DescentBB

I'm going to attempt to revisit the more salient points of the closed thread which Lothar started. As I stated, I saw some good points in the original article and some shortcomings, too. I feel Foil was a bit quick pulling the plug, but he has more experience in viewing the trajectory, so I'll cede to his decision without further comment upon it.

Now, in response to the article, I wrote the following:
"I think the larger issue, FAR past this place, is the overall nature of political discourse. That is something I've often tried to address here. That problem is complex, and somewhat cyclical. What I'm getting at is this: 24 news organizations and radio 'news' talk feed the hyperbole, aiming to sell air time and grow the audience. The audience, in turn, goes into a hateful feeding frenzy in the larger world, and(most dangerous of all), they tend to elect representatives who are equally averse to civilized discussion. I'm old enough to remember when members of Congress could debate, vigorously, and then go out for drinks and dinner together. I clearly remember(not very long ago) when a dinner invite from the President was a MANDATORY matter of attendance, no matter what ones political party or ideology was. Look at what passes for Congressional representation now. It isn't far fetched, or likely far off, when that boorish lack of civility extends to the occupant of the White House, as well, although to date that hasn't occurred. And, as this cycle tends to feed on itself and accelerate, we have, truly, descended into the problem Jefferson outlined in 1802."

I'd gladly offer suggestions to correct this,but, at the moment, I'm in fear that the momentum is so great as to make such a task impossible. With the massive amount of money poured into negative advertising and 24-hour news businesses, I view the individuals cited in Lothar's piece as but pawns of a larger game. Now, without them, the whole thing might get fixed, but I don't see that happening. As an example of my fears, one can look at Bernie Sanders' campaign. Sen. Sanders has put forth some VERY good ideas about how the Presidential campaign ought to be laid out as an ongoing debate of ideas(even suggesting interparty debates BEFORE the primaries). He also has a very clear agenda being proposed, which, I note with dismay, his supporters have sabotaged online with the usual over-the-top rhetoric(hating, in the parlance of the article). I suspect that Rubio, Fiorina, Christie, Clinton, Webb, O'Malley, and others could also put forth actual ideological and philosophical outlines for their fellow citizens to ponder, but it all gets lost in the extremism, lies and exaggerations from the paid talking heads and the 'commentators' online. It is my contention, and has been for quite some time, that the nation sorely needs to sort out some sort of consensus about: 1) the role of government, 2) the primacy of the Federal government versus States, even though the SCOTUS sorted much of that out in the 19th century and 3) the role of the US in the greater world, both economically and militarily. We cannot get that accomplished through the haze of a mass of humanity convinced that the President is out to take over Texas, another mass screaming that evil corporations must be destroyed, etc. How DO we go forward(both as a small group, and writ large, as a nation)?

It's far too easy to abstract this away from ourselves -- to act like the "larger issue" is what politicians and TV pundits are doing, and like our own personal interactions aren't really the point and aren't worthy of discussion. If we're just pawns and the real problem is the politicians and the 24-hour news cycle, then we absolve ourselves of culpability.

Worse than that, it's actually the same behavior. It's a way of setting up the problem as the "other", someone we can feel good about hating (admittedly, politicians and TV pundits are easy to hate), and therefore we can excuse our own poor behavior as "well, they brought it on themselves by being so deserving of hate." So we uphold the part of the bargain they want us to uphold, by feeding into the hate cycle, all while acting like it's not our fault.

I don't want to make this too personal, but slick, I feel like you kind of volunteered yourself in the other thread by claiming to agree and to "most of the time I work consciously to focus on the words, thoughts and theories". I think you might not realize how often you actually do the opposite, because it's become so easy that you can do it without even realizing it -- it's almost reflexive to post memes calling people "stupid as hell" or tell them you're bored with their "same old tired... arguments", and not realize the way this sort of subtle contempt contributes to the back-and-forth hatred. And you're one of the very best posters in this forum! Almost everyone here is capable of better, but we've set the bar incredibly low.

My challenge to everyone: try going for one week (starting when you read this) without using any of the subtly-hateful sort of comments described in the original article. Try noticing when you're about to make such a comment, and doing something different. I'm not saying to stop disagreeing, just find a way to express it that doesn't belittle or devalue the person you're talking to. And let's see where we all are in a week.

Lothar wrote:It's far too easy to abstract this away from ourselves -- to act like the "larger issue" is what politicians and TV pundits are doing, and like our own personal interactions aren't really the point and aren't worthy of discussion. If we're just pawns and the real problem is the politicians and the 24-hour news cycle, then we absolve ourselves of culpability.

