Being A Response ...
But it isn't 'free for all' TG, that's the point. It's only free for one particular taste and level of interest.
I believe it's free for all - the only limitations are the ones people place upon themselves, and subsequently upon others.
As things stand it seems there is only an on/off switch. If you wanna act dumbass you're on. If you want to discuss or learn anything you're 'off'... and outa here because you're deemed boring or arrogant... that right? Really? Mmmmmm. Not a bright future in that 'tude, dude.
I have no problem throwing that switch on and off. It's when someone attempts to duct-tape it into one position or the other that the problems begin.
btw Those who equate 'debate' with "venom" have been lurking on the wrong forums. I've been on plenty where debaters go at it on one thread and joke together on others. (Some of us have been email friends for years, but we still fight on forums.)... and laugh about those who take it wrong and think it's a 'flame war' or something. To us it's just a game.
You might want to re-examine your use of the term "debate", Di. Formal debates take one of more than 20 forms, but they are all rigidly structured and involve a slew of rules that I'm not sure more than a tenth of a percent on this board would be interested in engaging in.
And when one extrovert with a desire to dominate tries to force debate upon others with an attendant lack of "tact and diplomacy", that's hardly cricket. Then you're re-structuring the entire forum, and all of its members, for that one person.
The subject and opinions may get ripped into but it's never taken personally by people who enjoy the discussions for their own sake. That is what debate is for, to express dissent and varied opinion and to take on board other people's views and weigh them up against our own preconceptions. It isn't about winning and losing, it isn't a competition, it is a discussion of facts and viewpoints to expand our knowledge and to keep our brains active.
Nothing wrong at all with that approach, but again that isn't "true" debate.
What brings 'venom' is not debate, it is obsession. Only those with a weak argument or no defence for their attitude resort to invective. Nutters, frothers and trolls are not debaters. Too many people fail to understand the difference and are scared off far too easily.
Yet I've known many that wave the banner of debate that could quite easily fit into some of those mentioned categories ... it's simply a tool of high-functioning sociopaths.
Well or badly stated, blunt or flowery, it's not about a writer's style it's the content and meaning of their text, which reflects the content of their minds.
Strongly disagree. I could craft a paragraph of poop to make it smell like roses. Style is the envelope within which we derive understanding of the content. Make that envelope ugly enough and it gets tossed in the waste bin before it is even read.
Buddha himself could be conveying the Great Truths to me, but if he's poking me in the eyes and slapping my face while he's doing it the content won't get through.
A difference of opinion shouldn't be seen as 'offensive'... it isn't. Our opinions aren't sacrosanct, others may and will disagree, that isn't offensive. What is offensive is the presumption that one's personal opinion is more valuable than someone else's to the extent that they demand any dissenter be dismissed from the forum. Get it?
We live in the Age of Personality. Couple that with a general hardening and limiting of attitudes due to aging and you've got a segment of society that is largely unwilling to tolerate differences. Distill it down to a forum and you've only multiplied the problem.
On rules of this forum as members seem to think they should operate, and had it been in a different time and place, Abe Lincoln would have been banned for having views not aligned with common consensus. So would Mandela, he was a terrorist to some people's way of thinking, it all depends on time place and viewpoint how 'right' something is.
Lincoln and Mandela were both jerks - there, I've said it. Now the Thought Police can kick me out along with you.
Just because most people agree on something doesn't always mean that it is right. Only that most people think it is. Usually for no better reason than it suits them to believe it because it makes their lives easier or builds their own 'self esteem'.
At this stage of the game I don't see any harm in that. What is
ever more important than ourselves? It's primal instinct, covered only by the glossy sheen of socialization. And having put up with so much in life, why
shouldn't we be entitled to a little satisfaction?
Why were so many 'offended' by JustSayin ??? Can you say exactly what it was that offended you so much? I detected no bad language just a rhinocerous level lack of tact and diplomacy.
What was it about the content of his views that you found 'offensive'?? Nothing more than he shone some light on a few failings most, including me, have?
I find it inappropriate to speak ill of the dead.
I qualified for most of what he mentioned, thread hijacking, done that myself, sarcasm, done that, butting in where I shouldn't, yup, that too. Dropping flippant smartarse comments into other people's deep and meaningfuls? Ooooh yeah, often. Left school at 15, yep, so undereducated fits. But what I try not to be is a hypocrite. I took on board what he said, (not how he said it!) recognised myself in it and found I agreed with him 100%. He wasn't wrong.
So does this mean that from this point forward we shall never again see you hijack a thread, or be sarcastic, or butt in, or drop smart-ass remarks?
Somehow I doubt that, and I certainly don't wish it. It's what makes you,
you. If we were to all engage in the SS lockstep that is the vision of some former (and present?) members, we'd be a merry bunch of marchers and we'd look real pretty but we wouldn't have a single brain among us.
