Controversy

[BigT]

I was going to agree with Sam and say that we are all adults and have thick skin but Delta has given food for thought now.

I like a good bust up but I must confess it is very difficult to reason and be polite with members who only see there side of the argument and use inflammatory words like idiot and stupid and ignorant.

Most of the time in these discussions there are no right or wrong answers, just opinions and not everyone has the same opinion and they shouldn't be lampooned for airing a different one.

The grammar nazi's should also remember some of us suffer from ailments or disabilitys that might mean our spelling or grammar is not 100% and I'm getting a little cheesed off being ticked off for it, if you can understand it, shut it.

There are times in these posts as well when a playground mentality takes hold, "oh there's a couple of people ganged up there I'll join them".
It makes it very difficult to post replys in order and eventually things get missed and then you get accused of ignoring the issue or being off topic.


Solution to children seeing adult topics:

Maybe an idea could be to have a watershed forum, ie: after 9 pm when children should be in bed it gets unlocked for debates that might get heated or adult nature and then it gets locked again at 4 am.
I don't know if that's possible with the current set up or not?

Edit: I also think that the "Thanks" button should be removed as it doesn't add anything, unless of course we can have a "No Thanks" or even better a "your talking rubbish" button as well.

 

[Meat Pie]

I'm happy to discuss in a reasonable way with anyone except for the outrageous few who decide they've had enough and tell you to go away and stop bothering them (even if it is entirely relevant to the thread). I take that to heart and find myself genuinely upset by those comments.

I can take insults, I can take being told my views are ridiculous or stupid, but I cannot take someone telling me that by engaging in a debate with an alternative opinion, I am in some way being a nuisance. That genuinely hurts because all I want to do is discuss issues that I feel passionate about. If people don't like that, then that's their problem and should decide not to read discussion forums, rather then goading you with posts, suggesting that you've ruined everyone's fun or 'rendered discussion impossible'.

It's not a crime to be persistent with an opposition position, and I think its neglectful of Mod's to allow other members to get away with posting nasty comments which claim that I have "poisoned" or "hijacked" anything because I dare to disagree with their views. I don't appreciate being painted to look that way when I am someone who respects, even loves debates. Therefore, I end up lashing out in ugly ways as I feel like I'm being tarnished by those who don't want to hear the opposition.

However, I'm caught between a rock and a hard place because I like a hands-off approach to moderation. So I suppose I'm writing this, not so much as a plea to the moderators but more to the individual posters. Be aware that I'm not trying to hurt anyone's enjoyment of anything. I'm trying to express my views and you have no right to tell me to stop doing so.

I admit this post is less relevant to the current conversation but it's something I find highly controversial and I needed to say it.

 

[Sam]

I think another issue that arises is the often low quality of posts and posters.

Good debate is difficult to achieve when we have wild variations in how informed each poster is on the subject matter, and the quality of their debating skills and etiquette.

Some of the posts in the more heated discussion topics read like the comments section of a Daily Mail article: leaps of fantasy, lack of evidence, logic discarded in favour of blood-boiling right wing rhetoric and a tendency to leap erratically from tenuous point to tenuous point.

Unfortunately, the most extreme and ridiculous opinions are heard the loudest, while reasonableness is drowned out. I think that's because people clamour to debunk what the extremists say, which only encourages them to retort with something even more extreme, as they know they can get a reaction.

One of the worst aspects of TST debating is people's tendency to simply ignore and move on when another poster presents evidence or statistics that prove that the first poster said something untrue or false.

This often leads the first poster to reply with a bizarre non sequitur to cover up the fact that what they said before has been proved to be baseless, further cluttering up the debate with irrelevancy.

 

[John]

The problem with the Olympic topic (before the new one was created), was that different people wanted different things from it. Some people only wanted a topic to talk about the games/athletes/ceremonies etc which wasn't really possible in the debate topic. Ideally the non-political topic should have been created earlier, as without it people who'd invested a lot of time and effort in the games were getting frustrated and feeling guilt-tripped for taking part or talking about something they enjoy. Was the reaction justified? Probably not, but the offence in that topic ran both ways.

