Verbal terms causing personal offense

[thereisnospoon]

Have to go with Werewolf on this one....

I have had to tame most of my posts and in some cases not even respond to some because I was "warned" by moderators early on that my views were too "over the top" and would not be tolerated.

PC is alive and well on THR, but it is still a great forum to learn about guns, tactics, politics and the way other people think.

BTW, Welcome to THR and get over it, either stand up for your opinions (with facts I might add or some here will rip you apart...we have VERY smart people here), regardless of what someone "calls you" or simply learn to live with being called a liberal.

I wear my labels very proudly, and IF you really believe the drivel your spouting, you should wear your label proudly, too!

Need any tinfoil?

 

[The Freeholder]

Before this thread gets shut down, I want to get my 2 cents in. I agree with Werewolf and thereisnospoon--there is plenty of PC (of an untraditional sort, usually) on THR. Look at the closed threads and you'll figure it out. Each of our moderators has their hot buttons as far as the THR rules and likely other things go--hit one in a thread and it will be closed down, and you will get a PM from them. Do it often enough, and you get banned.

It's cool. It's their site. Even though I chip in my opinions and a few bucks at upgrade time, they get to make the rules. If I don't like them, I'm perfectly free to go elsewhere.

If you don't like it here, if people are to derogatory about liberals, cops or coffee cans (sorry, couldn't resist) to suit you, you're free to go elsewhere too. It's still a semi-free country.

However, I hope you don't. I may disagree with you, but if you like guns we have some common ground. Besides, maybe we'll be able to help so see the error of your ways.

 

[Justin]

I'd like to point out that there is very much a difference between PC and civility.

As for using the term "liberal" in a derogatory manner, I have to say that I have very, very little sympathy for any philosophy that places the collective above the individual, and that my animosity for statists/collectivists is hardly limited to just those on the left.

 

[Oleg Volk]

I own this forum and yet I've had to bite my tongue more often than not. Insulting people does not convince them. It confirms them in their opinions and it unfavorably impresses the on-lookers. Poor manners and abusive style also reflects poorly on the forum overall.

Look at http://volokh.com or http://www.davekopel.com/ or http://www.claytoncramer.com/journals.htm -- these people can express strong opinions in a clear, logical manner and not offend their readers in the process. "Liberal" is a broad label, and a sign of intellectual laziness, in my opinion. Just like "Conservative" is a broad label and as such very imprecise.

That said: civil treatment of praticipants of this forum is a must. Respect for their ideas: bah! Remember: the civil conduct which I try to forster by example stems from my self-interest and yours, not from pure altruism.

 

[dmallind]

Welcome Hook

Yes anyone even vaguely centrist will be demonized on THR. It doesn't hurt or injure, trust me. You get used to it and even becomes amusing to see if you can tell the difference between the Limbaugh and the Liddy listeners depending on which insults they use.

I notice however none of the "suck it up" crowd addressed the impetus for Hook's post.

We have been officially warned by moderators that we cannot misuse the name of (let alone misapply, insult, or denigrate) the favorite deity, demiurge, or supreme force of others. This was done in the name of civility and respect for deeply held beliefs.

Hook quite rightly pointed out the inconsistency, and quite predictably was verbally savaged for it.

Now if liberalism and liberals can and should just suck it up (and I don't particularly disagree) you would think the almighty Lord of all Creation could manage to be held to the same standard.

Now frankly I don't care too much if you insult me or make unfounded sophomoric claims about anyone to the left of Buchanan - it merely shows your ignorance, not mine. It does get a bit frustrating having to correct or accommodate egregious factual errors I confess, and it's a constant niggle that apparently no-one on THR knows the real definition of socialism (state control of the means of production in case anyone cares - so unless a poster is hankering for Bush to control all US industry-rather than the other way round for example - the term is misapplied) but it's hardly injurious.

Just disappointing.

 

[Frandy]

Welcome Hook.

My only take on this is how I react when I read certain posts. I simply give less credibility to those posters who engage in ad hominem attacks, no matter which side of the aisle the attack comes from.

 

[Justin]

Now if liberalism and liberals can and should just suck it up (and I don't particularly disagree) you would think the almighty Lord of all Creation could manage to be held to the same standard.

Funny, but I'm hard pressed to think of any deity from Vishnu to Odin to Allah to Jesus who has ever passed legislation either extorting money from me, or forcing me to give up civil rights at the point of a gun. You know, for the children.

/Really cranky mood today.

 

[scottgun]

Funny, but I'm hard pressed to think of any deity from Vishnu to Odin to Allah to Jesus whose ever passed legislation either extorting money from me, or forcing me to give up civil rights at the point of a gun. You know, for the children.

That's correct, my rights come from God and liberal politicians are the ones who trying to take them away. Well not exclusively liberal politicians, but the liberal policy is the enemy of freedom. And in the fight for keeping our freedom, sometimes the emeny may get upset at name calling.

Please show me a liberal or progressive discussion forum that will tolerate a conservative point of view. The few that I have seen, a conservative poster will be ridiculed, sworn at, chewed a new orifice and then banned. I think that the folks at THR go to great lengths, almost to a fault, to be polite and civil to all people. However bad policies, bad view points will get their just ridicule.

