Love and Rockets

bash · Post by **bash** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:32 pm

My mom hates Bush. Everything from the weather to noisey trashmen is his fault. And he's doing it ON PURPOSE! So now we avoid political discussions. Anyone else notice alot of personal relationships are being thoroughly tested during this polarized and partisan election? Anyone lose any friends? Will the post-election landscape remain this divided?

Skyalmian · Post by **Skyalmian** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 11:40 pm

Fortunately no. My family couldn't be more politically incorrect / care less, and my relatives I don't talk to much, so it's not a problem for me.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 12:04 am

If your family stops talking to each other due to political opinions, you have a much bigger problem on your hands.

kufyit · Post by **kufyit** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 12:42 am

Listen to your mom. Learn to love.

Avder · Post by **Avder** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 1:33 am

Yeah Bash, listen to your mom.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 2:01 am

yeah bash, listen to your mom. The noisy trashman really *is* Bush's fault.

All of my family is voting for Bush, so there's no problem there. I did have a good long argument with my best friend over his considering Kerry a while back (though certainly not the sort of argument we'd stop being friends over -- we've had far bigger fights over video games.) He'd fallen for the "draft" lie that's been going around, and I had to correct him (with many links) and suggest he reconsider his vote. Last I heard, he's now considering Nader. Oh well, that's half a vote for Bush.

I also know I'm risking some of my friends at school. There are a lot of people here in Seattle with BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) who consider my voting for Bush total heresy. "How dare you vote for that evil, evil, vile evil vile lying vile evil demonic evil vile creature of DOOOOOOOOM???!?!!?"

I think, post-election, the most serious BDS'ers will still remain divided. They'll probably still be saying Gore should've won in 2000. But I doubt normal people will remain divided, at least to this degree.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 2:26 am

Just as an offshoot, why did you interfere with your friend's choice on who to vote for Lothar?

you can split this if you want.

Clayman · Post by **Clayman** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 5:55 am

Most of my close family is voting for Bush, so it's not a problem for me, though I do disagree with Bush about more things than they do. Interestingly, my "will be 18 in a few weeks cousin" was leaning towards Kerry until the debates. He saw right through Kerry there, and now will be voting for Bush. My grandmother, on the other hand, is pretty much a locked vote for Kerry. We just had dinner with her last night, and politics didn't come up. Thank goodness.

think, post-election, the most serious BDS'ers will still remain divided. They'll probably still be saying Gore should've won in 2000.

If Kerry wins, I hope he wins the electoral college and loses the popular vote. I wanna see all the people who kept whining that "Gore was robbed" squirm.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 7:02 am

Clayman wrote:If Kerry wins, I hope he wins the electoral college and loses the popular vote. I wanna see all the people who kept whining that "Gore was robbed" squirm.

Yes! and even go so far as have the final outcome decided in some way by the Supreme Court!
That would be so sweet I'd be tempted to vote for that outcome if it was an option.

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 8:25 am

my uncle is a state rep from Illinois, and he's a republican. so you can imagine how my large family gatherings are. we had a big reunion in august, i wore an anti-bush and was yelled at by everyone for being anti american. it was funny, almost impossible to talk to him or his two kids who are roughly my age about politics. my brother and sister are very liberal, my mom was always a conservative but she changed after she saw how bad Bush lied about everything he campaigned on in 2000. my rich, white polish boss is heavy conservative though, and it leads to the fun political discussions in the job, ever tried to argue tax cuts with a millionaire that didn't graduate high school and married into a hugely successful business? it's tough.

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 8:32 am

Lothar wrote:I also know I'm risking some of my friends at school. There are a lot of people here in Seattle with BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) who consider my voting for Bush total heresy. "How dare you vote for that evil, evil, vile evil vile lying vile evil demonic evil vile creature of DOOOOOOOOM???!?!!?"