It's okay if that's the best we can manage, no really, it is. It's okay not to join in everything going on. It's okay to sit back, lurk, read, and be entertained by those who want to write posts. That is not the problem at all. The problem only comes when those who can't be bothered want to stop others who want to go the effort.
This I agree with 100%.
If the ROM number here (the 'read only members') insisted that everyone only post where they do then no one would be allowed to post at all right? So who gets all the say in who posts what where? I'll hazard a bet there are more members than there are posters so democracy demands that we all only read, not write.
Think about that. It will literally be 'watch this space!
I'm not sure it would work out that way, at least if other forums I've seen crash and burn are any indication. More likely there will be the formation of an elite Supergroup who take it upon themselves to decide where and what to post, and Buddha help you if you aren't invited for membership. It becomes an exclusive clubhouse, a small one, granted, but one in which all of its members believe their cause is just.
Wars have been started for less. And like wars, the innocents will suffer the most and will attempt to flee the war-zone.
Only arrogant people think they already know everything they need to know, or everything that is worth knowing.
Perhaps that is all they really DO need to know - you're
judging. You're imposing your Rules of Order upon others. Perhaps it's not arrogance at all, but satisfaction and happiness - who are
we to deny them that? Of course, that does not give them the right to censure
us, either.
The 'devil may care' 'just wanna have fun' 'let's keep it light' comments are simply cover ups for "I can't be bothered with this s**t, I don't understand it and can't compete with it so it bores me and I just want to stop people doing it because I'm embarassed that I dont care enough to keep up." "I know! If I complain about them being arrogant for caring more about the world's happenings than I do then maybe they'll just go away."
Huge generalization and, at least in my case, totally wrong.
Those wishing I would go away are going to have to wish a whole lot harder. I thought about it, but I'll drop in as long as I'm allowed, to fight the forces of dumbness and apathy till day I kark! Those wishing for that day are going to have to wish harder too, but you will succeed eventually, that should be a comfort.
On the contrary - I hope you stay.
True arrogance is the shutting out of anyone who challenges the validity of the warm and fuzzy comfort zone we deem as the pinnacle of our personal aspiration.
But what if they're right? That's certainly a possibility, is it not?
That comfort zone you're defending may indeed be just the feed lot where we "sheeple" are being fattened for consumption. And those scary and offensive 'debating type' people may very well be the guard dogs, on watch and barking to alert us to the wolves out there who are feeding on our apathy. If you shoot the guard dogs then all you have left is the wolves. How smart is that again??
More like the guard dogs are gathered in their clique talking water-cooler talk and totally ignoring us, the stupid flock.
You don't think guard dogs really CARE about sheep, do you?
You don't have to play with the guard dogs you know, you can go on grazing peacefully on cat piccys and chat about all manner of things as though the barking dogs aren't even there. They not interferring with your lifestyle, they just want to interfere with the wolves' lifestyles.
You KNOW that isn't entirely true ... a dog is a wolf by its very nature;
any movement triggers a pursuit response. It just has better grooming and gets to sleep in the barn.
Personally I find the timidity shown by members when confronted with something beyond their normal experiences quite astounding. Some must live in a very small and sheltered world. Fine for them I guess, but they shouldn't feel they must drag everyone else into it. Some of us are quite comfortable living in a bigger one and visiting theirs when we feel the mood for a bit of fun and games or chatter. They should feel welcome to visit ours or at least tolerate us living in the neighbourhood. We won't run rampant through their fun and games threads, we'd be too busy butting our heads against the wall of wolves in Big Oil/Crooked Gubbermints/the UN/Political shysters/Science... you know, all that boring stuff.
That okay with everybody? Anybody?
Personally I enjoy drive-bys but I understand it isn't everyone's cup of tea. Most just want to be locked up in their homes and be entertained by the boob tube, and those pesky guns going off outside are just a distraction.
PS... re taking it to Groups. Why are only serious discussions to be banished as something shameful?
Yes anything that is likely to include the odd angry shot perhaps but not everything in the slightest way contentious surely.
A public forum, of necessity for survival, must appeal to the masses. Perhaps we've HAD enough serious discussions in the real world and come here to relax. Again, nothing wrong with those who want to continue the serious side of things, but don't slap down the majority who just want to kick-back and relax. That's being a bit too Lenin.
It's often mentioned that the public read our posts and we should watch our ps and qs... well what exactly interests that wider lurking audience? Do you think they flock to this forum to hear about our dinner menus or newest cat piccys? Some very well may, but a lot look in to forums to watch the verbal jousts. If that content is to be taken out of the public gaze then those seniors who need a place to converse will see only the fun and games and move on thinking that is all there is. We will lose those potential members who can be interesting and informative assets.
Sources, please.
layful:
