Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There are no acceptable scenarios, when we speak online; I have always advocated us speaking as though that individual was standing before you. 15 years ago, I was stalked online; not fun.
To defer back on topic:
For us to have open and honest discussions, I feel we must tread on some "feelings"; or we may all be doomed to think alike.
In this thread, before that post; I deleted what I really wanted to say b/c I didn't want to offend anyone.
Yet, sometimes truth hurts us; a necessary part of life to grow as a person and nation.
It appears to me we have always gotten half of the story, just the white American story.
We've never been educated until recently about gender dysphoria, black history, LGBT, Muslims, all that was left out of my education in an all white affluent school system. I am just learning now, almost 60 years old, why African Americans all have white genes also. I had no idea the female slaves were all raped. I'm appalled. I also recently learned about black travel guides, because blacks needed to know where it was safe to travel within our nation on their vacations. I know too that there is so much more that I still am clueless about. I am not an anomaly, I am your average white person, and am college degreed.
It is a very good thing that Americans now are learning about minorities history, all minorities. They are people too; equal rights under the law, and there is a lot of blowback on accepting that there is a history besides white privilege heterosexual history. These people all deserve a voice too. They deserve to be heard, and the only way it appears to get some resistant people to hear these other people is to put it in THEIR FACE, in order to increase diversity tolerance. When people stay ignorant of the lives and plight of others, they then are that "insensitive" that you speak of. Once they open their eyes to the challenges others have to face they may begin to learn some compassion, and racism and bigotry in all its forms may begin to finally subside.
Proof? Where does compassion for diversity exist? In the big cities. Why there? Because people come in contact with diversity, learn about different minorities lives, and then accept them as equals, not the same as me or you as white heterosexuals, but accept them and are no longer afraid, or feel the need to punish, insult, or otherwise be insensitive. It opens the mind that there are other people who have the right to live on this earth just as much as we do, even though they may be very different in some ways whether it is their race, religion, sexuality, gender, or what have you.
Last edited by NoMansLands; 02-26-2021 at 05:53 PM..
"Here in the USA - Will we ever be able to again have open, honest discussions?"
No. But "we" as an internet community have brought this upon ourselves. One of the first things to go when someone disagrees with you, even here on CD, is civility. You get called names like "stupid" "idiot" etc. if you cross someone else's perception of reality or their opinion, or you get typed down to as if you are some cultural neanderthal. This rudeness has led to sites "moderating" threads to protect the feelings of the participants by closing or scrubbing threads with any semblance of robust discussion in them.
This has morphed to defining such a narrow set of standards as to make open discussion very very difficult.
People don't have to agree with each other to have a discussion. In fact agreement renders discussion moot and only reinforces an echo chamber.
No. Even here, it this thread, I've self-limited some of the things I'd like to say because I know if I don't it will, at the very minimum get moderated out, and more likely get banned entirely.
Not all feelings are equally valid. Sometimes feelings don't change reality. But today, when reality and feelings clash, we hide reality. And that simple truth probably exceeds the limit of what I'm allowed to say.
No. Even here, it this thread, I've self-limited some of the things I'd like to say because I know if I don't it will, at the very minimum get moderated out, and more likely get banned entirely.
Not all feelings are equally valid. Sometimes feelings don't change reality. But today, when reality and feelings clash, we hide reality. And that simple truth probably exceeds the limit of what I'm allowed to say.
You are confusing a lot of different things. CD is not the US or the world. It is a privately owned website with a TOS. CD can restrict anything it wants. Don't confuse anything on CD with the real world.
Can I come into your house and say and do anything I want? Fo you have house rules? If I violate them, would you put me out?
Tnff, CD owes you nothing. If you feel limited here, you can find a space that better meets your needs. Personally, there are a ton of things I choose to not post on CD. If these things are important enough for me, I will post it elsewhere.
People, don't confuse private internet companies with your ability and right to speak freely. Everyone even has the option to start their own website and post whatever they want.
With that said, real world conversations can be had if all parties involved share their thoughts in a calm rational manner.
Last edited by charlygal; 02-27-2021 at 07:35 AM..
No. Even here, it this thread, I've self-limited some of the things I'd like to say because I know if I don't it will, at the very minimum get moderated out, and more likely get banned entirely.
I don't see this as the case, this section has higher standards than others on the board; as per the sticky post.
My issue is somewhat of a generation gap?, as people my age are blunt; friends half my age must be handled with kid gloves...so as not to hurt their feelings.
The problem with this is, I don't feel I'm being honest and open.
And the reason is, if I am I know they won't be able to handle it; and that'll be the end of our relationship.
You are confusing a lot of different things. CD is not the US or the world. It is a privately owned website with a TOS. CD can restrict anything it wants. Don't confuse anything on CD with the real world.
Can I come into your house and say and do anything I want? Fo you have house rules? If I violate them, would you put me out?
Tnff, CD owes you nothing. If you feel limited here, you can find a space that better meets your needs. Personally, there are a ton of things I choose to not post on CD. If these things are important enough for me, I will post it elsewhere.
People, don't confuse private internet companies with your ability and right to speak freely. Everyone even has the option to start their own website and post whatever they want.
With that said, real world conversations can be had if all parties involved share their thoughts in a calm rational manner.
I'm not the one confused here. First of all, when a private company owns the means of distribution of a vital public function, for example a utility, then it has a special obligation beyond that of a simple business.
You're really arguing two points here, both of which limit the ability for discussion to take place. First you are arguing that through the use of private owned media, we can get around that pesky First Amendment by having private business do the dirty work. It may slide you around the wording, but certainly violates the intent and spirit. Media has become the town square of today and by limiting access to only those views you agree with, it takes away the town square from others.
