Oh dear God this is going to be another monster post. I apologize (snicker, snicker) in advance.
Holy crap, Riq, that was classic, funny as hell, and very well put. You get an A+ for how to deal with people you disagree with in a debate!!!!!
I didn't say get rid of respect, nor did BD. But why would you think this would degenerate into a free for all name calling, slurring bashfest if we loosen up a little?
Shh, don't tell him, but I think there might be one or two older ones.
You do realize you just challenged him, rather than running him out of town, right? That's a good thing, don't get me wrong, I just wanted to be sure you understood his mentality a little.
But, again, if there is a requirement to stay on topic (and I know you get to this a little later), it won't degenerate into that. And I never said there was no place for the mods and admins, I only said that the urge to cry foul must be squished. That means you, Ammy, Caunion, me, Pansy, and any other mods make the call when someone is out of line. But, when the entire thread gets out of line, everyone gets equally spanked.
'Twas not a bad example. My point though was, an insult is only an insult if you choose to be insulted. It's vague, abstract and impossible to define.
Again, the thread's gotta stay on topic, a person's status as a stupid piece of crap has nothing to do with any topic that is not titled "You Stupid Piece of Crap". Debate isn't about feelings, even though it involves feelings. Debate is about critical thinking and analysis of a subject in order to better understand it. If someone calls you a stupid piece of crap in a debate, it shouldn't piss you off or hurt your feelings (not to tell you what to think or what offends you or anything LOL). It should make you smile and laugh your butt off, because essentially, you just won your point.
You're not being misunderstood, and I'm not exaggerating. I've been on a lot of forums over the years, and possibly even more relevant I have five kids. Once the conversation steers into who wounded whose feelings, who picked what fight, or who suffered some imaginary slight or injury, you're done. The only resolution is to send everyone to their room and start over with the premise that everyone involved screwed up, and it's time to move on. I'm gonna get to respect and a couple other words being tossed around toward the end of this mammoth post. As to unity of thought, you are right that you didn't mention it. You don't have to. Debate, of it's own accord, causes people to feel disrespected, disregarded, frustrated, and upset. The only way to have a debate that does not cause hard feelings to one degree or another is if everybody agrees, which doesn't make for much of a debate.
Why do I keep responding to the same points and questions brought up repeatedly in the Gay Marriage thread? Because I obviously didn't get the point across the first time around. As to the things responded to by others, practice.
The thing is, he hasn't called people names, with the exception of the "queen hater" reference you hit on later. Calling people names is different that generalizing them. And I gotta say that yep, he generalizes, so do the rest of us. It's impossible to have a conversation without doing so to some extent or another. As to the PC liberal BS, I took it seriously. Apparently so did you. The difference is I see his point, even if I might have worded it differently or used a
to take the sting out. You are the one he disagreed with, and yes, generalized, so it pissed you off. Tell him why it's not PC liberal BS, use those negative feelings constructively.
I'll get to it, I'll get to it, I'll get to it.
You do usually defend your ideas to a point. You have a different debating style because you're still learning. You tend to be a little timid and use a lot of links to back yourself up, instead of articulating the ideas yourself. Not a bad thing, so don't get me wrong. But, you also tend to back down a little when someone frustrates you or comes on strong (even me). Don't sell yourself short, when you think he's wrong, or I'm wrong, or anyone else is wrong, go after them and kick their butts with your sharp wits and winning personality. You're a lot of fun to debate and discuss with, because you ask a ton of questions, which I absolutely adore (in case you couldn't tell I like to pontificate). But, you can't give up in the middle, or you won't like debating anymore, because you won't feel you've been heard.
Bravo! Nice catch. Yes, that is a personal attack, because you take your ideas personally just like everyone else does. Otherwise, it wouldn't have pissed you off.
Debate isn't always about getting a positive response, it's just about getting a response. And labels serve a purpose, if only to give you an insight into the person doing the labeling.
I'll get to it.
