|
Post by ladytera on Dec 21, 2008 8:25:07 GMT -5
I've been out of the threads for a while, and I've been trying to figure out why. Some of it, I can write off to being busy, with sickness, vacations, work, the holidays, lawsuits, and God knows what else crowding my schedule, I could just chalk it up to being busy, but I realized that wasn't the problem. And, worse, not only have I been off the threads for a while, so has everyone else. So here goes.
This all started with the blow up in the Pledge of Allegiance thread. The people over there went ape crying foul against Bubba's Dad for "offending" them. I got jumped for stepping in before I was officially a mod. And thereafter, in most of my posts, I found myself apologizing left and right for the possibility of offending someone. So did quite a few other people. This state of a affairs is ridiculous, and according to God (Ammy Faye for those of you who don't pay attention to the little things under our names) the PC BS that resulted was precisely the reason they set up this forum instead of continuing where they had been before. So I have obtained permission to set a few things straight.
There will be no more apologies for offending someone. You are not allowed to advocate harm against any individual or group in these threads, and you must stay on topic. Beyond that, be passionate, be opinionated, be convicted, be offensive. No more pussyfooting around, and no more whining. If you don't like what someone else has to say, don't say you're offended, it makes you sound like a wuss. Tell them why they are wrong. Argue your point of view. Support your beliefs. Try to change their minds. Be angry, be outraged, but for god's sake be articulate, and make your point instead of being offended by theirs.
The entire point of debate is to state your beliefs, unapologetically, and persuade people to your point of view. If you are so insecure in what you believe that a strong opposing opinion send you into a tizzy, then maybe you should be listening that much harder to what that person has to say. And having strong beliefs doesn't make you closed minded, it makes you passionate, and stable. Don't be afraid of showing that.
I started conversing here in the hopes of learning from the people here, sharing what I know, and possibly even teaching some of the younger folks here how to have a good debate. Recently, those goals have fallen woefully short. So, as the title of my soon to launch radio blog states, It's all your fault (or in this case mine). So, I get to do something about it.
Please, Offend me if you can, I dare you.
|
|
|
Post by keyodie on Dec 21, 2008 12:43:28 GMT -5
Ah, I agree with you. To a point. I agree, we shouldn't be apologizing left and right for our beliefs. They are your beliefs, there is no reason you should be sorry for them.
However, there is a difference between being insulted by someone's opinions and being insulted by a personal attack. The latter is what occored in the Pledge of Allegiance thread, and that is why I asked Bubba's Dad to apologize. Like it is stated in the rules, hate crime is not allowed here. If the debate turns personal, we must step in. That's what the administrators/mods are here for.
|
|
Raivynn
Journeyman
...my winter storm
Posts: 187
|
Post by Raivynn on Dec 21, 2008 14:07:18 GMT -5
I'm a tad confused. Maybe it's my muddy thinking thanks to this awful cold I can't seem to shake, but you actually want us to intentionally offend one another?
Offense will always be caused in a heated debate. It's the nature of the beast. But to go all out to offend? That seems counterproductive to me. *shrug*
I'd also like to think that everyone on here was articulate. It's just that with the written word, somethings are easily confused.
Just my two penneth.
|
|
|
Post by Bubba's Dad on Dec 21, 2008 14:26:06 GMT -5
Oh yes, keyodie, you agree but only to a point. That point being when some one else actually says something that you disagree with. Then rather then argue you point, you argue about how someone else made theirs. Hate crime? please. What a pile of liberal BS. This is a forum, I called someone a whiner, get over it. And "we must step in"? You got you PC police badge on and are ready to go. The administrators are here to control the direction of the conversation to keep it on topic, not to control the flow of ideas or opinions, and certainly not to protect peoples little feelings from being hurt.
Now this is not directed just at Keyodie. I want to make that clear so no one thinks I am personally attacking him. I would hate to set of the blue and red lights on top of his computer...again. "This is the PC police, pull your key board over now and keep your fingers where I can see them!"
