Finger Pointing Debating

[Raider5678]

Is it just me, or are most political threads just devolving into ridiculous childlike finger pointing and name calling?

And I mean rapidly. 

A thread started about a potential presidential candidate devolved in just 1 page to complain about the failures and qualities of the current president.

 

And moreover, there's a massive gap between two sides of the debate.

If someone takes, and let us be real here it's usual conservatives vs liberals(not libertarians or something), a conservative standpoint they're immediately accused of supporting EVERYTHING that the conservative parties support. Likewise, if someone takes the liberal standpoint they're immediately accused of supporting everything the liberal parties support.

Half the time, people read the post, get to a sentence they disagree with, and just quote the SINGLE sentence and take it out of context.

 

I don't know.

Is it just me or is debating politics becoming less and less debate and more and more namecalling?

 

[iNow]

I think it's just you, and even if there's merit in your point, it's still wrong to suggest an equivalence, as if all parties do this equally

[Raider5678]

1 minute ago, iNow said:

 it's still wrong to suggest an equivalence, as if all parties do this equally

Fair enough.

Liberals far outnumber conservatives on this site, and they definitely do it a lot more simply because there are more of them.

[rangerx]

Now the victim. Dish it out, but can't it. It's pathetic.

You were caught with your pants down in another thread. You were corrected, but doubled down on it and failed. Then claimed I have opinions on topics I know "absolutely nothing" about.

So just what is it. You claim I'm guilty on more than one count, yet have not stated a single instance where I know "absolutely nothing" on topics I've contributed to.

Facts being facts, if anything is absolute, it's your knowledge of Oprah in this thread.

 

So what is it? What is it specifically I know "absolutely" nothing about in my contribution on this forum.

I'm waiting...

[Raider5678]

2 minutes ago, rangerx said:

 

 

Case in point.

[rangerx]

Preaching doesn't stand around here.

I'm still waiting. I will ask you again, what threads have I contributed in that I know absolutely nothing about?

 

[Raider5678]

11 minutes ago, rangerx said:

1. Now the victim. Dish it out, but can't it. It's pathetic.

2. You were caught with your pants down in another thread. You were corrected, but doubled down on it and failed. Then claimed I have opinions on topics I know "absolutely nothing" about.

3. So just what is it. You claim I'm guilty on more than one count, yet have not stated a single instance where I know "absolutely nothing" on topics I've contributed to.

4. Facts being facts, if anything is absolute, it's your knowledge of Oprah in this thread.

5. So what is it? What is it specifically I know "absolutely" nothing about in my contribution on this forum.

6. I'm waiting...

2

1. Yeah. To everyone else, this is an example of what I'm talking about.

2. So is this. I encourage you to go look at that thread. You can clearly see how far out of context posts are taken.

3. It was actually a generalized statement. Almost everyone has opinions on topics they know absolutely nothing about. Me, and you included.

4. That makes no sense.

5. Refer to point three. It was a generalized statement, which CANNOT be proven false. Neptune's teacup scenario. However, it's also highly likely. 

6. This is your first post in this thread. Don't pretend like I'm ignoring you.

Edited January 9, 2018 by Raider5678

[Lord Antares]

I've never enjoyed discussing politics. It almost always gets heated and hostile at one point or another and there is simply no point to it. You could spend a year talking about politics non-stop or you could spend 5 minutes, it won't make a difference. You won't achieve anything.

This is why I have 0 interest in politics. My opinions don't amount to anything in the end and I am a minuscule fraction of the voters. The odds that my vote will be the one that tips things to my side are laughable. Also, it almost always comes with annoyance, rage, fighting, arguing, name-calling etc. It is simply not worth the time to debate. The only ones who I can understand that dabble in politics are famous and otherwise influential people, simply because they can affect many people's votes. 

Also, the reason why political discussions seem to be so drawn-out and hostile is that there is no right or wrong side. There is no ''correct'' or ''incorrect''. You cannot even reach an objective conclusion. 

You're a smart kid. Your time could be spent better learning more about science or doing something fun or productive, rather than arguing with people from the forum.

[Raider5678]

13 minutes ago, rangerx said:

Preaching doesn't stand around here.

I'm still waiting. I will ask you again, what threads have I contributed in that I know absolutely nothing about?

 

Preaching stands around here.

 

From "propaganda parrots" I can safely assume you don't really know all that much about Conservatives above anything more than "I hate them."

