Have you ever changed your mind because of a debate/discussion here?

[Kyriakos]

I think it's similar for me, minus the second part.
Just sounds a bit better than a flat out no

I'd attribute it to the forum (due to its size and form) not allowing for very deep discussion, and myself not having a partisan position on virtually anything to begin with (due to my detached personality).

 

[Klaus Hergersheimer]

No, but I'm not really adamant about anything that I would want to change my mind. I was on another politics/general board since 2005 until I quit and settled on just this one, and in that time, I've heard just about everything there is to say about any particular issue. And coming to the realization that if we're still talking about the same "hot button" thing years later with the same arguments, there's probably not an answer to be found within the normal discourse of things.

Though I will say it's been refreshing here to see many more posters, particularly Europeans, outside the Anglosphere that I was once accustomed to...

 

[Caesar of Bread]

Yeah, a couple of times (mostly about the Israel-Palestine war occurring right now and who should lead what civ back before VII's new civilization switching was announced), due to some of my good friends on the forums.

 

[Snerk]

Perhaps. I hope so. Changing ones mind about stuff from time to time is healthy. But I can't think of anything particular. I don't debate as much as I used to here.

 

[EvaDK]

One of my favorite things here, is when other posters mention a film or series I'm not aware of and their comments/review pique my interest.

Same with some YouTubers I follow.

 

[Nick723]

I have changed my mind a few times:
- trans participation in sports
- merits of proportional representation
- value of intellectual property
Come to mind

These are not compete 180s, but my positions have definitely evolved.

More often, I have also understood other people’s views better. Whilst my opinion remains unchanged, this still helps to disagree more agreeably and see the merits of the other side.

 

[Narz]

If your support is lost because someone was a little mean to you, then it wasn't really support to begin with.

Life is too short to support the unappreciative. If someone's constantly a dick and you continue to engage not only are you not helping them, you're harming them as you're saying it's ok to act this way.

This is one of the ways people fall into becoming perpetually online. They can get 'support' acting extremely anti-socially in a way that would never work IRL. Clicking Like isn't support, you're making their real life even more lonely.

 

[Synobun]

Life is too short to support the unappreciative. If someone's constantly a dick and you continue to engage not only are you not helping them, you're harming them as you're saying it's ok to act this way.

This is one of the ways people fall into becoming perpetually online. They can get 'support' acting extremely anti-socially in a way that would never work IRL. Clicking Like isn't support, you're making their real life even more lonely.

Personal engagement /=/ supporting basic human rights for an entire demographic. You can think someone is an incredible wanker and avoid them at every given opportunity, if the fancy strikes you, but this does not really extend to legislative support. If someone being mean to you is enough for you to revoke your support for their rights, then you never actually supported their rights, you just tolerated the concept while it remained convenient.

I don't know why you would expect appreciation from someone whose life is constantly up for debate, regardless. And I'm not sure why there's an assumed energy cost assigned to just accepting that different people exist and they should have equal opportunity to thrive. You don't have to care, but there's a difference between not caring and actively revoking your support for a demographic's freedom/ability to exist.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Personal engagement /=/ supporting basic human rights for an entire demographic. You can think someone is an incredible wanker and avoid them at every given opportunity, if the fancy strikes you, but this does not really extend to legislative support. If someone being mean to you is enough for you to revoke your support for their rights, then you never actually supported their rights, you just tolerated the concept while it remained convenient.

I don't know why you would expect appreciation from someone whose life is constantly up for debate, regardless. And I'm not sure why there's an assumed energy cost assigned to just accepting that different people exist and they should have equal opportunity to thrive. You don't have to care, but there's a difference between not caring and actively revoking your support for a demographic's freedom/ability to exist.

If I were to actively revoke my support in this issue, I'd switch my political support to the UCP, which is a party that really does have a visceral hatred toward LGBT people. Google it sometime, if you feel like becoming physically ill at what's currently running my province.

If you honestly think that I could ever support something like that, we're having a serious communication problem ourselves.

 

[Gorbles]

There's definitely a communication problem. Some are taking advantage of that to push their own political talking points (not you, Valka, and not Syn).

There's a difference between two (or more) CFC posters having a contentious history, and general support for rights being predicated on "being nice". Look out for the posts that try and mingle the two. Syn is attempting to explain the difference, as well.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

There's definitely a communication problem. Some are taking advantage of that to push their own political talking points (not you, Valka, and not Syn).

There's a difference between two (or more) CFC posters having a contentious history, and general support for rights being predicated on "being nice". Look out for the posts that try and mingle the two. Syn is attempting to explain the difference, as well.

