mbauer
12-20-2007, 10:13 AM
First a little background on myself- I'm very regular blogger, but do more reading than writing. I keep up with, well, internet political reactions here, on news sites, conservative blogs, libertarian blogs, and a few others.
I've been on page with Ron Paul since I came across him in readings when I turned 18 (4 years ago) and decided that if I can vote, I'd better do my research and decide where I stand. My conclusions was that my philosophies were- in order- a lover of the U.S. Constitution and avid believer in it- a conservative- a libertarian (I suppose you can see why I like the guy).
I'm my readings and writing, I thoroughly enjoy discourse on various political philosophies, and when it comes to elections, the individuals behind them.
In my reading over the past 4 years, I've become accustom to discussion on candidates taking a- well for lack of a better word- a certain professionalism to it. It is only in this manner that I ever see people converted to another candidates’ view, and that takes a long series of proper introductions to another way of thinking.
I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this
Let's start by looking at the much hated redstate- I still blog their because I like to be informed, no matter what slant I'm getting as long as I know the slant. The simple fact of the matter is that when I research material there, I will get a well backed argument, admitting potential flaws, well sited, and open to constructive discussion, as long as it is in line with the conservative movement as the site sees it (and I realize this last clause is the huge flaw of the site).
In my research on Ron Paul, I find that a very small minority of his backers take the time to ensure that what they write is indeed quality before they write it. I often feel like I'm back in my Starcraft days holding the level of discussion I would when I was 14.
We often state as fact that "Poll are LIEs"
"The Main Stream Media Doesn't want us to win"
"Paul is the ONLY true conservative"
and so forth.
We blast those who say otherwise, and rarely have quality arguments to back them up. We assume 2 sentences of explanation are enough to assure others our statements are infallible. We are quickly irritated by those who attack us.
The bottom line is, the above methods, which I think I have fairly stereotyped, and in your hear of hearts you will agree with, are what the vast majority of bloggers who stumble upon a Ron Paul posting will quickly hear.
Furthermore, this does not convert anyone.
So I ask you, before you press post reply, or decide to write something, take a second to think want someone who was middle grounds, or thinks they don't like Ron Paul will think of your 2-3 line response to an issue.
If you are going to response to someone, please take the time to address specifically that individuals thoughts uncritically, and attempt for discourse rather than an assumption that they are part of the problem if they don't immediately see our way of thinking.
Thank you for reading that, and I feel like I must remind everyone that I passionately support Ron Paul will continue doing whatever I can to help him soon be called President Paul.
I've been on page with Ron Paul since I came across him in readings when I turned 18 (4 years ago) and decided that if I can vote, I'd better do my research and decide where I stand. My conclusions was that my philosophies were- in order- a lover of the U.S. Constitution and avid believer in it- a conservative- a libertarian (I suppose you can see why I like the guy).
I'm my readings and writing, I thoroughly enjoy discourse on various political philosophies, and when it comes to elections, the individuals behind them.
In my reading over the past 4 years, I've become accustom to discussion on candidates taking a- well for lack of a better word- a certain professionalism to it. It is only in this manner that I ever see people converted to another candidates’ view, and that takes a long series of proper introductions to another way of thinking.
I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this
Let's start by looking at the much hated redstate- I still blog their because I like to be informed, no matter what slant I'm getting as long as I know the slant. The simple fact of the matter is that when I research material there, I will get a well backed argument, admitting potential flaws, well sited, and open to constructive discussion, as long as it is in line with the conservative movement as the site sees it (and I realize this last clause is the huge flaw of the site).
In my research on Ron Paul, I find that a very small minority of his backers take the time to ensure that what they write is indeed quality before they write it. I often feel like I'm back in my Starcraft days holding the level of discussion I would when I was 14.
We often state as fact that "Poll are LIEs"
"The Main Stream Media Doesn't want us to win"
"Paul is the ONLY true conservative"
and so forth.
We blast those who say otherwise, and rarely have quality arguments to back them up. We assume 2 sentences of explanation are enough to assure others our statements are infallible. We are quickly irritated by those who attack us.
The bottom line is, the above methods, which I think I have fairly stereotyped, and in your hear of hearts you will agree with, are what the vast majority of bloggers who stumble upon a Ron Paul posting will quickly hear.
Furthermore, this does not convert anyone.
So I ask you, before you press post reply, or decide to write something, take a second to think want someone who was middle grounds, or thinks they don't like Ron Paul will think of your 2-3 line response to an issue.
If you are going to response to someone, please take the time to address specifically that individuals thoughts uncritically, and attempt for discourse rather than an assumption that they are part of the problem if they don't immediately see our way of thinking.
Thank you for reading that, and I feel like I must remind everyone that I passionately support Ron Paul will continue doing whatever I can to help him soon be called President Paul.