Political feeling

[JustinW]

I don't know if this is a phylosophical, ethical, or plain political topic, so it might be moved. I was wondering which side of the isle argues and politics more on emotions. It seems that one only has to say a phrase or make one comment that could be construde as not agreeing with someone's political view and someone will surely start a personal attack. This may lean more towards a phylosophical debate. But here recently I was told to move to the political forum where I could get with all the other George Bush wanna be's. It was that uncalled for outburst that brought this question to mind. When people make personal attacks, is it because they can't argue their point logically? Is it because hatred and frustration towards other view points have built up to the point of trying to emotionally cripple the opposition instead of trying to influence their views through logical discussion? And what are other people's thoughts on which side of the isle use emotion and personal attacks to direct policy? My personal experience is that the left have attacked me more than the right. Not to say that I'm right wing or to say anything necessarily bad about the left. But when I bring an arguement to the table that may be different than a right wing view, I've noticed that most of the time the people that lean towards the right may get emotional, but they still try to explain their position logically. I have some left leaning friends that do this also, but when I'm attacked for expressing a view (even if it's not my personal view) it is usually those from the left.

 

Please don't get me wrong here. I know what this topic could lead to. I'm not inviting name calling, just logical discussion on the way political emotion is viewed.

[iNow]

I don't know if this is a phylosophical, ethical, or plain political topic, so it might be moved. I was wondering which side of the isle argues and politics more on emotions.

Your spelling is horrific. This is not an emotional personal attack, but a statement of fact. It's nearly the year 2012 so there is no excuse for this. Please install and use a spell checker.

 

To answer your question, both sides of the aisle use emotion in arguments and there is no clear way to measure quantitatively the quantity of emotion used on "each side of the aisle" and hence no clear way to say definitively which side uses emotion more.

 

An alternative question might be, "which side does a better job of using logic, reason, and evidence in support of their positions?" In which case, we accept the answer is subjective, but definitely tends in one specific direction.

 

 

It seems that one only has to say a phrase or make one comment that could be construde as not agreeing with someone's political view and someone will surely start a personal attack.

Depending on what you say and how you say it, others with experience dealing with people who say similar things will immediately classify you into a specific group or camp. If someone says the Fed should be abolished, you can generally guess about their political persuasions. If one says global climate change is a big conspiracy, you can generally guess at their level of education and primary sources of information. If someone says that evolutionists are wrong, you can generally assume that neither logic nor reason will rebut their ideological position. Our previous experiences inform how we interact with people, and when people implicitly identify themselves as part of a given group they are often treated accordingly.

 

Life is a natural classifier, and humans are especially good at it. Even the first most basic cells classified things as "food" versus "not food" or as "ouch" versus "not ouch," and humans take that same differentiation process to another level of complexity. With these classifications, specifically on political issues, comes the realization that you are dealing with a very specific type of person, and often the responses are framed accordingly.

 

 

This may lean more towards a phylosophical debate. But here recently I was told to move to the political forum where I could get with all the other George Bush wanna be's. It was that uncalled for outburst that brought this question to mind. When people make personal attacks, is it because they can't argue their point logically?

No, I can quite capably argue a point logically, but sometimes feel that I've done it a thousand times in the past and can't be bothered to do it... yet again. Others are the same. It's a waste of breath sometimes to argue with a person who is not willing to alter their position, no matter how strong and how well formed the counter argument. See: Evolution debates. See also: Climate change debates. See also again: Politics.

 

Is it because hatred and frustration towards other view points have built up to the point of trying to emotionally cripple the opposition instead of trying to influence their views through logical discussion?

Frustration and exasperation definitely play a part, but I don't see it as either hatred or as an attempt to cripple the opposition. Also, as I noted above, logical discussion fails so often that it's easy to give up on it.

 

However, it really depends on the person. You're asking for vague absolutes, when in reality the answer is specific to the individual, to the situation, to the history they have, and to how they happen to be feeling that day.

 

And what are other people's thoughts on which side of the isle use emotion and personal attacks to direct policy?

Both, and that's how it should be. If people don't connect with an idea emotionally, it will die on the vine. As I said above, the more appropriate question would be "which side does a better job at using reason, evidence, and rationality at supporting their position?"

 

My personal experience is that the left have attacked me more than the right.

Probably because you're seen as right-leaning.

 

Not to say that I'm right wing or to say anything necessarily bad about the left. But when I bring an arguement to the table that may be different than a right wing view, I've noticed that most of the time the people that lean towards the right may get emotional, but they still try to explain their position logically.

Two things here. First, you probably have a confirmation bias and over-remember the times where the "right" use logic and over-remember the times where the "left" uses emotion," and you probably under-remember the times where the "left" uses logic and under-remember the times when the "right" uses emotion.

