|
|
Post by Stallit 2 de Halfo on Aug 13, 2007 23:51:27 GMT
Thats how im feeling right now. Im really pissed off with peoples politics in general, and I do be thinking "Christ they are so Fing stupid". Sorry for the rantiness ;D. This topic is more about asking what your debating (or explaining) style is, and just how you communicate your views with brainwashed indoctrinated people. When im debating, or trying to get my point across - I get very heated - to the point that people think im angry, or taking it personally, "or gettting carried away". Once something is started, I cant let it rest. After "arguing" I generally feel very bad because of the way I get "carried away" - and I think - why the hell do I bother arguing with them, theyr just ordinary plebs with no interest in politics and who just follow along with things without questioning them. Most of the time they are just so stubborn that they oppose what im saying despite not having a clue. The saying "dont argue with a fool because he'll turn things around and beat you with experience" also comes to mind. But I just cant help arguing with "fools". Basically - my way of debating is not very effective (or so it seems). Im much better writing stuff down like now on the computer. So what way do you communicate your views? - do you bother trying to explain things to others or do you just say "take it or leave it"? Can you just let something rest?, whats your "style" in general. They say the two things not to talk about at the dinner table is politics and reigion (id agree with that, though I rarely follow it  ) - do you go by this? What I would love, is to be like Chomsky. Talk intelligently and calm and get the point across. Its difficult when your talking to a plank going around in circles though ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Papa C. on Aug 14, 2007 7:24:21 GMT
When im debating, or trying to get my point across - I get very heated - to the point that people think im angry, or taking it personally, "or gettting carried away". Once something is started, I cant let it rest. After "arguing" I generally feel very bad because of the way I get "carried away" - and I think - why the hell do I bother arguing with them, theyr just ordinary plebs with no interest in politics and who just follow along with things without questioning them. Most of the time they are just so stubborn that they oppose what im saying despite not having a clue. The saying "dont argue with a fool because he'll turn things around and beat you with experience" also comes to mind. But I just cant help arguing with "fools". It's called 'passion' comrade  I'm the same myself but I'd usually pick and choose who I'm going to try and turn (into a socialist). For instance, I'd rarely talk about politics to people who don't show an interest in politics. I'd wait for them to kick off a subject. But then I feel that if they don't understand the socialist ideal, they won't understand my arguments. The worst is when you're talking to someone who assumes they're middle class because they have a car or work in an office. I usually focus on the fact that Government are not there in the interest of the people. I hate not getting my argument understood fully as this often makes people even more confused than they were to start with and this makes me feel like I've failed miserably - then I go off and have a little cry ;D What I would love, is to be like Chomsky. Talk intelligently and calm and get the point across. Its difficult when your talking to a plank going around in circles though ;D I think Chomsky accepts and understands that explaining 'why' and 'how' is the most effective route when trying to educate people and that even the most educated can still have a skewed idea of politics. I think his calm explanations is the best way of explaining anything. On the whole I think people respect you and your politics if you do good things for them. For instance if a socialist party was to promise people lower taxes (high taxes usually being the cause of high prices but most don't recognise VAT as a tax), more and better jobs, lower house prices, better infrastructure and most of all a booming economy that they will benefit from, people would probably vote for it. The thing about lower house prices, though, is that some who already have a house and want to sell it for a little profit in order to get a better house would be disappointed. I mean people know FF are a bunch of 'educated gangsters' but they still voted for them because they promised a booming economy and people are afraid of losing their house, car, way of life despite being ripped off at every turn. Phew! I went on a bit of a rant there didn't I? |
|
john
Comrade
Posts: 13
|
Post by john on Aug 14, 2007 22:36:04 GMT
Rare that I will enter the debate but rather take in as much as I can before spurting out my own thoughts. Long way to go in grasping all facets of socialism worthy of a debate so I spend a good bit of time reading more. As for talking to others, they have ears to listen if they want to so I feel no need to elevate debate to argument unless of course the individual is in the way of something important.
The saying you quoted is actually on a door where I work! Another favorite could apply," Some people never run out of stupid.".
As for Chomsky... trust me he answers even the simplest of questions and didn't berate me once and compared to Noam I'm pretty Fing stupid. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Stallit 2 de Halfo on Aug 19, 2007 14:25:08 GMT
Hey thanks for the reply lads! been very interesting. Id like to think so ;D. Iv "calmed" down over the years of being a commy and the problem of getting argumentative dosnt happen much at all. Just that I had a heated debate with two people I shouldnt have and it brought it all back. You spoke with Chomsky?  , and when you put it that way...... ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Papa C. on Aug 20, 2007 7:39:04 GMT
Iv "calmed" down over the years of being a commy and the problem of getting argumentative dosnt happen much at all. Just that I had a heated debate with two people I shouldnt have and it brought it all back. It can be quite dangerous talking to some people about politics (like your boss for instance lol). I was just thinking that myself lol. Although I hear he gets around to answering all of his emails no matter who sends them. You might be able to find his address on the MIT web site if he's still there and revleft.com might have it. I have to say this man's dedication to educating people about the horrors of capitalism and imperialism is one of the post powerful tools the anti-imperialist movement have. |
|
|
|
Post by Stallit 2 de Halfo on Aug 20, 2007 11:54:52 GMT
And to think, I used to put "Marxism and politics" under "interests" on my CV. Is it any wonder I never got replies ;D
Here, here! Im amazed he even gets so much time on air. He's getting old now though and I wonder if there will be any Marxists or anarchists out there to fill his place - as in, have that much access to the media.
|
|
|
|
Post by Papa C. on Aug 20, 2007 13:10:11 GMT
And to think, I used to put "Marxism and politics" under "interests" on my CV. Is it any wonder I never got replies ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D That's a good point. What makes Chomsky so important that the media can't deny him? It could be the fact that he is so famous for making very thought provoking points and backing them up with historically sound evidence that makes them solid as a rock. I don't think even Howard Zinn (another political anylist whose often put in the same category as Chomsky) does this so well. But getting back to your point about communication style. I think the best way is to communicate with or attempt a 'conversion' ;D is to only talk to those who show an interest firstly, and then give your point to them in 'baby steps'. You can't teach someone the Marxist ideal, in both the Irish context and international context and back it up with proper sound evidence in one sentance or even in 15 minutes. It is something you have to work on. But I think the point of a proper, transparent democracy and the lack there of within western countries, even though people believe they do live in a democracy, is a good place to start. For instance, when did we get to vote on our national resources being sold to shell? Why did we have to vote on the Nice treaty twice? Didn't we make our vote clear the first time? How many times do we have to vote until we get it right? Why did the state support, whole-heartedly, the war in Iraq even though 150,000 people came out on the streets of Dublin to protest against it and against our involvement? Why can't we use Loch Neagh, the largest fresh water lake in Europe, and why are we forced to buy bottled water from God knows where out of the shop when there's free water all around us? Who controls democracy in Ireland and why does anyone. I mean shouldn't democracy control itself? |
|
|
|
Post by Stallit 2 de Halfo on Aug 28, 2007 22:07:13 GMT
Ill tell you what Papa C., I came across this and its pretty much spot on with what you get when trying to explain to people of an alternative. Its called "The system justification theory". Check it out.... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_justificationThis is exactly the sort of attitude I face when speaking to people about socialism and communism. Its a wonder this theory isnt discussed more (at least fro what iv seen). |
|
|
|
Post by Papa C. on Aug 29, 2007 13:59:26 GMT
Hmmmmm. That is an interesting theory indeed. Thanks for posting.
|
|
) - do you go by this?
I'm the same myself but I'd usually pick and choose who I'm going to try and turn (into a socialist). For instance, I'd rarely talk about politics to people who don't show an interest in politics. I'd wait for them to kick off a subject. But then I feel that if they don't understand the socialist ideal, they won't understand my arguments. The worst is when you're talking to someone who assumes they're middle class because they have a car or work in an office. I usually focus on the fact that Government are not there in the interest of the people.
, and when you put it that way...... ;D