And whose responsibility is that?
For all I know, Joe and Jersey may very well be the nicest people alive in real life.
However, I don’t know them in real life, I only know them as they present themselves here. And they don’t do a very good job of it, to put it mildly.
Theirs, to find a way to express their personal convictions firmly but not belligerently.
Ours, to disagree without calling them every name in the book or making assumptions about what else they think.
Both theirs and ours, to avoid the offense/defense scenario that has plagued nearly every ethics/religion-based thread they’ve been a part of. I cannot blame Joe for defending himself when he feels he or his wife has been attacked – but I can blame him for giving a “defense” that is tough from others to distinguish from a counterattack.
And, finally, both theirs and ours, to give to the reading of posts that disagree with us the fairest possible reading of what’s being said. Regular members of this board are not inflexible idiots; there’s a self-weeding process that goes on. Which means that we need to read others’ comments as being from people who can and do think and may just not be expressing themselves clearly enough. Now, granted, if someone says something offensive on its face, that may be cause to get riled. (See Unu Mondo’s “bullying is perfectly acceptable” comments in the Gay Teens thread in GD for an example of this.) But those times are few and far between.
To give a very recent example of this, over on the Pizza Parlor we’re discussing the Resurrection. Because my belief is not that Jesus’s dead body was resuscitated, His4Ever was convinced, although I said the exact opposite, that I didn’t believe in the Resurrection at all. But, thankfully, Joe read what I did say, and asked an intelligent and probing question that advanced the discussion – without in any way sacrificing his principles or slamming me. (Link if anybody cares to see it.)
It’s not very tricky – all it takes is patience, and a willingness to believe that the other person is much like you – a human being who thinks and who stands for what he/she believes in, but may not always express him/herself clearly.
Do that enough, and Lynn will be pushing a pushbroom through an empty Pit, with the fires banked down to conserve fuel, and the hamsters rejoicing at not having to work so hard in the heat of the Pit. 
Joe, I think you need to take some responsiblity for how you are perceived. You seem to blame everyone but yourself. I cannot believe that you do not see how you come across as an asshole a lot of the time. And no, it’s not always just reactive; often you act like a prick with absolutely no provocation from anyone.
If you want to think I’m a prick, that’s fine with me. It’s truly no skin off my back. But hate me for what I say, not for crap that you ASSUMED I would say or think.
I say what I think. I’m concerned with the issues I’m discussing, and that’s it – I don’t sugar-coat my words. If this board is truly concerned with fighting ignorance, then we should all be more concerned with the meat of the discussion than we are with how everybody is supposed to feel about what we’re saying. If you want to be PC and spend so much time worrying about how everybody will react to the discussion that the discussion makes no actual progress, knock yourself out. But don’t expect me to do the same.
If that is a problem for you, then I’d suggest that you’ll be much happier once my username occupies a slot on your ignore list.
Gee, I wouldn’t know anything about that myself. :dubious:
I’m going to agree with Guin and leander - regardless of how you think you write, it seems pretty obvious that people read you as confrontational, beligerent, dispassionate and ignorant most of the time. It’s your posting style as much as it’s your actual beliefs. You can take from that what you want, but there it is.
And there is a difference between “being so PC that nothing ever gets discussed because no one wants to hurt anyone’s feelings” (which I have never believed was the case here on the Dope) and “being plain courteous about presenting your opinions so as to avoid hurting people’s feelings if at all possible, thus avoiding having to explain yourself later.” Get it right the first time, instead of pissing everyone off and then having to fight two fires - the debate and your own comments. Seems like a 'natch to me, but YMMV.
Mars, you made an interesting point about fundamentalism (of any kind) and ignorance. Well done.
Esprix
And that means that the (IYHO) majority of posters on this board are making exactly the same fallacious presumption: “MY position is superior, and anything that it cannot explain or that contradicts it is, by definition, ignorance.” Knowledge changes and grows, thereby demonstrating the previous knowledge to be incorrect. Yet, no matter the state of any science, the current knowledge is always presumed to be the “RIGHT ANSWER”, and everybody else is mocked - even scientists in the same discipline who hold to differing positions.
So while I am an avid (amateur) student of several sciences, I fail to see how your point is valid.
QED
I’ve found over time that it’s fairly difficult to address the ignorance of people who have stopped listening to me because I did not take due care to respect the fact that they have legitimate concerns.
Take, for example, the traditional “Christians did all these vile things historically and do these other things today and the world would be better off if they just vanished” rant that crops up occasionally. (ClawsofCatt pulled a variant on this one recently, which is why it’s on my mind.)
As phrased, that sort of thing is most often a direct kick in the teeth to Christians living today, who were, for obvious reasons, not participating in the Crusades, the witch trials, the Inquisition, the conversions by force of various native peoples. It’s an ugly form of collective responsibility, and some people are entirely likely to stop listening because they think that the idea that they’re supposed to make excuses for the acts of different people in a different time is crackpot.
It’s also a slap in the face for people who have honestly held beliefs in the present day. If those Christians aren’t the ones who hold the belief presented as objectionable, they’re being treated badly; if those Christians are ones who hold that belief for legitimate reasons, they, also, are being treated badly. And there we have more people who no longer listen.
And then there are the people who aren’t the direct target of that sort of thing who wind up thinking that the person making the statement isn’t thinking things through. Like on those “The world would be better if all the Christians went poof” rants – I have a Christian partner. I’m not Christian. I’m not particularly willing to consider the plausibility or legitimacy of an argument that casually suggests that bereavement for me and thousands of other people would improve the world. I wind up not feeling much like providing the sane, logical argument about the good works Christians have done who read Matthew 6 until I see some good reason for this person’s expressed speculation about destroying my family.
This isn’t PC, as far as I’m concerned; this is knowing how to formulate an effective argument. If the presentation of the argument gores someone’s ox, that someone’s quite likely to be more worried about their cattle than their opponent’s prose. I tend to figure that deciding to mangle the ox should be a conscious decision, rather than a happenstance of my phrasing, and so I try to minimize ox-goring statements in my speech in general: I don’t know where everyone keeps their cattle. (I’ll bet that the typical person who’d spout “Christianity is evil” drivel within my earshot wouldn’t expect that I consider that my ox.)
Yeah, I’m certain you know exactly what I’m talking about (re: assumptions). So we can expect you’ll make an effort not to do the same thing to others (specifically, those you brand as fundamentalists)? I honestly don’t know how often you do react based on assumptions, but I have the (unfounded) impression that you do.
That may be. I admit that there are times I’ve looked over a post and thought “wow, that sounds a little harsh.” But at the same time, there are Plenty of times that the mere beliefs draw disproportionately hostile and mocking responses, no matter how nicely a statement is phrased.
BTW, how can it be a bad thing that I’m dispassionate? And after all these posts calling me overzealous. I guess you really can’t please all of the people all of the time.
Unless, of course, the proper emotional response is requisite for participating on a thread. Which would imply (to me, at least) that this board is, in fact, overly PC.
Joe, I’d be honored if you’d comment on my 5:02 PM post above – it was in intention a sincere way to try to get past the problems we’ve encountered and make life easier for all of us, including you and Jersey. You may not see things that way, but I’d at least like to understand better how you do see 'em.
Yes! I agree totally with you Joe - let’s mark that down, eh? :)**
And this is something I find irritating too. Yet I think it is a natural outcome of the scientist’s POV - the skeptic, who requires proof before accepting a new idea. If the new idea that is being mocked can stand up to rigorous testing, over time it will come to be accepted. So in that manner, science is (albeit slowly) self correcting.
But how can religious fundamentalism be self correcting? The “current knowledge” - aka The Bible, is always presumed to be right. And everyone else is not mocked, they’re damned! Just look at the fundamentalist response to other theologians (scientists) in the same faith (discipline) who hold to more liberal (differing!) positions. It’s a mess.
Now, all that being said, I want you to know that I read your post above (the one where you answer the OP) and it did make me think that perhaps I should be more careful to read what you say, and not read positions into your statements that you do not necessarily hold.
I came across an interesting position on Sociopathy in cult leaders. Not suggesting that Joe_Cool actually is a cult leader, in fact far from it. But it does make interesting reading.
Tick the boxes.
Good point. I know I tend to be a bit argumentative occasionally.
looking around and whistling… :o
I wouldn’t say that I TEND to counterattack. At least not before a lot of provocation. But yes, I do it from tim to time. Hadn’t thought about that before. I’ll endeavor not to do it in the future.
This is a good point. When dealing with somebody who makes it a habit to bash or insult me or JD, I do tend to automatically read hostility into posts wherever it can fit.
You mean like the post from desmostylus, directly above this one?
Yes.
Thanks, Mars. Yes, Joe, I consider that sort of post “offensive on its face.” Tell you what, I’ll do my best to carry out my part of what I said, if you’ll do likewise.
(BTW, Re: “bibliolatry.” – I repent of making such accusations; the one time I’ve used the word recently is over on PP, where the context was describing an extreme against which Bible-focused Christians needed to be cautious, just as excessive devotion to Mary where she effectively replaces her Son is an extreme against which Catholics need to be cautious.)
Most definitely. That guy is a loathsome piece of shit, and you should tear him a new asshole, directly next to the original one that gapes open above his chin.