Active Now

Spunky
Malizz
Discussion » Questions » Random Knowledge » Is it reasonable to expect people not to make partisan comments?
Just Asking

Is it reasonable to expect people not to make partisan comments?

To be clear, this isn't a comment aimed at any person or either political party, but it seems like mud-slinging is at an all-time high across all media and social media platforms. Personally, I don't think we have a problem with the democrats or republicans or the left or the right or the liberals or the conservatives. I think it's the polarization and the us vs. them mentality that will do us all in. 

Are people, in general, capable of stopping these kinds of remarks? Should they be stopped? What would it take to stop them?

Posted - October 9, 2018
Tags : None

Responses


  • 10026
    excon, please don't yell. 
      October 9, 2018 11:13 AM MDT
    1

  • 3907
    Hello Merlin:

    Using CAPS is yelling..  Using a large FONT is not..
    If you wanna accuse someone of bad behavior, you should know what bad behavior is.

    And you clearly DON'T.

    excon
      October 9, 2018 11:51 AM MDT
    2

  • 10026
    I'm sure we all heard you loud and clear.  No worries.  I won't make that mistake again.  Thank you for correcting me. :) :)
      October 9, 2018 12:19 PM MDT
    2

  • 2658
    Hello Merlin - the song says "I cast a spell on you', I know you won't, you'll keep "SMILIN' as you do...  Take Care my 'bestest'  AMer... This post was edited by Beans/SilentGeneration at October 12, 2018 10:27 PM MDT
      October 12, 2018 12:46 PM MDT
    1

  • 4624

    I feel deep respect and admiration for your wisdom in handling that, Merlin.

    I checked back and followed the exchanges from excon's comment with its capitalisation of the words "not", "is" and "without".

    I thought your request was phrased very politely.

    If I had received that response from him it would have left me feeling very rattled. 

    This post was edited by inky at October 12, 2018 10:27 PM MDT
      October 12, 2018 10:11 PM MDT
    1

  • 7939
    Hey excon. Good to see you again. 

    I'm not suggesting a politics ban by any means, and I'm not even necessarily referencing people being jerks either. What I see more often, in general, is people making something a partisan issue when it doesn't have to be so. We can discuss taxes, laws, medical care, and current events without saying the current state of things lies with one party, that a party is to blame, or that an issue belongs to one party. 

    And, of course, I'm with you on not attacking people and attacking the argument instead. 
      October 9, 2018 1:00 PM MDT
    2

  • 3907
    Hello again, JA:

    If people want to POLITELY make eating tofu a partisan issue, they should be free to do so..  Yeah, I know it's crazy, but you CAN'T moderate crazy..  You can moderate behavior.

    excon
      October 9, 2018 1:20 PM MDT
    2

  • 34246
    I think most  people have strong feelings about politics. There are a few who don't care much. But most have strong feelings but don't do the homework to know anything more than the snarky partician remarks. If not for the remarks they don't know enough to have a conversation. I believe most know this and that is why many do not vote. 
    They vote the way their parents do or vote on personality not policy. 

    I remember being a young teen and listening to some adult family members who had just listened to a Dukakis interview. And the woman was: I just like him. Did you see how he just rolled up his sleeves. He is just like us. 

    I remember thinking "You are gonna vote for someone because he rolled up his sleeves? "

    But overall, I think it comes down to people don't know enough about the policies and don't want to know. But still don't want to be left out of the conversation. This post was edited by my2cents at October 9, 2018 8:08 PM MDT
      October 9, 2018 7:20 AM MDT
    7

  • 7939
    That may be so when we're talking about the average citizen, but does it extend to the media and our own politicians? It's happening on every level.

    I loved the sleeve story though. I know people like that too.
      October 9, 2018 1:04 PM MDT
    2

  • 34246
    With the media and politicans they know people don't care enough to pay alot of attention. So they are the ones providing the snarky remarks that are easy for people to remember. They think they know best so it is just a matter of manipulating the majority of the people. Or at least the ones they can get riled up enough to vote.
      October 9, 2018 5:16 PM MDT
    2

  • 34246
    Speaking of our politicians. Did you hear Hillary say no civility until the Dems have control of one of the Houses of Congress? 


