29 Dec 2020, 2:16 pm
29 Dec 2020, 2:27 pm
blazingstar wrote:
Tempus Fugit wrote:
I don't expect anything to be gained really. There's been threads like this before and nothing was gained that I know of. It's just something to talk about just for the heck of it. Like discussing the weather.
OK....
In my work, I am expected to identify and fix problems. For a while, I had a group home operator and every time I visited her, she went on and on and on about complaints. Inside, I am thinking, OMG, what can I do to fix all these problems? especially when so many of them are inherent to dealing with. Finally, I said, "Ms. Smith, I don't know how to help you with all this." And she turned to me in astonishment and said, "I don't expect you to do anything. We're just talking trash."
LOL I wish I had thought up something that witty to say in the first place.
29 Dec 2020, 2:28 pm
Blaze, Teach, thank you for showing up! You know how to be supportive 
29 Dec 2020, 2:38 pm
30 Dec 2020, 4:10 am
magz wrote:
Pepe wrote:
magz wrote:
Tempus Fugit wrote:
It seems to me that even an actual "denier" should be able to express their views without it being alright for a couple of members to harangue and flame them.
I sometimes come into a dilemma: how much wrong is against the rules?
At some point, repeating obviously false claims becomes harmful, especially if following advice based on these claims may lead to harmful outcomes.
Civil dialogue can be used to point out the perceived "wrong".
I think this is the gist of the discussion here.
Civil dialogue is my ideal, too.
However, it requires all the sides engaged with similar attitude.
Rarely obtainable IRL
But if one side gets ugly, on WP, that a$$hole person can be shown the door.
Fnord wrote:
The opposite also happens -- I have been a member of websites where everyone else was in agreement with each other, and where those of us who either disagreed, presented fact-based research, or introduced new ideas were banned without appeal, explanation, or warning. Those websites are referred to as "Echo Chambers".
Groupthink echo chambers.
Last edited by Pepe on 30 Dec 2020, 4:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
30 Dec 2020, 4:12 am
Tempus Fugit wrote:
Sorry for giving you a hard time magz.
Don't worry about it.
magz gets paid well for the job. [joke]
Tempus Fugit wrote:
Fnord wrote:
The opposite also happens -- I have been a member of websites where everyone else was in agreement with each other, and where those of us who either disagreed, presented fact-based research, or introduced new ideas were banned without appeal, explanation, or warning. Those websites are referred to as "Echo Chambers".
There's been several people who call WP an echo chamber.
It is better than it was, as I keep on telling you.
Last edited by Pepe on 30 Dec 2020, 4:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
30 Dec 2020, 4:28 am
Tempus Fugit wrote:
magz wrote:
Hmmm, you see no difference between lying and being wrong?
If I was making stuff up about someone, then I would be saying things about them that are untrue. I don't see how being wrong cancels out saying things that are untrue, bearing false witness against someone, and stating that it will continue. There's no practical way to work out repeated misrepresentation that's delivered in a contemptuous, sarcastic, demeaning, insulting way, as "oh they just misunderstood". <removed> has been at it for weeks in several threads. I'm convinced he knows exactly what he's doing. I would know if I was doing it. That goes for <removed> too.
Is them leaving me alone too much to ask?
Is asking them to stop cranking out toxicity too much to ask?
It happens to me too.
<squawk> has been attacking me for years.
It got to a point where I had enough and told <squawk> off.
And <bock-ark> is another one who will basically take the opposite view, no matter what I say.
The trouble is, I usually have strong thought out reasons for saying what I do, so if <squawk>, <bock-ark> and <hoo-hoo> argue against me, they usually end up with egg on the face.
"Devil's advocacy" is doggy doo-doo, in my book.
Last edited by Pepe on 30 Dec 2020, 5:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
30 Dec 2020, 4:32 am
magz wrote:
Tempus Fugit wrote:
magz wrote:
"Reciprocation" is generally unwelcome here. You're not the only one asked not to do it.
The rules are the way they are. It's okay to attack opinions and content, it's not okay to attack persons. If you see others not keeping to these rules, don't engage, report. If you don't accept these rules, use social media with rules you accept.
The rules are the way they are. It's okay to attack opinions and content, it's not okay to attack persons. If you see others not keeping to these rules, don't engage, report. If you don't accept these rules, use social media with rules you accept.