As for debates in general, I feel that a lot of posters on both sides are far too personal and aggressive. I don't feel excessive sarcasm or aggression should be tolerated. This forum is predominately (some may say overwhelmingly) left wing, but it isn't a requirement of membership and those who disagree shouldn't automatically be made to feel unwelcome as seems to be the case at times. I'm not suggesting we set up some sort of bigot/hate speech amnesty here, just that we accept members may have different views and they shouldn't be subject to abuse for it.

 

[Tom]

I was going to agree with Sam and say that we are all adults and have thick skin but Delta has given food for thought now.

I like a good bust up but I must confess it is very difficult to reason and be polite with members who only see there side of the argument and use inflammatory words like idiot and stupid and ignorant.

Most of the time in these discussions there are no right or wrong answers, just opinions and not everyone has the same opinion and they shouldn't be lampooned for airing a different one.

The grammar nazi's should also remember some of us suffer from ailments or disabilitys that might mean our spelling or grammar is not 100% and I'm getting a little cheesed off being ticked off for it, if you can understand it, shut it.

There are times in these posts as well when a playground mentality takes hold, "oh there's a couple of people ganged up there I'll join them".
It makes it very difficult to post replys in order and eventually things get missed and then you get accused of ignoring the issue or being off topic.


Solution to children seeing adult topics:

Maybe an idea could be to have a watershed forum, ie: after 9 pm when children should be in bed it gets unlocked for debates that might get heated or adult nature and then it gets locked again at 4 am.
I don't know if that's possible with the current set up or not?

Edit: I also think that the "Thanks" button should be removed as it doesn't add anything, unless of course we can have ag "No Thanks" or even better a "your talking rubbish" button as well.

That is just an example of the inflamatory language you deliberately use to chuck petrol onto arguments: "shut it", "talking rubbish"?

"I like a good bust up" - I think you said it all with that. Playing Devil's advocate might get people to explain their points more or make them question themselves at times - but by playing it you really have to expect most of the reactions you typically get from people.

> edit>>Sazzle>> Edited for bad language in quotes.

 

[BigT]

And that reply is a perfect example of what starts the insults, on this occasion I won't bite.

Edit: I don't mind being proved wrong and will admit when I am, it's just that nobody has done that yet and just result to insults because they can't back thier arguments up.
I try and show examples using the most left wing articles I can find so I don't get accused of being a far right BNP supporter, I suggest those with a left wing tendency do the opposite to back up there's and we might have friendlier debates.

Tom, i'm a hairy arsed engineer mate (with learning disabilities) not some university trained bod, so that's how I talk, straight to the point, sorry if it offends you.

 

[Simon]

I'd be loath to move to a situation where members of all ages or debating abilities were not free to join in with the debates. That's not what I'd like to see.

Would I like to see an improvement in the overall standard of debate? Well, yes, of course, but I accept the fact that some people are not as well practiced as I am (family mealtimes when I was growing up were always entertaining).

Equally, I wouldn't like to see a situation emerge where people who hold views contrary to the majority feel that they need to keep things to themselves. There would be nothing worse, in my view, than debates in Corner Coffee becoming a left-wing echo chamber where everybody slaps each other on the back and says "jolly good, sock it to those bourgeois lot".

As I say, I see the value of debate in there from and for all members. Going on at (sorry to use you as an example) BigT to provide more than anecdotal evidence for something (that's not saying that anecdotal evidence is worthless btw) is good, because it forces him to think about his points and - if possible - to back them up with evidence, or else concede or alter his position. Note I said "alter" not "suddenly congratulate his assailant on being totally right". On the other hand, the guys debating on the other side (let's take our archetypal leftie Meat Pie here ) are getting a work out because they are being forced to consider how their point of view can be backed up or evidence used to counter the challenge.

For all this, I'm dead set against some kind of "soft" and "hard" debate differentiation. There's nothing inherently "adult" about holding strong views and if you have something to contribute, you should be free to. It might be intimidating to do so, but really, is that so bad?

