Get OVER your oh so rebellious selves, dopers

[Charger]

I think the “fear to tread” is a consequence of the tendency of people to overstate their opposition. In a room full of people, one person could declare “My favorite color is blue,” and someone could respond “Jesus fucking Christ, you shit-eating queer, what kind of worthless fucktard are you?!” and most people would nominate the second person for sainthood just because their over-the-top, psycho response was so amusing.

Many people have adapted to the attention-whoring of assholes and have just learned to keep their opinions private because of the disturbing behavior of the extreme opponents.

I’m reminded of a time when I didn’t know who director Peter Jackson was. My friend’s wife was aghast and replied (in a condescending tone), “He’s only the defining director of our generation.” That was an undeserved insult, that of implying that only a bonehead living in a cave wouldn’t know who Peter Jackson was. It’s also an insult to Spielberg. I’m a fan of neither of those directors, by the way, but I would say the “defining director,” if such a thing existed, would simply be the most recognized name.

In conclusion, the fault lies in the extremists, not among the cautious.

[bbs2k]

I also don’t believe we ever reached a consensus on the sex vs. magical doritos question.

[Autolycus]

[QUOTE=bbs2k]
I also don’t believe we ever reached a consensus on the sex vs. magical doritos question.
[/QUOTE]

Indeed, the last few weeks those doritos have been looking mighty tempting.

Thanks everyone for the attention. I’ll try to be good!

[silenus]

The First Rule of the Buffy Cabal is that you don’t talk about the Buffy Cabal.

[Heffalump_and_Roo]

ALERT: Much too serious ahead. Proceed at own discretion.

[QUOTE=MaxTheVool]
After some thought, I guess part of my beef is this: While it may seem cute and kind of funny to inflate SDMB consensuses into SDMB sacred cows, I think it might actually be counterproductive and even (in a teeny little way) dangerous to do so. Sure, lots of people on the SDMB like Lord of the Rings. And if you want to point that out, well, go right ahead (although I don’t quite see what your point is… it’s not like people haven’t noticed before or discussed how popular LotR or Buffy are here). But the moment you start referring to them as Sacred Cows, even jokingly, you’re being divisive, you’re setting things up in an us-vs-them, “the-people-who-like-A-are-a-group-who-dislike-everyone-else” way.
[/quote]

Let me make the counter-argument. In every group, there are sacred cows. That’s just a consequence of being part of a group. People who are similar band together because they have common interests. The Dope is no different. There are an inordinate amount of geeks here. That sometimes will determine the topics of discussion. And as with all groups, there are smaller groups who are vocal about certain topics. I could make the argument that it’s dangerous NOT to know what the sacred cows are. When we’re in a social setting, we generally know what the sacred cows are based on the group.

If we go to a fitness place, we know that the sacred cow is health and wellness.
If we go to a psychiatric ward, we know the sacred cow is mental health.
If we go to a weight watchers meeting, we know the. . . er, sensitive issue is weight.

So we don’t go around stepping into these issues unknowingly and get slapped down and feel bewildered about it. In an internet setting, it’s not as easy to know what the sacred cows are unless you’ve been around for a bit. So spelling them out helps.

Otherwise, you might get caught by someone like Aeschines, who has made it a hobby of slaying sacred cows. Here’s Aeschines getting people upset about the issue of weight. and here he is trying to get people upset about cats/pets. The hilarious part about that thread is that despite trying to get people upset about dead pets, he missed the target and got the Canadians upset instead. Weight and pets are clearly sacred cow topics here on The Dope. I’m fairly confident that even if a fairly unpopular poster posted the same OP Aeschines did on another message board, it would not have received the same amount of ire. It’s good to know that so you don’t get involved in one of these and become totally confused about what’s going on.

@MaxTheVool

On reflection, I can’t really believe I’ve spent so much time on such a minor little topic.

I’m right with you there. . . quite literally. I was actually going to snark you for the minor nature of this topic, but now that I’ve gotten so involved, I guess I can’t do that anymore.

