I drop by these boards now and again to read opinions. It seems the board has a hefty left wing majority and a majority of the threads start out with a liberal bent. Instead of dealing with an issue as an issue, alot of the posts tend towards name calling and one upsmanship. Posters keep trying to show that "my guy is better than your guy." Of course, the right wingers retaliate in kind with the same sort of dumbing down process. Usually, most threads wind up spinning towards no point at all. Why do I keep coming back? Because every now and then, there is a nugget of good informative reasoned debate. I also find it challenging to back up the assertions that I make. Of course, that sort of posting takes time and a little research. But, in the end, it's the only type that's worthwhile. Anyway, I was just curious how many of you were actually moved to not only understand someone else's point of view, but to actually adopt that point of view, and if so, to what BIG issues were they related.
I can't say that too many of my thoughts have changed, but since I share values with both Reps and Dems I find that certain discussions tend to educate me further on both sides of the position. Something that I value very much.
NYfutbolfan: Ya' been reading the wrong posts... read mine! I try to castigate the many leftist liberals 'round but lately... I think ye right though in large part! Can't seem to swing a dead cat lately without whacking a leftist liberal or running into a bleeding heart Kerry/Moore sympathizer! Wait until Bush win's re-election in Novemebr though... then all these leftists head back to the holes! IntheNet Bush/Cheney in 2004
Unfortunately, it is very hard here to converse. The regulars wont discuss, and when they are called out on it, they resort to sarcasm, or simply wont respond, and jump to the next topic.
I look at it a bit different, this board is strongly democrat bigots. However I read a different board that is strongly republican bigots. You can read the same discussion on both boards, and see the same behaviour on both boards, but from diametrically opposed sides. Sometime it gets funny to compare. There have been topics here that I have learned from, primarly for me, the stem cell research issues. I find that on both boards the most vocal are often the least helpfull since they will not listen and resort to sarcasm/name calling on both sides. Both boards have very dedicated "minority" supporters that just keep on swinging. However its the ones that actually try and discuss and bring up points that I do learn from. Both boards also have several of these.
I find any reasonable debate stimulating. I'm very rarely "swayed" as that implies a swing from one side to the other. That very rarely happens in any political/ideological debate. However, there is plenty of room for refining or adjusting a position. Or at least rethinking your own stance. I don't think most reasonable people have a crude bianary 'yes/no' position on any important issue. I would also think that it's mostly the knee-jerk reactionaries who assume everybody thinks in the same narrowly partisan black-and-white way they do who come out whining that there is a monolithic cabal of like-minded leftists bullying all other comers on this board. If you spent any time here, you'd notice that no two people on these boards agrees on everything. Most members of the "left-liberal" mafia here have strong disagreements about certain issues, we just manage to be (mostly) civil and (reasonably) intelligent in our discussion.
Not swayed, but certainly educated. The problem is that many of the arguments on certain issues are rehashes. For instance, I find it highly unlikely that abortion or taxation arguments here will sway me. However, you can always stand to learn something. And those chances improve once you place certain people on ignore.
There may have been times when my opinion has been softened a little on an issue, but as far as switching opinions, I don't think that has really happened. I'm not gonna vote for Kerry all of a sudden. However, I agree with others that say that it is sometimes educational. Exposing yourself to thoughts by intelligent people who believe differently than you (and they are many of those on this board) helps to strengthen your positions, because it causes you to think and rehash your position.
Not always swayed, but get to learn a bit and a chance to understand other people's viewpoints. Tends also to be a very strong pro-US bias in here, and hope some of us do add a balance to this.
This forum is like a flea market in the marketplace of ideas. Most people are selling junk, a lot of it second hand, and most of the people are only here to window shop. Every now and then you find a hidden jewel of an idea, and really it's fun to see what everyone is selling.