These are the type of people I'd love to just take a baseball bat to

. I mean, it's fine if you have a differing political opinion, but having an opinion based on pure hatred of the other candidate? Can we all say "moronic"?

I really haven't had any problems with family members politics-wise. My younger brother, a freshman in high school, is as pro-Bush as I am. My two other younger brothers think Kerry sucks but don't know anything about politics

As for my parents, they're registered as Democrats, but I don't even know how they're going to vote. We've basically come to the conlclusion that the debates are hilarious to watch and that both candidates are nowhere near the "cream of the crop." My roommate actually decided to vote for Bush due to that "greatest Kerry ad ever" I posted here a week ago

. Other than that, I've had a few political "discussions" with other people on my floor, but if we disagree, it doesn't get much farther than friendly jabs and joking.

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 9:49 am

someone already hit you with a baseball bat huh Top Gun? that's the only way I could possibly see how someone would support bush...anybody but bush, i dont care if it's kerry, nader, gore, bill gates, bill clinton , jacque chirac, get bush out of office.

kufyit · Post by **kufyit** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:37 am

After debates like that, your vote for Bush is a vote against Kerry. How could you seriously vote FOR Bush? He is stupid, inarticulate, and embarrassing.

Tetrad · Post by **Tetrad** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:52 am

Ferno wrote:Just as an offshoot, why did you interfere with your friend's choice on who to vote for Lothar?

I don't know about Lothar, but when I talk to my friends about politics (or at least the one guy I know who'll vote), if I see him spewing rhetoric about something that I know isn't true, I'll correct him. I don't care who you vote for as long as your reasons are sound.

Granted this guy voted for Bush last election and is now in the "no way in hell I'm voting for him again" camp, so it didn't really matter what I said.

Edit: isn't true

TheCops · Post by **TheCops** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:58 am

if you can't have a relationship with someone because of your politics you need to really think about that. i mean how big is your ego?

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:59 am

Perhaps Tetrad, but I'd still at least respect the guy's choice on who he wants to vote for.

bash · Post by **bash** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 11:18 am

So much for a non-partisan thread.

The subtext, btw, was whether folks believed that we'll be able to get *back to normal* after the election. I'm not very hopeful, at least not here on the DBB.

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 11:25 am

I am a Democrat who is gettin gmore conservative every year. My mom always thought Reagan was the anti-christ and W was one of his evil minions. Before she died, we would have great political debates. She would hold the party line and I would take a more centrist position and ask her for data that supports her position.
Even with all the heated debates we used to have we always realized that it was just politics. Family must come first and always has. Hell, my brother thinks that *gasp* guns are bad *gasp* and I still love him.

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 11:28 am

kufyit, Zuruck, quit the flames. If you're deluded enough to vote for Kerry/Nader, then I'm allowed to vote for Bush. By my rationale, he is the best candidate available. (Note that I am not sayin that he is a particularly excellent candidate, just that he is the best available.) Bush pretty accurately represents my views, so by any logic he gets my vote.

And if you ever mention Chirac in conjunction with "US presidency" again, I will kill you

. He doesn't deserve to be president of a book club

.

Edit: Dedman, your journey from darkness is almost complete

.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 11:33 am

bash wrote:The subtext, btw, was whether folks believed that we'll be able to get *back to normal* after the election. I'm not very hopeful, at least not here on the DBB.

I've noticed much harsher language from some of the more mellow DBBers as we approach E-day. I do suspect that to calm down after we know who has won.

Will Robinson wrote:Yes! and even go so far as have the final outcome decided in some way by the Supreme Court!

I am convinced that if we don't know by the eve of the election night, then it will be Bush. Maybe thats just the paranoid conspiricy liberal theorist in me.

...those words would make mighty fine eatin though.

bash · Post by **bash** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 11:46 am

I agree with you, Goob. I believe our election results will mirror those of the recent Australian election. I don't agree about the *calm down* part, though. I believe the left is going to go mental (moreso, that is) on Nov. 3.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 12:01 pm

Dedman wrote:Hell, my brother thinks that *gasp* guns are bad *gasp* and I still love him.

