Community Assignment: The Agenda of the [Opposing View] (1 Viewer)

[V Chip]

From the Other Site's thread started by what I called a shirt grenade... I thought maybe we could try an assignment here, if people are up to it.

Instead of creating a caricature of what people think the opposing view wants, why not try an actual thoughtful representation of what each side thinks the other wants. Would we be willing to discuss and come up with a real concise idea of what the other side wants in regard to certain issues? If we use that disingenuous post as a start, we would have a few issues to try and come up with what the liberals feel is what the conservatives really want regarding immigration/border policy, law enforcement, opposition to the other side's leaders (Trump for example, or Pelosi/Obama/AOC/whoever), and maybe add one or two other issues that were left out in that post -- and obviously what conservatives feel about liberals views as well.

So the assignment would be to go to the private boards and start a discussion there, trying to come up with real versions of what the other side wants. Once the discussions have taken place on the private boards, someone would come back here and post up the Conservative take on what Liberals want, and the Liberal take on what Conservatives want. Once here, the actual liberals and conservatives would be able to critique the posts and offer feedback on what is good and what isn't, and maybe that can offer a starting point for better discussions.

The Moderates -- well, either you can watch and comment once the final posts are done, or you can have double duty and offer your ideas on what Conservatives and Liberals want.

Does anyone think this would be worthwhile, or would we be pissing into a partisan wind?

 

[V Chip]

Let me see if I understand correctly.

Each side is going to try to "steelman" the other side's position. In other words, as a conservative, I would try my best to state the progressive position in a way that progressives would agree with.


Or,

Are we trying to delve into what we think the other side "really" wants? (Which sounds like it would get into strawmanning real fast and I think would get into a shirtshow).

Steelman, to use your words.

Trying to get into what one side thinks the other *really* wants leads to posts like the one that was so horrible it led me to this idea. What would be the point of that? Leave that kind of cariacature for the private boards where all the like-minded can pat themselves on the back for how clever they are.

But it’s not really a steelman either, as the point isn’t to construct an argument you can tear down. We can argue/discuss the issues, but I’d like to see if people can actually try to understand the opposing viewpoint enough that you could state it clearly and defend it at least logically (even if you aren’t in favor of it).

 

[V Chip]

I don't think that it what the OP wanted. He wanted each group to try to describe the "other" sides oppinion without creating a caricature of what people think the opposing view wants. So no smacktalk and no "strawmanning" - just dealing in actual topics and oppinions.

Exactly.

 

[V Chip]

Its what good arguments entail: If you find you disagree with a position, you state that position in the strongest, best possible way and then point out why it is wrong.

Almost this. I’m wasn't that interested in seeing the rebuttal of the argument, but just if it is even possible for people to try and see without the ridiculous hyperbole. To use that post as an example, if conservatives truly believe liberals want no borders whatsoever, that is so far from reality that IMO it becomes impossible for people who believe that to participate in a meaningful discussion. If there are liberals who truly think conservatives want to establish the US as a whites only country, those people are so far removed from reality that their input damages meaningful conversation.

But for the most part you are spot on.

 

[V Chip]

I’m with you, but it will be hard on both sides. If I really say why I think that the left is in favor of immigration, it will be met with ridicule. Now I could make up a reason for the sake of conversation, but at the end of the day what does that really do?

It shouldn’t be why you *think* the left supports XYZ topic. I’m not looking for what people think are the hidden agendas — those things, while good to have discussions around that if possible — are generally the things that lead message board discussions astray. For example, I don’t want to have a conversation with Skynyrd about why he thinks the things behind his post because I believe the ideas are so ridiculous as to make meaningful discussion with him or around those ideas impossible. I’m sure you don’t want to have a conversation with a liberal who would say the reason they think Republicans are in favor of voter ID is to completely deny most black people the right to vote, no matter how strongly that liberal might believe that. Conservatives would immediately be defensive about that notion, just like liberals would be defensive about the idea that we want “no borders” to be able to flood the country with immigrants who will only vote Democratic. It’s an extreme idea that makes conversations go to extremes.