^^
Um, this idea of yours isn't gonna work, you know.
(you idiot)

[Edited on June 23, 2010 at 10:01 AM. Reason : ]

6/23/2010 10:01:20 AM

I'm beginning to think that this thread is pretty gay.

6/23/2010 10:05:25 AM

It won't work if you deliberately decide that it won't. It doesn't take much self-control to decide not to say "you idiot."

6/23/2010 10:11:15 AM

Optimum, this is a good idea in theory, but you know it will never happen, right? The only thing you can do is ease your own tone and hope that others will follow suit.

6/23/2010 10:25:59 AM

Quote :

"The only thing you can do is ease your own tone and hope that others will follow suit."

I personally like the idea of this thread and will ease my tone a bunch

6/23/2010 1:25:18 PM

This afternoon's example:

Quote :

"Is your political science concentration on communism or something?"

6/23/2010 5:17:27 PM

Personally I prefer direct personal attacks over the backhanded smarmy bullshit I usually see here.

6/23/2010 5:27:26 PM

There's nothing insulting about accusing someone of having communist sympathies

[Edited on June 23, 2010 at 6:01 PM. Reason : s]

6/23/2010 6:00:43 PM

This thread comes along every now and again. Some crybaby gets butthurt then makes a thread asking everyone to be civil and reminisces about some Golden Age of TSB that never existed.

6/23/2010 6:00:48 PM

yeah, i don't remember the "good old days" being any better at all, and in many cases, they were definitely worse.

6/23/2010 6:03:08 PM

Quote :

"Is your political science concentration on communism or something?"

I didn't view that as an insult, I just thought it was hilarious on many levels.

6/23/2010 6:07:11 PM

^^^ Thanks for making my point about why this thread was needed.

6/23/2010 6:11:47 PM

Because you're a butthurt crybaby? I thought that it was self-evident.

6/23/2010 6:16:02 PM

Nope. You're welcome to disagree with the premise of the thread, but no harm comes from having a little self-control with the personal comments.

Quote :

"Before you dismiss it out of hand, how about we try it, and see if we can encourage others to participate here as well?"

6/23/2010 6:21:26 PM

Of course, there are different kinds of "personal comments."

There's my own favorite, which is tacking on various insults to an otherwise impersonal comment. I engage in this quite frequently. But when I type out a paragraph of what is, I think, well-reasoned response, I don't feel too bad about calling you a fucker at the end of it.

Then there's the Solinari approach, where he just calls you an anti-semite or something without actually presenting an argument. This, I will gladly agree, is fucking lame.

Then there's the even lamer approach of referencing old-ass posts by your opponent, quoting them probably out of any context at all, and using them to paint him/her as a hypocrite. With this tactic not only are you ignoring the actual debate, but you're expending a fair amount of energy to ignore the actual debate. This makes you a colossal shithead.

I suppose that it's theoretically possible to engage in a debate on this forum without using any insults. Then again, theoretically, communism works. You can ask Kris about that. The fucker.

6/24/2010 2:56:52 AM

Quote :

"Being personally insulted takes away any joy in posting here."

Why? How?
None of the people here actually know you, so how can they possibly hurt you or negatively affect you with just words?


I'm not saying that TSB couldn't use more civility (mostly it could use less of the "I must avoid being wrong at all costs" attitude, as others have said), but you shouldn't let yourself be affected by blind and semi-anonymous insults. They're completely meaningless, and letting them get under your skin like that is just unhealthy.

6/25/2010 6:21:00 AM

Quote :

"Then there's the Solinari approach, where he just calls you an anti-semite or something without actually presenting an argument. "

Well, when someone promotes antisemitic ideas, there's usually no argument needed. Call it what it is.

These ideas are antisemitic:
Discount the legitimacy of the state of Israel and its right to exist
Disregard palestinian atrocities, focus only on Israeli actions
Advocate the evacuation of Jews from the state of Israel
etc.

6/25/2010 2:20:38 PM

What about Israeli atrocities?

6/25/2010 2:30:06 PM

Well, when someone promotes anti-Arab ideas, there's usually no argument needed. Call it what it is.

These ideas are anti-Arab:
Discount the legitimacy of the state of Palestine and its right to exist
Disregard Israeli atrocities, focus only on Palestinian actions
Advocate the evacuation of Palestinians from their homes
etc.

6/25/2010 2:32:38 PM

Except for the fact that Israel would love nothing more than a peaceful two state solution.

Too bad Yasser Arafat declined their offer.

Too bad Hamas dismisses the idea of a two state solution out of hand.

[Edited on June 25, 2010 at 2:36 PM. Reason : s]

6/25/2010 2:35:54 PM

lol, there's no hope for this guy

6/25/2010 2:36:26 PM

Quote :

"Except for the fact that Israel would love nothing more than a peaceful two state solution."

Of course they would, right after they snag up all of the Palestinian land they're after!

6/25/2010 2:41:54 PM

Quote :

"So, I'd like to make the following proposal: Let's take the personal attacks out of TSB. Let's have discussions that don't resort to personally insulting to one another."

Or we can just grow a spine and some thicker skin and get the fuck over it. Ad hominem attacks can often reveal a person's thought process. For example, the person who calls anyone critical of Israel an anti-Semite, or the person critical of illegal immigration a racist. Or when GOP calls me a bigot for suggesting Islam is partly responsible for the Muslim world's problems.

And then you have people like McDanger who think they can win an argument by simply declaring their superior intelligence. Clues like that are also helpful because they make it obvious which users should just be ignored.

In other words, quit being such a pussy.

