Why do p[eople loose all sense of proportion in debates/discussions?

[maria_rose]

I asked this question in the back fence forum, but maybe it belongs here.
I am not talking about the candidates. Let’s leave them aside for now. It’s the general populace that are stuck in hate against this one candidate or that and the hatred against our current president is almost out of control. Why can’t we coolheadedly discuss the issues on their merits and decide from their without this unreasonable “Bush lied- people died” nonsense or other so called "mantras being spewed. Can anyone make sense of this. Even on the special needs related forums it’s really bad.
Please share your ideas!

 

[Texas_Roofer]

We are a 30 second sound bite generation, so the biggest impact in 30 seconds wins. Before the last two generations you read a newspaper article, or listen to radio debates on one of the few radio channels you received. So there was less news and more depth to the reporting. Now there is hundreds of channels of radio, hundreds more television, then you add the internet and cell phones. Basically people are not managing the new condition well, however it will change it is going to take some time.

 

[edwest2]

It’s called winning by any means necessary. I prefer to think well of people, all people, by which I mean the public, generally. But when it comes to politics, fighting dirty is an accepted, though not acceptable, tactic. Right around election time, whether it’s federal, state or local, most of the time, dirt is found on the candidate in question, and then the mud slinging begins in earnest.

You begin to see ads like, “My opponent kicks small animals. I would never do anything like that.” Paid for by the Committee to Elect the Other Guy.

The people who run elections and advise their politician charges about what to say and how to say it, and even their dress, will advocate any means to get the candidate elected because that is their “job.”

Creating an emotional frenzy among your candidate’s supporters means painting your opponent as a bad person, the badder the better. So when those campaign volunteers come in to help, they can be told things like, “You know, you are doing something here that will really help your country and your fellow citizens.”

And then, a lot like football, there’s team loyalty. “My fellow Democrats/Republicans/Independents! We need to fight to beat the opposing team and we need all of our fans in their seats come game time/election day to show your support! So, get out there and root for your team/party! We will win!”

“Sense of proportion”? The haters can say, “I don’t think Bush is a very good President” which is not likely to get much attention. However, this sort of sensible start would get me to keep reading. Anyway, the current pattern is to attach as much dirt, destruction and death to the current President as possible. “Bush is responsible for our dead soldiers, he’s wrecking the environment and giving his big business cronies all the breaks and his oil company buddies anything they want. Do you know his family was involved with the Nazis?” Now you’ve got the necessary ingredients to get people angry and motivated. Yep, put the right wrong thoughts in their heads and they’re likely to do exactly what you want them to do. A civil discussion? On the internet? Why? When you can use it to spread gossip, rumors, innuendo, the ocassional fact and wild speculation? I’ll bet they’ve got campaign workers on the internet right now making sure certain bits of information get spread as far and wide as possible.

Sad, really.

God bless,
Ed

 

[rlg94086]

Great post edwest2. I didn’t quite finish it though, because it was past the 30-second soundbite.

I need to take a speed reading class, I guess. (TR - that’s not a dig at you…I actually agree that is part of the problem.)

You are correct. The problem is that negative campaigning works! That’s why we keep getting it. I wish civil discourse was the norm, but it’s not.

It’s called winning by any means necessary. I prefer to think well of people, all people, by which I mean the public, generally. But when it comes to politics, fighting dirty is an accepted, though not acceptable, tactic. Right around election time, whether it’s federal, state or local, most of the time, dirt is found on the candidate in question, and then the mud slinging begins in earnest.

You begin to see ads like, “My opponent kicks small animals. I would never do anything like that.” Paid for by the Committee to Elect the Other Guy.

The people who run elections and advise their politician charges about what to say and how to say it, and even their dress, will advocate any means to get the candidate elected because that is their “job.”

Creating an emotional frenzy among your candidate’s supporters means painting your opponent as a bad person, the badder the better. So when those campaign volunteers come in to help, they can be told things like, “You know, you are doing something here that will really help your country and your fellow citizens.”

