Congressman Bob Etheridge Caught on Tape

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

I know I'm not the only person who heard people complain (and was one of the people complaining--but this isn't about GCers ).

I think that people (in general) are simply selective observers which matches how people (in general) are selective complainers.

Sure, and there's probably another group of people who enjoy the shoe being on the other foot more than they really ever cared about the level of discourse.

I do think it's interesting that in this thread the "level of discourse stuff" seems to allow the guy who took it physical a partial defense. I'm not tempted to go there myself and maybe it's a party affiliation bias. Or in MysticCat's case, a much more developed sense who the guys is as a person from having him represent his state for so long.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

I do think it's interesting that in this thread the "level of discourse stuff" seems to allow the guy who took it physical a partial defense. I'm not tempted to go there myself and maybe it's a party affiliation bias. Or in MysticCat's case, a much more developed sense who the guys is as a person from having him represent his state for so long.

The bolded probably is part of the equation in this instance for me. And I agree completely that whose foot the shoe is on often enters into the pleas for civil discourse.

But for me, at least, it's not really about the "level of discourse" offering a partial defense. It's about avoiding the cheap shots whether they are "what an obvious bully" or "Bush = Hitler/the village's missing idiot/the worst President ever." To my mind, cheap shots like that do nothing but fuel a game of political gotcha. I'd rather invest a little effort in understanding what's really going on and debating the real merits of a situation (or policy) than play the political gotcha game. As entertaining as that game can be at times, it can also be very polarizing, not to mention childish, and I'm not comfortable with that polarization or childishness.

If there's one thing that frustrates me no end in political or similar discussions, it's hearing someone say "I just can't understand how someone could be for/against ______." I may not agree with someone, but I'll try as hard as I can to understand respectfully and not make a caricature of why they think as they do. That seems to me to be the mature approach -- and one that I need to take with others if I want them to take it with me.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

The bolded probably is part of the equation in this instance for me. And I agree completely that whose foot the shoe is on often enters into the pleas for civil discourse.

But for me, at least, it's not really about the "level of discourse" offering a partial defense. It's about avoiding the cheap shots whether they are "what an obvious bully" or "Bush = Hitler/the village's missing idiot/the worst President ever." To my mind, cheap shots like that do nothing but fuel a game of political gotcha. I'd rather invest a little effort in understanding what's really going on and debating the real merits of a situation (or policy) than play the political gotcha game. As entertaining as that game can be at times, it can also be very polarizing, not to mention childish, and I'm not comfortable with that polarization or childishness.

If there's one thing that frustrates me no end in political or similar discussions, it's hearing someone say "I just can't understand how someone could be for/against ______." I may not agree with someone, but I'll try as hard as I can to understand respectfully and not make a caricature of why they think as they do. That seems to me to be the mature approach -- and one that I need to take with others if I want them to take it with me.

I agree with what you expressed here generally and think that you certainly conduct yourself according to your beliefs here.

But it's also hard for anyone who has been on the receiving end of cheap shot kind of comments or email forwards or whatever to completely turn the other cheek when there's little evidence of authentic good will from the other side of the issue.

I think not stooping to cheap shots is probably the only way to actually convince anyone likely to be persuaded, certainly, but at some point individuals may have pretty much established themselves as gotcha playing partisans, and when rather suddenly, they're all interested in why things have become so hostile or hateful and/or express concern about a lack of respect for the office of President, as I said, it's pretty rich.

[AOII Angel]

I want to know why it's so "rich" that the people in this thread have expressed concern about the level of disrespect in the discourse in this country. I don't know that any of us have been disrespectful to others with differing opinions. Yes, there are rude people who have taunted President Bush from the left of the aisle, but I personally have shown respect towards President Bush in the past, despite whole heartedly disagreeing with him, because he was the president. I didn't vote for him, but he was my President because I am an American.

I honestly don't agree that the level of civility is the same. President Bush was supported by both sides of the aisle at several points in his presidency, but President Obama has gotten nothing but jeering and disrespect for everything he has put forward, even if it aligns with what the Republicans want.

I am sick of the tit for tat claims. Is it really more important to bash everything that Obama does than to consider that maybe something he says might be right?

[UGAalum94]

When I started out commenting, I was careful to say that I wasn't really talking about GCers. I'm not seeing it in this thread really.

I think when Bush got general support, it tended to be when the country felt a sense of external threat and I think Obama would experience similar support if he elected to approach things in this area as Bush did. That isn't how he wants to be perceived, though.

What domestic issues do you feel like Bush got bipartisan support for that Obama isn't getting?

I don't tend to think Obama's policies represent good government, so I don't want to see him get political support for them and I don't think he's owed political support out of politeness.

I don't think he's personally evil* or anything and would like to see him treated with respect and politeness by his opponents, though. ETA: some of my desire to see this is because the office deserves it and some if it is because I think not doing so makes his opponents look terrible.

*as political forum GCers know, he's never really given me warm fuzzies or a thrill up my leg, but I don't believe that my not liking him personally means that it's helpful politically to disparage him as a human being, if my interests really are political improvement.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

But it's also hard for anyone who has been on the receiving end of cheap shot kind of comments or email forwards or whatever to completely turn the other cheek when there's little evidence of authentic good will from the other side of the issue.

I think not stooping to cheap shots is probably the only way to actually convince anyone likely to be persuaded, certainly, but at some point individuals may have pretty much established themselves as gotcha playing partisans, and when rather suddenly, they're all interested in why things have become so hostile or hateful and/or express concern about a lack of respect for the office of President, as I said, it's pretty rich.

Agreed.