Why talk politics here?

Jackie laughlin

Is my arguing here a substitute for or an alternative to good pub talk? I certainly enjoy it but I also feel some moral imperative to take part.

Some of the participants are worthy political opponents, some seem insane, some are showing off their knowledge, some argue technically and keep their views hidden, some are witty, some are offensive, some are dour, etc. etc. Oh, and many think that I fall into several or all of the categories above.

Is on-line poltical debate significant? Will it contribute to the formation of public opinion? Are we just powerless people amusing ourselves?

DadaKopf

I think online debate *is* significant for those who use it. But it's overlooked. Any space where people debate discuss political issues is relevant. Letters to the Editor, and good pub-talk likewise, but, then, you can't link to websites in your local.

Still, pub talk is (partly) a substitute for political engagement.

Liber8or

One issue i find a huge problem with heated debates on Forums, such as Politics, is people can take things out of context. People's understanding of a person's opinion/point can be misinterpreted. This can lead to nothing but flames...

Debating is good, but its when it maybe a passionate subject and if something is not explained properly or people mis-read it, the **** can hit the fan. This will ultimately ruin a Topic.

Naturally you will have your standard arseholes looking to pick people out on a small detail to provoke such an event, but the majority of people want to have a serious debate and not make things personal.

In synopsis, Debating on Forums CAN be good if people give fully developed arguments that are clear and concise. Also, that there is a Mod overlooking the debate to monitor the "****e" that might get posted!

bonkey

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Is on-line poltical debate significant? Will it contribute to the formation of public opinion? Are we just powerless people amusing ourselves?

Taking the second question first - of course it will contribute to the formation of public opinion, although the extent to which it does that is questionable, possibly to the point of being indeterminate.

This then ties back to the question as to whether or not its significant. If you can't determine to what extent it will contribute to the formation of public opinion, its difficult to say that its significant. The readership of any single thread, forum, or board system...or even of them all combined...still pales compared to the penetration that established media enjoy.

Finally the last question. Arguably, thats all we ever are, whether or not we engage in discussion on the internet or anywhere else. Readniog the papers and watching the news and forming your opinions that way makes you no more powerful than engaging in a discussion.

I can't speak for anyone else, but as a general rule I discuss politics online for my own education. Hearing other perspectives, trying to force people to address the weaknesses of their case and making me reconsider the weakness of mine....thats why I do it.

Other people have their own reasons. Some will even have agendas.

I'm not out to change the world, merely to try and understand it better.

Sleepy

TBH, I it's an enjoyable pasttime but in the end a rather futile one.

I'm becoming more and more convinced that the only way an ordinary person can have any impact on politics in this world is to strap some C4 to his chest and detonate it in an area where it'll take out some politicians...

Mighty_Mouse

The difference between online and real-life is geting slowing more insignificant.

For me its the same as asking why discuss politics with your mates down the pub?Which is the same asking as why discuss poltics?

..........moral imperative to take part.

Some of the participants are worthy political opponents..........

PS
Mind that pedestal. It can get a little shaky at times!;)

The Corinthian

bonkey wrote:

I can't speak for anyone else, but as a general rule I discuss politics online for my own education. Hearing other perspectives, trying to force people to address the weaknesses of their case and making me reconsider the weakness of mine....thats why I do it.

Ibid.

And it amuses me.

Jackie laughlin

MightyMouse,
Be fair you're quoting me out of context. Any pedestal I could find would be kicked to bits before I could get a leg up!

DadaKopf

bonkey wrote:

I can't speak for anyone else, but as a general rule I discuss politics online for my own education. Hearing other perspectives, trying to force people to address the weaknesses of their case and making me reconsider the weakness of mine....thats why I do it.

Seconded. Also because if I feel I can redress some misperceptions, I try to do it. I also use it as a way to improve how I engage other people in issues. I usually turn people off, so I have to improve. But it's an interesting passtime trying to engage people by bringing up points or saying them in different ways while at the same time not provoking people or trolling.

Sand

Generally the only purpose is to put your own views/reactions out there and test to see if they stand up to criticism. Youre never going to persuade people to accept your views, but its good to check to see if people can make you go "hmmmm, thats a fair point". Its good to know that your views can survive contact with others.

You can poke holes in other peoples views but Provo theology is practically swiss cheese at this point and theyre still coming round with the same old stuff, so dont expect peoples views to change.

