Will/Can respect come back for differing opinions?

[Wash DC Blue]

First off I hold my hands up for being incredibly guilty on here, and to maybe a lesser extent on regular social media of being nasty and attacking the character of people rather than engaging in discourse.

Sometimes after a drink when I feel that I have the key to universal knowledge or when something that I have read has annoyed me to the point that I feel that I can’t but respond.

This forum though for a while has been quite open in its division and derision of others views. It reflects many others, Stoke‘s Oatcake (Eveything Else) is one that I have been lurking on for a few years as well as Boxing Forums that I used to contribute to.

Things have become very much “with us or against us” with a lot of personal barbs thrown in (which I have been guilty of).

I guess my question is...are we past the point of no return now with political/societal beliefs?

I don’t think that we’ve lived in a time like this in a few generations.
Can anything or What can make things better for discourse and “live and let live”?

Does it matter?

[the other bob wilson]

First off I hold my hands up for being incredibly guilty on here, and to maybe a lesser extent on regular social media of being nasty and attacking the character of people rather than engaging in discourse.

Sometimes after a drink when I feel that I have the key to universal knowledge or when something that I have read has annoyed me to the point that I feel that I can’t but respond.

This forum though for a while has been quite open in its division and derision of others views. It reflects many others, Stoke‘s Oatcake (Eveything Else) is one that I have been lurking on for a few years as well as Boxing Forums that I used to contribute to.

Things have become very much “with us or against us” with a lot of personal barbs thrown in (which I have been guilty of).

I guess my question is...are we past the point of no return now with political/societal beliefs?

I don’t think that we’ve lived in a time like this in a few generations.
Can anything or What can make things better for discourse and “live and let live”?

Does it matter?

We've never lived in a time like this in my opinion because social media gives people the anonymity they've never had before - talking to people face to face in the manner so many on here are guilty of, myself included, carries far more risk, both mentally and physically, than it does on social media.

The genie is out of the bottle now I feel and all you can do is try to treat others as you'd like to be treated yourself when logging on, but I know from personal experience that it is one thing saying you're going to do that and another completely to actually put it into action.

[Feedback]

Part of the problem is that people have become far too easily offended, feeling the need to express faux outrage and indignation whilst forgetting that most of us are really quite moderate in what we think. If you believed everything you read on social media you'd think the world was divided into good and evil with nothing in between.

Another problem with social media is that it gives stupid people confidence and it makes intelligent people doubt themselves.

In my mind, the solution is to see most social media for what it is, a bit of fun, a new form of entertainment, and to not take it, or what is,written, too seriously at all.

[Trigger]

In many ways the world is more civilised than ever.

Now instead of arranging to meet at designated place and time to sort out our differences, many just launch attacks from their keyboards while others like and send emojis.

We have become fat lazy fanny's.

[Eric the Half a Bee]

Part of the problem is that people have become far too easily offended.

Sorry, but I disagree. I think people have generally been offended at some things but have never wanted to speak up, or have gone with the flow out of politeness. However, I do believe the amount of people who are offended by things has been greatly exaggerated by those who want to be able to say and do what the hell they want without reprisal.

[Feedback]

Sorry, but I disagree. I think people have generally been offended at some things but have never wanted to speak up, or have gone with the flow out of politeness. However, I do believe the amount of people who are offended by things has been greatly exaggerated by those who want to be able to say and do what the hell they want without reprisal.

the fact you felt the need to respond kind of proves Wash DC's point.

[Croesy Blue]

First off I hold my hands up for being incredibly guilty on here, and to maybe a lesser extent on regular social media of being nasty and attacking the character of people rather than engaging in discourse.

Sometimes after a drink when I feel that I have the key to universal knowledge or when something that I have read has annoyed me to the point that I feel that I can’t but respond.

This forum though for a while has been quite open in its division and derision of others views. It reflects many others, Stoke‘s Oatcake (Eveything Else) is one that I have been lurking on for a few years as well as Boxing Forums that I used to contribute to.

Things have become very much “with us or against us” with a lot of personal barbs thrown in (which I have been guilty of).

I guess my question is...are we past the point of no return now with political/societal beliefs?

I don’t think that we’ve lived in a time like this in a few generations.
Can anything or What can make things better for discourse and “live and let live”?

Does it matter?

I think the problem is differing opinions should only be tolerated about certain things. I think differeing opinions about economic policy, foreign policy etc are fine. But we have seen a recent rise in racism and a slide towards facism in politics and this is where differing opinions shouldn't be tolerated.

[Croesy Blue]

Part of the problem is that people have become far too easily offended, feeling the need to express faux outrage and indignation whilst forgetting that most of us are really quite moderate in what we think. If you believed everything you read on social media you'd think the world was divided into good and evil with nothing in between.

