What's Wrong with the Think-Tank?

[Zarathustra]

There's something wrong with the Tank? News to me.

The Tank is real. Politics is the science of deciding how we'll shape and control reality. Every human activity we do, whether it's part of technology, morality, communication, travel ... war ... it's all decided through our political systems. Politics is not merely speculation. It's action (or the advocacy of it).

That's why opinions on these subjects are so strongly held and passionately argued. That's why it's personal. Your worldview directly impacts me. These are not merely opinions, but advocacy. When we put our opinions into practice, we either control some aspect of our neighbors lives or allow them to control it themselves (or something in between). Some people think they can separate themselves from their opinions, but that's impossible when those opinions connect with our lives in such deep and intricate ways. The more control you advocate over my life, the more this is true.

We hold our political leaders to high standards for these reasons. On that level, politics is obviously personal. Whether or not Trump or Hillary are hypocrites matters. Whether or not they're good people matters. No one thinks that it's odd to discuss politics on that level in a personal way.

So why should it not be the same for us? We the people? Ultimately, we rule this country together, don't we? We decide who to empower as our representatives, and which policies to enact. Why shouldn't we hold each other personally accountable for our roles in this participatory system of governance? Trying to shield oneself from responsibility and criticism is inauthentic, in my opinion. It's not surprising, however, that this way of thinking seems to occur the most with those who espouse political philosophies which also shield one from personal responsibility and independence. Where one sits on the "politics is personal/impersonal" spectrum is itself a political position. It's all politics, even the personal aspects. This is more or less obvious depending on whether you're an individualist or collectivist, I suppose.

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

Hey Z,

Do you want me to PM you a copy of the OP so that you know more exactly about that to which you're responding?

[wayfriend]

<pre>ad hominems to discredit posters ..............
mocking .......................................
insults .......................................
intentional aggravation .......................
inflammatory trolling .........................
ganging up .................................... not yet
the hubris of defending the indefensible ...... </pre>

[Zarathustra]

No need to PM me anything. My inbox is crammed full. I think I get the gist. Am I missing something?

WF, we have a difference of opinion. I don't know why you can't just leave it at that. I didn't insult, mock, aggravate, troll, or any of the others things on your checklist. I made a thoughtful, insightful post backed up with sound reasoning and examples. The tendency to describe legitimate debate and reasonable opinions as illegitimate attacks is the only "problem" with the Tank, if there is one. Similar to legions of people on your side of the political divide, if speech hurts someone's feelings or offends, there is an attempt to characterize it as illegitimate in order to shut it down. This is why Trump rallies are shut down, and why I'm described as a troll. You could simply debate the points, instead of labeling them as forms of illegitimate debate. This Leftist tactic that we're seeing more and more often in modern political discourse is getting tiresome.

[Avatar]

The Tank is real. Politics is the science of deciding how we'll shape and control reality. Every human activity we do, whether it's part of technology, morality, communication, travel ... war ... it's all decided through our political systems. Politics is not merely speculation. It's action (or the advocacy of it).

Good post.

--A

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

The Tank is real. Politics is the science of deciding how we'll shape and control reality. Every human activity we do, whether it's part of technology, morality, communication, travel ... war ... it's all decided through our political systems. Politics is not merely speculation. It's action (or the advocacy of it).

Good post.

--A

But one which, nonetheless, supports the contention in the OP.

[ussusimiel]

+JMJ+

The Tank is real. Politics is the science of deciding how we'll shape and control reality. Every human activity we do, whether it's part of technology, morality, communication, travel ... war ... it's all decided through our political systems. Politics is not merely speculation. It's action (or the advocacy of it).

Good post.

--A

But one which, nonetheless, supports the contention in the OP.

Could you expand on this a bit?

As I see it, for any discussion to happen (and much of politics is debating issues) there must be some clear common ground. While myself and Z disagree on many things we both agree on the basic principle of freedom. If, however, someone comes along and pre-empts/denies the primacy of this principle (as most religious premises will do) then there is a real problem finding a common ground upon which to base useful discussions. There can be an exchange of ideas and positions, but no real debate, as that requires common basic assumptions/premises.

u.

[Fist and Faith]

Which was my point.

Although there is some room to maneuver, even with the firmly-held first-principles. I don't see any problem with SSM. Someone else might be completely opposed. But maybe that person thinks freedom and equality are higher principles, which must be protected, and agree to not take the right to marry away from homosexuals. (Or, as is the case in most places, agree to grant the right.)

It's like protecting the legal rights of someone that everybody knows darned well is a criminal. As Kirk said to Cloud William, "They must apply to everyone, or they mean nothing!"

But that's my first principle. Someone else might not hold to that. They might think the first principle is to follow the rules of some God/god/gods, and that freedom and equality don't enter into it.

And, of course, if people who believe that are numerous and/or strong enough, they can take over, and throw away the Constitution.

[wayfriend]

Trying to shield oneself from responsibility and criticism is inauthentic, in my opinion. It's not surprising, however, that this way of thinking seems to occur the most with those who espouse political philosophies which also shield one from personal responsibility and independence.

I consider that an insult, not to mention a strawman argument - who suggested that a political discussion should avoid responsibility? Zarathustra has stated that he does not think it's insulting nor intentionally aggravating. Are we lacking common ground? I don't think so. I think what is lacking is integrity. You can't have a discussion with trolls.

[Linna Heartbooger]

You can't have a discussion with trolls.

I fully support you in your desire to not interact to trollish comments.
Your self-control need not lapse again like it did this time, wf.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

You are making me break my self-imposed vow of "never post in The Close again".

