Thread derailing negativity

Good of you to call for positive talk. If I contributed to the ugly in any way, I apologize.

Conflict may help growth, but conflict for the sake of it, with nothing at stake, serves no one. Thank you for reminding us all.

Enough of the ugly. Back to study.

Anyone could always isolate or confine themselves to the privacy of their own little space or create their own little world to live in, outside of the big world out there. That little world will become as positive or as negative as they design it and nothing can disturb it.

Thanks to the internet we are not merely an open but in fact a global community. The internet is an open marketplace for ideas and if somebody tries to silence anything or anyone out here, we show them the door back to their private space, because there is no place for that here. Of course this is not something anyone is attempting, I hope. Still, while one is free to express one's frustration with what is being said, there is nothing inherently entitling about being frustrated.
Now there is also a way of avoiding negativity through confining the scope of the discussion to non-serious topics or have it led by non-serious people. One can limit the pool of available topics to only such nobody has an opinion on or is passionate about. Over the months I have seen people dropping their opinions not so much because of a realization of validity or invalidity, but instead because they felt they had to start spilling a lot of words without any actual content because anything you say somebody will somewhere sometime take an issue with. And that's the fundamental flaw with the approach I just suggested: On the one hand a topic nobody cares about would spawn an utterly useless thread, but on the other hand there isn't actually such a thing as a topic nobody cares about.
If you have no opinion (or if you do), feel free not to voice one. If you don't want an opinion (or if you do), feel free not to read any. But let others have theirs and express theirs and set your sensibilities aside for their freedom to fight it out which ever civil way they choose. Feel free to listen and feel free to take part in that discussion, too, if you want. And the moment you do, realize that you, too, will be fueling the fire, for that is the price of the freedom of speech.

I realize that I am being harsh here and to be fair, I haven't been following a lot of the recently hot threads, so I am not directly familiar with the negativity you are refering to. There may in fact be way too much of it and very concentrated on one specific theme I see throughout the thread titles. So this is by no means a direct criticism of the premise so much as of the request you make from it. I do not question your reasons here. I do hope however, that, despite being somewhat out of touch, I am making a remotely relevant point and perhaps a part of it may be considered by someone at some point, be it in regards to this or similar occurances.

some valid points there Gisteron. But I believe the negativity being referred to is a discussion that got out of hand and stopped discussing concepts or ideas, and started discussing people.

I agree with your points to an extent Gisteron, in relation to the internet in general. We are a global community, absolutely, and there are plenty of spaces online where things are wholly open and one is free to post whatever they wish, regardless of content.

My question is why this religious temple, by virtue of being on the internet, is automatically considered such a space? Why should this space, run and maintained for a specific purpose, play host to "civil wars" such as those you describe?

Not being facetious, nor trying to pull any part of your post out of context. I'm genuinely curious. I could name far more places online which aren't "open" spaces in the sense you describe than ones which are - all are owned, and most owners impose a particular set of rules. We have a fairly elaborate and involved doctrine here (ie a clear "agenda"), and if anything I would expect tighter rules at a religious temple than in many (perhaps most?) other online spaces.

Gisteron wrote: *said Gisteron-y things*

I missed ya, buddy. Wondered when you'd chime in.

Actually on-topic, I understand that thread-derailing negativity is the bane of rational discussion. However, so is thread-derailing positivity, and nobody here seems to want to put an end to that when it kills my favorite threads. Also, I reserve the right to be negative when negativity is warranted. I will only apologize for negativity when it is out of place.

When I say freedom of speech I do not mean freedom of expression. Of course once people get uncivil, start attacking each other rather than their ideas, that's different. A flame war is not a heated discussion but a childish fight and I am in favour of stopping them as they occur.

Of course the Temple isn't a free place by virtue of being on the internet. It's leadership has all the means and opportunities to censor it as they see fit at any time and the reason it is as much visited and such an interesting place to be at sometimes is precisely because they don't employ those measures. Would you even come to a place that is one of conformity? I wouldn't. Even if it agreed with all of my opinions at any given time, I wouldn't see the point. Why would I need a community of people to agree with other than to boost my ego? And what would happen to my insecure ego once I find myself deviating at some point and thus be silenced or expelled for it?

So to answer your question: The Temple should tolerate and, as you put it, "play host" to heated debates if any arise (again, so long as it remains civil), to remain the interesting, diverse and rich community that it is. The moment it cuts this off will be the day it dies in spirit and it will be but a mere matter of time until only a few elites remain active anymore and render the place a boring and dry platform for those who just want to hear themselves talk and to nod to each other over all the things they say; a place without progress, without growth, without a journey and without an adventure; a dead place.

Yes, I hear you say, but that is such an extreme extent, and isn't it a slippery slope fallacy to say that once we stop people from one particular kind of heat, all discussion will be muted eventually? Maybe. But I wouldn't want to find out, I value this place too much for that. Besides, I don't think that freedom of speech is something you can put on a gradual scale. It is either there or it isn't. "There is no try."

And again, to disclaim, since Brenna confirmed it, if this is about actual wars between and against people rather than the things they say, my argument does not apply there. There should not be limits on voicing an opinion, but there should be limits to behaviour; that's different.

rugadd wrote: Stop it.

It is incredibly annoying .....Shame on any of you who puked on a thread and double shame on anyone who spit vitriol back. .

Thank you very very much!