|
Post by Vlad on Feb 9, 2008 15:41:38 GMT -5
So far, I haven't seen anything said that I think is out of bounds. I agree with Spring that these politicians and political celebrities have put themselves out there for debate in a proper context. Which, I think we are doing. If you call someone a "nutjob" of that caliber, I would only expect you to say "why" you think so. Which has been done. That's not bashing.
The big no-no would be for one of us to attack another poster unfairly for our thoughts on the matter. The whole point of this thread is to discuss and debate. One can't do that without taking some sort of stance. But we shouldn't ridicule another FOR their stance.
Vlad
|
|
|
Post by Shan on Feb 9, 2008 15:57:06 GMT -5
So far, I haven't seen anything said that I think is out of bounds. I agree with Spring that these politicians and political celebrities have put themselves out there for debate in a proper context. Which, I think we are doing. If you call someone a "nutjob" of that caliber, I would only expect you to say "why" you think so. Which has been done. That's not bashing. The big no-no would be for one of us to attack another poster unfairly for our thoughts on the matter. The whole point of this thread is to discuss and debate. One can't do that without taking some sort of stance. But we shouldn't ridicule another FOR their stance. Vlad I disagree. The reason we barred these subjects from general discussion in the first place was that people get too personally involved. In politics, specifically, people get really invested in the candidate (or other political figure) they support. We have rules against bashing a poster's favorite TV character. Why are a poster's favorite political figures exempt?
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Feb 9, 2008 16:05:17 GMT -5
Rachael, I just want to eetah both your posts above. I admire Chelsea Clinton no end; she's a fine role model for young women, as is her mom. Also, what is it with the right-wing attacking Hillary for not divorcing Bill after Lewinskygate? Hillary and Bill went through infidelity hell in public and kept their marriage together, and that's a bad thing because they're Democrats? Or Clintons? Whatever. Actually, the LEFT wing doing that bothers me more. Women who call themselves feminists saying they won't vote for her because she didn't divorce her husband, and thus this must mean they don't have a "real" marriage, and she's only in it to become President. It's no business of mine why Hillary stayed married to a man who's a repeat cheater. She clearly knows that's who he is, and still wants to be married to him. I don't know, or particularly care, why. Their personal lives are not my business. And why does any particular individual get to define what constitutes a "real" marriage? Before they were done for love, marriages were done for money, property, political expediency. Her personal choices mean nothing to me about what her Presidency would be like.
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Feb 9, 2008 16:08:04 GMT -5
So far, I haven't seen anything said that I think is out of bounds. I agree with Spring that these politicians and political celebrities have put themselves out there for debate in a proper context. Which, I think we are doing. If you call someone a "nutjob" of that caliber, I would only expect you to say "why" you think so. Which has been done. That's not bashing. The big no-no would be for one of us to attack another poster unfairly for our thoughts on the matter. The whole point of this thread is to discuss and debate. One can't do that without taking some sort of stance. But we shouldn't ridicule another FOR their stance. Vlad I disagree. The reason we barred these subjects from general discussion in the first place was that people get too personally involved. In politics, specifically, people get really invested in the candidate (or other political figure) they support. We have rules against bashing a poster's favorite TV character. Why are a poster's favorite political figures exempt? I think that's a good way to think about it. If you're wondering whether or not "it's OK to say X about Person Y," assume that someone - a mature adult someone who can handle reasonably-worded criticism and disagreement - who really likes and admires Person Y will be reading it.
|
|
|
Post by Shan on Feb 9, 2008 16:08:24 GMT -5
Rachael, I just want to eetah both your posts above. I admire Chelsea Clinton no end; she's a fine role model for young women, as is her mom. Also, what is it with the right-wing attacking Hillary for not divorcing Bill after Lewinskygate? Hillary and Bill went through infidelity hell in public and kept their marriage together, and that's a bad thing because they're Democrats? Or Clintons? Whatever. Actually, the LEFT wing doing that bothers me more. Women who call themselves feminists saying they won't vote for her because she didn't divorce her husband, and thus this must mean they don't have a "real" marriage, and she's only in it to become President. It's no business of mine why Hillary stayed married to a man who's a repeat cheater. She clearly knows that's who he is, and still wants to be married to him. I don't know, or particularly care, why. Their personal lives are not my business. And why does any particular individual get to define what constitutes a "real" marriage? Before they were done for love, marriages were done for money, property, political expediency. Her personal choices mean nothing to me about what her Presidency would be like. That's the same way I felt when he Bill was being pillioried for cheating. I didn't feel like it should have ever been anything other than a private matter. Completely irrelevant to the state of the nation.
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Feb 9, 2008 16:11:35 GMT -5
I was thinking it would be better if we don't actually do any name-calling, just for the sake of keeping potentially inflammatory stuff from, you know, really catching fire. For instance, "unstable" could be backed up with some evidence whereas "nuts" is pretty much subjective. Even if I agree with the term myself. Is it acceptable to state my reaction to someone (ie, I admire them, or I don't agree with them, or they make me want to throw something at the TV, etc), as opposed to just calling them nuts? My opinion of Ann Coulter, by the way, is that she's very smart and very good at manipulating people, and that she calculates exactly what to say to get the most reaction/attention/outrage at any given time. Crazy like a fox, in other words, and not the sort of person I admire. I suggest that, for the time being, if someone is offended by something another person says, they should just say so. We're all grownups, and I'm completely fine with you saying that Ann Coulter makes you want to hurl.... But seriously - just talking like you might to a person in the 3D world who you respectfully disagree with ought to be enough. The occasional "nutjob" is gonna slip through.
|
|
|
Post by Vlad on Feb 9, 2008 16:17:28 GMT -5
So far, I haven't seen anything said that I think is out of bounds. I agree with Spring that these politicians and political celebrities have put themselves out there for debate in a proper context. Which, I think we are doing. If you call someone a "nutjob" of that caliber, I would only expect you to say "why" you think so. Which has been done. That's not bashing. The big no-no would be for one of us to attack another poster unfairly for our thoughts on the matter. The whole point of this thread is to discuss and debate. One can't do that without taking some sort of stance. But we shouldn't ridicule another FOR their stance. Vlad I disagree. The reason we barred these subjects from general discussion in the first place was that people get too personally involved. In politics, specifically, people get really invested in the candidate (or other political figure) they support. We have rules against bashing a poster's favorite TV character. Why are a poster's favorite political figures exempt? Well, I refer back to the Rules for my reasoning here: Characters are fictional. They have very little meaning in the real context of real world things. They are simply creations of the writer. Here we are talking about real people and real events and topics. People and things that truly affect our lives. I'll also quote the second paragraph of the rules concerning character bashing: Bashing a character is thus just silly. Being upset because a character you like got bashed, almost as silly. There is nothing wrong with stating your opinion that a certain character didn't act in a way you believe they should. There is nothing wrong with saying you aren't fond of how an actor portrays a certain character. There's nothing wrong with not liking a storyline, a plot occurrence, or even thinking the wardrobe person or makeup staff absolutely suck at their jobs. It's your opinion and assuming you can somehow sum it up in more words than, "they suck, I hate them", it should be considered a valid one. However, once you have made your point and someone disagrees and offers points in their own favor, it's time to either let the matter drop or move onto points that are more conversant.
The bolded part is what I see happening here in our discussion. We are taking a position on these people or topics and presenting "why" we don't agree with them or dislike them. No one (so far) has gone after another poster at all for their opinion, they have merely stated their own. And I expect for us to be in disagreement and to point out to each other why we disagree. Great! that's why we are talking about this stuff. But at the point that any of us actually says that the other poster is an idiot... whoomph! that's bashing. Disagreeing, or thinking someone is "wrong" is not bashing. But also, once that thought is out there, and a good explanation of why you think they are wrong is presented, and any significant rebuttal is offered (and rebuttal to that as well), then it's time to drop that specific matter for the time being. At least until a new relevant matter is brought into it. Then the process will go through itself again. These are jsut my thoughts on the process. Anyone else want to share theirs? Vlad
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Feb 9, 2008 16:20:02 GMT -5
Actually, the LEFT wing doing that bothers me more. Women who call themselves feminists saying they won't vote for her because she didn't divorce her husband, and thus this must mean they don't have a "real" marriage, and she's only in it to become President. It's no business of mine why Hillary stayed married to a man who's a repeat cheater. She clearly knows that's who he is, and still wants to be married to him. I don't know, or particularly care, why. Their personal lives are not my business. And why does any particular individual get to define what constitutes a "real" marriage? Before they were done for love, marriages were done for money, property, political expediency. Her personal choices mean nothing to me about what her Presidency would be like. That's the same way I felt when he Bill was being pillioried for cheating. I didn't feel like it should have ever been anything other than a private matter. Completely irrelevant to the state of the nation. This is true in a way, but not in another. That whole Lewinski incident did speak to Bill C's character, and not in a good way - and not just with the cheating aspect, or cheating with such a much-younger women who was working for him aspect, but also in the lying about it aspect . . . to me, a potential president's character and integrity ARE relevant, and this did speak to that, and not in a flattering way. Bill C knew, in indulging in that affair, the potential for disruption and pain and hurt, to his family (particularly his daughter), his friends, and his country. And he did it anyway. His ability to make that choice - or maybe it's more like his inability to resist that temptation - it worried me, and would certainly make me think twice about voting for him again for President (I know he can't run again, just speaking hypothetically). I do not blame Hillary in any way for her husband's actions. And her choice to stay with him - like I said, I don't admire her for it, but it doesn't bother me in the same way that Bill's (to me, completely unjustifiable, and foolish beyond words) choice to fool around with Monica L bothers me. Hillary's choice - I can't say I get it, realy - but just because "I don't get it" doesn't mean it NECESSARILY points to major and "worrisome in a president" character flaws. Bill C's choice to fool around with Monica . . . I think it's a legit reason to question his suitability for the office of the President of the United States, because I think it's a legit reason to question his honesty, his integrity, and his judgment.
|
|
|
Post by Onjel on Feb 9, 2008 16:20:14 GMT -5
Actually, the LEFT wing doing that bothers me more. Women who call themselves feminists saying they won't vote for her because she didn't divorce her husband, and thus this must mean they don't have a "real" marriage, and she's only in it to become President. It's no business of mine why Hillary stayed married to a man who's a repeat cheater. She clearly knows that's who he is, and still wants to be married to him. I don't know, or particularly care, why. Their personal lives are not my business. And why does any particular individual get to define what constitutes a "real" marriage? Before they were done for love, marriages were done for money, property, political expediency. Her personal choices mean nothing to me about what her Presidency would be like. That's the same way I felt when he Bill was being pillioried for cheating. I didn't feel like it should have ever been anything other than a private matter. Completely irrelevant to the state of the nation. I could not care less if Bill Clinton decided to have a hundred relationships outside of his marriage. What did bother me was committing perjury about it during the litigation against him. (Oh, and conducting himself with no dignity in the oval office by carrying on there, of all places.) He's an attorney and an officer of the court, not to mention the president of the United States. Perjury is unacceptable. Period. I mean, the same public who thought it was okay for Bill Clinton to lie under oath is pillorying the mayor of Detroit, Kwame Kilpatrick, for doing the exact same thing. What's the difference? I don't know. You tell me. Personally, I find it indefensible for both men to lie under oath about something material to the proceedings in which they are testifying. It's one of the reasons the public has such a low opinion of members of my profession. As far as Hillary Clinton staying married to Bill? How in the name of all that's important is that anyone's business? I don't get why that matters to anyone but the two of them and their daughter. Chelsea campaigning for her mother? Big deal. I'd say there may be more of a story if she was campaigning for, say, Huckabee. ;D I think attacking children of the candidates is lower than low and the politics of personal destruction is more often fomented by the media than anyone else. I find it despicable.
