|
Post by celawson on Jun 15, 2018 23:06:25 GMT -5
I think that says it all, with regards to my question in the thread title.
I wasn't talking politics, I was talking political climate. Christine understands what I was getting at. And thank you, Christine, for being a damned smart bright light in a lot of these discussions. It's not the politics itself, it's the sort of interaction people of differeing views have these days. Just what is wrong with being genteel? What's wrong with being polite?
For what it's worth, I would never in a million trillion bazillion years put winning an argument over a friendship, even an on-line friendship. It's one of the reasons I drop out of some threads, and it's one of the reasons I haven't crowed when Trump or his administration do something good. I think happiness is such an important part of life that it's pretty unhealthy to come here wanting to have intellectual stimulation and camaraderie, but leave feeling sad. And it's pretty unhealthy to immerse oneself in only the negative and turn a blind eye to the positive. As a matter of fact, it's a vicious cycle and can affect our mental health.
Anyway, I appreciate the opportunity to raise these issues and discuss with you. Thanks.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2018 23:43:04 GMT -5
And I don't put either party or friendship over what I consider to be truth-- certainly not in a political discussion on a freaking online political forum.
This is not a wedding or a birthday party, where one puts one's differences aside to link hands, embrace friendship, and sing kumbaya on that one special day. This forum exists to debate political issues and current events. That's what it's freaking FOR.
Puh-leaze with the "negative" and the "mental health". What's hurting my mental health, if you really want to know, is hearing every day about e.g., migrant children being wrenched from their parents, Trump cozying up to murderous dictators while insulting and alienating our allies, implementing disastrous tariffs, undermining our free press and our system of checks and balances, throwing around ill-considered pardons to despicable creeps and threats to political opponents like they are fucking confetti, lying through his teeth literally a dozen times a day -- and then watching certain Republicans scramble to make excuses about why it's perfectly fine and even awesome.
Feel free to "crow" about Trump doing "something good" -- just don't expect me to agree with you that it's good, or that even if it were, that it comes close to outweighing the overwhelming and appalling bad. In my opinion, we are at the brink of a constitutional crisis and our republic may not survive it (and I'm not alone in that opinion--indeed, some prominent conservatives think that, as well as liberals). I think it's just that bad. And I'm not going to pretend I don't think that out of "politeness" to you. That's not my idea of camaraderie or intellectual stimulation.
I think Amadan had it right, actually -- I think what you want is for those of us who disagree with you to refrain from pointing out flaws we see in your arguments, just to be nice. Instead, I guess, we're all just supposed to state our different views and smile and thank each other for expressing our opinions, which we are apparently, for the sake of friendship, to agree are all equally valid.
And it ain't going to happen. Because that's not how this works. That's not how any of this works.
FYI, I'm going to bed, since it's 12:30 here.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Jun 16, 2018 0:55:21 GMT -5
You still don't understand what I'm saying at all. And I have to think it's because you don't want to. How many times can I say it's not that I get hurt if you tell me my arguments are weak? I've admitted before I'm not an expert at this. I admitted it again right up this thread. I admitted it WAAAAY back during the thread about Jerusalem when it got ugly (the cutting and pasting and Googling insults) when I emailed you as a friend and told you I'm a doctor not a debater. But you know what? It's weak when insults or accusations are thought of as a valid way to argue. Or that forum rules do not allow personal attacks, but then it's ok to personally attack someone, as long as that someone holds the unpopular view. Or it's ok to treat someone poorly on this board because constitutional crisis. So I guess you will end with exactly what I began my OP on. Full circle, so to speak. Well, that was fun. Not. But at least this clearly illustrates what I was discussing in the OP, so thanks for that.
I will (politely of course) bow out of this thread now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2018 7:36:01 GMT -5
FFS.
In every way, I disagree with your characterization of my arguments in that thread as "insults and accusations" and "personal attacks." They were not. They were systematic, vigorous takedowns of your arguments, combined with (as the thread continued) exasperation and some frustration at your constant string of strawmen, goal-post-shifting, and other argument fallacies.
And since you are dragging the content of private messages into the forum, fine -- I'll tell you that I found the one you mention to be a highly inappropriate attempt to guilt and lecture me into backing off an argument because you couldn't answer it -- and didn't want to admit it in the thread, either by explicitly saying so or implicitly by backing off yourself. It was exactly what I meant above when I talked about trying to change the rules of the forum (which I helped write) or guilt people into not taking apart your arguments. That's not "friendship." It's infuriating.
