Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Are some people too sensitive for effective, serious debate?


Recommended Posts

Many commentators have noticed in recent years that some people are so offended by some ideas and opinions that they think they shouldn’t be exposed to such debate, that posters of such ideas should be banned, or that the debate itself should be shut down.  Should we go to to the extent of shutting down debate or criticism to protect people’s “feelings”?  This forum attempts to prevent posters from making personal insults, but at what point does criticism become personal or insulting? I’m sometimes shocked at how over sensitive people can be and how little criticism they can handle.  I think sometimes free speech is prevented to coddle people.  Thoughts?

Link to post
Share on other sites

This forum has been quite straightforward for such matters, clearly directing members to "play the ball" without resorting to personal attacks.   Criticism becomes personal or insulting when directed in the first person at another member, which also detracts from forum bandwidth for the actual topic.   Other rules set decorum standards for public figures, profanity, vulgarity, racist labels, etc.    Most of us have been able to navigate this forum within that framework while vigorously presenting/defending a given position.   It is actually more interesting that way compared to hurling simple minded insults.

Also, freedom of expression rights do not apply to a private web forum, so one either follows the rules or gets shown the virtual door.   I suppose another aspect of this Canadian forum seen as a foreigner (American) is the risk posed by potential hate speech and prosecution more so than in the U.S. 

Nobody is compensated for hosting or moderating this forum, so if a member makes a mess that has to be cleaned up, they will not be coddled.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

This forum has been quite straightforward for such matters, clearly directing members to "play the ball" without resorting to personal attacks.   Criticism becomes personal or insulting when directed in the first person at another member, which also detracts from forum bandwidth for the actual topic.   Other rules set decorum standards for public figures, profanity, vulgarity, racist labels, etc.    Most of us have been able to navigate this forum within that framework while vigorously presenting/defending a given position.   It is actually more interesting that way compared to hurling simple minded insults.

Also, freedom of expression rights do not apply to a private web forum, so one either follows the rules or gets shown the virtual door.   I suppose another aspect of this Canadian forum seen as a foreigner (American) is the risk posed by potential hate speech and prosecution more so than in the U.S. 

Nobody is compensated for hosting or moderating this forum, so if a member makes a mess that has to be cleaned up, they will not be coddled.

 

 

I agree, but I also don’t think it’s okay for people to falsify their identity, including gender, or to purport to be of a nationality other than their real one(s).  It starts to look like political manipulation by a foreign power or even espionage. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

I agree, but I also don’t think it’s okay for people to falsify their identity, including gender, or to purport to be of a nationality other than their real one(s).  It starts to look like political manipulation by a foreign power or even espionage. 

 

Not sure what you mean by that, but being a relatively new member, perhaps you do not have the context and history for some of the member relationships that are now more than a decade old.   With that comes some presumptions, habits, and expectations that may seem odd.   The "regulars" here have developed identities that form a mostly consistent ideological baseline.

The short term flamers come and go, seldom having the endurance to continue or survive a strong dose of moderation.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Many commentators have noticed in recent years that some people are so offended by some ideas and opinions that they think they shouldn’t be exposed to such debate, that posters of such ideas should be banned, or that the debate itself should be shut down.  Should we go to to the extent of shutting down debate or criticism to protect people’s “feelings”?  This forum attempts to prevent posters from making personal insults, but at what point does criticism become personal or insulting? I’m sometimes shocked at how over sensitive people can be and how little criticism they can handle.  I think sometimes free speech is prevented to coddle people.  Thoughts?

Society as been conditioned to become to sensitive and to become to offended over what someone else says to them or about someone else. No one can take an insult anymore. You hurt my sensitive feelings and want an apology from you or in many cases today people are being charged for hurting someones feelings. We have become a real whimpy and crybaby society.

What happened to the good old days where we use to say "sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me"? I think that it is time to go back to those good old days. If you don't like me hurting your sensitive feelings well go cry in the corner some where and grow up. The world is not perfect and made just for crybabies with such sensitive feelings. 

There is my thoughts on it. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm used to American libertarian militant free speech forums with almost no moderation at all, so this forum is like a knitting club in comparison, but I don't mind, I can play it either way, and as B-C2004 said, more focus on playing the ball, free for alls can be fun,  but it gets boring after awhile, been there done that.

