Is this forum just a place to vent and laugh?

[beancounter]

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.

I'm sure a Google search would yield more results. But over the years, I've heard a number of hunters try to argue that not thinning the heard is unethical.

 

[Mischief]

I'm sure a Google search would yield more results. But over the years, I've heard a number of hunters try to argue that not thinning the heard is unethical.

The hunters aren't arguing that veg*ns should go out shooting animals, though - they are just trying to justify their own actions.

I would also note that they are not out there killing the weakest, the diseased, the old, which is a predator's actual role in helping to maintain sustainable and healthy populations.

 

[Andy_T]

I'm kind of curious as to whom among current posters you consider to be "extreme Left."

I must add that from a European viewpoint, there are not many politicians (apart from maybe Bernie Sanders) that would be considered “left” in the US, certainly not among the two main parties. They are more”Far right” and “Moderate right” compared to European mindsets.

 

[Andy_T]

Fun exercise ... find out where you yourself stand on the “Political Compass” ...

The Political Compass

Spoiler: This likely makes me one of beancounter ’s “Squeaky Left Wheels”

More detail ...

Spoiler: Also found this gem of a thread, where we did the exercise already in 2015 ... [/Spoiler=Also found this gem of a thread, where we did the exercise in 2015 ..

US election - who would YOU vote for?

 

[silva]

 

[Mischief]

 

[silva]

I don't feel that extreme though...
Even though I have strong opinions I always seem to be the one to try and get others to see opposing viewpoints, or consider how upbringing alters people perspectives

 

[Mischief]

I don't feel that extreme though...
Even though I have strong opinions I always seem to be the one to try and get others to see opposing viewpoints, or consider how upbringing alters people perspectives

Well, you're nicer than I am. I just want to bang people's heads into walls.

Seriously though, I think the little quiz and where it places people is flawed by oversimplification.

The WaPo had an article the other week about those personality tests, how people buy into them, and how flawed they are.

 

[silva]

Well, you're nicer than I am. I just want to bang people's heads into walls.

Seriously though, I think the little quiz and where it places people is flawed by oversimplification.

The WaPo had an article the other week about those personality tests, how people buy into them, and how flawed they are.

I so agree! We've gotten far to into these silly internet quizzes. Well, far to into the internet as a whole! You think of the flawed beliefs that people have always bought into for whatever reason, as truths, now it's insane what people tell me, or ask, and I'm like "why the hell would you think that!?" Internet

 

[Val]

That was fun.
My test results:

 

[KLS52]

I have to be honest...I didn’t know how to answer a few of the questions but this is my result.

 

[Mark Mywordz]

Possibly related thread: Keeping the Forum Fun and Interesting
I like intellectual debate where you can say controversial things (within reason) without provoking an emotional reaction. I think I should be able to say something controversial that goes against the majority belief. Anyone who believes that eating meat is morally questionable ought to be able to relate to this. But anytime I try to step slightly out of the mainstream liberal opinion on this forum with a controversial opinion invariably either someone attacks me and generates heat, or I just get ignored. It doesn’t seem to lead to a good intellectual debate.

 

[Mark Mywordz]

I agree with every word you have written, Jamie, and think this is a very serious issue. In fact I would go several steps further. I think that no opinions should be deleted. Fascists, racists even terrorists should be able to air their views on any forum. It's important to know what people are thinking however hateful we think their views might be. Here is why:
1. The world will never change for the better if we cannot debate seriously with people who oppose our views. We need to open up our minds so we can open up their minds.
2. Not everything that any person says is bad and wrong. I did not like Margaret Thatcher but she had some good ideas and did some good things. Trump too is really not my cup of tea but he was democratically elected and some people say he has done things to improve the economy in the USA, for example.
3. Democracy and tolerance are more important than political correctness.
4. I have no problem admitting that I am sometimes wrong and welcome views which are different from mine.
5. I dislike censorship.
I am left wing and an atheist but have friends who are conservative and religious. I suspect that our American cousins are less tolerant of opposing views than Europeans are and I consider myself European.

 

[Andy_T]

Peter, I understand where you are coming from, but the day-to-day reality of forum or group moderation is that moderators often have to make quick decisions whether it is better to "stifle free speech" or to allow a potentially toxic discussion to continue and alienate wide parts of the audience.

Mind you, I am not speaking of this specific incident here, but I am one of the moderators of the Facebook "Vegetarians" group, where we regularly have to "pull the plug" from discussions between vegans and vegetarians - where vegans rightfully point out that dairy and eggs cause animal suffering, and vegetarians, on the other hand, equally rightful, ask to not be insulted (or vice versa). We have tried both - allowing discussions to continue, if they were led in a civil manner, and also to quickly shut down such discussions if they got out of hand. Both alternatives are not great, but the second also leads to alienation of large swaths of the readership. This is typically something that is tried to avoid on forums, especially in cases where people have diverging and strongly held beliefs and there is neither "the truth" nor the realistic possibility that anybody will get swayed by the discussion.

(Mind you, I am not trying to derail the original discussion by introducing new topics, I am trying to give examples why letting a discussion go on is not always the best option)

 

[Mark Mywordz]

(Mind you, I am not trying to derail the original discussion by introducing new topics, I am trying to give examples why letting a discussion go on is not always the best option)

I cannot see any real meaning in the word “toxic” if you apply it to a discussion. Words never really kill people. When people resort to insults, that is regrettable of course but you can’t do much in life if you can’t ignore prejudice and bad manners and if you believe that we must all agree all the time. Prejudiced people are a waste of space but over time it may be possible for them to see the folly of their ways. A forum can become boring and bland if it just focusses on those areas of life where we all agree or on those subjects which are totally uncontentious.

