Captain's Challenge..... - Page 2

obvious Child · 08-14-08, 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zyphlin

1) The hyper partisan republicans started spamming smears about non-issues for Ron Paul, or started speaking about him in over the top rhetorical hyperbole

This I found during the previous election was one of the major reasons many people voted for Kerry. Few of us actually liked that piece of **** but posters like Navy and other hyper-partisans were so alienating, so hateful and so ridiculous that mere association with them through voting for the same candidate was repulsive.

While a great many people have already made up their minds on the issues and many have their brains set to exclude all non-compliant information to the point of insanity (our resident creationist for example), some people can be swayed with reason.

However, you cannot reason with the unreasonable. I share Captain Courtesy's attitude about the stupidity, partianism and general crap that parts of this forum have become.

donc · 08-14-08, 11:00 PM

Pogo: We Have Met the Enemy and He Is Us.

Walt Kelly

independent_thinker2002 · 08-14-08, 11:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zyphlin

I do have a quick question, to BOTH sides...

Do you think posting on Debate Politics about many of the things found in the election forums, and the discussions that go on there, are actually going to sway anybody?

My wife told me that a co-worker told her she wasn't voting for Obama because he's in a cult. We may not influence members that post, but those that read and lurk it's hard to say what their status is. With 13% of people thinking Obama is a Muslim, I would say that some crap is sticking.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zyphlin

Do you believe the people reading those threads are seeing most of those responses and posts everyone makes and going "Hmm, that is going to make me vote for X" or "Vote against Y"?

The majority, no. But less than a 1,000 Floridians could have changed history forever.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zyphlin

IT brings up the point that he's bought into the fact that this is how elections are won in America, and he doesn't want another 8 years of these policies. And you know, I can understand that even if I don't agree....

You know, when danarhea left, I felt a need to put up anti-McCain threads to fill the void. Maybe I view it as a necessary "evil". Land mines are terrible things, but they are necessary. I understand that you disagree. I wish America would agree with you. I really do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zyphlin

But what does that have to do with DP? Yes, that thing may be true in the real world or the masses...but what do you think sways people more often here, at this site? If you say "actual legitimate debate" over "spamming of non-issues, constant insults and joking, and pure partisan talking points"....then why are you doing the latter if your purpose is impacting in even a small way the election coming up?

I would say that jallman is right about the boredom. It is a major problem lately. DP is addictive. I suppose people will take lower quality fixes over no fixes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zyphlin

I'm actually a prime example. Not an example of someone who does a great job of doign the actual legitimate debate to pull people to a side...but a person, on this forum, that gravitated to actual legitimate debate over partisan/over the top non-issue talking points and chose a candidates.

For a long time in the republicn primary I was undecided. I waffled primarily between Romney and Huckabee for the most part. The outside fringers like Hunter and Tancrado didn't really interest me, and Ron Paul seemed a loon to me. Then suddenly an odd thing started happening.

1) The hyper partisan republicans started spamming smears about non-issues for Ron Paul, or started speaking about him in over the top rhetorical hyperbole

2) A number of intelligent Ron Paul supporters, honestly wanting to debate, tried to present his ideas.

Yeah, I wonder what Paul's chances would have been if he were pro-war.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zyphlin

Now, while I didn't agree with everything Ron Paul thinks...espicially on Iraq....I was began to be swayed to some of his issues. Despite my earlier thoughts on Paul, these reasoned arguments won me over enough to go, research him, and found that I liked him. I ended up casting my ballot in virginia for Paul, despite knowing he'd likely not win, because it felt like he was the right candidate.

Paul has some good ideas. I can see why people were passionate about him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zyphlin

Its a wonderful thing if part of your goal on this forum is to perhaps win others to your side. Hell, that's the purpose of debate sometimes. But, as was said multiple times during the recent "McCain Ad's" threads...what works with the masses of the American Public doesn't necessarily apply to people actively involved and researching politics. Most anyone on this forum knows what hte immediete new political issues of today are...I ran into a woman last week that said she was voting for Hillary for President, having no clue she was out.

Hillary should ask that lady for some money.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zyphlin

Want to win people to your side...rise above the partisan stuff and try for some actual factual civil debate. Don't just say "Obama's an empty suit", explain exactly why and how and why those things are bad. Don't just say "Obama's not an empty suit", explain his positions and why they're feasible and good.

That would be nice.

What do you say folks?

