, right?

[Roland98]

Roland, the phenomenon that Cool Hand is talking about began well before the recent election threads and his "liberal elite" comment. Your suggestion is off the mark, and to me sounds not a little condescending. But then again, it's all his fault for bringing it up in the first place, right?

Which suggestion, please? And I've already said that I have no idea of Cool Hand's previous postings here, and can't recall discussing anything with him prior to this thread; so I'm basing anything I say here solely on what I've seen in this thread and in the one post that vm linked from the election thread.

[wade-w]

Roland, the phenomenon that Cool Hand is talking about began well before the recent election threads and his "liberal elite" comment. Your suggestion is off the mark, and to me sounds not a little condescending. But then again, it's all his fault for bringing it up in the first place, right?

Which suggestion, please? And I've already said that I have no idea of Cool Hand's previous postings here, and can't recall discussing anything with him prior to this thread; so I'm basing anything I say here solely on what I've seen in this thread and in the one post that vm linked from the election thread.

Your suggestion that this is nothing more than hypocrisy on Cool Hand's part. This discussion is about a possible prevailing culture in the political forum here. And posting on an issue without researching it, well, I think you of all people should know better than that.

[viscousmemories]

Ugh. Well I'm pretty sick of this shit too.

Thank you for raising the issue, Cool Hand. I know all too well what it feels like to be marginalized, insulted and psychoanalyzed by people who don't know the first thing about me because I dared challenge their tribal integrity. Now you know too, and I'm sorry. For what it's worth I can personally attest to the character of almost every active poster in this thread. Perhaps it really is just an unavoidable pathology.

I don't think anyone has disagreed that there is a prevailing left-leaning culture here, or a fair amount of vociferous criticism of the right. It seems that the only serious disagreement is whether that contributes to a stifling of dissent (which I believe it does) and if so, whether that is antithetical to freethought and therefore a bad thing (which I think it is). But I agree with your conclusion that this thread is far past any possibility of addressing that issue without any further attacks on you personally.

Again, I apologize but I appreciate your making the effort to discuss the issue.

[Blake]

I want to say that I've been motivated to post throughout this thread, but have had trouble keeping up. There are so many intertwined issues, and I have my own complex, nuanced and unfinished take on it.

I just want to post a concluding congratulations; despite ending with a measure of bewilderment and suspicion, I think it has been of a very high quality, and I particularly want to thank Cool Hand for starting it and continuing with it for its duration. I think it has gone a long way to airing and starting to clear up obstacles to FF's optimal development.

[Roland98]

Roland, the phenomenon that Cool Hand is talking about began well before the recent election threads and his "liberal elite" comment. Your suggestion is off the mark, and to me sounds not a little condescending. But then again, it's all his fault for bringing it up in the first place, right?

Which suggestion, please? And I've already said that I have no idea of Cool Hand's previous postings here, and can't recall discussing anything with him prior to this thread; so I'm basing anything I say here solely on what I've seen in this thread and in the one post that vm linked from the election thread.

Your suggestion that this is nothing more than hypocrisy on Cool Hand's part.

Please quote me where I said this is nothing more than hypocrisy on Cool Hand's part.

This discussion is about a possible prevailing culture in the political forum here. And posting on an issue without researching it, well, I think you of all people should know better than that.

I have been commenting on the OP and posts since, and Cool Hand's "us vs them" ideas. That is all. Shouldn't that stand alone regardless of whatever prevailing culture exists on this forum? I've not denied that Cool Hand is probably in the minority here as far as whatever his views may be on Bush or other politics. Honestly, I don't know the nuances of his political views, nor do I really care for the purposes of this thread. He's been given pages and pages to point out how he's been oppressed if he wants to bring that in as an argument. Since he hasn't, I've been taking him at his word that it is indeed occurring, but from this thread at least I can see why he's probably received some of the hostility he has. And no, I do not condone it; but as I mentioned, we all need to take some responsibility for the tone our posts take and the words we choose to include, and shouldn't be surprised if and when people take offense at any generalizations or characterizations we may make.


ETA: Figures, always a day late and a dollar short on dialup, but I took the time to compose this so I'm at least going to let it stand. I'm as comfortable as anyone else with wrapping this thread up if that's the consensus.

[viscousmemories]

ETA: Figures, always a day late and a dollar short on dialup, but I took the time to compose this so I'm at least going to let it stand. I'm as comfortable as anyone else with wrapping this thread up if that's the consensus.
FWIW I personally appreciate your making an effort to have this discussion, Roland. And the same goes for everyone else who has made substantive posts. I just really think there are too many volatile tangents wrapped together for any continuation to be productive. I don't sound the death knell for threads, though. If anyone else thinks there's something to be gained from continuing feel free. :)

[LadyShea]

Wow VM. Your assessment of what happened here differs so vastly from mine that I am not quite sure we read the same thread. I am stunned by the fact that you have not had one criticism of Cool Hand on this entire thread, especially since his OP was more of an attack than an invitation to explore and discuss, and then condemn others for personal attacks against him.

It seems that the only serious disagreement is whether that contributes to a stifling of dissent and if so, whether that is antithetical to freethought and therefore a bad thing.

Yes, that is the disagreement. Why couldn't the OP and subsequent posts been written in this manner? Don't you think this whole thread might have gone in a different direction had his first words not been to call a bunch of unspecified board members dehumanizing, mean-spirited, hypocrites?

[viscousmemories]

Wow VM. Your assessment of what happened here differs so vastly from mine that I am not quite sure we read the same thread. I am stunned by the fact that you have not had one criticism of Cool Hand on this entire thread, especially since his OP was more of an attack than an invitation to explore and discuss, and then condemn others for personal attacks against him. Is your defense of the underdog maybe being taken to extremes here?
Well I guess I shouldn't be surprised that my character would now be called into question. After all, I did position myself against the tribe by siding with the Great Satan who has invaded our board. But in any case you're wrong, I expressed disapproval of how he phrased something just a few posts ago. For whatever importance that has to the discussion at hand.

Yes, that is the disagreement. Why couldn't the OP and subsequent posts been written in this manner? Don't you think this whole thread might have gone in a different direction had his first words not been to call a bunch of unspecified board members dehumanizing, mean-spirited, hypocrites?
Yes, I think it might have gone much better if Cool Hand had avoided much of the inflammatory rhetoric he used in his OP. Fortunately he has made many posts since where he has very carefully clarified his intent, though. Not that you'd notice by the responses he's gotten. I suspect anyone who was genuinely interested in understanding the issue would have given him a pass on his wording of the OP by now.

[LadyShea]

Well I guess I shouldn't be surprised that my character would now be called into question. After all, I did position myself against the tribe by siding with the Great Satan who has invaded our board. But in any case you're wrong, I expressed disapproval of how he phrased something just a few posts ago. For whatever importance that has to the discussion at hand.

I did not mean to call your character into question, and edited out my last sentence because I realized it was too personal. You did express disapproval once, but for the most part you simply defended him and I think unfairly dismissed others' views, criticisms, calls for clairification and explanations.

And what's with the Great Satan shit? Your closing post on the matter stated quite clearly that you felt Cool Hand has been marginialized, insulted and psychoanalyzed here by the "tribe". What does that say for your feelings about the rest of the posters? Did nobody else make any salient points ?


Yes, I think it might have gone much better if Cool Hand had avoided much of the inflammatory rhetoric he used in his OP. Fortunately he has made many posts since where he has very carefully clarified his intent, though. Not that you'd notice by the responses he's gotten. I suspect anyone who was genuinely interested in understanding the issue would have given him a pass on his wording of the OP by now.

I started out this discussion with thoughtful, IMO, responses, only to be called names again. Also note I never responded in kind. I never leveled a personal insult at Cool Hand even in the face of being called a self righteous bigot. I continued to try to get clairification and explain my positions and even called for continued communication to come to some kind of undertsanding only to be dismissed. I gave him many passes.

[Socratoad]

I just had to come back for this last post. I do'nt want anyone to think I am unhappy with or dislike anyone here on the board. That especially goes for Liv and VM, because I would not wish them or anyone else to interpret this as a slap in the face. In the short time I have been here I have come to care for them both and cherish a certain sense of family with them, which I shall miss greatly. There are quite a few others here whom I came to consider as both confidantes and friends and I miss them already.

And now for the reason I am leaving, and please allow me to stress that it has nothing to do with this thread or any other in particular. However it has been on this thread that it has all come to a head. I began to notice over on II that there was a huge gulf between the thinking of the posters there and myself ....... not values, just reasoning tools ...... for want of a better term.

