So recent and not-so-recent exchanges on this board have called to mind to me the reasons why i originally got turned off from political activism lo these many years ago.

after the 2000 election and 9/11 i decided i wanted to get more politically active. so i joined a couple of democratic and liberal activist groups, we went out a few times to picket against the iraq war back when that was still up in the air whether it'd happen or not, we stumped for al gore a bit even though he was a pretty lame candidate, that sort of thing. met some pretty cool, interesting people -- mostly, interestingly, the elderly retired ladies. LOTS of liberal elderly retired ladies, turns out.

okay.

but SO many people would be so incredibly pedantic, would talk down to everyone around them, would adopt strident, defiant tones when putting forward their point of view, or would otherwise pretend that they knew more than everyone around them, that i eventually gave up.

the thing that really got me was when they wanted to organize "teach ins," where we wrote little pamphlets about the military industrial complex and the iraq war and passed them out to people for "educational outreach." these folks would go up to people and lecture them about war profiteering and yadda yadda. their whole presumption was that the average joe on the street didn't understand what was really going on and we were gonna explain it to em and then they'd agree with us. and i'm thinking to myself, okay, this is never gonna fly. you're just walking down the street, some dude or chick's gonna come up to you, immediately presume you don't understand politics and then present their opinion to you as though it were fact? and then go, okay, you're educated now? nobody's going to go for that, in fact, you're gonna be lucky if they don't hit you.

so whatever, i quit not long after that.

it's got me wondering -- why is that approach to debating politics so prevalent? do people really think it's effective to talk down to those who disagree with them? and by that i dont mean, becoming angry or making their argument heatedly, but presuming the other person knows less than you or hasn't considered the issue because they don't agree with you or don't think about politics the same way you do.

you see it some in the right but a LOT in the left, which, unfortunately, is a lot of the reaosn why the left is so unpopular these days.

The feeling I get is the longer and wordier a post is, the more legitimate the argument.  Even if I agree with someone, which I often do, I'm turned off by blatant arrogance.  It's almost like there are a handful of people on the site who consider themselves the adult voice of reason, and the rest of us are a bunch of yahoos, running around Chucky Cheese with balloon animals on our heads.

The feeling I get is the longer and wordier a post is, the more legitimate the argument.  Even if I agree with someone, which I often do, I'm turned off by blatant arrogance.  It's almost like there are a handful of people on the site who consider themselves the adult voice of reason, and the rest of us are a bunch of yahoos, running around Chucky Cheese with balloon animals on our heads.


something else people did a lot, particularly in college, was jump on other people for, say, assuming the masculine pronoun. there's a lot more diversity here than there is in a liberal arts university setting but that used to make me crazy. i'd be thinking, if you're a feminist, for instance, isn't this the sort of person you're trying to reach? and you're gonna do that by lecturing him about using a commonplace rhetorical device? why not explain to him, as an equal, why YOU think it's wrong?

It is interesting ya know.

On a national level it's the right that slings the most mud. There's no way I can deny that.
However.. on a person to person basis, I've always found those leaning to the left come across as Mike said.

"Oh, you don't agree with me so you're quite clearly an idiot."

The same people that spit on your shoes if you don't eat tofu.

Blech. Thankfully, none of them can get jobs and therefore really don't count for much.  ;D

It annoys me no end when people talk down to me... and of course, being an angry white male I respond just how they expect me to. In an aggresive manner, often proving the point. Very annoying.


something else people did a lot, particularly in college, was jump on other people for, say, assuming the masculine pronoun. there's a lot more diversity here than there is in a liberal arts university setting but that used to make me crazy.


One reason I liked high school more than college. - In high school, the few people who are actually interested in politics are reasonably intelligent and aware of the issues. In college, EVERYONE suddenly becomes interested, but instead of being intelligent and aware.. they become reactionary or revolutionary to the point of annoyance and earn my disgust.


The feeling I get is the longer and wordier a post is, the more legitimate the argument.  Even if I agree with someone, which I often do, I'm turned off by blatant arrogance.  It's almost like there are a handful of people on the site who consider themselves the adult voice of reason, and the rest of us are a bunch of yahoos, running around Chucky Cheese with balloon animals on our heads.


