Is conversation possible on NT? ... by Bob Nelson

I wonder if NT can continue very long...

NT will continue to evolve as each member determines the value provided by the sight.  I've seen some engaging people drop off the sight entirely, some (like me) have determined to selectively sit on the fence determining if participation is worthwhile or even necessary.  New members come, most are welcomed by all...until the honeymoon is over.

In the political arena, this forum is no different than the divisive conversations being held across this country.  The only difference is the inability to slap someone in the face.  I suppose on-line forums keep many of us out of the judicial system!

This phrasing invited readers to react to either the data (to challenge the notion that Mr Obama has done well, necessarily with facts, not just opinion), or to offer explanations for why he is not more highly appreciated.

Odd . When I answered the question you attempted to force me to do Obama's job for him . Your biased approach is just tooooo obvious . But apparently not to you ...

But you did not answer the question, Petey.

This phrasing invited readers to react to either the data (to challenge the notion that Mr Obama has done well, necessarily with facts, not just opinion), or to offer explanations for why he is not more highly appreciated.

You did not react to the data. You did not offer explanations... 

I had suggested that another means of challenging the notion that Mr Obama had done well might be to explain what you would have done and why it would be better. 

You said he should do something about labor force participation rates. I asked what -- precisely -- he should be doing. You said you don’t know... but Obama should. That doesn't work, Petey. You could say absolutely anything. 

Your post wasn't reasonable, so I didn't take it seriously. I explained why. You rejected my explanation. End of exchange. 

You said he should do something about labor force participation rates. I asked what -- precisely -- he should be doing. You said you don’t know... but Obama should.

That is essentially accurate . Why is Obama incompetent at his job ? I was neither elected nor interested in doing his job . Do you admit Obama is incompetent wrt that issue ?

 Why is Obama incompetent at his job ?

You don't know how to do it. Therefore, you cannot know if it is even possible to do it.

But because Mr Obama is not doing it -- to your satisfaction -- he is incompetent.

Petey... your illogical is sometimes downright flabbergasting! 

But because Mr Obama is not doing it -- to your satisfaction -- he is incompetent.

If I was the only one with that concern you would have a valid argument . But a measure like labor participation rate affects a great many people as does average wages paid . If YOU are satisfied with the economy the way it is it would be only because you don't need it to perform to help you make a living . Your approval of Obama's performance is like saying to the former members of the middle class "I don't care what happens to you or your family" . Callous & indifferent ...

Petey...

I understand that "labor participation rate" is the bullet point du jour for creepy wingnut websites... because they can find nothing else to criticize... but you could try to do a little better...

You have one criterion. It is a criterion that no one talked about before... but is now HOT NEWS in the Fox Nation echo chamber / feedback loop because there is literally NOTHING else even vaguely negative to talk about!

Fox is taking you to the chuckle-house, Petey! ... and you are going along with a great big grin...

You're still callous & indifferent to the fate of the former middle class ... and frequently a complete asshole .

I have tons of conversations with my friends, but not on the political articles.  Try as hard as I do, if I say something personal, it is deemed off-topic, and that seems to bug everyone.  So, I stay away from most of those articles.

I think that NT can continue on-- but it may require some of our more, uh, vigorous, members to be a little more open to other's thoughts, or to tone it down, in general...

I cannot accept the idea that conversation is allowed or not by whoever is most disruptive. 

I understand.  It bothers me, too.

There are those on this site that just want to get a rise out of someone, or who wish to be completely disruptive.  I don't think it's funny.  I mean, I love to laugh, and all that, and humorous articles don't "fly"  here-- but my brand of humor doesn't seem to fit in with those who wish to be destructive.  Oh well...

I blame right wing media for a vast amount of what goes wrong with online discussions any more. So many people have allowed themselves to become indoctrinated with anti-Obama derangement and anti-Hillary derangement and anti-liberal derangement, often supported by little more than figments of the right wing media stars imagination, that they have lost their ability or desire to respond to topics accurately or fairly. 

We had an article that asked the question, why hasn't President Obama been given more props from  Democrats, given his numerous policy successes. 

There is NO doubt that the judgement of history will be that Obama has had numerous successes. 

But those suffering from the derangement syndromes cannot allow the acknowledgement of EVEN ONE. So they fight tooth and nail to deny that acknowledgement even though it takes them off the topic of the seed. 

And there is NO doubt that they will do it again at the soonest presented opportunity. 