And so after my illness while posting there a good friend invited me to come over here because she thought that the atmosphere would not so stressful for me. Well that proved to be true, and my posts on II began to drop of to a very low amount. But still something made me feel very uncomfortable. I could fool about in the lighter threads. It was just when I became involved in serious subjects, especially where reasoning were required. Hell I often found the reasoning of those I agreed with quite incomprehensible, let alone those I disagreed with.

It has just dawned on me. I am old enough to be the father of almost everybody here, and the grandfather of more than just a few, and due to either age and illness, plus going through my formative years in an almost incomprehensible era to those of you present no matter how well read you may be, I simply am quite unable to go beyond superficial conversation on any board.

So dear friends, I do not just leave FF, I leave all message boards. Perhaps I could find boards catering to people of my generation, but that borders on the impossible, as for the most part I am stuck in limbo as my values seem to be out of touch with my peers. I guess in reality I have become a hermit.

I am all too well aware that this is the second time I have written a passionate farewell. The first one was a horrible mistake, but this one is not, and that only postponed this decision because I wished so much to be loyal to the board and those striving so hard to keep it successful. I no longer can go on dancing as fast as I can, and wondering what the hell is wrong with me.

So farewell friends and please keep this board strong.

Toad

PS: Please do your best to see that reprise is safe

[viscousmemories]

I did not mean to call your character into question, and edited out my last sentence because I realized it was too personal. You did express disapproval once, but for the most part you simply defended him and I think unfairly dismissed others' views, criticisms, calls for clairification and explanations.
I really don't think I dismissed anything relevant to the discussion. Frankly you, Roland and lisarea have been treating this thread like it's all about Cool Hand since the very beginning. It isn't. He used his own experience to raise what he saw as a negative trend in the community, and that is what some of us have been trying to address all along.

I honestly don't know why you guys insist on making this about him - but I suspect your answer will be that he made it about him by using language that offended you. And I don't have any argument with that except what I tried to express to Roland earlier, that at any time in a given debate we each have a choice of addressing the person or the issue, and I don't personally think the former is of any use in this discussion.

And what's with the Great Satan shit? Your closing post on the matter stated quite clearly that you felt Cool Hand has been marginialized, insulted and psychoanalyzed here by the "tribe". What does that say for your feelings about the rest of the posters? Did nobody else make any salient points ?
It's inflammatory rhetoric, bitch! :P

And I apologize for indulging in it. Seriously though like two minutes after I posted that bit you mention about Cool Hand being attacked here I made another post where I thanked Roland and everyone else who made substantive posts (which includes you) for participating. I also said I can personally attest for the character of most of the posters in this thread (which also includes you) and that I think maybe the disconnect is just some kind of forum pathology.

I started out this discussion with thoughtful, IMO, responses, only to be called names again. Also note I never responded in kind. I never leveled a personal insult at Cool Hand even in the face of being called a self righteous bigot. I continued to try to get clairification and explain my positions and even called for continued communication to come to some kind of undertsanding only to be dismissed. I gave him many passes.
When did he call you a self-righteous bigot? Anyway that's between you and him, really. I probably didn't perceive his comments toward you the same way you did, but that would seem natural. If you feel like I gave him a pass for insulting you I apologize. That wasn't ever my intent.

[lisarea]

I really don't think I dismissed anything relevant to the discussion. Frankly you, Roland and lisarea have been treating this thread like it's all about Cool Hand since the very beginning. It isn't. He used his own experience to raise what he saw as a negative trend in the community, and that is what some of us have been trying to address all along.

Well, first of all, it IS about him. It's about his perceptions. He said he felt oppressed. I asked for evidence, and he didn't provide any. I did witness him respond in a very hostile manner to some imaginary shoutdown that occurred entirely inside his own head, though.

Second, you know very well that I respect your opinions, particularly in matters involving social semiotics, largely because I just don't get a lot of it. But this time, I think you're wrong.

CH did make some pretty broad and inflammatory accusations in his OP, and I addressed those. He responded by asking me if maybe I wasn't just some fucking party loyal. I called him on that, because it is entirely unjustified, and it's one of the more offensive personal attacks I can imagine. He had every opportunity to apologize or to clear up any misunderstanding, and he didn't.

As I said earlier, he may as well have just asked me, "Is it possible that you cannot see my perspective because you are incapable of thinking for yourself?" It was not an innocent question. It was an attempt to paint my perspective as stupid and uninformed.

Well, fuck that noise. He's wrong. You're wrong, too.

Further, after he moved the goalposts to claim he was talking about expressions of hostility toward the "president," I copped. Yeah, if you're talking about that, I'm hostile. The guy's a thief, a liar, and a killer. I hate the guy. If he's seriously wanting to make some argument that we have to pretend that the guy who subverted the democratic process to become president, then intentionally deceived the American public and put our troops in harm's way in order to pursue his personal goals is deserving of respect, I disagree. Strongly.

It became clear at that point, in light of his illuminating post calling my opinion "shitty," that he is simply unwilling or incapable of supporting his own political opinions, and as such, has resorted to a "Maaaawww, they're LOOKING AT ME!" argument.

So, yeah. I'm fucking looking at him. I wasn't before, but I am now.

[Roland98]

Frankly you, Roland and lisarea have been treating this thread like it's all about Cool Hand since the very beginning.

Demonstrably wrong. Please go back and look at my first post and tell me how that was all about Cool Hand. And then I didn't even return to the thread until something like 100 posts into it, when yes, I replied to a statement about Cool Hand himself (although it could easily be generalized to anyone whose posts tend to draw hostility, whether they are in the minority or majority views on a forum.)

[viscousmemories]

Well, first of all, it IS about him. It's about his perceptions. He said he felt oppressed. I asked for evidence, and he didn't provide any. I did witness him respond in a very hostile manner to some imaginary shoutdown that occurred entirely inside his own head, though.
No, it really isn't about him or his perceptions. It's about the forum culture here. He didn't provide any examples of his being personally oppressed for that very reason. It was off-topic. Nevertheless, livius and I both attested to the fact that he has been personally insulted numerous times here in the month or so he's been actively posting.

I also saw his pre-emptive strike you're referring to, which at this point was not at all surprising to me. He is consistently attacked for innocuous things he says. It happens. He's not imagining it. But still, that really honestly isn't what he intended this thread to be about. I don't know how many times we can say it or in how many different ways, but I guess I'll keep on trying.

Second, you know very well that I respect your opinions, particularly in matters involving social semiotics, largely because I just don't get a lot of it. But this time, I think you're wrong.
I do know you respect my opinion, and as usual I'm right. :P

CH did make some pretty broad and inflammatory accusations in his OP, and I addressed those. He responded by asking me if maybe I wasn't just some fucking party loyal. I called him on that, because it is entirely unjustified, and it's one of the more offensive personal attacks I can imagine. He had every opportunity to apologize or to clear up any misunderstanding, and he didn't.
He did use a lot of inflammatory rhetoric in his OP, but I honestly don't think he meant it as a broad assault on anyone. I think it was probably just overstated criticism. But as I told Brandi I think he has tried hard to overcome that misperception of his intent and has largely been ignored. As for his question about whether you're a party loyal, again I'm positive he didn't mean it as an attack. He suggested you might consider the possibility that your opinion on the subject might be colored by bias. Maybe that was a little condescending on his part, but one thing I've noticed about Cool Hand is that he tends to err on the side of assuming his audience hasn't considered every angle. It comes across as condescending, but I personally believe it's a bit of an over-compensation to avoid being presumptuous.

As I said earlier, he may as well have just asked me, "Is it possible that you cannot see my perspective because you are incapable of thinking for yourself?" It was not an innocent question. It was an attempt to paint my perspective as stupid and uninformed.

Well, fuck that noise. He's wrong. You're wrong, too.
I really think that's just way off, lisa. I do.

Further, after he moved the goalposts to claim he was talking about expressions of hostility toward the "president," I copped. Yeah, if you're talking about that, I'm hostile. The guy's a thief, a liar, and a killer. I hate the guy. If he's seriously wanting to make some argument that we have to pretend that the guy who subverted the democratic process to become president, then intentionally deceived the American public and put our troops in harm's way in order to pursue his personal goals is deserving of respect, I disagree. Strongly.
He didn't move the goalposts. His position has been the same throughout. He is talking about the prevalence of vitriolic leftist rhetoric here in general, and using hostility toward Bush as an example. Many of the more vocal posters here (on the subject of politics) think Bush is the antichrist. Can you see why someone whose politics are slightly right of that opinion might be uncomfortable speaking up around here? Can you then see how that kind of polarization of opinion might be somewhat antithetical to freethought? I can, really. And that honestly has been his whole point all along.

