Respect

I try - but once in a while trip-up and stumble ; Phoenix I think you do a pretty good job.

mmm - I totally agree with your principles but probably don't always live up to them!

I hope that if I desire to denigrate another member that whatever subject is at hand will be sufficient...

Kidding. I hear you, though I'm sure I'm not the best about doing it. I think for some the attack is part of the game, and I do understand the impulse that drives this. I usually stay away from the charged topics because of this -- because I have some very strong opinions that are easier to deal with face to face, because mutual humanity in the face of strident disagreement is more easilty acknowledged -- but lately I've been tiptoeing back into them a bit.

And it's not especially pleasant.

It's such an impersonal-but-informal format that I don't think it's especially well suited to serious debate.

It sometimes is tough to discuss religious issues -- and be truthful -- and not be insulting.

I screwed up in the personal attack department just a few minutes ago (you were there, so you know) but I really don't try to make a practice of it.

I hang out with a group of people who are very open -- and who have lots of fun with...shall we say "pithy" comments.

Sometimes that hardcore, fun stuff comes out very poorly here -- and probably shouldn't be used here.

BOTTOM LINE: You are right -- but there is also the danger of being too sanitized also.

There's no eye-contact online. Makes a big difference.

Like Frank, my most difficult area to be civil is religion -- but I try to because, because religion is so important to so many truly decent folks, like husker. So I usually try to keep it confined to the real world, where I am accountable for my offenses.

If showing respect for another human beings' feelings is being "sanitized", what's wrong with that? I am not talking about holding back on your thoughts about the subject at hand for fear of insulting someone. What I am referring to is where a individual's "persona" is attacked, rather than the person's ideas.

It is the difference between saying:

"I think that you are an idiot for saying that."

As opposed to:

"I think that your idea is idiotic because.............."

It also has a lot to do with appropriateness. There are things that I will say to close friends in person, that I would not say on A2K.

Phoenix,

Your last post is, to me, in direct contrast to everything I have ever heard you say about the "PC" and "Anti-PC" issues. I think it's odd that the same core belief can result in two different manifestations. We humans be mighty weird.

You summed up my feelings on the "Anti-PC" trend well here.

I support the maxim: let us agree to disagree. I do not welcome nor offer personal attacks. Period.

Do unto others...

Personal attacks on the Internet are wrong always. I can't tell you how bad I feel when I make the mistake of doing it.

If it is any consolation, I make constant personal pledges to knock-it-off, but it is a battle I have fought all my life.

I'm guilty of posting abrupt one liners that are not always well thought out. I've lived by the motto, call a spade a spade, and it's tough getting out of that mold. I'm sort of like Frank with religion; not very patient with "believers" that make statements or generalities that cannot be proved. c.i.

I'm pissed now. I wrote this long post in answer to Craven's, and it disappeared on me! I'll see if I can reconstruct it after dinner!

Use the "Wilso feature" next time!

Craven- I don't think that I got what you were driving at!

IMO, the entire issue of PC has gotten completely out of hand. People have become so "politically sensitive" that even if something is factual, many people are fearful of stating the obvious to avoid insulting one group or another.

I have reached a stage in my life where I am way beyond pissing contests. I am not terribly interested in "converting" people to my ideas.
What I am interested in on A2K is great discussions, and exchange of ideas. The older that I get, the more I realize what I DON'T know, and sop up ideas like a sponge, and am constantly evaluating my "take" on an issue.

I have learned to look at issues from all sides, so that I can often see both the positive and the negative in certain issues. I am impatient with people who take a stance, and never let facts get into the way of their ideas. One thing that I DO like is sharing what I have learned in life with other people (especially younger people).

One of the things that I have learned in life is empathy. I believe that when a person wants to convince someone of something, they need to check into their own motivations. There are times when it is prudent to say nothing, rather than to hurt someone just to gain some kind of emotional satisfaction. There are certain issues that are best left untouched, unless the other person wants to discuss it.

Therefore, even though I consider myself a "shoot from the hip" individual, I have learned that it is wise sometimes to use rubber bullets!

Craven- I would be interested in knowing what conflict you perceived in my views!

Let's just say, for simplicity, that my view on "PC" is remarkably similar to what you said about "sanitized".

Anything can be overdone. PC means trying not to offend others. A noble goal. IMO Americans who have never left America have a poor perspective of this. In America PC can be overdone.

But you'll truley appreciate PC when you live in a place where it doesn't exist.

A Brazilian once told me he loved what he called "the culture of justice in America".

What we might call over litigious he called "justice". But I am waxing political. There's no real conflict, but if you take your comments about "sanitized" and replace it with "PC" I would say that the comments are compatible. And also different from what I've read you write on PC.

Anywho, back to my cage.

Craven- Somehow, I think of PC as being peculiar to groups, not person to person, but that is just my "take"!

I gotta reinforce my comment about "sanitized."

In-your-face often clears the board so that there are no misunderstandings based on "how does this person really feel." That is not a minor benefit.

Fact is, at times, it is goddam amusing to take a poke -- or to return fire. I love when I get off a clever bomb.

I don't ever hate anybody -- and honestly, there have been very, very few cases where I have felt real emnity coming at me. We're just taking shots.

While you may think that the impersonal, I ain't lookin' 'em in the eye format is a NEGATIVE and almost encourages people to engage in heated exchanges -- it can also be argued that it is a POSITIVE and almost encourages people to engage in heated debate.

I suggest that at times, "heated debate" is called for -- demanded.

And don't kid yourself about Abuzz, for instance.

It was not the down and dirty that done her in -- it was the lack of control over the assumed identities and multiple screen names that did that job.

Gimme five nut cases like some of the people we all can name from Abuzz -- but never allow them to ever change their screen name nor have any extra entries to the site -- and I'll show you a sitution in which YOU HAVE NO PROBLEM.

In my opinion -- IN MY VERY HUMBLE OPINION --the micromanagement of this area by monitors and proctors should not be overdone. Too much of it is probably a net negative for the site as opposed to a net positive.

Too much is not "probably" negative it IS negative. Determining what is and is not too much is a horse of a different color.

Phoenix......I believe you are referring to the Ad Hominem attack!!
This is a tactic used by the flamer who ignores (or is losing)
the argument and tries to divert by attacking some personal attribute of the opponent.

Not fun when one is under attack!