Why do we tolerate the ideologues?

[JakeLucas]

No, in the silence we puff our pipes.






With personal preference of contents, of course.

Вие сте много отворен! Аз харесвам онази идея!

 

[LarsVenice]

Вие сте много отворен! Аз харесвам онази идея!

What kind of dialect is this? I can only understand or read less that half of what you write, and the other half is not in my Russian dictionary.

 

[JakeLucas]

What kind of dialect is this? I can only understand or read less that half of what you write, and the other half is not in my Russian dictionary.

Използвайте български речник.

 

[Sausy]

Perhaps in the unfathomable depths of their own bizzare, twisted, febrile minds, it is.

Now if there were more clever wordplay,like using "febrile" as a classy putdown,it may be fun!But too often the insults and nastiness are just too unremarkably pedestrian to not warrant lots of people saying to themselves that it's all heat and little light a good deal of the time.

I'm not as liberal as most of the posters,but I'm not nearly the rigid conservative type either by any stretch.This is a gay site,so we can't expect an equal ratio of liberals to conservatives as the Republicans are associated with the right wing religious groups that think gays are insidiously trying to impose their immoral and unnatural "lifestyle" on the American public.But it would be great if there were more posters who were unpredictable and came from different perspectives than the all too tired left/right ,give no ground partisan bickering.Frankly,almost without exception,I know where everyone posting on a particular left/right driving issue will fall.

I don't think making it a no-flame zone would work.Politics can never be free of contentiousness between ideas,personal passions and principles.But I respect those who think differently,in whole or as a matter of degree,when I feel my contributions are respected.Same as most here,I suppose.I recently saw a thread by Midnight Prism,not a conservative by any means,who actually posted a link to a speech by Ronald Reagan and dared praise some element of it...of course,not embracing the whole of Reagan's politics,but agreeing with some points made in a speech which shared his own sentiments.His reception by the left here was not favorable or respectful in large part...how dare he say anything nice about Reagan ?!!!In fact,the most impressionable part of the speech on Midnight Prism was regarding surrendering rights and freedoms for security that has total relevance in Bush Administration America today,something the other liberals shoulsd have heeded,even in the irony of a conservative Republican saying those words.

Too often,that's why I have problems with the left here...they talk about the left being more reasonab le,thoughtful,independent and open minded,how the conservatives are the ones who practice groupthink,who need to enforce orthodoy on their minions(Who of course crave that authoritarian enforcement)But they live in a world too often as simplistic ,uncomplicated and without shades of grey that they accuse conservatives of.We need more Midnight Prisms,to stimulate real debate and offer other than the most comfortable ideological jumping off points for discussion.To always challenge and provoke thought and enrich the perspectives and quality of the forum...it is a shame he received the nefgative reaction for daring to think independently,without regard for what was politically acceptable.

The right here needs greater cohesion,more substance than playing the same ideological gotcha game and have more of an independent streak.The left poses a great quandary to us when we are challenged how can we support Republicans,even politically identiify with being Republican.Do the Republicans offer anything greater to us,at the cost of us being treated as a whole as something unnatural and wrong?That treatment of gays as equakl citizens under the law connotes us being afforded "Special rights"?And with the sexual scandals unfolding today despite the hypocrisy of Republicans promotion of themselves as favoting traditional,family-oriented values....the Republicans running for presidemnt all fall over each other presenting themselves as champions,by and large,of conservative values.Is there room for centrists and mainstream conservatives in the Republican vision of America?

It could be so much better if there were more give and take,more instances of independence on both sides.I'd love a broader participation of all political perspectives left right and center that challenge,inform and make it fun to take part.The forum is for ALL of us,not only the regulars....we need to grow the forum,not censor or baby sit it.Speak up,assert yourself.You have every right to be heard,to participate.If everyone just agrred Democrats and liberal views good,every thing else tantamount to right wing crap then we may be politically correct but boring as hell...and who could tolerate that?

 

[Claudio63]

Well fuck U, U pussy morons! If ya don't like CE&P, git outta da fuckin' country!



Sorry, couldn't help myself.

 

[Circe Infuria]

Well fuck U, U pussy morons! If ya don't like CE&P, git outta da fuckin' country!



Sorry, couldn't help myself.

Take it to CE&P, mister!! That shit doesn't fly around here!!

 

[sparky95]

It is the old story of "if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen" Kuli. I think your problem may simply be that too many people are laughing at your relentless evangelizing of your particular ideology, rather than instantly agreeing with you.

