What's Wrong with the Think-Tank?

[Fist and Faith]

Seriously, though:

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

I can't believe anyone would say such a thing at the Watch!

https://youtu.be/tdgIDHe4WY8

[Avatar]

Well said SB.

And yeah Wos...we're never done on the Watch.

--A

[Linna Heartbooger]

How many people have been unfriended on fb because of political discussions?

Amen to that!

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

LOL. (yes, I did literally laugh out loud.)
Nahhh... I'm gonna support Hashi in this decision. (and I'm gonna say if ya don't support him in it, you should try to understand or find out why he's made a vow to not post in The Close.)

And no, that's not me just being all "I'm American and the thing we say is 'I accept [so-and-so] making this personal decision,' " lolz, that's definitely not me.
This is me speaking as someone who has had "barren periods" of intentionally avoiding the Close quite thoroughly myself, so I can understand (some reasons) why a person would choose that...

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.

And amen to what he said! (both parts of it. especially the first sentence I quoted here.)

Sometimes when I read your [Wosbald's] 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.

That sounds like it could be interesting.

[Fist and Faith]

I don't have the slightest idea why Hashi doesn't, or you didn't, post in the Close. Hopefully nothing *I* did. I probably would have heard if it was me? I'm not fishing, mind you. Just want to make sure it's not me.

[Linna Heartbooger]

or, more accurately, you're only fishing if it's about you,
..because that's a person whose actions you can change..

...if it's anyone else, (if indeed it's primarily something where it's just about one person vs. something systemic) you're not fishin', cause you're willing to say "that's none of my beeswax."

[Fist and Faith]

I wasn't expecting the Spanish Inquisition!

Ok, I'm fishing if it's about me, or if it's something systemic. If it's a problem between two people, I'm soooooo very far from interested.

[Linna Heartbooger]

I wasn't expecting the Spanish Inquisition!

Well of course! Because...

[Fist and Faith]

https://youtu.be/sAn7baRbhx4

[aliantha]

Why would somebody not want to post in the Close?

Now the Tank, I can see. I have to take breaks from the Tank myself. It does sometimes feel like the conservatives are ganging up on the liberals to score points.

I'm pretty much set in my opinions at this point in my life, I think. So in the Tank, I feel like I'm representing my viewpoint, as opposed to shopping for a new one and/or proselytizing my own.

Some Watchers cherish their political opinions and ideals to the point of identifying very closely with them. If someone needles them about those views, it can feel like they're being personally attacked. Tone is key, too; "But don't you feel as if...?" is a kinder way to ask someone to think twice than "I can't believe you said..." or "How can you possibly think..." -- and is more likely to get the results you're after, as well.

That said, I think the discussion style of everyone here is pretty much set in stone by now. To be honest, I'd be dumbfounded if Z took a more conciliatory approach toward Way after all these years. And I'd be gobsmacked if Way started rolling his eyes at Z's needling and saying to himself, "There goes Z being Z again," before moving on.

[peter]

The tank is no place for faint-hearts, but neither is it [in my experience] a place where one will be unfairly treated. If you get shot-down in the Tank [and I have been] then by and large the weakness of your argument will be the reason and it as such it behoves you to go and think about your position. I've never suffered a personal attack to the point where I didn't realise it was not intended to wound, just an expression of frustration at ones [percieved] failure to grasp the opposit argument - or at the [percieved] obtuseness of the argument one is presenting.

The Tank needs [as stated repeatedly above] numbers of contributors and diversity of opinion to prevent it becoming a turkey-shoot, and this is all to frequently lacking. We only have ourselves to blame for this - but there are times when we need the Watch to 'gentle' our minds and not to inflame them further. On those days the Tank can be just too bruising - especially if you happen to find yourself in a minority of one on a given topic. I often find a white-flag and a smiley face to be the best 'extraction policy' in these circumstances; it's cowardice I know but hey, I never said I was here to win a purple heart. Also, I never encountered a Shark in the Tank that when the chips were down I didn't like. Thats it - I'll try to get in there more and be sensible in what I say [some hope ].

[Fist and Faith]

Here's Louis CK on road rage. Hysterical, and true. The Tank is the same. Some people will never have road rage, and some people will never say rude, insulting things in the Tank. But others... If someone is wrong about a fact, or makes assumptions about someone or something, or whatever offense it is, some will respond in ways that I've never seen out of that person anywhere else on the Watch. "If you don't have thick skin, stay out of the Tank." should only apply to having your ideas and stances questioned and challenged. I think "If you can't behave like a decent person when discussing these kinds of things, stay out of the Tank." is more valid.

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

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.

I dunno exactly.