CaptainCourtesy · 08-15-08, 12:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MC.no.spin

We should do a poll and establish the top offenders. These posters should then be forced to engage in reverse debate upstairs for a week. They can only make posts that are debating for the other side, or completely neutral with complete objectivity towards either party, Sutherland style. Any violation results in total basement humiliation and degradation, no holds barred.

The poll would include many posters. Few are immune to this. As far as the top offenders go, honestly, identifying them becomes part of the problem. These posters partisan hackery would be responded to with opposite and equal partisan hacker. The problem escalates.

Your suggestion around forced reverse debate. Interesting, but impossible to enforce.

Good thoughts, though.

CaptainCourtesy · 08-15-08, 12:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JeffMerriman

I really have no idea why it got so messy. I think it's hyper reaction for the most part. Extremism begets extremism. The pendulum gets shoved one way with much force and comes right back the other direction unchecked.

This is precisely what I mentioned in the post I just penned. Often extremism is addressed with equal, but opposite extremism. This is why the extremist view is a failed position. Those of you who post this way, I will tell you what you are accomplishing. The minority that already agrees with you, will continue to do so. Those that even moderately disagree, or, at least, disagree with your extremist position will be pushed further away from what you are professing. If your intent is to convey your message so others can hear it, YOU ARE FAILING MISERABLY. It is piss poor debating and piss poor communication. All you are doing is making your position look more absurd and ridiculous, and push others further from accepting it. This is why you fail and why extremists, in general, fail.

This, however, does not excuse those who respond to extremism with extremism. Those that do this fall right into the trap and are now validating the extremists fearmongering position. It takes a heap of frustration tolerance, but do not feed into it.

Quote:

But know this, as long as people are upstairs making ignorant or deliberately misleading statements in order to advance their position (and backing them with bullshit evidence and flawed logic) I'll be there to point that out. Deconstructing that stuff is not only fun, it's necessary. I invite anyone to do the same to me if I cross that line.

Calling people on bullshit is not the problem. How one does it could be.

Quote:

That said, it goes without saying that I have been engaged in particularly nasty affairs with two posters here and at times my conduct has gotten beyond tasteful or constructive. So I'll take my spanking on this.

Thank you, Jeff. You, Spin, and jallman, so far have earned a lot of respect by taking responsibility.

CaptainCourtesy · 08-15-08, 01:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zyphlin

As a note to echo CC's concerns (And agree with him, everyones guilty of it. Even some of the best posters and more even keel on this site get swept up as the flood hits, its infectious).

This isn't just about some moderators being annoyed, or a few loan reports. We've had new members flat out say they were hesitant to even join the forum because the majority of it just seemed to be non-stop partisan propoganda and no actual debate. We've had long time posters here repeatedly pointing out that all the top seems like now in many forums if an aggressive, sarcastic, non-stop back and forth by people on both sides being completely hyperpartisan.

Its an election season, and partisanship typically becomes stronger during these times, but its getting to the point of absurdity and its damaging the forum. DP is meant to be a place where people, of all parts of the political spectrum, can gather together to discuss and debate issues civily and intelligently. Its not meant to be a partisan warfield where we make it our duties to sarcastically run down or reply to everyone we disagree with, or flood the forum with every non-issue event of the day. Its not a place to go to just say "I'm write, 100%, there's nothing that can sway me from it, and as such I'm going to yell it over and over again". That's not debating, that's just getting up on a soap box and exploiting the fact that the good people of this forum are here to read posts hoping ot find actual DEBATE, not to just be preached at.

When it was shown that its starting to affect people even thinking to join our forum, that's when it really hit how big of a problem this is.

Zyphlin is 100% correct. Expanding on this, new members have identified concerns around joining because of the idiotic partisan attack infesting the forum. Long-time, solid posters are indicating that they are posting far less frequently because anything the say is getting misrepresented and attack in a partisan manner, or all the threads that they see degenerate into sarcastic positional attacks with little civility or focus on important issues. This is harming DP and has been.

IMO, many threads are not started with the intent to debate; they are started with the intent to soap box one's position, and then to put one's hand over one's ears, saying "la la la la" and not listen to anything else. You want to do that? Go write a blog. This is a debate site, not a "listen to me and then shut up" site. When I look at the Election Forum and I see the crap threads listed there, it tells me that many have either no intent to debate or just want to attack the other side with giddy abandon, with little understanding of what they are really discussing and doing.