 

Second, not everything breaks cleanly into "right" and "left." I suspect strongly that this is part of your problem. You're trying to force everything you experience into this false dichotomy of "us/them."

 

I have some left leaning friends that do this also, but when I'm attacked for expressing a view (even if it's not my personal view) it is usually those from the left.

Well, no shit, sherlock. When do we receive attacks from people who agree with us? Sorry, but your points are tending toward the stupid, and I have no patience for that.

[waitforufo]

iNow, thank you for posting such an excellent case in point to JustinW's opener.

 

Justin W, based on iNow's post can you guess on which side of the isle iNow sits ?

[JustinW]

Your spelling is horrific. This is not an emotional personal attack, but a statement of fact. It's nearly the year 2012 so there is no excuse for this. Please install and use a spell checker.

Well, no shit, sherlock. When do we receive attacks from people who agree with us? Sorry, but your points are tending toward the stupid, and I have no patience for that.

I appologize for not seeming as smart as you would like. I'll try harder not to pry on your patience in the future.

 

 

Depending on what you say and how you say it, others with experience dealing with people who say similar things will immediately classify you into a specific group or camp. If someone says the Fed should be abolished, you can generally guess about their political persuasions. If one says global climate change is a big conspiracy, you can generally guess at their level of education and primary sources of information. If someone says that evolutionists are wrong, you can generally assume that neither logic nor reason will rebut their ideological position. Our previous experiences inform how we interact with people, and when people implicitly identify themselves as part of a given group they are often treated accordingly.

 

Life is a natural classifier, and humans are especially good at it. Even the first most basic cells classified things as "food" versus "not food" or as "ouch" versus "not ouch," and humans take that same differentiation process to another level of complexity. With these classifications, specifically on political issues, comes the realization that you are dealing with a very specific type of person, and often the responses are framed accordingly.

This makes a lot of sense, but you would figure being in a science forum where logical discussion plays a big role that one would not be as quick to make assumptions, and be more willing to discuss rather than bicker.

 

 

No, I can quite capably argue a point logically, but sometimes feel that I've done it a thousand times in the past and can't be bothered to do it... yet again. Others are the same. It's a waste of breath sometimes to argue with a person who is not willing to alter their position, no matter how strong and how well formed the counter argument. See: Evolution debates. See also: Climate change debates. See also again: Politics.

Yes, but for those who enter into a discussion it should already be a given that they would have to explain. Especially since they are probably talking to different people than in previous discussions. If someone doesn't want to explain their position in a informative manner then why get into the conversation at all?

 

However, it really depends on the person. You're asking for vague absolutes, when in reality the answer is specific to the individual, to the situation, to the history they have, and to how they happen to be feeling that day.

I wouldn't say vague absolutes, but rather observed generalizations.

 

 

Both, and that's how it should be. If people don't connect with an idea emotionally, it will die on the vine. As I said above, the more appropriate question would be "which side does a better job at using reason, evidence, and rationality at supporting their position?"

I understand emotion plays a big role in policy making. Maybe I need to clarrify. I meant which one yells the loudest "so to speak" in a way that hurts their persuasiveness

 

 

Probably because you're seen as right-leaning.

Some of my comments might have been viewed as such though I've never thought of myself as such. Alot of times in certain discussions I will use other views to make a point even if it is not my own personal view. Then it's too late, someone has already labeled me and won't be persuaded otherwise.

 

Two things here. First, you probably have a confirmation bias and over-remember the times where the "right" use logic and over-remember the times where the "left" uses emotion," and you probably under-remember the times where the "left" uses logic and under-remember the times when the "right" uses emotion.

 

Second, not everything breaks cleanly into "right" and "left." I suspect strongly that this is part of your problem. You're trying to force everything you experience into this false dichotomy of "us/them."

 

I agree. There are alot of people that split the difference depending on the subject. This is how I've always seen myself as a matter of fact. I may have a biase depending on the topic and may disremember some things. I'll have to think about that. But I don't consider political decision as an us/them collaberation. The only reason I used the term right/left was for the fact that this topic can only be discussed using generalizations.

 

iNow, thank you for posting such an excellent case in point to JustinW's opener.

 

Justin W, based on iNow's post can you guess on which side of the isle iNow sits ?

I can probably guess, but it would still be a premature assumption.

[Phi for All]

Personally, I think there are many misconceptions about right/left, conservative/liberal labeling. Like the current major political parties, they are too encompassing to be valuable concepts in any meaningful way.

 

If I think a widow with three kids deserves welfare from the state, does that make me left-leaning? If I think a healthy individual who is capable of working doesn't deserve welfare from the state, does that make me right-leaning? What am I if I think both these statements are valid?

 

Why do supposedly far-right conservatives like the Tea Party want to block payroll tax cuts? I thought they were all about less taxes.

 

As for the OP, everyone who argues politics does so from an emotional standpoint. If it were all logical choices, there wouldn't be a problem, but someone is almost always affected adversely whenever a decision is made that affects the nation.

