(Long) Is there any PB&J left in our modern political sandwich?

[sekker]

SDGuy wrote:
[quote=Lemon Drop]
When was this magical time on the MRF when political discussions were mostly civil?...

Maybe I'm remembering the past through rose-colored glasses, but I don't recall this place being as rancorous previously as it can be at times now.
I find it's often difficult to discuss issues in any depth in the current culture on MRF. I feel this is quite different than years ago - which is not to say that it's been historically perfect.

LD - if you do not want to answer/participate in these threads where we are trying to go into depth, that's fine by me too. But you are very much welcome.

[DeusxMac]

SDGuy wrote:
[quote=Lemon Drop]
When was this magical time on the MRF when political discussions were mostly civil?...

Maybe I'm remembering the past through rose-colored glasses, but I don't recall this place being as rancorous previously as it can be at times now.
swampy, billb, Max, Blue Monk, DougT, Paul, Black Tea, centiMac, Ranger Waddy, Chobert Ruhl, Polaris Livermore, Charlie M., The Reaver, etc.

[Ombligo]

DeusxMac wrote:
[quote=SDGuy]
[quote=Lemon Drop]
When was this magical time on the MRF when political discussions were mostly civil?...

Maybe I'm remembering the past through rose-colored glasses, but I don't recall this place being as rancorous previously as it can be at times now.
swampy, billb, Max, Blue Monk, DougT, Paul, Black Tea, centiMac, Ranger Waddy, Chobert Ruhl, Polaris Livermore, Charlie M., The Reaver, etc.
ah yes, the good old days. I miss Swampy.

But yes, at one time there were civil discussions that had views from all sides. It is fairly obvious that the MRF makeup is decidedly liberal, but have rational arguments from another viewpoint should be welcomed. I have seen that at times, even recently, but often those that make a conservative argument are attacked.

MRF is closer to the general society than we may want to admit. We no longer like to compromise either. When you are unwilling to step away from an extreme view of either side (such as banning all guns/Allowing guns everywhere), you aren't promoting a solution.

That holds true in many of the points the OP listed. Issues are seldom black & white, and existing laws just make the gray area even bigger.

If you know that a poster is going to make your blood boil, and refuse to consider that person's views, then don't read their posts. I have done that with some posters over the years. One I even agreed with to some extent, but grew tired of the threads just turning into attack sessions.

You have to choose whether to engage in a discussion, sometimes it is better not to. By ignoring an instigator, you remove their fun, and given time they will go elsewhere. Still, it is important to remember that just because someone has a viewpoint different than yours, they are not automatically wrong.

[pdq]

Ombligo, can you tell me who on this forum has advocated banning all guns? I haven’t.

Allowing any sort of gun anywhere is the natural end state of where this SCOTUS’ rulings are headed. For instance, I have yet to hear a cogent explanation of how one squares common-sense restrictions of guns on airplanes with these rulings, since there is no long historical precedent of this going back to the 18th century, which is what Bruen (and following rulings based on Bruen, such as Rahini) insist on.

[SDGuy]

Then there are the posters who enjoy posting the same questions over and over and over again (despite being previously answered)...an adult reverting back to their toddler state of endlessly repeating "are we there yet....are we there yet...are we there yet"...

[sekker]

What I see is that MRF will fall into the trap that someone will post a ridiculous post and then many (and I am guilty too) would make a response thread of 20+ posts.

Meanwhile, someone can post a deep and nuanced thought, and I see far less engagement on average.

I hope we can share, discuss, disagree and maybe even change our views from a rich conversation.

I believe that those who do the fly-by posting will not engage.

[$tevie]

SDGuy wrote:
[quote=Lemon Drop]
When was this magical time on the MRF when political discussions were mostly civil?...

Maybe I'm remembering the past through rose-colored glasses, but I don't recall this place being as rancorous previously as it can be at times now.
Oh, it has had rancor since day one. It IS the internet, after all.
I actually think it's better now. We had like six trolls working the place earlier on.

[pdq]

SDGuy wrote:
Then there are the posters who enjoy posting the same questions over and over and over again (despite being previously answered)...

...and some posters that can't seem to find a link where the question was ever answered.

[SDGuy]

Responding to a troll/toddler does not contribute to having intelligent discussions on this forum, particularly when said toddler admits to not knowing how to search the forum for what was previously posted.

[gabester]

But what if I don't like peanut butter and jelly?

Look I'm sure I have a lot of knee jerk rancor and only engage on certain topics where I feel very strongly or where I have a unique viewpoint to offer or additional information to supply that others seem not to have considered.

I concur about the two pieces of bread in our sandwich being very different, like the left one's a lightly toasted thin sliced piece of nutritious multigrain bread while the right one's a thick three week old stale and now toasted to a crisp sourdough.

There's no room for negotiating when someone holds an extreme and intractable belief that requires the elimination of all opposition.

But I also think there are a lot of interesting and important areas for discussion that aren't clearly broken down into the left/right liberal/conservative dichotomies of US politics, like the "aritificial intelligence" of large language models and who should own the output of their prompts, are there any environmental impacts of concern to an increasing frequency of large rocket launches globally and who should be responsible for the consequences of space debris that damages property or harms life, whether our justice system can be fixed if it requires the recognizance of the lawbreaker to effectively punish convicted criminals, and thousands of other issues.

The middle seeks pragmatic solutions that actually solve problems. The extremes are feeding a dangerous seemingly runaway feedback cycle that draws attention from problems that can be solved to issues that beget power unto a seemingly narcissistic and self serving class across the board, especially when those politics are centered around a dogma of religious fundamentalism and binary law in which there is no mercy.