Always Right
The same reason why abortion and capital punishment debates can never be finished...
Because it's almost impossible to see your own side as wrong and the other side as rational. Even if you try really hard to.
...this only applies to people emotionally invested on the issues.
edited 27th May '11 9:06:11 PM by Signed
"Every opinion that isn't mine is subjected to Your Mileage May Vary."
Wandering Student ಠ_ಠ
I agree that both sides have their miscreants, mal-contents, wingnuts, crazies, etc, and to deny it would be foolish and idiotic. But as of late I also see how one side has it more the rule rather than the exception and the other the exception rather than the rule.
Also, there is a fallacy called the Balance Fallacy, which has both sides of an argument as always being equal, to which I will provide a pertinent quote:
In political journalism (which I will now plagiarize from Rational Wiki, cuz all the cool people do it), there's a version called Broderism, named after the former Washington Post Senior Editor David Broder. It is often said that there is no single scandal, no matter how overwhelmingly partisan, that he cannot find some instance of the other party doing something maybe, kind of, almost close to being in the ballpark of the same thing, so that every thing wrong in Washington is the fault of both parties.
Lastly, I'm saddened that we don't have a trope page for Balance Fallacy.
edited 27th May '11 9:11:48 PM by Enkufka
Very big Daydream Believer. "That's not knowledge, that's a crapshoot!" -Al Murray "Welcome to QI" -Stephen Fry
Cognitive dissonance in action.
I am a smart person who associates with good people, there are people who do not like us and oppose us, could they be right? No because I am a smart person who associates with good people, therefore anyone who opposes us are bad, misguided or ignorant.
Is using "Julian Assange is a Hillary butt plug" an acceptable signature quote?
I would take out the word political, and replace it with something to reflect the divisive nature better, it's not so much politics that is the issue, but the nature of the issue itself.
Over 10,000 dead.:<
There are definitely some people on the Left Libertarian side I find absolutely abhorrent in terms of viewpoint. Such as Brainpolice's arguments with Stoodles on Youtube. Brainpolice honestly made some poor, assuming arguments based upon faulty logic such as strawmen. There are also Right Libertarians whom I can sympathize with. Monarchy and royalty can certainly be a romantic thing and has had a romantic and glorious history. The only problem is that it's just for the elite, and all that splendor is not shared with the majority, and since splendor is good, more people should share in it. There are significant limits to living the class and glory of royalty vicariously, by having pride in your king or queen. You can re-arrange the equation and keep most of the nice things about monarchy intact without having a monarchy. Which I think would be certainly much better and less dystopian. But I can see how some extreme Conservatives long for a return to the days of monarchy. Who hasn't enjoyed a proper tale about monarchy more than that of dumb modern roommates? I can also see where some people get the idea that most people are irreversibly unequal, and trying to prevent Capitalistic inequality, will just hold the best down. Or the right wing view that there are severe limitations to democracy, and that people are too stupid and immoral to govern themselves.
Though that's mostly just me as a perspective. The broader ideas of politics about inequality and hierarchy in the abstract. I can't exactly see merit in the words of someone who says that all gays need to die, and I'm pretty ignorant of some of the ways that a person is led to that conclusion, making it a bit alien. It seems as though we disagree on a very fundamental level about gender and the like. And rather our very fundamental desires are opposed. They dislike gender-bending and therefor wish to see less of it, while I like gender-bending and wish to see more of it. The differences probably come down to that fundamental level. It just so happens they have a violent aggression to my tastes and desires.
Genkidama for Japan, even if you don't have money, you can help![1]
Fuzzy Orange Doomsayer
Take it from me—it helps to hate both parties.
That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful
If you think your views are wrong, you change them. If you think your views are right, you defend them. What you consider wrong might be right for the other people so don't expect that you're going to have the same values
"Take your (...) hippy dream world, I'll take reality and earning my happiness with my own efforts" - Barkey
Den harde nordmann
I guess it is everything that has been said so far.
And that people are willing to ignore what their opponents said, and pull straws in it is making the situation worse.
But lets not take a political debate as a "standard", because a political debate is nothing more than a few sides unable to even have a argument.
It's because the other side are boorish thugs, obviously, so this justifies similar behaviour by Our Side, obviously.
edited 28th May '11 6:30:42 AM by TheGloomer
Happy New Year!
I think Obama said it best.
One Winged Egret
This, so much. Frankly, I think you'd probably go insane if you actually thought your own beliefs were wrong while continuing to hold them. Seems like a contradiction. I suppose the larger problem here would be identifying too strongly with a group, such that you can't mentally distance yourself from the mistakes of others on "your side".
edited 28th May '11 6:09:48 AM by Clarste
I think that one reason is that they cannot afford to "lose face" before their opponents or their supporters.
