I Disagree -- So Now It's Personal

Here you can socialize and have fun with other board members, and talk about all sorts of topics that are not related to Lyme disease.
User avatar
LymeEnigma
Posts: 1512
Joined: Sun 28 Oct 2007 18:26
Location: The Nevada Desert, USA
Contact:

I Disagree -- So Now It's Personal

Post by LymeEnigma » Mon 15 Sep 2008 2:11

We all have our opinions, and we cannot expect everyone here to agree 100% on every issue expressed. We all have a lot on our plates, and many of us suffer varying cognitive issues on top of it all. Just the same, or perhaps because of our different issues, we need to make sure that we keep things in perspective, realizing that we all have a right to our opinions and it's not the end of the world when someone comes along with a thought or idea we find offensive or wrong.

We lost a valuable member today because perhaps this needed to be stated earlier: it's not personal. Martian and a few others took a hiatus from this place because the petty squabbles became too disruptive.
Fin and Sir Real are at one another's throats, over misconstrued words and/or disagreement in opinion that somehow turned into a knock-down, drag-out. People like me, who have radically different views from the majority, often find themselves given petty "silent treatments" or nasty retorts, when we all have something unique and valuable to contribute.

Why can't we all get along, despite our differences? Why can't we all consider the value in difference and how that it might offer, overall, more of an eclectic and productive approach to this forum? Why does a difference in opinion have to turn into personal attack? Aren't we all adults, here? Can't we debate like the educated, intelligent individuals most of us here are? Can't we have differences in opinions, as fervently as we may adhere to them, without turning those differences into an excuse to hate, alienate, and defame? Can't we all just ... get along?

rlstanley
Posts: 1637
Joined: Mon 3 Dec 2007 2:53

Re: I Disagree -- So Now It's Personal

Post by rlstanley » Mon 15 Sep 2008 2:23

Here is advice from Bev Harris' site (on election fraud) that I think is applicable to any site where discussion, debate and argument are encouraged:

We encourage you to sift through information and think for yourself. Real democracy is not about following the leader in lockstep. Please do think, disagree, evaluate. Then share your perspectives with others, both on this Web site and out in the real world.

- Do not speculate about the motives of other participants, or discuss people's personalities. Stick to issues, rights, and evidence.


Rita

Fin24
Posts: 1699
Joined: Sat 8 Mar 2008 20:14

Re: I Disagree -- So Now It's Personal

Post by Fin24 » Mon 15 Sep 2008 3:36

LE I agree with almost all of what youre saying and

if you want to use me as an example --no objections
but please characterize it correctly --we arent "at each others throats"--Id have to care more for that

its BANTER that I pruposely took off the thread where it WAS inappropriate
Banter- to address in a witty and teasing manner
merriam webster
also
Good-humored, playful conversation
which is exaclty how it started...until it slopped over into passive aggressive covert acts of terrorism towards me, meant in this way:
Terrorist-One who utilizes the systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve political objectives, while disguised as a civilian non-combatant.
Use of intimidation while disguised as polite and well meaning---to achieve a political objective


you say to others that
it's not the end of the world when someone comes along with a thought or idea we find offensive or wrong
.

Amen to that--but when you characterize something in those terms ( at each others throats)it makes it harder for others to not judge.and then they will knee jerk to " we cant have that here"
Can't we debate like the educated, intelligent individuals most of us here are

yes, when its a debate or discussion or difference of opinion--none of which was
the case here

the content nor the "exercise" was ever meant as anything but what it was--banter to diffuse what was a very poorly escalating, circular, passive aggressively snide level of discussion.

no more nor less

but I have to ask--your header says "I disagree" but with what or which things??? Im admittedly cranky and foggybrained this weekend but I cant tell for sure and rather than "assume" I thought Id ask!!!

great post though--despite the teeny tiny point of disagreement !!!!

thanks
F

User avatar
LymeEnigma
Posts: 1512
Joined: Sun 28 Oct 2007 18:26
Location: The Nevada Desert, USA
Contact:

Re: I Disagree -- So Now It's Personal

Post by LymeEnigma » Mon 15 Sep 2008 4:03

I was just referring to the overall issues that seem to arise, here, every time there is clear disagreement between two or more members. Thank you for not taking my example of you and Sir Real personally, Fin; I respect both of you very much.

Boomerang
Posts: 238
Joined: Wed 31 Oct 2007 3:38

Re: I Disagree -- So Now It's Personal

Post by Boomerang » Mon 15 Sep 2008 4:19

LE, I think you raise some excellent points...much like Yvonne and Claudia did on another thread.

If anyone dares to disagree with some on this forum, the insults and demeaning comments begin. And no, it is NOT banter.

