NC's Rant on Politics
 

That's the best thread title I could come up for this. Basically, I've been thinking a lot about how much politics has gotten in the way of progress.

"All Conservatives are heartless idiots who are all owned by big oil."

"All Liberals are tree hugging hippies."

If you don't believe in something that one group or another believes, you are suddenly apart of the other group and have all these stupid labels attached to you.

I don't believe in global warming. More accurately, I haven't been convinced that global warming is going on. I hear evidence on both sides, but politics has gotten to be so much a part of it, that I don't have the patience to sift through all the bullshit and find out what's true or not. There are probably quite a few liberals who believe in global warming without looking at evidence because their party believes it, just as there are conservatives who don't believe in it because their party doesn't.

I'm not voting this year. I don't support either candidate and I'm not going to waste my time voting for the "lesser evil." Government is so taken up in making all their little groups happy, that people like me, who can actually think for themselves and would be more than happy to an open, logical debate instead of a ridiculous shouting match, just get screwed over.

So yeah... That's my rant... For now...

So yeah, share your ideas and opinions and if you're fed up with partisan politics go ahead and rant too.

I suppose I agree. I grew up in a very conservative high school, and when we had discussions in class I couldn't say anything even slightly different from the norm without them misunderstanding me and subsequently flinging accusations at me. Then I went to a liberal college and the exact same thing happened.

And I have the exact same dilemma about global warming; I'm curious about the subject, but it's become so contaminated with politics that it just isn't worth it to me to sift through all the garbage just to find information about it. Sometimes I kind of wonder if the whole two-party war wasn't set up on purpose just to keep the population busy.

From what I can tell--Global Warming is happening, and humanity IS a contributing factor.

The only real argument is whether we're a MAJOR contributing factor, as there's a lot of contributing factors all around.

From there it gets muddled.

So not believing in Global Warming is pretty silly. Not being sure what should be done about it, if anything, is less so.

However, I would say that reducing emissions and other 'global warming' practices are probably a good idea regardless, because they can only help in the long run, regardless of whether they're really necessary in the short term.

There is not a lot of doubt that the globe is warming, though there is doubt about the cause, along with some ridiculously circular arguments. One of my favourites was when constructing temperatures back through the 1800s and 1700s where recorded measurements aren't good enough to trust they had to have a mechanism to base it on. What did they use? Estimated CO2 emissions. This being in an argument to prove CO2 emissions cause global warming. Hilarious.

But even if we don't know the exact causes, it is surely better to try and minimise what we think may be the causes rather than just saying "We don't know, so let's do nothing".

As for everything else, it sounds like you have a view of politics as this insulatory thing isolated up in a few houses of parliament etc. It is wider and has a much bigger effect and is everywhere around you. It is hard to escape it and trying to hide from it is not that helpful.
Sure there is always partisan politics around, especially in the US which you are referring to and with the system you guys have in place, but if everyone just hides away from it then it will only continue. And a lot of the US system is designed to hinder democratic input behind shades of protecting tradition and the bipartisanship is a result of that. And if you let it turn you off then it will only continue.

I've seen evidence for both sides of global warming (existing/not existing, manmade/not manmade), but the "not" evidence usually stands out because it's very flawed; they only look at a small segment of time, ignore recent data, etc. It seems pretty clear, if you ignore all the politicians, that it's a real problem that humans are mostly causing. Most politicians just want power anyway, so they're not a good source for science information; they'll just tell you what they think you want to hear.

Politics in general got a lot more stupid recently when both parties started mainly attacking the opposing candidates because apparently that's easier than improving their own images. That helps make politics seem more like a "shouting match", but you have to just ignore it as much as possible. People like to complain, and politicians are (surprisingly) people too, but it's not all they do; it's just what they do on TV. They do have actual debates sometimes and these are much less silly.

Damnit, I was just about to say the exact same thing until I read your post.

Anyway, about politics, it's always been a distant beast to me. Politics brings up funny stories on Fark.com, they're the center for a lot of arguments, and generally regarded as a necessary evil with some people I know (or sometimes not even that; anarchy is gaining in popularity, at least with who I'm concerned with). It's not much more than that to me, but that's because I haven't been old enough to have my vote yet (When are elections anyway? Because my 18th is on Nov. 17).