There seems to be three key points to me here that people need to take into account when contributing to debate topics:

1. Don't take it personally. Obviously direct and personal attacks are not on, but having your views challenged in sometimes very strong terms is not the same as someone hating your guts.

2. Have a bit of humility sometimes. There is no loss of face in accepting that maybe your point doesn't stack up or that you've misunderstood or misapprehended something. Mostly you're debating on the hoof and formulating arguments and ideas as you go. That's not to say you shouldn't try and present evidence where applicable.

3. Don't expect that you're going to "win over" another debater through the force of your debate. In the House of Commons, the parties sitting opposite each other debate things without ever the hope of consensus. You might ask what the point is therefore? Challenge and exposure of other points of view are as much a part of understanding your own opinions and arguments, and can help you refine and expand your own politics.


Here's an idea: what about appointing a "speaker" to run the debates? Just a person to prevent arguments becoming circular, to gently ask for "order" or clarification from a poster, and to call time on arguments. This, to me would seem less heavy handed than mods piling into the topic from nowhere and changing things, which - despite me taking both Dave and James's point about the infrequency and careful consideration - does tend to raise some tensions while quelling others. Moreover, everyone would know who is controlling the discussion so it wouldn't be a case of a "mod lottery".

Obviously, the speaker could take no active part in the debate, which, I suspect for some, would be a big drawback from taking on the role, but, you know, it's just a thought.

>edit>>Sazzle>> Edited for bad language

>edit>>Simon>>Pff. What else would you call the bourgeoisie?

 

[Sazzle]

I've just had to edit a few posts for bad language, which I can tell was purely accidental on account of the emotive responses being given.

While controversy and heated debate is wholly accepted in this topic, the swearing isn't .

Controversy, heated discussions and emotionally charged debates will always result in 'on-the-line' posts - unfortunately those participating will never please everyone, and therefore should expect to have hot remarks fed their way from the opposing perspective.

This is often why the team make decisions that some members don't agree with - if we're seeing things objectively, then some things come across as "too far", while participants of the discussion may simply see it as a valid but strong point. Yes we get it wrong, but we're only human like (most of) you!

 

[Tom]

And that reply is a perfect example of what starts the insults, on this occasion I won't bite.

Edit: I don't mind being proved wrong and will admit when I am, it's just that nobody has done that yet and just result to insults because they can't back thier arguments up.
I try and show examples using the most left wing articles I can find so I don't get accused of being a far right BNP supporter, I suggest those with a left wing tendency do the opposite to back up there's and we might have friendlier debates.

Tom, i'm a hairy arsed engineer mate (with learning disabilities) not some university trained bod, so that's how I talk, straight to the point, sorry if it offends you.

Very little offends me and your language certainly hasn't, I'm just trying to explain that some of the reactions you get from people are to be expected/justified when you speak like that as it is somewhat provocative. I have a bit more etiquette in writing style, but in speech you'll find me much the same as yourself - and we have similar industry backgrounds for what it's worth.

 

[Fredward]

I have no real interest in politics. I think the idea of calling someone left wing, right wing, chicken wing or duck wing is wrong.

I have my own beliefs and think in an ideal world how they match up. I doubt I fit into any political party, have no interest fitting into a political party, and have no interest in voting or campaigning in any elections.

I'd rather just cynically brood and rant about how the countrys run to my cat!

Because of that all these political references do go right over my head!


But occasionally I like to share my points, I decided to pre-emptiveley jump into the crime punishment topic and jump out. (accidently appearing to be condescending to Simon in the process! Sorry! :S )

A couple hours later, I felt the topic was a very hostile environment, for anyone who shared my beliefs and eventually burst in with my dramatic defensive post.

I did report a couple of posts in the process because unless you are in our position its probably difficult to detect the hostility as its in the guise of others beliefs. But be assured it still is there.


Simple soloution would be to just be more carefull when posting, and think openly about how others may view it.

Everyone's perspective is different! I'm afraid!

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

 

[Sam]

I echo Simon's calls for a speaker!

Here here, drag someone to the chair at once!

