A New NWN Event: Red Staters Meet the World!

The problem was that Bush did a couple of very very emotional and divisive things, like start a war where lots of iraqi people are dying.

Trying to have a debate about morality of killing people might be a bit difficult. It's deeply philosophical subject which probably requires an advanced degree in the issue to discuss it intelligently. Because you can't really discuss facts, but have to discuss under what conditions you can go into someone's town and accidentally shoot and bomb with advanced weaponry their wives / children / husbands / sons.

I think it's a matter of faith that it's right or wrong to do this, and not something based on facts or figures.

Similarly, you can't really debate abortion because the policies are based on faith.

So what are you left with? Social Security, health care, taxes.

The basis problem with trying to have a reasonable discussion about this election is that there was very little reason involved in the election.

It was tactics that won the election, such as putting meaningless anti-gay marriage issues on the ballots to bring out the Red voters.

I'm not prepared to be reasonable yet. I am too angry over cynical Republican pandering and Democratic stupidity.

But I hope you have a great event, I'll come and listen if I can.

This is going to be a total train wreck, and I can't wait to see it!
I'll be there.

I don't think it'll be a train wreck.


For example,

You could write a script which does this


llListen(0, ...)

listen(..) {
if (!isTurn(agent)) {
llEjectFromLand(agent);
}
}

And this script will tell people who's turn it is.

I'd really love to persue something like this.

Someone said to simulate and Ihop or a denny's for the debate location. Guh! Why? Why not just go to an Ihop or a denny's? Or if you want to do something international, then go on IRC or find an international forum.

If it's just going to be a discussion without utilizing the advantages of SecondLife, I can't see much point in participating. I get more than enough debate in RL. Why would I just want more of the same?

Let's leverage the medium.

Can we submit references ahead of time? So for instance if someone decided to say John Kerry didn't have a detailed plan for America that we could have that informtation and a link to the plan already distributed.

Some of these factual contentions do nothing but slow down conversation. Have an agreed upon list of facts beforehand might be nice.

Its an event, just like any other really. If you want to go and participate, go for it. I sort of come to SL to escape RL. I dont really want to think about politics while in SL, but, thats me. Its not my place to say this is a good or bad idea, its just an event. I dont have to go, but I got no reason to try to drag it down while I dont. Some people want to talk about politics, so what? Let them have their fun.

I hope the point isn't just to talk about politics but to try to leverage the medium in a new and compelling way.

And I agree, lets face it - we've all had a lot of politics. If that's what this is all about, what's the point?

I wonder what the point of the event really is. The conservatives of this country are in complete control. The progressives/liberals and non evangelical/born-again christians (don't forget the other people of faith) of this country are now shut out of the process for years to come. There is no more debate to be had. Bush won, conservatives won, policies of hatred, self interested faith, and government imposing the views of the majority on the minority will ensue. (and I'd say the exact same thing if it was flipped into reverse with the liberals in control).

If you listen to the GOP leadership and the individuals who have power in our current government (for the nit pickers, the current and the ones in January) they intend to push through all of their policies and will only listen to the Democrats if they tow the line. They may say that they will listen to the other side, but they won't. They have proven that in the recent past. Bush feels he has political capital, and he is going to spend it.

So what's the point of this debate? To pretend that there is going to be compromise, the airing of issues, and/or debate in this country(USA)? There won't be for quite awhile, AT LEAST 2 years, probably 4-8 years before any non-conservative views can possibly be heard (or acted upon) in this country. What this is is a Jerry Springer event, pitting extremists from both sides. Well, one of those extremists won, and can just stand there saying "What you gonna do about it? We won. STFU.".

I'd suggest that you consider reframing this so that an actual discussion can be had. How you can do that in this current time in RL, I don't know.

I avoided this thread because I don't like poo-pooing any one else's idea as far as opening a dialogue goes. Despite an admittedly brusque manner here in the forums, I prefer good open discussuion on almost any subject.

OTOH, having read more pages of this forum than I really care to admit, I honestly do not see how this can turn into any sort of positive. People often cannot accurately or succintly articulate their actual reasons for doing things - much less voting. To ask anyone their reasoning is only opening them to ridicule, retribution and rudeness - and there is no reason to think that ANY setting would be any different than any oher setting. Hell, even the candidates couldn't maintian their composures during the three debates.

The original idea seemd couched in rhetoric which put Republican voters/those who voted for Bush in a position where "justification" was being requested - and in a manner/tone which reflected the same was not being asked of those not voting for Bush. Numerous posts by normally articulate people here in the forums have also demonstrated the volatility of the subject matter itself - this is akin to asking for an open forum between a membe rfo the Christian Right, an atheist and someone determined to be a martyr in the name of whatever religious beleifs he or she might hold. I think that participants are llikely to be either ideologues or unable to articulate in such a fashion that any audience will actually walk away with some kind of positive feeling.

