1. GvG Improvements Update

    Hello Queens and Kings,
    First up, we wanted to thank you once again for taking the time to continue to contribute your feedback on the upcoming changes to Forge of Empires, especially in relation to Guild Battlegrounds.
    For the detailed description of the upcoming changes, please see the details here.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Cultural Settlement - Feudal Japan

    Arising from the Sengoku period of Feudal Japan, the clan of Akechi Mitsuhide has requested your help.
    As the Daimyo of his village, it is your task to lead the Feudal Japan to prosperity! Detailed information here!
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Changelog 1.157

    Hello Queens and Kings,
    The update to 1.157 will take place on Wed, July 24, 2019. There will be a short period of downtime during the update, we apologize for any inconvenience caused during this time.
    For the detailed description of the upcoming changes, please see the details here.
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice

Political Mudslinging: Whatever Sticks?!?

Discussion in 'Debate Hall' started by Hellstromm, Sep 2, 2012.

  1. Hellstromm

    Hellstromm Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    After reading some Op-Eds I was reminded of the increasing mudslinging of politics, with candidates on all sides favoring derogations over positivity. One particular Op-Ed <click here> compared it to the nuclear war concept of mutually assured destruction, in which escalation of mudslinging results in destruction of all parties and the nation as a whole.

    What's your take? Which direction is the new mantra of politics pulling this and other nations? What's our future if negative ads becomes standard fare?
     
  2. Daniel

    Daniel Guest

    Well the way I see it, each candidate tries to build up his/her credentials and present them to the public. Of course, we all embellish our resumes a little, and so there are often faults or incomplete stories to the claims, and so the opponent tries to bring light of this issue, and the negatives start piling on until the only ads are of the candidates badmouthing the other.

    It does look pretty bad, since it soon becomes a voting for the lesser of two evils. But I wonder, though, if this can ever really be stopped. Should a politician leave his/her opponent alone if they lie or tell only the partial truth about something that they've done just to make it seem better?
     
  3. DeathrowBodine

    DeathrowBodine New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2012
    Negative ads are only the beginning of an escalation that leads to violence. People are no longer intellectually debating those who hold conflicting philosophical viewpoints, they are instead trying to destroy the debater. They are no longer seeking a resolution through rational dialogue using reason and logic, but instead political domination by using deception and emotional manipulation. I think the problem of political mudslinging is more a symptom of a more dire problem rather than the problem itself. The only thing that could make the problem worse is to somehow prohibit political mudslinging. Why? Because who gets to determine what is mudslinging and what is genuine philosophical debate? The people who hold the reigns of power? Or perhaps the people with the guns? Maybe it is the people who are fanatical in their beliefs and are most willing to die and self sacrifice themselves for their particular worldview?

    J. Gresham Machen said, "What is today a matter of academic speculation begins tomorrow to move armies and pull down empires. In that second stage, it has gone too far to be combatted; the time to stop it was when it was still a matter of impassionate (with passion) debate."

    Therefore, I would say that we just need to demand and expect a good measure of reason and logic in our political mudslinging (impassionate debate) and it will all work out. It is when we quit passionately debating that we need to worry.... because war and violence follows.
     
    Hellstromm likes this.
  4. Diggo11

    Diggo11 Guest

    Parties only continue to do this since it works. I don't care for any excuses about a two-party system, simply vote for the party that slings the least mud and spends the saved time working towards a better nation. They'll catch on, eventually...
     
  5. MaryBethCandySue

    MaryBethCandySue Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    New? Not exactly. A cursory search of "mudslinging" brings up the Coffin Handbills. "The Coffin Handbills were a series of pamphlets attacking Andrew Jackson during the 1828 United States presidential election. Jackson was running against incumbent John Quincy Adams, who decided to attack Jackson's ethics and moral character."

    And there's a proverb that dates back to the mid-seventeenth century. "Throw dirt enough, and some will stick."

    Discrediting your opponent by whatever means available has been around for centuries, and isn't likely to disappear any time soon. Parties need to be a little careful, though, as it can backfire. I remember one of the Canadian parties making fun of Jean Chretien's partial face paralysis. That backfired big time and Chretien became the Prime Minister while the Conservatives were reduced to two seats in the House of Commons.
     
  6. Dominotx711

    Dominotx711 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    Sadly it is equal on both sides. I had some kook neighbor come at me the other day spouting some garbage about taxes and corporations and such, and when I was discussing where i disagreed on the 250 mark, he started name calling. The truth is rather than look into the issue as a whole he read an article in Rolling stone and thought it as pure gospel...People really need to just pick their issues, research both sides and ignore the propaganda.

    I have decided I am voting for Pedro.
     
  7. Diggo11

    Diggo11 Guest

    As a general rule in politics, it tends to be the party(s) in opposition that sling the most mud. The ruling party can boast their achievements during the previous term; the opposing party rarely have all their policies formally drafted in time for an election campaign. Equal in the long run perhaps...
     
  8. Dominotx711

    Dominotx711 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    this brings about another question....should the fairness doctrine be put back into effect?
     
  9. Hellstromm

    Hellstromm Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Could you describe the fairness doctrine to the massing njubs?
     
  10. Dominotx711

    Dominotx711 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    Not particularly…it shows my age. But whatever…
    I purposely said the fairness doctrine rather than the equal time rule because Equal time only pertains to politics, but since social issues seem to be creeping into politics more and more it is better covered under the fairness doctrine. This was something the FCC use to enforce requiring people (broadcasters) who were on air, (not internet, not print) to give airtime to controversial issues, BUT they were to air contrasting views of the issues as well.
    It falls in the same category as the Equal Time, but I just felt the two could merge into one and call it good…My thinking is, other than FOX, there really isn’t a true right winged channel. I think CNN and HLN are pretty decent as far as that goes, but definitely a bit biased…and OMG, NBC…..totally liberal. If we required all the channels to show the other side of an issue, the truth usually falls somewhere in the middle, and it will give the lazy people out there at least some clue other than released propaganda.
     
  11. Hellstromm

    Hellstromm Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Interestingly, it was during the Reagan era (Republican-held Congress & Executive Branch) that the Fairness Doctrine was mandated out of commission. Can't even blame that on the internet, cable, or satellite, as those didn't really start kicking into gear until 5+ years later.

    But it is a good point. If the Fairness Doctrine were still in effect (and enforced by the FCC), it would have posed a greater need for the FCC to have jurisdiction over other forms of commercial-communication. As it is, the FCC has lost much of its power and influence. So is it due to this that we now have such a deluge of mudslinging being posed not merely by candidates, but by so-called news commentators?
     
  12. Daniel

    Daniel Guest

    Well Fox News is fair and balanced, so all we need is for all other news channels to follow their model.
     
  13. Dominotx711

    Dominotx711 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    Even worse for my side, and I will admit it, various democrats over the years have tried to bring it back, and ultimately in 2011 it was 2 republicans who forced it purged from the books.
     

Top