The Mid East Threads

7 posts / 0 new

Tue, 2024-01-09 16:29

oldgoat

So lately I haven’t had a particularly visible presence on the board, but I have been reading the threads, esp the mid east ones, and I’ve gotten a handful of messages.

My feeling is that the level of discourse has not been consistently high, and seems to be getting worse. Some contribute to this more than others. and it's bleeding into other threads. I think I posted a while back about finding this rather dispiriting. After offering some thoughts and opinions on the subject initially, I also decided not to join the polemic. This is not for lack of anything to say, but I really don’t want to get into it.

We have specific policies and community standards of which everyone is aware. My own tools are to cajole nicely, cajole more forcefully, suspend or ban outright. I really don’t like the last options. (ok, there have been times I’ve liked it) Community standards are also determined by this group and has generally been self enforcing. A bunch of threads have really been going sideways lately, and frankly getting pretty school yard. I have felt a bit helpless. I’ve tried to be even handed on this clearly emotional issue with limited success.

Where this is going is, could people please be more mindful regarding what the hell they’re posting and don’t make me wonder if you’re posting sober. The ad hominens are ridiculous. Otherwise people will be taking vacations or will be gone.

Thanks for coming to my TED talk.

Tue, 2024-01-09 17:23

Paladin1

I would like to see the ad hominien comments stop.

Calling posters racist, calling posters trolls or accusing them of trolling, calling people war mongers, accusing people of enjoying other humans suffering, calling people assholes, accusing people of being white saviors (guilty).

I'll sign on to police my comments; lets see some reprecussions for repeat offenders going forward.

Tue, 2024-01-09 18:08

epaulo13

..i managed to spend the vast majority of my posts on babble respectable. especially in view of the diversity of the so called left. but throwing a conservative into the palestinian israeli realm is proving to much for me frustration wise. the same would more than likely happen in my off babble life.

..so i'll do the same thing i would do in my off babble life and do my very best to not engage the source of my frustration.

Tue, 2024-01-09 20:11

oldgoat

Glad you're on board Paladin. I mentioned I had gotten some messages over the last week or so. Except for one, they were concerning you.

In terms of ad hominems, I'm a lot less concerned about calling someone an asshole. We don't need to speak like we're talking to our Gran in front of her Pastor. If someone is trolling we can call them a troll. What really bothers me is passive agressive. Suggesting someone is taking delight in atrocities commited against others really brings the place down, and you are at least as big an offender as anyone. There are not enough hours for me to keep up with people doing that.

For example I cannot believe you tried to start a dick waving contest with Kropotkin about how much money you made and what your jobs are/were, and went on to try to disparage lawyers. If referring to Diefenbaker is a flex, I guess I should keep to myself the fact that I remember Louis St Laurent.

This is the sort of thing that brings down a discussion.

Tue, 2024-01-09 20:56

6079_Smith_W

I guess this is as good a place as any to plug Knowlton Nash's fine book on Diefenbaker's relationship with Kennedy, for those who want a primer (or clues to some of the things k was talking about). Not quite the hand grenade that Peter Newman's book was, but way more on point than that old tune by Stringband.

Tue, 2024-01-09 20:56

(Reply to #5) #6

Paladin1

oldgoat wrote:

Glad you're on board Paladin. I mentioned I had gotten some messages over the last week or so. Except for one, they were concerning you.

That's strange, you should have got a couple from me.
One was about a member insinuating JKR and myself would cheer on ethnic cleansing [Dec 17] which is pretty gross.
A second was another member accusing me of supporting ethnic cleansing [Dec 27].

Quote:
Suggesting someone is taking delight in atrocities commited against others really brings the place down

I totally agree.

Quote:
and you are at least as big an offender as anyone.

I didn't think I was a main contributor to that, but I'll accept that I have been and redouble my efforts to cease it.

Quote:

For example I cannot believe you tried to start a dick waving contest with Kropotkin about how much money you made and what your jobs are/were, and went on to try to disparage lawyers. If referring to Diefenbaker is a flex, I guess I should keep to myself the fact that I remember Louis St Laurent.

For the sake of transparency I think you're being a little biased here Oldgoat. Kropotkin has brought up my job in a disparaging manner and as an ad hominem attack against me multiple times, with no admonishment. If people's careers and jobs are fair game for ridicule then fine.

I thought it was funny him suggesting I get a "real job" so I dropped some of the benefits of the the job and asked his. My lawyer comment came in response to yet another ad hominem attack about being a war monger and loving war. I didn't target lawyers as a profession.

I feel like you're quick to point out my misdeeds but overlook others, at least for the most part. I would respectfully ask you to consider and reflect on that while I'm sorting my posting decorum out.

Wed, 2024-01-10 10:37

Mobo2000

I have disagreed with plenty of moderator decisions on babble in the past, so I want to say I really appreciate the tone and content of Oldgoat's post here. Thank you Oldgoat.

I thought this article on political arguments and particular versus universal moral reasoning was insightful and may be useful to folks here:

https://www.persuasion.community/p/the-apparent-conflict-between-universal

"If some person or group has been injured, refusing to acknowledge their particular circumstances and instead talking about other people implies that the injury of the particular person or group is not especially relevant. Suppose someone responds to your plea of “I have a problem” with “We all have problems.” If they do this, they haven’t contradicted you, and in a way, they have even affirmed what you just said. But they have also implied that they don’t think that your problem is particularly important. By moving from the particular to the universal, they clearly don’t think that your particular problem is of any special relevance.

So, unfortunately, we find ourselves in a muddle. Those who prefer the use of universalistic moral language worry that those who use particularist moral language are being narrow and tribal in their concerns. And those who prefer the use of particularist moral language worry that those who prefer the use of universalistic moral language are downplaying the seriousness of the burdens that fall disproportionately on particular groups or individuals. These worries arise through pragmatic implication: no one is saying that they’re indifferent to the rights and needs of others, yet that is what is getting implied, on both sides.

Fortunately, there’s a way to avoid this miscommunication. Be particular when talking about problems, but universal when discussing the moral principles that we use to guide solutions. "