What Debate is and Is Not!!

Robert thanks for your thoughts.

I tie the profanity to the other junk together, as red flags to the civil discourse that we and others would like to participate in. I am not that optomistic as to any compelling changes in dignity and mutual respect, with the election in such sharp focus. However, I would certainly support that happening.

Please keep up your good work as I always appreciate what you have to say. Regards.

pog8

It seems to me that the majority of offenders spewing hate are males, probably between 14 and 30??

I'll disagree with you a little here. I have seen quite a few that have identified themselves a female who can be just as bad and childish as some of the worst men regarding remarks like "fascist", "Rethug", "Teapug", etc. to the point of me putting them on my ignore list. I remember some like "Texasrodeoqueen" and "Rockeymountainwoman" (banned several years ago) that could peel the paint off of a wall with their expletives and hate regarding anything except their own myopic view of the world.

I think that people are angry (on both sides of the argument) about how they see the world (or our particular definition of it) is going to hell in a hand basket. So many people don't think that they can influence the outcome, so they want to yell and scream at something. It is easy to scream at someone 3000 mile away when there isn't much chance that they will show up at your door and beat the crap out of them, so they do just that. Its just like the guy that drives down the highway flicking the bird at everybody that doesn't get out of his way; Road Rage on the Internet.

Robert,

And very often these people have good points on the issue,

The COULD have good points on an issue, but they CHOOSE to just fling insults, pejoratives, and slurs with all of the finesse of cluster bomb. It may be passion on someone's part to throw out these remarks, but the only thing it does is generate had, discontent, and a total unwillingness of "Party B" (the one insulted) to ever even consider the point of view of "Party A" (the one that threw the jab). That, IMO is why we are where we are right now. The jabs, slurs, and pejoratives have brought us back to the point where we were in 1856. That is when Sen. Preston Brooks (D-SC) beat Sen. Charles Sumner (R-Ma) nearly to death on the floor of the Senate with a Walking Stick on the floor of the Senate. If we don't get this under control, we could end up with the same sort of problem that the attack helped precipitate 5 years later.

There isn't any reason to insult someone when engaging them about an issue. All you do is piss them off and make an enemy. You can come to a compromise with someone that you disagree wit, you can't with a hated enemy. With an enemy it become "Winner Take All", "no quarter", and " Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius" (from which we derive "Kill them all and let God sort them out." That is what we have in Washington now; hated enemies.

Robert,

That is where we are in politics today. Hyper-partisanism rules the day. Reid is just as guilt as McConnell and Bohner is just as guilty as Pelosi. It is as if they each have to win at all cost no matter what else occurs. I reminds me of a limerick from my Grandmother. She used it whenever my brother and I would start acting like that. She would:

Tit for Tat,
Tit for Tat,
You kill my Dog,
I'll Kill your Cat!

That saying was immediately followed by a paddle to light up both of our butts. I wish she were around to day so I could send here to Washington. She would stay busy for a long time with 547 Butts to work on (435 in the House, 100 in the Senate, 10 Supreme Court Justices, along with a President & Vice President.) She would be busy for quite a while (but would probably enjoy her work).

Like Patton said, " If you want them to remember it, give it to them loud, long, and dirty." When people ask me, I tell them that I learned to swear from a Master ... a Master Gunnery Sargent. It wasn't a thing of beauty, but it definitely got the point a cross without any question.

Whoa there - a drunken sailer? You know, there is some space between saint and sailor.

Think of it this way - do you enjoy a good mob drama? I loved the Sopranos, because it was well written, accurate, and not some cheesy reality show like 80% of what occupies prime time. However, watching it on A&E takes the accuracy out of the equation. If a guy is willing to put a bullet in your head, would he really threaten to put a "gosh dang" bullet in your head? Of course not - and using wonky language takes the punctuation out of the dialogue. I'm not saying that it's admirable to act like a gangster, I'm just saying that the real world uses colorful language in a variety of ways - and it sounds like this unnerves you. I had priests in my Jesuit highschool that cursed all the time. They're just words, and I bet your children and grandchildren use them when you aren't around.

One other thing - you included a list of "pejorative labels" in your article, most of which I would agree with (ie Libtard). However, how is it that "racist, bigot and religious zealot" are bad decorum? You have sanitized your word base to the point where you can no longer call a spade a spade. If a NW member writes an accurate article about Rev. Phelps, do you think that is possible to do so without using these three words?

I am known to swear with the best of them, and I am a woman 'of a certain age'. I used to work in a lumberyard back in the day and learned to give as good as I got, but I can't blame that for my potty mouth. Sometimes a swear word is what works for me. I have been trying REALLY hard to add to the discussion instead of adding to the fray, but sometimes the fray beckons and I just jump in. I do enjoy your seeds (even when I disagree) and hope you stick around and keep adding your view to discussions. Thanks!