In modern-day politics, as well as the practice of debating in general, the basic assumption is that there are only two sides to every issue--that you can only be "for" or "against" something. This attitude, taken to the extreme, serves only to drive and enhance the divisiveness and polarization that is now commonplace within mainstream society. This is particularly evident in policies dealing with complex social issues, such as marriage, sexuality, controversial language, and so on.

The point is: there are multiple sides to every issue. Oversimplifying opposing viewpoints in order to make one's own stand out is a disingenuous practice, sometimes called marginalizing.

There's no worse way to start an argument than with the words, "Do you believe...," since a statement on belief, to me at least, implies acceptance of an idea with little or no regard to its provability. Potential appeal to popularity: is it something considered socially acceptable? Potential appeal to authority: what do leading "experts" say about the proposal? Take note that I'm not referring to any singular issue or concern, but rather the patterns of argument I've witnessed over the course of time I've actually paid attention to political discourse.

What I like is that we have a forum specifically for the purpose of open, logical debate, but instead you avoided that in order to post a ridiculous shouting rant.

Oh, how I lol.

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u...sp12102002.gif

Ontopic, on the political apathy and partisanship thing I think America could be helped a lot by stronger third parties. Two parties is simply too general and causes them to polarise to the extremes or too far to the centre.
This causes a lack of real uniting issues to group large numbers of voters behind, resulting in politics having to focus on making the other guy look bad. Having a real centrist party and some crazy fringe ones, or even having parties that are issue or group defined would really help I imagine.
On the right, social conservatives may not want vote with economic conservatives on welfare issues. Economic conservatives are certainly not anti-choice or anti-civil rights by definition either. The paranoids(and increasingly justified in being so) and general small government types are practically tearing at the bit to get the hell out of the current right wing party apparatus as well. On the left, pro-industry labour unions and environmentalists aren't the best bedfellows by any stretch. General liberals probably aren't entirely in line with either of the above groups.

If we're talking about Global warming, I think it is happening and it is our fault, and think we should do something immediately to stop/slow/reverse it. Everything I've covered on it leads me to support humans being behind it. And even if we're not, our massive pollution and reliance on fossil fuels is causing other problems(or leading to ones) anyway so frankly even if it doesn't help avert the coming climate shift(which is happening, as far as I'm concerned that's pretty inarguable) we should still work at cutting emissions. Basically Krylo stole my point as well.

NC, the problem, as some have stated above, isn't politics as it is so much Partisanship. People take sides just to be on the side of a party because they feel that that party is right.

I'm most Liberal man you will ever meet but I thoroughly do my research before I make up my mind.

Because of my left leaning, it doesn't mean that I can't agree with Conservatives, granted, I rarely find an intelligent Conservative who isn't looking out for only themselves (what I mean is, Cons usually are looking for what benefits them directly, where is [I]their/I] tax break, how can they make more money, etc...) It isn't a bad think but I try to look at the society as a whole (even a global community) and try to look at what's best for the Have-Nots, the underprivileged, the deprived... the poor. The rich can tend to manage themselves.

When you approach the subject like this, it tends to be the reason that people like Obama and I agree on issues... plus the way he does attempt to meet people half way.

With that being said... I strongly hate the democrat party because the way it's organized and the fact that it's a party. It's why Obama, as great as I think he is, will only amount to so much and only be a Democrat President, not a free thinking president who will completely step outside the box.

When I go to vote, I will never check a card completely Democrat... it's mixed. Half and Half just so no side gets all the power (so I hope).

But not voting, imho, is a grave mistake. If nothing else, go half and half. The truth is, our country has been Ephed up for many many years and the Partisan bullshit isn't going away. It takes a lot to shift through everything so maybe take it on a single issue basis. Find something that really gets you going, whether it is embryonic stem cell research, abortion rights, gay marriage, the War, overseas relations, etc and pick a president based on that.... but not voting only means you agree to let other people dictate your life.

If you have questions about any issues, including Global Warming, I'd be glad to help you find your answers and I'd do my best to not leave you with a liberal spin.

And if you were wondering... I do like Trees a lot. ;)