Society/Culture Why has political discussion become an utter shambles?

[LeverPuller]

Another side:

People can't get away from their world view.

Example: we have problems with public healthcare. You know what people love to do about health? Bitch.

You know what people don't do? Propose solutions.

Everyone loves to have a bitch but they don't solve anything. Moreover, people then propose a solution - and it isn't good enough. As a society we are all far too quick to jump on the hate train without granting time to ideas that may not be perfect, but are still a damn sight better than the status quo.

There's no love for marginal change even when it's a good thing.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Not one for secession, convincing voters not to vote for the coalition or Labor in the Senate is achievable.

Yeah right. The last time the political system tried to take back the country the CIA started intervening.

Get a copy of the Falcon and the Snowman. Watch it.

 

[Kwality]

Yeah right. The last time the political system tried to take back the country the CIA started intervening.

Get a copy of the Falcon and the Snowman. Watch it.

Is it fiction or a doco?
I'm suggesting WA voters can join the gravy train that is the Senate cross bench to fix the inequity of the current GST chop up. Nothing new, Brian Harradine 1975 - 2005.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Is it fiction or a doco?

Movie adaptation of actual events.

Excerpt from the movie:



Here is an interview with Chris Boyce

I'm suggesting WA voters can join the gravy train that is the Senate cross bench to fix the inequity of the current GST chop up. Nothing new, Brian Harradine 1975 - 2005.

Good luck

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

Another side:

People can't get away from their world view.

Example: we have problems with public healthcare. You know what people love to do about health? Bitch.

You know what people don't do? Propose solutions.

Everyone loves to have a bitch but they don't solve anything. Moreover, people then propose a solution - and it isn't good enough. As a society we are all far too quick to jump on the hate train without granting time to ideas that may not be perfect, but are still a damn sight better than the status quo.

There's no love for marginal change even when it's a good thing.

I don't think that's true. It's true online to a large extent, where there is a sustained campaign to undermine Democracy that has in turn energised a bunch of people who have long been frustrated that their whacky or far left/right ideas aren't official policy and consequently love the idea of blaming 'the system'. There are unrealistic expectations (see Obama), but generally most people can embrace a marginal step forward.

We were just discussing this in the Greens' thread and I thought the move to Di Natale was in order for them to be better at embracing marginal steps, rather than just saying every idea 'isn't good enough'.

Good luck with the revolution. I was waiting for 30 years, then I gave up.

At least you recognise when to give up better than you recognise what a popular idea may be.

 

[Snake_Baker]

At least you recognise when to give up better than you recognise what a popular idea may be.

My convictions haven't altered. My ability to see change in my lifetime has altered.

The human race mostly consists of s**t. "A virus with shoes" to quote Bill Hicks. It deserves everything it gets.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

My convictions haven't altered. My ability to see change in my lifetime has altered.

The human race mostly consists of s**t. "A virus with shoes" to quote Bill Hicks. It deserves everything it gets.

No the human race is mostly good and has achieved amazing things. e.g. Bill Hicks riffed off pessimism to make good comedy. But I was serious in commending you for recognising your anger was not shared by others. A lot of people online struggle with this these days, but as I keep reiterating, they have been egged on by nefarious political actors.

 

[JoondalupJ]

This is an interesting point. I would've immediately jumped to say that I've seen lots of people change their minds, including on Fig Booty, but it happens the most when people know they are ignorant about a subject. I think as soon as someone is invested in a topic (either through taking a strong position, or bonding with others through that position, or literally being in a position where they might profit from it) then maybe it is a lot harder to change minds.

But, still, my instinct is that 'normal' people change their minds. Fundamentals like you mention, Coolangatta, regarding personal responsibility might be a tough one, but with more practical things, real life information changes people's minds. Port Arthur changed perspectives on guns. Or - to be more cynical - major sides of an argument will look to produce data to back their claim in the hope it helps convince people not to change their mind. Remember when the LNP were defending negative gearing and they claimed lots of people on average income used it? They grabbed post-tax incomes (i.e. after the negative gearing had reduced the incomes) in order to make it lower. If they hadn't done that, maybe more people would've changed their mind?

Its what a good argument is all about!

