Tolerant or Intolerant?

I agree with you Bradford lass.

I think anonymity and being on line makes some folk they can get away with saying things they`d never say in reality.

Then again, particularly in text, the written word doesnt always offer softness and empathy that a face and voice do.

If we are unhappy or uncomfortable with the way some threads are going, then we can always scroll past.

That's a very interesting point Cherrytree and makes me think of how I've so often noticed certain people endlessly arguing with each other on many threads and ignoring others. Also, I sporadically post but have mostly spent 10 years now lurking and reading and I've just been labelled as a more recent member of GN by someone on another thread. She/he must think I'm a newcomer /unknown so don't have the same right to argue so instead of shrugging s/he waves a fist. How interesting!! Thank you for that!

I liken it to road rage,
One driver does something that another driver doesn't like, the driver decides to retaliate by fist shaking and cursing etc.

However if, as once witnessed by myself the drivers know each other, it's a wave of apology from the one driver and just a shrug of the shoulder from the other.

When a poster on GN is familiar with another poster, she/ he is less likely to to show anger or cause hurt.

Some posters feel very strongly or take issue
over a post and seem to have an attack of road rage or keyboard rage.

Whereas if it had been in RL they would probably have just shrugged their shoulders and agreed to differ.

Sounds like we need a hug huddle or whatever it's called, a virtual one of course, or perhaps that's too American?

Yes, I too have noticed that there are people who are quick to see themselves being attacked in a general comment and to take the attack-is-the-best-method-of-defence route. Perhaps some more combative posters are always ready for war (wha daur meddle wi' me?), and some less combative ones always ready to complain they are under assault?

Rosecarmel You've summed it up very neatly. Especially your point about a witch hunt developing, that's when the cliques appear and it gets nasty quite quickly.

Elegran, I absolutely agree with everything you have said.

Elegran, when one points out a potential problem in a post it's often interpreted as a personal attack by the person who wrote it- They in turn defend "themselves" instead of addressing the subject being presented- They make it about "them" and in doing so others jump in and come to their defense- As the subject of the discussion deteriorates a witch hunt developes-

Some do appear to believe that name calling is easier than inquiry-

Who is attacking you personally, GG3 ? Not me! I assure you that you are not important enough in my list of Gransnet characters for me to pick you out specifically to denigrate.

....surely this is an attack? Meow

sf101 There is plenty of fun and humour on GN, but again and again the subject arises of intemperacy and personal remarks against posters expressing contrary views.

Forceful language and reinforcing one's views while supporting something are fine - denigrating the personal attributes of someone for not agreeing with you is not.

Just joined today and read some of this …….. wow this is all a bit too navel gazing for me, I shall go look for some more fun topics. What ever happened to sense of humour?

When one supports something specific some measure of expectation is attached- What's the difference between using forceful language and reinforcing personal views via social media?

Yes,Rosecarmel I try to influence, but to influence people to think and consider their decisions and actions and their consequences, not to force them into decisions and actions pre-determined by my plan for how I want them to decide and act.

Who is attacking you personally, GG3 ? Not me! I assure you that you are not important enough in my list of Gransnet characters for me to pick you out specifically to denigrate. As you have posted of yourself earlier, I am very careful NOT to be personal in my posts. I have posted about a principle, not a personality

There are sometimes posts on the political threads about which one might say such things as I have posted - that is not to be denied - but to claim that you are being pinpointed as an illustration of them is to believe that you are instantly recognisable. What does that say about your perception of yourself?

Elegran, your posts are thoughtful- But also contain bits of info and twists intended to influence .. And underscore and reinforce .. using squash as both an example and also distraction ..

My political views have shifted dramatically due to online usage, due to kind views, and harsh narratives- Both my husband and myself voted differently in the last presidential election as a result of having access to world wide opinion and facts-

When people speak from a place of complete frustration they dont always necessarily come across as kind or nice but are no less authentic than measured missives that are civil but absent of emotive passion-

Both have worth-

You obviously consider it okay to attack me personally Elegran but consider it okay to attack me personally - why?

I am not sure that in anyone's culture that is showing respect, good manners or anything of that ilk you would like to call it. However, it seems it is part of your culture to make a personal attack rather than pursue the argument/discussion.

The OP talks about posters "sewing the seeds of anger, disrupting the whole thread."

You say This thread has widened at times to include the "outside world" but I have taken it as being primarily about the exchange of views on Gransnet - that is what posters mention most often, and that is what concerns them when they (tentatively!) put their heads above the parapet to venture an opinion, sometimes for the first time on social media.

There is little fact in this paragraph but a bit of swerving the subject to a direction you want to take. Is that why you made a pre-emptive attack? In order to turn the discussion? I suppose it could be but surely in that case you are just behaving in the way you like to criticise.

Here is a different question - " Does it work?" ie, How many people have changed their (political) allegiances and voted differently because they have been ridiculed or lambasted for the thoughts they had posted earlier which were not exactly in line with those of posters with louder and more demanding voices?

And here we have it. This is what I, Elegran wants to talk about. You could have introduced it without becoming personal surely?

Why would anyone want a conversation if you come along and disrupt the whole thread with an unwarranted personal attack? I have a feeling you have proved the OP's point.

Sometimes I suspect that political debate is seen by some as a game of squash for the mind, the object being to gain points by blistering serves and exhausting rallies, sending your opponent rushing from one side of the court to another, returning the ball with a powerful stroke, occasionally as a body blow that causes such pain that they retire hurt and give up the game for ever.

My grandson and grand-daughter play squash (competitively and very well, at Uni and college level) but I have only tried it occasionally in my teens, and I know I am not quick enough, powerful enough, or competitive enough for it. However, I can recognise a squash court, racket and ball, and appreciate a good fair game. I can also recognise the type of ball and the ourt or pitch used in other competitive sports, and distinguish the type of player who plays so as to injure his opponent from the one who plays the ball so as to score goals.

This thread has widened at times to include the "outside world" but I have taken it as being primarily about the exchange of views on Gransnet - that is what posters mention most often, and that is what concerns them when they (tentatively!) put their heads above the parapet to venture an opinion, sometimes for the first time on social media.

Here is a different question - " Does it work?" ie, How many people have changed their (political) allegiances and voted differently because they have been ridiculed or lambasted for the thoughts they had posted earlier which were not exactly in line with those of posters with louder and more demanding voices?

If a conversion is out of fear of bullying, just how deep and lasting is it in reality? Is it not more likely to be sustained only while the aggressive voice is still ringing in the ears, then dropped for the inner conviction?

Apply the same question - " Does it work?" - to someone who respects and admires a poster/speaker for their attitude to those with whom they discuss their views - seeing that they have respect for other positions even while they refute them, allow an interlocutor to speak of their own fears and worries without accusing them of selfishness or elitism, and refrain from ranting and rabble-rousing.

Surely the reader/hearer is more likely to emulate that person than one who treats them as an enemy to be annihilated?

First Paddyanne, I agree that you speak your mind and to my mind you do it well. I don't agree with you most of the time but I have never been offended by any of your posts.

Secondly, there is at least one, may more people who under the cover of I am a straight talker are just hurtful, nasty, or boastful and these are the people I object to. Do they I wonder speak face to face with others in the same manner?

I assume GG3 speaks of posters who don't agree with her views on how to change society, and thinks that they too have forfeited the right to any tolerance, consideration of politeness?

I have been extremely careful not to personalise my contributions to this discussion.

*never making anyone else feel uncomfortable or embarrassed *but my god, they paid for it with extreme passive aggression. My deceased MIL was ace at this, LOL.

My mother's definition of 'good breeding' (whatever that meant!!) and 'good manners', was never making anyone else feel uncomfortable or embarrassed.

You crack me up Sharon