|
|
|
Post by Shan on Feb 9, 2008 16:22:04 GMT -5
Is it acceptable to state my reaction to someone (ie, I admire them, or I don't agree with them, or they make me want to throw something at the TV, etc), as opposed to just calling them nuts? My opinion of Ann Coulter, by the way, is that she's very smart and very good at manipulating people, and that she calculates exactly what to say to get the most reaction/attention/outrage at any given time. Crazy like a fox, in other words, and not the sort of person I admire. I suggest that, for the time being, if someone is offended by something another person says, they should just say so. We're all grownups, and I'm completely fine with you saying that Ann Coulter makes you want to hurl.... But seriously - just talking like you might to a person in the 3D world who you respectfully disagree with ought to be enough. The occasional "nutjob" is gonna slip through. We're all grownups here, I agree. So FAR we are. Which isn't to say I expect any of us to regress to feces-hurling zoo-exhibit types just because we have this new board. I'm just trying to prevent future problems (okay, paying my worries in advance) by trying to keep things like name-calling out of play in case we get posters here who aren't familiar with the way we usually do things. I'm worried that some OTHER feces-hurling zoo-exhibit type might wander in here and, seeing names being called, assume it's another free-for-all. You all know how ugly it can get out there in cyberspace. That's one of the main reasons why WE exist here in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by Onjel on Feb 9, 2008 16:26:21 GMT -5
Oh, and in case you are wondering, in most states, perjury is legally defined as lying under oath about a matter that is material to the case in which the testimony is being sought. So, when I qualify my post to specifically refer to lying about something material, it's because I'm referring to committing perjury and not giving a free pass to lying about immaterial things.
|
|
|
Post by Vlad on Feb 9, 2008 16:29:06 GMT -5
Is it acceptable to state my reaction to someone (ie, I admire them, or I don't agree with them, or they make me want to throw something at the TV, etc), as opposed to just calling them nuts? My opinion of Ann Coulter, by the way, is that she's very smart and very good at manipulating people, and that she calculates exactly what to say to get the most reaction/attention/outrage at any given time. Crazy like a fox, in other words, and not the sort of person I admire. I suggest that, for the time being, if someone is offended by something another person says, they should just say so. We're all grownups, and I'm completely fine with you saying that Ann Coulter makes you want to hurl.... But seriously - just talking like you might to a person in the 3D world who you respectfully disagree with ought to be enough. The occasional "nutjob" is gonna slip through. Good point. And to merge this topic of bashing with the one we were talking about that brought it up, I think this is the reason it seems we all pretty much hold low opinions of Coulter and Rush. They constantly bash. They don't talk to people in respectable disagreeing language. They show no respect for people and in return they deserve little respect from us. Either of the two would be banned from the board in probably about 3 posts. Vlad
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Feb 9, 2008 16:33:03 GMT -5
I disagree. The reason we barred these subjects from general discussion in the first place was that people get too personally involved. In politics, specifically, people get really invested in the candidate (or other political figure) they support. We have rules against bashing a poster's favorite TV character. Why are a poster's favorite political figures exempt? Well, I refer back to the Rules for my reasoning here: Characters are fictional. They have very little meaning in the real context of real world things. They are simply creations of the writer. Here we are talking about real people and real events and topics. People and things that truly affect our lives. I'll also quote the second paragraph of the rules concerning character bashing: Bashing a character is thus just silly. Being upset because a character you like got bashed, almost as silly. There is nothing wrong with stating your opinion that a certain character didn't act in a way you believe they should. There is nothing wrong with saying you aren't fond of how an actor portrays a certain character. There's nothing wrong with not liking a storyline, a plot occurrence, or even thinking the wardrobe person or makeup staff absolutely suck at their jobs. It's your opinion and assuming you can somehow sum it up in more words than, "they suck, I hate them", it should be considered a valid one. However, once you have made your point and someone disagrees and offers points in their own favor, it's time to either let the matter drop or move onto points that are more conversant.
The bolded part is what I see happening here in our discussion. We are taking a position on these people or topics and presenting "why" we don't agree with them or dislike them. No one (so far) has gone after another poster at all for their opinion, they have merely stated their own. And I expect for us to be in disagreement and to point out to each other why we disagree. Great! that's why we are talking about this stuff. But at the point that any of us actually says that the other poster is an idiot... whoomph! that's bashing. Disagreeing, or thinking someone is "wrong" is not bashing. But also, once that thought is out there, and a good explanation of why you think they are wrong is presented, and any significant rebuttal is offered (and rebuttal to that as well), then it's time to drop that specific matter for the time being. At least until a new relevant matter is brought into it. Then the process will go through itself again. These are jsut my thoughts on the process. Anyone else want to share theirs? Vlad To me, using terms like "nutjob" or "nuts" = "they suck, I hate them" type of wording, and I do agree such things should be avoided. And yes, I agree with Rachael - speak up people, if you are offended. IM the person who has offended you, or IM a TP and let them know, so that the TPs can get a feel for it all, and figure out where the lines need to be drawn. In the meantime, I'd say "avoid anything that seems like name calling or wording that is unnecessarily inflammatory. Doesn't mean you have to mince your words . . . maybe another way to think of it may be "keeping it professional, rather than personal." Ah, well . . . let's keep on stumlin' along here, and see how it goes. I like it so far, despite the potholes.