It became clear at that point, in light of his illuminating post calling my opinion "shitty," that he is simply unwilling or incapable of supporting his own political opinions, and as such, has resorted to a "Maaaawww, they're LOOKING AT ME!" argument.
He didn't say your opinion was shitty, he said your presentation was shitty. He seems to think that hostile rants - even about Bush - are not conducive to reasonable discussion of the issues. I can't imagine why. I'm pretty sure he can hold his own in a political debate, though. The thing is he doesn't appear to be willing to be bullied into having one.

He has mentioned before that he's mostly a moderate and that he prefers - generally - to assume the role of critic in political and ideological debates instead of taking a particular side. I frankly think that's a perfectly fair and reasonable thing for a person to do. Some people here seem to think that not picking a side is the root of all evil. But again, we're now talking about him instead of the forum culture here. Why should he have to be subject to such scrutiny just to raise a concern about what he sees as a negative trend here?

Since Cool Hand is one of the few members who didn't come here by way of IIDB, I'm glad to hear what someone who is basically on the outside looking in has to say about our culture here, because I think our culture here has been shaped in large part by the culture at IIDB - where most of the members here cut their teeth. Frankly I don't want this place to become like PD at IIDB where you're left-minded or run out of town as a troll.

[viscousmemories]

Frankly you, Roland and lisarea have been treating this thread like it's all about Cool Hand since the very beginning.

Demonstrably wrong. Please go back and look at my first post and tell me how that was all about Cool Hand. And then I didn't even return to the thread until something like 100 posts into it, when yes, I replied to a statement about Cool Hand himself (although it could easily be generalized to anyone whose posts tend to draw hostility, whether they are in the minority or majority views on a forum.)
Okay you win, Roland. I should have re-read the entire thread and ensured that every one of your posts was an ad hominem before saying "from the beginning".

[Roland98]

Okay you win, Roland. I should have re-read the entire thread and ensured that every one of your posts was an ad hominem before saying "from the beginning".

What exactly is that supposed to mean?

[viscousmemories]

Okay you win, Roland. I should have re-read the entire thread and ensured that every one of your posts was an ad hominem before saying "from the beginning".

What exactly is that supposed to mean?
It means I think your disagreement was semantic and sidesteps the point of my post, which was that you and others have been making this discussion today about Cool Hand instead of the intended topic. I don't frankly care who all has done it how many times and for how long; that isn't really important to me. The only important part to me is whether anyone is interested in addressing the forum culture aspect of this thread, which it seems not.

[Cool Hand]

Well, first of all, it IS about him. It's about his perceptions. He said he felt oppressed.


No, I didn't say that. This might be an example of not reading closely enough, and then misunderstanding someone as a result. I said I felt alienated.

This thread wasn't about me. It was about the chilling effect on opposing speech by the prevailing political culture at this board. It has become about me, as you, LadyShea, and Roland98 seem intent on taking many of my remarks as personal insults. I don't know why you refuse to accept that nothing in my OP was insulting to any particular poster. Nothing. Before you respond to this particular paragraph, please read further.


I asked for evidence, and he didn't provide any.


No you didn't. You said you didn't see anything like the phenomenon I was describing. As VM addressed your concern adequately, I didn't post any follow up. He's right. Demonstrating empirically that there is a prevailing political culture here is impracticable.


I did witness him respond in a very hostile manner to some imaginary shoutdown that occurred entirely inside his own head, though.


First, didn't we already discuss this in Liv's thread? Second, that's not an accurate portrayal of what I did. I pre-emptively made a defensive aside about readers misreading implications into remarks that are not justified. I explained to you by name that I went off on that tangent about being misunderstood--which was not "very hostile" BTW; in fact, it was defensive and pre-emptive--because I was frustrated with readers finding insult where none was intended. You replied to that explanation, meaning that you read it and thought about it enough to respond.

I'm disappointed that you are disregarding that we have already discussed that, and also that you seem to have forgotten our agreement on how people can misread each other. You are misreading me throughout this thread, except for apparently understanding that I called one of your posts here "shitty."


Second, you know very well that I respect your opinions, particularly in matters involving social semiotics, largely because I just don't get a lot of it. But this time, I think you're wrong.


Did you note where VM explains that he knows me from another board and has interacted with me before? Given that you admit that until this thread you had not noticed my posts before, isn't it fair to assume that VM might be in a better position than you to assess where I'm coming from?


CH did make some pretty broad and inflammatory accusations in his OP, and I addressed those.


You did? Where? Exactly what were my "pretty broad and inflammatory accusations" in my OP? I didn't intend to accuse anyone of anything. I explained that I felt as if many here were creating and sustaining a prevailing culture that discourages dissent. I asked provocative questions in order to provoke thought and discussion, not in order to accuse anyone. That's why I didn't name anyone or go into specifics or any particular posts. That's it.


He responded by asking me if maybe I wasn't just some fucking party loyal.


That is not what I did at all. VM addressed this already, and I had written a response, but I didn't post it once I saw VM's. Here's a link to what VM said, and in it he quotes what I first said to you.

http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=20033&postcount=73

Lisa, isn't it possible you are imagining insult here? Isn't it possible you are simply misreading me?


I called him on that, because it is entirely unjustified, and it's one of the more offensive personal attacks I can imagine. He had every opportunity to apologize or to clear up any misunderstanding, and he didn't.


See above. I didn't clear up the misunderstanding directly to you because VM already did it for me. I did mention VM's post in a response to LadyShea, and I explained in it that he was right.

In short, I never attacked you like you claim I did.


As I said earlier, he may as well have just asked me, "Is it possible that you cannot see my perspective because you are incapable of thinking for yourself?" It was not an innocent question. It was an attempt to paint my perspective as stupid and uninformed.


It was not an innocent question? How do you know why I asked? Can you read my mind? That's not what I meant at all, and I suggest that if you actually go back and read it you might see that it was in fact an innocent question. You might see that it is unreasonable to conclude that I was trying to portray you as stupid or uninformed.

I was suggesting that if you subscribe to a prevailing leftist orthodoxy, then perhaps it might be difficult for you to detect the phenomenon I describe in this thread. That's nothing more than a suggestion that a bias might make being objective about the existence of a possible culture difficult. It's not a personal affront to you or anyone else. It's a statement or suggestion about bias. Nothing more.


Well, fuck that noise. He's wrong. You're wrong, too.


A little tolerance and patience might go a long way towards clearing up any misunderstanding here.


Further, after he moved the goalposts to claim he was talking about expressions of hostility toward the "president," I copped.


I didn't move any goalposts. My point in this thread has always been about the prevailing political culture in general. Hostility towards the President is but one example of that culture.


Yeah, if you're talking about that, I'm hostile. The guy's a thief, a liar, and a killer. I hate the guy. If he's seriously wanting to make some argument that we have to pretend that the guy who subverted the democratic process to become president, then intentionally deceived the American public and put our troops in harm's way in order to pursue his personal goals is deserving of respect, I disagree. Strongly.


This is the kind of hateful rhetoric that isn't nice. It is not conducive to discussion. It's just mean.


It became clear at that point, in light of his illuminating post calling my opinion "shitty,"


Lisa, you are quite capable of reading. I didn't call your opinion shitty. I called your post shitty because it was hateful and biased. There is a difference and you know it. Stop being so defensive. It's likely making you more hostile towards me than you have any right to be.


that he is simply unwilling or incapable of supporting his own political opinions, and as such, has resorted to a "Maaaawww, they're LOOKING AT ME!" argument.


I'm very disappointed that you could read this thread and conclude that at any time this thread was about my political opinions. As it never was, my offering support of them would not only be off topic, but also downright silly too.

Also, if you truly believe that my commentary in this thread has the overall tone of my whining about personal insults directed at me, then you aren't paying much attention to the whole picture.


So, yeah. I'm fucking looking at him. I wasn't before, but I am now.

What is that supposed to mean? You are going to follow me around here and taunt me? Wouldn't that be proving my point?

I don't get your hostility towards me, Lisa. I really don't.

