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

a reply to: Grambler

I don't really agree. It's always been there and it's not a new thing, social media has just turned up the volume.

I'd posit the 60's and into the early 70's were actually worse or at the least equal to now.

That tactic of dividing to control has been with us since the first village witch doctor threw sulfur on a fire and led the tribe over the hill to kill all the evil demons in the village on the other side of the hill because they posed a threat to his power.

The 60's were a more violent time. In fact violent crime is way down over the last thirty years. It's always been about the team winning and never had a lot to do with right or wrong or who is right or wrong.

That our universities, or I should say some of them, have been invaded by kids with copies of "Rules for Radicals" in their pockets is not new. The arguments over whether or not we were coming into and Ice Age and over Vietnam were running hot and heavy. If anything we are moving backwards towards the bad old days.

There are more and more Independents every year now, so if anything it may be getting better. We can't judge it by the loud voices on social media, who often seem to be the same loud voices over and over again, making the numbers seem larger than they are.

The media has always leaned heavily to one side, we just did not know it back in the ABC, CBS and NBC were your only option days. Social media was the kitchen table, church gatherings and town halls where the politicians were heavily engaging in the divide to control game.

Amen. And It starts like this. We should be able to have a discussion about any kind of politics but I should be able to say, I voted Libertarian this past election cause I don't Trust Trump or Hillary. I couldn't vote for Jill Stein, she wasn't eligible in my state so she's out of the equation.

The correct response is something like..." Oh okay, well I voted for Trump because, for me border security was a huge issue and I knew he'd do something about it"

But instead, in this day and age i get " oh you idiot, no wonder Hillary lost, you wasted your vote!" Or, " you must be one of them transgender libtards, why elst wouldn't you vote for Trump." Or "You need to get your head out of your @(( before this country is destroyed"

LOL

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.

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: odzeandennz

Yes this sort o0f goes with the Haidt clip I posted above.

We need more study into why the evidence seems to show that hatred for the other side aong republicans and democrats really took off in the early 2000's

I think our communication tech would probably have a lot to do with that, and your post brings a lot to mind on how it could further be exacerbated.

Oh I absolutely agree with the video. You were spot on.

And a 2 party system almost forces the mentality of 'I'm right you're wrong, even when we're both wrong '.

One has to always be more right than the other. (And its gonna be evident all over this thread)

You can have friends on both sides of the spectrum, but you have to tread carefully. Some topics are at such extreme tangents that clashing them can tear things apart.

a reply to: Lumenari

Maybe I am wielding wiffle bat, but I would say then that the constant insulting of the other side is wielding an aluminum bat and hitting yourself in the head.

Lets just take an example.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Cnn laughs as trump supporters called ten toothed racists.

Do you think this helped them get more people to agree with their ideology?

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.

And there you go, that's the OPs point right here. You villify only the left as if there are no jerks on the right side of our political spectrum. As long as people like you keep believing this, we'll always have this divide.

I am breaking my personal rules by mid week posting, but wanted drop two cents that this thread is a great one.

It is reassuring to find content that is focused on what others need to hear instead of what one wants to say.

A desire to be wrong for even the smallest of chances to work towards what may be right elsewhere or unseen is a rare trait to practice. Practice forms habits... habits form disciplines... disciplines form change.

Modern day journalism is not journalism... it is activism. Those who turn activism back to journalism will be the next Walter Cronkite's of the world.

Great content... well worth the time spent reading and listening!

a reply to: Blaine91555

Polls show that hatred for the opposing political party has spiked considerably since 2000.

Yes, there were riots and division in past times, and violence is down.

That is a different problem than political discourse being on the decline.

If this discourse continues to spiral, we will see more political violence.

Now as far as independents, I agree they are growing. I would argue many of them are fed up with the two parties......

Uncivil political discourse!

So yes, as I said, I am optimistic that we see groups that push this uncivility such as the msm losing influence.

Let's not forget the multitude of reasons for the importance of removing more self serving concepts to debate in trade of approaches that approach concerns with a sense of responsibility regardless of who is thought of to be at fault either...

[qz.com...]

Yes, that's right folks... AI chat bot trolling has been in full effect for well over a decade now. The chances that emotional turmoil of humans that are upset by how communication channels unfold may not even always be another human that they are upset with, and may be just a simple machine learning device to learn trigger points. For AI to provide a 5 point deviation from standard, it must first isolate the herd standard. AI moves on to learn more as humans remain in the standard deviated from.

It should be important to keep in the back of one's mind that fighting digital sources may not always be humans, which drastically alters the parameters of gaining influence let alone debate specifics.

