# Civility in OT



## narad

So the thought of an OT place for things like political discussion is nice in theory, but having yet another thread in there get locked up I kind of have to wonder: is this worth doing? do we need tighter rules / penalties? 

Not absolving myself here, but it seems like every thread about American politics in particular (or things that factor along those lines, like gun control), is total deja vu and play out exactly the same way. And it's pretty clear some people are in there not to have a real discussion but just to incite the masses. I'm not sure any exit polling would say, "Yea, that was fun, lots of great points, and I learned a lot."

I'm also fine just ignoring these, but thought it made sense to ask -- How could we have like the most extremely polarizing thread and still have it play out it ... like a debate team or something that's rational and purposeful even if ultimately subjective. I mean otherwise, like, the Trump thread is closed now, can someone just create a new Trump thread? Or what's the statute of limitations, etc.? Seems like it's just a matter of time.


----------



## jaxadam

This is a strongly left leaning board. The exact same thing happens on strongly right leaning boards, just in the other direction. Healthy discourse is just not happening these days anywhere, and the amount of bias here will sadly disregard any opposing viewpoint. It's no one's fault, it's just the nature of pack mentality. I'm surprised this isn't obvious to anyone else who has Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, etc. 

That said, I'm all for these types of discussion. I like to hear all different viewpoints on all different things, and feel like I learn quite a bit from these different points of view. But the sad fact on any biased social media platform is that it will divest the minority from actively engaging in a sensible and reasonable discussion. If you do have the answer, feel free to collect your Nobel Prize for solving world peace.


----------



## narad

jaxadam said:


> This is a strongly left leaning board. The exact same thing happens on strongly right leaning boards, just in the other direction. Healthy discourse is just not happening these days anywhere, and the amount of bias here will sadly disregard any opposing viewpoint. It's no one's fault, it's just the nature of pack mentality. I'm surprised this isn't obvious to anyone else who has Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, etc.
> 
> That said, I'm all for these types of discussion. I like to hear all different viewpoints on all different things, and feel like I learn quite a bit from these different points of view. But the sad fact on any biased social media platform is that it will divest the minority from actively engaging in a sensible and reasonable discussion. If you do have the answer, feel free to collect your Nobel Prize for solving world peace.



Have you watched one of the big annual Oxford Union debates, or similar? There is no need to think of a civil discourse and differing viewpoints as mutually exclusive things. Rules (and to some degree common sense) dictate that no one in these debates is insulting the other guy, or holding up some big pre-made sign with a bad photoshop to prove a point. 

And I refuse to believe that just because one side is outnumbered here, that pack mentality takes over and everyone has no choice than to behave like children. That doesn't make any sense. It really is someone's fault. Perhaps all of our fault, but not some unconscious or inevitable behavior.


----------



## jaxadam

narad said:


> Have you watched one of the big annual Oxford Union debates, or similar?



No, but I have watched a lot of Cops, and believe me that shows a lot of bias toward the law.



narad said:


> There is no need to think of a civil discourse and differing viewpoints as mutually exclusive things.



Oh, I never did, until November 8, 2016.



narad said:


> And I refuse to believe that just because one side is outnumbered here, that pack mentality takes over and everyone has no choice than to behave like children. That doesn't make any sense. It really is someone's fault. Perhaps all of our fault, but not some unconscious or inevitable behavior.



We'll agree to disagree because I must see something a little differently than you.


----------



## narad

jaxadam said:


> No, but I have watched a lot of Cops, and believe me that shows a lot of bias toward the law.



???

FWIW, if a mod locks a thread, and you just start a new thread on the same topic, surely you can see how that kinda undermines the whole act of locking it in the first place...


----------



## ElRay

Narad: You mean posts by folks that perceive a slight, have to up the ante and then *demand* to hear from the person that delete their post and _*dont want an answer from anyone else other than the person who deleted it?*_


jaxadam said:


> This is a strongly left leaning board. ...


I hate to tell you this, but reality has a strong left-leaning bias. Also, unfortunately, the Trumpster-sect of the GOP have a much harder than usual time separating a disagreement with their ideas from attacks on them personally and they also have a harder time than the general population dealing with facts/reality that disagrees with their pre-conceived notions. Much like their anti-evolutionists, anti-vaxers, anti-moonlanding, anti-holocaust, anti-anthropogenic climate change, anti-heliocentric solar system, anti-abortion, anti-multiculturalism, anti-Semitic, anti-LGBTQ, arrogantly ignorant siblings/cousins.


----------



## ramses

narad said:


> It really is someone's fault. Perhaps all of our fault, but not some unconscious or inevitable behavior.



It is society's fault, and the nonsensical attachment to a two party system — this has lead to irrational polarization and the inability to politely disagree.

If you support the First Amendment to the constitution, idiot leftists call you a nazi. If you mention evidence about climate change, idiot conservatives talk about solar cycles or some such nonsense.

In any case, we have to keep trying, and must continue having conversations. If you take conversation away, what are we left with?


----------



## Randy

Regarding the discussion of "pack mentality", this is a thing that exists in things besides politics, including this very board.

Take any fan thread on this very forum and note the level of decorum among those who agree with the thread subject matter (the vast majority) and then note the decorum of those who show up, knowing they're in the minority (see: sakeido, Andrew Lloyd Weber). The term ''bomb throwing" comes to mind. And disagreeing with the majority is fine but there's ways of handling it with or without class; it just so happens the dynamic leans disproportionately toward the latter.

The only reason we're talking about it as it applies to the P&CE is because we've all been trained how to spot our 'enemy' and how to act offended by them; in some cases it's almost literally from a script.

There've always been conservatives on this board but typically one or two at most at a time and usually pretty reasonable, measured personalities (RenegadeDave, are you still out there somewhere?) Something about the state of politics now, we have more engagement from the minority in that forum (which is good) but the flavor of discourse seldom rises above kicking eachother in the knees, and that sucks.

Unleash is like they generated an algorithm for forum posting, and they used the comments section of Breitbart to program it. Everythings attacks, everything's buzzwords, there are no answers, always vague allusions to ideologies and edgelording. It sucks.

Go back and read the last several pages of the big Trump thread. 80% of it is Drew and bostjan typing wall of text after wall of text against one another over minutae, and that's among people from the same ideological hemisphere. Hell, I've spent more words debating Drew than anyone else on this forum and we're both Kombucha sipping liberals. But we hold eachother to a standard. There are better conserative posters than Unleash in that subforum (Flappydoodle) but show me any of them debating eachother?

No, the left leaning posters in that forum are not perfect and it sometimes come across as a circlejerk but its incumbent to hold your own people to a standard if you want to argue one shred of objectivity. 

If you're going to come into this forum, whether it's in the General Music or Politics, and you just want to hear yourself talk or you just want to stick your fingers in your ears and spew what some much more original but equally vapid fuckhead told you to write/think somewhere else, you contribute nothing and you're a drain to this community. That applies to both sides.


----------



## Randy

And for the record, it looks like Unleash is banned again. I didn't do it, I didnt request it and none of the moderators even HAVE the ability to ban without Alex having the final say. What I will say as one brief peek behind the curtain, there have been several reports from people who don't even participate in the P&CE about the guy and there've been requests for intervention from moderators who do not participate in that subforum, don't post on here much at all or are even middle to right leaning.

So before anyone accuses it of being some kind of a biased putdown for his politics or before the dozenth duplicate account gets made to complain about it, it's been a long time coming and thoroughly vetted. It stands to reason he just came back from a ban what, a week ago and he's gone but Spaced and Jax are still here (for now  )


----------



## Lemonbaby

It's just what happens in literally all forums I've ever participated in - and I started my career as an “internet tough-guy“ back in '98 with the USENET groups. 

Quite honestly, I find discussions on SSO to be conducted a lot more civilized than in other places. The moderator team is also quite laid back and doesn't go nuts on every minor comment that might hurt overly sensitive 5 year olds...


