Conversation with all members of OBOB Politics area

[Cosmic Charlie]

This isn't intended to be a liberals only sub-forum. You want us to accept the Democratic party's liberal agenda and talking points. Because there are some here who don't see it your way, you get angry and frustrated with us and accuse us of not being persuaded by "facts" and "reason". There are other sub-forums where liberals will find an echo chamber of liberal agreement.

I rest my case

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

OBOB GPF is for political discussion through the lens of orthodox Catholicism which means that it is generally going to be closer to the conservative point of view if this sub-forum is what it is intended to be.

I dispute this claim and believe it to be false

 

[MoonlessNight]

One thing I have noticed is that you are a pretty unique poster. I'll be the first to admit that I don't do this to do a deep dive on a topic. Especially not a political topic. So you'll reply to me and it's a long-ish reply and I just kind of zone out a bit on it and try to summarize it quickly to respond. That definitely hurts any discussion because what we're looking for in a message forum are completely different. If I go over two paragraphs, I start to cut it down. Just the way I am.

Actually, that brings up another point that I'll piggy back off of. Most of this isn't directed at you, but your post made me realize something important about why real dialogue is impossible.

The fact is that many people here have deep and often subtle differences in our beliefs. This can be seen easily by the number of times that there is a long conversation with people completely talking past each other. The only remedy for this is for both sides to step back and have a long discussion where they figure out what points they have in common, where they disagree, how they use each word, etc. And the fact is that most people are not willing to do this and are insulted when attempts are made.

And to be fair, that's not an unreasonable reaction. This isn't a philosophy forum, like Edward Feser's site or similar places. That type of rigor and necessary devotion to a topic just isn't part of what this site is about for most people. Occasionally a few like-minded people on these boards might have a discussion like that, but all it takes is a cursory glance through the thread titles to see that this isn't what most people are after. And there's nothing wrong with that. This place is more like a conversation around the water cooler than it is like a formal debate in a philosophy department, and no one likes the guy who stops your conversation about the last battle in Game of Thrones to try to detail some long theory of military strategy and how it might be relevant.

So with that mindset perhaps what we should be looking for is not so much dialogue, but the ability to agree to disagree without insult. I know in my discussions with LoAmmi we have often gotten to that point, and while I may perhaps have tried to push the conversation further because I like honest debate when I can get it and LoAmmi is a pretty honest person, the end result is usually just a conversation which ends with both of us disagreeing and with no intent to change that. And that's fine. I have no bad feelings about any of those conversations.

 

[Sweet Tooth]

Baby, you're just going to have to accept that some people will not be nudged from their political alignment and blind partisanship.

I've seen what it does on other message boards. Talking about politics is a messy affair.

 

[Davidnic]

Agreeing to disagree without insult would be a step in a good direction

 

[LoAmmi]

Actually, that brings up another point that I'll piggy back off of. Most of this isn't directed at you, but your post made me realize something important about why real dialogue is impossible.

The fact is that many people here have deep and often subtle differences in our beliefs. This can be seen easily by the number of times that there is a long conversation with people completely talking past each other. The only remedy for this is for both sides to step back and have a long discussion where they figure out what points they have in common, where they disagree, how they use each word, etc. And the fact is that most people are not willing to do this and are insulted when attempts are made.

And to be fair, that's not an unreasonable reaction. This isn't a philosophy forum, like Edward Feser's site or similar places. That type of rigor and necessary devotion to a topic just isn't part of what this site is about for most people. Occasionally a few like-minded people on these boards might have a discussion like that, but all it takes is a cursory glance through the thread titles to see that this isn't what most people are after. And there's nothing wrong with that. This place is more like a conversation around the water cooler than it is like a formal debate in a philosophy department, and no one likes the guy who stops your conversation about the last battle in Game of Thrones to try to detail some long theory of military strategy and how it might be relevant.

So with that mindset perhaps what we should be looking for is not so much dialogue, but the ability to agree to disagree without insult. I know in my discussions with LoAmmi we have often gotten to that point, and while I may perhaps have tried to push the conversation further because I like honest debate when I can get it and LoAmmi is a pretty honest person, the end result is usually just a conversation which ends with both of us disagreeing and with no intent to change that. And that's fine. I have no bad feelings about any of those conversations.

