Looking at the interminable back-and-forth between JGilder and IRTrad on this board has reminded me that I’ve been thinking lately that debate on political and social issues has beome futile. Maybe it’s me, but there seems to be an increasing tendency for people to be entrenched in their political and and social beliefs. Does anyone ever change their views on any of these topics anymore?
My wife came to the conclusion 30 years ago that political and social debate is, ultimately, futile and I’m starting to think she is right. So many discussions seem to have a surface structure that relates to the actual issues, and a then a highly intractible deep structure at the level of, I don’t know, core values or something.
Anyway, maybe it has always been thus, but I don’t think so.
Would love to know your thoughts on this, if my expression of it is coherent enough for you to comment.
i think that personal opinions can be changed, but i believe it’s topic-dependant. Politically speaking people tend to either being hardliners, or not to care at all. so, political debates i believe are futile, if one’s goal is to change the other’s opinion.
I don’t think debate is futile, but I do think that the standards have gone downhill rapidly, especially in the last decade or so. I’ve changed my mind many times on many issues, but not as a result of the shriekers on talk radio or the McGlaughlin Group. I haven’t paid attention to those media in a decade or more. OTOH, I greatly enjoy reading columnists who actually think about what they’re writing – David Broder, Michael Kinsley, George Will, etc. You know they have an ax to grind (MK and GW, anyway), but they still actually educate, plus they write well. Likewise, there are some people on this board who actually think about what they write, and some who shriek.
I’m also much more likely to pay attention to someone on this board who actually posts about music now and then.
The thing that’s different with these online trials, when issues are being tried in the court of public opinion, is that the jury in not sorted out in any reasonable way. Normally, the jury would have no preconceived opinions or partisanship. Here, the the media is used as the legal counsel (mostly), the judge is the moderator (mostly silent), and the jury is anyone taking part in determining if the reports are true.
It’s kinda nutty, and I know it’s not the way to go about determining the truth, but I rather enjoy it…on both sides. It’s a good experience for all who participate. The only goal seems to be to learn a lttle more about ourselves, not so much who’s right or wrong.
That’s why the sticky ‘political/religious’ thread was born, so that those who enjoyed arguing the toss about politics and religion could do so without filling the front page of the forum with such material (and thus effectively imposing it on everyone else). Interesting that apart from Walden’s post of a couple of days ago, the last post in there was back on May 30th.
In the real world, if you find the pub is full of people blathering on about matters in which you have no interest, you can simply walk out and find another pub more to your liking. Guess what, you can do the same in cyberspace too.
I’m thinking about going back to confining political stuff to the big political thread. I’m also REALLY considering a separate politics forum. That’s been discussed before. On the other hand, the PUB forum is designed for far-ranging discussion.
I don’t mind discussion. I don’t mind heated discussion. I don’t mind exchange of information.
I DO mind being hit over the head, repeated name calling, someone saying other’s opinions are idiotic, etc. But I don’t have a problem “walking out” of discussion if that happens. I think when the give and take come down to personal mud slinging, the topic has ended, or at least gets buried in the crap.
I’ve found some of the discussions enlightening. I won’t say they’ve change my thoughts - but they at least give me insight into how others think. I don’t necessarily see WHY they think that way, but I at least see that they DO.
Personnally - I don’t see why people can’t disagree in a somewhat polite exchange and not get down to verbal abuse. I don’t care HOW impassioned you are on a subject, when you sink to low standards of communication, you bring your subject down with you.
As to changes - it’s YOUR board, Dale, and as such, you can do whatever you want. Just as long as you don’t make the background purple, with green lettering, I"ll be happy (I HATE websites that try to be cute!).
In most pubs, people at other nearby tables wouldn’t tolerate such political or religious jawing. Someone would either stand them on their head or turn them out on the street. I don’t think we’ve seen someone become so intense, or obsessed, with starting these kind of threads since [u]elendil[/u] . I think he was percieved as almost out of control, but he was brilliant.
The futility of debate depends on the expected end result. I’ve considered debate as opposing views engaging in regulated discussion of their position on a given topic. Too often it disintegrates into an out-of-control battle of words rather than a thoughtful discussion. That conclusion makes it futile, but at the same time the idea that the debate itself will reverse the opposite side’s opinion is a remote one. Too often, the opinion is soliciting like-minded … are the participants attempting to convert their opponent, or the audience?
I don’t know that people have become more entrenched, but that they have become more hostile when voicing their beliefs.
Debate is futile when the parties’ minds are closed.
It can be entertaining to watch, and instructive for onlookers to see the various logical (and illogical) arguments for and against a certain point of view, but it rarely leads to anything constructive.
People who are convinced that they are right can change their minds, but seldom as a result of a debate. Usually it’s as a result of a personal experience or a self-realization.