Your second point is the standard "if you don't like the rules of media A, go someplace else." Even ignoring the implications of the first point, you're essentially arguing that everyone should go to their own echo chamber and leave you in yours. How does discussion take place when everyone is hiding in their own echo chamber avoiding other points of view?
My issue is somewhat of a generation gap?, as people my age are blunt; friends half my age must be handled with kid gloves...so as not to hurt their feelings.
The problem with this is, I don't feel I'm being honest and open.
And the reason is, if I am I know they won't be able to handle it; and that'll be the end of our relationship.
quis custodiet ipsos custodes
I agree very much. It's gotten so at work there are people we can't tell them when they've done something wrong because they just crumble. I will say that as gen Z is starting to enter the workplace, they are more open to criticism and eager to learn and improve. It's kind of exciting again to see their enthusiasm.
I'm not the one confused here. First of all, when a private company owns the means of distribution of a vital public function, for example a utility, then it has a special obligation beyond that of a simple business.
You're really arguing two points here, both of which limit the ability for discussion to take place. First you are arguing that through the use of private owned media, we can get around that pesky First Amendment by having private business do the dirty work. It may slide you around the wording, but certainly violates the intent and spirit. Media has become the town square of today and by limiting access to only those views you agree with, it takes away the town square from others.
Your second point is the standard "if you don't like the rules of media A, go someplace else." Even ignoring the implications of the first point, you're essentially arguing that everyone should go to their own echo chamber and leave you in yours. How does discussion take place when everyone is hiding in their own echo chamber avoiding other points of view?
Do you recognize that communication happens outside of the internet? Also, spaces like CD were created for the purpose of the owners and not for the public.
If you build a house, are you required to let everyone in?
I don't get it. You are 100% free to create your own space to say whatever you walk and you balk at that? In less than 15 minutes you can have a free blog up and you can say whatever you want.
Echo chambers happen because people refuse to diversify their input.
Last edited by charlygal; 02-27-2021 at 09:06 AM..
I'm not the one confused here. First of all, when a private company owns the means of distribution of a vital public function, for example a utility, then it has a special obligation beyond that of a simple business.
You're really arguing two points here, both of which limit the ability for discussion to take place. First you are arguing that through the use of private owned media, we can get around that pesky First Amendment by having private business do the dirty work. It may slide you around the wording, but certainly violates the intent and spirit. Media has become the town square of today and by limiting access to only those views you agree with, it takes away the town square from others.
Your second point is the standard "if you don't like the rules of media A, go someplace else." Even ignoring the implications of the first point, you're essentially arguing that everyone should go to their own echo chamber and leave you in yours. How does discussion take place when everyone is hiding in their own echo chamber avoiding other points of view?
First of all, while City-Data does a commendable job of providing statistics about U.S. cities, real estate information, relocation information, etc. which can be of importance to those in need of such information, City-Data (along with social media platforms) is by no means comparable to utility companies that have been contracted and charged with the responsibility of providing vital services to communities.
Secondly, the First Amendment prohibits Congress from abridging the right to free speech. Even utility companies have the right to set their own policies as they see fit, provided that their policies don't conflict with local and federal law.
If you can find an example of a utility company that was taken to task by the government because that company's policy somehow violated an employee's First Amendment rights, then by all means please provide the example here, as I would be very interested in seeing that. Once again, First Amendment rights pertain to what the government can and cannot do -- not to what private individuals (including businesses) can and cannot do.
Just as you, as a private individual, are not compelled to provide a forum for views with which you disagree, so too have the courts ruled that "compelling a private corporation to provide a forum for views with which it disagreed infringed on the corporation’s free speech rights."
Last edited by Rachel NewYork; 02-27-2021 at 09:58 AM..
Your example is interesting to me. Can't threaten others jokingly with bodily harm anymore?
I have found that many who complain that they are being silenced or censored, are mostly angry about the notion of having to consider the feelings of other people. They're really defending a desire to say mean things. To someone. The internet has had this whole "wild west" flavor in the past, where the common advice was to get a thicker skin, or simply log off.
I mean, under the umbrella of your own example, is a male poster jokingly threatening to rape a poster he knows/believes to be female, because she's arguing with him about something. Do you miss that? Is that a thing you believe to be appropriate in a forum like this one? Because I sure as hell do not.
Now EVERYONE uses the internet. And just like the Wild West became modern and civil once the women and children moved in and insisted on law and order, now people are worried about their kids, and those who actually care about others are interested in making space even for the vulnerable to be able to exist here without being attacked. And the trolls and the bullies are mad about it....well, I bet that when civilization, law and order came to other real life frontiers, there had previously been opportunistic bullies who felt robbed of their right to push everyone else around, and who resisted change. Oh, well!
Maybe some dank and slimy corners of the internet will be preserved for those who lament that they cannot continue to behave as savages and insist that everyone around them get a "thicker skin." Let the bullies slink off to wave their privates at each other where the rest of us don't have to deal with it.
I don't see an expectation to treat others with decency and basic respect as an infringement upon my freedoms. Perhaps there's a hint of irony in the fact that I have also been on the internet for a couple of decades, and was even part of a group/site where troll behavior was not only the norm, it was practically a requirement. But some things...I guess I've just outgrown?
But one area where I am AGAINST "cancel culture" and the such, is the thing of digging back into a person's past to try and engineer a "gotcha" moment against them. It is going way too far. We've got to allow people the grace to grow and the space to be human and imperfect. Leave the past in the past and focus on how a person is behaving and what they are believing, now.
I've read a few of your posts now. You are far too logical and reasonable for this place.
I agree with your Wild West analogy, it is is inevitable that the Internet will conform to societal norms.
With that being said, the technology will always exceed our ability to control it or event to predict where it might take us. Modern communication technology is the biggest wild card in the history of civilization. Has the power to evolve us or to destroy us.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
