Craven, I agree with much of what you said. The hornet's nest got a good stirring, albeit a bit rudely, but I think it is healthy for the A2K community to air differing decorum standards. I'd like to see us find a way to be more encouraging to all viewpoints (even if that means just ignoring them) instead of squashing them with sharp-edged ridicule when we disagree.
I also think it needed to be said that there are quite a few folks who would love to participate in a more friendly political discussion without having to match wits with the experts on a continuous basis. The experts needed to hear that.
At the same time, the experts are saying that they'd like to be able to hold discussions at the expert level without being distracted by challenges to constantly justify themselves. The experts have that in the form of the PUP usergroup.
It boils down to our posting styles having a minimum level of respect/consideration for the others who post and read here.
Like in the political threads, the Israel/Palestine ones get very, very heated, and personal insults are inevitably heaved, and one finds oneself getting caught up in the emotions and responding in kind. It shows from where some of these people are approaching the issues, and I find that one gets a clearer look at that position, because people's emotions about those issues are exposed in the process.
And I'd rather confront those emotionalists here behind my computer, than to stand before them and risk experiencing how far their emotions would carry them.
Not worth a mea culpa Diane, I think you are always gentle and nice, I do not think anyone here is "self-righteous" and such either. I'm simply trying to say that one man's meat.. and all.
I note that in the very warm and friendly Brazil (as opposed to the more agressive America) simply things like not being jubilant enough at a victory might be considered anti-social.
When Manchester United won the intercontinental club championship over Palmeiras in Tokyo the Palmerenses were furious at the way the British yeam "snubbed" them. European clubs tend to care a whole lot less about the Tokyo game (it interrupts their season while it's in the Brazilian off-season) and for the Palemerenses the way they simply raised their arms and walked off the field was a mortal and arrogant affront as it was a stark contrast to the way their hopes had been brutally dashed (almost without exception their fans took the day off from work to see the game).
Similarly my coversations with my brother were often misinterpreted as arguing and ironically when we are really mad at each other we are cordial and reserved.
When Brazilians meet they shake hands and kiss the girls on teh cheek. Americans feel uncomfortable with this level of intimacy but are often perceived as rude for not doing so.
I'm being long winded because I have a tendency to be too curt but what I'm trying to say is that perceptions are not what they seem. The social contructs each person makes is a little different from the others.
When my brother and I speak in superlatives and "argue" we are on friendly terms, when we are cordial it's probably oen of those rare times we are almost not on speaking terms. It's different, yes, but we'd object to it being termed misanthropic.
I'd never talk to Letty the way I'd talk to Frank, and the way Frank and I might talk is something that would probably bother Letty. But perspectives are different, I'd prefer to engage in a nice argument with Frank than to have a group hug or something (which I shun as much as those who shun the arguing).
To each his own is what I guess I'm trying to say. I don't mind verbal agression that much, it rarely offends me. I do think animosity is best avoided and what I'm getting at is that sometimes a different level of verbal jousting is incorrectly interpreted as animosity.
Take for example the other day when I misinterpreted Ican and Cephus joking around.
I saw one tell the other to write the dictionary and tell them to put a picture of the other in the dictionary by teh definition for "asshole".
I couldn't find any joviality and thought it was out and out flaming. I was wrong, they were kidding with each other and subsequently Ican did in fact post the definition of "asshole" (next to his avatar) fulfilling the joke.
So to end my long winded rant I am doing what I complain others do and wishing people shared my opinion on what perspective is better used as a criteria.
It's just a philosophical ramble, social contructs are full of paradoxes. If you bemoan the lack of open-mindedness is your intolerant opinion toward a closed mind closed-mindedness in itself? If you tell someone they are rude and it hurts them have you been rude? Ignore, I am perambulating again.
I've become a lurker of late. Several threads have descended into boring rants about adherence to guidelines rather than any substance. The moderators seem to do a good job of interposing decorum, sometimes a little late, but usually before a thread is a disaster. I'd PM with further comments but my privileges in that regard are still suspended,
perhaps someone could enlighten me as to how to get them re-established.
If someone tells me that I've been rude when I haven't been, it doesn't matter to me. I don't take their mistake personally.
If someone calls me a baboon, or maligns my alma mater or attempts to insult my heritage, I wonder at their wasting of time and effort and I regret the wasting of my time and effort in participating in a discussion with them.
I'm here to learn, share and have fun, and not necessarily in that order.
When I find myself reading a thread in which I can do none of the above, I move on to some other or to something in my real life where I can learn, share and have fun.
Joe
Craven de Kere wrote: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.
Gosh.
It was "rude" to start this discussion?
Should I feel very naughty for doing it? :wink:
I enjoyed hearing the serious & funny things people had to say.
I enjoyed participating.
I thought it was healthy, fun & informative.
Surely A2K can cope with this?
If I want to be told all the reasons I'm wrong, I don't have to participate in a politics thread on the internet. All I have to do is talk with my boss (and at least I get paid to do that). Here on A2K I've sworn off everything but non-controversial threads.
Sounds like a good idea, Jim!
Maybe I should stick with the cat threads?
LOL! I don't think anyone was saying we were wrong, so much - more pointing out the ironies of rudeness about rudeness!!!
is it rude? hmmmmmmmmmmmm
ach - I wouldna know - I am a rude person!
msolga wrote:
Surely A2K can cope with this?
Sure, A2K can "cope". That was not ever in question. Maybe I could have best summed up my posts here with this: Some people find the politics dicussions to be healthy, fun & informative. One man's meat and all.
I'm avoiding them now. Far too tiring and frustrating.
Craven de Kere wrote: Sure, A2K can "cope". That was not ever in question. Maybe I could have best summed up my posts here with this: Some people find the politics dicussions to be healthy, fun & informative. One man's meat and all.
I just don't see what the fuss was about, that's all. From my perspective the intention of this thread was no more or less offensive than say, one joking about women being evil, or others I've seen here ... Maybe we take politics too seriously?
That is very interesting, msolga - if I may answer from my perspective?
I agree the intention was fine.
I think one difference is that - while I don't THINK the mins think wimmin are evil (yikes!) - I think lots of folk think some people in politics are really rude/uncouth etc - all very well and fine - but likely to rouse a little ire. When specific practices on political threads were mentioned, I think some folk were readily identifiable - and this WAS rude, I think.
Not answering for Craven, of course - just for me.
msolga wrote: From my perspective the intention of this thread was no more or less offensive than say, one joking about women being evil, or others I've seen here
I don't think that's a joke anymore.
Bit like if the politics folk started a thread on how much they feel alienated by cat threads - and then began to discuss how some of posted, and how they disliked it!
(As if anyone could!!! teehee)
(most of the mins, then!)
molehill becomes mountain
mountain topples
everyone gets buried
Lets all take a chill pill
dlowan
I see lots of things that might be construed as "rude", sexist, insulting to individuals, etc on A2K threads.... often. All I'm saying is that I think we're being a wee bit "sensitive" about the political threads here. It's interesting what other practices (which some people may well find offensive, too) we so easily appear to tolerate without comment or criticism.
