Wake up?

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-16-2007
Wake up?
77
Mon, 09-22-2008 - 11:35pm

I keep returning to this board in the hopes that there will be some intellectual, thoughtful dialogue going on...And I am always so disappointed.


I think so many of you who post here are really smart and insightful, and have a lot of great things to say...But I'm just wondering when an intelligent conversation is going to take place.


I'm really not trying to be offensive, but it just seems that someone poses a question or a thought, and then it's off to the races about how much op-ed 'evidence' and partisan subjectivity one can possibly squeeze into a post.


Is there no one here, besides me, who believes in analyzing BOTH candidates with the same critical eye, and then moving forward with discussion that leads to some kind of thoughtful debate?


I keep saying this, and no one replies to me.  But I believe it's important enough to keep nagging about....And so, I will.

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-22-2008
In reply to: kalielu
Tue, 09-23-2008 - 9:33am

No one on this board is worth stalking or harrassing -

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-12-2004
In reply to: kalielu
Tue, 09-23-2008 - 9:42am
Anecdotes.
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-15-2008
In reply to: kalielu
Tue, 09-23-2008 - 10:33am

I suspect that very few people here will believe me when I say what I'm about to say, but I couldn't agree with you more. I have been visiting this board - sometimes lurking, sometimes posting, for several years, and it has always been the same thing: people more interested in scoring points or insulting the other side than in actually having a dialogue. The Rovian "never admit your opponent might have a point, unless they're agreeing with YOU" style of discussion/campaigning seems to be the operative principle for too many people here.

And yes, I include myself in that group at the moment, unfortunately.

The only reason I didn't abandon this board a long time ago - actually, there are two chief reasons, now that I think about it. The first is that even for all its flaws, it is still the only place I've found (though I wouldn't say by any means that I've conducted an exhaustive search; just from what I HAVE seen) where people who are not complete idiots and genuinely hail from BOTH sides of the aisle come together and talk. I've spent time in the comments section of both very liberal and very conservative blogs, and while there is often a great deal of action there - each post getting typically well upwards of a hundred posts in it - they quickly become very boring and not very useful. At the liberal blogs, I feel surrounded by so many more-or-less like-minded people that it quickly becomes just preaching to the choir. Occasionally, someone will post something in comments that I'd not seen before, which I think is valuable, and occasionally a right-winger will show up to call everyone anti-American asshats....but beyond that, it's just not particularly enlightening nor enjoyable to sit in a room (real or cyber) with a bunch of people who think very similarly to yourself, and all nod your heads and go "yup!" On the right-wing blogs' comments sections I've visited, obviously the opposite is true. There, virtually everyone thinks quite differently about issues than I do....but they aren't really interested much in debate, either. No matter how I phrase questions or objections to some of the conclusions drawn, I get immediately labeled a troll - which is just a convenient way on both liberal and conservative blogs to say, essentially "go away, we're having our own party here and you don't belong," instead of actually engaging the person or their ideas - and insulted/vilified. I've also learned to give dummy email addresses, or throwaway ones, because in some cases, I become the target of some rather nasty email bombings, just for having the temerity to disagree with the conventional wisdom of whatever right-wing site I've visited. Either way - left-wing or right-wing blog, the sense of tribalism and knee-jerk exclusion always gets depressing AND boring. Very little true conversation, either way. I still visit many of both, but usually only for news, etc - to read the front-page stuff that I might not otherwise see. I don't tend to waste my time in comments anymore.

The second reason I've stayed here on PT is the undeniable fact that this page seems to get a lot of visitors. Part of that is that - for whatever reason - it continues to be featured prominently on the front page of iVillage's "Message Boards" section, which means that any visitor who just happens to click through to that will be presented with Politics Today as a top-level choice, before all the literally dozens (hundreds?) of other iVillage boards. Whatever the reason, there seems to be a lot of traffic here. And that means a chance to talk to a lot of people. Or at least have a lot of people read what I write. I don't do that out of vanity or a need to talk to others; I do it because I'm a political junkie and consider this particular election to be nothing short of critical. I believe that the Bush/Rove brand of conservatism as practiced has been absolutely RUINOUS for America, and also that most people's access to media prevents them from hearing/seeing/reading much about that. Not that people CAN'T find such things, if they try....but most people are NOT political junkies like those of us who post regularly on this board. Most people are lucky if they have the time and energy in their busy lives to read the paper in the morning (and usually not even a great deal of THAT), and then they go about their day - maybe turn on the evening news, which has become increasingly ineffective and moribund, in my opinion. Or - worse - if they turn on a radio at their desk or in their car as they drive for work, and they want to hear political-ish stuff, they get talk radio which is dominated by right-wingers who have been telling them - literally - for decades (I mark the rise of Limbaugh in the late '80s/early '90s as the beginning) that liberals are evil, unAmerican, less-than-human, diseased, unstable, etc, etc..... And so I figure if someone comes to iVillage - for whatever reason - and happens to find themselves clicking on this link just to see what it's like, they're at least interested enough to spend a bit of time. And perhaps this is the only place in their day where they might hear something that isn't either blandly reassuring them that nothing's happening, or screaming in their ear that the sky is falling and it's liberals' fault.

