Link: Pretty much says it about political arguments...

NationalTitles18

TideFans Legend
May 25, 2003
29,633
34,727
362
Mountainous Northern California
Winning a political argument is near impossible because anyone who cares enough to argue about politics is usually convinced they have all the information they will ever need and have given all the thought they will ever need and have done all the listening they will ever need to do. Many are so passionate about a few issues that no other issue matter nearly as much. And I dare say many have never given an ounce of thought to the underlying presumptions and principles on which their political opinions are based. We do have a number of posters here who not only go against the grain, but are able to articulate well. Still, even with a well-reasoned argument it is up to the listener to actually listen and evaluate and be willing to change. Of course, that also means even the well-reasoned and articulate may be so entrenched as to avoid further listening and thought. I have actually changed my opinion on a number of issues, usually not in the heat of argument, though. Stubbornness and pride are high hurdles. We want to feel that we came to our own conclusion. /rambling
 

crimsonaudio

Administrator
Staff member
Sep 9, 2002
63,414
67,193
462
crimsonaudio.net
Similar to what I posted on FB yesterday:

Tip of the day (rambling thought style): It's sad that we still have some 14 months until the presidential election - it means a year-plus of otherwise kind people posting and saying nasty things about the 'other team'.

I guess it makes people feel superior to attack other people's intellect based on how they feel about a particular subject. Just seems small-minded to me.

And guess what? Insulting the other 'team' (and yes, both sides are doing this like crazy) is why we have a county that's so politically divided. Keep it up - when you complain about there being no 'moderates' anymore, when you complain about the division amongst the voters - I'll hold up a mirror for you to gaze into...

How about stopping with the sound-byte attacks and try showing a *touch* of compassion, try understanding a *little bit* of what the other side thinks instead of taking things out of context and looking for whatever opportunity you can find to tear the other side down?

Just a thought.
 

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
36,432
29,735
287
54
Without hypocrisy, would either politics OR religion exist?

I thank y'all for pointing me to Google News after the brainwashed idiocy I kept seeing on Yahoo or - more precisely - the Huffington Post (which is all over Yahoo, so I guess one owns the other or something like that, not that I really care). Just today I click the 'y' and up comes 'yahoo.' Sure enough, the top article is attacking Carly Fornicator as a liar. Of course, the article no doubt is written by someone who will vote for the candidate who didn't dodge Bosnian sniper fire and supports the one who changed the entire health care system with the lie 'if you like your doctor you can keep it.'

My point is not to take sides in that argument; it's the fact that every single imbecile I see arguing for 'virtue' in politics will turn right around and vote for someone who does the very thing with which they profess to have a problem. And it's not just a left or right-wing thing, it's damned near universal.

A pastor of another denomination posted on his Facebook the following the other day, and I thought it profoundly accurate. He posted an article in the NYT about conservatives supporting Trump and then said this:

For years I heard Christians argue against Bill Clinton because of his immorality. To turn around and support Mr. Trump is to in effect admit Bill Clinton's immorality was never really an issue. I understand this is not a theocracy, and that any leader I support won't likely be on the same page as my exact theology. However, with Mr. Trump we aren't even near the same page morally.

I'll go one further - I had church members rail about Bill Clinton in 1998-99 and try to use this argument - "God holds you accountable for who you vote for." These same people then turned right around in 2012 and voted for the MORMON (which is theologically considered a cult in nearly all of Christendom) over the Christian (I don't believe Obama is a Christian in anything but the social sense - quite frankly, I think he's an atheist who won't come out and say so, a view I've heard from a number of skeptics). Again - the argument was little more than an excuse for 'I vote Republican.'

But you know what's funny? Look at history. Go look at the candidates who TRY to be reasonable and not make a bunch of promises - and tell me how poorly virtually all of them fare. Edmund Muskie is a great example. Muskie was a middle-of-the-road Democrat from Maine who ran with Humphrey in 1968. He was the front-runner in 1972 (once Ted Kennedy announced he wouldn't run) and he ran a campaign based on 'trust' but without a lot of specifics. He got chewed up and spit out by not winning New Hampshire by enough and getting torn apart on both sides by McGovern on the left and Wallace on the right. It happened to Henry Jackson in 1976, George HW Bush in 1980, Dick Gephardt in 1988 and Bob Kerrey in 1992. If Reagan had not made him Veep, there's NO WAY GHW Bush ever gets elected. By 1988, he runs as a confirmed right-winger and wins thanks to the lefty punching bag his opponent was.

