Common dreams

[hfojvt]

wow.

Why have I never noticed that before?

Just happened upon it now, as I was googling for quotes from Coretta Scott King about Iraq. I did not find one there, but I probably should start each day with at least an article from there. Andrew Bard Schmookler came up in google's cache, so I had to read his article since I loved "Parable of the Tribes"

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0131-29.htm

This seemed key.

"The impermeability of this Bushite thought system, which I encountered last week on the radio, reminded me of Catch-22. “If the source of some idea or information isn’t one of us, then we can reject it. And if anyone presents ideas or information that challenge our dogmas, then that person cannot be one of us.” A fool-proof system for protecting the faith."

And now that I think about it, it seems like a discussion board mentality. Often in arguments on DU, a challenge is answered with an accusation - "you're a troll" or "a real progressive would not believe that". Trolls are not answered with facts or logic, they are silenced and banished. "if anyone presents ideas or information that challenge our dogmas, then that person cannot be one of us."

Do we have dogmas? Are our dogmas more fact based? I was googling for quotes so I could lambaste a fundie writer. Yet in his article, he writes: "If you want to make the point that racism still exists in America, Mr. Carter, fine. But at least make your point with some actual facts." So he thinks his dogma is fact-based. When was the last time either of us changed our minds, or had to admit we were wrong?

[Heidi]

1. Great post, hfojvt.

:thumbsup: Recommended.

(Yes, of course, we have dogmas, and they're not always fact-based. I don't consider myself an indecisive person, but I admit that I'm wrong on a regular basis. It's the price of embracing the truth.)

[hfojvt]

12. I am proud to be a flip-flopper

It is far better than doing something criminally stupid and refusing to admit your mistake or do anything to try to make it right ("stay the course!") It means you can learn and improve.

[RevCheesehead]

2. I call it "ideological fundamentalism."

This rigid thought process may keep ideologies intact - however, if taken to extremes, people begin to be pushed out.

In American Christianity, this "dogma" is played out with the hundreds of denominational splits... often in cases where there have been minor disagreements about faith and practice. The problem with "reformation" is that you never really finish "re-forming" anything.

I wonder if perhaps the melding of faith and politics has had a repercussion that we didn't anticipate. Just how inclusive is the Republican party? And who are they willing to tolerate?

If you give a fundie a cookie, they're going to want a glass of milk.

[Heidi]

3. I wonder the same thing about the Democratic party.

Just how inclusive are we? And who are we willing to tolerate? I see people being called "trolls" on liberal boards all the time, simply because one has a low post count or the "gall" to question the status quo of liberal politcs.

[RevCheesehead]

4. Yeah - that's what happens when we buy into the bush agenda.

If we fight the fight on their terms, we're all losers. We'll become so polarized and fragmented, we won't be able to agree on anything at all.

Of all the horrors of this administration, I truly believe that deepening the cultural divide has been one of the worst accomplishments... and we haven't even begun to see the repercussions.
:banghead:

[Heidi]

6. I agree 100 percent.

But take that argument into GD and see what we get for our cogent thinking. There's a huge segment of the Democratic Party that still believes in fighting "fire with fire," rather than fighting irrational policies with rational processes and arguments. I much prefer a pound of cure to a pound of flesh.

[RevCheesehead]

7. That's because they want to win every battle.

And nobody can do that, and survive. Not even republicans.
If we're in this for the long haul, we need to have a cohesive strategy. We need to be able to articulate what we believe, and why.

For some reason, our Dem leaders are reluctant to do that. I would recommend they read Garrison Keillor's book, "Homegrown Democrat." Just the first two chapters have me thinking "I wish he'd run for office."

[hfojvt]

5. it would be nice to see some

"denominational splits" in the Republican party. Instead, it has historically been the progressives and socialists who have split. Instead of splitting, the libertarians and religious fundies have taken over the Republican party and lifelong moderate Republicans just go with the flow. Except in Kansas, we have lately had two switch parties to run as Democrats. Even our 2nd time Congressional candidate, Nancy Boyda, is a former Republican. That worries me some too, because I fear they may pull the Kansas Democrats even further to the right, and they are already Ford Republicans.

[RevCheesehead]

8. Admittedly, they are strong in that area.

However, I see a few cracks in the foundation. I think the Schiavo mess really woke up the moderates... and even more recently, the budget for next year. But what will really show is the mid-term elections. How many republicans are going to want bush out there with them?

[hfojvt]

9. he might as well be out there with them

if they have not opposed any of his policies, nor called him to account for his warantless wire-tapping. It seemed that in Kansas, he is still a pretty good draw. Even our Democratic Governor was on stage with him, saying what an honor it was to have him come here and lie to us in person. Come on, Kathleen, we need your help to win this district and to oppose Bush policies. Not give him praise and sound-bites.

[RevCheesehead]

15. LOL - I wish she would have said that!

"..saying what an honor it was to have him come here and lie to us in person."

Get the point across with humor.
Like Patrick Leahy did with Gonzales.

[enigmatic]

10. Hatred

I was somebody that was consumed of hatred (a chunk of it political) for a good portion of my life. I changed that when I realized that the hatred I had (even if I believe it to be righteous or valid)was literally like spiritual poison to me. And it changed my life for the better (and I was better able to function it it) by realizing how much energy I wasted in my life being consumed w/ that hate.

But the thing about hatred is that it's also like emotional crack; it's a short, intense emotional high, even though it's a cheap one. I think once that you realize that, it's a turning point in how you deal with things like politics in your life.

I understand how well-directed rage is a good thing, but too often there is hatred for hatred's sake in the whole political arena, and I see it getting worse, not better.

We're a polarized nation, and it's only natural that you'll se it, even on a board that is for those of one side of the political and cultural spectrum. I just don't think that's going to change anytime soon.

[hfojvt]

11. Ironically enough, one quote of Coretta's was easy to find

"Hate is too great a burden to bear. It injures the hater more than it injures the hated."

I just like to see the hatred focussed better - on the BFEE and their policies, rather than spilling over to Bush voters, red states, all fundies, all Christians, anyone who is not perfectly progressive, anyone who does not smoke the same cigarettes as me, etc.

My sarcastic comment is "the world is full of hate - pass it on" Hoping that people will choose not to, but it usually just makes them mad.

[enigmatic]

13. I'm with you on that

I'd like to see that happen, too. Let's hope it does, and fast.

[Heidi]

14. Kick for the day crew.

:kick:

[jpgray]

16. There's a slight difference between running an internet message board

And running the country. We don't debate, by and large, issues that conservatives and liberals/progressives/whatevers have always disagreed on because that isn't the board's purpose. The board's purpose is for liberals/progressives/whatevers to meet and discuss things. If you want an unregulated political free-for-all with no political stances barred, check out the Yahoo political forums.

[hfojvt]

17. hopefully the country is not run by its government or politicians

It is about learning to relate politically. And we surely do debate all issues from all sides here. That is the nature of people. If you take twenty issues you could put them on a scale from P for progressive to M for middle or undecided and R for regressive. Then if you measured everyone on this board on these issues probably nobody here would be a straight progressive on all issues. Is a person who is progressive on 12, M on 3, and R on 5 an ally or an enemy?
Sometimes that may be because of ignorance or because an earworm from the Republican Noise Machine has taken over. One concern is the way we react to this. Can we inform or persuade moderates or does a lynch mob gather, shouting "crucify the heretic!" Note that this sentiment is coming from the rank and file more than it is from administrators or moderators.
That in this country, we are learning, perhaps from message boards, talk radio, and people like O'Reilly, to think and argue and relate with ad hominem "logic". We gather in groups, striving for perfect consensus and having derision for "compromise" and the "insane ignorant morans" who disagree with us. You are either with us all the way, or against us. Patriots or traitors. True believers or terrorist symps.
Not that this is true of everyone, but that I see alot of it just like he did with his radio show.

[jpgray]

18. Think of the consequences if all viewpoints were tolerated here

You could have an influx of Stormfront groupies who would waste untold bandwidth trying to convince you of the worth of eugenics, and killing all non-WASPs. There's a productive use of this message board! You're never going to "convince" these people with your arguments that their ideology is wrong, you'll just uselessly butt heads for hours on end to -no- end, and what good did that do you? I respectfully submit that the kind of conversions you're talking about are far better suited for in-person discussion than discussion on an internet message board. Internet message boards are better suited to more or less coherent groups where discussion and argument is at least slightly limited. Otherwise instead of useful debate you have two sides that will never win and never lose their argument, but just enjoy bashing the hell out of each other.

I'd put it rather: "You're either with us to the extent that there is at least the smallest merit in discussing issues with you, or against us to the extent that you disrupt the board in an entirely useless way." If you give careful equal time to ever argument that comes your way no matter how ridiculous, you will have wasted too many hours. There comes a point where you have to prioritize, and as any glance in GD / GDP should show you, we have plenty to disagree about already without inviting the whole right-wing side of the political spectrum to tell us how laissez faire economics solves all problems among other fallacies. These arguments should be examined carefully, but we have enough to talk about in this forum without rehashing -that- every time some conservative decides he/she's right and we're wrong.

[hfojvt]

19. well, I do not know anything about bandwidth problems

and I would like to re-word my OP. My concern is not with tolerance of trolls. Obviously, there are some only interested in disruption. There are also probably people who come here for discussion but find ad hominem attacks. Yes I see vigorous discussions in GD or flame wars, but cannot seem to see one that does not include popcorn smileys, or references to pizza and kool-aid.
Again, this is more about the rank and file wanting to form lynch mobs or posses than it is about the work of the moderators.
Also again, I am not saying that we need to communicate with or convince the dogmatists of the right. I am more concerned about those of us who are or are becoming dogmatists of the left. And it goes beyond this board into how we relate to our fellow Americans, either through speaking or writing.
As far as a useful debate, as Russell said "unless you agree on the basics, there can be no dialogue". One of the basics I hold to is the invalidity of ad hominem arguments, and another is that of demonizing people who disagree with you.