Thread: O.J. Moments and Pointless, Unending Debates

I call infrequent episodes of mutual incomprehension, "O.J. Moments." The reference alludes to the day an L.A. jury came back with not guilty verdicts for O.J. Simpson in the brutal slayings of his estranged wife and her unlucky good samaritan friend. It was an extraordinary event in the life of the nation, we divided into two warring camps, one shocked, incredulous at the jury's decision, the other, exultant, reaffirmed in their own sense of justice done.

It was a moment of mass insanity. How could people witness the same trial, that gruesome crime scene, those endless months of riveting testimony and courtroom drama, and yet come to such irreconcilably different conclusions about the final outcome? And, here's the important part, the two sides could hardly comprehend the other's attitude in the matter. It was more than a national confrontation about truth and justice, it was a confrontation about what we understand to be real in this world.

There were all sorts of dire predictions because of the national polarization including accusations that jury nullification would destroy the American legal system, laments that DNA-based evidence would never be relied upon again, and, fears that the hard won progress in racial reconciliation would be set back nearly half a century. Real expressions of anger and recrimination were being passed back and forth within the American family.

Yet, none of the worse predictions came anywhere near to coming true. The nation got through it and we all moved on. Americans now sometimes get together and laugh with each other about that day we heard the verdicts and how we all reacted so badly to each other's reactions to them.

Now, I didn't bring this up to debate the O.J. acquittals but to point out that there appears to me to be a whole series of "O.J. Moments" going on lately here at U.S. Politics Online. While normally that wouldn't be terribly troubling, the underlying issues are particularly divisive and the incredulity and incomprehension, if I may be so bold, is particularly entrenched.

"O.J. Moments" are vexing to the senses because underlying them is a confrontation between world views. There's no escaping the conundrum, you are left with the simple realization that rational discourse cannot possibly resolve the difference in perspectives. It may be one of the first times in our conscious lives when reason fails us.

Which is why, when you detect you are experiencing an "O.J. Moment" I suggest you step away from it for a second, give yourself a chance to relax and fully take in the profundity of the disagreement, accept that someone somehow sees it very differently from you, and, and this is the key part, move on. That's right, the key part to an "O.J. Moment" is to get over it. Nothing special here, please go about your business.

The worst thing you can do in an "O.J. Moment" is dwell on it. Because, if you persist in attempting to dissuade the other side from their views, to inform them of their ignorance or rectify their erroneous impressions, their very persistence in the face of your best arguments will cause you no end of frustration and eventually, inevitably real anger at them. Or, just as likely, your own stubborn insistence in pursuing the matter will just as likely summon the same emotions within them.

I regret that there are people who see things so very differently from me. I think I am a reasonable guy, I have reasonable thoughts, and most people I meet see things much the same reasonable way as I do, or, failing that, they see them in ways I can comprehend. But, that's not always the case. Lately I've caught myself muttering under my breath, "I can't believe he actually believes that," a key clue that I'm in the midst of an "O.J. Moment."

It's not easy to accept that someone sees something very differently from yourself. But, hey, what're you going to do? There's no cure for different world views. Fortunately, there's some comfort to be had in this puzzling situation. After all, if everyone saw things just the same way you do there would be no politics, which we all love so much, and there would be no need for U.S. Politics Online, which we all look forward to visiting each day.

So, I suggest we focus not on the "O.J. Moments" and the underlying differences that separate us but rather on the continuing stream of policy questions, the political foibles and missteps and all the other interesting news items that make the American political scene so exciting to witness and participate in. Again, my advice is don't get caught up in the disagreements, look for an opportunity to contribute something new, something insightful, something that might shed a little light on a topic and help others to understand why you see things the way you do.

If someone refuses to see it your way, repetition of your arguments rarely if ever alters the situation. Say to yourself, "Hey, what do you know, it's an 'O.J. Moment,'" and, move on.

Sometimes.. I feel like I want something refreshing.. something with loads of vitamine C.. That, is also an OJ moment.

Helene

Well Chappy. I think since you did a fair amount of typing, I'd like to share my own views about my participation on this forum with you as well.

I agree with you to an extent, but I consider myself- rarely getting into those "O.J Moments" for the reason that, usually, I don't like to argue about "my belief", nor about "my perspective".

A self-contradiction I might seem to have made- I don't like to argue about "my perspective"- it is never possible to escape from one's own perspective. To get-around that, you need to bear in mind I usually do appreciate when an alternative perspective is presented up to a "good standard" (and I'll define this later). In such cases, I don't end up arguing with the other person, nor do I consider myself in an argument. Thus, I don't argue about perspctives.