Cool Hand

[Roland98]

It means I think your disagreement was semantic

I don't think so, and I dislike being painted as if I've participated in this thread for no other reason than to attack Cool Hand.

and sidesteps the point of my post, which was that you and others have been making this discussion today about Cool Hand instead of the intended topic. I don't frankly care who all has done it how many times and for how long; that isn't really important to me. The only important part to me is whether anyone is interested in addressing the forum culture aspect of this thread, which it seems not.

I'd love to address this topic, and I've tried to. But change can't only happen on one side, and everyone involved has to make an effort. I also find it a bit absurd that this thread is entirely based on a "trust me, this is happening" premise, and yet posters are criticized within for an apparent lack of skepticism on many political issues. Like I said earlier, this thread is a bit too surreal for me, so I will just bow out rather than further waste my time trying to change anything here.

ETA:

It has become about me, as you, LadyShea, and Roland98 seem intent on taking many of my remarks as personal insults.

Again, I will state that I do not bother to take any of this as personal insults, since you must have missed it where I already clarified that.

[Goliath]

Um....maybe you should watch the movie Stripes sometime.

Cool Hand

Ummm...maybe you should realize that my name still isn't Francis.

[Goliath]

I'd like to see more evidence of people wanting to understand 'them'

Why? Of what use is such an attempt?

*sigh* And here we go...right back into the first major flame-fest shit-war that I was involved in after joining this board.

[LadyShea]

I really don't think I dismissed anything relevant to the discussion. Frankly you, Roland and lisarea have been treating this thread like it's all about Cool Hand since the very beginning. It isn't. He used his own experience to raise what he saw as a negative trend in the community, and that is what some of us have been trying to address all along. I honestly don't know why you guys insist on making this about him - but I suspect your answer will be that he made it about him by using language that offended you.

Yes, his personal experience with the community. Who else could it be about if not him?

And I don't have any argument with that except what I tried to express to Roland earlier, that at any time in a given debate we each have a choice of addressing the person or the issue, and I don't personally think the former is of any use in this discussion.

The issue was his personal perception based on his personal experiences and he was addressing "the community" which is made up of individual persons. How else could it have been addressed?


It's inflammatory rhetoric, bitch! :P :doh:

And I apologize for indulging in it. Seriously though like two minutes after I posted that bit you mention about Cool Hand being attacked here I made another post where I thanked Roland and everyone else who made substantive posts (which includes you) for participating.

I saw that, but your statements were so generalized, it was difficult for me to either exclude myself from the original rhteoric, and/or include myself in your thanks.

I also said I can personally attest for the character of most of the posters in this thread (which also includes you) and that I think maybe the disconnect is just some kind of forum pathology.

I did note that and am sorry I overlooked it previously. Thank you. Unfortunately I am a member of the "fourm" and if there is a pathology I have to once again include myself.


When did he call you a self-righteous bigot? Anyway that's between you and him, really. I probably didn't perceive his comments toward you the same way you did, but that would seem natural. If you feel like I gave him a pass for insulting you I apologize. That wasn't ever my intent.

Apology conditionally accepted. I truly never thought it was your intent nor do I think you guilty of malicious intent towards me now. But our early exchange contains quite a bit of personal insult from him. I will concede they are somewhat indirect and passive or couched as rhetorical questions, but I don't see how "I submit that your intolerance for Bush supporters is bigotry" and "I'm a bit uncomfortable with what I perceive to be your persistence of an air of moral superiority in this thread." could be taken as anything other than insults.

Then, VM, you responded to our exchange to tell me all the ways I had misread and misunderstood Cool Hand. I responded to you point by point, I responded to CH point by point, then both of you disengaged from me personally in favor of lumping me together with everyone else who had posted.

You even completely misread a statement I made with regards to how free expression might work on a forum, calling it a "clusterfuck", but my explanation and pointing out your misinterpretation was ignored.

I understand there was many people engaged and many side tangents, but the bottom line, to me, is the OP was akin to one individual throwing a whole handful of stones at a group of people, then calling it an unfair gang bang or complaining about not being able to handle all the rocks when each those individuals that were hit threw one back.

[Goliath]

And did I ever suggest if had anything to do with the accuracy of his comments? I'm starting to understand how Goliath feels.

Yep..it sucks ass, doesn't it?

:deepsigh:

[HelenM]

I'd like to see more evidence of people wanting to understand 'them'

Why? Of what use is such an attempt?

Why? Because I'm a 'them' in some ways and I don't like being misunderstood.

I'd rather not speculate on what use such an attempt would be to you.

The use of it to me is that when I understand people better I find it easier not to get angry with them over their behavior and choices; and that is useful to me because I don't like being in a state of anger - it tends to interfere with me upholding my values, pursuing my goals, etc.

Helen

[Goliath]

I'd like to see more evidence of people wanting to understand 'them'

Why? Of what use is such an attempt?

I'd rather not speculate on what use such an attempt would be to you.



I did mean to ask "Of what use is such an attempt to me?" Sorry for not stating exactly what I meant.

[D. Scarlatti]

[Y]ou and some others have made it clear that disagreement with your self-proclaimed moral superiority is not to be tolerated on this board.

Haha. Are you fucking serious?

[wei yau]

I cannot believe this thread is still going.

I should say, I understand why this thread is still going, I just wish it wasn't.

Yes, many posters here have been mischaracterizied, insulted, demeaned, offended and generally pissed off. Yes, the subject has drifted from oppression of dissent, insulting the President, insulting each other to wishing people would just be nicer.

Does it really come down to this? If the sole purpose of this thread is simply an appeal to use nicer rhetoric when discussion politics, in an effort to encourage greater discourse...then so be it. Personally, I'll endeavor to do so. I'll even encourage others to do the same.

I'll even admit that such mean-spirited rhetoric can be intimidating or distasteful to certain posters. This does not necessarily affect me, but I'm not in the minority. If I want a reminder of what this feels like, I'll go visit CF.

But, on the other side of the coin, there must be recognition that some posters feel very strongly about certain issues. No matter how it is expressed, their reasons for their feeling are as justified and reasoned as those held by their opposition.

You don't like the tone? Counter it with civility. If that doesn't work, ignore the poster. But, I encourage you all to accept that while that person may appear to be frothing at the mouth, give the benefit of the doubt...they are not insane, rabid or bigoted...they are just pissed.

But, this thread is just going round and round with no end in sight. If asked, I'm sure each poster on this thread will have a completely different idea of what this thread is even about.

I beseech all of you, let this damnable thread die already. It has long lost any useful purpose. I accept and respect that some emotions may be running high, that some feelings were hurt and them some may be seeking redress or vindication. I am simply submitting to you all that it won't be found in this thread. It's far too late.

Let's move on and move out of this thread.

[lisarea]

[Did you note where VM explains that he knows me from another board and has interacted with me before? Given that you admit that until this thread you had not noticed my posts before, isn't it fair to assume that VM might be in a better position than you to assess where I'm coming from?

Well, let's see. I'm supposed to take VM's word that you are a reasonable person because of some interaction that he had with you on another board. Lest I be seen as, uh, subscribing to some kind of herd mentality?

And yet, you had the fucking gall to "ask" me if perhaps I wasn't blindly following some "leftist orthodoxy," despite the fact that my posts are right here, on this board, and I discuss politics quite regularly?

As far as I'm concerned, your arguments are disingenuous at best. You're just playing a game, and refusing to even acknowledge that maybe, just maybe, you fucked up, and maybe there's some reason that people disagree with you that doesn't involve some Great Leftist Orthodox Conspiracy to Keep You Down.

Since Cool Hand is one of the few members who didn't come here by way of IIDB, I'm glad to hear what someone who is basically on the outside looking in has to say about our culture here, because I think our culture here has been shaped in large part by the culture at IIDB - where most of the members here cut their teeth. Frankly I don't want this place to become like PD at IIDB where you're left-minded or run out of town as a troll.

You don't really believe that most members here 'cut their teeth' at II, do you? I'd be very surprised if that were the case at all. I would imagine that most people who came here from II, directly or indirectly, had some experience with discussion forums other than just II.

Discussion board memberships are pretty self-selecting, so yes, it's likely that people choose to participate in PD at II because they are comfortable in that environment. Some subset of those people ended up here. If that's not the way you wanted it, maybe you should have been a little more selective in your membership criteria.

[Goliath]

Forget it. I'm sick of you, vm, and the last thing I need now is another flame-fest shit-war with you.

[Cool Hand]

[Y]ou and some others have made it clear that disagreement with your self-proclaimed moral superiority is not to be tolerated on this board.

Haha. Are you fucking serious?