I'd agree, but it does become a cyclical behavior.

Worse than that, it's actually the same behavior. It's a way of setting up the problem as the "other", someone we can feel good about hating (admittedly, politicians and TV pundits are easy to hate), and therefore we can excuse our own poor behavior as "well, they brought it on themselves by being so deserving of hate." So we uphold the part of the bargain they want us to uphold, by feeding into the hate cycle, all while acting like it's not our fault.

I don't want to make this too personal, but slick, I feel like you kind of volunteered yourself in the other thread by claiming to agree and to "most of the time I work consciously to focus on the words, thoughts and theories". I think you might not realize how often you actually do the opposite, because it's become so easy that you can do it without even realizing it -- it's almost reflexive to post memes calling people "stupid as hell" or tell them you're bored with their "same old tired... arguments", and not realize the way this sort of subtle contempt contributes to the back-and-forth hatred. And you're one of the very best posters in this forum! Almost everyone here is capable of better, but we've set the bar incredibly low.

fair enough, critique accepted. Perhaps, what I find droll, others find incredibly insulting. On the other hand, it is hard to accept a relentless discourse consisting of assertions(see recent claims about invasion of Texas) that should be universally condemned as simply crazy-talk, but are not.

My challenge to everyone: try going for one week (starting when you read this) without using any of the subtly-hateful sort of comments described in the original article. Try noticing when you're about to make such a comment, and doing something different. I'm not saying to stop disagreeing, just find a way to express it that doesn't belittle or devalue the person you're talking to. And let's see where we all are in a week.

fair enough again, and I suppose my reference above to crazy-talk might fall outside that. But, I'll start now. Let me add, that one of the most frustrating things this old guy sees in this amazing age of information access is how much misinformation, or even deliberate disinformation pervades, and gets bought into. On another forum, we have one guy who, to this day, accepts that Dearborn Michigan enacted Sharia law back in 2009, despite repeated evidence that the assertion was based upon a satire article. Tough to make headway into that sort of breeze. But, as you note, we can start with ourselves and hope for the best.

now, Lothar's challenge accepted, I'd like to hear more observations about discourse in the larger context, and among those who 'represent' us, as it DOES impact us all.

I don't think you are ever going to get a good discourse about politics. Wars have even been started over political disputes. This country has basically divided itself up into 2 large opposing political camps and neither camp wants to hear what the other camp has to say, let alone agree with it at some point. Both sides have their minds already made up about what they believe is right and everyone likes to react by saying that the other side's ideas are just plain wrong or evil. There seems to be no in between or middle ground. Our tribe is better than your tribe. We ALL seem to lack some basic open-mindedness for the positions of others, me included by the way, and we all want the other side to give more than we are willing to give ourselves. By the way, if you want to read juvenile trolls, go to any game website that caters to adolescent males. Now there's a bunch of hate and trash talk. At least a lot of the people here are adults.

CUDA, even you resort to that so called bad discourse you so rail against, right there in our faces with your signature, pretty much hinting that those Portland liberals are nothing but pond scum that surround your island of political betterment. Woody is no better with his Obama Joker avatar picture either. That's not a dig at you personally CUDA, I know you're a nice guy at heart and surprise, I do like you. But you can be just as infallible responding here as the rest of us, because we're all human and sometimes emotions do get the better of us. And a big yes to your other comment in the other thread, it is effing HOT HERE! I'm looking at a 95 degree reading on my thermometer right now and it's only 1:00PM in the afternoon. Ugh!

E&C had about a 5 year run where there was a lot of good discourse about politics. It wasn't perfect, but it was a whole lot better than what we have now.

There were some contributing factors.

One was that most of us actually played Descent together, so there was a level of mutual personal respect -- Birdseye and Sirian may have been polar opposites politically, but they also both knew the other guy was capable and insightful in-game, and they treated each other like that was at least a possibility out-of-game too.

Another was that we had very few people who fit the mold of "large opposing political camps". Most people conceived of themselves as at least partially independent, and most would at least from time to time come down on an unexpected side of an issue. While there was definitely some reflexive favoritism of one's own party, it was far less dominant than people here assume. (I regularly see people accusing others of "toeing the party line" or similar, but they say it of far more people than deserve it. Perhaps acknowledging each other as more complex than party-parrots would be a nice start.)

