Forum menu
Always wondered why old people are grumpy as a kid. Think everyone is just getting older and having to deal with.. (delete or add as appropriate):
I almost think it's the opposite.
It's a mistake to think kids don't have shit to deal with. Sure, it's not life-changing stuff like you've got a terminal illness or you're going to lose your home. But school bullying or, y'know, being caught wearing the wrong brand of trainers is a big deal to a 14-year old. I kinda never wanted to 'fit in,' I wasn't raised that way, but I always wanted to be accepted and kids are bastards.
Rather, I think that as you get older you give fewer shits. The turning point is perhaps "oh my god, someone's looking at us!" and your reaction is "... and?" Someone looked at me, and then I got Leprosy? Parents embarrassing their children is almost a rite of passage, it's part of their development.
People my age aren't raging at the world. Well, we are, but that's not primary. Rather, we just stopped giving a toss about things which are inconsequential.
Look at Price Philip. Married to a Queen for 50+ years and never King? If I were him I wouldn't give a **** either. I'd have a riot with it.
Yeah point taken Moley!
TJ you said my argument was ‘pure pish’; I can handle that personally but it’s hardly the voice of someone willing to debate with either an open mind or good manners.
To be fair, if you're actually talking pish then "you're talking pish" is a fair rebuttal. I take your point but being mealy-mouthed adds nothing. TJ and a few others (myself included) have a tendency towards directness, it's not meant to be nasty but rather efficient.
A Binners voodoo doll? Just stick pins into a steak bake :0D
Well, I laughed.
Confession mode. I’m BBS and I’m a dick.
For what it's worth: no, you aren't.
I hate upsetting folk. It really upsets me.
Pop will eat itself.
I tend not to register names very much
I'm bad with this also. I once was accused by an STW poster of stalking them and I was like "this is the first time I've ever noticed your username."
Now I have read the preceeding page
clearly some issues I need to ponder
I don't want you to feel like I'm being harsh or aggressive. Honestly, it's just a question of wording in most cases. That and the black/white perspective. But this is very very common online so I think it really is due to it being internet-based not so much a personal fault.
I have a theory that the physical presence of another human face-to-face activates a set of circuits in the brain that relate to empathy, and consequently to things like etiquette and moderation. When we aren't face-to-face that circuit is not activated and we behave far worse to each other. Being in a car is also enough separation not to activate it which is why people are such arseholes on the roads. I once caused a road rage incident with a work colleague as we were both pulling in to the office car park. I had to go and apologise to him later and he was also mortified that he'd responded badly.
Yeah point taken Moley!
Hugs!
I take your point but being mealy-mouthed adds nothing.
No, I think it does. It's also known as 'tact' and 'consideration' and you might not think it's valuable but there are at least two people in each discussion. You cannot take it for granted that the other party or parties will take it in the way you meant it.
And saying 'you're talking pish' literally is not that bad. Passive-aggression and incidental character assassination are far more difficult to deal with. I mean there's a difference between
'That's a stupid thing to say' and
'You're stupid'
Whilst we're sticking the boot into TJ,
I agree with Mol's glowing assessment that you're not an arse. Quite the opposite. You're high on the list of STWers I'd like to meet at some point.
For me, having butted heads with you numerous times, you are both very binary and very rigid. You don't see shades of grey and you're a battleship when it comes to changing direction. One or the other would be fine, both is hard work.
Contrary to what Mr Grips just said, I couldn't give a toss what terminology you used so long as you're clear.
No, I think it does.
Yeah, OK, fair.
You're correct, but I'd suggest it's audience-dependent. Reader 1 might not care, reader 2 might get properly bent out of shape.
We're back again to the assumption that people understand intent when that's a bogus assumption.
I mean there’s a difference between
‘That’s a stupid thing to say’ and
‘You’re stupid’
100% agreed.
don’t remember that one but then I am not facebook friends with ernie
I’m mistaken then (again) It was someone off here. Elfinsafety?
Apologies Ernie!
