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

[PoetPhilosopher]

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.

 

[Stevicus]

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.

A good place to start would be for both sides to concede that they have fundamental philosophical differences with each other. Some people seem to think that it's simply a dispute over facts, biased reporting, propaganda, etc., ostensibly implying that if people were better educated, listened to more reliable sources, or learned critical thinking, everyone would simply agree.

There seems to be a sense of widespread denial that people of good conscience simply can't have a different philosophical viewpoint without assuming that they're stupid, uneducated, dupes of propaganda, mentally ill, or whatever it may be. In my opinion, this is why most of the political discourse has deteriorated.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

A good place to start would be for both sides to concede that they have fundamental philosophical differences with each other. Some people seem to think that it's simply a dispute over facts, biased reporting, propaganda, etc., ostensibly implying that if people were better educated, listened to more reliable sources, or learned critical thinking, everyone would simply agree.

There seems to be a sense of widespread denial that people of good conscience simply can't have a different philosophical viewpoint without assuming that they're stupid, uneducated, dupes of propaganda, mentally ill, or whatever it may be. In my opinion, this is why most of the political discourse has deteriorated.

I feel that those are some wonderful points to think about. I also think that sometimes, people may see someone on the Right, or a religious person, appear to lose a debate, and point to some of the things you mentioned as the reason, whereas the real reason could be that the forum may have a higher number of left-wing participants debating.

 

[Shaul]

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.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

For example there was a recent thread implying republicans are becoming fascists.

I'd say that more accurately, it is better to say that the US may be moving further "right", rather than that it is becoming fascist, or that Republicans are becoming fascist. While I'm not saying it's impossible for a country to become fascist, a great deal has to happen, first.

Also, I really don't blame the US going further "right", if it is, on Republicans. I actually see it more as a Democrat and Democrat voter problem.

 

[anna.]

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.

How do you feel about celebrating Pride Month with a pride of lions?

 

[Revoltingest]

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.

Watch for the insults with more intention.
There are many posts, often entire threads.

Edit...
BTW, the worst of the worst....the real gems
appeared before you arrived on RF. Those
were different times, when....dang...we can't
discuss such that topic on RF.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

How do you feel about celebrating Pride Month with a pride of lions?

To be fair, I'd say I feel that one should have a space to talk their thoughts on LGBT+, but that some boards are like making yourself 'free game' for debate. Which is why I use a private RF board, or the Sexuality board, to limit debate, if I want debate limited on LGBT+. That being said, despite some conversations on the subject being hard, I think some are necessary. (Just trying to be fair, here.)

 

[Shaul]

How do you feel about celebrating Pride Month with a pride of lions?

Sounds like a fine idea, especially if done in the joke forum.

 

[anna.]

To be fair, I'd say I feel that one should have a space to talk their thoughts on LGBT+, but that some boards are like making yourself 'free game' for debate. Which is why I use a private RF board, or the Sexuality board, to limit debate, if I want debate limited on LGBT+. That being said, despite some conversations on the subject being hard, I think some are necessary. (Just trying to be fair, here.)

You do try to be fair, I've noticed that.

 

[anna.]

Sounds like a fine idea, especially if done in the joke forum.

What if the subject isn't a joke to some?

 

[Shaul]

What if the subject isn't a joke to some?

Then they shouldn't be looking in a Joke forum, I suppose.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Watch for the insults with more intention.
There are many posts, often entire threads.

I think part of the problem may be that at times, I am sympathetic towards people, so even when they come off a bit coarse, I may attempt to try to understand what they're saying.

 

[anna.]

Then they shouldn't be looking in a Joke forum, I suppose.

Ah. because jokes never mask intention.

 

[Shaul]

Ah. because jokes never mask intention.

Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. If one assumes they do when they don't then where does the problem lie?

 

[We Never Know]

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.

What I see from the left often are personal attacks such as calling the religious uneducated, calling people homophobe/transphobe, bigot, etc(yes those are personal attacks IMO).
And instead of addressing a post, just say fallacy and claim victory.

I do think some on the right would like to discuss more but why should they?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Depends on the topic of conversation. I'm more willing to try and make productive conversation about things like Medicare for all vs single payer vs NHS, reformative vs retributitive vs restorative justice, things I feel have a lot of nuance.

I'm less and less inclined to have conversations about things like trans healthcare, abortion, climate change, end stage capitalism and how the infinite profits model is literally destroying the planet and everyone on it.

Some people from all political walks are willing to engage in those non-productive conversations, but more and more I feel like it's a waste of time, amd actively harmful to keep trying to find middle ground with them. (See: ratcheting.)

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

What I see from the left often are personal attacks such as calling the religious uneducated, calling people homophobe/transphobe, bigot, etc(yes those are personal attacks IMO).
And instead of addressing a post, just say fallacy and claim victory.

I do think some on the right would like to discuss more but why should they?

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.

 

[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.

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

 

[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.

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