----------



## narad

ramses said:


> If you support the First Amendment to the constitution, idiot leftists call you a nazi. If you mention evidence about climate change, idiot conservatives talk about solar cycles or some such nonsense.
> 
> In any case, we have to keep trying, and must continue having conversations. If you take conversation away, what are we left with?



Yea, I'm not saying conversations like that shouldn't happen, just that I'm curious how straining it is to the mod team to sift through the shit. The fact that every thread of that sort gets locked is indicative to me that they're not super fun times for those guys. Or maybe thread -> lock -> cool down -> new thread is just the inevitable cycle. 

I just think people can choose to be adults and a political thread that doesn't get locked _could_ exist if people had to stay on point and weren't just exploring more creative ways to indirectly insult each other. Maybe this requires more modding or new rules though.

The fact that this is a guitar forum, and OT stuff is like extra-curricular thing to me says, if you want to be a total child, base all your posts on buzzwords and memes, there are places on the internet that will cater 100% to you. If hobbyist website has a political discussion area you'd think it wouldn't just be like harmony-central/youtube comment spillover, because that's not the primary reason people visit a guitar website.



ElRay said:


> Narad: You mean posts by folks that perceive a slight, have to up the ante and then *demand* to hear from the person that delete their post and _*dont want an answer from anyone else other than the person who deleted it?*_



I called a guy a racist and my post was deleted! WHY!!


----------



## _MonSTeR_

narad said:


> If hobbyist website has a political discussion area you'd think it wouldn't just be like harmony-central/youtube comment spillover, because that's not the primary reason people visit a guitar website.



I’d say it would be exactly the opposite of what you describe; because politics is the ‘side order’ to the ‘main course’ of guitars, it’s more than likely going to have less commitment from the majority of members on non-guitar topics. As a result, we end up,with a lot of YouTube comment spillover. If people are focussed then the topics do better, when they lose focus or someone posts in those topics for yucks, the whole thing derails fast.

Sometimes a guitar site is better sticking to guitars...


----------



## Randy

narad said:


> if you want to be a total child, base all your posts on buzzwords and memes, there are places on the internet that will cater 100% to you.



Worth mentioning, IP information indicates about a dozen instances of the same one or two individuals making accounts over and over again after they've been banned. Those same one or two individuals even followed people from this site to troll them elsewhere.

So it's not like we have an insurgency of ignornant right wing posters, there's just one or two guys that can't let this place go. The regular conservative bunch here may be emboldened by having a chief kneekicker that's not afraid to be banned repeatedly but overall, I don't think any of the regulars are any less civil overall. Like I said, it stands to reason it's really only one or two guys getting banned over and over again.


----------



## narad

Randy said:


> Those same one or two individuals even followed people from this site to troll them elsewhere.



Ha, I am well aware of that!


----------



## Edika

To tell you the truth there might be difference of opinions on politics and social issues but when it comes to sharing our love for guitars and exchanging knowledge about music gear and music I see that people do come together and converse in a civil manner regardless if in a PC&E thread they were tearing into each other a few minutes ago.


----------



## diagrammatiks

andrewlloydweber means well though


----------



## Sermo Lupi

narad said:


> Have you watched one of the big annual Oxford Union debates, or similar? There is no need to think of a civil discourse and differing viewpoints as mutually exclusive things. Rules (and to some degree common sense) dictate that no one in these debates is insulting the other guy, or holding up some big pre-made sign with a bad photoshop to prove a point.



Having been to some of the debates at the Union, you might be surprised. I remember a couple years ago we had Mehdi Hasan come in to debate whether Islam is a religion of peace, and he definitely traded barbs with his opposition (one particularly humourous example: he warned Anne-Marie Waters that her 'astonishing claims' [i.e. that Islam was fundamentally violent] might endanger her future as a Labour Party candidate, but assured her 'don't worry, the BNP will take you.') Obviously there is a difference between ad hominem attacks and witty banter, but I wouldn't hold this forum to the same standards as the Oxford Union in any case. If only because I don't want to pay £300 in fees just to post here 



Randy said:


> Go back and read the last several pages of the big Trump thread. 80% of it is Drew and bostjan typing wall of text after wall of text against one another over minutae, and that's among people from the same ideological hemisphere.



I don't browse Off-Topic, so I went searching for the Trump thread and couldn't find it. However, I found an oddly prescient thread titled 'The State of Online Forums in General' started by Bostjan on Feb. 2nd of this year. In his OP, Bostjan describes being banned from another music forum for having rebutted a post he thought was lazy and unhelpful; the explanation he got from the moderator didn't specify that he broke any particular rules, but simply claimed that he was 'being argumentative'. 

Bostjan obviously thought that was unfair. I wasn't there, so who knows. However, I recently got into an exchange with Bostjan in the Dream Theater thread, and he did exactly as you described: quoted my whole post and went through it sentence by sentence like he was marking an essay. It's as you say: arguing over minutiae. After two or three responses like that I had to put an end to it for the sake of the thread. I'm not saying he's a bad guy, but that's not how you promote a civil discussion; you dissect someone's post like that and it isn't uncommon for them to come back with an insult. Once that happens, you might as well forget about the idea of having a civil exchange without moderator intervention. So, having not seen this post of Bostjan's that got him banned on that other forum, nor the kind of things he was saying in the Trump thread, I can't really pass my own judgment on who was right and wrong. But maybe it's not a coincidence that I ended our back-and-forth in the Dream Theater thread with similar language: 'I just do not see the point in having a conversation with someone who is looking to argue rather than understand, and to antagonise and misinterpret rather than honestly discuss.' To his credit, he moved on after that.

I don't mean to come down hard on Bostjan, I'm just saying _how _you say something matters. For my own part, I don't 'debate' on here in a formal sense: that is, I often just say what first comes to mind and don't bother meticulously constructing my arguments; rarely, and against my better judgment, I'll waste my time defending something emotionally rather than logically simply because it's something I care for. Still, I try not to express myself in a way that is likely to offend. I do this because, at the end of the day, I have other outlets for more formal discussion and SevenString.org is the corner of the Internet I prefer for shooting the shit about gear and 'arguing' over which phase of Pink Floyd's career was their greatest. I prefer a more relaxed atmosphere and would rather not dread checking my notifications box. 

Yet SevenString.org means something different to everyone. It's clear that, for some of the posters with thousands and thousands of posts across all the subforums, including in threads covering delicate or complicated topics, this forum is a primary social outlet for them. It's where they come to vet ideas that will ultimately influence their worldview--and not just about politics but about nearly everything, whether that's ketogenic diets or philosophies on life. One reason why I'm still on this forum ~10 years after I joined is that, unlike the direction most social media have gone in during those same years, the interactions here remain earnest and often fairly highbrow. Even if I don't weigh in on most threads in the off-topic vein, this place tends to attract fairly level-headed folk to converse with in the music-oriented threads I do wander into. The demographic appeals to me. 

Anyway, my point in saying all of that is that, when a troll is loose in the dungeon, there's more at stake for some than for others. Some posters won't just close the proverbial door and let it be. It's at that point that you run into trouble, I think. Rather than brush off some silly remark or comment, the socially-invested types will swap manifestos to the point that the arguments might get personal and bans need to be handed out. It's a shame, but I think it's a byproduct of investing such a large portion of one's social energies on an Internet forum. 

How much of that can be weeded out with heavier moderation, I don't know. I don't mean to shoulder-shrug, it's just that forums are usually never short on etiquette or moderation, the problem is more that they're frequented by users who have preconceived ideas about how discussion on the Internet should go. 

For what it's worth, I think the mod team already does a decent job. The popular perception of this website is that it is already pretty strictly moderated.


----------



## narad

Edika said:


> To tell you the truth there might be difference of opinions on politics and social issues but when it comes to sharing our love for guitars and exchanging knowledge about music gear and music I see that people do come together and converse in a civil manner regardless if in a PC&E thread they were tearing into each other a few minutes ago.



