Letting sleeping dogs lie

[only_more_so]

One of the reasons I hate political threads is because they always seem to devolve rather quickly into shouting matches where neither side seems to pay attention to what the other actually wrote. Instead they concentrate on their interpretation of what was written, or take certain parts out of context to comment on those instead.

So how long does it take you to just say, "enough's enough!"? Nothing I say is going to get through to this numbskull, I'll walk away while I still have some dignity. Or is it never enough? Do you feel the need to clarify what you said endlessly? At least until the other person gives up?

I really got to get me a slinkee.

 

[SavannahMann]

Politics tends to revolve around passionate beliefs

One of the reasons I hate political threads is because they always seem to devolve rather quickly into shouting matches where neither side seems to pay attention to what the other actually wrote. Instead they concentrate on their interpretation of what was written, or take certain parts out of context to comment on those instead.

So how long does it take you to just say, "enough's enough!"? Nothing I say is going to get through to this numbskull, I'll walk away while I still have some dignity. Or is it never enough? Do you feel the need to clarify what you said endlessly? At least until the other person gives up?

I really got to get me a slinkee.

Take any issue you like. From Abortion to Gay Marriage. From gun control to the War on Terror. It doesn't matter, we all have our own ideals, shaped by our life experience, and these form beliefs which we hold dear. Global warming is a great example.

We have a theory of man induced global warming, and any evidence which may cast doubt upon that theory is labeled as product of a denier with all the venom of the Catholics during the inquisition. Anyone who claims that global warming is man made, and we have to act now is denounced as a rabid socialist who is a left wing nut.

Why do people get so passionate? Easy, the stakes are high. If for example the Global Warming crowd is right, it's already too late to stop New York City from sinking beneith the waves, and it's our fault. If you are one of those who say man's impact is minimal, and nothing we do will change anything, then the attack on your lifestyle, your future economic security, and your livelyhood is most unwelcome. Pick a subject, any subject, and see what they are really saying, and it's usually not the words they are using to describe it.

Sometimes, for a goof with friends, I change arguements on them. For example, I inform them I'm pro choice, on gun ownership.

 

[English Lady]

Way too quickly, I have an apparently annoying habit of doing the old "Post and run" in some threads. I just get what I gotta say said then forget about it. Other threads I will go on and on and on until the thread dies or a truce is called.

I don't often wander into the debate threads though I do it now alot more than I once did (Joe W I am totally blaming you for this one!) but I find it easier not to get as wound up now as I know what to expect and that is to not be agreed with *L*

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

One of the reasons I hate political threads is because they always seem to devolve rather quickly into shouting matches where neither side seems to pay attention to what the other actually wrote. Instead they concentrate on their interpretation of what was written, or take certain parts out of context to comment on those instead.

So how long does it take you to just say, "enough's enough!"? Nothing I say is going to get through to this numbskull, I'll walk away while I still have some dignity. Or is it never enough? Do you feel the need to clarify what you said endlessly? At least until the other person gives up?

I really got to get me a slinkee.

There's some of that here, but debates on AH are different from the other internet forums I've seen, at least as far as the shouting match part goes. We do talk past each other very often and don't always engage the substance of each others posts, as you suggest, but I think that's a human thing, and it's often possible to drag people back to a particular point and get them to engage it.

With a few exceptions AHers adhere to an ethos of civility, not using ad homimens or declaring that a debate opponent has evil motives. Those who aren't accustomed to the activity often mistake what I call "throwing a few elbows" for genuine incivility. I mean mild satire, hyperbole, verbal eye-rolling, etc. (Extreme versions of these do verge on incivility.)

The key to civil debate is according your opponents the presumption of good will. It's OK for me to say that your ideas and beliefs are totally wrongheaded and will lead to tragic outcomes. It's not OK for me to say that you are motivated by greed, selfishness, a desire to hurt others, or anything other than goodwill. If I do the latter, there's nothing left for us to talk about. In real life the next step is fighting. On the internet it's flaming. Most people here appreciate that and abide by the presumption of good will.

(Note: This is not the same thing as "good intentions," as in the paving stones on a certain road. Goodwill deals with underlying motives.)

