Current Affairs & News (CAN) - "Polite Discussion & Debate"

[AsleepInYorkshire]

Source Post

While it's nice to see that the pantomime season has been extended this year
- it's this kind of humpty dumpty "oh no i didn't" performance that tends to disintegrate threads in to a graphorrheal morasse until someone comes along and locks it

If one finds a poster who they believe cannot admit when they were wrong - why continue to point it out to them? we can all see it!
- it's not nice to poke at someone like that for fun (they could have a problem, it's a symptom of a few things, and there are few barriers to using the intertubes - so be kind)

if it really irks you, one can block them, so you don't need to read the text you know they've written
- but the utility of that diminishes if every other poster continues to quote them and bang heads
- accept you can't get blood from a stone (easily anyway - you'd need to rig the stone someway or include fossils) and humpty dumpty will do what humpty does - but you can put that stone (and comic fat egg) somewhere you don't need to see them

Isn't it a more enjoyable use of our bandwidth to point out Sunak seems to be doing a tiny Tony Blair impersonation in posh loafers?

-sd

I enjoyed Googling some of those metaphors. I will admit to not remembering to use them in future posts as my ability to throw the English language around is extremely limited. At times it can be embarrassingly so. Although when I see it used so skilfully, I am well impressed.

I have many opinions. I don’t see any TLF boards that invite others to lambast each other’s opinions. Indeed the CAN board is and I quote “for polite debate and discussion”. On occasions I’ve opened up a thread to find a reply to something I’ve commented on or when I offered my opinion and it seems harsh. If someone wants to challenge my opinions I’d like to hope I am open to hearing what they have to say. And if someone offers up something constructive, I’d like to think I am able to reflect on that. But all too often replies are binary. They almost seem to want to draw me into an argument. There’s a huge difference between debate and argument. And no I’m not going to sit down and back that statement up.

Human beings are complex creatures. For the last two days I have felt particularly … well I’ve felt proper shyte. No reason, just having a couple of really bad days. [Sh]It happens. I’m not going to turn this post into a “pity me” drama neither. This goes to the root of what sd has [rightly so] raised. How can anyone know just how someone else is feeling at any moment in time. But if we were all a little kinder to each other, and I need to be first in that queue, then we can have some bloody great discussions. Instead these boards often end up taking a “point scoring” route, which does seem such a shame. We have some great minds behind our tags, and yes, I accept I should not be included in that statement.

If you find someone is disagreeing with you there are options available to you. Walk away from the “discussion”. Block the other poster. Accept that you both disagree on a subject and move onto to discussing something more constructive.

I completely support sd’s advice to be kind. Often, I find it impossible to “think about” someone else kindly if I feel they are attacking me. And, unfortunately for me, due to my condition and early life experiences I am extremely defensive. Today when I feel good I can control that and take my own medicine. Yesterday and Monday I would have found it virtually impossible. It’s as frustrating for me, as anyone else. I have to live with the burden and on some days it can be very hard to compensate.

We can never know how someone is feeling when we are having a discussion with them on a bulletin board. But we can set out to be polite and discuss instead of arguing. We can disagree too as long as it’s constructive and as “we” stare at each other across this divide we can respect our differences, not use them to score points.

If at any time I am not polite I’d prefer other posters to bring this to my attention [politely], please. A PM would probably be the best way. If my opinions aren’t something you want to hear I’d suggest you block my posts and leave it at that.

I see this little cyber place as a community. That’s my opinion and I completely understand others will not feel the same. Still we can all make each other’s day a little easier just being kind.

AiY(D)

[XFool]

Yes, but...

[Lootman]

If you find someone is disagreeing with you there are options available to you. Walk away from the “discussion”. Block the other poster. Accept that you both disagree on a subject and move onto to discussing something more constructive.

I completely support sd’s advice to be kind. )

Actually in his slab of introspection there, SD did not specifically mention the CAN board, so we don't know for sure if he is referring to experiences only on that board or also elsewhere on TLF. (I realise that his post was on CAN but it wasn't clear if he was talking more broadly than just that topic or board).

