It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why being civil is both morally and strategically the right way to have political discourse

page: 4
23
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 7 2019 @ 08:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: olaru12


Why being civil is both morally and strategically the right way to have political discourse


Who cares about morality or the right way to have a political discourse.


Me. And so should everyone who wants to be more effective in getting people to agree with their thoughts.


You are in a decided minority. Most want to WIN and rub their opponents face in the dirt. And it's going to get worse, much worse as the political parties start bringing out the candidates. I don't think I've seen it ever this bad and no one really cares...except you.

I've resigned myself that it's the ATS currently. Entertaining at best and vile hatred at it worst.
edit on 7-1-2019 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 7 2019 @ 08:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler



You sir, are just a better person than I am.



posted on Jan, 7 2019 @ 08:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Grambler



You sir, are just a better person than I am.



Im not at all.

As you say that, Im probably getting a post removed for manners violations on some other thread.

I am not even discussing the morality of this, just my opinion on what would be a more effective persuasion startegy.

The key word is my opinion. I could be wrong, I often am.

But I love discussions like this, and appreciate the opinions by all people.

If nothing else, I am proud to have made a thread where traditional lines have been shattered.

Some trump supporters and detractors are agreeing with me, and some of both disagreeing.

So that is a fun change!



posted on Jan, 7 2019 @ 08:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: olaru12


Why being civil is both morally and strategically the right way to have political discourse


Who cares about morality or the right way to have a political discourse.


Me. And so should everyone who wants to be more effective in getting people to agree with their thoughts.


You are in a decided minority. Most want to WIN and rub their opponents face in the dirt. And it's going to get worse, much worse as the political parties start bringing out the candidates. I don't think I've seen it ever this bad and no one really cares...except you.

I've resigned myself that it's the ATS.


Maybe you are right.

But I think that there are people out there that maybe dont post often that still read ats a lot, and maybe just one or two can be persuaded or learn something from people having civil discourse.

If I am wrong, no harm done.



posted on Jan, 7 2019 @ 09:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: Grambler

I think that you are perhaps missing the point.

Progressives (left and right) COUNT on a civil and polite society.

For instance, you can (and do) generate OPs pointing out the hypocrisy of the left.

The left doesn't care.

In fact, the left glories in being hypocritical. They are not ashamed by it, they see it as a weapon to be used.

After all, it allows them to accomplish things that otherwise cannot be done in a civil and polite society.

You are assuming that through civil discourse you can change a Progressive's mind about something.

You can't... because you are attempting to debate people that don't care about morality or ethics or being polite. They have a goal... you to them are misinformed and in the way.

At the end of the day, there is a very real sociopolitical struggle going on right now for the future identity of America.

The main front of that war is the internet... words are the weapons.

And you are bringing the verbal equivalent of a wiffle bat to the front line.

I do admire your persistence in what you do and how you approach it, but at the end of the day you are being a nice guy.

And contrary to the old saying, nice guys don't finish last.

They don't finish the race at all... they are kneecapped by their opponents at the first place on the track that the judges can't see the contestants.



I have to side with this.

Grambler, have you ever thought as to the reason the left follow strict partly lines?

Such civility of which you speak is the reason people say that the right is toothless and cannot swing as a single unit. A moral compass and civility from a subset of them will eventually be their downfall.

This war is way past civility and the left is ahead.



posted on Jan, 7 2019 @ 09:10 PM
link   
a reply to: efabian

Reasonable and civil and polite people will not agree with me.

Which is exactly why the left is continuing to win.

Being polite and civil is just enabling them.

The people that don't see that are not the people who are going to turn the tide in this country.

All they will do is guarantee an actual civil war.

I think other means are necessary before that becomes a certainty.

Play by their own rules.

Just an opinion, as always.

edit on 7-1-2019 by Lumenari because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2019 @ 09:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Lumenari

I disagree.

Being polite is not what is enabling the left to win.

In fact Trump would garner many more supporters if he would cut back on some of the senseless name calling in my opinion.

Now no doubt people liked trump because they were tired of being attacked and no one fighting back. But you can fight back without calling your opponents bimbos or sluts or horse faced, etc.

I feel that I am able to forcibly defend my positions quite well, and even better when I am not calling people names.

Think of what you and others are saying; you must use vitriolic attacks against people to win, and they cant be reasoned with.

You sound exactly like the Berkly rioters that refuse to even let conservative speakers speak.

Once you say there can be no discussion, and only insults will work, you are a stones throw away from outright violence. That is the hallmark of the post modernists progressive. I will not sink to that level.

