Please read, a shift in board policy

[dianeschlicht]

Thanks! Maybe I'll feel like showing up more here again.

 

[Rokkitsci]

I am probably one who has crossed the line on the political threads.

I do have a question, however.

How do you respond to those whose only contibution to the political debate is a verbal stink-bomb like:

= "Bush killed 35000 Iraqis and 1000 Americans."

Do we tolerate such intrusions into an otherwise healthy discussion of our differences on political points?

I have tried to respond to reasonable posts with reasonable arguements.

I have tried to identify meaningless statements just as I perceive them, with the goal of attempting some sort of peer-pressure that would make others think twice before posting (????) (I am looking for a non-offensive way to say 'drivel')

= However, I take the pledge to just ignore such (????) in the future.

= Sarcasm is going to be more difficult. I will try to avoid it, but it is so much fun to do. God give me strength.

 

[momof2inPA]

Originally posted by LisaZoe
OK, my paranoia is coming out and I'm concerned that some of my posts on political threads may fall within the definition of sarcastic. [/I]

What are you talking about? You are always so sweet.

 

[EsmeraldaX]

Originally posted by disney4us2002
Messages that are argumentative in nature would apply to every political post wouldn't it?

Sure, posters can argue the strength of 'their' choice, but not a day goes by without someone saying "So and so is a moron and you're an unthinking idiot for supporting him."

Why not just ask for no political threads?

I don't think Alex is referring to political threads.

Political threads by their very nature are meant for debate. I think the problem is not the debates, as long as they remain civil. People don't have to agree on all things all the time, but there are ways to do it in a friendly way.

There are a number of people who I disagree with politically that I like a lot here. I don't judge them because of their politics. They are nice people and they have their opinions, I have mine and we all respect each other.

I think the real problem here is NOT the debates. It's the people who attack folks who are just trying to vent/seek advice, post a picture of their kids achievements etc. These posts have nothing to do with politics. They just have everything to do with people being mean.

 

[liznboys]

Thank you so much!!!!

 

[caitycaity]

Originally posted by kejoda
I thought it was a nickname for Caity.

 

[snoopy]

Originally posted by EsmeraldaX
I don't think Alex is referring to political threads.

Political threads by their very nature are meant for debate. I think the problem is not the debates, as long as they remain civil. People don't have to agree on all things all the time, but there are ways to do it in a friendly way.

There are a number of people who I disagree with politically that I like a lot here. I don't judge them because of their politics. They are nice people and they have their opinions, I have mine and we all respect each other.

I think the real problem here is NOT the debates. It's the people who attack folks who are just trying to vent/seek advice, post a picture of their kids achievements etc. These posts have nothing to do with politics. They just have everything to do with people being mean.

Now see, up until a month or so I might agree with you. Lately, however, I have seen some of the nastiest posts I've ever seen in all my DISing history right on the political posts. Just the other day I gave my opinion of Michael Moore's film, just my opinion, no attacks on anyone else for their opinion, and was met with a barrage of insults and attacks on my intelligence and character. This is unacceptable. True debate exists when ideas are attacked, not the character of the people doing the debating. I don't think the mods/WMs should overlook the political threads just because they are more heated by nature -- I think they should keep a closer look and weed out those who are unable to discuss without resorting to personal attack.

 

[minniepumpernickel]

I have never liked it when people get attacked for their personal situation or life story. I have always thought that it was weird when a certain group of posters picked on someone because they didn't fit the mold of what they thought they should be like.

So, this should be interesting!

 

[EsmeraldaX]

Originally posted by snoopy
Now see, up until a month or so I might agree with you. Lately, however, I have seen some of the nastiest posts I've ever seen in all my DISing history right on the political posts. Just the other day I gave my opinion of Michael Moore's film, just my opinion, no attacks on anyone else for their opinion, and was met with a barrage of insults and attacks on my intelligence and character. This is unacceptable. True debate exists when ideas are attacked, not the character of the people doing the debating. I don't think the mods/WMs should overlook the political threads just because they are more heated by nature -- I think they should keep a closer look and weed out those who are unable to discuss without resorting to personal attack.

I'm sorry someone attacked you Snoopy. I think you are always polite and well spoken.

 

[piglet too]

Thanks for the change Alex, it will make me feel much better about posting.

 

[disney4us2002]

Originally posted by snoopy
Now see, up until a month or so I might agree with you. Lately, however, I have seen some of the nastiest posts I've ever seen in all my DISing history right on the political posts. Just the other day I gave my opinion of Michael Moore's film, just my opinion, no attacks on anyone else for their opinion, and was met with a barrage of insults and attacks on my intelligence and character. This is unacceptable. True debate exists when ideas are attacked, not the character of the people doing the debating. I don't think the mods/WMs should overlook the political threads just because they are more heated by nature -- I think they should keep a closer look and weed out those who are unable to discuss without resorting to personal attack.

