posted
Well, with some grave misgivings, I’ve found a current string that’s vaguely relevant (reading the responses to Michiel's post about a new game) to some things I want to say that came from reading some old, inactive strings from last year.
Warning. VERY LONG.
Nope, you won’t find any previous posts of mine, so make what you will of my not having enough history for you. I read this site years ago, and stop back in on rare occasions. May have even posted under a different name in the distance past, I can’t remember. The Cards knew me, once upon a time. Scott and I did not always agree, but I always enjoyed our conversations. My favourite of his books is Pastwatch (not written when I knew him and I never had the chance to discuss it with him ).
I’ve ended up back here from an odd sort of route, or rather two routes that converged. I’m currently reading Dawkins’ “The God Delusion” (this is not the place I will comment on it, other than to say I will not hide the fact that my view on religion have more in common with Dawkins than with OSC)
I’ve been picking my way through that book and following some of his references to re-familiarise (please don’t waste time slamming the spelling, I’m in the UK) myself with philosophical arguments I have not participated in for some time, to find out where things stand now on some issues, and to read some new takes on the arguments (including the morphing of Creationism to Intelligent Design, and where (if anywhere) there are real differences in the latter. I am also investigating others’ perceptions of the book, for although I agree with the issues I have some problems with the book and wanted to find what others thought (Oh dear, I said I wasn’t going into that…sorry)
One of the things that came back to me, as it does periodically, is how pissed off I am that I loaned out my only taped copy of the Secular Humanist Revival Meeting that I was at (made at Confederation in Atlanta, in 1986) to a humanist friend in the UK, a few years back, and have never got it back. It is still one of my favourite, literate defences of the right/responsibility to think for oneself and I want a new copy. So over the past two days I have spent (for a number of reasons) more time reading web fora for a than I have in years (I’m off sick at the moment, so actually have the time). I started out on HatRack River for obvious reasons, though the last mention of the availability of the tape that I have found was in 1999. I also found reference to the SHRM on Pharyngula, in a string last year regarding Scott’s comments on ID. Since I’d seen mention of Pharyngula in Dawkins’ book as well (never been there before), it seemed timely. The upshot is I went off on that tangent and stayed up all last night reading year-old strings both there and here on ID (yes, I know this will not help me get over the illness faster) and on various other subjects, and spilling into more reading on Hatrack River. It’s early days, as there are a few things I haven’t yet read that I clearly need to read that have been major contentious issues mentioned on some sites (ie homophobia which I deplore, but I will find the strings and read them rather than assume the commentaries I read are valid interpretations of Scott’s views. I hope they are not), but it’s interesting. No, I don’t agree with quite a number of views I have found here and on the Ornery American but, I can still quote large chunks of the SHRM, and one of my favourite’s is “you only learn by changing your mind”, so I don’t only ready things I agree with. Changing (or modifying) your (or another’s) mind does not happen in a vacuum.
I spent Christmas in the US…the first time I’ve been there in about 5 years, though I grew up there. I’ve largely ignored the US in the past few years because I am so disappointed in the current administration and what I believe was a travesty of the electoral process in 2000. Believe me, it is possible to live elsewhere in the world and not need to follow US news (indeed, I have enough opportunities to disagree with Tony Blair’s government, and to stay informed about the major international issues without the isolationist issues of the US (before you attack, I was taught by a conservative history professor at a US university that the US was the most isolationist nation on earth prior to WWII)). But I now find myself wanting to re-engage with the diversity of informed discussion (having seen it still thrives despite what we see here) that is in the US, but is not always visible to the rest of the world. I’m reading web for a, books, watching news programs etc.
