When Did It Stop Being OK TO Disagree??

[poskat]

it happened when the liberals redefined disagreeing/criticism as "hate"

[Kanada]

43 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

The moment that they joined a forum!

I believe there’s some truth to that too????

[robblok]

2 minutes ago, RocketDog said:

I agree. Was going to say the same thing regarding social media but a different perspective.

When speaking behind a keyboard in anonymity some naturally combative folks have become downright obnoxiously belligerent and seem to disagree with whatever is posted. There are a few on these forums that way. When I get slammed by them I simply don't reply.

It's one of the many joys social media has bestowed in us.

I am more combative on the forum then in real life though I love having some arguments with the gf at times. I mean the good kind and she is smart so its fun. But im certainly more combative on the forum. 

 

On the forum you don't have to live with the people you debate with you don't know them in real life so you don't pull punches. 

 

Plus i like the more combinative style (up to a certain point).

 

But i doubt many take this really serious, i don't loose sleep over bad remarks or whatever. Its a forum its a debate and when i close the browser its gone from my mind.

[robblok]

Just now, poskat said:

it happened when the liberals redefined disagreeing/criticism as "hate"

I disagree it was the conservatives who started it ????

[ben2talk]

When was it ever ok to disagree? Certainly from an early age in Thai schools, the rule is - do as you're told and never argue.

 

When the teacher is wrong, you say 'Yes, Sir!' and copy the wrong answer.

 

This is a patriarchal monarchy style - assume absolute power under the guise of fatherhood, or 'taking care' and forced compliance for your own good.

[Rampant Rabbit]

When people start using "belief"  instead of  facts.........

[Rampant Rabbit]

3 minutes ago, robblok said:

you don't know them in real life so you don't pull punches. 

I  like the way from one post they decide you are a total pos, thats always hilarious

[robblok]

1 minute ago, Rampant Rabbit said:

I  like the way from one post they decide you are a total pos, thats always hilarious

You can get a pretty good idea how someone is if you follow their posts a bit. But not from one post. 

[Rampant Rabbit]

20 hours ago, CharlieH said:

Agree to disagree is an alien concept to some.

yeah but whats the  point if  Fred  says Im gonna  step  off this  11th  floor building and  me saying youll die and him saying you wont and you must do it. Either way free  speech should be  allowed in any and every discussion.

[jvs]

20 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

10 30 PM, Friday March 6 th , 2012

12.30 in Newfoundland.

[Rampant Rabbit]

1 minute ago, robblok said:

You can get a pretty good idea how someone is if you follow their posts a bit. But not from one post. 

Not  really , some peoples  views  are  all  over the place. Once  knew a  guy who hated  black  people yet was  going out with a black woman.for years and years

[robblok]

1 minute ago, Rampant Rabbit said:

yeah but whats the  point if  Fred  says Im gonna  step  off this  11th  floor building and  me saying youll die and him saying you wont and you must do it. Either way free  speech should be  allowed in any and every discussion.

Really if your Fred suddenly convinces Suzan that jumping of a building is not dangerous. Free speech right ? I think there are limits to free speech when proven falsehoods are spread. Take the Trump election fraud claims, none were true but he still kept saying it and many believed him. Its a standard tactic say an untruth enough times and some will take it for true. So is that freedom of speech ?

 

I think there are limits.  

[Kanada]

26 minutes ago, robblok said:

Any good employer should also know that many are far more extreme on social media as in real life. But yes it certainly can be used for that. Not so sure i agree with you about the 50k followers because some idiots have that many and more. But it can be an indication for sure but its not an absolute. It depends a bit on what kind of followers. 

 

If an possible employee of mine has 50k antivaxxers as followers it would mean that i would not consider hiring this guy. If he is reviewing IT stuff and has 50k followers good, if he is doing holidays and 50k followers, maybe good maybe not. 

It’s HR’s job to put a sketch of the possible employee together for the one doing the hiring and all this information just ticks boxes!

They have a standard checklist of course but the more info they have the further the scales might tip in your favour….or in the other direction!

Just saying there isn’t much in the way of information about you that doesn’t come into play.

**** the long and the short of it is…if they have your name and birthdate they know “everything” about you!

[Mac Mickmanus]

Just now, Rampant Rabbit said:

Not  really , some peoples  views  are  all  over the place. Once  knew a  guy who hated  black  people yet was  going out with a black woman.for years and years

Many guys have married Thais and they also seem to have a dim view of Thais 

[jvs]

7 minutes ago, Rampant Rabbit said:

When people start using "belief"  instead of  facts.........

If you state a fact they want you to show the source,i believe.

 

[poskat]

10 minutes ago, robblok said:

I disagree it was the conservatives who started it ????

thanks for not calling me a hater...555

[robblok]

1 minute ago, Rampant Rabbit said:

Not  really , some peoples  views  are  all  over the place. Once  knew a  guy who hated  black  people yet was  going out with a black woman.for years and years

Sure but if you read enough posts of long time posters about what they buy what kind of questions they ask and how active they are in certain topics. You can get a pretty good idea. Of course this does not work for everyone. Some posters just stick out and i retain information quite well.

[Rampant Rabbit]

Just now, jvs said:

If you state a fact they want you to show the source,i believe.

 

Yeah try that with any religion or quack medicine threads or  ghosts  etc.usually ends in you "not  having faith"  or "not  having an open mind" etc

[Kanada]

7 minutes ago, Rampant Rabbit said:

I  like the way from one post they decide you are a total pos, thats always hilarious

Some people make it really obvious????

[robblok]

Just now, poskat said:

thanks for not calling me a hater...555

I take it your from the US ? must be sad to have only 2 real political parties that count. I mean how can you find a party that really suits you with such limit choices. I see that often on Thaivisa conservatives vs liberals while I for one am generally more liberal then conservative but certainly not o n all fronts. Im pretty sure I can find points that i like on both sides. 

 

In my country we have too many parties, but at least its easier to find one that suits you more then just 2 generic choices. Bad side is of course its harder to form a government with many parties. 

[Rampant Rabbit]

2 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Many guys have married Thais and they also seem to have a dim view of Thais 

I  have a dim view of many Thais but I know they arent  all like that, just that for me my perception and experience in dealing with them over 18 years is  the vast majority I seem to come across are. I could say out of 20  people Ive had  dealings with about 10% are decent.

[Rampant Rabbit]

8 minutes ago, robblok said:

I think there are limits.

I dont think anything should be off  limits but i can see your  point where dumb as a  brick people  will believe, actually its not always dumb as a  brick I mean Hitler got the country behind him and he wasnt the first by any means.

[Bluespunk]

20 hours ago, Kanada said:

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?!

So you disagree with someone having the right to not to agree to disagree and have lunch with someone less disagreeable?

[ericbj]

19 hours ago, rcuthbert said:

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.

Marxism?
Or something more akin to fascism?
But whereas fascist governments favoured, but controlled, big business, today we are confronted with big business controlling the government, and the mass-media.
There is a need to be careful with the terms we use.
While I can agree with many points made by pro-business people (notably in the U.S.) who describe themselves as "anarchists" or "libertarians", I feel that in some cases "Victorian laissez-faire capitalist" might be a better fit.
Whatever became of 'The Conquest of Bread' ?

[Tanomazu]

55 minutes ago, RocketDog said:

I agree. Was going to say the same thing regarding social media but a different perspective.

When speaking behind a keyboard in anonymity some naturally combative folks have become downright obnoxiously belligerent and seem to disagree with whatever is posted. There are a few on these forums that way. When I get slammed by them I simply don't reply.

It's one of the many joys social media has bestowed in us.

I think that's exactly right, the anonymous nature of the internet coupled with the feeling of long distance makes some posters overly belligerent.

 

They just love the drama, because their personal lives are so empty.

 

Good behaviour online is never rewarded, it's often taken for granted and does not result in great attention, whereas over the top intensity clearly does. Often the most obnoxious posts get the most likes.

 

As Nietzsche said, deep down, everyone loves to torture others, it's fun, so when someone becomes very belligerent, rude and obnoxious many actually give them a like.

[Uroller]

Politicians with personal agendas have caused this world of “what I say is right, I don’t care what you think” it is driven by corrupt news media who have their agendas and slant the news to fit their narrative. Big tech also has their agenda and now censor anybody who disagrees with them. They are all against free thinking but free thinkers can still find the truth out there and don’t feel alone, most of the world is with you, it’s just that free thinkers don’t yell and scream as loud. That’s my opinion????

[Dart12]

roughly 1 year ago when the big 4 tech giants decided that the only thing that should be on their platforms are the opinions of the platform themselves.

Or you could go with a few years after smart phones connected with social media.

Before that you had a lot of things in life that brought people together...now with the echo chambers and divisive story lines being put out by media and governments, you have people at each others throats (online).  Most wouldn't say boo in person.

Tyson said it best:

 

 

[canthai55]

1 hour ago, Rampant Rabbit said:

Either way free  speech should be  allowed in any and every discussion.

Agree 100%

[robblok]

4 minutes ago, canthai55 said:

Agree 100%

Disagree, dangerous falsehoods should never be allowed. Of course that is a nice statement of me but not really practical I realize that. I just don't believe that it should be allowed to use fake information, lies and stuff like that. How to really make that happen, no idea yet. Many people seem to thave these views but nobody has a perfect solution.

 

I mean suppose all is allowed and I make a fake page with an alleged chat of you with a young girl. Put in some fake pics and other allegations boom, your reputation is gone all of a sudden your a paria. I mean free speech correct ? (i know its extreme but that is what people are saying if they want to allow everything to be said without any restrictions and checks on information. 

 

On the other hand you got the problem if free speech is totally gone information can be hidden and in some cases the truth will never come out. 

 

IMHO its hard to make perfect rules but i still prefer it if there were some limits and checks on information. 

[Tanomazu]

30 minutes ago, robblok said:

Disagree, dangerous falsehoods should never be allowed. Of course that is a nice statement of me but not really practical I realize that. I just don't believe that it should be allowed to use fake information, lies and stuff like that. How to really make that happen, no idea yet. Many people seem to thave these views but nobody has a perfect solution.

 

I mean suppose all is allowed and I make a fake page with an alleged chat of you with a young girl. Put in some fake pics and other allegations boom, your reputation is gone all of a sudden your a paria. I mean free speech correct ? (i know its extreme but that is what people are saying if they want to allow everything to be said without any restrictions and checks on information. 

 

On the other hand you got the problem if free speech is totally gone information can be hidden and in some cases the truth will never come out. 

 

IMHO its hard to make perfect rules but i still prefer it if there were some limits and checks on information. 

The problem is neither you nor anybody on here should get to decide, or is indeed equipped to decide, what a "dangerous falsehood" is. In this Covid pandemic for instance we have seen that for the longest time the number of cases was taken as a measure of whether to put in place draconian lockdowns. Now governments have turned around and said "Ooops sorry, actually taking cases alone is wrong, we'll now look at hospitalizations coupled with available beds and death rate".

 

Again and again scientific advisors of the highest rank have gotten facts about Covid wrong, and thus peddled falsehoods

 

Were they dangerous? Probably. However, we all have to live with dangerous falsehoods. This is not a sterile environment where mistakes do not happen and mommy can protect you from all negatives of the world. You put 10 scientists in a room and you get 21 opinions. They can't all be right. There will always be falsehoods. We have seen this with Covid.

 

The question is whether these falsehoods are so dangerous that they should be banned. If that were the case 80% of the world's scientists, politicians etc should all be banned. Any talk of communism should indeed be banned, the most dangerous falsehood the world has known.

 

It's very dangerous to engage in aggressive adversarial cancel culture. It almost cost the US a revolution.

 

Rather than support cancel culture we should all stand up against it in my view. It's a very slippery slope. First they came for the communists, then they came for Trump, then for Nikki Minaj, tomorrow they may come for you...

Edited September 17, 2021 by Tanomazu