Civil Discourse Possibility?

[swimmermom3]

I have been thinking about this since the last election and was reminded of it again after participating on a couple of the hotter threads the last few days.

 

Would it be possible to have a social group, perhaps the Civil Discourse social group that had a members from both sides of the fence that were genuinely interested in discussing topics like education and government, but were also genuinely interested in the other side's opinions? This would not be an opportunity to proselytize for either side, but a chance to expand one's own knowledge and understanding of what is happening in our country today.

 

I am not really much of a debater and I often loose my place in the conversation, because I get distracted, but my desire to learn is genuine and I am wondering if there are a couple of like-minded souls that would be interested as well.

 

The background is that during the 2012 election, a dear friend that I have known for almost ten years,who is definitely on the opposite side of the fence politically, and I tried a grand experiment. We listened to each others news resources and tried to talk about the issues. As the election heated up, it became increasingly more difficult to talk. The major problem was that we both kept bringing the pundits' words to the table instead of our own. We would have been better off if we had started out by asking each other, "How do you define this? "What does it mean to you to be X?"   "I read this, has this been your experience?"

 

I don't want to live in a country where one half despises the other. Talking has to be the place to start?

 

Would a small, closed social group be possible? I really want it to be civil and thoughtful and if for an added bonus we could discuss the finer points of argumentation, that would be great.

[Murphy101]

I haven't seen any of them work very well.

Disappointing.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Possible IRL more so than on a message board as tone becomes so important.  I am fortunate to have friends across the political spectrum who are capable of having reasonable conversations.

[swimmermom3]

I haven't seen any of them work very well.

Disappointing.

 

Martha, that is really disappointing to hear.  For me in real life, it seems as thought there has been an almost complete shut down in communication. It is difficult to ask a question without encountering rage. "Well, you should know, you are totally against big business!"

I am left standing there with my mouth hanging open wondering if my MBA was all a dream. I worry that I may do the same back. That's not how I want to operate. I want to see beyond or behind the blogs that freak me out and understand what the real people are thinking, not what someone with a first name only is thinking while whipping everyone into a frenzy in order to buy his product - on both sides.

 

Does that make sense. Call me "Pollyanna," right?

 

Possible IRL more so than on a message board as tone becomes so important.  I am fortunate to have friends across the political spectrum who are capable of having reasonable conversations.

 

You are very fortunate. I have friends with similar views, but that isn't always very helpful as I don't really need to reinforce my own viewpoint.

 

We have had some very good discussions on this board; I don't know if it's me, but it seems like that is in some ways, becoming more difficult.

[Murphy101]

It's not just you.

 

I used to be Polly Anna hopeful about it too.

 

I like talking to all kinds of people. But ime most people don't want to talk about much more than superficial stuff or listen to themselves rant.

[Rosie_0801]

Well, you could have a referee. I nominate whoever has worked through the most RIGOROUS logic and rhetoric textbooks.

 

:p

 

 

I'm usually civil and thoughtful, but I'm not particularly clever or well educated, alas. :)

[alef]

I would love to participate in such a group. 

[Ravin]

Sounds like fun to me.

[Free]

I like this idea. It would be very useful too, as home educating moms, to be able to debate various viewpoints and then be able to take these conversations back home with our kids.

 

However any online debate is bound to get heated and even ugly. There are topics people feel passionately about and it can get difficult. All participants should be willing to come in with an extra layer of thick skin.

 

It would also need a slightly more heavy handed moderation. I used to frequent a site with very entertaining debates and this site had three rules that I could discern:

1. No ad hominem arguments.

2. No off-topic posts ever. I know the WTM forum culture welcomes rabbit trails, but in a debate it really helps to keep the topic very focused.

3. You had to make the argument in your own words. No copying and pasting walls of text from other sites and no providing just links to other sites as your argument. You could provide these as references, but you had to explain your position in your own words in order to demonstrate that you actually understood the position you were holding and were not just parroting the pundits.

 

The moderators ruthlessly stuck to these rules.

[amo_mea_filiis.]

Go and make one in the social groups. :)

 

Please invite me. :)

[DawnM]

Hmmmm......I doubt it.  

 

The problem is, there are certain topics that people are VERY passionate about and they truly cannot fathom seeing things in a different way.

 

I actually have a topic I cannot discuss without getting upset about.  I admit it and I am not ashamed of it, I honestly and truly feel that I am right, but it is a very emotional topic for me based on my experiences.

 

I can't guarantee I would be civil.

 

On 99% of the controversial topics, I can be VERY civil, even when I feel you are dead wrong, but do not touch that certain topic or I will not be able to.

 

Brutal honestly, but there ya have it.

[Lolly]

Don't believe it is possible. You have people who will join thinking they can be civil, but they cannot. You have people who will join knowing they will be stirring the pot. There is a reason such discussions have been banned. It is 100% impossible.

[Word Nerd]

I think this helps shed light on why it's so difficult for those with opposing views to have civil discourse, especially regarding political topics: http://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/

[Dandelion]

I would love to be a part of a group like this.  But as others have already said, making it work would be a challenge.  

[Mergath]

I've been a part of groups like this on other websites and in my experience, having a group whose sole purpose is debating just isn't good for you.  It's fun at first, getting to debate the things you feel strongly about, but after a while you begin to get addicted to your own anger.  You find yourself thinking about the arguments while you're vacuuming or doing dishes.  You find yourself telling your spouse over the dinner table, "And you wouldn't BELIEVE what she said next about..."

 

The way it happens on the regular boards here is the best way to do it, I think.  Have an extended debate, then some time passes and everyone returns to sanity before the next debate.

[Dicentra]

Well...  Only invite Canadians to participate. :D  Our national gesture is a shoulder shrug with an "Eh..." tacked on.  And if we REALLY get peeved about something well... then... dang it...  We'll write a letter.  But it takes a lot to push us there. ;)  That would probably leave you with mostly civil discourse.  Although the discourse tends to not be that exciting either.  Eh...

 

;)

[marbel]

I have been thinking about this since the last election and was reminded of it again after participating on a couple of the hotter threads the last few days.

 

Would it be possible to have a social group, perhaps the Civil Discourse social group that had a members from both sides of the fence that were genuinely interested in discussing topics like education and government, but were also genuinely interested in the other side's opinions? This would not be an opportunity to proselytize for either side, but a chance to expand one's own knowledge and understanding of what is happening in our country today.

 

<snip>

 

The problem with this is - everyone thinks they are genuinely interested in the other side, until they get angry, or determine someone on the other side is not understanding (or is incapable of understanding), when the person is simply disagreeing. 

 

A lot of people can't "agree to disagree," but need everyone to come to agreement with them.  Or, people twist others' words, either on purpose or through true misunderstanding, which can lead to  frustration. 

 

And, it can be addicting and a timewaster for some of us (meaning me).  After one of the recent hot threads, I was determined to just stay out of the chat board.  As you see, I wasn't successful and have failed mightily.  That is a personal problem, of course, and not a reason for anyone else not to participate. :rolleyes: