What's your go-to-the-mat issue?
In my thread about circumcision, several posters mentioned that while they have a pretty firm opinion on that subject, it's not necessarily something they would want to get in a big flamewar over.
On the other message board I mentioned, there happens to be a big flamewar going on over that particular issue, so clearly some people are very passionate about it.
So, my question now is...what is your hotbutton issue that you just can't help but argue vociferously for or agin' it?
I don't have any, here at least. There are a few (metaphorical, discursive) hills that I will gladly die on IRL, but there's nothing I'll really flame over on the internet. Case in point: you Mello people are undoubtedly my best online friends, and I don't think you folks could really even guess at what my hot button issues are.
I'm a lover online, not a fighter online. :smile:
"You laugh at me because I'm different; I laugh at you because I'm on nitrous."
find me at Goodreads
I have less of them as time goes on. Fundamentally, I want people to be decent to each other as much as they can. I am suspicious of most ideology if not all ideology. I'm an atheist but not anti-religious, when that religion is shown to be a net benefit to its adherents!
I'm a bit lefty, I believe that the state should provide a safety net for people but I hate the idea of people exploiting this unfairly. I'm somewhat suspicious of unfettered globalised capitalism but who am I to say what other people want?
I'm largely pacificistic but understand some wars are necessary. I don't think the US/UK should have invaded Iraq but I don't care too much about it either way. It is a pity that so many people's lives are being destroyed on both sides for no particular reason.
I'm actually not sure I have any go-to-the-mat issues and debating things into flame wars online is a fundamentally stupid, useless waste of time for someone who wants to exact any social change, be it abortions for all or circumcisions for none.
Well for me it seems to be Green issues. My flaming on the Dope was all on Green related issues. I will go to great lengths on other issues, but nothing really raises my blood pressure the way arguing with Brazilnuts did.
I come at it from a abnormal direction too, I am not a liberal green I am honestly a fairly conservative Green. Pro-Nuke with reservations to help solve AGW effects and just to reduce reliance on dirty coal in general and clearly from the Bull Moose side of the Greens.
I guess I come close on evolution and science. Where religious believers try to use their Holy Words or their interpretation of said to counter science. But I usually don't get involved as I am not a scientist or theologian and don't want to do more harm than good.
I'm really more the "roll my eyes and walk away" type than to actually go full on flame war with anybody. It's simply not worth it to yell at people online. IRL, there are issues I will vote for, protest for, and, yes, even die for. On the Internet it's just a waste of time, though. Screaming at somebody and trying to change their mind does little good.
If I see outright ignorance, I usually try to jump in and at least put some correct information in there. I doubt I'll change the mind of the one spewing the ignorance, but hopefully I'll make somebody else think when they come across it later.
I think you folks are demonstrating why The Crucible isn't our busiest forum!
The abortion issue is probably the one I've spent the most time debating online. I'm morally pro-life, though reluctantly pro-choice politically. I think the thing that kept me going in the debates was more the attitude of the posters I was debating with than my passion for the subject, though. I'm sort of at the eye-roll stage with that and several other issues, as well.
Ah, but debating is different from fighting, a fact which was never properly grasped on that other board.
I love a good debate, but I'm reluctant to really get into it online because my brand of debating apparently counts as trolling in some minds. I like to take a stance, regardless of whether I believe it or not, and argue it logically until some sort of conclusion is reached. But if people aren't debating to explore ideas and are instead doing it to push their own agenda and view it as an epic battle, it's just no fun except in a "poke him and make him rage" sort of way.
Well, that's kind of the definition of "debating," Zuul. But you are right that in some places it's not considered kosher. The agenda/epic battle thing wore me down over time, to the point where there aren't any issues that really get me het up anymore.
Maybe that's the syndrome that drove some of us to be Mello.
It is, but again, that's something that never seemed to be grasped over on the Dope. I find two people taking ridiculously extreme positions and then butting heads without ever really trying to think about the other side painfully tiresome.Well, that's kind of the definition of "debating," Zuul.
Could be. I just hope we don't get so Mello we have nothing to say but pat each other on the back.Maybe that's the syndrome that drove some of us to be Mello.
Originally posted by Zuul
Ah, but debating is different from fighting, a fact which was never properly grasped on that other board.
I love a good debate, but I'm reluctant to really get into it online because my brand of debating apparently counts as trolling in some minds. I like to take a stance, regardless of whether I believe it or not, and argue it logically until some sort of conclusion is reached. But if people aren't debating to explore ideas and are instead doing it to push their own agenda and view it as an epic battle, it's just no fun except in a "poke him and make him rage" sort of way.Well, that's kind of the definition of "debating," Zuul. But you are right that in some places it's not considered kosher. The agenda/epic battle thing wore me down over time, to the point where there aren't any issues that really get me het up anymore.
