ceebeegee: (that is not what I meant at all)
ceebeegee ([personal profile] ceebeegee) wrote2010-03-22 02:36 pm
Entry tags:

On political discourse

So--obviously some pretty big legislation was passed yesterday and some strong opinions were expressed. Now most of my friends are pretty liberal, and by and large the opinions I was reading on my Facebook feed were positive. There were, of course, some not so. I fully believe that there is principled opposition to this legislation--I don't agree with any of the arguments I've heard, either because I didn't think they added up or I'm just ideologically opposed to the premises of the argument--but I know that people I respect and love do not necessarily support this.

It can be really difficult to weigh in on the subject--even to go onto Facebook and read what others have to say--without getting emotional or taking it personally. It's a really tough line to draw. I like to see passionate discussion and no one should be afraid to disagree, but when 1) you don't know someone, and 2) you're discussing things online, without the context of face-to-face communication, things can get--unattractive. This is why I tend to reserve my political discussion for LJ, rather than FB. Too many friends on FB, plus its format doesn't facilitate thoughtful discussion as well as a blog community does. When I do post political on FB, it's usually a cri du coeur, something that bothers me, or elates me, so much I can't hold it in.

A few weeks ago, Patricia posted something on FB about health care reform, and one of her friends, someone I don't know, asked "who pays for it?" I responded (my first response to Patricia's thread) "since health care reform is something that benefits all of us, like education, we all pay via taxes." Question seeking factual answer, factual answer given with underlying reasoning, right? He responded with this diatribe on how he wasn't going to pay for boob jobs and illegal immigrants and nose surgery and I don't know what-all--like, apres ca, le deluge, this very partisan, emotional post. Dude, if I'd known you were spoiling for a fight, I never would've responded. And he started it off with "Nope. Sorry." I have to say, as soon as you start off a response like that, I click off. It's condescending and rude. "Nope. *shakes head regretfully* Your attempt to impress me just didn't work, so I'll be brief and dismissive. Sorry. Better luck next time." It's an aggressive response couched in falsely "nice" language. I notice it mostly from guys, whereas women tend to use the "Um..." or call people "honey." Again, as soon as I see that, I stop reading--if you take an argument this personally, I'd rather not engage. I was polite to you, and I expect the same. Which is basically what I said to him, something along the lines of "you obviously have your mind already made up so there's no point in discussing this." He responded again but I never read it. Dude, don't know you, now I don't want to, stop trying to pick a fight.

So--I posted last night another cri du coeur, "Yes, we could!" because yes, I am very happy this bill passed. Almost everyone who responded agreed but a friend of mine from elementary school wrote something about how "not 'we,' the majority of Americans didn't want this*, only some people in DC" (paraphrase). I started to type out a geeky, over-explanation about how I was referencing Obama's campaign slogan, don't take it literally, it's a rhetorical "we," I was not speaking for all Americans but those who support health care reform., and we live in a republic, not a perfect democracy and all the reps who voted for this bill are presumably acting on the wishes of their constituents, because they know they'll be voted out if they don't. Then I decided--you know what, let him have his say. As I said it's a really tough line to draw, to read what people are saying, about an issue that you feel so passionately, and not respond sometimes. Michael's (my friend Michael Mackey) an old friend of mine, haven't seen him in forever but I remember several months ago he very respectfully asked for people's thoughts on health care reform, even if he had his own specific opinions. He's pretty disappointed obviously, but he's a good American who's trying, just like the rest of us.

But then there was the hilarious exchange on my friend Jim Denny's page. Jim posted in favor of the bill, said something about making health care affordable for everyone, rich or poor, and a friend of his started off his response "Jim, you sound like Adolph Hitler." I busted out laughing at that. A couple of other people posted and he answered every single with with this long diatribe--this is where you are crossing a line. Your Hitler response just makes you look ridiculous, but you don't get to take over the discussion and essentially try to shout down people. (That drives me crazy on YouTube as well, when people have to respond to every single person who expresses an opinion contrary to theirs, as though that other person really is wrong and they have to correct them. Crazily enough, you really see it with ladies' singles figure skating videos. There are some crazy FS-loving bishes, yo.) Jim wrote back "Yeah, been goose-steppin' around the neighborhood all evening looking for some hard-working young Americans who can't afford health care I can herd up and gas." I'd been thinking of invoking Godwin, but when I read what Jim wrote, I posted "Let me know if you need a fellow Aryan to help, it's been awhile since I've asked anyone for their papers, I need the practice."