I think the main thing is that we had several people whose positive contributions served as a sort of model for E&C. Yeah, TB might occasionally post a stupid article that nobody bothered to read, but we'd have discussions with me and Drakona and Jeff250 and Birdseye and Vander where "give more than you demand" was the norm. And because of that, the occasional obnoxiously partisan hack could be told "that's not how we do things here". The thing is, we have plenty of people capable of operating on exactly that level, but who choose not to because snark is easier than meaningful discussion, and responding to snark with grace is a little more difficult than responding with vitriol.

We've had several perfectly capable, intelligent adults both in this thread and the prior thread basically say "yeah, I agree with the article" and then in the next breath defend themselves doing exactly what the article was criticizing. That's part of the point of my challenge. Stop making excuses like "politics cause wars so we can't be civil". "People these days who are civil often lack strong convictions, and people with strong ... convictions often are not very civil. What we need is convicted civility." (Richard J. Mouw)

tunnelcat wrote:...right there in our faces with your signature...Obama Joker avatar...

It's pretty important to present yourself as a serious thinker if you want people to take your politics seriously. Overly or underly patriotic avatars and signatures color perceptions. Yes, you can judge a book by it's cover when it's content is written all over the face.

Yea well…one thing I won’t tolerate is being brow beat and lectured on how to behave by people who are half my age, and I have little respect for to begin with.

And now what…I have to feel like I’m walking on egg shells every time I open my mouth…no thanks.

I’m not going to consciously craft every post to meet someone’s stamp of approval.

Do whatever you want…edit posts…delete posts…close threads…ban me for breaking the rules…close the forum…whatever…but don’t tell me how to behave, I learned how to do that before you were born.

And sorry slick for pissing all over your feigning innocence thread, but someone closed the other one.

Lothar wrote:E&C had about a 5 year run where there was a lot of good discourse about politics. It wasn't perfect, but it was a whole lot better than what we have now.............rest of a solid narrative snipped

much of that predates my arrival, and does make a lot of sense. While I loved Descent, I never competed in an online group, generally in a closed network consisting of my nephew and myself along with the neighbors across the street. Anyhow, by way of back history, I was touted to this place by one of your long time members who was on another forum with me which was absolutely overrun with trolls. My participation there had descended to tongue in cheek, Hunter Thompson-esque mockery, mainly to amuse myself. There was no elevation of discourse possible by that point. We did have a large group who departed, several of whom told me that they we not interested in discussing ANYTHING(not just politics, anything) with folks they viewed as 'liberals'. As I pointed out to CUDA, that is a very special sort of hate which generates such cowardly avoidance.
So, I arrived here, and discovered a place which, while it had a handful of knee-jerk trolls, was generally far more intellectual in its level of discourse than most places on the 'net. To this day, I still hold that opinion. Most people here can handle nuance, back and forth and such, and more often than not, when tempers get heated, parties back off, cool down and work like the dickens to get back to topic. It does seem that, of late, more threads have been closed, for whatever editorial/administrative reasons. Still, the fact that so much positive reflection has found its way between a handful of more adamant rejections in these two threads speaks volumes, to my mind, about the positive qualities of this group.

Spidey wrote:Yea well…one thing I won’t tolerate is being brow beat and lectured on how to behave by people who are half my age, and I have little respect for to begin with.

why exchange thoughts with them in the first place, then? Seems sort of puzzling......

And now what…I have to feel like I’m walking on egg shells every time I open my mouth…no thanks.

I’m not going to consciously craft every post to meet someone’s stamp of approval.

I hear you, and am in the same age group, but my reading of Lothars intent isn't so much strict censorship, but a few steps back from name-calling and overgeneralized condemnatons. That isn't a bad suggestion(at all), and it is a shame to see you find it restrictive, or worse, insulting, that someone would merely suggest it.

Do whatever you want…edit posts…delete posts…close threads…ban me for breaking the rules…close the forum…whatever…but don’t tell me how to behave, I learned how to do that before you were born.

I don't know about you, but I was also taught to keep working on things, as one can always improve(also, I can guarantee that you weren't born that much before me).

And sorry slick for pissing all over your feigning innocence thread, but someone closed the other one.

hell, no offense taken. I wasn't 'feigning innocence' in either thread, though.

Spidey wrote:I have to feel like I’m walking on egg shells every time I open my mouth…no thanks.

I’m not going to consciously craft every post to meet someone’s stamp of approval.

