Polarization

[mburbank]

I have a question. Is it possible to have a significantly different opinion on a major issue from someone else without one of the two parties being either evil, stupid or a liar?

I don't mean that their aren't stupid, lying evil people in the world or even on this board (though I honestly don't think so).

I mean, is it possible that two decent, honest, people might feel very differently about an issue?

I'm all for Mockery, but it seems awfully screechy in America, the world and this board just lately.

Can one disagree with the actions of Israel without hating Jews?

Can one dislike our current government intensely without at best not caring and at worst hoping people die?

Can one feel the war in Iraq is worth it without thinking Arabs are subhuman?

Weigh in, gang. Is this forum turning into a pissing contest, has it always been a pissing contest, and in either case is their any chance we could all stop eatimng so much asparagus?

[kahljorn]

The only thing I really think is different is the method. Most people pretty much strive for the same thing, themselves.

[ziggytrix]

the answer to all those questions (except the last one) is "yes"

[Preechr]

Sure, it's possible. As I told you before, Gator and I disagree on fundamental political issues, but still respect each other's beliefs. We even discuss these ideological differences in great detail without hating each other. You and I are even more different politically, and I like you just fine.

That being said, in public debate it's pretty easy to say one side of any disagreement is just plain wrong. I'm an optimist that truly believes in people, so I tend to think that those that are supporting an incorrect ideal are simply misinformed on the matter. As various worthless discussions on message boards have proven to me, however, that is not always the case and the rest of the time it doesn't matter.

As an example, tons of factual data can easily win any debate on "Gun Control" in favor of the American "Right to bear arms," yet those that favor gun bans generally fall into one of two camps: either they know they are wrong yet apply a slippery slope argument for political reasons, or they just don't trust people regardless of any sort of facts.

The NRA does the same exact things, though... well, the same on the first and the exact opposite in the latter case... They argue against any gun restrictions citing another slippery slope, and would trust anybody to use a Nuclear Sub responsibly.

Maybe all that borders closely on evil, stupidy and lies, but one side is clearly right and the other wrong: Gun Control does not work. Rather than argue over my example, if any of you disagree, please substitute your own pet liberty debate for gun control and the same observations will hold true.

The "screechiness" of modern politics comes from somewhere else, though. Let's use our esteemed moderator, Kevin, as an example on this one. Before I-mock's staff decided to torture him with a mod position on this forum, he was an outspoken, though kind and gentle, sort of guy. Add a drop of authority, however, and he turns into a mutated Rush Limbaugh/Al Frankenstein, gratuitously bashing and smashing anything in his path, kinda like a poli-sci-juggernaut.

You've all seen the political quizzes that graph your ideology left to right on the x-axis and authoritarian to libertarian on the y-axis, yet I'd be willing to bet that nearly none of you have considered just how profound (and still misleading) the addition of that vertical score really is. All sides of any debate in modern America have been trending toward authoritarian means to accomplish their goals lately. THAT is what has changed.

Now, this is addressed primarily to max, but I know others will read it and some of you tend to skip over big words, so I will describe what authoritarianism is so you won't miss this. It's pretty important...

Remember Kevin the Herbivore? What a nice guy, right? He might have argued with you here and there, but for the most part, he was content to let you, no matter how wrong you were on an issue, believe as you wish, happy that you would eventually (possibly with some coaxing) realize the error of your ways and admit your logically flawed thinking (or die a lonely death after suffering through a tortured existence based in lies.)

Well, now that he can ban people and eat whatever he wants, he's a rampaging, mutated juggernaut and we all fear him. I'm pretty sure it's affected traffic here as well, too... That's authoritarianism, kids, and it's not a pretty thing. Just as Kevin's abuse of power is ruining I-mockery, authoritarian politics is ruining the world.

