False Labeling Stifles Meaningful Debate

[Truthmatters]

Most here have no clue what a real conservative stands for.
They believe gay marriage is a top ten priority.
Most wannahbe conservatives claim you are a liberal if you disagree with them, Lush Rimbaugh, Sean Hannity or any of the other talking head clowns they worship.
Most liberals blieve if you like keeping the hard earned $ you earned you are greedy and selfish.BULLSHIT! that is not what we believe
I can not win.
No wonder they always played me on the defensive side of the ball.
"Just rush the QB"

What we believe is your economic beliefs have been proven to be failures all through history and you refuse to accept the cold hard facts.

 

[QUENTIN]

Problem number one- Don't make your posts so long. After the 3rd or 4th paragraph folks start to lose interest.

Problem number two- Bitching about other people's perceptions of you will only get you one thing....ridicule. Nobody likes a whiner. Not that I consider you to be on the level of Huggy...but you need to watch this.

Problem number three- See problem number two.

I tend to be long-winded, that's true and fair enough. On this site though I think it's exacerbated in part by feeling the need to fully explain myself beyond any possibility of confusion since when I do post something more pithy, it's often misconstrued and then assigned a label - and we come full circle.

I used myself as an example because I haven't comprehensively followed this phenomenon as it applies to anyone else in particular, but it was just an example. It's a very pervasive mindset here (and in general) that you'll see all over the place, used by and toward many. It seems most of the people replying here agree that it goes on more rampantly and get that I wasn't just whining about myself.

 

[Truthmatters]

May I ask why you decided to use that line of mine as a signature?

its fine with me but I was just wondering for claification purposes

 

[WillowTree]

Sticks and stones........



It obviously bothers you to be labeled. But for folks like me, it's water off a ducks back.

No, it's not a thin skin thing. It's not the labeling that bothers me, if someone labeled me remotely accurately and responded accordingly, fine. And I could care less about someone applying a label to me if that were the only result.

My problem is the unwarranted dismissal that follows based on a rash misjudgment that, as I said, stifles meaningful debate.

A valid point being disregarded because someone assumes I'm just stumping for Obama or Bush, when I vociferously criticize both and think they're terrible presidents, and only want to discuss the matter at hand not be forced to try and defend the fact that I'm no fan of either party and don't fit into whatever box they've put me in based on my opinion on one issue, is annoying and discourages substantive debate and the time and effort that requires.

If someone just assumes you're part of some group they despise and they won't give what you say a fair shake as a result, what's the point of bothering to engage them?

The idea that criticizing someone on the right must mean you're a leftist and criticizing someone on the left must mean you're a rightwinger, or the reverse for supporting an action taken by someone on those sides, promotes polarization and discussions that amount to little more than name-calling between boosters of different sports teams. It reduces the complex and interesting into the stupid and predictable and makes it hard for anyone to get anything meaningful out of conversations here. That applies to everyone since I've noticed it as a really common go-to reaction among a lot of people, not just towards me. I have to assume there are members here whose views can't be pigeonholed simply into party talking points, otherwise this place has no more value than Crossfire.

Problem number one- Don't make your posts so long. After the 3rd or 4th paragraph folks start to lose interest.

Problem number two- Bitching about other people's perceptions of you will only get you one thing....ridicule. Nobody likes a whiner. Not that I consider you to be on the level of Huggy...but you need to watch this.

Problem number three- See problem number two.

Everyone has a problem with HUGGY even the dog.

 

[HUGGY]

No, it's not a thin skin thing. It's not the labeling that bothers me, if someone labeled me remotely accurately and responded accordingly, fine. And I could care less about someone applying a label to me if that were the only result.

My problem is the unwarranted dismissal that follows based on a rash misjudgment that, as I said, stifles meaningful debate.

A valid point being disregarded because someone assumes I'm just stumping for Obama or Bush, when I vociferously criticize both and think they're terrible presidents, and only want to discuss the matter at hand not be forced to try and defend the fact that I'm no fan of either party and don't fit into whatever box they've put me in based on my opinion on one issue, is annoying and discourages substantive debate and the time and effort that requires.

If someone just assumes you're part of some group they despise and they won't give what you say a fair shake as a result, what's the point of bothering to engage them?