That being said, if it's like Cultural Marxist power tripping where the moderator is shutting people down based on absurd claims of  offence as a weaponized fallacy, that's not worth my time.

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

I'm used to American libertarian militant free speech forums with almost no moderation at all, so this forum is like a knitting club in comparison, but I don't mind, I can play it either way, and as B-C2004 said, more focus on playing the ball, free for alls can be fun,  but it gets boring after awhile, been there done that.

That being said, if it's like Cultural Marxist power tripping where the moderator is shutting people down based on absurd claims of  offence as a weaponized fallacy, that's not worth my time.

First Amendment rights are more-or-less sacrosanct in the U.S. in contrast to Canada where there are more restrictions on speech. Of course, some, particularly on the left, would apparently love nothing more than to abandon free speech in this country and replace it with "acceptable" speech, with the state presumably serving as the arbiter of permissible discourse. This antidemocratic instinct is particularly problematic, and chilling. We sometimes see its impact on sites like this one, where contributors are personally attacked merely for presenting valid arguments or expressing reasonable views that are contrary to the views of some other contributors. Topics related to cultural, religion and immigration issues are particularly impacted by such 'ad hominem' attacks.

How should those who wish to engage in rational discussion and debate respond to such attacks? It's a conundrum. Impinging character and motive by labeling contributors as racists, bigots, or otherwise demonizing them for merely expressing often very well argued positions that are contrary to "progressive" views is hardly conducive to the promotion of reasonable discourse.

Edited by turningrite
Link to post
Share on other sites

The trick to internet forums is to remain clinically detached,  don't emotionally invest yourself,  as BC says, just play the ball, ignore the rest.

Some Millennial on the internet calls you a "fascist", who cares?  Nobody cares.   This is why you have an avatar,  don't think of it as attack on your person, it's just an attack on your avatar.

Don't drive angry, if you feel yourself getting angry, just walkaway, take a break. 

Ya gotta be like a Vulcan from Star Trek, all logic, no emotion, before your respond to anything, pause and think; how would Mr. Spock respond to that?

And don't forget, the guy who is trying to troll you, is doing that because he is angry, so he's being passive aggressive, if you don't take the bait, then he's just spinning his wheels.

Perhaps your wife or girlfriend can still troll you passive aggressive, but effeminate Millennials on the internet?  You don't know them and you don't live with them, thus, again, who cares?

Edited by Dougie93
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

Ya gotta be like a Vulcan from Star Trek, all logic, no emotion, before your respond to anything, pause and think; how would Mr. Spock respond to that?

Spock is also half-human don't forget.

I think its perfectly acceptable to give an unremittingly illogical moron a Vulcan nerve pinch from time to time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

People can post and debate things without being a total asshole about it ... that would be a good start. And I think that's the real problem with the debate here.  There are some topics I want to get into but the quality of posts deters me from jumping in as the thread has gone to shit already at that stage.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...
On 1/7/2019 at 8:51 AM, Zeitgeist said:

Should we go to to the extent of shutting down debate or criticism to protect people’s “feelings”?  

No.  Feelings are not logical nor are they information based.  They are emotions and as such should be kept out of all debate.  Use your brain and forget the emoting.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/7/2019 at 11:51 AM, Zeitgeist said:

Many commentators have noticed in recent years that some people are so offended by some ideas and opinions that they think they shouldn’t be exposed to such debate, that posters of such ideas should be banned, or that the debate itself should be shut down.  Should we go to to the extent of shutting down debate or criticism to protect people’s “feelings”?  This forum attempts to prevent posters from making personal insults, but at what point does criticism become personal or insulting? I’m sometimes shocked at how over sensitive people can be and how little criticism they can handle.  I think sometimes free speech is prevented to coddle people.  Thoughts?

People get sensitive when their beliefs are attacked.  So I would suggest only use facts to debate.  Do not use feelings or argue from a position of authority.  Do that, you'll do better.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On 1/7/2019 at 8:51 AM, Zeitgeist said:

Many commentators have noticed in recent years that some people are so offended by some ideas and opinions that they think they shouldn’t be exposed to such debate, that posters of such ideas should be banned, or that the debate itself should be shut down.  Should we go to to the extent of shutting down debate or criticism to protect people’s “feelings”?  This forum attempts to prevent posters from making personal insults, but at what point does criticism become personal or insulting? I’m sometimes shocked at how over sensitive people can be and how little criticism they can handle.  I think sometimes free speech is prevented to coddle people.  Thoughts?

