Kirkhill said:
At the risk of being deemed trollworthy Redeye, do you not see yourself in your description of those with whom you disagree?
Venom?
I have strong opinions about the actions of many individuals. I regret the actions of many groups that head off in directions I wouldn't choose. And sometimes, (more often than I should) I allow myself to express those opinions in overly colourful terms.
But writing off a whole group of people as unworthy of dialogue is unworthy.
Even conservatively socialist liberals deserve to be heard.
Not trollworthy - a decent post. I freely admit to flying a bit off the handle sometimes - but generally what causes me to do so is when a discussion moves from discussing actual, reasonable ideas to discussing the sort of utter nonsense that pervades the media. And I'm as apt to do it to those leaning more left to me as to those more right - because "ideologically" I tend to sit somewhat in the centre - even somewhat right of centre on many issues.
The group I write off as unworthy of dialogue isn't people who have right leaning opinions (nor left), it's thsoe whose opinions are not in any way rooted in fact or any sort of reasonable basis. If your basis of an opinion on an issue is an utterly incorrect or completely spun statement, and you haven't taken the time or made the effort to actually seek more depth on the matter, then yes, I'll probably write you off as being unworthy of any sort of dialogue. If, on the other hand, you can present an argument which is cogent and rooted in something that isn't just fearmongering from what Mr. Campbell aptly described as "shouting heads", I'll happily discuss an issue and agree to disagree when that's the only conclusion I can come to.
The media infleunce is huge, how they draw people into stories is a marketing decision as much as anything. Consider, for example, how they're reporting on the ongoing situation in Japan with respect to the nuclear reactors at Fukushima. While the situation is grave, it seems like the media is playing up the severity massively (to the delight, I suspect, of anti-nuclear activists) because they know that most people simply don't know enough about nuclear power to be able to really understand what's happening. Blogs do serve an interesting purpose in getting more of the story out (including even things like Twitter, to which I am somewhat addicted), but the problem is that you have to be even more careful about what you believe. All too often something is thrown up on a blog that has little evidence to support it but is magically transformed into fact and then widely dispersed.
Rifleman62 raises a valid point. I've been intending to subscribe to the site for a very long time to contribute as I've been using it (and its previous incarnation as a mailing list) since 2000 - but I seem to recall something about the road to hell... So, having been chirped for it, I'm going to get on with it!!!