In fact looking at his statement that "If one finds a poster who they believe cannot admit when they were wrong - why continue to point it out to them?" I would assume he is not talking about CAN. The reason being that of all the boards on TLF, CAN is probably the least about facts and the most about opinions. So nobody is ever really "wrong" on CAN, just like nobody is ever "right". When people debate issues there, they are expressing personal and subjective preferences and beliefs. And any reference to right or wrong is probably in regard to (again, subjective) moral or ethical matters rather than matters of fact.

And it is surely for that reason that there is more hot air and emotion on that board than on others. When all you have is beliefs, values and passion, and no real bedrock of facts to underpin that, then upsets are more likely. I suppose you could say the same for discussions about religion or sport, where again everything usually descends into "ra-ra for my team" and "ya boo, your team sucks". In that context "X is wrong" equates to "I disagree with X", or perhaps even "I dislike X".

The one correlation I claim to notice, although no doubt some others will disagree, is that it sometimes seems that a lot of the anger and disruption comes from those who don't contribute much on the investment boards. It raises the idea that some people come to TLF mostly to post on CAN. If as I suspect they also post to other political sites then it is possible that they bring with them some of the volatility that is common elsewhere. I recall there was one former Lemon who used to post a lot on CAN, and he admitted to getting into fights on Twitter, again on political topics.

The good thing about CAN is that it condenses much of the bad behaviour on TLF in one convenient location. So if CAN annoys you, simply avoid it.

[XFool]

Harold Wilson, leader of the Conservative and Unionist Party, was the UK Prime minister from 1980 to 1993.

Sorry! Wrong board.

[AsleepInYorkshire]

The good thing about CAN is that it condenses much of the bad behaviour on TLF in one convenient location. So if CAN annoys you, simply avoid it.

Hmm ... do you feel that's allowing the devil to play in one corner of the playground only? When the reality is the devil should not be tolerated at all? Wouldn't it be better if there was no need to condense "bad" behaviour in the first place?

AiY(D)

[Lootman]

The good thing about CAN is that it condenses much of the bad behaviour on TLF in one convenient location. So if CAN annoys you, simply avoid it.

Hmm ... do you feel that's allowing the devil to play in one corner of the playground only? When the reality is the devil should not be tolerated at all? Wouldn't it be better if there was no need to condense "bad" behaviour in the first place?

Good question. Perhaps one of the site sponsors or moderators can opine here on whether they find it useful for much of the bad behaviour to be concentrated in one place, or whether they would prefer that it is evenly distributed.

AIUI mods each have their own boards to take care of. So whichever mod gets CAN might feel hard done by if it causes disproportionally more work. I was looking at it more from the perspective of a Lemon seeking to avoid rants and rancour.

If that same Mod also has the HYP board then they should be canonised, perhaps?

[csearle]

The good thing about CAN is that it condenses much of the bad behaviour on TLF in one convenient location. So if CAN annoys you, simply avoid it.

Hmm ... do you feel that's allowing the devil to play in one corner of the playground only? When the reality is the devil should not be tolerated at all? Wouldn't it be better if there was no need to condense "bad" behaviour in the first place?

Good question. Perhaps one of the site sponsors or moderators can opine here on whether they find it useful for much of the bad behaviour to be concentrated in one place, or whether they would prefer that it is evenly distributed.

AIUI mods each have their own boards to take care of. So whichever mod gets CAN might feel hard done by if it causes disproportionally more work. I was looking at it more from the perspective of a Lemon seeking to avoid rants and rancour.

If that same Mod also has the HYP board then they should be canonised, perhaps?

I think it is better for the site as a whole to limit overtly political content to one place (at the moment CAN) in order to maintain the quality, as far as possible, of the remainder of the site.

Ideally the thicker-skinned Lemons happy to engage with each other in CAN threads would be able to do so politely and in full knowledge and expectation of the counter argument*.

On the whole I personally think the arrangement is working. (Maybe making CAN opt-in could improve things but that is a wider debate).

Chris

* I admit having failed in this once or twice - but then we are all human (as well as citrus).

[mc2fool]

Harold Wilson, leader of the Conservative and Unionist Party, was the UK Prime minister from 1980 to 1993.

Sorry! Wrong board.

Source: Kellyanne Conway's Book of Alternative Facts: UK Political History edition.

[servodude]

Instead these boards often end up taking a “point scoring” route

...Oh no! they don't! That's just your opinion.

But yes these are meant to be discussion boards - and I think more discussion == less bored

I suspect I often miss interesting posts because I'm rolling my eyes as I scroll past screeds of "Oh yes you did" bumf
And yeah I accept that it is on me to pay more attention but when every channel is showing sealions being fed it gets a bit difficult

Hope you've perked up a bit

Have fun
-sd

[Clariman]

In fact looking at his statement that "If one finds a poster who they believe cannot admit when they were wrong - why continue to point it out to them?" I would assume he is not talking about CAN. The reason being that of all the boards on TLF, CAN is probably the least about facts and the most about opinions. So nobody is ever really "wrong" on CAN, just like nobody is ever "right". When people debate issues there, they are expressing personal and subjective preferences and beliefs. And any reference to right or wrong is probably in regard to (again, subjective) moral or ethical matters rather than matters of fact.

It may be true that CAN has a lot of "subjective preferences" but AiY's point about letting the argument lie still holds true. I'd argue that it is even more relevant in such circumstances. If one see that one's interlocutor just does not have the same mindset, perhaps it's time to say "let's agree to differ" and move on.

We can also ask why people hold the views that they do and listen attentively. We might learn something.

Clariman

[AsleepInYorkshire]

We can also ask why people hold the views that they do and listen attentively. We might learn something.

Clariman

I think this is an excellent point. My skillset often finds me dealing with "conflict resolution" as I deal with the money. I've developed a coping mechanism which goes something like this ... there are two parts to what someone is saying to me. The first is the method of delivery. The second, content. Often, because it involves money the delivery can involve emotional outbursts or worse. In all of that I have to hear the content and not be tempted to take negative action because the delivery isn't, to say the least polite. Once I have shown the willingness to listen, I find most deliveries improve. I'm not suggesting it works every time and at times I have to agree to differ and enforce what is best for the business I represent. I hasten to add I have my own values to consider too, and I don't throw them on some bonfire because I am being paid. I can always refuse the pay and honour those values.

I can look back on an event that occurred in 2018 which if I had the skills I could use at after dinner speaking and earn a few quid. My role was to set up the commercial department for a national house builder in a new region. One of the first building sites purchased was in Grimsby, a town with limited local resources. I'd secured a company to build the road and a piling company. I'd seen an opportunity to have both on site at the same time, thus reducing program time. I'd secured both packages well within budget and spent some time making sure they were watertight and fully scoped. The regional MD passed constructive comments regarding these results.

All the groups commercial managers had been called into to a meeting. The operational director wanted to discuss our workload. The consensus was that for every five days of work open to us each was losing 2 days. There were no supporting staff for the managers and often, like me, we were buried in minutia.

The operational director was extremely receptive, very supportive and said she would make the necessary changes.

I left the meeting to go to a pre-arranged meeting with the Group's Commercial Director. A body builder . He closed the door to his office, and I received ten minutes feedback about not sorting out a cleaners account. I'd spent an inordinate amount of time on the account and the cleaner was simply not joining in. I listened intently to the comments made for at least two seconds. After which I looked this gentleman in the eyes for ten minutes whilst he looked away and ranted on. He was, shall we say, elevated. And on the odd occasion he did look at me directly I was showered in saliva.

I remained calm and never said a word. I was planning our next holiday to Tenerife. It worked well. By the time this extremely intelligent person had realised that he could not engage with me, possibly due to his elevated posture and verbose delivery, I'd decided I would go home that evening and book the holiday. He looked at me after ten minutes in complete silence. Great I thought. Now I'm going to show you what I have to say. I looked him in the eyes and never said a word.