I’ve seen moderated-by-comment posting here that is the absolute opposite of one of the few other US fora I have read in the past few years; LGF, which I had never heard of, came to my attention when they started hurling sheer hate and vitriol at both the union I belong to, and personal friends of mine, over the debate about academic boycotts of Israel about two years ago (no comment on the substance here, and my view of this issue is private). I am intrigued to see one site so full of flame (LGF) that I could not bring myself to continue reading, and another site (Hatrack River, as in last year’s ID string) so incredibly adamant that “civility” seemed to matter more than the right to dissent, that again, I gave up reading when the person who seemed civil enough to me, but dared to disagree, was driven away. I’ll go back and finish reading the string at some point, but there are instances on this site that demonstrate a degree of hypocrisy : people are criticised (often in absentia and hypothetically) for only reading the sites they agree with, and the same posters complain when these people (liberals or whatever) participate in this site. It seems those who don’t always agree are harangued on trivial moot points of language such as what is civility or robust debate, ignoring the substance of the debate.
I quote from Scott’s bio on the SVU site “The hilarious thing was that I was never abusive or unkind — I merely spoke with the candor used in peer workshops of professional writers. I spoke like one serious writer talking to another — but that was unbearable to these fragile souls. They weren’t interested in learning anything, only in being stroked and encouraged and, most important, unchallenged.”
Now, if you’ll pardon the observation, the phrase “…was unbearable to these fragile souls…” is somewhat sarcastic and uncivil. As is using term “Darwinist” as a synonym for biologist and as an epithet. But I am not a fragile soul, so although I note snide connotation, I won’t usually make a point of commenting on them (the glories of the aging process: learning what battles matter). It’s cut and thrust, (and besides, sometimes these comments are true of some people). Candour must absolutely be allowed in rigorous debate. We are not here to run a nanny state, I hope, but the comments addressed to one poster last year (Francis) by a few people seemed to imply that some of the readers of this site want a nanny culture and that the definition of “civility” on that string precludes candour. I’m going to go away and read more widely on the site now to see if this is the case in general, or was the limited view of some posters only. It will be interesting to see what responses this post itself gets. Your posting rules (the only "read these rules" I ever read all of!) seem to be over interpreted by some (not Scott or Geoff, that I can see) and yet there are people who have defended both of them as though they are fragile souls and need defence. I would assume Scott’s family will read some of what goes on here. No doubt other (even new) posters like Francis at the time assumed that too. I also assume Scott and Kristine continued to successfully raise confident, intelligent children who can hold their own and see their father disagreed with (one of the things that pissed me off most in the ID string was someone mentioning to Francis “you do know you’ve been talking to a couple of Scott’s children” as though that should make people curtail what they say. I really doubt the Cards raised any fragile souls who need your protection. (Don’t know how old Zina is…I’m usually a bit less candourous (is that a word? anyway, I probably mean “blunt”) with still-forming personalities, given I have 5 nieces under the age of 14. But I expect to start cutting and thrusting with them as they get older.
I think I’d like to continue reading this site, and maybe even posting, BECAUSE I disagree with some of the political views expressed here, because I like some of Scott’s fiction, because I loved and was jealous of the “nets” available to Peter and Valentine in the early 1980s as Locke and Demosthenes. They weren’t available in such accessible form to the public then as they are now, and I still feel in some way Scott invented the blog, and his is always provocative. But in the initial string I have read here, people such as me seem not to be welcome, or rather, the rules of civility seem coloured by one’s political beliefs (“if your beliefs are acceptable, you are vigorous, if they are not, you are uncivil”). A shame, since I’m more likely to learn, adapt, modify and/or strengthen my own views by participation in such a forum. I hope I was just unlucky to catch string that was unusually intolerant.
The US seems on many fronts to be becoming more dichotomous than ever, something I find depressing.
So what are the points of this ridiculously long post? Answers sought to the following questions:
1. Where can I get a new copy of the SHRM? 2. Is the curtailment of rigorous debate on the grounds of over-civility a normal thing here, or was I unlucky in the string I first read in depth? ( I grant it was a very provocative topic) 3. To see what response I get, which will help me decide whether to continue with this site as well as those such as Pharyngula which I have more academically in common with or whether to be driven away by the constant passive aggressive sniping that is what I think “civility” is sometimes a euphemism for. It’s so English 4. Scott, have you figured out/remembered who I am?