There's a wide swath between "walking on eggshells" and "not being a total jerk". Most human beings are capable of being somewhere in that middle area -- firmly disagreeing without being hostile or dehumanizing. There are certainly a few who, due to conditions like Tourette syndrome or other crippling social disorders, simply can't do it. Given your claim that you know how to behave, you probably don't have such an excuse.

Take some time in introspection, and decide if the standards you've set for yourself are standards you can be proud of. Maybe they are, and other people are just being oversensitive. Or maybe you've allowed your standards to slip, and could use a friendly reminder. Whatever; I'm not calling you out personally. I'm just posting a general critique of poor political discourse, and you can decide to what degree it applies to you and to what degree you will or won't tolerate it.

Lothar wrote:E&C had about a 5 year run where there was a lot of good discourse about politics. It wasn't perfect, but it was a whole lot better than what we have now.

I'm curious, roughly when was this? Could it be "rosy retrospection" at work?

In the decade that I've been around, the volume of discussion and the average post length has decreased dramatically, and the number of "regulars" has tapered to a few who pretty much know where the others stand (and who know where people's "buttons" are)...

...but I don't know that I'd say it was qualitatively better at any point in the past. In fact, most of the threads/posters that I recall being absolutely out of control were during the first few years I was here.

[Edit: Upon further reflection, one thing that I do recall is that the threads when I first joined tended to be much more philosophical/religious than political. If one is really averse to political (especially polarized) topics, I could see the current state of E&C being "worse".]

Lothar wrote:E&C had about a 5 year run where there was a lot of good discourse about politics. It wasn't perfect, but it was a whole lot better than what we have now.

There were some contributing factors.

One was that most of us actually played Descent together, so there was a level of mutual personal respect -- Birdseye and Sirian may have been polar opposites politically, but they also both knew the other guy was capable and insightful in-game, and they treated each other like that was at least a possibility out-of-game too.

Another was that we had very few people who fit the mold of "large opposing political camps". Most people conceived of themselves as at least partially independent, and most would at least from time to time come down on an unexpected side of an issue. While there was definitely some reflexive favoritism of one's own party, it was far less dominant than people here assume. (I regularly see people accusing others of "toeing the party line" or similar, but they say it of far more people than deserve it. Perhaps acknowledging each other as more complex than party-parrots would be a nice start.)

I think the main thing is that we had several people whose positive contributions served as a sort of model for E&C. Yeah, TB might occasionally post a stupid article that nobody bothered to read, but we'd have discussions with me and Drakona and Jeff250 and Birdseye and Vander where "give more than you demand" was the norm. And because of that, the occasional obnoxiously partisan hack could be told "that's not how we do things here". The thing is, we have plenty of people capable of operating on exactly that level, but who choose not to because snark is easier than meaningful discussion, and responding to snark with grace is a little more difficult than responding with vitriol.

We've had several perfectly capable, intelligent adults both in this thread and the prior thread basically say "yeah, I agree with the article" and then in the next breath defend themselves doing exactly what the article was criticizing. That's part of the point of my challenge. Stop making excuses like "politics cause wars so we can't be civil". "People these days who are civil often lack strong convictions, and people with strong ... convictions often are not very civil. What we need is convicted civility." (Richard J. Mouw)

Don't you think the increase in vitriol goes hand and hand with the greater political polarization we have in the U.S. today? It seems to me that most of politics in this country has gotten far more poisonous now than it was in the past, at least it seems that way to me and I've been around for 59 years, and I think that's also influencing the tone carried here. When almost every topic is that poisonous, civilized discussions go right out the door and anger fills the void. The last time I really felt nasty politics working on both sides was during the Vietnam War and that was so bad people were openly and violently protesting in the streets and universities.

tunnelcat wrote:CUDA, even you resort to that so called bad discourse you so rail against,

and I have said I do many times. and I have pointed out the discord on this forum for MONTHS now, and everyone says YA you're right, but do they do anything to change? NOPE, so I did. I stopped posting here Not because I didn't enjoy the topics. I've been reading them everyday. I stopped posting here because I knew if I posted something that someone felt didn't meet up to "their standards" that they would take a back handed swipe at me. I'm too old for that crap.

I was involved or at least in early contact with politics during the Vietnam war, TC, and you are a bit off. At that time, the absolute intolerance currently shown, and here I'm going to say it, ESPECIALLY by the current 'conservative' movement, was not in evidence. Diametrically opposed political players would savage one another on the Senate floor, and spend congenial hours afterwards at DC watering holes. NO ONE in elected office would have given a moment's thought to refusing an invitation to the Nixon White House. NO ONE. EVER! This sea change, as I alluded to at the outset, may, in fact, have some roots in personal behaviors of the general public, but my thinking is that it reflects a goal of national divisiveness with a hoped-for end of completely dysfunctional central government. In that environment, certain players stand to make huge money, others wield massive power in the resultant vacuum. Thus, my opinion that the average person merely reflects the tone that is fed to them, 24/7, and is but a pawn in a game few even contemplate.

CUDA wrote:and I have said I do many times. and I have pointed out the discord on this forum for MONTHS now, and everyone says YA you're right, but do they do anything to change? NOPE, so I did. I stopped posting here Not because I didn't enjoy the topics. I've been reading them everyday. I stopped posting here because I knew if I posted something that someone felt didn't meet up to "their standards" that they would take a back handed swipe at me. I'm too old for that crap.

Don't you don't think that the discord here reflects the discord in the entire country? It's so bad now I don't even discuss politics with my step-father, who was a life long Democrat all during his working years, but has since gone conservative in his old age. The "discussions" we'd get into would definitely not make good dinner fare because he tends to be rigid in his new conservative opinions and I tend to get angry because he's so obstinate and unfaltering. That's why I come here, to vent.

callmeslick wrote:I was involved or at least in early contact with politics during the Vietnam war, TC, and you are a bit off. At that time, the absolute intolerance currently shown, and here I'm going to say it, ESPECIALLY by the current 'conservative' movement, was not in evidence. Diametrically opposed political players would savage one another on the Senate floor, and spend congenial hours afterwards at DC watering holes. NO ONE in elected office would have given a moment's thought to refusing an invitation to the Nixon White House. NO ONE. EVER! This sea change, as I alluded to at the outset, may, in fact, have some roots in personal behaviors of the general public, but my thinking is that it reflects a goal of national divisiveness with a hoped-for end of completely dysfunctional central government. In that environment, certain players stand to make huge money, others wield massive power in the resultant vacuum. Thus, my opinion that the average person merely reflects the tone that is fed to them, 24/7, and is but a pawn in a game few even contemplate.

I was referring to the political scene on the city streets back then, not on Capital Hill. Most of the people on Capital Hill wanted to win that damn war at all costs, both parties too, so they sowed no discord between themselves trying to stop it. But I do agree the the poisonous relations between parties on Capital Hill today has reached a new level of disgust. How to make everyone make nice, I don't know.

I, for one, am happy with my snark to civility ratio.

vision wrote:Overly or underly patriotic avatars and signatures color perceptions. Yes, you can judge a book by it's cover when it's content is written all over the face.

U! S! A! U! S! A!

CUDA wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:CUDA, even you resort to that so called bad discourse you so rail against,

and I have said I do many times. and I have pointed out the discord on this forum for MONTHS now, and everyone says YA you're right, but do they do anything to change? NOPE, so I did. I stopped posting here Not because I didn't enjoy the topics. I've been reading them everyday. I stopped posting here because I knew if I posted something that someone felt didn't meet up to "their standards" that they would take a back handed swipe at me. I'm too old for that crap.

do you really see all that much difference in any individual poster in, say, the period between when you first mentioned this place to me and now? What I notice is that the overall numbers have dwindled, and, in so doing, many of the less(shall we say) impassioned folks have moved on to other pursuits. That pretty much reflects the Interweb as a whole. Now, as I have told you before, those 'back handed swipes' don't faze me much. I'm used to them, generally from left-wing types in the larger world, ironically. You are entitled to the decision to keep the BP down and avoid them, and that decision should be respected by all here. Damn shame, as you do contribute positives along the way.

callmeslick wrote:This sea change, as I alluded to at the outset, may, in fact, have some roots in personal behaviors of the general public, but my thinking is that it reflects a goal of national divisiveness with a hoped-for end of completely dysfunctional central government.

I would say that things got vicious in the 90's with the hunting of Clinton, but I trace the genesis of that back to the rise of conservative think tanks and media outlets in the 70's and 80's. This ecosystem to nurture professional conservatives was fully matured by the end of the Reagan/Bush years. Clinton was really the first opposition president for this movement, and I think the level of ridiculousness went into the stratosphere.

This is only conjecture on my part, but I'm speculating that the Clintons are now getting a little revenge....on Dennis Hastert. Why else would this mess come out public right now? The timing is just too convenient for the Clinton campaign.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/dennis-h ... d=31443570