EPTUS Politics Feedback Thread - Page 285
| Forum Index > Website Feedback |
|
Sermokala
United States14047 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On April 25 2020 23:48 iamthedave wrote: Both positions seem odd to me; politics shouldn't be about either of those things, it should be about correct governance of the country said politics are happening in. If the end goal is winning, then what happens to governance? The “should be about correct governance of the country” reeks of utopian preconditions, such that people should be able to agree on what correct governance looks like. If you care nothing of winning, maybe you’re clueless about “correct governance” (your terms), and if you reject compromise, maybe you’re not grounded in how to achieve it. I think you arrive at the disagreements shown over ~5 pages very quickly, and I suspect you have ideas over what’s a compromise too far or what’s discounting good to pursue great policy. All that belongs in a politics thread. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9005 Posts
On April 15 2020 13:32 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: We really need a political philosophy thread or something. While the current discussion is partly relevant, it's not really accomplishing anything and the last 5+ pages have shown that. Just gonna leave this here. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18838 Posts
| ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9005 Posts
I've mentioned it before and people always say "one person can't have a conversation" but it's the same time after time. It's literally the same people having the same arguments. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18838 Posts
| ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9005 Posts
| ||
|
Simberto
Germany11626 Posts
| ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12318 Posts
On April 26 2020 21:29 Simberto wrote: Yeah, i find it pretty annoying, too. That discussion was interesting once. But i would prefer actual discussion about current events and politics related to that, not just vaguely undefined discussions about capitalism vs socialism. I mean you can just launch the discussion and see if it sticks. I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with the thread talking about different things at the same time, this has happened in the past. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9005 Posts
We had a thread for candidates. We have a thread for 'rona. Might as well make one for political philosophy to clear the clutter. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12318 Posts
On April 26 2020 22:19 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: We tried that. And once capitalism or socialism is mentioned, it derails into what we have now. This is why I suggested a separate thread for philosophy. That way, if you want to talk about that, talk about that in the thread it's for. If you want to discuss current events and politics related directly to the US Pol thread, there's the thread for that. If a topic can be discussed in either, then choose the most appropriate one. We had a thread for candidates. We have a thread for 'rona. Might as well make one for political philosophy to clear the clutter. Have you thought about launching a thread on current news? | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9005 Posts
On April 26 2020 22:54 Nebuchad wrote: Have you thought about launching a thread on current news? Not sure if serious or... | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12318 Posts
I was, yeah. Sorry, am I forgetting something? | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9005 Posts
Stay healthy and take care all. | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On April 26 2020 03:01 Danglars wrote: The “should be about correct governance of the country” reeks of utopian preconditions, such that people should be able to agree on what correct governance looks like. If you care nothing of winning, maybe you’re clueless about “correct governance” (your terms), and if you reject compromise, maybe you’re not grounded in how to achieve it. I think you arrive at the disagreements shown over ~5 pages very quickly, and I suspect you have ideas over what’s a compromise too far or what’s discounting good to pursue great policy. All that belongs in a politics thread. Mostly because you're putting words in my mouth. If both the Republicans and Democrats' primary focus was correct governance of the country, that doesn't presume they don't disagree, just that the prime goal of their politics isn't 'winning' over the other team and then sitting on their laurels instead of actually doing something with that victory. There's nothing utopian about wanting politics to be about running the country instead of a meaningless 'win' over the other team. Politics - which affects millions of lives - shouldn't be the Superbowl. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On April 27 2020 03:19 iamthedave wrote: Mostly because you're putting words in my mouth. If both the Republicans and Democrats' primary focus was correct governance of the country, that doesn't presume they don't disagree, just that the prime goal of their politics isn't 'winning' over the other team and then sitting on their laurels instead of actually doing something with that victory. There's nothing utopian about wanting politics to be about running the country instead of a meaningless 'win' over the other team. Politics - which affects millions of lives - shouldn't be the Superbowl. The compromise and winning naturally evolve from two sides disagreeing on what is the correct path. You're just pissed at the tribalism and rhetoric that sort of conceal the real roots of disagreement because they're so heightened in the news and policial class right now. Part of the rhetoric is of course that the other guys don't actually want what's good for the country, they're just under the control of special interests. I'd say some of that is true of all politicians, which is why they have such a bad reputation among the people. Some kind of mutual drawing down of rhetoric and lies and tribalism won't make me less happy that the Iran Deal got stopped, or Obamacare's individual mandate got ended. I'll still be glad that the tax cut was passed and the immigration debate is centered around security not amnesty. There will still be people that think that means I don't actually want what's best for the country, or can't recognize the long term costs to that country within the world of other countries. Those are real disagreements that aren't due to a detachment from focus on correct governance. It literally plays out as compromise and pushing for the best policies within compromise. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18838 Posts
On May 14 2020 02:45 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: To you last point, I agree (I agree with all but I want to focus my response to the last paragraph). In this thread there are a lot of us who agree on all of the signals that you mentioned and more or less agree with the steps necessary to gain access to those. It seems there are a few who just want to burn the cart and the horse, which creates that divide that we end up back on the same 3 topics as Uldridge brings up. A lot of the quiet can be observed when the thread goes silent when those same 3 topics dominate the discussion. I think we've reached saturation on those and most are tired of engaging those topics/people. Like you, I would like to get to solutions and how we can attach the cart to the horse and then install the V6 engine to it. Agreeing on terms commonly used would be the best way forward, followed by as specific as possible solutions that we can suss out and discuss. We as a forum/thread aren't going to affect massive change out in the real world, but I think giving us a way to engage each other on an intellectual level with good faith and appropriate responses would better arm us to engage those outside of this arena. Thoughts? That's a really tough call. On one hand, I share your (and others') frustrations with the direction discussions go when certain ideas/posters are involved, and trying to come up with some rule-based way to avoid those pitfalls is one way to do it. On the other, I can't help but feel that laying out rules on posting that are too specific and/or rely on highly subjective criteria either further discourage posting such that they defeat their point, or create new problems that piss people off even more lol Term definition and topic selection aside, a dose of interpretive charity would probably help address a lot of the frictional problems that get in the way of continued discussion, and where someone seems insistent on pushing beyond the ken of having a reasonable discussion, a timeout of some kind seems appropriate. Yes, I recognize that's a highly subjective rule that would probably put me in timeout plenty, but it's the best I got :D | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14047 Posts
I think no one wants to go another round with GH's Schordingers socialism and no one wants to stake a controversial opinion without being labeled as a true believer in the worst ideology anyone can attribute to it. | ||
| ||
