Is honest, open, dialogue dead...

This is true.

Tortoise, perhaps it depends on the subject and with whom you're attempting a dialogue.

I've noticed a lot of fora seem to be inhabited by people who believe:

1. If you WANT something to be true badly enough, then, by God, it IS true; and

2. If you disagree with me, you are not only mistaken, but you're also a bad person.

If you can avoid those people (easier said than done), I'm sure you'll be able to have some good dialogue.

Let me know how it turns out.

Yeah I've noticed it too and have been trying to figure out what it means. It's almost as if there's some kind of covert effort disrupt public forums, but who would do such a thing? I've come to the conclusion that there's a fairly large population--maybe one out every three or four people--who feel threatened by the truth. They've got a thing going that works for them, it's bullshit but it pays well and they're apparently afraid of losing it.

That's my current hypothesis to explain the impossibility of truthful communication.

Duncan - You are correct of course. I think it has a lot to do with who I get into discussions with. I have to be more discerning.

and be less ssensative has it blurr your vison.

:P

It goes way way beyond dialogue though. I feel we're living in a culture of deception. It's difficult to find honesty and openness anywhere, in our institutions, professional disciplines, in the media. I spend a lot of time trying to understand why truth has such a small place in our community. I've concluded that our economic way of life rewards falseness. It denies our real need and offers up substitutions for them. I'm wondering if wealth accumulation is based upon this general principle: take and hoard things that are real while offering in exchange fake stuff that has a superficial yet psychologically compelling value.

80475, your comment is all the more unpleasant because it could very well be true.

I know that in politics today, the haters on both sides of the liberal-conservative seem to be in control. If you're a liberal, then all conservatives are morally bad people; contrariwise, the conservatives believe the same canards about the liberals.

What is kind of ironic about this is that there doesn't seem to be all that much difference between the beliefs of these two pseudo-philosophies!

"Is honest, open, dialogue dead..."

... no, it sure isn't, and not a'tall.

Shut up.

It's a good point, and truth be told I am probably as guilty as the next guy!

lol.

Here's my thoughts:

1. The anyominity gives people an opportunity to blow up, dump steam, or be idiotic in a way that is not acceptable to someone elses face, in real life.

2. People tend to post on issues that get them fired up. I do this myself, there are issues on here that I just can't see the other side of.

ie)War crimes apologists, satanism, ect.

3. I think that there REALLY are people who are paid to troll the boards and derail, dispupt, and propagandize.

I mean think about it.

There are millions spent on propaganda in the MSM every year. Do you really think that they can't afford to send a little time focusing on us?

The internet is something that they could not afford to let slip, because there is a real threat to the NWO in people connecting dots...and they know it...

One or two die hard "party-liners" exist on EVERY board. Always involved and always instantly discrediting or derailing real issues.

Perhaps something I should open in another thread though...

But yeah OP I have noticed this too, but at least we can talk about why we're not talking!

lol

Beautifully articulated:
"take and hoard things that are real while offering in exchange fake stuff that has a superficial yet psychologically compelling value."

That sounds like the function of marketing.
It's why we feel empty.
------------
I read a facinating article based on the idea of the hypocrisy inherent in the disparity of wealth:

The capital holder, rich person, who experiences societal approbation for his accumulation, while the poor are chastised to not be materialistic, give to others, work for the lord.

Yes, it surprised me, too. I admire the rich like everybody, and my own accumulation of junk.

Seems this dichotomy is systemic and designed.

You do have to admit that the current system does seem to have us going backwards in terms of what SHOULD be important.

One of the most interesting topics I have seen on this site yet...

So: What are some tips to improve the quality of dialogue?

These could be copied and pasted to help others.

I know its important to ask questions to your correspondant, about their interests.

Read their message, and pose a question based on it.

But I don't know the person...are ideas personal? I'm shy. They might not like me.