Dear NYfutbolfan: I have been reading these boards for several months now, and I must say that I have experienced radical shifts in my opinion on several issues as a result, and sometimes, back again to my original position. Sincerely, John F. Kerry (Hey, if you can't make light of the guy you support from time to time, what's the point ) Dear NYfutbolfan: I too have carefully misconsidered the posts on these boards for a number of months. Well, that is not exactly true in the sense that I have not actually "read" these posts. I have my cabinet read these boards, and then weed out the nonsense and give me nothing but the truth. After careful consideration of the Cliff Notes version, I must say I have not changed my mind on one single issue. It's not that I don't find some of the pinko commie posts persuasive, its just that I have not been instructed to change my position yet by the Lord. Presidentially yours, George W. Bush
I used to be a left wing, bleeding heart, liberal, let's look after the people of our country first sort of guy. I liked the idea of everyone being able to have a job of their choice and what they are suited for. That people in this country could afford to have health insurance and to be able to have some time and a little money for the occasional vacation. I had this idea that if we could get the country to go with this fairly simplistic concept. Then we could branch out with an ideal called, say the Peace Corps. were we could spend some of our time helping countries who are not quite as fortunate as us see the real nature of an American as he shows someone how to get the most from his crop or well. How birth control and smaller families would give them a better family life so they can afford to do more than just exist. But I've seen the light...!!! Since reading Ian and the rest of the "Bring it on" set here I've realized that the weak and meek are only on this earth as stepping stones for the strong. The assembly line worker makes the money for the 2% who vote themselves the breaks. Out of work because the strong can send your job overseas? Too bad, join the army. You can help invade the oil rich counties and bring them "Democracy" Even our brand of religion. Or as Peachy Carnahan once said. "Bringing enlightenment to the darker regions of the world" Yes, thank to reading this forum with the gems and intellect from Ian and the rest of the "Let's stay right of 'Atilla the Hun' crowd" I've seen the light...!
Certainly my ideology hasn't been changed by anything I read here. But I have to admit that sometimes I make a particular point on an issue without thinking throughly about all the implications, and after reading the responses I realize the weakness of that particular line of reasoning. So, in that sense, it can be mind opening. There are some meaningful discussions if we look beyond all the name calling, and I appreciate that.
Karl Marx, Newt Gingrich and other great thinkers got their mojo started on internet soccer message boards.
Not everyone is left or right. I've lived all my political life (even ran for office) without a "legitimate" identity because everyone wants to frame debates in an either/or dichotomy. To me, left and right are not political definitions so much as sociological definitions about societal power struggle. Rightists support the continuation of aristocracy and believe that a chosen elite shall not only lead the masses, but also exclusively participate in the cutting edge pleasures of society while others serve to prop up their lives. Monarchies, dictatorships, oligarchies ... these are all rightist structures. Rightists actually believe that overall, this is good for the human race. If you look back throughout history, you will see that the all the philosophers and people of importance were from the artistocracy. All investment of time, labor, and money that society could offer went toward the pursuits of a narrowly defined upper class, and it had good results in terms of human achievement that otherwise may not have occured under the circumstances. The negative aspect of rightists is that they seek to keep their power at all costs. Once you have been encultured into a life of power and luxury, it takes a strong person to give it up, and I doubt any of us would be willing if we were in those shoes. Leftists support distributing power as much as possible. Part of power is wealth and land ownership. They believe that civilization has advanced to the point where everyone (or as close to everyone as we can get) should be able to share in the benefits of society, and this includes education and technology. Leftism is inherently revolutionary because it seeks to overturn the long-existing society structure based on aristocractic power. It can manifest in a number of different philosophies from American liberalism to communism (both authoritarian and voluntary) to populism. It often depends on the context with which the aristocractic power in question has manifested. Most people are not even aware of the basis for their political beliefs, but they can all be traced back to this power struggle. In addition, ALL policy has shades of both left and right, it depends on how you look at it. For instance, the free market can be seen as both a means to distribute wealth more fairly (sans regulation, big business doesn't have the help of the government as in a fascistic partnership) or help the aristocracy consolidate even more wealth (sans regulation, rich people with their capital, i.e. power, will be able to generate even more capital and monopolize wealth). Things like the drug war can also be seen in this light. On the right, the drug