Is this forum just a place to vent and laugh?

[Jamie in Chile]

I don't mind people disagreeing with me. The issue is when the nature of the forum discourages people from putting certain opinions in the first place.

I personally feel debates are much more productive and useful when people are not feeling emotional/angry when posting. I think emotional posts tend to lead to unproductive back and forths between two people that are not positive for forums, lead to negative emotional energy, and don't cause us to become better intellectually. It's a bit of a cheek in a way that I want to be able to write controversial opinions and have no-one emotionally react. It may not be realistic. I guess some of us just have to agree to disagree here. This may come down to personal preference.

Back to the political issues. I think it's fine to be anti Trump and not willing to have an intellectual discussion about that since you think that's so obvious. I also think it's fine to apply the same attitude to the whole Republican party in its current state. However I don't think we should apply that attitude to all people who vote Republican, or people who have some conservative opinions.

Also, by all means, disengage with the MAGA hat wearing rally attending type, but others who voted Trump because they thought both Trump and Clinton were bad, and made an unhappy judgement call about the lesser of two evils, those are the ones we need to convince next time.

Unfortunately, (in a nation) it may be unproductive to refuse to discuss things that we know/think are repugnant nonsense as long as half or more of the population don't agree. If 90% of the population were vegetarian, I would perhaps refuse to be friends with someone who regularly ate factory farmed meat, and perhaps refuse to share a table with anyone that did, and perhaps refuse to debate with them. But that isn't going to work for now.

 

[beancounter]

I'm kind of curious as to whom among current posters you consider to be "extreme Left." If I recall correctly, you were a pretty ardent Bernie supporter, which puts you to the left of many of us.

Ardent Bernie supporter? I had generally positive views of him, but I don't think I ever gave the impression that I was a full-out Bernie bro. I'm pretty sure that I indicated that some of his proposals were unrealistic. My support was primarily rooted in my view that he was a better choice than Hillary.

Also, remember that political test many of us took a few years ago that graphed our political leanings on an X,Y chart? As I recall, I was closer to the center than anyone else, except maybe DasNut.

 

[beancounter]

I don't necessary disagree with you, but I would love to see the statistics if IS has them available.

So have many, many who were on the left of the political spectrum.

I think that, if you looked at it dispassionately, you would see that people of various political persuasions leave in roughly the same proportions as they were represented on here in the first place.

 

[Mischief]

Ardent Bernie supporter? I had generally positive views of him, but I don't think I ever gave the impression that I was a full-out Bernie bro. I'm pretty sure that I indicated that some of his proposals were unrealistic. My support was primarily rooted in my view that he was a better choice than Hillary.

Also, remember that political test many of us took a few years ago that graphed our political leanings on an X,Y chart? As I recall, I was closer to the center than anyone else, except maybe DasNut.

Ardent Bernie supporter? I had generally positive views of him, but I don't think I ever gave the impression that I was a full-out Bernie bro. I'm pretty sure that I indicated that some of his proposals were unrealistic. My support was primarily rooted in my view that he was a better choice than Hillary.

Also, remember that political test many of us took a few years ago that graphed our political leanings on an X,Y chart? As I recall, I was closer to the center than anyone else, except maybe DasNut.

So, who do you consider "far left" among current posters?

 

[Jamie in Chile]

Do you feel you are doing more than most to try to get such exchanges started?

I am not sure. Recently, probably not, because I was unsure if that's what people wanted or not, so that's why I posted this thread. But in the past I did feel like I was more likely than others to either write an article or comment on a controversial topic.

Having given it some thought and seen the thread, I think there is an appetite for intellectual debate, and perhaps the forum should be a place for that as well as fun.

We'll just need to keep a balance.

In terms of some of the suggestions for changing the forum at a structural level, it doesn't seem that there is much majority support for any of that, so maybe just continue as we are to keep it easier for the owners/administrators of the site?

Perhaps blanket support of all Trump policies is unacceptable here, but a positive comment about one policy he supports is OK.

Perhaps a general rejection of the Republican party can also be implicitly a part of the forum but we can address certain issues. For example I might say that the Republicans are actually right about a certain foreign policy issue and the Democrats are wrong.

Some opinions might be just about OK here, but only if expressed with tact.

