I sure wish I lived in a black and white world .......

[Stinky The Clown]

.... cuz then I'd know for sure who I should hate and who I should love. I also suspect that black and white worlds leave choices much easier. I used the word 'hate', for example. Black and white worlds imply that there's no middle ground. You either love some person or some policy or you hate it.

Simple.

Would that the world were so.

It isn't.

To be sure, there are some people for whom my feelings approach hate. There are some people for which my feelings are pure love. There are also some policies and proposals that are bad and I am against them. But there are also some for which I am beyond enthusiastic.

But most people and most policies evoke neither love nor hate.

I wish I lived in an absolutist, black and white world.

But I am cursed with the power of reason.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TwilightZone]

2. That's the Bush Administration, for one.

Everything is an ultimatum. You're with us or you're against us. You support the president or you're a terrorist. You support his economic policies or you're a communist. You want to spend a trillion on a pointless "war" or you hate America.

[welshTerrier2]

3. gray is not a virtue

hi H2S ...

not quite sure of the context you intended so i'll just ramble around a bit on my own ...

when i think of black and white thinking, i see an absence of nuance and of depth and of multi-faceted analysis ... it leads to very poor solutions almost everytime ...

sometimes this "don't be so b&w" argument tries to make a case for centrist positions ... that is a false response ... for example, take an issue like equal rights for gays ... it's absurd to make an argument like "you people are so all or nothing ... you should be happy we're willing to support you in making just a little progress" ... that's just crap ... you can't have "a little equality"; you either have it or you don't ...

the win at any cost crowd doesn't like to hear this line because it potentially interferes with "winning" ... they make their "we're so pragmatic" arguments ... again, it's just crap ... arguing against b&w thinking does NOT require those at the polar extremes to move to the mushy middle ... i do NOT accept that premise ...

what b&w thinking falls short on, as i describe it, is the ability to appreciate the multi-facetedness (no, i doubt it's a word - how about multi-faciousity?) of almost everything ... when you start to stir tactics and timing and values and yes, political practicalities, and all the other variables into the great stew, then and only then are you able to think beyond b&w ... so, in terms of political spectrum perceptions, one might reasonably argue that someone on the "far left", whatever that might entail, might be a b&w thinker but it is erroneous to assume that means they are somehow required to compromise or move to the middle ... therein lies the rub ...

taking the example of someone on the extreme left, they may fail to see the many factors at play on a given issue ... their views may lack subtlety or nuance ... unfortunately, this often either weakens their ability to make their case or it leads them to bad policies or bad tactics ... often, they have failed to deepen their understanding of the situation in a sufficient way and have rendered themselves less effective ... breaking out of such b&w thinking is often necessary but that does not mean they need to change their fundamental position but rather appreciate the position in greater depth ...

remaining totally in the abstract here, one of the frequent frustrations i have in my discussions on DU is caused by a conflict between short-term tangible policies and longer term, perhaps more abstract policies ... most of my thinking takes the view that twiddling with today's details is fundamentally folly ... we'll be patching the same holes in the hull over and over and over ... when we finally get them all fixed, many will jump for joy and say "i told you so - look how good things look now" ... and then the stupid ship captain makes the same old mistakes again and we're crashing into the same rocks and ripping apart the hull ... there's always an urgency to why we have to do the short-term thing when i see the long-term thing as far more meaningful ...

in the political context, especially the "progressive" political context, we fight for civil rights; we fight for workers rights; we fight to preserve our freedoms ... of course, that's all good ... but I fear our gains are ultimately illusory ... how easy it's been for them to repeal the Bill of Rights ... whatever we win is too often given as an appeasement to quiet the masses and keep us down on the farm ... if it doesn't "cost them in their wallets", they yield each little token of social progress to lull us back to sleep ... but on any given dark day, whoosh ... so, we elect this really good guy or that one ... we fight this little battle or that one ... again, all good but i worry we are not really taking care of the non-b&w, not right there in front of us, big picture ... and everytime we choose to go short, almost even failing to see the wide open receiver in the end zone (hey, lighten up, i'm watching football as i write this), we've lost an opportunity even if we see it as progress ...

so, for me there is way too much b&w thinking and it often manifests itself not in terms of political extremism but rather in failing to install a proper foundation before starting on the finish work ... the problem is not with political polarity or failing to compromise or move to the mushy middle; the problem i too often see is just plain narrow, short-term thinking ...

