Reply #154: One Might Think So, Ma'am, But Usually That Is Not the Case

[The Magistrate]

The fact is that people usually talk past one another, and the most common motive for posts is to see to it the view one holds is adequately represented, so that a person reading a thread in its entirity, or the forum as a whole, will not conclude an opposing view predominates. There are several major divisions among members of this forum, and topics that strike close to established fault lines will become mere pretexts for pressing these long-standing arguments.

The degree of bitterness is aggravated by two major factors.

First, the basic constitution of the forum is not neutral in regard to some of these divisions. This is particularly so when discussing Democrats and the Democratic Party. The rules of the place do not allow opposition to a Democratic candidate in a general election, require criticism of Democrats to meet a standard of 'constructive criticism', and do not allow extreme attacks and smears directed against Democrats. This cuts rather hard against persons of more radical views, and particularly hard against those given to argument by hyperbole, which is a besetting vice of radicals.

Second, the large number of people who come and argue here ensures that most will have only a superficial perception of their opponents, and little or no conception of them as persons in the round. You may forgive an old lag for invoking 'the good old days', but years ago this was not so pronounce a feature of the place as it is now. When the roster was smaller, people often did come to a better understanding of those they did not agree with on some matters, to a point that it was easy to respect the motives behind the disagreement, and find areas of common ground, because the smaller number ensured that people would encounter one another more frequently and in more varied situations. That does not occur so readily or often nowadays.