Published on 12, July, 2020
because of the arguments, why not hibernate?
I have done this before.
You can change your name to 'hibernating'.
It's good psychologically because it stops me from posting and indicates to others that you are having a break.
Also, you can choose to still PM (which I do) which isolates you less.
Roy has chosen to do this yesterday.
I've been told by one person that someone they knew was thinking of joining but didn't because of the disagreements, others post far less, others join and then stay a short while.
I was sad to read Billy87 s post today.
To the new people here: it's not always like this and only certain subjects are incendiary so if you can manage to avoid reading them, that would help.
I am guilty of having joined into arguments because I also feel passionately about certain subjects and I expect I will occasionally still make my point.
However, I think restraint here is the key and personal insults should never be acceptable.
I dearly hope that this thread doesn't go the same way as my 'arguments' thread and become one almightly row ...
Another thing I've been pondering on.
I used to be on a stock photography forum and that decended into rows too.
In that instance, it was because of large egos quite often.
Here, it's very different.
We have a set of people who all have vulnerabilities and quite often, have suffered at the hands of others.
Therefore, when subjects come up such as *ex and gender/gender roles, these can be triggers and can end up in conflict and I think can be quite harmful to the people involved.
We all have very different experiences of life, are different in many different ways, but perhaps rather than going the way of the outside world's wars, we can try to learn to get along, in spite of these differences.
That's true. But part of that is accepting that people can say things that you hate, that make your blood boil, and that you're going to respond to the point, and the arguments, but not attack the person. It's accepting that you can contradict opinions you don't like but you can't silence them or vilanize people for having them.
Well on the surface level I'd agree with you Peter, but the issue with the concept of wanting free speeach on the forum is that actually we already have it here, nobody is physically stopped from saying anything here, what they are not free from is the consequences of what they say. You can't mind control people to be okay with whatever is said, because they too have a right to an opinon and also exercise their own free speach to say so.It's true namecalling is not helpful or necesssary but as I pointed out last night that is what mods are for to bring things back to a civil and safe level when things go too far, I think you should utilise the ability to point out if you think rules have been broken to them.P.s. Hope you did actually get some rest last night, this morning I did read what you last sent me lastnight, but I've not responded there because it seemed to have come to a end of sorts.
I don't know if ad hominem is the right term but we have a lot of debates that go like this:
OP: I did X and a bad thing happened, give me advice.
A: X is a horrible thing to do, you should never do X.
B: Well actually I think X can be ok to do sometimes and if the OP does X and Y things might turn out better.
A: No you and the OP are horrible people X is never acceptable and you both deserve to have bad things happen to you.
What we want are discussions like this
A: Well I think X is counter productive I think you should try Y instead.
B: Actually I think X might be ok if he did Z as well.
A: But X and Z raise several ethical concerns for me. Specifically A, B and C.
Ah I see, you mean the ad hominem falacy? (Spellchecker failed this morning, that may be spelled wrong.)