Discussion about discussion

@ Kobos
I guess a balance is almost always a benifit to a Jeddist. Especially in defense and offense.

Ps it’s prolly just me but on a personal note that pik of the Dino reminds me of Steve. Good stuff -
Great day to remember good things and see things still have a vibe or two. Much love Kobos. ! Much love!
Any how - thanks for the sentiment.

Kobos wrote: I remember awhile back I was a young and brash buck who would run into defend OP's and others who felt they were being bullied. Now that said I have grown a bit and at this point i tend to not step into them as it creates an emotional attachment to the outcome of the conversation. In this mentality I had stopped giving solutions or guiding back to the original topic because in time I would feel attacked, then respond in kind and fear disciplinary action.

Ironically, I realize at that point I was very much in opposition to my own ideal of freedom to express one's self. There will never be a perfect discussion that does not irritate/offend some people. It is why, I asked about manners in another thread. When do we consider them to be restrictive of free speech or is it possible that we simply can act with in the confines of a system of basic protocols avoiding the purposeful demoralization of someone to speak their minds or not?

In agreement with most, I would like to see less locked threads and even contrary to many less split threads as one topic may give birth to another discussion only to circle back. But, again I am going to stress manners. As an example: Are you at a protest just chilling with a sign or are you the guy whacking people with the sign post. (this is just prevalent right now in the US as far as public demonstrations). In this media how do we decide someone is person hitting people with the sign post?

These are just some questions I have as I want more free expression of thought without enforced silence enacted by any party that finds a way to ensure it.

"Both good and evil should be averted by more speech, not enforced silence."-Authority Zero

Much Love, Respect and Peace,
Kobos

I have asked for this so many times. It's nice others feel the same way. We went from an era of having a pleasant conversation about it when things got hot, to an era where innocent posts are analysed and interpreted in a way that maximises hostility and rulebreaking. The moderation forum could be renamed the 'discuss personalities not ideas' forum, and it is absolutely tragic that on a website which promotes freedom of conscience and freedom of speech, people like yourself have to think twice about the potential consequences of hitting 'submit'.

It's ok to have a spat. And even though we know we shouldn't get angry, when we do our fellow jedi should help, not encourage your side or the other's. What we seem to be getting a lot of is a severe misunderstanding of the justice maxim, which essentially points out one man's hero is another's tormentor, with an implication (imo, I wrote it but maybe it's just the shadow in me) that fulfilling either role should be avoided, not encouraged.

I have found two sermons:

Stretching Silence In Defense

and

Your Words: A More Elegant Weapon for a More Civilized Age

As for my own thoughts, I have been at other places where their public discussions have been shark tanks and I am letting us all know now that that is not outside of the realm of possibility for us either. There must be a balance between out and out censorship and the free for all that is similar to reddit.

I encourage us all to remember that though this is open discussions, this is also the public forum and anyone on the web can see it, so its important that it demonstrates the sort of culture that we want to promote (whatever that is). I'm not on Council, so I don't get to decide that.

There are some good points brought up here and I don't think anyone was wrong per se. I read the thread being mentioned covertly () It will be a sad day for us when we cannot even discuss ideas for fear of upsetting people. Luckily it seems we are moving to some pragmatic measures to ensure that does not happen.

I am in favor (as much as it counts, matters) of a disclaimer of sorts that explains the use of the Open Discussions forum. In fact, such disclaimers should exist for other areas as well.

I am in favor of not locking threads as that doesn't solve whatever problem existed in the first place.
We take a risk when we post anything publically on the internet. It will be discussed and we cannot always direct the discussion. I guess its just my empathetic self that feels for the OP. I remember that when I was a novice I had some pretty far fetched ideas. I think I would not be nearly as far along as I have come if my ideas had been critiqued as the OP's were. At the same time though, I would not be as far as I am now if my ideas had not been critiqued. Alexandre was good for that. But that also happened in a different season of my time here (apprenticeship). As we well know, apprenticeships are built on trust so that they can be...challenging.
But I mean, if I had put my ideas out there and had them critiqued and I had not been ready for that I would not have bothered continuing. It would have felt like bullying and it would have felt invalidating. That's just me. I'm not the OP, so I don't know what they felt.

