(Untitled)

[mijopo]

Recently it's been my impression that the level of discourse in this group has deteriorated badly in terms of i) the presence of personal attacks and generally hateful comments and (ii) the quality of arguments

Comments

[penlessej]

Also remember that this group is not a soap box to proclaim your own political views. It is a place to bring up what you read in the news, what you hear on tv or how you perceive something going on or that has happened and getting the opinions and perceptions of those around you. There has been a string of posts this past month that scream manifesto as opposed to a push to get the ball rolling on some good discourse in politics.

[mr_marlboro]

"There has been a string of posts this past month that scream manifesto as opposed to a push to get the ball rolling on some good discourse in politics."

there you go again...

you are choosing and privilaging the exclusive domain of political scientists with what people actually consider to be politics. so i guess we should stick with just numbers, facts and statistics? fuzzy math then or reports (i.e. manly).

so i guess the topic of: "Canadian Ideas vs Lived experience from the immigrant perspective" is too broad of a topic for you? because that's a serious issue taht immigrants would be very interestd in.

[penlessej]

Actually the group is called Canadian Politics so it does kind of lead one to assume that the topics discussed will be political in nature.

And yes why shouldn't we stick with numbers, facts and statistics? That is how we get impartial, unbiased information. Ever hear the line 'the numbers don't lie'?

And yes the topic "Canadian Ideas vs Lived experience from the immigrant perspective" is much, much too broad. Perhaps you can get a real example of this 'Canadian idea' by doing exactly what I said visit http://www.cic.gc.ca/ and find a policy that you feel contradicts your personal experience and we can talk about that.

[macho_]

I see your "numbers don't lie" and raise you "Lies, damned lies, and statistics. Many human problems have not been solved through the scientific method, notably politics. Everyone has a bias, and no one should have to apologize for it. I still agree with the OP, of course, that people here need to think about reducing the number of ad hominem arguments.

[wyliekat]

It's true that statistics are as easily manipulated as candy in a baby's hands. However, I don't think that obviates the point being made - if you take a rocket launcher to try and kill a mosquito, you're not going to be effective and the collateral damage will be huge.

To reel that analogy back into the proper framework - making broad statements about "Canada's blind support of the Palestinian Genocide and Israeli Apartheid." I might agree with some points that could fall under that banner, but when you use a macro (and a ridiculously broad one, at that), you lose the micro-agreements. You also lose the "rational discussion" opportunity right out of the gate. In effect, you lose your right to the respect of your honourable opponents.

[macho_]

I'm not sure that I follow. Though I've been critical of him elsewhere in this thread, there is a strong case to be made for mr_marlboro's statement on Palestinian genocide. You might point to specific incidents where Canadian policy in Palestine has been benign or even helpful, but that really doesn't change the overall dynamic. You might also say that it's a provocative way to make the claim, or that it's not the understanding most Canadians have of the situation. None of that, however, prevents it from being true, which is what is important.

Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding; if you're saying that mr_marlboro is making these claims and then refusing to back them up (and if he is, in fact, doing that), then I fully agree.

[penlessej]

Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding; if you're saying that mr_marlboro is making these claims and then refusing to back them up (and if he is, in fact, doing that), then I fully agree.

Pretty much.

[macho_]

Ah sorry, I thought you were taking exception to his initial statement.

[wyliekat]

It could be easily argued that Canada is not the perpetrator of the blind support, and further, wasn't even part of the discussions that led to annexing a portion of the world for the Israeli nation. And yes, as I said in my previous post, there are components of that kind of discussion where I'd fall on that side.

HOWEVER, that really isn't the point. He makes these claims and doesn't back them up. That's point the first.

Second point is that there is a level of politics and . . .well, frankly, etiquitte to debate. And I refuse to buy into the notion that he ignores it because he's "not as intellectual". These rules apply to arguments and discussions of every stripe and at every level, be they with partners, employers, friends, family, etc.You can't wash your hands of them and profess ignorance, because that's just giving you justification to be . . . well, provocative. Needlessly provocative.

[macho_]

Yeah, if he's not backing anything up, there isn't much point in discussing, is there?

I tend to think, though, that well-defended positions that go directly against what is seen as "common sense" (usually making them inherently provocative) are always the most interesting, and that they contribute most to furthering people's capacity for thought, even for those who end up rejecting the position.

[wyliekat]

I'd agree. I tend to espouse the underdog theory more often than not, when I don't have an invested opinion in either position.

[mr_marlboro]

to be fair, i really am not good at debating, even in univeristy.

what's the virtue of rules? politics today isn't a formal debate. i do wish we had something like the "Lincoln Douglas" debates. back then, politics was also mass entertainment and people would go to debates to learn and listen. issues and debates were solemn.

today, politics is much more like dirty fighting. i honestly do feel that i'm being much better represented by a leader who also debates in the way reagan or GWB debates. when GWB accused gore of "fuzzy math" in the 2000 election, i understood the issue much more than gore's technical and boring jargon. a lot of the electorate find someone who's not as intellectual as being closer to reality and themselves (the voters).

[wyliekat]

The decay of political discourse amongst elected officials doesn't give every license to jump on their bandwagon.

I don't mind "homespun" political views, but frankly, I would much rather have the leader of my country at least appear to be better informed/more intelligent than I am. It would provide me some comfort.

[mr_marlboro]

actually...

i was just told by the mod that "genocide" is off limits in this community.

[macho_]

and then you went right ahead and posted the word here OMG

did they say why? that strikes me as pretty silly, but like i say, i haven't been keeping up with the threads.

[mr_marlboro]

thyey didn't say why. i guess it touches nerves. i thought using that much more neutral than "holocaust". funny how there are different names for systematic murder of people. that term is probably off limits too, even in different contexts. e.g. ecological, nuclear.