IMO there is a very real and rapidly growing problem in the world of political discourse. That being the absence of reason, and the substitution of emotionalism and political bigotry.
First, let’s define those terms as I use them in this post:
1. Emotionalism: An inclination to rely on or place too much value on emotion when dealing with issues or confrontations, as opposed to resorting to reason when dealing with reality.
2. Political Bigotry: Obstinate or intolerant devotion to one’s own political opinions and political prejudices.
As it applies to this Forum, most especially over the last 3.5 years as of this post (06/23/20), we have seen a sharp divide over the socio-economic and political issues and goals being discussed. This is being demonstrated in our Forum by the following observations.
IMO many members have been acting like the Main Forum is just an extension of the Forum’s “Basement.” A place I have opted to avoid (with very rare exceptions) since the first couple of months access after joining in 2013.
To me, the Basement is liken to school-yard posturing and bullying one may recall from back in grade school. Where kids tried to win “Ew-squad” points by trash-talking one-another. I’ve grown out of that kind of posturing, but I recognize it remains an option for those who consider it an outlet to vent.
But IMO the Main Forum is the place for actual discussion and debate. Not a place to “trash talk” if you are seeking a real argument/discussion. Yet that’s exactly what’s been happening over the last 3.5 years, to where it is not quite as easy to distinguish between the Basement and the Main Forum anymore.
Observably an OP is presented; but instead of responses either agreeing with or challenging the issue, what do we see? Short, quick snipes at either the author, or the subject matter (sometimes both). IMO solely designed to gain “likes” as if this were a Twitter feed instead of a Debate Forum.
More often than not such responses are from Members trying to denigrate the source of the argument; either the citation, the posting Member, or both. They are not seeking to engage the OP, or address the actual issue raised. IMO they seek affirmation from their "peer group," like a reinforcing echo-chamber. By doing so, simply overwhelm the argument by force of negative peer pressure tactics.
To be clear, I have no problems with identifying the political lean of a source. But once that’s done? The point remains that just because you don’t like the source doesn’t mean the information provided, or the argument being made by that source is automatically invalidated. Yet it seems to me that so many members (most especially from the “Left") think that by demonizing the posting Member and/or the source of any information being presented, this automatically negates any factual value of the information being presented.
I have been a member now for seven years, and I can and do tear an argument apart by identifying logical fallacies being used. That can be annoying to someone, but it is a valid response to the argument itself.
However, how often (if ever) have I called anyone a Liar, Fool, Idiot, Racist, or any other term of usage designed to personally denigrate the opposing member? Instead, at worst, you’ll see me say “those on your side of the argument,” or use whichever political lean (Leftist, Socialist, Progressive, Communist, etc.) you’ve personally identified yourself with.
So the question is…why do so many members use such tactics which do not “win” arguments, but only serve to silence opposition by those who see responding as a waste of time?
Is that the purpose?
If so, does anyone honestly think that by silencing someone who has realized there is no point responding to YOU, this means they’ve given up their opposition?
IMO? It only means the readers simply avoid YOU; while they remain both unconvinced by your arguments and even more adamantly entrenched in their viewpoints. Moreover, they will seek others of like mind to band together in deeply entrenched opposition.
Think about it next time your first instinct is to attack the person instead of their argument. The more entrenched each side becomes, the less conversation seeking understanding and compromise will occur.
At some point the struggle may lead beyond mere words, and that bodes no good for anyone.
First, let’s define those terms as I use them in this post:
1. Emotionalism: An inclination to rely on or place too much value on emotion when dealing with issues or confrontations, as opposed to resorting to reason when dealing with reality.
2. Political Bigotry: Obstinate or intolerant devotion to one’s own political opinions and political prejudices.
As it applies to this Forum, most especially over the last 3.5 years as of this post (06/23/20), we have seen a sharp divide over the socio-economic and political issues and goals being discussed. This is being demonstrated in our Forum by the following observations.
IMO many members have been acting like the Main Forum is just an extension of the Forum’s “Basement.” A place I have opted to avoid (with very rare exceptions) since the first couple of months access after joining in 2013.
To me, the Basement is liken to school-yard posturing and bullying one may recall from back in grade school. Where kids tried to win “Ew-squad” points by trash-talking one-another. I’ve grown out of that kind of posturing, but I recognize it remains an option for those who consider it an outlet to vent.
But IMO the Main Forum is the place for actual discussion and debate. Not a place to “trash talk” if you are seeking a real argument/discussion. Yet that’s exactly what’s been happening over the last 3.5 years, to where it is not quite as easy to distinguish between the Basement and the Main Forum anymore.
Observably an OP is presented; but instead of responses either agreeing with or challenging the issue, what do we see? Short, quick snipes at either the author, or the subject matter (sometimes both). IMO solely designed to gain “likes” as if this were a Twitter feed instead of a Debate Forum.
More often than not such responses are from Members trying to denigrate the source of the argument; either the citation, the posting Member, or both. They are not seeking to engage the OP, or address the actual issue raised. IMO they seek affirmation from their "peer group," like a reinforcing echo-chamber. By doing so, simply overwhelm the argument by force of negative peer pressure tactics.
To be clear, I have no problems with identifying the political lean of a source. But once that’s done? The point remains that just because you don’t like the source doesn’t mean the information provided, or the argument being made by that source is automatically invalidated. Yet it seems to me that so many members (most especially from the “Left") think that by demonizing the posting Member and/or the source of any information being presented, this automatically negates any factual value of the information being presented.
I have been a member now for seven years, and I can and do tear an argument apart by identifying logical fallacies being used. That can be annoying to someone, but it is a valid response to the argument itself.
However, how often (if ever) have I called anyone a Liar, Fool, Idiot, Racist, or any other term of usage designed to personally denigrate the opposing member? Instead, at worst, you’ll see me say “those on your side of the argument,” or use whichever political lean (Leftist, Socialist, Progressive, Communist, etc.) you’ve personally identified yourself with.
So the question is…why do so many members use such tactics which do not “win” arguments, but only serve to silence opposition by those who see responding as a waste of time?
Is that the purpose?
If so, does anyone honestly think that by silencing someone who has realized there is no point responding to YOU, this means they’ve given up their opposition?
IMO? It only means the readers simply avoid YOU; while they remain both unconvinced by your arguments and even more adamantly entrenched in their viewpoints. Moreover, they will seek others of like mind to band together in deeply entrenched opposition.
Think about it next time your first instinct is to attack the person instead of their argument. The more entrenched each side becomes, the less conversation seeking understanding and compromise will occur.
At some point the struggle may lead beyond mere words, and that bodes no good for anyone.