I think its important, before we go swinging our lightsabers around as seekers of truth and crushers of delusion, that we keep in mind to whom we are speaking. In some cases, they are making their first foray into what will be a lasting practice, so we may have to point out errors using different strategies. I like the complement sandwich myself, but there are others.

I agree ros! Each of us have our own passions and those passions sometimes get the better of us. There is no better checks and balance to that than our peers to help temper us in the pursuit of those passions. I think this is exactly where the clergy and knights role lays. It's a role I think has been deficient in the past but one I'm now seeing real progress in from clergy like Carlos and others that are expressing similar sentiments. None of is an island, we all need help and we all need reminders. That is the nature of a social species that allows it to thrive and this place is no exception. I know that, I for one, want to better integrate myself into this community. I have expressed as much recently, but I also know that it takes a spirit of active cooperation. I hope that more compromises can result in these sorts of talks instead of dictatorial demands and attempts at coercive blackmale that spawns from unnatural attachment to the outcome of an issue such as we have seen recently.

here, here!

I've begun sharing ideas to build on Jedi culture to accommodate stronger, real-world bonding as a community, but, as a community that relies on and (dare I say) largely only exists here in cyberspace, getting on better verbally (and being more tolerant, less authoritarian towards each other) would be just as much, if not moreso, beneficial and strengthening to us as a culture.

"Hearts and minds", as they might say. May The Force Guide us, friends.

Carlos.Martinez3 wrote: Really quick ! Z!

Attachment F6CE1AEC-7BFC-4C56-A022-5EEF751CD0C3.jpeg not found

Control is often a difficult thing and some say an illusion and some say possible and some don’t even call it that. The ebb n flow of things exist some says with or without me. Discussion on a forum have different rules as it’s often never just one on one. Controls in that sense often don’t exist or have a very small chance at grabbing them at times - right ? So discussion on the net often have different rules - right ? What are they ? What’s the ediquet ? What’s the manners of the thing ? These are questions we argue about but never pen or identify - often. To discuss ya kinna have to know the “ rules” or the ways they happen right ?

You are correct. Control is often an illusion. We only truly have control over ourselves. For every new person you introduce to a problem, each with free will, the more potential for chaos there is. What keeps chaos abated is that we all agree to certain rules and conditions in order to participate. All successful societies have rules, even secret societies. Some see rules as being restrictive; however rules create a deeper sense of freedom because if the absence of rules results in the inevitable consequence that fewer people want to participate then this will leave us with fewer discussions, fewer topics, fewer opinions to learn from. If we believe ourselves to be superior to the need for such rules then this is an arrogance that Lucas's Jedi also suffered from. We are not better people than non-Jedi. We simply understand and accept the Force for what it is and seek balance within it.

But by its very nature the Force creates rules. It is therefore natural that TOJO has established many rules in order to set a standard. What is a Jedi? What is a conversation? Rules should govern both so that there is no confusion. If a conversation is for the purpose of sharing ideas then at the end of the day that purpose should be ultimate and supreme. If a one on one conversation includes one who no longer wishes to converse, for any reason, then the conversation should be brought to a conclusion. Afterwards, its not a conversation anymore and its more for the benefit of the one who wishes to continue against the other person's wishes.

In the case of a discussion with multiple parties, the person who starts the conversation should be the principle of it just like if you start a business you would most likely have at least a 51% stake. Assuming that conversations have "no ownership" or that they can be communistically, repossessed, is like saying the wishes of a company's founder shouldn't matter and the state can take it over as long as other people want it. But then if that's the case what motivation is there to create new businesses if you cannot retain any ownership or control? If I choose to sell my company I should have that right. If not. I should also have that right. A thread isn't a company but it is a creation of the OP. The first post is their expression of that idea and they invest further posts in order to discuss that idea. If they have new ideas as a result then the topic can evolve. Otherwise, it is only other posters that can go "off topic". Being protective of one OP and their rights is equivalent to protecting all OPs and by extension, all new topics.

If a one on one conversation includes one who no longer wishes to converse, for any reason, then the conversation should be brought to a conclusion.

And it does as soon as the person who does not wish to converse stops engaging the other person.

ren wrote:

If a one on one conversation includes one who no longer wishes to converse, for any reason, then the conversation should be brought to a conclusion.

