What was the point when people stopped being able to disagree with one another…debate the subject….shut it down and go and have lunch together?!

At what point did everyone decide they’re right…period??

 

10 30 PM, Friday March 6 th , 2012

Agree to disagree is an alien concept to some.

Robust debate and delivered respectfully addressing the subject matter not the individual. However some people see disagreement with ideas,  as a personal rejection.

Also owning your own viewpoint and listening to a counterpoint, is always good.

 

 

It's the whole point of a talkboard! If you don't have disagreement there's no point of having one.

 

But more generally, in society, social media has probably been a major factor, as people "block" those they disagree with, some do it on here as well, and of course that creates a small circle of like-minded people who then become snowflakes when their worldview is challenged. Being in a bubble of re-enforced views actually creates extremism, rather than avoid it.

I will usually use agree to disagree and don't interrupt me when I'm interrupting you.

Anyone who has had a good education where they learned the art and the value of debate, and especially older generations who were taught to think for themselves long before social medias started funneling only news and opinions that suit your online profile, should be open to differing opinions and to genuinely 'agree to disagree'.

 

The less well educated and particularly a whole generation of younger people who are glued to devices and apps that act as echo chambers, just can't seem to accept this.

 

This cartoon appeared in the Jokes forum recently. It isn't funny at all, but it does portray quite cleverly how people become partisan, usually through propaganda and manipulation.

 

28 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

Robust debate and delivered respectfully addressing the subject matter not the individual. However some people see disagreement with ideas,  as a personal rejection.

Also owning your own viewpoint and listening to a counterpoint, is always good.

 

 

Yeah. All this belongs to the obvious insight. 

Within a venues of these statures, healthy debate; discussion; and disagreement is an old school concept and theoretical at best. 

 

More often than not - the respective poster, not the post or comment, is the target. The more common nature of a forum. 

An offer of an alternative or counter ideal is often met with distain. Tolerance levels are pathetic, regardless of one's stance. Breaking instead of bending.

 

Folks are much too sensitive in one form or another, which often is reflective of their truer character.

Remember that the offending/threatening gene has been invented or planted for you. 

 

No such beast as an independent balance. No numerous shades of grey - only black and white

Embryonic Marxism has become a well nourished fetus. It's enemies are scientific method, traditional journalism, the nuclear heterosexual family, religion, and the United States Constitution*.

 

*The Marxists want the federal government to have complete control, yet State's Rights prevent that from happening.

1 hour ago, CharlieH said:

Agree to disagree is an alien concept to some.

Whilst I welcome healthy debate and at times have agreed to disagree, I find it difficult to do this when a poster posts nonsense.

 

A good example is the "conspiracy theorists" and no matter how much debate one has with them, it's pretty well useless because they believe in their "conspiracies" (Bill Gates and the Covid virus, vaccines being used to inject nanoparticles of mind altering substances and so on) so I don't see the point in arguing/discussing, in fact if someone is stupid enough to believe that sort of nonsense, then I'm best off not having anything to do with them, so I put some of them on ignore.

 

I did the same with several trump supporters, because no matter how many times he lied in public, and no matter how many times the actual footage was shown supporting this, they refused to believe it. Then there was the time he was forced to repay about $2.5 million after "misusing" funds collected for a charity, yet although it was all out there for everyone to see and hear, his supporters argued against it on threads like this.

 

I would gladly have a discussion with anyone and will put forward my points of view, but where the poster doesn't have the intelligence to see that what they are posting is absolute rubbish, proven beyond doubt by all and sundry, then it's not worth it.

 

This old adage rings true in this case, "it's pointless arguing with idiots because they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience".

I don think things have changed, its just the humman condition. Battle all your opponents be it a political battle, capitalistic battle, music battle - its who we are and have always been.

2 hours ago, Whale said:

I don think things have changed, its just the humman condition. Battle all your opponents be it a political battle, capitalistic battle, music battle - its who we are and have always been.

To some degree that's true, however, recently there has definitely been an increase in censorship, intolerance of others, polarization of opinions. Most likely it has to do with the fact that Western democracies are a humid and fertile ground where all manner of vegetation thrives, and the increasing number of groups in society, feminists, nationalists, socialists, black rights, hispanic rights, asian, arab, jewish, conservatives, environmentalists, vegans, etc etc etc, actually leads to a proliferation of opposing viewpoints.

 

In addition social media makes those more visible. People are more educated and smarter than ever as well, so that only increases the likelihood they all think they are right.

What I hate more, is people that disagree with you and wont change their minds even though the evidence is 100% in your favour !

2 hours ago, Whale said:

I don think things have changed, its just the humman condition. Battle all your opponents be it a political battle, capitalistic battle, music battle - its who we are and have always been.

I disagree with you on this one….lots of friends I disagree with and still good friends….we don’t battle so to speak…we just accept the others opinion and move on.

So  the real question is…..

 

 do you want to be right or do you want to be happy ?? 

13 minutes ago, RichardColeman said:

What I hate more, is people that disagree with you and wont change their minds even though the evidence is 100% in your favour !

I don’t think there’s any evidence that’s 100% on your side on anything any more….

4 hours ago, Antonymous said:

Anyone who has had a good education where they learned the art and the value of debate, and especially older generations who were taught to think for themselves long before social medias started funneling only news and opinions that suit your online profile, should be open to differing opinions and to genuinely 'agree to disagree'.