[Stinky The Clown]

4. you went off in a slightly different direction than I had in mind, but in all fairness ......

.... I didn't even give a clue as to context. The OP was intentionally abstract. If one can think about 'black and whiteism' and comment in some way, then it is logical to assume that the thinker perhaps isn't a black and white person. That's not to say that no comment is a sign of the opposite condition.

For whatever its worth, I enjoy a spoonful of nuance with my Technicolot thoughts.

[AtomicKitten]

5. well, there's that and then there's

actually understanding and respecting "opinion."

An opinion is born of a myriad of factors including assimilation of facts (often misconstrued for parroting others' opinions), political and philosophical proclivities, logistics such as age, gender, educational background, etc., and often an emotional overlay (passion often mistaken for black/white or "scorched earth" labeling).

Simply declaring "you're wrong" particularly when punctuated with ridicule and "I'm right" attempts to frame and shut down discussion concomitantly.

An opinion should be a living, breathing entity that is open to respectful challenge and amenable to evolution. Unfortunately much discussion here at DU is of the Lounge caliber variety, i.e., based on personality, shared opinion manifested as cliques, etc., and is guided by manipulative behavior such as the declaration of the right/wrong paradigm.

[welshTerrier2]

8. lots of goo for the stew

often times, if i'm debating someone i disagree with, i find it useful to actually restate their best points as i understand them to demonstrate that i've "heard" their message ... sometimes i even find it useful to enhance their argument to make their case as well as i'm able to make it even though i disagree with them ... even when you completely disagree with someone, helping make the best possible argument for their position, at least for me, does a couple of things ...

first, as i said above, it proves you've actually listened to the point they were making ... second, it sort of "depersonalizes" the situation ... they don't "own" a point of view; thoughts and perspectives are sort of in the public domain for all to consider ... and third, even if you could "win" an argument solely because someone did a poor job framing it, what's the point of winning? it seems more important to find the "best" line among the best available ... debate and discourse shouldn't have "winning" as their ultimate objective ... they should have finding the best policy or the best tactics as their objective ... and, yes, of course that will often be subjective and we are virtually never going to have everyone agree ...

i'm sure i'm as guilty as others in not respecting people i've argued with ... sometimes, it's a reaction to the "he hit me first" idiocy ... other times i'm just so angry about the policies or politics or whatever that i'm not quite as attentive as i should be to civility ... but, in the end, who could disagree with the points you've raised?

i would emphasize, however, that no one should be under any obligation to compromise when comprising is just not in the cards for them ... i think seeking consensus and looking for common ground should always be valued but that doesn't mean someone who believes strongly in x or y should be pressured to yield "for the good of the team" ... for example, if someone has good solid reasons for, say, voting Green, that's fine with me whether i think they're dead wrong or not ...

DU, like any public forum, has its etiquette and civility issues ... it would be great if we had a real process to improve our discourse over time ... leaving it up to the mods and admins to enforce is all well and good but it never teaches the desired style of interaction; it just polices it ... it works but we do not grow as a community ...

[AtomicKitten]

9. I'm in it for the discussion -

not "winning" the debate. Substantive debate broadens one's perspective of the world. I would never presume to think I'm right about anything; I only know what is right for me, how I feel and the way I see things. I admire your debate technique in acknowledging others' points that resonate with them. However, it is soul-crushing when people attempt to marginalize that which is of such importance to others. Calling out those attempts at manipulation much to the chagrin of some is simply claiming that one's POV is as valid as anyone else's.