D. Scarlatti graciously approached me via PM to ask me about my comments. He cleared up my misunderstanding of him and his posture. I apologized to him and he graciously accepted. I have been unduly rude to him in this thread and in other threads. I didn't give him sufficient credit and I imputed motives to him that were unwarranted. I'm sorry for that.

Cool Hand

[Cool Hand]

Lisa,

You're projecting. Take a deep breath and get off your high horse.


Discussion board memberships are pretty self-selecting, so yes, it's likely that people choose to participate in PD at II because they are comfortable in that environment. Some subset of those people ended up here. If that's not the way you wanted it, maybe you should have been a little more selective in your membership criteria.

Am I reading you right? Are you suggesting that I shouldn't have been allowed to join FF?

If that is what you are suggesting, then that kind of attitude is exactly what I had in mind in my OP. It suggests to me that dissent, especially that coming from someone perceived as an outsider, isn't welcome.

If you aren't suggesting that, then nevermind.

Cool Hand

[Adora]

because I think our culture here has been shaped in large part by the culture at IIDB
Heh, I cut my teeth at another board entirely. II was just a nice little discovery after that.

You're projecting. Take a deep breath and get off your high horse.
DID SOMEONE HERE A NICE BIG BLACK POT TALKING SOMEWHERE!?

[viscousmemories]

Forget it. I'm sick of you, vm, and the last thing I need now is another flame-fest shit-war with you.
I haven't said a word to you in this or any other thread, Goliath. Whatever your personal problem is today, I'm not interested.

[viscousmemories]

Roland, thanks for your response.

Lisa, I thought you might have enough respect for me that you would take my word for it that Cool Hand is a decent guy and give him the benefit of a little doubt. I'm sorry I misread our relationship but it won't happen again.

Ladyshea I'd like to answer you in more detail, but I'm sick as shit of this thread. Perhaps we can talk about it another time.

[LadyShea]

Forget it. I'm sick of you, vm, and the last thing I need now is another flame-fest shit-war with you.

Goliath, please don't make things worse. I haven't seen vm say anything to you in this discussion.

Contentious as it is, some of us are seeking resolution.

[LadyShea]

Ladyshea I'd like to answer you in more detail, but I'm sick as shit of this thread. Perhaps we can talk about it another time.

Not a problem. I understand. We don't even need to talk about it.

I just get frustrated that every time there's a big issue or problem (not just here but in many situations in my life it seems) it ends not in resolution but in everyone just dropping it. Thats why they keep coming up IMO.

[beyelzu]

Speaking as someone who has attacked cool hand in the past, I have to wonder if he is just a target of convenience. I also think maybe his posting style has something to do with it as well. His attempts to head off objections that he thinks are likely before they are made is kind of irritating.



As to a general lack of dissent, I dont know what we can do about it really, if someone says something that I disagree with I will argue against it; when a significant portion of posters feel the same way, it probably seems like unpopular opinions get shouted down.

[livius drusus]

I agree with Eldar.

[Goliath]

I haven't said a word to you in this or any other thread, Goliath.

Incorrect, as you're addressing me now.

Regardless, you have said words about me in this thread, despite our agreeing to cease hostilities.

I'll never make the mistake of trusting you ever again.

[livius drusus]

I agree with Eldar every minute more.

[Goliath]

I agree with Eldar every minute more.

Believe it or not, I'm starting to agree with Eldar, too.

[viscousmemories]

Regardless, you have said words about me in this thread, despite our agreeing to cease hostilities.

I'll never make the mistake of trusting you ever again.
Our agreement was that I would make an even more concerted effort not to misinterpret your comments and respond hostily to you if you would agree to stop going around accusing me of stuffing words in your mouth and libeling you.

I have upheld my end of the bargain and in fact have avoided interacting with you at all to ensure that I didn't misread you, you of course are here again baiting me to give you some more negative attention, for whatever reason.

I think it's obvious whose word is worth a nickel here.

[Roland98]

:( Both of you, please stop. It's my fault for bringing Goliath into this; I simply haven't read enough stuff here to realize that vm would take that as more than I intended. I've already apologized to Goliath for throwing his name out there unecessarily, and I'm apologizing to vm as well for the misunderstanding. Please, can you both drop that part of it? :bigtear:

[Goliath]

No, vm, you have not upheld your end of the bargain. You chose to take a pot-shot at me when doing such was absolutely unnecessary.

Baiting?! Why would I possibly bait you into attacking me when that's one of the last things that I want?!

If you think I'm stupid enough to believe another word coming out of your mouth, you've got another thing coming.

[viscousmemories]

It was not a pot-shot. Someone asked for an example of people antagonizing Cool Hand, your all caps bold comment to him was - as I said - the most salient example I could find. My purpose was not to single you out for comment, it was coincidental to the point.

However, out of respect for Roland I won't argue about this any further.

[Goliath]

My purpose was not to single you out for comment,


Your purposes are irrelevant. What you have done is what matters.

[beyelzu]

it's getting old goliath,

let it go, man.

[Goliath]

it's getting old goliath,

let it go, man.

Tell him that. I was ready to let it go, but I don't think he'll ever let it go. I'll be hounded by that asshole for as long as I'm on this forum.

I'd give damn near anything to be able to let it go. But I can't, because he won't let it go.

[livius drusus]

I brought up the "who did you vote for" assholery Cool Hand got after the election first, Goliath, and it's just a bald fact that both you and beyelzu did assault him. bey has apologized and moved on, but evidentally you feel using your behavior in that thread as an example of, well, that kind of behavior is somehow taking a pot shot.

So be it then, but if you want to accuse someone of talking shit about you, you're going to have to start with me. I suggest PM as the most reasonable method of transmitting your vitriol since this thread has seen more than enough.

[LadyShea]

Goliath, your agreement with VM was against gratuitous and off topic personal "pot shots", IIRC. Disagreeing with your behavior or points in a thread, within the context of the topic, are not off limits nor should they be.

VM and I have disagreed fairly strongly in this thread, but agreed and are discussing in another, that's because there is no reason to carry a disagreement over because neither of us has a personal vendetta against the other. You assume vendetta, try just looking at it for what it is rather than through the filter of your past problems.

[viscousmemories]

Okay, I'm kind of between a rock and a hard place here because some people think the best course of action is to let this matter drop, and others (like LadyShea here) want to see resolution. So I'm gonna keep trying here, but I want to start by apologizing for my shortness of temper with Roland, LadyShea and lisarea yesterday. I don't see any good reason for this thread to result in any permanent damage to relationships here.

Yes, his personal experience with the community. Who else could it be about if not him?

The issue was his personal perception based on his personal experiences and he was addressing "the community" which is made up of individual persons. How else could it have been addressed?
Why does it have to be about anyone at all? Every person who has commented in this thread - including you - has agreed that the political climate here leans left and that there is a fair amount of hostile rhetoric directed at the right. Given that we all agree on that, why can't we just talk about it? What relevance does it have that Cool Hand brought it up?

I also said I can personally attest for the character of most of the posters in this thread (which also includes you) and that I think maybe the disconnect is just some kind of forum pathology.

I did note that and am sorry I overlooked it previously. Thank you. Unfortunately I am a member of the "fourm" and if there is a pathology I have to once again include myself.
If there's a pathology then we're all included. Probably pathology is too loaded a term. All I meant to say is maybe there's some kind of a cultural imperative that results in this kind of disconnect, rather than a failure of any particular individual.

Apology conditionally accepted. I truly never thought it was your intent nor do I think you guilty of malicious intent towards me now. But our early exchange contains quite a bit of personal insult from him. I will concede they are somewhat indirect and passive or couched as rhetorical questions, but I don't see how "I submit that your intolerance for Bush supporters is bigotry" and "I'm a bit uncomfortable with what I perceive to be your persistence of an air of moral superiority in this thread." could be taken as anything other than insults.
See I didn't see those comments as personal insults because they were based on facts. You did claim moral superiority. You said you are morally superior to a racist. And saying that intolerance of Bush supporters is bigotry is a criticism of a thought process, not calling you a bigot. Of course I can see why you took both comments as insults, but all I ask is that you consider the possibility that it was not his intention to insult you.

Then, VM, you responded to our exchange to tell me all the ways I had misread and misunderstood Cool Hand. I responded to you point by point, I responded to CH point by point, then both of you disengaged from me personally in favor of lumping me together with everyone else who had posted.
I've been making an effort to be less anal about debating by going with the flow instead of being careful to respond to every point in every post. I talked about that in another thread here somewhere. It wasn't my intention to blow you off, and I'm sorry you thought it was. I'm also sorry that I fell back on generalizations about you guys yesterday because of course I hate it when other people do that. It just got a bit overwhelming for me.