I'd like to define what I mean by "belief". First, I want to say that it is a shame, but also a wonder about human being's intelligence, that no matter how hard every one of us try to philosophize about ourselves - we will never avoid talking or acting on the basis of using assumptions about the world. That is, we don't behave on the basis of only proven knowledge, no matter how much we want to or how hard we try. Not to mention that we don't know/ cannot proof everything.... just what kind of infinity is "everything"? The whole history of philosophy to my understanding, is a chronicle of people's struggle, against assumptions in our lives, "everything".... So "belief" means something based on assumption/ assumptions. Philosophy works against "belief".

Well, some things are proven very rigidly, and we call them "truths" rather then "belief". Say, 2+2=4, or the proposition "x cannot be not-x at the same time". When it comes to human discourse like politics, "faithful" people who "hoped" to gain or uphold certain "truths", would usually resort to some kind of scientific method, because they are "faithful", and because the "truths" we know of so far had only came from such methods..... This "faith" was very prominent as early as the 17th century, through the Enlightenment and til now- we believed that "truths" can be grasped about humans, and about lots of humans, societies in general. So the methods were adopted, or attempted. Kant was especially keen on deriving moral laws from unshakable logical axioms and principles, but of course he failed.

It's not a easy thing to argue against this kind of diligent "faith" Kant had albeit to explain why he failed. And I won't be going into it. I just want to say I certainly have the same sort of faith, and whenever the opportunity presents, I try to do live up to the "good standard" I believe in. Through quoting sources "I believe" are true to the factual claims (but knowing there's no way I can be sure at the end), and reasoning on the basis of a few simple logical axioms (which is really all one needs), and on the other hand try not to overlook something important (and as stated before, "alternative perspectives are always appreciated"), I consider it a "good standard". One that is true to scientific principles.

With such method, a "belief" of mine may "as if" be upheld as one of the "truths"- and of course I know it is not true- I am fighting with the word and their different connotations here. To put it more colloquially - A good belief is one that is presented via a (pseudo-) scientific method, it lives up to a "good standard". Something I think, if fails to achieve "truth", at least makes a decent learning experience, something which I've been able to appreciate from my own posts whenever I attempted so. I've yet to see many others apply such standards for themselves.

But of course I don't just come up to this site to do that. I also came here to flame some jerks and watch them make a fool outta themselves for fuckin' with me. That can make up the disappointment when the other guy's just way too stupid and failed to disagree on the basis of any such "good standards" (and decide to use "bad standards", and I know I don't need to define that one~ )

It's interesting. Example: I was in a street-corner debate with a Bush-Cheney supporter, and she had these funny little strategies for dealing with things I would bring up. One was to throw her hands up, kind of move to one side (literally side-stepping the issue?), and say in a very dismissive tone, "Ohhhh, I SEEEEE". Another tool in her toolbox was to say "I was a child then, I wouldn't know about that" or, "I've been in London for the last 8 years [so I didn't get a tax refund]". But the one that bothers me, actually bothers me because it's so widely repeated is "Oh, you heard it in the liberal media" which begs some questions:

For one thing, why is "liberal" bad? In a Progressive a few months ago, there was a quote from some republican saying "Where does the idea of 'free' come from? Free schooling, free medical care? It comes from the mouth of hell. It comes from Mother Russia." To which I can only drop my jaw and ask, WTF? I think Montana is a pretty liberal state--they have laz gun laws, no open-container law, and up to a point, it had no speed limit. In other words, people wanted to be left alone, and the laws supported them in that somewhat. But the conservatives, as we've seen, are the ones who are increasing the size of the gov't. Homeland security this, Total Information Society that. People are not being left alone, and these "new Republicans" are more radical and intrusive than ever. But anyway, liberalism bad? I would like to hear one reason why.

The scond thing is, why do the New Rightists think the left (liberal? or conservative? Who had the budget surplus? Who began deficit spending? Who, in the late seventies, proposed cutting back social programs in favor of more military spending?) hates America? This cry of "Oh you heard it in the liberal media"--do you really think that people deliberately choose the left path so they can say bad things abt America? Does no-one ever think it might just be that the observations about what America is doing in the name of business and fascism are what come first?