The reason I am taking the time to explain this is that I'm pretty sure most of you don't get it. I am often accused of being a Republican, though I am a libertarian, which leads me to believe you have no idea, generally speaking of course, where the fine line in the terminology lies. Republicans are socially and economically trending toward the right side of the scale, politically, while Democrats trend toward the left socially and economically. I trend to the left socially and to the right economically (that this cannot be graphed on a political quiz is why I call them misleading,) but the main difference between me and either aforementioned group is in methodology.

Both dominant use authoritarian means to achieve their goals. Authoritarian means are identified by measuring the use of force required to implement them. Democrats forcibly extract money from the rich to accomplish their goals of helping the poor. Republicans use police power to make us act like good Christain folk. You guys use authoritarian means through your "mockery" style debate tactics, though you probably don't know you're doing it.

Authoritarian methodology is so popular because it is fast-paced and effective, at least in the short run. It's the rule of the Iron Fist versus the rule of the Open Palm. It's hard to watch someone break the rules, only eventually learning their value if in fact she cheats death, injury or disease long enough to reach that point. It's considerably easier to lay down the law of "Just Say No" or will throw under the jail. Everybody gets to sleep well at night, comforted by the Wild West notions that criminals are evil-doers and everyone else has done all they possibly could... even though that's a lie.

Well, I've gone way off point now, as usual, so I'll wrap it up by pointing out that the answer to any question you might have is that I am right.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Forgive me Max if I question the sincerity of your concerns here, at least in relation to the state of the board.

If I had to give an updated state of the board, I'd say you've seen a balancing out of thoughts and opinions. Whereas in the past the board seemed to be pack of Lefties pick on the token Right-Winger, I think now you get a little bit more balance and disagreement.

I mean, no concerns were vocalized when just about every thread back in the day was Ronnie Raygun says something, everybody attacks him, and then he goes away. If anything, the gang beatings on folks like Geggy should remind folks of the good ol' days (with the only obvious difference being that Ronnie was conservative, and Geggy is.....well Geggy).

It shouldn't come as a surprise to you that regular conservatives on the board either came and went, or stay quiet most of the time. There's a reason for that, and if that has changed, well frankly I'm glad.

Is the nation polarized? Sure. But the funny thing about polarization is it also tends to go hand-in-hand with high involvement. Same could be said of FDR, and the same could be said now.

Originally Posted by mburbank

Can one disagree with the actions of Israel without hating Jews?

Can one dislike our current government intensely without at best not caring and at worst hoping people die?

Can one feel the war in Iraq is worth it without thinking Arabs are subhuman?

Of course, however I think this is aside from the point. I don't think any ofthe critics of Israel (aside from Geggy) on this board are actually anti-semites. I don't think anyone on this board who supports Israel hates all Arabs and muslims.

I do however think that critics of Israel in particular often get sloppy, and find themselves using anti-semetic rhetoric and "history" in order to condemn the state in the name of a supposedly occupied Palestine. I don't make this accusation lightly, but I speak from personal experience.

I think there was a time when liberals owned the rights to supporting democracy and freedom abroad, and somewhere along the line they tossed those for some less attractive values in the 60's and 70's, in my opinion.

I support Israel not b/c they're simply Jewish, or b/c they'e fighting muslims, but because they stand for a liberal ideal. They are a democracy, surrounded by totalitarianism and oppression, trying to preserve a bastion in the world for a people who have been history's kickball.

I think the discussions here transcend the Left/Right dynamic, and instead get deeper into what is right and what is wrong. Generally speaking, people here aren't spouting talking points from DNC or RNC e-mails, but rather say what they think. I see nothing wrong with that.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by Preechr

Remember Kevin the Herbivore? What a nice guy, right? He might have argued with you here and there, but for the most part, he was content to let you, no matter how wrong you were on an issue, believe as you wish, happy that you would eventually (possibly with some coaxing) realize the error of your ways and admit your logically flawed thinking (or die a lonely death after suffering through a tortured existence based in lies.)

Maybe the guy who gets about two posts a month on his message board shouldn't be so quick to judge.

This board has always thrived off of conflict, and I'd argue we get more traffic here now than we do when it's just a bunch of lefties yesing each other to death.