You even completely misread a statement I made with regards to how free expression might work on a forum, calling it a "clusterfuck", but my explanation and pointing out your misinterpretation was ignored.
I understood that and again I'm sorry I didn't acknowledge as much. It was more of the same: Me trying to just go along with the pace of the thread instead of responding to every point.

I understand there was many people engaged and many side tangents, but the bottom line, to me, is the OP was akin to one individual throwing a whole handful of stones at a group of people, then calling it an unfair gang bang or complaining about not being able to handle all the rocks when each those individuals that were hit threw one back.
Yeah, by now I get that some of you see it that way. What I don't understand is why you seem unwilling to entertain the possibility that his intentions were good and just address the message instead of the messenger. At least five people in this thread have agreed that his impression has some degree of merit. Me, wade, livius, Helen, and Adam. How many people have to see the problem before we can stop arguing about whether it exists and talk about possible resolutions to it?

To be honest the impression I get from this thread is that some people know that the environment here is hostile to certain points of view and are fine with it. I'm not, because as I've said several times I think that is antithetical to freethought.

But in an unregulated environment such as this the vocal majority will have the culture they choose to have, and at this point in time that seems to be a culture that is hostile toward any remotely conservative views. If that is to be the way of the place, so be it. But for as long as I remain optimistic that a freethought forum is possible, I will continue to resist it.

[Roland98]

Okay, I'm kind of between a rock and a hard place here because some people think the best course of action is to let this matter drop, and others (like LadyShea here) want to see resolution.

I also would like to figure out something to do rather than just talk about it. Which is what I've been trying to discuss, but I guess I'm not saying it well, or else what I'm saying is just incredibly wrong. So at the risk of

http://www.dwtoons.com/trigger.jpg

...here is what I see as the heart of the matter.

How many people have to see the problem before we can stop arguing about whether it exists and talk about possible resolutions to it?

To be honest the impression I get from this thread is that some people know that the environment here is hostile to certain points of view and are fine with it. I'm not, because as I've said several times I think that is antithetical to freethought.

To speak only for myself, that's not what I intended at all. I agree that there is hostility, but I am not "fine with it," as I have already said. Nor do I think the hostility comes from only one side; clearly all of us are guilty of it, with the main sticking point being "who started it?" And being a mom, I'll say I don't care who started it, I'm going to finish it. ;) So why don't we work on suggestions for recognizing and dealing with it?

How do you suggest dealing with it, vm (or anyone else)? I've already made several suggestions which were apparently condescending, so I'll back out for right now and hopefully someone else can throw out some better ideas.

[wei yau]

Yeah, by now I get that some of you see it that way. What I don't understand is why you seem unwilling to entertain the possibility that his intentions were good and just address the message instead of the messenger. At least five people in this thread have agreed that his impression has some degree of merit. Me, wade, livius, Helen, and Adam. How many people have to see the problem before we can stop arguing about whether it exists and talk about possible resolutions to it?

To be honest the impression I get from this thread is that some people know that the environment here is hostile to certain points of view and are fine with it. I'm not, because as I've said several times I think that is antithetical to freethought.

But in an unregulated environment such as this the vocal majority will have the culture they choose to have, and at this point in time that seems to be a culture that is hostile toward any remotely conservative views. If that is to be the way of the place, so be it. But for as long as I remain optimistic that a freethought forum is possible, I will continue to resist it.

First, I'd like to add that I also see some degree of merit in the notion that vitriolic rhetoric against Bush can cause some posters to refrain from posting due to concerns about intimidation.

As for how to deal with this, I think it's already being dealt with. There are already several posts in this forum that contain reasoned and rational discourse on political topics. It doesn't require anything more than a modicum of effort to keep things civil when posting. It also requires an equal effort from the respondents. It would be impossible to prevent any poster from stating their opinions with vehemence. For them, their anger is justified and their expression is valid. Make the effort to counter vitriol with civility. Ignore those hardcases that are beyond reasoning.

We're talking about an internet forum here. Even though I feel that this place is home, I know that I can always walk away. Although I am very much emotionally invested in this place, I don't take insults or disparaging remarks to heart. Or at least when they are directed towards my candidate or my political positions. If anyone were to call me a big fat chink, I'd probably be very offended. But that's not the case here.

I'm a firm believer that doing something about it is more productive than talking about it.

[viscousmemories]

Thanks for your responses, Roland and eldar.

I agree that a discussion of what we can do is more useful at this juncture, but at this point I wonder if another thread focused more on the issue and less on people would be more productive.

In my opinion the best solution for everyone who favors an unmoderated environment of free expression is for us to monitor ourselves and each other. To be diligent in policing your own posts for tone and content that may be unnecessarily aggressive or divisive, and to remind others of the value of doing so when they forget.

Unfortunately it seems probable that not everyone agrees that such an approach is valuable, so in some cases such a 'reminder' may in fact be perceived as an attack and /or a demand that people adhere to a social convention they disagree with. I don't really know how to address or deal with that part.

Should we have another thread about this do you guys think?

[wei yau]

In my opinion the best solution for everyone who favors an unmoderated environment of free expression is for us to monitor ourselves and each other. To be diligent in policing your own posts for tone and content that may be unnecessarily aggressive or divisive, and to remind others of the value of doing so when they forget.

This is a fine solution, but I think it is only half of the equation. I think there's an obligation on the behalf the reader to grant the poster the benefit of the doubt.

When you see someone here posting in anger, acknowledge that the poster is also a person. For whatever reason, the poster is angry and is expressing it through words that you find offensive. I suggest looking past the rhetoric and try to understand the reasons for the anger.

Communication is a two-way street. Closing off communications because you are unhappy with the way a message is given does not foster understanding. Discussing it in a reasonable and civil manner would resolve far more misunderstandings.

Unfortunately it seems probable that not everyone agrees that such an approach is valuable, so in some cases such a 'reminder' may in fact be perceived as an attack and /or a demand that people adhere to a social convention they disagree with. I don't really know how to address or deal with that part.

Personally, I wouldn't see this as an attack. Though, I can see how others might. For this, I suggest the same thing. Deal with it by discussing it like a rational human being.

Should we have another thread about this do you guys think?

Makes no diff to me, although at this point it is really no longer just about politics, is it?

[davidm]

I haven't had the time to read through this entire thread, but just to follow up on the satirical point I tried to make way back on page one, I think that one reason we ought to avoid demonizing or condescending to those who disagree with us is because, if we demonize or condescend to others, they are more likely to do the same to us. Another reason to avoid thinking the worst of others is because of the following bulletin: just because I know that I am right, it does not follow that I actually am. :news:

[livius drusus]

A big ditto to eldar and Degenrate Hieroglyph both (and a gold start to DH for excellent smilie usage). :thumbsup:

[Godless Dave]

I haven't read through the whole thread, but I'm here to defend the "us vs. them" mentality in certain situations, the reason being that on some issues there is little room for compromise. Many of the people whose political views are opposed to mine do not share any of the same values as I do and even though they may seem patriotic they do not love the same U.S.A. that I do.

I am adamantly opposed to any version of Christianity or any other religious belief being given special status under the law in the United States. There are few compromises I can make with those Americans who have an opposing view.

I am adamantly opposed to discrimination against homosexuals.

I am opposed to the curtailment of free speech, peaceable assembly, free press, and free association.

I am adamantly opposed to the foreign policy doctrine of "American exceptionalism".

I am opposed to the practice of subverting democracies abroad for the economic benefit of American corporations or individuals.

I am opposed to the practice of using military force for the economic benefit of American corporations or individuals.

I will fight for these ideals.

I haven't had the time to read through this entire thread, but just to follow up on the satirical point I tried to make way back on page one, I think that one reason we ought to avoid demonizing or condescending to those who disagree with us is because, if we demonize or condescend to others, they are more likely to do the same to us.

"Conservatives" have already been demonizing "liberals" very effectively for at least the last ten years.

Another reason to avoid thinking the worst of others is because of the following bulletin: just because I know that I am right, it does not follow that I actually am. :news:

Now that I'll agree with.

[Godless Dave]

Now, if someone wants to debate big government vs. small government, progressive vs. regressive taxation, government support of the arts, welfare, farm policy, environmental policy, or a host of other issues, then I'll drop "us vs. them" and be happy to acknowledge that someone can have a different opinion than I on these issues and still be a well-meaning, thoughtful American citizen. But those are not the issues that trouble me about the Bush administration and the leadership in Congress.