Al Franken makes a good point in Lying Liars, which is that you don't have to swallow the red pill in order to love America. I see a poster here with the sig, "Why is it so hard to get a grip on reality, no-one has greased the handle". But it's not true, the handle is covered with ooze, and the ones who bother to find out the facts, and are willing to report them, are then defamed as America-haters. You know who hates America? These people: the ones who support a war and refuse to fight in it as young men; those who when in power abuse our military men and women by sending them to die for business as usual; those who engage in secret "Energy Task Force" meetings with a huge shares-trading energy company which horribly affects Wall Street and all the AMERICAN investors therein; those who engage in insider trading to make obscene wealth, and support a governmental mode which makes sure it's the Martha Stewarts of the world who take the brunt while they themselves get off scott-free; those who use our might to suppress democracy all over the world, then lie to us about defending freedom; those who implement radical spending with tax cuts for the elites, while the middle class languishes and dies; those whose same policies adversely impact our ability to act effectively overseas; those who can't simply say "We're here for your oil" and have to make up a bunch of shit; America-haters are the ones who won't take responsibility for human-rights violations; who rubber-stamp policies which result in more people than ever being uninsured, including children and vets; those who want to stamp out welfare for the poor while increasing welfare for the corporate; America-haters want to amend the Constitution to exclude a class of (AMERICAN) people, which, don't you know, is Un-American! They want to destroy all unions; the labor movement is a ghost. The Wagner Act? What's that? It's easy now to bust a union, just let scabs walk in, or just move production to your Brazilian plants; globalization/free markets? For whom is it free? Check out what's going on in Iraq. You have truck drivers for Halliburton, getting paid through the corporate welfare structure obscenely high salaries, while Iraqi truck drivers, who only ask for a living wage, are ignored. Did you know that within the No Child Left Behind Act (oooh, look, MORE government! I thought Republicans were the "smaller gov't" people--but wait, these new rulers aren't real republicans, are they? I think--I may have to check, but I'm pretty sure--that real republicans are about fiscal responsibility, and actually have the interests of America at heart, and can honestly debate about the best path for America--but I could be crazy, y'know) has a provision that requires high schools to give the Pentagon names and addresses of upperclassmen? Isn't privacy a right, and isn't anonymity a good condition to ensure it? I mean, GODDAMN, people, what is it going to TAKE! WAKE UP! Are you really convinced that flouting the UN and the World Court, and supporting Mussolini and Trujillo and Pinochet and the Shah and Montt and Saddam and who the hell knows who else, not lifting a finger to help those truly in need, and saying "fuck" in the Congress are the true righteous path for America? Why on Earth would God bless US?

Wonderful. Thankyou for your eloquent post. I agree with you whole-heartedly.

And.... long winded pointless rants with no clarity or logic. First three posts in this thread DO NOT fit into that category. I see so much trashy thought processing here (to ME), I do step away for however long it takes me to come back to a point where I can behave well enough to not get banned LOL. Very long writings like the first post and the third post usually add to zero. Sometimes, I'll take time and read through a little to look for some sense and logic, and when I detect it I continue reading (it was there). I found some intelligence, I'm happy LOL. Now that I'm out of my OJ moment, I'll search around more and see if there is more. I originally came here to see if there were people out there that agreed with me. There ARE and that's nice and everything.... BUT, where I have actually benefitted are from the people (I call 'em retards, idiots and any other number of terms in my OJ times LOL) that I disagree with. I started out reading micheal savages book "the enemy within". Those I disagree with motivated me to read a book by Pat Buchanon called "where the right went wrong". BOTH very good books. Anyways, I think you get what I'm saying. I guess OJ moments (formerly known as Maalox moments LOL) have a purpose but as long as we don't let them impede our process of learning .. . that's what counts.

The sky is blue.
No, it is red.
Man, the sky is blue and here is a picture to prove it.
That has been photoshopped by some pinko commy liberal.
Ok, look up and tell me what color do you see?
I know that trick and I ain't falling for it.
It is not a trick and all you have to do is look up and see for yourself.
I can see that you are a pinko commy socialist trying to twist the facts and that is why you don't win elections.

OJ wins again.

I guess I take a slightly differnt view from WFCY, if I understand him correctly. I know I heve very definate beliefs and positions on issues of importance to me. I have no problem discussing them or debating them with people, and I am not shy about either admitting I didn't know something or doing some research to back up a point I was making. I expect that in a debate where two parties have very different views there is going to be a certain amount of animosity. that in and of itself does not bother me. I also know there are people that will label you the minute you comit something to paper, or in this case cyberspace. While I think that is unfortunate it is a fact of life. Most of us suffer from this malady at one time or another and to some extent or another. Some of us do it regualrly in hopes of showing how much disdain we have for the other guy, others do it not so much to apply a pejorative label but because that is what we really think, now he or she may take it as a pejorative comment.

there are two topics that will get peoples dander up faster than anyhting else, well three but we seem to have stayed away for the most part from the third. First is politics, second is religion, and third is comments about ones family, not necessarily in that order. Because we do discuss politics and religion, I am always amazed that anyone would expect it to go smoothly and everyone to make nice and keep the conversation free of personal observations shall we say.

