Has debate become futile?

[Jack]

I like seeing the articles posted by both sides of any debate.

I agree, but I think it's an error in thinking that so many Americans see things as having "two sides" (this is from the influence of the two major political parties, of course). Very little in life is actually black-or-white/either-or, but I know you probably know that.

[Wormdiet]

I like seeing the articles posted by both sides of any debate.

I agree, but I think it's an error in thinking that so many Americans see things as having "two sides" (this is from the influence of the two major political parties, of course). Very little in life is actually black-or-white/either-or, but I know you probably know that.

Indeed.

I suspect that many of the progressives that post here regularly are frustrated with the current "leadership" of the Democratic party. It's the old "vote as you believe" vs. "don;t throw your vote away" dilemma.

[Jack]

I like seeing the articles posted by both sides of any debate.

I agree, but I think it's an error in thinking that so many Americans see things as having "two sides" (this is from the influence of the two major political parties, of course). Very little in life is actually black-or-white/either-or, but I know you probably know that.

Indeed.

I suspect that many of the progressives that post here regularly are frustrated with the current "leadership" of the Democratic party. It's the old "vote as you believe" vs. "don;t throw your vote away" dilemma.

I'm not just frustrated with the leadership of the Democratic and Republican parties, I am frustrated with the parties in general. I wish we could have multiple smaller parties that didn't smother out other political voices that didn't quite agree.

For example, I know many conservatives who vote only on the issue of abortion without regard for the candidates' positions on social security, war, the death penalty, the economy, education, all that stuff.

It would be nice if we had a bunch of smaller, less-powerful parties where they (and we) would be better able to vote for all issues rather than having to compromise between "the big two" parties.

[s1m0n]

I often think, when reading these debates, that the goal of either side isn't to convice anyone on the other side; that's an impossibility and both sides know it going into the debate.

I think the goal is more often to put your views out there, and to endeavor to present your views in a way that explains why you have them.

There is a strong human drive to seek to be understood. There is another strong human drive to seek to "win," to be acknowledged as correct, to be vindicated. In these online debates, those two drives sometimes mix with explosive results.

--James

Very inciteful.

[chas]

I often think, when reading these debates, that the goal of either side isn't to convice anyone on the other side; that's an impossibility and both sides know it going into the debate.

I think the goal is more often to put your views out there, and to endeavor to present your views in a way that explains why you have them.

There is a strong human drive to seek to be understood. There is another strong human drive to seek to "win," to be acknowledged as correct, to be vindicated. In these online debates, those two drives sometimes mix with explosive results.

--James

Very inciteful.

I read this, agreed, pushed the back button, then came back to reread that one word. Brilliant! James is providing insight to why people incite.

[izzarina]

It would be nice if we had a bunch of smaller, less-powerful parties where they (and we) would be better able to vote for all issues rather than having to compromise between "the big two" parties.

I agree with you Cran....but our whole political system is based on a two party system. That's why a 3rd party can never make it into the mainstream, which is unfortunate. The money is with the GOP and the Dems, and therefore those are the only two we hear from and know the positions they are holding. It would be nice if that "norm" could be changed to allow for other ideals to be represented.

[Lorenzo]

I like seeing the articles posted by both sides of any debate.

I agree, but I think it's an error in thinking that so many Americans see things as having "two sides" (this is from the influence of the two major political parties, of course). Very little in life is actually black-or-white/either-or, but I know you probably know that.

Perhaps the reason why there's a two party system is because often there IS two sides to (most) issues. There's also acceptance or rejection of an issue, which adds another dimension. And in some cases, issues get modified before the final vote. Compromise is a result from issues having two sides to them.

Does that make any sense?

[Jack]

I like seeing the articles posted by both sides of any debate.

I agree, but I think it's an error in thinking that so many Americans see things as having "two sides" (this is from the influence of the two major political parties, of course). Very little in life is actually black-or-white/either-or, but I know you probably know that.

Perhaps the reason why there's a two party system is because often there IS two sides to (most) issues. There's also acceptance or rejection of an issue, which adds another dimension. And in some cases, issues get modified before the final vote. Compromise is a result from issues having two sides to them.

Does that make any sense?

Yes, it does make sense. But I wonder why we couldn't have compromise between 3, 4, or 5 political parties who were not so "all-or-nothing." It might take longer and it might be harder to do than using only 2 parties, but I think it would really be worth it.

[Lorenzo]

Compromise can often be the result of 4-5 different solutions offered at the table--which in essence means 5-4 political party views can be represented even within two parties. Politics is often a polarization process as opposed to speaking five different languages.

Social Security might have 3 options (leave it alone, reject it altogether, or privatize it), which would give rise to three parties, but a third party might agree with one of the other two on every other issue (likely anyway). Libertarians sometimes seem like a selective extraction from the two systems. Maybe someone could describe them.

[peeplj]

I don't see so many issues that are really black-and-white, clear-cut, either / or issues.

I see a wide variety of issues which are presented so as to appear that way, however.

I see both Democrats and Republicans as being the two different sides of the same broken coin, and I don't trust either one. The same goes for Liberals and Conservatives. And again, the same for Left and Right.

The system is self-perpetuating, and this presentation of false dichotomies is one way it ensures its own survival ("you only have two choices," verses "there are many things we might consider").

Like Treebeard in LOTR, I am not entirely on anybody's side, because nobody is entirely on my side.

--James

[Lorenzo]

I like that, James.

[Chuck_Clark]

Peeplj

Very well put. I couldn't agree more, even if I realize that my agreement is irrelevant

I guess I've become an outsider here, since I no longer feel much like visiting. FWIW, and without blaming ANYONE, that attitude seems to date pretty much to the inception of this Forum.

In the "old" days, when we were all one WHISTLE forum, I didn't mind scanning many topics, partly because the contentious stuff was (mostly) confined to one political topic. Sure, the old 'newbie-here' threads were (sometimes) a nuisance, but the Off-topic stuff was often interesting.

Now the interesting stuff is gone from the Whistle forum and in the Pub the argumentative stuff has bled out more or less indiscriminately into the general thread population. Unfortunately, I *know* I'm a butthead when i make the mistake of getting caught up in those topics. But it seems like I can't avoid them - so I spend my time talking high school sports instead

I'm no doubt a very small minority, but I'd truly love seeing it all go back to where it was BEFORE the Pub was split off.

[jGilder]

I often think, when reading these debates, that the goal of either side isn't to convice anyone on the other side; that's an impossibility and both sides know it going into the debate.

I think the goal is more often to put your views out there, and to endeavor to present your views in a way that explains why you have them.

There is a strong human drive to seek to be understood. There is another strong human drive to seek to "win," to be acknowledged as correct, to be vindicated. In these online debates, those two drives sometimes mix with explosive results.

I've often been asked what side I'm on, or have been assumed as to what side I'm on, but I'm still not sure what "side" it is that I'm actually on. On another thread some people were discussing how far left I am, but for me it's irrelevant.

The unfortunate part of American style democracy is that to gain any political power you have to choose between Coke and Pepsi. (I don't like either - and they both cause cavities) I suppose the way it's intended to work is that the general population's awareness and positions will pull the whole apparatus one way or the other. If that's true -- it's being pulled to the right presently.

To understand why this is you have to examine what is driving public opinion and awareness. This is why the flow of information is so crucial in a democracy. One of the main problems is that corporations are driving the awareness bus right now. A majority of Americans rely on that bus to get where they go intellectually. They don't realize fully who's paying the driver and where he's really taking them. For this reason I have found it critically important to break away from the corporate information sources and explore global and independent news resources. I compare those sources to the US corporate sources to help sort out what is real and what's just on the bus tour schedule. I'm still not sure what "side" I'm on exactly, but because of what I learn -- neither side can use me against my own principals and interests.

So my purpose for posting articles in this forum and asking for debate isn’t because I’m on a “side” but rather to present information that I know isn’t on the bus tour. Sometimes the reason this information is being kept off the bus tour is because it contradicts the corporate news bus drivers’ itineraries and their bosses objectives. For this reason, anyone that’s a bus tour fan is likely to become enraged when they see it. All I’m hoping is that they might step off the bus at some point for some fresh air.

[missy]

jGilder wrote:
"The unfortunate part of American style democracy is that to gain any political power you have to choose between Coke and Pepsi. (I don't like either - and they both cause cavities)"

an absolute fantastic quote!!!!!

I'm neither left or right, Republican or Democrat, although I would suppose I am more conservative than liberal. Whenever I take those on line "what are you" test, I come up Libertarian. I have no idea if this is true, or it's just because I don't "fit" into one of the two other categories neatly.

I try to vote for a person, but it often becomes voting against the other guy. I feel the Federal government has gotten it's hands in WAY too many things. Taxes on all levels are out of control. Public dependency on tax money is way too strong.

But I do appreciate reading other's viewpoints - both those in this country and those in others. It's very enlightening and educational - even if I don't agree!

[dubhlinn]

Slan,
D.