Well any how, as for hate crime for those that have not read the before mentioned thread, I never advocated anything negative towards people of any color, gays, women, illegal immigrants or any other protected class of people. I called people whiny. Apparently people here do not whine. They are direct, articulate, and hide in the corner hitting the smite button over and over again to argue their point. I wonder just how much Lady Tera's Karma points will fall when some of you realize that she means what she types in the Gay Marriage Thread? Perhaps her Christian beliefs and her want of a strict following of the Constitution will be called a hate crime too.
My point is, I can be an ass. So what. My points, though, are valid and are usually backed up with facts. Deal with it.
And I will apologize once more, I am so sorry so many people turned whiny in the other thread. Wow, I should be a politician with apologies like that! Now, lets watch my Karma marker. How far into the negatives dose it go anyhow?
|
|
|
Post by Bubba's Dad on Dec 21, 2008 14:50:56 GMT -5
The point I think Lady Tera was making was to state your opinions freely, and if you offend some one or if their opinions offend you, so what. Argue your point. It is not about intentionally offending, it is about all of this intentional nice-nice do to fear of offending. Make your point, if people do not like it, piss on them. They are free to argue their point, and they should, even if their argument offends you. Basically, argue the point, not the offensiveness of another statements or opinions.
|
|
Raivynn
Journeyman
...my winter storm
Posts: 187
|
Post by Raivynn on Dec 21, 2008 15:00:24 GMT -5
I think this is what is meant by "hate crime"
|
|
|
Post by Bubba's Dad on Dec 21, 2008 15:23:16 GMT -5
Good for you raivynn, but i seem to miss the part in their about whiners being among the protected. Perhaps whiners fall into the disabilities class, but I will have to consult my liberal friends to find out. My point still stand. By the way, offensive martial in who's eyes? Christians my find some of the stuff written on some of these threads offensive, thus making this forum offensive. How far are we going to take this and who's definitions are we using? One other thing, I find it funny how those who preach tolerance always have a list of things that will not be tolerated.
|
|
Raivynn
Journeyman
...my winter storm
Posts: 187
|
Post by Raivynn on Dec 21, 2008 15:51:22 GMT -5
No need to be so sarcastic. You asked a question...before you amended your post that is, I replied. I don't make the rules, someone else did. Take it up with them if you feel so oppressed.
|
|
|
Post by Lady Dark Moon on Dec 21, 2008 16:24:03 GMT -5
What's the Golden Rule?
Uh huh. Respect. If you disagree, offend us with your BELIEFS. Post an idea so shocking, so passionate, so revolutionary that it blinds us with its brilliance. DON'T lecture us, talk down on us, call us 'super-elevated' or 'whiny' simply because we're under 20. Or 30. Or whatever age one has to be to qualify to have an opinion. Attack the BELIEFS, not the believers.
I will quote two rules I've learned in debate class. 1. Win. 2. Be nice.
Kill with kindness. Civilized discussion. Whatever. Since BD seems to have a problem with karma, I will note that that's why BD has negative karma and ladytera doesn't. Because ladytera actually seems to think everyone has an opinion worth sharing. BD, you might as well, but from the Pledge thread you certainly didn't show it.
