Politics and climbing

[KaskadskyjKozak]

The first thing you have to do is get over the "need" to defend yourself and keep up some kind of image you think you're protecting. The more you try to "defend" yourself against the flaming (especially by flaming back even more egregiously), the more you become part of the problem.

you ignornant anjadfskljhklrhyo[ awuiehdfw

 

pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis, beyotch!

 

 

[ClimbingPanther]

The first thing you have to do is get over the "need" to defend yourself and keep up some kind of image you think you're protecting. The more you try to "defend" yourself against the flaming (especially by flaming back even more egregiously), the more you become part of the problem.

you ignornant anjadfskljhklrhyo[ awuiehdfw

 

I SWEAR I WILL HUNT YOU DOWN AND SLAUGHTER YOUR FIRSTBORN GOAT-CHILD

[Adam13]

im done flaming cuz even if youre joking its a hell of alot funnier then when i do it.

[cj001f]

The first thing you have to do is get over the "need" to defend yourself and keep up some kind of image you think you're protecting. The more you try to "defend" yourself against the flaming (especially by flaming back even more egregiously), the more you become part of the problem.

you ignornant anjadfskljhklrhyo[ awuiehdfw

 

I SWEAR I WILL HUNT YOU DOWN AND SLAUGHTER YOUR FIRSTBORN GOAT-CHILD

 

ewe aren't looking at the right ungulate wee adfjahkl;jerhopauiwefw

[ClimbingPanther]

The first thing you have to do is get over the "need" to defend yourself and keep up some kind of image you think you're protecting. The more you try to "defend" yourself against the flaming (especially by flaming back even more egregiously), the more you become part of the problem.

you ignornant anjadfskljhklrhyo[ awuiehdfw

 

I SWEAR I WILL HUNT YOU DOWN AND SLAUGHTER YOUR FIRSTBORN GOAT-CHILD

 

ewe aren't looking at the right ungulate wee adfjahkl;jerhopauiwefw

 

my apologies

[JayB]

I find it "interesting" to see posts suggesting that some are somehow uncomfortable discussing politics while out climbing. Whether I agree with my partners' politics or not, I've always thought politics was just another thing to talk about along with everything else. I know that some people are uncomfortable acknowledging disagreement about even something as remote as George Bush's choice of cabinet appointments and if my partner doesn't want to talk about it, I'm happy to change the topic of course -- but I often wonder: why can't this guy discuss what they believe about events and persons that are really quite important?

 

Well said! I grew up in a family where discussion over a variety of topics was encouraged - and nourished - regardless of what the opposing views were. Sunday dinner growing up meant dinner, dessert and then evolution, politics and religion.

 

Some of the best trips I've been on include sitting in a tent discussing events; nothing makes you forget about a raging storm like arguing about God and Bush!

 

What exactly do you mean when you say "regardless of what the opposing views were?" The opposing views of whom? Opposing viewpoints held by persons who were not present at the table? Back-and-forth between parents and kids as the kids start to think for themselves is part of the process by which any sensible parent prepares their children to evaluate ideas in a manner that will enable them to function in the world. Children in a family disagreeing with one another, or their parents, or their parents with them is par for the course in just about every family - although I'm sure there are exceptions to this rule.

 

Spouses disagreeing with one another about some particular topic is also commonplace, but in a healthy relationship the boundaries for these discussions have largely been established, and the parameters in which they occur are limited by affection and/or prudence - so I have a hard time believing that the debates between Mom and Dad were quite as freewheeling as you suggest.

 

I have a hard time believing that you were raised in a household in which part of your family's hospitality included subjecting the beliefs of adult guests that were invited to join you at the dinner table to a merciless cross examination, regardless of the topic or the kind of emotional response this would induce in them.

 

Sounds like a typical family, rather than any kind of unique incubator of the Socratic method.

 

 

[cj001f]

I have a hard time believing that you were raised in a household in which part of your family's hospitality included subjecting the beliefs of adult guests that were invited to join you at the dinner table to a merciless cross examination, regardless of the topic or the kind of emotional response this would induce in them.

 

Nothing says family dinner like grandma being reduced to tears.

[mattp]

What's your point, Jay? I too grew up in a family where "debate" was far more common than most households, and we often had "arguments" at the dinner table. Yes, there were the bounds of decency and the bonds of family, but we could get quite heated at times.

 

We are all to a certain extent a product of our upbringing. My guess is that, on average, those on this site who routinely get angry and start flame wars when someone disagrees with them grew up in families where there was less tolerance for "discussion." I suppose they could have developed intolerant and belligerent communication styles in their adult lives as well.

 

[wfinley]

merciless cross examination

 

It is possible to hold a discussion without "merciless cross examination" - it's called a discussion and I would argue that much of the polarity we find in politics arises out of peoples refusal to openly discuss important issues in a civil manner.

Edited August 27, 2007 by wfinley

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I would argue that much of the polarity we find in politics arises out of peoples refusal to openly discuss important issues in a civil manner.

 

Wrong.

 

Much of the polarity results from people on both sides of any single divisive issue who have thought long and hard on it, have heard the other side(s) ad nauseum, and have come to their own position. No amount of continued "dialog" will matter for squat. The so-called "discussion" comes down to beating a dead horse... over and over again. Listening to the same arguments again and again. There is no point whatsoever, and that covers about 99% of all the "political" discussions on this list or elsewhere.

 

 

 

[wfinley]

Are you referring your witty one-liner posts in this thread as an example of discussion? If so then I can see why you would think that discussion never goes anywhere.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Are you referring your witty one-liner posts in this thread as an example of discussion? If so then I can see why you would think that discussion never goes anywhere.

