Working on a consensus... an example

by Phantom Stranger 9 Replies latest social current

• 

  Phantom Stranger

  Over the last two days, I participated in two threads about the terror attack in Spain. While my motive in participating was to introduce a moderating influence (and I did start out by agreeing with Yeru!), in the end I became a part of the problem - reacting to name-calling, vicious verbal attacks, and general statements that may or may not have been aimed at me. That sort of behavior bogged down both threads...at this point they are a waste of time, as far as I can tell. That's how political discussion seems to go here... but the two Spain threads have been the worst I've seen in months. The "Jane-you-ignorant-slut" approach won out. A bunch of North Americans arguing about what happened in a European country, when none of us really knows - and acting like we all know exactly what it means, when none of us really knows that either! All sides are equally guilty in this regard. So... I was actually inspired by seeing this story... too bad we don't do a better job of actual communication here... Annan: U.N. needs consensus on global threats He says poverty, disease threaten more than terrorism, WMDs NEW YORK (CNN) -- The United Nations and the world have reached a "fork in the road" regarding what is perceived as a global threat and how such threats should be dealt with, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said Tuesday. In an address to the Council on Foreign Relations, Annan said U.N. member states used to share the understanding that countries "were supposed to use force only in self-defense, or by a collective decision that it was necessary to use force in order to keep the peace." "Now we have a different situation, where one group of states, led by the U.S., is saying that some threats -- particularly terrorism and weapons of mass destruction -- are so dangerous that they dare not wait until they are attacked, or until there is an agreement in the Security Council, before taking action," Annan said. The other group, he said, believes that it is more dangerous for the states to be "using force at their own discretion," and that group does not consider terrorism and unconventional weapons to be the most dangerous threats in the world. "Most people are much more directly threatened by such things as extreme poverty, hunger, disease, environmental disasters, or by low-tech violence, when order breaks down in their country or civil war breaks out," Annan said. The secretary-general said he hopes that a panel he created in November can help the United Nations agree on the main threats to humanity, and how to adapt and improve the world body's policies and institutions to deal with the threats. The panel is to report to Annan at the end of the year with recommendations as to what the threats are, "so that we can get away from the idea that some, such as terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, are of concern only to the 'North,' while poverty and hunger only affect people in the 'South.' " "I think we need a clear global understanding of the threats and challenges that we all have to face, because to neglect any one of them might fatally undermine our efforts to confront the others." One of the panel's members is Brent Scowcroft, who served as national security adviser to Presidents Ford and George H.W. Bush. The other panel members, Annan said, are similarly experienced and represent several parts of the world. OK...hard to argue with the basic dichotomic analysis... and no matter what your opinion is about which side's right, can you honestly say that everybody shouldn't get together and talk it out? If the UN was in Iraq (and we know now we could have taken some more time to bring them in...) so many problems would be minimized or non-existent! I want my country, which I love, to hang onto what it's good at and to improve at what it's not good at, and I want it to play well with others. Doesn't seem like a mutually-exclusive sort of goal, really...
• 

  imallgrowedup

  Phantom -

  One of my biggest loves is politics. But I've learned that no matter how hard people try, conversations in the political arena end up devolving into adolescent name-calling matches. I do everything in my power to stay out of them (I'm not always successful), 'cuz all they end up doing is pissing me off. It's been a tough lesson to learn. I wasn't in the threads of which you speak, but I'm sorry (but not surprised) that this happened. I hope everyone can forgive one another and start fresh.

  growedup
• 

  talesin

  PS

  I agree. I just couldn't take it anymore.

  Good article, BTW. Not that many here will agree, unfortunately.

  tal

  (crawls back into her hole)
• 

  Phantom Stranger

  And this should not be interpreted as criticism of how the board is run...but Simon, your posts are not helping over there... not one bit.
• 

  franklin J

  ken, you ignorant slut!
• 

  Phantom Stranger

  that's me :)

  I believe that the majority of people are capable of discussing politics respectfully and with an open mind. Those are the exact same people who get disgusted in conversations where those principles are abandoned.
• 

  Sassy

  I want to understand more about politics, but I must admit when everyone gets to arguing/slamming.. then I think, why am I putting myself into this?

  I want to be informed about politics without having to feel like I am in a battle regarding it.. Is that possible?
• 

  Yerusalyim

  Sure, we can get together and talk, but it's hard to respect a man like Kofi Annan, or the UN process when it's coming to light that Saddam used the Oil for Food program to bribe the administrator of that program, other UN members and the leaders of the key opposing countries (France and Russia in particular). Having said all this, the US should NEVER surrender it's defense concerns to the UN. I for one think the UN has served it's purpose and is now no more relevant than was the League of Nations.
• 

  Love_Truth

  Yes, that seems to be the nature of political discusssions. If you have to remain PC, there is very little you'll learn, IMO, because you've limited what is "acceptable" to discuss.
  

  I still find the best place for political discussions on the internet is MSN's "Fray" discussion boards, especially "Ballot Box" http://fray.slate.msn.com/?id=3936&tp=ballotbox. I would highly recommend that anyone interested in learning more about politics visit that board.

  But be warned- it's style is very different than that here- it may shock you!
• 

  Phantom Stranger

  Everyone will be shocked to read that I once more disagree with L_T.

  Exercising respect in how something is discussed is very different from limiting the topics that can be discussed...

  When discussion is intended as a dominance exercise, it degenerates into chaos. If dominance is your driving social need, then that is the nature of political discussions...for you. Sharing viewpoints respectfully is not hard...it's probably easier in person, but it's still not heard... if you're committed to it.

  I like the Fray...sometimes. Awfully large pond, though...