Posts: 32 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The chances are slim that OSC will see this post. He's a fairly active participant on the other side of the river, but practically never posts here.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr_potreio_head: Seems a bit of a shame if OSC only reads what is about him.(Yes, that comment will probably get more negative feedback than everything else I have written combined...)
Not that it (lack of feedback from Scott)matters that much, it was written for the people who participate on this side, really.
Posts: 32 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Welcome back Zophar. I hope you decide to stay.
As for your second question, I think you may have been unlucky. I've argued for atheism many times here, and I haven't really been shut down by other posters. In fact, I learn quite a bit from posting here. Hopefully your experience will be similar.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Uhhh.. anyone want to translate SoaPiNuReYe's comment for me? I did read a whole string on slang prior to posting, but this has lost me. (Unless I'm being mistaken for someone else?)
quote:Seems a bit of a shame if OSC only reads what is about him.
I myself have enjoyed the times he's wandered over here and participated, but I don't think less of anybody for deciding that their time is better spent elsewhere, even those whom I miss very much.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Zophar, you might want to stop trying to predict feedback to your post and wait for some instead. It's a fairly constant theme in your long post, and you've done it again in your second post.
Such predictions are seldom accurate.
quote:Is the curtailment of rigorous debate on the grounds of over-civility a normal thing here, or was I unlucky in the string I first read in depth?
I have no idea if you caught an unlucky string or if you have a very different definition of "vigorous debate" than I do, but vigorous debate abounds here. We also catch our fair share of incivility and we often call people on it. Sometimes those called on it learn to engage in vigorous debate without being uncivil. Sometimes they don't. *shrug*
quote:the same posters complain when these people (liberals or whatever) participate in this site.
As to this, again, I don't know if you caught some skewed set of threads or if your perception is very different than mine.
quote:It seems those who don’t always agree are harangued on trivial moot points of language such as what is civility or robust debate, ignoring the substance of the debate.
I probably disagree with every single regular poster about at least one of the big, contentious issues that regularly gets dealt with here. I am one of the most vocal posters on two issues that personally touch or have touched several people here on which I align in a non-typical fashion. I've managed to only alienate a few that I know of, and I'm not known for a lack of candor.
It seems to me that you might favor candor about everything but civility.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Zophar, I think the Westside thing is reffering to the post that said other side. This must be the westside if the other side (the discussions about osc forum) is the good one. Maybe my gang jargon is very specific to my location though and he's really really weird.
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to say that part of why i've been so impressed with Hatrack is its ability to host a slew of dissenting opinions on just about every topic under the sun and still maintain a good core of civility. It should clearly be understood that trying to enforce civility does not mean squelching opinions.
There are some threads where certain posters will seem squelched, but generally this is the result of those posters consistantly ignoring reason and/or being deliberately beliggerant. That being said, those occasions are fairly few and far between, and often even those who probably don't deserve the board's respect get it.
As to the thread you mentioned, correct me if I'm wrong but I believe you are referring to the one in which it was suggested that michiel might be a plant. You shouldn't take this as a sign that hatrack is resistant to new members so much as the initial post in that thread smacked very heavily of paid advertisement rather than genuine debate. Personally I've recieved nothing but warm welcome to the discussions here. The only resistance I've found was that when first starting often my posts would get lost in favor of people wanting to respond to the veterans. This I think though was just a product of normal discussion trends combined with the likelyhood that I'd be rehashing some argument which had long ago been addressed in another thread.
My advise as a fairly new member is just to try to avoid negative expectations like you seem to be espousing right now and just jump right into the discussions you're interested in. Be as respectful as you can, but don't be afraid to voice your thoughts either.
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm pretty bloody liberal (certainly more so than what passes for "liberal" in America), and though I will rarely find myself in agreement with people here, I rarely ever find myself in a fight so personal that it extends beyond the subject matter. The only times I've ever felt dogpiled for a viewpoint is when my viewpoint is one that I either expected to be dogpiled for, or have come to terms with being dogpiled for because the view is apparently more outlandish than I once thought.
