Modes of discussion in the VPT

[Wokko]

<split from same-sex parenting thread>

[pietillidie]

[think positive]

[Tannin]

Fnuck me, I get pissed off with the way a certain in-group of Nick's posters constantly snipe, sneer and outright abuse PTID. WTF is it with you people? F*ucking grow up and act like decent people you spiteful, childish tools. OK, I don't expect a lot of wisdom or maturity from SM and KM and one or two others, but TP, you are better than that. Just make a decision: you aren't going to get sucked into that shit anymore.

Disclaimer: I seldom post on this topic 'coz PTID is a big boy who doesn't need and probably doesn't want my help (if help it be). I'm just so bloody sick of reading post after bloody post of nyah-nyah don't-like-you hate-mail from Nicksters who should know better.

[stui magpie]

[think positive]

[stui magpie]

[King Monkey]

[Tannin]

The difference between a BBS like this one and a face-to-face conversation, KM, is that you don't have to either listen quietly when someone else has something to say or else shout them down if you want to talk. You are free to say as much or as little as you like. So is every other member. If you don't enjoy reading Fred Smith's posts, that's fine. Don't read them. Your choice. Or, if you really don't like Fred Smith's posts, you can put him on ignore. Again, it's your choice.

One thing you shouldn't do - and you don't, so good on you for that - is loudly pretend to put someone on ignore and then respond angrily to all his posts anyway. That's seriously sucky.

Just remember: you are 100% free to post as you see fit and have whatever conversations you wish with other members. There is no need to or value in whinging about "not being allowed" to have a conversation: you are perfectly free to have whatever conversation you wish.

(Others may or may not read it, may or may not join it, and you may or not bother reading anything they add to it. That's fine too. All entirely up to you.)

[stui magpie]

[Wokko]

I've certainly had many a disagreement with PTID, I prefer to believe that he simply holds his views very passionately, has thought out and considered his views and has come down on the other side to me but not out of any malice. When someone holds a very personal belief it's pretty normal to want to defend that point of view, and his methods are long, verbose and over written posts that tend towards condescension of opposing views. If I didn't temper myself then so would mine. My point is I'm happy to fire back, but constantly jumping on someone when they're not being a pain isn't right and it does make things a bit uncomfortable and is heading a bit towards bullying. I guess this could come under 'if you want to dish it out then you've got to take it' but maybe keep the fight a fair 1v1 and not an angry mob.

[King Monkey]

[think positive]

[Tannin]

^ Very well spoken, TP. I agree with you entirely. Respect.

[pietillidie]

Of course, it's only fitting that I should write a short essay in reply

I appreciate the more liberal views above for the good of the forum, and in the spirit of countering the illiberal tendency of mobbing (a term David introduced to Nick's the other day). And, I also very much like Stui and TP, even though I know I infuriate them, but I see that as a general social dilemma (different personalities, different hierarchies of values, different approaches, different purposes, different needs, different life experiences).

I also think it's pretty obvious no one here needs to take a martyrdom position, myself least of all. No one is picking on powerless outcasts here, as far as anyone can reasonably tell.

I consider us all crazy, myself particularly, though at least I'm willing to get professional help for it I just don't speak much about my personal life on Nick's because I'm here for the politics and certain shared interests, so you won't hear me talk much about the trials and tribulations that place what some see as condescension in a broader personal context. Does anyone really think that at a personal level I would not have a sympathetic ear for Nicksters or their families, or conversely that I don't think I'm a dickhead or failed hypocrite for doing X or Y instead of Z in everyday life?

But for me, political propaganda, public hoo-ha and daily media cycle nonsense ought to be considered a gloves-off arena from the outset. It doesn't warrant more than it gets.

I suspect my more public interest on Nick's exacerbates these things, but that just goes to basic personality and purpose. I'm a beer and chat person for the more intimate, personal stuff. But for the politics I'm with Keating: It's the ultimate high-wire act because there's so much at stake despite it being so ridiculous in so many ways, and I enjoy the cut and thrust of it. And as stupid as the whole game of charades is, people's lives and happiness are literally very often on the line, so we're not playing for beans by influencing public discourse here even if it often seems as though we are.

I generally try to reserve what I consider due competitive critique for (a) public figures, (b) individual views vocal and loud enough to influence public opinion (no, I don't argue politics and religion with 96-year-old Mrs. Smith), (c) views which I think damage the lives of weaker peoples, and (d) petty ego tit-for-tat (you're a dickhead; no, but you're a moron). At least the people I argue with have the access and capabilities to do the same; like me saying this or not, second generation Muslim kids in the Sydney suburbs, boat people, suicidal gay teenagers, the average Chinese person in suburban Beijing, English learners struggling to get complex sentences out, remote Aboriginal peoples and endangered native Australian marsupials in felled forests and cleared lands, not so much. Take it or leave it.

And this often crosses into the personal because it does, not because I want it to. You'd have to be in extreme denial to think views on complex social problems are derived from some pure rationaility-generating device in our heads; we're not manipulating Lego blocks in these debates. Our views are bound by our brains, and our emotions reside in our brains, so it's a complete social nonsense to even pretend we're playing rationality with a lot of this stuff. Digging into the emotions and motivations is completely rational. And that should be a hint that more often than not we're not arguing a point, we're negotiating social relationships. And social relationships imply perceived social status, and so on, and that gets to the emotional system.

And, agree or not, on a liberal forum in a liberal society, that's an adjudication I have a right to make.

So, in sum, I can't stop what I consider harm being done to others through what I consider reactionary, deeply flawed and of often highly unethical views. But others also can't stop me using the counter leverage available to offset that harm, whether that be the most productive way of doing so or not, whether the harm has been correctly perceived or not.

It's not that complicated IMO, it's just hard to emotionally cope with without retreating into a like-minded, exclusionary huddle. Call that condescending if you will.

But, as HAL used to say in the good old days, "Enough about me; let's talk about my dress."