Hey! He could be right. I had a bad gun one time...but I traded it in on a beautiful Colt .45 Officers model 1911 and all is well now

Seriously, I'm looking foward to the election getting over with so those democrats in congress with brains but not enough integrity to follow Liebermans example can put the priority of our foriegn policy and safety of our troops back in front of their partys regaining power!

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 6:55 pm

Will Robinson wrote:
Dedman wrote:Hell, my brother thinks that *gasp* guns are bad *gasp* and I still love him.
Hey! He could be right. I had a bad gun one time...but I traded it in on a beautiful Colt .45 Officers model 1911 and all is well now

Very nice

Clayman · Post by **Clayman** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 6:58 pm

kufyit wrote:After debates like that, your vote for Bush is a vote against Kerry. How could you seriously vote FOR Bush? He is stupid, inarticulate, and embarrassing.

This is a perfect example of why few can rationally discuss politics. When people run out of arguments, they start basing their arguments on ad hominem attacks.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 6:58 pm

Ferno wrote:why did you interfere with your friend's choice on who to vote for Lothar?

"Interfere"? That's an odd way to express it. I did the same thing as we all do here -- he said something that was complete and utter bull, based on a lie that's been going around, and I corrected it with facts.

I'd call it interference if I hid facts from him, or slashed his tires so he couldn't make it to the polls... but informing him of a lie he'd bought? Nah...

Ferno wrote:I'd still at least respect the guy's choice on who he wants to vote for.

I do respect his choice, if it's made honestly and reasonably. But I argued with him because his choice was based on a lie he'd heard.

Now, if you want to see disrespect, there are multiple examples in this thread (from Zuruck, and to a lesser degree, kufyit.) Maybe you should ask them why they disrespect my choice for who to vote for ;)

kufyit wrote:After debates like that, your vote for Bush is a vote against Kerry. How could you seriously vote FOR Bush? He is stupid, inarticulate, and embarrassing.

I agree that he's inarticulate. But he's clearly not "stupid", and I don't find him at all "embarrassing". And I really am voting FOR Bush -- even though he's inarticulate, I mostly agree with his positions. That's a vote FOR.

There might also be people here who vote FOR Kerry, though I have a feeling most Kerry votes will come either from people voting against Bush or people voting for the centerist facade Kerry has been wearing in the debates. I know Vander is actually voting FOR the real Kerry, but I think most people will vote for the facade and be surprised by the real Kerry.

bash wrote:I believe the left is going to go mental (moreso, that is) on Nov. 3.

I think the center-left will mostly calm down, and it'll be the nutjob BDS'ers who go even further off the deep end.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 7:18 pm

Whats a relationship?

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 7:21 pm

You know that feeling when you open a cold beer woodchip? That's it, but with another person.

<3

Iceman · Post by **Iceman** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 7:28 pm

Most of my family are ultra-left-wing liberals and I am middle of the road to slightly conservative. I get SPAM crap from them all the time and constantly hear their preachings about the almighty god Michael Moore ... I love them too much to quit talking to them so I just toss the spam in the trash and ignore their preaching.

Hahnenkam · Post by **Hahnenkam** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 7:46 pm

bash wrote: . . .Anyone lose any friends? . . .

This has already been mentioned, but if you lose a "friend" over politics, it is unlikely that person was really a friend.

It's disturbing how upset and irrational people can become over politics. The "heated debate" seems to have given way mistrust and hatred . . . "us" vs "them."

Lothar wrote: "How dare you vote for that evil, evil, vile evil vile lying vile evil demonic evil vile creature of DOOOOOOOOM???!?!!?"

Absolutely ridiculous (not you Lothar, but those who say Bush is "evil"). I'm not a republican, and I'm unlikely to vote for Bush, but it annoys me when people claim he is evil. It's just silly, and erodes their credibility.