Using the example taken from this thread (solely for convenience's sake and neither to implicate anyone nor to fixate on any specific topic), take Individualism and Collectivism. Those who radically dichotomize between Collectivism/Socialism on the one hand, and Individualism on the other, are always going to be at loggerheads. The "rightness" of their own position flatly excludes any element of rightness in their ideological arch-nemesis.

Since, per the boundaries of my Catholicity, I'm constrained from affirming strict anthropo-philosophical Individualism (or Socialism), I can be more conciliatory and amenable to cultural modalities and/or civic movements that preference either the Individualistic or the Collectivistic poles of the equation. The Catholic can (or, at least, should be able to) live comfortably in either more Socialistic or more Individualistic cultures without, for all that, succumbing to the siren-song of false reductions that are destructive of the good in all cultures.

So, since there are so few political hills upon which I'm willing to die, maybe that accounts for many of my posts barely creating a splash in the Tank.

[ussusimiel]

Since, per the boundaries of my Catholicity, I'm constrained from affirming strict anthropo-philosophical Individualism (or Socialism), I can be more conciliatory and amenable to cultural modalities and/or civic movements that preference either the Individualistic or the Collectivistic poles of the equation. The Catholic can (or, at least, should be able to) live comfortably in either more Socialistic or more Individualistic cultures without, for all that, succumbing to the siren-song of false reductions that are destructive of the good in all cultures.

(Okay, I'm going to use this paragraph as an example of one of the difficulties I have responding to a post like this in the 'Tank. This is in the spirit of exploration, Wosbald, and it is not intended as criticism.)

In the paragraph there is a such a high level of generalisation that there is nothing that I feel I can engage with and so respond to.

Can you be more specific? Otherwise I feel that I have to do a lot of guesswork and fill in the blanks.

For example, can you specify one Left* policy currently in operation that you disagree with, but are able to comfortably live with in everyday life? (Similarly for the Right, if you feel like it.)

u.

* As most people who have read my posts in the 'Tank know, I self-identify as a 'liberal' and so see myself as closer to the centre than to the extreme-Left.

[Avatar]

Guessing is posting too, y'know.

--A

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

Since, per the boundaries of my Catholicity, I'm constrained from affirming strict anthropo-philosophical Individualism (or Socialism), I can be more conciliatory and amenable to cultural modalities and/or civic movements that preference either the Individualistic or the Collectivistic poles of the equation. The Catholic can (or, at least, should be able to) live comfortably in either more Socialistic or more Individualistic cultures without, for all that, succumbing to the siren-song of false reductions that are destructive of the good in all cultures.

(Okay, I'm going to use this paragraph as an example of one of the difficulties I have responding to a post like this in the 'Tank. This is in the spirit of exploration, Wosbald, and it is not intended as criticism.)

In the paragraph there is a such a high level of generalisation that there is nothing that I feel I can engage with and so respond to.

Can you be more specific? Otherwise I feel that I have to do a lot of guesswork and fill in the blanks.

For example, can you specify one Left* policy currently in operation that you disagree with, but are able to comfortably live with in everyday life? (Similarly for the Right, if you feel like it.)

u.

* As most people who have read my posts in the 'Tank know, I self-identify as a 'liberal' and so see myself as closer to the centre than to the extreme-Left.

In order to avoid the rabbit hole that seems to be looming, I'm gonna just bring it back to the OP.

If one accepts that it not possible to rationally determine ("without any surd of the irrational left over") whether Man is fundamentally either Collective or Individual, then it become possible to consider that Man is neither (or, in what amounts to the same thing, that he is both); that, in regard to this abstract question, Man is a mystery to himself.

And if that's the case, then how can this sort of dichotomizing argument have anything more than a provisional value, a value that may have stakes for the here-and-now maintenance of the Common Good, but which can never touch the centrality. Is it worth letting a false dream of the Perfect be the enemy of the Good?

[Avatar]

I'm in favour of not letting perfect prevent good. But I'm rationally sure that I'm an individual...

--A

[ussusimiel]

In order to avoid the rabbit hole that seems to be looming, I'm gonna just bring it back to the OP.

I'm happy to avoid those pesky rabbit holes*, my efforts in this thread are aimed at finding the grounds for a discussion.

Is it worth letting a false dream of the Perfect be the enemy of the Good?

Again in the interest of exploration and initiating a discussion, as I am unclear as to what the Good means for you, would you mind outlining what it is you mean by it?**

...then how can this sort of dichotomizing argument have anything more than a provisional value, a value that may have stakes for the here-and-now maintenance of the Common Good, but which can never touch the centrality.

This is the nature of discourse. When two people are involved two positions emerge. If more people are involved more positions will emerge. Disagreement can lead to polarisation, multiple divisions or consensus. However, for this to happen it is necessary for people to be able to outline what it is that they believe in. In the absence of that there are no grounds for a conversation and all that can happen is a statement of people's general principles and beliefs. The Close is the perfect place for that, but it is unlikely to have real input into the development of practical solutions/approaches to everyday social issues.

