Disappointing Responses from the Internet - politics

[Deranged Nasat]

Please forgive my little speech here, as I'm sure I'm not saying anything people don't already know, and to most of you this will read as "Nasat discovers the obvious and acts like it's interesting". But I'm feeling a little down over it and I felt like letting off a bit of steam.

So, I've been lurking on and off around a site that offers various articles on certain political and social issues. While I sympathized with their basic position, I was concerned that they were alienating potential supporters with their prescriptive outlooks. I'm sorry to be vague here, but it doesn't really matter what it was about - this isn't supposed to be about the issues under discussion, instead about the irritating nature of politics. So I left a few comments - which I rarely do anywhere - and got into a discussion as an anonymous visitor. And I don't know why I bothered. I was pretty much accused of being a troll stirring up trouble, because evidently visitors half-agreeing with some of their agenda but half-disagreeing must be there to cause mischief. Some regulars were polite, but it was clear from their responses that they were evaluating what I was saying not on the basis of what I was actually stating but on their pre-conceived assumptions as to what I must mean. I was pretty much already categorized and pigeon-holed as "person with such and such an outlook and beliefs", and responded to (however politely) as though those were the arguments I was making. Now, maybe it was just poor communication on my part, and I wasn't skilled enough at actually making my points, but it felt like my part in the discussion was irrelevant. They didn't understand my starting position or where I was coming from, and so didn't understand the points I was making. It's like I wasn't even there, and they were just dismantling my words so as to reinforce the assumptions and conclusions that existed prior to my input. In short, as a form of communication I failed it utterly, and I don't know how much is me and how much them.

Obviously, I'm not saying I expected my opinion to matter too much, but given that my concern was at least in part for their own success, and the potential dangers of alienating possible allies, I thought they'd at least take me seriously. I also pointed out what I perceived as a confusion in their basic position, using in part my own wariness in order to demonstrate it - namely, that they seemed to have two potential central goals, which weren't necessarily at odds, yet their manner of promoting the first essentially made the second unachievable. Rather than discuss this, I was told I must be ignorant or a troll, and several personal attacks were made. I then pointed out that being at least somewhat familiar with their usual activity, this is exactly the sort of behaviour they condemn in the groups and people they oppose. Now, this is pretty standard, I'm sure, but it's irritating me - no one is going to support or recommend your ideologies if you treat well-intentioned maybe-supporters with such aggression when they come to you with concern. Their response to this, sigh, was that this made me an attention whore using the "agree with me or I'll leave and that matters because my attention is a prize you must value" argument. So I went away and presumably left them feeling smug.

This is one of the reasons I like to avoid politics; because there doesn't seem to be any room for complexity or ambiguity in it. Either you agree with a set of principles and assumptions in their entirety or you're outcast. And if you're not affiliated with a group's worldview in its entirety, you must be with the other lot, sharing their perspective. It's like the concept of the individual doesn't even exist for these people. There's only affiliation with the group, the agenda or the ideology. And it frustrates me on their benefit, too. Can't they see that in trying to gain popular support for their stance on this, they need not to alienate those who might sympathise with a least some of their platform? I left the site convinced not only that I wouldn't be sending anyone their way but that they ultimately represented the same thing as the groups they opposed. They didn't see that either, of course, saying the failure was thus mine and that it was an "epic" one. Of course I understand the difference between them and the groups they oppose, but when it comes to what they represent to me and how they operate, for all intents and purposes they were coming across the same! It totally soured me on these people's movement even though I retain sympathy for their basic position.

This is the basic problem with politics - people cling to an ideology that maps out an entire worldview, and then join with other people who promote that worldview. It then reinforces itself over and over until any outside perspective becomes a target for aggression. Anything that deviates from it is wrong, any other position ignorant. After all, they have at hand all the arguments and logic and experience justifying their position, and any different perspectives don't match with that bank of justifications and evidence.

And these political discussion groups just become closed clubs for people to reinforce their beliefs without facing other perspectives.

Anyway, that's the mini-rant over. If it was TL;DR, my fault.

 

[Amaris]

You must be a liberal.

I kid, I kid. I just wanted to dismiss your post immediately. That way you'd feel at home in politics.