But, you see, if I disagree with you, and I know that my disagreement will "offend" you, that very disagreement, if allowed, will be seen as disrespect. So, in turn, to avoid kicking up a dust storm, or playing the mental games that allow me to say what I have to say while sounding like I'm agreeing with you, I just won't say anything, because it's too much of a pain in the butt. As to the immoral part, I'm fairly sure we haven't said that to anyone. However, that is only to avoid kicking up a dust storm or playing mental mind games. There are quite a few positions I do believe are absolutely immoral, that is my honest opinion, that I can often back up with fact. But according to your own statement here, I cannot say that out of respect. Is that not a limitation upon my freedom to express my thoughts? I don't mind that so much, and have been rather careful here on this forum to keep those particular arguments to myself, because they would be dismissed out of hand, and probably raise hell at the same time, so there's not much point, and I have too much respect for Ammy, you and Caunion to wreak havoc on your forum for my own satisfaction. But, it is none the less a restriction, and one that makes the conversation poorer for it's lack of perspectives other than the prevailing one.
I'LL GET TO IT. You can't argue your beliefs, and still allow that someone else is right in a contrary belief. You can listen. You can learn. You might even change your mind. But, you can't believe two opposing points of view. That simple fact will lead to hurt feelings, perceived hurts, and implied disrespect. Or a bunch of people not hearing eachother at all. And I'm not really touchy. To be honest, I've been laughing myself silly through quite a lot of this thread. You guys are amazing when you finally cut loose. Although, I've gotta say, no one has taken me up on my dare yet. Although, I think BD and Caunion are working up to it.
Sweetie, I know you respect me and my opinions. Which is part of why I started this thread. I'm going to cross the line into generalization. You guys have started an amazing forum here, but you are all pretty young, (gasp) and while you have seen a lot of forums crash because of censorship, PCness, or whatever, I don't think you understand the root causes of it. The biggest one is hyper-regulation of what can and can't be said. The next biggest is abstract regulation of what can and can't be said. All it takes is one or two drama queens being allowed to cry foul and smack other members over the head with the "regulations", and you have instant censorship, if not from the mods, then from the members themselves in an effort to avoid starting it up again. And, I'm not misunderstanding you, I just have a different perspective.
I'll get to it. There are certain things that nearly everyone on here has a particular viewpoint, and to challenge that view is an insult. That's the point. If you read through the Christianity thread (which is admittedly not nearly as heated), or the Who Would you vote for thread, or the Gay Marriage thread, or the Abortion thread, you will note that for the most part I am often the only dissenting voice. I don't mind, and I take all comers, and argue every single point, from every single angle. But, I am also extremely judicious in what I say because I know if I'm not, the thread will go up in flames. I've been practicing debate with my father since I was old enough to talk. I have the skill and patience to make my point without offending, and just as importantly, without taking offense. Not everyone does, in fact, most people don't. As you gain a more diverse group, you're going to have more trouble with this. Now is the time to pick the course you intend to steer.
I'm going to skip BD's stuff for the time being, because this is already going to be huge, and already chatted with him about it.
And didn't that just set off a hell of a fight. I also think he admitted to being out of line at the time. But, we digress to rehashing, and I'll probably skip most of the stuff about the infamous thread, to save time for everybody, and aggravation for myself.
I promise, I'll get to it.
Freedom of expression must be just that if it is to be free, that means each of us must have the ability to make utter and complete fools of ourselves, and each of us must have the ability to point at each other and laugh when we do. Lack of restriction does not mean bashfest, unless you are 4, which none of us are.