*I read this several times on FB last night, that supposedly most Americans "don't want" this. I'd really like to see some reputable sources for that, because I've been reading the opposite, that Americans DO want health care reform. Of course then you have to get into what questions were asked on these surveys, how specific were they, and when were they conducted. My point is that it's sort of meaningless to say something so vague. At any rate, it's still a faulty argument, IMO--most Americans didn't want the civil rights act either. Most Southerners didn't want slavery to end. Most Jordanians STILL don't want the peace treaty with Israel. You may not believe that health care is a human right, but if you're arguing with people who do believe that, invoking majority rule is not going to convince them.

[identity profile] dje2004.livejournal.com 2010-03-22 07:35 pm (UTC)(link)
I saw that comment, and started to write a snarky response - something along the lines of "Would that be the majority who voted for Obama, who campaigned on a promise of healthcare reform?" - but I thought the better of it, because I try not to get into fights on the net in general, and on friend's pages or in their journals specifically. Anyway, from what I've read, polls indicate that the public is against the bill by a slight margin, but in favor of most of what's in the bill itself. I get the sense that that's because most people don't actually know what's in the bill, the result of a successful disinformation campaign from the Republicans combined with the Democrats doing a terrible job of selling the bill.

And yeah, if there's one thing I can't stand in a debate, it's the kind of condescencion you describe. That pretty much tells me that you're not actually interested in having a debate, and also that you're an asshole.

[identity profile] dje2004.livejournal.com 2010-03-22 07:50 pm (UTC)(link)
I got curious, so I went and checked out that facebook discussion you mentioned. The last person to post wrote "I got news for you liberal folks...our freedom of choice has been taken away. Everyone should have the option to insure themselves (which btw we've had in place) and not forced by the government." I was so tempted to reply with "I know! I'm so pissed that I don't have the option to pay for my own personal police protection, fire coverage, mail delivery, and roads. I have no freedom of choice!" But like I said, I'm trying to avoid getting into fights on the internet.

[identity profile] ceebeegee.livejournal.com 2010-03-22 08:01 pm (UTC)(link)
I got news for you liberal folks

UGH. You are not here to correct any of us, to teach us. Speak respectfully, own your fears as such--what you claim is not fact, it's what you, personally, fear. And admit that even if you have figures to back this up, it's subject to interpretation. This isn't hard science, it's politics and economics. This is difficult to predict. If you want to harangue, stick to your own page--when you venture onto someone else's page, you really should be more polite or people just won't listen.

Jim cracked me up, though. He can be kind of mean sometimes, it was interesting to see him mocking this guy instead of tearing him a new one. Probably the smarter response.

[identity profile] ceebeegee.livejournal.com 2010-03-22 08:11 pm (UTC)(link)
Also, I'm seeing so many parallels with ancient Rome, it's making me dizzy! I almost posted as my status update (and perhaps I still will, it's deliciously clever if I do say so myself ;) God I'm a self-satisfied geek! -- "The Gracchi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gracchi) are proud of you, Nancy!" Tribune = Speaker of the House. Agrarian Reform = Health Care Reform. Optimates = Republicans, Populares = Democrats. Rome *was* a republic (originally) and not a pure democracy, just like America, and both times those were deliberate choices by the Founding Fathers.

[identity profile] vfrride.livejournal.com 2010-03-23 01:34 am (UTC)(link)
I love when people start screaming about tort reform. I haven't written my long diatribe about that yet.

Actually, it's not that long if I use teh math:

healthcare = 1/6 of U.S. GDP = 14 trillion/6 = 2.3 trillion
tort costs per year = 1.2 billion
2.3 trillion / 1.2 billion * 100 = .052%

Obviously that .052% is what is driving healthcare costs through the roof.

[identity profile] ceebeegee.livejournal.com 2010-03-23 03:22 am (UTC)(link)
Every little bit counts. ;)

[identity profile] darksheik.livejournal.com 2010-03-23 11:07 am (UTC)(link)
Yeah, I laid low yesterday. Mostly, because I'm not sure where I stand on this. I do think healthcare is something every American needs like defense and education, and being healthy should be a fundamental right.

I also totally understand the Republican arguments about the monopsony that would ensue. That, and America is already spinning the drain financially and this will probably be the nail in the coffin.

