Clinton, Bush and RW posters on message boards...

[baby_mouse]

They see the thing as a clash between personalities, between "gods".

To them it's not really any different from WWF. They don't really get that a discussion of Bush's policy is a discussion about how we all live together.

If RW posters on other boards obviously don't believe that having such discussions is worth anything then:

a)

i)They're either extremely safe in their own lives and don't really *completely* connect with the idea that the planet has other human beings on it with their OWN problems and ideas (evident in the genuine surprise and horror they show simply when confronted with someone whose head contains ideas different from their own), OR

ii)They're just uglyhead children who are unhappy with themselves and trying to divert attention away from their own faults ("Clinton, Clinton, Clinton," who CARES about Clinton? He hasn't been in power for YEARS. He's irrelevant.)

AND

b) it's probably worth waiting until they're a bit older / better educated before attempting a real conversation.

Remember that a lot of these people genuinely are are REAL frustrated teenagers who aren't mature enough to establish their *own* views as distinct from a tribal mind-set. The ones that aren't teenagers generally haven't engaged in any active political thought until after 9/11, probably STILL don't get the idea that the only truly constructive political thought requires a certain level of intellectual self-discipline, have high-school politics and need to do a lot of reading on BOTH sides before they can catch up.

How one approaches such people is a matter of personal choice, if you enjoy laughing at them and have a quick wit it can be a gas playing the "you're side is a bunch of losers!!!" game, but be supplied with a large number of exclamation marks and insults. Also, you generally have to have some genuine dislike for such people, I do and have no qualms whatsoever in insulting them. I see no reason why I should be polite to people who aren't going to the effort of being polite to me.

Having said all that, it has a certain "junk food" appeal, but it isn't really a *tremendously* satisfying way to use your brain.

If you want to establish some sort of meaningful discussion with them, you can play the first game up to a point and then trick them into it, but it takes a little thought and preparation...

If they demonstrate a real ability to respond to ideas, I do my best to be as courteous as possible and even give them a little leeway when they're being unconsciously offensive.

Many times I have seen sensible, intelligent people driven away from a debate because their innocence (not ignorance) of the asymmetrical nature of knowledge of the experience of minorities makes them come out with things that someone on the other side can't let pass without reacting emotionally... I won't say that the reactive rejector of bogus ideation is necessarily WRONG, as if you let these things pass they cement themselves in place, but I think there's a way of going about it that works better than just calling the opposition names.

Not that calling the opposition names doesn't ALSO have certain tactical advantages... :-)

[Old and In the Way]

1. Politics as a sport metaphor.

To them, it's all about ID'ing with the "winning team". It don't matter that the refs/umpires are bought and paid for by their team. It don't matter that their team is blatantly cheating to "win". As long as they beat the other team senseless, that's all that matters.

But when the game's over and they return home, they're going to be surprised to find that their neighborhoods have been systematically targeted for B&E by the home team's front office while they were all watching the game.

[baby_mouse]

2. They just don't get it.

A game where the winning side gets to change the rules ISN'T a game. And there's no incentive for either side ever to play fair. They're sentencing themselves to a world where their mental and, in some instances, fiscal resources are constantly under attack and having to be diverted and rediverted to goals outside their principles, indeed, often to goals that CONTRADICT their principles.

If they change their model of the discourse THEIR SITUATION IMPROVES AS WELL!

They just don't get it...