The idea that criticizing someone on the right must mean you're a leftist and criticizing someone on the left must mean you're a rightwinger, or the reverse for supporting an action taken by someone on those sides, promotes polarization and discussions that amount to little more than name-calling between boosters of different sports teams. It reduces the complex and interesting into the stupid and predictable and makes it hard for anyone to get anything meaningful out of conversations here. That applies to everyone since I've noticed it as a really common go-to reaction among a lot of people, not just towards me. I have to assume there are members here whose views can't be pigeonholed simply into party talking points, otherwise this place has no more value than Crossfire.

Problem number one- Don't make your posts so long. After the 3rd or 4th paragraph folks start to lose interest.

Problem number two- Bitching about other people's perceptions of you will only get you one thing....ridicule. Nobody likes a whiner. Not that I consider you to be on the level of Huggy...but you need to watch this.

Problem number three- See problem number two.

Everyone has a problem with HUGGY even the dog.

Everyone who is anyone!

 

[QUENTIN]

Huggy, what is "the list"?

saveliberty, if you're talking about someone who has been posting here for years, made their views on a wide variety of issues known and always toes a party line, then suggesting you don't mentally label them would be silly. It's inevitable when that's the case. Even then, they may have something worthwhile to say (even a stopped clock...) but that's not my fight and accurate labeling is a different animal.

I'm arguing that people are way too quick to jump to broad conclusions based on one or two stances that are really not enough to judge someone's entirely political persuasion on (and then dismiss them outright if you don't like the persuasion you assume them to have) and that happens regularly.

rdean - Just anecdotally, I have an uncle in Louisiana who is pretty "set in his ways" and massively misinformed about quite a lot. He gets all his news from an echo chamber and thinks Obama is a Marxist, Muslim, Kenyan, etc. setting up death panels and FEMA camps. He's made a point of not talking to me at family gatherings since the first time I was arrested at an anti-war protest years back.

I decided that was silly and tried to engage him a couple months ago. If I'd called him an idiot, well that wouldn't do any good. And I didn't think he'd listen if I tried to convince him the health care bill was corporatist, not socialist for instance. Just as I would have a hard time listening if he was trying to convince me it was. So instead I asked him what he thought of the current health care system and what changes he'd like implemented... in other words I asked him a question about his views, rather than assuming I knew them because he fell into some simplified political "slot." Just a minute or two into the discussion, with a few probing questions, he'd dropped the talking points and we were having a real conversation. I found out (and he may have surprised himself too) that he ultimately thinks people who can't afford health insurance should have a way to get medical care. That spawned a greater discussion about poverty where we respectfully challenged each other's views and got down to personal opinions that were just that personal, they toed no party line and in fact were often in opposition to what we might be assumed to believe based on our labels. We didn't walk away voting any different, but we'd had an engaging and illuminating debate where it became apparent we were both decent people who wanted what we thought was best for the country and differed on what that was, but didn't need to be mortal enemies because of it.

I've had similar discussions with lots of people with whom I vehemently disagree, it's possible if you approach people with respect rather than dismiss them as subhuman "others" who believe "that way."

Sure, some people work their damnedest to be mindless parroters of a party line, and maybe they're not worth your time. But I think giving people a chance before writing them off can only benefit everyone involved. At worst, you wasted a minute listening instead of a minute insulting and you didn't make an assumption, which we all know makes an ass out of u and mption.

 

[Intense]

Huggy, what is "the list"?

saveliberty, if you're talking about someone who has been posting here for years, made their views on a wide variety of issues known and always toes a party line, then suggesting you don't mentally label them would be silly. It's inevitable when that's the case. Even then, they may have something worthwhile to say (even a stopped clock...) but that's not my fight and accurate labeling is a different animal.

I'm arguing that people are way too quick to jump to broad conclusions based on one or two stances that are really not enough to judge someone's entirely political persuasion on (and then dismiss them outright if you don't like the persuasion you assume them to have) and that happens regularly.

rdean - Just anecdotally, I have an uncle in Louisiana who is pretty "set in his ways" and massively misinformed about quite a lot. He listens to far right wing talk radio every morning, watches Beck at night, and thinks Obama is a Marxist, Muslim, Kenyan, etc. setting up death panels and FEMA camps. He's made a point of not talking to me at family gatherings since the first time I was arrested at an anti-war protest.

