posted on August 31, 2001 09:30:54 AM new
I've observed a pattern on the forum recently and I thought I'd give my view. You may disagree but you better be quick as there is probably a lock around with this threads name on it. Disagreeing without being disagreeable is becoming a lost art.
There is a myth going around that if you have religious convictions, or depending on your geographic locations, or if you take an opposing view on a single social issue you're a racist, religious, bigot.
There is also a myth going around that if you consider yourself extremely liberal it is impossible to be intolerant.
I do believe both of those myths to be embraced by some. I just wanted to voice my opinion on this volatile issue.
posted on August 31, 2001 09:36:01 AM new
Yep, well said. Just because I hold to conservative beliefs doesn't make me a bigot, or intolerant. I won't waste my breath trying to convince someone though. Being that closed minded is just as bad as so called intolerance.
posted on August 31, 2001 09:36:39 AM new
Thank you for voicing your opinion, I would estimate that you are not alone in the feelings that have been generated here in recent time. It would be extremely enlightening to have disagreement without being disagreeable as well as opening up the RT to more diversity.
Diversity is not the same subject told and retold in a haranging way, diversity is multiple posters each adding their feelings and thoughts without being called stupid or uncaring. Diversity is a little well place humor without accusations running rampant!
With all that, I just wish the ones that don't agree would clam up!! (sort of a joke- many a true word is said in jest)
posted on August 31, 2001 09:44:53 AM newdiversity is multiple posters each adding their feelings and thoughts without being called stupid or uncaring.
If it's true diversity you seek, then you can't attempt to exclude those who call others stupid and uncaring.
Or is some kinds of diversity more diverse than others?
posted on August 31, 2001 09:49:26 AM newThe only thing that I can't tolerate is intolerance.
I see the smiley (but I'm not sure how to interpret it).
However, there exist a class of people who state this as nearly a religious principle...and then they go on to define intolerance...and end up as intolerant as the Taliban.
There exists a logical distinction between some kinds of intolerance. Intolerance of violence, for example. But "tolerance of ideas" does not imply intolerance of ideas one finds intolerant.
posted on August 31, 2001 09:50:15 AM new
Some would call it perverse not diverse...you can agree to disagree without name calling and smearing someones opinion by inuendo... on a moderated board it is unconscionable that certain posters get to stir things up while others are not allowed to respond...that is REPRESSION!
[ edited by zilvy on Aug 31, 2001 09:51 AM ]
posted on August 31, 2001 10:07:43 AM new
roofguy, I added the smiley, only because of fear as how the mods would take any of this thread.
I do believe in that statement I typed out.
zilvy, I agree, and have seen it, and others have said it, but I've never been moderated, but I guess I may now, BECAUSE, it is true that some posters get warnings after warnings and then even, 'your close to the line xxxxxxxx one more and you'll be gone'
and they do it again, and get warned again
and again. While another poster is suspended on the spot. Whats up with that?
posted on August 31, 2001 10:07:58 AM new
As long as some of us are making rather wild assumptions, I sometimes get the impression that a few posters would like to shut down the discussion of political or religious ideas with which they are not in agreement.
That those subjects dominate the forum has been asserted a number of times and is always disproved. And no one overtly tries to shut down other types of threads, or derail them, etc., as seems to be the desire of a small number with the political threads. Threads develop upon the interest that they engender in the members.
posted on August 31, 2001 10:15:06 AM new
I personally don't want to shut down any political threads, but theres nothin like being talked over, or rather typed over? when they 'want to get the opinion of the conservative side' they say they want to hear what the other 'side' has to say, but it really doesn't seem that way.
There is only one side to a story is what I see. You tell 'em your opinion, but they want a URL link to back up what ya say...
posted on August 31, 2001 10:17:58 AM newyou can agree to disagree without name calling and smearing someones opinion by inuendo..
I agree completely.
I'm somewhat intolerant of bad argument style and bad manners in general, I don't invite such people to my house.
It does make my acquaintances less diverse, and it demonstrates the limits to my tolerance.
Diversity and tolerance are not a primary criterion for a good discussion forum, although they do matter. I'd suggest that fair moderation is not a primary criterion either, although it also matters.
A supply of well constructed postings is far more important, regardless of perspective, and regardless of whether the posting seems "tolerant".
A low density of crude postings is also important, more important than fairness of moderation.
posted on August 31, 2001 10:42:51 AM newA low density of crude postings is also important, more important than fairness of moderation.
I am wondering if you could clarify this statement? Some seem to think crude is diverse! But, I am not sure what you mean?
Antiquary upon re reading this thread I can't say that I see a single wild assumption what statements do you perceive as being such?
posted on August 31, 2001 11:02:32 AM new
Hi toke,
Well, to borrow roofguy's house metaphor, I think that the problem is that everyone would like to set the rules for subject and behavior as if they were in their own house rather than an open forum. If that is the basis for setting preferences, then one is going to be inevitably dissatisfied because what constitutes agreeableness or disagreeableness varies with each individual.