Well, thank you for your kindness there. I try to be honest as much as I can (though I did once catch a fish this big). I certainly believe you are honest in what you say.

Truthfully, I wouldn't necessarily mind a longer format discussion with people, it's just that quite often you put thought and effort into something and then people don't even acknowledge it or, more often, say something snippy and move on. I've PROBABLY been guilty of doing that to some of your posts and if I have I apologize. Before I really saw how you posted I thought you were attempting to bombard threads with multiple points at once knowing it wouldn't be easy to counter them all. I've dealt with this previously, usually when people actually want to debate religion with me. They'll list like "500 PROPHECIES!" and smugly sit there and say "Well, you can't counter all of those". No kidding, I have a life.

 

[Tallguy88]

When this forum is no better than the debate forums we have with atheists and all other sorts, it makes me question what makes it special? What's Catholic about this forum, besides the majority of the posters being Catholic? The behavior and dialogue certainly isn't any better.

 

[Sweet Tooth]

Agreeing to disagree without insult would be a step in a good direction

Well, those are the rules, aren't they?

 

[LoAmmi]

When this forum is no better than the debate forums we have with atheists and all other sorts, it makes me question what makes it special? What's Catholic about this forum, besides the majority of the posters being Catholic? The behavior and dialogue certainly isn't any better.

Perhaps you should consider removing the irritants. By that, I mean even if people aren't doing enough to break the rules, if their contribution to threads is to stir the pot, call entire groups of people names, insinuate that if you follow a different philosophy than they follow that you are inferior/bad/whatever, then maybe they shouldn't be adding that to the discussion. Hey, if I'm part of that get rid of me too. I don't always know if I'm a problem. But you just see the same people causing the same trouble over and over again, maybe it's time for them to be removed from the discussion.

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

So what do you get out of the level of dialog here?

Not much. Not much at all.

I used to. Back in the salad days.

Then the dialog was challenging, not condescending. People actually explained what they thought of scripture and encyclical instead of just puking it onto the screen with the the smug expression of a bridge player that had just trumped his opponents last ace.

And then refusing to edify the comment as if somehow it is intrinsically obvious what the poster was thinking and why.

And then insulting people because they don't interpret the documents the same way

No- it was different once.

We actually did research, read stuff, critically turned it over in our minds and then challendged ourselves and each other.

I'm not ashamed to admit the I'm a better Catholic, a better Christian.

I'm a mercy sake's better man because of those discussions.

I can't discuss stuff with people who refuse to discuss.

Who HAVE to be right.

And if they can't be right, they'll be loud.

and if they can't be loud, they'll be insulting

And if they can't be insulting they'll ignore you.

And still spit on you're posts.

So......

idea time:

What exactly are the rules against campaigning and what is campaigning exactly ?

I got some guys (not many but some) and they got some more guys and if we're all willing to work together to be reasonable and to just sort of take other guys on is a calm reasonable manner that essentially isolates them because we won't take their bait.

And we're obvious about.

Does that constitute "campaigning" ?

I've been campaigned by some of the best, I think I know how it's done.

So, what exactly are the rules ?

 

[Sweet Tooth]

Apologies that I am posting in this thread too frequently, but I remembered something that really caught me off-guard on these forums and I think maybe the moderators should have an absolute 0 policy towards. Seeing fellow Catholics, Christians, other faiths, people who lack a faith, question another person's belief because they are either voting for x or y.

No tolerance for such people, unless the party they are advocating for is, I don't know, the Ku Klux Klan Rise Party or the Stalin's Children of Communism Party.

 

[MoonlessNight]

No tolerance for such people, unless the party they are advocating for is, I don't know, the Ku Klux Klan Rise Party or the Stalin's Children of Communism Party.

The problem is, the people who do that will claim that the parties that they despise really are as bad as your hypothetical examples and thus argue that they are working within your standards.

 

[Sweet Tooth]

The problem is, the people who do that will claim that the parties that they despise really are as bad as your hypothetical examples and thus argue that they are working within your standards.