I chose to believe that non extremists respond better to logic they do calling people toothless or horse faced.



posted on Jan, 7 2019 @ 11:37 PM
link   
Great thread.

Unfortunately, this is the internet though. It will never happen, and it's not just with politics. Gaming forums, programming forums - just about anywhere you can post 'anonymously' is extremely toxic. It's just the way it is, and it's been like that for as long as I've used the internet. The only thing that's changed is now everyone has instantaneous access to it from their phones or other mobile devices at any given time.

You're likely to never persuade anyone online - especially when it comes to subjective topics such as politics, this is likely the reason the stackexchange sites will outright close a topic that cannot be answered without opinions.

I'd wager most people who read your thread understand you, but where's the fun if we all reach an understanding? What then? Perhaps you feel like you want to inform people, or maybe help them?

I don't.

When I come to the internet, sites like ATS in particular, its to read people's amusing opinions - or to see if I can bait someone into wasting time, because I have it to waste at that moment; it's rare for me to get invested in a thread because I rarely care enough to make anything more than antagonizing post/replies. We've had a few exchanges you and I, and it's not that I didn't / can't understand your positions - It's just at those times my motivations for posting where for my own entertainment.

I think maybe you underestimate the amount of people that applies to and there's little that can be done - what do you do when you turn all four cheeks and you're getting nowhere? Stop posting? Or antagonize back? The latter option is the most entertaining.



posted on Jan, 8 2019 @ 02:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.



I agree with you on moral principles of acting civil during political debates. Although I do confess to having little or no time for Communism and Fascism, but that doesn't mean everybody who disagrees with my political views represents these extremist tyrannies.

Philosophically, despite not being an American, I feel the Battle of Gettysburg and the now historical site, shows what happens when the political process and civility fails in politics. The political center is under pressure in the U.S and the Trump presidency is deepening this political divided. Some undemocratic trends are found across the globe. In New Zealand free speech on university campuses is under threat from the " (not so) alt or new left".

I am not a huge fan of Trump. But I have sought to better understand the reasons behind his ascent to the White House. I gained a greater level of empathy and understanding of why people in the Rust Belt states are protectionist. Incidentally, a stunning lack of empathy accompanies the absences of civility in politics.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Jan, 8 2019 @ 08:10 AM
link   
So here is another thread that sort of illustartes the point I am trying to make.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

A right wing politician in Germany beaten and nearly killed in what police are calling a politically motivated attack.

Now if you are a left wing person who dilslikes this person, I am sure you immediately understand how this violence will gain sympathy for the right wing party, and bring scrutiny on the left wing parties that may have insulted him or called him out.

We all know this on a visceral level.

That is why civility is more effective.



posted on Jan, 8 2019 @ 08:18 AM
link   
It kind of goes back to the saying... you can catch more flies with honey than vinegar.



posted on Jan, 8 2019 @ 08:25 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

That's the problem. There is a growing number of people who view having the things they don't want to be responsible for taken care of for them as being free. They're free of it. And they mightily resent seeing people like us who take care of those things for ourselves and seem to have it all together and refuse to do it for them. They want the government to step and take care of it all for all of us and they don't understand why we don't want to be "free" too.

We had this discussion with a friend of my husband's from high school. He had the means to purchase health insurance for himself but had chosen not to being in the young/healthy demographic, and then, he had to go to the ER with intense stomach pains for tests. Not only was he livid over the bill for that, but he ended up with a diagnosis of diverticulitis and was even more incensed that he now had a pre-existing which made getting insured from that point on even more expensive.

We asked him why he hadn't carried any insurance before which would have handled both issues, and he said it was because he hadn't needed it then. We gently explained that responsible people carry insurance against what he had gone through ... because you never know when you end up needing it. And he wouldn't listen and was all on board the socialized medicine train because then it never would have happened and his health care ... and ours would have been "free."

We explained that we preferred our insurance because we controlled it and had been responsible and paid for it and it hadn't always been easy and we had sacrificed but we had done it. And he said, "But think of all the stuff you could have had instead if it were free."
edit on 8-1-2019 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2019 @ 09:02 AM
link   
Things wont be civil because what people want are completely different.

Open borders vs controlled borders

Abolish ice vs support ice

Go green vs traditional methods

Patriotism vs globalism

On one side you have the newly arrived in their host countries not liking the rules.

On the other side nationals who want to preserve the country they have resided for more than 3 genrations.



posted on Jan, 8 2019 @ 09:58 AM
link   
This is one of the rare occasions I have not read the whole thread, in the hope that I am just repeating what others have said.

