Politics Category Rules! Please Read.
-
The following is taken almost verbatim from @jaybate-1-0 's post here, which was an excellent suggestion as to rules for this category:
CATEGORY RULES
The point of this discourse is to “discover” and “learn” about issues, rather than to argue to be right, and so engage in to marginalizing and smearing others. In participating here, we simply agree to ban all the techniques of thread cracking and smearing and trying to be the one that is right. In fact, WE AGREE TO ELIMINATE THE VERY POSSIBILITY OF DECLARING ONE POV IS RIGHT. Hopefully, this completely eliminate 99% of contentiousness from the git-go. These kinds of discussions never get anywhere and are a waste of everyone’s time. If I have learned anything from this web site it is that I never change anyone else’s mind, and neither does anyone else. Each persons changes his own mind here when he/she is good and ready to change it. And they do so when they have participated in gathering information and processing it on their own. Individuals change their own minds. Thus it is fruitless and naive to waste time “winning” arguments. The object of discourse is to come away with more knowledge than what one started with. This new knowledge can include: facts, logics, hypotheses and assumptions about the topic being discussed. Anytime someone enters the realm of “I’m right because,…”, or asserts class prejudices like “All liberals are…(fill in the blank),” or “All Republicans are…(fill in the blank),” then participants simply respond with “That’s the I’m Right fallacy,” and continue introducing and discussion the meaning and utility of new facts, new logics, hypotheses, and assumptions.
This way we actually come away from discussions knowing more and more, rather than being bored and assaulted and disrespected by dolts endlessly engaging in the vanity of trying to show everyone else they don’t know what they are talking about. Everyone knows something worth knowing, or else the only point to communicating is pulling the wool over their eyes with propaganda and the current 25-30 techniques for thread cracking and site destabilization and smearing to try to proselytize for one stupid agenda, or another.
(Thank you @jaybate-1-0).
-
I have read and agree to the rules stated above and the spirit of this category, and hereby do solemnly swear to treat my peers with respect and discuss the issues on their merits in an effort to further our collective knowledge and ideas about politics and world affairs.
-
I have read and agree to the rules stated above and the spirit of this category, and hereby do solemnly swear to treat my peers with respect and discuss the issues on their merits in an effort to further our collective knowledge and ideas about politics and world affairs.
-
While I recognize my views are righter and everyone elses are wronger, I will respect everyones right to be wrong.
-
Yes keep it all respectful. Explain your viewpoint, & since you are doing so in public domain, expect differring points of view. Heck, we can even differ on Self’s philosophies. But I enjoy the other angles people bring up to consider. Rock Chalk. Great site, to try to do this regarding hotbed politics, in these times…
-
I believe it was best said, “But if I agree with you we will both be wrong…” just kidding, I agree with the above statement.
-
In spirit, I pretty much agree with these declared rules for political discussion. But in my heart sometimes I just know THAT I AM RIGHT!
-
For instance, if we are bent upon a course of normalcy and decency regarding polite and respectful dialogue, how in all hell could we ever plow furrows of discourse regarding President Donald J. Trump?
-
What’s politics?
-
@REHawk Lol well I would just stick to specific talking points and not the entire body of work when speaking about the POTUS. If you break out what you (dis)like about him with policies or by topic instead of just insulting (or praising) him as a person, you may very well be able to have a rational discussion.
-
@Kcmatt7 Talking point #1: He lies to the American people almost daily. #2: He voices disrespect for women and minorities. Right there is enough to muster and embolden my public negativity.
-
@REHawk lets move this to another thread please?
As much as this administration feels like a regression to the Dark Ages for people who don’t like Trump, let’s maintain our own decorum even as our elected officials abandon theirs.
-
@approxinfinity Whoa! This thread falls under POLITICS and WORLD AFFAIRS. Whence comes your request?
-
I have read and agree to the rules stated above and the spirit of this category, and hereby do solemnly swear to treat my peers with respect and discuss the issues on their merits in an effort to further our collective knowledge and ideas about politics and world affairs
-
@REHawk By thread I mean this message chain. This thread is simply for affirming the rules of the game when discussing politics. You’re in the right category, but let’s start a new thread about the topic, before we get too involved talking about Trump in the rules thread.
-
@approxinfinity You put this Board together, so it is simple using the Game Of Thrones ethic: Your house, your rules!
-
Yeah but it wasn’t clear. I think this is more an issue of threadiquette than decorum.
-
@approxinfinity Aw, okay, I suppose I had best apologize for my responses on this thread. My threadiquette obviously is poorer than my eyesight. You have done a marvelous job in establishing, tweaking and managing KU Buckets. I’ve slim desire to rattle your cage. Actually, this was my first post on the Politics Category. I had not read previous spins from the general topic. Occasionally, in the past I slipped up and pitched some treacherous liberalism into the basketball entries; so I was patting myself on the back for driving in the more proper lane here. But I DO SEE that my Trump burps aren’t appropriate fits in the spirit of this specific thread. Sincerely sorry for the gaffe.
-
@REHawk no worries man. I’m actually excited to see a new post in this category as there definitely is a lot to talk about right now, and I encourage you to get this thing going again!
-
I readily agree to the rules, don’t particularly want to engage in politics on this site anyway.
-
@Marco said in Politics Category Rules! Please Read.:
I readily agree to the rules, don’t particularly want to engage in politics on this site anyway.
ya I USUALL try and stay away from that too. - -Although got to say have fallen vistim to the sniping a couple of times when I’ve browsed and then finished reading some’s comments - not the best decision.
Actually I hate even seeing Politics in a Sports site ot close to a majority sports site - -does no good to have that in here - - -like has been said no one gonna come out ahead in something like that , So I try to just stay away - haen’t acheived 100 % but trying
-
@jayhawkblue73 our lack of dialogue in this country is what got everyone not seeing eye to eye. It’s not the problem, it’s the cure.
-
We don’t have to act like the bought-off talking heads on news networks. That does not have to be how all political conversations go.
-
@approxinfinity no, we don’t have to act like the paid talking heads, but too often that is what happens. People start acting as if they are holier than thou, and that their political opinion is the only one that matters.
-
@Marco there are three problems I think.
#1 is what you’ve mentioned, that people need to understand that there are other perspectives that have merit.
#2 is that people need to realize and be honest about what is influencing the opinions they express.
I struggle when I talk to people who express talking points but don’t seem to be inclined to evaluate why they are expressing them or if they are logical. In these circumstances it is hard to maintain discourse.
#3 people must be allowed to change. Our ideas around hypocrisy in this country cast a false negative stigma on changing ones perspective. Also we see debates as verbal combat and not knowledge sharing and joint exploration. We should actively identify what biases we are advocating for or rejecting and realize that the case we make for or against biases does not define us in perpetuity, those opinions are simply the surfaces that we present to others at any given time.
The change happens within us first, in our molten core, and the surface opinions may appear static for a time; they are not in fact static, nor should they be. If they are the same as they were last week or last month or last year, that should be because we have reevaluated our thoughts and they still pass muster.
When someone is not willing or able to take in more information and evolve their opinions, and their stated opinions are the same positions championed by special interests, this is a disappointment. It’s not really dialogue between two individuals at that point. At that point, it’s hard to find merit in discussion, as it would seem that at least one party is not really interested in talking meaningfully. It also feels as though one is arguing more against the agency that has possessed the person with whom they are speaking rather that the person themself. This is a demoralizing and dehumanizing feeling. I wish it werent so.
However, there can be some optimism that all stated opinions aren’t really what people believe. They’re just the expressed opinion of the person at the time, with varying degrees of personal investment and ingenuity.
