Contrary to how it may appear here at JU, I am actually fairly interested in politics. I keep up with the news and my local politics; Thursday during my lunch break I wrote to my senator. I vote, I get mad, I write letters to the editor and opine at length to a few friends and family. Generally speaking I am interested in the opinions and stances of all sides of the political spectrum--not just the 2-D conservative/liberal spectrum, but the 3-D conservative/ liberal/ anarchist/ totalitarian diamond. And I fall somewhere smack dab in the middle.
But my experiences with politics here and at a previous forum have left an unpleasant taste for online politics, and this is why: Political zealouts, who are disinterested in actually listening or participating in a rational discussion, dominate the forum. They are not the only participants, but they are the loudest and/or most prolific. Their verbosity usually means they have something to say in response to every article, no matter how well-thought-out it may have been. And the discussions degenerate from there.
Moreover, it is a waste of virtual breath to even discuss issues with them, as they're so deeply entrenched in their beliefs that they won't listen to any other side. They make gibes at the little flaws in arguments or at the people making them, while missing the big picture. But their crudest problem, the one that is at the base of their idiocy, is this: The gross generalizations they espouse.
What kinds of generalizations? All Europeans hate Bush/America, and are therefore either stupid or enlightened. All republicans/democrats have their heads in the sand or clouds, whichever is denser. All ideas related to Marx are brilliant or retarded. The United States is a great/awful nation. If you support the war in Iraq, you must be a republican. If you hate Bush, you must be a democrat. Ad nauseum, really.
This display of brilliant illogic invalidates their opinions to me, and any respect they may garner generally goes by the wayside. By making these generalizations, they're throwing aside the rational thought that we're not all lemmings or sheep. They assume, rather than look for evidence. They toe a party line, oftentimes. Or maybe they're just flame-throwing trolls looking for reactions.
And they are wrong. I refuse to be shoe-horned into a box that doesn't fit me. Recently I wrote about the Bush administration spending $50M on the inauguration. The first comment? "Get a better job, ya deadbeat liberal." My disgust at the costs of the inauguration had nothing to do with any party line--they were grounded in common sense. But because I was criticizing a conservative administration, the reader immediately assumed I was liberal. These are the kinds of gross, mass generalizations that don't deserve to see the light of day. Had the reader even finished reading what I wrote, I'd noted that I fall on no side of the spectrum--but s/he immediately pigeon-holed me. By doing this, s/he was invalidating my opinion--and wrongly.
But the worst part of this idiocy is that they use some crude rhetorical device--be it name-calling or using ALL-CAPS--to scream their message, and they get heard. As you've probably heard countless times, don't feed the trolls. If you ignore their incomprehensible ramblings, and ignore their bait, they will probably go away. I've even seen a case where one straightened out and got smart.
Great countries and great philosophies--even bad ones--are based on listening, understanding, and recognizing how human beings act and think. These philosophers and philosophies take ideas and expound on them--theorizing, yes, but on evidence and ideas not yet thought of, or turned and observed from another dimension. And these ideas, in turn, shape our worlds and worldviews. There are many political trolls and politicians who do not have that ability. A valid point may be argued, but an invalid one should waste away from the lack of response.