How to have a rational discussion

[Captain Hammer 113]

Yep. Yet what you actually see is people taking pride in making unjustifiable generalisations against individuals that deliberately and maliciously mischaracterise what they believe in favour of what some preconceived stereotype suggests that they believe.

I've never understood how this can be fun. To me, "winning" isn't fulfilling unless I've done it honestly. If I have to mis-characterize my opponent's position, then it means my argument wasn't strong enough to carry itself. Once you resort to lies and deception, you have lost.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Yep. You're fairly new here and so I guess to some of us who've been here awhile have become numb to it. There is a sort of intellectual fascism that exists in public discourse nowadays. The way that it makes sense for me is that some people find uncertainty too unsettling and so they latch on to a narrative that makes life easier to understand for them. I find that way of thinking imprisoning and embracing uncertainty of life liberating.

Same here. I don't enjoy arguing or discussing an issue with somebody who is so entrenched in their own way of thinking that you can visibly see them getting angry at you for challenging their own deeply held world view. Like anyone else, I have my own strongly held opinions, but I readily admit I don't have all the answers.

It might be fun to have some "devil's advocate" threads. Somebody who is typically known for usually taking one side of an argument, to take the other, and vice versa. I mean, if we're resolved to these discussions never changing anybody's mind, then it could actually be fun.

My issue is with the way the media seems to drive this divide and conquer mentality.

In the 6 years I lived in USA I met a lot of good people - but at the same time, I saw people literally regurgitate things that the previous night had appeared on the news (right down to the verbiage) - together with the pointed, politically loaded questions that were raised in the commentary.

It's not exclusive to the US - but it does seem to be more widespread there. In the UK I used to find that the ignorant people were the ones who routinely read certain publications (like The Sun or The Daily Mail) and would regular as clockwork trot out the same arguments over and over (usually of the sort about immigrants stealing jobs, getting huge public benefits while the taxpayer went without). The interesting thing is that noone who does that ever knows anyone first-hand that is receiving this benefits illegitimately - it's becomes one of those urban myths that is effectively true only because enough people repeat it.

[chri'stina 190]

Some think they are way better people than those they disagree with. And then if you want to try to identify yourself as a certain political party affiliation, before most people get a chance to know much about you, you will be lumped into their idea of what being a "such and such" is. I just read a lot sometimes and maybe I don't feel like having to identify with either side all the way. If you are more conservative, then you must be a closed minded hick and well we are all just so much better than you. If you are liberal, you must be an Obama butt kisser and out of touch with the actual poor. That's my take on P&R.

Edited March 23, 2011 by chri'stina

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Some think they are way better people than those they disagree with. And then if you want to try to identify yourself as a certain political party affiliation, before most people get a chance to know much about you, you will be lumped into their idea of what being a "such and such" is. I just read a lot sometimes and maybe I don't feel like having to identify with either side all the way. If you are more conservative, then you must be a closed minded hick and well we are all just so much better than you. If you are liberal, you must be an Obama butt kisser and out of touch with the actual poor. That's my take on P&R.

It might have changed since I was away - but for me it was never like this in the UK. People here do not have this tribal affiliation to political parties that seems to be prevalent on these boards and in the US media. Or if they do have it, it's not to anything like the same degree.

[Sergi9 110]

It might have changed since I was away - but for me it was never like this in the UK. People here do not have this tribal affiliation to political parties that seems to be prevalent on these boards and in the US media. Or if they do have it, it's not to anything like the same degree.

Its the law of physics. "Bodies in motion tend to stay in Motion",

"minds in decline" tend to continue rapidly down the hill. You start watching FOX News regularly and suddenly you become fact adverse.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Its the law of physics. "Bodies in motion tend to stay in Motion",

"minds in decline" tend to continue rapidly down the hill. You start watching FOX News regularly and suddenly you become fact adverse.

It's not only Fox - it seems common to nearly all of the big corporate news networks over there. The same tabloid sensationalism, the same "You'll never believe what we've found out!". Even BBC America is like that.

Outlets that avoid that mode of discourse (NPR is the only one that springs to mind) are frequently dismissed as elitist. So it seems to be the case that you can't succeed in the commercial media unless you're prepared to feed USC's need to war against each other over the airwaves.

