Soul mates to Freepers

[msanger]

There is a level of discourse that appears on some threads here, that is very reminiscent of the level of discourse I experience with Freepers. A sort of "i hate you and everything you stand for and everything you say must be wrong" approach to the world.

From a spiral dynamics or cultural evolution viewpoint, the level of moral/intellectual/spiritual developement of a person and a society can be seperated in part from the content of that person or society.

Meaning you could have a conservative with the mentality of a caveman or a "liberal" with the mentality of a caveman.

ANd you could also have both conservatives and progressives with a tribal, or feudal, or nationalistic, or world based mentality.

It seems to me that we would be doing ourselves and our country a great service if we worked to heighten the level of discourse, if we tried to move from a "my group is right and your group is wrong" stance to a stance that said "I disagree with you, and I understand you disagree with me. Now let's see where we have common ground."

I write this after having got sucked into the 'feudal' aspects of a discussion a little while ago, and realizing that discussion made we want to drop out of this board. Which is just what the 'feudalist' want - be they so-called progressives or freepers.

that's my story and I"m sticking to it.

[Kanary]

1. Progressing a step in communications

That's certainly something that I would welcome, but... I guess I just don't see much desire for that here.

Sometime ago there was a thread about the proposed Dept of Peace, and one of the aspects of that is just what you describe..... valuing more diplomatic communication, and how to go about learning it. There are books about it, there are books about negotiating, and they are useful, but both sides have to want to use it. It's clear to me that the righ wing surely doesn't want to use it... they are into their power. What is most discouraging to me is to see the lack of interest from the "progressive" side.

There's another thread now about feeling defensive when coming here... maybe, just maybe there are some folks now willing to look at the issue.

Or.... it's back to the armor and battling it out feudalistically....... I like that term... it fits.

Kanary

[wanderingbear]

3. Ahhhhh!!!!.. Freepers!!!!!

Where?? Where???... Get em off me!!!

[Kanary]

4. Excuse me????

If you're implying that I'm a "freeper" and am "on you", then you need to look elsewhere.

Nothing I said comes anywhere close to that.

Geeeez............

No wonder people feel defensive coming here

Kanary

[wanderingbear]

6. LOL...

You crack me up.. :~

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wanderingbear]

10. Bummer Dude..

Now I gota put up with him yammering all the time..

[sid dicious]

12. Are you just being facetious or do you have no humor?

I'm trying to figure out what's wrong with this guy bringing a little humor to the thread and I'm not seeing it.

Why should he be on the other side?

[wanderingbear]

14. What other side?

You meen the side that the Freepers are not on? That would be the side that Im on.. Freepers give me the willies.. The way they crwal around. And those furry faces with beedy eyes.. And that smell beween and oldwood mill and someone who hasnt bathed.

[pasadenaboy]

2. Your arguement makes no sense

freepers don't have souls, so they can't have soulmates.

:)

[enki23]

5. yeah right.

"freepers" have no monopoly on hate. neither do cavemen.

and what in holy hell does anger have to do with feudalism? words have definitions. i could start resecting the futurity of the pickle. orange. boddynock, running toward the frigate blender. but that wouldn't mean much either.

in any case... we get pissed off, we talk pissed off, and by god we ARE pissed off. always at bush and his ilk, sometimes at each other, and usually for similar, if not identical reasons. so enough moralizing. it pisses off the serfs.

[liberalhistorian]

9. While I agree that moralizing is

very annoying, I don't think he/she was moralizing, but attempting to talk about a real trend on here that I've also noticed and that we all really need to start dealing with.

[enki23]

11. what trend?

the word "trend" implies that something is changing in a predictable fashion. i've been here since very nearly the beginning of the website. there has been no real change. there was no golden era. *there is no trend.*

[GreenPartyVoter]

8. I said something similar on my website

about conservatives and liberals. :) Glad to know there are others who feel the same way. of course, I have to as I married into a conservative religious right family. I hate their politics and religion, but I love THEM to bits and pieces. You know how that works. :)

[SOteric]

13. I share a viewpoint:

Ratings and book sales seem to belong to the one who is most combative, negative and downright nasty. This truism of modern society is so often no less reflected in these boards.

Before the Civility rules were put in place in the GD fora it was even easier to see. Those posts with vitriolic, baiting titles may well have incited like responses, - but they were also the most patronised threads in the entirety of DU.

I wouldn't argue for any curtailment in our freedom of speech or press. I would simply like to see those important civil rights used wisely and judiciously.

Too often, we who are liberal will criticise Bush's use of phrases like "axis of evil," - as we should, but then end up using similar language in our criticism.

If every rise in popularity polls is a "disaster," every quirk of a candidate is "evil" or "stupid," we dilute the power of those words. We dilute the power of phrases we need to communicate effectively in society, and we leave ourselves open to manipulation. If everything is painted in extremes, how easy it becomes to dismiss genuine catclysm as within the normal. We become jaded by our own vitriol. We become fools.

As a society, as a message board full of liberals and progressives, as individuals, we would be wise to accept that reasonable people may sincerely disagree with us on a variety of issues. They may be wrong, you maybe be wrong. Candidates, beliefs, policies should be judged on their merits or lack thereof.

"Evil" I reserve for those individuals and movements that deny the essential humanity of certain groups. Period.

[Kanary]

15. All your points (I counted 3) are valid

Civility in the US has definitely taken a big hit. Books, tv, movies.... more and more are geared towards letting people know it's OK to chop the other guy off at the knees. Of course, we don't seem to think ahead too much to realize that maybe that same guy is the one we'll need to help us put out the fire that's burning our house down.

It's very sad: I know a lot of elderly people, and they're all saying much the same thing... that they're glad their time on earth is limited, because they can't bear to see more of the ugliness. What a commentary on our society. Yet, when we appeal for common courtesy, we are rewarded with the back of the hand. I wonder where it will end.

Certainly hyperbole has gone overboard. Crying wolf...?

"We become jaded by our own vitriol. We become fools."

Very well put. I don't see that many are questioning what we are losing by becoming harder and tougher and more jaded. "Fools" may be the least of it.

Thanks for your thoughts.

Kanary

[Diogenes2]

16. Civility has taken a hit

Of course civility has taken a hit in this country... that's what this administration & its lapdog press are all about. It's contagious, it's not accidental, it's called divide & conquer, & it's being perpetrated upon us with cold calculation.

[Kanary]

17. I will agree with all you say

...but will add that the "hits" started coming before this misadministration.

Actually, sometimes I think it began with the Raygun years.... all that stuff about "getting the edge"... outdoing everyone else to climb above them. Yeah, it was still divide and conquer then, too.

It doesn't mean, however, that we have to cooperate with their agenda.

Kanary