 

[gauchecritic]

For the most part we are writers. Writing is communication. We don't argue to change the minds of our opponent but to entertain/inform the audience. "All the world's a stage." And the more wittily and entertaining our blathering is, the more we are raised in other's estimation (we think)

A while ago (years perhaps) someone quoted something which I obviously can't remember exactly which goes along the lines of: we expect our every utterance to be met with astonishment. (at our erudition, wit, tolerance, humour, frivolity, intellect, compassion, depth etc and so on.)

We are not talking to the person that we are addressing. We should always remember that the person we are addressing is probably listening too. (I learned that the hard way much to my chagrin and embarrassment)

 

[R. Richard]

One of the key principle on which I base my life is:

"Let sleeping dogs lie, they hardly ever tell the truth anyhow."

 

[BlackShanglan]

If I might suggest it, Gauche, one might also consider for whom one is speaking, that generally being oneself.

Personally, I'm usually talking to the person I'm replying to. I enjoy hearing what other people have to say on the topic as well, but I think of it as an individual conversation at a party - open to any who care to join or listen, but primarily focused on the people who are exchanging thoughts and ideas at the moment. That can change from minute to minute, of course.

My goals are usually somewhere between learning and persuasion. I mostly want to understand how the other person sees the world and fits his or her ideas together, but I think I also hope to persuade a bit for my own perspective. I don't see failure to persuade as the end of a conversation, however; often it's an interesting beginning. I "call it quits" when I can no longer find anything either instructive, useful, or charming being said.

Shanglan

 

[tickledkitty]

Some people always need to have the last word no matter what.

 

[gauchecritic]

If I might suggest it, Gauche, one might also consider for whom one is speaking, that generally being oneself.

I'm not sure about that. Obviously you are expressing your own opinions but when I speak or post and however many times I qualify the rambling with 'my opinion' or 'I think' I'm always aware that I'm actually speaking, at least partially on behalf of those that hold the same views. The horror of that of course is that this makes me not a spokesperson of any kind (or leader of any variety) but a 'usual suspect' or one of the herd. Which is obviously something that 'original thinkers' or those that find their own conclusions to be quite insulting. (which is the essence of my disgruntlement (and amusement) at being labelled a 'usual suspect'. It seems because I hold a popular opinion, I have somehow not thought through my own conclusions)

My goals are usually somewhere between learning and persuasion. I mostly want to understand how the other person sees the world and fits his or her ideas together, but I think I also hope to persuade a bit for my own perspective. I don't see failure to persuade as the end of a conversation, however; often it's an interesting beginning. I "call it quits" when I can no longer find anything either instructive, useful, or charming being said.

My goals are for arguements to meander, as they do in face to face situations, there is a kind of agreement made that the subject is done when the topic veers away. This often takes the shape of a new thread in forums and kind of points up the difference between RL and cyberlife.

I find it fascinating that someone can answer the same question with a completely different viewpoint that wholly complements but at the same time makes my own line of dispute or support moot. Cantdog does it so many times that I'm often struck dumb just by his viewpoint.

And you have no doubt witnessed yourself many posts (and PMs) that actually thank you for saying what the other wanted to say (often in very flattering or conversely unjustified self-deprecatory terms) So whatever you post, often you are quite unknowingly representing others.

 

[gauchecritic]

Some people always need to have the last word no matter what.

But there's a very specific thread for just that reason. Introduced (much to my disgust) some three years ago and 83,000 posts strong.

Possibly the exact dividing line between 'the old days' and the modern. (the 'old days' being more erudite and literary with a smaller amount of flirting [more of which included me] and virtually no politics but heavy with writerly things)

 

[Lee Chambers]

One of the reasons I hate political threads is because they always seem to devolve rather quickly into shouting matches where neither side seems to pay attention to what the other actually wrote. Instead they concentrate on their interpretation of what was written, or take certain parts out of context to comment on those instead.

So how long does it take you to just say, "enough's enough!"? Nothing I say is going to get through to this numbskull, I'll walk away while I still have some dignity. Or is it never enough? Do you feel the need to clarify what you said endlessly? At least until the other person gives up?