We are, in essence, seeing the new face of warfare. Enter the "war for your mind" cliche.

I suppose the trick is going to be to focus our time and effort on those that are willing to have a reasonable discussion.

I get why someone would want to reciprocate the behavior of those they have been trying to convince reasonably up to a breaking point, but wouldn't it be more effective to simply focus on those that.. well.. aren't acting like that?

The only way to win this war is to not participate. Which in no way implies sitting back and letting the battlefield become more and more unavoidable. It means taking courses of action that minimize the metaphorical bloodshed. Reciprocation is literally the goal of those pushing the nonsense.

There are plenty of folks all along the political spectrum that are capable of, and practice reason. But, the current course makes many feel they need to choose sides against an ill-defined opponent. An opponent that is conveniently painted by organizations that use the sheer scale of society to place the small window of perception on what they want us to see. And, then we carry that impression over to our personal, daily lives.

Simply put, many are borderline lost causes, with the left certainly being more widespread (and therefore more self-reinforcing). The only hope is to create a "game" with an entirely different set of rules, and then bank on at least some wanting to be included.

I've said it before, but I'm convinced that this was all manufactured in order to prevent the ever increasing pace of technological advancement from fundamentally changing our society and civilization. Something that has, at its core, remained consistent since feudalism really came on the scene.

The conversation has moved entirely away from "how do we do this," to "it doesn't matter how, I am against/for it!" That's a problem.

The things we could do with our technology, even right here and now, are unimaginable in our current Cultural Story, much less where we will progress tomorrow.

But, some of the coolest and most amazing things can, and should only be done in an entirely different paradigm.



posted on Jan, 8 2019 @ 09:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

So... calling the President a Mother @#$#@ while threatening to impeach him, multiple times, where would that fall? Civil, or uncivil? Asking for a friend.



posted on Jan, 8 2019 @ 10:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: jjkenobi
a reply to: Grambler

So... calling the President a Mother @#$#@ while threatening to impeach him, multiple times, where would that fall? Civil, or uncivil? Asking for a friend.


Uncivil and ineffectual.

People who arent already firmly entrenched as dem supporters or trump supporters were no doubt turned off by those statements.



posted on Jan, 8 2019 @ 12:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Nice OP, but I dont do political discourse..............its a total waste of time and breath.



posted on Jan, 8 2019 @ 05:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
So here is another thread that sort of illustartes the point I am trying to make.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

A right wing politician in Germany beaten and nearly killed in what police are calling a politically motivated attack.

Now if you are a left wing person who dilslikes this person, I am sure you immediately understand how this violence will gain sympathy for the right wing party, and bring scrutiny on the left wing parties that may have insulted him or called him out.

We all know this on a visceral level.

That is why civility is more effective.

How did that thread turn out?

All that effort you put it to it to be neutral, and what happened?
It's funny though, sort of like bending backwards unnecessarily to try and prove your civility point and ending up proving the opposite.

The left at this moment (for the most part), does not listen to reason.

Note that I am not condoning the insulting and badmouthing of the liberals, but if something is wrong they should be called out for it.

Not that silly tiptoeing around issues so nobody feels attacked.
Like talking to those "supportive" and "understanding" psychologists that validate pretty much any abhorrent behavior. That PC crap is the reason we are where we are right now.

Final thought.

I would like to point out though, that one should not try to appear to be "soo" centrist that it seems, for the lack of a better word, dishonest, forced, and plainly transparent.
It's like you agree with nobody and all, at the same time.
edit on 1/8/2019 by efabian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2019 @ 06:13 PM
link   
a reply to: efabian

First that thread tunred out fine and as I predicted.

Many people would be "extremist" but i still enjoyed myself and felt I gave my opinions in a successful way.

I uarnetee had I started out with "Leftists (insert for our five insulting profanities) did this! ALl you leftists are terrible people!" it would have went a lot worse.

And do you really think I come off as a fake centrist?

Thats a new one; I am always being told how biased I am.



posted on Jan, 8 2019 @ 06:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

I mean that in the way you wrote the thread it was apparent that you were trying to seem unbiased.
Like you were beating around the bush and not saying things as they are.

Either way, much better to have actual disclosure rather than constant bickering between both sides.
Sadly here where I live everybody is just brainwashed on to repeating the MSM talking points, they have their minds made up and any sight of opposing view or fact is an instant attack (not physically, lol).







top topics



 
23
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join