Yea, I was recently picking up a guitar from a local shop and went with my dad. He commented later that it was fascinating hearing our discussion (me and the shop owner), and I'd like to think that if I ran into 95% of the people on the board that we'd be friends simply through obsession with similar music and gear, regardless of where someone's coming in life or their political persuasion. That's the attitude I take when maybe we're being quite critical of each other's attitudes in OT but then happy to see someone landing that rare guitar in general discussion.

I don't extend that to trolls who are just coming in to rile people up, in the same way I don't have real life friends who picket funerals and abortion clinics, and who base their lives around us-vs-them attitudes. I spent longer writing this post than I probably have spent talking real politics in real life the past year.


----------



## Andrew Lloyd Webber

narad said:


> I spent longer writing this post than I probably have spent talking real politics in real life the past year.



And likely reached more people.



diagrammatiks said:


> andrewlloydweber means well though



Aww.


----------



## auxioluck

While I'm the first person to get up in arms about the current state of tribalism in our society, and the general reality that political discussions ceased being actual discussions a long time ago, I also think that any civil debate must hold each individual accountable for what they do.

Saying something inflammatory to get a conversation going is okay _to a point_. When the conversation devolves into someone posting shit memes or making fun of a "spermy-looking vein" on a politician's forehead, or making fun of a politician's fake tan...this is when the conversation is no longer productive. And I firmly believe that people who have shown they are not being what I call "responsible internet users" should be held accountable for what they do/say.

I don't partake in social media or many political/religious discussions on the internet anymore, because I recognize that I can get really passionate about my beliefs, which leads to me being very irresponsible on the internet. And that doesn't help anyone. I used to engage in debates in person, but even those are increasingly rare now with how rabid and toxic everyone is about politics and religion. People on ALL sides interpret counter-arguments as personal attacks now, and is probably the biggest contributor as to why we are where we are now as a society.


----------



## bostjan

Geez, my name came up in four different instances already in this thread. I guess I need to lighten up.


----------



## Andrew Lloyd Webber




----------



## Edika

bostjan said:


> Geez, my name came up in four different instances already in this thread. I guess I need to lighten up.



While I do enjoy your posts and rebuttals, even the point by point break and analysis, sometimes you just have to let things go man. It's just not worth it and overanalyzing points in a thread, that doesn't really convey the whole of the other persons opinion, is counterproductive. 

I'm personally quite demotivated by posting in those threads as I can't really convey my thoughts without writing an essay. It takes up too much time and then when I reread it I think "What will this post achieve? Nothing, so delete!"


----------



## bostjan

Edika said:


> While I do enjoy your posts and rebuttals, even the point by point break and analysis, sometimes you just have to let things go man. It's just not worth it and overanalyzing points in a thread, that doesn't really convey the whole of the other persons opinion, is counterproductive.
> 
> I'm personally quite demotivated by posting in those threads as I can't really convey my thoughts without writing an essay. It takes up too much time and then when I reread it I think "What will this post achieve? Nothing, so delete!"


Point taken.


----------



## TedEH

bostjan said:


> Point taken.


Something I've noticed in other places - and I think this may be part of why your name comes up - is that any kind of direct reply to something is often going to be taken as argumentative. I get "in trouble" in some work-related communities because I've gotten into the habit of vocalizing observations, and those observations are taken as being criticisms even when I don't mean them to be. I've been given a label of being argumentative, despite not wanting to argue - I just want to continue the conversation, keep deconstructing what we're there to deconstruct, etc. It's difficult to portray intention or tone via text. I like to think most of the time, I get where you're coming from with the walls of text and don't take it as an attack or argument every time. I've learned a fair bit from some of those walls o' text.

I do find myself being a sort of opposing voice in a lot of places lately though. I'm noticing more and more that the communities I'm part of, either here, or at work, or among groups of friends, all tend to be much farther left leaning than I would consider myself to be - and it presents a challenge, because it's hard to be the one more-right-leaning-than-others voice when you're inside the echo chamber already. There's almost always a handful of more conservative people in these communities, but they get torn to shreds if they admit it, so nobody says anything publicly. It's a great way to single yourself out or get kicked out of a social circle. At the same time I really don't like the idea of leaving conversations that are heavily biased to just continue unopposed when I clearly don't agree with the direction they're going. I end up having to take calculated risks as to whether or not I can voice my opinion anywhere- and whenever I do, I tend to get PM'd by people after the fact saying they agreed but didn't want to say anything where they could also get chewed out for disagreeing with the swarm, leaving it to just be me against a community. There are certain topics that.... yeah, I'm not poking that bee hive either, even if I think people are completely wrong.

As much as I would not call myself "conservative" if I had to pick a label- I'm pretty far left leaning in a lot of subject too- but I'm much closer to being centered or right wing than 99% of the people I have to interact with, and it feels like I'm walking on eggshells a lot of times because of it.

This forum is probably one of the safest places for me to voice my opinion on things, since even in disagreements, the majority are pretty level headed about things and present their arguments in ways that - yes - I have on occasion been convinced to change my views on some things.

Don't try that in game dev circles though. Sweet jebus, if you disagree with them, you are the devil incarnate and should be strung up for the world to see.


----------



## narad

TedEH said:


> Something I've noticed in other places - and I think this may be part of why your name comes up - is that any kind of direct reply to something is often going to be taken as argumentative.



But I do think it's funny that a point-by-point breakdown is kind of exactly what you would expect from a mathematician, which I believe is @bostjan 's education or occupation. I think there's even some jokes along these lines.



TedEH said:


> I end up having to take calculated risks as to whether or not I can voice my opinion anywhere- and whenever I do, I tend to get PM'd by people after the fact saying they agreed but didn't want to say anything where they could also get chewed out for disagreeing with the swarm, leaving it to just be me against a community.



On SSO or the other places? That's crazy.


----------



## Edika

narad said:


> But I do think it's funny that a point-by-point breakdown is kind of exactly what you would expect from a mathematician, which I believe is @bostjan 's education or occupation. I think there's even some jokes along these lines.
> 
> 
> 
> On SSO or the other places? That's crazy.



I think it differers from person to person. I'm a physicist but I always look at the broader meaning of a post and reply on that, not necessarily the individual components. I usually however question whether the effort of writing something and engaging in some discussions will be worth it (like this post for an example and least three I wrote but deleted). 

How much time do I have to spend? Do I have that time? Is the specific person posting discussing or just spouting opinions? Is he accepting to facts? Will I or he/she learn something from this or will we just be butting heads? All these plus others pass through my mind and whether I want to be invested enough to engage. If I especially see that a thread is polarised and the person engaging me is not really considering my point of view and he isn't mine and it just carries on and on with the same arguments made for 10-20-30 pages then it's just pointless.


----------



## Andrew Lloyd Webber

Overlooking 30+ pages of pointless debate is how new posts are made.


----------



## Edika

Andrew Lloyd Webber said:


> Overlooking 30+ pages of pointless debate is how new posts are made.



That's true, I have seen several times a post in the end of a long thread saying "Oh I haven't read any of the previous comments but here's my opinion". If only they read the last 3-4 pages and they'll get the general idea of the rest of the 30+ pages. It'll also show that the unique contribution they're planning to share is far from that.


----------



## TedEH

narad said:


> On SSO or the other places? That's crazy.


Both, for sure. Moreso in other places than here though. Things can get safely political here, but there's some slack communities tied into work where there's often a lot of heated and valuable discussion, but I have to watch what I say so as not to put my employment at risk. I trust my workplace enough that I think they can separate a persons work from their political opinions, but I don't want to be *that guy* in the office whose political leanings don't fit with the general vibe of the office. And I have some circles of friends that lean very heavily in very different directions. Some extremely liberal circles, some very conservative ones. But I hate those labels, they offer such a shallow view into what people really believe.

I guess it becomes a question of "is it worth it to make the arguement?". And most of the time it's not. I can gladly let people live their lives whatever way they want to, believing whatever they want to, knowing that it doesn't really matter in the long run, even if I strongly disagree with some element of it. Some friends and coworkers are all heavily into feminism and other kinds of activism, and everything is about inclusion and intersecionalism and all of that kind of stuff, which is something that..... I don't always think super highly of, despite thinking that they have the best of intentions. Not that I think inclusion is bad, or I have something against women, but I think so much activism is misguided and ignores the reality of some situations in favor of trying to make everyone "feel good" about things.