Actually, this is why I asked about even allowing political threads. That particular thread was closed but I found it on page 4 or so and didn't see attacks to you specifically at all. I saw people asking for clarification of why you think the war was wrong and then there are plenty of posts with those stating that we should believe Moore's movie to be completely factual and others saying if it is to be believed it means a complete lack of intelligent thought. What I didn't see is attacks on your character. This type of thing is very subjective. What you find attacking may be very different than what I find attacking or what the WM's may find attacking. A prime example is the current thread inaccurately titled, "Bush supporters". Please tell me how that was not posted purely to be argumentative.

 

[snoopy]

Really? You don't consider one poster calling another, "hopelessly stupid", stating that people who share my opinion couldn't possibly be a "thinking person" and that I'm "full of Kool Aid" for having that opinion a personal attack? Wow.

 

[arminnie]

Originally posted by snoopy
....... and was met with a barrage of insults and attacks on my intelligence and character. This is unacceptable. True debate exists when ideas are attacked, not the character of the people doing the debating. I don't think the mods/WMs should overlook the political threads just because they are more heated by nature -- I think they should keep a closer look and weed out those who are unable to discuss without resorting to personal attack.

I totally agree with Snoopy here.

Let me give an example of how you can RESPECTFULLY disagree:

I was flying back from Florida yesterday and was seated across the aisle from a man who is actively working in the Kerry campaign - as most of you know I am doing the same thing for the Bush campaign.

We had a wonderful 2+ hour conversation discussing issues, etc because neither one of us felt that we had to ridicule the other for not agreeing with the other.

At the end of the flight we made plans to get together at a later date (post election). Now when I was young I could have said that he did this because I was cute, but believe me I was not cute yesterday at all. I'd gotten up at 4:30 to catch the flight and had been in and out of the rain getting to the airport. I was a very disheveled, sleep deprived old woman.

Some people find it too easy to be insulting via the internet. I'd like to think that they would never say things like that in person. I had horrible things written to me. I've tended just to ignore the worst ones and in the past haven't reported the poster as I felt like it was "tattling". I have reported posters who said awful things about other people though.

 

[Blondie]

 

[disney4us2002]

Originally posted by snoopy
Really? You don't consider one poster calling another, "hopelessly stupid", stating that people who share my opinion couldn't possibly be a "thinking person" and that I'm "full of Kool Aid" for having that opinion a personal attack? Wow.

No, you misunderstood or I didn't explain it well. I find all of those statements attacking and they occur on both sides. I actually have the worst (imo) 5 on ignore and they're from both sides of the argument. I meant I didn't see that you were specifically singled out. I could say that anytime someone posts "Bush is an idiot and those who support him need psychiatric intervention." that I'm being attacked and called insane. Is that a personal attack on me? That's what I meant when I said that you or I or the WM may not view attacks the same way.

BTW, I have been drinking koolaid for years and I highly recommend lemon-lime; it's delicious! (Trying to be funny here, not sarcastic)

 

[Kirby]

Thank you!


I agree with this:

It's the people who attack folks who are just trying to vent/seek advice, post a picture of their kids achievements etc. These posts have nothing to do with politics. They just have everything to do with people being mean.

and this:

True debate exists when ideas are attacked, not the character of the people doing the debating. I don't think the mods/WMs should overlook the political threads just because they are more heated by nature -- I think they should keep a closer look and weed out those who are unable to discuss without resorting to personal attack.

I'm not much of a debater, I like to read them sometimes though. But when the people start insulting each other, I exit and go on to something else.

 

[snoopy]

I consider a statement like "Bush is an idiot and those who support him need psychiatric intervention" a personal attack when used in retaliation during debate, yes, even if its not specifically saying "poster A, Bush is an idiot and you are in need of psychiatric intervention for supporting him". Anyway you spin it, the poster is saying only their way of thinking is acceptable, anything less is not worthy.

 

[caitycaity]

Originally posted by snoopy
I consider a statement like "Bush is an idiot and those who support him need psychiatric intervention" a personal attack when used in retaliation during debate, yes, even if its not specifically saying "poster A, Bush is an idiot and you are in need of psychiatric intervention for supporting him". Anyway you spin it, the poster is saying only their way of thinking is acceptable, anything less is not worthy.

i should state up front that i agree with your point snoopy.

but on religious topics, people say things like this all the time e.g.: "i believe you are condemned because you are not my religion, etc." no one ever seems to have a problem with that kind of thing, but imho, it's the same.

 

[snoopy]

When you say "condemned", does that mean "going to Hell"? If so, I'd say that is a pretty over the top thing to believe and rather haughty to make such a judgement, yes. But on the other hand, I do think some people actually BELIEVE this to be true and aren't saying so to be mean or nasty. Their beliefs dictate that if you don't accept Jesus Christ as your savior you go to Hell, plain and simple. I think its a little different than saying "I believe in such-and-such, and if you don't, you must be stupid" or worse yet, "I believe in such-and-such, and since you don't, you don't have the right to an opinion".

 

[LisaZoe]

Thanks, Alex, for the clarification. I guess I've been lucky so far to have missed the personal attacks such as you've described. I've seen some political threads get heated and there has been some name-calling as snoopy has mentioned so I guess I thought that was what brought this to a head. Quite honestly, when I see such posts, I think it says so much more about the poster making the attack than the person at whom the attach was aimed.