Oh come on Ash, neither of us have Doctorates or whatever and are therefor incapable of knowing what we really mean.  ;D

What annoys the crap out of me regarding politics is that people get on an specific agenda and EVERYTHING is caused by that.  And, like Tia has pointed out, if you don't agree with them that X is the cause of A, B, C, then they talk down to you like they're god.  Then there are those who throw out a bunch of facts and figures, which mean jack squat because anyone who's worth their weight in salt can skew figures to prove their point.  There's a woman in my subdivision who works for the government doing the "fact skewing" and she'll readily admit that she can make data show anything, regardless of the relevance of those figures to the case in point....

It is interesting ya know.

On a national level it's the right that slings the most mud. There's no way I can deny that.
However.. on a person to person basis, I've always found those leaning to the left come across as Mike said.

"Oh, you don't agree with me so you're quite clearly an idiot."

The same people that spit on your shoes if you don't eat tofu.

Blech. Thankfully, none of them can get jobs and therefore really don't count for much.  ;D

It annoys me no end when people talk down to me... and of course, being an angry white male I respond just how they expect me to. In an aggresive manner, often proving the point. Very annoying.

One reason I liked high school more than college. - In high school, the few people who are actually interested in politics are reasonably intelligent and aware of the issues. In college, EVERYONE suddenly becomes interested, but instead of being intelligent and aware.. they become reactionary or revolutionary to the point of annoyance and earn my disgust.

Oh come on Ash, neither of us have Doctorates or whatever and are therefor incapable of knowing what we really mean.  ;D
To be fair, my friend Samantha, very lefty, feminist, takes a very tolerant stance on stuff and just points out, sometimes, when she thinks I’m being sexist or whatever – which works a lot better than going, “you sexist imperialist pigdog!”

My favorite story is a friend of mine was temping and someone gets frustrated at something at the office and yells, “I have a masters degree! I don’t have to put up with this s**t!” and storms out.

I have a masters degree in Godzilla movies and am well on my way to an honorary doctorate in kim Richards studies. But you don’t see ME strutting around like I own the place.

What annoys the crap out of me regarding politics is that people get on an specific agenda and EVERYTHING is caused by that.  And, like Tia has pointed out, if you don't agree with them that X is the cause of A, B, C, then they talk down to you like they're god.  Then there are those who throw out a bunch of facts and figures, which mean jack squat because anyone who's worth their weight in salt can skew figures to prove their point.  There's a woman in my subdivision who works for the government doing the "fact skewing" and she'll readily admit that she can make data show anything, regardless of the relevance of those figures to the case in point....


Percentages can mean anything. 119% of people know that.

That's why I rarely get involved on these boards. Too many people "know it all" and shove what they believe down your throat. That tactic DOES. NOT. WORK.

I'm open to all points IF I'm not going to get, "Well, it's the Left's fault...", "It's the Right's fault...", "You're ignorant if you believe that...", and so on. I don't claim to know everything under the sun about politics, life, the military, and corporations, but I'm willing to listen and learn if the point isn't some weird conspiracy theory involving aliens having sex with Laura Bush (or something).

I guess what I'm getting at is...I'm not stupid and I would appreciate it if you wouldn't treat me as such.

That's why I rarely get involved on these boards. Too many people "know it all" and shove what they believe down your throat. That tactic DOES. NOT. WORK.

I'm open to all points IF I'm not going to get, "Well, it's the Left's fault...", "It's the Right's fault...", "You're ignorant if you believe that...", and so on. I don't claim to know everything under the sun about politics, life, the military, and corporations, but I'm willing to listen and learn if the point isn't some weird conspiracy theory involving aliens having sex with Laura Bush (or something).

I guess what I'm getting at is...I'm not stupid and I would appreciate it if you wouldn't treat me as such.



*applauds*


I rarely post around here for the same damn reasons.  I am so sick and tired of people responding to others with that smarmy condescending tone of, "Oh you poor stupid little thing, here's the RIGHT answer...."  I may not know as much about politics as the next person here, but that doesn't mean I suffer from profound retardation, so don't talk to me like I do.