I think all of this hostility out there belies this greater fear that our way of life and our very civilization is on borrowed time. And both "sides", with their failure to rein in all of the reckless spending over the last 7 decades, are to blame.

On political discourse

[identity profile] wonderpanther.livejournal.com 2010-03-23 11:54 am (UTC)(link)
I regret that I ended up in a FB flamewar on the subject. But I do not blame myself entirely as the person who I had never met countered my enthusiam with calling me ignorant, stupid, foolish, malicious and a socialist. I just hate the name-calling. It is unproductive discourse. So, mainly, I had hoped to call the guy out for the name-calling. But, you know, you can't really have a productive flamewar.

Re: On political discourse

[identity profile] ceebeegee.livejournal.com 2010-03-23 03:40 pm (UTC)(link)
That guy was totally over the line, I thought you responded very well. I couldn't believe what he was saying and thought Michael's response was great as well.

Re: On political discourse

[identity profile] minstrel70.livejournal.com 2010-03-24 01:36 am (UTC)(link)
Interestingly, in a small world and six degrees way, I know him from LJ and through mutual friends of ours. He is [livejournal.com profile] montecristo here, friend of [livejournal.com profile] ingenuemuse, friend of [livejournal.com profile] jayspec and [livejournal.com profile] mollyx, if I remember the chain of friending correctly. We connected over shared philosophies, though he's a far stricter Objectivist than I even pretend to be when I'm in a foul mood.

I think he's actually a decent fellow at heart. He's usually a more eloquent debator. He definitely crossed a line yesterday, though.

[identity profile] jayspec.livejournal.com 2010-03-23 08:21 pm (UTC)(link)
I think I've come a bit out of my funk from the post-Massachussetts election aftermath... I think I'll probably vote again, for example.

But two rules from my depression have served me well, and will remain:

1. If post about politics in a mean-spirited fashion (left or right), I'll drop you from my friends. I mean it, too. I pruned my mom's fiancee from my Facebook.

2. I will never, ever, ever discuss politics online again. 99% of the time it's a giant dickwaving contest in which no one has any hope of being convinced of anything anyway. If you want to yell and shout at me and call me an idiot, you're going to have to pay the social costs of doing so to my face.

I'm much happier now...

[identity profile] minstrel70.livejournal.com 2010-03-24 01:55 am (UTC)(link)
I questioned your decision to disengage at the time. I'm reconsidering that now. The last couple days have aged me, and I'm increasingly convinced that you've made a wise stand. I just don't know if I'm capable of doing the same.

[identity profile] ceebeegee.livejournal.com 2010-03-24 05:03 am (UTC)(link)
Mike, as much as we disagree, I respect your views and, more and most importantly (VERY most importantly), your intelligent support for them. And frankly, as someone from a family that represents the whole political spectrum*, I dislike an echo chamber. That's boring and intellectually dishonest. I want someone who can challenge my views, who forces me to question them. Both sides need intelligent partisans--the nastiness and the simplistic arguments irritate the crap out of me. Your side needs you just as Jason's (and my) side needs him. We're all Americans, we all need to figure this out together.


*My Dad is Mr. Conservative (albeit pro-gay rights and pro-choice), my stepmother is much more liberal, though she hated Clinton & Gore--but voted for Jerry Brown in the '92 (?) primaries, if you can believe it!) and my brothers are all over the place.

[identity profile] wonderpanther.livejournal.com 2010-03-24 02:17 pm (UTC)(link)
I think one of the interesting things about debating with this electronic group on lj is that you can't really put anyone in a box. I would hate to think that I have devolved to a party-line yesman. Look, I do support universal healthcare and I am not afriad of socialism and I do (to a degree), support social programs. I have seen myself some eggregious abuses of the system, but I believe in regulation before elimination. However, I am vehemently pro-Israel, not a popular "liberal" view. I support marriage equality. I support the military and I do not think that I know better than those with experience in that arena, I don't. I do feel like a victim of over-taxation sometimes. I believe that tax brackets should be based on where you live. You can argue that people choose to live in more expensive areas, but they contribute to the GNP by doing it and should not be taxed the same as those who make the same amount in a suburb of Knoxville, TN. Sadly, the more time I spend in family court, the less I want to back the reproductive rights of specific individuals. I thought Gearge Bush was a bad leader and I think that Nancy Pelosi is bad at leading a majority party. Oh, and I think that Candace should be able to take her girlfriend to the prom.