How to overcome ideological prejudice in our arguments?

Machjo · December 18, 2009

I confess that I can get quite irate when a forumite tries to argue a point using lazy ideological stereotypes. For example, problem X is all the 'socialists' fault (as if we even all agreed on the term socialist), and of course problem Y is all the capitalists' fault (again, as if we all agreed on its definition too). And it goes without saying that problem A is the Conservatives' fault, problem B is the Jews' fault, problem C is the Muslims' fault, etc.

And of course party D can take all the credit and glory for the success of policy E. praise the party!

How has the Canadian brain gone so to mush that the best argument for or against something has become to just label it something with either a positive of negative connotation.

What's going on with the Canadian education system that that's about as critically as our minds can function?

Michael Hardner · December 18, 2009

How has the Canadian brain gone so to mush that the best argument for or against something has become to just label it something with either a positive of negative connotation.

What's going on with the Canadian education system that that's about as critically as our minds can function?

The truth is that the web is providing our very first glimpse into how Canadians think - and even better - provides us with a way to elevate our abilities to discuss issues collectively.

No reason to be negative, this is just the shock that comes from turning on a million cameras with a million lenses into our lives. When eastern Europe opened up in the 1990s, the new openness also brought forward a lot of prejudices which had been kept quiet under official media of the Soviet Union. Those prejudices weren't born when the Berlin Wall fell, they were revealed.

g_bambino · December 18, 2009

I confess that I can get quite irate when a forumite tries to argue a point using lazy ideological stereotypes. What's going on with the Canadian education system that that's about as critically as our minds can function?

It is a rather fascinating phenomenon; I see it manifest particularly in my being called a conservative hack by one person and then a liberal shill by another. Clearly, these individuals are capable of thinking only in terms of polar opposites, black and white.

I'm not sure that this is a new phenomenon, and it certainly doesn't apply merely to politics. It seems to be something that emerges out of the human preference for what results with the least amount of effort; ensconcing one's self in communally held dogma is easy and safe; learning, thinking, and formulating is hard.

Machjo · December 18, 2009

It is a rather fascinating phenomenon; I see it manifest particularly in my being called a conservative hack by one person and then a liberal shill by another. Clearly, these individuals are capable of thinking only in terms of polar opposites, black and white.

I'm not sure that this is a new phenomenon, and it certainly doesn't apply merely to politics. It seems to be something that emerges out of the human preference for what results with the least amount of effort; ensconcing one's self in communally held dogma is easy and safe; learning, thinking, and formulating is hard.

What are you on about, you liberal conservative socialist jewish Muslim commie idiot?

Just kidding.

I fully agree with you.

Machjo · December 18, 2009

What are you on about, you liberal conservative socialist jewish Muslim commie idiot?

Just kidding.

I fully agree with you.

Sorry, forgot. And you're a damn libertarian capitalist pig too, you pacifist militarist dovish hawk.

Edited December 18, 2009 by Machjo

Riverwind · December 18, 2009

Everyone's opinion is based on their frame of reference.

It is not possible to interpret/analyze facts or events without using a frame of reference.

It is not possible to make decisions/policies without tying them back to a frame of reference.

Political ideologies are often the frame of reference used by people even if they do not realize it.

So if some calls someone else a 'communist' for expressing an opinion. What that really means is:

'I think your opinion is based on the communist ideological framework and I can't agree with you because my ideological framework is different'

Often it is not possible to resolve issues which are simply a matter of frame of reference.

For example, in another thread I took issue with the claim that there was something inherently wrong with Canadians emitting more CO2 than the world average. I tried to make a logical - even mathematical - argument to explain why I felt that. But in the end it was impossible for someone with a socialist/communist ideological framework to comprehend my argument. To them unequal emissions is simply 'unfair' and there can be no debate.

Edited December 18, 2009 by Riverwind

wyly · December 18, 2009

I confess that I can get quite irate when a forumite tries to argue a point using lazy ideological stereotypes. For example, problem X is all the 'socialists' fault (as if we even all agreed on the term socialist), and of course problem Y is all the capitalists' fault (again, as if we all agreed on its definition too). And it goes without saying that problem A is the Conservatives' fault, problem B is the Jews' fault, problem C is the Muslims' fault, etc.

And of course party D can take all the credit and glory for the success of policy E. praise the party!

How has the Canadian brain gone so to mush that the best argument for or against something has become to just label it something with either a positive of negative connotation.