[B_J 2,752]

Some think they are way better people than those they disagree with. And then if you want to try to identify yourself as a certain political party affiliation, before most people get a chance to know much about you, you will be lumped into their idea of what being a "such and such" is. I just read a lot sometimes and maybe I don't feel like having to identify with either side all the way. If you are more conservative, then you must be a closed minded hick and well we are all just so much better than you. If you are liberal, you must be an Obama butt kisser and out of touch with the actual poor. That's my take on P&R.

And things get even worse when religion is brought up.

[Captain Hammer 113]

My issue is with the way the media seems to drive this divide and conquer mentality.

I think if you had to point out the single worst thing that's happened to public discourse in the US, it's cable news. People like to point at FOX, but CNN and MSNBC are just as bad. The cable news networks lost all credibility once they started catering to a specific audience. And I don't buy for a second that the "entertainment" programming (like Nancy Grace or Hannity) is separate from their news divisions. It's endemic throughout the organizations and the downside is that it keeps the public ignorant.

I agree, NPR seems to be the only neutral source in this country right now. I'm sure some will take issue with that, but when you get all of your news from either a far right or a far left source, something that sits mostly in the middle is going to seem too far to the other side for you. BBC News is really good too, and even the little bit of Al Jazeera English that I've seen seems fairly neutral, although I admit I haven't watched a lot of it.

[Darnell 8,478]

oxymoron - 'rational discussion in the politics and religion forum'

Sorry.

[Captain Hammer 113]

oxymoron - 'rational discussion in the politics and religion forum'

Sorry.

No reason it can't happen. People who care about their position (as opposed to your typical "troll") will understand that they undermine their own argument when they argue irrationally or unfairly.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

My issue is with the way the media seems to drive this divide and conquer mentality.

In the 6 years I lived in USA I met a lot of good people - but at the same time, I saw people literally regurgitate things that the previous night had appeared on the news (right down to the verbiage) - together with the pointed, politically loaded questions that were raised in the commentary.

It's not exclusive to the US - but it does seem to be more widespread there. In the UK I used to find that the ignorant people were the ones who routinely read certain publications (like The Sun or The Daily Mail) and would regular as clockwork trot out the same arguments over and over (usually of the sort about immigrants stealing jobs, getting huge public benefits while the taxpayer went without). The interesting thing is that noone who does that ever knows anyone first-hand that is receiving this benefits illegitimately - it's becomes one of those urban myths that is effectively true only because enough people repeat it.

Yep. I think that is probably at the heart of why political discourse in this country is now so polarized.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

No reason it can't happen. People who care about their position (as opposed to your typical "troll") will understand that they undermine their own argument when they argue irrationally or unfairly.

I agree. About all you can do is offer a rational argument to whomever you are engaged in a discussion with and hope they return the favor. Unfortunately, there happens to be a lot of regular posters that hang out in this forum who have no desire or interest in doing just that.

[Captain Hammer 113]

I agree. About all you can do is offer a rational argument to whomever you are engaged in a discussion with and hope they return the favor. Unfortunately, there happens to be a lot of regular posters that hang out in this forum who have no desire or interest in doing just that.

I noticed. Those people come seeking attention. Sad to say that they often get it.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

One of the problems is that people aren't willing to admit when they are wrong or even consider trying to reach compromises. Some here purposely want make the other people look bad. It's a sport, they won't change.

Rational discussion would also mean you don't generalize an entire political party or group of people as one way. As we see here in discussions, some really enjoy making the other side look bad so why would they want to stop if they enjoy doing it? If it's all for a laugh, it's not going to change.

Once you are old enough and have enough money you really don't give a flying...fig. I will have it my way or the whole world can kiss my @ss and I really don't care who likes it because it makes no difference. Everyone can agree with me...or they can be wrong. I'm pro choice.

I agree. About all you can do is offer a rational argument to whomever you are engaged in a discussion with and hope they return the favor. Unfortunately, there happens to be a lot of regular posters that hang out in this forum who have no desire or interest in doing just that.

The French Revolution occurred AFTER the US Constitution was adopted.

[Captain Hammer 113]

For example.