I'm not saying these candidates did not have OTHER failures that contributed but those who try to be reasonable and LISTENERS and take in and communicate truth generally get waxed in the primaries. We're given a choice between candidate A, who is going to really stick it to the rich (all the while getting most of his money from.......the rich), and candidate B, who is going to save us from Big Government (all the while running to head......the big government) - and they dart as left/right as they can and the ACTIVISTS impose them on the rest of us.

But perhaps we share some of the blame for not insisting on more consistency from ourselves? It's sort of hypocritical to demand politicians be consistent when we ourselves aren't. (I try to be, and I see some of the folks here who do, too).
 

mittman

All-American
Jun 19, 2009
3,942
0
0
Can't see twitter links here at work. I do have to admit I tend to fall into what you guys are describing. I try to be reasonable, but it is very difficult to be when shouted at. Once that starts I try to just shut up, it isn't worth it.

Generally I think most people who actually participate in political arguments are not trying to convince the one they are arguing with, only those that may be listening.
 

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
36,432
29,735
287
54
Can't see twitter links here at work. I do have to admit I tend to fall into what you guys are describing. I try to be reasonable, but it is very difficult to be when shouted at. Once that starts I try to just shut up, it isn't worth it.

Generally I think most people who actually participate in political arguments are not trying to convince the one they are arguing with, only those that may be listening.
Tried to link it with picture but as Emily Litella used to say, "Nev-ah miiiinnndd!!!"
 

TIDE-HSV

Senior Administrator
Staff member
Oct 13, 1999
84,528
39,619
437
Huntsville, AL,USA
Can't see twitter links here at work. I do have to admit I tend to fall into what you guys are describing. I try to be reasonable, but it is very difficult to be when shouted at. Once that starts I try to just shut up, it isn't worth it.

Generally I think most people who actually participate in political arguments are not trying to convince the one they are arguing with, only those that may be listening.
What's that old one about never arguing with an idiot on the sidewalk. Passersby may not be able to tell which is the idiot... :D
 

crimson fan man

Hall of Fame
Aug 12, 2002
5,441
344
202
Athens Al
Winning a political argument is near impossible because anyone who cares enough to argue about politics is usually convinced they have all the information they will ever need and have given all the thought they will ever need and have done all the listening they will ever need to do. Many are so passionate about a few issues that no other issue matter nearly as much. And I dare say many have never given an ounce of thought to the underlying presumptions and principles on which their political opinions are based. We do have a number of posters here who not only go against the grain, but are able to articulate well. Still, even with a well-reasoned argument it is up to the listener to actually listen and evaluate and be willing to change. Of course, that also means even the well-reasoned and articulate may be so entrenched as to avoid further listening and thought. I have actually changed my opinion on a number of issues, usually not in the heat of argument, though. Stubbornness and pride are high hurdles. We want to feel that we came to our own conclusion. /rambling
NationalTitles15 I agree with this post 100 percent. I can quickly get my backup about somebodies opinion and blind myself to their view points and not consider them. To be honest some of my views have been changed by some very intelligent posters on this board. I feel like I go to school many times from the things I have learned just reading posts made from many posters especially when they get in a debate. But at the end of the day I feel like I could go out and have a few beers with anybody on this board and have a great time. This is what makes this site great. One thing I do know is not to take anything to personal on here.:)
 
Last edited:

TIDE-HSV

Senior Administrator
Staff member
Oct 13, 1999
84,528
39,619
437
Huntsville, AL,USA
Winning a political argument is near impossible because anyone who cares enough to argue about politics is usually convinced they have all the information they will ever need and have given all the thought they will ever need and have done all the listening they will ever need to do. Many are so passionate about a few issues that no other issue matter nearly as much. And I dare say many have never given an ounce of thought to the underlying presumptions and principles on which their political opinions are based. We do have a number of posters here who not only go against the grain, but are able to articulate well. Still, even with a well-reasoned argument it is up to the listener to actually listen and evaluate and be willing to change. Of course, that also means even the well-reasoned and articulate may be so entrenched as to avoid further listening and thought. I have actually changed my opinion on a number of issues, usually not in the heat of argument, though. Stubbornness and pride are high hurdles. We want to feel that we came to our own conclusion. /rambling
Very well said. Most political discussions are doomed from the start for the reasons you stated - one of both side have their minds made up. Worse, some see the world through such a rigid lens that every issue must be "left" or "right" and that guarantees no thinking...
 