Well, now that he can ban people and eat whatever he wants, he's a rampaging, mutated juggernaut and we all fear him. I'm pretty sure it's affected traffic here as well, too... That's authoritarianism, kids, and it's not a pretty thing. Just as Kevin's abuse of power is ruining I-mockery, authoritarian politics is ruining the world.

This is a load of crap. First of all, I've never banned anybody. I've also never deleted a post b/c of its political content. Read the rules. I don't like stupid and annoying, and that is what I toss.

If you don't like my "abuse of power", than take it up with another moderator (which is also stated in the rules). Or leave, whichever suits you. But please don't confuse people actually confronting your long-winded ideas with "Authoritarianism".

It's a message board. It's a place to debate and argue issues. if you want a club where everybody pats each other o the back and reaffirms how right they are go over to newsfilter.org.

[Preechr]

See what I mean?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Blow me, blowhard.

[ziggytrix]

Originally Posted by Preechr

Before I-mock's staff decided to torture him with a mod position on this forum, he was an outspoken, though kind and gentle, sort of guy. Add a drop of authority, however, and he turns into a mutated Rush Limbaugh/Al Frankenstein, gratuitously bashing and smashing anything in his path, kinda like a poli-sci-juggernaut.

nah, that's just the meat talking. moderatorship has nothing to do with it.

not to mention that compared to most message board moderators Kevin's a big softy.

You guys use authoritarian means through your "mockery" style debate tactics, though you probably don't know you're doing it.

That's the most retarded thing you've said here in months, you know that?

[Preechr]

Originally Posted by ziggytrix

That's the most retarded thing you've said here in months, you know that?

Thank you. I'm keeping track.

Originally Posted by ziggytrix

Kevin's a big softy.

Can't somone playfully tease a mod around here without being called GAY? Man, max was right about you guys! You've become little Neo-fascists!

[Preechr]

Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

Maybe the guy who gets about two posts a month on his message board shouldn't be so quick to judge.

That really cuts deep, man. You know how hard I try. Max is right, you're just vicious anymore!

Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

This is a load of crap. First of all, I've never banned anybody. I've also never deleted a post b/c of its political content. Read the rules. I don't like stupid and annoying, and that is what I toss.

If you don't like my "abuse of power", than take it up with another moderator (which is also stated in the rules). Or leave, whichever suits you. But please don't confuse people actually confronting your long-winded ideas with "Authoritarianism".

It's a message board. It's a place to debate and argue issues. if you want a club where everybody pats each other o the back and reaffirms how right they are go over to newsfilter.org.

How can someone be so sensitive and yet so insensitive at the same time? The stress of doing such a stellar job as a mod on such a busy board has obviously driven you insane.

But, as Sambo Christmas always used to say before he got locked up for hitting his dad in the head with a 40 on Father's Day, "Joke em if they can't take a fuck."

Well, he's out now, but hiding from a warrant issued due to a misunderstanding about whther or not his probation contract included piss testing... and I'm pretty sure he got that line fro a movie or something.

[Geggy]

My problem with kevin is that he has this polarized us versus them western style of thinking. Anything that Israel does he will support it no matter how extreme the actions are because it's not terrorism when they do it but it is when people of in the opposition field does it, am I right cowboy?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

My problem with Geggy is that he has this batshit crazy style of thinking. Anything that terrorists do he will support it no matter how extreme the actions are because it's not America when they do it but it is when people of in the opposition field does it, am I right dhimmi?

[mburbank]

See? This thread is way funnier than most.