@MaxTheVool

.. but I do think there’s an important kernel of truth to what I’m saying… the SDMB is NOT a place where people can’t disagree about matters of aesthetic taste.

Of course we can disagree. But on some sacred cow topics and for some strong opinions, it’s best to post your opinion somewhere else.

@EddyTeddyFreddy

The trash cans circling under them to make the catch ought to be a clue.

Oooh, is that what those trash cans were for?! I thought they were trying to tell me something about my own posts. Whew! Now that I know that they’re for other people’s posts, I feel so much better.

[MaxTheVool]

[QUOTE=Heffalump and Roo]

Let me make the counter-argument. In every group, there are sacred cows. That’s just a consequence of being part of a group
[/QUOTE]

Well, I’m not sure about EVERY group. But yes, there are such issues on the dope. But my point (or one of my various points) is that they are for the most part at-least-quasi-serious topics like obesity, homosexuality, the Bush administration, etc. They are NOT liking sports, liking Terry Pratchett, or even liking Buffy.

An actual discussion of what such issues might be would be interesting, and I felt that the original thread had the potential to be that, or was intended to be that, but it was immediately derailed by what I perceived as people more-or-less-seriously claiming sacred cow status for a preposterous range of things. Which is what irked me in the first place. And I did not get a sense that everyone was knowingly and winkingly employing hyperbole.

[Heffalump_and_Roo]

[QUOTE=MaxTheVool]
Well, I’m not sure about EVERY group. But yes, there are such issues on the dope. But my point (or one of my various points) is that they are for the most part at-least-quasi-serious topics like obesity, homosexuality, the Bush administration, etc. They are NOT liking sports, liking Terry Pratchett, or even liking Buffy.
[/quote]

The Bush administration is a serious topic? Who knew?

But really, what’s the difference between pets (which is an issue here simply because there’s a vocal group present who generally defend a position) and liking Terry Pratchett? IMO, both aren’t (human) life-threatening. The only thing that makes them issues here are that a number of people are vocal about it as versus perhaps getting a different response elsewhere.

But about the sports thing, I’m with you on that one. Same response on most message boards. People like sports. No surprise there.

@MaxTheVool

An actual discussion of what such issues might be would be interesting, and I felt that the original thread had the potential to be that, or was intended to be that, but it was immediately derailed by what I perceived as people more-or-less-seriously claiming sacred cow status for a preposterous range of things. Which is what irked me in the first place. And I did not get a sense that everyone was knowingly and winkingly employing hyperbole.

Ah well. . . .there are sarcasm-impaired people everywhere. Watcha gonna do?! :shrug:

[Grrr]

The “Band Camp” chick from American Pie is fucking ugly!

(Sits back and waits)

[MaxTheVool]

[QUOTE=Heffalump and Roo]
But really, what’s the difference between pets (which is an issue here simply because there’s a vocal group present who generally defend a position) and liking Terry Pratchett? IMO, both aren’t (human) life-threatening. The only thing that makes them issues here are that a number of people are vocal about it as versus perhaps getting a different response elsewhere.

[/QUOTE]

But to what extent is “pets” really a sacred cow issue, here? If someone says “I don’t like pets, and don’t have one” will that get anything like the same response, either in quality or in quantity, as “gay people are immoral and will burn in hellfire”? I mean, if someone says “oh, yeah, yesterday I ran over a kitten” that will get a strong response, but so will “oh, yeah, yesterday I molested a child” or “oh, yeah, yesterday I embezzled a million dollars from my employer”. (Or maybe I’m just not reading the right threads?)