 

[Kulindahr]

Fair enough. Are you talking about having some sort of requirement for entrance, i.e. would the chimps and their excrement be banned from the Brandy Room? If so, any ideas on how that could be enacted? If not, how do you propose the Brandy Room be moderated? That would be a Lot of work, because chimps, flamers, drunks, and trolls would wander through the saloon doors all the time.

From my understanding, it's possible to ban someone from a particular Forum. So anyone at all could come into the Brandy Room, and even be given "three strikes and you're out" chances before being banished to the Common Room.

 

[Kulindahr]

In an argument, if someone starts attacking you personally (eg your brain is about the size of an ant), then this is a very very good sign .... it means the other person knows you are getting the upper hand and cannot think of a good counter-argument and has to resort to belittling you personally in order to 'win'. Feel smug rather than angry and take it as a compliment.

I'm talking about people who can't seem to post at all without being insulting, belittling, derogatory, snide, etc., and whose most positive posts are generally snide comments to their own crowd about how much better they are than others. Their belittling activity avoids breaking the rules, and extends to attacks on anything and everything that they don't like, not just on other JUBbers.

Smug? No, I generally just feel sad that people old enough chronologically to be here aren't old enough mentally to be out of grade school.

 

[Kulindahr]

It is the old story of "if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen" Kuli. I think your problem may simply be that too many people are laughing at your relentless evangelizing of your particular ideology, rather than instantly agreeing with you.

Apparently you didn't read the original post.
Just to add to it a bit, I hadn't even posted in the threads that prompted this one.


BTW, my "ideology" comes from the Founding Fathers of the U.S. of A.

 

[tonyboy]

I have always like to discuss Current Events and Politics. But not on the jub CE&P....
There is no dialogue, just ranting.... There is no way to have a polite discussion there, nor to really share opinions.
It is ranting and raving, nothing more.
So I quit viewing it sometime ago.
Never did met a person there that was willing to discuss rationally. Too bad.
I must admit that I do get mad when reading some of the stuff there, but any attempt I've made to have a rational conversation always ended up in me getting yelled at.
And I don't mind a good talk about stuff, but it's got to be rational. Never did see it there.
So I've skipped it for a long time. And I don't miss it.

 

[star-warrior]

That's because when they hate each other, they will have even better angry sex!

 

[sparky95]

Apparently you didn't read the original post.
Just to add to it a bit, I hadn't even posted in the threads that prompted this one.


BTW, my "ideology" comes from the Founding Fathers of the U.S. of A.

It is still just another ideology, Kuli!It may be the Founding Father's, but that still makes it a companion to all the others. It just worked until the Civil War, a similar length of time as Russia's version of Marxism...and like that ideology it foundered on the difference between theory, idealism and cold, hard reality! What replaced it was much superior.

 

[NickCole]

I've had some great discussions in CE&P.

It's good to know what other people are thinking and how they're thinking it, and it's good to express our own opinions in our own ways. It's healthy. And it's easy to scroll past any posts written in ways you don't want to read.

Plus, I love passion and people who care -- and that includes about issues involving our country and what's happening worldwide. And when you care, when you're passionate, sometimes you get excited or frustrated and strike out in anger. Anger's not necessarily a bad thing or something to be afraid of or run from.

The only people I have a problem with are those who want to control the way other people express themselves. I think being kind and nice is great when it's real but the truth is nobody with a brain feels kind and nice all the time, and those who can't face controversy and confrontation have a problem. Most people who are overly concerned about being "nice" are afraid of anger or afraid they won't be liked, and rather than face their fear they pretend to be something they're not. Give me people who present their whole selves, honestly, authentically, even if messily, over "nice" pretenders any day of the week. You can trust authentic people. People who present a facade to please others or to be liked or hide their own fears are ultimately untrustworthy. They're the ones who'll trash you behind your back. Whether or not I agree with them or like the words or tone they use, I respect people who have the courage to be forthright and speak their truth.

 

[JakeLucas]

It is still just another ideology, Kuli!It may be the Founding Father's, but that still makes it a companion to all the others. It just worked until the Civil War, a similar length of time as Russia's version of Marxism...and like that ideology it foundered on the difference between theory, idealism and cold, hard reality! What replaced it was much superior.

Parece que no puedes dejar de ser ideólogo, aun en este hilo de tema ideólogos.

 

[SantaCBear]

Because... 'your moderate is another man's ideologue.'

 

[Kulindahr]

It is still just another ideology, Kuli!It may be the Founding Father's, but that still makes it a companion to all the others. It just worked until the Civil War, a similar length of time as Russia's version of Marxism...and like that ideology it foundered on the difference between theory, idealism and cold, hard reality! What replaced it was much superior.

