What are your criteria for a constructive discussion thread?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Nigel, I wrote something back in 2009 or so about "crush depth".  I think we're both there.

[Juana]

Can I ask you to explain that?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Can I ask you to explain that?

Submarines are all rated for a crush depth.  It's the maximum stress based on depth (with some influence of speed, and water temperature) that can be withstood before the submarine suddenly folds up like an accordian (this has been described by wartime hydrophone operators as a thousand safes all slamming shut at the same time).  This can also be aggravated by damage to the submarine.

People have that, too.

You're just cruising right along, and BAM...You go flat as a pancake.

[Juana]

OIC. Thanks.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Nigel, I wrote something back in 2009 or so about "crush depth".  I think we're both there.

Yeah, I think you're right. And I think that in my case it's not just the board, it's a lot of factors all over the place. It's not good when I'm driving around feeling like crying all the  time for NO REASON AT ALL.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

Nigel, I wrote something back in 2009 or so about "crush depth".  I think we're both there.

Yeah, I think you're right. And I think that in my case it's not just the board, it's a lot of factors all over the place. It's not good when I'm driving around feeling like crying all the  time for NO REASON AT ALL.

Ouch. There's always reasons. Overload, I'm guessing.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Nigel, I wrote something back in 2009 or so about "crush depth".  I think we're both there.

Yeah, I think you're right. And I think that in my case it's not just the board, it's a lot of factors all over the place. It's not good when I'm driving around feeling like crying all the  time for NO REASON AT ALL.

Ouch. There's always reasons. Overload, I'm guessing.

Yeah, it's probably that. It's difficult... I'm having a hard time negotiating it.

[Salty]

RE OP: It really depends. For the most part I get the most out of FACT-based discussions that prevent me from making glib, offhand comments for fear of looking like an idiot or some kind of uninformed asshole. Which I've done here. And even that provides much needed perspective.

I look for something that unsettles my brain and makes me re-think things I've thought for a long time. I like it when discussions to the same to others as well.

That's about it. It can take many forms, it can be a long, drawn out, painful process. Or not.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

   
• View a conceded point as a complete victory.  Moon walk on the smoking remains.
• Keep bringing up the same point(s) over and over again, no matter how peripherally involved it is to the subject.
• Anyone who disagrees with you should be emotionally bastinadoed or told they're not capable of understanding.

These are relevant to criteria that are only destructive to discussion. If you're going to go there, can you at least posit constructive alternatives and/or the most useful ways you think the issues you brought up can be addressed?

More stuff like

knucklefucking shitato

One in which people's feelings/experiences are heard and not dismissed as being incorrect.

Word. Invalidating people's feelings and experiences is a troll older than the internets.

Creative insults that weren't coined in the 90s.

I think it's the logical conclusion of taking gender-based insults out of one's vocabulary.

To offer an opinion without being snarled at.  To not be considered the "safe target" for said fucking snarling, when other people are being openly disagreeable without facing said snarling.  TO NOT BE TAKEN FOR FUCKING GRANTED.  To not be considered somewhere between a flatworm and a trilobite for not agreeing 169%. To not be treated like a Goddamn dog that's messed on the carpet.

That would be a good fucking start.

When these things happen, as they are bound to, how might people deal with them without trashing the thread?

One where I learn something new. The rest of it, who's right, who's wrong, who spins the most convincing line of bullshit? That shit can go to fuck as far as I'm concerned. I'm selfish that way

For me, sorting out who's right, who's wrong, and what's bullshit is part of how I learn new things.

When a point has been conceded, let it go. Don't bring it up over and over and over again to the person who surrendered it. It's repetitive and only fucks up discussion to the n^th degree.

Don't treat it like a competition (this is sometimes a bad habit of mine; please call me out if it looks like I'm doing it).

Arguments sometimes turn heated. Keep the heat in-thread instead of starting a forum-burning wild fire.

Don't make assumptions. Don't put words in other people's mouths. If you have a problem with an implication, quote it and break it down.