 

Again personally, I think where most of the problems stem are from mixing politics with other concerns, like religion or business. We all want the best education for our children, but disagree where that education should come from. I think the best use of our money is from public funding, some think privatized education is better motivated, and still others think education should include religious ideology. Emotions are more likely to increase when profit and dogma are involved. But I can be extremely emotional without profit or belief, simply because I think certain aspects of society require cooperation and communication and should be untainted by individual concerns.

 

If attacks on your stance seem overly aggressive, sometimes it's because the other side thinks YOU are the one who is being illogical. It could be that we resort to aggression when we come up against an equally logical viewpoint as an attempt to knock it down for good, overwhelm it completely. It seems completely logical to me to stop sugar subsidies; I'm equally sure it seems completely logical to an employee of United States Sugar Corporation to continue them.

[JustinW]

As for the OP, everyone who argues politics does so from an emotional standpoint. If it were all logical choices, there wouldn't be a problem, but someone is almost always affected adversely whenever a decision is made that affects the nation.

The emotional feeling toward policy concerns is necessary I believe, just as iNow mentioned above. But my origional point was directed more toward unwarranted personal attack. I have the frame of mind that can be changed by logical arguement. If most of the people that have put me under the gun would have simply explained their position, I might have been persuaded to change mine if theirs had seemed more reasonable. But alot have just exploded and didn't give me or anyone else a chance to ask for explanation. This is more along the lines of what I wanted to know of what other people thought from their own experiences.

[iNow]

I'll try harder not to pry on your patience in the future.

That would be great, thanks.

 

This makes a lot of sense, but you would figure being in a science forum where logical discussion plays a big role that one would not be as quick to make assumptions, and be more willing to discuss rather than bicker.

A large portion of the population here are not practicing scientists, merely people who are interested in science and enjoy interacting with intelligent people. However, you're right that quick assumptions can be problematic, and that a willingness to discuss issues is critical.

 

Also, FWIW... I know the thread and the comment that prompted your OP, and I tend to agree with you that the other individual was far too quick to toss a label at you. I don't necessarily agree with your position, but I do agree that in that instance your opponent did a very poor job of explaining why they disagree and hurt their own position by casting you aside the way they did.

 

 

Yes, but for those who enter into a discussion it should already be a given that they would have to explain.

Yes, but with one caveat. If the weight of the evidence is in their favor, their position is generally accepted without the need for great detailed articles or lengthy proofs. Sometimes, those of us who are educated on a topic take as given that certain things are accepted as correct by the majority of experts... like the human impact on climate change and the validity of evolution, for example. When people argue against these positions... positions which have mountains of evidence and decades of research supporting them... as a general rule those people immediately identify themselves as lacking, as having inferior understanding of the subject material, and as holding positions less worthy of acceptance or respect.

 

Now, let's be clear here... As we need to be careful with generalizations. There is a great BIG enormous HUGE difference between someone coming in asking questions, seeking to improve their understanding, and fill the gaps in their knowledge... and someone coming in with ideological positions, unfounded claims, and a seeming unwillingness to debate in good faith.

 

 

Especially since they are probably talking to different people than in previous discussions. If someone doesn't want to explain their position in a informative manner then why get into the conversation at all?

I understand your point, and tend to agree. As I shared earlier, it's usually related to exasperation and frustration. "Here we go again..."

 

It's hard to continue arguing and to keep presenting the same information and the same evidence and the same explanations a thousand times over... especially when there is little to no reward or reinforcement for doing so. If we come here to convince others of our position, and to reduce the level of ignorance in the world, then it's disheartening when you DO put forth that effort and take GREAT amounts of time organizing your thoughts and laying them out articulately for someone... only to have them essentially go, "Nuh uh... So there!"

 

 

I wouldn't say vague absolutes, but rather observed generalizations.

I'm sorry, but that's really not any better. First, your personal observations are hardly representative of an accurate cross section of the population. Second, the generalizations you form based on your small handful of anecdotal experiences tend to miss very important details and distinctions, and tend to only be valid by accident. Third, how do you know whether or not these people you observe are "right-leaning" or "left-leaning," and whether or not your perception of them is accurate? Fourth, how do you know you're using the terms "right and left" in the same way that others use those terms? Fifth, ... shit, I could go on, but the point is that you really should avoid generalizing.

 

I understand emotion plays a big role in policy making. Maybe I need to clarrify. I meant which one yells the loudest "so to speak" in a way that hurts their persuasiveness

It's really all subjective. What you think "hurts their persuasiveness," I might think drives home the point in a way that makes it real. You're trying to apply your subjective beliefs to the world around you as if those beliefs are objective facts. They're not. They're biases, and that's okay, but you need to recognize them for what they are.

 

But I don't consider political decision as an us/them collaberation.

By definition, when you split people into groups you are separating those people into "us/them" divisions.

 

The only reason I used the term right/left was for the fact that this topic can only be discussed using generalizations.

I disagree that this can only be discussed using generalizations. You're very clearly referring to a small population of personal experiences, and you should try to discuss those specific experiences, instead of seeking to extend your experience on to everyone whom you subjectively label one way or another.

 

In fairness, I could be better at this myself. I'm generally very intuitive and figure things out quickly, which often leads me to make conclusions about a person and move on before giving them the full benefit of the doubt.

 

 

 

 

 

Justin W, based on iNow's post can you guess on which side of the isle iNow sits ?

I sit on the side which prizes education, intelligence and connecting our beliefs with the reality around us... as opposed to "the side" that is willfully ignorant, ideological, and insipid.

 

And it's spelled "aisle," FFS. It's a term about a path, usually between to separate seating areas, such as a wedding where guests of the bride are on one side and guests of the groom on the other. We're not talking about archipelagos or islands or keys, gentlemen.

 

Seriously... You need to understand why people react the way they do to your comments. Forums like this are text-based mediums of communication, and when you guys keep misspelling basic words when interacting with an audience that is generally well educated and intelligent it suggests that you don't read very much... and people who don't read very much tend not to be very well educated... and people aren't very well educated tend not to make very intelligent points worthy of consideration and deeper reflection. (and, it's spelled philosophy, btw).

 

This has been a free public service announcement. It is not intended, nor should it be construed, as a personal attack or insult.

[JustinW]

A large portion of the population here are not practicing scientists, merely people who are interested in science and enjoy interacting with intelligent people. However, you're right that quick assumptions can be problematic, and that a willingness to discuss issues is critical.

 

Also, FWIW... I know the thread and the comment that prompted your OP, and I tend to agree with you that the other individual was far too quick to toss a label at you. I don't necessarily agree with your position, but I do agree that in that instance your opponent did a very poor job of explaining why they disagree and hurt their own position by casting you aside the way they did.

 

I consider myself one these too. Having a thirst for knowledge that, until the last few years, have had little resources to obtain it.

 

 

I'm sorry, but that's really not any better. First, your personal observations are hardly representative of an accurate cross section of the population. Second, the generalizations you form based on your small handful of anecdotal experiences tend to miss very important details and distinctions, and tend to only be valid by accident. Third, how do you know whether or not these people you observe are "right-leaning" or "left-leaning," and whether or not your perception of them is accurate? Fourth, how do you know you're using the terms "right and left" in the same way that others use those terms? Fifth, ... shit, I could go on, but the point is that you really should avoid generalizing.

 

This is why I asked for opinion based on others experiences as in my reply to Phi above. I knew this was a large generalization and that there would be a large margin for confusion. I just wanted to know what others thought and if they had any ideas on if these kinds of outburst can be labeled to one generality or another. If they think their generalities differ from others then they can be more specific. I could have gotten more specific, but I thought others might chime in more if I left out specifics.

 

 

I disagree that this can only be discussed using generalizations. You're very clearly referring to a small population of personal experiences, and you should try to discuss those specific experiences, instead of seeking to extend your experience on to everyone whom you subjectively label one way or another.

 

Well, when I thought about how much discussion there was on politics everyday I came to the assumption that the population for these kind of experiences were probably fairly large.

 

 

I sit on the side which prizes education, intelligence and connecting our beliefs with the reality around us... as opposed to "the side" that is willfully ignorant, ideological, and insipid.

 

And it's spelled "aisle," FFS. It's a term about a path, usually between to separate seating areas, such as a wedding where guests of the bride are on one side and guests of the groom on the other. We're not talking about archipelagos or islands or keys, gentlemen.

 

Seriously... You need to understand why people react the way they do to your comments. Forums like this are text-based mediums of communication, and when you guys keep misspelling basic words when interacting with an audience that is generally well educated and intelligent it suggests that you don't read very much... and people who don't read very much tend not to be very well educated... and people aren't very well educated tend not to make very intelligent points worthy of consideration and deeper reflection. (and, it's spelled philosophy, btw).

You make me smile. In possitive reflection I can't imagine someone who doesn't enjoy reading being on a forum that requires reading to be a part of. Aisle/Philosophy, got it.

[iNow]

And I even managed to misspell TWO. Stupid Skitt's Law.

 

And it's spelled "aisle," FFS. It's a term about a path, usually between to separate seating areas...

[JohnB]

Personally I think the whole Left/Right or Progressive/Conservative thing is hogwash. We are told that extreme right wing is Nazism/Facism while extreme left wing is Socialism/Communism. If there are any practical differences between the two (At least I got it right iNow ) then I have yet to see them. If you are "in" with the party you do well, the general populace are ground underfoot. There is also the lack of a spot for Anarchy on this spectrum.