AW of course sets the house rules that exist. Again, none of us as an individual may find those ideal, but what is the solution? Further restriction of subject and expression?
posted on August 31, 2001 11:26:58 AM new
OK - I will throw out a different idea here.
I worked for a man in a machine shop. He was a bigot because he was worried his daughter who worked in the office might get attached to and date the shop foreman who was black.
He was less bigoted than most shop owners however in that he would hire promote and pay on an equal basis a black foreman who supervised an all white crew.
I know that most people who post here seem to feel it has to be all or nothing - you are bigoted or not. But I do have to say there are degrees of discrimination and not everyone has the capacity to do a 100% makeover of their way of thinking. I wish they could but I am happy to see even a partial change if it gives someone a job or promotion or ability to do business on an equal basis.
I wish everyone could be friends and socialize and intermarry without disapproval. However in reality I see quite a few blacks that don't really want to socialize and be intimate friends with white people also.
I can appreciate whatever changes people have made without calling them worthless unless they are 100%.
How about you? If people will treat you OK for business but aren't ready to marry you is it a useless gesture?
posted on August 31, 2001 11:30:28 AM neweveryone would like to set the rules for subject and behavior as if they were in their own house
Antiquary,
I'm not so vain as to believe I can set any rules on subjects or behavior, and I apologize if that is what you think my goal is. It isn't. My problem, concern, issue is this, because of religious convictions, geographic location, or a stand on one social issue I've seen the racist, religious zealot , or bigot label given or implied as if it was a decree from on high. Sometimes these quick labels are placed with such speed I can only question the intolerance of those with the label gun. I could but won't offer many examples of such behavior that have occurred in this forum.
I'm just sharing some thoughts that have been in a holding pattern in my brain for some time.
I think style is extremely important in discussion. It goes directly to our ability to have any sort of conversation at all. At least without the mods stroking out... More and more we're just snarling at one another. Manners are far more than please and thank you...as you know, you devil. Would you prefer decorum?
No, I didn't think that was your goal based upon reading your initial post. I did think that some of the subsequent posts suggested that there was a problem that should be addressed. I thought that you were simply venting, which we all do from time to time.
posted on August 31, 2001 11:56:38 AM new
Most of the so-called "intolerance" around here is nothing more than a debating tactic used by people who are otherwise unable to articulate or prove their point. It's called an argument ad hominem and is the second oldest dirty debating trick in the book [the oldest is to hit your opponent over the head with a rock ].
[Of course, some people around here use this tactic not because they are unable to otherwise cogently argue a point, but because they are just plain malicious and/or disruptive, and think it's great fun to derail a discussion by getting somebody's goat. But that's another story.]
If you disagree with somebody, you could state your opinion and try to back it up with logic and facts. But why bother? It's so much easier and fun [not to mention successful] to call the person intolerant, or a hypocrite, or a bigot, or what have you. Then, you don't have to justify your own opinion on the subject, since everybody will have stopped listening to your opponent's view anyway.
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
[ edited by godzillatemple on Aug 31, 2001 11:57 AM ]
posted on August 31, 2001 11:59:23 AM new
A most interesting thread. Seems as if there are three or so subjects being discussed. I can certainly agree that discussing only the bad side of a thing can leave the impression that there is no other side worthy of discussion. Yet, this is a free forum. Anyone who feels as if some side of an issue is not getting enough press, there's that little text link "post-new-topic" that will get you satisfied in ways that sitting back and grumbling at your screen can't. Its a free forum, like I said and no one is pointing a gun to your head and keeping you from starting any thread at your heart's content.
What I find interesting also is the references to members and moderators.
"on a moderated board it is unconscionable that certain posters get to stir things up while others are not allowed to respond...that is REPRESSION!"
"BECAUSE, it is true that some posters get warnings after warnings and then even, 'your close to the line xxxxxxxx one more and you'll be gone' and they do it again, and get warned again and again. While another poster is suspended on the spot. Whats up with that?"
" I sometimes get the impression that a few posters would like to shut down the discussion of political or religious ideas with which they are not in agreement."
I'll admit that I don't go in for gossip, so I'm kinda lost here on what is being referred to whom and when. I am confused as to whether this thread is about the lack of counter-threads to perceived grievances or about the intolerant behavior of posters and moderators? Is this just a thread to be griping about things in general or specifics?
I had you in mind when I wrote that, only I was envisioning relieving you of your new car which I recently discovered in old threads.
Toke,
I remember when I first began teaching in 1967 a fellow teacher, interestingly one who was about 50 years old at the time, in commenting about the current students and the society said that she wished people were less concerned about what kids had on their heads and more concerned about what they had in their heads. I've thought of that statement many times since then. Reading these boards on the internet, it never ceases to amaze me what different individuals find offensive. For that, I am not sure there is ever going to be an amicable agreement.