And as Z has already said upthread, it is in the over-and-back of debate that the 'here-and-now maintenance' is decided. For many people that is the single most important thing, something that is secondary to nothing else. However, if no discussion can be had then, as I see it, how society is run and maintained cannot be worked out.

u.

* In the 'Tank, a refusal to answer a fairly simple, straightforward, non-gotcha question would be met with ire/frustration. It would be perceived either as obfuscation or as an indication that the stated position cannot be backed up and so is not valid/sustainable. At that point people start to ignore the poster (my preferred option) or badger them to substantiate their claim or admit that it is invalid.

** As a 'liberal' I can say that for me the 'good' is a society that has a certain measure of equality (both Equality of Opportunity and to a lesser extent Opportunity of Outcome). I believe that there should be strong protection of civil liberties (e.g. freedom of speech, freedom of religious practice), I believe that a mixed economy is the best, with government control of essential services and resources (e.g. infrastructure, water) and some government regulation of the market. A 'good' society for me protects its weak and vulnerable members and ensures that wealth and influence are not allowed undue control over the direction and formation of policies that shape a society.

These are clear positions; some find agreement with the Right (support for civil liberties) while others overlap with Left positions (welfare). I do not perceive them as being dogmatic, necessarily dichotomising nor utopian. I can back up and substantiate all of my positions. I will happily engage in a discussion about them with anyone and if someone shows me a weakness or a flaw in them I am willing to accept that and change accordingly.

[Fist and Faith]

The Close is the perfect place for that, but it is unlikely to have real input into the development of practical solutions/approaches to everyday social issues.

See there, I think you guys have it backwards. I think the "first principles" that we've said it all comes down to are better discussed here than in the Tank. If you can convince someone that the first principle you hold to is better than theirs, you'll get them to vote as you do. You're not going to get them to change their vote of they disagree with you on the starting point of the whole issue.

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

As a 'liberal' I can say that for me the 'good' is a society that has a certain measure of equality ... I believe that there should be strong protection of civil liberties (e.g. freedom of speech, freedom of religious practice) ...

However, if we don't know the fundamental parameters between which an undetermined Good can unfold, how can we if our solutions are not so many dichotomizing false choices? Ones that push the living human mystery into the background so as to service the passing enthusiasms currently in vogue?

Again, we cut back to the thread's basic contention. For, just as with Individuality & Collectivity, parameters such as Equality & Hierarchy and Freedom & Authority are anthropologico-philosophically indissociable.

------------------------------------------------

In the 'Tank, a refusal to answer a fairly simple, straightforward, non-gotcha question would be met with ire/frustration. It would be perceived either as obfuscation or as an indication that the stated position cannot be backed up and so is not valid/sustainable.

And with that, we're back to the OP's contention regarding that which is wrong with the Think-Tank.

If any think that this thread is unsustainable, then they are free to let it die. 'Sall good. Like I said, as far as I was concerned, we were done here.

[ussusimiel]

As a 'liberal' I can say that for me the 'good' is a society that has a certain measure of equality ... I believe that there should be strong protection of civil liberties (e.g. freedom of speech, freedom of religious practice) ...

However, if we don't know the fundamental parameters between which an undetermined Good can unfold, how can we if our solutions are not so many dichotomizing false choices? Ones that push the living human mystery into the background so as to service the passing enthusiasms currently in vogue?

If I understand you properly then you believe that rational discourse/debate is pointless. If that is the case, and please correct me if I am wrong, then I can only see one other alternative, which is a religious one.

I have avoided overtly referring to it up until now as I was hoping that you would refer to it yourself, but I presume that when you speak of the 'Good' you are implying 'God' or 'God's will' (again, please correct me if I am in incorrect in my assumptions).

The implication of this position is that there can be no such thing as useful political discussion/debate/discourse as we know it. How the 'Good' is to be achieved in society cannot be determined by reference to anything human, it can only be determined by referring to God's will (most likely found in sacred scripture*). What we are left with then is not a conversation or a discussion but exegisis. And if it happens between two people it would have to be people like theologians, ulama, brahmin, shamans.

As I outlined in my original response to the OP this is not how things currently stand in the West. Science and reason moved to the centre of culture and politics a couple of centuries ago and have remained there since. It is within this context that the 'Tank operates as it is the contemporary mode of social formation. If forming and shaping society in this way is fundamentally flawed, then the 'Tank definitely has that fundamental flaw, but if it does, by implication all of the Western world is similarly flawed.

u.

* Interestingly some people consider the Constitution of the United States to be a form of sacred text.