reply to post by semperfortis
With all respect, I would like to offer a mild rebuttal to your statement.
As preface, I want to offer my congratulations on a very well-stated position. I agree, in principle, with what you have said. But I am not certain,
in this context, it can be anything more than an ideal towards which we should strive.
I do not believe that it is entirely practicable to reign in the outbursts and emotional disagreements prevalent in ideological discourse.
Given that differences in choice are inevitable, especially given different perspectives, backgrounds, and experiences present within the body of our
community. And further, if you will agree, on certain issues there must be a logical correct and incorrect course of action, or policy. If only two
opposing options exists, one must be right and the other wrong.
Now I don't want to digress into defining dialectics, but politics is no longer about dialectics. It's about marketing. Marketing and persuasive
methods are used to implant ideas, not to explore premises or resolve disputes. In fact, politics as it seems to be exercised in our generation is
about actually 'generating' a confrontation to the benefit of one's candidate, for the purpose of catering to the emotional. The emotionality is
part-and-parcel of the experience because for the most part, that is what politicians use more than anything else in their 'marketeering'. Reason
and professionalism would likely appear distinctly dry and un-engaging in the media circus that has been provided as a venue for political
As a result, the red-faced, fist-pounding politician - spouting platitudes and cliche, by your stated standard could be considered quite
'unprofessional.' But the political effectiveness might be unsurpassed depending on the context.
People, taking up the cause of the politician, behave politically - and adopt the same perspective, forgoing the analysis of the underlying premise,
but engaging in the same 'tenor' of the message. Antagonists are likely to respond in kind, regardless of the merits of the position they may be
defending or espousing.
Controlling such exchanges, or attempting to throttle the intensity of the debate leads to a frustrated resurgence of verbal thrashing, as if the
'illusory' free-speech line had been crossed. Perhaps some may display the reserve to step back, take a breath, and resume on a more civil tone,
but it's rare that both parties exercise the restraint.
In any event, and particularly since we have seen such a large increase in membership, the raucous sound of the partisan conflict will be echoing in
our ears for some time to come.
I believe railing against this trend is always worth discussing, but expecting it to abate is unrealistic. People who lack the means or literary
tools to express themselves will simply use what vocabulary they can to express their emotional reaction to the argument.
I think at times it's more embarrassing for them than it is for the reader.
Along those lines you have the institution of words like 'sheeple' which has divided so many. We are not immune from injury, verbally speaking, and
this word has caused a few injuries, that much is evident. I fear that should you successfully 'ban' that word, another will pop up to take it's
At any rate, that's my take on this, thank you for the opportunity to respond; and your patience, should you have read my whole boring post.