If we were at a family Christmas dinner at your house, and you took me aside to ask me privately to drop an argument, fine. But we aren't. We are on a political forum with rules, which I was well within.
Here's the deal. You don't have to be convinced by someone else's argument. But if you can't intellectually answer it, you don't avoid the opposing points, frantically shift the goal posts, fling strings of partisan articles at me demanding I read them and answer all THEIR points as opposed to yours, and then, as a last resort, PM me to tell me you thought the argument was too heated and I should back off my arguments on a freaking political forum out of "friendship" and because you aren't a lawyer. You clutch your pearls about people having to win an argument at any cost? That's EXACTLY what YOU were doing in that thread (and others) except you were doing it in an illegitimate way. Because God forbid you admit you can't answer my argument. It's ISRAEL so you could not cede a damn point if your life depended on it. Because for you, it wasn't about facts or arguments or logic, it was all about defending the conservative take on Israel to the nubs of your nails come hell or high water. Fine. But that's not what I'm about, and this forum isn't about nicely ceding to weak arguments you utterly disagree with out of "friendship."
What you are doing now is something akin to gaslighting. And it doesn't work on me.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jun 16, 2018 9:41:06 GMT -5
Really, for such a small group, we seem to have a disproportionate amount of interpersonal drama.
That I don't agree with, or with Cass's theory that it's based on carry-overs from elsewhere. I never considered celaw my "rival" or "nemesis," nor you, nor even NT. Sometimes people just argue about shit, and some of those arguments push buttons harder than others. *shrug*
When someone pisses me off, though, I think "Okay, that person is being an asshole." Whereas when you or celaw get pissed off, you see it as an indication of how dire and savage this forum is.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2018 9:47:14 GMT -5
I will add this: there are threads (and one can always start more) and indeed an entire section of this forum that ARE simply about camaraderie and fun, and not about debating contentious hot-button issues. Some folks here just stay there. That's totes fine.
But if you choose to debate contentious hot-button political topics, you've voluntarily walked into the kitchen and have no business complaining it's hot and noisy and would we please turn off the oven and put on some nice soothing music. You can always stay out on the patio with a drink.
You have the right to demand that I (or Amadan or whoever) abide by forum rules, and to specifically point it out if you think we haven't. And don't say "oh, you're a mod." Go to Rob, if you think I've personally attacked you. He'll hold me to account and I'll abide by what he says in that regard (even if I disagree). You DON'T have the right to demand special rules or that we back down because you're "polite" and not a lawyer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2018 9:56:17 GMT -5
Really, for such a small group, we seem to have a disproportionate amount of interpersonal drama.
That I don't agree with, or with Cass's theory that it's based on carry-overs from elsewhere. I never considered celaw my "rival" or "nemesis," nor you, nor even NT. Sometimes people just argue about shit, and some of those arguments push buttons harder than others. *shrug*
When someone pisses me off, though, I think "Okay, that person is being an asshole." Whereas when you or celaw get pissed off, you see it as an indication of how dire and savage this forum is.
I don't think YOU have carry-over grudges. And while a couple of people have at times asserted that I or Rob have them, I must note that we welcomed or indeed actually invited every member here. I think all three of us are examples of people who can slug it out pretty vigorously without carrying a grudge. We may not always agree on issues, but we do pretty much agree, most of the time, on the ground rules. And while we might get pissed off in the moment, in the long run, we shrug it off and don't take attacks on our arguments personally. But I do know, because I have outright been told, that some members came here with an active animus against other members. Which I actually don't care about, to tell you the truth, provided it stays within the rules. However, I think sometimes that animus leads some to read things into posts that aren't intended, to find disagreement and discord and malevolence in posts that isn't actually there, etc. And I do think some here really have difficulties separating attacks on weak arguments from attacks on themselves -- especially when that animus is present.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jun 16, 2018 10:02:45 GMT -5
I wasn't talking politics, I was talking political climate. Christine understands what I was getting at. And thank you, Christine, for being a damned smart bright light in a lot of these discussions. It's not the politics itself, it's the sort of interaction people of differeing views have these days. Just what is wrong with being genteel? What's wrong with being polite?
Let me go back to the Tone Argument. Which I am now going to Steelman (meaning, this is not entirely representative of my actual opinion, because in general I think the Tone Argument is overused by assholes who just don't know how to make their point except by screaming at their opponents):
Suppose you are a slave, arguing that slavery is bad and you should be freed. Or you are a woman in a country with few rights for women, arguing to be allowed to leave a husband who beats you. Or you are starving homeless person on the streets begging for some food.