From "America has sold out" I can safely assume you don't understand the cycle of politics, where only three times in the last 100 years as a single party held office for more than 4 terms. America didn't "sell out" it followed the same process it's been following for generations.

From "You're not the boss of me" I can also safely assume you don't know the basic attitude of debate. You resort to name calling and childlike tantrums when you're pointed out to be wrong. Anyone looking through your posts can see that in the first 4 pages.

This is what I got. Also note, this isn't even what I meant. But since you insisted.

3 minutes ago, Lord Antares said:

You're a smart kid. Your time could be spent better learning more about science or doing something fun or productive, rather than arguing with people from the forum.

 

I still spend a lot of time learning science and such.

 

Edited January 9, 2018 by Raider5678

[Lord Antares]

2 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

I still spend a lot of time learning science and such.

Still, politics is one of the least productive popular activities you could dabble in. Objectively speaking.

[Raider5678]

Just now, Lord Antares said:

Still, politics is one of the least productive popular activities you could dabble in. Objectively speaking.

True enough.

However I am looking to get into a possible political career.

[Phi for All]

This seems like a definition problem, and one in which the US has been mired deeply in this age of spin. We talk about ourselves as conservative or liberal, when nobody really fits anyone else's definition. And those definitions have been purposely left loosey-goosey, to allow everyone to make up their own relevance. It's a lot like the way Jesus would do EXACTLY what most people think they would do.

I hate those labels. I consider myself a blend of stances and ideals, with the overriding concern that I'm in a society filled with others. There are many times when I do things for myself alone, but most of the time I'm trying to help everyone else (including myself) by social cooperation. I obey laws, I'm courteous on the roads and sidewalks, and I look for opportunities where my abundance can be shared practically. If I've prospered in a overbalanced capitalist society, it's because I was born into a strong middle class family and had lots of opportunities, public schooling, libraries, museums, available capital and available credit, and good people working for me, who also had access to the social support I had. It bothers me when that kind of opportunity is scorned because some fear helping someone unworthy of it.

So if our politics discussions sound more like a debate where folks want to win, I think that's on you. It's always my hope that I can learn from folks who don't think exactly the way I do, but I know it's not going to happen when you start talking about being conservative. That just sets us up on opposite sides automatically. Maybe give up the label, admit that you couldn't possibly be conservative about every issue, and then we can talk about some of the other crayon colors in the big box. Pointing fingers are always labeled.

 

[rangerx]

1-  So you are exempt from your own rules then?

2- By your own words, you know jackshit about Oprah, but by default determined she's not fit for POTUS.

3- I see, you seem alright with talking shit about others, but when called out for it,  you dismiss it as shit talk.

4- You came into that thread knowing nothing about Oprah and were corrected, yet learned nothing. Instead doubled down on it and got all defensive.

5- So nothing then.

6- Not pretending. I'm insisting you back up what you say, with supporting evidence. None of which is forthcoming, so I will dismiss the point as total hypocrisy to your own OP.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

We do not need to go into the minutia of another thread in this one. We also do not need the bickering. 

 

[Raider5678]

6 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

This seems like a definition problem, and one the US has been mired deeply in the age of spin. We talk about ourselves as conservative or liberal, when nobody really fits anyone else's definition. And those definitions have been purposely left loosey-goosey, to allow everyone to make up their own relevance. It's a lot like the way Jesus would do EXACTLY what most people think they would do.

I hate those labels. I consider myself a blend of stances and ideals, with the overriding concern that I'm in a society filled with others. There are many times when I do things for myself alone, but most of the time I'm trying to help everyone else (including myself) by social cooperation. I obey laws, I'm courteous on the roads and sidewalks, and I look for opportunities where my abundance can be shared practically. If I've prospered in a overbalanced capitalist society, it's because I was born into a strong middle class family and had lots of opportunities, public schooling, libraries, museums, available capital and available credit, and good people working for me, who also had access to the social support I had. It bothers me when that kind of opportunity is scorned because some fear helping someone unworthy of it.

So if our politics discussions sound more like a debate where folks want to win, I think that's on you. It's always my hope that I can learn from folks who don't think exactly the way I do, but I know it's not going to happen when you start talking about being conservative. That just sets us up on opposite sides automatically. Maybe give up the label, admit that you couldn't possibly be conservative about every issue, and then we can talk about some of the other crayon colors in the big box. Pointing fingers are always labeled.

4

I agree with this though.

Yet when someone tries to take any standpoint, they're automatically labeled as supporting everything about the said party.

 

 

Edit: Deleted most of what I said to abide by moderator note.