Although I don't talk about it much, because it is boring, I do think looking at the thumbs up and thumbs down patterns can be instructive of something. If I made a comment a few hours ago on anything at all controversial, I can predict with virtual certainty that when I come back to that comment it will have multiple negative votes and they will always be from the same 5 or 6 people. These are the same 5 or 6 people who object to the premise of Bob's thread, which is that Obama has succeeded in some things. These same 5 or 6 people make very little other than comments that are "off topic" , because they are lockstep with the mindset seen in the thumbs down votes (which are SO predictable).

YET, we have a strong contingent who takes the "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" approach to these totally predictable comments (that match up with the thumbs down" votes) and so we are at a standstill of sorts. Accuracy and facts have little meaning any more. It is all about one's rights to say whatever they want, on NT, because, freedom, or whatever. 

Gee, John... Guess what? 

I get waves of "dislkes", too. I wonder if they're from the same folks as yours...   

Why do you care about thumbs up/down ?

I don't care about thumbs up, thumbs down, I think I have mentioned it all just once or twice since it started, and almost never give thumbs up or down myself. 

There is a connection that I see though between a group of people who "vote" that way to similar effect, constantly, and the people who do the most whining on this site. 

I don't care about thumbs up, thumbs down,

A "thumb" is a response. A thumbs up is clear in its "reason/rationale" in that it expresses agreement with that which it has voted up.

A "thumb down" on the other hand implies disagreement … but in the absence of counter-information, it is a LOW-INFORMATION VOTE!

Low information voters, also known as LIVs or misinformation voters, are people who may vote, but who are generally poorly informed about that which, or for whom, they vote. The phrase is mainly used in the United States, and has become popular since the mid-1990s.

I get a thumbs down from the same member on almost every comment I leave.

All things considered … I'm flattered.

I  blame the left wing media for you. 

IMO and from the newbies point of view - The short answer is Yes.  NT can have a serious conversation, it just may not be the one the article host is hoping for.

Like every group conversation there are conversations that take place off to the side in peer groups or with adversaries.  Most of us have been to a social event where we stand around with a group of friends talking....maybe a new person shows up and joins in on the conversation but they may approach the topic of discussion with more caution.  inevitably someone will join the group that may not get along with everyone.  This also happens with on-line conversation forums.  The difference is you can't turn your body to the side or walk a couple steps away to have that conversation so it will show up in the conversational thread. Some could argue that because John answered the question so early on in the conversation - what was the point.  He already answered.  

As for why people do not stick with the question posed.  That is a behavioral science question that has been asked and answered many times over.

The easy answer is:  When someone discourages you from doing something you’re motivated to do the exact opposite.  It’s a way of subconsciously regaining control. 

Others as you mentioned, didn’t read the article or overlooked what was being asked so they simply followed suit of how those before them were answering.  Some may have felt compelled to defend against someone else's comments.  Some may want to divert the topic because they can’t rationally answer the question or they don’t have facts to support their position.  Some don’t wish to rock the boat by deciding which side to defend (thus John’s frustration with me).  And finally, some want to rock the boat and get a reaction from the person who posted the article. 

If I didn't answer the question with my response then I guess that answers your question.    

If I didn't answer the question with my response then I guess that answers your question.

Actually... You answered very well. A "good" answer doesn't have to be either yes/no pr monolithic. It has to be thoughtful. 

Oh, good. Another whinging meta article. That should fix things....

Is Conversation Possible On NT?

Enlightening articles such as "Derailing for Dummies" , point to the negative.

Yet if considered rationally, it can become a tactic to be used by either side of a conversational tug of war. One can seek to derail a conversation. However, in defense against the derailment the tactic can also be employed to derail the "derailer". At this point, one can hardly call it a conversation. I'd say it becomes a game of strategy. Further participation may also be described as a "pizzing contest".

Normally, when discussion evolves to this level, it is time for the adult beverage of your choosing. Please drink responsibly(PSA). Always drink to your opponents health, the sarcasm may make their head explode.

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. --  George Bernard Shaw

GBS was very witty but he lacked practical knowledge to effect political change . Maybe that's why he never ran for office ...

The fact that one is eligible to vote has nothing to do with whether or not they can form a valid opinion that deserves "equality". 

WTF does that mean ??? 

The fact that one is eligible to vote has nothing to do with whether or not they can form a valid opinion that deserves "equality". 

Judgement is a heavy burden and it can be a symptom of root cause too. Just a guess.

It means that the contention that a candidate is not capable of holding office because of the color of their skin, is not equal to the contention that a candidate is not capable of holding office because of their political affiliations.

You lost me in your double-negatives, Hal!  

Let me try again - an opinion based exclusively on race is not equal to an opinion based exclusively on politics.

Fundamentally, you are right, of course. The "equality" that bf spoke of is purely semantic. 

