Flame — HabitableZone

Flame » in reply to This is clearly a longterm project

re: Clearly, a long term project
Fox — (archived)

This isn't about the issues, but in fact is about attitudes and psychology etc. (quoted from here.

In short, it's another continuation of the meta-discussion about the manner in which discussions take place, here and in the real world.

The extreme polarization of the last few years has been bad for America. Therefore, since it's bad for America, as Americans we have a duty to fix the problem.

I cannot remember a time when polarization did not seem to dominate the debate style in America. That's because I was born in 1951 -- after the last time the entire country appeared united in a single cause -- and did not really become aware of domestic social politics until the Civil Rights movement, did not pay attention to national electoral campaigns until 1964, and did not question the wisdom of American foreign policy until the middle stages of the Vietnam War. In other words, there may have been a time, while Eisenhower was president (but after the downfall of Joe McCarthy) ... but I was too young to notice.

And I am not as diligent a student of American political history as I would like to be, but I believe I have read enough about the period from 1760 through 1810 to recognize that extreme polarization as a deliberate tactic has always been part of American political discussion. It was part of the cultural package our forebears brought from Europe (especially England). It was the cause of the ill-conceived Sedition Act of 1798. Carried to its absolute extreme on what then was the frontier, it was the cause of "Bloody Kansas" and the guerilla war along the Missouri -- the worst example of domestic terrorism this country has ever seen, except for the so-called Indian Wars.

And then, of course, there's the Civil War itself...

My point: extreme polarization is nothing new, and the country continues to survive in spite of it.

Extreme polarization in America is bad for the world as a whole.

Since we are talking about the meta-issue of debate style, I wonder how influential "ours" is upon "everyone else's". Granted, the actions of the US that result from an extremely polarized debate may be bad for the whole world... but that's policy, not the discussion about it. And, as I said above, we inherited extreme political speech from them.

It's been pretty bad for the HabitableZone as well.

Yes, and we created sub-moderators (of which I am one) to attempt to enforce civility -- with only partial success. And we have filled numerous lengthy threads about it, in general terms as well as about the behavior of specific individuals.

And yes, we have lost a few people we collectively valued for the way they wrote, or for what knowledge they brought, or both... We have lost a few others none of us seem to miss. How few of them, in either category, have permanently stayed away? (Hint: two of the former are moderators now).

I submit that the tendency to self-polarize -- that is, to become frustrated and angry, and to express both -- is as much in the nature of humans as is the urge to polite co-existence. I also have it from friends who frequent other forums that the problem of extreme polarization appears to be universal.

My point: it's nothing new, and the HabitZone continues to survive in spite of it.

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (126 posts)