People turn mean in here really fast, whereas anywhere outside FYM, they can be really cool people (some are still assholes though
). ¢
Your entire post hit the nail on the head, but this line stood out to me!!
Not the least of the reasons why is it describes me, too. When I see something I think is b.s. or outrageous or a lie, etc I have a tendency to get upset and respond aggressively out of frustration. Then they reply, and the familiar bickering contest ensues. I have said some pretty nasty things I am not proud of in the least bit, especially considering the fact that I am the furthest thing from argumentative in real life. In fact, if someone disagrees with me on politics in person, I will often make a couple good natured points and then quickly say "you'll agree with me that neither party really represents the people or the best interests of the country right now." Always works to end an argument.
As psychotic/crazy/in denial it sounds of me, I ALWAYS regret venturing into FYM, never mind getting in arguments. I have had about 3 spurts of posting in FYM since I joined a little over 2 years ago, the most recent of which just ended. I always post in FYM in spurts, I am not a card carrying member or a coffee counter regular so to speak. It always tends to be when U2 related news is slow.
Here is my very broad, general take on FYM for what it is worth:
I agree with others, if threads were structured more to provoke discussion on issues and their merits and less on arguments over who is right, that would be a plus. However, as plenty have pointed out, give it 2 or 3 pages tops and these threads get derailed into the usual arguments. Doesn't have to be relevant, someone pushing their agenda will find a way to bring it up.
There are some great posters on here, from all ends of the spectrum, who genuinely care about and know the issues and want to discuss them on their merits. They are unfortunately the exception in most discussions. I think generally, keeping in mind that generalizations are what they are of course, the problem with substance is this:
Conservatives will not even discuss the issues on their merits. They have to continually repeat flat out lies about Obama being a socialist or wanting a government takeover of health care or "coddling terrorists" etc. One poster even continues to insist that Iraq posed a threat to the US even after Bush has admitted they didn't and all objective evidence says they didn't. The same poster still tries to say Bush did better on the debt situation than Clinton. Neither are true. A reasonable conservative not taught by Beck and Limbaugh would argue why they thought Bush was misled or why they thought his economic policies were given undue blame, etc. These people continue to think they can have their own set of facts.
This is the problem with conservatives, they twist an issue into a complete lie and repeat it, and they think that is how to respond to facts. I have not seen one post from the opposition to Obama over an actual issue of substance, just accusations of socialism and government takeover and slapping terrorists on the wrist. Not one discussion on the merits of actual provisions of the health care bill, etc. I am more than willing to have that discussion, it is when nonsense talking points keep getting repeated that I flip out.
Liberals will often post something and then instead of calling out those who disagree with them on the facts, they start yelling "racist" or "sexist" or "homophobe" and just roll their eyes. They will often think that laughing or rolling their eyes or not taking the accusations of conservatives seriously will make them go away, but really, all it does is perpuate the perception that liberals are programmed by MSNBC talking heads and blogs. If you don't respond to socialism accusations, then the other side will think that you agree- Obama is a socialist, and that it is ok.
In short, liberals often think that their majority on FYM allows them to gain support for their arguments based on perceptions about Bush/Cheney or Republicans. They will often point out how Bush was a joke, a liar, etc but will not tell us why, factually.
Keep in mind, I am just generalizing, I realize that thousands of people post here, but the people who argue all the time are really ultimately 2 people:
1.)Conservative- The Limbaugh, lie and repeat, lie and repeat, repeat again and when faced with facts, change the subject entirely into something about the "liberals."
2.)Liberal-The "I insist on 100% agreement with Rachel Maddow or party interest groups on everything" crowd. There was an entire thread dedicated to how horrible it was for Obama to let Rick Warren give the invocation at the inaguration. I have also been in numerous discussions with liberals who will not see anything at all organized labor does as harmful, particularly with respect to teachers' unions. These people think that because more on here generally agree with them, that they can implement some kind of ideological or interest group check list for other posters who lean that way. These are the same people that are heavy on accusations about the other side, heavy on use of negative perceptions about the other side and light on facts.
The Democratic Party is a big place, but the posters here seem to think that those marching in the gay pride parade(who I have no problem with, btw) or protesting the war or holding the union sign are the only ones you need to appeal to. Some guy that does not belong to the ACLU or donate to the Sierra club is out there, he is not a tea bagger either, does not watch MSNBC or Fox, but HE VOTES. He and his wife were who put Obama in office, the base is not enough for either party.
Hell, I criticized Hillary and Obama in the primaries and someone came back at me telling me that how dare I think there is no difference between the parties and that I would be sorry if I voted Republican. Of course, this person had no idea that the 1st thing I did on my 18th birthday was register to vote as a Democrat, and I have never missed an election and was well aware of that person's point. It was just that I liked Biden and Richardson best, which was a CARDINAL SIN in FYM.
So one side's talking points feeds the other side's and we go round and round with very little substantive discussion, which by the way, is frowned upon on FYM. I have been accused of being a rambling incoherent fool for actually addressing every baseless accusation leveled at my arguments with facts.
Safe to say, I have no idea why I have my phases of wasting my time here. I guess I am now used to spending too much time on the blue crack from U2 discussions. So when U2 news gets slow, I still need to spend too much time here so I go to FYM.
It is a habit that I have kicked for the time being. I can still read all the news I want, analyze it myself, and form my opinions. I really do not need a bunch of strangers who usually have no interest in actually discussing issues to validate my viewpoints on a message board.
Enough goes on in life that is far more important than arguing in circles on message boards. My life or anyone else's life will not be any different tomorrow because something was posted or not posted in FYM. No one loses their job based on what happens in FYM, no one dies of cancer, no one gets killed in a car accident, no one's parent died, no natural disaster happened, etc. In the grand scheme of things, it is just not that important. If FYM is truly dead, then I will be very happy to continue discussing U2 and U2 only on here! They are at least relevant to things in my life, in addition to being people who bring others together, bridge divides and do good in the world.
And I will read this post every time in the future that I consider coming back in here!