Seriously thoughtful Let's be civil, please

[Over]

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

So.......I just read that happy_terd is no longer with us, because of all the rancor and political crap being spewed. We've lost another valuable member because of poisonous posts.

Heres the thing.

As this is a world wide forum, there are bound to be those who disagree with the US policies, beliefs, etc.

What I don't understand is why these inflammatory threads are shut down IMMEDIATELY.

Spare me the "well, can't we discuss this rationally?"

No......I can't discuss my country rationally with someone who knows nothing about it, or , even worse, someone who lives here, enjoys its benefits, and still chooses to trash it.

You say "But I've read the papers and they said........" "I saw the video and it showed......" "I read this book and it clearly stated............."

Please.

If I were to start a thread on the atrocities muslims commited here in the US, or in their own countries, to each other and outsiders, if I were to comment on their murderous threats against Christian and Jewish religions, what would happen?

If I were to start a thread on those who do not believe in war, make fun of their "all you need to do is just not pick up a gun" attitude, would that be tolerated?

No.........and rightly so. So why.........when my country is attacked.......do the mods just say "play nice"???

MobileRead should be about book readers and all their assorted uses, etc. The lounge should be just that....a place for friends to gather, joke around, relieve the stresses of the days/ week.

Its not a place for any kind of political discussion, or religious discussion, any more than it is a place for gay bashing or race relations.

I've only read the fisrt couple of pages in this thread, so I hope I'm not repeating anyone.

I shuddered with desertgrandma's words.

I understand her motivation, but we should stop a moment when we start talking about censoring themes, how people can't really discuss a subject wanting enlightment but just for dressing his shirt and battling for it.

It assumes that people just can't be civil, thoughtful and sincere. They just can't, by default.

I don't agree with this. This all just sounds a little bit too "intolerance" for my taste.

Friends talk about politics and religion too, you know?

Now, of course there are always people who abuse of the other, who are uncivil, who try to be just preachy... What would happen to those people in real life? Those annoying people? Maybe naturally would fall out of your circle of friends. Maybe you wouldn't talk as much with each other. Or even an outright "i won't talk to you anymore about this or that subject".

But that's a decision that we have to make all the time for all cases. Not just put a stickie in our jackets saying "religion and politics forbidden".

I wasn't aware of happy_terd's case. Maybe because I chose to not read and participate in those "hot" threads. Something that if he had done, now we wouldn't loose a good MR member.

Is there a thread getting off the rails? Leave it, ignore it. It will fall in oblivion without intervenients and spectators. Or at least won't bother you and your MR experience.

[dsvick]

Originally Posted by kazbates

There are times when I've read some one's post and thought to myself, "What a dunderhead!!"
...
My 23 year old daughter occasionally asks me if I've gotten "flamed" yet and I am proud to say that it has not happened in the almost 16 months I've been a member here.

Call me a dunderhead again and we can fix that

[kazbates]

Originally Posted by dsvick

Call me a dunderhead again and we can fix that

How did you know I was talking about you!!

Again, it's not about censorship, or it shouldn't be. It's about treating people with dignity and respect even if you don't agree with their points of view. Too many times I've read posts where people are extremely negative towards my country (USA) or towards my faith (Christian) or even my views on a particularly hot political topic (Global warming). I believe it's human nature to want to defend a position upon which you feel very strongly. The problem is that the people who make such negative and abrasive comments don't first think to themselves how they would feel if someone posted such abrasiveness towards their viewpoints.

There is a regular poster here who VERY obviously has no good will toward the United States. He does not live in my country but feels it is within his rights to bash it every chance he gets. And that's okay. It IS within his rights to speak his mind (at least here in the US you have that right). The problem is there are plenty of posters here who are American and love their country ~ the good and the bad ~ and take great exception to having to read his caustic diatribe. If we were to turn the tables and discuss his country with such negative vitriol, I think it might make him angry, too.

The bottom line: Treat people the way you want them to treat you. It's really very simple.

[alecE]

Oh dear, the things one misses because of work (I really do deserve that private income if there are any weak-minded, gullible philanthropists out there...).