If someone being mean to you is enough for you to revoke your support for their rights, then you never actually supported their rights, you just tolerated the concept while it remained convenient.

Something very close to this was said to me earlier in the thread, chastising me for revoking my support for LGBT rights because a couple of transgender posters here were "mean" to me.

Using nearly the identical phrasing to chastise someone else has the potential to make it look like I'm still considered one of the 'bad guys' and that is not appreciated.

Can we move past this particular phrasing? It's not helping.

 

[Narz]

I don't know why you would expect appreciation from someone whose life is constantly up for debate, regardless.

Don't be a dick is good advice for everyone. I don't care what you've been thru.

actively revoking your support for a demographic's freedom/ability to exist.

"actively revoked" support? What does this even mean?

And do you have evidence Valka has done this??

 

[Gorbles]

Can we move past this particular phrasing? It's not helping.

The key word is "if". Has anybody actually accused you of revoking any support?

Phrasing is important. Understanding where the disagreement actually is, likewise.

Don't be a dick is good advice for everyone.

I don't care what you've been thru.

Not good at taking your own advice, I take it.

 

[Narz]

Not good at taking your own advice, I take it.

Everyone should adhere to the same standard of civility. Being a trauma victim doesn't excuse you. Most abusers are also trauma victims, so what, don't be a dick.

If you want someone to baby you pay a therpaist (altho if they're worth anything they won't either)

 

[Gorbles]

Everyone should adhere to the same standard of civility. Being a trauma victim doesn't excuse you. Most abusers are also trauma victims, so what, don't be a dick.

If you want someone to baby you pay a therpaist (altho if they're worth anything they won't either)

But you don't care what others have been through, so why should others care what you've been through?

Why care about "people were mean to me"?

It seems to me the only logical conclusion is that we have to care. And to care, we have to understand. With understanding comes through realisation that everyone is different and deal with things differently, and will at times be civil or not civil depending on context.

But you don't care about any of that. You don't care what people have been through. You don't want to understand. You're motivated solely by the concept of insisting people to be polite to you all the time, regardless of how you act to them, regardless of how others have acted to them. You don't want to be burdened by any emotional connection; everything is transactional to you apparently.

Which, cool, it's your life. But you're not Valka, and Valka isn't you. Your argument isn't the same as hers, and my answer applies to you and you alone.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

The key word is "if". Has anybody actually accused you of revoking any support?

Phrasing is important. Understanding where the disagreement actually is, likewise.

Synobun has heavily implied it, more than once, or so I perceive. It feels like "if you're not unconditionally with them and willing to take the verbal equivalent of a slap in the face as many times as they feel like doing it, you're against them".

My point has been that if people do that too many times, it's likely going to result in my decision to focus on my own demographics' issues exclusively. It doesn't mean that I'd actively work against others' issues (talking about indigenous matters here as well as LGBT; I get "colonizer" and "settler" thrown in my face just for the crime of having European-descended parents and being born on the wrong side of the Atlantic; clearly I should pack up and "go back" to a country I've never been to and can barely string a coherent sentence together of the language).

It seems to me the only logical conclusion is that we have to care. And to care, we have to understand.

What I've been trying to get at here is that "if you have to ask, you wouldn't understand", "it's not my job to educate you", "Google it yourself" are not helpful ways to foster understanding.

 

[Gorbles]

Synobun has heavily implied it, more than once, or so I perceive. It feels like "if you're not unconditionally with them and willing to take the verbal equivalent of a slap in the face as many times as they feel like doing it, you're against them".

The amount of times (as a white dude) other white dudes have implied negative things about me, or outright said negative things about me, I've lost count. Same for "Google it yourself". On any topic. Should I hold all white dudes everywhere forever accountable for the actions of a few? What if those white dudes were actually being reasonable? What if they were busy, or had bigger fish to fry?

We're not owed understanding. If we want it, we should do the legwork ourselves. At least some of the time.

Specifically with regards to CFC posters and LGBTQ topics, there is / was a dedicated RD thread where you could ask anything in good faith and get an answer. When was the last time you used it? When was the last time anyone did?

Instead, pot shots are taken at posters. Grudges are held against posters. Heaven knows I do as well. That's not productive, is it? And even if it's justifiable, how can we then blame their responses?

 

[Narz]

But you don't care what others have been through, so why should others care what you've been through?

You can care if you want but I don't demand anyone care.

A lot of 'caring' is creepy and patronizing feeding into oversharing to feel better about oneself. I'll sit out on that thx.

You don't want to understand.

If you thought that you'd talk to me a lot less.

You're motivated solely by the concept of insisting people to be polite to you all the time

You're anti-civility?

regardless of how you act to them, regardless of how others have acted to them.