Another problem with social media is that it gives stupid people confidence and it makes intelligent people doubt themselves.

In my mind, the solution is to see most social media for what it is, a bit of fun, a new form of entertainment, and to not take it, or what is,written, too seriously at all.

I respectfully disagree that that's the only issue, I think people who have rightly been castigated for intolerant views like to hide being the facade of "people are offended by everything" and we shouldn't let this get used this way.

There has always been faux outrage, the book "so you've been publically shamed" by Jon Ronson is a good example of how cancel culture can be overblown.

But I find this is used as an excuse by the alt right to moan about being rightly called out. If someone has intolerant views they should be shouted down, it's not to do with people being offended it's about standing up for the rights of other human beings.

[Feedback]

I respectfully disagree that that's the only issue, I think people who have rightly been castigated for intolerant views like to hide being the facade of "people are offended by everything" and we shouldn't let this get used this way.

There has always been faux outrage, the book "so you've been publically shamed" by Jon Ronson is a good example of how cancel culture can be overblown.

But I find this is used as an excuse by the alt right to moan about being rightly called out. If someone has intolerant views they should be shouted down, it's not to do with people being offended it's about standing up for the rights of other human beings.

As I said to Eric, your response is symptomatic of the problem. You just cannot countenance that someone disagrees with you and you feel you have to point out theirs purported failings.

If someone is offended, so what? What does it actually mean - do they develop brain cancer as a result? no, they've let words affect them. Words. If you need to grab your breathe or have a sit down after someone has referred to you in a pejorative manner, then the issue really is with you.

I'll tell you what hurts - a kick in the bollocks, watching a loved one die, having inoperable cancer. They hurt but words themselves do not. you give words whatever meaning you want and you can choose to be affected by them, or you can choose to give them the merit they deserve.

If you're easily offended then the issue is with you, and not everyone else.

[Croesy Blue]

As I said to Eric, your response is symptomatic of the problem. You just cannot countenance that someone disagrees with you and you feel you have to point out theirs purported failings.

If someone is offended, so what? What does it actually mean - do they develop brain cancer as a result? no, they've let words affect them. Words. If you need to grab your breathe or have a sit down after someone has referred to you in a pejorative manner, then the issue really is with you.

I'll tell you what hurts - a kick in the bollocks, watching a loved one die, having inoperable cancer. They hurt but words themselves do not. you give words whatever meaning you want and you can choose to be affected by them, or you can choose to give them the merit they deserve.

If you're easily offended then the issue is with you, and not everyone else.

I just think you can't see the difference between things that genuinley deserve people to get pushed back on. If we took your attitude to everything progress would never be made because anyone taking umbridge with anything would just be labled as taking offense.

Look throughout history and how progress has been made and how we slipped into dangerous times.

The Nazi's started by putting out propaganda saying all jews weren't human. Years before anyone stated arresting and killing jewish people. Just harmless bits of papers with Jewish people drawn as animals. Why are people offended by this, it's only words.

There is no harm in pushing back to people who are making others less free, have you ever read about the paradox of freedom?

I agree there is needless outrage but there always has been, but certain things need to be shouted down. It isn't because people are offended it's because it's the right thing to do. The strange thing is the pointless outrage usually comes from people who have your attitude.

People getting wound up by an asian person winning bake off. People getting offended by Sainsbury's havng black people in their advert, people getting offendedby divali decorations, people getting offended because they rightly get shouted down for saying something sexist, racist or homophobic.

[NYCBlue]

As I said to Eric, your response is symptomatic of the problem. You just cannot countenance that someone disagrees with you and you feel you have to point out theirs purported failings.

If someone is offended, so what? What does it actually mean - do they develop brain cancer as a result? no, they've let words affect them. Words. If you need to grab your breathe or have a sit down after someone has referred to you in a pejorative manner, then the issue really is with you.

I'll tell you what hurts - a kick in the bollocks, watching a loved one die, having inoperable cancer. They hurt but words themselves do not. you give words whatever meaning you want and you can choose to be affected by them, or you can choose to give them the merit they deserve.

If you're easily offended then the issue is with you, and not everyone else.

"The problem"? Don't you mean "my problem"?

If you've got a problem with people being offended, and expressing themselves thus, isn't at least part of the issue with you?

[Croesy Blue]

Should we tolerate all opinions? I'll be ****ed if I am tolerating the opinions of anyone who thinks poeple are lesser humanbeings because of their race, sex, nationality or sexual orientation. They can all **** off.

The whole both sides argument has come out of this, and it's one of the worst things to ever happen to intelligent discorse.