Future History

One other thing - you included a list of "pejorative labels" in your article, most of which I would agree with (ie Libtard). However, how is it that "racist, bigot and religious zealot" are bad decorum?

The problem is how it is used. I do not use racial slurs. Yet, by some of your colleagues (progressives / ultra-liberals) I have been called a Racist. I do not dislike President Obama (I don't know the man) and I do not use any slurs against his name, but because I my disagree with either his policy on an issue, his direction for the country, or his method of leadership, I have been called a Racist. That is at best amusing in that I am not "White".

Because I believe in responsibility, accountability, and freedom to choose, I have been called a fascist and Nazi by these same people. That is the point; it is not the word but the usage and the fact that there are many here that, when they run out of argument simply throw out "Racist, Fascist", "Nazi", "Tepublican", "Retug", or Bible Banger". If you want to debate an issue with me, I will happily try to get you to understand my point of view, but when someone resorts to the pejoratives, they have lost me as an audience.

Chris - my "colleagues" are not progressives/liberals. I'm actually a white guy who was dating a black woman during the last POTUS election. She voted for Obama for no other reason than his color, which I found to be profoundly racist. I wasn't impressed with Obama's resume, and I would sooner take a bullet than vote for a ticket that included Palin, so I tossed my vote to Nader. I am satisfied with how Obama has dealt with the hand he was dealt, and I'm totally disgusted with how the republican party has represented their constituents, and ever more disgusted with what they are offering as a contender. I hate to think that race or religion will play a role in Nov., but I can see how some might jump to that conclusion when looking at the options from the right. I personally don't use the tea party or thug references you mentioned, but I don't take racist, bigot or zealot off the table unless someone has sound reasoning that isn't strictly partisan or religiously oriented.

Future History

Then, from the post I have seen from you are the exception, not the rule. Or, perhaps I am falling into the trap of painting with too wide a brush. The problem I have with some of the posters her (as Robert has stated earlier) is that there are those that will just throw pejoratives rather than debate. I give you CCARM, Better Careful, and ryoushi12 to name just a few. Just read some of their posts and see how many word are posted before Racist, Bigot, Fascist, or Nazi appear. This type of pejorative outcry does nothing but create more hatred. We are now in a position not unlike where we were in 1856 (see post 5.4). Before long, if we can't start listening to each other rather than yelling at each other, we will be in the same mess we were then.

I have seen that type of problem. I served with the 3rd Marines in Thua Thien and Quang Tri Provinces of Vietnam starting with the 1968 Tet. I've looked the 2nd Horse in the eyes before and I hope I don't live long enough to do it again. We have to start working together and quit yelling at each other or that is where we are headed. Think about it; just because we disagree doesn't make us enemies.

Future History,

Here is something that you might want to think about regarding our need for compromise. Shelby Foote, the Civil War Historian said during one of his clips in Ken Burns' The Civil War:

"The Civil War happened because we failed to do the thing we have a true genius for; Compromise. Americans like to think of themselves as uncompromising but it’s the basis of our democracy, our government is founded on it and it failed. When it failed is when we started shooting and killing each other."

If all we do is yell at each other with slurs and pejoratives then we will never compromise and history has shown all too well where that leads.

I can't argue with any of that Chris. However, existing compromises are everywhere we look in government. The problems arise when those compromises get challenged over and over by one side. Separation of church and state is a perfect example. This country has had a policy that maximizes the freedoms of all religions and nonreligions alike, and it was only achieved by creating a wall between this melting pot of ideologies and the government that spans across all of them. But who could deny that there are those out there that seek for their ideology to dominate and lace themselves into the bureaucracy of this government? When adherents of this intrusion attack the existing balance on newsvine, seeking support for tipping the scales in their favor, oblivious to the chaos that would ensue, then I refuse to take a moderate stance. If the debate gets colorful, then so be it. I am an atheist, and I am a staunch defender of keeping religion and government separate. It is inevitable that that debate will quickly breach the topic of morality, and many of those of faith are simply blind to what constitutes morality, and where morality comes from ... and it ain't religion ... and I'm not shy about reminding anyone of that, or citing examples of this from their own dogma.

Why does racism always infer white people hating black people? Now that new generations have been brought up to realize that we are all equal under the laws of our government, racism is something that can spread in all directions. A black person that votes for a black person solely because they are black is no better than a white person who refuses to vote for a black person. You might be surprised at how big of a following former disgraced Washington DC Mayor Marion Barry still has in the District among black residents. How could anyone support a man who had a crack addiction while in office, to the point where he was actually filmed smoking crack with a prostitute?

Thank you.

And not simply to curry favor, but I look forward to your comments as well.