I'm willing to listen and learn if the point isn't some weird conspiracy theory involving aliens having sex with Laura Bush (or something).well, i actually sorta LIKE that stuff... :-[

well, i actually sorta LIKE that stuff... :-[


Aliens having sex with Laura Bush? You're a sick, sick man. ;D

Aliens having sex with Laura Bush? You're a sick, sick man. ;D
well, more the conspiracy theory stuff in general but as for that, you kinda gotta be willing to go wherever it's gonna take you. ;D

well, more the conspiracy theory stuff in general but as for that, you kinda gotta be willing to go wherever it's gonna take you. ;D


Okay then. Maybe not the conspiracy theories. But you'd REALLY have to give me valid points for them. :D

Politics on that side of the pond is kind of different to over here: I used to be very radical, but neither left nor right wing - kind of an extremist centrist - and willing to debate pretty much any "serious" political or constitutional topic. That lasted until I got to university, and I saw the self-serving types in all the uni political groups.. my thought at the time was "these are the sorts of people who are going to end up running the country": insular (that is to say, completely up their own a**holes), self-absorbed and wanting all the ticks on a cv that'll get them a safe parliamentary seat once they've done their apprenticeship.  Calculating a career path in politics for power's sake without having a clear reason why they want to be there.  That turned me off party politics for life (well, so far, anyway).

Unfortunately, it looks very much like I was right: even my current MP is one of those self-same pillocks.

But (and it's a big BUT... I like big "BUT"s, and I cannot lie), ISTM that we still have it better than that side of the pond: the "we're right/they're wrong" slanging match that passes for political debate over there seems from over here to be more about distracting attention from dodgy issues than making any kind of argument whatsoever.  There is pretty much zero respect for nearly every senior politician (indeed, one of the major selling points of one of the Democratic contenders is that he is some kind of political greenhorn, and not tainted)... yet this "democracy" is heralded as some kind of ideal to which other countries should aspire? </rant>

some weird conspiracy theory involving aliens having sex with Laura Bush (or something).

PS Is that on youtube?

Politics on that side of the pond is kind of different to over here: I used to be very radical, but neither left nor right wing - kind of an extremist centrist - and willing to debate pretty much any "serious" political or constitutional topic. That lasted until I got to university, and I saw the self-serving types in all the uni political groups.. my thought at the time was "these are the sorts of people who are going to end up running the country": insular (that is to say, completely up their own a**holes), self-absorbed and wanting all the ticks on a cv that'll get them a safe parliamentary seat once they've done their apprenticeship.  Calculating a career path in politics for power's sake without having a clear reason why they want to be there.  That turned me off party politics for life (well, so far, anyway).

Unfortunately, it looks very much like I was right: even my current MP is one of those self-same pillocks.

But (and it's a big BUT... I like big "BUT"s, and I cannot lie), ISTM that we still have it better than that side of the pond: the "we're right/they're wrong" slanging match that passes for political debate over there seems from over here to be more about distracting attention from dodgy issues than making any kind of argument whatsoever.  There is pretty much zero respect for nearly every senior politician (indeed, one of the major selling points of one of the Democratic contenders is that he is some kind of political greenhorn, and not tainted)... yet this "democracy" is heralded as some kind of ideal to which other countries should aspire? </rant>


I think your assessment is correct in that the folks in power are more interested at slinging mud than initiating action.  One of the tenets of political "science" is how to sling more mud than your opponent in order to get voted into office.

I think your assessment is correct in that the folks in power are more interested at slinging mud than initiating action.  One of the tenets of political "science" is how to sling more mud than your opponent in order to get voted into office.
i think that kinda goes to keeping the population divided so they don't get around to making sure the government's held accountable for its actions, but a big part of it may be cultural, too, as philbo seems to be saying.

... I like big "BUT"s, and I cannot lie
i'm gonna be hanging onto this in case you ever decide to run for congress. :D

i think that kinda goes to keeping the population divided so they don't get around to making sure the government's held accountable for its actions, but a big part of it may be cultural, too, as philbo seems to be saying.


Yeah, and people as a whole are sheeple and silly ;)

Most political debate is childish bantering, I will agree :D

why is that approach to debating politics so prevalent? do people really think it's effective to talk down to those who disagree with them? and by that i dont mean, becoming angry or making their argument heatedly, but presuming the other person knows less than you or hasn't considered the issue because they don't agree with you or don't think about politics the same way you do.

you see it some in the right but a LOT in the left, which, unfortunately, is a lot of the reaosn why the left is so unpopular these days.


