HiloJulie - I would think there are numerous options available to have even the most contentious conversations without the need to insinuate or call someone a drunk or a being stoned or a bimbo, or a dog, or a chick, or, if the shoe was on the other foot, calling someone impotent, or a milquetoast, or a wimp, or yes, even I am guilty of doing, a schmuck.
So Rob tells us "Ya gotta talk in a few things in consideration of every post. Not everyone is you. At any given moment some will be happy, sad, ill, angry, hungry, drunk, stoned or simultaneously watching Sponge Bob."
Is Rob insinuating that some posters may be drunk or stoned? No he's stating it as a explicit possibility for everyone to consider, along with the other possibilities, given he lives in reality and has to deal with things as they are. Asking if this list of options applies to a poster isn't insinuating anything, it's asking, hey what's up with the too wild and crazy guise of your post? Like I said, Freud would have a field day with the fact that you take it so personally, along with most everything else it seems.
Of course people can agree to disagree, but as you've stated yourself, "you’re entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts."
MyManao - Ah, but by whose interpretation of decency, and for that matter censorship?
Whoever holds the power of course, because that's what it's largely about. There are words that would have got you pilloried, branded, or even killed throughout human history - the fact that people still want to protect people from being offended in the name of some self-determined decency standard is wild to me. To that I say, what a of bunch of nugatory bollocks, sard off you bescumbered and daft cumberworld! (Z'ounds! ;)
Note that advocating for free speech doesn't mean a toleration of all that is said - the point is to allow the speech to occur, which opens up learning opportunities where it can be discussed, dissected, critiqued, and ridiculed as needed. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequence.
randomq - Sounds like a lot of excuses for treating other people poorly.
There is a long history involved here of trying to get across to some posters the previously existing and long-standing conventions of Punaweb. When they insist on being an ass to most everyone, even going out their way to troll people making the requests, then the push-back tends to take on new and verbally creative forms. I see the escalatory use of language as part of that effort to crack through some people's stubborn beliefs that they can do whatever the hell they want without consequence.
Again, be interested in your thoughts on how else a community, largely without a central authority figure, can deal with those that refuse to listen and learn to converse and work with others in a productive manner? Ceding Punaweb, or any other online community forum, to those that insist on being arrogant and belligerent trolls acting in bad faith and spreading lies and misinformation doesn't seem likely to result in healthy or productive online spaces.
So Rob tells us "Ya gotta talk in a few things in consideration of every post. Not everyone is you. At any given moment some will be happy, sad, ill, angry, hungry, drunk, stoned or simultaneously watching Sponge Bob."
Is Rob insinuating that some posters may be drunk or stoned? No he's stating it as a explicit possibility for everyone to consider, along with the other possibilities, given he lives in reality and has to deal with things as they are. Asking if this list of options applies to a poster isn't insinuating anything, it's asking, hey what's up with the too wild and crazy guise of your post? Like I said, Freud would have a field day with the fact that you take it so personally, along with most everything else it seems.
Of course people can agree to disagree, but as you've stated yourself, "you’re entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts."
MyManao - Ah, but by whose interpretation of decency, and for that matter censorship?
Whoever holds the power of course, because that's what it's largely about. There are words that would have got you pilloried, branded, or even killed throughout human history - the fact that people still want to protect people from being offended in the name of some self-determined decency standard is wild to me. To that I say, what a of bunch of nugatory bollocks, sard off you bescumbered and daft cumberworld! (Z'ounds! ;)
Note that advocating for free speech doesn't mean a toleration of all that is said - the point is to allow the speech to occur, which opens up learning opportunities where it can be discussed, dissected, critiqued, and ridiculed as needed. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequence.
randomq - Sounds like a lot of excuses for treating other people poorly.
There is a long history involved here of trying to get across to some posters the previously existing and long-standing conventions of Punaweb. When they insist on being an ass to most everyone, even going out their way to troll people making the requests, then the push-back tends to take on new and verbally creative forms. I see the escalatory use of language as part of that effort to crack through some people's stubborn beliefs that they can do whatever the hell they want without consequence.
Again, be interested in your thoughts on how else a community, largely without a central authority figure, can deal with those that refuse to listen and learn to converse and work with others in a productive manner? Ceding Punaweb, or any other online community forum, to those that insist on being arrogant and belligerent trolls acting in bad faith and spreading lies and misinformation doesn't seem likely to result in healthy or productive online spaces.