Rules for a Productive Political Discussion

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
I think we need another rule I would like to call The anti Bovine Defecation rule .which is state one point at a time. And if you post a link tell how it has influenced your thinking as apposed to stating multiple links that are so broad no one know which point you are making. Remember we are communicating differences in opinion, now is not the time for a vocabulary or writing lesson, if you can say with out using your thesaurus or dictionary all the better.

That would be more clear, but might reduce the level of the dialog - complex arguments aren’t necessarily incorrect arguments, but they do have more points at which they could be wrong.

Also, need for the dictionary and/or thesaurus is very relative. Just as an FYI, when I used to get drunk with my buddies in high school, a couple of them were always highly amused with their requests for “Tell us some more college words [BB].”

But I do understand that it’s usually more productive to point out the reason one is providing a link - and the particular parts of any given argument one disagrees with. However, sometimes links are provided for informational purposes as well - which is usually apparent, or explained in a sentence (e.g., “Here are a few blogs that covered the last debate” or “Here are a few different reactions to this speech.”), but in the spirit of productive conversation please ask if there are questions.[/quote]

Thanks I will

42

[quote]rainjack wrote:

RSU - The Florida Kid.

He cracked me up. Pissed me off, but cracked me up. [/quote]

In the spirit of reminiscing about the good old days, I liked RSU - he was bright.

Hsdper - while occasionally exasperating with his self-advertising - was a really intelligent guy who could offer up arguments in a number of interesting areas. We had our battles, and we got bloody a few times, but he was a very bright guy.

Elkhunter was a good guy, and we had more in common than our arguments typically showed.

And others.

One of things I miss about these old posters is that, even though I may have disagreed with them, they could talk intelligently about a number of political topics: we could battle on tax policy, foreign policy, all kinds of stuff.

This dovetails on Sloth’s point - (don’t stay away too long, Sloth) - now we just get a rehash of the same old stuff: the predictable shrieking on racism and Iraq.

43

[quote]rainjack wrote:
I resurrected a thread last night that is 4 years old. Take a look at it - It’s kinda like looking at your high school yearbook.

I think it even has your very first post in the political forum, Hedo.

http://www.T-Nation.com/tmagnum/readTopic.do?id=448098 [/quote]

I assumed you guys were looking at the past with proverbial rose colored glasses. The tone of that thread is remarkably civil. I’ll try to live up to thy good examples!

44

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
rainjack wrote:
I resurrected a thread last night that is 4 years old. Take a look at it - It’s kinda like looking at your high school yearbook.

I think it even has your very first post in the political forum, Hedo.

http://www.T-Nation.com/tmagnum/readTopic.do?id=448098

I assumed you guys were looking at the past with proverbial rose colored glasses. The tone of that thread is remarkably civil. I’ll try to live up to thy good examples! [/quote]

Yeah, that is one, but I have been on the forums since their inception. Trust me, the main thing that has changed is the posters. You have your share of asshats in the past too. Really, it’s current state is not much different. Really, all is well.

45

This one’s easy.

  1. Don’t speak.
46

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

rainjack wrote:
There’s a difference between those the thumb their noses at the rules, and those whose only mission is drum the same monotonous drivel in every single thread they enter.

It used to be fun to get into to lively debates in here. 100M comes to mind as a great guy to fight with. There used to be that guy who was supposedly a tenured guy at Stanford - he was always fun to scrap with. The hermit from Wyoming was fun, too.

The thing about all of them is that they had a message beyond “Bush Lied - People Died” - and they did not derive every single bit of their knowledge from wiki-fucking-pedia.

tGunslinger wrote:
hspdr was the Stanford guy; I don’t who you’re talking about w.r.t. Wyoming hermit.

I searched the PWI archives going back three or four years ago, and it was truly stunning how much more intelligent discourse there was back then. It was higher level discussion all around, but especially from the left-wing perspective. I don’t really know what happened, but the rational, informed left-wing voice has been reduced to a whisper in this forum.

Frankly, it was kind of depressing to come back here to the current PWI.

And I guess 100M had more intelligent discussion way back in the day, RJ? Because all I’ve seen him do the last couple of years is mindlessly regurgitate DNC talking points. I wouldn’t call him a valuable member at all. Was he different in the past?

-Edited for clarity

rainjack wrote:
Hspdr - that was the guy.

I don’t know how much more intelligent anyone was back in the day, but at least you could stay on topic, and the level of hatred was not nearly as high. Oh, sure, people got pissed, and I would spit out rainjackisms like watermelon seeds. But at the end of the day, I really wouldn’t mind having a beer with any of them.

The same cannot be said for the people we have in here now.

100M is a classic Clintonian lib. But at least he is honest about it. I don’t doubt for a second that he loves this country, and only wants to do what he thinks is best for it. He hates Reagan, and worships at the feet of big gov’t. But he doesn’t have to agree with me - what fun would that be?

hedo wrote:
RJ I remember that guy, Hspdr, and he was fun to spar with. He was an avid Social Democrat if I recall.

I agree about two years ago we used to have some good dust ups on this forum and folks actually had respect for each other and different ideas. A lot less fanatics that’s for sure. I became friends with a few of my most vocal advesaries. Can’t imagine that happening with the current ones. Sadly most left and the discourse level dropped a great deal since then.

Where’s JeffR been lately BTW? [/quote]

You miss him?! I’m not sure I can remember one original or thought-provoking post he ever made. Just repetitive taunting and party-line links.

47

I’ve lurked this forum for just about as long as I’ve been a member of this site.

The problem seems to be a lot of good posters having left.

If these “rules” you’re proposing are actually followed, with the present posters…sorry but this place would be boring. It wouldn’t get to the root of the problem.

48

[quote]Natural Nate wrote:
I’ve lurked this forum for just about as long as I’ve been a member of this site.

The problem seems to be a lot of good posters having left.

If these “rules” you’re proposing are actually followed, with the present posters…sorry but this place would be boring. It wouldn’t get to the root of the problem.[/quote]

Well that’s not going to happen. I’m not going anywhere, and in any given post I make, I’m taking a shit on at least 4 of the rules.

The paranoid side of me thinks that BB is secretly enraged at my dislike of McCain, and dropping not-so-subtle hints that he wants me out of here.

49

[quote]rainjack wrote:
I’m not going anywhere, and in any given post I make, I’m taking a shit on at least 4 of the rules.
[/quote]

Excellent. Your consistently referring to lixy with the female pronoun and as a Jihadist baby fucker always makes my day a little more festive.