(Social) conservatives think people are basically evil, and crafty, and need to be coerced into correct behavior.  Your daughter needs the fear of cervical cancer to keep her from having sex, therefore the HPV vaccine must be banned.  Your son needs the fear of Ceiling Cat (who watches him when he surfs the Intarweb) to prevent him from looking at the b00bies.

(Social and economic) liberals think people are good, but stupid, and need to be indoctriniated into correct behavior.  Your daughter can't play with Barbie because it's a tool of the patriarchy, and your son can't buy a fancy pencil and use it in school with the money he earns from his paper route unless he buys everyone in class a yo-yo, because otherwise he won't learn class consciousness.

(Economic) conservatives think people are basically self-interested (which isn't necessarily evil :) and crafty, and that the end result of a bunch of self-interested smart people working to further their own ends tends to produce better results than either coercion or brainwashing.  Right and wrong don't enter into it; the closest equivalent words are "fraud" and "breach of contract" versus "dealing in good faith" and "paid in full".

Economic conservativism combined with social liberalism is the one thing that has yet to be tried in America.  Probably because people who want a  Big Mommy (D)emocracy to take care of them when they screw up don't like the idea of having to live with the consequences of their decisions, and people who want a Big Daddy Gove(R)nment to beat them when they go wrong don't like the idea of having to make decisions in the first place.  Combined, those two groups form a governing coalition that consistently and easily outnumbers the number of people who are willing to make moral (and economic) decisions and live with their consequences.

Oh well.  It's your country now, Republicrats.  Have fun with it.  Kinda sad watching it all fall apart, but at least it's amusing.

^good stuff man! ;)

something else people did a lot, particularly in college, was jump on other people for, say, assuming the masculine pronoun. there's a lot more diversity here than there is in a liberal arts university setting but that used to make me crazy. i'd be thinking, if you're a feminist, for instance, isn't this the sort of person you're trying to reach? and you're gonna do that by lecturing him about using a commonplace rhetorical device? why not explain to him, as an equal, why YOU think it's wrong?

I have spent my entire adult life around this element.  It is less important for them to change others than it is for them to get their own anger, bitterness, frustration, and jealousy off their chests.  If you really want to be able to change somebody's beliefs, scolding and finger-wagging won't do it.  I've used this approach time and again, and time and again it fails.  If I do it nowadays, I'm not really trying to influence anybody, I'm just ticked off.

I avoid political discussions on the job, but the other day I heard two of my co-workers griping about "Peurto Ricans coming up here just to get on welfare."  That old saw.  I just couldn't keep a stiff upper lip.  I later presented a dissenting opinion to the one woman who was still in the office, but I pitched it in a friendly, non-confrontational way.  I discussed with her some things I knew about Peurto Rico, the welfare state, and the history of the issue.  Pat talked about Maria, the Peurto Rican girl in billing, and how smart and hard-working Maria is, and how Maria said all her friends acted like they deserved to be on welfare just for turning eighteen, etc, etc.  Pat was pulling the self-righteous, catty, middle class, middle aged white lady number I've heard so often.  My impulse was to tell her off,  but I work with her every day, so I'm compelled to stay on friendly terms.  Besides, Pat really is a decent person, I just think she's misguided politically. 

I don't know if I changed her mind.  It's like the cliche from your writing composition classes, "show don't tell."  I never gave a "you're wrong" message to Pat.  I just told her what I believed. 

I've done this before with others for social grace (or self-preservation!), and it seems to work out better than confrontation.

As old Dale Carnegie used to say: "The only way to win an argument is not to have it."
:)

I have spent my entire adult life around this element.  It is less important for them to change others than it is for them to get their own anger, bitterness, frustration, and jealousy off their chests.


Any time anyone says "but the gays are destroying marriage", I sorta bug my eyes out at them and ask them exactly how two dudes (or two chicks) applying to the government for tax benefits is an offence against their marriage.  (or if they're single, I really annoy them by asking them that if it were legal, would they suddenly propose to their same-sex friend :)

Any time anyone says "but why should anyone keep more than $1M/year, nobody needs more than that!", I do the same eye-bugging-out move and ask them exactly how Warren Buffett's earned billions make their salary one cent more or less than what it is today.  If that doesn't do it, I quote line 63 of the 1040 I just filed and tell them that if the $mumble I "gave at the office" ain't enough, they can go frack themselves.