Karkadinn
I try to admit when I've been caught in a gotcha or otherwise been hit by a response I'm unprepared to match. And this naturally happens quite a bit, because politics revolves around extremely complex issues. It's a constant learning process.
For example, while I may not agree with Major Tom on... pretty much anything with regards to ideal policies, I have learned quite a bit from arguing with him. It's important to have critics who aren't afraid to point out genuine failures in a system, so that system can be improved and those failures can be stamped out.
The biggest difference usually comes in at deciding the solution - one side wants to improve a system that's already in place, while another wants to tear it down and replace it with something else. And that's where there can really be no real coming to mutually acceptable compromises, I think, because both sides are working from fundamentally different assumptions about the role of government in human society. Really, when you still have people, at this point of historically low taxation, seriously hating on taxes, it's a sign of how miraculous it is that government even works at all from one day to the next. Because there are a fair amount of people who just don't want the government to exist in a noticeable way in the first place.
I think a lot of times, the discussion jumps right along to the solution part, and then there's really nothing else to do but yell at each other because you're operating from such completely different povs.
edited 28th May '11 7:58:26 AM by Karkadinn
Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.
Hmmm... Do you guys think that the political discussions would be much better if both sides admitted the faults or would that make them less interesting/meaningful/teaching?
It'd be more productive, at least. The problem is its in human nature to act like an obsessed european football fan when it c0omes to ideas you value and groups you identify as part of.
Lv. 3 Genasi Wizard
Eh, probably because it takes a level of maturity to admit you might be even slightly wrong and more maturity to realize that this doesn't necessarily make your entire side wrong.
As they say, aging is inevitable, maturing is optional!
Anyway, if it gets into groups arguing, then it gets into a shouting match by some, resulting in aforementioned bigotry that I talked about in a different topic. You get so caught up in trying to be right that you miss everything else ever.
The thing about making witty signature lines is that it first needs to actually be witty.
Moar and Moar and Moar
Well, it would be nice if both sides would be willing to acknowledge and try to fix the flaws in what they're proposing. One of the problems is that if BOTH sides don't do it, then it's basically unilateral disarmament. (I'd argue that in the US that's long been the actual situation).
You make arguments towards those in the middle, not towards those on the other side. And in order to do that best (but not nice), you make your argument both understandable and forceful. Now, if you want to come to some sort of Grand Compromise, then yes, then being upfront with your side's flaws is best. (Although to be honest, if there were flaws that were fixable you already fixed them before proposal is even voiced..but that's just my opinion) It's just that the general idea of a Grand Compromise is rarely possible.
Democracy is the process in which we determine the government that we deserve
Fixing flaws is impossible, because then the other side criticizes you for not being perfect.
Over 10,000 dead.:<
Though I have to admit, in this current political climate, it is hard for people to admit they are wrong. Honestly, in terms of clashing opinion, humans need to be a bit more understanding and logical of no humans having the answers, and being on a path of constant learning, where you win and gain and get better. Instead of this dog-eat-dog, illogically competitive thing where "good humans don't slip up or show weakness, or they lose".
It is like the problem with the current education system. You can't "win" and level-up, you can only fail.
Genkidama for Japan, even if you don't have money, you can help![1]
Most people believe that politics is fundamentally two sided. Perhaps it is; I've never really given the possibility much serious consideration. Therefore, if they admit that their are flaws in their position, it can only be concluded that the other side is right.
Obviously, politics in fact is much more complex, but that's too much trouble for most of us to worry about. Much easier to reduce it to a black-and-white, right-and-wrong perspective.
Hmm, I see...
OG Troper
The problem is, as I've seen in many debates, that if you admit somone on your side to being wrong the discussion is then derailed to be about that person, and you'll be scrambling to defend them nonetheless, and once you're in defence, you lok like you're losing.
the statement above is false
@Jethro: I've actually attacked arguments made by people on my side before and I've never seen that.
EDIT: Though now I think of it, maybe it's because I attack bad arguments instead of just conceding they're wrong.
edited 31st May '11 9:29:41 AM by BlackHumor
I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1
...people accept that their favored side has bad sides too? Seriously, in almost all ones I've seen, when opposition points out something, people respond with "You are wrong!" "Its not THAT bad thing" "Thats your side's fault" or something. Like, if one person on one side says something racistic(sp?), its just a "joke" or "People are too touchy these days".
...Does this thread tittle and my explanation make any sense? I had kind of trouble with it ^^;