Welcome, and thicken up your skin a bit.

 

[Werewolf]

Political Correctness = Thought Police with Manners

Controlling thought in the name of civility is the very essence of Political Correctness.

There are times - albeit not often - that it is nigh onto impossible to express a thought and remain civil. In PC controlled places it then becomes impossible to express some thoughts which is afterall the goal of PC.

 

[Hook686]

Fascinating replies ...

My inquiry was motivated more by preacherman's statement containing

Treat the views ... of others with respect, just as you expect your own to be respected ... Simple enough, no?

than anything more esoteric ... just simply, can folks be tolerant, and respectful, of other opinions, beliefs and practices, or is more important to strike out and ridicule, demean, put down, and/or admonish those that might hold different beliefs, even though there may also be a thread of commonality. In other words, can folks focus on the positive, or is the negative more attractive.

The answer I found might be the basis for the wisdom in CCW.

Thankyou for all the replies.

Hook686

 

[middy]

Good point, Hook. If we have to be PC about religion, why not about politics?

The labels of "liberal" and "conservative", "left" and "right", are basically meaningless in their current usage. For example, how can a libertarian capitalist be to the "right" along with the Nazi (National Socialist) party? How can an anti-authoritarian, pacifist, hippy commune be "left" over there with Joe Stalin? Is a Republican senator working to overthrow the Roe vs. Wade decision really "conservative"? Isn't he trying to change things? Is a Democratic senator fighting against Welfare reform really "liberal"? Isn't he fighting against change?

Is it really being liberal to change things just for the sake of changing? We already had the most open and least oppressive government in history 220 years ago, is it really "liberal" to expand its powers beyond those expressed in the Constitution, in the name of social justice? Is it really "conservative" to try to change things back to the way they were (or is it just reactionary )? Is it reactionary to try to restore something that has been corrupted to its original purity (like, say, clean air and water legislation).

These labels really confuse everyone. In reality, to paraphrase Bob Heinlein, politics breaks down to those who think people need to be controlled and those who don't. Their motives may differ; a "fascist" may want to control people in order to further his own power and conquest, while a "progressive" may want to control people so as to bring about a more "fair" distribution of wealth. But, they will both always be opposed by those of us who don't think government has the right to those controls.

I voted for Bush, but many of his policies, and those of other Republicans, turn my stomach, just generally on a lesser scale than their political opponents. I agree with "liberals" on many issues, but I don't trust them to take the right path in solving those problems, they tend to throw money at problems, creating a self-perpetuating bureaucracy that exacerbates the problems in the long run (e.g.; Welfare, racial quotas). Likewise, many "conservatives" feel like it's OK to legislate morality on issues like drug control and flag burning, which is just flat unconstitutional. All of these issues should be handled at the state and local levels so people can "vote with their feet"...

I could go on like this all day, but I won't (pause for applause and cries of relief). I just hope I've given some of you food for thought when it comes to applying (and conforming to) political labels.

 

[keyhole]

Welcome! No matter what, there is always something good to be found here.

 

[ny32182]

middy wins "best post" so far.

 

[cdma]

The quality of most of the threads on THR is depressingly low; you don't miss a whole lot by staying away. There's a reason my post count is so low.

One reason is that people here approach debate as a chance to demolish and humiliate their opponent instead of challenging and persuading them. The old TFL was very much a community where things rarely got terribly rancorous; this isn't the case with THR where most things devolve into cockfights.

I'm much more conservative than most of my friends, but when we discuss a topic that we disagree on, we can keep it...friendly. It sounds to me like that's all Hook is asking for.

 

[cuchulainn]

Justin: I'd like to point out that there is very much a difference between PC and civility.

Werewolf: Controlling thought in the name of civility is the very essence of Political Correctness.

Civility existed long before PC, and I pray it will exist long after PC is rotting in its grave. Civilityand PC are not synonyms.

One of my pet theories for the past few years has been that anti-PC has become the new PC. Certainly, the ad hominem tactics are the same whether attempting to shut up someone by saying "that's not PC" or saying "that's just PC."

In any event, it’s now common for uncivil folk to use the anti-PC backlash to falsely justify language and behavior that 25 years ago -- before PC entered our language -- would simply have been deemed rude, immature and boorish.

Asking for civility is not an attempt to “control thought.” Any idea can be expressed in a civil manner. Any idea can be expressed in an uncivil manner. Any idea.

Werewolf: There are times - albeit not often - that it is nigh onto impossible to express a thought and remain civil.

You are confusing emotion and ideas. Then again, strong emotion can be expressed within the bounds of civility, and when done well, the impact is greater.

 

[Hook686]

First off, I again point out my inquiry had to do with preacherman's thread ... and expressions concerning using the name(s) for God in a thread. This would not be tolerated, was my understanding. Basically, if I hit my thumb, with the hammer, while driving a nail, the expression "Gosh darn", has very little redeaming quality. On the other hand, other more vocal expression seem to "sooth the savage breast". This idea was expressed by many, but perhaps most eliquently by

shermacman
Senior Member

with:

Hook: First off, welcome!
Second, who do think you are that you are so special as to have some "right" to not be offended by the opinions of others?
Third, who do you think you are to tell anyone that we should not speak negatively about political positions that we disagree with?