 

My own belief is that the true political spectrum is from Anarchy or zero governmental control at one end to Statism or total govermental control at the other. Most people, either left or right are roughly in the middle and are trying to balance government control with individual liberty. The only real difference I've seen between progressives and conservatives is that progressives are more likely to favour government action than conservatives are. This doesn't mean that progressives want total gov control, they just favour more of it than conservatives do.

 

On a scale of 1 to 10 for gov control, conservatives are about a 4.95 and progressives are a 5.01. The differences are in what areas the control should be and how much control there should be. This is why iNow and I can disagree on some things but totally agree on others. He's left wing and I'm from the right, but we both agree that Universal Health Care is a damn good idea.

 

I would also suggest that progressives are slightly less practical. (Don't shoot me for that!) Progressives dream about how the world could be and maybe should be, they are the dreamers. Conservatives are better economic managers (speaking from the Oz perspective here) who work out how to pay for the dreams of the progressives. The Australian experience is that the Left has some really great ideas but can't put them into practice, they try but generally stuff it up. When turfed out the right roll back some of the things and work out how to pay for those things not rolled back. Each time we swap parties in gov, the general welfare goes up.

 

But seriously, judging people because of how someone sat in relation to the Chair in the French parliment 300 years ago strikes me as a damn silly way to conduct modern political discussions.

[iNow]

On a scale of 1 to 10 for gov control, conservatives are about a 4.95 and progressives are a 5.01. The differences are in what areas the control should be and how much control there should be.

I agree that this used to be the case, and probably still is in most parts of the world. In the US, however, the dynamic has been largely shifting lately, and people in large numbers are taking seriously ideas like abolishing the department of education, erasing medicare, medicaid, and social security, eliminating the environmental protection agency, and dismantling the federal reserve.

 

In the past, these ideas were limited to the lunatic fringe... the extremists who saw the second coming of christ likely to happen the following Tuesday... the tea leaf readers who saw zionistic influences leading us toward a new world order...

 

In the present, we have five nominees who have a serious chance of becoming president who are rejected by their party if they DON'T espouse those marginal ideas with both passion and persistence.

 

 

I would also suggest that progressives are slightly less practical. (Don't shoot me for that!) Progressives dream about how the world could be and maybe should be, they are the dreamers. Conservatives are better economic managers (speaking from the Oz perspective here) who work out how to pay for the dreams of the progressives.

Indeed, things are very seriously different where you are, my good man. Here in the US, it's the conservatives who have racked up the biggest economic problems for at least the last 30 years. Their continued focus on tax reductions for the rich and huge spending on military have racked up massive deficits. In fact, the only time we've had a surplus during this time was under Clinton, who was liberal and even raised taxes, but I digress. The point is your truism is actually quite false in the bizzaro world which is the modern day United States political arena.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[JohnB]

I agree that this used to be the case, and probably still is in most parts of the world. In the US, however, the dynamic has been largely shifting lately, and people in large numbers are taking seriously ideas like abolishing the department of education, erasing medicare, medicaid, and social security, eliminating the environmental protection agency, and dismantling the federal reserve.

 

I've heard this about the Federal Reserve. I don't really understand your version, the Reserve Bank of Australia is basically gov run. I don't get private banks being involved with the Gov funds in your system. Maybe it is time to chuck it and replace it with another version. Similarly with the EPA, I would be quite happy to see my State gov version gone and replaced. It's not that I don't think the environment shouldn't be protected, it's that I don't think the department should be run by ideologues, and the rot is too deep. We actually have more public servants looking after the "environment" in Queensland than are employed by the Australian Tax Office nation wide. It's just insane.

 

With the dollars, IIRC we have not had a surplus under a left wing gov in Australia for decades. The conservatives lost gov in 2007 leaving a surplus of $20 billion for the 2007-2008 budget. The progressive Labor gov took that to a deficit of $30 billion in the 2008-2009 budget. They think they might be back in the black by 2014 or so. Pretty poor when you started with money in the bank. Now I know $20 B isn't a big number from the US govs POV, but our annual budget is only around $300 B.

 

Putting the figures proportionally into US amounts it's like having a budget of $2.6 Trillion like you do and having a $173 B surplus one year and a $295 B deficit the next. And to be fair the GFC hit and a lot of money was spent on "stimulus". It didn't do anything, but a lot of money was spent.

 

I don't know what the answer is for the US, but you can't keep spending more than the Gov gets. I think people are going to have to accept taxes will have to go up or you're just going to have to do things differently. Remenber the UHC debate figures? It would be very interesting to know exactly why the USA is spending 3 times as much as everybody else for similar results. Changing the system could yield significant benefits.