Maybe that's the syndrome that drove some of us to be Mello.I agree with all of this collectively. I find the debates I have with Elendil's Heir for example are what I actually consider debates. Both parties respect the other and while disagreeing do not become disagreeable. I had the same thing going on the Dope when Sarah still wandered into GD and is why I grew to respect her so much.It is, but again, that's something that never seemed to be grasped over on the Dope. I find two people taking ridiculously extreme positions and then butting heads without ever really trying to think about the other side painfully tiresome.
Could be. I just hope we don't get so Mello we have nothing to say but pat each other on the back.
There are plenty of other examples where a really good debate can take place with people getting petty, childish or lying. I think last week we had a great beginning of a healthcare conversational debate in chat. Maybe I am the only one that thought so, but I really enjoyed it and Vox and Sarah both were able to calmly explain themselves without making it personal and while I disagree with their POV, I can respect that it is a measured an educated position. I also find a detailed debate a bit time consuming. When I was involved in the 5+ epic thread Liberal/PRR/Quiddity pit threads, it was time consuming and required more time than I would want to waste on such things now.
Far too many on the Dope made me despair of the debates there.
* The parsing
* The sidetracking on a single word
* The gotchas quite often in an unrelated debate from 3 years prior
* The pedantic
* Those that would never ever yield a point even when it was overwhelmingly clear they were wrong.
* The out of nowhere cranks, usually extremely religious or extremely atheistic
Etc.
Thanks for the compliment, What Exit...I appreciate it. I agree with you that debates are often too time-consuming and brain-power consuming, too. I find the results just aren't worth the effort.
Also as time goes by, clear injustice is harder to identify and rally against. There are systematic problems in all societies between rich and poor etc. but in a country that has social welfare, is by and large liberal with regard to migration, gender, it is hard to get riled up about stuff. If gays want to marry, grand, let them be as miserable as the rest of us. If someone wants to move here, and can find work, more power to them. Northern Ireland is the only contentious "question" that I have a significant opinion about but it is nuanced and probably doesn't fit into any of the main viewpoints on NI.
It depends on what kind of debate it is, though. A few nights ago we were discussing what constitutes art in chat. That was a lot of fun and was a good debate without anybody getting overly worked up or demanding cites (how in the hell would you cite that, anyway?). I'd love to see discussions like that taking place in the Crucible instead of chat.
And it's worth noting that Sarah and Vox were involved in that one, too!
I watched that one, but stayed out of it mostly. I feel too ignorant on that subject. It was a good one though.It depends on what kind of debate it is, though. A few nights ago we were discussing what constitutes art in chat. That was a lot of fun and was a good debate without anybody getting overly worked up or demanding cites (how in the hell would you cite that, anyway?
And it's worth noting that Sarah and Vox were involved in that one, too!
Online I'm not really much of a debater. Occasionally I'll get into it with someone I know really well in IM (Loki can vouch for this), because it's just a discussion with no hard feelings afterward.
IRL? I guess I'm easier to troll. One guy I work with is a teabagger, and he always manages to suck me into an argument over his stupid issues. It's totally not worth the effort and aggravation.
I'm unlikely to get into heated online debates over the big issues for reasons similar to those expressed above. However, probably the closest I will come to getting sucked in is if anyone starts characterizing Moslems in a racist way, or dismisses all women who veil as unthinking victims of male oppressors. Not only do I feel strongly about this issue, I also feel it is a topic I have some credibility on, since I've lived and worked in predominantly Moslem countries for at least half of my adult life.
I think another reason we don't get into a lot of spirited discussions here, aside from what seems to be a shared disinterest in online brawling, is that on the whole we are a pretty like-minded group. It's infrequent for me to read a post here that I violently disagree with, and fairly common to read one that makes me nod appreciatively. Frankly, I think if all the active posters from Mellophant were dumped on a remote island somewhere, we'd get along reasonably well.
I think defending furries and other geeks is my only big one. It fortunately doesn't come up often.
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. When all you have is a bowel disruptor, everything's a poop joke.
www.CuriouslyLydean.net - comics, cocktails, writing, and other odd things.
[Bolding mine]
Please tell me this is a political description and not...y'know.
So now they are just dirt-covered English people in fur pelts with credit cards.
Google "Barack Obama tax tea party" and you'll get it. It's a group of people protesting the current economic recovery measures.
"You laugh at me because I'm different; I laugh at you because I'm on nitrous."
find me at Goodreads
Yeah, I went to college and maintain a friendship with one of the main organizers for their protests back in Nevada. We carefully avoid references to politics.