And it does as soon as the person who does not wish to converse stops engaging the other person.

Not necessarily. In my own example of a conversation I had with a guy at the gym, I actually tried to disengage but his need to continue didn't allow him to receive any of the normal signals. And I'm very polite, especially with people I don't know. So I found it almost impossible, in person, to be like "look dude, nothing personal, but I don't want to talk to you anymore today." It wouldn't have profited either of us to be that blunt and because he hadn't offended me I thought it prudent to preserve his feelings even though he wasn't necessarily as wary of mine. We all have self-imposed rules, whether it's being polite or imposing on ourselves a sense of integrity or honor or sensitivity. This can put us in a situation we really don't want to continue. And there are other considerations as well.

When there is a group conversation the group is still composed of individuals. Each individual is representative of others who may be in the conversation or not. There are people who mainly just watch conversations without adding much. There are dominant and submissive personality types. There are also passive and aggressive personality types. It takes two people to consent to sex but sex can be forced upon someone even if that person doesn't want to engage. What then? Is it the fault of the 'weaker' individual? Or is it the responsibility of the stronger individual to respect the other person's wishes and intent? And if the strong individual isn't strong enough to suppress their own desire to dominate without regard to the other person then the strong person is also the weaker. In other words, the responsibility is always shared.

In a group conversation there are more people to consider, not less. Most people are "tuning into" a thread and can therefore tune out at will. However, if they're tuning out because they're offended that's still a problem even if it's a tree falling in the forest. We simply don't hear the sound because we don't see the viewing eyes of the audience. This allows us to ignore them and focus in on whatever it is we personally seek to achieve in the discussion or debate. But if that's the case a private conversation would be better. The fact that a public conversation is public it is the audience itself that "hears" the sound of the falling trees. If two people want to continue they represent those who also want to keep going. But if someone wants to stop or change tactics then they represent others who feel the same. The perception of a conversation "getting out of hand" is also shared even if only one person voices it. This can can make people view our entire community the same way I view the guy at the gym; something to avoid.

And if you're the OP then it is not as simple as just leaving your own thread. For my own threads I feel responsible for the progression of the discussion, its content, and whether it is a positive experience to the community (audience) or not. Because when I post a new thread I don't know who's going to respond. So I'm not talking to specific people but rather to everyone who wants or chooses to read it. If it becomes something that's mostly positive then as the OP I'm happy because I want to be a source of positive energy. If not, then I cannot help but to blame myself for not keeping it from turning out that way even if I cannot control other people. This is why, even if other people want to continue the discussion, I can understand any OP that wants to shut it down because they didn't intend to start something they view as too negative; especially because any time someone wants to read that conversation, seeking something positive, at some point they're going to run into that negativity and may get turned off by it or come away with a negative experience which will be connected with the OP's initial post/title.

In other words, there is no way for an OP to protect their thread from an ongoing conversation that has escaped their control, and thus no way to protect their original ideas from being attached, against their will, to a negative experience. They are only protected by the rules of the forum. And yes.... positive/negative is subjective. But if the OP feels this then it is reasonable to assume others will too. And is it worth it when all the posters have to do is move their conversation to a new thread that they are the OP of? Or do they not want to be the OP because of the same feeling of responsibility I spoke of earlier?

At the gym you can literally walk away without saying a single word. Online you can avoid a thread, website, or the whole web by effortlessly doing something else. If your own rules prevent you from doing so, the burden lies with you. You consciously create and abide by your rules. No one else Is responsible for that.

I don't understand why you feel a conversation should be controlled. It can be done of course, but why should it be so? Where does this need to have people say what you want to hear come from?

I think there are different ways to do almost always. As a modern day Jeddist it’s my joy to seek out as many different available ways and sides. Character can be created or even practiced like a Kata or a dance. Some folk don’t dance - some do - some wish they could and some do it naturally. Some dance nasty others ball room it - to me - to each their own. Didn’t change me doing the HULA to my records with my children at home and two step with the wife and the HAKA when I need it. Life can be like this and our decisions are like our choices. Some want to leave a legacy some want to leave. Some ain’t got time and others do. Same with discussion I think - right ?