[MaxTheVool]

[QUOTE=MaxTheVool]
But to what extent is “pets” really a sacred cow issue, here? If someone says “I don’t like pets, and don’t have one” will that get anything like the same response, either in quality or in quantity, as “gay people are immoral and will burn in hellfire”? I mean, if someone says “oh, yeah, yesterday I ran over a kitten” that will get a strong response, but so will “oh, yeah, yesterday I molested a child” or “oh, yeah, yesterday I embezzled a million dollars from my employer”. (Or maybe I’m just not reading the right threads?)
[/QUOTE]

Let me express myself a bit better: I don’t believe that someone who actively and vocally stated that homosexuality was evil and immoral could ever be other than a margianalized, outcast, member of the dope. The same is NOT true for someone who espoused just about any opinion about pets and the treatment thereof short of the clearly puppycidal. If you think cats should or shouldn’t be declawed that might cause a lot of controversy, but it’s not going to make people spit on you in Cafe Society threads.

[Liberal]

Better pick another topic. With respect to cats, Dopers have attacked me and my daughter.

[Heffalump_and_Roo]

[QUOTE=MaxTheVool]
Let me express myself a bit better: I don’t believe that someone who actively and vocally stated that homosexuality was evil and immoral could ever be other than a margianalized, outcast, member of the dope.
[/quote]

I think you’re overstating this. The issue is a large one in the US right now because it has polarized the nation in many ways, but here on The Dope, you could definitely say that and be an accepted member. You couldn’t say it about a particular member, but if you said it in general, you’d get the same reception here as any largely atheist/agnostic/non-religious message board.

@MaxTheVool

The same is NOT true for someone who espoused just about any opinion about pets and the treatment thereof short of the clearly puppycidal. If you think cats should or shouldn’t be declawed that might cause a lot of controversy, but it’s not going to make people spit on you in Cafe Society threads.

Here ya go! Enjoy! And this is not completely isolated. I’d contend that this doesn’t happen on every other message board.

[Justin_Bailey]

[QUOTE=lobstermobster]
I agree. I’ve never seen so many people wear their mental illnesses on their sleeves before. You get the impression that every member of the board is clinically depressed, bipolar, in an emotionally abuse relationship, has an anxiety disorder, has at some time been sexually assaulted, self-mutilates, has an eating disorder of some kind and hyper sensitive about their religious and political beliefs. I don’t know maybe thats just everyone in America. I’m not making light of any of the above situations it just seems to be over represented here.
[/QUOTE]

Seriously!

I think I’ve met one person in real life who has been diagnosed with Asperger’s. But I think there are dozens (maybe hundreds) of people on the Dope that make the same claim.

It truly baffles me.

[Liberal]

Well, birds of a feather, and all that.

[MaxTheVool]

[QUOTE=Heffalump and Roo]
I think you’re overstating this. The issue is a large one in the US right now because it has polarized the nation in many ways, but here on The Dope, you could definitely say that and be an accepted member. You couldn’t say it about a particular member, but if you said it in general, you’d get the same reception here as any largely atheist/agnostic/non-religious message board.

[/QUOTE]

Let me make my statement a little stronger. If someone said “I think homosexuality is evil and immoral, but I have no right to judge or restrict how other people live”, they would still get a hell of a flaming, but would probably be accepted. However, if they said “I think homosexuality is evil and immoral. Gays should not be allowed to be teachers, be around children, live together, or adopt children. If my child was gay, I would kill him and then myself…” etc, etc, then I can not imagine that person ever being able to (for instance) calmly engage in discussions in Cafe Society due to the level of rancor that would exist towards him. And I can’t say I have a problem with that.
On the other hand, whatever may have gone on in the linked cat thread (which I totally missed the first time), people don’t chase Liberal around and yell “Cat-Hater!” at him and throw paint on him. Metaphorically speaking.

[MaxTheVool]

[QUOTE=Heffalump and Roo]

Here ya go! Enjoy! And this is not completely isolated. I’d contend that this doesn’t happen on every other message board.
[/QUOTE]

I dunno. I read the first few pages of that thread, and while it was certainly a lot more heated than one might imagine, it was hardly a dogpile. There were a lot of people, I’d say the majority of people, who agreed with Liberal and his daughter, and just a few (albeit an extremely vocal and stubborn few) who were berating her. So yes, it’s a topic that will cause controversy. But not a topic that must be avoided for fear or expulsion/ostracization/what have you.

