Civilized Debate

[Curtis Metcalf]

Curtis, I don't intend to address your first question other than to say that on the other thread we were not discussing nuances in perspectives; people were expressing polar opposite perspectives. 

I understand that is your view of that discussion. Mine is actually different but that's neither here nor there.

I am not discussing that issue further, because, frankly, I'm tired of it.  Which is why I tend to refrain from bringing it up on this forum.  At times others do, usually with an axe to grind.

Understood and accepted. I will strive to address the dialogue dialogue as applied generally, not to that discussion.

As to "different yet valid" perspectives, you chose those words, and they certainly indicate that different (opposite) perspectives can both be "valid."  While with regard to some issues that may be the case, with respect to others it certainly is not.

But, Michael, different is synonymous with opposite only when the range of alternatives is binary. I do not see the world in black and white. Nor do you, I believe.

On some issues there is a morally correct position to support.  Even if the issue involves conflict (indeed, most notably in those instances).

Even when there are generally accepted moral principles to bring to bear on given situation, reasonable people often differ on how to apply said principles. As you point out, especially in conflictual circumstances. Wouldn't you agree?

Or would you say that with regard to virtually every issue there is a "different valid perspective" that holds just the opposite of another "different valid perspective."  I don't see how you can contend that this is not moral relativism.  Unless you draw your bubble of "valid" perspectives narrowly.  It does not appear that you do.

I agree with the underlined statement as amended. In general, I believe that the set of valid perspectives is a subset of the set of all perspectives and that subset is often larger than we might think. One might view dialogue as a process for exploring that subset.

In any event, it all depends on the issue.

Well, it seems to me that most of the time (and in virtually every case we might encounter on a discussion forum) it is possible to hold dialogue.

For purposes of discussion, accepting your definitions of "dialogue" and "discussion" (and by extension, "debate") ... the truth is that things flow in human communication, and while a social scientist may try to categorize things, the reality is much more fluid, in large part depending on the personalities involved.

Yes, I agree. That doesn't mean that we can't try to be more intentional about our interactions especially in cyberspace. My intent is to foster dialogue whenever possible. It is a goal, not a requirement.

Like you, I've tried to learn from others on the forum.  And yes, you are correct, some degree of trust is required. That point goes well beyond the HEF, to the realm of significant dialogue/discussions/negotiations in the real world. Trust is merited with regard to many persons. Unfortunately, it is not merited with respect to everyone.

Again, I agree with you here. As I said, it is not easy. However, it seems to me that in online discussions especially, there is often a headlong rush to judgment and condemnation instead of an inquiry to strive for better mutual understanding. The proceedings are routinely adversarial instead of collegial.

One of the things that keeps me coming back to HEF is that we manage to have insightful discussions and meaningful dialogue on occasion. I am merely advocating for more of that and less of the other.

[michaelintp]

Curtis, I believe to a significant extent we are in agreement, as to the value of dialogue, and the value in attempting dialogue.  If nothing else, it fosters a more positive and productive atmosphere on the forum.  Of course that only applies where dialogue is in the realm of the possible.  Often, indeed more often than not, it is.  Sometimes, unfortunately, it is not, and that is obvious from the outset, or obvious based on past experience with a topic or with another forum member (though thankfully the latter is pretty rare on the HEF, particularly in the past couple of years -- which is one aspect of the HEF that keeps me posting here).

As to "different" perspectives not being opposite - of course not always.  But "opposite" is one variation of different.  It does not mean one views the world as "black and white" to recognize diametrically opposed perspectives when they are expressed. 

As to much of what you say, above, my general reaction is ... "sometimes yes, sometimes no."  Haha ... try to figure that one out.   

Here are some suggestions:  If one disagrees with what another forum member says, state why, not in personal terms, but in terms of substance.  Don't treat the HEF like a poll, reciting the number of people who agree or disagree.  If a forum member states that something is a fact, and you believe it is not, state what purported "fact" you disagree with, and why.  Don't just respond, "That's your opinion."  If a forum member states a moral principle, and you disagree with that principle, or disagree that that principle applies to the facts at hand, say so and explain why you disagree.  Try to find out why you and the other person have a difference in perspective.  In other words, try to focus on what the other person is really saying and respond to what he/she is saying, in a meaningful way.  All of the above suggestions, of course, represent the ideal.  That's kinda where the "sometimes yes, sometimes no" comes in.   