And off he went again for another five minutes Upon completion I decided I would pull out my best response. I thanked him for his generous time, his great advice and told him I would let him know my response by midday tomorrow. I didn't give him any further opportunity and left.

The following day I spoke with the regional managing director and outlined events. He brought up the word bully, not me. Regardless, it was time for self-preservation, and I resigned. That increased the commercial directors tally to 12 commercial managers leaving the business in 12 months. A month later a 13th followed.

All 13 had clearly decided to block the commercial director.

AiY(D)

[XFool]

We can also ask why people hold the views that they do and listen attentively. We might learn something.

Now that is genuinely interesting. Though not infrequently baffling...

[The trouble is, it not infrequently depends on correct interpretation of what are the FACTS. So the roundabout goes around and around...

The question being: Which is the chicken and which is the egg?]

[Lootman]

We can also ask why people hold the views that they do and listen attentively. We might learn something.

The trouble is, it not infrequently depends on correct interpretation of what are the FACTS.

The problem there is that what is the "correct" interpretation of some facts is itself a matter of opinion. Two informed and educated people can see the same facts and draw different conclusions. So I would argue that use of the term "correct" there is incorrect.

Now if the topic is on the Science board, you will probably have more success getting people to agree with your interpretation. Although even then, there can be differing and even conflicting theories to explain what is observed. Whilst the investing boards are rife with people seeing the same facts (company reports, past fund performance, and so on) and yet coming up with different interpretations of future returns or risks. In fact after CAN some of the most volatile differences of view can be seen on the HYP boards which, for some reason, generate a lot of hot air. Even boards like Tax and Legal generate different interpretations sometimes.

Perhaps what is really to be avoided is any sense of certainty when it comes to a wide range of topics and boards, but especially on CAN where, as noted before, debates are typically light on facts and heavy on opinions. Which is where I think Clariman's advice stands out. When you read something there do not assume that you know better than them what is true, and then wade into them to "correct" them. But rather ask yourself what you can learn from the other party by accepting the invitation to see things from another perspective. The value of a community lies in its diversity and what we can all learn from that. Groupthink is much less instructive.

[XFool]

...Well, that neatly side steps the real issues! Not for the first time.

The pernicious belief that there are "no facts" in politics, only opinions, is certainly a fashionable notion these days. That nobody can deny!
It is particularly fashionable in authoritarian politics. It always has been.

Leon Trotsky was a big cheese in the politics of the USSR, until he wasn't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_images_in_the_Soviet_Union

Boris Johnson visited Spaceport Cornwall, until he didn't.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64223974

We seem less and less interested in Realpolitik these days, it's out of fashion. Fantasy politics is definitely in, that's why we had Trump (and Brexit!).

And, if there are "no facts" in politics, why shouldn't there be "no facts" in anything else, just opinions, including science?

Why should not the COVID vaccination be a mass population cull perpetuated by 'the elite'?
Why should not HIV be a fake virus and AIDS simply a non existent, invented disease?
Why should not the Earth be flat and NASA have been covering this up for 50+ years?

[SalvorHardin]

We can also ask why people hold the views that they do and listen attentively. We might learn something.

The trouble is, it not infrequently depends on correct interpretation of what are the FACTS.

The problem there is that what is the "correct" interpretation of some facts is itself a matter of opinion. Two informed and educated people can see the same facts and draw different conclusions. So I would argue that use of the term "correct" there is incorrect.

Now if the topic is on the Science board, you will probably have more success getting people to agree with your interpretation. Although even then, there can be differing and even conflicting theories to explain what is observed. Whilst the investing boards are rife with people seeing the same facts (company reports, past fund performance, and so on) and yet coming up with different interpretations of future returns or risks. In fact after CAN some of the most volatile differences of view can be seen on the HYP boards which, for some reason, generate a lot of hot air. Even boards like Tax and Legal generate different interpretations sometimes.