|
|
|
Post by ladytera on Dec 21, 2008 18:16:59 GMT -5
Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one. The fact is an attack on a person's opinions or beliefs is a personal attack. And, it doesn't mean diddly squat. Asking someone to apologize for being obnoxious is fine. Just understand that there's every likelihood that they won't, or as was the case in this instance the apology will be snarky, and just spark further discontent among the "offended". The job of the mods and admins is to keep the threads on track. Name calling, especially when that is the only content in a post, takes the thread off topic, and therefore it's appropriate for us to step in. But dignifying the behavior with pages of off topic offendedness or pacification only encourages the original grouch to get defensive, and the rest of the folks to keep voicing their offendedness to try to shut the other guy down. It's self defeating and purposeless, and more importantly, it destroys the very environment of open conversation you're trying to promote here. Damn straight. Because right now, every person who is still bothering with the debate threads is too busy trying not to offend anyone to actually argue their points. My point exactly. Right now, there is no heated debate, because people are afraid of getting jumped for being offensive. It's about time to remove the PC attitude that's been creeping in. The only way I know to do that is to stir people's passion for their beliefs. The fastest, most productive, best method of doing that is to passionately, aggressively, offensively challenge them. Most people here are articulate, when they aren't busy watering down their thoughts, and writing in convoluted circles to try to be all inclusive and all pleasing. That would be when the confusion sneaks in. BD, I see you took me at my word. Good for you. But, um, Keyodie is a her, not a him. For those who are about to have blood shoot out of your eyes in outrage, this is a good example of sarcasm being used to make your point. Are you going to get pissed because it's a little insulting, or are you going to pay attention to the points he's making? If you're going to get pissed, why do you laugh at Letterman and Bill Maher? I'll touch on this in a minute. Yes, dear, you can, but that's why I love you. And that, my friends, is the heart of the matter. Again with the sarcasm. Now, this is the difference between a rant (first post), and serious discussion of the idea at hand. And you hit it on the head with this. I'm working on it. BD, Raivynn was simply quoting from the rules section of the forum. There is actually a little section there on "hate crimes". I've discussed this with Ammy a couple of times. The loose, undefined, vague wording here makes it exactly what BD was saying it was, oppressive, and too open to interpretation. But, in answer to the question of who's definition we're using, that would be mine since I'm the mod in this section. I find ignorance offensive, and that's about it. But, I won't ban you for that. Beautifully put. Attacks on the believers go to their credibility, as they'd say in a court of law. When the conversation degenerates into those being attacked crying foul, it serves no purpose other than to prove the allegations of immaturity to be correct. Don't like being dismissed as "super-elevated", "whiny", or too young to know you ass from a hole in the ground, prove is old grouchy ass wrong by arguing him into the ground on the merits of your beliefs and positions. Absolutely. Those of us who've been debating our whole flipping lives are very good at walking the find line of making our point and killing with kindness. But it takes a lot of effort and mental acrobatics sometimes, and worse it often dilutes the message your trying to get across. There is a time and place in debate to go for the throat of your opponent. That's why Win comes before Be nice. ROFLMAO!!! That was very well put. BD actually does think everyone has an opinion, he's just used to dealing with debate forums when people voice their opinions very strongly and figuratively smack eachother over the head for being weak in their arguments. Truthfully, I'm pretty used to those types of debate forums as well, I'm just a little more patient. In all honesty, debating with young people does require an accommodation. You guys tend to be a little quicker to take offense, a little less articulate in your arguments, and a little more likely to go with the flow to keep people from getting mad at you. This is often true for a lot of the Europeans on the forum as well. I think it's a cultural difference. BD often finds the tone of agreement this promotes a little chafing, and every now and then he just lets fly. The point of this thread is that that is not only okay, it's necessary if we want the debates to be anything more than an echo chamber of watered down opinions, and apologies. Now, as to why I have good karma, I look at this a little differently. I consider all debate, but especially debate with younger people, or those of other cultures, to be a teaching moment. I know that it's easier to have my opinions heard if I don't go out of my way to be belligerent. So, I tend to have a different debate style, one that seems to be less threatening to the folks on this site. I wasn't kidding about the I dare you to offend me. I grew up in the Navy. There is no lewd topic that will get under my skin. I spent a couple of years doing my best to be one of the biggest sluts I know, so there's little I haven't had to come to terms with about who I am. I spent 7 years with an abusive alcoholic who made it his mission in life to destroy my self-worth. So, there are few names I haven't been called. I spent 2.5 years getting scrutinized by the legal system with DFCS doing everything but an anal probe. So, there's little I haven't been accused of at one point or another. I have 5 kids. So, there are few personal insults and stabs to the heart I haven't already endured. In other words, I doubt that there is one single person on this forum, or anywhere else, that could offend me, even if they were trying. But, if you want to give it a try, I'll be happy to illustrate the most effective means of debating an "offensive" person. In fact, I'll wipe the floor with you.
|
|
|
Post by keyodie on Dec 21, 2008 20:32:53 GMT -5
Hmm. Okay then.
Attack against one's beliefs: Disagreement with political views, religious views, and the like. ex: I do not think that Mohammad was the most important prophet.
Personal attack: An insult or judgment against one's character or personality. ex: I think you are irresponsible for thinking that Mohammad was the most important prophet.
See the difference?