So, to sum it up, we see eye to eye, in principle, on the value of dialogue and civil discussion/debate (which includes not personalizing matters).  Given some of our past "dialogues" this should not surprise you.

[Curtis Metcalf]

Here are some suggestions:  If one disagrees with what another forum member says, state why, not in personal terms, but in terms of substance.  Don't treat the HEF like a poll, reciting the number of people who agree or disagree.  If a forum member states that something is a fact, and you believe it is not, state what purported "fact" you disagree with, and why.  Don't just respond, "That's your opinion."  If a forum member states a moral principle, and you disagree with that principle, or disagree that that principle applies to the facts at hand, say so and explain why you disagree.  Try to find out why you and the other person have a difference in perspective.  In other words, try to focus on what the other person is really saying and respond to what he/she is saying, in a meaningful way.  All of the above suggestions, of course, represent the ideal.  That's kinda where the "sometimes yes, sometimes no" comes in.   

So, to sum it up, we see eye to eye, in principle, on the value of dialogue and civil discussion/debate (which includes not personalizing matters).  Given some of our past "dialogues" this should not surprise you.

You're right, it doesn't surprise me. I like your suggestions too - concrete and actionable.

[michaelintp]

Part of civilized debate includes tolerance for diversity of viewpoints and treating one another with mutual respect.  It does not include name calling and innuendo and flying off the handle at the presentation of any political/social point of view one disagrees with.

I am discussing tolerance, for purposes of the discussion in the Vox Populi forum, for traditionally conservative as well as liberal and leftist points of view. 

Given that virtually nobody on the forum other than myself expresses conservative points of view here, it is no surprise that I have "evoked" harsh reactions, including at times personal attacks, more than anyone else on the forum.  Not only by random posters, but by those who play a central role on the forum. 

I understand that many people who come to the Vox Populi section of the forum are accustomed, in their daily lives, to discussing politics with people who only share their perspectives, ideologies, and biases.  It is hard to be open to the possibility that there are other valid viewpoints.  It may be difficult to even hear alternatives to one's standard way of thinking. But that is what the Vox Populi section of the forum is all about.

True, the expression of a point of view that one disagrees with might "get under one's skin."  That's tough.  By definition, controversial topics evoke diverse points of view and strong feelings.  If a person does not want to run that risk, he or she should not click the Vox Populi tab on the HEF. 

That is why the Vox Populi section of the forum was created.  To have a place to discuss controversial topics.  Where people who don't wish to do so can simply avoid controversy by avoiding this section of the forum.

Standards of civil discourse and mutual respect should be respected by all.  This goes for everyone on the forum. 

Including any persons who assume the role of moderator on any section of the forum.

Otherwise, any form of meaningful dialogue is impossible.

[Battle]

Given that virtually nobody on the forum other than myself expresses conservative points of view here, it is no surprise that I have "evoked" harsh reactions, including at times personal attacks, more than anyone else on the forum.  Not only by random posters, but by those who play a central role on the forum. 

Define 'conservative'.

I'll assume it's a viewpoint that's identical to people like this, right?:

"You're all socialists!!!  ronald reagan was the greatest president --- ever!!!  They're stealing all of our tax-payer money!!! We must stop the 'Annoited One'!!!  Obama must be stopped!!! I want him to fail!!! george bush was the best president ever!!!  Long live the confederacy, the republican party and jim crow!!!"


...because if the ideology is this then that's not what real conservatism is.  By definition, I would be conservative.

[Curtis Metcalf]

Part of civilized debate includes tolerance for diversity of viewpoints and treating one another with mutual respect.  It does not include name calling and innuendo and flying off the handle at the presentation of any political/social point of view one disagrees with.

I am discussing tolerance, for purposes of the discussion in the Vox Populi forum, for traditionally conservative as well as liberal and leftist points of view. 