Seriously, though, I understand exactly what you're saying. There are places where the partisanship is so deep that anything aside from total agreement means you're "wishy washy" or "naive". It's quite common at places like Democratic Underground, or Free Republic, where anything other than complete agreement makes you a troll and likely to get the boot.

There are other message boards, where I have been a member, that anything other than total agreement means you're a part of the plan to destroy the country. Nothing you say, no matter how rational, reasonable or factual, makes a difference, and reputable sources are weighed against very biased, unbalanced sources, and are left wanting.

When a message board/website gets to that point, or is that way when you arrive, you are spitting into the wind. Nothing you say will ever change their minds, because their minds are already made up, they're already the people on the inside, and you're just a naive outsider, well intentioned, but lacking in the true understanding that they have, and if you don't accept their wisdom, well to hell with you, is generally the sentiment.

So, I do know how you feel, and I'd like to see less division in politics, but I'm not sure we can ever get to that point again. People like to be entrenched in their ideas, and when having an open mind is a weakness, there's pretty much nowhere else to go but down.

 

[MacLeod]

Politics unfortunantly can be a very divisive subject.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

You must be a liberal.

I kid, I kid. I just wanted to dismiss your post immediately. That way you'd feel at home in politics.

.

I know I must be stating the obvious here, but it was so frustrating I had to share my little mini-rant.

Seriously, though, I understand exactly what you're saying. There are places where the partisanship is so deep that anything aside from total agreement means you're "wishy washy" or "naive". It's quite common at places like Democratic Underground, or Free Republic, where anything other than complete agreement makes you a troll and likely to get the boot.

There are other message boards, where I have been a member, that anything other than total agreement means you're a part of the plan to destroy the country. Nothing you say, no matter how rational, reasonable or factual, makes a difference, and reputable sources are weighed against very biased, unbalanced sources, and are left wanting.

When a message board/website gets to that point, or is that way when you arrive, you are spitting into the wind. Nothing you say will ever change their minds, because their minds are already made up, they're already the people on the inside, and you're just a naive outsider, well intentioned, but lacking in the true understanding that they have, and if you don't accept their wisdom, well to hell with you, is generally the sentiment.

Exactly. That's another thing that really irritates me; the tricks they have to give themselves permission to utterly dismiss you without consideration. In this case, I came up against three. The most annoying was the argument that I was an attention whore arguing to get a response and that I'd keep coming back to satisfy my urges. Of course, that's an instant "win" for them, because either I do keep coming back and "prove them right" or I go away and stop making any argument challenging them. I'd hope any observer would see through the tactic, but I'm not optimistic - it was their forum and they controlled the language and the framework of the discussion.

Another was the "false consciousness" argument, which you basically bring up there, and yes, the "you lack true understanding" argument is very annoying. Several folks tried that; the idea that anyone of my background who saw things as I did must only see it that way because he's been deluded and brainwashed into it by his society. This was the passive-aggressive "poor guy, you'll wake up one day" approach. The scary thing is, I think they all genuinely believed it.

The third was the idea that I wasn't actually of the background I claimed. I must be a troll pretending, because naturally it was completely impossible that someone from that background could ever think or argue as I do. There were several posts in agreement that "yep, he's actually ---" and "all the signs are there".

So, I do know how you feel, and I'd like to see less division in politics, but I'm not sure we can ever get to that point again. People like to be entrenched in their ideas, and when having an open mind is a weakness, there's pretty much nowhere else to go but down.

Sadly I think you're right. (By which I mean I think you're correct, not "sadly, you are clearly right-wing" )

The final irritating point is that one of the reasons I sympathized with this group was because they claimed to be under attack unfairly from wider society, and I agreed with that assessment. Yet their attitude to absolutely anyone who didn't share their worldview was essentially the same basic uncalled-for aggression, and when I suggested that they were alienating people by making similar mistakes to the groups attacking them, they got...funny.

 

[LitmusDragon]

The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place.

— George Bernard Shaw


I confess, I'm a little busy and only read your first paragraph, but that seems to be the gist of it.


I also like



"Oh lord, please don't let me be misunderstood."


and


"Shaka, when the walls fell."


I run into this doing customer service all the time. I'll be explaining something carefully and intelligent and with great effort and the person on the other end of the line is hearing something completely different usually due to their holding a grudge with the inanimate devices that we sell.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place.

— George Bernard Shaw

"Shaka, when the walls fell."

Indeed. And while I know the part that's their fault, I'm always cautious that part of the blame is mine, at least potentially. I'm not the best at explaining myself clearly or without losing patience...though I certainly try.

I run into this doing customer service all the time. I'll be explaining something carefully and intelligent and with great effort and the person on the other end of the line is hearing something completely different usually due to their holding a grudge with the inanimate devices that we sell.

Oh yes, I've heard plenty of stories from those in customer services . They see you as a cross between an agony aunt, a chewtoy, and the active demonic force behind their frustration. They don't quite grasp the "other human being trying to help you with the limited details you've given me" bit. I sympathise.

 

[Thor Damar]

"I find you ideas interesting and would like to suscribe to your newsletter."

Mangled Simpsons quotation aside, I seriously share your disquiet about the state of politics with regards to the internet. As someone who does have a political ideology (one that I do not immediately invoke upon joining a place such as this) I can get supremely vexed by the over the top reactions that certain subjects bring forth.

We all have our buttons and little sticking points but it can grate a little to hear some of the ways in which such anger is expressed. There are legions of examples that we could all share I'm sure.

The worst thing for me is the sneeringly patronizing responses that are garnered from the simplest debates. That's why I don't do politics on the internet (unless it turns out to be a bloody good and discussion) and maintain an irrelevant tone throughout. Thank any god in shouting distance that I'm not a serious man.

Anyway that's enough from the Arthur Dent here...

 

[PurpleLady]

I have to admit the same thing happened to me here on this board with almost my first post. I thought new people should be welcomed as long as they were trying to participate, but I felt verbally attacked. Admittedly it was my fault that I didn't go to the first page of a 100 some page thread and contributed one word, but dang that poster was on me like "Blam". It honestly embarassed me until I thought hey, get over it and just post.

Same goes for you. You will never meet those people and if they are that opinionated do you really want to meet them? Each person expresses themselves in unique ways. You have to take the good with the bad.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

Same goes for you. You will never meet those people and if they are that opinionated do you really want to meet them? Each person expresses themselves in unique ways. You have to take the good with the bad.

That's true, and gods know I'm not an innocent in this regard either (though I always strive to overcome it). Still, one of the good points about the BBS is that we're so varied, it prevents many of those closed ideological circles forming. And people here seem on the whole largely understanding and sympathetic; even when we have off-days and behave poorly.

And I very much agree with your point that everyone expresses themselves uniquely.

 

[Gary7]

There's a reason why discussions of political and religious natures tend to be lumped together. Although political policies are supposed to be rooted in less ethereal foundations, they often touch on ideas that are difficult to substantiate. Thus, they take on more of a "faith" following than most politicians would be willing to admit.

And so, I think what you found, Deranged Nasat, was a forum where there was a strong religious following to political ideologies. Any challenge would be considered heresy. Any supportive comments would be welcomed in warm appreciation.


This is why political parties are a bad thing. They are in a sense a kind of religion. We never know if they are truly successful, because all political policies are fraught with inadequacies, compromises, and contextual challenges. A policy with a strong party signature to it may succeed or fail. Success is usually in spite of itself, and not attributable to political ideology. Failure is usually due to political friction that either detrimentally compromised it from the beginning, or prevented it from accomplishments after it was enacted. Of course, sometimes they fail simply due to inadequacy, failing to recognize certain key elements that end up preventing the policy from achieving anything.

A political party will seek to accomplish objectives with specific methods and beliefs, but they are faced with persistent challenges by the opposing party. If an objective fails, was it due to a bad policy to begin with, or due to interference/blockage by the opposing party? Were subversive efforts enacted to fight against the policy, merely because it was created by the opposing political party or because it was believed that the policy was improper to begin with?

We all want a nation where businesses and the public prosper. They are inherently co-dependent. Yet, Republicans believe business is the higher priority while Democrats believe the public is the higher priority. Who is right? Neither. The priorities are both. It is a balance between policies for short term and long term improvement/correction. You ignore education, and you end up with a deficient public that can't serve business. You ignore business and it flounders, delivering less tax revenue that ultimately diminishes educational efforts. It's all interconnected. Unfortunately, there are so many people who don't see it this way... so many resources are wasted on political infighting that achieves absolutely nothing for it, except delays and diluted policies. It is a highly inefficient system that must either change or push our nation into further decline.

I believe the only way to change things is to detach politics from religious qualities. People should not be aligned to a political party, because it is a religion. They should be aligned with specific political policies, something tangible that may actually accomplish something significant and lasting.

 

[stonester1]

This kind of built in mass mind hard bias exists on many issues, not just politics. Sometimes, it's fun to just stick it to the dominating opinion just to watch them flail, gnash their teeth and pat themselves/high five each other in an almost reflexively Pavlovian manner.

 

[KimMH]

Some people who say they are interested in discussion really mean "I only want your opinion so I can show you how wrong you are and how smart and right I am." Those people really aren't as smart as they think and not worth your time. I come here when I get tired of Faux News and Tea Party blah blah blah . . .

 

[stonester1]

It's text based Viagra, it is.

 

[Squiggy]

I mock your value system. You also appear foolish to the eyes of others.

 

[stonester1]

Depending on who those "others" are, it can be a badge of honor.

 

[Gary7]

Some people who say they are interested in discussion really mean "I only want your opinion so I can show you how wrong you are and how smart and right I am." Those people really aren't as smart as they think and not worth your time. I come here when I get tired of Faux News and Tea Party blah blah blah . . .

Very true, that. The need to be right is probably hard wired into our DNA. It is a form of posturing, to be alpha among the rest. And yet... with our species, we must surpass this primal need. But we can't even do that if we don't recognize its presence first. So few seem to do so, and when confronted with it lash back without any moment of due consideration.

 

[stonester1]

It may be an instinct, but it's a conscious decision to be a Type A knowitall douche. Any possible hardwiring (of which, I doubt) is no excuse.

One is an asshole because one chooses to be. And no matter how cool one may think it is, it's not.

 

[STR]

I was pretty much accused of being a troll stirring up trouble

"Troll" is, most of the time, quite simply name calling. Formally called Ad Hominem, it is an attempt to discredit someone based on some negative trait that is irrelevant to the discussion. In other words, even if you were trolling (or naive, or mentally retarded, etc), you can still be right.

it was clear from their responses that they were evaluating what I was saying not on the basis of what I was actually stating but on their pre-conceived assumptions as to what I must mean.

Another cheap trick, called the Straw Man Argument. Basically, replacing your argument with a similar one, which is either defeated because the substitute has fundamental logical flaw,or it's a common point which is discredited using precanned arguments. It is a poor attempt to avoid challenging your argument.

Another variation, the Red Herring, or Irrelevant Conclusion uses an unrelated fact to try and distract from the issue at hand. An Example would be talking about Rick Perry, but spelling his last name with an "a", which gets a response of "you can't even spell his name right, so you obviously don't know what you're talking about".

I was pretty much already categorized and pigeon-holed as "person with such and such an outlook and beliefs", and responded to (however politely) as though those were the arguments I was making.

Which is the Genetic Fallacy, discrediting or highlighting an opinion base solely on where the argument came from, not its content. Like a white person talking about affirmative action, or a Boston (Taxachusetts) man talking about raising taxes. People dismiss you based on your biology or residence.

A 5th common fallacy is the slippery slope, for example, people that scream "1984" whenever a unified government ID is suggested.

The 6th and final common fallacy is the non sequitor, literally "does not follow". An example: someone sees a person trying to buy liquor with a SNAP card. They conclude that everyone on food stamps are lazy drunks. Therefore, SNAP must be discontinued. The disconnect is, and I hope this is obvious, that a sample of 1 does not indict a billion dollar program with millions of beneficiaries.

There are other fallacies, many more in fact. These are just the most common in political arguments. Fallacies are all inherently illogical, therefore automatically wrong regardless of context. If faced with such a fraudulent argument, it is satisfactory to simply point out the fallacy. If the person stands by their wrong comment, you can literally condemn them as irrational. You do not need to prove what a fallacy is, 2,000 years of philosophy and debate have proven them for you.

So, in summation, you're either dealing with people too ignorant to know what they're saying, or they know exactly that they're using false arguments to discredit you. While avoiding/ignoring such people is a fine answer, just knowing and seeing what tactics they're using is a great benefit in dealing with them.