I agree with Dag; I'm not sure what threads you're reading, but they must be a pretty bizarre set if this is the opinion you've formed.
Either way, though, welcome to Hatrack.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
is what I'm wondering? What were these mysterious strings that you don't want to identify which gave you this impression of hatrack as being a place that drives out liberals? I'd be curious to read these strings.
And your impression, if I have it right, is mistaken. Stick around, I think we'd like to have your participation, maybe.
Unless you're a liberal.
(Is this guy a liberal?)
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You present me with a quandary Zophar. I make it a point to always go into the introduction threads, and rarely, if ever go into heavy threads. Your thread is both. So, let me just say ...
posted
I almost never read long posts, especially introduction posts, because they tend to be scattered and wear my limited patience.
I read every word of this one. Take that as you will, and welcome. (Though it is a bit odd for me to welcome you, having been in self-imposed exile for some time.)
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have found people here to be tolerant of almost any view as long as it is respectfully expressed, and pretty intolerant of almost any view which is rudely expressed.
quote: As to the thread you mentioned, correct me if I'm wrong but I believe you are referring to the one in which it was suggested that michiel might be a plant. You shouldn't take this as a sign that hatrack is resistant to new members so much as the initial post in that thread smacked very heavily of paid advertisement rather than genuine debate.
Oops, my fault for mentioning two different posts without properly identifying either one. While I've been figuring out the UBB Code things, and writing this a few more comments have come in, so I'm responding to them in this one reply.
The string I was primarily refering to for my unease regarding civility and the varying ways people define this for themselves is last year's P.Z. Myers on OSC and ID My concerns were prompted primarily by some of Dagonee's posts to Francis D (who left the site after this as far as I can tell, which is a shame as I thought his posts were intersting and rigourous, and not all that rude to my mind and so it looked to me like he was squelched with side arguments.) Yes, the string in question is a particularly lively one, so not the best one to seek people talking moderately, perhaps, but it was the one that brought me into reading more because it is an interest of mine.
Michiel's post Making History on the other hand shows the other side of (slight) misunderstandings or disagreements, and was a very postive example of open conversation, and that was what decided me that I would give it a go and see which is a more frequent tone here. So I have a sample size of two (most of the other posts I've read so far don't end up in this meta-conversation, but are about the thing they are about, if that makes sense). I want to talk about things I want to talk about, not have to explain what I don't mean (like now) which does tend to happen with me. Because of Asperger's, presumably, my communication style seems to provoke these sorts of responses, especially when interacting on "quick-to-flame-or-misinterpret sites". So the post is partly about finding out whether I can make myself understood here.
Not doing very well so far; it figures that I've already prompted feedback from Dagonee that in my knee-jerk paranoia,I personally find unwelcoming and by my definition of civility, uncivil:
quote: Zophar, you might want to stop trying to predict feedback to your post and wait for some instead. It's a fairly constant theme in your long post, and you've done it again in your second post.
Such predictions are seldom accurate. From Dagonee
Recieving this reply so early on makes me think predictions I didn't really want to make explicit, even in my own head are in this case accurate, (ironically so, given the writer) so right now it doesn't feel an open minded environment. Ditto telling me what I think of candour. Yes, it's candour on your part, and it would be hypocritical of me to object too strenously, but it is isn't very rigourous candour. Rigourous, to me doesn't mean only robust or forthright, it also means based on a body of evidence, which you haven't got from my one post, however long To be fair, Dagonee wasn't to know it was him/her I was most concerned about, since even I knew not to put that in the first post, so I am of course over-reacting to what I was most afraid of. Is there an emoticon for irony?
Dr. Strangelove: cheers...good reply Euripides, thanks for making me feel welcome, I've enjoyed some of your posts in the past. TL: whether I'm a liberal, or indeed even a guy, will come out in time.