Given that virtually nobody on the forum other than myself expresses conservative points of view here, it is no surprise that I have "evoked" harsh reactions, including at times personal attacks, more than anyone else on the forum.  Not only by random posters, but by those who play a central role on the forum. 

I understand that many people who come to the Vox Populi section of the forum are accustomed, in their daily lives, to discussing politics with people who only share their perspectives, ideologies, and biases.  It is hard to be open to the possibility that there are other valid viewpoints.  It may be difficult to even hear alternatives to one's standard way of thinking. But that is what the Vox Populi section of the forum is all about.

True, the expression of a point of view that one disagrees with might "get under one's skin."  That's tough.  By definition, controversial topics evoke diverse points of view and strong feelings.  If a person does not want to run that risk, he or she should not click the Vox Populi tab on the HEF. 

That is why the Vox Populi section of the forum was created.  To have a place to discuss controversial topics.  Where people who don't wish to do so can simply avoid controversy by avoiding this section of the forum.

Standards of civil discourse and mutual respect should be respected by all.  This goes for everyone on the forum. 

Including any persons who assume the role of moderator on any section of the forum.

Otherwise, any form of meaningful dialogue is impossible.

Michael, are you talking about me? Do you feel that I have insulted you or been uncivil? If so, cite it.

[Redjack]

I am leaving these forums. I made the decision last night after a short encounter with Michaelintp who I believe to be a troll.

I've asked him, first politely and then aggressively, to simply ignore me and not to engage me on any level. He refuses to leave me in peace.

His idea of "discussion" is to quote long tracts of self-serving, one sided misinformation and to subtly impugn the basic humanity of black peoples in general and American blacks in specific. He has been here, doing this, for years and, after finally having enough of this crap, I asked him to stop addressing me either directly or indirectly.

He refuses. He is a bigot. He is consistently offensive about a host of groups though he couches his bigotry in the apparently clinical language of an academic.

Now I could continue the banter war with this ugly, small-minded twerp but I've decided it's not worth the trouble. His arguments are easily refuted by common sense and the results of a cursory google search but the implications of his many assertions (really the same one over and over) are simply too offensive to me to tolerate. He claims to be interested in dialogue but all he really wants to do is stir the pot. He's a troll.

Since I can't count on him to show even the baseline amount of respect for the wishes of a fellow member of this site, me IOW, I have to bow out until such time as his corruptive and ugly influence is purged.

I'm not asking for him to be kicked out. If Reggie feels he's making a legit contribution, that's the end of it and I respect his wishes however much I may disagree on this particular point. This is his house.

But I will not be visiting this house again unless and until Michael is gone.

It's been a great time with most of you, even the ones who I've bumped heads against, but I've just had enough of this asshole. So I'm out. I use the word asshole, specifically, btw. When I use profanity I do so with as much care as I do any other adjective I might choose to apply. Assholes have a particular bodily function and it's no accident I have applied that description to Michael. It's on point in fact.

I'm leaving my account live so, if you PM me, I'll get the message, but this marks my last post until the troll population is cut by one.

Edited for clarity.

[michaelintp]

I am leaving these forums. I made the decision last night after a short encounter with Michaelintp who I believe to be a troll.
I've asked him, first politely and then aggressively, to simply ignore me and not to engage me on any level. He refuses to leave me in peace.
His idea of "discussion" is to quote long tracts of self-serving, one sided misinformation and to subtly impugn the basic humanity of black peoples in general and American blacks in specific. He has been here, doing this, for years and, after finally having enough of this crap, I asked him to stop addressing me either directly or indirectly.
He refuses. He is a bigot. He is consistently offensive about a host of groups though he couches his bigotry in the apparently clinical language of an academic.
Now I could continue the banter war with this ugly, small-minded twerp but I've decided it's not worth the trouble. His arguments are easily refuted by common sense and the results of a cursory google search but the implications of his many assertions (really the same one over and over) are simply too offensive to me to tolerate. He claims to be interested in dialogue but all he really wants to do is stir the pot. He's a troll.
Since I can't count on him to show even the baseline amount of respect for the wishes of a fellow member of this site, me IOW, I have to bow out until such time as his corruptive and ugly influence is purged.
I'm not asking for him to be kicked out. If Reggie feels he's making a legit contribution, that's the end of it and I respect his wishes however much I may disagree on this particular point. This is his house.
But I will not be visiting this house again unless and until Michael is gone.
It's been a great time with most of you, even the ones who I've bumped heads against, but I've just had enough of this asshole. So I'm out. I use the word asshole, specifically, btw. When I use profanity I do so with as much care as I do any other adjective I might choose to apply. Assholes have a particular bodily function and it's no accident I have applied that description to Michael. It's on point in fact.
I'm leaving my account live so, if you PM me, I'll get the message, but this marks my last post until the troll population is cut by one.
Edited for clarity.