But - like you - I have wished for quite a long time that this board felt and operated like less of a pitched battle between two eternally irreconcilable "sides" and more like a Socratic debate, where we assume at least a modicum of respect (if not actually good will), as well as a shared search for genuine illumination and solutions, instead of just a chance to blame others. A place where, when bad or abusive behavior was observed, it wasn't left up to the person being abused or those who agree with her/his ideas to point it out or cry "foul," but instead where people took a stand against it even if (perhaps ESPECIALLY if) it was coming from someone with whom they tended to agree on the issues. That way, it's US against bad behavior, not US against THEM. KWIM? I don't know how to fix it, although getting rid of the cls was most definitely a step in the right direction (since I've been visiting here, they'd gone through SIX conservatives, by my count, and only ONE mushy liberal). But I fear that until there is a collective exhaustion with behavior that says "people on my side are more human and/or worthy of respect than people on your side," nothing will change. Someone famous said that change - real, difficult change - only occurs when the pain of remaining the same finally outweighs the fear and/or pain of something new. And I think that's where this board has been for quite some time. You'll hear lots and lots of people who'll insist that they'd LOVE improved dialogue here, of the kind I think you're asking for, but who follow it up with "if only those ________ (conservative, liberal, whatever) bastards felt the same way. And back we go to the "beginning" of that particular Möbius strip.






But for the present age, which prefers the sign to the thing signified, the copy to the original, representation to reality, appearance to essence.....truth is considered profane, and only illusion sacred. Sacredness is in fact held to be enhanced in proportion as truth decreases and illusion increases, so that the highest degree of illusion comes to be the highest degree of sacredness.
- Ludwig Feuerbach, The Essence of Christianity, 2nd. ed., 1841


But for the present age, which prefers the sign to the thing signified, the copy to the original, representation to reality, appearance to essence.....truth is considered profane, and only illusion sacred. Sacredness
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-15-2008
In reply to: kalielu
Tue, 09-23-2008 - 10:59am

But that isn't what you said. What you said is that "liberals are crazy."

Perhaps you just didn't say what you intended to, or perhaps people are misunderstanding you, but I don't think hot-water - or I, or anyone else reading that comment - are wrong if we think the definition of "liberal" in modern American politics is essentially "someone left of the political center." I don't know if you and I would have exactly equal or compatible definitions of what constitutes "the center" or "liberal" or "conservative." But I'm pretty sure that most people would agree that, between the "center" (wherever you define it to be) and the "extreme" of either right or left, there is a great deal of territory that encompasses a great deal of ideas (and people!) who are neither straight-down-the-middle centrists NOR "extremists" of either strip (liberal or conservative).

That's why, when you say "liberals are crazy," it seems quite reasonable to assume that you DON'T only mean the extremists on the far end of the spectrum (which are always there, no matter what ideology or religion or idea you're talking about), but EVERYONE who's to the left of the "center." And THAT'S what feels like the kind of broad-brush smear that is both inaccurate and unfairly insulting. People know - whether they're liberal or conservative - that there are individuals and sometimes even whole groups out on the fringes of their own ideology who are genuinely nutty, and with whom they don't agree at all, even though they're both nominally on "the same side." Not every conservative is a John Bircher. Not every liberal is Abbie Hoffman or a member of the Weather Underground. But when someone reads a comment like the one hot-water highlighted of yours, which says simply "liberals are crazy," it does not at all feel like you're trying to refer to the Abbie Hoffmans or CPUSA folks BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T SAY SO. What you DID say was, simply, "liberals." Which puts everyone reading your words who considers themselves even mildly left of center in the same boat with those extremists....which is - as I've already mentioned - grossly unfair and inaccurate. People assume either bad faith on your part, when reading that, or just that you're mis-(or un-)informed about what "liberalism" even IS. And the same is true, I imagine, for conservatives. No, I KNOW it's true. No one likes being stereotyped, especially when that stereotyping is done by someone whose goal appears to be discrediting and insulting of one's one views and outlook by the use of inaccurate guilt-by-comparison associations.

