NEW START COMING FOR P&R

[NATI BENGALS]

(07-04-2020, 05:29 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: To just address that one line that I highlighted;  Once someone sees that incorrect information, and it has already been noted and acknowledged, why the need for several others to keep pouring on?  Everyone here is capable of recognizing that an issue has already been addressed, no need to form a "gang mentality" and keep piling on, long after the whistle has been blown. so to speak.  

If its page 77 of the covid thread and I'm drunk and think I have a witty comment about some dumb shit I see someone said I'm not going to read through the rest of the thread before I post it.

Just the facts of life

[SunsetBengal]

(07-05-2020, 12:39 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: If its page 77 of the covid thread and I'm drunk and think I have a witty comment about some dumb shit I see someone said I'm not going to read through the rest of the thread before I post it.

Just the facts of life

Well my friend, just because you simply decided to skip school on the day that information was given, does not excuse you from knowing it on the exam.  Heck, we even keep all of the notes present and updated for you to read and get up to speed.  Get with the program, ya nitwit...  

[fredtoast]

Here is the problem I see going forward.

It is impossible to attack an opinion without attacking it, and some people just can't seperate their opinions from themselves. And the best way to attack an idea is to make it look as stupid as possible.

If I tell some one he is wrong he takes it as a personal insult. If I call his opinion stupid then he feels like he is being called stupid. And if more people agree with me then he feels "under attack".

I have no problem avoiding personal attacks or insults. But some people here are not going to be satisfied with that. Instead they will want people suspended just for attacking opinions or ideas in any sarcastic or aggressive manner.

Rhetoric can be strong and aggressive without including any personal attacks. The problem is that some people can't seperate their beliefs from themselves. Since our opinions (beliefs) create our identity I understand why it can be difficult. And religious beliefs can be especially problematic. But anyone who can't achieve that seperation should just stay away from public open debate.

[*bfine32*]

(07-05-2020, 11:40 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Here is the problem I see going forward.

It is impossible to attack an opinion without attacking it, and some people just can't seperate their opinions from themselves.  And the best way to attack an idea is to make it look as stupid as possible.  

If I tell some one he is wrong he takes it as a personal insult.  If I call his opinion stupid then he feels like he is being called stupid.  And if more people agree with me then he feels "under attack".

I have no problem avoiding personal attacks or insults.  But some people here are not going to be satisfied with that.  Instead they will want people suspended just for attacking opinions or ideas in any sarcastic or aggressive manner.

Rhetoric can be strong and aggressive without including any personal attacks.  The problem is that some people can't seperate their beliefs from themselves.  Since our opinions (beliefs) create our identity I understand why it can be difficult.  And religious beliefs can be especially problematic.  But anyone who can't achieve that seperation should just stay away from public open debate.

I think you've hit on and demonstrated one of the root problems in PnR. Folks are much more worried about "proving" someone wrong  that providing an answer of their own. It's why I've always said the motto of PnR should be:

"I don't know what's right, but I know you're wrong" 

[fredtoast]

(07-05-2020, 12:54 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Well my friend, just because you simply decided to skip school on the day that information was given, does not excuse you from knowing it on the exam.  Heck, we even keep all of the notes present and updated for you to read and get up to speed.  Get with the program, ya nitwit...  

But what if the public school system is just a tool to endoctrinate our children into godless socialism (why else would it be FREE TO EVERYONE)?

Then skipping school would be the same as the Boston Tea Party.

[fredtoast]

(07-05-2020, 11:47 AM)bfine32 Wrote:  Folks are much more worried about "proving" someone wrong  that providing an answer of their own.

I agree with this comment.  I also see it as a "root problem", but I don't think itis the same way you do.

Some people hate proof (proving).  They want to be able to "provide an answer" without anything to back it up, and then expect that answer to get the same respect as the ones where people provide some proof.

And I will admit that I am one of those people who is "worried about" providing proof to back up my position.   Misinformation is the most powerful tool the government has.  They can control the masses better with misinformation than they can with guns and fences.  That is why when we invaded Iraq over half the US population thought Iraq was involved in the 9-11 attacks.  