And the people denying you what you need are very polite and genteel as they explain why centuries of tradition, or God's law, or economic incentives in a free market or whatever, dictate that while your situation is unfortunate, there really isn't anything to be done, you're just going to have to suffer.
At some point, you lose your shit and say "Seriously? You assholes are telling me I have to let my husband beat me because God says so?!"
And they gasp and exclaim "Well now, if you can't make your points in a civil manner, there is really no point in our hearing you out!"
"My good man, if you won't be polite while begging for your life I suppose we shall just have to let you die!"
I am not saying those situations are directly analogous to, say, my telling you to fuck off to another thread to keep you from derailing one about depression and suicide. Yeah, if I were genteel and polite I would have expressed myself more genteelly and politely, and if I were a better person I probably would have.
But insisting that you don't have to take on board what people say if their words are too harsh for your ears is a way of evading what are often legitimate points, and you know it, even if dressed in what you consider excessive anger. If you really have the compassion you claim is so important, maybe consider for a moment why that person resorted to intemperate words. If you think it's just because they're an asshole, fine, write them off. That is what I do with a lot of SJWs who scream obscenities as arguments and then screech "Tone argument!" when you ask them to try making their points rationally.
But sometimes, maybe you got cursed at because you were genuinely being an ass.
Okay, first of all, I do not believe your first sentence. I'll bet I can envision a scenario in which winning an argument would be more important to you than friendship. It might be an unlikely scenario, but if you had a friend who was clinging to a viewpoint that you found genuinely horrific? That appalled you so severely that you didn't think you could remain friends with them? I suspect you'd feel like you either had to change their mind or end the friendship.
As for wanting intellectual stimulation, sometimes that goes with camaraderie and sometimes it doesn't. When I play boardgames, I get intellectual stimulation and camaraderie. When I argue politics, it's not always going to be congenial. Yes, it's nice to have friends that you can disagree with but remain friends, but sometimes those disagreements are going to get heated. You are absolutely entitled to praise and defend Trump, but when people who despise him tear at your arguments, you should not complain of bruised feelings.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2018 11:05:40 GMT -5
Actually, I find this whole "you shouldn't put winning an argument above friendship and politeness!" thing ridiculous (at least in the context of a forum like this one).
If you're voluntarily engaging in a political argument on a political forum designed for that purpose, the whole entire fucking point is to make the best arguments you can and defend your positions. IMO, it's also good form to concede it when the person you're debating with makes a good point, or one you cannot answer (though there is zero obligation to say good point!" just to be nice). It's also fine to say "we'll have to agree to disagree." And indeed, I can live with someone admitting they really have nothing to support their point but their feels--provided they actually admit that's the case rather than pretending they have a rational basis.
But coming on a political forum, voluntarily engaging in arguments, admittedly making points you know will be contentious -- and then getting all upset because people vigorously disagree, support their arguments, and don't back down... yeah, I don't have patience for that.
I also don't see how c.e. clinging to her Israel argument to the bitter fucking ends of the earth for pages and pages, shifting goalposts, dodging points, hurling strawmen, and never backing down even when she clearly has no answer to a point, is totes fine, while my sticking to my argument and retorting to hers is a wrong, meanie mcmeanie "win an argument at all costs" betrayal of friendship and misuse of my lawyer-y-ness.
Amadan, Rob, and Opty -- hell, everyone here except Mark --aren't lawyers either, and I cannot imagine them sending me PMs asking me to back down out of friendship. Indeed, they don't need me to do so because they can stand their ground just fine.
ETA:
And I agree with Amadan's point here:
And if you DID put friendship above someone clinging to a viewpoint you found horrific, well, I frankly don't respect that or think it's a virtue. If a friend of mine came out saying it's fine to separate asylum seekers' children from their parents and put them in camps, or to deport all the Muslims, or to gas all the Jews, or that slavery was good, I'd consider it a goddamn moral obligation to try to convince them they were wrong.