Gender politics is something I have strong (and unpopular) opinions about, but that's one that I don't want to touch with a 10ft pole in 99% of situations, lest I be torn to shreds, or alienate people around me for whom it's a relevant discussion. My opinion on it isn't important enough to sour those connections, and I simultaneously hold the opinion that people should have the freedom to live whatever way they want regardless of my opinions, as long as they aren't hurting anyone. Maybe it's a bit contradictory, but I'm 100% in support of people having the freedom to live their lives on the basis of things I disagree with. I don't think many people are good at holding that kind of valuation system. I have zero interest in trying to tell people how to live their lives, in much the same way that I don't want anyone telling me how to live mine. Just don't ask me for my opinion on it. Cause you probably won't like it. Don't ask me to elaborate on this point though - as I said, it's not a conversation I think is not worth having.

Edit:
I'll clarify, just for the record, that I'm not anti- any of those things. I'm not anti-feminist, or anti- women, or anti- activist or whatever else you might gather from the above. I respect the intent and goal of those kinds of things, I just often don't like the way those intents get applied to the real world.


----------



## bostjan

narad said:


> But I do think it's funny that a point-by-point breakdown is kind of exactly what you would expect from a mathematician, which I believe is @bostjan 's education or occupation. I think there's even some jokes along these lines.



Yeah, that's all accurate. Working with mathematics all day is probably the worst way to develop social skills, though, which is why I started going on the road, and why I feel so attached to this board.


----------



## synrgy

The primary reason I'm still here is because this community is _usually_ able to maintain a respectable approach to topics that generally bring out the worst in other communities. I truthfully haven't touched any of my 7-string guitars in _years_ (because cubital tunnel wrecked my fret hand; not due to any lack of interest) but I stay here (mostly in the OT) because I enjoy parsing through the debates y'all get into, and occasionally throwing in a penny or two of my own.

There's never going to be a perfect situation in which humans can have difficult discussions and _none of them_ end up with hurt feelings. That's just our nature. That said, I've been doing 'internet chat' since the days of BBS/mIRC, so I've seen _a lot_, and I'm here to tell y'all that this place is *far* better - at least in terms of respectful discussion - than anywhere else I've been. Don't get me wrong: People post things here that one may find _annoying,_ but I find ad-hominems to be surprisingly rare, here.


----------



## synrgy

And, to boot, I've had my mind/perspective changed here _several_ times since I joined in '09. When/if I go back and look at some of my initial OT posts, I find some of them pretty cringe-worthy, and I owe much of that to you lot.


----------



## narad

Eeek, be safe out there guys!

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/26/...blogger-killed.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur



TedEH said:


> I guess it becomes a question of "is it worth it to make the arguement?". And most of the time it's not. I can gladly let people live their lives whatever way they want to, believing whatever they want to, knowing that it doesn't really matter in the long run, even if I strongly disagree with some element of it. Some friends and coworkers are all heavily into feminism and other kinds of activism, and everything is about inclusion and intersecionalism and all of that kind of stuff, which is something that..... I don't always think super highly of, despite thinking that they have the best of intentions. Not that I think inclusion is bad, or I have something against women, but I think so much activism is misguided and ignores the reality of some situations in favor of trying to make everyone "feel good" about things.



Yea, fortunately my online debates aren't involving slack/my workplace -- that's a tough spot. Recently on a different forum (but still with people who post on SSO when not banned) I had to finally take that last step I had never done and actually block someone, which I had always thought was a bit of a cop out. I guess that's under the flawed assumption that everyone is actually on some level looking for discussion, which is just increasingly more apparent to not be the case. Feels pretty great actually! haha It's the most mod thing you can do as a non-mod  I think I will also apply this to SSO, and just having _me_ not arguing about chemtrails on SSO is probably going to make this community a better place. But it'd suck to block someone and then have to catch them awkwardly in the office lunch room, etc.


----------



## bostjan

(most internet arguments)


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Point taken.


I struggle with that, too.  

I'll add on to Randy's point, though, and note that while you and I and he and I have occasionally gotten pretty heated while discussing things, I think we've managed to remain civil, and if either of you happened to be coming through town I'd certainly buy you guys a beer or two to continue the conversation in person. 

I do wish we had more honest-to-god conservatives here, but I think the problem now is that in the Trump era, that sort of name-calling and bomb-throwing is becoming the norm, so the odds of finding someone who supports Trump who's willing to discuss his views without just falling back on name-calling are getting increasingly small.  

Then again, I guess when Trump's agenda is so directly targeting and attacking so many members of American society - non-white Americans and resident aliens, the LGBTQ community, Muslims, etc - I suppose it's no surprise that liberals are getting pretty heated, as well, since these are existential questions for many of them.


----------



## synrgy

Drew said:


> I do wish we had more honest-to-god conservatives here,



I wish we had them _anywhere_.

Viewed as a collective since _roughly_ W's presidency, I see no traces of fiscal or social conservatism in the contemporary GOP. Not to go 'no true Scotsman' here, but I feel that any _legitimate _conservative has at this point either eschewed the party, or their principles, but one can't support this Admin or Congress and still claim 'conservatism'.

Too many confuse 'being anti-liberal' with 'being conservative'.


----------



## bostjan

I think a lot of post-modern debate centers around us-vs-them mentality, i.e., if two people don't agree 100% on a subject, they must disagree overall. I deal with this a lot professionally, as well, where someone has the right idea, but due to a line of reasoning that I cannot follow. At work, I have to make sure I understand how it works and also why it needs to work a certain way, because if it breaks, the customer is going to be calling me first, and if it isn't broken, but isn't doing what the customer wants it to do, the customer is going to call me under the same pretense, and I have to be able to solve both problems equally effectively or else our products don't make it through beta testing. I have no problem killing a project because the thing we supplied simply doesn't solve the customer's problem in the first place, but I have to be able to explain that to an executive who's attention span for me is exactly three power point slides or ninety second, whichever comes first.

So, in the current political climate, you have Trump, who, I think, for most people, really represents Anti-Clinton. That's why whataboutism is such a big thing, it's not so much a distraction as it is that people want to see everything as good vs. evil, so if you are anti-this-one-particular-thing, then you must be pro-everything-else-I-don't-like. This erosion of the political middleground, not just in the USA, but all over the world, is exactly the crap that was going on during the 1930's. That's not to say that we're heading toward another Hitler or Mussolini or Hirohito, but we are headed toward a culture of cult-of-personality political leaders and unbridled nationalism, which is like storing your dynamite above the kitchen stove.


----------



## TedEH

^ I wouldn't have been able to word it as well, but I think you've nailed it. 



bostjan said:


> That's not to say that we're heading toward another Hitler or Mussolini or Hirohito


There are some who are convinced this is exactly where we're headed. I can't say I think that's true per se (in the sense of trying to predict the future with any accuracy), but I also can't really say it's not a possibility.


----------



## jaxadam

bostjan said:


> I think a lot of post-modern debate centers around us-vs-them mentality, i.e., if two people don't agree 100% on a subject, they must disagree overall. I deal with this a lot professionally, as well, where someone has the right idea, but due to a line of reasoning that I cannot follow. At work, I have to make sure I understand how it works and also why it needs to work a certain way, because if it breaks, the customer is going to be calling me first, and if it isn't broken, but isn't doing what the customer wants it to do, the customer is going to call me under the same pretense, and I have to be able to solve both problems equally effectively or else our products don't make it through beta testing. I have no problem killing a project because the thing we supplied simply doesn't solve the customer's problem in the first place, but I have to be able to explain that to an executive who's attention span for me is exactly three power point slides or ninety second, whichever comes first.
> 
> So, in the current political climate, you have Trump, who, I think, for most people, really represents Anti-Clinton. That's why whataboutism is such a big thing, it's not so much a distraction as it is that people want to see everything as good vs. evil, so if you are anti-this-one-particular-thing, then you must be pro-everything-else-I-don't-like. This erosion of the political middleground, not just in the USA, but all over the world, is exactly the crap that was going on during the 1930's. That's not to say that we're heading toward another Hitler or Mussolini or Hirohito, but we are headed toward a culture of cult-of-personality political leaders and unbridled nationalism, which is like storing your dynamite above the kitchen stove.