Do you really want this forum to consist of people who cuss at each other, disrespect each other, and insult each other every chance they get? We created this forum to get away from that BS, but we don't want to have a forum without rules. That only leaves room for chaos, and once everyone starts trying to offend each other nobody will be able to have an educated, mature discussion anymore. We want people to be able to express and defend their beliefs, but not bash others for theirs. We want to be civilized.
And BD, you obviously misread everything I wrote. Thank you very much for calling what I said "liberal BS". Your maturity level really shows through. What do you think would be the ONLY response to a comment such as this? Do you think people will even CONSIDER what you're saying? Do you think people will ever take you seriously if you call people names? How do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you talk like this? This is why we want to keep this forum civilized, so people will be open to other beliefs and take them into consideration, letting them defend ideas that you consider wrong.
|
|
|
Post by ladytera on Dec 21, 2008 21:33:10 GMT -5
Hmm. Okay then. Attack against one's beliefs: Disagreement with political views, religious views, and the like. ex: I do not think that Mohammad was the most important prophet. Personal attack: An insult or judgment against one's character or personality. ex: I think you are irresponsible for thinking that Mohammad was the most important prophet. As I said above, both are personal attacks. One is an attack on a personal belief, and one is an attack on the actions or judgments behind the personal belief. If you're going to debate, you have to be able to question both, and you have to be able to defend both. Not only should you then state why you don't believe that Mohammed was the most important prophet, but the other person should be able to state why they are not irresponsible (although I'm not sure how irresponsible would apply to that belief) for believe that he is. Try another example. During the Presidential elections, we were told repeatedly that Mr. Obama was an agent of change, not the same old politician, and yet when his associations and dealings were questioned, the hue and cry went up that his character was being attacked, and the moronic, namby-pamby, please everyone, so called leaders on our side bent over and grabbed their ankles. The problem was, the questions were entirely valid, and rather than sticking to the principle that the character, principles, and beliefs of an individual are relevant to the things they say, we caved and the debate was the poorer for it. I do, and like I said, both are valid statements in a debate. Why would you think that allowing people to question one another's motives would cause them to cuss each other, disrespect each other and insult each other? There are rules. Or at least one, stay on topic. Which is really the only rule necessary to maintain order on a debate forum. Which BS were you trying to get away from? The PC police? Then why do you want to go about limiting people's ability to express themselves and question each other. How is that any different than what you left behind? Because the restrictions there didn't line up with your point of view, and these ones do? How is that not entirely hypocritical? We are civilized. What you are asking for is not civility, you are asking for moral equivalence, ambivalence, and unity of thought, which will not allow for the intelligent, mature discussion you are saying you want. And you just proved his point. Nowhere in that entire paragraph did you address a single point he brought up. You were too wrapped up in your own indignation to bother. Worse, you obviously misread everything he wrote too. Not once did he call you a name, he called the idea of "hate crimes" liberal BS. And I will note that he probably didn't realize that you were referring to the clause in the rules for the forum. Nor did he insult you personally. He insulted the idea of what you were saying. So, how do you expect to be taken seriously in a debate if you won't defend your idea? BD and I have both been open to discussing and debating other people's beliefs, even and maybe most especially those we consider wrong. That does not include agreeing that you may be right. It does not include staying quiet when we vehemently disagree, or trying to couch every comment in terms that won't offend those we disagree with. It means arguing the points you all make with the points we make, punching as many holes in your arguments as we can, and hopefully, everyone, including us, learning something in the end. If you are looking for one sided, homogeneous thought, with everyone saying yes I agree with you, and consensus of the members on what is right, wrong and "offensive" then that's fine. Go ahead and say so. I'll still come and post my thoughts now and again. And I'll moderate this part of the forum according to your requirements. But truth be told, this section will be dead in the water, and there won't be much to talk about. You asked what could be done to bring back the conversation here. This is it. As your forum gets larger, you are going to get more and more differing points of view, and as that happens, if you restrict comments based on what might offend one person or another, whether personally or ideologically, your forum will quit growing pretty quick, or it will be made up of nothing but a bunch of people looking for someone to agree with or a reason to be offended. It's you guys forum, so that's your call.
|
|
|
Post by Caunion on Dec 21, 2008 22:09:31 GMT -5
Unfortunately, bubbasdad, you too fall under the category of "whining". You've always moaned and groaned how the youth has become immoral and degenerate and how we lack respect to elders and how we should all march and become soldiers and swear undying loyalty to the grand country you're so fond of. How your dear beloved country is now taking a turn under the colours of red and yellow, rather red, white, and blue. If that's not whining, I can't imagine what is.