TIDE-HSV

Senior Administrator
Staff member
Oct 13, 1999
84,528
39,619
437
Huntsville, AL,USA
NationalTitles15 I agree with this post 100 percent. I can quickly get my backup about somebodies opinion and blind myself to their view points and not consider them. To be honest some of my views have been changed by some very intelligent posters on this board. I feel like I go to school many times from the things I have learned just reading posts made from many posters especially when they get in a debate. But at the end of the day I feel like I could go out and have a few beers with anybody on this board and have a great time. This is what makes this site great. One thing I do know is not to take anything to personal on here.:)
I think we do a remarkable job of staying away from that, because that's the one rule - personal remarks - which are not allowed site-wide. Occasionally someone may stray over the line, but, by and large, we manage to disagree agreeably...
 

chanson78

All-American
Nov 1, 2005
2,926
1,795
187
47
Huntsville, AL
Very well said. Most political discussions are doomed from the start for the reasons you stated - one of both side have their minds made up. Worse, some see the world through such a rigid lens that every issue must be "left" or "right" and that guarantees no thinking...
Theres some really interesting sociology work being done regarding the way that we consume our news now affects our personal bias. The TLDR is that news/social sites/even message boards allow for most people to selectively choose communities that have relatively similar viewpoints, which only strengthens their personal bias as it allows each community to generate their own accepted source of truth. You can see this in many different areas, but it is probably most exemplified by how many people "KNOW" that so and so had this happen, or "KNOW" that this is the "REAL" way it went down because they know a guy who knows a guy. The reasoning behind this is that in the past there were three outlets of information that everyone had access to and if you watched the news, everyone got relatively the same set of "facts". (This doesn't take periodicals into account as in the relatively recent past 30 years, you could really only count on the nightly national news as the singularly widely available and disseminated free source of information)

Now search engines, facebook, and other aggregators all realize that if you want to keep customers, you keep them happy by giving them the information they like, not necessarily all the information on the subject. Specifically, information that already falls within their confirmation bias. You can actually test this. Have two people, from relatively different areas of the political spectrum do searches on google. As long as you haven't cleared your cookies, or are still logged into your google account, you will get different results for the same search terms all based upon what you clicked for other past similar searches.
 

mittman

All-American
Jun 19, 2009
3,942
0
0
Theres some really interesting sociology work being done regarding the way that we consume our news now affects our personal bias. The TLDR is that news/social sites/even message boards allow for most people to selectively choose communities that have relatively similar viewpoints, which only strengthens their personal bias as it allows each community to generate their own accepted source of truth. You can see this in many different areas, but it is probably most exemplified by how many people "KNOW" that so and so had this happen, or "KNOW" that this is the "REAL" way it went down because they know a guy who knows a guy. The reasoning behind this is that in the past there were three outlets of information that everyone had access to and if you watched the news, everyone got relatively the same set of "facts". (This doesn't take periodicals into account as in the relatively recent past 30 years, you could really only count on the nightly national news as the singularly widely available and disseminated free source of information)

Now search engines, facebook, and other aggregators all realize that if you want to keep customers, you keep them happy by giving them the information they like, not necessarily all the information on the subject. Specifically, information that already falls within their confirmation bias. You can actually test this. Have two people, from relatively different areas of the political spectrum do searches on google. As long as you haven't cleared your cookies, or are still logged into your google account, you will get different results for the same search terms all based upon what you clicked for other past similar searches.
*thanks*, and *likes*

Marketers will use anything, ESPECIALLY telling people what they want to hear.

Maybe this is why everyone thought Google news was fair in the other thread a few days ago. We may all just like what is being aggregated for us. :)
 

NationalTitles18

TideFans Legend
May 25, 2003
29,633
34,727
362
Mountainous Northern California
Everything from search engine to operating systems is about "bringing the user relevant results". Relevant means results we want to see. Often that also means those that bring money to advertisers and the company bringing that ad to your "door". In many ways it is a 2 edged sword. You see more of what you want, but confirmation bias is increased.
 

BamaInBham

All-American
Feb 14, 2007
4,465
2,110
187
......
But perhaps we share some of the blame for not insisting on more consistency from ourselves? It's sort of hypocritical to demand politicians be consistent when we ourselves aren't. (I try to be, and I see some of the folks here who do, too).
Agree. In fact, I believe we share much of the blame. i.e., a polity gets the leadership it deserves. I say that as one who is apolitical.
 

Latest threads

TideFans.shop : 2024 Madness!

TideFans.shop - Get YOUR Bama Gear HERE!”></a>
<br />

<!--/ END TideFans.shop & item link \-->
<p style= Purchases made through our TideFans.shop and Amazon.com links may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.