NEW START COMING FOR P&R

[Bengalholic]

(07-04-2020, 02:28 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: I kind of see what’s going on here. The group that coined the term snowflake and TDS doesn’t like their views being challenged and can’t even take attempted humor. Pretty much what I figured was going on.

The issues that exist in this forum are all sides and viewpoints. The problem isn't what people's particular beliefs are, it's how they express themselves when interacting and debating. That what we're attempting to improve.

[*bfine32*]

(07-04-2020, 02:37 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I know it's fun to give Fred shit, but he did have a point. It is hard to draw that line with opinions. Especially when there is a strong wave of people, and this is on both sides, not understanding the difference between fact and opinion and people dismissing objective facts as opinion or "fake news." I'm not going to lie, this is the the thing that will get me to the point of a condescending tone in my posts 100% of the time.

I think it's fine to disagree with an opinion; otherwise we all participate in group think; however, I thin we're all mature enough to know the difference between condescension, disagreement, and ad hominem:

Example;

Poster A: I think those that kneel during the anthem are disrespecting the flag, even if it id not their intention.

Poster B: That's because you're a racist

Poster c: I disagree, Kapernick actually approached a former service member to get advice on how not to disrespect

Poster D: Yeah, no need to kneel, we all know police never violate the rights of black folks.

One of the 3 responses was disagreement, one was condescension, and one was ad hominem. 

Can you identify which was which? 

[Bengalholic]

(07-04-2020, 02:37 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I know it's fun to give Fred shit, but he did have a point. It is hard to draw that line with opinions. Especially when there is a strong wave of people, and this is on both sides, not understanding the difference between fact and opinion and people dismissing objective facts as opinion or "fake news." I'm not going to lie, this is the the thing that will get me to the point of a condescending tone in my posts 100% of the time.

My advice would be to simply point out when you don't find a source credible, and think the information is questionable. Or, in the case of what you consider objective facts, defend the validity of the information. That's a legit thing to bring up and can be done so without attacking or insulting the person who provides the info. 

On the topic of 'condescending' which has been mentioned in this thread and another, if the remark is about the subject matter or an overall argument and it doesn't directly insult or belittle the poster, I don't see an issue. This is where we have to start drawing the line...with criticisms being of the content and not the individual. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-04-2020, 02:37 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I know it's fun to give Fred shit, but he did have a point. It is hard to draw that line with opinions. Especially when there is a strong wave of people, and this is on both sides, not understanding the difference between fact and opinion and people dismissing objective facts as opinion or "fake news." I'm not going to lie, this is the the thing that will get me to the point of a condescending tone in my posts 100% of the time.

We give Fred shit because he's a large part of the problem but he refuses to acknowledge it.  While I get your point it's hard to stay civil when you have a group tag teaming you with belittling, rude and condescending responses.  There's a reason you have never been suspended and certain other people we just mentioned have, multiple times, more times than me in fact.  Bfine is correct in his assessment in the post above.

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.

[Dill]

(07-03-2020, 03:23 PM)Bengalholic Wrote: The following violations will result in disciplinary action:

Personal/character attacks of a member (insults, name calling, belittling).
Intentionally derailing or hijacking a thread with something off-topic or from another thread.
Making posts/threads that call out members/staff, are meant to provoke, or using any slurs/derogatory terms.

I generally agree with this and continue to support the moderators efforts to make our discussion less toxic. Nothing breaks down discussion faster and more thoroughly than blatant, direct personal attacks and name calling.

It's no good to say "don't feed the trolls" if a troll assumes its his job to follow people around calling them out via such attacks. Sometimes moderators do need to step in.

That said, a standard like "belittling" can be ambiguous. Someone who makes a factually incorrect or easily refuted argument may feel belittled if challenged. Especially if it happens more than once, and if several different posters "correct" the flawed argument. Others feel most any disagreement/challenge to their posts is "belittling," even where their claims are unsupported.  If the animus which drives direct personal attack in some posters is blocked, it may not disappear but weasel its way into other outlets, e.g. trolling for all manner of ambiguous "belittling" to call out.