Of course, you will find what we say offensive. And likewise, we think what you say is offensive. The only thing that is stopping this from breaking out into anarchy (And trust me when I say I'm starting to become fond of that idea) is that we retain that tiny aspect of humanity, of respect. Do you want to get rid of that? Fine! To hell with respect. Let's call each other names and slurs and then see how far things get.
While you may be the eldest member here, that does not mean you have superiority over us and have to guide us like little children. We're all here as members. And if you can't accept that, then I suggest you leave.
|
|
|
Post by keyodie on Dec 21, 2008 22:15:17 GMT -5
I do, and like I said, both are valid statements in a debate. People are obviously going to get touchy when they are called immature or irresponsible, and you know what usually happens when they get touchy? Bashing. Cussing. Disrespect. Insults. I do not see how insults should have any part in a debate. My examples may not have been the best. But what I meant is this: You can argue about concepts, ideas, and opinions. But why insult the person you are arguing with? Why would you think that allowing people to question one another's motives would cause them to cuss each other, disrespect each other and insult each other? You can question other people's motives, but if you do it in a matter where it is disrespectful, people tend to get touchy. I see it happen all the time. I think it's great if people let out how they feel, but when feelings start getting hurt and only causes harm... What is the point? It's not a debate anymore, it's a bashfest. We want educated, mature, informative debates, or at least that is what I thought we wanted. There are rules. Or at least one, stay on topic. Which is really the only rule necessary to maintain order on a debate forum. Which BS were you trying to get away from? The PC police? Then why do you want to go about limiting people's ability to express themselves and question each other. How is that any different than what you left behind? Because the restrictions there didn't line up with your point of view, and these ones do? How is that not entirely hypocritical? What we left behind is censorship. People were discussing their views maturely, and the mods locked it simply because of the topic that was being discussed. What we have now is much different. We are learning, we are progressing as people, we are defending our ideas to those with different ideas. And yes, if you call not allowing comments such as "YOU STUPID PIECE OF CRAP" limiting people's ability to express themselves and question each other, I would have to say we do have to do so. All we are striving for is respect. We are civilized. What you are asking for is not civility, you are asking for moral equivalence, ambivalence, and unity of thought, which will not allow for the intelligent, mature discussion you are saying you want. Please explain how that is so. All I want is that people respect each other in the end and not bash each other or insult each other. I never mentioned anywhere that I wanted "unity of thought". I encourage a variety of opinions. I just don't think we should insult each other in the process. It sounds a bit like you're exaggerating things, and I hope I wasn't misunderstood. And you just proved his point. Nowhere in that entire paragraph did you address a single point he brought up. You were too wrapped up in your own indignation to bother. What is the point of responding to something that has been brought up before and has been responded to by others? I responded to the bit where I had something worth saying. Worse, you obviously misread everything he wrote too. Not once did he call you a name, he called the idea of "hate crimes" liberal BS. I wasn't referring to what he said in the post specifically. When I mentioned name calling, I was talking about what he has said in the past. I was trying to explain that by saying that someone's ideas are "PC liberal BS", you are not going to get any serious consideration from anybody and that kind of comment can only provoke negative feelings. And I will note that he probably didn't realize that you were referring to the clause in the rules for the forum. Nor did he insult you personally. He insulted the idea of what you were saying. So, how do you expect to be taken seriously in a debate if you won't defend your idea? Like I said. It has been brought up before, so I did not see the point. I will say it again. Respect. Respect. Respect. I like to think I defend my ideas in other threads on this forum. But again, I did not see the point of arguing this point any further since it will go absolutely nowhere. And it's funny that you say he didn't attack me personally, because you say being attacked personally can be both an insult against you and your ideas. If he insulted the idea of what I was saying, isn't that a personal attack according to you? Now, I don't think I was personally attacked at all, I was merely suggesting that if you call people names or label ideas (such as "PC liberal BS") you will never get a