Reluctant to join the discussion.

Petra I deliberately chose a non political example so as not to 'pick' at anyone's scab!
Do you think it was wrong to use that example?

It was to illustrate a style of posting and, I felt, was applicable to politics/ religion/ science etc. all of which are threads which become quite heated at times.

Thought this was finished. I disagree that people should be told to get Over themselves if they are troubled in anyway by offensive comments. We all have standards though not of the same level

More whataboutery Mair. What about the fact that politics aren't a science? It is a social science and can be studied as such but again - what about this fact? It is another side-tracking irrelevance to the discussion.

Are people reluctant to join the discussion? If they are they are and it is something they want to do they need to get over themselves. There is rudeness and aggression on all sides sadly, and there are emotive comments that try to hide half-truths and untruths which offend and factual comments that are put forward which also offend - because people don't want to hear them. This is politics and people will always be offended by an opposing view and when they are offended, particularly if they are not confident in putting the alternative argument, they will be rude and accuse other or being 'knowledgeable' or 'education'. You really have to ask where the GN members are coming from when they use that as an insult.

It was a good idea morethan2 and although personal to you, others did feel the same, so the subject has had a good old airing.If nobody wants to add anything else, the thread will just die off naturally ( you don't have to end a thread, even if you have started it.)

I honestly never expected this to be controversial thread. I also wouldn't want to to turn us into sweet old ladies who only post about kittens, recipes and annoying husbands.
( although there's a place for all three) It really was a very personal point of view and I wondered if others felt the same. I started the thread when I was in a very pensive mood. It was more about me than the people who post on the thread. I have taken on board a lot of the comments. Shall we call a truce now we've all aired our point of view.

politics aren't science

Exactly Petra but for some it is a religion, and tis only they who follow the truth!

Oh dear, bringing other threads into this one now...

You are right petra when you say politics is not a science, but it is still important to base our opinions on verifiable facts and figures -eg immigrants from the EU have contributed more to this country than they have taken in benefits

Correction : shoot arrows!

I realise some people find it hard to get their heads around this, but I have put it as simply as possible

I wonder if this is the sort of put-down which can make people reluctant to risk raising their head above the parapet?

MB
Oh what a surprise that you have quoted me, and left off the qualifying comment which followed and the fact that it was directed at some of the most ferociously gladiatorial members of GN.
There is no possibility the posters concerned will keep their heads below the parapet. Theyre on permanent look out waiting to hoot arrows att anyone who dares to disagree with them!

Ana
MB has picked it off the refugee thread where the discussion drifted into nurse shortages and bursaries for students.

Mawbroon I remember that quote from the politics thread.

Penstemmon You gave as an example a scientific fact, politics aren't science.

I've looked over the last two pages of this thread and can't find that quote, MawBroon - which post was it?

I realise some people find it hard to get their heads around this, but I have put it as simply as possible

I wonder if this is the sort of put-down which can make people reluctant to risk raising their head above the parapet?

Penstemmon just reading your example answer made me laugh
"Do not worry. You will not fall off the edge of the world. Science has shown (add a link) that it is in fact round and something called gravity (another link) stops people falling off.

because we had a chat with a lady not long ago who, whilst not a member of the Flat Earth Society, did her best to convince us of the validity of the theory that the earth is flat and ridiculed any attempt to persuade her that it is round (well, spherical).

Most threads have been ok but lately in particular, some pages have got very bad.
Nobody has to be polite at all times and there will be heat of the moment times, but if we as a forum want to encourage everybody to post on the news/political ones, it won't happen unless things improve a bit.It may happen, or may not.

An internet discussion inevitably brings in people not only with different views but also different styles and intentions. It is not like being across a table where you know the other people involved.

Although I would like people to be polite, the evidence is that, in the heat of an argument, they often are not; while others enjoy the point-scoring kind of debate. I think Gransnet is, relatively speaking, well-behaved but, even so, you do need a thickish skin to persevere.

PS: I was interested in Daphne Dill's certainty about trolls on Gransnet. Having been on Daphne's suspect list after I joined, I wonder if I still am. Just so as you know, I am just an old Grandad with a point of view on all sorts of things, not just politics.

And mine too, but this has often not been the case.

roses I did not have time to read back!

My only reply is that if the link / other information is correct and counters/disproves/throws a new perspective on a debate then it is absolutely valid and for some people to run from a debate in the face of 'fresch evidence' is their problem and not with the person who posts new info.
If, however, the info is posted deliberately in a way to make an individul look foolish it is not kind. If it makes the point they made look foolish then is is relevant and is not 'flattening' a person but quashing the idea they were putting forward. That is OK in my book.

Actually, your first example sounds very familiar Penstemmon - possibly not the subject matter but certainly the mocking tone and insinuation that the other poster must be ignorant (and probably shouldn't be posting on the thread because of that!).

Earlier in this thread ( I know, it's a lot to wade through) I gave a similar if shorter example just as you have done Penstemmon
In short, it isn't the knowledge that's the problem, but the way it's presented.

Being jumped on ( from intellectual height) is when a poster not only gets flattened by a poster being unkind/ sarcastic/ etc but by the sort of answer that provides quotes/stats/ links and opinion and sounds so superior generally that the whole comment is a double whammy to show the first poster how much they know.
It really isn't necessary.

Sorry meant to add an e.g.

'I like being at the sea side but I worry I might fall off the end of the world if I wade out too far'

"FFS.. what are you on about? Don't you even know the world is round not flat. Everyone , except you it seems, knows that."
OR
"Do not worry. You will not fall off the edge of the world. Science has shown (add a link) that it is in fact round and something called gravity (another link) stops people falling off.

What is meant by 'intellectual heights'? Is it someone being unkind /putting forward further or alternative information?

Sometimes someone responds to a poster's opinion/statement with some further information/fact/experience that brings into question the original poster's assertions. As long as those follow up points are expressed without a playground 'Nah,nah nee nah nah' attitude is that not OK?

MawBroon there is room for all our tuppenceworths and when there has been enough,the thread will fold, as threads on anything always fold naturally.