Some opinions might be OK, but only in certain places. For example it might be (just about) OK to question whether there really is any gender pay gap due to sexism, but not put that on a thread that was started as a feminist thread started with the purpose of talking about women's issues and perhaps even mostly as a safe space for women. And also not let an innocent thread about a cake recipe somehow drift onto such a topic.

*For the record, that is not my actual opinion. I actually think most or maybe even all of the gender pay gap is probably due to sexism of one form or another.

 

[beancounter]

If 90% of the population were vegetarian, I would perhaps refuse to be friends with someone who regularly ate factory farmed meat, and perhaps refuse to share a table with anyone that did, and perhaps refuse to debate with them. But that isn't going to work for now.

Interesting. More than 95% of the U.S. population are Omnis, but I don't see many of them outright refusing to be friends with veg*ns, or refusing to share a table with them.

 

[Mischief]

I don't mind people disagreeing with me. The issue is when the nature of the forum discourages people from putting certain opinions in the first place.

I personally feel debates are much more productive and useful when people are not feeling emotional/angry when posting. I think emotional posts tend to lead to unproductive back and forths between two people that are not positive for forums, lead to negative emotional energy, and don't cause us to become better intellectually. It's a bit of a cheek in a way that I want to be able to write controversial opinions and have no-one emotionally react. It may not be realistic. I guess some of us just have to agree to disagree here. This may come down to personal preference.

Back to the political issues. I think it's fine to be anti Trump and not willing to have an intellectual discussion about that since you think that's so obvious. I also think it's fine to apply the same attitude to the whole Republican party in its current state. However I don't think we should apply that attitude to all people who vote Republican, or people who have some conservative opinions.

Also, by all means, disengage with the MAGA hat wearing rally attending type, but others who voted Trump because they thought both Trump and Clinton were bad, and made an unhappy judgement call about the lesser of two evils, those are the ones we need to convince next time.

Unfortunately, (in a nation) it may be unproductive to refuse to discuss things that we know/think are repugnant nonsense as long as half or more of the population don't agree. If 90% of the population were vegetarian, I would perhaps refuse to be friends with someone who regularly ate factory farmed meat, and perhaps refuse to share a table with anyone that did, and perhaps refuse to debate with them. But that isn't going to work for now.

I agree that anger is counterproductive in a debate, for a number of reasons. But there are a number of emotions people have when discussing a controversial subject, and it's not realistic to expect people to divorce themselves from their emotions; it's hard enough, and it's sufficient, to "merely" control them.

If you look at it, your reluctance to post what might be controversial opinions is emotion-driven. You're reacting emotionally to what you anticipate the likely response to be.

 

[Mischief]

Interesting. More than 95% of the U.S. population are Omnis, but I don't see many of them outright refusing to be friends with veg*ns, or refusing to share a table with them.

That's not a comparison of like with like, at least not wrt people who are vegetarian for ethical reasons, rather than health reasons.

Or do you know omnis who believe it is ethically wrong to not eat animals?

 

[Jamie in Chile]

Beancounter: The question here is whether meat is morally bad and whether we should disengage from someone who is morally bad in some way. There is nothing about NOT taking an action that is morally bad, and therefore no logical reason to refuse to eat with any vegans.

If some of you had friends who were openly racist, or were criminals (say broke into people's houses and took their stuff on a regular basis) might you at least consider not being friends with them? I don't see how eating factory farmed meat is objectively any worse than breaking into people's house and stealing their stuff in terms of the amount of suffering it causes.

Those of you who think it's bad that, in a vegan world, I would perhaps not consider not being friends with people that ate factory farmed meat (or at least not starting new friendships with such people) might think about it differently if we really did live in a world where such an action was very rare. In such a world, it would become in my opinion stigmatized in the way racism is today.

Likewise those of you who wouldn't be friends with someone if they were openly racist would likely have a different opinion if we were having this conversation 300 years ago. Just as a matter of necessity and it being harder to reject the majority opinion.

We have to adjust in some way or other to what the majority is doing.

 

[beancounter]

So, who do you consider "far left" among current posters?

Naming names could be construed as an ad hominem attack, or at the very least promote a hostile environment, so I am not going to answer that question.

Nice try though!

 

[beancounter]

Since you didn't use the quote function, am I to assume that you don't want me to respond?