What is wrong with the Tank? I can very easily tell you what is wrong with the Tank. Every single person who frequents Kevin's Watch who DOESN'T post in the Tank is what is wrong with the Tank. It needs more viewpoints, more opinions, more discussion.

You have heard the saying "if you aren't part of the solution then you are part of the problem", haven't you? Well, if you aren't voicing your opinions in the Tank then you aren't contributing to anything, you aren't getting your ideas heard, and you aren't finding holes in other people's thought processes.

Incidentally, if you have questions or comments about the Tank that you would like to make, wouldn't it make more sense to put them in the Tank rather than hiding them in the Close?

Also, not incidentally, anyone who wants to know whether or not a political discussion should avoid responsibility should ask sandyberners about wishing to avoid responsibility. As noted, you cannot have a discussion with trolls.

Now...back to my regularly-scheduled vow of "never post in the Close again".

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

Good post.

--A

But one which, nonetheless, supports the contention in the OP.

Could you expand on this a bit?

It supports it in the same way that your first post did.

Excepting the fact that yours was an explicit support, viz., you affirmed that that "hyper-rational debate" has "irrational/irreducible" limits. You freely admitted that there is a point at which logic ends and rhetoric begins.

Then, you simply let it drop. I find this refreshing. Yours was a response that, IMO, represents the best (or at least, the most approachable) interlocution which the Tank is capable of producing.

Which is why, out of deference to your insightful, reflective and conciliatory post, I redacted the OP. As far as I was concerned, we were done here.

In contrast, Z's support was implicit. He simply elided logic and moved straight into rhetorical mode, thereby demonstrating the OP's contention by example. I don't necessarily have a problem with this approach. At the very least, it is consistent with Nietzscheanism's recognition of the ineradicability of rhetoric from any dialogue. In this, Z is not "in the tank" with the Tank's logic-only conceits.

With this second approach, feelings can get hurt and personal damage can be effected in the process. However, whether or not this is to be considered will largely depend on the valuation that one ascribes to "personal damage".

[wayfriend]

Also, not incidentally, anyone who wants to know whether or not a political discussion should avoid responsibility should ask sandyberners about wishing to avoid responsibility. As noted, you cannot have a discussion with trolls.

With that statement I can now say I have never known a more evil or duplicitous person than you on KevinsWatch. I know you know how deeply that is a lie, and I know you know how needlessly harmful that lie is. I can only hope that this arises from the hubris of needing to never seem wrong, because otherwise this is psychopathy.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Also, not incidentally, anyone who wants to know whether or not a political discussion should avoid responsibility should ask sandyberners about wishing to avoid responsibility. As noted, you cannot have a discussion with trolls.

With that statement I can now say I have never known a more evil or duplicitous person than you on KevinsWatch. I know you know how deeply that is a lie, and I know you know how needlessly harmful that lie is. I can only hope that this arises from the hubris of needing to never seem wrong, because otherwise this is psychopathy.

I have not yet decided whether I will add this to my signature as a badge of honor.

[Fist and Faith]

Incidentally, if you have questions or comments about the Tank that you would like to make, wouldn't it make more sense to put them in the Tank rather than hiding them in the Close?

I can understand Wos wanting to discuss the issue in a more philosophical way. What is it about human nature that makes people discuss these kinds of things? To such a degree? Knowing there will be almost no change of opinions, no influence on elections, and lots of hard feelings? How many people have been unfriended on fb because of political discussions?

[Zarathustra]

I was trying to be philosophical in my first post on this issue, linking our differing views on the personal aspects of political discourse to the spectrum of individualism/collectivism itself. Sorry if it offended anyone.

[Fist and Faith]

Don't worry about it. The important thing is Hashi is posting in the Close again.

[Avatar]

Agreed.

--A

[SoulBiter]

I don't think there is anything wrong with the Tank at all (except maybe a current lack of diversity of opinion). I think people bring their own personal prejudices into the Tank (and sometimes posting in general). So for me, I typically don't want to parse each and every word I wrote and what that word could possibly mean to the reader. Generally, people know exactly what point I was making and why. But those that like to parse meanings behind those specific usages, take away from the debate (for me) but for them, that might be part of the debate and one they enjoy.

I think sometimes its harder for those that read/interpret differently than others because they may read things that weren't meant or sometimes interpret meaning from a lack of what was said. For me, I just don't think or read that way.

Then of course its the hard feelings when you are so sure of your side and you get frustrated because you cant 'convince' the other person that they are mistaken. Or when you take personally what was not meant as a personal insult. When a person identifies with a group, and someone else insults or casts aspersions on that group, its hard to not take that as if the person is talking directly about you and to you. But that's not always so.

At the end of the day, you have to have thick skin if you are going to post in the tank or indeed in any public board. The one we have (at its worst) is tame compared to many that I have frequented over the years.

[ussusimiel]

As far as I was concerned, we were done here.

Maybe as regards the OP and I am interested to explore (maybe in a separate thread here in the Close, if it isn't appropriate in this thread) how you think we might alter the mode of our discourse so that it is more amenable to other less-hyper-rational based positions and outlooks.

I am interested because, for example, although myself and Z disagree almost completely on certain economic and political issues we never have an issue with the basic form/structure within which the discussions take place. Sometimes when I read your posts in the 'Tank it can feel to me like we are not engaged in the same conversation. So I am definitely interested in exploring why I have that experience, and how to go about creating a conversation about political issues that enables a broad engagement.

u.