[Edited on June 25, 2010 at 2:47 PM. Reason : ]

6/25/2010 2:42:03 PM

Quote :

"Of course they would, right after they snag up all of the Palestinian land they're after!"

Sure, because that's clearly what they offered Yasser Arafat

6/25/2010 2:44:00 PM

Haha, what? It's exactly what they offered Arafat, or else they would have proposed pre-1967 borders.

Anyways, I'm going to stop arguing about Israel in this thread.

[Edited on June 25, 2010 at 3:01 PM. Reason : .]

6/25/2010 3:01:13 PM

If you could, just refresh my memory on what happened in 1967?

6/25/2010 3:34:34 PM

Sure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War

Quote :

"The Six-Day War of June 5–10, 1967 (also known as the June War) was a war between Israel and the neighboring states of Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. The Arab states of Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tunisia, Morocco and Algeria also contributed troops and arms.[2] At the war's end, Israel had gained control of the Sinai Peninsula, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights. The results of the war affect the geopolitics of the region to this day."

Also of note is that Israel struck preemptively.

6/25/2010 3:49:07 PM

Gee, I wonder what would ever have provoked Israel to attack? Do you have any ideas? Maybe they saw a banana out there in the desert.... Who knows??

6/25/2010 3:51:14 PM

Israel should've obviously just let themselves be wiped out of existence

6/25/2010 4:00:04 PM

So instead they'e decide to wipe someone else out of existence! How noble of them.

6/25/2010 4:13:58 PM

I'm not saying Israel doesn't have the right to defend itself, of course it does. I am saying that winning a war does not give you the go-ahead to displace mass populations of civilians. Arab countries were wrong to displace Jewish civilians as well.

6/25/2010 4:15:34 PM

Why doesn't Jordan just give the Palestinians a chunk of land so everyone can be happy

Oh yeah, because both the Israelis and the Palestinians want the magical city of Jerusalem

6/25/2010 4:20:58 PM

Quote :

"I am saying that winning a war does not give you the go-ahead to displace mass populations of civilians."

Yea it bloody does.

6/25/2010 4:34:14 PM

I'm just going to point out that, at this point, I'm only arguing with you on the off-chance that someone reading this might buy into your bullshit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention

Quote :

"Article 4 defines who is a Protected person: Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals. But it explicitly excludes Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention and the citizens of a neutral state or an allied state if that state has normal diplomatic relations within the State in whose hands they are."

Quote :

"Article 33. No protected person may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited. Pillage is prohibited. Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited."

[Edited on June 25, 2010 at 4:51 PM. Reason : ,]

6/25/2010 4:50:57 PM

Yet again, I must point out that the Israeli/Palestinian conflict has nothing to do with this thread. Solinari brought it up as a way to derail it, but it's time to return to the topic.

[Edited on June 25, 2010 at 5:01 PM. Reason : poor spacing]

6/25/2010 5:00:38 PM

i think after 3 pages the conclusion is:

1. people could be nicer in TSB / limit # of personal attacks
2. its never gonna be the utopia you want it to be, get over it

6/25/2010 5:19:17 PM

^ That's pretty much what I aimed for, thanks.

6/25/2010 5:25:32 PM

^^^^ that doesn't say anything about whether it is legal to annex territory won during a war.

6/25/2010 6:07:41 PM

I think the conclusion is to ban Solinari for intentionally derailing this thread.

6/25/2010 6:08:28 PM

this thread is a great example of why both Solinari and quagmire02 are two of the worst users on the board.

6/25/2010 7:02:37 PM

oh hey gunzz, welcome to soapbox.

6/25/2010 7:54:52 PM

gunzz in TSB is kind of like Arnold Schwarzenegger's character in Last Action Hero when he goes through the screen to 'the real world'

He still is a badass, but he doesn't have as much power as when he's in his own realm

6/25/2010 7:56:21 PM

I know why gunzz is posting in this thread.... because it belongs in shit shat. it's like the devil come to claim his own

This idea of Optimum's is basically the fairness doctrine for Soapbox. Sounds great on paper, but net result is "conservative opinion personally offends me. conservatives shut up"

witness any of Optimum's latest efforts to encourage conservatives to stfu as proof.


[Edited on June 25, 2010 at 8:00 PM. Reason : ]

6/25/2010 7:58:05 PM

Quote :

"politics, religion, etc are topics that can often get people worked up"

self quoting, but still its true, and it kind of justifies that people are going to inevitably make a personal attack now or then

6/25/2010 8:01:03 PM

Here's Optimum responding to a conservative with his new civility doctrine:

Quote :

"It'd be nice if we could de-politicize just a bit. "

Yea, that's right.... When you ask someone to depoliticize in a political discussion after they made a political point, in a political thread in a political board.... you're basically telling them to STFU.

6/25/2010 8:03:01 PM

Look, I'm not doing that. I picked a few responses that were prime examples of the sort of incivility that I was talking about. I wasn't paying attention to a political point of view, regardless of what you choose to believe.

It's incredible to me how many people are willing to fight to be rude to each other, and make it a point of pride to do so.

6/25/2010 8:14:24 PM

Another example:

Quote :

"No, we're back to reading comprehension fails, you dumbshit."

6/25/2010 9:05:03 PM

Meh, if he has resorted to saying such things then that hopefully means I've angered him in some way. That makes me happy.

6/25/2010 9:12:37 PM

... sigh.

6/25/2010 9:57:27 PM

I know what you are trying to do and I admire it. However, I feel that meaningful discussions about politics, philosophy or values should contain a certain level of passion or else why do it? In which case it is sometimes necessary to call out someone's beliefs and intrinsically the person themselves for being a stupid moron.

6/25/2010 10:09:08 PM