Beancounter: The question here is whether meat is morally bad and whether we should disengage from someone who is morally bad in some way. There is nothing about NOT taking an action that is morally bad, and therefore no logical reason to refuse to eat with any vegans.

If some of you had friends who were openly racist, or were criminals (say broke into people's houses and took their stuff on a regular basis) might you at least consider not being friends with them? I don't see how eating factory farmed meat is objectively any worse than breaking into people's house and stealing their stuff in terms of the amount of suffering it causes.

Those of you who think it's bad that, in a vegan world, I would perhaps not consider not being friends with people that ate factory farmed meat (or at least not starting new friendships with such people) might think about it differently if we really did live in a world where such an action was very rare. In such a world, it would become in my opinion stigmatized in the way racism is today.

Likewise those of you who wouldn't be friends with someone if they were openly racist would likely have a different opinion if we were having this conversation 300 years ago. Just as a matter of necessity and it being harder to reject the majority opinion.

We have to adjust in some way or other to what the majority is doing.

 

[Mischief]

Naming names could be construed as an ad hominem attack, or at the very least promote a hostile environment, so I am not going to answer that question.

Nice try though!

Only if you consider "far left" to be a personal insult. Which you apparently do.

 

[beancounter]

What I'm hearing from some of you is that you don't want to engage with anyone whose views are not similar to your own.

That's the bottom line.

And that's a big reason why VV remains small.

Apparently, Trump isn't the only one with isolationist views...

 

[Jamie in Chile]

I agree that anger is counterproductive in a debate, for a number of reasons. But there are a number of emotions people have when discussing a controversial subject, and it's not realistic to expect people to divorce themselves from their emotions; it's hard enough, and it's sufficient, to "merely" control them.

If you look at it, your reluctance to post what might be controversial opinions is emotion-driven. You're reacting emotionally to what you anticipate the likely response to be.

Your comment about my reluctance to post being emotion driven seems to be correct. If I'm thinking my post may lead to an emotional response from someone else, this may lead to negative emotional energy that I may feel myself in the future, and this is what sometimes discourages me from posting (and notably more on this forum more than others). The other half of that is I worry that my post may upset others emotionally so it's not just about me.

I'm not saying we should feel no emotion upon reading other's posts. But I am saying that generally I like to reply when that emotion (e.g. anger) has gone and I had time to reflect. In some cases that may be only a minute later. But....if others feel differently - obviously that's totally fine!

 

[Jamie in Chile]

Since you didn't use the quote function, am I to assume that you don't want me to respond?

Not at all. I don't agree with the suggestion that not using the quote function has any relation to whether a not a response is expected. In any case, that certainly wasn't my intention.

I would suggest that the general question of whether or not a viewpoint is majority needs to be factored into to whether it should be engaged with is on topic for this thread.

My specific point of whether we should sit down with meat eaters is probably off topic (sorry) and so perhaps we don't need to have a detailed debate about that now?

Also, keep in mind I am shutting down the forum soon and probably won't be back for a day or two. Just purely because I am actually working from today (from home) and am behind on my work and then this evening spending time with family so I just don't have more time today for this. I'll probably check this thread when I come back though.

 

[beancounter]

Yep.

Or do you know omnis who believe it is ethically wrong to not eat animals?

 

[KLS52]

OMG, OMG, OMG...I don’t even know what to say to that. It definitely evoked an extremely negative emotion from me though...several different negative emotions at that.

 

[beancounter]

OMG, OMG, OMG...I don’t even know what to say to that. It definitely evoked an extremely negative emotion from me though...several different negative emotions at that.

I posted a bunch of links in her comment section to counter her arguments. Hopefully some of her followers will read them.

 

[silva]

Yep.

Holy crap ! Talk about inciting negative emotions!
THAT'S the difference between 'rumpsters and rationale Republicans !!!! One's batshit crazy the other is a definition of a rationale set of views based on reality
Ok, I have to admit I'm guessing she likes the trumps tweets and hate Soros

 

[Mischief]

Yep.

She's pretty funny, actually, though I'm sure she doesn't realize it.

Are you sure you really want to use this as an example of an omni who thinks it's ethically wrong to abstain from eating meat? Because she's almost entirely focused on what she perceives to be the health aspects, and when she focuses on ethics, her concern is not that she thinks it's wrong to not eat animals, but rather her concern is with what (she thinks) vegans do eat.