Are people capable of asking or answering Politics questions without rudeness or profanity?

Question

I surf all the different categories, and every now and then I see an inappropriate question or answer in other categories. But in Politics, I'd estimate that half include profanity, insults, rudeness or other inappropriate content. I have my own opinions, which I often share, but I manage to do so without any of this nonsense. Are people really so inarticulate that they can't find words to express themselves that won't get them reported? Do people really imagine that they're going to influence anyone's opinion by calling them vile names? Or is this all just adolescent posturing?

Answer 1

I think it's the result of a few things.

There seems to be more at stake in the upcoming elections than has been the case in many years. Two completely different views of what our nation is and should be are in conflict, and people feel very strongly about it. The see far-reaching consequences, and they are probably right. I suspect future scholars will compare this election to the one of 1800 for its influence and virulence.

Secondly is the anonymous nature of the internet. The same people would not be so abusive face to face, and would hesitate to use such inflammatory language in public. They know that it marks you as immature and ignorant, but here nobody knows who you are.

Lastly is the fact that so many YA users are so young. Not all by any means, but the site is full of 14-year-olds who don't know much about anything but who have very strong opinions nonetheless.

Answer 2

Candy ! you have nicely worded your question. Compliments !
Probably it is some thing like the WWF matches. No offense is really meant to any one. Ordinary people are far removed from the big politicians. It is only at the election times you can call them by their first names.

Recall the other example. People very passionately think of the characters in the celluloid world. Can you ever think of a person to person contact with any of them; or for that matter do they really know about your existence?

Again I say I liked your polite question.

Answer 3

Much of it starts with people being incredulous that others don't think the same way they do. This creates the impression that those who think differently must therefore be less intelligent, and subject to ridicule. For example, I get a lot of abuse because of two seemingly contradictory conditions: 1. I have a PHD in a Science, 2. I do not oppose George Bush.

Note I did not say I SUPPORT Bush, I just don't OPPOSE him. People then say I must have graduated at the bottom of my class for this to be true.

Once we uncouple the perceived link between intelligence and opposing opinion, the insults will subside, but that will probably not happen.

The most intelligent professor at my Graduate School was a Fundamentalist Christian, putting his knowledge of science secondary to his faith, so anybody can think anything.

Answer 4

a- people are extremely mad at what is going on in the world. b- people think they can solve the worlds problems by blurting out how they feel on a spec of the world wide web. c- religion is probably worse, these are the two topics i try to stay away from when drinking with friends, religion and politics. everyone is dead set on their own opinions so they think they know everything about it. I in my mind right now am like you, open to expansion of the brain, not contraction. like the word flip flopper, a strong word in 04, but i think people put persuasive arguments out there for either sides of any topic, a knowledge seeker looks at both sides of a topic before making a decision, but if new evidence becomes available, a flip flop may occur. this world is great that is all i know. yes there is trauma and mayhem going on, but what would this world be without humans? crazy thought huh, you think it would peaceful then, or would another species have the mind capacity to have people hate other people for their thoughts or color of skin.

Answer 5

Debate - yes that's it.

He who asserts must prove. In order to establish an assertion, the debaters must support it with enough evidence and logic to convince an intelligent but previously uninformed person that it is more reasonable to believe the assertion than to disbelieve it. Facts must be accurate.

In the questioning period, the questioner may ask any fair, clear question that has a direct bearing on the debate. The questioner may use the period to build up any part of his own case, to tear down any part of his opposition's case, or to ascertain facts, such as the opposition's position on a certain issue, that can be used later in the debate. The questioner must confine himself to questions and not make statements, comments, or ask rhetorical questions.

Yes! A debate!

Answer 6

Most people don't seem to have truly given their positions much thought. They believe what they believe because of someones T.V. ad, or a brief video clip on the news, or because of anecdotal evidence given by their political guru, without looking closer for the facts. Then, when someone disagrees with them, they don't have a clearly defined argument to respond with. Hence, all the negativity you see here.

Answer 7

I think the old saying about not discussing religion or politics is true. These two issues seem to cut deep with people and they react very emotionally. That doesn't excuse the profanity or attacks, but many people care deeply about their political ideals.

Answer 8

i call them simpleminded, uninformed, simpletons and the like

because they think they are fully awake people

maybe someday they will ask themselves why we always call them the same names

but yes, it is a competition of intellect

if you cant hang with the big dogs stay in the porch and deck section

but we do go too far sometimes, i agree

but politics is the single most important issue next to religion

it should be discussed openly

Answer 9

It is a mixture of reasons. Some people get emotional and can't respond in a rational,mature way. Others want to annoy you.

Answer 10

It depends on how the person poses the question. Most questions are inflammatory.

Take for example, "Why do we require Republican candidates to ignore science?"

You go on to say that Republican candidates are required to not believe in evolution. That's bigoted and untrue.

See how that works.