Preech, I think I have finally found the rock solid common ground we share. I agree that the appeal of authoritariansim is on the rise. Like anybody else, I'd like my authoritariansim to have more sway and I have vivid dreams of eating the wealthy and distributing their property, but honestly, I'm an open hand guy, which is very hard to work toward when yiou are as naturally suspicious and distrustful as I am. I don't favor forcing the wealthy to pay more in taxes, I favor making vast wealth more difficult to acquire , middle class wealth easy as pie and dynastic wealth all but non existant. But all that is only if I got to make the rules, and I don't and I don't want to make the rules or be expose to the corrupting influence of power over others. All I have to play with is my own life. I believe the test of the open hand is the willingness to die for it. I've never had to take that test, and if I do I hope I can get a doctors note to get me out of it, but on the whole I think I'd rather die than kill if it came down to it. After all, I'm going to anyway.


Kevin; I DO forgive you, and that's exactly my point. Why? Because I am as saintly as fuck. You can question my 'sincerity' if you like, but I am very sincere and I think it's uncommonly rude of you to think you have access to my motivations. If you said you thought I was kidding, or using some sort of literary device to make a point, that would be different. But I'm nothing if not sincere.

I don't think you are authoritarian. I do agree the board has become more balanced, if by balanced you mean seeing political viewpoints as a line with a left, middle and center where points can be assigned, and in that speciffic measure, I think the boards have improved. don't recall time when it was a lefty self congraulation society, but you've been here longer than I have.

Here's what I think has increased here. Contempt. Contempt, like cussing, looses it's spice if employed to frequently. As I've said before, there are many people here I disagree with vehemently, but there have been only a handful who's ideas are expressed so poorly that I am certain they are wrong enough that I am comfortable holding them in contempt. AND, it's generally their ideas I find contemptable. I am not being ironic when I say that though I held his ideas in contempt, I thought Vinth was one of the most wonderful things ever to happen to this board. I think only Naldo ever really reached the point of me finding him personallt repugnant, and only et the very, very end.

Debate is good. Funny is great. Posts the subtext of which are "Only a fuckin' moron who only wants bad shit to happen like you could believe anything different from me"? Not so much. While I have very strongly held beliefs, the number of people here I think are fuckin' morons are relatively few and it was mostly revealed by the way they wrote and only now and then by what beliefs they held. In only two cases (Vinth and KulturKlub) have I ever thought I could glimpse people motivations and, dare I say it, souls, to comment on them. Okay, maybe Naldo, too. I don't think any of those guys are "token Right-Winger", I think they are side show attractions, and it isn't because they are right wing.

The main difference between Geggy and Naldo isn't their political viewpoints. When have you ever heard Geggy be anywhere near as hateful as Naldo could be? Naldo on several occassions endorsed and hoped for the prolonged suffering of his 'enemies', all the while going on and on about how 'Christian' he was.

"t shouldn't come as a surprise to you that regular conservatives on the board either came and went, or stay quiet most of the time. "

If by 'quiet most of the time' you mean not excessively windy like you and me, then sure. But it seems to me that Eye Tai and El Blanco contribute frequently and at the risk of offending Preech (who I don't see as a conservative per se, but he's certainly more conservative than I am) can write a post as long as yours any day of the week.

"But the funny thing about polarization is it also tends to go hand-in-hand with high involvement. Same could be said of FDR, and the same could be said now."

And the civil war, don't forget that! There wsas some seriously high involvement. I don't mean I feel like we're near civil war, I'm just saying. Polarization per say would be okay if it was more like trying to figure out what's best for people and less like a football game. Keep in mind when I say that, that while I am a lefty, I have 'left' the Democratic party to become a registered independent because I feel the Party is more and more a football team, and if they have to be a fuckin' football team I wish they be at least a good one. But mostly I feel it's all about the win and the power instead of what you might achieve if you won and if you had the power.

I'm relieved you don't think I'm an anti-semite.

I'm all for supporting democracy and freedom abroad. When did the D's or the R's do that? The country got totally sucked into the football game aspct of the cold war, and instead of fighting dictatorship and opression, we fought the Reds instead. Not that their wasn't a great deal of overlap, but they had their petty, vicous, proxy tyrants and we had ours. It was a dream that got corrupted awfully quickly. I think there is something inherantly wrong with supporting democracy and freedom shock and awe. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe there is no other way to do it and all this cranage is unavoidable and more good will come from it than bad. I honestly hope so, because it's clearly what we're doing and will be doing for a while. I can't root for it because I really believe it's wrong. But I am not so attached to my ideas that I actively hope for enhanced suffering just to prove my point.

My ideas, and there are other Jews who feel the same way, even in Israel, have been shaped by being part of a people who have been used as history's kickball. In my particular case it makes me very, very, very leery of even the possability of treating other peoples that way. I am perfectly open to a great deal of debate about just what the relationship between the state of Israel and the people who refer to themselves as Palestinaians. It is tragically easy for victims to become victimizers . that's what sustains the cycle of violence. I don't blame Israel for the situation in the middle east, least of all this current horiffic round of violence. But I don't buy the idea that Israel is blameless either. I can't accept the idea (and we practice it more than the Israelis) that the blood of 'colateral damage' is on the hands of only the enemy. I don't believe any participant in a war can remain clean, and I think it is the widely held human belief that you can that makes war so common. That's my deeply held, personal, religous viewpoint. It predates the Bush presidency and is in now way inspired by my hatred of Bush.

"Generally speaking, people here aren't spouting talking points from DNC or RNC e-mails, but rather say what they think. I see nothing wrong with that."

Neither do I. Here are the two things I think I see here that I DO think are wrong, and screechy, uninteresting, somehwat offensive and not funny.

1.) If you were informed on the subject (as I am) you would have to think what I do. So it follows you are either uniformed, an idiot or hypnotized. My opinion is NOT an opinion, like yours, or a viewpoint. It is a law of physics.

2.) You say "X", but what you REALLY want is "Y", and you are willing to put up with utold human suffering to prove your point. No, wait, not put up with, hope for. Pray for. Crave? Lust? There, that's it, you lust for untold suffering and death and the end of the world just so you can say "I told you so."

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by mburbank

but I am very sincere and I think it's uncommonly rude of you to think you have access to my motivations. If you said you thought I was kidding, or using some sort of literary device to make a point, that would be different. But I'm nothing if not sincere.

Allow me to elaborate-- I question just how sincerely concerned you are over an internet message board for a mockery site. Seriously, how terribly concerned could you really be?

Secondly, as I said above, I think the board always got a bit nasty at times, always had its pile ons, ans always had it's "you're so stupid!" laugh-and-point moments.

Once again, I think the difference was that it always tended to be Vince, Ronnie, Pharaoh, Kulturkampf or whomever. What's the trend there, and what made them different than say Geggy??? I don't think it's tone, b/c Geggy has certainly told me that I don't care about human life, that I'm stupid, brainwashed, etc. etc.

I am not being ironic when I say that though I held his ideas in contempt, I thought Vinth was one of the most wonderful things ever to happen to this board. I think only Naldo ever really reached the point of me finding him personallt repugnant, and only et the very, very end.

I honestly don't recall Ronnie that way, but perhaps my memory betrays me. Sure, I didn't like his politics, but I don't recall him ever cursing or getting too nasty. Sure, he took personalo shots, but we returned them in-kind.

I don't think any of those guys are "token Right-Winger", I think they are side show attractions, and it isn't because they are right wing.

I think their ideology played a part in it. I think Geggy is totally deserving of his own quote thread, but I just don't want to compile it. :/

The main difference between Geggy and Naldo isn't their political viewpoints. When have you ever heard Geggy be anywhere near as hateful as Naldo could be? Naldo on several occassions endorsed and hoped for the prolonged suffering of his 'enemies', all the while going on and on about how 'Christian' he was.

I honestly don't remember, but sure, he wanted our enemies to be stopped and/or killed. I would like this too, to be perfectly honest.

I don't think you're reading Geggy's posts closely enough. Not only does he hold contempt for opinions other than his own, but he won't even engage anyone here when his ideas are challenged. THat's far worse, IMO, than a "fuck you" here and there.

