knapplc
Active member
Maybe we should put the feelings posts in a separate thread, much like this thread, to cleanse grown-up political discussions from those based on feelings.
Douchebag Thread for Politics & Religion Spill Over
- Thread starter Danny Bateman
- Start date
NUance
New member
Last edited by a moderator:
Redux
Donor
And you don't take things personally when someone insutls your intelligence?
Way to ignore my comment by the way. Just some honest to goodness friendly advice, of you guys weren't so confrontational and stubborn I think more people would be willing to join your discussions.
knapplc
Active member
No, because I'm confident in my intelligence and the things I know, and I'm humble enough to know that I don't know everything. If someone shows me I'm wrong, I'm not pig-headed enough not to grasp what they're showing me. Whereas you, when presented with facts that belie your opinions, claim to be attacked or ganged up on and refuse to change your opinion.
I didn't ignore your comment any more than you ignored mine. I responded with truth, and I'm not wrong in that assessment. You've said as much yourself - you just don't like having it said back to you.
NUance
New member
How many P&R conversations can you point to where someone pointed out that you were wrong and you acknowledged it and changed your opinion? I wonder what that number works out to be as a percentage of all the conversations you've had i the P&R forum?
JJ Husker
Donor
Or maybe we should give everyone their own dedicated namesake thread and they can determine the rules for how they want discussion to occur in their thread. They can lock it down so tight that only they can post in it and won't ever have to be exposed to another way of looking at any issue. That way, those who have a stick up their a$$ about the occasional passing comment and who think grown-ups don't have feelings can avoid ever seeing such things. Safe spaces indeed.
Enhance
Administrator
I agree that politics isn't always about facts, particularly because many political issues are emotional ones. Healthcare and immigration are two that come immediately to mind.
However, with all conversations, I draw issue with speaking for the sake of speaking, or perhaps adding an anecdotal story just for the sake of sharing. Per the analogy I used earlier, you can't walk up to someone, punch them in the face and then run away saying "I don't care to fight you!" It doesn't matter if it was a soft punch of a full on uppercut.
That's like when people are disagreed with on here and they say "well, I don't care what you have to say because it's my opinion." True, but you shared it, so welcome to the internet. Having an opinion or thought does not make any of us immune to debate or criticism.
If you don't know what you're talking about, or you don't want to engage in a debate, then you shouldn't say anything. That's a fundamental (and incredibly obvious) communication skill regardless of the topic.
Last edited by a moderator:
Redux
Donor
How would you define multiple people questioning the intelligence and labeling one persom who already admits to not knowing as much about a subject?
And the thing about me being presented with facts and not changing my stance is because I like to hear both sides of an issue before making up my mind. The kicker? Nobody ever has another side around here because they are too afraid to share their opinion.
zoogs
New member
I hope what I've made clear is that I really want this to be a politics debate, not a personal one. Political positions should be supported by political arguments, not personal characterizations that undermine the relevant evidence and substance people are bringing to the debate.
The only reason this has gotten close to a personal argument, Redux, is you have given the impression that you don't want to know anything about this topic but you still want to be able to say that certain opinions are silly. *That* isn't reasonable, but perhaps I've misinterpreted your stance. This isn't a contest of who knows more about what...but in exploring the topic, we should all hopefully learn more about everything.
The only reason this has gotten close to a personal argument, Redux, is you have given the impression that you don't want to know anything about this topic but you still want to be able to say that certain opinions are silly. *That* isn't reasonable, but perhaps I've misinterpreted your stance. This isn't a contest of who knows more about what...but in exploring the topic, we should all hopefully learn more about everything.
knapplc
Active member
Here's one instance where I've specifically admitted being wrong, with good humor and self-deprecation.
Interesting that people have asked me this more than once (you, Landlord, BRB at one point) to the point where I've been intending to go back through and bookmark specific instances where I've said words to the effect of "I'm wrong," but I've been too lazy to do it.I... am not good at math.
I mean, if I had a dollar for every one of the dozen times I've been corrected on my math like that, I'd have eight dollars.
Off the top of my head, I've admitted being wrong on the subjects of religion (formerly Christian, now not) and the subject of politics (formerly Republican, now Independent).
I would wager I've actually out-and-out said "I'm wrong" as often as anyone in those forums, including yourself. Admitting one is wrong is so rare in those forums that to have even one instance is a unicorn.
How many P&R conversations can you point to where someone pointed out that you were wrong and you acknowledged it and changed your opinion?
Last edited by a moderator:
knapplc
Active member
With 13,000+ posts, including probably several hundred since the election, let's give Redux a pass if he can't find the specific instance. Much like NUance's question to me (where have you admitted being wrong) with so many posts, with such a crummy search mechanism, it's difficult to find exact posts - even if you know specific word combinations you used.
JJ Husker
Donor
That's an extremely poor analogy. Of course a person can't punch somebody in the face and then say I don't care to fight you.
But what happened is Redux said the Trump statement was true, which it was. Then others attempted to pull him into a discussion about healthcare, UHC etc. He said he wasn't interested in talking about that. Then people started throwing a hissy fit because he made that simple comment and didn't want to engage any further.
I would agree with you if an opinion had been offered or if somebody had been punched in the face, But that isn't what happened. And I do agree that many Trump supporters approach a discussion in that manner, offering opinions and presenting baseless facts. That is chickensh#t and can be classified as only bringing feelings to a fact fight. But once again, that isn't what happened in this situation.
I suppose we could bury him up to his neck in a pile of fire ants and make him talk about UHC or the AHCA or until he is leading the charge piling on yet another confusing Trump quote. Or we could realize people have varying levels of concern about issues and let them engage only as far as they want to and reserve the holier than thou chastising for the people who actually deserve it.
knapplc
Active member
When I worked in California I was a devout Christian. I was the only Christian in my company of, at the time, about ten or twelve people. On several occasions we had everyone in a room for brainstorming sessions that ended up covering a wide range of topics, including personal religious beliefs. I was mocked, I was hounded, I was the focus of everyone in that room telling me I was wrong. We're talking from our IT guy to our sales staff to our CEO - all of them focusing on me.
I had the conviction of my belief, and while I felt put-upon, I answered every question they posed to me with the truth that I knew (at that time). It was not comfortable and on more than one occasion someone outright questioned my intelligence.
That's WAAAAY more than you're facing here. It was face-to-face. It was uncomfortable as hell. But I stood my ground and defended my position. It was hard, but that's what you have to do.
Here, on a forum, you're not remotely in the same boat. Nobody is forcing you to engage in political discussions, whereas I had to be there, had to take part. If you're uncomfortable with these topics, don't click on them. You have choices, while I didn't.
It's super hard for me to sympathize with your situation when 1) your words don't match your proffered stance on these subjects and 2) you're not required to participate in any way.
If you feel attacked, go talk about something else. There are literally 100 other subjects right here on HuskerBoard you can talk about.
(Yes, I know now that that was most likely an actionable offense regarding religious discrimination laws. I didn't know it then. Don't @ me about that)