Politics Forum suggestion...

[A Horse With No Name]

Eliminate the Politics section as it is, and then have a section for debate. Have a moderated, intelligent debate between two C and G members on a specific topic.

We could have a Peanut gallery thread, but most of those tend to be useless. methinks a section where the general audience could "cross examine" the debaters with a limited # of questions (say a limit of 3 per member) would be better...

Just my two cents.

[Intrepidation]

Thing is that many members don't want to see political topics, which is why its an opt-in section.

[Potluck]

Given the reaction I got when I suggested that people bought Pontiacs because they were cheap, I doubt the maturity level here is high enough to warrent a politics section.

[Satty]

Given the reaction I got when I suggested that people bought Pontiacs because they were cheap, I doubt the maturity level here is high enough to warrent a politics section.

Our politics section is op-in, and from what I've heard its mostly a Libertarian fantasy land.

[Potluck]

Given the reaction I got when I suggested that people bought Pontiacs because they were cheap, I doubt the maturity level here is high enough to warrent a politics section.

a -1 already.....

heh... as I was saying...

[balthazar]

I fail to see how a political topic is any more troublesome to skip over than one about anything else someone doesn't care to click & read thru.

Edited March 21, 2011 by balthazar

[Potluck]

those that feel the need to downrate someone who is posting something factual rather than opinion.

[Satty]

those that feel the need to downrate someone who is posting something factual rather than opinion.

Yeah, that happens around here. You learn to ignore it, after a little while you know who's doing the voting up and who is doing the voting down.

[Cory Wolfe]

Yes, that is par for the course here. It's just there to say "I disagree, you suck!" ...or vice versa, without actually saying it. It's something you shouldn't take too seriously.

[Potluck]

I didn't realize there was so much love for the G3, Vibe, G5, and "Value Lease" G6es around here. I humbly appologize to all those who own those cars whom I offended. I liked pontiac too.... but I only liked the good parts that didn't sell in volume.

It is precicely that distinct dismissal of reality here that leads me to believe that a politics forum would be a waste of time.

[Drew Dowdell]

don't worry about it. We don't enforce post ratings around here anyway..... if we did, a few members of the politics forum wouldn't be able to post anything at all

[Croc]

You know, the last time there was a left/right debate it was called Crossfire and Jon Stewart pretty much killed that show for "ruining America." I like it as it is.

[Croc]

I've got an idea, how about we abandon politics completely and just have an "Issues" section? There, we can discuss things like:

- "How do we balance responsible use with preservation of public lands?"

- "Should speculation in the oil market be allowed to continue, given how the nature of speculation leads to price inflation?"

- "Is there a way to reform immigration in a way that makes legal immigration easier while more effectively keeping out criminals?"

Then if anyone mentions Fox News, MSNBC, main stream media, the liberal media, Bill O'Reilly, The Daily Kos, Rush Limbaugh, NPR, Keith Olberman, Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Obama, Bush, Liberals, Conservatives or Jon Stewart, we can suspend their account until they pay a reinstatement fee since the grown ups will be having serious discussions and not trying to watch a bunch of partisan hacks angrily fart on their keyboards in a farcical attempt to create a convincing argument.

First of all, many of those issues have already been discussed in that section, and those types of issues already fit into it.

Second of all, if adults are going to have a civil, educated discussion, one needs to provide sources. Now, why are you lumping MSNBC, NPR, Jon Stewart and dKos in there? With the exception of some diaries on dKos, those are all pretty good, legitimate sources of info. I can understand why Faux and their ilk are included, what with using video footage with palm trees in the background to fabricate a story about angry mobs in Madison, Wisconsin, but the others are a mystery to me. If anything, that would just perpetuate the false equivalency that is peddled by the mainstream media--namely, that two sides say stuff and both are valued and the truth is in the middle or you can draw your own conclusions based on who appeals to your personality more. That's ridiculous. Facts are facts. If someone says something ridiculous, I expect to see them called out on it.

Not a fan of your idea. and I have to say I'm a little offended that you're equating some of those sources with partisan hackery...especially NPR. I mean good grief...

[Camino LS6]

Eliminate the Politics section as it is, and then have a section for debate. Have a moderated, intelligent debate between two C and G members on a specific topic.

We could have a Peanut gallery thread, but most of those tend to be useless. methinks a section where the general audience could "cross examine" the debaters with a limited # of questions (say a limit of 3 per member) would be better...

Just my two cents.

A debate structure sounds interesting.

What really matters is what each of us thinks, leaning on "sources", or "parties" is what creates all the strife in the first place.

I prefer those who think for themselves.