I love it when people think that losing freedom is an improvement....

Which is a view quite common to the ranting ideologues on JUB.


Could be there's a connection?

 

[JakeLucas]

I love it when people think that losing freedom is an improvement....

Which is a view quite common to the ranting ideologues on JUB.


Could be there's a connection?

Да, аз смятам, че има връзка.

 

[Kulindahr]

The problem is not confined only to CE&P. Amazingly, we've experienced a bit of this recently in C&T!

It is my impression that when you challenge the ideas of ideologues, they typically understand this as a highly personal attack on them. So involved are they in their ideas, that their ideas actually do become a part of them; an integral and inextricable part of their psyche. They respond with very personal insults, hatred, and bad behavior when their ideas are challeneged because they believe that is what has been dealt to them. Trouble is, often this is not the case.

If I love chocolate ice cream, and build a reputation as an expert on the history and making of chocolate gelato, I may see a post by someone who dislikes that flavor as a thinly-veiled personal attack on me. Even if it's not. I may go after that person's jugular because I think he is coming after me. Even if he's not. Maybe he just really does hate chocolate ice cream!

I see this sort of thing all the time in C&T. I think the only solution is to train people that posts must be civil. Personal attacks must NOT be permitted. Personal insults must be punished, and repeated offenders must be permanently banned. But people must also be allowed to express their opinions.

I realize there are still many ways in which people can cleverly insinuate personal insult without overtly attacking someone online. So bad behavior will persist, as will dislike and ill will of every sort. This is not a perfect world.

JUB has thrived because it has been a tiny haven of support and camaraderie in a world of too much hatred. As JUB grows and diversifies, I think we have reached a point where posters need to be reminded that this is a forum by and for people. That humans deserve a degree of respect for no reason other than that they are human. Civility matters; and incivility should be punished - regularly, consistently, and aggressively.

Some people apparently enjoy the sort of unthinking, ranting exchange that drives many others away. And it isn't just insulting others directly; that's been getting stomped on fairly thoroughly. What's harder to reign in is the predictable insulting of everything someone holds dear, in numerous ways, just avoiding that line of it becoming openly personal. It definitely is personal, because it's meant in the fashion of guilt by association -- but how can a rule be written to cover it?

That's why I came up with the idea dividing CE & P into "Common Room" and "Brandy Room", several posts back. In the Brandy Room, there wouldn't be any slack -- insults or derogatory language toward anyone or anything under discussion would be forbidden, period -- no calling a male politician "she" as a slur, no use of the term "wingnut" to describe someone, no flinging about of "moron" or "coward" or any such thing, unless it's in a context including demonstration that such is actually the case, e.g. "I think that Chavez guy is really a coward because...." Such a division would let the ranters have their space, and make room for the many who would like to discuss things in a respectful fashion.

 

[Kulindahr]

I've had some great discussions in CE&P.

It's good to know what other people are thinking and how they're thinking it, and it's good to express our own opinions in our own ways. It's healthy. And it's easy to scroll past any posts written in ways you don't want to read.

Plus, I love passion and people who care -- and that includes about issues involving our country and what's happening worldwide. And when you care, when you're passionate, sometimes you get excited or frustrated and strike out in anger. Anger's not necessarily a bad thing or something to be afraid of or run from.

The only people I have a problem with are those who want to control the way other people express themselves. I think being kind and nice is great when it's real but the truth is nobody with a brain feels kind and nice all the time, and those who can't face controversy and confrontation have a problem. Most people who are overly concerned about being "nice" are afraid of anger or afraid they won't be liked, and rather than face their fear they pretend to be something they're not. Give me people who present their whole selves, honestly, authentically, even if messily, over "nice" pretenders any day of the week. You can trust authentic people. People who present a facade to please others or to be liked or hide their own fears are ultimately untrustworthy. They're the ones who'll trash you behind your back. Whether or not I agree with them or like the words or tone they use, I respect people who have the courage to be forthright and speak their truth.

Are you really telling us you have no problem with people whose posts can almost always be counted on to be running down things people value. with emotionally-loaded, insulting statements? composed generally of slogans that aid in avoiding thinking, the effect of which is merely to rouse cheers from "the choir" that's full of people who have no respect for others' thoughts?

It sounds like you're mounting a defense of immaturity, irrationality, and mudslinging, because those are the things being objected to. It's not a matter of "nice"; it's quite possible to be viciously incisive with rational, respectful language. That kind of language isn't a "facade", it's civilized behavior, and those who lack it are the sort who will trash you in your face, behind your back, or anywhere else.