Avoiding the Politics threads - You, too?

And Siouxie and the Banshees "Peekaboo" just came on the radio!

I have flaming friends too, though 'my best friends are' is a famously awful thing to say, and, moving along, I do have gay friends who rage, but I have at least as many straight friends who rage, and even I, humble heterosexual female with a white streak in her hair, has been known to flame.
To be honest I don't mind it once in a while. I don't mind the random taunt, the sly aspersion. I like wit.

I am not too keen on repetition though. I think repetition, almost by definition, weakens argument.

truth
Osso, I was referring to both gay and straight flamers, I was referring to both gay and straight flamers. I was referring to both gay and straight flamers. I was referring to both gay and straight flamers. I was referring to both gay and straight flamers....etc.

Pay her?! You must be joking !

(kidding ... )

(can you tell I've only just noticed this thread, and have started at the beginning? ;-)


Nah, I think InfraBlue meant Israel/Palestine ... Funny (s)he should say thats one topic that wasnt infected by the flamers on Abuzz yet. Cause its the one topic even I will stay away from, after experiencing I/P debates on Abuzz! Its just too ... emotional for too many people, I guess.


Actually, I dont mind those, and I read a great many of them.

Way I see it is, how many news sources am I going to get round finding and reading myself? And how big is the chance that, as a creature of habit and proven preferences, I am going to just instinctively look up the same ones over and over again? And how big, on the other hand, is the chance that someone else found a really worthwhile article that I hadnt seen yet?

I use the Political threads for debate (and i'm obviously guilty of all the "crimes" mentioned here), but I also use them to keep up to speed on several topics. Like the Democratic primaries. Dutch, English, German newspapers dont write a whole lot about them. I dont have TV and wouldnt watch CNN (much) if I had one. Of course I can look up the NYT online, the New Republic, the Polling Report ... but thats about most I can spontaneously come up with on an average night. Thanks to the links and copy/paste jobs here, however, and clicking on from the links they provide, I keep up to date about the coverage through a multiple of those three sources.

And if an article is mere partisan editorialising (which does seem a favourite genre here), it'll be clear from the 1st paragraph and I can always still scroll on ...

I thought Israel/Palestine I/P was obvious, but didn't manage to post about it.

I don't actually mind links. I mind link bashing, here, take that, and that, and that, and here's to your mother, that, and


so on.

On that one, too, I'll stand up for us maligned Politicals ... :winks:

I really appreciate if someone takes a debate seriously. Uses it not just to spout his own opinion again and again in different impulsive phrasings, but to actually read your post, pick up on your points - and argue with them, one by one, as articulately as (s)he can. Thats the way I learn most. So, though theres enough silly stuff going on in the quote-within-a-quote genre, it can actually be a sign that someone's been paying attention and is willing to earnestly pick a bone with you.

I mean - it does me no good - purely egoistically speaking of course - if yet another kind-hearted poster comes round to say, "well, way I feel it, its just not right! Call me naive, but thats just my opinion!". Egoistically speaking, I much prefer someone to try to solidly deconstruct my argument or - even better of course - formulate an intricate argument of his/her own in retort. Its a pity that its rarely someone who agrees with you who'll do that - the fact that its always someone you quite intensely disagree with makes posting sometimes a little more stressful than it should be. But sometimes its well worth it.

Take two recent debates on the ICC, for example. The one that developed from about this post onwards on the BBC thread, with Craven and georgeob1 - absolutely excellent thread. And the one that preceded it, on the Roundtable forum, from about this post onward, with JamesMorrison and fishin', was equally excellent (and much more pleasant at that, I admit).

(Its interesting to see, btw, how the most earnest debates, with lengthy but well-considered posts that people really appear to have put an effort in, turn out to be on the Conservatives' Roundtable forum here. James noted it "almost made him feel like a man of letters", and indeed, I can almost conjure up images of Old World intellectuals penning their contributions to snail mail debates over a good glass of wine :grins:.)

No, the incessant quoting of each others' past posts in such threads does admittedly mean its not perhaps as easy to just "jump in" with your own opinion as freshly off-the-cuff as elsewhere - but if you have the time to read up and respond to whats already said, its more instructive than with most threads!

LOL!

Yup ...

nimh,
You're right. I was referring to Israel/Palestine.

By flamers on the political threads on Abuzz, I meant the ones who would spam a thread with endless, meaningless posts rendering it unviewable. Also, members' identities are jacked by hackers who use them to post insults by those assumed identities.

The flaming here is tame compared to that on Abuzz, and de Kere would absolutely not allow spammers and hackers here.

this is much more mild than the forum I used to post at, where death threats beame common.

Wellll, you all know I love it here and I am interested in a lot of views; I just don't want to hear them thirty times, much less with pulsing insults.

Msolga, thank you for a delightful thread that pokes a little fun at the most abusive posters who, unfortunately, are most likely to be found in the political threads.

Like many of you, I mostly read in order to learn from the more astute members; occassionally posting if I feel strongly enough to make myself vulnerable to abuse by the worst flamers.

As for more involvement, I have to admit that I really don't have as much knowledge as regular posters and I certainly don't write as well; therefore, I tend to lurk and read. I usually leave in disgust after reading a few posts from people who probably wouldn't ever dare to speak to anyone in person as they do on a2k, where they are in no danger of being punched in the nose. I have a feeling that those posters have no social skills at all and can only voice their opinions on such as a2k without risking bodily harm.

Diane,

Do you see any irony in your caustic remarks about the people you are deriding? I see plenty.

Forgeting the above...I studiously avoided any political threads on abuzz, and only screwed up my courage to venture forth here in a2k because the stakes were so high.....I still don't feel comfortable with political threads, although mamaj did her best to make me feel comfortable,,,as did others, I am very tired now of the whole thing,

Yes, Craven, I have been caustic and I have admitted to not having the courage to put myself on the line, as do the people whom I admire as well as the people whom I find abusive.

I also enjoy a refreshingly fun look at the threads that can be the most informative as well as the most ugly.

My point was that your references to them were ruder (no social skills, should be punched in the nose) than the average political animosity gets.

Ironically people often rudely take people to task... for being rude.

Well now I have to 'argue' that I wasn't referring to anyone deserving to be punched in the nose, but that people who are so blatantly rude usually wind up being punched in the nose.

Dunno about Diane, but I dont really, Craven. I mean, I'm always appreciative of your reminders about applying equal standards, but, ehm ... dunno about here?

Diane was giving a general description about a set of people - none specified by name - noting that they lack social skills (wot Timber says) and dare to speak here in a way that they wouldnt to real people (cause it would get them into trouble!). I think thats a safe enough assertion, really - it goes for me too, I think, for one.

Thats very different a set-up than that of the kind of personally addressed, agressive put-downs - about your job, your education, your knowledge, your - pretty much everything - that she is describing, isnt it?

Only objectionable word left I can see would be "disgust", as in, it disgusts me - but wouldn't it be one fine day in Politics if everyone there started saying, "I feel disgusted" rather than "you are disgusting"?! (Lesson one in conflict management: talk about what the other person makes you feel, instead of what you think the other person is" ... <giggles>)

Well, to approach a nub here, it is possible that some of all of us get a little passive aggressive here, while others enjoy a certain reined in regular aggression, and so on.

So it goes, and I am not all above it. Appreciate the actual info/pros/cons.

Actually I do not think Diane was intentionally rude. My point is to point out the difference between intent and effect.

Sure she didn't refernece individuals here. My qualm started before she posted when another individual did as much as he could to do so.

My point is simply this:

In this thread, some of the people who enjoy heated political debate are painted as disgusting, baboons, people with no social skills and people who would get punched in the nose among other things.

I'm sure none of the comments are intentionally malicious, but consider the effect.

If you were being referenced how would you feel?

Part of it is simply the paradox inherent to this type of discussion. Rudeness is as rudeness is received. Pointing out to someone that they are rude might be, to them, rude.

It's oh so easy to think one's words are never untoward and that they never malign. But it's unrealistic.

An easy case can be made that starting a thread in the political forum about how revolting the discussions are is rude. A lot of crap goes on in the political discussions but this thread has had far more ad hominems (though generalized) than the average political post gets away with.

Sure, nobody is naming names. But the references are to real people and people who will read this thread.

If you would not feel bothered to be called a baboon, devoid of social skills and deserving of physical violence then please ignore my post as it will not make sense to you.

I simply find an almost inescapeable irony whenever these discussions come up. By criticizing people and putting them down I believe one has, in effect if not intent, been rude. Sometimes it's unavoidable but it bears considering that perhaps the perceived animosity was so in effect and also not in intent.

Let's make up an example:

If someone were to start a discussion right now about how some (unreferenced) people generated disgust with their self-righteous superiority complex just because they do not get involved in political debate how would the participants here feel?

Craven, I understand your point and I admit that what is said here could be considered an insult; but most of us here, I would bet, would find it amusing to be called baboons and disgustedly, self-righteously superior.
I will also admit that I have bemoaned the fact that so much humor recently has become mean-spirited and aimed at debasing others. Mea culpa.