Edited for clarity?  Hmmm ... the last time Geoff Thorne (Redjack) edited a post it was to edit out the "f*ck you's" after I called him on 'em and told him I didn't care about his language or insults, in light of his less-than-civil behavior on the Forum. The guy just loves to have the last word, over and over and over again, so now this post has emerged. This is getting to the point of being comical.

Look, Reginald Hudlin is a perceptive guy. That's his business, working with people. If he seriously believed that I were a racist, you can be sure I would have been kicked off his forum in like two seconds flat. And rightly so. He knows this is not the case, and thus ... here I am. 

What I do, however, is present a more conservative point of view on a variety of issues different than those expressed by most other Forum members. I also question assumptions, look to see if there are alternative explanations, ask questions and express different foundational premises to explain my point of view. That's all. There is nothing more to it than that. Some folk, it appears, just can't stand that. 

In contrast, Reginald Hudlin welcomes intense debate (even though he and I disagree more than most any folk on his forum) ... because he is open-minded in recognizing that people with strongly different points of view may still be coming from a decent place.

All of Geoff's post, above, is complete nonsense, both factually (in terms of his description of our interaction) and in every other way including, of course, his description of my attitudes. The bottom line is that Geoff objects when I present facts from real encyclopedias (not "Wikipedia") or other sources that flatly contradict his assertions on any given issue (even where, with regard to a matter in question that caused him to go nuts, I was merely surprised by his historical allegation and wanted to learn more, so looked into it myself after he refused to provide me with any sources, found some info on the topic and shared it). Most recently, he responded to something I posted on a thread, objected when I responded to the factual inaccuracies he posted, then denied he was responding to me (I imagine because he didn't use the word "you" in his post -- so silly).

I guess some folk just don't like being told they are contradicted by reputable sources ... or can't tolerate an alternative point of view ... or just can't stand being contradicted, period.

Hey, if I were to go into a tizzy every time I was told by someone on the Forum that I am wrong, I would be in a state of constant paroxysms, haha.   

It was abundantly clear that Geoff's motive was to "blacklist" me from the HEF, and he has expressed the same sentiment now, above. Ohhhh well. As I told him on the other thread, if Reginald Hudlin ever asked me to resign from his Forum, I would certainly do so. But I do not expect this of Reginald. 

I could say more, but hey, what's the point. The point here is to have fun.

Fun? Huh?

Manni: "Lola?"
Lola: "Hmh?"
Manni: "Wenn ich jetzt sterben wárde, was wárdest du tun?"
Lola: "Ich wárd dich nicht sterben lassen."
Manni: 'Lola?'
Lola: 'Hmh?'
Manni: 'If I was dying right now, what would you do?'
Lola: 'I wouldn't let you die.'

I don't believe in trouble
I don't believe in pain
I don't believe there's nothing left
but running here again

I don't believe in promise
I don't believe in chance
I don't believe you can resist
the things that make no sense

I don't believe in silence
'cause silence seems so slow
I don't believe in energy
if tension is too low

I don't believe in panic
I don't believe in fear
I don't believe in prophecies
so don't waste any tears

I don't believe reality
will be the way it should
but I believe in fantasy
if you just understood

I don't believe in history
I don't believe in truth
I don't believe there's destiny
but someone to accuse

I belieeeeeve!
I belieeeeeve!