 

[douglyzia]

Imagine if I dedicated my life to being an activist for the unathletic. "Unathletic Lives Matter!" Maybe asking for reparations from the likes of Gary Ablett and Lance Franklin.

you're suggesting black people naturally deserve to be killed by police for doing nothing wrong.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

To add some evidence to the OP, it was reported in The Age that politicians and voters are becoming more polarized, with 'the centre' shrinking. Interestingly they suggest it is the left that has grown at the expense of the centre:

Percentage of voters who place themselves on the "Left":

1996: 19.5% (Howard wins, and voters seeing the impact of right-wing policy leads to)
1998: 21.9% (+2.4% - the 2nd biggest jump)
2001: 23.3% (+1.4%)
2004: 24.9% (+1.6%)
2007: 25.7% (+0.8%)
2010: 26.8% (+1.1%)
2013: 28.7% (+1.9%, Abbott wins, and voters seeing the impact of right-wing policy leads to)
2016: 31.4% (+2.7% - the biggest jump)​

However, on both left and right the passion of support has grown. % who are "fairly" or "very strong" supporters of their party (so not: "not very strong"):

1993: 53.1% (2nd lowest)
1996: 46.2% (lowest point in sample, Howard victory)
1998: 56.4%
2001: 55.9%
2004: 56.8%
2007: 66.4% (highest point in sample, Rudd victory)
2010: 60.2%
2013: 65%
2016: 65.8% (2nd highest)​

In 1990 less than half of all minor party voters said they “strongly support” the party they voted for. In the most recent election this had shot up to two-thirds. Remember the Democrats’ commitment to “Keeping the Bastards Honest”? Votes for minor parties were once called “protest votes”. That’s not the case anymore, or at least not nearly so much. As the electorate becomes more ideological, those votes are being cast as firm votes for minor parties, not against the major ones.

That explains why right-wing hard liners have had little influence on the vote numbers nationally, but we have to listen to their 'outrage' so much more online and in the media.

It also explains why hard-right types are more influential in the LNP ranks. Labor, so far, has not shown a similar move to the left, but that is no doubt largely to do with the fact they often have greater control over who runs where nationally, rather than leaving it up to local branches. Additionally, the comparative options on the extremes are either the relatively stable Greens or an ever-changing rag-tag bunch of disorganised folk (e.g. One Nation, Conservative Party, Family First, and to a less ideological extent - PUP), so hard right types still go into the LNP. Xenaphon's centrist approach failed apparently due to their lack of preparedness to actually be the ones running things.

The centre is where voter numbers have reduced, from 1996's 53.6% to 2016's 41.6%. It dropped 1.1% in the first 2 surveys, but then by 3.8% in 2004, before creeping up towards 50% under Labor until their in-fighting and Rudd's return corresponded with "the right" surging by 3.3% in 2013 while "the left" continued to grow.

This change is even starker when you look at the amount of politicians calling themselves 'moderate', though:

1996: 37%
2007: 26%
2013: 18%
2016: 10%​

 

[RupieDupie]

To add some evidence to the OP, it was reported in The Age that politicians and voters are becoming more polarized, with 'the centre' shrinking. Interestingly they suggest it is the left that has grown at the expense of the centre:

Percentage of voters who place themselves on the "Left":

1996: 19.5% (Howard wins, and voters seeing the impact of right-wing policy leads to)
1998: 21.9% (+2.4% - the 2nd biggest jump)
2001: 23.3% (+1.4%)
2004: 24.9% (+1.6%)
2007: 25.7% (+0.8%)
2010: 26.8% (+1.1%)
2013: 28.7% (+1.9%, Abbott wins, and voters seeing the impact of right-wing policy leads to)
2016: 31.4% (+2.7% - the biggest jump)​

However, on both left and right the passion of support has grown. % who are "fairly" or "very strong" supporters of their party (so not: "not very strong"):

1993: 53.1% (2nd lowest)
1996: 46.2% (lowest point in sample, Howard victory)
1998: 56.4%
2001: 55.9%
2004: 56.8%
2007: 66.4% (highest point in sample, Rudd victory)
2010: 60.2%
2013: 65%
2016: 65.8% (2nd highest)​

That explains why right-wing hard liners have had little influence on the vote numbers nationally, but we have to listen to their 'outrage' so much more online and in the media.

It also explains why hard-right types are more influential in the LNP ranks. Labor, so far, has not shown a similar move to the left, but that is no doubt largely to do with the fact they often have greater control over who runs where nationally, rather than leaving it up to local branches. Additionally, the comparative options on the extremes are either the relatively stable Greens or an ever-changing rag-tag bunch of disorganised folk (e.g. One Nation, Conservative Party, Family First, and to a less ideological extent - PUP), so hard right types still go into the LNP. Xenaphon's centrist approach failed apparently due to their lack of preparedness to actually be the ones running things.

