Natural political discourse

[EvMetro]

The point of this thread is to establish what the most natural and honest political discourse is. Millions have died as a means of political discourse over the course of history, and continue to even to this day. We see ugly political rhetoric being used by the media and on this site, and many of us see the current landscape as a war zone. People hate their political opponents and want to do bad things to them.

The point of this thread is not to point out how hostile and ugly political discourse is though, it is about establishing what the true and natural political discourse really is. Does anybody believe that civilized discourse is honest discourse? Do you believe that hostile political discourse is what is the natural way of political discourse? If you have to word your posts and threads in a way that satisfies your political opponents, do you feel like you are posting what you really want to say, or does this make you feel even MORE hostile toward your opponents?

I'd love to hear what other people think natural political discourse really is, not what you think or want it to be. Just what it really is.

 

[jwoodie]

Natural and honest discourse are two different things, whether they be about politics or any other subject. Natural discourse is a means of getting someone to do what you want. Honest discourse is discussing the validity of facts you believe to be true and what logical conclusions can be drawn from them.

 

[task0778]

Does anybody believe that civilized discourse is honest discourse?

It can be if one chooses to be civilized.

Do you believe that hostile political discourse is what is the natural way of political discourse?

NO. I believe that hostile discourse is counter-productive and usually does not lead to acceptable outcomes.

If you have to word your posts and threads in a way that satisfies your political opponents, do you feel like you are posting what you really want to say, or does this make you feel even MORE hostile toward your opponents?

Let's break this down. First, civil discourse does not require someone to appease or satisfy a political opponent. One can make a case for one's pov without pandering to another pov. In general, if I am not posting what I really want to say then the chances are I've been emotionally triggered and am better off saying nothing. One is not required to respond to a dickhead. If I do that's on me for allowing the dickhead to get inside my head. And yeah, that probably ups my hostility towards the dickhead, so I won't be claiming sainthood anytime soon.

 

[EvMetro]

It can be if one chooses to be civilized.

The thread does not ask how political discourse can be, or how you would like it to be. I'm asking how you think it really is, regardless of if we like it or not

NO. I believe that hostile discourse is counter-productive and usually does not lead to acceptable outcomes.

The thread does not ask if various types of political discourse are productive or not, or what kinds of outcomes result. I'm asking what type of political discourse is natural and how things are.

Let's break this down. First, civil discourse does not require someone to appease or satisfy a political opponent. One can make a case for one's pov without pandering to another pov. In general, if I am not posting what I really want to say then the chances are I've been emotionally triggered and am better off saying nothing. One is not required to respond to a dickhead. If I do that's on me for allowing the dickhead to get inside my head. And yeah, that probably ups my hostility towards the dickhead, so I won't be claiming sainthood anytime soon.

What kind of political discourse do you think people naturally engage in? This is what natural political discourse is.

 

[EvMetro]

Natural and honest discourse are two different things, whether they be about politics or any other subject. Natural discourse is a means of getting someone to do what you want. Honest discourse is discussing the validity of facts you believe to be true and what logical conclusions can be drawn from them.

What type of political discourse do you think people naturally engage in? Generally speaking.

 

[Natural Citizen]

There's a great quote out there which surmises that reality is multiple and tightly coupled to perception.

A question which naturally arises, or should arise, is whether people ever experience any kind of objective reality in the lived experience. Reality is aligned with perception and perception can be mediated. Environment. Sounds. Tenor. These factors all (and there are many other factors) determine how we process a moment.

It's a very deep discussion, really. A good discussion, too.

I just don't feel like it right now, sorry.

Good question, though, OP.

 

[Natural Citizen]

One of the other factors, while I'm reminded of it, that determine how people process a moment, and one of the more critical factors, in fact, is referenced or outlined in something called the looking-glass self theory. While it's a theory, it's a very real phenomenon. Particularly in this age where everyone has authorship (through social media and whatnot) of how they present themselves to the world. Everything is so carefully curated. The way that other people perceive you becomes a construct of your own doing. And, of course, this raises questions about authenticity in how we interact with other people. Or it should.

So, yeah. Looking-glass self theory. Look that up.

Actually, hold on, I'll link it...

Looking-glass self - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It's wiki, so not very deep, but you get the idea.

Basically, it comes down to the idea that "I'm not who I think I am, I am not who you think I am, I am who I think you think I am."

It's kind of a psychological rendering or model of how we think other people see us and then try to fulfill the role of who we think they think we are. Even though we're really not that person in many cases. Most cases, perhaps, particularly given the technological age in which we live. So, then, we get back to not really ever experiencing any kind of objective reality. And often lose a sense of one's own self. Or one's own identity. And, again, this dictates in many ways how one interacts with others. Multiply the phenomenon by many others around you, doing the same thing.

I used the term ''we'' there quite a bit. I did so for sake of convenience. We are all, of course, Individuals, despite the unpopularity and growing contestation of the very concept of individualism in our modern, collectivist society.

Anyway. You get the idea...

 

[EvMetro]

Honest discourse is discussing the validity of facts you believe to be true and what logical conclusions can be drawn from them.

Do you think it is honest political discourse if you have to modify what you have to say so that you do not offend those who you wish to offend?

 

[jwoodie]

What type of political discourse do you think people naturally engage in? Generally speaking.

Unfortunately, natural political discourse is usually a means to justify their own existence (i.e., psychotherapy). Getting someone to agree with you is only useful for self-validation. Otherwise, you ignore or curse at them.

Honest political discourse is rare because it involves a willingness to consider contrary facts and modify long-held beliefs.

 

[jwoodie]

Do you think it is honest political discourse if you have to modify what you have to say so that you do not offend those who you wish to offend?

Being offended is an emotional response to being presented with contrary facts. As such, it has no place in honest political discourse.

 

[EvMetro]

Unfortunately, natural political discourse is usually a means to justify their own existence (i.e., psychotherapy). Getting someone to agree with you is only useful for self-validation. Otherwise, you ignore or curse at them.

Honest political discourse is rare because it involves a willingness to consider contrary facts and modify long-held beliefs.

What kind of political discourse do you think people naturally engage in? Hostile? Civilized? Violent?

 

[jwoodie]

What kind of political discourse do you think people naturally engage in? Hostile? Civilized? Violent?

As evidenced in the Politics forum, defensive, hostile and profane. What is your assessment?

 

[EvMetro]

As evidenced in the Politics forum, defensive, hostile and profane. What is your assessment?

I agree. Based upon the millions who have been killed as political discourse, the posts on this site, and the current political climate, I'd insist that natural political discourse is violent, ugly, and uncivilized. Anything more civilized than this reality is not natural.

 

[Orangecat]

What type of political discourse do you think people naturally engage in? Generally speaking.

All you have to do is remove the speech-governors to find out. Politics generally comes down to two things:
1. Taxation levels and where it is redistributed,
and:
2. The degree which government inserts itself into the private lives of the citizens.

People have very strong opinions on such things, and strong opinions are often expressed with strong language.
We're all adults here, and there are no stick or stones, just words.

 

[Circe]

The point of this thread is to establish what the most natural and honest political discourse is. Millions have died as a means of political discourse over the course of history, and continue to even to this day. We see ugly political rhetoric being used by the media and on this site, and many of us see the current landscape as a war zone. People hate their political opponents and want to do bad things to them.

The point of this thread is not to point out how hostile and ugly political discourse is though, it is about establishing what the true and natural political discourse really is. Does anybody believe that civilized discourse is honest discourse? Do you believe that hostile political discourse is what is the natural way of political discourse? If you have to word your posts and threads in a way that satisfies your political opponents, do you feel like you are posting what you really want to say, or does this make you feel even MORE hostile toward your opponents?

I'd love to hear what other people think natural political discourse really is, not what you think or want it to be. Just what it really is.

War is politics by other means, Clausewitz said. I'd say political discussion is also a form of war; pretty much everything is a form of war, including a lot of the relations between the sexes.

The point of war is to destroy the enemy and take over his territory and resources. That's the point of discussion, too, unless the discussion is with obvious allies. I learn a lot here from allies: rarely from enemies, who are simply trying to destroy me.

Of course hostile political discourse is the natural way! There seems to be some idea floating around that one may "win" a discussion in a nebulous debate-team rules sort of way if one works hard enough; but that high-school game was an artificial situation with an unholy number of rules (and in my day, girls weren't allowed to participate. Because men would be the lawyers and politicians and needed the practice, see, that's why, yeah).

Since discussion is just another form of war, one must expect non-stop propaganda and lies and open attacks. At least from the other side. For that reason, it seems to me little use to bother with the other side, and I generally don't bother. The real discourse and learning and changes in understanding come from people who are on my side, not the ones who want me gone furthest soonest!

 

[Circe]

Natural and honest discourse are two different things, whether they be about politics or any other subject. Natural discourse is a means of getting someone to do what you want.

I love it; excellent.

 

[EvMetro]

As we can see in this thread, neither the admins nor the community are arguing that natural political discourse is anything but ugly and uncivilized. That leads to the question of if trying to force people to discuss politics in a way that is not natural is really effective. Thoughts?

 

[Baron Von Murderpaws]

Civilized discussion is more of a debate between opposing views.

And you can get "heated" in debate without becoming a verbal, abusive tyrant.

But this isn't taught in school anymore, and new generations of parents have no clue what civilized discussion is, or what it represents to a society or country.

 

[EvMetro]

Civilized discussion is more of a debate between opposing views.

And you can get "heated" in debate without becoming a verbal, abusive tyrant.

But this isn't taught in school anymore, and new generations of parents have no clue what civilized discussion is, or what it represents to a society or country.

Indeed, civics are not taught in school anymore.

Civilized discussions are still around, just not about politics. The ugliest brawls and ugliest debates that we see on this board are as civilized as political discussions get, considering the countless millions who have paid the ultimate price in the name of political discourse.