---

For those who think Democracy should be
a collaborative experience.

---

February 8, 2008

What not to say ~ “How does it feel to have abandoned the cause of your life?”

A cable news show host opened his interview with a feminist political commentator who had just endorsed Obama with the question:

- How does it feel to have abandoned the cause of your life?

This remark is riddled with logical fallacies.

1) Absolute language / false dichotomy: It speaks of causes in black and white terms. Even if supporting a male candidate over a female one was a deviation for a feminist, that wouldn’t qualify as “abandoning the cause of your life.”

2) Reductive: It summarizes a complex situation simplistically.

3) Ad hominen attack: It attacks the person instead of the person’s position.

4) Assumption treated as fact. It makes the unwarranted assumption that any woman who works for women’s causes must vote for the female candidate, or she is abandoning her cause. The question builds on that assumption by asking how it felt, as if the idea that she had abandoned her cause was a given.

Watch for fallacies in your own political conversations. Any time someone makes a claim or asks a question based on an assumption that is unwarranted, address the assumption instead of responding to the point made based on the fallacy.

You can read more about fallacies, here.

The woman who this comment targeted said: “Hardballs are just part of the game — and I am happy to stand in the batter’s box and take any of them on. But spitballs aren’t part of the game.”

It’s not part of the game for you either.

February 6, 2008

Blog guidelines: How to start a reasonable dialogue about reasonable dialogue

This blog exists to start a reasonable dialogue about reasonable dialogue. How do we do that? I tell a story about a failed attempt I made here. Here are some questions I have for you.

 Most political discussion, including the ones on Amazon, seem more about proving others wrong and “winning” rather than good faith efforts at true communication.

 1. How can we encourage rational dialog on discussions such as this?

 2. What kind of responses to logical fallacies, misinformation and personal attacks are likely to really move a dialog forward rather than start a fight?

 3. How could a discussion group leader (blog owner) set up and manage discussion threads in ways that encourage useful debate, insights and productive commentary?

 4. Are there any political discussion groups where people with different opinions exchange ideas rather than attack each other? Where?

 Here are some guidelines I start with:

 1. Honor the intent of the blog itself.

Since this blog is about reasonable political dialogue, all posts must contribute to that end. Comments that have a different agenda will not be approved.

 2. Comments are based on the principle of: “Say what you mean, and mean what you say, without being mean when you say it.”

This is my ultimate communication formula that strikes a balance of directness and civility.

 3. Before responding, reflect on comments by asking yourself the question; “Why would a reasonable person say this?” and, “What can I learn from what they’re saying?”

 4. Acknowledge points of agreement before highlighting differences.

 5. Question substance and logic, not the person making the point.

 6. Clarify meaning and intent before taking issue if someone’s comment seems ill-considered.

 7. Focus on solutions more than problems.

 8. Report violations.

 9. When you use political examples, make them as neutral as possible to avoid distracting from your communication point. (For example, whenever possible, refer to political parties as “The Stars” and “The Stripes” parties, and refer to Politician A and Politician B rather than identifying them specifically.)

 10. Focus on solutions rather than problems.

Keep your comments positive and moving forward.

 What recommendations do you have? Thanks!

 Meryl

A Political First Date – What not to say

Some If you try to start a reasonable political dialogue, think of it like a Political First Date. Put your best foot forward without putting a false front forward. The idea is: be who you are and still get a second date. Don’t respond to other people’s political ideas with comments like:

- If you believe that, you’ll believe anything.
- When did you stop thinking for yourself?
- People like you are what’s wrong with America.

What have people said to you that shut down dialogue for you? Please keep the focus of your comments on communication. You’ll find some exploratory blog guidelines in this post.

• A better way
• Across party lines
• Blog Guidelines
• Communciation questions
• Communication standards
• Get real
• Guest post
• Old school politics
• political persuasiveness
• Priorities
• SpeakStrong in Politics
• This week in the world
• Uncategorized
• What Not to Say
• What's wrong with this picture?