The Bloody Politic

POSTED BY: dreamtrove
UPDATED: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 21:18
VIEWED: 2620
PAGE 1 of 2

1 2 NEXT PAGE

DREAMTROVE

Tuesday, January 24, 2006 6:02 AM

Okay,

First off, I want to apologize to Fletch, because I was being an a**hole, and I really don't have anything else to say about it, except that I think that a long time ago I was a dick to Citizen, to, so my apologies to him as well.

Next, I think maybe there should be some rules about politics to stop this from happening. I certainly am not about to suggest that certain topics should be avoided, or people censured, but maybe just a basic code of conduct.

1. We are all more or lesst right and left wing, republicans and democrats, and labor, libdem and tory. This means a lot of us have a lot of different ways of looking at the world that are in conflict, and this is a *good* thing. The fact that all of us are wrong about some things is inevitable.

2. I think I have distilled where the problem starts. It's been done *to* me by others, but it has also been done *by* me, to others. So here it is. Consider this example:

A guy, we'll call him Jack, comes to the forum and posts something:

Jack: Ladad dad dad did di da. ba bl blah blah black bah.

And a guy called Todd responds like so,

Todd: lalala - and btw, what Jack is really trying to say is that he doesn't like black people.

The problem here, is that this *forces* Jack to respond, or just let everyone assume that Todd's analysis is correct.

I don't think this sort of fighting helps the community grow, or accomplishes anything at all.

Maybe Todd's response would be better something like this: "Lalala, and Jack, what exactly are you saying? " or something, but if there has to be a question it shoudn't be one that insinuated a position of Jack which would force a defensive response from Jack.

Now Jack could say something like "Blitty Blah, I painted my house black today." But he wouldn't need to launch in to a diatribe on race because Todd didn't make an accusation.

Now it's always entirely possible that Jack might respond with "I don't like black people," in which case there's no saving it, and Jack is liable to be beaten over the virual head with a virtual shovel. But in large part, this is not the sort of thing I've seen on this forum. Much more it was misunderstandings by everyone, which were then stated as fact, and once done, needed to be refuted, and thus the the ever circling army of retribution began its march.

Anyway, if anyone else has some thoughts on ways we might avoid another nuclear flame war, please post it.

Thanks, and sorry for occassionally being a dick.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, January 24, 2006 5:55 PM

Hey DT, although we disagree on a few fundamental points I always look forward to your posts. You usually come at topics sideways (like the Operative) and I welcome thoughtful unpredictability. I enjoy posts from MANY people here: Fletch, Citizen, Rue, HK (where'e he been lately??), Sigmanunki, AJ, and a whole bunch of people whose names escape me right now.

I hope everyone realizes that occasional lapses will result from heated discussion. It the person who always plays rhetorical tricks who sticks out like a sore thumb, and I think we know who they are anyway.

So- are we all OKAY here on the board?

---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.

DREAMTROVE

Tuesday, January 24, 2006 7:07 PM

Sig,

Speaking from a purely pragmatic perspective, while debate is healthy, rampant hostility undoubtedly drives away potential members.

I was struck by this when I went to work for the reform party USA, as a possible Bush alternative. We had some dealing there with the greens because we both were considering supporting Nader. The third party movement is a mess. It's awash in infighting and hostility. The stunning thing was that the right-wing RPUSA and it's left-wing counterpart, the Greens, were almost in the identical shape internally. Petty bickering and vicious personal attacks were the order of the day, and it was not astounding that neither one seemed capable of forwarding a political candidate to office.

Now, FFF isn't trying to forward a candidate to office, but it still would probably like to grow membership and discuss, somewhat civilly, the implications of things without resorting to this sort of stuff. Toward each other. I mean sure, we're going to disagree, sometimes vehemently. When I look at FEMA/Katrina or the reconstruction of Iraq, I think "And you want *these guys* in charge of healthcare?" which is sort of where I'm coming from on the whole anti-govt. thing, but I can see people are going to respond similarly to halliburton et al. (Which by the way hit a new high 76.5) Cheney's own personal profit from this war is $15M. :) Anyway, I think that some sort of set of rules could be developed which would foster maximum membership, and that is worth considering.

