Topband
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Topband: Is banning really necessary?

To: <herbs@vitelcom.net>, <topband@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: Topband: Is banning really necessary?
From: "Tom W8JI" <w8ji@w8ji.com>
Reply-to: Tom W8JI <w8ji@w8ji.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 08:41:41 -0500
List-post: <topband@contesting.com">mailto:topband@contesting.com>
I hope Tree and everyone else doesn't mind one measured response to this:

In a free society the mere idea of banning people just because we disagree with them goes against our principles of liberty and freedom. As long as there is civil discourse on an issue, how does that not enlighten the debate?

Part of the problem is some of us have never learned, or have forgotten, what a personal attack is. I believe this is because at every level of our interaction, from the highest levels of our Government to people on the street, we are inundated with nasty personal remarks in any disagreement.

This does one of two things:

1.) It sometimes tends to force a person into not agreeing with the offensive person, and wanting to embarrass them to teach them a lesson.

2.) It makes the other person just give up and go away, because they don't want to waste time trying to weed through all the nasty remarks just to get to the meaningful point of a disagreement.

A percentage of people, generally limited to those who cannot actually grasp or understand the problem, or who have no interest in solving a problem, consider the scoring of nastiness as "points" or "street cred". The winner of "street cred" often drives the disagreeing people away, and gets credit from people who cannot follow or understand the problem and explanations for being correct.

Usually the personal habitual demeaning of the other person(s) is accompanied by several "I'm so great" statements. This is a way to elevate one's self beyond question or debate by others, and gain street cred with those who cannot or do not fully understand the problem.

If we openly and honest examine our society, we find we are inundated every day with the right to be bullies, nasty, and/or stubborn, and generally unhelpful to each other and the population as a whole. The general excuse for this behavior are the rights of the bully to be a bully, rather than having a polite, honest, frank, debate of the disagreement absent name calling and/or self-puffery.

I think this growing social behavior of the right to insult and demean and elevate ourselves and our "rights" at the expense of what is good for our society as a group is what has locked our Government up, ruins the Internet as a learning tool, and at the root of the increasing violence in our country. We all learn and mimic what we see around us every day, that's why nuns are in Convents and nudists are in colonies.

Some people are so over the top they are constantly thrown off multiple reflectors and Internet forums. It is always someone else's fault, a conspiracy, and it is almost always portrayed as a denial of their right to disagree with others. They fail to examine and understand themselves personally as much as they fail to examine and understand how things really work in the sciences.

In light of the way our country and the world is going, I think it is a good time to stop accepting nasty social interactions, that others see and repeat, as a "right".

73 Tom
_______________________________________________
It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatsoever 
for supposing it is true. - Bertrand Russell

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>