I am getting a bit tired of these boards. I love AD, and commend the admins for their hard work. It is well organised, well policed, and well maintained, and an excellent locale to discuss issues of importance. But in a recent thread, I finally threw up my hands in frustration at seeing the same thing play out again and again and again...

Someone makes a post regarding some current event that affects the US.

The republican fringe instantly dismisses anything which could possibly suggest anything bad about the President, insults those who would consider otherwise, and usually manage to throw in phrases like 'left wing media' or 'crazy liberals'. Bush is wonderful, and most evils of the world can be traced back to Clinton.

The democratic fringe instantly accepts any condemnation of Bush, no matter how tentative or preliminary, as Gospel and insult those who could consider supporting such an 'evil' man, they usualy manage to throw in phrases like 'stole the election' or 'warmongering right wing'. Bush is satanic, and Clinton did a better job of all things.


There are a few people on this board capable of discussing issues based on the actual issues, rather then on their own personal partisan politic world view, but far to few. I don't know, maybe I get a warning or strike for this, but consider this an appeal to all: please consider, just consider for a moment before replying, that your political view, left or right might NOT be the divine perfection you imagine it to be.

I am not American, I participate here as a neighbour from the North. To us (and most of the rest of the world) the vehemence of party politics in the US is baffling. Canada has political parties, five of them right now, often in strict and severe opposition to each other. But there is nver the kind of ideological hatred that seems to exist between parties in the US.

Maybbe I am wrong, if so please correct me, but it really is reaching the point where you can look at the name heading a post, and you can predict exactly what the post will say, because of the party of the poster.

Don't misunderstand me, everyone has a leaning, left right or centre, and people always argue along their political leaning, that is to be expected. But it sems with the partry fringes, logic and fact and reality do not enter into the debate, they stand for a position because thats the position their party stands for, and any evidence against it is not argued or debated, it is simply dismissed. It becomes less of a stance and more of a dogma.

Am I the only one who sees this? Am I the sole voice from the frozen North (we had a blizzard yesterday) speaking crazy talk?

Vermillion

Let me be the first to congratulate you on the above post. Also let me say that you probably deserve a purple heart medal(since you will get wounded by some on AD)for being truthful and sincere. I agree with you wholeheartly.

Before I say anything else,you can tell at the bottom of my post that my signature says "bush lies soliders die". If that makes me bias(because of my protest of the war in Iraq)so be it.

I have vote Republican and Democratic in my lifetime. I was raised to vote Republican but now I try to vote for the person.

I will ALWAYS listen to any discussion from anyone. Anyone that doesn't is stopping themself from learning.

There are some individuals on AD that are excellent debaters(which I don't consider myself)and I have learned so much from them. Others I am hesitant to say the same.

This is a excellent thought provoking subject and I am looking forward to see how others reply.

Thanks,Vermillion

Such things are inevitable on a political debate forum. Parties will always have there loyalists. The thing needed here is resolve and ingenuity.

Don't get mad, don't get even, get ahead.

Have a bit of fun with the partisans by trapping them in logic.

Ask them why Clinton and Bush said the same thing about Iraqi WMD and both bombed and killed innocent civilians under questionable intelligence and watch the wriggling begin.

Try and get them to explain how lumber companies will "clear brush" from American forests while leaving profitable trees alone.

Expose partisanship and it will be difficult to continue, it's one of my favorite AD pastimes.

turnea,

Because my last post to you (under "Why do we have to be more like Europe") might seem a bit rude, I post this as a follow up to 'publicly' apologize. After reading some of your other posts, I see you as more of a centrist than I thought. I too like to end or 'stop cold' what I see are futile debates. I think I can relate to you in this respect.

The only thing I would offer as advice (I know you didn't ask for it, and I usually don't do it) is to not get trapped in that logic yourself. Not all logic is deductive; There is a whole branch of mathematics dedicated to induction: Calculus.

