Polarization

[Preechr]

Sure, it's possible. As I told you before, Gator and I disagree on fundamental political issues, but still respect each other's beliefs. We even discuss these ideological differences in great detail without hating each other. You and I are even more different politically, and I like you just fine.

That being said, in public debate it's pretty easy to say one side of any disagreement is just plain wrong. I'm an optimist that truly believes in people, so I tend to think that those that are supporting an incorrect ideal are simply misinformed on the matter. As various worthless discussions on message boards have proven to me, however, that is not always the case and the rest of the time it doesn't matter.

As an example, tons of factual data can easily win any debate on "Gun Control" in favor of the American "Right to bear arms," yet those that favor gun bans generally fall into one of two camps: either they know they are wrong yet apply a slippery slope argument for political reasons, or they just don't trust people regardless of any sort of facts.

The NRA does the same exact things, though... well, the same on the first and the exact opposite in the latter case... They argue against any gun restrictions citing another slippery slope, and would trust anybody to use a Nuclear Sub responsibly.

Maybe all that borders closely on evil, stupidy and lies, but one side is clearly right and the other wrong: Gun Control does not work. Rather than argue over my example, if any of you disagree, please substitute your own pet liberty debate for gun control and the same observations will hold true.

The "screechiness" of modern politics comes from somewhere else, though. Let's use our esteemed moderator, Kevin, as an example on this one. Before I-mock's staff decided to torture him with a mod position on this forum, he was an outspoken, though kind and gentle, sort of guy. Add a drop of authority, however, and he turns into a mutated Rush Limbaugh/Al Frankenstein, gratuitously bashing and smashing anything in his path, kinda like a poli-sci-juggernaut.

You've all seen the political quizzes that graph your ideology left to right on the x-axis and authoritarian to libertarian on the y-axis, yet I'd be willing to bet that nearly none of you have considered just how profound (and still misleading) the addition of that vertical score really is. All sides of any debate in modern America have been trending toward authoritarian means to accomplish their goals lately. THAT is what has changed.

Now, this is addressed primarily to max, but I know others will read it and some of you tend to skip over big words, so I will describe what authoritarianism is so you won't miss this. It's pretty important...

Remember Kevin the Herbivore? What a nice guy, right? He might have argued with you here and there, but for the most part, he was content to let you, no matter how wrong you were on an issue, believe as you wish, happy that you would eventually (possibly with some coaxing) realize the error of your ways and admit your logically flawed thinking (or die a lonely death after suffering through a tortured existence based in lies.)

Well, now that he can ban people and eat whatever he wants, he's a rampaging, mutated juggernaut and we all fear him. I'm pretty sure it's affected traffic here as well, too... That's authoritarianism, kids, and it's not a pretty thing. Just as Kevin's abuse of power is ruining I-mockery, authoritarian politics is ruining the world.

The reason I am taking the time to explain this is that I'm pretty sure most of you don't get it. I am often accused of being a Republican, though I am a libertarian, which leads me to believe you have no idea, generally speaking of course, where the fine line in the terminology lies. Republicans are socially and economically trending toward the right side of the scale, politically, while Democrats trend toward the left socially and economically. I trend to the left socially and to the right economically (that this cannot be graphed on a political quiz is why I call them misleading,) but the main difference between me and either aforementioned group is in methodology.

Both dominant use authoritarian means to achieve their goals. Authoritarian means are identified by measuring the use of force required to implement them. Democrats forcibly extract money from the rich to accomplish their goals of helping the poor. Republicans use police power to make us act like good Christain folk. You guys use authoritarian means through your "mockery" style debate tactics, though you probably don't know you're doing it.

Authoritarian methodology is so popular because it is fast-paced and effective, at least in the short run. It's the rule of the Iron Fist versus the rule of the Open Palm. It's hard to watch someone break the rules, only eventually learning their value if in fact she cheats death, injury or disease long enough to reach that point. It's considerably easier to lay down the law of "Just Say No" or will throw under the jail. Everybody gets to sleep well at night, comforted by the Wild West notions that criminals are evil-doers and everyone else has done all they possibly could... even though that's a lie.

Well, I've gone way off point now, as usual, so I'll wrap it up by pointing out that the answer to any question you might have is that I am right.