Thread: The Merits Of Discouraging Selected Discourse On SRP

We have recently lost another valuable member of our community do to a harmless politically themed thread having turned a little unsavoury and I must confess that my frustration over such topics has been quite acute recently as well. I've even managed to offend Lou well enough to have him put me in his Ignore box. It's a stunning event for me because I never directed any comments at him directly and always do my best to respect differences so I can't imagine how I could have insulted him without being misinterpreted. He merely decided that he didn't like some of the opinions I hold and that he wouldn't listen to me any more. I admit I've got a couple of people in my Ignore box, but those individuals have bordered on hate speech and/or direct insults. Lou isn't that kind of guy. He's normally quite jovial and almost always a truly friendly, helpful and entertaining contributor here on SRP, a guy whom most of us appreciate having around greatly.

So what's happening? I believe it's simply that religion and politics are intensely personal topics for people and that we are inclined to feel threatened, perhaps insulted, maybe even fearful of dissent from our own opinions. Not everybody does it all the time but everybody is susceptible.

There are rules about making hateful comments about others and that's certainly how that should be. There are times when one's opinion isn't only unwanted, it's unacceptable. Clearly we shouldn't disallow simple comments such as "We'll be praying for you" but that's not the same thing as a long post about 'what's wrong with liberalism' and not nearly the same as a long thread composed of people picking sides on an issue and trying to ram their ideas through their perceived rivals' heads. As we've seen, somebody will almost invariably end up feeling hurt and it's only a matter of time before we get to hear somebody else say, "I'm taking my ball and going home". Since it's against our ideals of free speech to tell people they can't mention such things, what can we do?

Here's what I suggest. Let's make a habit of exempting such comments from our posts. Each member must be responsible for himself in this matter. Let's also discourage others from posting openly on these topics. PM's to each other are each individual's business and it lacks the 'soap box' of the off topic forum. I also suggest that we try using PM's more for this agenda (just calling a spade a spade) to avoid public displays of 'free speech' which could also be distasteful. It's easy to do and I think we should begin to be responsible for the tone of our favourite site on the internet and make it a welcome one for future members to come to and participate in. Our primary goal is to encourage and enjoy discussing straight razor related topics. It is counterproductive for us to risk alienating people. My concern is that, if we don't activate such practices we will continue to lose member needlessly and who knows who will be next.

As a show of my commitment to this ideal, I have removed the link in my signature which appears to have prompted Lou's ire.

Please feel free to discuss this topic rationally and respectfully.

X

Well done, X, for broaching such a sensitive issue. No doubt this in itself will raise a few hackles, but it's better out in the open.

Ultimately though, I believe rules, regs or agreements are no more than sticking plaster solutions. It has to be up to the individuals. Just like it is when you're in social face-to-face situations.

I'll continue biting my tongue when I read stuff that goes against my own philosophy, but I wouldn't expect everyone to do the same either. If something is written that offends me or winds me up, I figure keeping quiet isn't letting someone stomp all over my right to 'speak', it's just my own way of avoiding a situation that just isn't worth pursuing. After all guys, this is just a forum. It's a great one, the best I've seen yet, but it's still just a forum.

Here's to sharing knowledge.

I can't believe we just lost another member to a stupid political thread!

I don't check the web for 2 days and he's gone! Can't people bite their tongue when they're about to say something mean? Or at least apologize when something offends someone? This has been my policy all along. I might have messed up once or twice (not that I know of however and sorry to those I offended) but uhm...


why can't weeee be friends why can't weeee be friends....

I have a possible solution.

Ban all us US hating, liberal europeans (I'm even including myself here and I don't usually consider myself european as they're the strange people that live across the water and insist on speaking something other than english) because I'm afraid your rifle won't reach that far.

PS I don't hate 'merikans and only play a euro weenie to make you guys feel at ease.

Good ideas Murph,and Greatwhite(cant agree with X) Best Regards Gary

Ok I have just read the thread which caused this (centrist btw) and I think the problem is that in political threads, people have a tendency to become emotionally involved, especially if countries are mentioned.

However, people choose to read political threads by their own choice. If you don't want to get involved or argue, simply don't read them.
Leaving SRP because of what happens in a political thread in the off-topic section is an overreaction IMO. We are here because we choose to be.

I think politics and religion should be fine here as long as people remember to stay civil and not insult each other.
I disagree with a lot of people here on a regular basis but I try to keep my arguments civil and so far I have managed to avoid insulting people (i hope).