war can be seen as a means of controlling the population. Whereas on the left, the drug war can be seen as a means of preventing "the people" from becoming dumbed down. So, although people focus on policy as a means of determining left/right, this just serves to cloud the complexity of all policies, since every policy potentially has a leftist and rightist effect. The reason I cannot be pigeon-holed into a left/right dichotomy is that my principles lie in the philosophy of non-coercion, which is the cornerstone of the libertarian philosophy, and depending on your political leanings, my beliefs can look left or right. Let's take military intervention, for instance. I am adamantly opposed to invading Iraq. Does that make me a leftist? Well, yeah, if you are a war-mongering aristocrat or one of their brain-washed robots who sees empire as a means to power for your annointed elite. How about taxation? I'd like to see taxation minimized as much as possible. Does that make me a rightist? Well, yeah, if you are an authoritarian socialist thief who disassembles the fruits of someone's legitimate labor against their will. However, a lot of people are purely leftist and rightist, and will use coercive methods to acheive their goals if necessary. Oftentimes, the circumstances of your birth and your life determine your political leaning. (And keep in mind that the ad hominem's were for entertainment purposes only. ) The other reason why Americans tend to be either/or about politics is that our government is controlled by a two-party system. State election laws have been cooked up to keep the two major parties in power while preventing opposition parties from ever having a legitimate shot at winning. Some people even claim that a two-party system is a good thing as both parties are required to evolve over time, changing roles (you can see how the bigoted southern Democrats, once the embarassment of all Americans, are now represented in the Republican Party), and "marketing" policy to political consumers. Even though the parties supposedly evolve, the brand is all that matters. The brand may even be in conflict with the policy or the ramifications of policy, but most people cannot be bothered to really think things through. For instance, GWB labels himself compassionate, but any thinking human being can see that his policy is anything but compassionate. John Kerry brands himself in a more subtle "nuanced" way, by relying on his Vietnam-era past, but what the hell is he really? Thus far, the bulk of the debate has been about brand identity, not policy. And if you go talk to the person on the street about politics, you will find that it is brand that they focus on, not policy so much. The funniest thing, though, is when you come across some brand-identity robot and prove to them that their glorious leader's policies actually hurt them. Watch their head explode. So, anyways, that is just a long-winded way to show that the whole "other side" notion is a joke. Which side am I on? Here is some thought-provoking reading, based on the antiquated Nolan chart. It tries to distill left and right down to policy viewpoints and ignores the sociological basis, but is interesting nonetheless. http://www.friesian.com/quiz.htm - Paul
Sorry, this is Abuse. Argument is down the hall three doors to your left. ------- When I got here a few years ago, the Politics Forum was dominated by right-wingers. It has slowly changed and now some of the right-wingers it was most fun to debate have skeedaddled, possibly in shame over Bush. Mostly, though, I think most of the regulars here just like to argue. Whether it's about politics or soccer, it doesn't matter.
I'm not sure this forum provides many opportunities to really be swayed by ideas. There are certainly a lot of good links to information and writers that have opened my mind to new viewpoints, but some of the discussion here deteriorates from a debate on an issue to an attack on the poster who came up with the idea in the first place (or provided the link). Unfortunately, posters here seem to have pretty long memories, so even if someone comes up with a reasonable argument, their past words may damn their present ideas. There are a lot of inside jokes on this board. Still, there is a lot of good humor on this board, so it's always worth coming back for the jokes, and I find one or two articles a week that stimulate my own thoughts. Then again, if I wasn't bored at work sometimes, I'm not sure how much I would come here at all....
Thanks for your post. I wasn't asking if someone was swayed to move from right to left or left to right, I was just wondering if any of the discussions on this board prompted someone to say that they decided to change their view on an issue due to reading these posts. I definitely wouldn't expect someone to completely change party affiliations. I also do not particularly care for "labeling". There are issues that I find I agree with Dems and others that I agree with the Reps and some that I disagree with both of them. All too often, we the people, get too caught up in the labels. I'm halfway through friesian article and it is indeed very interesting.
I've changed my opinion on stem cell research. For the most part though I find that the left has run out of ideas. There all about hatred and vitrol. They need another Clinton who can get them out of their funk.
This is supposed to be fun. The fun isn't in convincing someone that they're wrong, it's in just plain beating the daylights out of people who are so steadfastly convinced that they are right. I try to convince people to vote against Bush in real life, but this isn't real life.