Is it any wonder there's such rancor here, with statements like that one? You didn't ask my advice specifically, but since you led this thread with an observation (and a plea?) that there's little productive dialogue here, I'd urge you to keep in mind as you post that there are most definitely others here who do NOT share your worldview or your assumptions about how things work. And that these people will NOTICE if you do not take care in your writing to be very specific if/when you are going to hold something or someone or some idea up for disapproval or ridicule. If you're going to say "boy, Ted Kennedy is an ass, listen to what he proposed:...." you won't garner the kind of responses (and, sadly, REPUTATION) that you will by saying "liberals are crazy!....." Do you see the difference? Heck, even if you just say "I don't trust people on the extreme fringe of liberalism; they're crazy" you won't get the same tone of responses.....unless you take a policy or idea or example which is NOT "extreme" or "fringe" and use it as your example of what IS "fringe." I can't tell you how many times I've seen certain posters throw around the modifier "extreme" or "ultra" or "loony" as a modifier to go before "left" or "liberal." Certainly there ARE extreme lefties, just like there are extreme righties....but describing something like social security - one of the most successful government programs in America's history as "extreme leftist" or "loony leftist" just makes the person using that phrasing sound either like they can't distinguish between anything to the left of their own position and the "loony fringe" and/or that they're just spoiling for a fight by intentionally insulting anyone who doesn't absolutely LOATHE that program, for example, as an "extremist." Either way, the responses one gets back are going to be very different depending upon the care that's taken with the original post.

I sometimes think it literally all (or nearly all) comes down to tone. We should all learn a little to not be OVERLY sensitive, and to assume good will (or at least neutral intentions) until proven otherwise, in this written forum where there are no visual or verbal cues as to intent. But even if one is scrupulous in doing that, hearing someone carelessly toss off a phrase like "liberals are crazy" tends to poison the waters by making it very hard to assume good faith on the part of the person writing those words.

Anyway, that's all just FWIW.






But for the present age, which prefers the sign to the thing signified, the copy to the original, representation to reality, appearance to essence.....truth is considered profane, and only illusion sacred. Sacredness is in fact held to be enhanced in proportion as truth decreases and illusion increases, so that the highest degree of illusion comes to be the highest degree of sacredness.
- Ludwig Feuerbach, The Essence of Christianity, 2nd. ed., 1841


But for the present age, which prefers the sign to the thing signified, the copy to the original, representation to reality, appearance to essence.....truth is considered profane, and only illusion sacred. Sacredness
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-28-2008
In reply to: kalielu
Tue, 09-23-2008 - 11:08am
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-15-2008
In reply to: kalielu
Tue, 09-23-2008 - 11:18am

See, what you and Rose are pointing out - to me, at any rate, and I'm not sure about whom you're speaking and frankly don't think it's appropriate for you to get specific, so I'm not asking - could be an example of hypocrisy in the things that person supports....or it could be an example of someone HAVING a political perspective which others certainly might disagree with, or even a perspective which could be demonstrated to be WRONG on the facts by a diligent poster (again, I don't know and don't want to know)....but what I DON'T think it shows is someone who's not "walking the walk." I think the most you've got on whoever this is - potentially - is a lack of consistency in their positions. But you haven't got someone who's acting or posting in bad faith, just because they come to a different conclusion than you do (and come to it organically, I assume - without knowing you disagree or object). There's still room for debate there, unless there's more to the story that I didn't understand or you didn't share: you can point out what you perceive to be that person's lack of consistency, or even their bias....and a conversation can happen around that. You may be right, you may not, or it may be simply a matter of differing opinions, or even a near-infinite number of one-off situational dealie-os....but I DON'T think you or I can sit here and fairly accuse that person - whoever it was - of intentionally denying provable reality and/or acting in bad faith with intent to smear all who follow a political ideology not their own.

I think suemox and sopal get recognized in threads of this nature not because they are middle-of-the-road politically, but because they TEND to exhibit a relative absence (in comparison to the norm on this board) of vitriol and a relative ABUNDANCE of respect for those with whom they interact. I would put everyone's favorite tea-bagging Canadian lezzy in that category, too (heh). If I say "I believe that John McCain is, at heart, a deregulator who would be scarcely different from George Bush," and you provide me with one example where he's not fit that description, it isn't ill-will or mendacity or stubborn refusal to see the truth if I can also show a few examples where he HAS fit that description. That's a very different story than if you say "Barack Obama studied Saul Alinsky" and I say "no he didn't, you unhinged conservative freak, he worked for a church in Chicago," and you show me an article which demonstrates clearly that the group Obama worked with was founded on and taught Alinsky's organizing principles. And THEN I turn around and continue to insist "no, your source is propaganda, and it's total B.S. (but don't provide any support for this statement) - but what should I expect from a knee-jerk jerk of a conservative??!!"