It would help everyone understand what the rules are if, going forward, they could see examples of infractions, which would then help them judge where the boundaries really are. If posts and posters disappear, and no one knows exactly what the offense was, then lines between acceptable and unacceptable may remain unclear.

I am hoping that our moderators will focus on the line between "the personal" and "the public" as first of all a line between posters active in this forum and people and groups out side it.  As a Democrat, I am not attacking Trump posters here personally if I repeatedly criticize Trump, and not even if I criticize their arguments defending Trump. One cannot defend arguments by making them in public space and then claiming they are "personal."

I am guilty of personal attack and "belittling" if I call pro-Trump posters, not Trump, "liars" or "hypocrites" or "stupid."  If I say they've made an illogical or factually correct argument, I am not thereby "belittling" them, even if they (or others) say I am.  Same if I mock Trump, or positions his administration takes on issues, through the use of parody. Even if some posters here are Republicans, they are not personally attacked if I say the Republican party as a whole is "regime party," or that the party has supported voter ID laws with clearly racist intent. They may be indirectly attacked if I say all Republicans are "racist."

If we strive to recognize this distinction between personal and public, there will be few ambiguities in applying the rules.

[Bengalholic]

(07-04-2020, 03:13 PM)Dill Wrote: I am guilty of personal attack and "belittling" if I call pro-Trump posters, not Trump, "liars" or "hypocrites" or "stupid."  If I say they've made an illogical or factually correct argument, I am not thereby "belittling" them, even if they (or others) say I am.  Same if I mock Trump, or positions his administrations take on issues, through the use of parody. Even if some posters here are Republicans, they are not personally attacked if I say the Republican party as a whole is "regime party," or that the party has supported voter ID laws with clearly racist intent.

Correct. 

If you give an opinion/assessment of the subject matter, then you'll be fine. Once it moves to the individual, that's an issue. 

If a member says that Trump or Biden's policies are a complete joke, that's giving an opinion of the subject matter. If a member says that the person supporting them is a complete joke, then they've made it about the individual and it becomes a personal insult/attempt to belittle.

Going forward, members need to remember and practice drawing a clear distinction between the content and the individual when they are responding, criticizing or giving their opinions.

[Dill]

(07-04-2020, 02:45 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I think it's fine to disagree with an opinion; otherwise we all participate in group think; however, I thin we're all mature enough to know the difference between condescension, disagreement, and ad hominem:

Example;

Poster A: I think those that kneel during the anthem are disrespecting the flag, even if it id not their intention.

Poster B: That's because you're a racist

Poster c: I disagree, Kapernick actually approached a former service member to get advice on how not to disrespect

Poster D: Yeah, no need to kneel, we all know police never violate the rights of black folks.

One of the 3 responses was disagreement, one was condescension, and one was ad hominem. 

Can you identify which was which? 

All three are "disagreement." I guess you are looking for disagreement WITHOUT ad hominem and condescension. 

B would qualify as both ad hominem and condescension, wouldn't it?  That type is already banned, and certainly the worst kind of ad hominem, but it is not frequently met with here. 

I hope that D-type statements aren't held forth as an example of condescension ("belittling") worthy of warning and suspension. Most everyone uses sarcasm at one time or another. Bfine included.  Honestly, if someone said that to me, I would not assume the speaker was condescending.

This is clear cut condescension.

Poster E: Yeah, no need to kneel; because we wouldn't expect someone with your literacy level to know police violate the rights of black folks.

[Dill]

(07-04-2020, 02:37 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I know it's fun to give Fred shit, but he did have a point. It is hard to draw that line with opinions. Especially when there is a strong wave of people, and this is on both sides, not understanding the difference between fact and opinion and people dismissing objective facts as opinion or "fake news." I'm not going to lie, this is the the thing that will get me to the point of a condescending tone in my posts 100% of the time.

"Tone" is especially difficult to monitor.

If you are explaining the difference between fact and opinion to someone, then you are assuming they don't know it.

And they'll know you assume that.

If at that point, they flag your "condescension," they are really asking that they be allowed to make arguments and claims without question or dissent.


I'll say this though, Hollo is a master at correcting without appearing condescending.  It takes much work with some, little with others.