 

[Rowe]

As somebody who wishes to join in on discussion, I rarely get given a chance to in fear of my own views being shot down more powerfully than others, ignored for a more interesting view point or simply being insulted.

Whilst I see very clearly members are passionate over their opinions thus heated debate, there is a fine line between challenging a view point and challenging the person themselves. Insults, (even mildly veiled) swears and personal attacks, no matter how concise and well written somebody's views are, shouldn't be tolerated nor should they be posted in the first place as they merely provide a ricochet for the discussion to go off course. It just makes the discussion a no-go zone and incredibly avoidable, on occasion delving into a completely different subject.

e: There is also the fact that some members don't feel as if they have a right to join, like myself, because of views that may be seen as inconcise and that posting will create an unfriendly reaction. Granted that discussion isn't meant to be friendly but it's that niggling assumption that make some feel very unwelcome. Of course it shouldn't be down to the Team to appear and defend that person or for everybody to go 'soft' just because of a minority but feeling inadequate for every discussion imaginable since some members are stronger than others in defending their opinion is something I don't like the idea of at all.

As for the Team moderating these heated discussions, I believe they do their best to keep it clean but if anything it should be down to the members themselves to decide whether what they've written is suitable. I'm not saying that any part of the discussion should be toned down but rather that there should be more care in conveying opinions. If moderation is truly needed then the report button fulfills that need but there shouldn't be a pinpointed blame on any Team member over decisions, they're only doing their job.

At the end of the day, not everybody is thick skinned or as courageous to post differing opinions to others but it would be nice to see an argument where everybody can join in without a fear of being insulted or made vulnerable. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion after all.

 

[Simon]

I have to disagree, Rowe: I think you should take the plunge no matter how daunting it seems, and I'd urge anyone who feels they'd like to contribute to do the same.

I can't guarantee that you won't "get shot down" or that replies will not be worded strongly, but I'd point out that this is what controversy means. These topics are emotive, and whilst I understand where you're coming from totally, that's really the issue at hand, isn't it? I don't want arguments to be soft or lack rigour, and I'd like people to be able to express their strong views.

What you need to do is ask yourself whether it really matters to you that people will disagree - however they express it. These topics are a tiny part of what this site is about, and therefore pretty inconsequential in the scheme of things. What they can do, though is hone your skills, or expose you to alternative worldviews.

Crucially, you can also walk away at any point in the knowledge that, actually, a few words typed on a minor part of a relatively small internet forum aren't going to have wide-ranging consequences. And for myself, I pretty much guarantee that anything you say on an issue is highly unlikely to affect the way I interact with you anywhere else.

Lastly, to deal with your suggestion of "being ignored". I will read all posts, but find it problematic responding to all. You shouldn't assume just because your post doesn't seem to have garnered many thanks or direct replies that it hasn't had an effect. People read and assimilate differently, and anything which contributes to debate from as many different sources is only going to make that debate richer.

 

[Tom]

As somebody who wishes to join in on discussion, I rarely get given a chance to in fear of my own views being shot down more powerfully than others, ignored for a more interesting view point or simply being insulted.

Whilst I see very clearly members are passionate over their opinions thus heated debate, there is a fine line between challenging a view point and challenging the person themselves. Insults, (even mildly veiled) swears and personal attacks, no matter how concise and well written somebody's views are, shouldn't be tolerated nor should they be posted in the first place as they merely provide a ricochet for the discussion to go off course. It just makes the discussion a no-go zone and incredibly avoidable, on occasion delving into a completely different subject.

e: There is also the fact that some members don't feel as if they have a right to join, like myself, because of views that may be seen as inconcise and that posting will create an unfriendly reaction. Granted that discussion isn't meant to be friendly but it's that niggling assumption that make some feel very unwelcome. Of course it shouldn't be down to the Team to appear and defend that person or for everybody to go 'soft' just because of a minority but feeling inadequate for every discussion imaginable since some members are stronger than others in defending their opinion is something I don't like the idea of at all.

