DIALECTIC UNDERGROUND!?

Recently I have been troubled by the increasing trend toward sharp divisions that seem to have no solution. This seems to be further increased on the "internets" if you will. We don't know each other, we want to sound interesting and well-informed, etc. Some people like a good argument in the morning, some people feel threatened by others positions for personal or other reasons, etc.
The point is: We tend to take contrary views, become entrenched and either win and make the other side feel small, or lose and feel diminished or angry in return.
I would like to propose a new forum called "Dialectic Underground" in which the participants argue with a mind toward achieving a resolution. For this to be successful, people would need to be willing to argue the other side of the case with an open mind. This exercise may open our eyes to some of our own blindnesses. Maybe?

For the record, I think on most issues, I am more left than about 75% of this board. Of course, that may vary a bit from issue. An honest example: Whale hunting. I am not pro whale hunting. I am pro-Japanese people because my wife and children are Japanese and my career is that of a Japanese translator. When the Evil Japanese Whalers story came out and I saw some of the naked displays of hatred for the "Japs" as someone put it so eloquently, I was forced into the position of defense. That was wrong of me, I shouldn't have reacted like that, but I think it was pretty natural considering my "personal" relation to the issue. So that's really the point there:

Personal Point of View x Issue = Personal "Truth" or POV

IF we were to work, in our arguments and discussions, with our minds always firmly on the goal of achieving a dialectic solution to the issue, perhaps we could achieve more and maybe understand more about our own prejudices. Again, I bring this up, uncharacteristically of me, because I see a shift in all our media toward an entrenchment and solidifying of views rather than an attempt at solution.

DON"T READ IF ALREADY BORED:
Here's another example that was brought up recently involving the person who's car was opened by a police officer who left a note saying that a robber could do the same thing. Was this an egregious violation of privacy or an officer trying to make a difference with some commons sense approach? Both sides could be argued well. But it depends on POV. My first instinct as was that it was a massive invasion of privacy, etc. I could really understand the person's outrage. Honestly. But then I thought about how life is in Japan, where police officers are really trusted. When you live in Japan, there is a friendliness and a comfort that one gets when one has when there is an "o-mawari-san" (literally "guy who makes rounds") around. You can ask him directions, there's a police box every few blocks, it's nice. They have maps of exactly who is living in what building in their area and when you move into a new town, you register with that town, etc. All invasions of privacy when viewed that way, but all commonly accepted as common sense. So...the police officer who opened the car was practicing a kind of commons sense that only looks like an invasion when you feel threatened. This is a contradiction on its face, but when examined with pursuit of a dialectic solution, it is more reasonable.

May I please have a few thoughts on this subject. I rarely write long things like this and it has been on my mind for a while.

a good flame war, especially when backed up by facts. I take most of this stuff with a grain of salt anyway.

and I agree that your idea has merit.

As for yesterday's reaction to Gore's speech, I think you could say it was like having your team go from underdog to winner at the Super Bowl. Everyone was so excited and grateful for the breath of fresh air.

Perhaps your group could become a think tank not controlled by the Big Guys. We all know, this country needs new blood and new ideas.

Good luck!

Your missing the pt. the Internet isn't about resolving anything in particuliar. People enter these sites to sound off to vent. The more openminded of us tend to read all the way across the political spectrum as well. Nevertheless, I doubt you'll have much luck with role playing for resolution here or on the Interent blogosphere in general. The motto on the blogosphere seems to be "Birds of a feather flock to together."

Instead of discussing messages, we demonize or canonize messengers. Like a rabid fan-club, we treat (constructive?) criticism as either a heresy or a sacrament. Worst of all, I think, we don't discuss political issue under a template of "liberty interest vs. government interest" - too often inserting personal sectarian belief structures into discussions wherein the very appropriateness of any government posture at all is challengable.


In the example discussion cited, nowhere was there any accommodation for a discussion regarding the very nature of police functions in a (d?)evolving public sector posture regarding the welfare of individual citizens. We have reached a point where all police functions are presumed to be punitive. No more is there even the thinnest of rationales for regarding civil authority as supportive or ameliorative. We no longer expect the public sector to help nurture and develop - only punish. We have a knee-jerk regard for governance as paternalism. We have embedded gender biases that pervade our discussions. Our bigoted image of a paternal figure is abusive, not nurturing - fathers are stereotypically regarded as remote, coercive, and autocratic. Characterizations of males as supportive, nurturing, and courageous - modeling strength of character instead of mere physical strength - are treated anomalously, not thematically. We're inundated with representations of this stereotype - the pedophile priest, the angry evangelist, the exploitative executive, and the militarist politician. In other words, we easily accommodate "Uncle Sam" as an icon of government, but not "Aunt Sam." And he's not changing diapers, helping with homework, or playing catch with the kids.

I seem to remember you from way back as a strong-minded Clarkie... Is my memory faulty?