Edited January 9, 2018 by Raider5678

[Phi for All]

1 minute ago, Raider5678 said:

Yet, when I, or others, take a conservative standpoint,

What's an example of a conservative standpoint, for you?

[rangerx]

18 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Preaching stands around here.

 

From "propaganda parrots" I can safely assume you don't really know all that much about Conservatives above anything more than "I hate them."

From "America has sold out" I can safely assume you don't understand the cycle of politics, where only three times in the last 100 years as a single party held office for more than 4 terms. America didn't "sell out" it followed the same process it's been following for generations.

From "You're not the boss of me" I can also safely assume you don't know the basic attitude of debate. You resort to name calling and childlike tantrums when you're pointed out to be wrong. Anyone looking through your posts can see that in the first 4 pages.

This is what I got. Also note, this isn't even what I meant. But since you insisted.

I still spend a lot of time learning science and such.

 

Again, you know nothing about me, but to pigeon-hole some off the wall comment that I am solely driven by hatred. HYPOCRISY to the OP in one breath.

The boss of me comment was you snubbing my right to free speech, which you attempted to manipulate by participation by telling me I have no right to be in the discussion.

Who are these "anyones"? You speak for the forum now? Citation please.

 

Edited January 9, 2018 by rangerx

[hypervalent_iodine]

2 minutes ago, rangerx said:

Again, you know nothing about me, but to pigeon-hole some off the wall comment that I am solely driven by hatred. HYPOCRISY to the OP in one breath.

The boss of me comment was you snubbing my right to free speech, which you attempted to manipulate by participation by telling me I have no right to be in the discussion.

Who are these "anyones"? You speak for the forum now? Citation please.

 

!

Moderator Note

Raider might not speak for the forum, but I'm reasonably sure I do. When I asked members to stop the bickering, I was speaking to you also. 

 

[iNow]

17 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I hate those labels.

There's a bigger issue here of dehumanizing others and dismissing them based on the label instead of based on merit.

We see it with terms like "leftie" and "liberal" as insults, or "social justice warrior" and "politically correct." What happens is we no longer see the other person as a mom, brother, cousin, coworker, or friend. We see them as the label... as a monolithic entity... They're "christian" or "muslim" or they're "conservative" or "right wing," instead of just being Bill, or Mary, or Nicole, or Sam...

The label is a lazy way to address an issue, because you don't ever address the issue. That's not a problem with politics, but with dehumanization more broadly (see also: seeing jews or blacks as less than human and the resulting consequences of not seeing their humanity).

[EdEarl]

I dislike debating politics and religion because I feel like I'm standing in quicksand. However, I feel obligated to try to help make the world a better place for my family, because my expectations are poor. .

[Phi for All]

14 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

What's an example of a conservative standpoint, for you?

The reason I ask is because the definitions are so loose that I've heard "conservative" politicians proposing measures that were actually fairly radical but addressed a conservative issue positively, and was therefore considered a conservative measure. The most glaring example I remember off the top of my head was Bush II giving up Medicare's negotiating power with pharma companies for prescription drugs. No politician representing the People would give up such power. No businessperson would give up the power to negotiate based on the size of the business. Yet it was passed by a "conservative" administration, and had the approval of many "conservatives". To me, that's not conservative, not even close. It was corporate subsidies being sold as conservative measures, so we have direct evidence that these labels are being actively used against us. 

Why use them so much when they lead to finger pointing? Reason and critical thinking outweigh partisanship and tribal mentality.

11 minutes ago, iNow said:

There's a bigger issue here of dehumanizing others and dismissing them based on the label instead of based on merit.

We see it with terms like "leftie" and "liberal" as insults, or "social justice warrior" and "politically correct." What happens is we no longer see the other person as a mom, brother, cousin, coworker, or friend. We see them as the label... as a monolithic entity... They're "christian" or "muslim" or they're "conservative" or "right wing," instead of just being Bill, or Mary, or Nicole, or Sam...

The label is a lazy way to address an issue, because you don't ever address the issue. That's not a problem with politics, but with dehumanization more broadly (see also: seeing jews or blacks as less than human and the resulting consequences of not seeing their humanity).

I admit, when I hear someone calling themselves one of these labels, the first thing I think is "You don't know what you're talking about, and are just reacting the way you've been conditioned to be one or the other, this or that, 0% or 100%". And that, too, is conditioning. I think the US in particular needs a refresher course in what a society, what a nation is supposed to be. 