You keep on getting your pee pee slapped - stomped - shredded - boiled - and you can't take the hint can you Bob???  Do you really have to have attention so much????  Were you dropped on your head that often that there's nothing left but mush?

Quit writing these "Woe is Me" articles - you are ruining NT.

Well said 1st.  

Oh, my! Such a tough guy! 

Kind of like putting his name on the title of every article he writes?  So far, he's the only one here doing that.

I see these articles and they talk about how everyone else should be rational and listen to others and so often the 'Host' can't see beyond their own prejudices.  Physician, heal thyself.

Kind of like putting his name on the title of every article he writes? 

On articles I WRITE.  Not on seeds. Do you see the difference? There are soe

Actually, you are supposed to put your "by line" on original articles. Bob is correct about this. 

I hope I don't make this a dissertation.  I wish I didn't feel compelled to even participate in this article.  I hope it will be taken well because it is mean well.  I hope people will understand it.

On the article referenced here by Bob, I started reading it.  I didn't comment when Kavika said it was a good article,  I didn't comment when John Russell expressed his feelings about Obama.  Although these comments are now out of order on that article I read A Mac's comment and didn't agree with it basically using the race card again.  Then I saw Bob's response to A Mac saying he agreed with everything A Mac said.  If you read the article you know what my comment was and a big part of it was why the difference in Black Conservative and Black Liberal and why is the race card used on one and not the other?

It was not my intention to derail the article, but it was frustrating to be censored when Bob agreed with everything A Mac said and censored my request for an answer.

I give credit to those who maintained a civil attitude and responded to me in that manner and screw the ones who didn't.

I'm not talking about you Bob.  You were very civil, but you censored my question and you didn't allow an opinion which was in disagreement to your opinion to remain part of the conversation or to play out.

All I wanted was an answer.

They will never answer that question six.  

I think this is part of the problem...

It isn't "Us" versus "Them".  If we want a true community, we need to think and see everyone as "All of Us", and no "them" to it.

Think about the neighborhood around your home.  Do you agree with all of your neighbors?  Do you discuss all topics with all of your neighbors?  I don't.  Yet, somehow, we all live along the same street and manage to get along well enough to keep from killing one another.  When there is a power outage, we all pull together and share things...  We still check on each other, even if I don't know their names...  When someone's dog gets out, all of us look for it, and keep an eye out for it.  We're not exactly friendly, we don't have neighborhood barbecues, but we still smile and wave at one another.

Maybe we should all try to do that, here.

Excellent, Dowser. 

They will never answer that question six.  

Except that I did … as I always do.

Pay better attention to what goes on before throwing stones.

Six, 

I said I agreed with Mac because I do. But! I also reproached Mac for participating in the "Black conservatives" derail. I tried to treat everyone the same. 

I did not answer your question because I don't derail my own articles. Your question was off-topic, but rather than say that, I simply did not answer. I acted the same with others. 

A conversation cannot wander all over the countryside, and maintain coherence. 

There is an irony to this article.

The question is asked...Is it possible to have a discussion on NT. Others chime in about the lack of civility. And yet I look at this article and all I see is good discussion and quite civil. 

Human nature is to say that we have bad people among us. I don't see that way. What I see are teams of people. I also see people who are teamless. The teams are based on common beliefs. The problems arise when these individuals assume way too much about the other team, and also take it to a personal level. Keeping discussion about the topic is always the better way to go. 

Lindsey Graham recently said in a campaign address that " 40% of republican primary voters believe Obama was born in Kenya" . That figure is in line with what we have heard for years. 

That is a lot of people. 

" the original so-called "long form" birth certificate — described by Hawaiian officials as a "record of live birth" — absolutely exists, located in a bound volume in a file cabinet on the first floor of the state Department of Health. Fukimo said she has personally inspected it — twice. The first time was in late October 2008, during the closing days of the presidential campaign, when the communications director for the state's then Republican governor, Linda Lingle (who appointed Fukino) asked if she could make a public statement in response to claims then circulating on the Internet that Obama was actually born in Kenya.

Before she would do so, Fukino said, she wanted to inspect the files — and did so, taking with her the state official in charge of vital records. She found the original birth record, properly numbered, half typed and half handwritten, and signed by the doctor who delivered Obama, located in the files. She then put out a public statement asserting to the document's validity. She later put out another public statement in July 2009 — after reviewing the original birth record a second time.

Story: Trump: I have ‘real doubts’ Obama was born in U.S.

"It is real, and no amount of saying it is not, is going to change that," Fukino said. Moreover, she added, her boss at the time, Lingle — who was backing John McCain for president — would presumably have to be in on any cover up since Fukino made her public comment at the governor's office's request. "Why would a Republican governor — who was stumping for the other guy — hold out on a big secret?" she asked."

nbcnews

I post this little synopsis so to speak for you Perrie. In my opinion it is very indicative of what we see, a microcosm or example if you will. 