That's kind of the point of civility. You maintain decorum even in the face of what your kneejerk reaction makes you think is some sort of afront. It's a nice counterpoint to the hyper-reactivity endemic on the internet.

You don't want to be burdened by any emotional connection; everything is transactional to you apparently.

? This is out of left field.

What am I getting out of this 'transaction' exactly?

One of the main reasons I still frequent forums despite the downsides is because in general there is no agenda besides just talking. I've been on here 22 years no one has tried to sell my anything.

Instead, pot shots are taken at posters. Grudges are held against posters. Heaven knows I do as well. That's not productive, is it?

If you know that why can't you help yourself?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

We're not owed understanding. If we want it, we should do the legwork ourselves. At least some of the time.

Asking questions of the experts (who is more expert in LGBT matters than someone who is LGBT?) is a form of doing the legwork.

It's like the time many years ago when I was on staff and an issue of an ethnic slur came up. Yeah, I could have consulted the Great God Wikipedia, Keeper Of All Human Wisdom. And the entry for that could have been wrong. So instead, I consulted an expert - someone of the ethnicity in question, and they explained the word and its meanings and usages to me. From there I was able to make a decision.

Specifically with regards to CFC posters and LGBTQ topics, there is / was a dedicated RD thread where you could ask anything in good faith and get an answer. When was the last time you used it? When was the last time anyone did?

It's likely buried quite a way down by this point.

Instead, pot shots are taken at posters. Grudges are held against posters. Heaven knows I do as well. That's not productive, is it? And even if it's justifiable, how can we then blame their responses?

Why are you assuming I took the first pot shot? In the thread you referenced, I asked a flag-related question and got snarled at that I should have looked it up myself before asking about it. How was I supposed to look up something I hadn't known existed? Am I to assume that everything has a flag associated with it now?

 

[Gorbles]

You can care if you want but I don't demand anyone care.

A lot of 'caring' is creepy and patronizing feeding into oversharing to feel better about oneself. I'll sit out on that thx.

But you're demanding civility, and at the same time saying you don't care about the experiences of others.

Allow me to give you some advice: not caring about others will lead to less than civil outcomes. Your armchair diagnoses similarly. Your life, your choice.

If you thought that you'd talk to me a lot less.

Not everything is about you.

You're anti-civility?

I'm anti tone-policing, especially from posters who are quite happily rude when they feel it appropriate.

We're all human. I'm trying to discuss.

That's kind of the point of civility. You maintain decorum even in the face of what your kneejerk reaction makes you think is some sort of afront. It's a nice counterpoint to the hyper-reactivity endemic on the internet.

What is "decorum"? Who decides it? And when you break it, which you absolutely, inarguable, have, what then?

Besides, you can be civil and rude quite easily. I can say any manner of hurtful things politely. And that's what happens a lot online, even here on CFC.

Decorum is therefore subjective. All we have are the forum rules. Beyond that, what we have is discussion. You imposing your idea of decorum ain't gonna fly. That's the moderators' hassle to figure out.

What am I getting out of this 'transaction' exactly?

Heaven knows.

One of the main reasons I still frequent forums despite the downsides is because in general there is no agenda besides just talking.

This tangent existed because of support for a political position was confused with people being mean on the Internet. Quite a bit more than "just talking".

If you know that why can't you help yourself?

Because I'd rather try, fail, and learn, than never bother trying. It's not like I'm alone in making mistakes

Asking questions of the experts (who is more expert in LGBT matters than someone who is LGBT?) is a form of doing the legwork.

It's like the time many years ago when I was on staff and an issue of an ethnic slur came up. Yeah, I could have consulted the Great God Wikipedia, Keeper Of All Human Wisdom. And the entry for that could have been wrong. So instead, I consulted an expert - someone of the ethnicity in question, and they explained the word and its meanings and usages to me. From there I was able to make a decision.

And if the experts are unavailable? Or tired? Or ill?

Nothing and nobody is infallible. Asking experts for advice is different from demanding their infinite time and patience. Do you have the time and energy to answer questions from everyone on disability issues? Would you still have the time and energy if the a group of posters kept asking the same questions, challenging your answers, and never seeming to take on board what you were saying? Because (again specifically wrt. LGTBQ issues) that's what happens in OT a lot.

Heaven knows I wouldn't. I have to take the time to engage with OT as it is. I don't always have the energy. Even for people I like, trust and want to learn from.

Why are you assuming I took the first pot shot?

I didn't.

Anecdotally, I look stuff up I have no idea about all the time. It's a large part of my job; I solve technical problems that we don't have any knowledge in-house about by researching them and learning about them as best I can.