Community

[honorentheos]

From back at the tail end of June when a few folks returned to the board after a long absence; the timing being suspiciously close to the poor debate performance by Biden:

Would you entertain discussing what you actually see as the values the Republican party best represents and that you support, for example?

No, I would not entertain doing that here.

I say that because I think it used to be more about competing values than it is today. Today it's about narrative, pure and simple.

In addition to narrative, I would add control, fear, and dependency as very close cousins.

The point of my participation in this thread is clear. I suggested that the thread is damaging to relationships, Americans, and widens an already wide divide amongst the people. I suggested it because it's true.

What was your point to participate in this thread?

My point is politics don't happen in a vacuum. I don't think titles of threads are damaging relationships. I believe quite strongly the beliefs and active behavior of folks in American politics today is undermining important values essential to our system. We are a nation founded on ideas rather than shared genes or religion. And the preservation of the idea of democratic access to opportunity regardless of one's birth is a revolutionary one. It demands understanding and commitment to survive and thrive.

I bring this forward because I don't believe a person can claim they are engaging in community building if their participation is synced to perceived weak moments on the part of a political party. And, when the initial conversations turn divisive it is typically after attempts at actual dialog on topics where there is disagreement are rejected outright.

Dialog is absolutely fundamental to any hope for an improved political environment. Throwing bombs and refusing to engage in discussion is not community building. Folks who only show up when they see an opportunity take advantage of a perceived moment or weakness in are not genuine friends.

I said this very early in that thread and stand by it:

Hey honor,

By and large, the DNC and the GOP pick the colors - The millions of American citizens don't pick, each of us are forced to use the colors already provided.

To my own, I often speak to them about my personal opinions regarding the corruption, lying, attempted power grabs, and incivility that runs rampant on both sides of our failing two-party system. In addition, I share my thoughts about the ruling class’s desire to fuel division amongst the people. I think they instigate this division amongst the people by design - I think they want this division amongst the people - And perhaps most importantly, I think that tactics used to demonize others is required for this ruling class to continue to rule and thrive.

That's fair. But I wonder when you engage in politics in a civil way in general, here or elsewhere? Would you entertain discussing what you actually see as the values the Republican party best represents and that you support, for example? Is there something to it besides partisanship in your opinion?

I say that because I think it used to be more about competing values than it is today. Today it's about narrative, pure and simple. And I'd argue if you want to actually effect change, the place isn't to handwave away the partisanship as the problem so much as replace it with something better in your own discussions. Politics at their best are about ideas, vision, values.

[ceeboo]

Unbelievable!

LOL!

[honorentheos]

Isn't it?

[honorentheos]

From a long distant past:

viewtopic.php?p=1837658#p1837658

Second, "If truth causes change in your organization, it is because it was previously lacking beforehand, not because the facts themselves are malicious."

That is something that true believers cannot wrap their heads around.

Thanks, Darth J.

I'm somewhat fascinated with this idea right now. That being that the average person may not be able to actually see evidence that is contrary to their view. The worldview blindspot that assumed belief creates makes a compelling case study for me.

I also think this point is the single biggest leap that every person who steps away from the church has to make. One has to distance one's self-identity from that of the faith sufficiently so one can "see" the evidence against it for what it is- simple information and "truth", without feeling it is a personal attack.

I'm in the middle of another case study on another thread on the MAD board right now. We'll see where it goes, I guess.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/ ... 1208876215

This old post from a past life resurfaced and revisiting it I found myself thinking that there is a parallel true believer nature in our current political partisanship. And that the process of engaging others in discussion is essential for everyone to actually SEE the evidence clearly, especially is it may be in conflict with ones own views let alone be able to understand the person on the other side of the argument as a person. How so? Because it's only by being able to understand their position AS THEY UNDERSTAND IT that a person isn't treating important parts of the other person as inferior. It's a large reason I find the idea of people showing up to take shots at another person's political views then refusing to actually engage in discussion as condescending. Doing so is passively attacking something the other person holds to be important. Pivoting to "Let's all set aside our difference and be pals" at that point is a dick move, like a pat on the head would be. It just is. Showing up to chat about bbq recipes without bringing up politics? Cool. That's not behaving in an inherently condescending way. But that's not what we see happen and it's not why certain people are being called out with greater frequency.

[Morley]

Honor, you make a good point. This often irks me, too. I also see this as condescension, but I don't think it always is.

I think that some folks here are reluctant to discuss because they think of rhetoric as a kind of a parlor trick that can be disingenuously employed by clever antagonists. They may concede that you have a type of facile logic on your side, but think that that doesn't cancel out the basic truth of what they know--a truth that cannot always communicated via so-called logic.

They know that in discussion you'll employ language tricks that can make things sound better or different from what they really are--that a you're using a kind of elite twisting of ideas vs their own God-given common sense. In short, they feel a moral obligation to assert their beliefs, but know damn well that others are going to twist them in discussion, so they opt out of defending them.

Maybe ceeboo will interject here to help me refine my argument or explain where I've got this wrong.

[Gadianton]

They may concede that you have a type of facile logic on your side, but think that that doesn't cancel out the basic truth of what they know--a truth that cannot always communicated via so-called logic.