Try not to read the worst into something someone says, unless it's a direct personal attack. The vast majority of human communication is body language and we don't have that here.

I tend to agree, but in terms of bringing things up repeatedly I have to agree with Nigel. If things are not addressed sufficiently or repeatedly ignored they will continue to be brought up, if not in that thread than elsewhere. When it starts to get repetitive, I think it's time to roll out the "paraphrase the other person's point of view, THEN respond" technique.

People have to make assumptions about a vast amount of information to interpret any given post. It's literally not possible to avoid assuming anything. I think there are even assumptions that people even facilitate discussion, for example:

• people's experiences are valid
• people are more interested in understanding than insulting one another, unless their behavior leaves no doubt
• the meaning of your message lies in the way people interpret it, not in how you intend it (the intention of your message is distinct from the meaning)

I'd prefer that if people bring things up that they seek to avoid that they offer suggestions about specific ways to avoid it or address it when it comes up.

I spent a third of my life as a competitive debater and being able to hone in on a breakpoint in an argument is a useful skill. If I'm not paying attention, I tend to revert to that. :s

I appreciate that about you Garbo! You seem to think that's a bad thing? As long it stays in the realm of ideas and behaviors rather than personal attacks, I don't see the problem.

It's not good when I'm driving around feeling like crying all the  time for NO REASON AT ALL.

To echo Stella, I think this may be a side-effect of being an amazing superwoman. If you ever need a hot meal brought to you and/or a hug, please text me.

RE OP: It really depends. For the most part I get the most out of FACT-based discussions that prevent me from making glib, offhand comments for fear of looking like an idiot or some kind of uninformed asshole. Which I've done here. And even that provides much needed perspective.

I look for something that unsettles my brain and makes me re-think things I've thought for a long time. I like it when discussions to the same to others as well.

That's about it. It can take many forms, it can be a long, drawn out, painful process. Or not.

Could you suss out more specific criteria that is conducive to you rethinking things (besides discussions that revolve around facts, which I appreciate you mentioning)?

[Juana]

When a point has been conceded, let it go. Don't bring it up over and over and over again to the person who surrendered it. It's repetitive and only fucks up discussion to the n^th degree.

Don't treat it like a competition (this is sometimes a bad habit of mine; please call me out if it looks like I'm doing it).

Arguments sometimes turn heated. Keep the heat in-thread instead of starting a forum-burning wild fire.

Don't make assumptions. Don't put words in other people's mouths. If you have a problem with an implication, quote it and break it down.

Try not to read the worst into something someone says, unless it's a direct personal attack. The vast majority of human communication is body language and we don't have that here.

I tend to agree, but in terms of bringing things up repeatedly I have to agree with Nigel. If things are not addressed sufficiently or repeatedly ignored they will continue to be brought up, if not in that thread than elsewhere. When it starts to get repetitive, I think it's time to roll out the "paraphrase the other person's point of view, THEN respond" technique.

People have to make assumptions about a vast amount of information to interpret any given post. It's literally not possible to avoid assuming anything. I think there are even assumptions that people even facilitate discussion, for example:

• people's experiences are valid
• people are more interested in understanding than insulting one another, unless their behavior leaves no doubt
• the meaning of your message lies in the way people interpret it, not in how you intend it (the intention of your message is distinct from the meaning)

I'd prefer that if people bring things up that they seek to avoid that they offer suggestions about specific ways to avoid it or address it when it comes up.

I spent a third of my life as a competitive debater and being able to hone in on a breakpoint in an argument is a useful skill. If I'm not paying attention, I tend to revert to that. :s

I appreciate that about you Garbo! You seem to think that's a bad thing? As long it stays in the realm of ideas and behaviors rather than personal attacks, I don't see the problem.

Specifically, the first part referred to a point that has been conceded.

When I get competitive and go after a breakpoint, I get more and more aggressive (while remaining freakishly polite; another debater skill) and will trap you with your own words. Which is not the same as pointing out a flaw in an argument, lol. I don't think I've done it too much here but elsewhere I have.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Thanks, Net!