[Liberal]

Well, of course they’re not going to run around yelling “Cat hater!” out of context. But once you’re in their crosshairs, whatever it is that you say, you’re an idiot/troll/bitch or what-have-you about it. Instead of “Cat hater!”, it’ll be “thread hijacker!” or “liberaltarian bastard!”. It isn’t the topic that’s even important to some people — it’s the grudge.

[Heffalump_and_Roo]

[QUOTE=MaxTheVool]
Let me make my statement a little stronger. If someone said “I think homosexuality is evil and immoral, but I have no right to judge or restrict how other people live”, they would still get a hell of a flaming, but would probably be accepted. However, if they said “I think homosexuality is evil and immoral. Gays should not be allowed to be teachers, be around children, live together, or adopt children. If my child was gay, I would kill him and then myself…” etc, etc, then I can not imagine that person ever being able to (for instance) calmly engage in discussions in Cafe Society due to the level of rancor that would exist towards him. And I can’t say I have a problem with that.
On the other hand, whatever may have gone on in the linked cat thread (which I totally missed the first time), people don’t chase Liberal around and yell “Cat-Hater!” at him and throw paint on him. Metaphorically speaking.
[/QUOTE]

Well, yeah. . . generally if people threaten to kill their unborn child and then themselves, that person will likely receive some unfavorable treatment. But that would be true anywhere, including real life, wouldn’t it?

But in order to make the two issues symmetrical, you’d have to move the cat issue in that direction as well.

So if anyone (and let’s leave Liberal out of this, thankyouverymuch) says that they would violently torture little kittens in the most brutal way possible and that they just wouldn’t do that to their own kittens but to other people’s kittens as well, they’d likely receive the same treatment as the homosexual hater above.

@MaxTheVool

I dunno. I read the first few pages of that thread, and while it was certainly a lot more heated than one might imagine, it was hardly a dogpile. There were a lot of people, I’d say the majority of people, who agreed with Liberal and his daughter, and just a few (albeit an extremely vocal and stubborn few) who were berating her. So yes, it’s a topic that will cause controversy. But not a topic that must be avoided for fear or expulsion/ostracization/what have you.

Whoa, you moved the bar there while I wasn’t looking. The issue isn’t expulsion. Only mods can do that for an infraction of Teh Rules. And ostracization across the board is pretty strong for any issue, sacred cow or not. But the issue did engender some pretty strong responses that I wouldn’t want to be receiving just because I didn’t know that it was a sacred cow topic around here.

[MaxTheVool]

[QUOTE=Heffalump and Roo]
But the issue did engender some pretty strong responses that I wouldn’t want to be receiving just because I didn’t know that it was a sacred cow topic around here.
[/QUOTE]

I guess the difference is whether it received some pretty strong responses from a few dopers or whether it received pretty strong responses from a large majority of the board. I mean, if you happened to pick a topic that’s a really hot button issue for me (say, you decided to insult Titanic ), and I would react much more violently than you would have expected, and maybe you’d find 3 or 4 more Titanic-lovers, but then there would be a bunch of other Titanic-detractors in the same thread. Sure it would be messier and nastier than you’d expected. But it wouldn’t be a sacred cow. It would be, umm, a booby-trapped cow with mousetraps near it that if you got near it, you’d get stung. But not a sacred cow which, if you got near it, you would be violating something holy. If you see the increasingly strained analogy I’m trying to make.

Although, honestly, I’ve pretty much lost track of what my point is…

[Heffalump_and_Roo]

[QUOTE=MaxTheVool]
Although, honestly, I’ve pretty much lost track of what my point is…
[/QUOTE]

Uh, yeah. . .me too. But it’s been fun. See you around.