This is the most beautiful thing I've ever seen you write.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

Maybe I'm just not going into the right threads, but as one of SSO's token 'conservatives,' I've seen overwhelmingly positive discourse. At least, compared to what you see everywhere else.

I think a lot of that comes down to the 'guitars first' point someone mentioned earlier, that this shared passion kind of acts as a glue to keep everyone together.
I know that even if I think X event is great but Y person thinks it's just awful, at the end of the day, I'm going to be stoked on Y's NGD and he'll be stoked on mine and 5 minutes later in a separate thread we'll be talking about specs and why used Prestiges are the best guitars for the money.

Personally, whenever I find myself in an argument here, even when things get heated (and they do, sometimes), I know that none of you guys are taking shots or getting big-headed and trust that people feel the same about me. From what I've seen, people here *tend* to err closer to 'debates' than 'arguments,' I see a lot of logic and _willingness to accept that we may not know the whole story_ here. Humility and willing to admit you may be incorrect goes a long way and I've seen a lot of it here.
--
Granted, I steer clear of the politics subforum, which is where I'm sure most of the heat is generated.


----------



## Edika

The climate in Eurole has been changing the last decade and it has become more permissive for extreme right wing parties to gain more popularity. Unfortunately the center, center left and center right have done everything in their power to convince their electorate that they're all the same and corrupt. I assume this sounds quite familiar to our US members here. In some of the countries corruption is less and the situation is better but being in the EU they get affected by the shortcomings of the other countries. Or to make it more clear, their industry profits from the single market but the taxpayers, while they might have good jobs and a good income due to that, they get bombarded by negative press over the economically weaker countries in the EU.

I welcome a good discussion with people but I need arguments and an interaction with whom I discussing. If there is that then there's a thought process that can lead to different conclusions than usual. Opinions and ideas are great but to me facts are facts. There's always bias and different interpretation of facts but if there's no discussion then there's no exposure to different facts and viewpoints. If I hadn't mentioned that before, it is a bit difficult to do so over text and I'd prefer to have a few beers and speak in person with some of you guys, even if we disagree on most subjects. The interaction is different and it's there are less misconceptions and misrepresentations of ideas.


----------



## TedEH

Ordacleaphobia said:


> _willingness to accept that we may not know the whole story_ here


Had a good conversation with someone recently about how a lot of "debates" tend to be situations where everyone goes in unwilling to be convinced of anything. I know very well that I'm guilty of the same thing, but have been trying to make a point of allowing my opinion to change. It's happened here, and in conversations in other places, where I've sort of "switched sides" by the time the conversation was done, in the sense that I've learned something new and adapted my opinion. I know that a lot of people are unable or unwilling to do that kind of thing.


----------



## synrgy

^I continually _look forward_ to that happening to me. IMHO, there's no point in having discussions if one doesn't want new perspectives. Might as well talk to inanimate objects, otherwise.


----------



## Drew

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Granted, I steer clear of the politics subforum, which is where I'm sure most of the heat is generated.


Shit, you're a conservative, and you just stated an argument politely using three arguments. PLEASE join in the discussion in the politics sub-forum.  We could use something other than the typical Trump supporter trolling.


----------



## Cynicanal

Drew said:


> I do wish we had more honest-to-god conservatives here, but I think the problem now is that in the Trump era, that sort of name-calling and bomb-throwing is becoming the norm, so the odds of finding someone who supports Trump who's willing to discuss his views without just falling back on name-calling are getting increasingly small.


There's more of us than you think; we just all know it's pointless to discuss politics in 2018 with liberals because they just call you a Nazi.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

TedEH said:


> Had a good conversation with someone recently about how a lot of "debates" tend to be situations where everyone goes in unwilling to be convinced of anything. I know very well that I'm guilty of the same thing, but have been trying to make a point of allowing my opinion to change. It's happened here, and in conversations in other places, where I've sort of "switched sides" by the time the conversation was done, in the sense that I've learned something new and adapted my opinion. I know that a lot of people are unable or unwilling to do that kind of thing.



The thing about discussions on politics or politicized issues is that sometimes people forget that just about everybody is "pro good things, anti bad things."
I agree with an incredible amount of stuff that the left is saying.
I also agree with an incredible amount of what the right has to say, because they're all basically saying the same thing- it's just two different takes on how to solve a problem.

Take immigration for example.
You aren't arguing "are mexicans good." That's just idiotic. 
You're talking about how to ensure that all immigrants that come in through the border are properly documented, that they're vetted properly, able to make the trip safely, will be able to comfortably integrate, that they're going to pay taxes and contribute to society, etc. Boiling it down to a cable news headline like "NEW RACIST LAW SEPARATES FAMILY AT BORDER" is ridiculous. The _actual democrats in your government_ don't think that way. They want all the same shit. But the spin just takes any issue along for a ride over the top. So when people digest that content, especially those that don't really have the time or will to read deeper into the issues, why _*wouldn't *_they think the worst?

It's why I try to avoid politics talk. Too many cooks in the kitchen but no one even knows the recipe.


----------



## TedEH

Cynicanal said:


> it's pointless to discuss politics in 2018 with liberals because they just call you a Nazi.


To be fair, this statement is doing the same thing. You can't discuss something with a person who has already resolved that your point of view is worthless. I disagree with a lot of the extreme left side of a lot of political conversations, but it grinds my gears when people just say "the liberals all just [x]" as if there's only one liberal view point and none of it is reasonable. I get annoyed at a lot of liberal ways of thinking as well, but I get *equally* annoyed at things getting dismissed with "those stupid liberals".



Ordacleaphobia said:


> The thing about discussions on politics or politicized issues is that sometimes people forget that just about everybody is "pro good things, anti bad things."
> I agree with an incredible amount of stuff that the left is saying.
> I also agree with an incredible amount of what the right has to say


100% this. I try sooooooo hard to stay away from the constant us-vs-them mentality that everyone bakes into their politics. Everyone claiming that everyone else is antagonizing them by virtue of having slightly different views- but denying that "slightly different views" are a thing and declaring that any difference of opinion makes people immediately polar opposites. I came across an article the other day (from a Gawker site, if that tells you anything) where they defined part of the mission of the site in terms of making "bad guys" out of anyone who doesn't stand strongly and firmly within their circles:


> We consider anyone standing in the way of beneficial material change for everyone to be an adversary—so, the obvious villains (millionaires, conservatives, the Trump administration), but also mealy-mouthed moderates[...]


This is not how any progress is made.


----------



## Drew

Cynicanal said:


> There's more of us than you think; we just all know it's pointless to discuss politics in 2018 with liberals because they just call you a Nazi.


Yeah, what TedEH said - accusing the other side of name-calling is hardly a way to start a civil discussion. 

Also, considering that we're at a time in American history where white nationalism is on the rise and we had protesters in Charlottsville chanting "blood and soil" less than a year ago, it's not like the left isn't at least occasionally correct, you know? If the right doesn't want to be accused of being in bed with neo-Nazis, then they could do a lot more to distance themselves from hate groups. One of the things I really wish we did have more articulate, thoughtful conservatives participating in discussions here is because I think we as a nation really DO need to hear more condemnation from the right about this stuff, and they're the ones we need to have doing it. 

But, let me guess, antifa.


----------



## TedEH

I honestly think we'd make a lot more progress if we just dropped the left and right labels overall. That's a very un-politically-educated opinion, I know, but that seems to be the line where discussion ends. People and opinions and situations and the world as a whole are nuanced - left vs right is not.