    "You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about," Clinton said in an interview with CNN's Christiane Amanpour. "That's why I believe, if we are fortunate enough to win back the House and or the Senate, that's when civility can start again. But until then, the only thing that the Republicans seem to recognize and respect is strength."
      October 9, 2018 8:30 PM MDT
    2

  • 7939
    :/ That's disappointing. I expected more from her.
      October 9, 2018 9:51 PM MDT
    3

  • 4624
    So did I, but I think now she's understandably bitter.
    She made some naïve mistakes with her emails.
    She took her eye off the ball in assuming that a Trump-type could never win.
    And the attacks on her over her errors must have been quite shattering.

      October 9, 2018 10:29 PM MDT
    2

  • 7280
    Newt Gingrich started the concept of no concessions to, or deals with, the Democrats. 

    He created a monster.

    Hilary is correct---as long as Republicans are in control, no accommodations with the minority policy is standard policy.
      October 11, 2018 12:21 PM MDT
    3

  • 7939
    She may be right, but she shouldn't be talking that way. When the election was over, she spoke very well; talking about how we should accept the situation and continue to work toward our causes. She didn't push the divide, but encouraged unity. 

    By the same token, there was another discussion here recently where I called Trump a bunch of names. That's what people grabbed onto. Virtually nothing else I said mattered- people flew in to defend him and argue about the names I used. I still believe each and every term I used to describe him was accurate, but in hindsight, I was wrong to speak the way I did. It was not diplomatic in the least and it undermined anything else I had to say. 

    I need to be more mindful with my words. I'll own that. 

    I was genuinely proud to have voted for Clinton when I heard her speak after the election. She initially handled it with such poise and grace- the qualities I expect in a leader. Somewhere along the line, she veered off track. Many of us have. On all sides. 

    I, personally, want a leader who does not blame, but finds solutions. Yes, we should be realistic about what the obstacles are, but only as it amounts to finding the answers, not so we have someone to assign fault to. 

    Yes, I know... I'm dreaming again. 
      October 11, 2018 2:14 PM MDT
    2

  • 10052
    Some people are capable. I've learned to do it around family members and old friends, both in person and on social media. I rarely respond at all, even when I'm pretty certain that I'm being "baited". 

    This latest thing with Kavanaugh really has me perplexed. I've seen numerous women jump on the "it's a scary time for men" bandwagon and I'm gobsmacked by it, especially the ones who have daughters. I am a mother of young adult sons, and I can't say that I've ever worried about them being accused of rape or sexual assault. And trust me when I say, I am a worrier! I guess I feel very secure that I raised them not to be predators, and I know that instances of women making up sexual assault are extremely rare. 

    I think it's perfectly fine for women to make a personal choice to be subservient to men. I understand that there are women whose religious beliefs dictate that it's their job to serve men and do as they're told, and that's fine for them. What isn't okay is their opinion that all women should believe that or live that. Same goes for their personal choice to be in a traditional male/female marriage. I don't want to be in a same-sex marriage either, and that's my choice. And the list goes on and on, and this is predominantly the issue that 'liberals' have with 'conservatives'. In my opinion, conservatives want to impose their beliefs and opinions on everyone and take away the personal choices of others. That's not acceptable. 

    I saw this meme on social media and it speaks volumes to what I've said, and why I think it is an "us against them" situation. 
    P.S. - I didn't comment, but scrolled right past it. 









      October 9, 2018 8:47 AM MDT
    7

  • 7939
    I agree with you to a certain point. We have these labels because they represent differing values, philosophies, and views. At the same time, I don't think things should be chalked up to "We have this issue because of X party." 

    "Conservatives want to impose their beliefs and opinions on everyone and take away the personal choices of others..." That's the kind of statement I'm referencing. I can understand why you might feel that way, but it's just as easy for a conservative to say something similar about a liberal. "Liberals want to impose their beliefs and opinions on everyone and take away the personal liberties of others..." And, I could back that up too. Take gun control, for example. The more liberal view is to establish more gun laws, thus removing rights from people.