 

I do wonder if pride is part of the problem for both the US left and right. Does wanting to appear as a "Leader" prevent your politicians from looking at how things are done elsewhere and copying it? Would a pollie saying "Listen folks, this part of what we do isn't working. Nation "A" over there does it a different way and it works fine for them. I think we should copy what they do" survive the next election?

[Phi for All]

I do wonder if pride is part of the problem for both the US left and right. Does wanting to appear as a "Leader" prevent your politicians from looking at how things are done elsewhere and copying it? Would a pollie saying "Listen folks, this part of what we do isn't working. Nation "A" over there does it a different way and it works fine for them. I think we should copy what they do" survive the next election?

I think it must be. There are way too many examples of successful policies from foreign countries that would help us work smarter, but get marginal attention simply because of the source. "We don't do things that way" is usually the common denial response. If a politician suggested that we copy a French program or any policy that works for a country considered "Socialist", it would make no difference what it concerned or how successful it was, it would be professional suicide for the pol who brought it up.

 

It may simply be that lobbyists for people who profit from our inefficiency find the foreign angle an easy spin. It's still a play on our pride, but when something could be successful and we won't even give it a try, pride wins over brains and that's never good.

[Moontanman]

I don't know if this is a phylosophical, ethical, or plain political topic, so it might be moved. I was wondering which side of the isle argues and politics more on emotions.

 

 

That's easy to answer Justin, I can't believe you don't know the answer... the other side is the one that always uses emotions and personal attacks because they have no real leg to stand on....

Edited December 24, 2011 by Moontanman

[iNow]

Remenber the UHC debate figures? It would be very interesting to know exactly why the USA is spending 3 times as much as everybody else for similar results. Changing the system could yield significant benefits.

I tend to agree. Part of the problem, though, is that our system is specifically designed not to do anything... not to work.

 

 

 

There are way too many examples of successful policies from foreign countries that would help us work smarter, but get marginal attention simply because of the source. "We don't do things that way" is usually the common denial response. If a politician suggested that we copy a French program or any policy that works for a country considered "Socialist", it would make no difference what it concerned or how successful it was, it would be professional suicide for the pol who brought it up.

 

It may simply be that lobbyists for people who profit from our inefficiency find the foreign angle an easy spin. It's still a play on our pride, but when something could be successful and we won't even give it a try, pride wins over brains and that's never good.

Indeed, and I think a lot of this touches on the themes we've been seeing in the Occupy movement. The system has been rigged, and the interests of the powerful are no longer aligned very well with the interests of the many. Spock would be horribly disappointed in us.

 

 

 

 

That's easy to answer Justin, I can't believe you don't know the answer... the other side is the one that always uses emotions and personal attacks because they have no real leg to stand on....

Part of the issue, too, is that one side goes beyond using emotion, and just lies flat out. Intentional deception and 24/7 propaganda machines seem to be ruling the day for one of our two major parties.

 

 

The Big Lie: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/24/opinion/nocera-the-big-lie.html

 

You begin with a hypothesis that has a certain surface plausibility. You find an ally whose background suggests that he’s an “expert”; out of thin air, he devises “data.” You write articles in sympathetic publications, repeating the data endlessly; in time, some of these publications make your cause their own. Like-minded congressmen pick up your mantra and invite you to testify at hearings.

 

You’re chosen for an investigative panel related to your topic. When other panel members, after inspecting your evidence, reject your thesis, you claim that they did so for ideological reasons. This, too, is repeated by your allies. Soon, the echo chamber you created drowns out dissenting views; even presidential candidates begin repeating the Big Lie.

 

Thus has Peter Wallison, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, and a former member of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, almost single-handedly created the myth that... <continue reading>

 

 

I'm sorry, but yes... One side IS worse than the other. While both make mistakes, and sometimes people intentionally deceive, only one side of the "aisle" is living in an almost entirely manufactured false reality. Part of the reason there is so much emotion involved is because this willful ignorance and intentional deceit pushes forth the detriment to us all. It doesn't matter what our own personal ideology is. These lies effect everybody, and usually in the negative.

[Moontanman]

I'm sorry, but yes... One side IS worse than the other. While both make mistakes, and sometimes people intentionally deceive, only one side of the "aisle" is living in an almost entirely manufactured false reality. Part of the reason there is so much emotion involved is because this willful ignorance and intentional deceit pushes forth the detriment to us all. It doesn't matter what our own personal ideology is. These lies effect everybody, and usually in the negative.

 

 

I guess I should have used a smirky smilely face on that one, sorry....

[iNow]

I knew what you were going for. No worries, it was rather clever, actually. Sorry I converted the humorous ambiguity into a specific point. I didn't mean to soil the laugh.

[swansont]

People use emotional argument because they work. Period. As long as it sways more voters in your favor rather than away, people will use them.

 

As for the OP, everyone who argues politics does so from an emotional standpoint. If it were all logical choices, there wouldn't be a problem, but someone is almost always affected adversely whenever a decision is made that affects the nation.