I wish that wasn't so... but experience suggests that this will not be a calm, cool, disciplined discussion. Heck, even during our Town Halls the audience can't control themselves and stay quiet so that remote listeners/others can hear/read through the text uninterrupted.

If it goes forward. good luck with it. I won't be there. Hopefully, ideologues will stay away also or at least be quiet in the audience.

OMG, Korg and I agree on something! lol

Great points all, but I believe these points only *reinforce* the need of such an event in SL.

By appropiately leveraging the medium, perhaps we can bring new solutions and new perspectives to debates which don't work so well in RL.

You're absolutely right Korg,

When I first read the post I was infuriated at the thought that "Red Staters" were being invited "to meet the world", you'd figure it was for the very first time! As if many of us weren't travellers, students, or immigrants who've seen the world - eaten in fancy restaurants in Paris and played with shoeless kids in the dirt in Ecuador.

And then there's the angry, hateful stereotypes! We're less than human, just hate filled stupid zombies. We don't deserve to be citizens in their country, or even to have kids - and they say Bush reminds them of Hitler!

*BUT*...

That's actually why I think it's important that folks like you, who understand how tough it's going to be to join in and keep cool, give it a shot. Nobody's going to change sides, but my hope is that a lot of teh very angry and bitter folks on this forum can realize that we are people too, and not just some kind of dim-witted half breeds! That we are friends and neighbors - more so than I bet most realize - and that even while we dissagree on what's best for us we shouldn't be wishing each other ill!

I think we *are* taking advantage of what's special in SL. We're a real community that plays and shops and learns together, but at the same time we're all wearing masks that allow us to act a little more honestly with each other. I live in such a Blue state that if I was honest about my political views it *would* hurt my career - the predjudice *is* that bad. But here in SL I can try to show that your neighbor can have a bunch of different opinions from you and still be a good neighbor.

I know it probally wont work. I know I'll probally say something sharp that'll reinforce somebody's stereotypes and totally wipe out twenty minutes of thoughful typing by you. But it's worth a shot don't you think?

/me gives blaze a long stick and a small rock.
Now, where did you want the lady with the ouiji board?

> Have an agreed upon list of facts beforehand might be nice.

That sounds like a good idea. When I mentioned cites, I specifcally had in mind exit polls from mainstream, non-partisan sources. That way, we'll prevent any kind of "All Bush voters are X" or "All Kerry voters are Y" generalizations that aren't based on anything factual. Not sure how far we want to get into issues related to but not specifically about the election (Iraq, terrorism) but I'm sure we will-- in which case, I'm going to be a strict referee against both sides, disallowing "When did you start beating your wife?" statements which assume controversial assertions are established, when they're not.

Related to that, here's some interesting polling data I came across in the last
few days, the first from the New York Times quoting Andrew Kohut, generally
considered one of the country's top non-partisan pollsters (if you listed to NPR
often, you hear him a lot). Here's what Kohut said about the notion that the
election went to Bush by appealing to religious/anti-gay sentiment:

Kohut "questioned whether the anti-gay marriage initiatives were on the ballot
in 11 states helped galvanize conservative religious voters to vote for the
president. After all, he said, Mr. Kerry won both Michigan and Oregon, two
swing states where gay marriage proposals were on the ballot.... '[W]e're
getting a little carried away with the cultural and religious interpretation of
this election,' Mr. Kohut said. 'It was a vote to some extent on values, but it
was also a vote on John Kerry and how the American publc felt about the way
President Bush handled the war on terrorism." - NYT, 11/5, pg. A19

Meanwhile, the Gallup poll reports that Bush *gained* votes among college
grads and postgrads, from the 2000 election, with 58% of grads (up 3%) and
47% of postgrads (up 4%) in 2004:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/?ci=13957

So to take those two points, if we're going to have this discussion, I'm going to
be a hard referree on anyone who asserts without evidence, for example, that
most red state Bush voters are anti-gay or that they're uneducated. If you can
back it up, fine, but otherwise, it's just not productive to the conversation. (And
yes, I will be just as strict with Bush voters on the panel who make similarly
unsupportable statements. No "Kerry supporters wish Saddam was still in
power" or "Kerry voters are far left", or similar grotesque stretches.)

Beyond that, I think the best way to make this worthwhile is to request that
everyone who wants to participate accept this as a premise:

"I am willing to consider that as least some of my opponent's supporters are
good and intelligent people, and supported their candidate for valid reasons--
even if I strongly disagree with them." If you're unwilling to affirm that, then
this is not a discussion to participate in.

This could mean we'll end up with a very empty room, but I hope not.

quit making yourself sound as bad as the people you dissaprove of.