Only intellectually and emotionally immature people choose to be offended by anything. We all know people who seek out any opportunity to claim they have been offended. But other's comments cannot offend, unless one wishes them to. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/14/2019 at 8:02 PM, Donnie said:

People get sensitive when their beliefs are attacked.  So I would suggest only use facts to debate.  Do not use feelings or argue from a position of authority.  Do that, you'll do better.

Facts are what believers love to be offended by the most.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Realitycheck said:

Only intellectually and emotionally immature people choose to be offended by anything.

By anything? Let's not get silly. Being offended by things is not an unnatural human condition. The problem is that people get offended much more easily when they've never been exposed to certain ideas before, or where they've been taught such ideas are unacceptable.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Argus said:

By anything? Let's not get silly. Being offended by things is not an unnatural human condition. The problem is that people get offended much more easily when they've never been exposed to certain ideas before, or where they've been taught such ideas are unacceptable.

One chooses whether or not to be offended. One cannot be offended by facts or contrary opinion unless one wishes to be.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Realitycheck said:

One chooses whether or not to be offended. One cannot be offended by facts or contrary opinion unless one wishes to be.

If you're a Vulcan, maybe. I'm fairly sure that if someone tells you your mother is a whore or your country is a shithole that should be wiped off the map you'd be offended.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Argus said:

If you're a Vulcan, maybe. I'm fairly sure that if someone tells you your mother is a whore or your country is a shithole that should be wiped off the map you'd be offended.

It would be another instance in which you'd be wrong. Anyone who said anything like that would be viewed by my own sweet self as an ignoramus who's opinion is unworthy of taking seriously therefore not worth getting offended or upset about. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Realitycheck said:

It would be another instance in which you'd be wrong. Anyone who said anything like that would be viewed by my own sweet self as an ignoramus who's opinion is unworthy of taking seriously therefore not worth getting offended or upset about. 

I doubt that. To begin with, 'sweet' is not a term I would easily associate with you. Chippy would seem more appropriate. Second, we are all human, and thus we all take offense at some things.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements



  • Similar Content

    • By Evening Star
      It's hard to find good coverage of this issue but it seems like it might have major repercussions:
      http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/christie-blatchford-ruling-in-twitter-harassment-trial-could-have-enormous-fallout-for-free-speech
      http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2014/01/09/gregory_alan_elliott_frustrations_boil_over_in_twitter_harassment_trial.html
      http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/christie-blatchford-the-twitter-trial-of-gregory-elliott-is-becoming-much-like-twitter-itself-shrill-and-uber-sensitive
      http://metronews.ca/news/toronto/448441/alleged-harassment-over-twitter-leads-to-criminal-charges-for-toronto-man/
      Depending on the source, Elliott is either being targeted and silenced for holding views that are in conflict with those of young feminist activists or he was actually stalking and sexually harassing young women online. Either way, this could be the first case of someone going to court for social media harassment.
      What I find curious is that the accusation of sexual harassment only seems to appear in the Metro version of the story. Based on what the Post and the Star report, it seems like Elliott's comments were relatively mild and he is in fact being targeted here.
      Unfortunately, it seems like most of the coverage of this story is coming from sources that I am reluctant to trust, such as MRA groups. Anyone have info or thoughts on this?
      Edited: added link to Christie Blatchford's piece from last week
    • By kraychik
      http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/08/21/former-legislator-ban-political-ads-from-canadian-tv-radio/
      A former MPP wants the government to destroy freedom of speech and expression - in the interests of "fairness". Now that the LPC is trailing in fundraising for its propaganda, it wants to government to hijack the process of political messaging and campaigning. Naturally, he makes no mention of the over one billion dollars flowing from taxpayers to the left-wing CBC that campaigns endlessly against conservatism and in favor of leftism (LPC and NDP, naturally).
      The left is so typical.... if you don't like something, BAN IT. If you can't get your way, USE THE IRON FIST OF THE GOVERNMENT TO FORCE IT.
  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...