Equally foolish is:

Zuruck wrote: . . .i wore an anti-bush and was yelled at by everyone for being anti american.

Using your right to vote and freedom of choice is one of the most American things you can do. (Perhaps if you wrote in Osama Binladen for president, then ya, you might be anti-american.)

I sincerely hope that people learn to form their political opinions through reasonably careful research from multiple sources, not friends/family/CBSNBCABC news.

my $0.02

OK . . . back to lurking

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:12 pm

Gooberman wrote:You know that feeling when you open a cold beer woodchip? That's it, but with another person.

<3

I've just has a epiphany....thanks Goob.

BlueFlames · Post by **BlueFlames** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:42 pm

I've just has a epiphany....

What? Realized you need to get another beer?

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sat Oct 16, 2004 1:26 am

Did you or did you not give some facts to your friend about Kerry Lothar? or did you just talk about Bush?

Bet51987 · Post by **Bet51987** » Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:50 am

Ferno wrote:If your family stops talking to each other due to political opinions, you have a much bigger problem on your hands.

Hahahahahahah

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:28 am

Absolutely ridiculous (not you Lothar, but those who say Bush is "evil"). I'm not a republican, and I'm unlikely to vote for Bush, but it annoys me when people claim he is evil. It's just silly, and erodes their credibility.

Yeah, kind of like Bush calling other whole countries "evil"

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:45 am

A most excellent point Birdseye! Niether party has a lock on moronic statements. I think there are plenty to go around.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:44 pm

Ferno wrote:Did you or did you not give some facts to your friend about Kerry Lothar? or did you just talk about Bush?

I sent him to Skyalmian's draft thread here in E&C and gave him the facts about the draft. We probably eventually ended up talking about the candidates -- we talk about EVERYTHING, and we have for the past 10 years. That probably meant I did give him at least some facts about Kerry and some about Bush.

But, again, I don't see why you think that's "interfering". The news gives us facts about Bush and Kerry, and we give each other facts about Bush and Kerry. We call that "civil discourse", and it's necessary for a functional democracy.

Are you suggesting I should've taken his statement that "I'm voting for Kerry because of the draft" and nodded my head and smiled, so as not to interfere? That sounds awfully hypocritical, since neither you nor anyone else here has a problem with bringing up facts you think will sway someone else's opinion.

Making somebody more informed only "interferes" with their ability to make an uninformed decision. I don't see why you'd treat that so negatively.

Birdseye wrote:Yeah, kind of like Bush calling other whole countries "evil"

I told you before that Bush wasn't calling the countries evil, but was calling the regimes evil. And you agreed with me, mentioning that Bush's mistake was stating it in such a way that he'd be easy to misquote. So why do you continue to insist on acting as though Bush's actual meaning was "evil countries" rather than "evil regimes"?

It's a flawed example to bring up in comparison to people calling Bush evil, anyway -- because the people calling Bush evil really *ARE* calling Bush evil. The people walking around saying "Bush=Hitler" aren't being misquoted or misinterpreted. They're not being quoted out of context, and their mistake wasn't that they misworded their idea -- their mistake is in their thoughts, not in their wording or in my interpretation. The reason relationships are being strained isn't because people are being misquoted -- it's because people think there's something morally wrong with everyone from the other side.

Dedman wrote:Niether party has a lock on moronic statements.

The thread isn't about who has a lock on moronic statements. The thread is about relationships being negatively effected by the election. Both Bush and Kerry have said a lot of moronic things -- but those things aren't straining any of our relationships. What's straining people's relationships is the fact that some people (mostly Democrats) think the other party's candidate is evil incarnate, or that some people (mostly Republicans) think the other party is anti-American. I think we can all agree, it's the people who take those extreme views who are really straining relationships.

