The Challenge of World News and Political Discussion

  • Thread starter Thread starter Shakuhachi
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Shakuhachi

Guest
How difficult it is to remain charitable and dignified in such discussions. We tend to dig our heals in and double down no matter what. And yet we ought not back away from such discussion as these issues are where our faith takes practical shape.

I try to think twice befor responding to anything and many times have abandoned a post. The truth is I am not that knowledgeable on many of the issues to argue. But I think we all need a better spiritual strategy for discussing issues without getting insulting, unfair and angry.

Do you have such a strategy to share?
 
Last edited:
Shakuhachi said:
How difficult it is to remain charitable and dignified in such discussions
Click to expand...
These “World News Discussions” on CAF have become the single easiest way to earn a month long Suspension. People will flag each other and anyone they disagree with. People have different definitions of Charitable and Dignified. Even a well intentioned poster can end up in Hot Water. My advice, know the OP of the Thead you’re posting on. Do they usually create controversial Threads and get Suspended themselves?
Shakuhachi said:
The truth is I am not that knowledgeable on many of the issues to argue.
Click to expand...
That doesn’t matter. I’ve seen knowledgeable posters get in big trouble. Also, once people start “arguing” that’s when it’s time to jump ship.
Shakuhachi said:
Do you have such a strategy to share?
Click to expand...
POST AT YOUR OWN RISK ⚠️
 
Last edited:
Shakuhachi said:
How difficult it is to remain charitable and dignified in such discussions. We tend to dig our heals in and double down no matter what. And yet we ought not back away from such discussion as these issues are where our faith takes practical shape.

I try to think twice befor responding to anything and many times have abandoned a post. The truth is I am not that knowledgeable on many of the issues to argue. But I think we all need a better spiritual strategy for discussing issues without getting insulting, unfair and angry.

Do you have such a strategy to share?
Click to expand...
Think of the 1980s.

Think of President Reagan, Speaker O’Neill, Senator Hatch, Senator Kennedy, and the others.

They engaged in passionate debate by day and stood up for what they believed in but they avoided the really divisive rhetoric that’s common now. And they’d still be friends in real life and hang out together at the end of the day.
 
Shakuhachi said:
How difficult it is to remain charitable and dignified in such discussions. We tend to dig our heals in and double down no matter what. And yet we ought not back away from such discussion as these issues are where our faith takes practical shape.

I try to think twice befor responding to anything and many times have abandoned a post. The truth is I am not that knowledgeable on many of the issues to argue. But I think we all need a better spiritual strategy for discussing issues without getting insulting, unfair and angry.

Do you have such a strategy to share?
Click to expand...
I suggest we have a yearly convention of CAF posters where we can meet each other and get to know the others as real people. People say things in this forum they would never say to anyone face to face because our human aversion to insulting people is bypassed and suppressed by the anonymity of the Internet.

I guess a convention is not economically feasible for most of us, especially visitors from far away. But maybe this will inspire someone to propose something that will accomplish the same thing without all that expense.
 
Last edited:
I try to just say what I have to say and get out, and avoid talking to the handful of people who in my opinion are not open to a reasonable discussion, or those whose arguments are not well founded.

I also try to avoid most topics unless it is something I am really interested in. I tend to be interested in legal topics like death penalty, criminal prosecutions of sex offenders, and Supreme Court nominations, so I post in threads about those, but I don’t feel like I need to weigh in on every thread about everything Donald Trump does or every social justice issue out there.

Being able to walk away without feeling particularly bothered about a thread is a skill people need to develop if they’re going to participate in hot-button Internet discussions.
 
Last edited:
If I perceive someone might be a bit hostile and if it is not too late, I believe that one can make general stand-alone statements, rather than directly quoting and responding to a person.
 
My policy is to bow out when the arguments starting another very similar circle. If I’m restating the same point o

Ok… the same point I started with, I think it’s time for me to bow out of the discussion.

Unfortunately I don’t always remember the rule :o
 
Last edited:
CA has ocean cruises to facilitate get-togethers … but I prayed for interesting work and not for money … so I have worked everywhere but don’t have money for extravagances … just me and my doublewide.
 
I could go on that Cruise right now if I wanted. But I don’t feel like it. Kinda seems boring…

Maybe next year 😒
 
LeafByNiggle said:
I suggest we have a yearly convention of CAF posters where we can meet each other and get to know the others as real people.
Click to expand...
We can have everyone with a wrong opinion gathered to the same place at the same time.

Sounds like a setup to me.
😀
 
Cruciferi said:
People have different definitions of Charitable and Dignified
Click to expand...
I think that this is very big issue. I wonder if that issue could be charitably discussed.
Cruciferi said:
People will flag each other and anyone they disagree with.
Click to expand...
I have heard that idea brought up before, but I think that it probably more related to the different definitions of Charitable and Dignified, with those different ideas also correlating with ideological perspectives.
 
You mean like you charitably pointing out what you perceive as my error being taken by me as an insult? And the standard for dignity applying to me is way lower than applied to you and I don’t see it?
 
Shakuhachi said:
You mean like you …
Click to expand...
I don’t know is this is directed to me, or if it recalls something specific.
But I think that the point that you make is a good one.

If this were living room conversation, the idea of pointing out errors in fact of logic may be considered impolite.
But in posting analysis to the world, the standards may, to some, be more like peer-review for publication - where pointing out errors in fact and logic are de rigueur. It is easy to understand people having different perspectives on this.

On the other hand, there seems to be some whose ideas of decorum seem to be informed by talk radio. How that is rationalized is a mystery to me.
 
In my experience, most people interpret “charitable” as meaning, “you don’t disagree with me on a hot button issue”.

People also often interpret “charitable” as meaning “you must always believe and support an alleged victim.”
Unfortunately this leads to situations where victims who are mistaken or outright lying have to be “believed” and “supported” rather than people just being kind to them and not nasty.
If you are kind, but end up ultimately saying you don’t believe them, you will be called nasty or unsupportive. Other people who weren’t even involved in the conversation will project their own experiences of being an unsupported victim into the convo.

I’ve seen this happen over and over and over in the context of race and gender discussions where someone was allegedly victimized. I understand why it happens, but it makes discussion largely impossible.
 
Just speaking in general.

Talk radio, our standard, that is a disturbing thought.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top