The centre is where voter numbers have reduced, from 1996's 53.6% to 2016's 41.6%. It dropped 1.1% in the first 2 surveys, but then by 3.8% in 2004, before creeping up towards 50% under Labor until their in-fighting and Rudd's return corresponded with "the right" surging by 3.3% in 2013 while "the left" continued to grow.

This change is even starker when you look at the amount of politicians calling themselves 'moderate', though:

1996: 37%
2007: 26%
2013: 18%
2016: 10%​

I’m apolitical, the whole system is a pretence, like little kids playing at being a doctor, but without the competence the children have.

 

[The Speaker]

People can't get away from their world view.

ding ding ding

here is the winner

There are lots of little things that have contributed in some way or another to the lessening of political discussion, but behind it all is one simple fact: liberalism has been the unquestioned predominant ideology for decades, and conservatives and socialists have had enough of being co-opted into what they now see as a failed system. Liberals refuse to budge from their predominance, attacking their opponents for not being liberal. Their opponents attack them for being liberal. And here we are. Nothing can overcome worldview.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

ding ding ding

here is the winner

There are lots of little things that have contributed in some way or another to the lessening of political discussion, but behind it all is one simple fact: liberalism has been the unquestioned predominant ideology for decades, and conservatives and socialists have had enough of being co-opted into what they now see as a failed system. Liberals refuse to budge from their predominance, attacking their opponents for not being liberal. Their opponents attack them for being liberal. And here we are. Nothing can overcome worldview.

Err, if I had to pick someone on here who had a "worldview" that hasn't changed, despite the shambles of the last few years, it would be yourself. And that would be based upon your own comments.

There's an obvious irony in claiming that "Liberals refuse to budge from their predominance, attacking their opponents for not being liberal": Your entire "worldview" revolves around "liberals". You are illustrating what a partisan viewpoint looks like.

From your comments, I would say you've had this mindset for a long time (which would be part of the reason you think "nothing can overcome worldview" as if someone's outlook can't readily change with new information). The point of this thread is not to be another illustration of how shambolic political discussion is today, but to discuss why that discussion has gone downhill. So if you think something has changed which has helped create that in the last 20 years, or if have an idea beyond 'it's all the other side's fault', then please feel free to think on it and mention it.

 

[The Speaker]

Err, if I had to pick someone on here who had a "worldview" that hasn't changed, despite the shambles of the last few years, it would be yourself. And that would be based upon your own comments.

There's an obvious irony in claiming that "Liberals refuse to budge from their predominance, attacking their opponents for not being liberal": Your entire "worldview" revolves around "liberals". You are illustrating what a partisan viewpoint looks like.

From your comments, I would say you've had this mindset for a long time (which would be part of the reason you think "nothing can overcome worldview" as if someone's outlook can't readily change with new information). The point of this thread is not to be another illustration of how shambolic political discussion is today, but to discuss why that discussion has gone downhill. So if you think something has changed which has helped create that in the last 20 years, or if have an idea beyond 'it's all the other side's fault', then please feel free to think on it and mention it.

I'm not criticising liberals for defending their position. It would be weird if they didn't, as it's their worldview they're defending.

While it is true that individuals can change their worldview (see: Hitchens brothers), it tends to take a long time, and is not so true of the collective. For every one person that changes their worldview, another three could be said to stay the same. In any case, what I meant by that was that there is nothing superior to worldview. If someone changes their worldview, they're just swapping it for another one.

 

[Kwality]

The fiasco of asking for a pair, having it agreed to & then voting is says a lot about every member of parliament in Vic, no different to the ball tampering but the political media are not upset.
Great example of why Trump got up in the US, the institution is rotten to the core.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

I'm not criticising liberals for defending their position. It would be weird if they didn't, as it's their worldview they're defending.

While it is true that individuals can change their worldview (see: Hitchens brothers), it tends to take a long time, and is not so true of the collective. For every one person that changes their worldview, another three could be said to stay the same. In any case, what I meant by that was that there is nothing superior to worldview. If someone changes their worldview, they're just swapping it for another one.

You still sound as if you think everyone is an ideologue. Most are not. We just see a lot of ideologues in the media, and of course in Politics.