Franka Potente
Lyrics to Believe
[Look up the Video from the film "Run Lola Run" ... you'll love it]

[Redjack]

You are a liar. I didn't edit anything based on anything you said (nor have I ever. As if.), but rather to tamp things down a bit. But, all right. Let's have it out.

And this will be without the profanity you seem to think is so beyond the pale. Pay attention:

I don't make factual errors. I don't dodge confrontations. I don't play the victim. I am not passive aggressive– something you, demonstrably, are. I'm actually aggressive if it comes to that.

You have never, not once, presented ANYTHING, not one argument that has EVER given me pause, much less refuted anything I've written. You've never caused me to back up, rethink, or modify a single thought.

Yours is a bankrupt intellect and I'm not the only person here who thinks you're a troll and a bigot. Your rubber stamps of the arguments of others only serve one purpose: to wear down the interest of your opponents in continuing such that they bail on conversations with you which you subsequently claim to have won. You've won nothing.

No one has asked Reg to do anything. If I had wanted you to be expelled I would have asked directly.  I don't mince words and I don't work the angles. I'm the most direct human being you will ever interact with in your sorry little life.

Your constant bleating about your supposed mental prowess is only allowed to continue because 1) people choose not to engage you on that front because they don't want to shatter your very fragile ego and 2) because you're not worth it.

You're not worth avoiding, Michael. You're barely worth talking to. You are nothing that requires any deviation from my normal path in life except to ask you to stay out of it.

Your arguments are the same claptrap that is floated by the Glenn Becks and Rush Limbaughs of the world and just as hollow. Your cited sources are never comprehensive, ALWAYS skewed to favor the view you never intended to deviate from. The right wing party line. Wow. Like anyone here needs you to parrot that.

You are never in discussion with anyone, you are here to hip us poor darkies to your enlightened wisdom and I'm the person who got sick enough of you to call you on it.

You contribute NOTHING. You reveal NOTHING. Nothing you've ever said here has even been original to you but merely the poorly paraphrased political views of superior thinkers. You're simply a conduit for the views of others. You do not think, you regurgitate.

You'd lived your virtual life here in the grey area created by the politeness of those who are interested in keeping the peace. You occupy the position of token conservative in your own mind but you don't impart anything that any of us don't already know and haven't already considered. You present no challenge. You're only here because everyone else is too sweet to tell you what's what. I'm not. I'm calling you what you've demonstrated you are, for YEARS. Bigot. Liar.

All that's left is your ability to be a decent human being which, as you continually demonstrate, is lacking.

You seem to think you're smarter than the rest of us with your pathetic, after-the-fact, disclaimers of your own anti-muslim bigotry and your "innocent" comments and questions about the flaws in the character of blacks in this country. No one here is as stupid as they need to be to be fooled by your thinly disguised racism. It's another of your flaws that you think they are.

Either you are an imbecile who's been living under a rock for the last  few decades or you are a troll who thinks he's putting it over on us.

You're not. You only exist in the politeness and patience of others and, for me, that patience and politeness ran out during the STOCKHOLM SYNDROME thread in which you fell back on the white washed "data' presented in your Encyclopedia Britannica even after it was proven to have had egregious omissions relating to the subject matter.

You refuse to look past your own preconceptions and feel you're being clever by wheedling them into your "academic" discussions with us here. You're not clever; you're pathetic.

I used to defend you, Michael. Perhaps you remember. I wanted to give you and, indeed, gave you the benefit of the doubt.  I wasted YEARS on you and your ugly thoughts. You didn't deserve it then. You don't now.

You are an ugly, grasping, cloying little mind and I wish to God you would simply fold up shop.

But I know you won't. You can't. Your addiction to your perceived merits and importance won't even let you step away from me.

You've fooled no one here but yourself, Michael. Trust me.

No one is fooled by you.

Happy? You got a rise again.

Troll.

[Reginald Hudlin]

Okay, MICHAEL...here's what you should do now.  Stop. 