As for pub talk, I try to avoid politics with friends - I find biting my tongue for the sake of a friendship whilst someone says something completely stupid quite painful. And anyway, its harder to develop or lay out a view armed only with a coaster and 6 pints than it is with the full might of the internet behind you.

I dont think forums have much effect on public opinions - certain views/demographics are heavily overrepresented so its not even a good fit for starters. And again, people tend to enter the forum armed with their views, which tend to be a reflection of their family/friends/lifestyle rather than an internet forum.

bonkey

Sand wrote:

lay out a view armed only with a coaster and 6 pints

Ah yes...the good old 6 pint peace plan

You don't even need the coaster, except maybe to limit the collateral spillage;)

Mighty_Mouse

You can poke holes in other peoples views but Provo theology is practically swiss cheese at this point and theyre still coming round with the same old stuff, so dont expect peoples views to change

The irony!!
Pots and kettles, Sand...........

Jackie laughlin

I started the thread because I was lately reading so much optimistic stuff about the developing "blogosphere" as a realisation of Habermas's "public sphere". However, the posts here seem to knock a bit of realism (pessimism?) into the issue on two scores. Firstly, the main motivation seems to be personal satisfaction/improvement/entertainment. Secondly, the number taking part is tiny and this is true of every poltical discussion site I've looked at including the high profile US ones.

The Corinthian

Jackie laughlin wrote:

I started the thread because I was lately reading so much optimistic stuff about the developing "blogosphere" as a realisation of Habermas's "public sphere".

You’re not going to get collaborative discourse here because people do not agree on the fundamentals of many of the topics at hand. For example, you can’t begin a discussion with the premise that, say, neo-liberalism is the best system or human rights do not begin at conception, because many people simply will not agree with these premises and so the sought for deliberation can never begin until the discussions axioms are debated and agreed upon.

In short, you can only have such “public sphere” if you have an agreed starting point, which in an open forum such as this will be difficult to achieve - especially if you are already beginning from a partisan position.

From what I can gather the main reasons people come here are to:

i) Enlighten the unelightended
ii) Use big words
iii) Allieviate boredom
iv) Bask in the joy anonymous **** talking

DadaKopf

Jackie laughlin wrote:

I started the thread because I was lately reading so much optimistic stuff about the developing "blogosphere" as a realisation of Habermas's "public sphere". However, the posts here seem to knock a bit of realism (pessimism?) into the issue on two scores. Firstly, the main motivation seems to be personal satisfaction/improvement/entertainment. Secondly, the number taking part is tiny and this is true of every poltical discussion site I've looked at including the high profile US ones.

Ah, I'm mad into Habermas's theory of the public sphere, and understanding the role of the internet in this is vital today. I was talking about it in the pub this evening and how it's important to get Irish Aid funding for something myself and some people are thinking about.

Discussion forums are still marginal, but watch out for signs otherwise. The music industry is piggybacking on viral marketing as a way to publicise bands (not a good development if you ask me, they're manipulating people), and I think the lack of interest in party politics signifies the beginning of a process of organisational change where governments will be more network-based, than hierarchically organised (in accordance with Fordist industrialist forms of organisation and power distribution).

Pazaz 21

bonkey wrote:

I can't speak for anyone else, but as a general rule I discuss politics online for my own education. Hearing other perspectives, trying to force people to address the weaknesses of their case and making me reconsider the weakness of mine....thats why I do it.

Couldn't have said it better myself. I enjoy hearing peoples opinions and learning more about why i have a certain opinion and if it's as valid as i may think it is? Its good to discuss these things because i have found that a lot of stuff that i may have taken for granted being true isn't very true at all, its just a common misconception that i, along with a lot of people, have been taught.

Education would be my number one reason.

the_syco

Sleepy wrote:

I'm becoming more and more convinced that the only way an ordinary person can have any impact on politics in this world is to strap some C4 to his chest and detonate it in an area where it'll take out some politicians...

Idiot. A missile would send the message easier, and with no injury to yourself.

=-=

I learn, and see how other people think, and why they think that way. Also, I tend to listen to people who explain their sh|t (such as Bonkey, among others), rather than some of the f*ckers who say something, followed by **FACT** (pick any one of the christain nutters), and don't explain it.

=-=

Debate has, evolved, for lack of a better word, my opinions, on the towel-heads, n|ggers, faggots, trailer trash, etc, that some Arabs are nice, the coloured folk are not all nigerian scammers, the gay's are like you and me, and well, the trailer trash should be lined up and shot:p

Jackie laughlin

The Pew Internet Project today releases a new report on Bloggers,
available from: http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/186/report_display.asp.
The press release is pasted in below.

