Does Debating Have to Be Abusive - To Be Effective ? (page 2)

BurnTheShips

I guess I have no business posting anything on this thread.

Define Abusive. One man's abuse is another man's dry sarcasm. Certainly there are examples of what amounts to assault with a deadly weapon (the tongue) and they are obviously bad behavior, many get shut down by the mods.

But, I think we have to tolerate the variety of methods one debates or expresses themselves with. Off hand, I can think of several who cannot discuss politics without really snotty put downs of posters they disagree with. I have been involved in some pretty blunt discussions myself. On the other hand, there is the holier than thou poster. Butter wouldn't melt in their mouth. They can come across as sensitive and delicate not realizing that others are put off by it as a tactic to avoid frank discussion.

beksbks

Piss off Gregor! Butter is dripping from my mouth!

Did I come across as sensitive?????

onacruse

BTS:

I guess I have no business posting anything on this thread.

Is that a mea culpa? If so, then imvho you have posted (perhaps more, but also perhaps somewhat less) as abusively as many others. Perhaps the solution is as simple as to re-examine how we "come across," and respectfully (without surrendering our own strongly held convictions) alter our posting styles accordingly? And, lest anyone misunderstand, I am not thinking solely of you in this matter.

BurnTheShips

And, lest anyone misunderstand, I am not thinking solely of you in this matter.

I don't think you could do so credibly. Sometimes someone acts nasty, and it isn't even directed at me, and I give 'em both barrels. I usually end up regretting it. I am sure I don't have to mention recent examples. At least I am creative about it most of the time without outright name calling.

Burn

Gregor

Siss off pister! Spit out that butter! Too much cholesterol.

onacruse

BTS:

I usually end up regretting it.

As have I.

What do you think about the "solution" I suggested?

BurnTheShips

In theory, right on.

In practice, we all fall short. My fingers are faster than the mental brakes. I don't know if I could be described as abusive, but I would definitely use the term "uncharitable".

Burn

onacruse

BTS, a more "neutral" term, which I perhaps should have used, is "aggressive."

Not to press the point too aggressively on my own part:

Sometimes someone acts nasty, and it isn't even directed at me, and I give 'em both barrels.

Does that not then constitute a response in kind?...a perpetuation of the aggression?

At least I am creative about it most of the time without outright name calling.

There are subtle, yet equally aggressive, ways of name-calling, which most often evoke the same reactions.

My fingers are faster than the mental brakes.

Why?

JK666

I love ya bro, but yes it does!

When people bring out repugnant effluent, we have to counter back. The regurgitation of the Republicrats that haven't put two synapses together for years needs to be slapped down. Just a fact my friend! And this is from a conservative independent!

JK

(People are like God - dumb all over, and a little ugly on the side.)

Does Debating Have to Be Abusive - To Be Effective ?

Share this