Everyone is entitled to their own opinion" does not mean "No opinions have consequences" or "No opinions are harmful"

(07-05-2020, 11:47 AM)bfine32 Wrote:  It's why I've always said the motto of PnR should be:

"I don't know what's right, but I know you're wrong" 

I don't see how this conclusion relates to the comment you provided to support it.

[GMDino]

(07-05-2020, 11:40 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Here is the problem I see going forward.

It is impossible to attack an opinion without attacking it, and some people just can't seperate their opinions from themselves.  And the best way to attack an idea is to make it look as stupid as possible.  

If I tell some one he is wrong he takes it as a personal insult.  If I call his opinion stupid then he feels like he is being called stupid.  And if more people agree with me then he feels "under attack".

I have no problem avoiding personal attacks or insults.  But some people here are not going to be satisfied with that.  Instead they will want people suspended just for attacking opinions or ideas in any sarcastic or aggressive manner.

Rhetoric can be strong and aggressive without including any personal attacks.  The problem is that some people can't seperate their beliefs from themselves.  Since our opinions (beliefs) create our identity I understand why it can be difficult.  And religious beliefs can be especially problematic.  But anyone who can't achieve that seperation should just stay away from public open debate.

And if multiple people tell them their opinion lacks facts to back it up or some such thing then it s ganging up or mob mentality.

In the end some people take it too personally and some do indeed attack personally.

Guess we will see who can handle new rules.  I know I will have to watch myself when my sense of "WTF" overrides my sense of "just explain it to them stupid".  

[*bfine32*]

(07-05-2020, 12:03 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I agree with this comment.  I also see it as a "root problem", but I don't think itis the same way you do.

Some people hate proof (proving).  They want to be able to "provide an answer" without anything to back it up, and then expect that answer to get the same respect as the ones where people provide some proof.

And I will admit that I am one of those people who is "worried about" providing proof to back up my position.   Misinformation is the most powerful tool the government has.  They can control the masses better with misinformation than they can with guns and fences.  That is why when we invaded Iraq over half the US population thought Iraq was involved in the 9-11 attacks.  


Everyone is entitled to their own opinion" does not mean "No opinions have consequences" or "No opinions are harmful"




I don't see how this conclusion relates to the comment you provided to support it.

Don't get too worried I'm sure you'll still be able to insult folks from time to time, just not as much as in the past. 

[Dill]

(07-05-2020, 12:03 PM)fredtoast Wrote: bfine32 Wrote:  Folks are much more worried about "proving" someone wrong  that providing an answer of their own.

I agree with this comment.  I also see it as a "root problem", but I don't think itis the same way you do.

I agree with both posters here.  But especially this:

(07-05-2020, 12:03 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Some people hate proof (proving).  They want to be able to "provide an answer" without anything to back it up, and then expect that answer to get the same respect as the ones where people provide some proof.

And I will admit that I am one of those people who is "worried about" providing proof to back up my position.   Misinformation is the most powerful tool the government has.  They can control the masses better with misinformation than they can with guns and fences.  That is why when we invaded Iraq over half the US population thought Iraq was involved in the 9-11 attacks. 

Everyone makes one-line comments about issues; nothing wrong with that. No one has to "prove" every comment or conclusion.

The problem arises when some deploy bald assertions and impressions as arguments, and as if simply stating them establishes them as true/factual. They ignore or deflect challenges, or refer questions back to the original unsupported assertion. Then just continue to repeat them adequate in themselves. Shut up and accept!

Also, references to unnamed sources who all agree with a poster, when advanced as "proof" of some point, are an especially empty kind of claim--"I'm on a bandwagon no one can see. But You're not!"

Conversely, efforts to "back up" conclusions may also be treated disdainfully. "TL;DR."

(07-05-2020, 12:03 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Everyone is entitled to their own opinion" does not mean "No opinions have consequences" or "No opinions are harmful"

It also doesn't mean all "opinions" are equal. Some are much more plausible, and in fact be supported with data, facts, good arguments, etc.