 

Not everyone, I think, but some/most people don't demand a logical argument. As came up in another thread, logic (or science) can point you to conclusions, but you still have to decide if they are worthwhile, and that requires some other input. You have to decide if a policy that helps some but harms others is worth it, and one's tolerance to how much harm can be done is different. I don't think logic helps you out much there.

 

That's easy to answer Justin, I can't believe you don't know the answer... the other side is the one that always uses emotions and personal attacks because they have no real leg to stand on....

 

That's certainly applicable. There's the legal saying that if you have the law on your side, pound on the law, and if the arguments are on your side, pound on the arguments, and if neither are on your side, pound on the table. You use emotional arguments for people who will be swayed by them, but if that's all you are using then you probably don't have the facts on your side. Plus you can make up "facts" to sway people who are influenced by them but too credulous to double-check them.

[JohnB]

Part of the issue, too, is that one side goes beyond using emotion, and just lies flat out. Intentional deception and 24/7 propaganda machines seem to be ruling the day for one of our two major parties.

 

Actually, I think that this is one of the big lies that Americans have been sold. From the outside it is apparent that both sides do this. The problem is that both sides have convinced their followers to be blind to their own machinations. So Democrats only see the Republical party machine, they do not see their own, they don't see their own astroturfing, and the Republicans are the same.

 

iNow, for your statement to be true you must believe that Democrats do tell lies. Are you going to argue that Democrats do not intentionally decieve people for political purposes? That the Democrats do not have a propaganda machine?

 

At this point it is usual to say "But they did it first!" or "But they do it more" or "But just look at Fox!"

 

The fact is that politicians lie. Individual ones will lie to either get elected or to keep their seat. They will tell people whatever they think will advance their political career. Political partys lie to either get in or stay in.

 

One problem that the American left has that stops it from concieving a constructive dialogue is that it views itself as morally, ethically and intellectually superior to the right. This attitude demands that the American right be therefore morally bankrupt, unethical, just plain stupid and possibly downright evil. It means that the left cannot concede the right might have a valid point because that threatens their worldview. If the other guy has valid points you can no longer consider yourself superior to him.

 

The right has similar views concerning the left, but using different reasons. Both Parties are reinforcing these perceptions.

 

Until the moderates accept that their side is as dirty as the other, you're stuck.

[swansont]

iNow, for your statement to be true you must believe that Democrats do tell lies. Are you going to argue that Democrats do not intentionally decieve people for political purposes? That the Democrats do not have a propaganda machine?

 

At this point it is usual to say "But they did it first!" or "But they do it more" or "But just look at Fox!"

 

I think Fox is the propaganda machine to which iNow refers.

 

Both sides spin stories. Having a bias in reporting is not inherently evil. But the out-and-out lies from Fox is over the top.

[JohnB]

Both sides spin stories. Having a bias in reporting is not inherently evil. But the out-and-out lies from Fox is over the top.

 

Reasons 2 and 3 in the first response. "But they do it more." "But look at Fox".

 

Would a reasonable translation be "Well, yes, my side does spin stories, but that isn't really all that bad. But the other side are simply liars."?

 

The thing is that I don't get your fox down here. Can you point to something where they have been proven to lie?

 

We have funny laws down here. If a media outlet is shown to have knowingly lied, then they can be fined and their licence to transmit revoked. Media can be biased and only tell half the story, or put a bit of spin on it to suit their tastes, but they cannot actually lie without facing severe repercussions. I have always assumed that American media are regulated in a similar way and therefore cannot get away with "out and out lies". This is why I take a lot of the complaints against fox with a very large grain of salt.

Edited December 25, 2011 by JohnB

[Arete]

The thing is that I don't get your fox down here. Can you point to something where they have been proven to lie?

 

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201112020036

 

No straight out lies - but it's intellectually absurd, then they bring on an opponent and out-argue her by shouting over her rather than actually engaging her or listening to a word she says.

[swansont]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2011/jun/22/jon-stewarts-politifact-segment-annotated-edition/

 

Her's the video they mention

http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/06/responding-to-politifact-stewart-reads-laundry-list-of-fox-news-lies/

[iNow]

Actually, I think that this is one of the big lies that Americans have been sold. From the outside it is apparent that both sides do this. The problem is that both sides have convinced their followers to be blind to their own machinations. So Democrats only see the Republical party machine, they do not see their own, they don't see their own astroturfing, and the Republicans are the same.

First, while I tend a certain way toward given issues, I am neither democrat nor republican. I view each candidate and each issue on the merits, and I do not tend to be a blind sheep acting on the will of those marionettes who are engaging in the aforementioned machinations.

 

Second, the observation that both sides lie is plain, but the recognition that one side relies almost purely on a manufactured reality is not anything me (or other Americans) had to be "sold" about. Your suggestion here is akin to telling me that I've been sold a lie that "evolution is true," or sold a story that "human activity can influence our climate." I don't have to be sold any such thing. It's quite simply true, as clearly visible to any rational and honest observer.

 

Third, I want to be cautious about dividing people into us's and them's. This is not about sides, and I equally despise it when people who share my political leanings engage in deception and purposeful manipulation. It is a simple fact, however, that one ideology uses this approach almost exclusively while the other does not.

 

 

iNow, for your statement to be true you must believe that Democrats do tell lies. Are you going to argue that Democrats do not intentionally decieve people for political purposes? That the Democrats do not have a propaganda machine?

I thought I was pretty clear. Yes, both sides lie. Yes, both sides manipulate. Yes, both sides deceive. I would be a fool and blind moron to suggest otherwise. The point, however, is that there is no equivalence here. Folks can waffle and equivocate all they want, but the simple fact is that it's gotten to an absurd level on the right, and it's no longer just the margins or the exceptions engaging in this disingenuous approach, but has instead become the de facto standard operating procedure.

 

 

"But they do it more" or "But just look at Fox!"

I know your intent was to disparage this argument preemptively, and to suggest that because both sides engage in such tactics that the frequency, scope, and magnitude of each do not matter... but you're quite simply wrong, IMO. There is a degree of opinion involved, and one can point to examples from both sides doing this (we had a whole thread on this a while back while Pangloss was still here), but at some point a rational observer will have to concede that there truly is a stark imbalance of lies, deceit, and intentional manipulation in today's US political environment where one ideology is clearly living in a bizarro world not rooted in facts or evidence or even a remedial understanding of and appreciation for history.

 

 

Until the moderates accept that their side is as dirty as the other, you're stuck.

In today's environment, true moderates are being dismissed as socialist pigs with communistic tendencies and an unpatriotic hatred of America. If you've ever read about Joseph McCarthy, or the propaganda that influenced the Nazi's in WWII and allowed so many Jews to be slaughtered, you will find great parallels with those sociopolitical movements and what we're seeing in the US today. The difficult economy makes extremist views more common and more easy to express, and the evidence suggests this has been steadily increasing for some time. People with opposing ideas... or even those people with ideas held more moderately... are being dehumanized and dismissed as not "right enough," and the "if you're not with us you're with them" tribal and gang-like warfare has taken rule of the day.

 

You point the need for moderates, and the strange thing is that I'm one of them, yet I'm cast aside as leftish. Folks who just ten years ago were right leaning moderates are today equally cast aside as leftish. It's not the left versus the right we're discussing. It's the EXTREME right versus everyone else.

 

 

 

 

We have funny laws down here. If a media outlet is shown to have knowingly lied, then they can be fined and their licence to transmit revoked. Media can be biased and only tell half the story, or put a bit of spin on it to suit their tastes, but they cannot actually lie without facing severe repercussions. I have always assumed that American media are regulated in a similar way and therefore cannot get away with "out and out lies". This is why I take a lot of the complaints against fox with a very large grain of salt.

Again, John... Things in the political sphere are VERY different where you are from where I am. We have no such laws, and there are literally zero repercussions when such lies are proffered. They not only can get away with lying nonstop, but do. It's become the status quo. I think you should seriously consider holding the aforementioned grain of salt until you've at least personally tasted the dish about which we're speaking.

[dimreepr]

I don't know if this is a phylosophical, ethical, or plain political topic, so it might be moved. I was wondering which side of the isle argues and politics more on emotions. It seems that one only has to say a phrase or make one comment that could be construde as not agreeing with someone's political view and someone will surely start a personal attack. This may lean more towards a phylosophical debate. But here recently I was told to move to the political forum where I could get with all the other George Bush wanna be's. It was that uncalled for outburst that brought this question to mind. When people make personal attacks, is it because they can't argue their point logically? Is it because hatred and frustration towards other view points have built up to the point of trying to emotionally cripple the opposition instead of trying to influence their views through logical discussion? And what are other people's thoughts on which side of the isle use emotion and personal attacks to direct policy? My personal experience is that the left have attacked me more than the right. Not to say that I'm right wing or to say anything necessarily bad about the left. But when I bring an arguement to the table that may be different than a right wing view, I've noticed that most of the time the people that lean towards the right may get emotional, but they still try to explain their position logically. I have some left leaning friends that do this also, but when I'm attacked for expressing a view (even if it's not my personal view) it is usually those from the left.

 

Please don't get me wrong here. I know what this topic could lead to. I'm not inviting name calling, just logical discussion on the way political emotion is viewed.

 

 

 

I think most often in people the general reason for anger in an arguement comes down to articulation. Pesonally my eloquence often lets me down. If I don't have enough time to formulate a responce, anger will often result. This however shouldn't happen on a forum as time isn't relavent. So, is it anger or is it resentment?