And honestly? depending on just how horrific I found that viewpoint, I might no longer regard that person as a friend. E.g., were we in 1940 Germany and an old friend of mine were staunchly defending concentration camps or whistling around the issue because Hitler improved the economy and made the trains run on time...well, I wouldn't want to be friends with that person. Indeed, I'd disown my own family if they stuck to such a position.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Jun 17, 2018 23:04:56 GMT -5
If so, maybe we should think about what we can do to change that. To clarify: Robo's idea of a forum for "thoughtful political discussion" is a great one. As is his desire for minimal moderating, and having a place where muliple viewpoints can be discussed freely. Clearly there are thoughtful and intelligent people here at this forum. Yet it hasn't taken off in membership as much as would be optimal. The number of board visitors in the last 24 hours seems to be, whenever I randomly check, well over a hundred. But the number of posters remains just a handful. So why don't more people post? And why don't more people join? My thoughts: 1) Current socio-political discussion in the modern Western world has reached a fever pitch similar to religious fervor. Not only is the other side wrong, they are eeeevil. (I see this more from leftists with regards to those on the right, though I could be biased. IMO, the left is wrong in many respects, well-meaning but naieve, pie-in-the-sky, and very damaging to Western values, but they aren't evil. However, the feeling I get is that the left looks upon the right and anyone in power on the right, especially Trump, as monsters. I don't have to look far for examples for you all, since it's easy enough to find examples of this sort of rhetoric against Trump, Pence, Paul Ryan. The particular brand of animosity against Trump has fed this fervor and continues to feed it. I think this sort of animosity is supremely unhealthy. And it makes people unhappy. (Happiness is a not insignificant thing, IMO) I'm sure you on the left can find examples the other way, and that's too bad. Is TCG a microcosm of that? 2) People take things too personally on this board. Why can't we have more discussions that don't become personal? No matter how many times people say this board was created to be different, freer, with more expression of ideas which may run counter to whatever is PC at the moment, that doesn't seem to be the case a fair amount of the time. 3) People should be able to play devil's advocate without being pounced on like they are in fact, the devil. Most answers to the dilemmas we discuss are not clear-cut, or they would not be dilemmas. And playing devil's advocate in a forum where we are mature intelligent adults is not to troll or incite, but to challenge one side to demonstrate why their side is correct, or to address difficulties with a certain POV, or to problem-solve to best forumulate a solution. 4) One person's experience with something, though it can be valuable, is just that -- one person's experience. It doesn't make it them "right", necessarily. (Though it may ) As a matter of fact, sometimes it can cloud their judgement. Ever heard of the phrase "can't see the forest for the trees"? So in many cases, even when someone has personal experience, a diaologue should still be able to ensue with differing viewpoints. 5) The point of many of our discussions here should not be to "win". I think it's a pretty empty and demoralizing feeling, anyway, to crush someone online. The point should be, IMO, to dialogue, to make people consider something they haven't considered before, to prompt them approach an idea in a new way, to appreciate something they didn't know about before. And possibly to change minds. But a "win the argument at all costs" attitude will likely keep some less aggressive people away from posting. And it certainly isn't fun to engage with someone like that. And shouldn't participating here be fun? 6) It's not healthy to immerse oneself so deeply and emotionally into these discussions to the point that friendships or enjoyable acquaintances are lost. That has happened to me here. Three times here, in the midst of a bloody argument, I have reached out to another poster in a PM after things got heated, and not even received a response. And I've lost a very enjoyable acquaintance. Yet one of the friends I've made has political viewpoints which are the direct opposite of mine. He was (until he was banned) able to argue them passionately but not personally, and we are able to actually like each other. I think that's something participants in discussion boards like this should strive for - being able to appreciate someone despite their political or other viewpoints. And yes, this has been given lip-service here, but it still occurs. Anyway, those are my thoughts. I know not everyone will agree with me, after all they are my thoughts and we are all different. And I welcome differning viewpoints. But it would be nice if the overall interaction would be more patient, welcoming, friendly, for multiple different perspectives. After all, that's what makes the world go 'round. As my mom would always say. c.e. lawson: You wrote a very thoughtful, reasoned and rational post and probably motivated by a sincere desire to make The Colline Gate better. At least that's how I read your words. Others obviously got something else from them.
Allow me to respond to a few of your positions: 5) The point of many of our discussions here should not be to "win". I think it's a pretty empty and demoralizing feeling, anyway, to crush someone online. The point should be, IMO, to dialogue, to make people consider something they haven't considered before, to prompt them approach an idea in a new way, to appreciate something they didn't know about before. And possibly to change minds. But a "win the argument at all costs" attitude will likely keep some less aggressive people away from posting. And it certainly isn't fun to engage with someone like that. And shouldn't participating here be fun?
Yes. Absolutely. The primary priority to participating on any debate/discussion board should be fun. If it's not fun to engage in a spirited, passionate and intense debate with someone who may hold an opinion which is the polar opposite to yours, then why the hell are you here? If you don't enjoy the free-for-all of 21st century American politics, you're wasting your time on The Colline Gate. Go look at some porn or something.