What's going on with the Canadian education system that that's about as critically as our minds can function?

I like to think of it as that "american disease"...

I don't understand how an issue like climate change became a issue of the left and right...for me it's always been a scientific issue only I never attached politcal leanings to it until I was labeled as a treehugging, hippie, socialist, leftist, liberal, commie...it's a disturbing trend...

Michael Hardner · December 18, 2009

For example, in another thread I took issue with the claim that there was something inherently wrong with Canadians emitting more CO2 than the world average. I tried to make a logical - even mathematical - argument to explain why I felt that. But in the end it was impossible for someone with a socialist/communist ideological framework to comprehend my argument. To them unequal emissions is simply 'unfair' and there can be no debate.

You can still achieve a lot by looking at the facts themselves. Too often, the frame of reference is all that is used as evidence. (e.g. Capitalists are greedy, socialists are lazy)

In fact, the frame of reference itself is diverging and people need to check in back with that by agreeing on common principles first then moving forward with exploration and discussion.

Machjo · December 18, 2009

I like to think of it as that "american disease"...

I don't understand how an issue like climate change became a issue of the left and right...for me it's always been a scientific issue only I never attached politcal leanings to it until I was labeled as a treehugging, hippie, socialist, leftist, liberal, commie...it's a disturbing trend...

By American, you mean national or continental? just kidding. Oh, and I guess it's natural we catch bugs from our neighbours, being so close and all. We tend to catch otehr continental diseases less frequently owing to the distance I suppose.

Machjo · December 18, 2009

By American, you mean national or continental? just kidding. Oh, and I guess it's natural we catch bugs from our neighbours, being so close and all. We tend to catch otehr continental diseases less frequently owing to the distance I suppose.

Another parallel issue is the mantra of reducing government spending or increasing government spending. Certainly if a person says the government needs to reduce spending, that means nothing on its own. By how much should it cut spending, and where? Should we cut it completely and just get rid of government altogether?

Same when one says we need to increase government spending. Again, by how much, and how to spend it? Just parroting that we need to reduce or increase spending means nothing on its own; it's too abstract. if a person says the government needs to increase or reduce spending, he should be able to point out where exactly, why, and the pros and cons of the action.

Keepitsimple · December 18, 2009

I don't understand how an issue like climate change became a issue of the left and right...for me it's always been a scientific issue only I never attached politcal leanings to it until I was labeled as a treehugging, hippie, socialist, leftist, liberal, commie...it's a disturbing trend...

And that's what it SHOULD be - a scientific issue. Pure facts, causes, effects, proving, disproving. But as we've all seen, politics has been rampant and is now the dominant feature of Global Warming.....one only needs to look at the anti-capitalist and socialist makeup of the demonstrators that are in Copenhagen to see how the term "Left" has been applied to Kyoto and Copenhagen. Now "poor countries" are saying that $100 billion is nowhere near what they need. It's all about the money.

waldo · December 18, 2009

And that's what it SHOULD be - a scientific issue. Pure facts, causes, effects, proving, disproving. But as we've all seen, politics has been rampant and is now the dominant feature of Global Warming.....one only needs to look at the anti-capitalist and socialist makeup of the demonstrators that are in Copenhagen to see how the term "Left" has been applied to Kyoto and Copenhagen. Now "poor countries" are saying that $100 billion is nowhere near what they need. It's all about the money.

that you ignore the science to suit your personal bent... suggests you are being somewhat... hypocritical. Is there ideological science, proper?

whowhere · December 18, 2009

I confess that I can get quite irate when a forumite tries to argue a point using lazy ideological stereotypes. For example, problem X is all the 'socialists' fault (as if we even all agreed on the term socialist), and of course problem Y is all the capitalists' fault (again, as if we all agreed on its definition too). And it goes without saying that problem A is the Conservatives' fault, problem B is the Jews' fault, problem C is the Muslims' fault, etc.

And of course party D can take all the credit and glory for the success of policy E. praise the party!

How has the Canadian brain gone so to mush that the best argument for or against something has become to just label it something with either a positive of negative connotation.

What's going on with the Canadian education system that that's about as critically as our minds can function?

Hey if it applies use it The Communist conservatives think nothing of calling the Bloc the Separatists. So really what is good for the goose is good for the gander. We have stand firm against the communists.

Machjo · December 18, 2009

And that's what it SHOULD be - a scientific issue. Pure facts, causes, effects, proving, disproving. But as we've all seen, politics has been rampant and is now the dominant feature of Global Warming.....one only needs to look at the anti-capitalist and socialist makeup of the demonstrators that are in Copenhagen to see how the term "Left" has been applied to Kyoto and Copenhagen. Now "poor countries" are saying that $100 billion is nowhere near what they need. It's all about the money.

This is precisely the kind of thing I'm talking about. So the politicization of environmental issues is uniquely a leftwing issue?

waldo · December 18, 2009

For example, in another thread I took issue with the claim that there was something inherently wrong with Canadians emitting more CO2 than the world average. I tried to make a logical - even mathematical - argument to explain why I felt that. But in the end it was impossible for someone with a socialist/communist ideological framework to comprehend my argument. To them unequal emissions is simply 'unfair' and there can be no debate.

fer sure... your quoted comment is surely the way to overcome any ideological prejudice, real or perceived. Other than Simple's silly video link I can't recall any references to "communists"... oh, wait, sorry (we can't forget Shady's liberal use of the "comrade" tag).

Machjo · December 18, 2009

Hey if it applies use it The Communist conservatives think nothing of calling the Bloc the Separatists. So really what is good for the goose is good for the gander. We have stand firm against the communists.

We ought to try to use these terms devoid of irrational emotionalisms. And yes, I agree that Harper has made use of emotionally charged wording to influence the simple masses, though again I would not go out and make a blanket accusation against the right in general. This is something I've noticed with harper and it just makes him come across as manipulative and a pure party hack.

It is possible to call a person a conservative while using a strict definition of the term. Same with socialist, and even communist and Nazi if it applies. But use the term according to strict definitions and not to manipulate the simple masses.

Sir Bandelot · December 18, 2009

One should never get upset about what happens in these forums. I try to make serious posts, but often get swiped at with ad-hominem attacks by someone who sees my views as contrary to their political agenda. It doesn't bother me, although I prefer that valid reasons for criticism are given.

Still, I don't mind poking a little fun back at others, so if someone goes on about how leftists are at fault for everything, thats already hard to take completely seriously, and I might whack back at them a little.

Seems to me that everyone must have some ideology, or agenda that makes them want to come here and post, so there will be arguments. No matter what though, I never like to make anyone feel truly upset. That's not how I get my jollies

'cept for MDancer

bush_cheney2004 · December 18, 2009

By American, you mean national or continental? just kidding. Oh, and I guess it's natural we catch bugs from our neighbours, being so close and all. We tend to catch otehr continental diseases less frequently owing to the distance I suppose.

..and as we have seen many times, without such American "bugs", there would be no definition at all.

bush_cheney2004 · December 18, 2009

....This is something I've noticed with harper and it just makes him come across as manipulative and a pure party hack.

But you choose not to see it in other party leaders? Surely you can do better than that.

Machjo · December 18, 2009

..and as we have seen many times, without such American "bugs", there would be no definition at all.

Of course. But hey, we're all American from Canada to Argentina anyway, right.

ToadBrother · December 18, 2009

I like to think of it as that "american disease"...

I don't understand how an issue like climate change became a issue of the left and right...for me it's always been a scientific issue only I never attached politcal leanings to it until I was labeled as a treehugging, hippie, socialist, leftist, liberal, commie...it's a disturbing trend...

That goes back some ways, predating climate change. Since at least the 1980s, certain branches of science, generally science and geology, have decried as Leftist disciplines by social conservatives, who often tended to be Biblical literalists and Creationists to one degree or another. Climate is only the latest target.

Machjo · December 18, 2009

But you choose not to see it in other party leaders? Surely you can do better than that.

The post I was referring to had made mention of 'separatists', and that reminded me of Harper's choice of words in his speech when proroguing Parliament, even though in his French version, he chose sovereigntist. Clearly he was manipulating his words to suit the audience. He should have provided an accurate transaltion either way, and not say one thing in English and another in French.

Otherwise, I fully agree that many on the left use terms manipulatively too, such as referring to a moderate conservative as a Nazi and such, and yes it's equally unacceptable. I hope that clarifies that.

bush_cheney2004 · December 18, 2009

Of course. But hey, we're all American from Canada to Argentina anyway, right.

Only when it's convenient, it would seem.

Sir Bandelot · December 18, 2009

Only when it's convenient, it would seem.

Aye, there's the rub. But why would you expect the power dynamic that applies to governments to be any different in humans beings? That is after all what governments are made of.