There's a diary by Meteor Blades on the rec list at the moment that very eloquently says what I've been trying to work out in my own mind for a few days.
I won't speak for anyone but myself here, but, for me, a little introspection is definitely in order. If I'm honest, so much of my personal political discourse is about ego. Don't get me wrong: it's about issues that I care deeply about. But it's also about a demonstration of wit and the ability to turn a phrase. Like many of you here, I possess the ability successfully to dismantle the arguments of those with whom I disagree a great deal of the time. The truth is, in these arguments, I like winning. And I'm not alone in this.
I especially like winning these arguments against people I believe are motivated by ill-will or members of groups that have done me harm psychologically, e.g. fundamentalist Christians, homophobes,etc.
But whatever gratification I derive from these spats, they almost never advance debate. I feel good about it for about 5 minutes. Then I feel like shit for allowing these people to drag me down to pissing contests. It's very difficult for me personally to be civil when I'm bomarded by arrogant and nasty rhetoric from the other side. I've dealt with it for many of my 37 years. And, candidly, I'm quite good at it. My first instinct is to react, drawing upon my God-given abilities as a First Class Smart Ass, to make them look stupid. But, then, I know many of them are not well informed. But if I talk down about these people, call them "stupid" or "douchebag," what does that mean for me? I've made a devastating rhetorical point against a dumb person? What a compliment.
The primary question, it seems to me, is: am I merely arguing or am I persuading? Sadly, I think I know the answer to that question for the moment. So how do I personally make the transition from argument to persuasion?
Anyway, that's what I'm thinking about at the moment. Peace.