JHANCE11

Tuesday, January 24, 2006 8:07 PM

I think it's important to remember, the party's in the early years of this nation were in many ways in the same boat as the green party and orther independent parties. Also many of those party's are representing people who already have A problem with authority or like to be seen as anti-heros. I personaly believe our system will not have room for another major party and that is not the goal to shoot for. If the Perot candidacy taught us anything it's that it can affect the political landscape. (Clinton owes his first election to ol Ross) They need A national platform, A charismatic individual and more money to fight the enevitable attacks on their creditibility. Finally A credible leader (Nader are you kidding me) One thing I do agree with that was posted on this subject. The individuals that constantly use childish antic',namecalling and plitical histeria, do nothing more then lose their own credibility,we know them for who and what they are.

jhance11

SIGNYM

Tuesday, January 24, 2006 8:23 PM

Well, OK- more is better. But I see the discussion has dropped off a bit since Hero, AJ, and Geezer no longer frequent RWE. If this is to be a "discussion" board, then someone needs to take the opposing side. I volunteer to play the devil's advocate. Or maybe I could be the dubious spectator and have people try to convince me of their positions? OTOH, maybe we COULD bend towards activism. Now, wouldn't THAT be a kick???

---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.

DREAMTROVE

Tuesday, January 24, 2006 10:06 PM

Nader doesn't lack credibility, he just lacks viable ideas. He's one of those individuals who is very aware of what a lot of the problems are and has no solutions. Such a man shouldn't be president. He might be an addition to the house or senate.

I think that the political breakdown went to war, and the liberals outnumbered the conservatives, beat them over the head with a virtual shovel and chased them off. This is the sort of thing I want to avoid.

I'm afraid firefly activism would come awful close to terrorism.

LIMINALOSITY

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 5:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I'm afraid firefly activism would come awful close to terrorism.

So says the activist trying to find a way for everyone to work to find answers together.

Even though I mostly lurk, and occassionally post with completely unintelligible OT rants, I'm with you all on trying something new to keep the bashing to a minimum, because the discussion itself is spectacular.

Aztecs used the term firefly metaphorically, meaning a spark of knowledge in a world of ignorance or darkness.

DREAMTROVE

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 5:57 AM

I'm actually a little worried. I know people in the left who are getting an undue amount of monitoring, and I think esp. with the sort of notions that firefly might lead one to, it could be misconstrued by our govt. and things could get ugly. I don't think they're actually shipping peaceniks off to gitmo, but I do think it's a good way to get yourself put on a list these days.

I would like to see something happen though. Hillary has a war with Iran planned, and it's going to be bloody. I think Bush is doing everything possible to throw the election for whoever is nominated republican. In my tinfoil hat universe, that is because Bush is really Clinton, or a trained monkey with a glamour working for Clinton, and that he is working hard to make his master's wife president again. Actually, that last was a freudian slip. I mean make here president, for the first time. Or do I?

LIMINALOSITY

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 6:19 AM

There's no question in my mind that the Hillarious Ungoliant crouched behind that throne, and Iran does seem the next step into further madness in the ME.

It would be nice to have a strategy to avoid detection of the keywords that would get a person on the list of the outraged bound for Gitmo. Is there a way to post on the forum using a textfile attachment? Hee hee. A plan to evade detection always goes well with the stunning tinfoil hat.

Shiny Trees! Yavanna made Shiny Trees!
Aztecs used the term firefly metaphorically, meaning a spark of knowledge in a world of ignorance or darkness.

DREAMTROVE

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 6:25 AM

Unlike a tinfoil hat, the textfile attachment plan would work. Hmm. I think it would be theoretically possible to create a forum which posted the results in graphic form. But then the spies could read it. It does no use I think to worry about the govt. reading what you write. I still have to believe in a free society. The govt. has nothing to fear from us, and the more clear we make that, the more open we are, the less likely we are to end up in gitmo. BTW, read about those gitmo executions. No charges, no trial, no appeal, no stopping the decapitatin'. By executive order only. I have to say, there seems to be precious little difference between Bush and Al Zarqawi. Which brings up an interesting question. If there were an election held, and those were your choices... would you vote for Nader?

1 2 NEXT PAGE