The death of civilized discussion

Tenshinai wrote:

Imaginos1892 wrote:Maybe in theory, under some interpretations, but in practice it always winds up being the government. And it always seems to end up like Venezuela, or worse.

Right, so Venezuela was so much better off back in the good old days when a few thousand people owned just about everything, while for everyone else, unimportant little things like healthcare, education or sheer survival was something to struggle for?

Venezuela is almost a posterboy for what US "covert" intervention does to a nation.
Oh yay, lets prop up some nice rich kids and have them rule the nation as long as they sell us cheap raw materials. Colonialism at nearly its most disgusting.

And it's so much better today, when a few thousand people own everything, only now they're the government.

dscott8 wrote:Have we lost the ability to discuss any issue calmly and politely? Are we doomed to live in a polarized world, where both sides are easily triggered and default to sneering contempt and vitriol?

dscott8,
If we have not lost the ability yet, we do seem to be on the path that will get us lost.
I have been noticing this trend for at least 30 years... seeing that people talk over each other, hear one word or phrase in a conversation and jump to a conclusion without hearing the word in context. People build entire arguments on partial information and then get locked into them so that no new information will be accepted.

I fail to see how this will help us in the long run and have no choice but to fall back on a basic principle... since I cannot change the whole world, I will see if perhaps I am the one that needs to change first because, I sure as hell can still change myself.
If I conduct my research and see that I am more right than the rest of the world, I will try to find a common point of reference to help them change.

I also know that I have passed the word count to hold the average high school graduates attention long enough to begin the change... unless I put it to music or get some sexy model to stand in front of it.

Now, I'll spend a few minutes to read some of the 51 replies you got before I found this.

gcomeau wrote:

dscott8 wrote:Have we lost the ability to discuss any issue calmly and politely? Are we doomed to live in a polarized world, where both sides are easily triggered and default to sneering contempt and vitriol?

WHO ARE YOU ACCUSING OF SNEERING VITRIOL!?!? WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE ANYWAY! YOU'RE FULL OF VITRIOL!



( )

Please pay attention... the accusation is "sneering contempt (and) vitriol

Daryl wrote:As usual Relax, we disagree. My understanding is that most people are complex and flexible.
There are hard core extremes of perhaps 5-10% on each of left and right who are deeply committed to a package of values and vehemently defend it.
Most people enjoy a good civil discussion, and are open minded enough to consider other's views. I've got friends from all spheres, and we cheerfully discuss lots of matters, either one on one or in disparate groups.
I won't discuss your points in detail, but do disagree with all of them, and wonder why you have such a negative view on most things. I would say that they are all simply and demonstratively not true.

I agree that the extremes 5 - 10% drive the issues and most people just want to get along to get along but...
I think you may be optimistic to think that most people are willing to let others views change them (unless you can get behind their defenses before they realize it) you have to have a very compelling argument that is not too argumentative.
But... hey, I have been rong before

Tenshinai wrote:

Imaginos1892 wrote:I see. You are all making up your own definitions of socialism, which are less evil than the real one.

No, we actually try to use the REAL WORLD factual definition, without the rabid prejudice you prefer to glue on.

Who do you think you are, Tweedledum, or Tweedledee? If you change the meanings of words, communication is impossible. Everybody is speaking foreign languages while pretending they're all the same one.

Imaginos1892 wrote:Who do you think you are, Tweedledum, or Tweedledee? If you change the meanings of words, communication is impossible. Everybody is speaking foreign languages while pretending they're all the same one.

Virtually all modern states, especially in the first world, have sociualist elements to a lesser or greater degree. This includes the US. Are you going to argue that the entire world is totalitarian?

Imaginos1892 wrote:

Tenshinai wrote:No, we actually try to use the REAL WORLD factual definition, without the rabid prejudice you prefer to glue on.

Who do you think you are, Tweedledum, or Tweedledee? If you change the meanings of words, communication is impossible. Everybody is speaking foreign languages while pretending they're all the same one.

And yet, the meanings of words do change. Concepts change too.

A "phone" used to be a huge clunky handset with a rotary dialling mechanism. Now it's a pocket-sized television capable of a lot more than audio transceiving.