And then, a lot like football, there’s team loyalty. “My fellow Democrats/Republicans/Independents! We need to fight to beat the opposing team and we need all of our fans in their seats come game time/election day to show your support! So, get out there and root for your team/party! We will win!”

“Sense of proportion”? The haters can say, “I don’t think Bush is a very good President” which is not likely to get much attention. However, this sort of sensible start would get me to keep reading. Anyway, the current pattern is to attach as much dirt, destruction and death to the current President as possible. “Bush is responsible for our dead soldiers, he’s wrecking the environment and giving his big business cronies all the breaks and his oil company buddies anything they want. Do you know his family was involved with the Nazis?” Now you’ve got the necessary ingredients to get people angry and motivated. Yep, put the right wrong thoughts in their heads and they’re likely to do exactly what you want them to do. A civil discussion? On the internet? Why? When you can use it to spread gossip, rumors, innuendo, the ocassional fact and wild speculation? I’ll bet they’ve got campaign workers on the internet right now making sure certain bits of information get spread as far and wide as possible.

Sad, really.

God bless,
Ed

 

[mesquite_magic]

I don’t think it’s just political debates. This anger/ stubbornness pertains to everything you can debate. I think it comes down to no-one wanting to look at things from the other person’s perspective. It is possible to say, “hmm, I see what you mean”, without conceading to that person’s agenda. People don’t understand that.

Kim

 

[maria_rose]

Thanks for your thoughts. it seems though to be practically impossible for anyone to change their minds when confronted with reasonable arguments. It’s this insane holding on to what they spewed out to begin with as if their life depended upon it.
The other thing would be people, who change their minds all the time and don’t stand for anything but their own hide.
What is this world coming to? Why don’t we accept certain absolute rights and wrongs anymore? why can’t reasonable discourse bring reasonable results? What was it that our forefathers had, that we don’t anymore?
Discussion please.

 

[LRThunder]

This isn’t really anything new. Politics in the 19th century, before mass media, before 30 second soundbites, tended to be just as nasty, if not nastier.

Pre-Civil War, there was a Senator who was assaulted by a Representative. A Vice President actually engaged in a duel with a former Secretary of the Treasury (Aaron Burr against Alexander Hamilton).

That’s not to make excuses for today’s state of nastiness, but it’s not a 21st century problem only.

 

[puzzleannie]

because they place more value on their own personal opinions, personal agenda, and self-affirmation than they do on truth of the actual issue under discussion, or on discovering the best strategy and tactics to attain the goals of the group or platform they profess to support.

 

[edwest2]

Debate is useless if it does not lead to a decision, and “opinions” are generally useless. How many times have I seen someone state something on the internet and attach the phrase “but I could be wrong”? Then why did you bother writing anything?

I actually saw an article in a major newspaper that was simply titled: “There are no absolutes.”

That is the problem. There are absolutes. They are written in the Bible and Catholics need to stop wondering about who they might offend and living out those Commandments. Obedience to Christ, who said, “If you love me keep my Commandments.”

No more confusion or “you know, maybe…” It’s time for line drawing, This is right and this is wrong, The end. If other people want to live differently, no need to bother them but get as far away from sin, sinful behavior and people who enjoy it as possible.

God bless,
Ed

 

[hasikelee]

I asked this question in the back fence forum, but maybe it belongs here.
I am not talking about the candidates. Let’s leave them aside for now. It’s the general populace that are stuck in hate against this one candidate or that and the hatred against our current president is almost out of control. Why can’t we coolheadedly discuss the issues on their merits and decide from their without this unreasonable “Bush lied- people died” nonsense or other so called "mantras being spewed. Can anyone make sense of this. Even on the special needs related forums it’s really bad.
Please share your ideas!

Um, all the people in my life that your words bring to mind say such stuff due to either:

1. They are drama kings/queens and have seen such a reaction by other people that they automatically go with the most sensational
2. They have a deep, wrongful experience in their life (such as a forced abortion, abusive parent, sudden poverty or homelessness)
3. They are really uninformed and intend to keep it that way to maintain their lifestyle.