Two problems with this:

The big problem with 'bipartisan' is the fundamental belief that you have to treat both sides evenly.

Unfortunately, this means if you're dealing with the devil himself, you still give him even treatment because anything else would be 'partisan'.


The second problem is that while CNN may be so called bipartisan it is a slave to american sentiment. It has a very very narrow american nationalist viewpoint. Probably not because TimeWarner wants it that way, but because they'd rapidly be marginalized if they hinted for a moment that the US isn't the center of the world.

So when you quote all of these news sources, I think you're doing the international audience of SL a big disfavor. You really need to bring into the fold, BBC, the Independent, the Guardian, the Globe and Mail, the National Post, as well as the French and German equivalents.

I think Korg is on to something. You all go ahead and have a "discussion" where people who hold strongly to any particular ideology stay away - or sit in the audience bound and gagged.

It'll be a lot like the exact kind of "healing" we're expected to pursue now, so that Georgie can begin to "govern."

No more people with strong views on stuff they've actually thought out and pondered. No more strong views on ANYthing that might be construed as "negative."

We can't have any of that. Support your President - no matter what. If you don't, it means you're supporting the Enemy. It means you want our troops dead. It means you're beneath contempt. It at LEAST means you should be ignored and only tolerated when a great show of "tolerance" can be made. It certainly means everyone is tired of you and wishes you had never heard of your own First Amendment rights.

Yes, let's keep our search for understanding confined to those who have so thoroughly practiced not understanding up to now. It makes so much more sense AFTER the election.

Perhaps we can dig up a few more "undecided voters."

Oh. Wait. I guess that's what you folks have in mind already, isn't it?

Have fun. Be sure to use extra lubricant.

Moo.

Again, the premise of this upcoming event will be:

"I am willing to consider that at least some of my opponent's supporters are
good and intelligent people, and supported their candidate for valid reasons--
even if I strongly disagree with them."

Residents are free not to subscribe to this, of course-- in which case, again,
I ask that they do not participate in the event (except as silent attendees)--
and more key, that they not post in this topic. They are, of course, more
than welcome to start events and topics which operate on more Manichean
premises. Just not here, please.

> The second problem is that while CNN may be so called bipartisan it is a slave to
> american sentiment. It has a very very narrow american nationalist viewpoint.

However, CNNi operates more comparably to the BBC, far as offering an
international perspective, and they'll also be acceptable. I do want to allow
international media sources as cites, as well, while acknowledging that we'll
have to remain, for practical purposes, English-centric. The British press
tends to be more explicitly partisan, however, so if we allow for the liberal
left Guardian, we'll also have to allow for the conservative right Telegraph.
Not a great solution, but there it is...

Another, more recent NYT article (Nov. 6) also debates the merits of whether or not "moral values" had a larger than average effect on election results. Apparently one large factor in the confusion over this issue is that polls going into the election asked voters to name (of their own volition) the most important issues in the upcoming election. However, exit polls gave voters a choice of several issue, among them which was listed "moral values." Some pollsters (like Kohut, probably) would like to discredit this result on the basis of uneven pre- and post-election polling methods. However, at least one pollster (a Republican) debates the veracity of this conclusion:

"...Bill McInturff, a Republican pollster, called critiques "garbage.''

'The people who picked moral values as an issue know what that means,' he said. 'It's a code word in surveys for a cluster of issues like gay marriage and abortion.'

Mr. McInturff said that if 'moral values' was really a 'catchall' with a confused meaning, then more Democrats would have picked it. Of the 22 percent who chose 'moral values,' 80 percent were Bush supporters, 20 percent were Kerry supporters. 'It's self-selected by people for whom these issues are very important for their votes,' he said, adding that the margin by which Mr. Bush carried these voters arguably made the difference in the election."

Gallup's accuracy and non-partisanship have been called into question recently, especially in light of the religious views of it's long-time leader, George Gallup. View this blurb from Salon.com (for which you, too, write, if I'm not mistaken, Hamlet) regarding this issue. Also, the CEO of the Gallup organization, James Clifton, is on record as having
contributed campaign financing to the GOP. In light of this information, it would be hard to conclusively say that this is a fair and balanced source of information about election results.

Good luck in finding a set of "truths" upon which both sides of this debate can agree, Hamlet. My money's on this event either being a free-for-all or completely toothless.

Points worth considering, Beryl. We can excise that poll, if a majority of panelists prefer. However, it's worth noting Gallup's findings are more or less comparable to CNN's exit poll, on the breakdown according to education:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

Far as the debate on what "values" was supposed to mean, we have at minimum a wash: some pollsters believe it's too vague a definition to make any assumptions about, while others think it's code for conservative religious morals. Point is, it's not specific enough to definitely make any generalizations over. So if one of our red state/Bush supporters said they backed the president for "values", we'll just ask them what they personally mean by that-- WITHOUT inferring anything about their beliefs, beforehand.

Speaking of panelists, we have these nominees so far:

- 1 Red State Bush supporter, and 2 Bush supporters from very blue blue states.
- 2 Blue State Bush opponents, 1 international Bush opponent.

So we need at least 2 more Red state Bush supporters, and 2 more Bush
opponents from Blue states or from outside the US. Send me an IM, and
remember, tell me where you're from, and why you support/oppose Bush.
If we get more than 10 nominees, I'll have to pick out the most diverse panel,
based on region, and eloquence of political opinion. IM me ASAP!

Gallup's findings are comparable to CNN because CNN contracts with Gallup to do their polling (along with USA Today). (See second paragraph in this CNN link for verification.)

Hamlet, I hate to be a stickler but you need to follow up on your news sources.

Both the New York Times and the Washington Post (influenced greatly by the ownership of Warren Buffet, who is a democrat, Dick Cheney has often spoken out against the Post) are quite partisan. They are often for a source of leaks for the democratic party. A big reason for this is because democrats by more newspapers, I think.

Fox News (where Dick can often be found) and I believe the New York Post are quite Republican.

As for CNN? Well, CNN is weird.

Lou Dobbs is clearly a partisan democrat. So would quoting Lou Dobbs be reasonable by your standards? There was a reason why he was majorly excluded from the election 2004 commercials.

However, CNN (i don't get CNNi) and all the rest of the american news sources are savagely american. It's good that you're willing to have more international news sources.

Also, unfortunately, when issues on both sides are treated in a 'bipartisan' way, even when it's completely obvious to anyone who's studied the issue that one side is most likely wrong.

For example, the issue of international outsourcing. I constantly find this one fascinating.

You have democrats who argue against outsourcing yet believe the internationalism of John Kerry is extremely important. How can you be a peaceful internationalist and not support outsourcing? Journalists, of course, don't usually harp on things like this because they would be seen as 'partisan'.

Or for that matter, Iraq got a lot more good press than it should becaues the press doesn't want to be seen as partisan. I'm a big believer of George Bush, but he should have been crucified at the stake by the press for the fiasco with the WMD. The whole world was up and arms against this. People - mothers, daughters, brothers, husbands - are getting bombed in their own houses on a daily basis because of this fiasco. But the press lets it slide .. their bipartisanship is doing the world, and especially the dead victims of Iraq a complete injustice.

Another issue is social security. Anyone who has done any research into this would know that the system is completely broken. John Kerry's plan of do-nothing is laughable. Again, the press give him a pass because harping on this would be 'partisan'.

So, I think rather than talking about being bipartisan, I think you should throw out the concept of parties and address the issues individually and ignore red state / blue state (yeah, I know .. you have some momentum on that idea..).

For example, Abortion:

The problem with abortion is that people get too caught up on left versus right. What we need to do is break down the the question of abortion into seperate issues. There is the question of a women's rights and societies need to inspire a culture of life, and we should talk about these seperately. And the devil may care about what republicans or democrats think.

Then I think by addressing the issues individually instead of casting everything in the light of partisan versus bipartisanship you'll head to where you want to go - more understanding.

Because lets face it, the parties are very artifical constructs which are really there in order to reduce complexity in a complex world and over-simplify very important problems.

Ack, I don't want this topic to divert into a conversation on media bias, as interesting as that might be. (And if enough folks *are* interested, I'm about to post an NWN entry about media bias, as it relates to, well, NWN, so look for that on the blog, and jump into the discussion.) For here, though, I want to concentrate on getting a panel together, and figure out how best to present it. In any case, I don't want this panel to be a debate, as such. I want it to be Red State/Bush supporters talking about why they voted for Bush, and Blue State/Bush opponents discussing it with them. And if media cites do come up, in that conversation, the point is they must be from mainstream sources which at least claim to uphold a principle of impartiality. But all things considered, I'd actually rather this just be a conversation between people trying to understand each other, as people, and less a war of cites.

So once again, we need at least 2 more Red state Bush supporters, and 2 more Bush opponents from Blue states or from outside the US. I want to schedule this for next week, so if you want to be a panelist, let me know by tomorrow at Noon (PST).

After that, I might start seeking volunteers, based on conversations I've had during NWN research.

I get a lot of my news from http://www.antiwar.com which quite often is just links to more "acceptable" news sources.

Independent Cedia Center websites sometimes offer some interesting articles too... http://www.indymedia.org/en/index.shtml

I try to stay away from such sites as rense.com for fear that the paranoia exuding from that type of site would take me over! LOL

I think an event like this would be a good idea IF it was in a controlled environment involving REASONABLE, INTELLIGENT, RATIONAL people.

My 2 cents,

Arti