Lots of you complain about the divisiveness in the US. You are part of the problem when you do any of the behaviors I am describing. And many, many, do this.

CaptainCourtesy · 08-15-08, 01:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by danarhea

I am not sure that anything should be done about the rancor here, other than to reinforce the rules about personal attacks, etc.

This IS politics, after all, and this year, as much as any other year, people have very, very strong feelings, which of course, are going to be reflected in their postings. This is not unlike 2004, in which Kerry was swiftboated, or 2000, when McCain was destroyed by the "black baby" allegations. People in this forum, whether Democratic or Republican, are going to have feelings too, and they are going to use what is available to express those feelings. Don't blame the members here. Blame the talking heads who tell the public these things - The talking heads, whose maturity is that of not a baby, but a fetus - The talking heads, whose hatred of anyone and anything is just as anti American as hippies spitting on troops coming home from Vietnam, or KKK'ers lynching black people who wanted to vote. The problem here is not really the members, but the material that is available to them.

I disagree, dan, and what you are doing is shifting responsibility. The talking heads may say things, but everyone here has their own will and mind and posts what they want. Each of us controls how we communicate. No one puts a gun to anyone's head and says, "post this, be a hack". I don't blame anyone, but the members here have just as much responsibility for listening and regurgitating what the talking heads say as the talking heads themselves.

The problem here is not the material, but many members refusal to think outside their box and absorb all the material and assess it critically.

Quote:

As for the members themselves?

1) bhkad - Sure, he hates Obama, that is plain to see, so he pushes his view as hard as he can. But he is not really such a bad guy. I mean, today, he posted in the thread about the Democrat getting shot that we are Americans first. THAT was a great statement.

2) Mc.No.Spin - He and I have a long history of bashing each other, but here in the Basement, I found out that he has one hell of a good sense of humor. When I got him elected cocksucker and candy ass at the same time, he accepted that practical joke and laughed at himself. He has pull a few jokes on others too. So Mc.No.Spin realizes that political forums are primarily for having fun. Bingo - I think he is right.

3) Navy Pride - He and I don't see eye to eye on anything, but he has said some good things about me, and I was the first to defend him when he was going to leave. He and I both see good in each other, despite him calling me his "liberal friend" all the time, and me telling him that he had an anchor dropped in his head. LOL.

I am not going to address the indictment of other members. Do you want to address your behavior as you see it, dan?

Quote:

I can't blame the three that I mentioned for the problems that supposed to exist in this forum, but the way I see it. There are no real problems here - Not like compared to other boards. I am a member in other forums, and frankly, some of them are quite sick. One forum has a member called "Billy Bob", who has an emoticon he uses that depicts a stereotypical black man being shot in the head with a pistol. Compared to that, this board is quite tame.

Compared to other boards, DP is excellent. That doesn't mean there are not problems that should not be addressed.

Quote:

If you want to moderate this board more, I would be against that. The reason? The best moderation on any board is free and open discussion. If someone gets out of line in his or her arguments, he or she will be slapped down in no time. If I hadn't turned bhkad into road kill in this thread, somebody else would have. And it is the same with anybody else in the forum. Most of us have done it, and most of us have been embarrassed by being slapped down hard. I am not immune either. Ask RightInNYC about how he slapped me down a couple of times. My ass still smarts from one of his beatings. LOL.

Moderation is only one avenue, and not the first choice. Besides, I am not discussing the stifling of ideas. I am talking about the restructuring of arguments to create debate...which is what this site is all about.

So, in the end, I wouldn't worry about it. Moderators, of course, should intervene when personal attacks are being made, but other than that, I would say let it continue as it has. Just like in the real world, nothing can be better for this forum than the free marketplace of information.

Quote:

I hope this response has been helpful, and I beg of you - Please do not try and turn this forum into an ant farm. It would be most detrimental thing you could ever do here.

What do you mean by "ant farm"?

Quote:

Finally, lets all have fun.

That's one of the things that the issues I have been discussing has been eliminating.

CaptainCourtesy · 08-15-08, 01:44 AM

Both IT and danarhea address the need for moderators to take the lead, more often, in threads. I will not speak for the moderation team. I will speak for myself, and as I have been lambasting the forum for not taking responsibility for their behavior, and insisting that y'all do, I will do the same. If it is true that one leads by example, I will attempt to do that, now.

