>> |
11/07/11(Mon)05:15:16 No.314052>>314005 I'm not the guy you're responding to, but this: >And
that's what you should be doing in a sane conversation instead of
circle-jerking. Find out why someone else disagrees with you, research
the facts as well as the implications and come to a conclusion.
This
idea interests me, because it is usually impossible to do in most
settings where politics are discussed face to face. A long, long time
ago, I was talking politics with someone at work, and he brought his
facts from his news site of choice, and I brought mine (though, we were
both paraphrasing; we didn't have laptops to literally bring up the
webpages), but they both contradicted each other because the sites had
inherent biases on opposite sides of the political spectrum. One would
have to throw some sort of "truth gathering party" or something, in
which numerous people showed up at a single person's house and looked
over dozens, if not hundreds, of articles to get to the bottom of all
the bullshit. For most people, who I assume discuss this sort of thing
in small doses, that isn't possible.
This is why forums are so
great for this sort of thing. It makes that "truth gathering party"
possible, without any of the planning or the bullshit. Truth is exposed
in mere seconds, unlike in the outside world, where it can often take
several days to even find an article someone may have alluded to in
speech.
I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying; I actually
really like the idea. It just doesn't seem feasible for the kinds of
discussions that most people have with each other about politics in the
"offline" world. Hell, even during presidential debates, you'll get
candidates who flat out LIE on stage, and then you'll have entire
websites with entire teams dedicated to getting to the bottom of the
rhetoric. It's just an overwhelming mountain of lies. |