|
Unfortunately, what we are seeing at DU is not unique but comes up often in political discussions.
The extremes dominate the conversation. Those who come for rational discussion are locked out. In the end, the debate is defined not by the rational conversation, but instead the diametrically opposed viewpoints of the extremes. Which in the end is nothing but a shouting match and endless namecalling, strawman fallacies and attempting to put the other side in the very worst light possible.
This is why I hate, hate, hate the abortion debate, the so-called "pro-choice" side and the so-called "pro-life" side. None of the people who are identified as the spokespeople for the respective side are interested in doing anything other than making the other side look as horrible as possible. The terms "choice" and "life" are strictly empty rhetorical terms used to make their own side look as positive as possible and the opposing side as negative as possible (i.e. "anti-choice" and "anti-life/pro-abortion.") In the end, though, not all "choices" are the choice about abortion, and not all "lives" are the life of the fetus, so it's all meaningless fluff. And anyone who actually wants to have a rational debate or discussion on the topic without the inane bumper sticker slogans is ignored, because they don't fit into the debate.
I also see this in context of religion, two things that have been built up to be naturally opposed when it really doesn't need to be that way. The debate has been set: you are either a) a Bible thumper who believes that the world was created in 7 days and 5,000 years ago, and who believes that anyone who doesn't subscribe to any religious belief is a soulless heathen without any redemptive qualities, or you are b) a non-believing atheist whose main goal is not simply to declare that they have no personal religious belief, but rather makes it a point to ridicule and demean anyone who does have a religious belief as being stupid, nonsencical, and guided by empty superstition. No where in the debate is there room for people who may subscribe to a religious belief but also believe in evolution, or who realize that people cannot be forced against their will to subscribe to any religious belief, even their own. Nowhere in the debate are atheists and agnostics who don't subscribe to a religious belief but have no desire to tear down or belittle people who do have religious beliefs. It's all Pat Robertson vs. Richard Dawkins, black and white, no in-betweens allowed.
Pretty soon, a false dichotomy ceases to be a false dichotomy in the eyes of the greater public, and the issues of debate suffer as a result. Unfortunately, DU is not immune to this type of thinking, as we have learned.
But if it makes you feel any better, I agree with you 1000%, O' Turtled One. Even though I may shut my mouth and strike the demons, cursed you and your reasons. :)
|