----------



## Andrew Lloyd Webber

Drew said:


> Yeah, what TedEH said - accusing the other side of name-calling is hardly a way to start a civil discussion.
> 
> Also, considering that we're at a time in American history where white nationalism is on the rise and we had protesters in Charlottsville chanting "blood and soil" less than a year ago, it's not like the left isn't at least occasionally correct, you know? If the right doesn't want to be accused of being in bed with neo-Nazis, then they could do a lot more to distance themselves from hate groups. One of the things I really wish we did have more articulate, thoughtful conservatives participating in discussions here is because I think we as a nation really DO need to hear more condemnation from the right about this stuff, and they're the ones we need to have doing it.



Perhaps the problem is not that not enough people are searching for this quality of discourse in sevenstring.org, but that anyone would.


----------



## eaeolian

I've thought about just banning everyone that posts there. It was a bad idea when we started it, and it's remained so. This place and MG are two of the last of few forums I'm aware of that even have an off-topic anymore, because no one understand netiquette anymore.


----------



## Andrew Lloyd Webber

eaeolian said:


> I've thought about just banning everyone that posts there. It was a bad idea when we started it, and it's remained so.



Extend this to describe the entire site and you’re on the money.


----------



## tedtan

Ordacleaphobia said:


> The thing about discussions on politics or politicized issues is that sometimes people forget that just about everybody is "pro good things, anti bad things."
> I agree with an incredible amount of stuff that the left is saying.
> I also agree with an incredible amount of what the right has to say, because they're all basically saying the same thing- it's just two different takes on how to solve a problem.



In general, I do agree with this.




Ordacleaphobia said:


> Take immigration for example.
> You aren't arguing "are mexicans good." That's just idiotic.



I do have to disagree with this, however. Trump himself said:



Donald J. Trump said:


> “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best,” he said in the same speech. “They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”



So there are people from the top of the US government on down arguing that the Mexican people, at least the ones coming to the US, are not good. I'l agree with you again that it is idiotic, but it is happening.


----------



## Cynicanal

TedEH said:


> To be fair, this statement is doing the same thing. You can't discuss something with a person who has already resolved that your point of view is worthless. I disagree with a lot of the extreme left side of a lot of political conversations, but it grinds my gears when people just say "the liberals all just [x]" as if there's only one liberal view point and none of it is reasonable. I get annoyed at a lot of liberal ways of thinking as well, but I get *equally* annoyed at things getting dismissed with "those stupid liberals".


Sounds like all the more reason we shouldn't bother with political discussion!


----------



## Drew

Eh, "politics" is basically the catch-all for what power we give to our government and whose interests we think they should prioritize. That's kind of an important discussion to have, you know?


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

tedtan said:


> I do have to disagree with this, however. Trump himself said: [Famous Mexico quote]
> So there are people from the top of the US government on down arguing that the Mexican people, at least the ones coming to the US, are not good. I'l agree with you again that it is idiotic, but it is happening.



This is what I'm talking about. There's no nuance, and I think this is why a lot of people have such strong opinions about the cheetopope; he's a really terrible spokesman. 
See, it's clear to _*me*_, *perhaps* through projecting my own values, that that quote was addressing the very real issue of cartel trafficking across the border- compounded by the fact that some illegals *do *commit violent crimes against taxpaying citizens. The Don is just pulling the same garbage that you see on cable news, he's pulling a spin job to make something sound sensational. It's bullshit of the same flavor. You take a real issue and blow it out of proportion to incite both sides. 

And then I'm sitting here looking at the substance behind the quote, and I feel like I'm talking to myself because nobody wants to talk about the actual underlying issue.
Nobody honestly believes that there's a high level right-wing conspiracy to keep mexicans from getting into the US, right? 



Drew said:


> Yeah, what TedEH said - accusing the other side of name-calling is hardly a way to start a civil discussion.
> 
> Also, considering that we're at a time in American history where white nationalism is on the rise and we had protesters in Charlottsville chanting "blood and soil" less than a year ago, it's not like the left isn't at least occasionally correct, you know? If the right doesn't want to be accused of being in bed with neo-Nazis, then they could do a lot more to distance themselves from hate groups. One of the things I really wish we did have more articulate, thoughtful conservatives participating in discussions here is because *I think we as a nation really DO need to hear more condemnation from the right about this stuff, and they're the ones we need to have doing it.*



Drew, I'm not sure if you're talking entirely within the scope of this site, but in general the right is absurdly outspoken on these issues. Perhaps you simply aren't looking in the right places. 



Andrew Lloyd Webber said:


> Extend this to describe the entire site and you’re on the money.



And yet you still post here.
jk alw pls dont leave I actually really enjoy your shitposting


----------



## jaxadam

eaeolian said:


> I've thought about just banning everyone that posts there. It was a bad idea when we started it, and it's remained so. This place and MG are two of the last of few forums I'm aware of that even have an off-topic anymore, because no one understand netiquette anymore.



Ban ‘em all, let God sort ‘em out!


----------



## Drew

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Drew, I'm not sure if you're talking entirely within the scope of this site, but in general the right is absurdly outspoken on these issues. Perhaps you simply aren't looking in the right places.


Hey, if you want to point me anywhere in particular, I'm all ears. 

But, my perception has been that the response from the right to Charlottesville has been a mix of Trump's condemning violence "on both sides" and that there were "many fine people" marching, and of "whatabout antifa?" Which, IMO, kind of misses the point where we're talking about a march of white supremacists chanting Nazi slogans and advocating for a white ethno-state.

And, just to be extra clear, I DON'T think that's a "conservative" position, nor do I think if you're a republican your a Nazi, as Cynicanal thinks. I just think condemning neo-Nazis marching on the streets of America in broad daylight should be something of a slam-dunk for someone of ANY political orientation, and yet the number of prominent Republicans who were muted or conspicuously silent in criticizing Trump's response, and Fox mostly just talked about antifa or changed the subject.

Idunno. Maybe I am looking at the wrong places, I mostly read the Times, WaPo, and various financial media outlets, but I feel like the GOP has been _very_ reluctant to take on Trump when he's taking some of his more overtly racist-seeming positions, and while I strongly suspect that's pure electoral calculus more than it is sympathy with his positions, I just feel like he's been able to shift the boundaries of whats acceptable a fair amount in the past 18 months. I'll be happy to read anything you suggest, however. 



Ordacleaphobia said:


> And then I'm sitting here looking at the substance behind the quote, and I feel like I'm talking to myself because nobody wants to talk about the actual underlying issue. Nobody honestly believes that there's a high level right-wing conspiracy to keep mexicans from getting into the US, right?


Actually, yeah - over and above his policies on _illegal_ immigration, the Trump Administration is imposing the most restrictive policies and quotias on _legal_ immigration that we've seen in something like 40 years. The most simple explanation is the administration is trying to reduce immigration in ALL forms as far as they can.


----------



## tedtan

Ordacleaphobia said:


> This is what I'm talking about. There's no nuance, and I think this is why a lot of people have such strong opinions about the cheetopope; he's a really terrible spokesman.
> See, it's clear to _*me*_, *perhaps* through projecting my own values, that that quote was addressing the very real issue of cartel trafficking across the border- compounded by the fact that some illegals *do *commit violent crimes against taxpaying citizens. The Don is just pulling the same garbage that you see on cable news, he's pulling a spin job to make something sound sensational. It's bullshit of the same flavor. You take a real issue and blow it out of proportion to incite both sides.
> 
> And then I'm sitting here looking at the substance behind the quote, and I feel like I'm talking to myself because nobody wants to talk about the actual underlying issue.
> Nobody honestly believes that there's a high level right-wing conspiracy to keep mexicans from getting into the US, right?



I wouldn't say that there is a "a high level right-wing conspiracy to keep mexicans from getting into the US", but there are certain groups with that agenda, such as the white supremacists Drew mentioned who marched in Charlottesville, that Trump refused to condemn. And far right fringe elements such as former Trump strategist Steve Bannon (founder of Breitbart) is definitely a nationalist and most probably, based on his actions, a racist, though I don't have hard proof of that. 