 

[jc-servant]

I see far more uncivil “discussions” on this forum and other internet forums where people can remain anonymous than I ever see in person.

There are a lot of people who seem personally invested in a certain politician or position to the point where they take any perceived criticism of the politician or position personally. I’ve also noticed a tendency for certain groups of people to gang up on anyone with a different point of view until there can be no discussion. I’ve noticed that it gets out of hand much faster online than in person.

However, I do agree that certain things like politics have always had their bouts with major incivility. I remember a couple of our elected officials in Oklahoma got into a heated debate in the legislature several years back. When they broke for the day the “discussion” continued into the hall and right up to the door of one man where someone got shoved and fell over a huge “decorative” spittoon. It just so happened that a TV news crew was trying to film a segment in the hall and the whole thing ended up being shown on the news many times. How ridiculous!

I believe that we may see and hear about a lot more incivility currently because of 24-hour “news” channels that are constantly looking for something juicy to catch our attention. The spitton incident might have made page 5 in a paper and not had 1/10th the impact as actual video playing over and over again. In the past news programs would not have been showing us celebrity misbehavior over and over (including Fox News Channel). I’m sure celebrities always behaved poorly and people yelled about candidates, but we were not bombarded with it around the clock.

 

[Mirdath]

Pre-Civil War, there was a Senator who was assaulted by a Representative.

And let us remember, Rep. Brooks’ constituents sent him canes to replace the one he broke on Sumner!

edwest2:

There are absolutes. They are written in the Bible and Catholics need to stop wondering about who they might offend and living out those Commandments. Obedience to Christ, who said, “If you love me keep my Commandments.”

Ed, the problem isn’t that: it’s that not everybody shares your idea of what those absolutes are – and they’re equally passionate about them. You have to account for everyone else. This ‘my way or the highway’ attitude is exactly the issue being discussed. To work things out among all of us, we have to make room for our different ideas and ideals.

 

[IrishAm]

I see far more uncivil “discussions” on this forum and other internet forums where people can remain anonymous than I ever see in person.

Amen.

I am appalled that people of good will cannot disagree and discuss without words such as “heresy”, “illicit”, “invalid” being flung around so freely.

 

[rlg94086]

Amen.

I am appalled that people of good will cannot disagree and discuss without words such as "heresy", “illicit”, "invalid" being flung around so freely.

What is inherently uncivil about those words?

 

[Newbie2]

I don’t think it’s just political debates. This anger/ stubbornness pertains to everything you can debate. I think it comes down to no-one wanting to look at things from the other person’s perspective. It is possible to say, “hmm, I see what you mean”, without conceading to that person’s agenda. People don’t understand that.

Kim

Yes, I see what you mean. :yup:

 

[IrishAm]

Nothing inherently wrong with any of them in proper context, which is why I put them in quotaions. I’m sorry if I was unclear. My concern is the level and frequency in which these perfectly valid words have become “loaded” and are used to attack someone who does not agree with another that is my concern.

 

[rlg94086]

Nothing inherently wrong with any of them in proper context, which is why I put them in quotaions. I’m sorry if I was unclear. My concern is the level and frequency in which these perfectly valid words have become “loaded” and are used to attack someone who does not agree with another that is my concern.

Ah…okay, I understand. It is not the use of the word, but rather the way they are used - in an accusatory, uncivil manner.

 

[IrishAm]

Yes, thank you for allowing me to clarify. I do find that people are awfully quick in our culture – especially online – to accuse others’ preferences and philosophy of what are really very serious charges. Heresy is not something to throw around casually – there was a time people could be executed for such a charge. It seems way too often people are ready to go on a witchhunt at the slightest provocation (and certainly not always; I am well aware of egregious abusives that are out there – heck, I’m an old traditionalist here!)

However, despite my personal preference, the guitar or tambourine truly are not liturgical instruments of the devil – although I’m still not delighted to see them at Mass.