What *Are* Republicans and Democrats?
6 months ago
9 Comments
Not the text book definitions. The real, modern critters. What are they. What do they claim to be? How are they different? How do they view each other.
General Purpose:
You can't have meaningful discourse unless you understand your 'opponent', and vice versa. Not the PC stuff either. The stereotypes, the negative jokes. And worse, the truth.
Please, in your post, explain which side of the fence you are on, or favor. Independant is not a valid answer, because it tells nothing about the Democratic or Republican parties, unless you itemize what traits each party has from that view, and what their differences are.
Have fun, and "Lets get it on!"
Tags: democrats, grupthink, philosophy, politics, republicans, society
Topic Details
This topic was started by jasmith42 on May 29th, 2008. 0 grupies have voted on one or more of the answers.
Tags: democrats, grupthink, philosophy, politics, republicans, society
Comments |
Leave a comment
for purposes of this topic, can we separate neocons from the republicans of the past?
Most Definately.
Good point, skrrrriti. The neocons that have dominated in the Bush administration have taken a crooked fork in the republican path.
I'm sorry, I can understand introducing the stereotypes, negative comments, and so forth for humor but it seriously detracts from honest discussion. I can read a well thought out and presented opinion from someone I disagree with and understand them. However if I read something that is full of such hateful and mocking tone (Savage, Malkin, Coulter, etc.) I cannot stand to read it, cannot take it seriously, and cannot learn about my opponent.
This may just be me, but I don't think crude humor and disdainful snark have a place in serious political discussion.
"disdainful snark" - I like that.
My contention is that, if the negative comments and 'disdainful snarks' are out in the open, they can be dealt with much more effectively than by ignoring them or by pretending they don't exist.
By addressing their concerns, we might educate them, which is certainly a point necessary for honest discussion. Sometimes, teaching is more important than learning in discussion, at least, I think so. And while there will always be trolls, expectation of such should not disuade meaningful discourse.
We could ignore them, and encourage only polite and agreeable comments, but that is not discussion, that is ego stroking. That is not to say that pleasant conversation has not place. Just to say that unpleasant conversation does, too, and that place, in my opinion is election year.
Pleasant conversation does not equal agreeable comments. You can be pleasant and respectful and still disagree whole-heartedly. My point is that by requesting the jokes and snide remarks you are just asking for trolls.
Trolls come regardless. Already said that. Don't want to say it again. Waste of typing.
My point is that, hard as it is to understand, some perfectly intelligent people are jerks. They don't feel the need to coddle your feelings. That does not make their points irrelevant.
Because a thing is not sugarcoated does not make it worthless. Because a person does not want to follow your sentence of "You can be pleasant and respectful and still disagree whole-heartedly. " Truth be told, good conversation can come without being pleasant and respectful. Truth be told, some of us don't like giving pleasantness and respect to those that don't bother to read with understanding what has already been said.
If you don't respect me enough to get my very clear meaning right, why should I respect your feelings when I redundantly have to clarify it further for you? At least, that's how some people feel.
By the by, as reading this comment thread can illustrate, trolls can in fact be quite pleasant and respectful in tone, while still nitpicking and ruining a perfectly good topic;)