I think I have indeed caught one skewed thread in the past. As Dagonee says, *shrug* I'll keep reading.
Posts: 32 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Candour must absolutely be allowed in rigorous debate.
I agree, although it's been my experience that candor without respect can poison a debate very quickly.
A better question is this: is the purpose of this site to promote rigorous debate?
Based on my years here, the User's Agreement, and my conversations with the hosts and the moderator(s), I would have to answer that question with a resounding "no." I'm of the opinion that any ten Hatrackers, if asked, would be able to give you fifteen "purposes" for this site, but am also fairly sure that none of them would be "rigorous debate," at least for any reasonable definition of "rigorous."
Heck, Scott's "Ornery American" is specifically designed to draw that crowd, and indeed you'll find a considerably more fractious and candid audience there. (That said, OA walks a fine line, itself, and I can think of at least three "splinter forums" it's birthed due to dissatisfaction with its host, its moderation, and/or its stated goals.)
If you only want to engage in debate, particularly if you want to engage in debate that you believe will somehow shape the future of the world, this is not the place for you. There have been zealots in the past, and in general they've either learned to tone things down or moved on, dissatisfied with the general public's unwillingness to engage them at the level they desired.
And by "level," I mean the level of fractiousness. Hatrack's perfectly capable of being impenetrably intellectual at you, if that's what you want, and I've seen some fairly high-order arguments here. But if you want angry arguments, our hosts have asked us to take those elsewhere.
------
I'll be more candid: I detect in your early posts some basic rhetorical tricks that I consider very typical of people looking to "win" a conversation. Your response to Dag's initial observation, in which you again refused to actually tip your hand but instead asserted that his behavior simply "confirmed" your own unshared prejudices (in a manner designed to indicate that they were not actually prejudices, of course), is the most obvious; your coyness about your sex and your politics also suggests not so much reticence as deliberate defensive "play."
I pick up on that sort of thing very quickly. Almost everyone on Hatrack eventually picks up on this. And it will be harder for you to fit in here if you continue to "play" with the people on this forum instead of just chatting with us as peers and potential friends.
posted
Zophar, I can't make your first link work, and I'm not able to find the thread via the search engine. Could you just post the web address (no fancy UBB required)?
Thanks.
---
Edited to add: Ahhh, here it is. I think you had an extra comma at the end.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Zophar, I'm about as liberal as Hatrack gets (I think) and as pro-science as Hatrack gets, too. At least in the extreme 1% for each.
But in reading this thread you linked, I'm finding Francis D to be [quite uncivil].
[examples and my responses snipped]
----
Zophar, I don't mean this unkindly, and I don't say this to make you defensive, but are you and Francis D the same person? I ask because if you are, then I want to temper my assessment of Francis D, both out of courtesy and because -- if he has Asperger's -- it helps make better sense of the interaction.
You share a frequent use of parentheticals and some other linguistic traits, and you wouldn't be the first person that has come back under an alternate name. No biggie, but again, it would factor into what I say next.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: 'll be more candid: I detect in your early posts some basic rhetorical tricks that I consider very typical of people looking to "win" a conversation. Your response to Dag's initial observation, in which you again refused to actually tip your hand but instead asserted that his behavior simply "confirmed" your own unshared prejudices (in a manner designed to indicate that they were not actually prejudices, of course), is the most obvious; your coyness about your sex and your politics also suggests not so much reticence as deliberate defensive "play."
Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disgree then ( no winners no losers) about what was there since I don't see how you see in that post. The sex/politics was a light-hearted reply to someone else. As I had assumed was clear, I'm a liberal. I had also assumed that by commenting on the fact that some one assumes I'm a guy, I thought it was clear I'm not.It wasn't reticence, it was meant as humour. I'm good at irony, but terrible at basic humour. I actually have quite a lot in common with some of Dagonee's opinions. My "predjudice" is linguistic: we don't use words the same way. And rigourous means to me something like "having done your research". That's what it means in academia. Nothing to do with anger.