"Winning" an argument on the internet don't mean shit. Seriously. I've never won an argument on the internet for the same reason I've never lost an argument on the internet. Only an intellectually deficient moron or a brain-dead slow learner ever takes any of this shit seriously. NOBODY cares about "winning" an internet argument. Go brag to your wife, husband, significant other, spouse, temporary love thang about how you roasted and toasted nighttimer or Christine today. Know what they'll say? "That's nice, honey." Know what they're thinking? "Dang, you're a petty, immature little kid, aren't'cha?"
For what's it worth, c.e. lawson, I got where you were coming from. The fact others did not may be based upon their own agendas, which have nothing to do with yours.
To whit on another point you made: 6) It's not healthy to immerse oneself so deeply and emotionally into these discussions to the point that friendships or enjoyable acquaintances are lost. That has happened to me here. Three times here, in the midst of a bloody argument, I have reached out to another poster in a PM after things got heated, and not even received a response. And I've lost a very enjoyable acquaintance. Yet one of the friends I've made has political viewpoints which are the direct opposite of mine. He was (until he was banned) able to argue them passionately but not personally, and we are able to actually like each other. I think that's something participants in discussion boards like this should strive for - being able to appreciate someone despite their political or other viewpoints. And yes, this has been given lip-service here, but it still occurs.
Point of fact: The poster whom c.e.lawson is referencing is yours truly. Quelle surprise. After all, she invited me to this board and yes, I like her. Give me 30 days and a lot of alcohol and I'm positive she'll be convinced to come back from the cult of conservatism and seriously Swing to the Left.
Or not.
Anyhow, I appreciate the kind words c.e. lawson of how we were able to get beyond our dueling political preferences and find a common ground where we can relate as two people with differing points of view. That sounds easy, but it's anything but. America is a house divided against itself and one major reason is Donald J. Trump has made Americans more divided against the world outside our doors as well as our next door neighbors who don't resemble us. Part of our differences is c.e. lawson, like most Republicans, have reconciled themselves to living with and rolling their eyes at Trump's epic fails and brain farts as long as he's cutting taxes, appointing serious conservatives to the federal judiciary, striking hard against the Jihadists and Islamic extremists, pulling America away from European and Asian allies because retaining their friendship is a costly venture and really shouldn't that money be better directed at building more bombs, tanks and missiles?
I can't reconcile myself to get on board with this. Trump is my enemy and while I like c.e. lawson personally I don't like her support for a man who is a unrepentant racist. I can't reconcile or rationalize that at all and don't see any reason why I should try to. Because Trump is president. Yeah, not good enough. Trump never respect my president so why the fuck should I respect yours?
Because simply standing on opposite sides throwing rocks at each other and practicing our rhetoric on each other gets us not one day closer to not being the Divided States of America. Some days I wish the situation wasn't like that. Other days I don't give a shit about this country at all.
I won't get into your allusion to the temp-banned member you place on a pedestal of rationality and cordiality, unless that person chooses to enter the conversation and wants to get into it. It isn't fair. Also, the reason for the temp-ban is between that member and Rob (yes, it's a temp ban, to the best of my knowledge, despite your implication that it's permanent). I will say, however, that IMO however pissed off that member might get at other members' arguments at times, that particular member would be quite unlikely to enjoy your beau-ideal of a discussion climate where people are not permitted to respond with strong reactions to non-PC arguments. That "temp-banned member" whom c.e.lawson is accused of placing upon a pedestal of rationality and cordiality (guilty as charged) has a name and it's nighttimer with two "t's" thank you very much. It's quite fair to say the brother's name because all this polite tippy-toeing around the banning is really unnecessary. I mean, come on Cassandra. It's hardly my first banning. It's only my most recent. Hell, who's even close to second place when it comes to be banned from this board?
The circumstances of this most recent banning are based upon a sequence of events where the response seemed wildly disproportionate to the triggering and offending post that earns someone 60 days in the hole. Far as I can see I got thrown into the void for the capital crime of withering sarcasm directed toward someone who exercised their personal power to make a point: Don't forget who's fucking board this is.