Have a good day and keep a'postin.

Ya know Vermillion, LOL We tend not to agree 3/4 of the time though on this one, I must agree. This phenomenon is not only apparent on AD it exists in my life as well. I have voted 5 pres. elections. 3x for a Repub and 2x for a Dem though to a member of my family (very right Repub) I am the walking personification of an extreme liberal . This is why I am now undisclosed as a party affiliation, now all feel free to debate me without bias! And they do!

That is best evidence I have ever seen of FAULTY LOGIC.

One president bombed occasionally to keep Saddam in check.

One president invaded another country and Iraqi citizens were killed plus AMERICAN SOLIDERS.

Now you can use your logic to tell who did what?

Good post, Vermillion! (And, relax, popeye )

AD is a wonderful place for me to come not only to read what's going on in my head, but also to read what other people are thinking and feeling. I learn SO MUCH -- even from the partisan postings -- because every posting has a bit of truth to it... even if that "truth" applies only to the person posting it.

Sure, there are partisan hacks out here on both sides of the spectrum. But reading what they write helps strengthen my own arguments about the topic. Sometimes I can sway some people over to another way of thinking, sometimes not. Some people will never be swayed away from a partisan posture. You learn who those are early and you don't spend too much time expecting them to change their position.

Above all, though, posting a well-researched fact that contradicts their argument is the best way to even the field.

Sheesh, it's going to take all afternoon to ban all the contributors to this thread...



Actually, Vermillion has a very good point.

It frustrates me to no end that there is still that small minority that doesn't agree with my posts...

Actually, you can't really expect to convince many people via the internet, in my opinion. In a face to face discussion, you can convince someone much more easily, in my experience. There are few who don't succumb to my powers of persuasion in person...

In all seriousness, I find that I need a break from AD every so often. At those times, I stick to the lighter issues, like Casual Conversation.

I think Quarkhead's signature says it best, "What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way." -- Bertrand Russell

Isn't that a perfect representation of human nature? Everyone believes they are rational, unbiased human beings. The fact is, none of us are. Everyone is the product of his or her environment, and everyone has SOME inherent bias. I think a large percentage (better than the national average) of the posters are reasonable here. If you are getting tired of the bickering, I agree with Amlord...take a break. We all need one (I think I need one a well). I recommend the casual conversation forum too. Maybe I'll see you there.

Well said Vermillion! Yes, we Americans are a passionate bunch and I agree, we sometimes get carried away in expressing our viewpoints in debating the wrongs and rights in this world of ours.

Sounds like you may need a break. I have vowed (almost daily) to drop the debate in politics until after the November Election 2004 and maybe until after the inauguration in 2005. For more than a year (before and after the war), I participated in several Iraqi blogs until I just couldn't take the "bash America rhetoric" any longer and dropped out of all of them. Regardless of whether a forum or a blog, it is important to remember that the views expressed represent only a very small piece of the American pie!

Take care and yes, it is going to be a very long 8 months until the American voters get a chance to back up their rhetoric with a vote for their chosen candidate. And, if the truth be known, some of the flame throwers probably don't exercise their right to vote and that's why they always seem so angry!

Well put Vermillion!

But to me the keyword here is fringe.


I'll use myself as an example. Thanks in part to my discussions on various topics on AD and talks with various people that participate here I recently came to the conclusion that I could not continue as a member of the Republican party after 10 years as a loyal member.

I am currently discussing issues I have with the Libertarian party with several people on and off AD as I consider joining that party. I am also looking at other parties as well.

There are MANY people here that are willing to look at all sides of the issue. There are those that are pure partisans, but just look at how many people on here list themselves as Independent (or other third party) rather then one political side or the other of the Republicrats.

As for me. I read, discuss, listen to the radio, watch the TV news and all. But when I hear an issue for the first time I have a tendency to immediately form an opinion on it. I try to hold that opinion in check and at least do a tiny bit of research first before I voice it. When I am faced with opinions contrary to my own that are reasonable and supported I have changed my own views at times.