positive response. BD and I have both been open to discussing and debating other people's beliefs, even and maybe most especially those we consider wrong. That does not include agreeing that you may be right. It does not include staying quiet when we vehemently disagree, or trying to couch every comment in terms that won't offend those we disagree with. It means arguing the points you all make with the points we make, punching as many holes in your arguments as we can, and hopefully, everyone, including us, learning something in the end. I have never said that you should be quiet if you disagree. If you disagree, go ahead and reply to the post. Tell us what you believe. But don't be disrespectful about it. Don't tell others that they are immoral for their opinions. I am in no way saying that you have, but that is what I am trying to get at here. Respect. Respect. R-E-S-P-E-C-T. And where did this "terms that won't offend those we disagree with" come from? I don't think I have ever said anything resembling that. And I agree 100% with your last sentence. If you are looking for one sided, homogeneous thought, with everyone saying yes I agree with you, and consensus of the members on what is right, wrong and "offensive" then that's fine. Go ahead and say so. I'll still come and post my thoughts now and again. And I'll moderate this part of the forum according to your requirements. But truth be told, this section will be dead in the water, and there won't be much to talk about. You asked what could be done to bring back the conversation here. This is it. Again, I have no idea where you got this from. Did I ever say that everyone should agree to everything everyone is saying? What the hell would be the point of this forum then? I even call it a "debate forum" when I invite others. I want a variety of opinions here. I want people disagreeing and defending their points. I'm starting to feel like you're getting a bit touchy. I never said anywhere that I wanted people to have similar viewpoints, quite the contrary. I just want people to RESPECT each other, that is all. As your forum gets larger, you are going to get more and more differing points of view, and as that happens, if you restrict comments based on what might offend one person or another, whether personally or ideologically, your forum will quit growing pretty quick, or it will be made up of nothing but a bunch of people looking for someone to agree with or a reason to be offended. It's you guys forum, so that's your call. Please. Don't talk like that. I respect your opinions, I really do. It is partly your forum as well, we gave you the job of moderator for a very good reason. You are very qualified. You have helped a lot, and we're grateful to have you here. But I really think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. I agree very much with the idea that pretty much everything anyone says will be offensive to someone. But there are some things that will be offensive to anyone with a particular viewpoint. You can question others' beliefs and their judgment, but don't outright disrespect them. Don't make them feel inferior. That is all I'm saying.
|
|
|
Post by Bubba's Dad on Dec 22, 2008 0:14:33 GMT -5
OK, where to start?
Caunion, you are quite right, I do whine. A lot. The difference is, when you call me on it, I do not act like the world is coming to an end as do some people. Also, I do not expect to need to treat you like children, this is why I get frustrated from time to time when some here act like children. And I must say, Ladytera also mentions age from time to time as well. It's going to come up. As far as my superiority, well of course I am superior. I know all, and my ideas are always best. If you do not believe that, just ask my, and I will tell you again. Sarcasm aside, if I thought that another's ideas or opinions were better then mine, I would change my opinion. You can not have conviction in an idea or opinion and think that a different opinion is right.
Caunion, by the way, you are not the first person to ever ask me to leave some place because of what I am saying or because of my believes. I think I will stick around a bit, but thank you for the kind invitation.
To all, what names have I ever called anyone here, other then passably "whiner"? And by the way, it seems that many think that respect equals agreement, and this is not the case.
Keyodie, I know ladytera already touched on this, but to reinforce the point, I called the idea of hate crimes liberal BS, and so they are (IMHO). I never have called you anything but keyodie, I think.
|
|
|
Post by keyodie on Dec 22, 2008 0:59:18 GMT -5
One I remember distinctly is "queen hater".
And I definitely agree. Respect does not equal agreement, I do not think that at all. I don't really disagree with LT's original post, but I think there should be at least SOME restrictions. It's not about being unoffensive, it's about respect. If there is no respect involved, the conversation will turn ugly and all that will result will be hurt feelings. Nobody would ever consider or try to understand other opinions. There would only be regress.