I dunno....am I making sense? I think it's unrealistic to expect people to not have a point-of-view, or to be 100% "centrist" (if we can even agree upon a definition of THAT), in order to qualify for "fair-minded" status. I would wager a guess that each of us here considers ourselves able to be BOTH "fair-minded" AND possessed of an opinion about politics which isn't 100% centrist.






But for the present age, which prefers the sign to the thing signified, the copy to the original, representation to reality, appearance to essence.....truth is considered profane, and only illusion sacred. Sacredness is in fact held to be enhanced in proportion as truth decreases and illusion increases, so that the highest degree of illusion comes to be the highest degree of sacredness.
- Ludwig Feuerbach, The Essence of Christianity, 2nd. ed., 1841


But for the present age, which prefers the sign to the thing signified, the copy to the original, representation to reality, appearance to essence.....truth is considered profane, and only illusion sacred. Sacredness
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-15-2008
In reply to: kalielu
Tue, 09-23-2008 - 11:31am

I don't doubt you for a minute, but I think that as a case worker, if you find people who you believe genuinely feel this way, you could devise a way for them to not receive their checks, couldn't you? I mean, if someone has enough mental wherewithal to recognize that (in their opinion) the government is saying "you're a failure" to them every month by sending these checks, isn't that, in itself, an indication that they are among the subset of people you see who might be able - with help - to summon the resolve to stop RELYING on it? I don't have any direct experience with what you're talking about, but it strikes me as similar to some of the things that addicts go through when they are attempting to stop using. I've never been an addict or in recovery, but I've known several, and one thing you hear universally is that if an addict isn't ready to admit they've got a problem, literally nothing will be accomplished (unless you get into things like physical interventions, and probably not even then, because they will be resisted by the addict, who will resentfully insist there's nothing wrong). If someone in poverty like that truly feels that they are being kept down and looked down upon by this unwanted government largesse, couldn't you help them to break free from it? I realize that there's a reason that addicts slip back into old patterns: inertia, fear of change, physical withdrawal, etc....but tangled up in virtually all of that is a lack of belief in their own ability to effectively change. People who successfully break free of addiction to anything - alcohol, drugs (even the worst ones), or financial dependence - share the common trait of being finally READY, at some point, to take part in their own "rescue"; to take steps to break old patterns and habits. They stumble, they falter, sometimes they fail, flat-out. But that's where people like you - counselors and the like - can help by providing tools and resources which people on their own might either not think of or not know about or not have the stamina to access on their own.

I realize it's far from this simple, but if someone hands me money - or a needle full of black tar, or a mirror full of blow - I don't HAVE to take it. If I'm TRULY ready not to.....then, with help, I can find ways to do that. Not 100% foolproof, I know....and many try and fail. But that's where it has to start, and it sounds like some of the people you deal with are at that point: where they could potentially be ready to change, to simply tear up checks they feel are keeping them down.






But for the present age, which prefers the sign to the thing signified, the copy to the original, representation to reality, appearance to essence.....truth is considered profane, and only illusion sacred. Sacredness is in fact held to be enhanced in proportion as truth decreases and illusion increases, so that the highest degree of illusion comes to be the highest degree of sacredness.
- Ludwig Feuerbach, The Essence of Christianity, 2nd. ed., 1841


But for the present age, which prefers the sign to the thing signified, the copy to the original, representation to reality, appearance to essence.....truth is considered profane, and only illusion sacred. Sacredness
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-12-2008
In reply to: kalielu
Tue, 09-23-2008 - 12:18pm

I too spent many hours researching. As a matter of fact, it has turned me into a political junkie. After a point, I found myself leaning towards one candidate over the other which from that point on requires presenting the facts that influenced my decision. Is it wrong to discuss my findings? Or am I missing the point of this blog?

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2007
In reply to: kalielu
Tue, 09-23-2008 - 12:47pm


Sopal

<?xml:namespace prefix = v ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" />

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-19-2008
In reply to: kalielu
Tue, 09-23-2008 - 12:54pm

During 2006, Tax Foundation economists estimate that roughly 43.4 million tax returns, representing 91 million individuals, will face a zero or negative tax liability. That's out of a total of 136 million federal tax returns that will be filed. Adding to this figure the 15 million households and individuals who file no tax return at all, roughly 121 million Americans—or 41 percent of the U.S. population—will be completely outside the federal income tax system in 2006.1 This total includes those who pay no tax, and those who pay some tax upfront and are later refunded the full amount of the tax paid or more.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/1410.html

Pages