Would you prefer that this site be a comfortable echo chamber for like-minded individuals only, or an open forum for mutually respectful debate from diverse perspectives?
Depends on what is meant by mutually, 'respectful' debate. I thought we already had that so should we open the door to the Musk type of thinking!? I hope not.
Depends on what is meant by “open the door”. I think it’s always possible to disagree without being disrespectful. If anything, the disrespect only hardens the other person in their opinions. I don’t keep up with Musk, but I can’t think of a perspective so vile that, if presented respectfully, couldn’t be adequately opposed respectfully. It’s the most basic principle of dialogue.
@skado I agree but who is going to decide what's respectful and what is not? Also, it seems, in our day and age, respectful is a moving target.
@JackPedigo
I think "respectful" mostly just means not making it personal. No Ad Homs, no personal insults. Just engage the idea.
Examples of blunt refutals without evidence or reasoned argument. Bear in mind that these statements are often made to new members who just joined, and are often trying to test the water and gain confidence. If not bullying then the next nearist thing perhaps ?
And there are dozens more.
And Ad homien.
I like diversity, sadly many fear diversity and when someone is afraid they lash out. As long as it's mutually respectful I'll jump in.
I would prefer diversity, but it should be accompanied by tolerance, respect, and open-mindedness. Mostly what we see here is intolerance of different perspectives, accompanied by rude insults. Consequently, I don’t even TRY to have real conversations here.
Soooooooo, those are my only choices? ask any Loaded questions, do ya?
How would you describe your preferences regarding the presence or absence of diversity of opinions on this site?
@skado i prefer the site to be full of idiots posting drivel so i can be snarky.........
IMO this is the truthful-est answer you will get!
@AnneWimsey
Snark on, sister!
Yes, I like meat and potatoes.
I give you the most exciting group in gospel music:
Swingin!
@skado swinging three ways
Obviously your poll is skewed, like a wife beater question. When someone says something I vehemently disagree with,, I don't see any point to respectful debate. Ad hominem remarks are sometimes perfectly valid. If the shoe fits...
“Valid” toward what purpose?
@skado No, you don't understand correctly. I said your poll is skewed, so I didn't answer it. I gave the answer that I wanted. If someone expresses an idea which I "vehemently" disagree with, respectful debate is not worth my trouble. People can post whatever they want. If I disagree, I'll either ignore them or express why I think they are wrong. If they insist on arguing I have no problem with telling someone GFY.
I prefer both as long as it generally progresses. Any organization cannot progress unless it has a well-spring of ideas.
@mcfluwster @skado This is not a reply but an addition to my own comment. It is often the case that replies are not clearly directed to the proper source . Is it possible to correct this by always typing @'my particular target' before any reply???
@Mcfluwster
Yes, that will send the person a notification.
Tolerance of intolerance is intolerance.
I agree. So... how does that relate to this post?
Well, your premise is that we should tolerate everybody and I'm saying that some people should not be tolerated such as transphobes.
@Theresa_N
I haven’t said, nor do I believe we should tolerate everybody. There are lots of people who shouldn’t be tolerated. That’s not what this post is about.
This post is about tolerating ideas. And I’m not stating my preference here. I’m asking yours. Would you prefer ideas counter to your own to be banned from expression here? I think for example, hate speech and personal attacks should be unwelcome on any social media. But I’m not talking about hate speech. I’m talking about philosophical differences - worldview differences.