I spend a great deal of time on DP, but, I also, have a very busy RL, with a lot of responsibilities. This limits the amount of threads that I can take the lead in. Also, I spend about 33% of my time at DP addressing threads that have already become problems, whereas simple poster redirection is no longer possible, as too many rules have been broken; I, also spend part of this 33% addressing ridiculous PMs from posters whining and taking no responsibility for infractions/warnings they have received. Now, this does not always happen, and some questions have turned into very productive PM conversations...recent discussions with Reverend_Hellh0und and GottaHurt come to mind as being very positive. The majority, however, are idiotic. Add anothe 16% to other mod duties, and half my time is already spoken for. This leaves me with less time to, actually, post on threads. I then need to be choosy, and, truthfully, as we all do, I have my favorite topics that I want to discuss.

However, I hear what the two of you are saying, and though, infractions/warnings are still going to occur when they are needed, I will attempt to take a more active role in threads that are in need of this, with some "redirection".

1069 · 08-15-08, 02:45 AM

Quote:

This is precisely what I mentioned in the post I just penned. Often extremism is addressed with equal, but opposite extremism. This is why the extremist view is a failed position. Those of you who post this way, I will tell you what you are accomplishing. The minority that already agrees with you, will continue to do so. Those that even moderately disagree, or, at least, disagree with your extremist position will be pushed further away from what you are professing. If your intent is to convey your message so others can hear it, YOU ARE FAILING MISERABLY. It is piss poor debating and piss poor communication. All you are doing is making your position look more absurd and ridiculous, and push others further from accepting it. This is why you fail and why extremists, in general, fail.

This is nothing new.
Some issues, such as abortion, are always and have always been this way.
Moderates and fence-sitters and centrists are immediately shouted down and frightened away by one side screaming in their ear "Oh, so you think it's just a little bit okay to slaughter innocent children!!??", while the other side screams in their other ear, "Oh, so you think it's sort of okay sometimes, under certain circumstances, to enslave females!!??"
If they stay, it's because they've fallen off the fence onto one side or the other, and come up swinging.
There's really no other way to approach the issue, that I know of. It's either 100% wrong in all cases, or else it's a right in 100% of cases (not right in all cases- certainly not the correct course of action, for instance, if you'd like to have a kid- but a right, in all cases).

This polarization has merely moved to center stage, with the coming election, rather than being off to the side in a dimly-lit little alley, where only marginal types- obsessed, single-issue voters- hang out smoking, rolling dice, drinking out of paper bags, and knocking the crap out of each other for the hell of it.

In other words, the ferocity and venom that is typically reserved for hot-button issues has now gone mainstream, infected an issue that shouldn't be that emotional- elections- but somehow is this time, probably because our country's gone down the toilet and we know it, and we all secretly hope, deep in our hearts, that one of these two men will be our salvation.

MC.no.spin · 08-15-08, 04:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zyphilin

then why are you doing the latter if your purpose is impacting in even a small way the election coming up?

Anyone who thinks they can impact the election coming up by posting here is misguided in the first place. Although one way they have impact is that by posting on a forum where an anti-McCain crowd or an anti-Obama crowd can gather, they will get more campaign donations for their favorite candidate.

This is not to discredit in any way a poster's value in posting here. What we really all are, in my analysis, are pioneers of a new form of democracy that will exist in the not too distant future.

The future of politics revolves around the cyber world. Evidence abounds we are arriving at this plateau now, such as with the remarkable fundraising campaigns of Obama and Ron Paul.

This will evolve.

I envision a whole new connection with Senators, Representatives and the White House, where our cyber communities will be equivalent to what interest groups are now. There will be environmental communities, illegal immigration communities, healthcare communities, education communities, etc. that will all be networked and channelled to a single hub, the public office holder. These individual networks will be given problems and asked to work out the solutions. They will also raise concerns and give perspectives that the official needs to be aware of. Each network will have moderators that sift through the bric-a-brack and establish the impactful data. Members will have a strong voice, and vigilant of moderators. A whole new democracy is possible, like originally with town halls. Now we have cyber halls.

Candidates will be quickly assessed in strengths by these communities, and thus more intelectually sound support will occur for candidates, rather than rock star or war hero credentials.

A lot of this gets barred today by the spam and b.s. we all occasionally dive into, sometimes in a spirit of humor, sometimes a spirit of spite, and sometimes completely misunderstood by half the board. How this hurdle will be solved, to provide rational deliberation of valid political concerns, is still to unfold. We are pioneering those very solutions in this thread.