Sure, you could say that we wanted to break away from the PC BS. But we don't want completely anarchy either, where anger is the only emotion involved in a debate. We don't want either of those extremes, we want somewhere in the middle. Freedom of expression and the ability to stand up for what you believe in, but also informative and enlightening. There can be no information or enlightenment gained from a bashfest.
Oh yeah, I know. I didn't see it as a personal attack or anything.
|
|
sakaido
Journeyman
Ryuichi+Coffee=Best icon ever.
Posts: 111
|
Post by sakaido on Dec 22, 2008 7:24:18 GMT -5
I can understand what you mean LT. I post every so often in gaiaonline, another forum but bigger and for morons. And I'm a raving bitch, simply because I can be. Because it's the internet. Because if they didn't like it they would go away.
But it's never blatant insults. It's a question that the person wouldn't like. A witty comment every so often. Heavy sarcasm with a touch of clever.
I agree with Keyodie. And it wasn't about what she disagreed with. It wasn't an attack about any opinion, or view point. It was an insult to everyone not deemed mature enough by his age standards.
I don't think I've ever seen her make anyone else apologize just because she disagreed with what they said. But that was without a hint of doubt, personal, and intended to be insulting.
I'm pretty sure that's what wasn't ok.
|
|
|
Post by ladytera on Dec 22, 2008 9:40:07 GMT -5
Let me clarify something. I wasn't saying that Keyodie was out of line for stepping in in the Pledge thread, nor that an apology wasn't justified. Quite frankly, I had some not so choice words to say out of the public spaces on that topic with BD. I don't have a tremendous amount of time at the moment, so I won't get into responding to the rest of the posts since last time until later this afternoon. I just wanted to head the conversation off from the rabbit hole of getting sidetracked into this one specific issue, that being "Was Bubba's Dad being a jerk in the Pledege thread, and should he have had to apologize?" While that was a touch off point, it really wasn't the problem, it was only the catalyst that started the "I hope I don't offend you, I'm sorry if this offends you, what you said offends me..." pattern of debate that came after. That needs to break, and that is where I am steering (and will hopefully eventually arrive) with this thread.
|
|
sakaido
Journeyman
Ryuichi+Coffee=Best icon ever.
Posts: 111
|
Post by sakaido on Dec 22, 2008 10:51:30 GMT -5
I'll always say sorry. I feel guilty.
I don't really want what I say to be taken the wrong way. As anything other than a personal opinion.
I think it's more about respect than anything else. But that's just what I think. So that's why I'll keep saying I'm sorry.
|
|
|
Post by keyodie on Dec 22, 2008 14:19:51 GMT -5
Actually, I don't think we've strayed too far off the original subject. We've been saying a lot about respect, which sounds pretty relevant to me.
Sakaido - Likewise, I don't want people to get the wrong idea. I usually only apologize if I worded my post carelessly or gave off an impression that I did not mean to give. In that case, I would take back what I said and try to state it better so that it is more understandable. But it really is my nature to feel guilty for something, and it isn't always good. I can be really over-sensitive sometimes. I don't think I've ever apologized for my beliefs, though. Just maybe the unintentioned effect that it has or the wrong word choice.
I am glad you brought this stuff up LT. We may need to revise the rules a bit if you think it's too open for interpretation. Since we've been talking about respect a lot, we may even want to include that too.
I think the main problem with our debate forum is that we're all debating the same people. We need new members and fresh opinions. It does seem a bit pointless to debate the same person over and over again.
Maybe I've been blind to it, but it doesn't even seem like there has been too much apologizing (for opinions, that is). I've never felt like I have to apologize for what I believe in, but I don't know about the others.
But see? This is why this forum, in my opinion, is so much different than other forums, especially the one we left. They would never have a discussion like this open to every member on the board. This is something I would like to keep on this board, the freedom to question the rules and the "administration" (duhn duhn duuuhhn). Not only were we trying to get away from the censorship, we were trying to get away from the never question the administrators and never question the mods and never question the rules BS. Just because you weren't given special powers by one little person doesn't make your opinion less valuable. We're just here to make sure the forum is as informative or enjoyable as it can be and to have some kind of framework in place so that there wouldn't be total anarchy.
|
|