After the election, I think it'll calm down some. In particular, whichever side wins will calm down almost completely. The majority of the losing side will calm down, too. And the few extremists on the losing side will spend the next 4 years blaming every little thing on the other side, on their "evil" or "anti-American" policies. Which, I suppose, will make it pretty similar to the last 4 years.

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Sat Oct 16, 2004 5:11 pm

Because it's still equally as stupid and still erodes his credibility.

Calling a government evil is silly. Places like NK are just trying to protect their own citizens. Not hatch diabolical evil plans. Do you view the "axis of evil" as actually being in evil in the moral sense?

The President should be more tactful than 17 year old idiots yelling "bush=hitler!"

Sorry, I have a higher standard for presidents.
----

On topic:
No debate has hampered a relationship for me. If you've hampered a relationship because of politics, maybe you need to look at the way you argue. Is it anrgy? Are you ignoring the other side? Are you simply regurgitating what pundits and your party say?

Drakona · Post by **Drakona** » Sat Oct 16, 2004 5:50 pm

Birdseye wrote:
Absolutely ridiculous (not you Lothar, but those who say Bush is "evil"). I'm not a republican, and I'm unlikely to vote for Bush, but it annoys me when people claim he is evil. It's just silly, and erodes their credibility.
Yeah, kind of like Bush calling other whole countries "evil"

Hmm. An excellent example of erasing distinctions, Birdseye. If I might pick on you a moment (no offense, just this is something people do in general that frustrates me...)

You are drawing a parallel between the two--in each case, someone is calling something evil. Superficially, then, it would seem one ought to be as crazy as the other. But take a step back, here, for a moment. Is it always a mistake to call someone or something evil? It actually isn't. People can legitimately be evil, and be called evil. Most would call great villians of history--Hitler, for example--evil, and such a label would be justified. Some would call great villanous organizations in history evil, too--for example, Nazi Germany--and that label would be justified.

The sanity or insanity in calling something evil is in how much the label applies. If I call a man who's stalking and terrorizing a young woman evil, it's justified. If I call my opponent in an internet debate evil, it's just overblown rhetoric. If I call communist Russia evil because of how its people suffered, I have a point. If I call Canada evil because I don't particularly agree with them over the whole gay marriage thing, I'm off my rocker.

Now, you have a superficial connection between people who call Bush evil, and Bush who calls other countries evil. It's clever, because it forces the reader into an assumed dilemma--either calling something evil is crazy, in which case Bush was crazy, or else it's acceptable, in which case those who call Bush crazy are doing something acceptable. The falsehood lies in the fact that calling something evil is neither always crazy or always a simple respectable opinion. Instead, it's sometimes crazy and sometimes respectable. That is, it isn't an atomic action about which you can make a moral rule. (At least, not for most people).

The annoyance with people who call Bush evil isn't in the sheer fact of "calling something evil." Rather, it's in how out of sync with reality that claim seems. Sure, people don't like Bush. Some people disagree with his policies. But I don't think you have to look very hard to see that he's doing what he thinks is right. Once you start going down the "stupid, evil, vile, embarrassing..." path, it starts to sound to me like you've lost your grip on reality. Oh, I know the world really does look that way to some people, but it's totally a clash with how it looks to me. I like Bush, and people who chant about how evil he is can't fathom that. So to my eyes, they appear not to be voicing a considered opinion, but rather to be drunk on partisan bitterness or rage or something.

Compare that to Bush calling Iran, North Korea, and Iraq evil. Are they? How do their people live? What are they accomplishing in the world? What does the country as a whole stand for and cause to happen? A judgement on the character of a country--and depending on how democratic the country is, it may really be a judgement on the character of its government--is about what the country works for and accomplishes: how much harm or good it does. I think it's pretty plain that Iraq under Saddam was doing a ton of harm, both to people and the world, when it could manage it. Though some would disagree, I think the label of 'evil' is fairly applied.

Not to get too hung up on the individual points--some people really do think Bush is evil, and some think North Korea isn't so bad. My point is, though, that the insanity (and ensuing reputation damage) in calling something evil isn't in the sheer fact of calling something evil, but rather in how fairly the label applies. When Bush called Iraq evil, people who disagreed would say, "Well... it's bad, yeah, but I don't think bad enough that we should *invade*. Inspections will keep him from getting big weapons to harm the surrounding nations, and if he hurts his own people badly enough, they'll just have an uprising..." On the other hand, when people call Bush evil, those opposing go, "WTF, dude? I understand you don't agree with his policies, but seriously, 'evil'? Get a grip!"

The point isn't just calling something evil--it's how evil the thing really is. To argue that calling North Korea evil is as crazy as calling Bush evil, you have to argue that North Korea has similar moral standing to Bush. I guess that's what you seem to be trying to do, but you get a o_0 from me for that, and I don't know how much sympathy that argument will find in others. The point is, though, that it isn't the simple statement, but rather the *object* of the statement, that is up for discussion. (Again, at least for most people. Tetrad and others who don't perceive evil in tradional ways get a free pass to object to the statement itself. But for the rest of us...)

That was a long off-topic rant, but it is a pet peeve of mine. I hate when people make superficial connections that erase moral distinctions. It's intentionally making yourself and everybody around you stupider, because the world is more favorable to your view when everyone thinks on that level. I don't know how serious you were Birds--it's just a one-liner (though the post you've made while I was writing this seems to indicate you really are serious)--but as a tactic, I really despise that. I cannot abide any argument that abuses the intelligence of the reader, however clever it might be. (And I know you're not just ignorant here--Lothar has explained the 'evil' line to you before, and I *know* you understood what he was saying. Even if you don't agree that North Korea's evil, surely you understand how others might reasonably think so.)

Lothar wrote:I did have a good long argument with my best friend over his considering Kerry a while back (though certainly not the sort of argument we'd stop being friends over -- we've had far bigger fights over video games.) He'd fallen for the "draft" lie that's been going around, and I had to correct him (with many links) and suggest he reconsider his vote. Last I heard, he's now considering Nader. Oh well, that's half a vote for Bush.

Ferno wrote:Just as an offshoot, why did you interfere with your friend's choice on who to vote for Lothar?

Ferno, you almost made me shoot milk out my nose when I read this. Are you serious? You must be, because even this late in the thread you're still talking as though this bothered you. *sigh* I think this is a really silly idea. Here, let me explain.

There are competing values here. One is respect for opposing views, and the other is propagating truth. Both are valuable things, and neither entirely trumps the other. In an argument, total devotion to propagating truth makes a fanatic. It leads constant argument to exhaustion, and loses you friends. On the other hand, total devotion to respect for opposing views paralyzes argument. It leads to sappy, "you have your opinion, I have mine" discussion, in which we both clam up once we've discovered we disagree. Both of those extremes are bad--and indeed, I would say that an extreme respect for opposing views is no respect at all, and an extreme devotion to truth is not in the best interest of spreading truth.

How you judge where to balance the values is your call, of course--that's moral reasoning for you. But I think the most sensible thing to do is to engage in ruthless debate on the facts, engage in gentle dialogue on the interpretation, and allow total respect for other's values. It is appropriate to correct others' facts, and add facts to discussion, and agressively challenge things you think are distortions of facts. It is appropriate to explain the reasoning behind your interpretation of those facts and to gently challenge others' reasoning. And it is appropriate to respect others' views therafter as far as they are reasonable and understandable. A political discussion is part fact, part opinion, and part personal priorities. Agressively attack facts--things like, "There are WMD in Iraq." Fully respect personal values--things like, "I think war is a last-resport option only." Gently discuss interpretation--things like, "I think the non-existence of weapons means Iraq was never a threat." You may choose differently, but I think this makes the most sense in honoring both values.