[balthazar]

>>"What really matters is what each of us thinks, leaning on "sources", or "parties" is what creates all the strife in the first place.

I prefer those who think for themselves."<<

Excellent sentiment. With the proliferation of 'sources' out there, and every idiot with a domain name blogging away- there's a source to support the daily beheading possums & drinking their still-warm blood. I read some dueseys. One would think that there would be an opportunity there to see a increase in individual thought, but IMO the electronic shortening of the attention span forces most everyone to conform to labels in order to find any audience at all. In other words, less critical & individual thought, less analytical discussion and more vilifying of the opposite camp & conformism. I see it with regularity on the news- opposite political positions aren't even hearing the other side; they're not having the same discussion.

Frankly, Camino, I question whether the concept is possible anymore.

[Camino LS6]

I sure hope that it is still possible.

Each of us has a sovereign mind, we'd do well to remember that.

[balthazar]

Too many aren't comfortable thinking outside the few rigid boxes tho.

They crave the self-validation (or self-definition) in group-think.

[loki]

Too many aren't comfortable thinking outside the few rigid boxes tho.

They crave the self-validation (or self-definition) in group-think.

curious if you could name a few of those boxes...?

[Robert Hall]

Too many aren't comfortable thinking outside the few rigid boxes tho.

They crave the self-validation (or self-definition) in group-think.

curious if you could name a few of those boxes...?

They are kind of obvious, aren't they? Parties, economic and political philosophies..

Democrat, Republican, etc parties

capitalist, socialist, objectivist, etc economic philosophies

Liberal/progressive, moderate, conservative, liberatarian, etc political philosophies

realist, idealist, delusionist, etc worldviews......

Edited March 21, 2011 by Cubical-aka-Moltar

[Satty]

There is nothing worse than absolute certainty. If you know you're right and you know everyone else is wrong, you're going to miss out on some good ideas.

[Drew Dowdell]

the problem is that life isn't as black and white as right and wrong.

[Robert Hall]

the problem is that life isn't as black and white as right and wrong.

In life, I've found reality is like Michigan skies...different shades of gray. No absolutes.. things are relative to their context...

Edited March 21, 2011 by Cubical-aka-Moltar

[Camino LS6]

the problem is that life isn't as black and white as right and wrong.

Exactly my point.

Politics is nothing but philosophy's stupid brother. The parties dumb things down even further than that.

I'd rather know what someone thinks about a given topic than hear whatever the party line happens to be.

Toss the labels and the hot button words, and agreement becomes easier.

[A Horse With No Name]

Too many aren't comfortable thinking outside the few rigid boxes tho.

They crave the self-validation (or self-definition) in group-think.

Which is why I think a moderated, thoughtful discussion would be best...

[Drew Dowdell]

the problem is that life isn't as black and white as right and wrong.

Exactly my point.

Politics is nothing but philosophy's stupid brother. The parties dumb things down even further than that.

I'd rather know what someone thinks about a given topic than hear whatever the party line happens to be.

Toss the labels and the hot button words, hidden agendas, and agreement becomes easier.

fixed.... though some of them aren't really all that hidden.

[Camino LS6]

Meh, agendas are like parties - if they sort of fit, most people will wear them.

Ideas are better.

[Robert Hall]

Ideas are great..the problems come with the execution and implementation of those ideas..

[Camino LS6]

Ideas are great..the problems come with the execution and implementation of those ideas..

No, the problems start when ideas morph into agendas.

[Robert Hall]

Ideas are great..the problems come with the execution and implementation of those ideas..

No, the problems start when ideas morph into agendas.

Agendas are the reality context into which ideas fit..kind of hard to have ideas without context.

[Camino LS6]

Interesting point of view.

I would never equate agenda to context.

[Drew Dowdell]

Ideas are great..the problems come with the execution and implementation of those ideas..

No, the problems start when ideas morph into agendas.

Agendas are the reality context into which ideas fit..kind of hard to have ideas without context.

I disagree. Agendas (at least in the way I'm using the word) are when people attempt to morph facts to suit the agenda holder's desired outcome. Some of the agendas I've encountered have little to no basis in reality.

[Robert Hall]

Ideas are great..the problems come with the execution and implementation of those ideas..

No, the problems start when ideas morph into agendas.

Agendas are the reality context into which ideas fit..kind of hard to have ideas without context.

I disagree. Agendas (at least in the way I'm using the word) are when people attempt to morph facts to suit the agenda holder's desired outcome. Some of the agendas I've encountered have little to no basis in reality.

That can work also... I was viewing an agenda as a collection of (related) ideas sharing a common theme. Just trying to apply a little object-oriented modeling..my work thoughts intersecting w/ my 'play' thoughts, I guess..