Point taken. If that's not the point, my bad for missing it. For what it's worth, I don't do flounce. I just stop. Okay? There's no sense hanging around where you're not wanted. I'm slow, but I ain't stupid. It only takes so many swift kicks in the ass to get the point, maybe they want me to leave? Your premise is that if you say inflammatory things with polite language and someone responds by saying "Fuck you," that person is the one at fault. In general, I agree that the ideal to strive for is polite and rational discourse no matter the topic. If you said "I really think atheists should be stripped of voting rights," I might find that opinion offensive, but I'd try to engage you civilly while explaining why I think you're full of shit. NT (who, by the way, I did not know was banned) has repeatedly responded to discussions about topics that piss him off - like Charles Murray, for example - by snarling and spewing vitriol at people, and that annoyed me, but I do understand why it hits close to home for him. That doesn't mean I'm cool with being called a racist for disagreeing with him, but I wouldn't try to have him banned just because he responds angrily and emotively. Sure I do and so do you so don't play the innocent, Amadan. The difference between us is from me the anger is justified and the emotion is authentic. Oh, and backed up by documented FACT. I don't see any way how even a semi-conscious Black person can live in the U.S. for a month without rapidly coming to the conclusion something is seriously OFF in how Black People perceive life to be in America and how White people perceive life in America. Those perceptions aren't just different, they're completely contradictory. They both can't be right so one much be wrong, but whose America is it that is the cold, hard truth and which is the divine illusion? That's a question worth pursuing an answer to because how the races get along in this fucking melting pot without killing each other is one of the most important challenges of the 21st Century. Nobody wins a Race War. But I sure think we're not beyond the realm of possibility to fearing there will be one some dark day in the not-too-distant future. It is an endless source of amusement and whimsy to me when you talk about civility while simultaneously accusing someone for being full of shit. Are you blessed or cursed by a short recollection of when you have snarled and spewed vitriol on c.e. lawson, Christine and me? Nothing anyone on this or any board affects me personally. That would be ascribing a far greater importance to total strangers that is necessary or even healthy. There are folks here whom I like and others I dislike and others whom I have no feeling for one way or another. What does it matter what you think of me, Amadan or what I think about you when we could pass each other on the street tomorrow and not exchange as much as a first glance, never mind a second. Everyone's opinion should be respected. At least right up to the point where respect ends and "I-can't-believe-this-bullshit-actually-came-out-of-your-head-and-onto-this-board" begins.
That's when it's eat or get eaten time. I like those times. Mostly because I'm damn good at it and no that's no brag. It's another one of those factual things. Like Charles Murray being a racist shitbag.
It's also the case, by the way, that I don't regard it as an obligation of friendship to be all nicey-nicey when engaging in a political forum/argument. To use Rob as an example, I actually like and respect Rob a hell of a lot. Part of the respect, from my point of view, is that we can give and take some heat, possibly seethe at each other for a bit , and then get over it. I cannot imagine pulling a punch in an argument with him, nor do I think he'd ever want me to do so, or would ever dream of doing so with me. Just watch us argue, FFS. If I have to walk on tippy-tippy-toes and pull punches when I think your argument is half-assed lest I hurt your tender feelings, I'm not going to enjoy debating things with you much. Welcome to my world. I don't walk on tippy-tippy-toes or pull punches when I think an argument is half-assed either, but the difference between us, Cassandra, is nobody banned you for doing what you're saying is well-within the parameters of what constitutes civilized and reasoned discourse. You know why nobody knew I was banned, Amadan? Because nobody could come up with a reasonable explanation beyond I hurt someone's tender feelings. I didn't enjoy that debate much either. I try to have an open mind (but of course everyone claims that). The issue is not being open-minded, but being willing to take disagreement without feeling like it's a personal attack. Or being able to disagree without personally attacking. (That last point is the one that I would concede is probably my most frequent failing.) I agree with most of what you've said here, but I'll take issue with this bit. I don't see c.e. AT ALL taking disagreement as a personal attack. Furthermore, I'm amazed at her ability to respond in a measured way to shit like--I'll use your recent words as an example--"Church Lady" and "fuck off to another thread." I understand your anger on that topic; I felt it too. I don't think that sort of language should be banned (I'm anti-ban, no matter what; we all have a choice to be here or leave). But you're rephrasing it here as though c.e. is getting personally offended (I don't think she is, btw) and that it's just because people disagree with her. Come on. Personally, I've moved away from posting much here, though I still check in. It's partly because of the cliquishness you referred to earlier. Which is silly, because there are only like six people who post on the political threads here regularly, how the fuck is there a clique? It's ridiculous. I think in a way, TCG mirrors our present socio-political climate, not because we're in our respective left/right corners unwilling to budge, but because some people seem to be more interested in snarking, expressing disdain, and pwning whomever they disagree with than they are in persuasion, let alone in a meeting of the minds. And I've given my fair share of snark so I'm not exempt. One person who is exempt is c.e. I disagree with almost all of her positions, and I get irritated too, but she's the most respectful and patient person here (there are others) and at the end of the day, that means a fucking lot. But yeah, for a less nuanced mirror of the present socio-political climate, see Facebook and Twitter. This. This gets all the feels from me. Christine gets it and at times she's gotten me because she does not play favorites. More often than not we have been simpatico on the majority of the debates here. Game recognizes game and Christine's looks mighty familiar to me. I like the way she knows finding the right answer is harder than asking the right questions. Among other things, I think there are a few carry-over grudges, loyalties, and expectations from another forum. One time rivals and/or buddies are now mods. The rules allow for quite a bit more freedom and combativeness in making points -- too much for some, apparently, and not enough for others. And this qualifies as what for you, Cassandra? A happy medium? Here's something I strongly believe human beings possess in abundance. An infinite, bottomless, endless capacity to carry grudges, personal loyalties, and expectations--realistic and otherwise---from one forum to another. The suggestion human beings should not carry that excess baggage with them to other places is laudable. The insistence they must because "the rules" say so is not tethered to reality. The Colline Gate forums represents a fresh start and an opportunity not to repeat the mistakes made by others. How much success it has had in achieving it is subject to debate.
