Lately, I’ve been noticing that the election has been one giant metaphor for some of the sparring I’ve done in the comments of Blue Mass Group – and I think it’s time for a general discussion. It all boils down to this: do we engage in conversation with those we know can never be convinced and may often practice the old bait and switch. Or is it a useless, waste of our time? Over the past few days, I’ve been criticized by some for not engaging in that muck – and instead calling them out on it – but I would submit it’s masochism to play nice and have a little, old chat with them.
Of course, none of that is to say we could ever ignore these types of people: on the contrary, I’m often direct, blunt and to the point. Some people may suggest I’m showing a lack of respect, but the fact of the matter is if you don’t fight fire with fire, your comments will only be viewed as a sign of weakness. Meanwhile, the bait that you just engaged in turns the entire thread into such a tiresome, useless turd blossom that no one will bother reading it. The lets-get-together-and-sing-kumbaya reply routine is the type of activity that ruins any blog, forum or online political community.
Sadly, taking an attitude such as this will often leave oneself open to criticism for not being nice enough – because if we don’t ignore commenters and we don’t give into their bait, that means their isn’t a whole lot of room for the forum niceties in the comments that many liberals (and others) have come to expect. Furthermore, even among those who have realized making nice-ity-nice has been an utter disaster and failure for us all on the macro level, they ignore the point that all politics is local – that playing nice is a failure here at home, too. In effect, they expect commenters here to engage with the trolls here in the blogs, even if they recognize that there are trolls on the national, political level as well.
Before blogs ever existed – and way before I ever created Ryan’s Take – I used to participate in internet forums. It was a format that was addictive, but ended up in me becoming burned out. I went from being an eternal optimist who never swore, cussed and barely criticized, into a foul-mouthed, pissy cynic (especially online) with just a dash of optimism to keep me going. Why? Because, at some point, I got sick of debating with people who had such narrow viewpoints that they couldn’t be convinced the sky is blue. It’s like debating marriage equality with a homophobe: it’s a conversation that’s going no where – and sadly, too many people love to do it. At some point, people need to realize it’s pointless to try to convince certain people that they’re wrong – and more important that other people, mainly lurkers, are made aware of just how wrong these particular people are. There are open-minded people out there who can be convinced, who are truly interested in a mixing of ideas – and those are the people who are worthy of lengthy discussions. All the others – and there are sadly too many of them out there – must still be refuted, but never engaged with. Careful pains must be made to avoid their traps that lead to a waste of everyone’s time, but the troll’s.
Unfortunately, the days of polite etiquette with everyone online is long since over. After all, despite all the metaphors, politics isn’t a game. There are real issues at stake – and only so much time we have to engage in trying to foster that change. If it means we’ll be called an A Hole in the process, I say “oh well.” The important question is, “who’s with me?”
been there and done that. đŸ˜‰ A Hole would be mild in comparison to a few thrown my way. Oh, and my Jewish veterinarian was so pissed off after someone called me anti-semitic that I’m afraid of what he might post in the future. You can add him to the “with you” category.
for the eyes of the beholder.
Several times recently I have thrown something out there only to be called on it with something totally unrelated.
Polarization between parties is becoming extreme even though the stated platform of either party does not reflect the reality of that party.
<
p>We can of course find solice only by finding that one conversational board among thousands that caters to one’s own particular worldview. The market for confirmation is greater than the market for information.
<
p>It is the turd blossom of a beyond repair system.
I have a friend, a long time community organizer, who says that anyone with a personal and political committment to social, economic and racial justice is, by definition, engaged in The Work — capital T, capital W — whether at home raising kids, at home alone reading and writing, doorknocking for ACORN or PIRG, advocating for gender specific substance abuse programs, lobbying elected officals to vote against casinos, teaching math in middle school or what ever. If you are called to The Work, you must do what you do with care for preserving your energy and your physicial and mental health. It’s a little like serving a life sentence with out hope of parole. Focus on your fellow inmates first, then try with the correction officers later,(respectfully of course.)
lurkers and open-minded commenters are why the Porcupines of the world show up here. It is important to remember that. decide who your audience is, and comment accordingly. ignore the rest.
The cliche, One Day at at Time, comes to mind in pacing one’s life commitment to The Work of social justice. The inner struggle of sacrificing material gain as well as personal comfort/leisure to be engaged and have a voice is sometimes a challenge. Pacing and actively pursuing spiritual, mental and physical health are key components to the marathon. Sometimes an issue comes along like the casinos, or equal marriage and a sprint is needed with the understanding (to self) that the extra-dig is needed and balance will be restored.
<
p>
Made me laugh.
<
p>Not being a victim, however is a key component to success. Our government, which means elected individuals, work for us. We need to be vocal and call-out those who are compromising the principles which we believe undermine society and vocally support those who are acting on priniciples for the common good.
<
p>Casinos are the poster child of capitalism at it’s worst. The industry is a vacuum of wealth to a few at the expense of many and I do mean the gambler per se. The expense is to entire regions with increased addiction, environmental, educational, public safety and infrastucture problems. Candidates who expouse principles of one vein and support policies of another need to be held accountable.
<
p>Never surrender your power Ryan, you have a long, bright future ahead.
For example – who would have thought that you and the Governor would disagree, while you and I agree? And yet that is what casinos did.
<
p>I worked for a stauchly pro-choice Rep., and many assumptions were made about where whe would stand in issues because of that. And yet – when stem cell came up, she was among the most outspoken opponents, mystifying both pro and anti choice lobbyists.