You can't expect that from the "Bush is a Fascist" or the "Clinton was a Criminal" crowds. They are so wrapped up in their ideology that they immediately tune out anything contrary and either look for any little hole they can poke in the arguement, condesend, or simply ignore the whole concept. But these people are not the majority of those on AD.

My only advice I can give you is:

He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave. -- Sir William Drummond


As a side note: Well now, this is post number 222 for me. Does that make me a third of a beast?

Vermillion,

I second the 'excellent post' nominations. I have observed the very same phenomenon (in fact, it was much worse somewhere else--that's how I ended up here). I had not thought of it as an American phenomenon though--would be interested in hearing from others if that is in fact the case. If so, I think our two party system has something to do with--by definition, having just two parties polarizes the views. Also, both parties tend to be very similar in behaviour (they are, after all, both composed of politicians ). This has tended to diffuse the actual differences between the parties, leaving emotional rhetoric to take its place.

I think PigPen's response is also very true--bias is simply part of human nature. I know I try to be as open minded as possible, but I'm sure to many I appear to be very obtuse and obstinate in my viewpoint (Quarkhead's sig in action, I guess ). I think a cure for this is to occasionally have threads that force people to post out of their comfort box. For example, listing the five things you like most about the opposite party/person heading it. These tend to be like police cars, though--everyone slows down when they pass one, but just a couple miles farther on, they're speeding just as fast as ever. Every so often a post such as yours helps us all to pause and reflect on whether we're as open-minded as we think we are...

Hobbes Posted on Mar 25 2004, 06:07 PM

That is such a cool idea, it also leads me to believe that I spend way too much time on AD!
Partisan Counseling! I might add that I have been been swayed in many ways by my experience at AD. It is hard to look the political monster in the eye and say, you don't fool me. I also believe people are reluctant to think about or admit that "the easy answer, the answer of our party" may not be the right answer. Our hectic 21st century lives, Mega Wall Mart one stop shopping may apply to our politics as well. Thanks Vermillion for the topic, the thread is great.

I respectfully dissent. Well, okay, I agree with about 80% of Vermillion's post.

The only thing I would caution against is judging participants here too much on a single issue or single position. For example, because I feel that Bush is Satanic, many people presume that I am, therefore, a Democrat and that I am necessarily a fan of Bill Clinton (or John Kerry). I am not a Democrat and never have been. I was also a vocal critic of Clinton and feel pretty ambivalent about Kerry. Or because I do not believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms, many people assume that I do not believe that such a right should be secured. I do feel that we should have the individual right to bear arms, I just don't think that's what the Constitution says. Will such a paragraph as this change the perception of those on the other side the next time I post about George W Bush or the Second Amendment? I wouldn't count on it.

I have, of course, made similar assumptions about other contributors here myself. But through correspondence with members like overlandsailor and johnlocke or careful reading of a range of posts by members like turnea and DaytonRocker and Hobbes one can find many areas of agreement (or at least a lot more diversity and flexibility than one might initially have presumed). In fact, apart from a few people who have been banned, I can only think of one regular participant here whom I would consider a blind ideologue who listens to nothing, pays attention to no one, and has never budged on a single issue. I think that speaks well not only of America's Debate contributors, but also of a sizeable number of interested American citizens.

Yes, many in this country feel passionately about their beliefs, seek to find reinforcement for them, and resist challenges to them - but that does not mean that we are all adhering to beliefs that are set in stone, deaf to all other viewpoints. Nor does it imply that we are stalwart, die-hard supporters of one party or another and always will be. If one asked how many participants here have voted outside "their party" or have even changed parties over the years, I think one would be surprised (and that's just among those who currently identify with a particular party).