I do think it will deter any potential new posters, and is sure to drive away some regular posters here.

minitails2
Posts: 1001
Joined: Sat 3 Nov 2007 10:27

Re: I Disagree -- So Now It's Personal

Post by minitails2 » Mon 15 Sep 2008 9:32

Boomerang wrote:
If anyone dares to disagree with some on this forum, the insults and demeaning comments begin. And no, it is NOT banter.
In the spirit of being able to disagree, one person's insults and demeaning comments are another person's banter. The most important thing to remember about disagreement, though, your disagreement will not necessarily be accepted by others. There is no special protection for those who disagree, like me, right now.

cave76
Posts: 3182
Joined: Sun 12 Aug 2007 2:27

Re: I Disagree -- So Now It's Personal

Post by cave76 » Mon 15 Sep 2008 14:25

LE said:
Why can't we all consider the value in difference and how that it might offer, overall, more of an eclectic and productive approach to this forum?
I agree 100%!

Martian
Posts: 1944
Joined: Thu 26 Jul 2007 18:29
Location: Friesland, the Netherlands

Re: I Disagree -- So Now It's Personal

Post by Martian » Mon 15 Sep 2008 16:05

LymeEnigma wrote:We lost a valuable member today because perhaps this needed to be stated earlier: it's not personal.
I guess you are referring to kelmo's message. I don't understand why you chose this as an example, because many of the "unsatisfying" posts are containing personal attacks, and that is what is objectionable about them. I feel that you are mixing two different issues here.

Besides, I think one can interpreted comments like "I thought we as a gender were smarter than that!!!" as an indirect personal attack. So it's also not a good example of "not personal". Further, I think one needs to take into account that religion and politics are sensitive topics.

Back to the "unsatisfying" posts: the problem is not so much people's writing styles, different opinions, or people being too sensitive. It is actually very simple: attack the arguments, not the person.

And yes, also agree to disagree, but that is another issue, though it's closely related.

Fin24
Posts: 1699
Joined: Sat 8 Mar 2008 20:14

Re: I Disagree -- So Now It's Personal

Post by Fin24 » Mon 15 Sep 2008 21:29

as the poster of the content Martian quoted, I can be the one to say---that was in reference to comments about how many persons are flummoxed confused, aghast even by how the women in the U.S. are falling over themselves to make excuses for Palin.. the very same ones who had expressed polar views not too far in the past when talking about Obama

and since it was a global generalization about those GROUPS of women -- women in general--who are choosing to ignore facts and content over "beliefs", I do not agree that its "personal"--indirect or otherwise
Besides, I think one can interpreted comments like "I thought we as a gender were smarter than that!!!" as an indirect personal attack. So it's also not a good example of "not personal
I can see how those with those opinions and beliefs can choose to take it personally...but thats like saying we cant say people with red shirts are garishly dressed becasue some of them may take it personally..as long as we dont say " Mr Jones you are a terrible garish dresser" which WOULD be personal, then I guess I disagree with your characterization--there are alwasy going to be red shirt wearers.and that alone makes them open to comment.

anything can be taken "personally" if they try hard enough." women should be smarter"- I think they should be by now and alas as a group and in too many instances ( via math/sci education or politics) arent. thats a sociology statement.and my opinion-- and as a member of that gender, I feel that I can indeed form that opinion and register it as part of my disappointment without being labelled.

SOME women are going to choose to take it as an insult--well I shouldnt be held accountable to their choice
they can alternatively CHOOSE to say or think " well thats how i feel, too bad about her opinions".

if that type of global generalization is proscribed here because "someone" may be too sensitive and take it to mean Im speaking about THEM, then we have a big problem .And then we have to discuss limiting content and yes style and yes even how something is stated. the bigger problem as I see it is that still and yet too many take things to mean what they want--they ASSUME intent.and they ASSUME its against them personally and then they ASSUME blame and then all holy hell breaks out.

In law as well as in social context it is INTENT thats important- and since we cant assume other's intent and since many of us are doubted when we even explicity state our intent and are still told " no you did not mean that" there is a null solution. there are some who are always going to say " no she doesnt mean that..she DID mean to be "bad"" and then you will be in the middle of deciding whose assumptions are valid instead of simply accepting that maybe just maybe what a poster MEANT is what they say they meant???

you are correct that some topics are more sensitive than others--but I think it was your definition of cafe that may have misled me
Lyme Café
Here you can socialize and have fun with other board members, and talk about all sorts of topics, including current events
politics ( and now unfortunately due to a prospective VP having her religious beliefs enter her political decision making) and religion ARE current events for us Yanks these days

shall we constrain ourselves in topic??
MEANING: do you want us to now limit topic content??? simple--no accusation , no challenge...a question of "what do YOU want" as admin. thats all

cave76
Posts: 3182
Joined: Sun 12 Aug 2007 2:27

Re: I Disagree -- So Now It's Personal

Post by cave76 » Mon 15 Sep 2008 21:51

Fin said:
anything can be taken "personally" if they try hard enough
----LOL

Seems some people don't even have to try hard. <g>

Oh, oh, ---I didn't mean anyone or anybody or anything.

But I did resemble that remark!
:woohoo:

Oh, and BTW---- I represent Save the Polar Bears of the World. I also resembled your remark:
very same ones who had expressed polar views

Post Reply