[welshTerrier2]

11. "attempt to marginalize"

to be clear, i'm not disagreeing with you, AK ...

i guess that there are various ways of "marginalizing" someone else's viewpoint ... if i am pushing for a political agenda someone else disagrees with, it seems to me i have every right, perhaps even an obligation, to respectfully make the most forceful case i'm able to make ... and i frequently try to do that on DU ... my objective is not just to influence the person i'm speaking with but also to influence other readers ... i'm in full agreement that marginalizing through disrespect and insults and mockery is not acceptable ...

one thing's for sure, and I and too many others on DU never seem to adequately learn this, is you disrespect people you're debating with, you have absolutely ZERO chance of influencing them ...

i'm not aware of the undercurrent or history you're focussing on here and i can tell you i'm happy to remain in my ignorant bliss ... perhaps moving on and forgiveness should also be valued as actions to promote a more civil discourse ... my two cents: let there be peace ...

i'll say no more on the subject ... i have the deepest respect for you and all participating in this thread ...

[AtomicKitten]

13. Calling one's heart-felt POV on the war and the IWR black/white

thinking is an attempt to marginalize that opinion, particularly when in the same breath stating the oppositional POV is the one that is reasonable.

Ironically, it is my opinion that some are being way to accommodating by thinking up excuses to mitigate their favorite candidate's "yes" vote.

There are many here that have strong feelings about this issue. I am one of the few that will argue it and I get pounded pretty good on a regular basis for not being afraid to do so.

[bread_and_roses]

6. gee, Hub, and I've come to pretty much the opposite place

The closer I get to old age, the more I realize that, just as I thought when I was young, most important things are black and white.

Let's see, among them:
top of the list, killing children is wrong. No nuance. That means dropping bombs that you know are going to land on children, too.
#2: The means determine the end.
#3: Capitalism is unsustainable and is killing the planet.
#4: Capitalism is inherently oppressive and unjust by its' nature.

However, with #s 2,3, and 4, there is theoretically time within the political process to ameliorate/correct their path (although we seem to be rapidly approaching the end of that window on #3 - if we're not there alrady). But dead children are - dead. No way to ameliorate or correct that one.

So in my black and white world, people who vote to drop bombs on children, for instance, are doing irreparable evil, and doing so knowingly. No political nuance ever can justify that.

[AtomicKitten]

7. thank you

The OP has ridiculed and labeled the anti-war opinion and resistance to the "yes" votes on the IWR as black/white and unreasonable on numerous occasions when the gravity of the issue really should be considered in stark terms. There is no gray area IMO when hundreds of thousands of people are dying for a mistake.

But, as always at DU, many rush to nod in agreement with the notion that that POV is somehow wrong or not reasonable, and saying so is construed as "hostile."

[Sparkly]

10. Excuse me.... (::raising hand::)

Since H2S is ignoring you, I'll ask: What the Hell are you talking about?

He's never ridiculed "the anti-war opinion" -- he was always against the war, and he's far more for "out now" than I am. And he's never ridiculed "resistance to the 'yes' votes on the IWR."

If you're trying to drag some argument from another thread in here, I'll remind you that's against the rules. If something was said on another thread you disagree with, argue it THERE (with whoever said it). Then let it go.

I don't know who pissed in your cornflakes... :shrug:

[AtomicKitten]

12. really?

He has before and not too subtly here hit the same reference to "black and white thinking." If you are going to complain about and insist on a narrower focus of discussion, you might want to advise the OP to narrow his OP; in fact, he seemed to tout its ambiguity proudly.

Otherwise it is not unreasonable to discuss the specific topics he has imposed his black/white accusation on, and that is most certainly the IWR and not too subtle ridicule of people that have declared they will not support anyone that voted yes on it.

To some, gray thinking on issues such as war is a compromise of one's integrity and the natural inclination is to not suffer ridicule lightly.

But, as always, thank you for the recitation of your version of DU rules that really don't apply here, but what the heck. Whatever posturing and ridicule makes one feel superior is worth a shot to some.