The fate of the world depends on this post

Actually, it doesn't at all. And that's the point. We have a very marginal primary impact on the nation's political debate here, but we have a very large impact on each other. And that's pretty valuable. The discussion that takes place here has the ability to increase our knowledge of events, help us consider an issue from many perspectives, and hash out the many disagreements on policy and strategy that are a trademark of our fractious party. :D But there's a problem.

Disingenuous marketing of ideas kills discussion. Those who have a more direct impact on the national debate use these rhetorical bludgeons all the time (all right wing radio hosts use them!), because their purpose is not always to educate or seek the truth, but rather to promote some ideas while crushing others. The use of these tactics by such people has an impact on debate (witness the BetrayUs ad, the "phony soldiers" comment, etc.), while our use of the same merely has an impact on our fellow DUers, most of the time.

We see it most clearly in the primary wars. Somehow it became a sin to acknowledge any flaw or blemish concerning one's candidate. People will tie themselves in the most ridiculous knots here to try and justify unappealing behavior from a candidate they support. At the same time, people will parrot the most hate-filled vitriol from the worst sources, so long as it attacks a candidate they dislike or view as competition. I'll use Hillary as an example, just because as the frontrunner she generates both extremes. You see both sides of disingenuous marketing, pro and con:



Odds are you are reading one or the other and saying to yourself "that is fucking ridiculous" depending on whether you support Hillary or not. Are you at all convinced by the statement you disagree with? Does the statement you don't mind as much show the whole truth? The answer will be "no" in either case, simply because neither statement is very honest or believable. One will bother you less than the other if you're predisposed to agree with its basic rhetorical thrust--Hillary is bad, or Hillary is good.

These arguments fail to promote, in my view, what DU is best used for. They don't educate, as they baldly ignore some facts and purposely inflate others. They don't promote discussion, because such extreme statements aren't made with the idea of getting to the truth or convincing others so much as winning a petty personality war. It destroys the middle ground and turns what could be an honest examination of pros and cons into a social game. Whose wholly artificial and extreme caricature of the candidate will prevail? Sober discussion of platform and history turns into a ruthless search for material to shore up the candidate as either utter villain or snow-pure saint.

For those opposed, positive news is always suspect and negative news is always Gospel. For supporters, it's the opposite. What this causes is the effective destruction of reality, which often lies between the two poles. It discourages productive debate between supporters and critics. Any who see both sides of the issue are stereotyped as clandestine members of one side or the other. Their intent is assumed to follow the same extreme lines of thought as the true partisans. Moderation is seen as a clever disguise for a more radical purpose. A single even-handed post may be seen as a devious attempt to promote a candidate by one side, -and- at the same time as a diabolically subtle attempt to attack the candidate by the other.

It doesn't help anyone, and it's not limited to candidates. I learn the most when people give up the talking points, the marketing, and purposed dishonesty. I get the most out of DU when people are honest in their disagreement. -Admit- that a certain stance of your candidate might be ill-advised or problematic. -Allow- that a candidate you dislike has some good qualities when they are shown.

The best experience I have on DU is when someone completely disagrees with me, presents an honest case, and changes my mind. This rarely happens when someone insults me with dishonesty or stereotypes me into an extreme point of view I never expressed. It's frustrating when someone does it to you, so don't do it to anyone else. We're all guilty of this, but we can also all get better.

:dunce:

You've nailed this dynamic perfectly. This post should be required reading anytime someone wants to start a new GDP or GD thread about a candidate. I hope your analysis is heeded and your suggestions adhered to. It would do wonders to take the cartoonish quality out of a lot of discussions.

Thanks for posting this.

:D

Thanks!

Here, hold muh beer while I type something stupid....

I enjoy learning new things, even if it proves my previous understanding of something was wrong. I always try to be open to new things. But when someone attacks me, insults me, or belittles me, they have just lost any opportunity to prove their point to me. And I suspect a great many others who read threads where this happens think, "Jerk!" and also close their minds.

So, the "Jerk" may very well be correct, but they have lost the opportunity to educate because of their communication issues.

I have five people on my Ignore list who did this to me. I decided if they were going to stoop that low, I really didn't care to read anything they wrote again, because they had to resort to insults and as such lost my respect.

I try not to engage in back and forth insults, as little is usually gained by doing so. Usually, I just make a point to not go back to that thread again. By that point, they have usually veered off in another direction anyway.

I always try to be courteous, but your thoughts and emotions don't always make it through to the printed word, and since many of us here don't actually know one another personally, it's hard to know who is really a good person down inside, and would never mean something they wrote a particular way, and who is really here just to cause trouble because they enjoy it.

Then it can escalate to the point where two people who would have benefited from hashing things out directly instead are each on the other's ignore list. While the stakes can be high enough to warrant this sort of marketing when you have a true bully pulpit, on DU I do think we'd be better off just trying to communicate what we actually think. Ruthlessly promoting an idea and discussing it are often very divergent.

I hope more DUers get to read it. However, I am afraid it will get ignored by many and the flame-fests will just continue on.

But then I have capital in mouse scroll-wheel futures.

recommended.

Because the latter are valuable, in my view.

I think just about everyone here is very angry at what's happened to our country the last 7 years, and that anger spills too easily into our discourse with each other.

Each and every one of us needs to make a constant effort to ensure that cool reason and objectivity prevail not only in our communication with each other, but in how we inform ourselves.

This will make DU a better and more effective community, and also stand us in good stead when we seek to persuade others to join us.

And starting off with a less-than-honest argument, or purposely misinterpreting the words of someone else aren't exactly helpful. Working together a bit more and trying to be a bit more understanding of each other couldn't hurt, even though it's true the stakes are pretty high these days in the broader political discourse.

not let our passions cloud our judgement, apply critical thought, and keep an open mind.

Yeah, I know, I know. I'm just a lounge lizard. But actually over the past couple of days I've been getting into the GD threads like I did when I first became a DUer. I've found that my thinking here has moderated as the OP suggest we do and I've been able to keep myself out of the flames. Nice post jpgray.

As a veteran Lounger myself, that means something. :D

:dem:

Because its used when you have a wide audience and very little time, which is not DU. DU is a smaller audience with more time. The goal therefore should be to empower each other as much as possible, not to change each other's minds.

If you are patient and understanding, usually you can get to what people actually think beyond the posturing. However it's extremely difficult to resist the temptation of firing back, and in any case disingenuous attacks tend to generate a lot of replies. This can be fun for those who want to bash things out, but it also creates a dozen or so flame threads on the same topic, and each thread is just the exact same talking points being hurled from one side to the other, neither really understanding what the other side actually thinks.

You know, like scientists will scoff at certain ideas, but take others seriously when they are expressed scientifically with the right data: People know what makes a scientific argument, and what doesn't. Maybe I'll just come up with my own set of policies, and when some argument goes against them I will point out why and not participate...

Regardless this is good stuff to be thinking about. Thanks for the post.

So while it's usually worth the effort to try and figure out what that is, it'd be great if people toned down the disingenuous framing a bit.

:D Good post. :hi:

:P

Just kidding. Good post. :toast:

The post is full of contradictions and fallacies.