Don't even get me started on the ones who claim that the government is great because they got a $3000 refund... who tend to be in both of the above camps.  The lottery and the casino are indeed taxes on innumeracy, but the number of people who think a "tax refund" is a good thing indicates that the innumeracy taxes are  nowhere near high enough.

("Why, there oughta be a law against morons!"  Aaw, crap, now I'm part of the problem :)

i think that kinda goes to keeping the population divided so they don't get around to making sure the government's held accountable for its actions, but a big part of it may be cultural, too, as philbo seems to be saying.

Well, part of it is definitely that the mud-slinging is misdirection so the people don't notice what government is or isn't doing, but rather than calling yaa-boo politics "cultural", I'd rather define it as "evolutionary" - the reason those in power and those who want power behave like this is because it works.  The electorate don't have the time, inclination or possibly even intelligence to tell who's got the best policies when this much mud is thrown, so they go with whoever seems least dirty (which "surprise, surprise" is their own guy, 'cause ever'thing that's said about him is made up, but the other guy - hell, ain't no smoke without fire). 

The problem is that even though people talk about not wanting "dirty campaigning", if one side tries to avoid the negatives then the "no smoke without fire" brigade get 'em on points even after the dirt is well and truly rebutted (thinking at this point especially of "Swift boats" and other lies told at the last presidential elections)


The lottery and the casino are indeed taxes on innumeracy, but the number of people who think a "tax refund" is a good thing indicates that the innumeracy taxes are  nowhere near high enough.

I don't often remember about the Karma system, but that's worth a karma point if ever anything was :D

this thread is awesome. if i do say so myself.

this thread is awesome. if i do say so myself.


It should be highlighted if it wasn't already!  :)

It should be highlighted if it wasn't already!  :)
nope. he's highlighted the public schools thread. course, as we all know, chucky has a right-wing bias.

nope. he's highlighted the public schools thread. course, as we all know, chucky has a right-wing bias.
ummmm.....chucky doesn't to the front page highlights.....and the person who does, definitely does NOT have a right-wing bias ;)

ummmm.....chucky doesn't to the front page highlights.....and the person who does, definitely does NOT have a right-wing bias ;)
my bee, i was sorta joking. i learned on another thread that inthe00s is part of the liberal media. AND we've declared war on christmas!

my bee, i was sorta joking. i learned on another thread that inthe00s is part of the liberal media. AND we've declared war on christmas!


Didn't you hear?  Santa is hiding WMD's in his sleigh, and the elves put a Jihad on us.

ummmm.....chucky doesn't to the front page highlights.....and the person who does, definitely does NOT have a right-wing bias ;)


I do sometimes highlight topics, rarely though, and only my own if it's something related to the site being down (like the server getting hacked, etc).

that being said I'm supposed to give myself a medal, but I've been too busy to bother.

and yes, I agree, aside from silliness, so far this is a very good topic.

i was talking with log cabin republican big boss man today, and the topic of "an inconvenient truth" came up, and he's all, yeah, i'd like to watch that movie but i don't want someone talking down to me like i'm a five-year-old for an hour and a half.

... but i don't want someone talking down to me like i'm a five-year-old for an hour and a half.

Instead he votes for a president who talks as though he's the five-year-old?

Instead he votes for a president who talks as though he's the five-year-old?
damn, i should have said that! that's a good one.

http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/friend_whos_into_politics

"Friend Who's Into Politics Makes You Feel Stupid Again

March 27, 2007 | Issue 43•13

CHICAGO—Nate Carney, 28, your well-read, politically minded friend of eight years, made you feel ignorant again Tuesday with his incisive breakdown of the current Democratic presidential candidates. "

Instead he votes for a president who talks as though he's the five-year-old?


...and appoints an attorney general who talks like a five-year-old who got caught with his hand in the cookie jar!

The way I figure it is you've got your Log Cabin Republicans  and you've got a much bigger contingent of covert Log Cabin Republicans.  Let's face it, there are a lot of closets in that log cabin!
:P