Oh, That Rush! He's Such A *Kidder!*

[charisjulia]

Amanda wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>This is an issue, like Bush, politics, and all the other 
formerly-banned
topics, where people feel what they feel and discussion is generally 
not
productive. Posts on these types of topics tend to be a lot of "well, 
this
is what *I* think"--lots of putting opinions forward, lots of not 
being
willing to be persuaded, precious little compromise, lots of flame
potential.<<<<<<<<<<<<


Besides the various HPFGU groups I belong to I have only ever become 
a member of one other online discussion group. Now, I’d like to share 
something with you about this group: It’s rude.


Oh, well, ok, I’m just being a tad dramatic here and as I’ve learnt 
since I joined things aren’t really as bad as I initially gathered. 
But heated discussions will crop up and members make absolutely no 
attempt to avoid those or the ensuing blow-ups. To give you an idea, 
comments I have come across (translated faithfully, I hope) have 
included (and I kid you not):


“The only thing that comment proves is the profound lack of education 
you are obviously suffering from”


“At last! Somebody that can solve all the problems man ever faced! 
Where were you hiding all this time! Yes, after such a serious 
analysis I think I can discern the root of all my misconceptions! Oh, 
thank you, I am indeed indebted to you!”


“I’d explain why (what you just said) is utter nonsense, but I’ve got=
 
work to do right now. Bye!”


You get the picture, I assume.


Now I’m not suggesting that OTC follow this group down the merry road 
to vituperative language and personal insults. I’d hate to see that. 
And I understand that the history of the group teaches especial 
caution. I only pointed this out because, well, firstly, I’m not sure 
everybody here realises what a civil-mouthed lot we are: Yay, for 
us! ;-) And secondly because I do think that they have at least got 
one thing right: in all loaded (and therefore in all really 
important) matters people are going to disagree. Not everybody thinks 
that same way and it would be foolish to pretend otherwise. Neither 
does everybody always chose the most appropriate wording to express 
themselves. Furthermore, unfortunately, sometimes people fly off the 
handle. 


*But* :

One can’t avoid all confrontation by pushing all subjects which might 
arouse one out of sight. Furthermore I’m not sure I agree that such 
discussions would necessarily be unproductive. In fact, I’d say that 
that’s a pretty bleak view of humanity. I’d like to think that most 
people are (reasonably) open-minded and willing to assume the good 
faith of those around them. Not to mention confident enough in their 
own opinion to be able to defend it in a civil conversation and not 
get overly upset if the conversation does happen to get uncivil. And 
though I can certainly see why Bush, politics and other such topics 
can be full of minefields, that doesn’t mean that logic cannot be 
applied to them or that meaningful discussions cannot be held on them.


Cindy opened an interesting topic. She also expressed herself (I 
thought) quite fittingly and with ample restraint. She took the 
different levels of familiarity which the diverse members of OTC with 
the subject might have into consideration. (this BTW from somebody 
for whom the words American football simply conjure up confusing 
images of lots of beefy men in padding charging at each other, 
getting bashed against each other and grunting a lot. And who also 
has absolutely no idea who Rush Limbaugh is.) Finaly, I have never 
been given the impression that racial discrimination was too testy a 
subject for OTC. As Cindy herself pointed out it had been discussed 
in the past without any unpleasantness arising. 


Sorry if I’ve misinterpreted your meaning completely here Amanda.


Charis Julia