One can never know the intent in another man's heart. Even so, I never said that she shouldn't have asked for the apology. I simply said that the snarky response and the following defensiveness and increase in hostility on all sides was fairly predictable if you pay attention to human nature. When a child throws a tantrum, the fastest way to end it is to ignore them. Same goes for an adult who's in a snit. Truth be told, this was the first outbreak of virtual violence on the forum, and those in charge were caught off guard and weren't quite sure how to deal with. Me included, even though I wasn't in charge yet. Hell, I'm married to the man who sparked that little brawl, and he knows where I sleep. Just kidding (not about the married part). It was handled the best way any of us knew how at the time. The purpose of this particular thread is to make sure neither the admins, the mods, or the members are taken off guard the next time the situation arises (and it will). As to the rest, please feel free to be a raving bitch here anytime you like.
Damn, there's that word again. I won't ban you for saying you're sorry either, just don't feel compelled by the leadership or other members to do so, and we'll be good. A person's own conscience is their own business.
I didn't think we were off topic, I just didn't want to turn it into a complete rehash.
At least you know guilt isn't always good.
I would say I won't ban you either, but you're an admin, so it's kind of moot.
So am I. Like my previous post said, this seems to be a hot topic for discussion, and so far, it's been entertaining as heck. As for that word again, I'll get to it.
You aren't entirely wrong there. But, it's hard to attract new people to the debates if they are seeming to be stifled by over sensitivity. If I were a new person and had wandered into the thread that shall not be named, without knowing any of the people here, or any of the background, I probably wouldn't stick around to check out the other ones because there was an all around over reaction. So, while fresh meat (oops, I meant opinions) would help and be welcome (and I've been trying, but my friends and family are all lazy louts with lives), we want to be sure they won't be afraid to put in their two cents.
I don't think you're blind, I think you're used to apologizing when you upset someone. Me, I used to do that a lot. These days, my first response isn't to apologize, it's to ask why they got their panties in a twist. So, for me, I've been apologizing a lot, or worse, I've been prefacing comments with an apology, and not saying a lot of things because they will "offend". But, that's just me.
Well put, and precisely why I posted this to start with. I've always thought airing things in public is the best way to fix things.
Sounds about perfect.
Just a general point on that. You can still call someone a silly ass and stay on topic with the rest of your comments, but for the most part you are absolutely correct in the assumption that that one rule eliminates much of the difficulties you're worried about. As to the wandering nature of a conversation, staying on topic, as far as other forums I've haunted, and as far as I would interpret it, means your post either addresses the original title, post, or a subtopic that has arisen in the conversation. Whether or not someone is a silly ass does NOT qualify as a subtopic.
Isn't she awesome. Ammy dear, have I told you lately how proud I am of you? The rest of you should know that I taught her everything she knows, and if she ever gets over her fear of confrontation, she'll kick all your butts in the debates.
Eloquent as always my dear. But, be sure to whoop his ass, or mine for that matter, if we do it too. No favorites!
Freedom of expression also means you are free not to offend if you are so inclined. There is no requirement to do so.
My dare was in earnest, not because I want to be offended, but because you can't offend me, and it's a good demonstration of how to deal when someone upsets you, intentionally or otherwise. But nobody wants to take me up on it... *sigh*
BD addressed this himself later down the posts, but just to make the point, he didn't and doesn't want an apology or a moderation. As to the things said in the thread with no name, many of them were offensive to those who consider themselves patriotic Americans, and they were deliberately so, just as much as BDs comments were. The point both of us are trying to make is that it doesn't matter, not because of where the attack is directed, because anyone can take anything personally, but because honesty is more important that tact when it comes to debate, so there's no need for apology or mitigation of your thoughts. As to those two comments, they are simply different perspectives, equally valid because they are both the opinions of those who stated them. That's kind of what I'm saying, each person holds a variety of different beliefs, applied in a variety of different ways, to a variety of different entities. They are all valid opinions to express in a debate.
Actually, I'm fairly certain at least one poster came darn close to stating exactly that, but that is neither here nor there. We've come back to that word again. I'll get to it.
I'll skip BD again, except to say, I like the Nerf Dart comment. It brings to mind the stories my Dad used to tell me about the other Geeks in his office at one of his jobs. When they'd get frustrated with work or eachother, and all out Nerf Gun war would break out. I always loved that image.
BD is used to people arguing him into the ground.
I think he was referring to the idea that you thought there was no need to moderate the comments because to him they are offensive because they are disrepectful. Damn, there's a variant of that word again. I'll get to it.
Arrrg, will we ever escape the R words?
As the concept of respect is what has been being discussed, repeatedly, the concept of what respect is is relevant, and how it is applied is relevant, and therefore the comments are relevant, at least to him (and me).
Okay, finally, I've finished my massive response to everyone, with this one wee exception.
RESPECT, find out what it means to me, RESPECT...
Here's the problem with this concept that has been consistently making me want to band my head against the wall. There is no such thing as RESPECT. It is an abstract word that has entirely different meanings to every person, often even multiple meanings to the same person. To say that you must be respectful is to say that you must watch and weigh every word you type to be sure that no one you are speaking to might possibly find it disrespectful. And example, Ammy's father thinks that it is disrespectful to disagree with him (not BD), to argue with him, or to request something he doesn't particularly want to grant that day. Me, I think it's disrespectful to call me names in front of my other kids, to sleep in the same bed as her boyfriend under my roof, and she's only allowed to call me a bitch if she can back up her opinion. Vast, huge, quantum difference between the two. Another example. If I, as a white woman walked up to a black man and called him a nigger I would be considered disrespectful. But, if a black man or woman walks up to another black man or woman (or hell sings it on a CD and says it in a movie), it's not only not disrespectful, it's a term of endearment. Again, vast, huge, quantum difference. Even worse, there will be at least one or two on this forum who read what I just wrote and are cringing in offended dignity, regardless of their color, because I dared to type nigger instead of typing the n-word, as is now politically correct. When you limit freedom of expression by such abstract terms as respect, disrespect, offensive, rude, obnoxious, or whatever else, you essentially remove the freedom you are seeking to protect.
But, but, but, the chaos, the anarchy, the bashing, the name calling, the horror, the humanity!!!! you cry. Let me pose a question here. I specifically invited each and every person on this forum to offend me, purposely. I asked every one of you to try to piss me off. In fact, I dared you. Not one single person took me up on it. This is obviously a topic everyone in here feels pretty strongly about, or it wouldn't have generated so many posts so quickly. But, no one has been bashing each other. No one has been calling eachother names. There has been no anarchy, no chaos, no bloodshed. The fact is, people like to talk to each other. When they talk, they like to be heard. So, more often than not, they tend to behave like civilized grown up people, and low and behold, we have a great conversation. So, with all that in mind, why should we limit the conversation by fiat rule, when the conversation will limit itself if we all act like the grown ups we aspire to be?
You really should practice offending people on me though. One of my favorite quotes was paraphrased later like this "Never insult anyone by accident."
Robert A. Heinlein
I tell you true that each and every time I say something "offensive", or "insulting" on this forum, it is done with full intent. I speak my mind less frequently, because it is also in my nature never to insult by accident. There comes a time and place in every debate, and truly in every aspect of life, to stand straight, take the gloves off, and speak your mind fully and unashamedly. When kind words, well couched disagreement, and patient explanation fail to make your point, the time has come to shake the other person from their lethargy, their unity, their general acceptance of what they believe, and cause them to question. So with intent, you insult their ideas, you insult their credentials, you insult the very foundation of who they are and how they think, in the hope that it will rally them to actually examine those things, and not necessarily come to your point of view, but so they will truly know why they believe themselves to be right, and they will go to the wall to defend themselves. Thus, the conversation goes from a dalliance and indulgence in the thoughts and whims of popular thought into the realm of actual intellectual development for everyone involved. And the next time someone comes to them as say you're wrong, they will in turn be able to say, "No, I am right, and this is why..."
Another quote to keep in mind when setting whatever new rules may come into play is this:
"What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist."
Salman Rushdie
I've now officially blown my night off, but it was fun.
You guys have an awesome day.