For the sake of other open info: I'm 44. I was raised in the US of non American parents. I've lived in the UK for 15 years. I've had one long term relationship with another woman (got dumped last year after 8 years). Previous (not quite so long) relationships were with men. I have no kids. I have a BSc in Biology and an MSc in Biochemistry, both from American universities. I read science fiction, esp biological science fiction, science fact, drama and general fiction . I go to the theatre as often as I can, but I'm not a fan of muscial comedy. I'm on the atheist side of agnostic but was raised in a Catholic household. I ski, rock climb, set design and make furniture. I'm short and fat. I have at one time or another voted for every major political party in the US and the UK (and many minor ones) except not (yet) the tories. I always vote. I am a firm believer in unions and run the local branch of the one I am in. I am flattered to be told I have demonstrated retorical tricks, because all my union friends here would say that my lack of such is a major problem in the union/politcal arena. I have a high IQ and have never been wildly good at one thing and so am seen as a failure more than as a success. I want to participate in forums with other intelligent people who have similar areas of interest, even if their views/opinions/beliefs on those areas of interest are diametrically opposed to mine. I have read all of Scott's books except the Gensis women ones. I recently read and loved Anita Diamant's The Red Tent, about Dinah, so will now go looking for the Genisis books. But I guess I'll find go find somewhere else to find people to talk to. Shame, but certainly not the end of the world.
quote: Zophar, I don't mean this unkindly, and I don't say this to make you defensive, but are you and Francis D the same person? I ask because if you are, then I want to temper my assessment of Francis D, both out of courtesy and because -- if he has Asperger's -- it helps make better sense of the interaction.
You share a frequent use of parentheticals and some other linguistic traits, and you wouldn't be the first person that has come back under an alternate name. No biggie, but again, it would factor into what I say next.
I am not Francis D. I've no idea who he really is. I have always used too many paretheses...funny hadn't seen the similarities. I don't think we was wildly uncivil because I don't see the nuances of polite behaviour that others do. the Asperger's I assume. It is a bit of a handicap in the UK, I can tell you, but at least the rules here are easier to learn, and more consistent so I can fake fitting in better here. I'm off now, permanently I think it's safe to say follwoing Tom's post, but I'll come back to these comments and see how I can fit them into the behaviour that I still have to learn. Zophar, by the way, for those who don't know, is one of the comforters of Job. I think I'll go find my real one (a very affectionate cat) now. It's been interesting.
Posts: 32 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I have found people here to be tolerant of almost any view as long as it is respectfully expressed, and pretty intolerant of almost any view which is rudely expressed.
posted
I'd hate to see you go, but of course, you must do what you are most comfortable doing. I, too, will be spending quality time with my cat tonight.
There are at least one or two other posters with Asperger's here, by the way, and there is sndrake, who has always felt at home (according to him) with his Aspie friends on related fora. If you change you mind and stay or come back, I hope you find a niche that feels like home to you here, too.
----
Francis D started off his very first post with
quote:Congratulations, Mr. Card. You have just downgraded yourself from "Tool" to "Useful Idiot".
This quite took me aback, as it seems as uncivil and deliberately provocative as just about anything I've ever seen on Hatrack (barring explicit censored-word namecalling). (As you see, I too love the parenthetical. ) His second post starts with
quote:When Card actually takes the time to look at both sides of the argument fairly, and does that before wading in then I will engage him respectfully, as an equal. Unfortunately he did not do this and therefore gains reproof, as from an adult to a child.
Again, this strikes me as over-the-top. It might be that you and I are working with different notions of civility. I think it might make an interesting discussion to talk about why each of us does or does not react strongly in a negative way to those posts.