[Raider5678]

38 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

The reason I ask is because the definitions are so loose that I've heard "conservative" politicians proposing measures that were actually fairly radical but addressed a conservative issue positively, and was therefore considered a conservative measure. The most glaring example I remember off the top of my head was Bush II giving up Medicare's negotiating power with pharma companies for prescription drugs. No politician representing the People would give up such power. No businessperson would give up the power to negotiate based on the size of the business. Yet it was passed by a "conservative" administration, and had the approval of many "conservatives". To me, that's not conservative, not even close. It was corporate subsidies being sold as conservative measures, so we have direct evidence that these labels are being actively used against us. 

Why use them so much when they lead to finger pointing? Reason and critical thinking outweigh partisanship and tribal mentality.

I admit, when I hear someone calling themselves one of these labels, the first thing I think is "You don't know what you're talking about, and are just reacting the way you've been conditioned to be one or the other, this or that, 0% or 100%". And that, too, is conditioning. I think the US in particular needs a refresher course in what a society, what a nation is supposed to be. 

3

I can't really think of a good answer come to think of it. I get what you mean though now. Conservative and liberal are really loose.

That said, I can come up with general viewpoints but even then it depends.

 

 

Edited January 9, 2018 by Raider5678

[Phi for All]

Just now, Raider5678 said:

I can't really think of a good answer come to think of it. I get what you mean though now. Conservative and liberal are really loose.

Abortion stances get labeled a LOT. They're some of the funkiest arguments I've ever heard.

I agree with the overall conservative stance that the government should have a very limited control over me and my body. I'll allow that some inoculations, vaccines, and other restrictions based on human habitation density must be part of that limited control. This is what I would term a "small government" stance as well. As long as I'm not hurting any other citizens, I don't want the government in my face.

So that's why I feel that the anti-abortion stance is NOT a conservative one. It's a religious one, one that puts the life of the unborn over the life of the citizen, and surrenders control over your body to the government. It's the exact opposite of conservatism. It's the opposite of what the Tea Party and the Libertarians stand for, yet members of both tend towards anti-abortion and anti-drug stances. How is this conservative? How is this small government?

Take almost any typical conservative or liberal stance, and you can find tons of stupid examples of their misrepresentation. So the goal of those discussing politics on a science forum is to move beyond the rhetoric, emotion, and finger-pointing, and address the problems rationally. We all need reminders that every stance runs the risk of getting fouled up in the kinds of meaninglessness that hampers our critical thinking.

[Raider5678]

17 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Abortion stances get labeled a LOT. They're some of the funkiest arguments I've ever heard.

I agree with the overall conservative stance that the government should have a very limited control over me and my body. I'll allow that some inoculations, vaccines, and other restrictions based on human habitation density must be part of that limited control. This is what I would term a "small government" stance as well. As long as I'm not hurting any other citizens, I don't want the government in my face.

So that's why I feel that the anti-abortion stance is NOT a conservative one. It's a religious one, one that puts the life of the unborn over the life of the citizen, and surrenders control over your body to the government. It's the exact opposite of conservatism. It's the opposite of what the Tea Party and the Libertarians stand for, yet members of both tend towards anti-abortion and anti-drug stances. How is this conservative? How is this small government?

Take almost any typical conservative or liberal stance, and you can find tons of stupid examples of their misrepresentation. So the goal of those discussing politics on a science forum is to move beyond the rhetoric, emotion, and finger-pointing, and address the problems rationally. We all need reminders that every stance runs the risk of getting fouled up in the kinds of meaninglessness that hampers our critical thinking.

True enough. For me, it is a religious one. However, that's a whole other debate.

 

However, I do agree with this. I think the reason it got labeled a conservative standpoint is often because almost every issue has a side it's been assigned to. Conservative vs liberal.

And like you said, often, the issue shouldn't be under either of them.

[Phi for All]

40 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

True enough. For me, it is a religious one.

And it's one I can understand, one that's consistent with common evangelical teachings, even if I don't agree with them. And if we were trying to repopulate the world after some cataclysm, and needed every single child we could produce, it might even be a conservative one. 

I think the real problem here is that you're getting pretty sophisticated in your argumentative style, and you want better, not more. You're digging into some meaty issues, and those old binary labels aren't stretching far enough to cover up their own inadequacies anymore. I think you're experiencing growing pains, and it's a good thing. Buy your pants a little longer, and let's all start moving beyond the labels. When we point a finger it means at least three are pointed back at ourselves.