[treee]

In my opinion sarcasm can be a useful rhetorical tool if used properly. That said, sarcasm that calls into question someone's character or implies some kind of vile trait or characteristic about another will almost never result in productive conversation. The aforementioned type of sarcasm could be characterized as "toxic" and is part of what we're trying to leave behind in P&R 1.0.

This all boils down to the fact that we're going to collectively hold this entire sub-forum to a higher standard. The fact that a warning can be removed after 6 months is to communicate that we are not expecting anyone here to be perfect but simply make a genuine effort to keep this sub-forum respectable and something for all of us to be proud for having contributed to.

[*bfine32*]

(07-04-2020, 03:45 PM)Dill Wrote: All three are "disagreement." I guess you are looking for disagreement WITHOUT ad hominem and condescension. 

B would qualify as both ad hominem and condescension, wouldn't it?  That type is already banned, and certainly the worst kind of ad hominem, but it is not frequently met with here. 

I hope that D-type statements aren't held forth as an example of condescension ("belittling") worthy of warning and suspension. Most everyone uses sarcasm at one time or another. Bfine included.  Honestly, if someone said that to me, I would not assume the speaker was condescending.

This is clear cut condescension.

Poster E: Yeah, no need to kneel; because we wouldn't expect someone with your literacy level to know police violate the rights of black folks.

Of course you wouldn't because no one has ever used sarcasm to belittle a person.  
See what I did there

Nah, Poster E went Ad Hominem. My example belittles the original assertions by introducing a Straw Man. Satcasim that is directed at the poster belittles the point made and should not be used in civil discourse

[SunsetBengal]

(07-04-2020, 03:13 PM)Dill Wrote: That said, a standard like "belittling" can be ambiguous. Someone who makes a factually incorrect or easily refuted argument may feel belittled if challenged. Especially if it happens more than once, and if several different posters "correct" the flawed argument. Others feel most any disagreement/challenge to their posts is "belittling," even where their claims are unsupported.  If the animus which drives direct personal attack in some posters is blocked, it may not disappear but weasel its way into other outlets, e.g. trolling for all manner of ambiguous "belittling" to call out.

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.  

[Dill]

(07-04-2020, 05:25 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course you wouldn't because no one has ever used sarcasm to belittle a person.  
See what I did the

LOL I see what you did there! 

(07-04-2020, 05:25 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Nah, Poster E went Ad Hominem. My example belittles the original assertions by introducing a Straw Man. Satcasim that is directed at the poster belittles the point made and should not be used in civil discourse

Didn't catch the straw man. A straw man argument is one not made, but represented AS the one made.
Calling someone a racist in this case, or drawing in another issue for contrast or perspective is not deploying a straw man, even if the racist claim is false or the contrast is not effective. Nor is your sarcasm above a straw man argument. 

I would not consider your example above as sarcasm directed at me.  I would say you actually made a legitimate point that way.

If we are walking together, I stumbled, and you said "My you're graceful," that would be sarcasm directed at me, though also a legitimate point.

Wait. It's not ok to "belittle" points?

[Bengalholic]

(07-04-2020, 05:01 PM)treee Wrote: In my opinion sarcasm can be a useful rhetorical tool if used properly. That said, sarcasm that calls into question someone's character or implies some kind of vile trait or characteristic about another will almost never result in productive conversation. The aforementioned type of sarcasm could be characterized as "toxic" and is part of what we're trying to leave behind in P&R 1.0.

This all boils down to the fact that we're going to collectively hold this entire sub-forum to a higher standard. The fact that a warning can be removed after 6 months is to communicate that we are not expecting anyone here to be perfect but simply make a genuine effort to keep this sub-forum respectable and something for all of us to be proud for having contributed to.

Well said.

[Dill]

(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.  

I agree with you on that.   

 If a point has been corrected and refuted, it is wrong for others to "pile on" after the whistle has blown. If a different point in the original post is addressed, that is not piling on though. If someone says Trump is honest and Melania is ugly, it is not piling on if one poster disputes Trump's honesty and another the assessment of Melania's looks.