Perhaps what is really to be avoided is any sense of certainty when it comes to a wide range of topics and boards, but especially on CAN where, as noted before, debates are typically light on facts and heavy on opinions. Which is where I think Clariman's advice stands out. When you read something there do not assume that you know better than them what is true, and then wade into them to "correct" them. But rather ask yourself what you can learn from the other party by accepting the invitation to see things from another perspective. The value of a community lies in its diversity and what we can all learn from that. Groupthink is much less instructive.

The American economist Arnold Kling has talked and written extensively about how Americans disagree over political matters in "The Three Languages of Politics". I think that it's a very good way to look at this, particularly as it avoids the ridiculously over-simplified "left vs right" axis of politics in Britain. Rather than link to an hour long video, here's a quick summary (and there's a link to a very good discussion at the end of this post).

Kling argues that people tend to fit topics into their particular "language" (the way that they see the world as operating). They see things in terms of two extremes, hence a two-dimensional axis, with the intensity of their opinion being shown by how close they are to their favoured extreme. An example of such an axis is how much the state should control the economy; you would have an axis ranging from complete state control to the state doesn't get involved.

Kling says that there are three languages as follows:

Progressives see everything in terms of Oppressor vs Oppressed
Conservatives see everything in terms of Civilisation vs Barbarism
Libertarians see everything in terms of Freedom vs Coercion

Disagreements multiply and are never resolved because the various sides see things very differently. An example would be refugees. Progressives see refugees as fleeing oppression and accept them unconditionally. Anyone who disagrees with them must be on the side of the oppressors and is therefore evil. Conservatives will be wary of change, especially when the refugees are from very different cultures (seen as barbarism). Libertarians are fairly laid back unless they are forced to pay for the refugees or the refugees impinge upon their freedoms.

People, being more complicated, may incorporate two or three of these axes in how they see things.

EconTalk did an interview with Dr. Kling a couple of years ago. Link below:

https://www.econtalk.org/arnold-kling-on-the-three-languages-of-politics-revisited/

[XFool]

The American economist Arnold Kling has talked and written extensively about how Americans disagree over political matters in "The Three Languages of Politics". I think that it's a very good way to look at this, particularly as it avoids the ridiculously over-simplified "left vs right" axis of politics in Britain.

What about the Conservative vs Progressive (aka Libtard?) axis in the US?

Kling argues that people tend to fit topics into their particular "language" (the way that they see the world as operating). They see things in terms of two extremes, hence a two-dimensional axis, with the intensity of their opinion being show by how close they are to their favoured extreme.

That is certainly a description of how some people see, or choose to see things. It also seems to capture how politics is operating these days - particularly in the US?

Kling says that there are three major categories as follows:

Progressives see everything in terms of Oppressor vs Oppressed
Conservatives see everything in terms of Civilisation vs Barbarism
Libertarians see everything in terms of Freedom vs Coercion

Let me guess... Kling 'self identifies' as a Libertarian?

I swear I only looked him up at this point:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_Kling

"He identifies as a libertarian."

Disagreements multiply and are never resolved because the various sides see things very differently.

Indeed. This is where it gets interesting, but possibly rather complicated, IMO.

People, being more complicated, may incorporate two or three of these axes in how they see things.

OK. But once again, this appears to me to be coming from an 'Everything is politics' axis (therefore everything is subject to opinion).

XFool does not identify as a Libertarian.

[Lootman]

if there are "no facts" in politics, why shouldn't there be "no facts" in anything else, just opinions, including science?

It is not that there are no facts in politics, but rather that facts are not central to politics. Values are much more important. And what you commonly see in political debates is that someone cherry picks the facts that suit their agenda, whilst conveniently omitting any facts to the contrary. So there are several layers of problems here:

1) Facts are often disputed, especially anything that is considered to follow from them.
2) Facts can be selected or ignored to try and skew a position.
3) Facts are secondary to the real aim, which is to further an agenda.

