LOL...I don't think too many would have slapped you down if you named it after me.

There may be some mileage in moderated debate threads? I personally never go into the politics forum. Initially this was because I don't understand US politics, more recently it's been because I hear that it's a slanging match rather than a debating forum.
I'd be willing to try being a politics thread moderator (for one thread) if that would help to try an experiment?

The problem with moderation is that sometimes slanging matches are not a bad thing. It sort of depends on the participants and levels of assumed or implied permissions between them. Where those match and are in sync (regardless of political persuasion) a good slanging match can be good fun. Where those do not match and are not in sync, then again regardless of political persuasion, a slanging match is likely to cause genuine offence.

Lookout and I are about as opposed to each other politically as it is possible to be, yet we can happily throw shit at each other within the bounds of our assumed permissions without it being a problem. Most of the time it's in jest. Very occasionally we have had heated disagreement. Classicman and I similarly are able to have very heated arguments, and actually piss each other off from time to time, or overstep those accepted parameters and cause mild offence, without that turning into anything really ugly.

Most of the time, with Merc, he and I are acting within parameters we have organically agreed upon. The bounds of those parameters are somewhat wider than with other posters. I am happy to have a slanging match within those paremeters and we do so quite often. What's unpleasant to witness, or participate in, is a slanging match that disregards mutually agreed parameters, or is operating where no such thing yet exists. This last in relation particularly to newcomers.

This is one of the problems really. So much of this stuff is context dependant.

I don't discuss politics here because my political views often have an emotional basis. That makes for poor debate. I wonder if some of the other participants might want to question whether they have the same problem.

Theoretically, we're all grown ups here, and should be willing to accept the consequences of posting without expecting that it all be roses and puppies when you do ... Dana, unless your friends are exceedingly fragile, there's no need to warn them off.

This.

It's not that they're fragile. They'd just get so annoyed that they wouldn't want to come back.


And it's not about expecting things to be sunshine and roses either. It's about expecting a modicum of respect and being able to discuss things without it always finishing in the deep end.

Nobody is forcing them to come, to stay, or to leave. Every adult person makes their own decisions. . . . NO EXCEPTIONS.

Oh well. There we go. Problem solved.

Of course, if people who are trying to debate a point can't take a personal attack it must be their problem.

Absolutely.

The problem with that, Wolf, is that there are certain people who try to dominate the discussions by posting obsessively and who attempt to intimidate the posters with personal attacks and incessant mockery.

Why bother? Honestly.

Subjectivity is a condition we cannot avoid. Human interactions cannot be put into a flowchart of "if this, then that" because the question of "if" can never be resolved. What is fragile? What is sunshine and roses? What is respect--how is it displayed, and how is it violated? What is an attack? When does a debate become an argument?

These are rhetorical questions. Whatever answer you have in your head is applicable only to yourself and yourself alone. You can't impose these things. Only by rule of written law can a collective will be imposed.

So the question is: do we want to live in a constrained society, bound by rigid roles deemed "acceptable" by the noisiest complainers, or do we want to grow the fuck up, shut the fuck up, and forget about this crybaby bullshit?

Well that told me.

Good.