A Common Pattern: Obscessive Compusive Rational Thinking
- Thread starter TruthSeeker
- Start date
ImaHamster2
Registered Senior Member
Q,
“Silence is often interpreted as agreement.”
On a single post, perhaps. Repeated lack of response implies a lack of interest. Some statements are so foolish that a reply compounds the foolishness.
“Choosing to remain silent towards one individual and not another sets one up as judge, jury and executioner. We have no right to judge who is worthy of debate and who is not. We must treat everyone with the same equality if we are to be treated in the same way.”
Everyone has the right to determine with whom they choose to communicate. Often silence is the best way to end a dispute. Or not begin a dispute.
“Choosing to remain silent even though one may have something to say is the same as rolling over and playing dead. With all due respect, it is the way of the wallflower and/or the coward.”
Or the way of a wise person who understands when, where, and how certain battles should be fought.
“We should not remain silent but instead speak up, and let those know that the rational will not be held captive to the whims of madmen. If you remain silent, you might as well join them.”
When most threads devolve into meaningless confrontations the reasonable depart.
This hamster recognizes that others don’t share this hamster’s interests and worldview. In some cases differences stimulate. In others the differences are too great to be bridged. This hamster chooses to ignore those whose posts seldom interest this hamster. Likewise, if hamster droppings fail to amuse, people should ignore the hamster.
Ideally this should be an individual decision rather than a response to peer pressure. However, this hamster recognizes that some behavior harms a community. Those who care about the community must then discuss solutions. Ignoring a disruptive poster has been effective on other forums. If the problem is a clash of personalities or worldviews then the parties tend to disengage and find more receptive audiences.
“Silence is often interpreted as agreement.”
On a single post, perhaps. Repeated lack of response implies a lack of interest. Some statements are so foolish that a reply compounds the foolishness.
“Choosing to remain silent towards one individual and not another sets one up as judge, jury and executioner. We have no right to judge who is worthy of debate and who is not. We must treat everyone with the same equality if we are to be treated in the same way.”
Everyone has the right to determine with whom they choose to communicate. Often silence is the best way to end a dispute. Or not begin a dispute.
“Choosing to remain silent even though one may have something to say is the same as rolling over and playing dead. With all due respect, it is the way of the wallflower and/or the coward.”
Or the way of a wise person who understands when, where, and how certain battles should be fought.
“We should not remain silent but instead speak up, and let those know that the rational will not be held captive to the whims of madmen. If you remain silent, you might as well join them.”
When most threads devolve into meaningless confrontations the reasonable depart.
This hamster recognizes that others don’t share this hamster’s interests and worldview. In some cases differences stimulate. In others the differences are too great to be bridged. This hamster chooses to ignore those whose posts seldom interest this hamster. Likewise, if hamster droppings fail to amuse, people should ignore the hamster.
Ideally this should be an individual decision rather than a response to peer pressure. However, this hamster recognizes that some behavior harms a community. Those who care about the community must then discuss solutions. Ignoring a disruptive poster has been effective on other forums. If the problem is a clash of personalities or worldviews then the parties tend to disengage and find more receptive audiences.
Hamster
Good points. I believe we have shown that not only one must take into account the disruptive poster specifically and generally, one must also take into account their own characteristics. I may deal with confrontation in a different way than yourself for example, who may deal with confrontation in a different manner than Cris.
However, the three of us have probably dealt with confrontation in similar manners as well. It would ultimately depend on the situation.
Although I don't like the idea of treating posters on a case by case study within the forum community, the Hamster has swayed me to think it may be necessary to do so.
Good points. I believe we have shown that not only one must take into account the disruptive poster specifically and generally, one must also take into account their own characteristics. I may deal with confrontation in a different way than yourself for example, who may deal with confrontation in a different manner than Cris.
However, the three of us have probably dealt with confrontation in similar manners as well. It would ultimately depend on the situation.
Although I don't like the idea of treating posters on a case by case study within the forum community, the Hamster has swayed me to think it may be necessary to do so.
Counterbalance
Registered Senior Member
Thanks for the response, Q. As the hamster has already posted a view that's in agreement with my own, I see no need to be repetitive. Just glad someone was able to get the message across.
CB
CB