Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Zombie_Babies" data-source="post: 6217514" data-attributes="member: 6750039">Again, that's all well and good.  It does have some issues as a practice, however - especially when civility is something that's constantly preached.  I'm not arguing with the practicality of the solution, I'm simply saying the solution leads to issues all its own.  Basically it's not civil to assume the worst of someone and treat them accordingly based on that assumption.  It's easy as hell, sure, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea.And that's fine.  Of course, that makes them a jerk - and not one unfairly branded.  Actions have consequences no matter how practical they are.At any rate, the point is that if you're truly after civil discourse it helps to behave in a civil manner (again, plenty here do).  When you assume the worst and then ignore someone or say nasty things about them and then ignore them, well, you're not behaving civilly.  So what is it I'm to assume, then?  People keep telling me about how civility is the goal here and then some of them act quite differently with nary a peep from those preaching civil action to be heard.Sorry to parse so much here but I think each of these li'l 'graphs raises a point worth addressing individually.Anyhoo, this is correct.  However, what's being said here is civility and the actions don't mirror the words.  That's my problem.Unfortunately without directly addressing specific people and instances I cannot really say what I think it says.  As we're supposed to be civil that's what I'm attempting by speaking in general and admittedly less than precise terms.  I am actively seeking not to offend.  And that's my fault how, exactly?  What you're saying here is that it's ok for them to act less civilly to me because of what some other people have done - maybe not even here.  That's not right.  If you're gonna behave civilly it means you need to be open minded.  Making up your mind about someone because of, in no small part, what others have done is not in line with that.  Again, practical, sensible - whatever.  It don't make it right.I'm painting with a brush this size of this specific forum.  I've not interacted anywhere else and I don't presume to label people I haven't talked to.  I'm only speaking to what I've actually been seen or told by those that say they know.  For example, I've been told that members here have chosen to just ignore anyone associated with OTTers in an effort to get the OTTers to either leave through loneliness or implode and be expelled.  That happened and it happened here.  Obviously I haven't interacted with those folks but, well, that's because they chose not to interact with me without giving me a chance.  So I do speak about them as well as those that have directly behaved in the way I've spoken about. True, they don't owe me that.  If the goal were actually civil discourse, though, they'd give me a chance.  Hell, right here in this thread there's evidence of someone making an assumption about me, attacking my character publicly and then putting me on ignore without giving me a chance to respond.  Now that's certainly within their right but it also certainly ain't civil.  If you think it is, please explain why.  I'd love to hear it.</blockquote>

Verification