But every time I see the word "teabagger" I think of something entirely different.
So now they are just dirt-covered English people in fur pelts with credit cards.
"You laugh at me because I'm different; I laugh at you because I'm on nitrous."
find me at Goodreads
Uh, yeah. He's a "tea party" Glenn Beck-zombie. I just enjoy calling them teabaggers, especially with this guy, because he's clueless of the other meanings for the term. When the whole thing started last April he mentioned that they were all sending tea bags to the White House, and I said to him, "so you're going to teabag the President?". His response was an emphatic "Yes!".
You've been warned!
As to the OP, there is nothing that could get me really wound up on line, or certainly nothing that could have me typing with any kind of intensity.
Intensity doesn't work at 14 words per minute. By the time I've got to the point of my annoyance, I've calmed down again.
To sleep, perchance to experience amygdalocortical activation and prefrontal deactivation.
How about that the September 11th attacks were in fact carried out by the CIA?...
As to the OP, there is nothing that could get me really wound up on line, or certainly nothing that could have me typing with any kind of intensity.
Intensity doesn't work at 14 words per minute. By the time I've got to the point of my annoyance, I've calmed down again.
As for myself I post sometimes on another message board devoted to mental health issues. There are a few people there who insist that people who seem to be suffering from paranoid delusions are in fact victims of nebulous yet highly organized conspiracies that have virtually unlimited technological and financial resources. (Google "gang stalking" and "targeted individuals" if you're interested).
For personal reasons I find it difficult not to argue with these people.
I'm not usually very confrontational, but once in a while I'll jump into the fray in almost any topic because a poster pushed one of my "crazy lady" buttons.
A poster using that "air of claimed superiority" over the unwashed masses - like blaming the unemployed on laziness or stupidity, or painting all poor people as welfare cheats. There's a poster who does this regularly on the Dope Boards.
I get riled up at the Proposition 8 supporters' posts as well as the "my religion is the only way" people too.
Usually though, I'll see a post where someone has spoken my position already, so I don't pile on - I save my 'pissed off posting' for another day.
They weren't singing....they were just honking.
Glee 2009
I have but a handful. My biggest is US prison policy, damned near from top to bottom on any angle that concerns it. Especially if someone makes a "Har Har, I hope he gets raped in prison" joke. I will go the fuck off on that each and every single time, regarless of who made the joke or where we happen to be, and if I've had a few beers it will be a rather loud and forceful sermon.
The other is when people make gross and arbitrary decisions about what grown adults in the US can or can't do because of other peoples children. The world wasn't made for kids, they shouldn't be the ultimate trump card in discussions about things like rock music or boobs on TV.
Hell, if I didn't do things just because they made me feel a bit ridiculous, I wouldn't have much of a social life. - Santo Rugger.
Gay rights (currently marriage is big, but yeah), trans issues, and anything that says or implies the only good worthy morally upstanding people in this world are white conservative Christians. And animal issues. And..
Well. I like arguing. You got a problem with that? Wanna fight about it?
Much the same here - I enjoy a debate about one of my hot button issues as much as something about which I have no investment. Just in a different way.
It's only the Internet.
A consistent hot-button for me is the "That person's morality is no good because it is based on faith". But lots of other stuff is up for grabs.
Regards,
Shodan
Even though I am not religious, it is easy to be disgusted by those attitudes you mentioned. Religion neither equals moral or immoral. Though I guess ID arguments make be a little nutty, but that is back to science and a specific bone-headed religious view.
Would anyone care to take the evidence presented in this thread and create the ultimate mello troll post?
Someone will sooner or later.
One online friend of mine - a friend even though we disagree quite profoundly on many issues - can drive me up the wall by her insistence that gay marriage just CAN'T be called "marriage". She goes on and on and on about how that word has a specific meaning, generally the meaning meant by penis and vagina interacting, and she keeps insisting that she has "no problem" with gay marriage, but they just CAN'T call it marriage because if they do it, in some vague, weird, and undefined manner this affects the meaning of the word "marriage" as it applies to her marriage - and I go bananas and I gotta stop doing that.
Otherwise, I am far too prone to be a smart ass and be sarcastic and point out in a not-too-subtle way that the poster with whom I'm disagreeing has made huge, enormous and utterly unjustifiable leaps in "logic" and IF you're gonna argue with me, bucko, you better not make that mistake. I do very much like, extremely actually like, poking fun at pompous and self-important twits who are obviously accustomed in RL to either deference or being ignored.
Sophmoric Existentialist
Posting rules
Reply with quote
