The death of civilized discussion

Have we lost the ability to discuss any issue calmly and politely? Are we doomed to live in a polarized world, where both sides are easily triggered and default to sneering contempt and vitriol?

dscott8 wrote:Have we lost the ability to discuss any issue calmly and politely? Are we doomed to live in a polarized world, where both sides are easily triggered and default to sneering contempt and vitriol?

WHO ARE YOU ACCUSING OF SNEERING VITRIOL!?!? WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE ANYWAY! YOU'RE FULL OF VITRIOL!



( )

Chuckle, chuckle. I would add that you need a colorful pejorative tossed to be convincing.

gcomeau wrote:

dscott8 wrote:Have we lost the ability to discuss any issue calmly and politely? Are we doomed to live in a polarized world, where both sides are easily triggered and default to sneering contempt and vitriol?

WHO ARE YOU ACCUSING OF SNEERING VITRIOL!?!? WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE ANYWAY! YOU'RE FULL OF VITRIOL!



( )

gcomeau wrote:

dscott8 wrote:Have we lost the ability to discuss any issue calmly and politely? Are we doomed to live in a polarized world, where both sides are easily triggered and default to sneering contempt and vitriol?

WHO ARE YOU ACCUSING OF SNEERING VITRIOL!?!? WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE ANYWAY! YOU'RE FULL OF VITRIOL!



( )

Thank you for putting a smiley at the end.

dscott8 wrote:

gcomeau wrote:WHO ARE YOU ACCUSING OF SNEERING VITRIOL!?!? WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE ANYWAY! YOU'RE FULL OF VITRIOL!



( )

Thank you for putting a smiley at the end.

Well you know, it's not out of the realm of possibility that would the actual response to that from some...

Reminds me of a sign a wag put on my office door. The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves.

dscott8 wrote:Have we lost the ability to discuss any issue calmly and politely? Are we doomed to live in a polarized world, where both sides are easily triggered and default to sneering contempt and vitriol?

There never has been such a thing as "civilized discussion". The only time you have "civilized discussion" is when both parties essentially agree on the definitions of words and world views. All you are really doing putting the finishing touches on your "house" where both sides already agree on the foundation, the structure, and the plubming/electrical/HVAC works.

The divide is religious. "Civilization" was defined in each region of the world by their religion as governance is an outgrowth of ones religion. Be it Confucian, Buddhism, Christian, Muslim, Atheism, or Animism.

Atheism is in the ascendant. Atheists today are trying to redefine government in correlation with their religion. Of course they are. Why would they not?

So, no, there will not be "civil discourse" as what we are actually discussing is religion. By definition when discussing religion with someone who does not share your religion you both are automatically telling the other person they are in error, they are wrong, they are "stupid". It is a brutal discussion. Why? No one likes being told they are wrong, or stupid. Ever. No one.

For instance: Atheism

The atheist anti free speech leftist utopians(theirs of course) in the USA/Western world who believe:
1) money falls out of the air,
2)where ideas of governance do not matter other than ever increasing bigger government who is supposedly "fair" and impartial, its not, just so they can use it as a hammer via ever more regulations and power,
3)where an individuals actions and responsibilities do not matter rather their racial or other "victimhood" group matters, for "equality of outcome" matters, not equality before the law
4)where rule of law only does not matter when it is their side breaking it,
5)culture does not matter and all are equal,
6)morals do not matter(other than theirs of course),
7)where sex does not matter, (moronacy of 3rd wave feminism where they play make believe that they are the same as men)
8)where divorce/marriage do not matter, even though it is the #1 indicator of poverty
ETC:

Shocking: Guess what? We have massive massive world view problems and no the "discourse" is not civil as every time anyone talks politics, they are actually talking religion and automatically telling the other person "they" are irrational.

As usual Relax, we disagree. My understanding is that most people are complex and flexible.
There are hard core extremes of perhaps 5-10% on each of left and right who are deeply committed to a package of values and vehemently defend it.
Most people enjoy a good civil discussion, and are open minded enough to consider other's views. I've got friends from all spheres, and we cheerfully discuss lots of matters, either one on one or in disparate groups.
I won't discuss your points in detail, but do disagree with all of them, and wonder why you have such a negative view on most things. I would say that they are all simply and demonstratively not true.

Relax wrote:

dscott8 wrote:Have we lost the ability to discuss any issue calmly and politely? Are we doomed to live in a polarized world, where both sides are easily triggered and default to sneering contempt and vitriol?

There never has been such a thing as "civilized discussion". The only time you have "civilized discussion" is when both parties essentially agree on the definitions of words and world views. All you are really doing putting the finishing touches on your "house" where both sides already agree on the foundation, the structure, and the plubming/electrical/HVAC works.

The divide is religious. "Civilization" was defined in each region of the world by their religion as governance is an outgrowth of ones religion. Be it Confucian, Buddhism, Christian, Muslim, Atheism, or Animism.

Atheism is in the ascendant. Atheists today are trying to redefine government in correlation with their religion.

I got this far before my suspicions you had no idea what you were talking about were confirmed.

So, you believe religion/culture do not form the basis of your world view...



I knew I was talking to the funny farm, but dang...