Lol! :biggrin1:I think it's about getting the balance right. Some threads were fun with alittle bit of name calling etc, but others were too much. No its all discussion and its more like a lecture rather than a post dinner put-the-world-to-rites discussion which i think would make this sub-forum much better.
In conclusion, more food and wine.
As long as your opinions are your own, are well-reasoned, and not a load of regurgitated incoherent media-fed propaganda, you should have nothing to worry about. Or as TC says:
It must be really scary and confusing living inside what's left of that steroid soaked mind.
I think you're understating your abilities to communicate your viewpoint successfully: you've had no problem doing so in this post, nor in several others that I've seen you make.
That having been said, the politics forum has a lot of really smart cookies on board, which can probably seem intimidating to someone without the knowledge and experience to back up his/her claims.
There's a difference between talking out of your ass and speaking from an emotional perspective rather than a rational one. I differentiate often between what I know to be true and what I believe to be true, and have acknowledged it publicly when I stand corrected.
For an opinion to be valid, it needs the weight of reason behind it, though. Emotional gut-response is inherently irrational (as are all emotions: it's the yin/yang of the human mind) and can be compelling and stirring but are ultimately weak due to their irrationality. Educated opinion always has its basis in fact, which can be and should be backed up by proper links.
As to satire: if the Daily Show counts, then I guess the Onion does, too :wink:. But the Enquirer isn't satire and it's rarely journalism: it's propaganda at best and demagoguery at worst, with much unsubstantiated gossip, rumor and supposition thrown in, too.
There was a public mini Politics forum-only ban-fest here in the midst of having the rule change. The mods took out all offending parties, not just those with a specific political POV. Some came back, others didn't; if someone can't play by the rules then s/he should find a place with rules that suit him/her better. The internet's a big place.
The point of the OP in this thread is that some of the baby got tossed with the bathwater. I think that if you prefer political discussion to be like a boxing ring, you'd probably agree, if you think that it should be like a trip to the library you'll disagree, and if you want it to be like a really sharp debate club you have decidedly mixed emotions about the changes. That's how I feel, personally. But I've always been able to say "fuck you/fuck off" and make it sound like a compliment
Your defense of the word "propaganda" is really ill-advised: there is no such thing as "positive" propaganda any more. It's only had negative connotations since WW2, which is completely justified. If your informed opinion just happens to correspond perfectly with the work of a propagandist, you might want to reconsider where and how you acquired the information in order to be informed.
It's human nature to belittle those for whom one has lost respect and it's proper debating style to refute an incorrect supposition with fact.
The point of the OP in this thread is that some of the baby got tossed with the bathwater. I think that if you prefer political discussion to be like a boxing ring, you'd probably agree, if you think that it should be like a trip to the library you'll disagree, and if you want it to be like a really sharp debate club you have decidedly mixed emotions about the changes. That's how I feel, personally. But I've always been able to say "fuck you/fuck off" and make it sound like a compliment
I find those first two sentences astonishingly foolish and quite disturbing, though hardly surprising. It matters a great deal where one gets the information that forms one's opinions. Far too many people today gravitate towards "news and information" sources that support their own preconceived notions and prejudices. The talking heads on Faux News and right-wing talk radio and their legions of unquestioningly devoted disciples are the worst examples of this.
Which is precisely why you need to consider the source, and not limit yourself to sources that only reflect a point of view you are already inclined to agree with. Speaking for myself, I seek information from a variety of sources, but I tend to rely most on those that have demonstrated a consistent pattern of being thorough and objective. Contrary to your assumption, I base my opinions on factual information, not the other way around.
If their opinion reflects flawed reasoning based on factually incorrect information, as certain posters in this forum habitually demonstrate, and if they are unpersuadable, as they also demonstrate, I have no interest in "debating" them, much less any obligation.
It appears to me that you just contradicted yourself. I prefer this second approach.
They have every right to be heard. That does not mean they have any right to be shown deference or taken seriously.
It is the aim of civilized democratic societies to put the interests of the many above the selfish interests of the individual or a privileged few. Indeed, it is this concept our nation was founded upon. Sadly, most of the problems and the rancor in our society can be traced to this conflict.
Then I would suggest you up your game. If you have a genuine interest in the political debate (and I believe every citizen, certainly every voter has an obligation to be interested and engaged, especially these days), if you want to enter into the debate and want to be taken seriously - broaden your horizons, expand your sources of information, and educate yourself on the issues. Above all, keep an open mind.
scotchirish said:
scotchirish said:
maxcok said:
maxcok said:
maxcok said:
