Are there ways the Left can have better conversations with the Right?

[PoetPhilosopher]

Threads seem harder to search for and the new threads list doesn't exist anymore, which is part of the multiple threads happening IMO.

I agree there. This is a large forum, and it seems the Search only goes back about 10 pages.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I myself have posted several threads on transgenders. Be it the bathroom issues or about sports. Each on was a new article.

If the subject has already been covered though, I personally feel that it might be important to add as much new information to the table as possible. Some might see simply posting links without bringing much new info, as being against the issue, or having an agenda - in my opinion.

 

[We Never Know]

I see how that could be a problem. From my perspective, sometimes I feel that some subjects are dragged into the ground, too. For example, some broad trans issues, I feel only need 1-3 threads. And that by the fourth thread, it's just people repeating themselves or getting frustrated, or feeling that their points aren't being heard.

"For example, some broad trans issues, I feel only need 1-3 threads. And that by the fourth thread, it's just people repeating themselves or getting frustrated, or feeling that their points aren't being heard"

Do you feel the same or think others may feel the same about a god, evolution, Trump, etc?

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

"For example, some broad trans issues, I feel only need 1-3 threads. And that by the fourth thread, it's just people repeating themselves or getting frustrated, or feeling that their points aren't being heard"

Do you feel the same or think others may feel the same about a god, evolution, Trump, etc?

If it's the same issues, yes.

For example, it's one thing to make a thread about sports issues with transgender people. But I feel after a few threads, it gets long in tooth.

But if one thread is about transgender people in sports, and another about transgender people on YouTube, and another about pronouns, I consider it different.

And Trump is always in the news because he keeps creating new and separate and distinct controversies.

 

[We Never Know]

If it's the same issues, yes.

For example, it's one thing to make a thread about sports issues with transgender people. But I feel after a few threads, it gets long in tooth.

But if one thread is about transgender people in sports, and another about transgender people on YouTube, and another about pronouns, I consider it different.

And Trump is always in the news because he keeps creating new and separate and distinct controversies.

With Trump its the same story(trouble). Its normal anymore lol

Transgender issues are quite often in the news, a god is never in the news.

Its seems the top four topics are, in no particular order
A god
Trump
Transgender issues
The bible

And threads pop up on 3 or 4 almost daily

 

[sun rise]

The RF community leans left in the sense that there are more left-leaning members than right-leaning. This does lead to bashing of right wing and conservatives. The leftists on the board, on some level, know this is true. They certainly act like they do. Too often a left-leaning member will bash on a right wing idea or personally on a right-leaning member and "the usual suspects" will pile on with thumbs up and their own companion bashing posts. For example there was a recent thread implying republicans are becoming fascists. ( Still think Republicans aren't heading towards fascism? ) Ignoring how obviously inflammatory the topic is, consider the following. The poster thought (probably correctly) that such a thread was quite acceptable and not out of bounds here at RF. That is indicative of how things are here.

As far as suggestions on how to improve things, I am afraid I don't have many that will be much appreciated. One suggestion would be this. When discussing a topic each party should refrain from addressing what they mistakenly think the other person is saying and instead restate what the other person is actually saying. If you can't accurately articulate what the other party is saying then you can't really discuss it. There are more straw man arguments on RF we have corn fields for them.

I basically agree. But there's a caveat. I'm happy to have fact-based conversations and conversations about theory but people need to be willing to say that something is a personal opinion or provide references. Stating something as fact without backup is at best not-productive.

And it's perfectly possible and I think desirable to talk about things other than politics. I was recently walking my dog and wound up in a very good chat with a guy who was wearing a t-shirt designed to provoke or give the finger to liberals. We talked about our dogs and that was that.

 

[We Never Know]

If it's the same issues, yes.

For example, it's one thing to make a thread about sports issues with transgender people. But I feel after a few threads, it gets long in tooth.

But if one thread is about transgender people in sports, and another about transgender people on YouTube, and another about pronouns, I consider it different.

And Trump is always in the news because he keeps creating new and separate and distinct controversies.

"For example, it's one thing to make a thread about sports issues with transgender people. But I feel after a few threads, it gets long in tooth."

When others claim it doesn't happen often, new article's cover different times it happens.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

With Trump its the same story(trouble). Its normal anymore lol

Transgender issues are quite often in the news, a god is never in the news.

Its seems the top four topics are, in no particular order
A god
Trump
Transgender issues
The bible

I think at times, some frustration regarding trans topics isn't even about individual posters, but a larger picture of some of us disagreeing with Republicans in Congress deciding to make transgender into a political wedge issue that leads all the way up to 2024.

 

[We Never Know]

I think at times, some frustration regarding trans topics isn't even about individual posters, but a larger picture of some of us disagreeing with Republicans in Congress deciding to make transgender into a political wedge issue that leads all the way up to 2024.