I'm sorry to read that people have dropped out in response to incivility, I hope that they're lurking and will re-appear. I hope even more that I've never upset anybody here with an ill-considered post - abject apologies etc. if I ever have.

Mods - I envy your jobs even less than I did before, and thank you all for the time you put in on the task.

Regarding the future, I'm not convinced that banning topics from discussion in the lounge is a good idea - I think we have to try and continue to build a consensus on what constitutes polite and civilised discussion. Would it be feasible to deploy a 'firehose' type post to cool down overheated threads (and posters) without shutting down the thread?

Meantime I'm returning to my mug of coffee to have fun in the rest of the lounge. And at the risk of attracting a devastatingly savage flame, I have a bar of chocolate, and I'm NOT sharing, so there!

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by kazbates

The problem is there are plenty of posters here who are American and love their country ~ the good and the bad ~ and take great exception to having to read his caustic diatribe.

Why would anyone love the bad about their country?

[YGG-]

Originally Posted by kazbates

[...] There is a regular poster here who VERY obviously has no good will toward the United States. He does not live in my country but feels it is within his rights to bash it every chance he gets. And that's okay. [...] The problem is there are plenty of posters here who are American and love their country ~ the good and the bad ~ and take great exception to having to read his caustic diatribe. If we were to turn the tables and discuss his country with such negative vitriol, I think it might make him angry, too.
The bottom line: Treat people the way you want them to treat you. It's really very simple.

*search & replace "American" with "French"* --ditto.
(and I'll keep my opinions about Sarkozy to myself... well, wouldn't be of big consequence : at least it would only begin a flame war in French )
May I mention here that I'm sick and tired of French bashing "jokes" ? -- (and bashing is bashing, whatever the form it takes).

[dsvick]

Originally Posted by alecE

Regarding the future, I'm not convinced that banning topics from discussion in the lounge is a good idea - I think we have to try and continue to build a consensus on what constitutes polite and civilised discussion.

Intimations of censorship aside, I think is ironic at best and hypocritical at worst to ban discussion on a site about reading. Reading can be such a huge source or knowledge and understanding about other places, peoples, cultures, ideas, beliefs, religions, philosophies, etc. Sure, there is some literature that is read for purely escapist reasons, but anyone serious about reading, as I bet most people here are, will eventually, whether they want to or not, read something that can give them some insight that they otherwise might not have had.

Reading and discussing those subjects here should be no different. Yes, there needs to be some enforcement of rules, if for no other reason than keep the peace. For the most part though, we are free to choose the books that we read and the authors we like, that should apply here as well. If we don't like a book, or an author, or a subject we don't read them.

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by dsvick

Intimations of censorship aside, I think is ironic at best and hypocritical at worst to ban discussion on a site about reading. Reading can be such a huge source or knowledge and understanding about other places, peoples, cultures, ideas, beliefs, religions, philosophies, etc.

I absolutely agree. Almost all of my reading is in science fiction and science non-fiction. Which means being exposed to any type of culture within the imagination of the writer. And imagined cultures can act like an outgroup to more clearly see the culture that you are in.

For people to be claiming that they are incapable of being rational when faced with criticism (by which they really mean absence of uncritical praise) is just, IMHO, sad. Is it too much to ask to expect a mature adult to be able to discuss any issue rationally? Frankly, I view anyone who can't do the latter to not be the former.

http://www.quoteworld.org/quotes/9888

[kazbates]

Originally Posted by ardeegee

Why would anyone love the bad about their country?

Pick, pick, pick. . .

Originally Posted by YGG-

*search & replace "American" with "French"* --ditto.
(and I'll keep my opinions about Sarkozy to myself... well, wouldn't be of big consequence : at least it would only begin a flame war in French )
May I mention here that I'm sick and tired of French bashing "jokes" ? -- (and bashing is bashing, whatever the form it takes).

You are completely correct (and I'll do the same and keep my opinions of our US politicians to myself as well) and I couldn't agree more.

