Timeline for If you're gonna talk Politics, you must respect those who disagree
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
39 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 3, 2020 at 13:30 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| May 14, 2017 at 16:21 | comment | added | brasofilo | Can't believe this didn't show up here :) Little girl joins the Dark Side at the very heart of Disney Land | |
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:30 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Jan 12, 2017 at 15:26 | comment | added | SRM | @vsz but if experience shows that opposing one is, in practice, the equivalent of supporting the other, then civil discourse becomes impossible for both. Trust is in short supply these days. As in, "Trust me, I'm only going to oppose you on this one thing. Trust me, I won't use that as my opening attack in my eventual goal of getting rid of you." How do any of us -- on ANY topic -- build that kind of trust when experience shows otherwise? That is the heart of the political divide these days. | |
| Jan 12, 2017 at 6:51 | comment | added | vsz | @SRM : my point about the difference was also that for the former, there can be valid arguments both for and against, and it can, in theory, be discussed in a civil and professional manner, and the latter can not. | |
| Jan 10, 2017 at 4:48 | comment | added | SRM | @aroth unless you're in Politics SE... or SciFi SE, or Biology SE, or History SE, or ... unfortunately, politics gets into a whole lot of topics these days. Heck... Theoretical Computer Science SE might get into this stuff: nytimes.com/2016/03/18/technology/… | |
| Jan 10, 2017 at 4:38 | comment | added | SRM | @vsz In theory, I agree with you that "don't legalize gay marriage" and "kill all homosexuals" are worlds apart. That position is similar to "hate the sin, love the sinner," which is -- in theory -- a viable philosophy. I've been on the receiving end of that theory for most of my life. I'm no longer quite certain that the distinction can be practically drawn. Insisting on making my relationship a second class relationship isn't the same as pulling a gun and shooting me, but it has enough follow on effects to be a slow form of killing. That's one slope that actually does slip, in my experience. | |
| Jan 9, 2017 at 1:24 | comment | added | DVK | Just as FYI: if you look at the comments under the answer your link to, some of the flags that the poster was denigrading as "just your opinion" were precisely of the sort your earlier bullet points said NOT to do. Using terms "looney toons", "jacka**", and calling people "punchable", to quote from those comments. I am surprised you'd put that in alongside the rest of the generally great answer, as the link seems to contradict 100% of the rest of yours. | |
| Jan 8, 2017 at 15:48 | history | edited | HDE 226868 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 53 characters in body
|
| Jan 8, 2017 at 13:51 | comment | added | HDE 226868 | @aroth, you put that rather nicely. "This is not the place for that kind of thing" is precisely the reason that one should not feel that they need to go on a crusade to convince others. It's not what Stack Exchange is for. Thank you. | |
| Jan 8, 2017 at 13:49 | comment | added | HDE 226868 | You're completely missing the point, @Helzgate. It doesn't matter whether something is an absolute; it matters whether you claim it's an absolute. It shows you're not open to reasonable discussion, which, I would think, is the whole point of talking about politics. | |
| Jan 8, 2017 at 3:40 | comment | added | Post Impatica | @aroth I agree that claiming something is an absolute doesn't make it so. Who are the final arbiters of what is "objectively" voted as absolute? Where is this list and who drafted it? It seems to me that even absolutes can be non-objective and biased. That was my point from the beginning. | |
| Jan 8, 2017 at 3:20 | comment | added | aroth | @Helzgate - That "some of us consider" a thing to be an absolute does not make it an absolute. There has to be an objective argument that proves the classification, which an opinion poll of some, many, or even all of us is not. I (very respectfully) suggest that anyone, be they liberal or conservative, wanting to get into a debate about climate change, abortion, or other political issues simply find a different venue to do it in. This is not the place for that kind of thing. | |
| Jan 8, 2017 at 0:31 | comment | added | aroth | Can't this just be left at "Do not go into a chat room and try to talk politics [unless you're on Politics.SE]"? | |
| Jan 7, 2017 at 23:58 | comment | added | HDE 226868 | @vsz You're right in that there's no clear point where hate speech ends and simple negative ideas begin. Even the definition of the term "hate speech" is fuzzy. So yeah, in every case there's going to be a judgement call. But my point to Max Hodges was that not every perspective on every social issue is allowed. And I think we, as a community, recognize that. | |
| Jan 7, 2017 at 21:36 | comment | added | vsz | @HDE226868 Someone who says, "Let's go out and kill all homosexual people" is going to get suspended - and it is correct to suspend them. But there are people who would want to suspend those who say "I defend these arguments which are against legalizing gay marriage", and treat "kill all gays" and "don't recognize gay marriage" as the exact same thing, and the people saying it as the same people, even though there is a very clear difference. | |
| Jan 7, 2017 at 21:34 | comment | added | HDE 226868 | @Helzgate It can be useful the first time - letting someone know the opposing point - but then if the discussion continues, it's not helpful. Let's be honest: When someone gets in a political discussion, odds are good that they're trying to convince someone who disagrees with them that they're right. If that's true, absolutes are not helpful. At all. | |
| Jan 7, 2017 at 20:37 | comment | added | Post Impatica | @HDE226868 People "budge" without bringing in absolutes? Really? lol. Point is, if I say, stem cell research is morally wrong. How does this not help? Maybe you didn't know people had that opinion. Furthermore, you can ignore me, it's not going to physically hurt you for that comment to be there, or number 2 can you choose to tell me how you yourself are a strong Christian and used to battle with this idea until you realized x, y and z. Finally, someone else looking at the same post might have my same opinion and wonder how people respond. | |
| Jan 7, 2017 at 20:05 | comment | added | HDE 226868 | They rarely have a place here because absolutes imply that someone isn't willing to be convinced, @Helzgate. If two opposing people come in and make definitive and contrary statements and refuse to budge, who's going to benefit? Nobody. | |
| Jan 7, 2017 at 19:25 | comment | added | Post Impatica | Why are absolutes not allowed? Some may consider Global Warming an absolute, while others may consider matters of faith absolutes. I'm sorry but I disagree with the notion that one particular absolute you disagree with (good vs. evil) is not valid. Since you don't like it you slap a label on it and claim it doesn't serve the conversation, but this is a one sided opinion that I for one don't share. | |
| Jan 7, 2017 at 18:07 | history | edited | HDE 226868 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Definitions, definitions, definitions. And grammar.