That I don't agree with, or with Cass's theory that it's based on carry-overs from elsewhere. I never considered celaw my "rival" or "nemesis," nor you, nor even NT. Sometimes people just argue about shit, and some of those arguments push buttons harder than others. *shrug*
When someone pisses me off, though, I think "Okay, that person is being an asshole." Whereas when you or celaw get pissed off, you see it as an indication of how dire and savage this forum is.
I don't think YOU have carry-over grudges. And while a couple of people have at times asserted that I or Rob have them, I must note that we welcomed or indeed actually invited every member here. I think all three of us are examples of people who can slug it out pretty vigorously without carrying a grudge. We may not always agree on issues, but we do pretty much agree, most of the time, on the ground rules. And while we might get pissed off in the moment, in the long run, we shrug it off and don't take attacks on our arguments personally. But I do know, because I have outright been told, that some members came here with an active animus against other members. Which I actually don't care about, to tell you the truth, provided it stays within the rules. However, I think sometimes that animus leads some to read things into posts that aren't intended, to find disagreement and discord and malevolence in posts that isn't actually there, etc. And I do think some here really have difficulties separating attacks on weak arguments from attacks on themselves -- especially when that animus is present. As previously mentioned, neither you nor robeiae invited me to this board. c.e.lawson did that and if she had not I would not be here. Assess credit or blame to her at your preference. Animus is a disease anyone is susceptible to contracting and exhibiting and nobody has been inoculated from it, Cassandra. Not you, not robieae and certainly not me. We're ALL sinners when it comes to displaying active and aggressive animus based upon what happened at another time and in another place. It's remembering, not forgetting that sort of stuff is how to avoid it poisoning reasoned debate here as it has elsewhere. HE: Remember that fucked-up shit they used to do at that other place? SHE: Yeah. HE: Let's not do that here, okay?
Because in the long and short of it, I don't actually disagree with the substance and the subtext of your post, Cassandra. You're on point from first word to last. I only hope the sentiments expressed apply to the writer as much as it does to those it was written for.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2018 23:10:43 GMT -5
Actually, c.e. Lawson invited you because I specifically asked her to do so (I no longer being on the board we were all on, and thus unable to ask you myself).
And I asked Rob first (it being his site) to make sure he was cool with it. Which, for the record, he was.
Sorry if that takes away from your feeling like an unwelcome rebel who crashed the party against the will of the jackboot establishment, but those are the facts. As I believe I told you, actually, when you first arrived.
As to your most recent ban, that was between you and Rob, as I said--I was not part of the exchange. And as I've also said, all things being equal, which they may or may not be, I personally would prefer to keep you here because most of the time, I enjoy hearing what you have to say, or at least find it worth hearing.
But that said, I'll add that IMO you are definitely one who sometimes has an issue with the line between utterly shredding what someone is saying in a thread (totally cool) and just pure spewing vitriol at them (not).