It seems to me that every board I have been on, and that is quite a few, the discussions at some point break down into less than informative exchanges of ideas. From my perspective that is the nature of the beast, and there really isn't anything that can be done about it. Sure you can ban people, but have you noticed there is always someone ready and willing to take the banned persons place?

I will be the first to admit that I am not as apperantly easy going as Chappy, or WFCY, and I do indeed occasionally get into verbal exchanges with other board members. But again would ask the people that started the board did they really expect given what was likely to be discussed that this type of behavior, whether you want to call it OJ Moments of just plain rudeness, could be avoided?

Originally Posted by Gort

I guess I take a slightly differnt view from WFCY, if I understand him correctly. I know I heve very definate beliefs and positions on issues of importance to me. I have no problem discussing them or debating them with people, and I am not shy about either admitting I didn't know something or doing some research to back up a point I was making. I expect that in a debate where two parties have very different views there is going to be a certain amount of animosity. that in and of itself does not bother me. I also know there are people that will label you the minute you comit something to paper, or in this case cyberspace. While I think that is unfortunate it is a fact of life. Most of us suffer from this malady at one time or another and to some extent or another. Some of us do it regualrly in hopes of showing how much disdain we have for the other guy, others do it not so much to apply a pejorative label but because that is what we really think, now he or she may take it as a pejorative comment.

there are two topics that will get peoples dander up faster than anyhting else, well three but we seem to have stayed away for the most part from the third. First is politics, second is religion, and third is comments about ones family, not necessarily in that order. Because we do discuss politics and religion, I am always amazed that anyone would expect it to go smoothly and everyone to make nice and keep the conversation free of personal observations shall we say.

It seems to me that every board I have been on, and that is quite a few, the discussions at some point break down into less than informative exchanges of ideas. From my perspective that is the nature of the beast, and there really isn't anything that can be done about it. Sure you can ban people, but have you noticed there is always someone ready and willing to take the banned persons place?

I will be the first to admit that I am not as apperantly easy going as Chappy, or WFCY, and I do indeed occasionally get into verbal exchanges with other board members. But again would ask the people that started the board did they really expect given what was likely to be discussed that this type of behavior, whether you want to call it OJ Moments of just plain rudeness, could be avoided?

Its rather rare, that I really get annoyed by someone on the board. But perhaps I am not the norm...

Hey, i even can cope with you Gort Allthough you sometimes can have quite a sharp way of discussing. But if the discussion is worth it, I dont mind.

After all, one should not anything here too serious and allways look for a common base and that oneself is remaining civil. Not that you could force all to be, but you are rewarded for having a certain discussion culture.

Only people that run out of arguments get personal on non personal topics and issues.

Originally Posted by Slartibartfas

Its rather rare, that I really get annoyed by someone on the board. But perhaps I am not the norm...

Hey, i even can cope with you Gort Allthough you sometimes can have quite a sharp way of discussing. But if the discussion is worth it, I dont mind.

After all, one should not anything here too serious and allways look for a common base and that oneself is remaining civil. Not that you could force all to be, but you are rewarded for having a certain discussion culture.

Only people that run out of arguments get personal on non personal topics and issues.

Slarti if I get sharp it is because I am passionate about the topic. However with people who take the time to actually discuss something without simply resorting to name calling I rarely mean to offend, although I will admit I have crossed the line in the past on certain occasions. However with people who only know how to rant and insult I see no reason to waste good time discussing anything with them, so I return the efforts they put forth in kind, and enjoy doing so. With certain members I find it fun to see how much you can insult them without comming right out and calling them names. It is, at least to me fun to see people that don't even realize they have been insulted just keep on going, I am certain enough others recognize the insult so that it isn't lost entirely. Besides I figure at some point in the future they will realize "hey that was an insult". Of course with these people I try to keep in just below the radar and not get too personal. There are any number of ways to insult someone within the context of whatever topic is at hand, especially using their own posts to do so.

I guess what I am saying is there are two types of individuals here, actually three. Those that want to inult and really that is all they want to do, those that want to discuss and ignore those that only want to insult, and those that would prefer to discuss, but aren't opposed to getting in the mud every so often to keep up their skills in that area. I guess I am admittedly the latter.