On political discourse
Mar. 22nd, 2010 02:36 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ceebeegeeSo--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.
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]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: On political discourse
Date: 2010-03-23 03:40 pm (UTC)Re: On political discourse
Date: 2010-03-24 01:36 am (UTC)I think he's actually a decent fellow at heart. He's usually a more eloquent debator. He definitely crossed a line yesterday, though.