The fiasco of asking for a pair, having it agreed to & then voting is says a lot about every member of parliament in Vic, no different to the ball tampering but the political media are not upset.
Great example of why Trump got up in the US, the institution is rotten to the core.

Nice attempt at propaganda, but

• it doesn't reflect on politics as a whole - pairing as worked fine everywhere until Matthew Guy on not-so-Good Friday
• the media are 'upset' about it, in that they have covered it widely, still discuss it, and largely criticise it strongly
• Trump has always represented the things people claim they hate in politicians (rich, egotistic, elitist, out of touch, wrong priorities, only cares about media, nepotistic, pays people off, political donor, property developer, lines his own pockets, etc). It's only because he speaks and eats like a school kid that people think he's somehow a 'man of the people'.
• your comment doesn't address the topic; normal people freely disseminating propaganda is definitely a part of the problem

 

[Kwality]

Nice attempt at propaganda, but

Sadly Ratts you have a very particular slant on everything, there is far more to the pairs fiasco than the past few days & it reflects on the honesty/integrity of the ratbags that populate the political space.
The Yanks voted on those at the political trough, do we have the will to chuck out our ratbags?

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

Sadly Ratts you have a very particular slant on everything, there is far more to the pairs fiasco than the past few days

How odd that you wouldn't post about the "far more" in an appropriate thread, then? Almost like you're FOS. As I said, you are both inaccurate and off-topic.

 

[Kwality]

How odd that you wouldn't post about the "far more" in an appropriate thread, then? Almost like you're FOS. As I said, you are both inaccurate and off-topic.

You may or may not be aware that some have likened the cricket fiasco to matters political.

 

[The Speaker]

You still sound as if you think everyone is an ideologue. Most are not. We just see a lot of ideologues in the media, and of course in Politics.

How Marxist of you to say that. Ideology is the Marxist equivalent of worldview (weltanschauung), but is more narrow and political. Everyone has a worldview, and this naturally has a political element to it, but it's not exclusively political. Not everyone would have a political ideology - at least not one that they're cognisant of. But everyone needs a worldview to be a functioning human being.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

How Marxist of you to say that. Ideology is the Marxist equivalent of worldview (weltanschauung), but is more narrow and political. Everyone has a worldview, and this naturally has a political element to it, but it's not exclusively political. Not everyone would have a political ideology - at least not one that they're cognisant of. But everyone needs a worldview to be a functioning human being.

Yes, but you said "If someone changes their worldview, they're just swapping it for another one." as if there are only pre-determined worldviews people subscribe to, instead of a multitude of nuanced approaches to worldview. Alongside your other comments, including whatever the Marxism comment is meant to mean, I suggested:

You still sound as if you think everyone is an ideologue.

But you and I fundamentally disagree on our worldview, which is clearly why I don't understand much of what you are or are not trying to say. Based on previous conversations, it seems a bit pointless.

 

[The Speaker]

Yes, but you said "If someone changes their worldview, they're just swapping it for another one." as if there are only pre-determined worldviews people subscribe to, instead of a multitude of nuanced approaches to worldview.

Well that's on you.

Everyone has a worldview. At the deepest level, everyone's is going to be different, but many of those different ones are so similar that they can be grouped together. Different groups can also be similar enough that they can be grouped together as a larger group. So both "pre-determined worldviews" and "multiple of nuanced approaches" (your words, not mine) can be true simultaneously.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

Well that's on you.

Everyone has a worldview. At the deepest level, everyone's is going to be different, but many of those different ones are so similar that they can be grouped together. Different groups can also be similar enough that they can be grouped together as a larger group. So both "pre-determined worldviews" and "multiple of nuanced approaches" (your words, not mine) can be true simultaneously.

And nothing you said contradicted what I just said. Especially this bit:

Based on previous conversations, (this) seems a bit pointless.

 

[The Speaker]

And nothing you said contradicted what I just said. Especially this bit:

That wasn't in your post originally.

In any case, you're the one who responded to me. Why reply to me if you think it's going to be pointless, just as (apparently) it has been every other time?

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

That wasn't in your post originally.

In any case, you're the one who responded to me. Why reply to me if you think it's going to be pointless, just as (apparently) it has been every other time?

It had been a long time, maybe things had changed. It does not appear that they have. And, yes, I altered "it" to "(this)" in the quote, in order to make the point I was making clearer in that follow-up context, that's why I put it in brackets around one word - as journos do. Happy Friday.