On the recurrence of discussions

[Triple Zero]

Good luck with that.

That was directed just as much at you as it was at <<someone that probably had an extremely good reason to change their screenname to "TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS" >>



anyway, I have previously prepared a chart applying to recurrent as well as recursive discussions and explains EVERYTHING:

[chimes]

When people do things to lose your respect, it's absurd to think we should feign it or end a discussion because some bad words might hurt their fee-fees.

I said communication, and like you said,

Communication ≠ "being nice".

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Can we not bring that thread's shit over here?

I think it is quite possible to change each other's minds on PD. It's happened before. We just happen to have very strongly-opinioned people, so it's going to be a bit tougher than it might be elsewhere. Doesn't mean we should give up the discussions.

Although I do get sick of the name-calling and shit-flinging ... Can't we quit the "You do not agree with me so you are lesser" vibe? It's cool where it's in good humor, but when it gets in the way of communication...

You seem to be saying that I, and others, should not speak up about things we think are wrong and hurt people?

Fuck off.

If I think someone is a bad person who is perpetuating a great wrong, I'm going to say so. Yes, I do think that supporting certain ideologies makes people lesser. I don't feel the need to play the "everybody wins, let's all just feel good about ourselves" game. You want to strip people of their 4th amendment rights, throw them in jail, and ruin their lives and futures over something that hurts no one? You're a shitty person, and I am going to say so. Just like I would say so if it was a racist or a homophobe. Shitty people who support doing harm to others because they don't follow their ideology are shitty people, and shutting up about it is tacit approval.

[Tiddleywomp Cockletit]

Good luck with that.

That was directed just as much at you as it was at <<someone that probably had an extremely good reason to change their screenname to "TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS" >>

I did. And thanks.
I needed a new SN and this looked inspiring. 

Can we not bring that thread's shit over here?

I think it is quite possible to change each other's minds on PD. It's happened before. We just happen to have very strongly-opinioned people, so it's going to be a bit tougher than it might be elsewhere. Doesn't mean we should give up the discussions.

Although I do get sick of the name-calling and shit-flinging ... Can't we quit the "You do not agree with me so you are lesser" vibe? It's cool where it's in good humor, but when it gets in the way of communication...

You seem to be saying that I, and others, should not speak up about things we think are wrong and hurt people?

Fuck off.

If I think someone is a bad person who is perpetuating a great wrong, I'm going to say so. Yes, I do think that supporting certain ideologies makes people lesser. I don't feel the need to play the "everybody wins, let's all just feel good about ourselves" game. You want to strip people of their 4th amendment rights, throw them in jail, and ruin their lives and futures over something that hurts no one? You're a shitty person, and I am going to say so. Just like I would say so if it was a racist or a homophobe. Shitty people who support doing harm to others because they don't follow their ideology are shitty people, and shutting up about it is tacit approval.

THIS.

[The Johnny]

So give me CONTEXT, give me REVIEW and give me BACKGROUND

or SHUT UP

I'm not your PD.com historian monkey.

Find the threads yourself and read them yourself, if you really want to know.

You are missing the point.

I dont want to read or know about any drug threads.

[N E T]

So give me CONTEXT, give me REVIEW and give me BACKGROUND

or SHUT UP

I'm not your PD.com historian monkey.

Find the threads yourself and read them yourself, if you really want to know.

You are missing the point.

I dont want to read or know about any drug threads.

This thread was just a sociological experiment, eh?

[N E T]

anyway, I have previously prepared a chart applying to recurrent as well as recursive discussions and explains EVERYTHING:

[The Johnny]

So give me CONTEXT, give me REVIEW and give me BACKGROUND

or SHUT UP

I'm not your PD.com historian monkey.

Find the threads yourself and read them yourself, if you really want to know.

You are missing the point.

I dont want to read or know about any drug threads.

This thread was just a sociological experiment, eh?

Look, if you want drama, go to the drug thread.

[BabylonHoruv]

I think one thing that we run into as far as both drugs and Anarchy are concerned is that people on both sides tend to completely ignore what the people on the other side have to say, at least as far as the person on the other side can tell.

Sometimes this is because the person on the other side is saying something that has already been said, and thoroughly rebuked, in which case linking to the old thread where that happened is a far better response than the usual response (basically, fuck you you brainwashed moron) Other times things get ignored because the people on opposing sides have taken a personal dislike to one another and can't really pay attention to anything the other says because it is colored by "this person is a brainwashed moron and has nothing useful to say"  That last is, IMO, where most of the real screeching comes in because people end up reiterating points that have legitimately not been answered at one another while ignoring one another's points because there is no longer any respect for the people on the other side of the issue. 

being nice isn't required for communication, nor is it required that people like one another, but a certain amount of respect is vital or the whole conversation just becomes a shouting match.

[N E T]

So give me CONTEXT, give me REVIEW and give me BACKGROUND

or SHUT UP

I'm not your PD.com historian monkey.

Find the threads yourself and read them yourself, if you really want to know.

You are missing the point.

I dont want to read or know about any drug threads.

This thread was just a sociological experiment, eh?

Look, if you want drama, go to the drug thread.

I wasn't referring to drug threads, I was referring to your petulant demand that other people do your research for you.

[The Johnny]

So give me CONTEXT, give me REVIEW and give me BACKGROUND

or SHUT UP

I'm not your PD.com historian monkey.

Find the threads yourself and read them yourself, if you really want to know.

You are missing the point.

I dont want to read or know about any drug threads.

This thread was just a sociological experiment, eh?

Look, if you want drama, go to the drug thread.