|
| Jan 7, 2017 at 17:32 | comment | added | user102937 | @MaxHodges: As to the Torvalds debate, it looked like it progressed beyond "C++ is a terrible language," which is a good thing, because that statement in isolation is worthless as well. Two threads that pretty much confirm the opposite of what you are saying. | |
| Jan 7, 2017 at 17:29 | comment | added | user102937 | @MaxHodges: That's a pretty good thread, but the ranty portions are absolutely useless noise which, if removed, leave only the good parts, which of course is what Stack Exchange is (or should be) all about. | |
| Jan 7, 2017 at 15:41 | comment | added | maxhodges | another productive flame war I found useful groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.arts.books/2I_ssIu1YBU | |
| Jan 7, 2017 at 15:35 | comment | added | maxhodges | @HDE226868 oh believe me, I ignore a great deal of things. But if someone wants to debate someone, or if they are asked to debate an issue, they should skip the civility and say what they think. "Chat was never designed to be the boxing ring" I don't think you can know that; and if so, who cares? Turntables were designed to play music; not to be instruments. The street finds its own uses for things. " raging in chat and escalating things is not at all productive." You've never learned something from a flame war? I have. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanenbaum%E2%80%93Torvalds_debate | |
| Jan 7, 2017 at 15:25 | comment | added | HDE 226868 | You appear to have the attitude that when someone says something along those lines in chat, you have to rebut it, @MaxHodges. And you don't. Chat was never designed to be the boxing ring for getting into arguments about things like this. Yes, I think that some opinions of those who disagree with me are unfair and even dangerous. But I know that raging in chat and escalating things is not at all productive. | |
| Jan 7, 2017 at 14:59 | comment | added | HDE 226868 | @MaxHodges There's a difference between politics and hate speech. Someone who says, "Let's go out and kill all homosexual people" is going to get suspended faster than you can say "chat flag". You don't have to respond to something like that - and it's generally best not to. | |
| Jan 6, 2017 at 23:45 | comment | added | DVK | @PaulBrinkley - Blame Darth Mickey :). Before they ditched Extended Universe, there were Gray Jedi, Aing-Tii, Dathomir Witches, and a whole beautiful parlament full of assorted Force users. | |
| Jan 6, 2017 at 20:39 | comment | added | Paul Brinkley | Sith? Jedi? Man, do I hate this two-party system... | |
| Jan 6, 2017 at 20:11 | comment | added | Daerdemandt | What if my side is publicly recognised as good guys and we're outnumbering the other side hundreds-to-one (or even thousands-to-one)? Should we still think that we are the oppressed side? Because there's a boy who we believe will bring the balance to the situation... | |
| Jan 6, 2017 at 16:02 | comment | added | Magisch | Playing SWTOR you'll very quickly find that the Jedi order is comparably corrupt to the empire, they just pretend they're all high and mighty while the siths stopped caring about appearances like that. | |
| Jan 6, 2017 at 15:13 | comment | added | Null | @Servy It's (1), because Obi-Wan lies all the time. | |
| Jan 6, 2017 at 15:10 | comment | added | Servy | @Null There are two conclusions to draw from the fact that Obi-Wan's statement is an absolute. 1. The statement is wrong, because a non-Sith made an absolute statement 2. Obi-Wan is a Sith. | |
| Jan 6, 2017 at 14:46 | history | edited | HDE 226868 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 427 characters in body
|
| Jan 6, 2017 at 14:43 | comment | added | Null | Obi-Wan's claim that "only a Sith deals in absolutes" is itself an absolute statement and therefore self-defeating. Don't be a Jedi, either. | |
| Jan 6, 2017 at 14:33 | history | edited | HDE 226868 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Made a mistake, I have.
|
| Jan 6, 2017 at 14:30 | comment | added | I say Reinstate Monica | +1 for you have time to think before you press Enter | |
| Jan 6, 2017 at 3:54 | comment | added | Martin Beckett | What have you got against Sith? Building Death Stars provides infrastructure jobs and will make the Empire great again. | |
| Jan 6, 2017 at 3:51 | history | answered | HDE 226868 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |