›
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Now it's personal...

Gabrial FoxGabrial Fox
edited October 2008 in Politics
So i've been paying half an ear to the political debates and such these days, mostly because I've already made up my mind but I always prefer to know why the other side does what they do. That is, I like to know both sides of an argument even if I'm already pretty sure I know which side I come down on.

In the spirit of such, I have been wondering and perhaps somebody here has more than a shallow insight into why politics have become so personal here.

I don't mean "why the personal attacks" although that is part of it. What is really bugging me is that people make this race into such a battle of personal likes. Even here there are thread titles like "I hate Palin" and the like.

What happened to "I don't agree with what you have to say, but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it?" What happened to ideals and platforms in politics? This vitriol, this hatred for the "other side" seems absolutely contrary to the ideas behind our political structure, wherein opposing ideas can be compared, judged by their merits and decided upon by the majority. Where is the I support X because they represent my ideas and ideals. Instead we seem mired in I support X because I hate Y and Y is evil and Y is ugly and I don't like Y's friends, etcetera etcetera.

I realize that much of this is sourced in our two party system, but more and more it seems we have abandoned the ideas that we are arguing for in favor of simply hatting the "other side." They are not the enemy, they are us!

Or am I simply romanticizing a unity that never really existed and an idea made impossible by human nature?

Discuss?

Comments

  • OmnutiaOmnutia
    edited October 2008
    Could people use slightly more descriptive thread titles! This has gone too far!
    Also, well done, you noticed the US presidential election is a popularity contest.
    Post edited by Omnutia on
  • Gabrial FoxGabrial Fox
    I realize it's nothing new, and I'm not questioning the existence of this phenomena, but rather it's origins and foundation.

    As for thread titles, it's like any other format in which products are fighting for attention. If one wants comments/eyes on/attention a catchy title is all but mandatory.
  • OmnutiaOmnutia
    edited October 2008
    Ok, this thread is now about things you have become annoyed about and now take personally.

    Post properly or be sidetracked by whatever technically falls within the bounds of your title.
    Post edited by Omnutia on
  • rhinocerorhinocero
    Ma, ma, where's my pa?

    Going to the white house, ha ha ha.
  • ......
    As for thread titles, it's like any other format in which products are fighting for attention. If one wants comments/eyes on/attention a catchy title is all but mandatory.
    This is not a newspaper written at eight-grade level. Besides, the majority of people read, or at least check out, every thread since the forum itself already draws your attention to the unread topics, at least that's my assumption.

    As to your question, I think the answer is pretty simple. People are stupid. Who was the cool German guy again who quoted his awesome professor? Fear and lack of education makes ruling a country easy. I think one could just suddenly shout in the middle of the street: "OH MY GOD! He has a dangerous disease that spreads through the air!" and everyone in a 100 mile radius lacking a brain would panic.
  • OmnutiaOmnutia
    edited October 2008
    Eugh, it's kinda beneath me to stay mad at you. It's a topic worth discussing but you'd attract a lot more people with a snappy and unique name like "The 2008 US Presidential Popularity Contest".

    Question: Why is it that America is perceived by the world as a culture that promotes stupidity, industrial corruption* and general half-assery when I take it that isn't the case? It isn't, is it?
    I think one could just suddenly shout in the middle of the street: "OH MY GOD! He has a dangerous disease that spreads through the air!" and everyone in a 100 mile radius lacking a brain would panic.
    So.. the terrorists are on their way to winning?

    *Scratch that one, applies to most capitalist countries.
    Post edited by Omnutia on
  • Luke BurrageLuke Burrage
    It isn't, is it?
    Gerrymandering. A country that openly practices something so un-democratic should be openly mocked by the free world.
  • OmnutiaOmnutia
    edited October 2008
    Was that sarcastic? What country were you referring to? How does gerrymandering apply here?
    Post edited by Omnutia on
  • Luke BurrageLuke Burrage
    image
    This isn't even subtle.
  • OmnutiaOmnutia
    I still don't understand. Could be more verbose?
  • ......
    I still don't understand. Could be more verbose?
    The United States divides states up into zones such that either the Republicans or the Democrats pretty much have that zone in their pocket without doing a thing.
  • AprecheApreche
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering
  • OmnutiaOmnutia
    edited October 2008
    That is both incredibly clever and dumb at the same time. Why are you letting politicians decide arbitrarily where votes are counted for an area?
    Edit after reading more of the Wikipedia page: Wait, is this the democracy America is bringing to Iraq?
    Post edited by Omnutia on
  • AnastiusAnastius
    This isn't even subtle.
    How is this even possible?
  • ......
    This isn't even subtle.
    How is this even possible?
    Roads are part of the state, it is known that nobody lives on a road, thus they're a wonderful tool for politicians to create such complete bullshit as that. It's just the same bullshit as giving an entire states' points/seats/whateverthehellyoucallits to one candidate, and thus ending up with basically ignoring the voice of half the population of the entire country!
    With classical Gerrymandering techniques it is even possible to ensure a 1:3 win to the state-wide minority, M party.
    This should NEVER be possible. Use percentages, use fairness.
  • misakyramisakyra
    With classical Gerrymandering techniques it is even possible to ensure a 1:3 win to the state-wide minority, M party.
    This should NEVER be possible. Use percentages, use fairness.
    And yet it does happen. Not only that, but the U.S. supreme court upholds it when it does.
  • SchnevetsSchnevets
    Normally, I'm a big-time politics buff, but this campaign has gotten so out of hand that I've stopped following/discussing it entirely. Every day, there are new Palin jokes on the Digg top-10 (boredom still drifts me to that site once a day), and a new story about those barbaric Republicans doing something ignorant. It reminds me of how excited I was when McCain and Obama became the official candidates, since they seemed appear to be outsiders of their parties.

    Now all I think is, after election day, half of this country is gonna be pissed. And I'm convinced a significant amount of those people are going to be pissed enough to do something drastic. If Obama wins, we've got a south full of angry conservatives who think their country's now being run by a Muslim. If McCain wins, we've got a bunch of liberals who think they're country is one step away from being run by a pit bull.

    Even more ironic, the question of party polarization has been asked at every debate. Neither candidate has given a real answer yet. Forget terrorism, the economy, or health care. This is what will cause the country's collapse.


    I guess what I'm looking for is a more moderate internet, or at least one that isn't catalyzing the problem. Just like Rym mentioned during the Snow Crash episode, everyone hangs out in their little city-state with like minded denizens and becomes suspicious of their neighbor while they become increasingly righteous. It's happening to both parties, and it will lead to problems.
  • OmnutiaOmnutia
    Anyone have the picture with the quote in it about how America will never be toppled by an external force but instead by internal erosion of freedom?
  • KieyKiey
    image
  • csrjjsmpcsrjjsmp
    I don't think the polarization issue was that much better in 2004, when Bush was running for reelection.

    This onion article sums the situation up pretty well.
Sign In or Register to comment.