Do not respond.  Let Redjack have the last word.  Because he doesn't want to talk to you.  And that seems to drive you crazy, but that is all he has asked.  To be left alone.  Do it.

[michaelintp]

Regarding civilized debate and the tolerance for divergent points of view, I believe that Reginald Hudlin deserves a great deal of credit. Particularly in light of recent controversies surrounding news organizations and the firing of news analysts, Reginald has served as a beacon, a beacon of tolerance for divergent points of view. It is ironic that on a discussion forum, in the name of one man, greater tolerance of diversity is expressed than we see in other Media outlets. (Just my opinion, haha  ). 

It is of course very easy to be "tolerant" of points of view when they happen to comport with your own. What is striking is that Reginald, despite his strongly held views on controversial issues, has for years allowed all points of view to be expressed on his Forum. Whether they be with regard to the political content of comic books or films, or on broader controversial political or social issues.

So I, for one, would like to thank Reginald.  Thank you, for the opportunity to participate for years now, on your Forum. It has given me a great deal of pleasure, and I've learned more than a thing or two in the process. To understand where other people are coming from, and also ... when challenged ... to check into significant matters in greater depth. To look into sources, to verify quotes, to find relevant research studies, to critique them, and the like. To participate in this process is really a rare opportunity, perhaps in part a reflection of the "New Media" of the Internet, but also reflective of the character of the man who sponsors this Forum in his name.

With all this in mind, a couple of suggestions regarding civilized debate come to mind. These just reflect my opinion, but they may be worth sharing (from time to time):

1. When we are discussing issues, we should really try to stick to the issues. Rather than diverting the discussion to unrelated personal matters. This does NOT mean that we should not express our views strongly, if that is how we feel (and we often do, particularly on the Vox Populi section of the Forum), but we should keep in mind that the purpose of the Forum is to share those views, to ask questions, to explore issues, and the like.

2. We are here to have fun. If any of us don't enjoy sharing our views with others on the Forum, or resent the expression of views different from our own, then the Vox Populi section of the Forum is probably not a good place to visit. That was the original reason why it was created in the first place, precisely so that conversations regarding controversial issues, issues that at time evoke strong emotion, would be isolated from the "general discussion" section of the Forum. I know, as a person who was here when the Vox Populi Section was created.

I think most of us agree with these basic concepts. However, the most important thing is that the HEF is a place where we can share our views with one another, in a pretty doggone open atmosphere.  And, I should add, in an atmosphere that is typified, for the most part, with mutual respect. For all this, Reginald Hudlin deserves the credit.

[Battle]

The idea behind HEF, is to be the bastion of hope for an audience that craves 'Tommorrow's Entertainment, Today'. It should also be a respite in world of media that continually devalues and squanders Black talent. There are more than enough places outside of HEF where you can 'express your views'. HEF isn't the place to promote a racist organization such as the t party, a racist upstart long rumored to be founded by the ccc.

[michaelintp]

The idea behind HEF, is to be the bastion of hope for an audience that craves 'Tommorrow's Entertainment, Today'. It should also be a respite in world of media that continually devalues and squanders Black talent. There are more than enough places outside of HEF where you can 'express your views'. HEF isn't the place to promote a racist organization such as the t party, a racist upstart long rumored to be founded by the ccc.

What does the California Conservation Corps (CCC) have to do with civilized debate, and what in the world would it have to do with the Tea Party Movement?  That is the only CCC that I know.

Also, Battle, it appears you are saying that civilized debate means allowing people to express a point of view so long as it agrees with your own. There is nothing civilized about that. That would best be referred to as totalitarian pseudo-debate. A charade developed to high levels in Communist regimes.

[Curtis Metcalf]

Civilized Debate refers to how the interaction is conducted, not the content of the debate.

Debate the ideas, avoid attacking the person expressing the idea.

In a nutshell, have some honor.

[michaelintp]

Civilized Debate refers to how the interaction is conducted, not the content of the debate.

Debate the ideas, avoid attacking the person expressing the idea.

In a nutshell, have some honor.

Curtis, you've summed it up far better than I could, no doubt in far fewer words.