When I re-read ops first post, I was impressed at the sincerity and importance, of what s/he said; and others, too.

Combatting TV and video game consciousness.

Kill! Seduce me! Make me laugh!

Improving the dialogue is certainly an admirable aim. However, as I read through the threads, it seems there are a number of people who would rather find support for what they believe than discover something new that could alter what they believe.

Many people are almost irrational in the way that they cling to outmoded ideas or concepts - even in the face of overwhelming evidence that their beliefs are false.

This happens everywhere, even in the hyper-rational world of science in which certain dominant paradigms will be clung to by people who have spent their lives using them. After all, these ways of thinking "worked" or at least did well enough for all practical purposes. When a new way of looking at things appears, the younger people learn it but often are faced with waiting for their elders to leave the profession, before the new ways of thinking can have much impact. It seems like there is a lot of truth to the idea that "you can't teach an old dog new tricks."

For that reason, I have to be a little circumspect when I have the inclination to hammer somebody who isn't making any sense at all. BUT (and this is a big one) there DOES seem to be more going on here than simple differences of opinion. Some of what I see is so breathtakingly obtuse that it seems to be a charade. We can all suggest culprits, but I think we shouldn't judge harshly, because some people are just asking "Where's the beef?" When the request is serious, and not just a contrarian flame, then they deserve an answer. The way questions are asked should determine the response.

I, DUBYA, SUPREME HERO, ULTIMATE KING OF KINGS, AND RULER OF THE EARTH, HEREBY DECLARE THAT ANYONE WHO IS NOT FOR ME IS AGAINIST ME.

DISSENT WILL NOT BE TOLERATED. THERE WILL BE NO DIALOG. THOU SHALT OBEY!

"Is honest, open, dialogue dead..."

... golly, for anyone who may think that 'honest and open dialogues' might just could be kinda dead. May I just suggest then, that they open themselves up a bit more and begin having honest dialogues with everyone. And I do promise them that they'll see, and first hand too, lol, just how alive them 'honest and open dialogues' do be.

It's the emotional immaturity in dialogues that makes me feel sad. It seems to me that when people are living their lives artificially and superficially, when the time arrives for more in depth conversation, it's just not there. A lot of conversations revert to childlike dislikes, mores and dogma, almost like this was the only time people really spoke. It's like we are all out of practice and it shows.

>>>"I try my best to be as civil as possible
with most of the people I reply to. There
are some who are simply out to pick a fight
and nothing I can write will change that."<<<

There are those that (due to previous failed attempts at civil dialogue) are unworthy of anything but contempt and derision...

Some are now running the asylum...

there have been many operations on the internet to demeans free speech
this means that people post on forums as trolls to deliberately cause strife and dissension and to prevent an honest dialogue from happening

it is sad to imagine that people could fear free speech this much

we all know that conversation is not dead

the false impressions fostered by a few on internet forums are obviously artificial
it reminds me of O'reilly's scripted rants

Ad Hominem (throwing insults at the person) is the weakest form of debate and the one politcians base their media campaigns on.

They lead by example.

Be as insulting, selfish and deceptive as possible and you may get somewhere.

The art of rhetoric has been replaced with 'Mastering the Politics of Deception.' (a book by David Corn)

"Ask not where all the good men have gone and be one" - Marcus Auerelius.

That's a good point, really. The younger generation is taught be media to dabate by attack, and to succeed by popularity, instead of ideas or ideal.

On T.V. that's how they debate, cool is king and intellegent or meek is to be trampled on.

I think this is a result of the "dumbing down" process...

"It's frustrating and in itself a sign of the end I fear."

Agreed. One among many.

some people think that what they see on the media is REAL
but, it is just a performance
and most times it is a psyop performance

i have plenty of real conversations with people who live near me

so, what is this amorphous place where the people do not know how to dialogue?

trolls and paid posters do not negate real discussion
they just hinder it

for the most part

i, me, mine is the monologue dejour