<
p>The very liberal and very conservative will disagree, say, 85% of the time. BUT – that 15% overlap is where progress is made, and why talking to each other is crucial – because you never know what issue might unite; the ones that divide are usually only too predictable.
<
p>That said – there is never any excuse for bad language or personal slurs. Other than failure of imagination and vocabulary, I guess. And while it IS a time worn phrase – there’s nothing actually WRONG with agreeing to disagree.
<
p>The above-mentioned points from your post, Peter Porcupine, articulate exactly what I and probably many, if not most other people agree on.
I agree that people of different viewpoints should have the opportunities to talk to each other. Agreeing to disagree is the best way to go.
<
p>Unfortunately, however, this present Administration in Washington, i. e. the Bush Administration, has created an extremely polarized atmosphere by essentially stifling all dissent and opposition, especially regarding our war in Iraq. I guess that on blogs like this are where people can at least start to agree to disagree.
<
p>I admittedly don’t engage in discussions to change people’s minds, but to at least make myself heard. That in itself isn’t a bad thing, either. Again, thanks for the well-articulated points, Peter Porcupine.
There’s a difference between honest brokers, interested in the discussion, and people who have their own agendas. While, of course, we all have some kind of belief system, etc. there’s a line between that and an agenda. One of the reasons why I like you is because I don’t feel you typically stifle conversation and you’ve been an open minded person, even if my opinion in this case may not exactly be popular in this neck of the woods. LOL.
Politics is sport for the civically-minded. Unlike sports, there are few rules (except at the professional level), but still participants have a similar goal: to win. There are basic strategies to follow and plays to run.
<
p>Discussion at BMG is more like a pick-up game of football you play on the weekend with friends. It may get out of hand at times. Tempers might flare. Some might prefer a more kinder, gentler game of touch. Others want to play tackle. Some declare they’ve had enough and leave.
<
p>My take? On-line discourse is one of the few places where a free market of ideas can, and often does, reign. If it costs someone a bloody nose, or even a broken rib, on occasion, then so be it.
<
p>I try not to be rude or too snarky, that’s not the kind of game I want to play. Besides, we still have the ref’s to keep the game from getting too bloody.
<
p>Mark
<
p>
I only want to address the Edwards/Obama bit, because on the blog discourse, I have no idea what you’re talking about.
<
p>There’s a lot to like about Edwards, but I don’t see the substance of his message. He’s talking about telling lobbyists to screw. Fine. But he’ll be working with a congress that talks to lobbyists all the time, and won’t soon stop — lobbying is deeply entwined with how power is accrued and retained. So what does he mean when he says lobbyists won’t be at the table?
<
p>And does Edwards’s record back up his current rhetoric? Russ Feingold doesn’t think so:
<
p>
<
p>The case you make against Obama is misdirected. He’s not talking about making compromises of the kind D.C. center-right pundits demand; he’s talking about persuading people that they share the same values. Many people oppose Democrats and progressives on grounds of cultural identity, but their actual positions are essentially ours. Obama, I think, is talking about making manifest a progressive majority that already exists. That change in the electorate is a deep structural one that could have greater impact than the top-down overhaul Edwards claims he can impose on the political system.
talking about, I’d like to hear it. Every time I turn around, I hear his quiet footstep moving what seems to the Righ. I wouldn’t mind being convinced otherwise.
<
p>Mark
And then Obama goes around and in an interview praises Ronald Reagan as being the exact president the country needed at exactly the right time… dealing with the country’s “excesses.” Damn those feminists, civil rights leaders, unions and other liberals actually caring about where this country was headed and trying to do something about it…
<
p>Edwards has apologized for many of his votes and in many others, I think the fact that he was a senator from a conservative state had a lot to do with it. He’s now free from that baggage. Edwards may not have been effective in the short term while in office, combating the power of lobbyists, but at least he would have done some good, while laying the ground work for combating them in the future. He’s already done more for this race than either of the other serious candidates when it comes to raising issues, because neither of them would have come out with health care proposals that were nearly as strong, or have been talking about the power of lobbyists, if not for the fact that John Edwards has been pushing those issues all along, before the others.
Obama didn’t say Reagan was the right president, he said Reagan was successful at changing the direction of government b/c he spoke to the public mood.
<
p>
<
p>Reagan is an excellent analogy, in fact, if a politically dangerous one. Obama is trying to rally a national majority to our side at a moment of change.
<
p>Would you not want our Democratic president to be as successful at changing the political, and policy, landscape as Reagan was? Recall Reagan’s winning margin after four years in office.
<
p>I appreciate Edwards’s role in this campaign as the voice of the public’s real anger. I’d support him over any Republican w/out reservation. But I don’t see how his message translates into effective governance.
<
p>To get closer to the main point of your post, the “enemy” — the people who will always oppose progressive policy — is not the 50% who voted for Bush, nor perhaps even the 35% who still identify as Republican. It’s a relatively small group.
And propping up that sort of Reagan mythology doesn’t help democrats, progressives or any of our associated movements one iota.
<
p>
<
p>Sure, but that’s never going to happen when you’re channeling Reagan in the process. If we want to change the political landscape, we need to convince Americans that the Reagan era – which has been deeply influential on the failed policies of today – was the wrong course. In effect, we need to rally our party and this country against the Reaganites and the Reagan mythology that’s been brewing for years now, because too many have been too scared to challenge it.