Civility subsection suggestion

[Homeless Nutter]

So, the forum would keep people with little education and no self-control out of serious discussions.

That's a good thing.

Sure, a safe space for elitists - nothing wrong with that. I'll bet you voted for Hilary...

[Shell B]

Listen, I know this might be tough, but we could just, you know, not try to have serious debates with people who suck at it. Get a feel for the room. Ignore the posts that aren't productive and respond to those that are. The dinner table example is a perfect one because soooo many fights happen at the dinner table. You think every family sits down and eats their dinners like polite robots? Even when we're being polite, my family swears like crazy. So, if I'm trying to have a logical discussion, I choose who to engage and who to ignore. For example, if Tibs and I are talking about immigrants in Europe and my uncle pops in and says, "Did you know they're making German people move out of their homes, even leaving their things behind so immigrants can move in?" (An actual example.) I just say, "No, they are not." and move on.

There is one particular poster here who employs hyperbole, moves goalposts and strawmans every single debate I get into with him. I can show over and over again across multiple pages that I never said what I was being accused of, and yet it never, ever gets across. So, I don't have serious debates with that person. I shitpost them right back and respond to more reasonable posts. It's within our power to have the discussions you speak of in the normal part of the forum now, and, as in with real life, engage where, how and with whom we see fit.

---

So, the forum would keep people with little education and no self-control out of serious discussions.

That's a good thing.

(Bold mine)

Are we going to start checking people's credentials? If so, Catholic school doesn't count.

[brewer]

Oh lawdy, lawdy, we does need us some safe zones.

Can we get a mens safe zone? Just the thought of conversing with a woman gives me the willies. I can't carry on a proper discussion once I see their posts.

And an over 50 safe zone? The youngsters here have nothing of value to contribute. Makes me scroll to much. 

And .....................


Where will this all end? Exclusion by not conforming.

[SaStrike]

In my opinion, The forum was suggested just so that a certain someone can stir the pot. I foresee the forum being abused with topics intended to bait people into losing their cool with controversial view points being discussed, then further abuse of the report button. So in the end it's just one big troll attempt. That's the internet for you.

[LastPoet]

Perhaps we could do an experiment. Call it, scientific curiosity

It's all fine and dandy to propose an idea, like lets make a bridge there! Call me macgyver

[johan]

The reason I'm not putting much effort into my responses to you, Jo, is because I feel you are being disingenuous and obtuse on purpose.

"Christian" is, by definition, not a nasty word. Same as the word "chair" is not a nasty word. If people want to be offended by the word chair because it's nasty "to them", I would say that's their problem. With that being said, if someone finds a way to use those to words in a manner that is clearly meant to insult or provoke the other person, I would say that is breaking the spirit of the rule.

Same goes for if you tell someone "you sound like a dickwad", you are not "technically" calling them a dickwad. But if the rules of a forum are to be civil, not fling shit, not name call, and not cuss someones out, telling someone they "sound like a dickwad" and then saying "well, I said he's acting like a dickwad not that he is one!" ... that is still breaking the spirit of the rule and is thus still disallowed.

If a particular person has a hard time with this and intends on purposely pushing boundaries and skirting the rules, I would say that section is not for them. They can either not join, or they do join and promptly get kicked out when they can't manage to follow suit. No harm, no foul. The whole rest of the forum is still there and the same for them to use.

I assure you, I am not being disingenuous. I might be wrong, that's entirely possible, but I'm being genuine. I'm not usually a fan of exclusive clubs and that's how I see this. We're going to decide what's offensive or insulting in here and if you don't like it, we'll kick you out of our special area and you'll just have to grovel with the commoners in the, gasp, low rent area of the forum. Yeah, not a fan of that.

I'm guessing that's probably not at all your perception of what you're suggesting, but that's how I imagine it going. Like I said, I could be wrong on that, but its how I see it.

