Can we talk about talking about politics?

It's really pathetic to me how many people are incapable of discussing politics in a reasonable manner, but it's also oh-so-human. The partisan, rah-rah fanboi-ism grates on me, probably because the contrarian in me just wants to point out the flaws in everyone's arguments.

I'm always reminded of two things when I see people talk politics:

One was a study referenced in a class I took in J-school. They showed Israelis and Palestinians news reports on incidents involving the two. Both sides inevitably and predictably saw the reports as clearly biased against their side. When pressed to explain the bias, it was universally never the content of the actual report itself, which was purely factual. It was that they felt that the report lacked important context that shaped the story. "Yeah, our guy did X, but you didn't report on when their guy did Y, which is why we had to react."

The other thing I'm reminded of is this fantastic article by You Are Not So Smart (a site devoted to explanations of human cognitive biases):

http://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/08/21/the-illusion-of-asymmetric-insight/

The fact that politics involves important questions and real right and wrong is sort of incidental. People are just driven to split into groups and fight with the other side.

 

There's a Josh Hamilton ban?

Who knew?

 

Based on the context of the politics and Josh Hamilton bans, maybe there should be a Steelers ban?

 

LOL -- everyone but me is pathetic, and I'm smarter than all of them anyway!

 

That's my group. I'm part of the special group of people who understand the other group of people better than they understand themselves.

 

Don't know if it would count as politics, but I think it is a stretch to put a guy in the Presidential HoF who was never elected to the presidency and who only served 3 years...

 

The force is strong with this one ...

 

So, does anyone have concrete ideas on how to make it work? My issue with the one The Big Ragu floated about keeping members on a short leash and banning them from the board is that it isn't practical and I'm not sure I trust its execution will be even-handed. Is the idea of a subforum that certain members would lose permission to post on impossible?

Also, did any other moderators want to chime in, or does Ragu have the company line pretty well stated?

 

Jeebus doesn't love me that much.

 

The person in question attacked me for being a Stevie Nicks fan. I figured you could tell the difference.

 

With all due respect to everyone on here, may we get a little perspective?

This is an Internet message board. That's it.

I've been posting here for five years, and lurking for a few years more than that. I love coming here just about every day. I've learned quite a lot about many different subjects from a group of very smart people. I post on a couple of other sites, including my hometown paper's, and it's funny how the other posts on there pale in comparison to the posts on here. It's like Class A ball there to the major leagues here.

That said. This is an Internet message board. Life's too short. If you're going to get all worked up over an Internet message board, then maybe you need to re-examine the priorities in life.

We should be able to discuss politics on here, even if it generates into name-calling. I've been called a few names, and what I do is laugh about it. Why?

Because, for as awesome as this place is, it's still an Internet message board. Perspective.

 

Baron works an analogy into his post. Yes!