 

The less well educated and particularly a whole generation of younger people who are glued to devices and apps that act as echo chambers, just can't seem to accept this.

 

This cartoon appeared in the Jokes forum recently. It isn't funny at all, but it does portray quite cleverly how people become partisan, usually through propaganda and manipulation.

 

Yea but

 

Communism really is bad.

 

Bloke in 5th frame is just an attention seeking t**t seeking to make a name for himself by being controversial .

 

Young people today are so desperate for attention they will try any absurdity to get a few click subscribes.

 

If you liked this post dont forget to like , click and subscribe. Limited edition t shirts soon to be available to subscribed posters. Each purchase earns you 20 likes no matter what rubbish you post.

 

Buy now and be more popular.

 

 

 

100% . I think social media has a lot to do with it. Like Google what ever side of a question you punch in Google will agree with you. Man landed on the moon? Yes. Man didn't land on the moon? Yes. And so like flat earthers people now instead of listening to other opinions and engaging in healthy debate mostly associate with people who think exactly the same as them. Which eventually leads to them being "right" and everyone else being "wrong". The art of the debate for the multitude for most of the population is gone which is a great shame as so many good things come from peoples ability to think critically but also accept criticism.

9 minutes ago, Denim said:

Yea but

 

Communism really is bad.

 

Bloke in 5th frame is just an attention seeking t**t seeking to make a name for himself by being controversial .

 

Young people today are so desperate for attention they will try any absurdity to get a few click subscribes.

 

 

Not like us old fellas, who NEVER play to the peanut gallery

15 minutes ago, Denim said:

Yea but

 

Communism really is bad.

Theoretically no. Practically it has some issues ???????????? socialism also has a lot of merit ...in theory 

2 minutes ago, StreetCowboy said:

Not like us old fellas, who NEVER play to the peanut gallery

Unless we get a shxxload of like subscribes.

Ou't fer nout ' as they say oop north. Apparently.

At the sake of sounding a bit Monty Python, is this a Forum argument, or a Woke Culture argument?

Or a Perils of Internet Echo-Chambers argument?

 

 

I'm not responsible for what other people think, nor do I care.

4 minutes ago, starky said:

Theoretically no. Practically it has some issues ????????????

Like Christianity.

 

Can't I just tolerate my neighbor. Is it essential that I have to love the bas***d.

5 minutes ago, Denim said:

Like Christianity.

 

Can't I just tolerate my neighbor. Is it essential that I have to love the bas***d.

Especially when he coveting my missus. That's a word you don't hear enough anymore. Bring back the covet I say.

It is a curious paradox: Censorship is flourishing in the information age.

 

I still remember how discussion was on talkboards in the early 90s. You were free to express your opinion, there was a belief that the Internet would defeat censorship for good. How wrong that was. Gone are the days of robust argument, now replaced with a stage for the narrow prejudices of a few.

7 minutes ago, Tanomazu said:

It is a curious paradox: Censorship is flourishing in the information age.

 

I still remember how discussion was on talkboards in the early 90s. You were free to express your opinion, there was a belief that the Internet would defeat censorship for good. How wrong that was. Gone are the days of robust argument, now replaced with a stage for the narrow prejudices of a few.

We are fortunate that the internet allows us to choose which lies we want to accept, and to listen to those only, to the exclusion of others, so that we can reinforce our prejudices and build our prejudices straighter, and narrower, and more blinkered than ever before, regardless of how outrageous those prejudices are, and we can harden our hearts with greater fortification against our fellow man through continuous reinforcement of our own prejudices by our chosen friends, and news, and our chosen popular opinion.

 

Luckily, my children, and I assume their peers, seem to have a broader and more optimistic outlook on life.

Is the OP a dog-whistle to complain about the fact that all of their Covid (mis)information, following on and closely related to the Trump Big Lie ( I won, but I was robbed by the <deleted>), is being denied equal time?

1 hour ago, StreetCowboy said:

We are fortunate that the internet allows us to choose which lies we want to accept, and to listen to those only, to the exclusion of others, so that we can reinforce our prejudices and build our prejudices straighter, and narrower, and more blinkered than ever before, regardless of how outrageous those prejudices are, and we can harden our hearts with greater fortification against our fellow man through continuous reinforcement of our own prejudices by our chosen friends, and news, and our chosen popular opinion.

 

Luckily, my children, and I assume their peers, seem to have a broader and more optimistic outlook on life.

Rather than kill of censorship what the internet did was to give would-be censors the tools to pursue ever greater censorship, right now the internet is full of milions of little PC Plods deleting what they deem unacceptable. Many of them sit in the Philippines, the main hub of Facebook censorship, who, of course, outsource censorship to the cheapest and least educated labour. It's rare you'll find a genius working in censorship.

9 hours ago, starky said:

Theoretically no. Practically it has some issues ???????????? socialism also has a lot of merit ...in theory 

On the other side, fascism is not that wonderful, even though rather fashionable.

6 hours ago, Tanomazu said:

Rather than kill of censorship what the internet did was to give would-be censors the tools to pursue ever greater censorship, right now the internet is full of milions of little PC Plods deleting what they deem unacceptable. Many of them sit in the Philippines, the main hub of Facebook censorship, who, of course, outsource censorship to the cheapest and least educated labour. It's rare you'll find a genius working in censorship.

I don't see much censorship - just organisations limiting what they publish.  I don't think you can force people to publish things.