5 ms·

Why do politicians always seem so uncivilized to me? Both sides of an argument always argue as if they believe the other side is stupid and they know for sure

Why do politicians always seem so uncivilized to me? Both sides of an argument always argue as if they believe the other side is stupid and they know for sure they are right. That is the biggest stupidity in itself. Why are there no politicians that spend their time on trying to understand the other side, rather then shouting out their own message? Those would be the ones I would vote. But they simply do not exist.

rb808 8y ago
Yeah I despair at this too. One problem a sensible moderate person who can work with people doesn't generate headlines, which means no one knows about them and no one votes for them. You get someone who "fights for what is right", "takes a stand" and "doesn't back down" you'll get well known and people will vote for you. Sad state of affairs, I dont know what to do to change it.
- eropple 8y ago
  The gray fallacy/golden mean problem is real. A "sensible moderate person" frequently, in the terms of those bemoaning the lack of them, privileges "moderate" over "sensible", implicitly wishing that someone would look at "let's eat babies" and "let's not eat babies" and conclude "let's eat some babies."
antocv 8y ago
How would you know that one party understands the other side? Because they went silent? How would you know one party understands the other side, and continues to talk about their own politics anyway? That would again seem like they are just talking and not understanding each other.
- AnimalMuppet 8y ago
  You'd know because they can explain the other side's position in terms that the other side recognizes as accurate, rather than a strawman - and then explain what they believe is mistaken about it. If you're really right, you shouldn't have to strawman your opponent's position in order to show that you're right.
  - antocv 8y ago
    > You'd know because they can explain the other side's position in terms that the other side recognizes as accurate, If one side does that, by the public they will be perceived to be talking the points of the other side, again losing out. The whole point of politics, religion and marketing is to keep talking until the other side gives up. The biggest loudest mouth wins. Not the most understanding one.
retrac98 8y ago
Most people would not vote for this kind of politician.
cmurf 8y ago
This is such classic Dunning Kruger effect. You've never heard of them, therefore they don't exist, yet you won't do basic research necessary to prove your own assumptions wrong. Democracy isn't easy, it's hard. But it's better than anything else we've come up with so far, other than the benevolent dictator model - and good luck with them always being benevolent. There are quite a lot of such politicians, but they don't have the personality you're criticizing, so they're not visible generally, but in particular not the media which is selling politics as entertainment just like anything else. Shirley Chisholm? Bet you've never heard of her, which is fine, I don't expect that. You do also have the imagination that she should exist, which is good. But where you fail is your assumption that you are right to conclude they do not exist just because you've never heard of them. So you're stupid and yet you know for sure you're right. You're doing the exact same damn thing you accuse others of. It's blatant hypocrisy, which happens to be very common and you seem to think it's an exception! Of course you have to call that out in order to hold people accountable to a higher standard. It is in fact the thing you call uncivil that causes a chance at civility! How about Ander Crenshaw? You won't see him on TV and you won't see him shouting. Michael Bennet, is another one you won't see on TV, and the one time in his political career he went on a rant was eviscerating the pure stupidity of a colleague to his face, calling him out with factual evidence of his hypocrisy based on indisputable past action. I guess you lack the imagination of truly uncivilized behavior that exists today and through most of human history. Dead bodies littering fields, bloating, leaking, bursting. Firing squads. Mass graves. Really, you think politicians are uncivilized? It's a ridiculous comment. Calling a stupid person stupid is not uncivilized. It's called making an observation. Politics is when you don't do that every time stupidity is displayed.
renholder 8y ago
It didn't use to be this way, to be sure. The darkest "shade" thrown even thirty years ago was child's play compared to today's vitriolic rhetoric. I think it has to do with the polarisation (radicalisation?) that has come about because people have been grouping into their own echo-chambers. "The other guy" has moved from being a compatriot who they disagreed with to being an adversary to be conquered. See any political or news sub in /r/ as a principle example of this.

rb808 8y ago

Yeah I despair at this too. One problem a sensible moderate person who can work with people doesn't generate headlines, which means no one knows about them and no one votes for them. You get someone who "fights for what is right", "takes a stand" and "doesn't back down" you'll get well known and people will vote for you. Sad state of affairs, I dont know what to do to change it.

eropple 8y ago
The gray fallacy/golden mean problem is real. A "sensible moderate person" frequently, in the terms of those bemoaning the lack of them, privileges "moderate" over "sensible", implicitly wishing that someone would look at "let's eat babies" and "let's not eat babies" and conclude "let's eat some babies."

antocv 8y ago

How would you know that one party understands the other side? Because they went silent? How would you know one party understands the other side, and continues to talk about their own politics anyway? That would again seem like they are just talking and not understanding each other.

AnimalMuppet 8y ago
You'd know because they can explain the other side's position in terms that the other side recognizes as accurate, rather than a strawman - and then explain what they believe is mistaken about it. If you're really right, you shouldn't have to strawman your opponent's position in order to show that you're right.
- antocv 8y ago
  > You'd know because they can explain the other side's position in terms that the other side recognizes as accurate, If one side does that, by the public they will be perceived to be talking the points of the other side, again losing out. The whole point of politics, religion and marketing is to keep talking until the other side gives up. The biggest loudest mouth wins. Not the most understanding one.

retrac98 8y ago

Most people would not vote for this kind of politician.

cmurf 8y ago

This is such classic Dunning Kruger effect. You've never heard of them, therefore they don't exist, yet you won't do basic research necessary to prove your own assumptions wrong. Democracy isn't easy, it's hard. But it's better than anything else we've come up with so far, other than the benevolent dictator model - and good luck with them always being benevolent. There are quite a lot of such politicians, but they don't have the personality you're criticizing, so they're not visible generally, but in particular not the media which is selling politics as entertainment just like anything else. Shirley Chisholm? Bet you've never heard of her, which is fine, I don't expect that. You do also have the imagination that she should exist, which is good. But where you fail is your assumption that you are right to conclude they do not exist just because you've never heard of them. So you're stupid and yet you know for sure you're right. You're doing the exact same damn thing you accuse others of. It's blatant hypocrisy, which happens to be very common and you seem to think it's an exception! Of course you have to call that out in order to hold people accountable to a higher standard. It is in fact the thing you call uncivil that causes a chance at civility! How about Ander Crenshaw? You won't see him on TV and you won't see him shouting. Michael Bennet, is another one you won't see on TV, and the one time in his political career he went on a rant was eviscerating the pure stupidity of a colleague to his face, calling him out with factual evidence of his hypocrisy based on indisputable past action. I guess you lack the imagination of truly uncivilized behavior that exists today and through most of human history. Dead bodies littering fields, bloating, leaking, bursting. Firing squads. Mass graves. Really, you think politicians are uncivilized? It's a ridiculous comment. Calling a stupid person stupid is not uncivilized. It's called making an observation. Politics is when you don't do that every time stupidity is displayed.

renholder 8y ago

It didn't use to be this way, to be sure. The darkest "shade" thrown even thirty years ago was child's play compared to today's vitriolic rhetoric. I think it has to do with the polarisation (radicalisation?) that has come about because people have been grouping into their own echo-chambers. "The other guy" has moved from being a compatriot who they disagreed with to being an adversary to be conquered. See any political or news sub in /r/ as a principle example of this.