Originally Posted by ardeegee

I absolutely agree. Almost all of my reading is in science fiction and science non-fiction. Which means being exposed to any type of culture within the imagination of the writer. And imagined cultures can act like an outgroup to more clearly see the culture that you are in.

For people to be claiming that they are incapable of being rational when faced with criticism (by which they really mean absence of uncritical praise) is just, IMHO, sad. Is it too much to ask to expect a mature adult to be able to discuss any issue rationally? Frankly, I view anyone who can't do the latter to not be the former.

http://www.quoteworld.org/quotes/9888

No one said anything about being irrational when faced with criticism. I actually believe constructive criticism is something we all need to help improve ourselves. It's the criticism that is made with abrasiveness and a complete lack of tact that is objectionable. Baring criticism with maturity and grace is a trait for which we all should strive; however, presenting that unbiased criticism in a thoughtful and thought provoking manner without causing personal hurt is a much more valuable trait.

[dsvick]

Originally Posted by kazbates

You are completely correct (and I'll do the same and keep my opinions of our US politicians to myself as well) and I couldn't agree more.

I thought politicians, like lawyers, were fair game regardless of country. Not politics but the politicians.

Originally Posted by kazbates

No one said anything about being irrational when faced with criticism. I actually believe constructive criticism is something we all need to help improve ourselves. It's the criticism that is made with abrasiveness and a complete lack of tact that is objectionable. Baring criticism with maturity and grace is a trait for which we all should strive; however, presenting that unbiased criticism in a thoughtful and thought provoking manner without causing personal hurt is a much more valuable trait.

I agree completely!! It comes back to what you said before, treat people how you would like to be treated! If not better!! Some of us have thicker skins than others so while I may accept an occasional "Dave, you uneducated clod.", someone else may be offended with "that's a silly idea".

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by dsvick

I agree completely!! It comes back to what you said before, treat people how you would like to be treated! If not better!!

That's problematic.

I *like* intense debates that veer into flamewars. I don't mind name-calling; I consider it a way to discover someone's true feelings (and something of their education level) when they're getting emotional about a topic. I like point-by-point critiques that go over every flaw in a piece of writing, sometimes with snarky asides about the writer's possible motives for writing it.

It took me quite a while to figure out that not everyone on the internet prefers that approach to controversial topics. (And I'm still always surprised when people who don't, participate in those discussions anyway. Because obviously, if you don't like sand, stay off the beach!) So "treat others as you want to be treated" is a really, really *bad* approach for some settings.

It works as a good starting premise among total strangers--but once you know someone a bit, ethical behavior involves *not* pretending they want the same things you do.

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by kazbates

No one said anything about being irrational when faced with criticism.

Yes, someone did. Quoting desertgrandma:

"No......I can't discuss my country rationally with someone who knows nothing about it, or , even worse, someone who lives here, enjoys its benefits, and still chooses to trash it."

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by kazbates

...
The bottom line: Treat people the way you want them to treat you. It's really very simple.

Ye ol' Golden Rule!

[dsvick]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

That's problematic.

I *like* intense debates that veer into flamewars. I don't mind name-calling; I consider it a way to discover someone's true feelings (and something of their education level) when they're getting emotional about a topic. I like point-by-point critiques that go over every flaw in a piece of writing, sometimes with snarky asides about the writer's possible motives for writing it.

It took me quite a while to figure out that not everyone on the internet prefers that approach to controversial topics. (And I'm still always surprised when people who don't, participate in those discussions anyway. Because obviously, if you don't like sand, stay off the beach!) So "treat others as you want to be treated" is a really, really *bad* approach for some settings.

It works as a good starting premise among total strangers--but once you know someone a bit, ethical behavior involves *not* pretending they want the same things you do.

That is sort of why I threw in the "or better" part of it. But your right of course, I don't mind that sort of thing either, I do require however, that if you are going to dish it out, you have to be able to take it too. Unfortunately, for those of us that enjoy a good natured argument, what we have to use as the standard is the lowest common denominator.

[dsvick]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Ye ol' Golden Rule!

"Do unto others and then run" ?