If by 'quiet most of the time' you mean not excessively windy like you and me, then sure. But it seems to me that Eye Tai and El Blanco contribute frequently and at the risk of offending Preech (who I don't see as a conservative per se, but he's certainly more conservative than I am) can write a post as long as yours any day of the week.

We've had conservatives come and go, perhaps you can't remember them all. Dirksen? Bombs? Not to mention our above mentioned all-star team. And Preechr isn't a conservative, he's a Libertarian. Don't you read his posts? He reminds us of this at least once a week.

I won't speak for Eye Tai and Blanco.

I'm all for supporting democracy and freedom abroad. When did the D's or the R's do that? The country got totally sucked into the football game aspct of the cold war, and instead of fighting dictatorship and opression, we fought the Reds instead.

Well, there was the American Revolution, not to mention a little civil war we had involving the ownership of other people.

Democrats led us in both world wars, and at one point, stood for liberal ideas abroad:

"Universal peace cannot come until justice is enthroned throughout the world. Until the right has triumphed in every land and love reigns in every heart, government must, as a last resort, appeal to force." -- W.J. Bryan

1.) If you were informed on the subject (as I am) you would have to think what I do. So it follows you are either uniformed, an idiot or hypnotized. My opinion is NOT an opinion, like yours, or a viewpoint. It is a law of physics.

2.) You say "X", but what you REALLY want is "Y", and you are willing to put up with utold human suffering to prove your point. No, wait, not put up with, hope for. Pray for. Crave? Lust? There, that's it, you lust for untold suffering and death and the end of the world just so you can say "I told you so."

I again think some folks here don't like to have their ideas challenged. I would add a 3rd to that list:

3.) OMG, ok, well you know so much about (insert point in history, or geographic land mass) that i'll just shut up. You're so right. I'm not going to try to confront your ideas, I give up, wink wink rollyeyes

I think that's dumb, and it's far worse than anybody else here thinking they're too smart, or making assumptions aobut what others think. Why? Becuase those sort of posts always kill the discussion, and generally devolve into the name calling you don't like.

[ItalianStereotype]

I <3 our little corner of the board back in summer '03. vince was in full swing and the topics of discussion ranged from matters historical to obscure philosophies to BUSH EVOL LOL.

now, when I first joined this community back in late '01-early '02, it was a little more overwhelmingly left. there were certainly people with conservative slants, but the board was mostly biased towards one end of the spectrum. it balanced out for a while, but when people like Ror and Bombs and Ronnie started disappearing, the slant came back and the topics became dull. we seem to be picking up again, though!

[mburbank]

shut up fag

[ItalianStereotype]

I submit, max, that you are the one that is the fag.

how do you respond

[Preechr]

Originally Posted by mburbank

Here's what I think has increased here. Contempt.

Contempt is the product of the mind of a bully. Those that live by the sword know they might die from the sword of another, so every personal transaction becomes an exchange of power. The bully has accpeted authoritarian means, the Iron Fist, as his preferred method. It's such an obvious sign of insecurity, much like getting all bent out of shape when people joke with you.

Being a lIBERTARIAN, the opposite of an authoritarian, I tend not to feel contempt for those that disagree with me. I don't rank others as inferior or superior to me. I just try to convince people that I am correct until they prove they aren't willing to accept that. Since I'm not looking to "overpower" anyone or shut anybody up, I'm actually pretty open to being proven wrong. That's the thing that I'm looking for when I post, as a matter of fact.

I defer "my way" to the correct way, and by that I mean the one method that serves us all the best. I believe in freedom to the greatest extent for everybody willing to lead positive and productive lives as well as those that haven't yet realized that those are the best lives to lead.

Somehow that might transfer over to my ideas about the sad-sacks that post here and the god-awful methods by which they tend to do so, but I'm sleepy and uninspired right now.

Nice thread, though...

[KevinTheOmnivore]

YOU'RE A LIBERTATIAN!?!?

[Preechr]

Small "L," please. I'm not a member of the party, I only play one on the internets.