So while I wouldn't suggest that there is an overall conspiracy on the part of conservatives, keep in mind that it only take one turd in the punch bowl to spoil the punch.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> I just think condemning neo-Nazis marching on the streets of America in broad daylight should be something of a slam-dunk for someone of ANY political orientation


This is America, land of free speech. It's always a bit of a complex issue when it comes to people expressing themselves in a way that is very wrong, but we are supposed to be tolerant of people's legal right to hold whatever political views they wish to have. Yet, I think we've been down this conversational road numerous times. I just think that goes to show that it is possible to be in a place, politically, where you are anti-Nazi, but, at the same time, pro-free-speech enough to think that actively condemning neo-Nazis only for their political beliefs is wrong.
And that comes right back to my point earlier, that we, as a society, have largely divided ourselves into "us vs. them" mentality when it comes to pretty much any opinion. If you tolerate something, you don't necessarily agree with it.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

Drew said:


> Hey, if you want to point me anywhere in particular, I'm all ears.
> [...]
> Idunno. Maybe I am looking at the wrong places, I mostly read the *Times, WaPo*, and various financial media outlets, but I feel like the GOP has been _very_ reluctant to take on Trump when he's taking some of his more overtly racist-seeming positions, and while I strongly suspect that's pure electoral calculus more than it is sympathy with his positions, I just feel like he's been able to shift the boundaries of whats acceptable a fair amount in the past 18 months. I'll be happy to read anything you suggest, however.
> 
> 
> Actually, yeah - over and above his policies on _illegal_ immigration, the Trump Administration is imposing the most restrictive policies and quotias on _legal_ immigration that we've seen in something like 40 years. The most simple explanation is the administration is trying to reduce immigration in ALL forms as far as they can.



Ben Shapiro's show is a great place to start. I would highly advise you look back through the catalog and listen to a couple of the episodes that aired following these types of events if you're ever looking for some background noise while you're doing housework or something. Even more abrasive hosts like Steven Crowder are still extremely vocal about their disdain for those types of people. 

The Times and WaPo are very heavily left leaning publications, so it makes sense that they'll omit that kind of stuff. You need a balanced intake of news; I tend to listen to more conservative podcasts and I read mostly liberal print media. If you average out the two, it feels like you're getting a decently covered view of current events.

I'm not versed enough in the TA's changes pertaining to legal immigration to have a well informed discussion, you may very well be correct; but even if I was, that isn't really what I came to this thread for. 



tedtan said:


> I wouldn't say that there is a "a high level right-wing conspiracy to keep mexicans from getting into the US", but there are certain groups with that agenda, such as the white supremacists Drew mentioned who marched in Charlottesville, that Trump refused to condemn. And far right fringe elements such as former Trump strategist Steve Bannon (founder of Breitbart) is definitely a nationalist and most probably, based on his actions, a racist, though I don't have hard proof of that.
> 
> So while I wouldn't suggest that there is an overall conspiracy on the part of conservatives, *keep in mind that it only take one turd in the punch bowl to spoil the punch.*



He did condemn them, in same breath that he condemned the antifa presence. Which is exactly what he should have done imo. The outrage that that comment generated absolutely perplexes me. Bannon is also no longer in the white house so I'm unsure of why he's relevant now. But again; I'm not really in this thread to discuss political issues. 

Using this thought process is an exercise in futility, in my opinion; because no group people would ever be pure enough.
The Clintons are as corrupt as it gets, but that doesn't sully the entire democratic party- just those that are involved in the corruption. And now we're back to 'us and them'. 

"Jews. Will not. Replace. Us" lol. I almost forgot about the Charlottesville losers.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> This is America, land of free speech. It's always a bit of a complex issue when it comes to people expressing themselves in a way that is very wrong, but we are supposed to be tolerant of people's legal right to hold whatever political views they wish to have. Yet, I think we've been down this conversational road numerous times. I just think that goes to show that it is possible to be in a place, politically, where you are anti-Nazi, but, at the same time, pro-free-speech enough to think that actively condemning neo-Nazis only for their political beliefs is wrong.
> And that comes right back to my point earlier, that we, as a society, have largely divided ourselves into "us vs. them" mentality when it comes to pretty much any opinion. If you tolerate something, you don't necessarily agree with it.


Isn't that kind of the tolerance paradox, though? That a belief in tolerance doesn't _actually_ require you to tolerate intolerance, even if at first blush it might seem like it would, because intolerance represents the negation of tolerance?


----------



## Drew

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Ben Shapiro's show is a great place to start. I would highly advise you look back through the catalog and listen to a couple of the episodes that aired following these types of events if you're ever looking for some background noise while you're doing housework or something. Even more abrasive hosts like Steven Crowder are still extremely vocal about their disdain for those types of people.
> 
> The Times and WaPo are very heavily left leaning publications, so it makes sense that they'll omit that kind of stuff. You need a balanced intake of news; I tend to listen to more conservative podcasts and I read mostly liberal print media. If you average out the two, it feels like you're getting a decently covered view of current events.
> 
> I'm not versed enough in the TA's changes pertaining to legal immigration to have a well informed discussion, you may very well be correct; but even if I was, that isn't really what I came to this thread for.


Re: legal immigration, here's politico on the subject: https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/30/trump-legal-immigration-republicans-378041

So... I don't own a TV and have never listened to a podcast in my life. I'm not sure which Ben Shapiro is, but either way, is there a moderate conservative print source that you like?  Sorry man, I know I'm kind of a heathen in that respect, but I need another time-sucking hobby like I need a hole in my head. 

Still, if you're seeing that, then I'm really happy to hear that.  The Trump administration is dog-whistling like crazy towards white nationalists, and I'm glad it's not just the left that's sickened by that.

EDIT - by the way, again, it's a pleasure to talk with someone on the right not merely interested in trolling.


----------



## tedtan

Ordacleaphobia said:


> He did condemn them, in same breath that he condemned the antifa presence. Which is exactly what he should have done imo. The outrage that that comment generated absolutely perplexes me. Bannon is also no longer in the white house so I'm unsure of why he's relevant now. But again; I'm not really in this thread to discuss political issues



Well, he sort of condemned them, but only after he received a LOT of pressure to do so from his own party, while still insisting that there were a lot of good people on both sides. But that is Trump, not the republican party or conservatives; specifically Trump.




Ordacleaphobia said:


> tedtan said:
> 
> 
> 
> keep in mind that it only take one turd in the punch bowl to spoil the punch.
> 
> 
> 
> Using this thought process is an exercise in futility, in my opinion; because no group people would ever be pure enough.
> The Clintons are as corrupt as it gets, but that doesn't sully the entire democratic party- just those that are involved in the corruption. And now we're back to 'us and them'.
> 
> "Jews. Will not. Replace. Us" lol. I almost forgot about the Charlottesville losers.
Click to expand...


When I said that I was thinking in terms of the current administration, not entire political parties. I'm with you in that there are good and bad people on all sides of an issue and in both parties.

I tend to look at issues rather than parties, and find myself agreeing with people from each party at times because I've yet to find a party that I can agree with across the board.


----------



## BlackMastodon

bostjan said:


> This is America, land of free speech. It's always a bit of a complex issue when it comes to people expressing themselves in a way that is very wrong, but we are supposed to be tolerant of people's legal right to hold whatever political views they wish to have. Yet, I think we've been down this conversational road numerous times. I just think that goes to show that it is possible to be in a place, politically, where you are anti-Nazi, *but, at the same time, pro-free-speech enough to think that actively condemning neo-Nazis only for their political beliefs is wrong.*
> And that comes right back to my point earlier, that we, as a society, have largely divided ourselves into "us vs. them" mentality when it comes to pretty much any opinion. If you tolerate something, you don't necessarily agree with it.


I know I'm risking blowing up this thread and possibly getting banned but I've had more than a few tonight and seeing this, I really feel the need to say:
Absolutely fuck that. 