That said, this is an election year - and the populace seems to be fairly evenly divided between the two apparent "choices" (as it was in 2000). Because there are still high emotions over the last presidential election, which many feel was illegitimate, those passions are going to be running a bit higher than usual - especially as both leading candidates (so far) seem to be running fairly divisive, personal campaigns, rather than focussing on the pertinent issues. (How many threads do we currently have on campaign ads, accusations made in campaign ads, and media coverage of campaign ads?) This will doubtless lead many of us to leap to even more conclusions about those we perceive as "the opposition" in an effort to create a neat, if virtually non-existent, "us" and "them".

So, while I agree with Vermillion's posting as a generalization, as with most generalizations, much of the bias can also be in the eye of the beholder. Neither candidate represents me, though I definitely oppose one more than I oppose the other. Therefore, I will naturally be characterized as an ardent supporter of one and a vicious opponent of the other. I wouldn't expect either the perception or the reality to change much any time soon.

About the only remedy I can suggest is that we listen to each other a bit more carefully, try to avoid leaping to conclusions, and resist viewing each other (or, indeed, the issues) as black or white. And, when in doubt, .

Yes, I have to ditto this. There will be quite a bit of circling the wagons between now and November. Probably be too darn many debates centering around Vietnam service, campaign ads and character assasinations, and not enough on the issues. It is most likely going to be a close election, little will be conceded. I would not be surprised to see Willie Horton II (Kerry was Lt. Governor at the time)



Actually, I budged on the sexiest females debate. I was going back and forth between Salma Hayek and Daisy Fuentes.

Bzzt. Not quite accurate.

Kerry was Lt. Gov for 1982-1984 (when he was elected to the Senate). Willie Horton walked away from the Prison Furlough program in 1986. However, that program ran from 1972 until 1988, so it's possible we'll see somebody else in the "Willie" role, but certainly not ol' Willie.

Also, being Lt. Gov is like being a vice president; you don't really DO much to run the state while you wait for the person above you in the food chain to die.

Just wanted to clarify this point.

Correct, thinks for the clarification. The furlough program was active during Kerry's term, but Willie's actions were a couple years later. I was using the the possibility of the Willie II ad as an example of how this campaign will be. Your facts may not prevent a Willie II ad.

Vermillion:

Excellent observation. I will give you mine.

The debate of "What America should be" has been going on since the ink dried on the Constitution, but, it appears to me that it has gotten much ruder and more insulting since the tragic events of 9/11.

We all came together for a few days, then immediately started splitting apart. I have no idea why it happened, but that is my "take" on it.

We look at "words" as having much more value then "action". If you have the right "marketing firm" behind you, that is all that matters. Almost nothing has to make sense, it just has to resemble a "Walmart" commercial. Lies mix so well with smiles anymore that you start distrusting people who appear happy. If their happy, the must be part of the "mind controlled Religious Right" or a "Dope smoking liberal". There IS NO MIDDLE ANYMORE, or the middle is just tired of having to listen to both fringes bicker so much.

If the two parties disagree, just smear the other one, use the names of Nixon or Clinton and you got yourself a campaign.

It is sad, but whoever offers the most cash will most likely win. But we never realize where that cash comes from...... US.

3000 Americans died on 9/11, but I fear we lost much more then those poor souls, we lost our identity, and we are having one heck of a time trying to get it back.

Oh well, I appreciate the Soapbox Vermillion. Thanks for the opportunity.

Vermillion, as everyone else, I too have had to take a break from debate every so often. A good sign for me to stop and smell some roses is when I compose several attempts at a post and throw them all away.

Another rather disturbing sign is when I actually feel like something important is at stake -- I *must* convince so-and-so.

Eh, no, that doesn't happen very often in this lifetime. I can think of only about a dozen times when something really importanty was at stake, and the debate was always among professionals or family members.

And of those dozen times, I only won twice. That is, we acted on my proposal. Both times someone else believed he/she thought it up.

It's a Jedi Knight marketing trick.