[davidm]

A big ditto to eldar and Degenrate Hieroglyph both (and a gold start to DH for excellent smilie usage). :thumbsup:

:D Thank you.

I do like smilies, especially those to be found here. This is like smilie heaven.

Smilies: They're a Party Made of Pixels

:headspin: :saloon: :banana:

[livius drusus]

Now, if someone wants to debate big government vs. small government, progressive vs. regressive taxation, government support of the arts, welfare, farm policy, environmental policy, or a host of other issues, then I'll drop "us vs. them" and be happy to acknowledge that someone can have a different opinion than I on these issues and still be a well-meaning, thoughtful American citizen. But those are not the issues that trouble me about the Bush administration and the leadership in Congress.

Why would anyone engage you in such a debate, however, given your proud hatred for some other belief they might hold? It sounds to me like you're saying you'll talk to someone about big government vs. small government but only if they hate the Bush admin and Bush voters for the same reasons you hate them, because if they don't share your hatred, then they deserve your hatred, not debate.

Am I misunderstanding you? Do you differentiate between the whole person and individual beliefs at all?

[livius drusus]

:D Thank you.

I do like smilies, especially those to be found here. This is like smilie heaven.

Smilies: They're a Party Made of Pixels

:headspin: :saloon: :banana:

I couldn't agree more. :cheer:

[Godless Dave]

Am I misunderstanding you? Do you differentiate between the whole person and individual beliefs at all?

Yes, I differentiate. At the same time, I would have a very hard time respecting anyone who does not recognize how bad the Bush administration has been for American national security, liberty, and world stability.

[beyelzu]

Now, if someone wants to debate big government vs. small government, progressive vs. regressive taxation, government support of the arts, welfare, farm policy, environmental policy, or a host of other issues, then I'll drop "us vs. them" and be happy to acknowledge that someone can have a different opinion than I on these issues and still be a well-meaning, thoughtful American citizen. But those are not the issues that trouble me about the Bush administration and the leadership in Congress.

Why would anyone engage you in such a debate, however, given your proud hatred for some other belief they might hold? It sounds to me like you're saying you'll talk to someone about big government vs. small government but only if they hate the Bush admin and Bush voters for the same reasons you hate them, because if they don't share your hatred, then they deserve your hatred, not debate.

Am I misunderstanding you? Do you differentiate between the whole person and individual beliefs at all?


seems to me that he is saying that arguing those things in regards to the bush administration is largely avoiding the serious issues about shrub's adminiistration, and if this is his position, it is one that I largely agree with.

also, it is a position which is incredibly pertinent in regards to Cool Hand becuase he favors methodology as oposed to results. I understand that position and although I do have some support for the position I also have some serious qualms about said position.

[livius drusus]

Yes, I differentiate. At the same time, I would have a very hard time respecting anyone who wants to discriminate against gays or who thought invading Iraq was a good idea.

But would you treat them respectfully even just for the sake of debate? Furthermore, how can you be sure that the entire group of people who voted for Bush believes in any or all of the things you hate? Unless the mere fact of having voted for Bush is hateworthy per se regardless of the principles that led someone to make that choice, then I don't see how you can classify them as deserving of hatred.

[Godless Dave]

But would you treat them respectfully even just for the sake of debate?

Yes, as long as the respect were reciprocated.

Furthermore, how can you be sure that the entire group of people who voted for Bush believes in any or all of the things you hate?

Because they voted for a man who believes in all those things I hate and has demonstrated a commitment to put them into practice.

[livius drusus]

But would you treat them respectfully even just for the sake of debate?

Yes, as long as the respect were reciprocated.

If you were to include in that debate conclusions about their character based on their beliefs - which it seems to me would be the principled stance from your perspective - I would imagine respectful interaction would be very difficult if not impossible.

Furthermore, how can you be sure that the entire group of people who voted for Bush believes in any or all of the things you hate?

Because they voted for a man who believes in all those things I hate and has demonstrated a commitment to put them into practice.

It doesn't therefore follow that they believe in all those things you hate, however, so I don't see how you would have sufficient information on their belief structures to conclude them deserving of hatred.

[Godless Dave]

Because they voted for a man who believes in all those things I hate and has demonstrated a commitment to put them into practice.

It doesn't therefore follow that they believe in all those things you hate, however, so I don't see how you would have sufficient information on their belief structures to conclude them deserving of hatred.

What they believe is irrelevant if they voted to put those things into practice.

[livius drusus]

What if they disagree that GWB has put or will put those things into practice?

[godfry n. glad]

also, it is a position which is incredibly pertinent in regards to Cool Hand becuase he favors methodology as oposed to results. I understand that position and although I do have some support for the position I also have some serious qualms about said position.

Um... I'm not sure where this is coming from, but I disagree. Cool Hand does NOT necessarily favor "methodology as opposed to results." His opinion about the travesty of Bush v. Gore seeks to ignore all proper methodology for results...the selection of George W. Bush as President of the U.S. He specifically stated that the outcome was "old news" when the statute of limitations on the crime could hardly have expired. Cool Hand is for sweeping crimes and misdemeanors under the rug if it suits his particular purposes.

godfry

[Godless Dave]

What if they disagree that GWB has put or will put those things into practice?

Then they are not paying attention.

I am adamantly opposed to any version of Christianity or any other religious belief being given special status under the law in the United States.

This should be obvious in the rhetoric of Bush and his supporters.

I am adamantly opposed to discrimination against homosexuals.
Federal Marriage Amendment

I am opposed to the curtailment of free speech, peaceable assembly, free press, and free association.

Various parts of the Patriot Act; various proposals for extension of the Patriot Act as articulated by John Ashcroft; "free speech zones" at certain Bush events; detainment of some Arabs living in the US without due process; complaints from the White House about journalists who ask uncomfortable questions.

I am adamantly opposed to the foreign policy doctrine of "American exceptionalism".

The Iraq war in particular; rhetoric from Bush and various cabinet members; opposition to the Kyoto treaty; annulment of the ABM treaty; opposition to the International Criminal Court

I am opposed to the practice of subverting democracies abroad for the economic benefit of American corporations or individuals.

US recognition (and quite possibly covert support) of the overthrow of President Aristide in Haiti.

US opposition to President Chavez in Venezuala

US actions in shutting down labor unions and newspapers in Iraq; US hostility to Arab journalists in Iraq;

I am opposed to the practice of using military force for the economic benefit of American corporations or individuals.

Iraq.

[beyelzu]

also, it is a position which is incredibly pertinent in regards to Cool Hand becuase he favors methodology as oposed to results. I understand that position and although I do have some support for the position I also have some serious qualms about said position.

Um... I'm not sure where this is coming from, but I disagree. Cool Hand does NOT necessarily favor "methodology as opposed to results." His opinion about the travesty of Bush v. Gore seeks to ignore all proper methodology for results...the selection of George W. Bush as President of the U.S. He specifically stated that the outcome was "old news" when the statute of limitations on the crime could hardly have expired. Cool Hand is for sweeping crimes and misdemeanors under the rug if it suits his particular purposes.

godfry
Cool Hand is a strict contructionist as far as I can tell and a lawyer. I assume that he has deeper reasons for not having a problem with Bush v Gore than like shrub. In fact, I havent seen him say shit that really supported shrub or his more extreme beliefs and practices.

[livius drusus]

Then they are not paying attention.

Okay. Is not paying attention deserving of hatred too? When Blake created that Abu Ghraib thread, he had to work on it for hours, link hunting and reading pdfs up the yin-yang and still there was no smoking gun, just a strong argument. The link you provided to the easily accessible CBS story didn't prove your point at all.

If people don't have the time, desire and/or ability to do that level of research, should they be hated for making choices based on what they know?

[davidm]

I haven't read through the whole thread, but I'm here to defend the "us vs. them" mentality in certain situations, the reason being that on some issues there is little room for compromise. Many of the people whose political views are opposed to mine do not share any of the same values as I do and even though they may seem patriotic they do not love the same U.S.A. that I do.

I am adamantly opposed to any version of Christianity or any other religious belief being given special status under the law in the United States. There are few compromises I can make with those Americans who have an opposing view.

I am adamantly opposed to discrimination against homosexuals.

I am opposed to the curtailment of free speech, peaceable assembly, free press, and free association.