The first amendment/freedom of speech allows a person to say what they want without being jailed for it, it doesn't save that person or give them a shield from any sort of backlash for their opinions. So when a neo-Nazi comes around and says I need to respect their dogshit opinion because freedom of speech bro, fuck that. They deserve to get punched in the face and spat on and persecuted back to the shitty hole from whence they came. To even entertain neo-Nazis and their beliefs, *especially in a country that actively fought against the Nazis for their beliefs and the fact that they committed absolute atrocities and genocide, *they deserve no respect or debate, they can fuck right off. There is absolutely no reason to be tolerant of intolerance of that kind, paradoxical as it may be.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

BlackMastodon said:


> I know I'm risking blowing up this thread and possibly getting banned but I've had more than a few tonight and seeing this, I really feel the need to say:
> Absolutely fuck that.
> 
> The first amendment/freedom of speech allows a person to say what they want without being jailed for it, it doesn't save that person or give them a shield from any sort of backlash for their opinions. So when a neo-Nazi comes around and says I need to respect their dogshit opinion because freedom of speech bro, fuck that. They deserve to get punched in the face and spat on and persecuted back to the shitty hole from whence they came. To even entertain neo-Nazis and their beliefs, *especially in a country that actively fought against the Nazis for their beliefs and the fact that they committed absolute atrocities and genocide, *they deserve no respect or debate, they can fuck right off. There is absolutely no reason to be tolerant of intolerance of that kind, paradoxical as it may be.



Sure, but they should have the right to spew their dogshit opinion. 
It's tough to interpret _exactly_ what bostjan meant with that line, but it seems to me that he isn't saying that you need to 'entertain their beliefs,' more so that they should have the right to expose themselves through their own speech.

A phrase I see thrown around all the time is "Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences," which is _fundamentally_ true, I think.
I don't think you should be able to go jump some guy and get off scott free because 'lol he's a white supremacist.' But I _*do*_ think that if you grab yourself a torch, start marching down the street and ranting about minorities, and your employer happens to notice and decides that you aren't a good fit for the company; that's fine. 
You don't need to be down with what they have to say but you need to be down with them being able to say it. Hell, they're even doing you a favor by sticking a flashing neon sign over their own head reading "HEY I'M AN ASSHOLE, YOU SHOULDN'T ASSOCIATE WITH ME!" They weed themselves out.

The part that concerns me, and why I think free speech is so important (and only part of this post that's remotely on topic), is because it's really difficult to evaluate _exactly where the line is. _There are so many different factors that all roll into this that make it such an extremely sticky subject; what _*exactly*_ was said? What's this person's history like? What was the context? Were they provoked? Did the whole thing even happen? Which report is accurate, is this even the right quote? Who gets to determine intent? I _*hate*_ that this topic always boils down to 'haha nazis' because that's the most cut and dry example there is. You'll be hard pressed to find someone who would defend neo-nazis. _*BUT*_, if you start targeting people based on _the dumb shit that they *say*_ rather than _the dumb shit that they _*do*, you throw yourself headfirst over a very slippery slope and before you know it, you may end up being the fascist. 

Human speech and communication is incredibly nuanced and if you start policing what people can and cannot say, especially with how _*over the top incendiary*_ social media is about _*literally everything*_; you *are* going to net innocent people.
Look at how tone-policing has already seeped into the discourse. I am _extremely _against illegal immigration, and I am 100% for doing whatever we need to do to axe that problem entirely. It's getting ridiculous here in California.
But I can't share that opinion, because the internet outrage machine has correlated 'anti illegal immigration' with 'racist.' Imagine how much worse it would be if physical violence was an accepted response rather than name-calling.


----------



## bostjan

BlackMastodon said:


> I know I'm risking blowing up this thread and possibly getting banned but I've had more than a few tonight and seeing this, I really feel the need to say:
> Absolutely fuck that.
> 
> The first amendment/freedom of speech allows a person to say what they want without being jailed for it, it doesn't save that person or give them a shield from any sort of backlash for their opinions. So when a neo-Nazi comes around and says I need to respect their dogshit opinion because freedom of speech bro, fuck that. They deserve to get punched in the face and spat on and persecuted back to the shitty hole from whence they came. To even entertain neo-Nazis and their beliefs, *especially in a country that actively fought against the Nazis for their beliefs and the fact that they committed absolute atrocities and genocide, *they deserve no respect or debate, they can fuck right off. There is absolutely no reason to be tolerant of intolerance of that kind, paradoxical as it may be.


Oh, I agree. I just draw the line at condemnation. A punch in the face, to me, is well short of that. Ruining someone's day is less drastic than ruining someone's life.


----------



## BlackMastodon

@Ordacleaphobia see I don't really take comfort in the fringe far right groups outting themselves by using free speech to show the world how terrible they are, it's more of a silver lining that we know we don't have to associate with them and can fire/not hire them for work because of those opinions. It's a much more sobering realization that these types of people exist in the information age where we can so easily see into what's going on in the rest of the world. Seeing those kinds of ideals being spread in western democratic/first world countries is even more troubling to me, and I'm not talking about cracking down on illegal immigration for this point, I mean their other fringe ideas like white ethno-states, etc. 

This is pretty counter to @bostjan's point, though, since it sounds like he's saying people shouldn't suffer the consequences of their speech/protests/rallies, which I don't agree with. If a video goes viral of a guy screaming at Latina women in a Starbucks or whatever and him assuming (maybe correctly, I don't know the context or their lives) that they're illegal immigrants and going off on borderline racist rants then I think an employer has the right to fire them and not tolerate those kinds of actions and publicity. I know work and personal lives are separate but we live in a world where we generally represent our employer even when we're not at work given the shift in certain industries to cultivating positive work cultures. 

So to jump back towards the main topic here, it's quite obvious that there's much more nuance to free speech than other black and white issues.


----------



## bostjan

Just for clarification (feel free to disagree based on semantics, I only wish to clarify my point, since it's come up twice now):

*Condemn* _(verb, transitive)_: to sentence (someone) to a particular punishment, especially death.

My context here was from within the legal realm. Perhaps I took the original statement out of context, but I don't think anyone should be legally punished nor put to death over their ideology. I'm pretty sure that's exactly the context of the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights.

If your employer wants to fire you for being a Nazi, I have no problem with that. If your neighbour wants to punch or slap you for idiotic statements you make, that's all fine in certain contexts as well. If we want, though, to go so far as to put people to death or imprison them for their political affiliation, then that's a firm hell no in my book, even if they wish to believe in Nazi-ism, human sacrifice, or even listening to Metalcore (I kid).


----------



## BlackMastodon

Thanks for the clarification, didn't realize you meant condemn in terms legal repercussions. On that we're in total agreement then. 

Hey shit, did we just have a civil exchange about politics?


----------



## Drew

BlackMastodon said:


> Hey shit, did we just have a civil exchange about politics?


Right?? High fives all around!!!

(To be fair, I also misread what bostjan meant, as well, with the legal/civil repercussions distinction not being clear to me either. Even then, I'm a little more inclined to be extremely leery of permitting hate speech, because words can have consequences). 

I also disagree on the condemnation of antifa - the false equivalence Trump is drawing there is that violence in the name of racial intolerance veering into advocacy of ethnic cleansing is akin to violence intended to _stop_ violence in the name of racial intolerance, because violence is violence and the reasons for it don't matter. And I don't think that's true. I think the courts agree with me, as well, if anything can be gleaned by the neo-nazi trying to press charges against a black man who had fought back after getting jumped and had drawn blood (while in the process of himself getting beaten to a pulp) for "assault," which the courts promptly tossed. 

While I still have some issues with the ALCU's position on this, I think a lot can be gleaned from the fact that they've publicly stated that as a matter of policy they will no longer defend the first amendment rights of neo-Nazis who show up at rallies with body armor, weapons, and pepper spray. There's a clear distinction, I think, between using your first amendment rights, and intentionally TRYING to start violent confrontation, and I think that's what we saw in Charlottesville, and unfortunately our president didn't see fit to draw this distinction in his remarks, himself.


----------