Both party's have made transgender political.
One party appeals to those who support it, the other party appeals do those who don't.
Both are nothing more than seeking votes IMO

 

[Twilight Hue]

I have noticed that some people on the right or center accuse those on the left of using "slurs" when they disagree with them. However, when I look at the messages, I just see the left as trying to have an intellectually honest formal debate. I feel they are often not insulting the person, but challenging their arguments and evidence. I think there are multiple interpretations of the ad hominem fallacy as well, and it's not always clear when someone is committing it or not. An ad hominem fallacy is when someone attacks the character or motive of a person instead of their position or claim, as an argument. But sometimes, pointing out a relevant flaw or bias in someone's reasoning can be valid and necessary. For example - if someone works for a soda company, then exposing their conflict of interest in a debate on sugary drinks is not a personal attack, but a legitimate criticism.

I have to admit... I sometimes wonder if the right would feel better if there was somehow more discussion threads and less debate threads.

In any case... do you have any suggestions on how we can improve the quality and tone of our conversations? I'm talking in more of a "person on the left talking to a person on the right" sense.

I'm used to personal attacks but your right.

Dosent help a conversation if all a person is going to do is to make nothing else but personal attacks on one's opponent.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Both party's have made transgender political.
One party appeals to those who support it, the other party appeals do those who don't.
Both are nothing more than seeking votes IMO

The largely universal emoticon/like system a lot of media uses now is really nothing but another lame social credit scoring system like communist China uses to steer a certain view in a desired direction.

It's like mass bullying essentially, reflective and dependant on the nature of the media site users and designers which bolster or denigrates the recipient.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

The largely universal emoticon/like system a lot of media uses now is really nothing but another lame social credit scoring system like communist China uses to steer a certain view in a desired direction.

It's like mass bullying essentially, reflective and dependant on the nature of the media site users and designers.

This is an interesting can of worms to ponder, but I actually think that "like" systems work better when it comes to lighthearted threads, but not so well when it comes to debates.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

This is an interesting can of worms to ponder, but I actually think that "like" systems work better when it comes to lighthearted threads, but not so well when it comes to debates.

To elaborate, I think there should be crowd input on debates, but that the crowd input would be better conveyed through actual comments in the same thread or a separate thread.

 

[We Never Know]

If it's the same issues, yes.

For example, it's one thing to make a thread about sports issues with transgender people. But I feel after a few threads, it gets long in tooth.

But if one thread is about transgender people in sports, and another about transgender people on YouTube, and another about pronouns, I consider it different.

And Trump is always in the news because he keeps creating new and separate and distinct controversies.

I seen it like this in issues most times....

-Many non-gun owners won't agree with gun owners
-Many gun owners won't agree with non-gun owners
They bicker back and forth

-Many meat eaters won't agree with vegans
-Many vegans won't agree with meat eaters
They bicker back and forth

-Many religious people won't agree with non-religious people
-Many non-religious people won't agree with religious people
One personal attack the other calling them uneducated or idiots, the other throws out threats of hell

-Many cis people won't agree with transgender people
-Many transgender people won't agree with people cis people
One tries to explain why, the other personal attacks with names, example transphobe.
(I for example don't call them names)

-Many straight people won't agree with gay people
-Many gay people won't agree with people straight people
One tries to explain why, the other personal attacks with names, example homophobe.(I for example don't call them names)

 

[We Never Know]

To elaborate, I think there should be crowd input on debates, but that the crowd input would be better conveyed through actual comments in the same thread or a separate thread.

IMO the biggest problem with trying to debate here are the crowds involved in the debate. One person may have to simultaneously debate seven+ different people that throw out ten+ different things simultaneously.
For that, I think discussion is better. Debates should be in a thread one on one. Maybe with a poll at the top to vote for who won.

 

[Twilight Hue]

This is an interesting can of worms to ponder, but I actually think that "like" systems work better when it comes to lighthearted threads, but not so well when it comes to debates.

I use it myself clearly enough, and true it can be fun, but the comparison with the social scoring system is unmistakable.

I didn't realize myself untill another person mentioned that on another forum site I was in.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I use it myself clearly enough, and true it can be fun, but the comparison with the social scoring system is unmistakable.

I didn't realize myself untill another person mentioned that on another forum site I was in.

I see. I don't really pay a whole lot of attention to overall scores these days. I lost a bunch of ratings when the software switched over.

 

[Twilight Hue]

IMO the biggest problem with trying to debate here are the crowds involved in the debate. One person may have to simultaneously debate seven+ different people that throw out ten+ different things simultaneously.
For that, I think discussion is better. Debates should be in a thread one on one. Maybe with a poll at the top to vote for who won.

Granted this clearly isn't a structured formal debate forum.

The debates or 'debates' as one sees it is more akin with getting the steam out of a person more than anything else.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I see. I don't really pay a whole lot of attention to overall scores these days. I lost a bunch of ratings when the software switched over.

I just do it for the sheer fun. I don't take things like that seriously at all.

Loosing the points is nothing to me.....

Well unless one gets paid for it. *grin*

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Granted this clearly isn't a structured formal debate forum.

The debates or 'debates' as one sees it is more akin with getting the steam out of a person more than anything else.

I think that debates have the potential to be more formal, but that it'd be a community effort to get there (not advocating for it, just saying). One of the reasons I say that, is I've gotten the sense quite a few regulars have some experience on debating formally.