    That's why I think it's important to get away from the labels and start discussing the merits of each issue on its own. When people get into a debate about whether fault lies with one party or not, people stop listening. There's no room for discussion, for understanding, or for middle ground. 
      October 9, 2018 1:21 PM MDT
    3

  • 7280
    I assume you are awake now---although I will admit that is a pleasant dream you had.

    How many people (including Trump and McConnell) pushed the idea that Kavanaugh was entitled to "due process" during his confirmation hearing?

    As long a some people are willing to lie to get others to back them, and as long as people are not sufficiently educated (or refuse to educate themselves on the issues) there will always be that mob mentality that shouts, "Give us Barabbas."

    "Ya just can't fix stupid."
      October 9, 2018 4:32 PM MDT
    3

  • 5391
    Nor can we legislate conscience. (Sigh)
      October 9, 2018 4:38 PM MDT
    4

  • 7280
    True.

    The conscience is the last judgment of the practical intellect before one acts.

    Thus the need for education.

    (One's judgment is only as good as one's information.)


      October 11, 2018 12:50 PM MDT
    2

  • 4624
    Great point J.A.

    Specific issues are far more important than party politics and identification. For instance, global warming affects everyone.

    I find it interesting how the term "liberal" in the states has gradually become associated with the left-leaning or social-safety-net side of politics.

    When liberalism was first proposed by John Stuart Mills, his argument was that all people should have the right to think, speak, act and live in the way they see fit, so long as it doesn't impede the equal rights of others to the same.

    In Australia, the term "liberal" refers to the right or conservative side of politics, because they want minimal government controls and expenses and maximum freedom for business and trade. The limits to what constitutes harm or impedes the rights of others tends to be a lot more lenient - giving a lot more freedom to those that actually do cause harm to people, animals and the environment.

    So I guess what we need is more informed discussion about how each policy affects all the people affected by it - and it needs to stay alive and responsive to changing conditions and technologies.
      October 9, 2018 10:42 PM MDT
    2

  • 7939
    We actually see some of that here too. "Liberals" usually describes the left and democrats, while "conservative" usually describes the right and republicans. This isn't always so, of course, because most people have a mixture of liberal and conservative beliefs and may belong to either party depending on the depth of those beliefs and the number of corresponding beliefs held. 

    However, we also have a libertarian political party, which further complicates things. Libertarians favor less government oversight, which tends to put them more on par with conservatives, but because of that belief, they're more prone to accept gay marriage and such, so some also lean left. And, again, this is why all the labels are "meh." 

    But, I agree... informed discussions about policy are essential. 
      October 10, 2018 1:00 PM MDT
    3

  • 13277
    There's another reason some people register with one party or the other, JA. For example, here in NYC, the Republican party has virtually no strength or representation and little influence in local politics. Republicans hold only four of the 51 seats on the New York City Council. Our last GOP mayor, Mike Bloomberg, is a lifelong Democrat who strategically chose to run as a Republican because he faced less competition for the party's nomination. Another of the city's highest elected offices, the Comptroller, has not been held by a Republican since the early 1940s. Also, the Congressional delegation from the city's five counties and surrounding ones are overwhelmingly Democratic.

    The upshot of this power imbalance means that in most local city, state, and congressional elections, the Democratic primary is more important than the general election. As a result, many people around here register to vote as Democrats regardless of their personal political ideologies and opinions.
      October 12, 2018 10:50 PM MDT
    0

  • 10052
    I usually use "  ", because I'm not fond of the labels. I use air quotes when I'm speaking and use those terms. 

    I do see your point re: gun rights, although I don't think it's all that comparable. Two men or two women being married doesn't impose on anyone else's rights and doesn't hurt or kill anyone. I think that abortion might be a better example, for those who believe that a human is a human before birth. I understand how that can be seen as an issue of one party's rights infringing on the safety and well-being of another party. 
      October 12, 2018 3:41 AM MDT
    1

  • 22891
    i think thats reasonable
      October 9, 2018 9:55 AM MDT
    2