Supporter in-fighting

[mdh]

Over the past few weeks, it's become pretty clear that there are a lot of folks who love the message that Ron Paul brings to the table. Folks from a lot of backgrounds... political and otherwise. Rich, poor, Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, whatever else... I've started to see a lot of in-fighting over stuff... things that're really complicated subjects where there are plenty of facts, and 10x as many speculations. There're people who are spreading BS because they think it's the truth. There're people who are spreading BS because they know it's not the truth. What's the BS? What's the truth? The only truth that matters in the context of Ron Paul's political campaign is that these are microcosms of what we're fighting for. We can fight for greater justice without knowing the truth on all of these individual issues. Our enemies are real. But who our enemies are, and how they act, is far less important to us than who we are, and how we act, including towards people we don't agree with, and including towards people who we suspect may even be our enemies. When you're on a public forum of any sort talking to our enemies, you're not just talking to them, you're talking to everybody who can see it, both live and in the future (this applies a lot to various web forums too).

Among us, there are a wide variety of believes about the truth of 9/11, how the fiat currency system works, globalization, and a number of other hot-button topics. They're big issues. They're important ones. They get people riled up in a big way. They get people angry. But is this really the context for arguing those points? Do we want to show our enemies how divided we are on some of these issues? Do we want to make our worst weaknesses so public? Worse yet, do we want to do the job of tearing this movement apart on our own? Our enemies are banking on divisions amongst Ron Paul's supporters. It's thought that no one can bring together people from such disparate backgrounds and end up successful. Are they right?

Most of the arguments are pointless by and large. What really matters are Ron Paul's positions, and how we feel about them. Plenty of folks have disagreements - I've met people who believe in open borders who support Dr. Paul, countless secularists, and countless evangelical religious folks... More and more people, from a wider variety of lifestyles, political backgrounds, etc are joining every day because something Dr. Paul says or stands for resonates with them.
We need to be welcoming, not argumentative, towards these folks and eachother.

[ronpaulitician]

Do we want to show our enemies how divided we are on some of these issues? Do we want to make our worst weaknesses so public?
Our opponents know all too well what our weaknesses are. Better to put it out in the open, and show that we are not afraid to discuss the issues, than to try to keep it locked up.

Furthermore, discussing the issues allows us to delve deeper into those issues, which will make us better representatives of Dr. Paul, because we'll become more and more familiar with those issues. You're not going to convince anyone to vote for Ron Paul by saying "because". You'll have to be able to inform somebody about all the ascepts of the important issues, and then show them that Ron Paul represents the best solution to the problems.

And don't be afraid to accept that Ron Paul isn't perfect, and that just putting him in the White House isn't going to solve all our problems. The idea we want to bring across to voters is that we are reasonable, and that we have determined that Ron Paul is the best choice, but that we do not necessarily agree with him on every single issue. "Hey, this RP supporter is reasonable. I don't agree with RP on everything, but neither does this RP supporter. Maybe I should look into RP a bit more, to find out if I agree with him on most of the issues that are important to me."

That's all we have to do: get people to look into Ron Paul. If they don't like what they see, no amount of convincing is going to do the trick; they will not be persuaded to vote for Ron Paul. If they do like what they see, all we have to do is convince them not to accept the "wasted vote" premise.

Worse yet, do we want to do the job of tearing this movement apart on our own?
Honest discussion won't tear a movement apart.

[NewEnd]

Alot of times it isn't very honest.... it a typical flamefest on issues you can find flamefests about everywhere.

The real challenge is to find ways that extremists can sompromise, and then bring those to your discussions elsewhere

[Anne]

On the contrary, I think the arguments will show people that many different people are attracted to Ron Paul and that they are all united in a common goal. I think it's awesome that I am voting for the same candidate as pro-lifers and anti-drug folks. Instead of feeling divisive, it feels united to me. But maybe that's just me!

[wwycher]

I think Dr. Paul would agree that by arguing all these points we learn to live with each other. I also think we should be nice to each other. I don't want to pander to the politically correct either. I don't have to agree with everyone to believe that Dr. Pauls message of personal liberty is right on.
I have given it some thought, that if we elect Dr. Paul we are going to have to change our paradigms of how we deal with each other. I catch myself saying " He can't do that.", when in fact he can do that. I think ideally that we want to keep open dialog, so that we don't start talking scared like our opponents do. Yes, we are a diverse group of people with many opposing views and one thing in common, Ron Paul. Our job is to allow people to dialog freely and argue freely and with that open dialog we will realize what we have in common.
I really hope at the end, when Ron Paul is president that we will be able to experience the freedom and liberty that our founding fathers envisioned for us, but that we have never really had in this century.
I want our opponents to see this and tremble at the name of Ron Paul. The man that will help awaken the people of America to the freedom and liberty that they trying take away from us.
Viva la Ron Paul Revolution.

[kylejack]

I think we're doing fine. There's nothing wrong with healthy discussion as long as we stay away from ad hominem.

[IrrigatedPancake]

Why don't we just raise the bar for what we expect from our fellow members.

1) Encourage each other to stay on topic or start a new thread if the discussion drifts

2) Do not engage in flamewars and extinguish the ones that do begin.

3) If topics diverge from the main guidelines, remind eachother about the purpose of this forum, which as far as I understand is to get as many RP primary votes as possible, then if he's successful enough, to get him elected, and perhaps most importantly and the task that will keep this forum alive no matter what the outcome of the primaries and election, to allow a nation wide sharing of thoughts about how to spread "the freedom message", as RP says, in the real world.

4) (add on if you think of anything else)


Individuals within a community can manage the community itself if they understands its purpose and feels responsible for keeping that purpose alive. Through your actions, reinforce the purpose of this forum and show that it's not up to admins and moderators to enforce that purpose.