For me, I find condecension to be more inflammatory than just about any other quality, and there are certain elements of that opening sentence that underscore the condecension. "Congratulations" is an initial lead-in that sets someone up for receiving praise, but then it is followed with a comment that the person has "downgraded" (and this is generally a term we use for objects, not people -- i.e., a program or an item gets downgraded) himself (as if a child wetting his pants, this is something Card "did to himself" like a thing or object) from one bad characterization ("Tool" -- again, an object term, at least historically) to another ("Useful Idiot" -- the "idiot" is, obviously, an insult, but the "useful" again is a primarily an object term).
So in the very first foray, this person has IMO made it virtually impossible for the addressed person to respond in a way that isn't either obsequious or rage-filled. It just really comes across as a complete challenge, like a slap in the face. And then things continue to deteriorate. [For example, in the beginning of the second post, Francis D explicitly states that he will continue to speak to OSC "as from an adult to a child." Although there is a condition stated on which this intent rests, even the giving of the condititon underscores the stance of superiority -- as it reiterates that Francis D is the one in a position to be pleased or placated.]
I didn't see where Dagonee responded at at the same level, although I can see where Dagonee's responses would be seen as challenging.
I think that people focused on the (what may seem to you nit-picking) details of Francis D's posts in some large part because he began his interaction on the thread from such an expressed stance of superiority. I think people recognized (or at least believed) that he was not interested in discussion but in setting up and maintaining a stance of superiority.
Does this make some sense, even if you don't agree? (Or if you don't want to respond, we can just leave it at that.)
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Zophar, it's a shame to see you go, particularly after that last post. Do what works for you, of course, but I hope we haven't seen the last of you.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I have found people here to be tolerant of almost any view as long as it is respectfully expressed, and pretty intolerant of almost any view which is rudely expressed.
quote:And rigourous means to me something like "having done your research". That's what it means in academia.
Yes, I know. This is still not a place for people solely interested in rigorous debate. Experience has shown that it will greatly frustrate all but the most determined of them.
This doesn't mean that you shouldn't stick around, but it does mean that you shouldn't stick around with the expectation that everyone here is going to engage you in rigorous, candid debate.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Someone thinks that LIBERALS are pushed away at Hatrack?
In any given debate I have ever seen on Hatrack where liberal or convervative was relevent, I'd have to say Liberals outnumbered Convservatives by a very healthy margin. Only a couple Conservatives even come to mind on the forum that ever actively participate in political debate, and some of the time they're ill represented by trolls who I think turn them off to the idea of participating at all.
Anyway, I'm as liberal as they come, and I've NEVER felt repressed on this forum just for my political views.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Recieving this reply so early on makes me think predictions I didn't really want to make explicit, even in my own head are in this case accurate, (ironically so, given the writer) so right now it doesn't feel an open minded environment. Ditto telling me what I think of candour. Yes, it's candour on your part, and it would be hypocritical of me to object too strenously, but it is isn't very rigourous candour. Rigourous, to me doesn't mean only robust or forthright, it also means based on a body of evidence, which you haven't got from my one post, however long
Hence the use of "It seems to me" before the sentence involving candor.
You have ventured quite a few similar observations about (it seems, although you still haven't made it clear) me that are supported by far less evidence than my observation, carefully couched as my perception only, about your treatment of candor regarding civility.
What I fail utterly to understand is how my saying what I said makes Hatrack not "feel [like] an open minded environment."
quote:My concerns were prompted primarily by some of Dagonee's posts to Francis D (who left the site after this as far as I can tell, which is a shame as I thought his posts were intersting and rigourous, and not all that rude to my mind and so it looked to me like he was squelched with side arguments.)
Then you need to look again. He was "squelched" (does this make him one of your poor fragile souls) by someone calling him on his incivility. There have been far more rigorous and interesting posts attacking ID made here that don't involve rude name calling.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Zophar, Welcome. I read your long post at the top of this thread, and I have to say I'm not sure why you're already on the defensive. It seems as though you've come in here expecting to be tricked, shouted down, and mistreated. Which just isn't fair.
I remember Francis D, and I have to say that to call him merely rude would be to woefully understate things.