Edited March 21, 2011 by Cubical-aka-Moltar

[balthazar]

Agendas (at least in the way I'm using the word) are when people attempt to morph facts to suit the agenda holder's desired outcome.

This is how I would define it also.

[loki]

They are kind of obvious, aren't they? Parties, economic and political philosophies..

Democrat, Republican, etc parties

capitalist, socialist, objectivist, etc economic philosophies

Liberal/progressive, moderate, conservative, liberatarian, etc political philosophies

realist, idealist, delusionist, etc worldviews......

doesn't every idea fit under one of these? the only one(s) you left out is gov types... democracy, constitutional ( ), republic, monarchy, communism, despotism, people's ( )...

freedom vs tyranny... Rights vs no rights...

hasn't (history)people explored every idea somewhat? so isn't the chance great to just being labeled and "put" under one of those categories?

is it odd you put liberal/progressive instead of separate? Teddy R labeled himself a progressive, in fact he's called the first. but *sigh* this isn't the forum to get into that.

[regfootball]

I sure hope that it is still possible.

Each of us has a sovereign mind, we'd do well to remember that.

what is it called when the sovereign mind is inebriated? lol

[Robert Hall]

doesn't every idea fit under one of these? the only one(s) you left out is gov types... democracy, constitutional ( ), republic, monarchy, communism, despotism, people's ( )...

freedom vs tyranny... Rights vs no rights...

It wasn't meant to be exhaustive..just my thoughts on what the 'boxes' could be...

hasn't (history)people explored every idea somewhat? so isn't the chance great to just being labeled and "put" under one of those categories?

Yes..the categories are the boxes...

is it odd you put liberal/progressive instead of separate? Teddy R labeled himself a progressive, in fact he's called the first. but *sigh* this isn't the forum to get into that.

Today those terms are usually used interchangeably, like conservative/regressive on the other side..

[loki]

Today those terms are usually used interchangeably, like conservative/regressive on the other side..

using those terms interchangeably doesn't make any sense to me... by knowing where liberal philosophy came from.

[A Horse With No Name]

Agendas (at least in the way I'm using the word) are when people attempt to morph facts to suit the agenda holder's desired outcome.

This is how I would define it also.

Bingo!

[balthazar]

This is the first time I've encountered the label 'regressive'...

[Z-06]

Eliminate the Politics section as it is, and then have a section for debate. Have a moderated, intelligent debate between two C and G members on a specific topic.

We could have a Peanut gallery thread, but most of those tend to be useless. methinks a section where the general audience could "cross examine" the debaters with a limited # of questions (say a limit of 3 per member) would be better...

Just my two cents.

A debate structure sounds interesting.

What really matters is what each of us thinks, leaning on "sources", or "parties" is what creates all the strife in the first place.

I prefer those who think for themselves.

Too many aren't comfortable thinking outside the few rigid boxes tho.

They crave the self-validation (or self-definition) in group-think.

Well said. Many a times changing the rules of games is the solution rather than working within their limits.

[balthazar]

I'd be very interested in seeing a debate structure attempt.

[Camino LS6]

I sure hope that it is still possible.

Each of us has a sovereign mind, we'd do well to remember that.

what is it called when the sovereign mind is inebriated? lol

Politics.

[A Horse With No Name]

<br />I'd be very interested in seeing a debate structure attempt.<br />

<br /><br /><br />

I would too...and I think that it would bring us together. I think for example that were we to square off along partisan lines, you and I (balthazar and Stang) would mostly disagree. But were we to discuss an issue...we might really agree.

We could even explore a topic...two guys going at each other from not opposing but not points in agreement...and deal with a topic like "what would it take to make high speed rail competitive?" or "Why can't the federal gov't have a balanced budget?" or "what can be done to improve high school education in the US?"

We could even have a brain storming session between two guys where we just kick out positive ideas. I think you'll find that Camino (amoung others) is full of positive, rational things if we just give him (them) a chance to open up.

<br />

<br />

<br />I sure hope that it is still possible.<br /><br />Each of us has a sovereign mind, we'd do well to remember that.<br />

<br /><br />what is it called when the sovereign mind is inebriated?  lol<br />

<br /><br />TOYOTA!.<br />

<br /><br /><br />

Fixed that for you, Bob!

[Camino LS6]

Ha!

Nice edit!

I like where you are going with the issues idea - it is why many of my more recent posts in the politics forum were questions. I like to hear ideas and think them over so that when I respond I can pick up on the positives I see in anyone's viewpoint.

That's why I feel so disappointed when the topic descends into partisan bickering - I tend to bail on the discussion at that point.

Edited March 22, 2011 by Camino LS6