It is of no coincidence that internet debate is viewed to be of a worse level of worth then it was ten years back. Notice the ads here magically know what you looked for elsewhere? To establish a good foundation of human debate emotions need to be put into 'airplane' mode. That's a tough hill to climb when emotions are running the bulk of climbers in action...

edit on 7-1-2019 by ttobban because: bad link

edit on 7-1-2019 by ttobban because: bad link

a reply to: Grambler

What issues, in your opinion, can be changed?

Guns? People against them feel they have a moral background.


Free speech? Just look on this site at how many deem "hate speech" as something that merits banning.


Socialized medicine? Again, people feel they have a moral right to obligate the rest of us.



We are at a divide. Perhaps a great one.

There is no compromise when it comes to rights.

You either have them or change them to privileges.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Exactly!

a reply to: Grambler

I think it runs in cycles. We are on the same page I think, for the most part.

After the 60's with all the partisan hatred and the turbulent times, the end result was actually a good one. We made a leap forward for the better. I see that cycle repeating here. I think we are nearing a point now were partisan lines are blurring again. I may well be wrong in that.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Minds can be changed in all three of the issues you provided.

Take gins. I believe the vast majority of people support the 2nd amendment and think we should be allowed to have gins, but also favor some sort of limits such as background checks, full auto or bump stick bans, etc.

Its not simply I think all guns should be allowed with no questions asked vs no guns ever to anyone. The middle ground is where you can persuade people more to your side.

You say there is no persuasion possible. My question is how would insulting these people make things better in any way whatsoever?

Again I will ask.

Will you vote for the party that called you deplorable? Or had its media people call you a ten toothed racist?

SO why would people on the other side even consider listening to you if you are making similar insults?

a reply to: Grambler

Because you have to look beyond party labels and look at basic foundational freedoms.

a reply to: Grambler

Minds can be changed when the opposition feels they have a moral obligation to infringe on enumerated rights?

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. Now that ATS is just one big mud pit, it's about winning. It's not civilized debate it's "might make's right" if you post up the harshest meme. Name calling and threats are the new order of the day... Not so veiled threats of revolution and settling the disputes with guns.

There's also a negative side...

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Grambler

Minds can be changed when the opposition feels they have a moral obligation to infringe on enumerated rights?

But you arent necessarily targeting the entrenched extremist opposed to you, you are targeting people in the middle.

Again, take another example you give, socialism.

So you have all of the kids going through the education system, and college. It is dominated by left wing ideology, and they have many socilaists professors.

They get out of college, and lets be honest, its a tough economy for someone with student loan debt just entering the workforce.

And so they favor socialism, but arent really rabid about it.

Now there are thousands of people like this, or slightly less or more favorable of socialism, but not extremely for or against it.

You want to convince them socialism is bad.

What is more effective; pointing out all of the problems with socialism, including many of its disasters when its been allied in real life that they probably werent really taught?

Or laughing at them for stupidly getting into debt, and calling them commie morons?

Now you might say the first strategy probably wouldnt work.

But I say there is a chance, and the second strategy is a sure fire way to get them to hate you and become strongfer advocates of socialism.

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.

originally posted by: Grambler


But I say there is a chance, and the second strategy is a sure fire way to get them to hate you and become strongfer advocates of socialism.

So I'm supposed to have a rational discourse with someone who has a position based on emotion?

What rational debate could sway someone if the only reason they believe the way they do is because of hurt feels?


You want rational discourse with what you describe as an irrational person.


It makes no sense!

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Grambler


But I say there is a chance, and the second strategy is a sure fire way to get them to hate you and become strongfer advocates of socialism.

So I'm supposed to have a rational discourse with someone who has a position based on emotion?

What rational debate could sway someone if the only reason they believe the way they do is because of hurt feels?


You want rational discourse with what you describe as an irrational person.


It makes no sense!

First you are assuming no rational thoughts are occurring, but there is always a chance you are wrong. For example, trump haters think you are irrational, but clearly you think they are mistaken.

Second, the debate, particularly online like on ats isnt just you and that person, its everyone else reading. I bet more people read posts on ATS than even respond. Who knows what they may learn and respect from you for engaging in a well thought out manner as opposed to insults.



And again, even if everything you say is true, what benefit is there to just saying screw it and resorting to insults? None that i see.

At least there is a chance that you may persuade someone who didnt see things your way by being polite.

Again, look at the toothless trump supporter comment.

Had that cnn panel just made arguments about the wall maybe not working and costing a lot, there could have been a few trump supporters that would have been lsightly persuaded to see their point.

But how many do you think were persuaded by their strategy of calling them toothless racists?