I’m thinking about going back to confining political stuff to the big political thread. I’m also REALLY considering a separate politics forum. That’s been discussed before. On the other hand, the PUB forum is designed for far-ranging discussion.
I would like to see political discussions relegated to their own forum or, at least, to the big political thread. They are powerful and overwhelming and deserve their own space.
I must confess that my mind does seem to be made up on a number of things----these are probably “core value” sorts of things. But there are others I am completely befuddled about. I have, though, noticed knee-jerk responses in myself on issues that, if pressed, I could not present sound arguments for.
I think my problem is not so much the debate as that I have become so cynical I no longer trust any source of information. Particularly now with Internet sources that I have never heard of—of course I do not make an attempt to educate myself about them. I don’t even trust photographs since they can be altered and I am not trained to analyze them properly. I would be more interested in some of the discussions if I felt I knew the facts were correct.
I think discussions which are not fact-dependent, such as discussions about ethics, morals, etc., in which hypothetical cases could be used so that the validity of facts and photographs did not interfere, could be helpful. But it is a lot of work to really clearly discuss those things. I think there are some members who make an excellent attempt at that. But most of us (and I include myself) are not willing to think that hard for that long.
It seems as though the political threads in the Pub are quite readily identified. I might feel like, “oh no, another one I won’t like”, but I can easily skip it. So I don’t see a problem there.
I suspect, although I don’t know, that wild and crazy debating and discussion has been going on since people starting talking.
I must say that over the span of twenty years I have changed my mind on
some major political beliefs. The two main ones are the deterrence model
of criminal justice system, (including the death penalty) and gun control
issues.
The reason that my opinions changed was not because of the canned
reasons that most people give, but because I would meet someone that
actually think about the topics rather than falling back on the old 1970’s
reasons (honestly most of these debates sound like broken records. They
are just like pathetic racist jokes, same punch line, just change the
names).
People do not like to think about subjects, because they leave themselves
wide open to get their butt handed back to them (something that has
happened to me many times on this board). This makes ME reevaluate
my logic in such matters. As for the times that I Changed my belief’s, It
was rarely because of the canned speeches, but being blindsided by an off
the wall comment that just made too much sense.
Change takes time. One thing I have learned, the longer it takes to crack
someone, to make them change sides, the harder it is to change them
back.
Debate is futile, conversation is not. :roll:
(FWIW, I have had my mind changed by thoughtful conversation and discussion on given topics, by people who can respectfully explain their position.)
I think this would be a good idea. People who are most eager to debate are the ones least likely to accept a new position. They are simply eager to change someone else’s view.
Venting can be healthy in a relatively anonymous forum on the Internet. I’ve seen more humor from both sides, not necessarily on political threads, but in general. This is healthy, as people learn to take themselves less seriously. We are all very fortunate that a person can post whatever comes to mind (within limits of good taste).
Arguments over religion and politics have rarely changed minds. The exchange here is relatively civil compared to most parts of the Internet. In my opinion, the exchanges here have been and continue to be relatively pointless in terms of productivity, but relatively civil in Internet terms. There are a few young people that can be and have been indoctrinated by rhetoric, but adults over 25 who have thought topics through, rarely change positions based on arguments. It is more usually new events and new developments that make people think a second time. Often times it is personal changes such as getting married and/or having children, or buying a home that causes a big shift in thinking.
I am tempted into a rant on the cliche “open minds,” but I doubt I would change anyone’s opinion on it .
I believe that truth, while given much importance in our realm, is actually not based in reality. Truth is based in agreement. Which, while distinct from reality, creates reality through agreement which is different from what is actually here. That distinction is called agreement reality. A good example would be that you see something with your own eyes unusual or unlikely. For the sake of this conversation, let’s say you saw it and it was real. Let’s say that it is entirely outside of “agreement reality”. Upon telling people about it, the group will declare it impossible because of somthing they read, studied, heard, what have you. At the end of the day you will likely be convinced that you in fact did not witness the event. (unless you’re Irtrad or Jgilder ) In other words, reality is re-created through agreement and the agreement reality becomes accepted as actual reality even though it isn’t. I stopped reading the jgilder/irtrad debates long ago because those debates are based in opinion, not reality. Even if Jgilder and Irtrad were to agree on something it still wouldn’t make it real. It would just be their agreement on it. It just isn’t interesting IMO.
By the way, if you havent heard Jgilder’s band, check out his website. They are really good.
I’m usually all in for just leaving the forums alone but I wouldn’t be opposed to a political forum.
.
) In other words, reality is re-created through agreement and the agreement reality becomes accepted as actual reality even though it isn’t. I stopped reading the jgilder/irtrad debates long ago because those debates are based in opinion, not reality. Even if Jgilder and Irtrad were to agree on something it still wouldn’t make it real. It would just be their agreement on it. It just isn’t interesting IMO.