I am adamantly opposed to the foreign policy doctrine of "American exceptionalism".

I am opposed to the practice of subverting democracies abroad for the economic benefit of American corporations or individuals.

I am opposed to the practice of using military force for the economic benefit of American corporations or individuals.

I will fight for these ideals.

It does not follow that those who voted for Bush support any or all of these things that you oppose, or that they oppose those things you support. For example, I doubt many Bush supporters would say they favor curtailing free speech, assembly, etc. I doubt many would think of our foreign policy as one of "exceptionalism" or of using foreign policy for the economic benefit of corporations. In practice, our foreign policy may amount to that, but I do not think that Bush supporters would see it that way (however misguided they might be on this score). I don't think most Bush supporters, even among evangelicals, are in favor of eroding the Church-state separation, and I doubt that most of them would see their stand on gay marriage as constituting "discrimination" against gays, though here again, they might simply be misguided on this score.

[beyelzu]

It does not follow that those who voted for Bush support any or all of these things that you oppose, or that they oppose those things you support. For example, I doubt many Bush supporters would say they favor curtailing free speech, assembly, etc. I doubt many would think of our foreign policy as one of "exceptionalism" or of using foreign policy for the economic benefit of corporations. In practice, our foreign policy may amount to that, but I do not think that Bush supporters would see it that way (however misguided they might be on this score). I don't think most Bush supporters, even among evangelicals, are in favor of eroding the Church-state separation, and I doubt that most of them would see their stand on gay marriage as constituting "discrimination" against gays, though here again, they might simply be misguided on this score.
Youre kidding right?
I think many evangelicals dont think that gays should be "awarded" civil rights and as far as separation of church and state, you have got to be kidding me. While many xians do support separation, I doubt the same can be said of the evangelical ones.

Please note that I dont think that his includes all Bush supporters, I think most people in america do favor church and state separation and also think that discrimination is wrong, but the religious right, the so called moral majority, is anothe matter entirely.

[Godless Dave]

Then they are not paying attention.

Okay. Is not paying attention deserving of hatred too?

Yes.


If people don't have the time, desire and/or ability to do that level of research, should they be hated for making choices based on what they know?

They should be despised for not doing their duty as citizens of a republic.

[livius drusus]

If people don't have the time, desire and/or ability to do that level of research, should they be hated for making choices based on what they know?

They should be despised for not doing their duty as citizens of a Republic.

I see. Well, if that's the standard, I can't think of a single person exempt from that hate list, including yourself since as you acknowledged here (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=745), you were too lazy to do the research and present the case yourself in the Abu Ghraib discussion, but nonetheless expected people to take as fact a position for which you offered virtually no support.

[Godless Dave]

I'm not talking about being a news junkie. I'm talking about spending 30-60 minutes per day getting an objective take on events from multiple sources. That's all it would have taken to find out that US intelligence experts and the UNSCOM team were disputing Bush, Cheney, and Powell's WMD claims back in early 2003. That's all it would have taken to learn that the Iraq Survey Group found no WMDs. That's all it would have taken to learn the 9/11 Commission say there was no collaborative relationship between Saddam and Al Qaeda. That's all it would have taken to learn that Halliburton was being paid for work it wasn't doing, which the Army used to do itself for half the cost. That's all you needed to find out about the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans and their connection to the PNAC.

That's the thing. Even to a not-all-that informed guy like me this crap is obvious.

[livius drusus]

You thought Abu Ghraib was common sense too, until you saw it laid out and realized it wasn't. Besides, if you didn't have a computer, exactly where would you find 30 minutes worth of balanced news?

[Godless Dave]

You thought Abu Ghraib was common sense too, until you saw it laid out and realized it wasn't.

I realized no such thing! I had already read the sources Blake cited, and I was surprised to find other people who hadn't.

[livius drusus]

I thought when you said "I was also frustrated at what I saw to be ignorance of what I had thought was common knowledge, but I now realize this has more to do with my feelings than anything else." you meant that you realized your frustration was about your own feelings rather than about other people's ignorance of something that wasn't actually common knowledge. Did I misread you?

[wade-w]

And yet, Godless Dave, here (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=20862#post20862) you say:


If there were an atheist individual or group preaching hatred and intolerance in the name of atheism I'd like to think I'd spend a little time saying "hey, that idiot doesn't speak for all of us!"


You owe me a new irony meter.

[godfry n. glad]

also, it is a position which is incredibly pertinent in regards to Cool Hand becuase he favors methodology as oposed to results. I understand that position and although I do have some support for the position I also have some serious qualms about said position.

Um... I'm not sure where this is coming from, but I disagree. Cool Hand does NOT necessarily favor "methodology as opposed to results." His opinion about the travesty of Bush v. Gore seeks to ignore all proper methodology for results...the selection of George W. Bush as President of the U.S. He specifically stated that the outcome was "old news" when the statute of limitations on the crime could hardly have expired. Cool Hand is for sweeping crimes and misdemeanors under the rug if it suits his particular purposes.

godfry
Cool Hand is a strict contructionist as far as I can tell and a lawyer. I assume that he has deeper reasons for not having a problem with Bush v Gore than like shrub. In fact, I havent seen him say shit that really supported shrub or his more extreme beliefs and practices.

Yeah? Well, "strict constructionists" seem to abandon their philosophical principles when presented with the opportunity to place their favorite in power. I allude here to the five Supreme Court justices who formed the majority of the Bush v. Gore court, who being "strict constructionists" all, abandoned their philosophical principles of non-interference of federal courts in state issues and violated the U.S. Constitution in even hearing the damned case. The result of the case was to hand the presidency to George W. Bush.

So much for "strict constructionists."

As for being a lawyer....so fucking what? Every court case has at least two, usually with variant opinions. And those who decide the facts of the case are NOT lawyers....they are ordinary citizens like you and I.

godfry

[Godless Dave]

I thought when you said "I was also frustrated at what I saw to be ignorance of what I had thought was common knowledge, but I now realize this has more to do with my feelings than anything else." you meant that you realized your frustration was about your own feelings rather than about other people's ignorance of something that wasn't actually common knowledge. Did I misread you?

I was expressing some understanding of being ignorant of the realities of Abu Ghraib. The things I'm calling obvious are much more obvious than the Abu Ghraib torture: the lies about WMDs, the real motivations for attacking Iraq, Bush's opposition to gay rights.

[Godless Dave]

You owe me a new irony meter.

Maybe. I realize saying Bush supporters deserve our hatred is pretty harsh. But I stand by it.

Since March of 2003 I have hated George W. Bush for taking our country into an unnecessary war based on lies. I make no apologies for that hatred.

By November of 2004 it was a documented, indisputable fact that George W. Bush had taken our country into an unnecessary war based on lies. So I feel I am justified in hating the people who returned him to power because they either do not care or are willfully ignorant that he took our country into an unnecessary war based on lies.

This does not mean I would be justified in gunning them down, or spitting at them, or even calling them fucking stupid like I did on my blog. I still work next to some of them and pass many on the freeway. But I don't have to like them.

[wade-w]

Fair enough, Godless Dave. To be perfectly frank, I agree with you on Bush himself. I despise the man. But I am not willing to paint 51% of the voting population of the US with such a broad brush. I think it's quite possible that the situation is not so black and white as you make it out to be.

I'm certainly not asking you to like anyone in spite of your rather passionate feelings. All that I, and I think liv and vm (I could be wrong and I'm sure they'll correct me if I am), are asking for is that you tone down the vitriol a couple of notches.

[D. Scarlatti]

A small point perhaps, but none of the members of the current Supreme Court is a "strict constructionist." In fact, the Justice whom many observers might consider the strict constructionist's strict constructionist, Antonin Scalia, has publicly repudiated the label. Scalia's method of constitutional interpretation is better characterized as textualism, or originalism.

Scalia doesn't think that text should be construed strictly (or leniently), he thinks it should be construed reasonably. "Strict constructionist" seems to have re-entered the political lexicon via Richard Nixon, and is currently a favorite expression of G.W. Bush. Not that he understands any of this.

How does one strictly construct "cruel and unusual punishment," or "necessary and proper," for example? Sometimes it's not possible to adduce the effect of a law from its plain text. The methods one uses to get at its purported meaning are obviously the subject of much debate within and without the legal community. The expression "strict constructionist" is essentially meaningless to the former group, and to the latter it's just another code word for "judges that want to overturn Roe v. Wade," or at least, "judges that will rule in consonance with the ideals in the Republican Party Platform."