However in the interest of not furthering pointless discussions and/or trying to stop freight trains that I can't control, I will take the same approach I took with the last presidential election. I've stated my concerns, the other side still insists I'm wrong so I say go ahead and do what you want. If it works, great. If it doesn't and my fears become reality, I won't say I told you so. I'll just quietly shrug and tell myself that this is the reality the majority wanted and who am I to question it.

[Catholic_Lady]

I really wasn't intending for this idea to be turned into people insinuating that I need a safe zone or that I'm a "snow flake". Neither am I meaning to complain about these forums or give off the impression that I cant take the heat or whatever. I don't get tore up about the shit posts, I just find them tedious and disruptive, and thought it might be a cool idea to have a single added section reserved for civil discussion for those who would be interested.

Anyway, it's not that big of a deal. I would have dropped this a while ago, but felt encouraged again when Mr Steel asked me to brainstorm some guidelines. But if this isn't a welcome idea, it's no problem lol. I'm certainly not meaning to turn this into an argument.

---

The reason I'm not putting much effort into my responses to you, Jo, is because I feel you are being disingenuous and obtuse on purpose.

"Christian" is, by definition, not a nasty word. Same as the word "chair" is not a nasty word. If people want to be offended by the word chair because it's nasty "to them", I would say that's their problem. With that being said, if someone finds a way to use those to words in a manner that is clearly meant to insult or provoke the other person, I would say that is breaking the spirit of the rule.

Same goes for if you tell someone "you sound like a dickwad", you are not "technically" calling them a dickwad. But if the rules of a forum are to be civil, not fling shit, not name call, and not cuss someones out, telling someone they "sound like a dickwad" and then saying "well, I said he's acting like a dickwad not that he is one!" ... that is still breaking the spirit of the rule and is thus still disallowed.

If a particular person has a hard time with this and intends on purposely pushing boundaries and skirting the rules, I would say that section is not for them. They can either not join, or they do join and promptly get kicked out when they can't manage to follow suit. No harm, no foul. The whole rest of the forum is still there and the same for them to use.

I assure you, I am not being disingenuous. I might be wrong, that's entirely possible, but I'm being genuine. I'm not usually a fan of exclusive clubs and that's how I see this. We're going to decide what's offensive or insulting in here and if you don't like it, we'll kick you out of our special area and you'll just have to grovel with the commoners in the, gasp, low rent area of the forum. Yeah, not a fan of that.

I'm guessing that's probably not at all your perception of what you're suggesting, but that's how I imagine it going. Like I said, I could be wrong on that, but its how I see it.

However in the interest of not furthering pointless discussions and/or trying to stop freight trains that I can't control, I will take the same approach I took with the last presidential election. I've stated my concerns, the other side still insists I'm wrong so I say go ahead and do what you want. If it works, great. If it doesn't and my fears become reality, I won't say I told you so. I'll just quietly shrug and tell myself that this is the reality the majority wanted and who am I to question it.

That is fair enough.

[John V]

I assure you, I am not being disingenuous. I might be wrong, that's entirely possible, but I'm being genuine. I'm not usually a fan of exclusive clubs and that's how I see this. We're going to decide what's offensive or insulting in here and if you don't like it, we'll kick you out of our special area and you'll just have to grovel with the commoners in the, gasp, low rent area of the forum. Yeah, not a fan of that.

That's typical these days. People want things torn down to the lowest common denominator.

[Angrboda]

Is telling people that you think they are dishonest, deluded, or ignorant going to be banned from this safe space?

[John V]

In my opinion, The forum was suggested just so that a certain someone can stir the pot. 

Your opinion is wrong. Yet again:

1. An atheist (Kit) expressed a desire to have more theists here conducting serious discussions

2. I said that maybe all the insults scare off such potential posters, and suggested that a forum set aside for serious discussion might attract some such posters

3. CL liked the idea and asked me if I wanted to make this thread. I declined, so she did it.

---

Is telling people that you think they are dishonest, deluded, or ignorant going to be banned from this safe space?

In a serious discussion, you show that a person is dishonest, deluded, or ignorant with facts.