That's exactly what Lothar described doing--correcting his friend's facts, and respecting his friend's later opinion (that still didn't match his). And yet you criticize this for lack of respect? That sure sounds crazy to me--it sounds to me like Lothar gave respect the weight it deserves, no more and no less. It sounds to me like you would have respect steamroll the whole discussion. Is that really wise?

Civic discourse is the lifeblood of a democracy, just as much so as competition is the lifeblood of a capitalist economy. Ideas need to compete and be argued about, so that the best ones can win--that's the whole idea behind the system. Get everyone talking, get everyone to understand everything, and agree on the facts and analysis--and let them vote on their personal value priorities, because people as a whole aren't going to be corrupt. If you 'respect' everyone so much that you never talk to them, you completely undercut the system: you make a whole bunch of well-meaning sheep with no power over the government because they don't know any more than what they are taught to believe.

I can't believe you really mean that. If I were to apply your own criticisms to you, I hope you'd laugh at me. I might say to you, "Ferno, why aren't you respecting Lothar's right to talk to his friend any way he wants?" and "Did you or did you not present the case for talking about politics? Or did you just present the one for respect?" Would you take me seriously if I said that? I sure hope not.

I hope I've misunderstood you and you have some principled distinctions here. As it stands it sounds to me like hypocracy and stupidity. It sounds like you just don't like the fact that Lothar convinced his friend not to vote for Kerry, and you want to shut him up in the name of respect--even though you won't do the same with him, and you haven't really thought through how much shutting people up in the name of respect kills any dialogue in the interest of seeking truth. Uncharitable as that sounds, that's how you seem. Maybe I'm wrong, though, because that seems awfully silly.

That was another off-topic rant, on another pet peeve: overvaluing a good moral principle. It is good, for example, to respect others' opinions. But when that respect is valued so highly that it starts trampling on respect for truth, others' free speech, or even your own moral actions... time to re-evaluate just how much you value it. Morals are about balancing competing values, not worshipping a single one at the expense of all others.

Aaaaanyway... to be on-topic...

I haven't had any serious breaks with friends or family over politics. I have a sister (and a husband, actually) that doesn't like war very much, while I am totally cool with it under the right circumstances. But my family isn't very political, really, so we don't talk about politics much, and when we do we're pretty gentle about it. Likewise, I'm pretty diplomatic toward the friends I talk to about politics--a necessary thing, really, since as an intelligent person with an attutude like "Bush is my hero" I'm a walking bomb, waiting to start explosive discussion. So I tread carefully, and sometimes avoid discussion entirely--and no, I haven't lost any friends over it.

I do agree that the culture is quite divided and angry. I sure wish it wasn't that way, and I do my best to bring understanding and build bridges wherever I go... but there's only so much I can do. (And only so much I know--politics isn't really something I'm an expert on, though I can fake it pretty well.) Ah well.

I honestly don't know how the landscape will change after the election. The way some people act now, I wonder if they'll just go postal if Bush wins. I hope not, though. I'm actually hoping for the left to re-invent itself and re-discover its more sensible roots, in that case. Maybe I'll get to find out.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Sat Oct 16, 2004 6:45 pm

Do you have that post in CliffNotes?

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sat Oct 16, 2004 7:12 pm

Birdseye wrote: Places like NK are just trying to protect their own citizens.

How de-learned! Protect their citizens? Man, you been sniffing too much Chomsky to think that. N.K. is protecting its citizens from what? They're already starving to the point of canabilism so anything would be a step up. Iran is a country of mad moolahs (I like Bush's pronunciation) leading their citizens into a eventual showdown with the rest of the world over nuclear weaponry. Irans under 30 something population desperately wants democracy.
So in both axis of evil country's, all what the leaders really want is to protect their puffy butts so they can continue to live in luxery and power. Ultimately though, they are doomed to being ousted and held accountable by both the citizens and the world.

Oh and Drakona...excellant post.

Love and Rockets

Have you lost or lessened interaction with an acquaintance or family member due to this election?

Love and Rockets