I decided that was silly and tried to engage him a couple months ago. If I'd called him an idiot, well that wouldn't do any good. And I didn't think he'd listen if I tried to convince him the health care bill was corporatist, not socialist for instance. Just as I would have a hard time listening if he was trying to convince me it was. So instead I asked him what he thought of the current health care system and what changes he'd like implemented... in other words I asked him a question about his views, rather than assuming I knew them because he fell into some simplified political "slot." Just a minute or two into the discussion, with a few probing questions, he'd dropped the talking points and we were having a real conversation. I found out (and he may have surprised himself too) that he ultimately thinks people who can't afford health insurance should have a way to get medical care. That spawned a greater discussion about poverty where we respectfully challenged each other's views and got down to personal opinions that were just that personal, they toed no party line and in fact were often in opposition to what we might be assumed to believe based on our labels. We didn't walk away voting any different, but we'd had an engaging and illuminating debate where it became apparent we were both decent people who wanted what we thought was best for the country and differed on what that was, but didn't need to be mortal enemies because of it.

I've had similar discussions with lots of people with whom I vehemently disagree, it's possible if you approach people with respect rather than dismiss them as subhuman "others" who believe "that way."

Sure, some people work their damnedest to be mindless parroters of a party line, and maybe they're not worth your time. But I think giving people a chance before writing them off can only benefit everyone involved. At worst, you wasted a minute listening instead of a minute insulting and you didn't make an assumption, which we all know makes an ass out of u and mption.

Shame on you for not knowing!!!

 

[Intense]

Problem number one- Don't make your posts so long. After the 3rd or 4th paragraph folks start to lose interest.

Problem number two- Bitching about other people's perceptions of you will only get you one thing....ridicule. Nobody likes a whiner. Not that I consider you to be on the level of Huggy...but you need to watch this.

Problem number three- See problem number two.

Everyone has a problem with HUGGY even the dog.

Everyone who is anyone!

You do realize Huggy that you are pretty much the only significant presence not on your own list.

 

[Intense]

May I ask why you decided to use that line of mine as a signature?

its fine with me but I was just wondering for claification purposes

Let's not confuse the messenger with the message now.

 

[mudwhistle]

Problem number one- Don't make your posts so long. After the 3rd or 4th paragraph folks start to lose interest.

Problem number two- Bitching about other people's perceptions of you will only get you one thing....ridicule. Nobody likes a whiner. Not that I consider you to be on the level of Huggy...but you need to watch this.

Problem number three- See problem number two.

I tend to be long-winded, that's true and fair enough. On this site though I think it's exacerbated in part by feeling the need to fully explain myself beyond any possibility of confusion since when I do post something more pithy, it's often misconstrued and then assigned a label - and we come full circle.

I used myself as an example because I haven't comprehensively followed this phenomenon as it applies to anyone else in particular, but it was just an example. It's a very pervasive mindset here (and in general) that you'll see all over the place, used by and toward many. It seems most of the people replying here agree that it goes on more rampantly and get that I wasn't just whining about myself.

You can't help what some schmuck thinks of you. You can only present yourself in the most succinct manner possible and hope they want or are capable of understanding.

 

[QUENTIN]

May I ask why you decided to use that line of mine as a signature?

its fine with me but I was just wondering for claification purposes

I think it's a great and appropriate quote.

A few months back I got into a several-page argument with someone where I was providing ample, well-sourced and official documentation that a central claim they were making just wasn't factually accurate and though they replied to me (so seemingly read it), they continued making the same claim as though it hadn't been thoroughly debunked. That, proving oneself to be obstinate or a genuine hack who doesn't care about the truth if it gets in the way of a talking point and actively dismissing "learning anything of substance", is entirely different than the "false labeling" I'm talking about, and either in that thread or another at the time I saw your quote and it seemed a great frustration venter worthy of sigging.

It's not quoted facetiously or mockingly if that's what you were worried about.

 

[xsited1]

The problem is the right really does believe that the president is a Marxist, communist, socialist who wants to take away your guns and destroy America.

How do you talk rationally to irrational people?

Why can't we just settle on the fact that Obama is clueless and call it a day.

 

[Intense]

Most here have no clue what a real conservative stands for.
They believe gay marriage is a top ten priority.
Most wannahbe conservatives claim you are a liberal if you disagree with them, Lush Rimbaugh, Sean Hannity or any of the other talking head clowns they worship.
Most liberals blieve if you like keeping the hard earned $ you earned you are greedy and selfish.BULLSHIT! that is not what we believe
I can not win.
No wonder they always played me on the defensive side of the ball.
"Just rush the QB"

What we believe is your economic beliefs have been proven to be failures all through history and you refuse to accept the cold hard facts.

I think your septic tank overflowed and the fumes are causing you to hallucinate. How about you check on that.

 

[Sherry]

May I ask why you decided to use that line of mine as a signature?

its fine with me but I was just wondering for claification purposes

I think it's a great and appropriate quote.

A few months back I got into a several-page argument with someone where I was providing ample, well-sourced documentation that a central claim they were making just wasn't factually accurate and though they replied to me (so seemingly read it), they continued making the same claim as though it hadn't been thoroughly debunked. That, proving oneself to be obstinate or a genuine hack who doesn't care about the truth if it gets in the way of a talking point and actively dismissing "learning anything of substance", is entirely different than the "false labeling" I'm talking about, and either in that thread or another at the time I saw your quote and it seemed a great frustration venter worthy of sigging.

It's not quoted facetiously or mockingly if that's what you were worried about.

You just had to go and ruin it for us.

 

[xsited1]

May I ask why you decided to use that line of mine as a signature?

its fine with me but I was just wondering for claification purposes

I think it's a great and appropriate quote.

A few months back I got into a several-page argument with someone where I was providing ample, well-sourced documentation that a central claim they were making just wasn't factually accurate and though they replied to me (so seemingly read it), they continued making the same claim as though it hadn't been thoroughly debunked. That, proving oneself to be obstinate or a genuine hack who doesn't care about the truth if it gets in the way of a talking point and actively dismissing "learning anything of substance", is entirely different than the "false labeling" I'm talking about, and either in that thread or another at the time I saw your quote and it seemed a great frustration venter worthy of sigging.

It's not quoted facetiously or mockingly if that's what you were worried about.

You just had to go and ruin it for us.

I guess QUENTIN hasn't read too many of TruthMatters posts. I bet when TruthMatters posted that, she was looking in a mirror.

 

[Truthmatters]

May I ask why you decided to use that line of mine as a signature?

its fine with me but I was just wondering for claification purposes

I think it's a great and appropriate quote.

A few months back I got into a several-page argument with someone where I was providing ample, well-sourced and official documentation that a central claim they were making just wasn't factually accurate and though they replied to me (so seemingly read it), they continued making the same claim as though it hadn't been thoroughly debunked. That, proving oneself to be obstinate or a genuine hack who doesn't care about the truth if it gets in the way of a talking point and actively dismissing "learning anything of substance", is entirely different than the "false labeling" I'm talking about, and either in that thread or another at the time I saw your quote and it seemed a great frustration venter worthy of sigging.

It's not quoted facetiously or mockingly if that's what you were worried about.

That is just what I thought your reply would be an I agree with you whole heartedly.

I asked to make a point to an earlier post.


There are just so many here who refuse cold hard facts

 

[Intense]

I think it's a great and appropriate quote.

A few months back I got into a several-page argument with someone where I was providing ample, well-sourced documentation that a central claim they were making just wasn't factually accurate and though they replied to me (so seemingly read it), they continued making the same claim as though it hadn't been thoroughly debunked. That, proving oneself to be obstinate or a genuine hack who doesn't care about the truth if it gets in the way of a talking point and actively dismissing "learning anything of substance", is entirely different than the "false labeling" I'm talking about, and either in that thread or another at the time I saw your quote and it seemed a great frustration venter worthy of sigging.

It's not quoted facetiously or mockingly if that's what you were worried about.

You just had to go and ruin it for us.

I guess QUENTIN hasn't read too many of TruthMatters posts. I bet when TruthMatters posted that, she was looking in a mirror.

I think it's more a quantum Physics thing. There is probably an alternate reality where she makes perfect sense.

 

[Truthmatters]

Unfettered markets have never in history worked.

Give us an example if you disagree.

 

[hjmick]

May I ask why you decided to use that line of mine as a signature?

its fine with me but I was just wondering for claification purposes

I think it's a great and appropriate quote.

A few months back I got into a several-page argument with someone where I was providing ample, well-sourced and official documentation that a central claim they were making just wasn't factually accurate and though they replied to me (so seemingly read it), they continued making the same claim as though it hadn't been thoroughly debunked. That, proving oneself to be obstinate or a genuine hack who doesn't care about the truth if it gets in the way of a talking point and actively dismissing "learning anything of substance", is entirely different than the "false labeling" I'm talking about, and either in that thread or another at the time I saw your quote and it seemed a great frustration venter worthy of sigging.

It's not quoted facetiously or mockingly if that's what you were worried about.

Oh the irony...

 

[del]

Unfettered markets have never in history worked.

Give us an example if you disagree.

unfettered markets have never existed.

keep swinging