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.
What I am saying is that it doesn't matter who resorts to bullying behavior first: it is still bullying behavior.
You're right. No wonder we have such a problem with bullying in our schools. The adults are probably teaching by example how to do it. One person here who I could classify as a bully even posted recently that he/she lets her/his preteens read her/his posts.
I don't mind intelligent humor or criticism. The blatant partisan hacks don't warrant a response. I can tolerate opposing viewpoints, and have no issues with the other side if they argue in a logical, articulate manner.
By the way, they were playing old songs on the radio on the drive home today. Man I hate that Odanny boy song.
That makes sense ... sort of like they are seeking validation for their beliefs and opinions even if they are outlandish.
Extremes from both ends attack anything that challenge their version of truth because all of THEIR sources tell them different. With as many versions of "Truth" as are out there I fear America has become a victim of too much low quality information
I think liberals would be more inclined to hear our viewpoints if we discussed them calmly and rationally without resorting to childish verbal attacks. Just so you are aware, you are not winning anything by attacking the president because liberals and conservatives are not even taking you seriously. All you are doing is demonstrating your ignorance, immaturity and irrelevance. Grow up!
Two things I wish regarding this post - first I wish I'd said that, then I wish I hadn't used up my rep points for you!
It's not just here. Civility on the internet is a lost art and getting worse.
I'm guessing you weren't using the web back when Usenet ruled. Message boards are comparatively new in cyberspace. The web is a lot more civil than it used to be. Back then, when Usenet was it, the flame wars were vicious, there were no moderators, and once you hit the "send" button, there was no way to delete it or edit errors. All of those messages are still archived if you know where to look. Do a couple newsgroup searches from way back in the 80s and you'll be surprised how uncivil the web used to be.
Although it might seem absurd to ask this question, my experiences here lead me to believe that some people prefer to name call, and some people prefer to reason through things carefully. It is interesting to me to know why people on all sides of an issue pick the argumentative strategies they do.
A small batch of the people just call names--these are the outliers. They make up about 20% of us on any side of an issue, and they will always be vocal. But what do the rest of you think? Do you get sick of having extremists representing your point of view? The level of discourse 'round these parts lately has been very disappointing to me. If you agree, what should we do about it?
Forums attract a lot of cowardly and ignorant people. Forums can be used as a great resource but many people use them to further their hate and agenda.
CD is often used as a license to display ignorant behavior.
Location: The Land Mass Between NOLA and Mobile, AL
1,796 posts, read 1,662,111 times
Reputation: 1411
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron.
Forums attract a lot of cowardly and ignorant people. Forums can be used as a great resource but many people use them to further their hate and agenda.
CD is often used as a license to display ignorant behavior.
This is of course true, and I wasn't asking this question innocently. I was asking it pointedly. It seems like most people think that it's generally not cool to be insulting, while a few people think it is justified. Here's an example of Jon Stewart calling out the hypocrisy that I'm talking about. Some people might think that just by invoking Stewart I am inherently advocating a leftish position, but I'm really not. My criticism of what happens here is the same criticism that Jon Stewart has of (now canceled) shows like *Crossfire*, and it doesn't matter who does it.
I think argument shouldn't be like a war, it should rather be more like negotiation. In negotiation, it would be stupid to try to literally or figuratively kill your opponent because then argument would not be possible. Since politics is a species of negotiation, in my opinion, then why does it make sense to try to kill your opponent in political discussions?
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.