Jamie does not figure on this forum anything like as much as I would like. His views breath life into this space. There are doubtless many more people like him who are put off forums by their blandness. Could “toxic” discusssions not be moved to an area of the forums where there is a clear “health” warning – like the ones on cigarette packets such as “Some people may find these discussions distasteful/contentious etc.”

 

[Jamie in Chile]

I agree with every word you have written, Jamie, and think this is a very serious issue. In fact I would go several steps further. I think that no opinions should be deleted. Fascists, racists even terrorists should be able to air their views on any forum.

I agree with your general sentiment but what you suggest, whether right or wrong (and it may be right) it just too far a step for this forum at this particular time. It's just too much of a change from what we have now, and it would upset too many members for too little gain (if any).

Unless it was part of a separate area of the forum as you suggest. Although I'm not sure whether or not there is enough support for something like that, but it could be something to keep in mind.

 

[beancounter]

I cannot see any real meaning in the word “toxic” if you apply it to a discussion. Words never really kill people. When people resort to insults, that is regrettable of course but you can’t do much in life if you can’t ignore prejudice and bad manners and if you believe that we must all agree all the time. Prejudiced people are a waste of space but over time it may be possible for them to see the folly of their ways. A forum can become boring and bland if it just focusses on those areas of life where we all agree or on those subjects which are totally uncontentious.

Jamie does not figure on this forum anything like as much as I would like. His views breath life into this space. There are doubtless many more people like him who are put off forums by their blandness. Could “toxic” discusssions not be moved to an area of the forums where there is a clear “health” warning – like the ones on cigarette packets such as “Some people may find these discussions distasteful/contentious etc.”

At VV, it's less about censorship, and more about those with a minority opinion being made to feel unwelcome.

As a result, the forum is small and insular. Those who are the biggest offenders don't believe they are doing anything wrong, and things will never change here because they view themselves as "defenders of the faith".

 

[Mischief]

3. Democracy and tolerance are more important than political correctness.

This is a really prime example of using loaded language to make your position appealing. Congratulations, well done!

On the one hand we have "democracy", and who, other than the autocrats in power, doesn't like that?!

On that same side, we also have "tolerance", which everyone finds appealing when they are the beneficiaries of that tolerance. Another clear winner!

Then, on the other hand, we have "political correctness", which is a phrase that was specifically coined to diminish the concern that others have about the impact of words and actions. Strangely enough, the term "political correctness" is never used by the "free speech" crowd to describe attacks on them for their words and actions; such attacks are always "lack of tolerance" and/or an "attack on free speech."


So, you have provided us with a nice, tidy example of the power of words.

Let me use other words, that don't carry the implicit bias of your phrasing to restate your point #3:

3. Democracy and tolerance are more important than combating intolerance and verbal and psychological attacks on people who are marginalized because of characteristics with which they were born.

Are you still 100% behind your point #3?

 

[Mischief]

I think that no opinions should be deleted. Fascists, racists even terrorists should be able to air their views on any forum.

I couldn't disagree more strongly. By giving them those platforms, you are implicitly saying that they are mainstream, that their views are just as acceptable as anyone else's. You become complicit with them. History has shown us, over and over again, what happens next.

It's important to know what people are thinking however hateful we think their views might be.

The beautiful thing about bigots is that it doesn't take much to suss them out, even when they are on their best behavior. You don't actually need to provide them with a platform to broadcast their bigotry.

1. The world will never change for the better if we cannot debate seriously with people who oppose our views. We need to open up our minds so we can open up their minds.

To counter one simplistic saying with another:

Be careful you don't open your mind so far that your brain falls out.

I don't feel that I need to open my mind to the viewpoint that someone is inferior because they were born with a skin tone different from mine. Or to the viewpoint that an entire religion/ethnicity/ should be exterminated.

Do you?

2. Not everything that any person says is bad and wrong. I did not like Margaret Thatcher but she had some good ideas and did some good things. Trump too is really not my cup of tea but he was democratically elected and some people say he has done things to improve the economy in the USA, for example.

True. Hitler, for example, did some good things for the German economy, and I gather that Ted Bundy was quite charming and probably made a delightful lunch companion. It doesn't mean that I want to have a nice cozy discussion with either of them, or that any such discussion would be productive.

3. Democracy and tolerance are more important than political correctness.

I addressed this in my previous post.

4. I have no problem admitting that I am sometimes wrong and welcome views which are different from mine.

That is a positive trait.

5. I dislike censorship.

Theoretically, a nice sentiment, but I suspect you have your limits, as we all do. For example, if someone were to respond to your posts with a "You ****ing moron, you don't deserve to live", I suspect you'd get tired of it pretty darn quickly. And that's just on the internet, where no one knows where you live.

And you see, there are actually people who have to live with such sentiments expressed against them day after day, year after year, in real life as well as online.

I am left wing and an atheist but have friends who are conservative and religious.

Yup. Me too. So?

ETA: I do not have friends who are bigoted. And yes, leftists are no more immune from bigotry than conservatives are.

I suspect that our American cousins are less tolerant of opposing views than Europeans are and I consider myself European.

And yet, strangely enough, the U.S. doesn't have laws prohibiting hate speech, while a number of European countries do.

That doesn't quite compute with your statement, does it?

 

[Mischief]

I cannot see any real meaning in the word “toxic” if you apply it to a discussion. Words never really kill people.

You have led an incredibly fortunate life, to be able to say this and presumably mean it. Really, incredibly fortunate, and also very limiting, in terms of being able to understand the experiences of those not so fortunate.