And whilst we're on the subject - this goes out to the entire world, not anyone specific: Things get discussed because there are multiple points of view. There aren't threads about what 1 plus 1 comes to because there is no debate. So it's not really valid to insist that your view is the correct one. Now, you may be trying to expound why your point of view is better, that's fine, but you cannot simply portray it as an absolute fact.
Saying stuff like 'the facts are clear' during a discussion is actually a passive-aggressive dig. It's implying that there cannot be any possible misunderstanding, so the if the other person holds a different point of view they must therefore be stupid.
So if a person says 'I think X' instead of saying 'don't be ridiculous, the facts are clear it's Y' you're going to get a much better thread if you ask 'Hmm interesting, why do you think that?' and start unpicking the reasoning on both sides. That's what discussion is. If you don't do that you're straying into Monty Python levels of debate but much less funny.
Again for clarity - not aimed at TJ or Cougar or anyone else.
EDIT re-reading this there are different styles of this in all sorts of areas. I've got history books that are a discussion of events, and I've got others that are theses constructed to hammer home the author's point of view as hard as possible. Most of the latter are from US authors as it happens, I think that's what they go for. Like a combative debating society where you have to win. But when writing a popular history book they really don't have to try and win anything..!
I remember a brief period where it was easy to post pictures without having to search for the most recent thread on how to post pictures 😄
Topics wise, it's like a dinner with a large extended family. If you want an easy time, avoid politics, religion, finance and sit furthest from your opposite.
Wise word timber 🙂
Just to say - I am the easy going one of my family!
Like a combative debating society where you have to win.
I don't have to "win" - I really do not view it like that at all. I just get frustrated when people don't understand what appear obvious to me 🙂 its not quite the same.
this thread was not supposed to be about me!
Things get discussed because there are multiple points of view. There aren’t threads about what 1 plus 1 comes to because there is no debate.
Well there are two long standing and very active threads where this is not the case - the Brexit thread and the Boris Johnson thread.
In both those threads everyone posts mostly to show how much they agree with everyone else. There is no serious dissent at all, despite the fact that both subjects are highly contentious.
At least a third of voters support the Tories and a somewhat higher figure brexit, and yet you won't find a single post in favour of either. Despite that those two threads ramble on unabated.
You say that you don't have to win, but it does read like that sometimes. And yes, this is really hard to get right.
I just get frustrated when people don’t understand what appear obvious to me
No, but there are often multiple ways to look at things. Humans aren't rational, any of us, and we all have different perspectives for different reasons. We are mostly very bad at expressing this though.
Douglas Adams was a very wise man indeed for many reasons. He defined intelligence as the ability to hold two mutually incompatible points of view at the same time.
this thread was not supposed to be about me!
Well the title says 'Is it just me?' 😉
Really though I am attempting to point out the problems with internet debating/arguing in general, only my first post was aimed at you. Sorry if I have made you feel uncomfortable! And other threads get shouty even when you aren't on them. Shit, perhaps it's me!
Well there are two long standing and very active threads where this is not the case – the Brexit thread and the Boris Johnson thread.
Oh gosh, yes, those threads are awful, the Brexit one in particular. It stopped being a discussion a long time ago and became just a place for people to rant unhelpfully. And rather ironically, since the remainers ended up being just as ideological as they accused the leavers of being.
but you cannot simply portray it as an absolute fact
Does that apply to what happens if you take high doses of Ivermectin in an attempt to fight off Covid? Not everything stated is an opinion that should be allowed to propagate.
Does that apply to what happens if you take high doses of Ivermectin in an attempt to fight off Covid? Not everything stated is an opinion.
No indeed, and it's up to you to identify the nature of the issue you have and address it with appropriate language. But even then, remember that hyperbole might make you feel better but it is pretty much going to turn any discussion into a slanging match.
You can't change anyone's mind by shouting at them.
Sorry if I have made you feel uncomfortable!
nah I am cool with it. A couple of posts did but not yours 🙂
You can’t change anyone’s mind by shouting at them.