_____________________________

Blogging is bringing new voices to the online world

Most bloggers focus on personal experiences, not politics

Washington, DC (July 19, 2006) - The ease and appeal of blogging is
inspiring a new group of writers and creators to share their voices with
the world.

A new, national phone survey of bloggers finds that most are focused on
describing their personal experiences to a relatively small audience of
readers and that only a small proportion focus their coverage on
politics, media, government, or technology.

Related surveys by the Pew Internet & American Life Project found that
the blog population has grown to about 12 million American adults, or
about 8% of adult internet users and that the number of blog readers has
jumped to 57 million American adults, or 39% of the online population.

These are some of the key findings in a new report issued by the Pew
Internet Project titled "Bloggers":

* 54% of bloggers say that they have never published their writing or
media creations anywhere else; 44% say they have published elsewhere.
* 54% of bloggers are under the age of 30.
* Women and men have statistical parity in the blogosphere, with women
representing 46% of bloggers and men 54%.
* 76% of bloggers say a reason they blog is to document their personal
experiences and share them with others.
* 64% of bloggers say a reason they blog is to share practical knowledge
or skills with others.
* When asked to choose one main subject, 37% of bloggers say that the
primary topic of their blog is "my life and experiences."
* Other topics ran distantly behind: 11% of bloggers focus on politics
and government; 7% focus on entertainment; 6% focus on sports; 5% focus
on general news and current events; 5% focus on business; 4% on
technology; 2% on religion, spirituality or faith; and additional
smaller groups who focus on a specific hobby, a health problem or
illness, or other topics.

The report, written by Senior Research Specialist Amanda Lenhart and
Associate Director Susannah Fox, says that bloggers are avid consumers
and creators of online content. They are also heavy users of the
internet in general. Forty-four percent of bloggers have taken material
they find online - like songs, text, or images - and remixed it into
their own artistic creation. By comparison, just 18% of all internet
users have done this. A whopping 77% of bloggers have shared something
online that they created themselves, like their own artwork, photos,
stories, or videos. By comparison, 26% of internet users have done this.

"Blogs are as individual as the people who keep them, but this survey
shows that most bloggers are primarily interested in creative, personal
expression," said Lenhart. "Blogs make it easy to document individual
experiences, share practical knowledge, or just keep in touch with
friends and family."

The Pew Internet & American Life Project deployed two strategies to
interview bloggers. First, bloggers were identified in random-digit dial
surveys about internet use. These respondents were called back for an
in-depth survey between July 2005 and February 2006, for a final yield
of 233 bloggers. Second, additional random-digit surveys were fielded
between November 2005 and April 2006 to capture an up-to-date estimate
of the percentage of internet users who are currently blogging. These
large-scale telephone surveys yielded a sample of 7,012 adults, which
included 4,753 internet users, 8% of whom are bloggers.

"Much of the public and press attention to bloggers has focused on the
small number of high-traffic, A-list bloggers," said Fox. "By asking a
wide range of bloggers what they do and why they do it, we have found a
different kind of story about the power of the internet to encourage
creativity and community among all kinds of internet users."

Some additional data points from the Bloggers report:

* 87% of bloggers allow comments on their blog.
* 72% of bloggers post photos to their blog.
* 55% of bloggers blog under a pseudonym.
* 41% of bloggers say they have a blogroll or friends list on their
blog.
* 8% of bloggers earn money on their blog.


The Pew Internet & American Life Project has created an online version
of the Blogger Callback telephone survey and invites participation from
the general public. The resulting answers will not be a representative
sample, but the online survey will give observers a chance to see the
questions in context and to comment on some specific aspects of
blogging. The survey is online at the following address:
http://www.psra.com/PewBloggerSurvey.html

Sand

Ah yes...the good old 6 pint peace plan

Only the warm up act for the "12 pint plan to sort the world out" plan

You don't even need the coaster, except maybe to limit the collateral spillage

Coasters are good for those "trickledown" thatcherite economics lessons.

The irony!!
Pots and kettles, Sand...........

Oh yes, I forgot all reasoned debate is trumped by "Well SF released a statement to the press that said....."

The music industry is piggybacking on viral marketing as a way to publicise bands (not a good development if you ask me, they're manipulating people), and I think the lack of interest in party politics signifies the beginning of a process of organisational change where governments will be more network-based, than hierarchically organised (in accordance with Fordist industrialist forms of organisation and power distribution).

