The death of P&R and what it says about where we are.

[Dill]

(03-14-2023, 01:58 AM)basballguy Wrote: This forum has always been a shit show.  If i were to put a number on on it i'd say it's 90% left and 10% right.  And with that, the 90% is very flagrant in their POVs...and some of them are beyond reason.  

Now, without naming names, there are a few right leaning individuals which also have absurd POVs but we'd be lying to ourselves if we weren't saying left leaning individuals were making productive conversations prohibitive on this forum.  

I'm curious about how you are defining "productive."

I find conversations productive for me when they produce new and relevant information, and when reasoned exchanges expand my and others' understanding of political issues. That includes defining terms to mutual agreement for use in discussion, and asking people for evidence or to explain apparent contradictions in a position--and then in good faith waiting to hear them out. But it excludes jamming discussions with personal insults, bad faith misconstruction, and red herrings. 

I can also see how this view of productive conversation could be experienced as "prohibitive" according to a different view of "productive," if it doubles down on logical analysis and questioning evidence. By my definition of "productive," conversations which debate, test, and occasionally reveal disinformation are very productive. I and a few others may have made it more difficult to disseminate disinformation about CRT, for example, so others could feel "prohibited" from initiating discussion about it.  Bels often makes it difficult to argue against assault weapon bans and the like; he may on occasion "prohibit" me from holding certain views about assault weapons by offering counter-evidence. But he is not prohibiting me from making productive conversations; he is engaging me in one, even if it does not result in the "product" I want.

For me the forum is one source of information about how many typical U.S. voters perceive, understand, and respond to policies. People often go into more detail about why they hold their views here, offering a kind of insight polls do not. 

E.G., I've gotten a lot of "ancillary" benefits from conversations in this forum. That is, in hearing peoples' objections to each others' views, and hearing their reasons for believing what they do, also teaches me a lot, even if no one is persuaded or refuted. E.g., if I hear two different posters offer COVID policies as examples of "authoritarianism," that tells me a lot about how they define or see authoritarianism--and how they don't. So I found listening to them "productive" in that it brings me a step closer to understanding their political choices (and factoring that into future responses); with no reason to suppose they are outliers, I am then curious about the source(s) of their definitions. Can't get that insight from a book or MSNBC--only be engaging with actual voters. 

It also means I cannot get that insight if right wingers don't feel free to participate. We are in a conundrum though if "feel free" requires a challenge free environment. I agree with you that some of my liberal minded friends have at times descended into overreach hyperbole in their description of GOP racism and totalitarian intentions, but I don't understand why that "prohibits" anyone who disagrees from challenging their overreach. You grant there are right wingers who overreach too, but their posts don't seem to prohibit much. Often they start conversations. Because they are only 10% in your guestimation? Do "rightists" and "leftists" react differently to views which challenge their politics? 

I'm also curious about how you are defining "left" and "right." I consider myself a "leftist," but I don't see many here (2-3) that I would call that. Most seem left leaning liberals or liberal centrists, and rightists. And it's ok to be those things. Even better if we agree on what makes one a whatever.