I wasn't referring to drug threads, I was referring to your petulant demand that other people do your research for you.

You are ignoring the main point of the OP, which is that to avoid arguing in circles, one should see the background of the discussion, and focusing on taking that single phrase out of context.

Do you see me engaging in the stupid drug threads? No.

The research isnt for me, its for those that wish to seriously partake in an argument in those kinds of threads.

This isnt me being lazy and expecting others to do the research for me, do you get it? I HAVENT EVEN BEEN INVOLVED IN THE DISCUSSION OF THAT THREAD SINCE IT DRIFTED TO DRUGS! I dont care about it!

[The Johnny]

I think one thing that we run into as far as both drugs and Anarchy are concerned is that people on both sides tend to completely ignore what the people on the other side have to say, at least as far as the person on the other side can tell.

Sometimes this is because the person on the other side is saying something that has already been said, and thoroughly rebuked, in which case linking to the old thread where that happened is a far better response than the usual response (basically, fuck you you brainwashed moron) Other times things get ignored because the people on opposing sides have taken a personal dislike to one another and can't really pay attention to anything the other says because it is colored by "this person is a brainwashed moron and has nothing useful to say"  That last is, IMO, where most of the real screeching comes in because people end up reiterating points that have legitimately not been answered at one another while ignoring one another's points because there is no longer any respect for the people on the other side of the issue. 

being nice isn't required for communication, nor is it required that people like one another, but a certain amount of respect is vital or the whole conversation just becomes a shouting match.

Id say its like guerrilla style debating or "bait and switch", sometimes when one side feels that one of their points is weak and is undefendable for lack of evidence or whatever, they focus on a different aspect related to the issue, so the debate/discussion then has multiple fronts to be engaged and then it becomes a non-linear discussion of "argument and refutal".

I can understand that people can get infuriated by the perceived or real blindness by the opposing side to see their point, and they are entitled to express it, although in terms of a discussion in the internet, its as close as it comes to saying "we agree to disagree" which justs ends the discussion in a whirlpool of "ad hominem".

[N E T]

So give me CONTEXT, give me REVIEW and give me BACKGROUND

or SHUT UP

I'm not your PD.com historian monkey.

Find the threads yourself and read them yourself, if you really want to know.

You are missing the point.

I dont want to read or know about any drug threads.

This thread was just a sociological experiment, eh?

Look, if you want drama, go to the drug thread.

I wasn't referring to drug threads, I was referring to your petulant demand that other people do your research for you.

You are ignoring the main point of the OP, which is that to avoid arguing in circles, one should see the background of the discussion, and focusing on taking that single phrase out of context.

Do you see me engaging in the stupid drug threads? No.

The research isnt for me, its for those that wish to seriously partake in an argument in those kinds of threads.

This isnt me being lazy and expecting others to do the research for me, do you get it? I HAVENT EVEN BEEN INVOLVED IN THE DISCUSSION OF THAT THREAD SINCE IT DRIFTED TO DRUGS! I dont care about it!

I misinterpreted those last lines, in your OP, my apologies.

[chimes]

Can we not bring that thread's shit over here?

I think it is quite possible to change each other's minds on PD. It's happened before. We just happen to have very strongly-opinioned people, so it's going to be a bit tougher than it might be elsewhere. Doesn't mean we should give up the discussions.

Although I do get sick of the name-calling and shit-flinging ... Can't we quit the "You do not agree with me so you are lesser" vibe? It's cool where it's in good humor, but when it gets in the way of communication...

You seem to be saying that I, and others, should not speak up about things we think are wrong and hurt people?

Nope, never said that.

If I think someone is a bad person who is perpetuating a great wrong, I'm going to say so. Yes, I do think that supporting certain ideologies makes people lesser.

Often, thinking someone is lesser means one doesn't even consider their points, and just goes HAHA AS IF I WOULD SPEND THE EFFORT TO LISTEN TO YOU WHEN YOURE CLEARLY AN EVIL IDIOT. It doesn't always mean that, but when it does, that's what I'm talking about.

No, I'm not condoning being silent about your judgments of someone.

If you actually want to communicate back and forth and hear each other's ideas, the ignoring and shit-flinging isn't practical.

If you don't give a fuck about having an actual communicative discussion, then go right ahead.

[N E T]

Can we not bring that thread's shit over here?

I think it is quite possible to change each other's minds on PD. It's happened before. We just happen to have very strongly-opinioned people, so it's going to be a bit tougher than it might be elsewhere. Doesn't mean we should give up the discussions.

Although I do get sick of the name-calling and shit-flinging ... Can't we quit the "You do not agree with me so you are lesser" vibe? It's cool where it's in good humor, but when it gets in the way of communication...

You seem to be saying that I, and others, should not speak up about things we think are wrong and hurt people?

Nope, never said that.

If I think someone is a bad person who is perpetuating a great wrong, I'm going to say so. Yes, I do think that supporting certain ideologies makes people lesser.

Often, thinking someone is lesser means one doesn't even consider their points, and just goes HAHA AS IF I WOULD SPEND THE EFFORT TO LISTEN TO YOU WHEN YOURE CLEARLY AN EVIL IDIOT. It doesn't always mean that, but when it does, that's what I'm talking about.

No, I'm not condoning being silent about your judgments of someone.

If you actually want to communicate back and forth and hear each other's ideas, the ignoring and shit-flinging isn't practical.

If you don't give a fuck about having an actual communicative discussion, then go right ahead.

How many years of treating someone as an equal in your communication before you think it's fair to come to the judgement that they are intelligent but indulging in willful ignorance and therefore not deserving of the respect you have been affording them?