Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 5601067" data-attributes="member: 18280">But hold hard, friend.&nbsp; What if it is neither drastic, nor an overstatement, to the speaker?&nbsp; What if that is not hyperbolic -- I, for one, see little reason to believe that it is so.&nbsp; The speaker does not come across as angry, or ranting (to me), and provides an example of exactly what he means.It is quite possible -- rational, even -- to see a difference that renders two things no longer the same, without assuming that everyone else must automatically see it so.It is not &quot;I don't believe X is Y&quot; but rather and you should not either or and you should not say it is which cause problems, IMHO and IME.&nbsp; And, also, IMHO and IME, there is precious little difference between I don't believe X is Y and you should not say it is and I believe X is Y and you should not say it is not.&quot;I can understand how you feel that way, but I feel differently&quot; is, AFAICT, the only real common ground that can be found.&nbsp; &quot;Common ground&quot; that is based on simply not speaking an unpopular opinion is illusory at best.I do agree with you that but I think that it is statements that try to restrict expression that actually tend to polarize the discussion.&nbsp; When we are concerned with what the other person's position can or cannot be, what they can or cannot believe, what they can or cannot feel, that drives a wedge between sides, so that no common ground can be found, because, until then, no actual &quot;attack&quot; has taken place.YMMV, though.And, as I am thankfully not a moderator, I am looking at it from a theoretical, rather than a practical, standpoint.&nbsp; It is easier to prevent unpopular opinions from being expressed than it is to then reign in the backlash against those opinions once expressed.But, until someone demands agreement, or makes claims of &quot;fact&quot;, I don't see it as an edition war.RC</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 5601067, member: 18280"] But hold hard, friend. What if it is neither drastic, nor an overstatement, to the speaker? What if that is not hyperbolic -- I, for one, see little reason to believe that it is so. The speaker does not come across as angry, or ranting (to me), and provides an example of exactly what he means. It is quite possible -- rational, even -- to see a difference that renders two things no longer the same, without assuming that everyone else must automatically see it so. It is not "I don't believe X is Y" but rather [I][B]and you should not either[/B][/I] or [I][B]and you should not say it is[/B][/I] which cause problems, IMHO and IME. And, also, IMHO and IME, there is precious little difference between [i][b]I don't believe X is Y and you should not say it is[/b][/i] and [i][b]I believe X is Y and you should not say it is not[/b][/i]. "I can understand how you feel that way, but I feel differently" is, AFAICT, the only real common ground that can be found. "Common ground" that is based on simply not speaking an unpopular opinion is illusory at best. I do agree with you that but I think that it is statements that try to restrict expression that actually tend to polarize the discussion. When we are concerned with what the other person's position can or cannot be, what they can or cannot believe, what they can or cannot feel, that drives a wedge between sides, so that no common ground can be found, because, until then, no actual "attack" has taken place. YMMV, though. And, as I am thankfully not a moderator, I am looking at it from a theoretical, rather than a practical, standpoint. It is easier to prevent unpopular opinions from being expressed than it is to then reign in the backlash against those opinions once expressed. But, until someone demands agreement, or makes claims of "fact", I don't see it as an edition war. RC [/QUOTE]

Verification