Posted by noa on March 22, 2003, at 11:36:21
In reply to Re: heated discussions, posted by Dr. Bob on March 21, 2003, at 10:59:43
I understand that the idea of an onslaught of debates about the war escalating into vehemence, anger, and incivility must seem extremely dreadful. But I think so many of us see this place as "our" place, and the idea of going to another board just for that seems awkward. Isn't there some way to allow for it without letting it disrupt other discussions or becoming uncivil?
I also still have difficulty seeing where Jay crossed the line. I understand the idea that the intensity was escalating somewhat in the thread, but still would find it helpful to understand what rules were broken, as I don't see it in his posts. I know he wasn't being that respectful of George Bush, especially with the comment on penis size, but I believe that post came before your warning, and he apologized. After the warning, I didn't see anything like that, just very strong opinion.
Those particular kinds of comments aside, expresing disdain for a political leader and his or her policies doesn't seem to me to be uncivil, even when others here like that leader. I think political figures are accepted as targets of commentary, positive or negative. I agree, though that it shouldn't deteriorate into crudeness. And, perhaps, as you prefer, it is reasonable to expect that people use feeling statements, so that it not become a total bash-fest that makes some posters feel unwelcome. I agree. But it seemed to me that Jay did use feeling words, owning htat these were his feelings, not facts.
I can see where you might see Jay's post as having the potential to open up a bash fest, but in itself it didn't seem like one to me (once the genital comment was corrected and apologized for). If I am missing something, could you point me to the language that was over the line?
I know I am flipping back and forth from discussing Jay's blocking and the question of how to manage political debates, etc. Forgive the disorganization of this post.
Here is a thought: what if people started with a kind of disclaimer/warning before a political rant, acknowledging it as personal opinion and that it may be something that some may want to skip ("WARNING: Political Rant Ahead! Proceed with Caution! Take with grain of salt as it represents my own personal rantings and ravings.")
OTOH, I have the thought that the old saying about politics and religion might apply. They are tricky areas for civil conversation.
OTOH (I have a lot of hands, don't I), the typical discussions of this board--mental illness, medications, side effects (graphic detail and all), personal disclosures of dark parts of the self, etc.--aren't typical dinner conversation, either, so the adage about politics and religion doesn't seem to be apt to this forum.
So how to allow for posters to discuss political views, views about the war, etc. and keep it civil? The line between civil and uncivil is very difficult to define, of course, as such things often are. This is a stressful time in our history, very scary and troubling. People are going to have strong feelings and opinions in many directions. It seems a shame there isn't room here for discussion of these matters, but how to have genuine expression of views without escalating into havoc and hurt feelings?
poster:noa
thread:210634
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20030221/msgs/211431.html