People who don't like the work of supporting arguments often reduce everything to "opinion," in the hopes that makes unsupported arguments the equal of well supported.

At other times people defend a bad argument by claiming it is their "personal" opinion. If you criticize further you are then attacking the person. That's a way of throwing out opinions as truth claims, then appealing to a right to private property to deflect exposure.

So the forum is populated with people who have different ideas about what makes for civil discourse, for some that discourse involves a personal accountability for statements, an obligation to support claims and admit/answer objections, and to respect others good faith efforts. For others it just involves posting "opinions" without interference. For still others it is much closer to a smack forum, where people can sound off opinions mixed with insults.

The new rules are "unfair,"  in the sense that they advantage the former and disadvantage the latter.

[Dill]

(07-04-2020, 03:06 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: If we want a place for civil discourse of varying viewpoints then we can't subsequently create an entirely hostile atmosphere for those who differ from the majority opinion.  Only one poster from this board deserved that type of group response, Lucie/GA9/Tommy C, he posted, and stated, flat out bigoted posts and statements.  Even then certain people went way over the line with him, offering to breed his underage daughters and such.  It's the same type of thing you see in real life media, people deplore the incivility of Trump and then feel free to unleash incivility at people who support him.  Either it's a problem or it's not.  If you think it's a problem then don't engage in it, no matter how disagreeable you may find the position of the person you're talking to.

Well, speaking as someone who has never been suspended or had offensive posts removed to save a thread, I totally agree we should not create an entirely hostile atmosphere for those who differ from the majority opinion.

I don't agree, however, that anyone has ever "deserved that type of group response."  Including Lucie. I doubt anyone will in the forum's new incarnation. Perhaps Lucie was uncivil to others in some posts which were deleted so I did not see them, but he was always more than civil to me, cordial I would say, and the same to anyone who treated him with respect.

I add that Lucie provided me with many insights into how Trump supporters viewed Hillary and the Donald and US foreign policy that I could not get from people who were not gung ho Trump basers. He also put me onto pro-Russian sources I'd not suspected were influencing US voters.  The "bigoted" posts I remember were, in my view, from lack of exposure to other views. Not deliberate insults to stir up trouble. (I write here without knowing the circumstances of his banishment.)

For those seeking a wider range of voter views on political issues, Lucie's absence is a gap in the forum's political spectrum that no one has since filled. 

[Dill]

(07-03-2020, 03:23 PM)Bengalholic Wrote: On Monday, P&R will be closing down for a week. When it comes back, things will be a little different. 

Before I forget, thanks to the moderation for this reset.

In my view, this forum is more than an auxiliary to the football forums, a safety valve to keep them from going sour.

Public discussion of politics is what makes liberal democracies "democratic," along with recognition that it only works as well as the participation of informed citizens allows it to .

This forum is a valuable place where citizens of most all persuasions debate current issues, and thereby "up" their political IQ.

So I'd say it may be small, but it nevertheless performs a genuine and valuable public service, for which the owner/mods ought to receive some credit and thanks
I don't like the Bengals, but KUDOS to the owner/mods and participating fans.  :andy:

[Vas Deferens]

(07-05-2020, 04:40 PM)Dill Wrote: Before I forget, thanks to the moderation for this reset.

In my view, this forum is more than an auxiliary to the football forums, a safety valve to keep them from going sour.

Public discussion of politics is what makes liberal democracies "democratic," along with recognition that it only works as well as the participation of informed citizens allows it to .

This forum is a valuable place where citizens of most all persuasions debate current issues, and thereby "up" their political IQ.

So I'd say it may be small, but it nevertheless performs a genuine and valuable public service, for which the owner/mods ought to receive some credit and thanks
I don't like the Bengals, but KUDOS to the owner/mods and participating fans.  :andy:

Well said; aside from the garbage opening to the last sentence, revealing a stunted worldview worthy of consideration.

Who Dey.