Id argue that the difference is demographic - politics affects and interests a wide variety of population groups, and probably the older people are more interested in and better represented in politics than younger people. Theres no census of Politics users but Id imagine the main users are either college/twenties, a solid representation of the 30-40s and very few people over 50. When it comes to actual political action - voting as opposed to rent a marching - the older groups would be far more likely to actually vote.

The music industry would be...very much the opposite - theyre selling youth, possibly laced with rebellion/anarchist tendencies, to a youthful demographic. The revolution will be commercialised as they say.

And tbh, Im deeply suspicious of "network based" organisations - they tend to devolve to charismatic dictatorships far faster than institutionally heirarchys do.

Sgt. Sensible

Sand wrote:

When it comes to actual political action - voting as opposed to rent a marching - the older groups would be far more likely to actually vote.

Is this a joke? Where's your evidence that people who go on marches (or engage in work for their communities or a chosen cause) are less political than people who merely cast a vote every 4 or 5 years in between watching telly and/or playing computer games.

Victor

Part of me sees this as a place to promote democratic discourse and participation.

I'm an innocent, aren't I?

Sgt. Sensible

Victor wrote:

Part of me sees this as a place to promote democratic discourse and participation.

I'm an innocent, aren't I?

Others might regard it as their duty to inhibit democratic discussion, discourse, and participation.

DublinWriter

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Is on-line poltical debate significant? Will it contribute to the formation of public opinion? Are we just powerless people amusing ourselves?

I recently heard one of the best insights on Internet communications with an American Internet 'guru' on BBC Radio 4 whose name escapes me.

He stated that we only use this type of forum to re-enforce our views. We never have our views turned around 180 degrees by this sort of on-line forum thingy.

As 80% of communication is non-verbal (via body language and inflection), I really think his thesis is sound.

Plus the degree of anonymity afforded by these types of forums gives us licence to come off like a total loon without repercussion.

oscarBravo

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

Others might regard it as their duty to inhibit democratic discussion, discourse, and participation.

Heh. That's not maybe.

DublinWriter wrote:

We never have our views turned around 180 degrees by this sort of on-line forum thingy.

Any thesis with the word "never" in it is open to challenge by me. I have on a number of occasions changed my mind completely on issues after persuasive arguments from people who've clearly thought the matter through. More often, I find myself modulating a viewpoint somewhat.

I don't know if much is ever achieved by posting here, but I'd like to think it helps teach people how to structure their thinking so as to arrive at sensible conclusions.

That said, I've long resigned myself to the fact that it's impossible to teach someone who doesn't want to be taught.

monument

"More often, I find myself modulating a viewpoint somewhat".

I'll second that.

Victor wrote:

Part of me sees this as a place to promote democratic discourse and participation.

I'm an innocent, aren't I?

Well it’s about as good as Live Line, oh, wait…

Villain

I find discussing politics here helps confirm my belief that some* people are thought their political views the same way they are thought their religion

* Some means a small % imo

Schuhart

oscarBravo wrote:

I don't know if much is ever achieved by posting here, but I'd like to think it helps teach people how to structure their thinking so as to arrive at sensible conclusions.

I think that's about the size of it. The fact that this medium forces us to write down our views, which can then be mulled and picked at by others, does force discipline. It's not going to change who we are or our underlying sympathies. But we might well discover that something we accepted at face value does not hold. That's not to say each and every post on each and every thread is studded with penetrating insight.

Cork

Schuhart wrote:

But we might well discover that something we accepted at face value does not hold. That's not to say each and every post on each and every thread is studded with penetrating insight.

Very often we get an exchange of views which is great.

Economics and Politics are strange in that everything is not black or white - there is often big grey areas.

Political Partys are also focused on the middle ground - so a forum to debate issues is very worth-while.

Victor

Cork wrote:

Political Partys are also focused on the middle ground

That is because it is the middle ground, the floating voter, that is the most important in any election. You can't persuade your enemies to join you, but you might be able to persuade the middle ground.

Cork

Victor wrote:

That is because it is the middle ground, the floating voter, that is the most important in any election. You can't persuade your enemies to join you, but you might be able to persuade the middle ground.

I agree.

But a bit of conviction politics would be nice.

Politics has become very "wishy washy".

Political Partys should bring out where they stand on issues. People could then debate and make choices.

Political Partys over use focus groups.