The person in charge of the health records in Hawaii had personally verified Obama's birth certificate long before he took office, even long before the "birther" movement hit it's stride in 2009. 

Maybe we don't discuss Obama's birthplace much on NT, but we do discuss many things that have borne from and evolved from the "birther" movement, one being the absolute hate of Obama and the use of conspiracy theories to explain events in the news. Happens all the time, here and on other forums. Benghazi comes immediately to mind, as do many other events. These are ongoing themes. Someone here who everybody "loves" said just the other day , in a long comment, that Obama is a communist and then went back through some of the discredited conspiracy theories about Obama's past. Another person here recently seeded or commented on Obama's mother, using a false photo of her compared to a prostitute who bore a vague resemblance to Obama's mother with the implication they were the same person. This story too has been repeatedly debunked. 

So what is our dilemma as Newstalkers ?

You call people with varying beliefs about such items "teams" , and suggest that it is the rivalry of teams , and not the "facts" , that drive the sometimes animosity on these pages. 

Because that is what you WANT to see. Your role is to encourage as much conversation as possible, which means keeping everyone happy. Someone who makes shit up or passes along made up shit is not "wrong", they are just part of a system that uses "teams" to discuss stories in the news. 

It's all harmless fun. 

What am I missing Perrie ? 

I've come across several of your posts in which you highlight similar scenarios.  I'm not clear what actions you think should be taken when this happens.  What’s the criterion to properly discredit a post?  Do you want the person(s) banned from NT?  Does a certain amount of people need to rebuke the post(s)?   I’m not being facetious I’m genuinely curious what needs to happen before you believe a post has been sufficiently proven to be wrong.  We already know whomever is posting the falsehoods are not going to stop.  So what’s the answer, what do you propose?

You're new here, Pj... so sadly you must learn to swim in the muddy waters of "both sides do it", and "the CoC allows you to do it, but not to say it".

According to the Code of Conduct, it's OK to lie... but it is not OK to say, "You're a liar". It's OK to post five red-meat, zero-value articles every day, but it is not OK to enter those articles to post, once in each, that it is a red-meat article of zero value.

It gets frustrating...

According to the Code of Conduct, it's OK to lie... but it is not OK to say, "You're a liar"

Poor baby !

It's OK to post five red-meat, zero-value articles every day, but it is not OK to enter those articles to post, once in each, that it is a red-meat article of zero value. - such as you do each and every day 'cause you need the attention.  EVERYTHING you post is of zero value.

Quit wasting space - quit posting on NT.

You're frothing, 1st.

I'd be happy if people stopped complaining because they get criticized. 

When people make statements about current events or politics, unless they are truly joking around, they should either support what they say with persuasive rhetoric or "facts"/ link copied from a respectable source. 

People have a right to say whatever they want, they don't have a right to have it accepted as a valid opinion. You have to somehow demonstrate that you have a valid opinion. 

That is my position. I am seeing that it is not a popular one here. 

You've cited the choke-point, John: facts .

Lots of people hold opinions that are unsupported by fact... or even contrary to fact. They like their opinion, and do not intend to abandon it. Facts be damned!

Because none of us have indisputable facts on us at all times, I think it is fine for people to give their opinion in a persuasive way. If you don't have some level of facts, or some level of persuasive rhetoric about the topic, you don't have much. 

I'd be happy if people stopped complaining because they get criticized

That’s just not going to happen.  Its human nature to defend yourself or “complain” when you feel you’re being criticized whether it’s warranted or not.  As perfect as I am, I’ve been known to defend myself if someone were to, I don’t know let’s say……tell me I’m naive. (That's a joke John)

they should either support what they say with persuasive rhetoric or "facts"/ link copied from a respectable source

That’s a very reasonable expectation.  I thought it was standard practice if you’re called out and asked to support your post.

I am seeing that it is not a popular one here.

You’re probably right but from my perspective you guys have been communicating with each other for a number of years so the protocol has become lax.  Whether it’s realized or not there is a relationship that has developed between the members albeit some may be a bit dysfunctional they are still strong.   You’ve survived so far.  Keep fighting the fight.

Perrie ,

The problems arise when these individuals assume way too much about the other team

Not always . Sometimes the characterizations are accurate . For example : liberals are unscientific and illogical when it comes to the issue of climate .

Is it too early for a drink?

Not too early at all - It's 5 o'clock somewhere, right?  And it is a holiday.  Cheers!

SMAAB2 - Best comment of the day.