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jun 18, 2018 7:54:53 GMT -5
Sure I do and so do you so don't play the innocent, Amadan. The difference between us is from me the anger is justified and the emotion is authentic. Oh, and backed up by documented FACT. Yes, I understand that you believe that. That's a reasonable point, and not one I would even disagree with. (Except that rather than assuming that one is right and the other is wrong, I think it's more likely that both have a piece of the truth and neither the complete picture.) The next step you usually take, however, is to insist that because you're black, you are right on all things race-related, and any white person who disagrees with you is ignorant and stupid if not a vile racist. As for my talking about civility, I talk about civility as an ideal, while I have repeatedly acknowledged that I'm not always so great at it. I'm not playing innocent. But I do not call people evil and stupid for failing to be persuaded by my undeniably accurate and 100% true and indisputable arguments. You do. celaw (not you) is probably the person I disagree most strongly with on this board, and I do not think (and have never implied) she's evil. You constantly imply (or outright state) that me and everyone else who gets into it with you is evil and stupid. That might have something to do with why you're the Temp-Ban Board Champion, though you seem to think it's because Rob is just using his mod authority to punish you for speaking truth to power.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2018 8:16:57 GMT -5
I'll add -- I've temp banned you twice. If I recall correctly, I actually AGREED with the actual substance of both of your arguments.
You got the temp bans from me because I said "tone that down or else" (at least once to the entire thread, and not just you, as I recall). And you said, essentially "oh yeah? Well I'm not GONNA tone it down. What are YOU gonna do about it?" Well, uh, yeah. . I'm gonna "or else." You kinda haven't left me a choice.
The reason I have not banned Amadan or Opty is because when I say "Cut that out," they do. If they disagree, they do so in a measured way.
(Rob doesn't give warnings. But nor is he obligated to do so. I only do it because I'm such a fucking sweetheart.)
It is also the case that much of what you (and c.e., for that matter) consider in "personal attacks" are in fact not. They are harsh, they are mean, they are withering as a flame blower, they may not feel good, but they are attacks on your argument or on your method of arguing.
And for fuck's sake, take a goddamn look at what we DO let you say, including to us, and ask yourself if you'd be allowed to get away with it elsewhere. Really? You think Mod X at YZ site would let you scream abuse at her?
I can see c.e. saying "But I'm always polite so why aren't people always polite back?" But you are pretty much constantly in people's faces. Which is fine, actually, until you stop saying "your argument is a racist piece of shit" and go to "YOU are a racist piece of shit." Sometimes the fucking substantive point is not even relevant anymore-- it's all about telling the person they are a racist piece of shit. And that won't fly.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jun 18, 2018 8:51:20 GMT -5
I started this board--as most of you know--in response to a house-cleaning at another site. Here's something many of you probably don't know, however:
The political/current events discussions at that board really got interesting because of an influx of new members from yet another site (devoted to screen writing) that went through a purge (this was many moons ago). Many of these new members (including people like Dave Clary) were hardcore partisans and skilled messageboard posters. The resulting clashes not only lead to quite interesting (imo) discussions, but also drew more and more people into the forum, growing it and the main site and raising the presence of both in the web.
And truth be told, people crossed lines a lot. I was (and still am) sympathetic to management there and the problems associated with moderating such a combative forum.
Anyway, TCG is not either of those sites; it exists only for the purposes of the political discussions. And I'm pretty sure that these days, most people are having their partisan-angled discussions in comment trails and on FB. Individual messageboards have been around since USENET, Prodigy, and Compuserve, but they really can't compete--imo--with social media these days.
Still, I prefer to have a place to wax political and philosophical on the issues of the day, without having to worry about how such discussions might impact real world friendships (in other words, I'm simply unwilling to "get into it" with FB friends), and with the knowledge that other participants can offer interesting and original viewpoints. And obviously, having a lot of such participants makes it all that much better.
Truth be told, that's a high bar, one that--mostly because of luck--the afore-mentioned site actually managed to achieve for a sustained period of time. TCG is unlikely to ever attain such a level of participation. I know that now, even if I had some pie-in-the-sky hopes early on. Nonetheless, I'm still going to let it keep going, as long as people keep posting. If it ever dwindles down to just me and Cass, I'll probably shut it down.
As to rules, I like the ones we have, so I'm sticking with them. That said, everyone is an adult here--as far as I know--and everyone probably knows when they've crossed a line. Two simple checks to run before you hit "post": Are you attacking an argument, a point of view, or a person? Is what you've written mostly about an actual issue, or mostly about another member?
And I'll leave this thread open for another day or two, provided people can avoid insults, but I'll be locking it at some point in the near future.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2018 8:55:07 GMT -5
I still say a forum of nothing but you and me whacking each other with two-by-fours has some potential, Rob.
|
|