Originally Posted by Bruno

Ok I have just read the thread which caused this (centrist btw) and I think the problem is that in political threads, people have a tendency to become emotionally involved, especially if countries are mentioned.

However, people choose to read political threads by their own choice. If you don't want to get involved or argue, simply don't read them.
Leaving SRP because of what happens in a political thread in the off-topic section is an overreaction IMO. We are here because we choose to be.

I think politics and religion should be fine here as long as people remember to stay civil and not insult each other.
I disagree with a lot of people here on a regular basis but I try to keep my arguments civil and so far I have managed to avoid insulting people (i hope).

I think we all have the correct ideas here. Bruno is right in saying that you should not leave the forum because of something you read int he Off-Topic, as it is just that Off-Topic. Don't take things personal even though you might for certain reasons.

X is right as well that we do get too emotional in many of these things. Many of us take it right to heart. Take things with a grain of salt, especially with topics that come up in there.

Guns do not solve anything, so why joke about it.

Debaters will be enemies inside a debate. However, they should never take that outside of the debate into their personal lives. Just like fighting, although inside the ring you may be enemies, it should not affect your personal relationship.

Just follow two rules: don't take it on a personal level and be respectful of other people's ideas.

For protection for yourself, just try to avoid something that will offend you. If people want to have a debate about a particular topic, let them have it. But if you know it's going to offend you, or starts to offend you, back away. The group shouldn't suffer for a handful of a few individuals.

Likewise the individual that makes up a certain group shouldn't overstep their boundaries and start bashing at a general group of people. The group should realize that people are going to have different views, which may never change. The different views come from their background, and how persisten these views are depend on how long they've valued them. So in turn, this is also done a personal level. Keep in mind that other people have different views, and you cannot go bashing on their ideas. What you can do is bring in evidence and other ideas to rebutt evidence that has been brought up by the opposing side. But NEVER attack the individual themselves by saying, "oh because you're a liberarian (or conservative, centralist, or whatever) you're stupid." Or don't say, "oh because you're Roman Catholic (or Jewish, Islamic, Atheist, or whatever) you're a fucktard." None of, "Americans (German, French, English, Pakistani, or whatever) are shitheads." That's just way out of boundary.

In debates, you attack the view by way of the evidence presented by present opposing evidence. You NEVER attack someone directly with what they identify with such as religion, nationality, political sides, etc. Another thing, let people keep their pride. None of, "you should be ASHAMED of yourself." That also takes a step into personal boundaries. While it is indeed an effective way of winning a debate, it's seen as a low blow. You can include the evidence to say why the person should be ashamed of themselves, but never say it directly. Likewise people need to know how to guard their pride.

I've been on several debates, and I'm fine with saying that I'm friends with the people I debate against. We argue against the evidence presented, not the people. Some people don't know when they've lost, and I won't say out directly they've lost. Sometimes they get so desparate they start using weak arguments like, "but then we need to establish what it means to have sex" or something like that. In my opinion, that's it, you've crossed the line into being too philosophical and have admitted to losing, but I won't ever say that out directly, I've torn the person apart ruthlessly as it is. I'll let them keep their pride, and someone else who hasn't been as active or active at all can point out they've lost and should just leave with what little pride they have left.

I oppose the use of pms for debates. In a debate, one person may not have the answer, but someone else might. In the event in a closed debate, people can't help each other with evidence. You lose the parties that are usually associated with debating. If you want to have a closed, regulated debate via pm, you'll need a way for people to see the evidence presented by the other side, so your side can collaborate. Two closed threads would need to be created along with the prompting thread. Then you would have a spokesperson presenting the views via pm, or through the prompting thread. That gets too complicated. Just leave it as an open debate, but keep in mind what I said earlier in this post.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
So, the basics:
Self protection on the personal level by avoiding what may offend you, and public protection by the group, in which the individuals making the group refrain from disrespectful comments. Keep it on an evidence to evidence approach. Never attack the parties or on an individual basis.

I engage in a lot of debates, and we never take it personal, nor do we attack a person's or a group of individual's identity. We have debates, and they can get quite heated. But we're all friends in the end (unless we were already enemies outside the debate). I know, sounds cheesy, but that's how the cookie crumbles. Could go both ways actually. Sometimes you'll see yourself supporting someone you don't like, but you have the same view as the person.

I agree with a lot of your suggestions but not calling the English sh*theads is taking it too far!