 

And just who wants to turn this thread back into a spray-fest.

 

 

[wfinley]

Sorry... sometimes this site get my spray fingers typing.

 

Saying that dialog never changes anything is quite pessimistic. If dialog and discussion does no more than strengthen people's resolve to disagree than why bother ever talking to anyone?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Sorry... sometimes this site get my spray fingers typing.

 

Saying that dialog never changes anything is quite pessimistic. If dialog and discussion does no more than strengthen people's resolve to disagree than why bother ever talking to anyone?

 

I'd say realistic, not pessimitic. Especially on cc.com, but not exclusively here.

[mattp]

I'd say there was a time when we had political debates here that I found quite a bit more compelling.

 

Maybe in part I'm remembering a past that didn't quite exist but it seems to me there was a time I looked forward to exchanging political arguments with people who held views I would never encounter in my daily life and who could express those views, at least some times, without getting argumentative and snide.

 

Some of the heavy hitters are gone, but to some degree it seems to me many around here have adopted the attitude you espouse, KK. More often than thinking about a post and crafting a thoughtful response, we see "we've been there and done that before so why bother again and, by the way, f#ck you."

 

You are right, it gets old to face the same argument for the 500th time, but my question is this: why not simply ignore the threads you find to be "old hat" instead of turning them into some flame war? This happens in the political threads, bolting threads, whatever.

[JayB]

If you are having a discussion, then you are abiding by a set of rules and courtesies that isn't entirely consistent with an interaction in which you say what you want "regardless of what the opposing views" are.

 

Discovering that someone takes solace in the notion that their dead child is waiting for him or her in heaven, and then politely but insistently recounting the arguments that call such an outcome into question would be consistent with an obstinate refusal to anyone else's viewpoints into account - but pardon me if I doubt that you were part of a family that valued candor above decency or sensitivity to such a degree, or that any hypothetical family that did so would be a model worthy of praise or emulation.

 

Yes - there are many strategies by which you can have a discussion with people that you disagree with, but in the real world, candor and civility become mutually exclusive at some point - normally when the truth or falsity of someone's most closely held convictions comes into play and the emotional or political stakes are high enough.

 

If someone is a guest at my house and I discover that they are a creationist, the nature of our verbal interactions would be much different than if I found myself on the opposite podium at a school-board meeting while they argued that creationism should be presented in the same manner as evolution in biology class.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[mattp]

Jay, what again is your point? Nobody is saying that you should ignore someone's discomfort with any topic, politics or whatever else.

 

I said that I'm happy to avoid political discussion when somebody isn't interested. In fact, I was on a climb recently where there were two of us "lefties" and a "righty," and when righty was a full ropelength away, out of earshot, I told my lefty friend to stop the political diatribe as I could see the other guy getting uncomfortable.

 

Human decency and civility do indeed dictate we are not always 100% honest or whatever, but there certainly are a wide range of tolerances for disagreement or debate.

[JayB]

My point is and has been that a disinclination to participate in a particular conversation about a particular topic at a particular time - with anything approaching complete candor isn't necessarily the result of a failure of conviction, education, or upbringing.

 

There are quite a few other reasons why someone might decline to engage in a conversation. There are often times when I conclude that I just don't care that the person addressing me thinks, and/or find that they are too ill informed about the subject at hand or too unintelligent to merit any serious conversation on my part.

 

 

 

 

[Bug]

First Rove now Gonzales.

They are covering their tracks fast and furious.

A blowjob by an intern is going to seem so trivial when this hits the fan.

 

[Dechristo]

Do you really think that it's an incapacity to discuss these things, rather than a disinclination to do so in a particular setting?

 

While climbing, it's not an incapacity to discuss, nor necessarily a disinclination to engage that is at issue, but rather, as Bug later stated, a need to listen and consider well the words of another that can be a distraction. Of course, if the discourse is simply light banter, then there's no problem.

 

Up until a few years ago, I had my mind made-up about most things and was willing and able to cut through most arguments/discussions with ready answers and counter-arguments. Then, I had a paradigm shift in my head & heart and found I was more interested in asking questions than giving answers - that requires more concentration in listening to allow for discernment to have sway where quick judgment once reigned.

 

cc.com is fun for quick judgment based most wholly on literary license. There's very little facial expression or vocal inflection, only the written word - which is why I rarely use emoticons. I like the pure literary format for what it is.

 

While climbing, I feel I'm disingenuous if called upon to do more than joke or exchange light banter. So, perhaps you're correct in the assertion of disinclination, but perhaps for reasons other than you had assumed.

 

 

[spotly]

The right has managed to make environmental policy a divisive political issue where advocating environmental awareness equates one with democrats and liberals.

 

Why is it that the right made it divisive? If the left doesn't agree with the right, couldn't it also be said that the left is being divisive?

[tokyobob]

When I grow up and get 57 posts, can I cuss like adam?????

[tvashtarkatena]

I would argue that much of the polarity we find in politics arises out of peoples refusal to openly discuss important issues in a civil manner.

 

Wrong.

 

Much of the polarity results from people on both sides of any single divisive issue who have thought long and hard on it, have heard the other side(s) ad nauseum, and have come to their own position. No amount of continued "dialog" will matter for squat. The so-called "discussion" comes down to beating a dead horse... over and over again. Listening to the same arguments again and again. There is no point whatsoever, and that covers about 99% of all the "political" discussions on this list or elsewhere.

 

 

 

Why, WHY won't they all just stop talking and listen....

 

....to me?