Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have posted on several subjects and I have read many more posts. I'd like to discuss whether or not we can actually have a civil discourse in America. Of course, this thread might prove that we are unable to do so without resorting to name-calling, labeling, and illogical arguments and assumptions.
Name any celebrity or politician and the fighting begins. Watch any political advertisement and it will say nothing good about the candidate and everything bad about the opponent. When we encounter rude people, we remain silent because to make mention of the rudeness is itself considered rude. Our media doesn't help us at all: whenever a topic is addressed, they prop up two talking heads on opposing sides and call it a discussion--a discussion that promptly resolves nothing. Forget that the most important questions are conveniently left unaddressed. Presidential debates are now almost fully-scripted affairs with the questioners chosen beforehand and the outcome determined by either the amount of sweat on a candidates face or something they did off-camera.
People will say things in these forums that they would never say to another person's face. I have suffered from that observation. The anonymity of the medium allows for all kinds of unseemly emotions to surface in the forms of words and emoticons. Most real logical statements are ignored, especially if they hit too close to home. People would rather fight than accept an unpleasant truth.
Are Americans incapable of casting aside their rigid belief systems long enough to rationally think things through when given the facts of an argument? When a poll-taker asks if you think Mr. X committed murder, how can you answer if a) you weren't there, and b) you weren't on the jury? What possible role does such a poll play except to promote the idea that emotions trump reason? And who cares what America thinks when it doesn't have all the facts? These are questions I ask of the world around me.
IS IT POSSIBLE FOR AMERICANS TO HAVE A CIVIL DISCOURSE, AN EXCHANGE OF LOGICAL IDEAS BASED ON VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE, OR WILL THE MERE DISCUSSION OF RATIONAL THINKING DISSOLVE INTO OBLIVION?
WHAT CAN BE DONE TO IMPROVE THE SITUATION OR IS THERE NO SITUATION TO IMPROVE? IS THE CURRENT FORM OF DEBATE ACCEPTABLE?
(i'm going to hide behind my desk and hit the "submit new thread" button now)
We can have civil discussions, but it's unlikely. Part of the issue in any forum setting is that the debate is also open to those who do not want to take part in honest discussions, but instead want to express their ideology and want to ignore honest criticism. The debate are at the same time closed to so many people simply because of the time needed to carry on even a relatively short conversation.
I would often like to post my opinions and thoughts on subjects, but find I don't have the time necessary to adequately explain my position and to offer rebuttals to contrary opinions. And I have often seen valid comments ignored by one or more parties.
I have notice that many people here end up in arguments simply from a lack of common ground to start the discussion. Religion, politics, and sex(ual orientation) are three common areas where the ideological extremes refuse to acknowledge the other sides positions and motivations. Those types of discussions quickly fall into name calling sessions and "I agree" posts.
I once saw an exchange on a religious forum where participants were passionately arguing one the nature of souls. And despite the difference in opinions, the participants were always cordial in their tone, and always responded to criticism with comments like "I think you misunderstand..." or "I'm not sure I full comprehend you point..." It would be nice if we could have such passionate arguments here, with that same sense of respect for our fellow man.
And no, I don't think the current form is acceptable.
People will say things in these forums that they would never say to another person's face. People would rather fight than accept an unpleasant truth.:
The internet is a dream come true for insecure, passive-aggressive people.
Quote:
I have notice that many people here end up in arguments simply from a lack of common ground to start the discussion.
As GoPadge mentions, controversial topics push people's buttons.
Ideological disagreements quickly mutate into skirmishes.
Some folks are truly interested in reasonable discussion, others come to rant.
Is this forum an illustration of what's happening in American society today?
I dunno, the muckraking stuff in elections has been going on for awhile, though it does seem worse than before.
All I know is that when it comes to this particular forum, I do tend to give more credibility to people who are at least halfway polite and are able to back up their opinions with some sort of citation. Obviously the cut-and-paste links game can become a he said/she said dead end, but for me, it is preferable to namecalling and personal attacks.
Then you have some who think like Whoopi Goldberg, who think that you don't need facts when debating, and that feelings are adequate. How do you debate with that?
sure we can if both sides can just listen to the other side, give each others opinion without the other saying their opinion is wrong.
I am pro Iraq war, but I can listen to someone say they are against the war. It is their opinion. if they can say it in a respectful way, i can hear it in a respectful way, its not going to change my mind or view but I can hear it.
the problem is some people think they can change someone elses mind.
sure we can if both sides can just listen to the other side, give each others opinion without the other saying their opinion is wrong.
I am pro Iraq war, but I can listen to someone say they are against the war. It is their opinion. if they can say it in a respectful way, i can hear it in a respectful way, its not going to change my mind or view but I can hear it.
the problem is some people think they can change someone elses mind.
(prologue: I didn't read any post after carolinajack's, I assumed it was the last)
You say the problem is that people think they can change someone's mind. But, isn't that some of the point of discussing something in the first place? If someone was to argue against the Iraq war in a way that was passionate and maybe even bordered on anger, would that tone somehow invalidate their argument however logical it may be? And, thank you for your comments.
After starting this thread, I went away and thought about how we all seem to take a person's differing opinion as an assault (we take it personally). I would say that the real problem (if we are indeed defining one) is that we want so much to believe what we're thinking is right that this need blinds us to listen to reason and logic. I'm guilty of that as I think all of us have been to some degree.
My father is a devout red-state conservative and my views often clash with his. He LOVES a good conversation and when we get down to it, we find that BOTH of us want the same things for our country, but in quite different ways. I never expected that to be the outcome of our talks. Maybe the solution to our ideologically divided country is to begin to really define the problem and offer solutions in compromise. No one side has a monopoly on the truth or the way forward. This sounds good to me.
Then you have some who think like Whoopi Goldberg, who think that you don't need facts when debating, and that feelings are adequate. How do you debate with that?
I think every feeling is based on some kind of thought. In a debate with a person with profound feelings, it would be best to try to find what they base those feelings on, agree on what thought was used, and then comment on the logic of that thought. Those 'hidden' preconscious thoughts become the basis for a discussion. Many people, however, cannot dig any deeper than the emotion or simply cannot put into words what created the feeling. They begin to panic in any logical argument because they have no defense (not their fault). Logic can be intimidating and the response is often an emotional one that doesn't add to the discussion. Hence, we have our arguments that break down into the name-calling and labelling I was mentioning.
personally everything I say on this forum I also will say face to face to somebody,though Im never rude to anybody and really hold no malice toward anyone.
Regarding racial talk,all the guys I work with I'll make joking comments,they do about me also but its about teasing and nothing personal.I have told them I feel out of place in Miami,they agree that I should.They said they would feel out of place if they were the only spanish person in town.
Politics?...hey we all have our views,sometimes I shake my head to why someone would beieve what they do but in America we disagree without it getting violent,which in other countries sometimes its dangerous to.Nothing wrong with propaganda,a person needs to weed out the truth of it.
There are times like on this board.mu opinion can be changed if Im given the good info and reason to do so.
After starting this thread, I went away and thought about how we all seem to take a person's differing opinion as an assault (we take it personally). No one side has a monopoly on the truth or the way forward. This sounds good to me.
I truly think thata couple of the people who post here do aggressively present their thoughts as an assault. At first I was extremely put off, then I realized that they do not know any other way to communicate. I think the exchange below is a good example of how UN-productive some of our discussions can be.
Quote:
Or like breaking into the National Archives and STEALING documents like a common criminal (Sandy Berger)?
Oh, wait..............THAT was the Democrats
Mr. Black Kettle, NOW you can meet Mr. Black Pot
We could volley for days, maybe weeks, and all we'd prove is what we should already know, there's good and bad on both sides of the aisle.
You talk about Obama hiding his tickets and we can talk about Rudy's second wife finding he wants a divorce from a TV interview, real class act.
The petty sniping just ain't worth the effort.
It is indeed petty, low level stuff--almost embarrassing.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