This is absolutely the case. Even if he didn't do it, by golly, that's exactly the kind of thing he would do! And, there is a comradery built around constructing the lies. The only real test of any loyalty is to support the lie. It's easy to support someone as long as they are doing the right thing. The way you identify yourself as MAGA is by repeating the worst of the worst nonsense; the bigger the lie is and the worse your reasoning is to support it, the higher your social credibility score rises with the group.

A very long time ago back when I allowed my right-wing friend to forward his emails to me, one of those emails was written as a news report, but by someone seriously ESL. It had a drone shot of a sailboat, and I don't remember the details, only that it was documenting a Haitian on a long journey to enter the US illegally, and was about a week away from landing on the coast of California (as opposed to Florida for some reason, probably just make it even dumber). When I saw him the next time, I'm like, c'mon, not even you can take that email seriously. He got a big smile on his face and laughed, "Oh I know, I just thought it was cute that someone took the time to put it together."

[honorentheos]

Hi Morley,

Good points. I also suspect the message board format affects communication in ways that exacerbate the perception the other party is engaging in rhetorical gamesmanship. In person, I typically reframe with an example before moving to further examination of a point to ensure we are on the same page. But I've found on message boards if a person reposts something in this way, before the other party responds there will inevitably be two or three folks who reply as if that post reflected ones own views, and then an entire derail will arise over that problem. That, combined with other factors, seems to demand discussion be compressed which certainly gives it a more combative feel.

That said, I think a person's view of truth - what it is, how we acquire it, how changeable it may be - also matters a great deal. And this seems to affect how people engage in discussion. A person who views us all as blind folks feeling our way around an elephant, to use the overused metaphor, may be more inclined to call out and be receptive using what others share to seek better understanding than someone might who is certain truth looks like a rope because they are holding the tail and those who came before them affirmed truth looks like a rope. And to me that's condescending because it means a person's epistemological approach demands people who see things differently are simply wrong. We see this with MG2,0 up in the other forum where he seems to largely view the posters here as foils and his intended audience to be hypothetical lurkers who, upon being exposed to the nature of truth as a rope, will leave their nets and come to Mormon Jesus. I get the impression ceeboo posts on politics out of similar motives. He probably does feel genuine fondness for at least some of the misguided here and shares posts primarily on the chance the truth will register with them. But there is no need to defend the information shared against those who challenge it as anyone challenging it isn't the intended recipient. The truth just is and Ceeboo knows it so no discussion needed.

That's how I currently interpret what I observe, anyway.

[ceeboo]

As we board members (as well as taking the liberty to add a past board member from many moons ago like Darth) continue to gather to discuss and analyze this particular board member, I think we need to consider a few more very important pieces. While we can all agree on the easy and obvious stuff (he is fond of misguided people - he is a crap person - he is insincere - he is unwilling to engage in discussions - he is garbage - he is uneducated and ignorant - he is not among us enlightened folks - he is not a genuine friend - he is cruel - he refuses to answer our questions - he holds a debunked worldview - etc - etc) we need to take a serious look at what lies beyond the easy stuff. We need to gather as one, in unity, to collectively condemn him personally - Like a dozen middle-school bullies would circle an individual person on the playground. Perhaps most importantly, we must try to ridicule him and display high levels of raged apeshitery towards him because of his inexcusable choice in the upcoming election.

I knew that TDS ran rampant around here, but I couldn't imagine that CDS would become a thing.

Great thread!

Lol.

[honorentheos]

People aren't gathering to discuss a board member, it's about a pattern of behavior that involves initiating a thread with no apparent interest in discussion while protesting there needing to be general civility which is claimed to be lost due to antimormon/liberal political group think. It isn't isolated to one person though you, Ceeboo, have provided the most recent and most explicit examples. I created this thread as counter argument that a person who engaged in certain behaviors cannot sincerely claim they are interested in community. I didn't interject past board members. That quote served as a point of discussion regarding the relationship between a person's belief system and their method for engaging evidence in a discussion where competing views are involved.

Your response to having a post you share but won't discuss in any meaningful way is counter to what a message board facilitates yet you fallback to this idea that there is underlying community that exists that should be prioritized over the differences we all may have. I would accept this if all you did was post in alignment with that claim. But you don't. So you forfeit the defensive claim folks need to consider how you feel when you seem oblivious to the effects of your own decisions and unwilling to meet others where they are when they engage the topics you share.

I also point this out because your posting history shows the pattern doesn't support your claim either. You were silent on the board for the better part of a year, and the few times you dropped by you were generally met with kind feelings and responses. The topic a year ago about family strife was largely engaged in a civil way by folks from many different perspectives but dropped with no real exploration. Then silence until Biden's poor performance in the debate. That isn't the behavior of someone keeping community ties intact.

So the question remains: why drop in to throw a topic out when the poster won't actually own the post in any meaningful way? Why open a thread on a topic where only a predetermined path forward is accepted that may only exist in a person's head as reasonable because that path is built on prior, partisan assumptions and not the views of those who don't see things the same way? If the response received is the approach to the information presented is deeply flawed, how can discussion move forward from that point except to find where the different views originally diverge and explore forward from there?

Again I see your response to this thread as supporting the argument you are putting on a costume pretending at civility rather than engaging in a way that shows a capacity for actual civil engagement with folks with divergent views. Until you can consider the options it won't change and I don't think you care anyway. As you said elsewhere, Ceeboo already knows.