As for the Team moderating these heated discussions, I believe they do their best to keep it clean but if anything it should be down to the members themselves to decide whether what they've written is suitable. I'm not saying that any part of the discussion should be toned down but rather that there should be more care in conveying opinions. If moderation is truly needed then the report button fulfills that need but there shouldn't be a pinpointed blame on any Team member over decisions, they're only doing their job.

At the end of the day, not everybody is thick skinned or as courageous to post differing opinions to others but it would be nice to see an argument where everybody can join in without a fear of being insulted or made vulnerable. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion after all.

I've noticed you stay out of such things, you should get involved!

 

[Rowe]

I do understand what you've written there, Simon and you bring up good points that I haven't noticed before which I aim to take on. I wouldn't want the topics to lack in thought provoking either and (I'm probably backtracking myself here) it would be a shame if they lost the bite. I overthink the details with regards to disagreements and really shouldn't let any of it get to me, applying to anybody else who fears such reactions, and as you say it doesn't affect anything in the grand scheme of things.

Tom, it's becoming an aim

 

[BigT]

I think another issue that arises is the often low quality of posts and posters.

Good debate is difficult to achieve when we have wild variations in how informed each poster is on the subject matter, and the quality of their debating skills and etiquette.

Some of the posts in the more heated discussion topics read like the comments section of a Daily Mail article: leaps of fantasy, lack of evidence, logic discarded in favour of blood-boiling right wing rhetoric and a tendency to leap erratically from tenuous point to tenuous point.

Unfortunately, the most extreme and ridiculous opinions are heard the loudest, while reasonableness is drowned out. I think that's because people clamour to debunk what the extremists say, which only encourages them to retort with something even more extreme, as they know they can get a reaction.

One of the worst aspects of TST debating is people's tendency to simply ignore and move on when another poster presents evidence or statistics that prove that the first poster said something untrue or false.

This often leads the first poster to reply with a bizarre non sequitur to cover up the fact that what they said before has been proved to be baseless, further cluttering up the debate with irrelevancy.

I think some the issues as well is how a post is read, I read the comment above as Sam having a bit of a pop at me but he may not have meant it like that, only he can answer that.
Another person could also read it and think something completely different, it is all in the interpretation and that is very easy to mis-judge when something is written down.
I've said it before and I'll say it again sarcasm and the written word do not go together well.

 

[Sam]

I did not mean it to come across as a direct attack of you. But more an attack at a style of sensationalism-heavy and evidence-light writing that the right-wing on TST often resort to, including some of your own posts sometimes.

The politest thing I can say to that is 'you have no idea'. As clearly you don't.

Posts like this are a major problem, and kinda prove what I was saying in my rant about poor post quality. People who can't back up their arguments with evidence have to resort to this completely meaningless style of retort, which does nothing but clutter up the thread. It stems from people knowing little about the subject matter. Here, pluk replies to a post I made with some evidence in it, with a completely vacuous reply. But since there is no 'debating etiquette', there is no expectation for him to follow up his retort with an explanation as to why 'I have no idea'.

Stuff like this seriously damages debate.

I've said it before and I'll say it again sarcasm and the written word do not go together well.

That's why we need an irony punctuation mark.

 

[Fredward]

To be honest Sam, I think his post of "you clearly have no idea" was relevent in the discussion.



Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

 

[Meat Pie]

Balderdash. He stated an opinion with no qualifying reasoning. You may agree with Pluk's conclusion but to be taken seriously in anyway, that conclusion has to be explained. Otherwise, it's no more then a dismissive post which proves nothing and goes no-where.

 

[Simon]

To be honest Sam, I think his post of "you clearly have no idea" was relevent in the discussion.



Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

Relevant, perhaps. Helpful or good debating manners, no.

Basically, all Sam is saying is that if he had put his much more considered reply (which he eventually did, albeit with an unfortunate dose of derisive sarcasm) in here, then there'd be nothing to complain about.

"Contriubuting to the topic" requires more than a terse "that's rubbish", or "I disagree". If you haven't got time to reply properly, then, I say, simply, "don't" - wait until you have got time; wait until you have throught about it or gathered your evidence.

It's the internet: it's not going to go away.