Then hopefully mods do what they have to do in order to keep the forums from slinging juvenile and baseless arguments. You have no idea how many people on different forums have been called various things because of only slight disagreements. The problem is that the mods are also guilty of it because it seems they want to drive away critical thinking members and just have those who can further their echo chamber.

Mods on these forums, I am not implying you are to blame, just referencing what occurs on other message boards.

 

[MikeK]

Maybe the people could answer: What do you get out of the discussion in this forum the way it is now?

If I'm being really honest...

...usually nothing. More often than not on here I'm talking to people I don't respect because they refuse to operate honestly and answer direct questions directly. Those people are cowards and while they deserve to be treated with dignity, I can't muster up much more than pity bordering on contempt. That's my failing. The truth is, I should probably stop posting here altogether, as my participation is itself dishonest. I've grown - largely through the help of this forum and the consistent example of Catholics here - into something of an agnostic. I simply was unable to reconcile people's statements and their complete lack of self reflection with their professed faith with my own, and in the end I guess my own just burnt out. I've gone years and years without missing a Mass. I haven't been to Mass in probably 4 months. If I'm not actively participating in the faith - doing the bare minimum in terms of service and attendance, then I shouldn't really be in the discussion. Best of luck.

 

[Davidnic]

Not much. Not much at all.

I used to. Back in the salad days.

Then the dialog was challenging, not condescending. People actually explained what they thought of scripture and encyclical instead of just puking it onto the screen with the the smug expression of a bridge player that had just trumped his opponents last ace.

And then refusing to edify the comment as if somehow it is intrinsically obvious what the poster was thinking and why.

And then insulting people because they don't interpret the documents the same way

No- it was different once.

We actually did research, read stuff, critically turned it over in our minds and then challendged ourselves and each other.

I'm not ashamed to admit the I'm a better Catholic, a better Christian.

I'm a mercy sake's better man because of those discussions.

I can't discuss stuff with people who refuse to discuss.

Who HAVE to be right.

And if they can't be right, they'll be loud.

and if they can't be loud, they'll be insulting

And if they can't be insulting they'll ignore you.

And still spit on you're posts.

So......

idea time:

What exactly are the rules against campaigning and what is campaigning exactly ?

I got some guys (not many but some) and they got some more guys and if we're all willing to work together to be reasonable and to just sort of take other guys on is a calm reasonable manner that essentially isolates them because we won't take their bait.

And we're obvious about.

Does that constitute "campaigning" ?

I've been campaigned by some of the best, I think I know how it's done.

So, what exactly are the rules ?

It did used to be different. I know.

Campaigning can be lots of things. Generally it is an attempt behind the scenes, to effect some issue. But it can be open too.

But the thing is here...I am asking everyone to be reasonable or engage each other in a calm and reasonable manner. So it would not be campaigning to do so. Now if you got together started picking people to go after ect...that would be different. But if people just said, they have asked we be reasonable, why don't we. That's not campaigning.

 

[Davidnic]

There used to be a rule that you could not imply someone, by their vote was not Catholic.

 

[Tallguy88]

There used to be a rule that you could not imply someone, by their vote was not Catholic.

I'd say it falls under the "don't state or imply a poster who self identifies as a Christian is really not a Christian" rule.

 

[Miss Shelby]

Set aside snark? But I appreciate snark even when it's directed toward me. Why just the other day Fantiine said something like 'If you add up all of Trump supporters IQ, you might reach the double digits' . It wasn't directed at me per se but it was in response to something I said. I thought it was hilarious.

 

[Miss Shelby]

Maybe the people could answer: What do you get out of the discussion in this forum the way it is now?

I see news articles I wouldn't otherwise see. Also, I appreciate the opinions of others. Also, I get entertainment value from it.

 

[Miss Shelby]

One thing I have noticed is that you are a pretty unique poster. I'll be the first to admit that I don't do this to do a deep dive on a topic. Especially not a political topic. So you'll reply to me and it's a long-ish reply and I just kind of zone out a bit on it and try to summarize it quickly to respond. That definitely hurts any discussion because what we're looking for in a message forum are completely different. If I go over two paragraphs, I start to cut it down. Just the way I am.

I'm the same way. Short attention span maybe, but I appreciate short, sweet and to the point. It took me a long time to understand that MN is an awesome poster because I rarely read through her posts.