|
|
|
Post by Onjel on Feb 9, 2008 16:38:22 GMT -5
I suggest that, for the time being, if someone is offended by something another person says, they should just say so. We're all grownups, and I'm completely fine with you saying that Ann Coulter makes you want to hurl.... But seriously - just talking like you might to a person in the 3D world who you respectfully disagree with ought to be enough. The occasional "nutjob" is gonna slip through. Good point. And to merge this topic of bashing with the one we were talking about that brought it up, I think this is the reason it seems we all pretty much hold low opinions of Coulter and Rush. They constantly bash. They don't talk to people in respectable disagreeing language. They show no respect for people and in return they deserve little respect from us. Either of the two would be banned from the board in probably about 3 posts. Vlad My problem is with talking heads who think they know it all, but aren't the geniuses they like to think they are. They are invariably rude and pedantic without basis. It's one of the things I dislike most about Chris Matthews. He never lets anyone finish what they have to say if they don't agree with him. He makes anyone left of center, liberal for want of a better term, look like screaming, maniacal, self-righteous knee-jerks. He's somewhat like that misogynistic radio talk show host. I personally have not heard Anne Coulter for any length of time. I don't like her tone. I think she gives the term conservative a very bad name and makes everyone think that if you are conservative in the least, you must be some fascistic, hate-filled, harpy who badly needs to get a life. I think the talking heads are a bigger problem than any other form of media. I'd rather hear from the candidates themselves, than listen to what the so-called experts have to say.
|
|
|
Post by Shan on Feb 9, 2008 16:41:44 GMT -5
Well, I refer back to the Rules for my reasoning here: Characters are fictional. They have very little meaning in the real context of real world things. They are simply creations of the writer. Here we are talking about real people and real events and topics. People and things that truly affect our lives. I'll also quote the second paragraph of the rules concerning character bashing: Bashing a character is thus just silly. Being upset because a character you like got bashed, almost as silly. There is nothing wrong with stating your opinion that a certain character didn't act in a way you believe they should. There is nothing wrong with saying you aren't fond of how an actor portrays a certain character. There's nothing wrong with not liking a storyline, a plot occurrence, or even thinking the wardrobe person or makeup staff absolutely suck at their jobs. It's your opinion and assuming you can somehow sum it up in more words than, "they suck, I hate them", it should be considered a valid one. However, once you have made your point and someone disagrees and offers points in their own favor, it's time to either let the matter drop or move onto points that are more conversant.
The bolded part is what I see happening here in our discussion. We are taking a position on these people or topics and presenting "why" we don't agree with them or dislike them. No one (so far) has gone after another poster at all for their opinion, they have merely stated their own. And I expect for us to be in disagreement and to point out to each other why we disagree. Great! that's why we are talking about this stuff. But at the point that any of us actually says that the other poster is an idiot... whoomph! that's bashing. Disagreeing, or thinking someone is "wrong" is not bashing. But also, once that thought is out there, and a good explanation of why you think they are wrong is presented, and any significant rebuttal is offered (and rebuttal to that as well), then it's time to drop that specific matter for the time being. At least until a new relevant matter is brought into it. Then the process will go through itself again. These are jsut my thoughts on the process. Anyone else want to share theirs? Vlad To me, using terms like "nutjob" or "nuts" = "they suck, I hate them" type of wording, and I do agree such things should be avoided. And yes, I agree with Rachael - speak up people, if you are offended. IM the person who has offended you, or IM a TP and let them know, so that the TPs can get a feel for it all, and figure out where the lines need to be drawn. In the meantime, I'd say "avoid anything that seems like name calling or wording that is unnecessarily inflammatory. Doesn't mean you have to mince your words . . . maybe another way to think of it may be "keeping it professional, rather than personal."Ah, well . . . let's keep on stumlin' along here, and see how it goes. I like it so far, despite the potholes. That's my point exactly. Thank you.
|
|