Debate and discussion are part of the foundation of our country. The only place on this planet that has ever had a 100% total agreement on politics was in the last "election" that Saddam held.

Opinions, facts and emotional outbursts are not just fun, they are good for you. They might even cure you of your misplaced Liberal pedagogy.

I was understanding from preacherman that this type attitude was not to be here on THR. I am happy to see that I was incorrect in my assessment, though I'm not sure why the freedom exists for some terms, yet not others. Anyway, ...

Thankyou for the welcome messages ... and Happy Shooting !

Hook686

 

[R.H. Lee]

I find liberalism to be the least tolerant of the political philosophies. Its adherents are quite willing to force compliance on everyone else using the power of government. That is emblematic of the collectivist mindset; that individual rights don't exist, that 'society' (led by a few elitist 'intellectuals' ) is the giver and taker of liberties and freedoms. Liberals consider themselves to be completely altruistic, and morally and intellectually superior. So did Hitler and his Nazis.

The ideas, values, concepts and philosophies of modern liberalism are completely unworkable and have failed miserably everywhere they've been enacted. So called liberal 'principles' will not stand up to any serious scrutiny which may explain why liberals are relegated soley to whining and complaining, sometimes with vicious and hate filled rhetoric that means nothing and proceeds nowhere.

In fact, I'm offended by liberalism and its purveyors. But then again, I'm mature enough to understand I have no right not to be offended.

 

[P95Carry]

The quality of most of the threads on THR is depressingly low

Really?! Sad to hear.

I wonder tho if this is just regarding these types of debate, as against honest to goodness gun discussions. I have a bounty of political views but tend to stay out of the wrangling and bickering - most of the time - I finish up with a headache. Sometimes those subjects do I admit suffer from being ''quality'' challenged. In fact they can be downright tedious.

Overall I would still like to think that the ''nuts & bolts'' gun and shooting discussions - after all the prime purpose of this board, are for the most part useful to many, particularly folks newer to it all. There is a free exchange of info and opinion which for many has made this place a valuable resource.

 

[SteveS]

There are times - albeit not often - that it is nigh onto impossible to express a thought and remain civil. In PC controlled places it then becomes impossible to express some thoughts which is afterall the goal of PC.

What is the answer? I have visited some of the un-moderated forums and tend to stay away, since almost every discussion turned into some junior high, insult-fest.

 

[The Freeholder]

What is the answer? I have visited some of the un-moderated forums and tend to stay away, since almost every discussion turned into some junior high, insult-fest.

I think the answer is what we have here, and in most other moderated gun forums. It may be imperfect, and some of us may occasionally question a moderator's decision. However, it seems to work the vast majority of the time.

 

[Sam]

Welcome Hook,
Hope you take away new perspective of the place.

Middy has expresed it best.

A Socialist is a Socialist whether Fabian or National and liberal does not enter into it.

Most of our labels are wrong.

I am liberal because I believe, support and seek to further LIBERTY, most of the time I have to vote for a Republican to try and get things as I think they ought to be. Only vote for people, not parties

Sam

 

[Legionnaire]

Interesting thread. I've always appreciated the exhortation to attack ideas rather than people. Ad hominem attacks (in the vernacular) don't win arguments ... they just tick people off.

That said, I'm more and more distressed by all the folks I run into (not primarily on this board) who are so overly sensitive to "being offended." To the contrary, I admire those who do not take offense, even when offense is intended! You can insult my intelligence, my background, my religion, my sex, my bald head, my waistline, my choice of carry gun (gotta keep this gun related) ... and if I let myself "be offended" by "your insult," I'm letting you define the terms of our interaction.

I believe that "not taking offense" is a sign of real maturity and self confidence -- real "self esteem" if you will. My value as a person is not defined in the least by what you think of me! To let myself get bent out of shape by some supposed insult means I am letting you define my own sense of value. No way.

In my experience, ad hominem attacks are a ploy by someone who has already lost the argument on its merit. When threads reach that level, I tend to tune out.

It is very important that those of us who carry arms learn not to take offense ... even when it is intended! [/soapbox]

 

[Legionnaire]

Oh ... and welcome aboard, Hook.

 

[benEzra]

Hook686, welcome. There are plenty of non-republicans here, and quite a few pro-gun progressives.

This IS a GUN forum, right? Arent all anti-gun types liberal? So, liberals are fair game.

Uh...no...

I could name a number of conservative republicans who are anti-gun...William J. Bennett comes to mind...

Nor are all liberals anti-gun...that's only a recent development, and comes more from communitarianism than traditional liberalism...

That's no more true than saying that all conservatives are anti-Fourth Amendment...some are, some aren't...some prominent ones are...

 

[slzy]

are we working on the basis that "liberal" is a code word for hippy-type?