And it is wrong for the correcter to keep correcting.

Also bad form: If two people are having a substantive debate, and they are addressing issues, not each other's character, it is disruptive if others intervene with negative, distracting quips about one or the other poster, and not the issue under discussion.

Finally I'll add that I am happy to do what I can to make posters of all political stripes feel more comfortable and not attacked. The forum is better with diversity. I even liked the much vilified Lucie, and took pains not to offend him because I wanted to keep hearing his take on various issues. We are less diverse without his views.

[SunsetBengal]

(07-04-2020, 05:45 PM)Dill Wrote: I agree with you on that.   

 If a point has been corrected and refuted, it is wrong for others to "pile on" after the whistle has blown. If a different point in the original post is addressed, that is not piling on though. If someone says Trump is honest and Melania is ugly, it is not piling on if one poster disputes Trump's honesty and another the assessment of Melania's looks.

And it is wrong for the correcter to keep correcting.

Also bad form: If two people are having a substantive debate, and they are addressing issues, not each other's character, it is disruptive if others intervene with negative, distracting quips about one or the other poster, and not the issue they are discussion.

Finally I'll add that I am happy to do what I can to make posters of all political stripes feel more comfortable and not attacked. The forum is better with diversity. I even liked the much vilified Lucie, and took pains not to offend him because I wanted to keep hearing his take on various issues. We are less diverse without his views.

See, even though we differ on opinions on some issues, I tremendously admire your vast expanse of knowledge and eloquence of expression.  It makes me eager to reach a point of semi-retirement, so that I will have the time and desire to refresh my research and debate skills to make competitive arguments with folks like yourself and perhaps a dozen others on this board.

It is my opinion that members like you, and perhaps that "dozen others" that I aforementioned, are the reason that our group's founder has decided to reboot P&R, rather than just simply doing away with it.

[fredtoast]

(07-04-2020, 01:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote: This happened to me once when I was having a back and forth on a subject and one of the "not me's" chimed in with nothing other to add than ignore the troll. I replied by telling him to shove his insults up his backside. One of us got rep points the other got a one month suspension for being "toxic". 

Once a wise man used his walking stick to kill a gopher.

His follower asked "Why did you kill the gopher."

"Because he attacked me first," replied the wise man.

"But what if he had a different version of what happened?" asked the follower.

"He did," said the wise man, "until he died."

Suspended members, like dead gophers, tell no tales.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-04-2020, 06:57 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Once a wise man used his walking stick to kill a gopher.

His follower asked "Why did you kill the gopher."

"Because he attacked me first," replied the wise man.

"But what if he had a different version of what happened?" asked the follower.

"He did," said the wise man, "until he died."

Suspended members, like dead gophers, tell no tales.

You might want to be careful in that case, considering your history.  You made an extremely disparaging remark to me on one occasion.  I pointed it out, asked you to kindly remove it or I would report it.  You declined to even respond to my statement, much less amend yours.  Who was the gopher then?

[*bfine32*]

(07-04-2020, 06:57 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Once a wise man used his walking stick to kill a gopher.

His follower asked "Why did you kill the gopher."

"Because he attacked me first," replied the wise man.

"But what if he had a different version of what happened?" asked the follower.

"He did," said the wise man, "until he died."

Suspended members, like dead gophers, tell no tales.

Are you disputing what I said or just saying? 

[CJD]

I do enjoy posting and reading opinions here. Even though I am not super active, I still come in every once in a while just to see if everyone is responding to political occurrences in a similar way that I do and how the (admittedly limited) right leaning posters see it.

I hope the problems cease in this new start up. I don't think I am in violation of any of the rules, but it's easy to forget what you say in the heat of the moment sometimes.

[NATI BENGALS]

(07-04-2020, 02:38 PM)Bengalholic Wrote: The issues that exist in this forum are all sides and viewpoints. The problem isn't what people's particular beliefs are, it's how they express themselves when interacting and debating. That what we're attempting to improve.

It is a valiant effort on probably the most impossible problem ever. Getting internet comments to be nice is no easy task.

I commend the effort. I have always loved the different view points thrown around in here. Would hate to see it go.