Standards for posters you agree/disagree with

Post Reply New Topic

Politics, Philosophy and Religion is a battleground. This is basically "Captain Obvious" material.

*However* ... I - the only sane poster on WP - have noticed that people sometimes tend to defend even the most irrational posters if they just happen to agree with their ideology. And conversely, people will attack even the most sagacious posters if they conflict with their ideology.

Soooo... Time for some introspection..

- Are you consistent in your behavior on WP, or do you give people who agree with you a free pass while doubling down on those who you disagree with?
- Do you accept an invalid argument when it suits you agenda, while attacking it when it conflicts with your agenda?
- Do you seek out potential loopholes in the logic of your adversaries while accepting the testimonies of your allies without question?

I think anyone that picks #1 is lying, the best you can do is police yourself and strive towards it, but I don't think anyone is actually there. It takes a lot of self awareness even to be *slightly* even handed, I'll personally settle for better than most.

I don't really identify with any of the options. Thus, as with most multiple choice dilemmas, I spent some time trying to pick out the closest option before deciding I couldn't select any of them with complete honesty.

Perhaps I need to examine each option more fully - forgive me if this is an indulgence.

If a truly neutral human being exists I would very much like to meet such a person.



This is probably closest to how I view myself. However, I can say with all sincerity that my own views are slanted towards the content rather than the writer. I have no budding (b)romances with any of my fellow PPR posters.

Thus far there is only one individual whose posts I will dismiss outright without bothering to read them. This has nothing to do with this person's views, rather it is the result of most of their posts seeming to be the ravings of a fractured mind.



I think I would need to be pretty insecure to consider anyone on WP to be my 'enemy'.



The War on Christmas has more credibility than any suggestion of a war on PPR.



A vote for this option is a vote steeped in sarcasm, irony or extreme sociopathy.



Can an individual be beaten to death with logic?

I'm choosing this option, just to see the results of the poll. Please consider my vote to be a 'spoiled ballot'.

hmmm . . .
None of those really fit me very well. I tend to be somewhere in the middle on most subjects, but there are some posts where the views are so extreme that I can't help but being drawn in by the trolls (even though it usually takes me a few posts to figure out the post was intended to piss me off). There are certain issues that I feel very strongly about, but I do my best to evaluate each individual post.
It isn't the poster that affects my posting, but the content of the posts. Most of the time I don't even pay attention who wrote the post unless it becomes a post-off between me and someone over the top. There is one WP member that I will no longer respond to (if I notice it is him), as his replies to my posts verge on the edge of assault, with exponentially increasing hostility toward anyone who even asks for clarification.

I think people can tend to believe that they are their beliefs. Thus, any conflicting belief is seen as a personal attack on them.

Also, in my brief time here I have become more and more aware of the different things members have to cope with in their everyday lives. Many are used to being, or feeling, under 'attack' in their everyday lives. Thus, when they come here, they may be on the sensitive side. This is when a sense of humour can be misunderstood.

I'm becoming more and more aware of how much internet communication means to some members, especially those who are exceptionally isolated in their own lives, sometimes from not their own choosing.

As saintly as it may sound, forgiveness is an important lesson to learn. I am sure that all of us here have been wronged in serious ways throughout our lives (just like many NTs). I would love to say that I was a paragon of forgiveness in every situation I have experienced.

As virtual as it is, the board is yet another opportunity to practice forgiveness, and I certainly am pointing a finger directly at myself (and noone else) on that one. It also cautions me against my own selfishness, and the gap between my ideals and what I am actually thinking and doing.

It's just so easy to get caught up in self, and believing that one is an island.

Well said, Octobertiger! In the short time you've been here, I've been impressed by your ability to articulate yourself rationally and fairly.

I always try to be fair towards whatever I read, and find that the forums on here, including PPR, are generally more respectful than such forums in general, with exceptions of course, but usually mild compared to some of the crazy news comments I've seen elsewhere. Sometimes, folk there try to bring politics / religion into everything they read online...

There isn't anyone I won't at least read if I have the time (longer posts can take time) even if I don't agree with what he/she is saying.

None of the options applies.

Is there an option for I Need Serious Psychological Help?

PPR isn't a battelground, it's a playground full of big kids. I don't take it all that seriously.

Not sure if only teasing... but I agree.

Actually, I noticed that PPR is somewhat... tame. As I have stated earlier, the most vicious battles are now fought in the Love & Dating forum, where hatred reaches levels defying the laws of physics.

I suppose the departure of people like iamnotaparakeet, ragtime and inuyasha has deprived the forum of good opportunities for standard trench warfare.

^ I was just teasing, but PPR is pretty tame.

Awww, I don't think of you guys as my enemies. Well, okay, some of you, sometimes. But you're all still my friends too. Just friends I'm somewhat hostile to. Right, Tequila?

Seriously, though, I don't really wanna "attack" anybody. And if I defend anyone online, most of the time it's for two very neutral reasons: a vague feeling of kinship with other people who are being insulted for stupid reasons, and sheer contrariness. I certainly don't need to argue with people I agree with, though, there's quite enough of you to argue with already. So yeah, 3 is probably the most accurate answer.

It's been that way a while now, but people still talk like PPR is the scariest place on the forum. It's certainly different than the rest of WP, but it's hardly a cesspool. I think the problems occur when people who are not used to having their opinions challenged wander in and make statements without realizing that they'll be expected to support them with evidence and argumentation.



Our two evangelicals and our one really partisan conservative? Yeah, the forum has lacked a little something without them, now it's just individual issue based fights rather than all encompassing ideological ones. Not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing, though I do wish we had a little stronger right wing in here to balance things out, it can get a little echo chamber-ish sometimes.

Plus, I have no idea what is on Fox News any more.

I don't expect to find "allies" here, except on an issue-by-issue basis. Those who "argue" by impugning the other side's motives, however, can osculate my gluteus even if we agree on some issue (got to happen someday). I wish I could turn off their posts and only read the grownups' contributions.

Yeah, seriously. I've never seen someone so devoted to one particular news outlet before, it was almost impressive how he seemed to run his entire life around FOX. Of course I feel much the same way about people who organize their lives around allegorical fiction, whether published millenia ago or back in the 1950s, so perhaps I shouldn't judge too harshly.