Over the past few months on Joeuser I have seen numerous negative comments between Americans and Europeans. Most of these comments are normally thrown into the debate when one or other disagree with the policies, laws or beliefs of the other side. It led me to thinking, 'why do the US and EU debaters often end up on oppisite sides of debates', especially when they are often arguing the same general point.
I came to the conclusion that effectively it's the difference between black and white and grey.
The US strikes me as a very black and white place. You either agree or disagree with everything. You either pay a tip or don't. A state gives all it's electoral votes or none. Looking at the debates on US politics this becomes very clear with many people treating political debates as polar opposites. There is no middle ground. Anyone who disagrees with you is the anti-christ, the opposite of all you stand for. Their replies are read in such light and often tempers are flared for misreading the intentions and meaning of comments. This same attitude often prevails many debates such as the Middle East, Iraq, terrorism, Global Warming, WMD, trade and China.
Such clarity allows a rapid response, where minds are instantly made up and do doubt exists. Many times this rapid response cuts through red tape and achieves beneficial results and in emmergency situations is very desired. Other times however the initial black white response misses the mark or later turns out to be wrong.
The EU tends to have a more grey response. A political entity made up of 15 (soon to be 25) seperate entities has lots of internal points of view and as such sees all debates in such light. We vary the size of a tip depending on the service, most of us have proportional representation governments, most arguements end in a 'we agree with this part but disagree with that one'. Many times a debte just fails to reach a conclusion as more and more grey is added widening and widen the topic.
Such compromise allows for very balanced reactions appleasing the maximum number of people. It also leads to the weaker people being protected. It's not a fast reaction though and some topics can threathen to split the EU right down the middle leading to no decision being made at all. On a national level it often leads to the big important decisions being agreed by all parties giving a national unity.
In the end the two approaches are often incompatible. It's particularly sad to see many Joeuser debates turn nasty as two incompatible approaches fail to discuss the topic.
How many times has a topic being twisted to include information the original poster wasn't discussing (often a grey response to a black and white debate)?
How many times has an interesting article got focussed on a single point with a win or lose mentality to the debate (often a black and white response to a grey debate)?
As a grey person myself I find it very irritating when people focus on a single point of the debate, or refuse to see the whole picture, or assume you're arguing the opposite point from them (because your not in complete agreement). Likewise I'm sure others getsa irritated with me when I highjack their back and white thread and start muddying the topic up with the bigger picture, or other points that they are not discussing or create a third, fourth or fifth point of view between the initial points.
In the end we need to understand those we are debating with and respect their mode of discussion. This is most epecially true when someone else starts the debate. There does seem to be a distinct difference between most US and EU bloggers and we need to be aware of this to understand each other better.
Paul.