I hope, if you decide to stay, that you give this community an honest chance.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I have found people here to be tolerant of almost any view as long as it is respectfully expressed, and pretty intolerant of almost any view which is rudely expressed.
I would say the tolerance for rudeness is dependent on the view being expressed. That is, people expressing a popular view, or it being expressed by a popular person, are granted much more slack in the rudeness department.
That is, I have seen viewpoints civilly expressed reacted to with snarkiness and incivility, the points of the person's argument that fits the criteria above referred to in pejorative terms that, were those same terms applied to a 'popular', or a popular person's argument, would be seen immediately as rude.
I don't want to say that this is a bad forum. I think this forum is one of the few forums where many of the various disparate groups in America mix on a somewhat succesful level, but I have recently come to the conclusion that there is no real exchange of ideas for most people here and on Ornery on a level where they change how they view things, or genuinely take into account what the other person is saying.
The implications of this in terms of my own personal ideals are something that I have been struggling with and trying to come to terms with over the last few weeks. I have come to see debates as almost practically meaningless on a social level.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I have come to see debates as almost practically meaningless on a social level.
I think debate serves a purpose, but I think minds change more slowly. Rarely is someone swayed by debate nowadays.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't necessarily want to sway people. Edit: I'm really just hoping that people would get to know each other, edit: and not see each other as a threat. Modify the way they speak about things such that they respect the other person. My ideal society has always been a public square where all are welcome, the sacred and the profane.
posted
I think that the purpose of debate is to make people think, not to change their minds. Very few debates are going to end with, "You know, you were right all along." If for no other reason than the loss of face in a situation like that is astounding. But what you say in a debate will stick with someone, and there is a possibility that a few years down the line, your debate will have influenced their thought.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Storm, you don't think that Hatrack is a place where people get to know each other? That's one of the strongest element of the site, in my estimation. I feel like I've come to know a good many people as a result of participation here, with a number of them being people I now count as friends.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by blacwolve: I think that the purpose of debate is to make people think, not to change their minds. Very few debates are going to end with, "You know, you were right all along." If for no other reason than the loss of face in a situation like that is astounding.
True words.
quote:But what you say in a debate will stick with someone, and there is a possibility that a few years down the line, your debate will have influenced their thought.
This is my sense of what is more likely to be happening, as well. Unfortunately, you can't measure or track that phenomenon, so I'm working with guesses. But it has certainly been true for me, for what that is worth.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think except in extremely rare cases, the only way that something from a debate will stick with somebody long enough for it to have any affect is if that conversation was civil and respectful, without condescension or name-calling.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I tend to view online debates as at least as much about the audience reading the debate as about the people debating. The person you are debating is unlikely to change his mind, but the people reading it are sometimes a different story.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Storm, you don't think that Hatrack is a place where people get to know each other? That's one of the strongest element of the site, in my estimation. I feel like I've come to know a good many people as a result of participation here, with a number of them being people I now count as friends.
It's not that people can't get to 'know' each other on Hatrack, it's that I think most people don't really ever learn the ability to see from the other person's point of view. I think that both on OA and Hatrack, people listen to the 'other side' only to think up arguments against the other side.
There are any number of examples I could give on this that, of course, would reflect my personal bias, but generally the problem comes down to arguing not against what the other side actually is doing, or is saying, but against what their argument means to you within the framework of your own ideals. It comes to not being able to see the world through the eyes of another person.
Now, does being able to see another person's point of view mean that we will change our mind? Of course not. However, I would argue that critical thinking depends as much on imagination, and being able to put yourself in someone else's shoes, as it does on being able to refute someone. In fact, I would argue that simply spending your time refuting someone isn't really critical thinking at all.
Thus, if critical thinking is valued as a means to find truth; if being able to see things truly so that we can live genuinely is valued, then on an individual level, we should cultivate the ability to make that leap into another person's head.
On a social level, I firmly believe that being able to make this mental leap would result in a much healthier society which, not coincidentally, would hue much closer to my ideal society. Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