So if I do the same thing they are doing to me, back to them, that's unwelcome. They can, but I can't?
No one can or all can.
If you see someone attacking you, report. If you see someone attacking your opinions - you can do the same (and prepare for more attacks on your opinions in response).
If you see someone attacking a straw man, best make your real opinion clear so everyone can see this is a straw man's opinion, not yours.
I enjoy doing that.
It confuses the hell out of them.
30 Dec 2020, 4:49 am
blazingstar wrote:
I agree magz. Civil dialogue is something for people to work towards. I think magz is excellent at this. I wish I had her skills.
I stay out of PPR because of the difficulties people have in reining in their emotions about certain topics, myself included. I have "lost it" in PPR a couple of times and am embarrassed about those posts.
I find it amusing how people get so emotional.
The only time I lose it, and it happens very rarely, is when I have caffeine.
All other times I am emotionally bullet-proof.
blazingstar wrote:
I would love to have actual discussions about controversial topics in which people listen to what others have to say. I rarely see that happen anywhere.
"Discussions" almost never happen, in PPR.
It is either groupthink echo chambering or a shite fight.
Some people just want to tear others apart, and when they do try, they usually make fools of themselves via emotion-driven illogical arguments.
Last edited by Pepe on 30 Dec 2020, 5:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
30 Dec 2020, 5:02 am
30 Dec 2020, 5:02 am
Pepe wrote:
Tempus Fugit wrote:
magz wrote:
Hmmm, you see no difference between lying and being wrong?
If I was making stuff up about someone, then I would be saying things about them that are untrue. I don't see how being wrong cancels out saying things that are untrue, bearing false witness against someone, and stating that it will continue. There's no practical way to work out repeated misrepresentation that's delivered in a contemptuous, sarcastic, demeaning, insulting way, as "oh they just misunderstood". <removed> has been at it for weeks in several threads. I'm convinced he knows exactly what he's doing. I would know if I was doing it. That goes for <removed> too.
Is them leaving me alone too much to ask?
Is asking them to stop cranking out toxicity too much to ask?
It happens to me too.
<squawk> has been attacking me for years.
It got to a point where I had enough and told <squawk> off.
And <bock-ark> is another one who will basically take the opposite view, no matter what I say.
The trouble is, I usually have strong thought out reason for saying what I do, so if <squawk>, <bock-ark> and <hoo-hoo> argue against me, they usually end up with egg on the face.
"Devil's advocacy" is doggy doo-doo, in my book.
I'd rather just have a normal honest conversation. There have been those here where that was possible.
30 Dec 2020, 5:05 am
30 Dec 2020, 5:18 am
30 Dec 2020, 5:22 am
Tempus Fugit wrote:
Pepe wrote:
Tempus Fugit wrote:
magz wrote:
Hmmm, you see no difference between lying and being wrong?
If I was making stuff up about someone, then I would be saying things about them that are untrue. I don't see how being wrong cancels out saying things that are untrue, bearing false witness against someone, and stating that it will continue. There's no practical way to work out repeated misrepresentation that's delivered in a contemptuous, sarcastic, demeaning, insulting way, as "oh they just misunderstood". <removed> has been at it for weeks in several threads. I'm convinced he knows exactly what he's doing. I would know if I was doing it. That goes for <removed> too.
Is them leaving me alone too much to ask?
Is asking them to stop cranking out toxicity too much to ask?
It happens to me too.
<squawk> has been attacking me for years.
It got to a point where I had enough and told <squawk> off.
And <bock-ark> is another one who will basically take the opposite view, no matter what I say.
The trouble is, I usually have strong thought out reason for saying what I do, so if <squawk>, <bock-ark> and <hoo-hoo> argue against me, they usually end up with egg on the face.
"Devil's advocacy" is doggy doo-doo, in my book.
I'd rather just have a normal honest conversation. There have been those here where that was possible.
I'm the same.
The problem seems to be that some people let their emotions get the better of them.
And presenting a well thought out rational argument confuses and angers them, all too often.
I find it rather amusing, most of the time.
But sometimes I throw in: "Is not! [pout]",
When is gets childish.
It is like a bloody catfight, sometimes, where reason flies out the window.
I think you take things too seriously sometimes.
You *are* a more serious person that I am, but then I am more than 30 years older than you.
30 Dec 2020, 5:23 am
30 Dec 2020, 5:37 am