"Democracy" used to be rich Greek or Roman men deciding things. For a bit, it was princes and dukes deciding kings. For a long while, only aristocrats did the voting. Much later, it was most men of working age, provided they were white. Then it was just all men of age. Then it was all people of age.

And that's before we explore the "subcultures" which take words and turn their meanings upside down. Wicked, sick, etc. to mean nice, wonderful. Slang like this eventually becomes proper words.

Language and ideas are mutable. It does create quite a lot of misunderstanding, you're definitely right on that count. Which is what civilised debate is meant to solve - keep talking until both sides finally grasp what the other side's perspective and understanding of the world is.

Many words have multiple meanings. Sometimes contradictory! Those meanings fall into and out of common usage all the time.

Eyal wrote:

Imaginos1892 wrote:Who do you think you are, Tweedledum, or Tweedledee? If you change the meanings of words, communication is impossible. Everybody is speaking foreign languages while pretending they're all the same one.

Virtually all modern states, especially in the first world, have sociualist elements to a lesser or greater degree. This includes the US. Are you going to argue that the entire world is totalitarian?

Everywhere in the world can be described as simultaneously socialist, capitalist, totalitarian, etc. to some degree. Britain, with its cradle-to-grave health service? Socialist. But also really capitalist with the London financial services. And getting pretty totalitarian with data surveillance.

The word "awful" used to mean inspiring awe, or super impressive.
To most of the english speaking world socialism is a system used by democratic countries to ensure that the less fortunate citizens don't starve or die unnecessarily. It has been around for a century or so with no slide to totalitarianism.
To some in the US the word socialism indicates taking the hard earned money off the doers and giving it to the lazy. This then apparently spirals down until hardly anyone works as they are content to live on welfare.
This has been proven false in the real world, as countries with a strong socialist welfare net have high workplace participation. People want to get ahead and be gainfully occupied. In any society there are a small percentage who don't want to work. Much cheaper to park them on the dole with KFC and TV (beer and circuses), than to lock them up as in the US.

Imaginos1892 wrote:Who do you think you are, Tweedledum, or Tweedledee? If you change the meanings of words, communication is impossible. Everybody is speaking foreign languages while pretending they're all the same one.

Yes indeed, when YOU change the meaning of words compared to how 95% of the world population use them, there is a problem.

Hello? Translator and proofreader here.
With a linguist background.

Daryl,
I expect the "narrow minded judgemental bits" are traditions that are not actual scripture but rather based on what one pastor thought about one half of one percent of a passage of scripture... Or it was some twisted cultural reference used to justify a point of view. An example of that might be... Matthew 19:24 "And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." yet, after Christianity became the "official religion" some scholar discovered that there was (The "Eye of the Needle" has been claimed to be a gate in Jerusalem, which opened after the main gate was closed at night. A camel could only pass through this smaller gate if it was stooped and had its baggage removed). in either case, it would require the rich man to unload all he is carrying but, in in the second case it makes it seem that the rich man can load his camel back up after he gets in.

Sadly, this materialistic view of the Kingdom of God is too prevalent in the Western World today... a tithe your way to prosperity has taken root to a point that it is ubiquitous in both politics and religion and (I SUSPECT) the point of this topic is that these areas [politics and religion] are most likely to fall victim to UN-cililized discussion.
This is, I believe, because each requires belief based on invisible things (the narrow minded judgemental bits) that people come to believe and hold to unquestioningly. The situation is exacerbated by the inclusion of "Good and Bad", "Right and Wrong" that seems inevitable in binary universe.
We do live in a binary universe where thing are either Yes or No, On or Off, White or Black... and we all want shades of gray, maybe and standby...

It is a messy world in stark reality. I wish we had an answer that we <most of us> could agree on.

Daryl wrote:In my case I'm informed by the culture I grew up in and certainly religion had an influence, mostly bad.
Since then I've traveled and read extensively, which has enabled me to develop my own paradigm and values.
Probably cherry picking, but from Christianity I got the love thy neighbour bit, but reject the narrow minded judgemental bits. The eastern religions contributed some of my calm stuff. I abhor Islam and could find nothing for me there.
Lots of other cultures have good stuff that we westerners lack, as they also lack stuff that we have. I expect my views will still be in flux on my death bed.

Relax wrote:So, you believe religion/culture do not form the basis of your world view...



I knew I was talking to the funny farm, but dang...