Well, that gets to the nub of the problem… how do you decide someone is “shouting at them” when reading words typed out on a forum? One person’s “shouting” is another person’s straight talking, or calling out dangerous nonsense.
Some people on these boards do seem to be rather quick to anger (maybe anger isn't quite the right word, maybe prickliness?) - Edukator is probably a good example, he seems to see personal slights everywhere, but one assumes it is born of 'previous'.
The discussion about Boardman becoming top ATE geezer was extraordinary for the way tj, and i'm sorry to bring you up again but you are the OP, started laying in to molgrips quite aggressively, even though you were both quite clearly at least COMING from the same place, but ARRIVING one street over.
I quite like having a dig at ernie for his famed debating ... prowess, but only really because i think i wound him up so much one time that he went completely off the rails and ranted at me that i was upset because he had said something nasty about Nick Clegg. I've stopped doing it because it doesn't add anything of value.
I like to listen to the people that add value, and there are many of them on here, so i mostly listen. Wouldn't work if everyone only listened though.
I’ve resolved not to be involved in arguments upon my return.
No you haven’t.
That's not an argument.
It's just contradiction!
Again for clarity – not aimed at TJ or Cougar or anyone else.
I'm not quite sure whether I should be offended or flattered.
That’s not an argument.
It’s just contradiction!
No it isn't!
(thank you)
I’m not quite sure whether I should be offended or flattered.
"YOU VACUOUS TOFFEE-NOSED MALODOROUS PERVERT!!!"
Does that help? 😛
I think this place caters for all sorts. I only read about 10 percent of the threads at most and post on maybe 2 or 3 percent. I imagine there are users on here who post regularly but whose path I never cross.
If We're talking about political threads then on this particular thread we are the guilty suspects. When it comes to political threads, I think of this place as a left of centre sandal wearing version of BTL comments from the spectator or the Economist.
Most of what I post stems from a counter intuitive thought that's passed my mind so I think I'll have a little fun with it on here. I don't necessarily believe what I'm saying, because I haven't always made up my mind yet.
I've learned not to call people stupid, idiotic or accuse them of muddled thinking or having mental health issues,
I'll call out the racism though, implied or otherwise because I realised that I bit my tongue a bit too often over the ten or so years I've been lurking on here so apologies if it sometimes it looks like I'm making up for lost time (because on that one I believe we all are).
Topics wise, it’s like a dinner with a large extended family. If you want an easy time, avoid politics, religion, finance and sit furthest from your opposite.
This is similar to the Glasgow pub rules to prevent yourself from getting slashed,stabbed or otherwise beaten senseless.
Avoid Football, Religion and Politics. In that order usually. Things there can get very very heated.
Yes, im an argumentative sob, as is Cougar,P7,TJ and others(not singling anyone out) etc etc.
One might suggest that these members, and myself are driven by our passions, which is not a bad thing by any stretch.
My father used to tell me I could start a fight in an empty house, to which I pointed out so could he, and he didn't even need a house.
Oddly enough, the family surname in its Gaelic translation is along those lines of a fiery nature
So that really did not go as I thought. What a surprise!
My question was intended to be:
"Is this forum less tolerant / more bad tempered and also less funny than it used to be or is that just my impression based on where I am at this moment in time"
The answer would appear to be broadly yes and many folk are more emotionally fragile / easy to anger as a result of the pandemic of the last couple of years. But that I have been part of the problem. Oops
The drift into discussing the shall we say "robust" debating style of myself and others has been quite interesting and brought up a couple of points that had passed me by completely. To those of us like Ernie, Cougar and me something like "pure pish" is taken at one level " they disagree strongly" and would be a marker for a robust retort. But to others its a personal attack that is upsetting. That is something I will need to watch. My problem with that is I rarely notice the user names of most so completely miss which category they fall into and assume the robust debate is just that. I very rarely take it personally and missed that others do.
The idea that I have bullied folk ( lets call a spade a spade!) to the extent they no longer want to post is really quite upsetting to me. Anyone on the wrong end of that I do apologise to.
So to return to the original point i was exploring I suggest its beholden on those of us that use the more robust debating to please be gentler and kinder, I will endeavour to be so!
I agree with your observation. I've deleted most social media apps, too depressing, thinking of getting rid of the last news app.
I've actually just deleted a long reply specifically about you TJ. Consider it a start. 😂😂
To those of us like Ernie, Cougar and me something like “pure pish” is taken at one level ” they disagree strongly” and would be a marker for a robust retort. But to others its a personal attack that is upsetting.
I don't know why you are including me TJ, I said earlier that I thought your "pure pish" comment was harsh. I think you should find other ways to express that you have a different opinion and don't agree.
I simply said that people shouldn't be offended by your cack-handed way of saying that you disagree.
I also pointed out that not everyone is the same and allowances should be made for that.
People who dish it out should be able to take it, people who don't dish it out should be treated with much more respect imo. That's the rule I work by anyway.
Unlike you and Cougar who has posted is more important to me than what they have posted, it certainly colours any likely response from me on a political thread, apart from anything else it gives me an insight into their likely intent.
In answer to your original post TJ.
Some threads have fallen into echo chamber status, with half a dozen posters in almost total agreement, which then turn en-mass on to someone with a different view and bully them out.
Other threads have polar opposite views, and again it’s the same few people that are so entrenched that debate was lost long ago, it’s all about semantics and putting words in each other’s mouths, followed by name calling, the huff, and occasionally a 3 minute flounce.
If you, and I don’t mean you in particular, stay away from those threads there’s humour, interest and knowledge in abundance on here. When you compare it to what Facebook has become, apart from the memes and amusing cat pictures, an amplified echo chamber of horseshit, it’s a beacon of light and sense.
Edit: Oh, and the occasional bike picture. (STW and Facebook)
People who dish it out should be able to take it, people who don’t dish it out should be treated with much more respect imo. That’s the rule I work by anyway.
the first part of this I totally get and accept. the second part I had totally missed. Tricky as folks names generally don't stick in my head
Instead of "is it just me" it looks like the thread title should have been "is it because of me".....
People who dish it out should be able to take it, people who don’t dish it out should be treated with much more respect imo. That’s the rule I work by anyway.
That seems fair. I tend to be more robust towards some posters as I know they either 1. will pull me up when I'm talking bollocks, or STFU otherwise or 2. don't take it personally either way anyway, especially on the longer running political threads. I think on the whole the forum is OK, the threads that are going to be arguments tend to reveal themselves pretty rapidly and they're easy to avoid. There's always more threads on here that aren't bitter rows that are.
I think one issue is that some see the discussion as equivalent to arguing with your mates in the pub where "ya talking shite, now get to the bar you tight ****er" is fine, whereas others see it as talking to strangers so are taken aback by that
I tend to post in the second category but accept stuff is written in the spirit of the first category.
The other mistake is thinking that you will change someone's mind in a forum argument. So generally I post once or twice and step back
... I am politically active so have to be even tempered when talking to people, especially if I've knocked on their doors. No matter what utter shite they come up with. Good practice for keeping yourself measured
There is some obligation on the reader to react sensibly too. The mods deal pretty well with straight abuse or attacks on a protected characteristic, so what we are left with are disagreements, however robustly or harshly expressed. If I was to argue with TJ and we disagreed (and actually we are broadly aligned apart from on helmets, but let's not go there), I would be able to look at what he wrote and think 'well, that's a bit brutal but it's TJ, it's just his style which I've observed for the last 20 years or so'. Same with a few other posters.
Despite the above, there are cases where people make massive assumptions about what someone else is thinking or doing and go in hard as if that assumption was absolute fact, without any knowledge of context or background. That really needs to stop.
But to others its a personal attack that is upsetting.
Just to Qualify but I didn’t take it as a personal attack and I wasn’t upset by it. I’ve read enough of your posts TJ (before joining) to know that this is your style and that you argue from an impassioned perspective of genuine and sincerely held beliefs. I respect that. However it’s a very combative and aggressive style of debate and if it is guilty of anything then it is guilty of not allowing for the possibility of nuance or more importantly the notion that nothing that is truly scientific is absolute; everything must remain falsifiable if it is to be considered scientific (Popper, K. 1999 All Life if Problem Solving, Routledge).
This approach does tend to result in debates on challenging subjects like vaccines and epidemics descending into echo chambers as other people have pointed out here. Part of the problem with that is the idea that anything that we discuss about those topics is an absolute; it’s not. Data may be relatively black-and-white what we then choose to do with data and how we interpret it is couched entirely in values and societal constructs. To illustrate the point, one person may feel comfortable only if there are zero deaths from Covid where is another person may feel comfortable if there is a rolling background level of mortality from Covid from here into eternity. That with their two positions can be scientifically correct even if the data is absolute. But this is getting off topic and I only reference it to illustrate how a position of absolute certainty about a thing is very often flawed.
Binners doesn’t strike me as a sensitive sort
That's where you're wrong. I actually have the fragile porcelain sensibilities of a character in a Jane Austin novel, Ernie. So when you leftie lot all get together around your metaphorical internet picket line brazier I'm often left sobbing into my silk handkerchief 😉
I think the thing with political discussions is to give people you disagree with some credit for being well-intentioned, even when you believe they are wrong. Obviously, some people are not well-intentioned, but most are. For example, I don't think Mitt Romney would have been a great president, but I think he's a decent and honest guy who is sincere. He's a wealthy guy who believes that free-market capitalism is the best way to help poor people. I disagree about that, it's too simplistic, but he's a well-intentioned guy. (Keep in mind that Obamacare was modelled on the health care system that Romney set up when he was governor of Massachusetts.) So, if someone told me they voted for Romney, I can understand why they would do that, even if I wouldn't have voted for him myself. If you start from a position of respecting other people as being decent and well-meaning, even if they disagree with you, there will be a lot less nastiness in political discussions. (This is obviously why it's pointless trying to discuss anything with hardcore Trump supporters, they just see everything as black and white and refuse to acknowledge any opinion or facts that they find inconvenient.)
Good posts Jude and thols2.
The other mistake is thinking that you will change someone’s mind in a forum argument.
Yes, generally the best you can hope for is to present your point of view and make them think about it. Maybe later it would influence their point of view. That goes for everyone on all sides.
When I get carried away and argue a lot it's not because I want to make the other person agree, it's to make them accept that my point of view is worth something. When I feel that they don't it's upsetting, it is a personal attack on my intelligence.
The example of conservative politics given by thols2 is a good one. It is possible to make a reasoned argument that increased economic freedoms and lower tax burdens are the best way to help the most people. I don't agree for specific reasons but these principles are a matter of philosophy. What won't help is if I end up portraying everyone on the right as Tory scum, or if they call me loonie left who has no clue about how the world works. Because my point is carefully reasoned and based in what I consider to be sound moral principles.
Any argument should be about uncovering the principles and reasoning behind the different stances. This is what I want out of a politic debate. Given how many words are typed on political threads (and how many are spoken in other media) actual political philosophy rarely gets a look-in which is daft because that's what it's all about.
This forum is like a beacon of hope in the morass of fact free idiocy that constitutes many social media forums, where morons that shout loudly "win" "the argument".
Mods do a great job here.
Misinformation gets challenged.
Tone is kept even.
Long live STW.
Some threads have fallen into echo chamber status, with half a dozen posters in almost total agreement, which then turn en-mass on to someone with a different view and bully them out.
Sometimes trying to bring facts into a discussion makes you as welcome as a fart in a spacesuit and you are lynched as some sort of non-believer.
That annoys but there are some on here who take that further and even go as far as to accuse folk of some pretty hurtful things. I've had the mob on me and honestly it feels like utter shit. There have been some quite devious and nasty folk on here who thankfully are no longer with us.
On a lighter note:
I've hunted high and low (well, I've searched the web a bit) for a killfile for this forum, which would make it a far more pleasant experience... couldn't find one. If I had I never would've seen this thread LoLZ.