I really got to get me a slinkee.

There are certain topics I just won't get into. If I see someone is talking about them, then I ignore them. For instance, I don't get into any discussion concerning the merits and/or the drawbacks of the Bush administration's actions for the last seven years. I know automatically that it will turn ugly in seconds.

I also avoid speaking with certain people if I know that I can't have a civil discussion with them or I know that whatever topic they're speaking on is one that they cannot be swayed from no matter what you say. It's pointless getting into a debate with someone when you know that they don't care what your opinion is or what evidence you present, they're right, you're wrong, end of discussion.

That's one of the reasons I generally don't get involved in the political discussions except to make a small comment here or there. Most of the people who deeply involve themselves in these topics already have most of the facts of the situation and have already formed their own beliefs based on their personal ethics and morality. So when you argue with them over something, you're not arguing their politics but rather their ethics and morality, which are nearly impossible to change, especially as people see more years of the changing landscape of the world.

Shang and I had a short discussion concerning the soldiers in Iraq who let the goat herders live after being discovered during a mission. Both of us had completely different views on the situation and how it was handled and in the end we both agreed that, because of our personal beliefs, neither one of us was going to be swayed to the other side. However, we managed to remain civil. I didn't insult his morality and he didn't insult mine.

It doesn't always work out this way, though, because people like to think that they're absolutely right and nothing short of some really earth-shattering evidence is going to change that. Some people are also more sensitive than others, so when their views are challenged they take it as a personal attack, even if it isn't meant to be that way. That's when they start taking things out of context (purposefully at times) and start hurling insults like "liberal, warmonger, neo-con, commie, etc".

But I think the AH does better than most other threads. It can get a little out of hand sometimes but other places are much worse. If you want to see some real fireworks, you should see a highly liberal Canadian socialist and a hard core Republican warhawk get into it. It is both amazingly funny and horrifying at the same time.

 

[bluebell]

I really got to get me a slinkee.

You can borrow mine if you want. It's rainbow-craziness.

Online discussions, debates, and arguments, I think, are both a blessing and a curse. You have the time to sit, digest, and think about what's being said before you reply, but as in real life, some people don't seize upon those opportunities.
Impetuousness, be it in word or deed, is like water; it will always find a way to seep through.

It seems to come down to personal preference. As Kitty said, some people just want the last word; some people will always be fair and even-handed (or, hooved, in the case of Shanglan) with their words, views, and opinions; some people just want tractable discussion without the messy side-effects, which is rare to come by.

When debating the sorts of issues we're talking about, it's almost impossible for people to have quality debates without the inclusion of personal beliefs.
Even if, by some magic stroke, personal beliefs don't enter into it, the very issues themselves can be so incendiary that messy side-effects are all but inevitable.
It's rather like inviting an elephant to a tea party, but with the stipulation that it doesn't eat all the sandwiches or break all the china.
Ultimately, you alone have control over yourself and how you react.
Once that fact is accepted, it might be easier not to feel so incensed at how some discussions play out.

Sage words, sage words, sage words, sage words, sage words, erudition [excellent wording] sage words, sage words...fluffy rumble purr-y awwwwwwwwww, Gauche.

 

[gauchecritic]

The proposition...

that this house is so far up its own arse that it can intellectually debate the merits and drawbacks of debate without so much as a chuckle. (or smileys in my case).


But Lee reminded me that most 'discussions' in the AH are based on an unshakeable resolve by their participants and their convictions, which most often means that the original questions posed are significantly slanted towards the askers view simply because it is they that posed the question.

Example: Are human rights a good thing?

If MiAmico asks that question I am greatly aware that the missing words there are "for men."

Asked by Roxelby the missing words are: "for capitalism."

If ever Box posed that question the missing words would be: "for sexual endeavour."

So if you ask a question in the AH (unless you're a complete noob in which case your question would be about story rejection or how long it takes a story to post) then any answer you give is coloured by the person that asked.

Objectivity is the last refuge of the soulless.

(a bit harsh I know but I was greatly torn by the violence in the short philosophy thread recently)

Edited to add for bluebell