The Guardian and the Telegraph both see the same set of facts, and yet produce wildly different interpretations of them. To take a simple example, suppose the government reports an increase in tax evasion (fact, although I am never sure how it measures what is hidden from them). The Guardian may howl with outrage that the rich are shirking their responsibility and will demand punitive action. The Telegraph might report that such behaviour shows that tax rates are too high, probably throwing in the Laffer Effect in there for good measure. And demand tax cuts.

So yes, facts can feature on CAN. But they are rarely central to what people are really trying to say. And so they rarely resolve any issue. Rather they are more like pawns in a game of chess - sacrificial cannon fodder used as gambits whilst the major pieces do all the heavy lifting.

[XFool]

It is not that there are no facts in politics, but rather that facts are not central to politics. Values are much more important. And what you commonly see in political debates is that someone cherry picks the facts that suit their agenda, whilst conveniently omitting any facts to the contrary.

I cant deny that.

The Guardian and the Telegraph both see the same set of facts, and yet produce wildly different interpretations of them. To take a simple example, suppose the government reports an increase in tax evasion (fact, although I am never sure how it measures what is hidden from them). The Guardian may howl with outrage that the rich are shirking their responsibility and will demand punitive action. The Telegraph might report that such behaviour shows that tax rates are too high, probably throwing in the Laffer Effect in there for good measure. And demand tax cuts.

Yes... But, in that case, neither are denying the underlying facts (presumably).

It is not as if - in your example - The Guardian is saying: "There is an increase in tax evasion" while the Telegraph is saying: "There is no increase in tax evasion"
(Not saying that couldn't happen, just going with your example.)

So yes, facts can feature on CAN. But they are rarely central to what people are really trying to say. And so they rarely resolve any issue.

And, if real world politics is run on that basis, we cannot now expect politics to solve any real world issues. Possibly this summarises the world we are currently in...

Rather they are more like pawns in a game of chess - sacrificial cannon fodder used as gambits whilst the major pieces do all the heavy lifting.

So fantasy politics is the way to go, IYO?

Guess we can look forward(?) to more Trump, more Boris (more Brexit?).

[XFool]

The thing is...

From my point of view, there is a kind of fundamental misconception lurking behind the assumptions and reasons for this thread - however well intentioned and interesting the posts here may be (they are).

However, I will not be addressing this fundamental "misconception". Why not? Because...

[tjh290633]

However, I will not be addressing this fundamental "misconception". Why not? Because...

Thank heaven for that. I have failed to find any logic behind most of your off-topic interjections in that topic.

Yes, but...

Harold Wilson, leader of the Conservative and Unionist Party, was the UK Prime minister from 1980 to 1993.

Sorry! Wrong board.

We can also ask why people hold the views that they do and listen attentively. We might learn something.

Now that is genuinely interesting. Though not infrequently baffling...

[The trouble is, it not infrequently depends on correct interpretation of what are the FACTS. So the roundabout goes around and around...

The question being: Which is the chicken and which is the egg?]

...Well, that neatly side steps the real issues! Not for the first time.

The pernicious belief that there are "no facts" in politics, only opinions, is certainly a fashionable notion these days. That nobody can deny!
It is particularly fashionable in authoritarian politics. It always has been.

Leon Trotsky was a big cheese in the politics of the USSR, until he wasn't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_images_in_the_Soviet_Union

Boris Johnson visited Spaceport Cornwall, until he didn't.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64223974

We seem less and less interested in Realpolitik these days, it's out of fashion. Fantasy politics is definitely in, that's why we had Trump (and Brexit!).

And, if there are "no facts" in politics, why shouldn't there be "no facts" in anything else, just opinions, including science?

Why should not the COVID vaccination be a mass population cull perpetuated by 'the elite'?
Why should not HIV be a fake virus and AIDS simply a non existent, invented disease?
Why should not the Earth be flat and NASA have been covering this up for 50+ years?

Are you feeling all right?

TJH