[Croesy Blue]

“The so-called paradox of freedom is the argument that freedom in the sense of absence of any constraining control must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek. The idea is, in a slightly different form, and with very different tendency, clearly expressed in Plato.

Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.

There is genuine proof throughout all of human history that if we are tolerant of intollerant views life gets worse for a lot of people very quickly.

Anyone trying to justify this by people shouldn't be offended is either too stupid to understand the point or deliberately trying to give intollerent people a safe space to air their views.

Certain differing opinions deserve to be shouted down, if your opinions keep getting shouted down maybe you're not an outspoken genius, you're just a twat.

[Feedback]

I just think you can't see the difference between things that genuinley deserve people to get pushed back on. If we took your attitude to everything progress would never be made because anyone taking umbridge with anything would just be labled as taking offense.

that's just not true, no one is advocating allowing misdeeds to go unpunished.

NB I'm surprised someone with your purported intellect cannot spell umbrage, unless of course we've all been spelling it incorrectly all along. Who knows with the way your own mind works.

Look throughout history and how progress has been made and how we slipped into dangerous times.

The Nazi's started by putting out propaganda saying all jews weren't human. Years before anyone stated arresting and killing jewish people. Just harmless bits of papers with Jewish people drawn as animals. Why are people offended by this, it's only words.

Godwin's law.

just so we know, who is currently saying X demographic aren't human....

There is no harm in pushing back to people who are making others less free, have you ever read about the paradox of freedom?

are you suggesting that being called poof etc makes the gay community feel like their freedoms are being eroded?

I agree there is needless outrage but there always has been, but certain things need to be shouted down. It isn't because people are offended it's because it's the right thing to do. The strange thing is the pointless outrage usually comes from people who have your attitude.

my issue is with the woke generation who feel the need to complain on behalf of everyone else, the majority of which don't actually feel offended by the purported offence.

People getting wound up by an asian person winning bake off.

yep, those that do are *****, what is your point

People getting offended by Sainsbury's havng black people in their advert

as above

people getting offendedby divali decorations

again, they're advertising themselves as ***** and doing the rest of us a favour so we know to avoid them.

people getting offended because they rightly get shouted down for saying something sexist, racist or homophobic.

what do words really matter. ever heard you're judged by deeds not words...

[Feedback]

"The problem"? Don't you mean "my problem"?

If you've got a problem with people being offended, and expressing themselves thus, isn't at least part of the issue with you?

perhaps it is, after all no-one is forcing me to adopt this position. But then I'm not so sensitive that I need to wear metal underwear in case my trousers rub me the wrong way.

my issue is that people get offended for the slightest things when there are far more pressing issues to worry about.

[Feedback]

There is genuine proof throughout all of human history that if we are tolerant of intollerant views life gets worse for a lot of people very quickly.

Anyone trying to justify this by people shouldn't be offended is either too stupid to understand the point or deliberately trying to give intollerent people a safe space to air their views.

Certain differing opinions deserve to be shouted down, if your opinions keep getting shouted down maybe you're not an outspoken genius, you're just a twat.

at one point the Church burnt heretics at the stake. Are you suggesting that the heretics, such as Galileo (who was placed under house arrest) who advocated science over religion were wrong?

Again I will state that we have laws to stop the promotion of bigotry and hatred, laws that can remove an individuals liberty via the justice system. This is the correct approach. however, we have moved so far away from that system its at a point where someone using the term coloured is pressured into leaving his job.

[Croesy Blue]

Have you not seen what Godwin himself about his law recently? I was using an extreme example there too as to how just words can be the thin end of the wedge.

No one is saying taking offence in all situations is correct either but certain opinions don't deserve to be debated they need to be shouted down. I think you think I'm talking about people being offended at a joke when that is not at all what is being discussed.

I've never said I'm an amazing speller btw!

But in conclusion are you saying people should be able to say whatever they want at all times with no reprucussion?

[Croesy Blue]

at one point the Church burnt heretics at the stake. Are you suggesting that the heretics, such as Galileo (who was placed under house arrest) who advocated science over religion were wrong?

Again I will state that we have laws to stop the promotion of bigotry and hatred, laws that can remove an individuals liberty via the justice system. This is the correct approach. however, we have moved so far away from that system its at a point where someone using the term coloured is pressured into leaving his job.

I don't understand how your first point is relevant at all. Surely it backs up what I'm saying we should be shouting down poeple who are wrongly persecuting a people. The church in your example are the intollerant ones.

Your second point is wrong because he wasn't made to stand down from his position for using the word coloured. He was forced to stand down from a powerful position because the mistakes he kept making showed he was not fit to do the role.

[Feedback]

Have you not seen what Godwin himself about his law recently? I was using an extreme example there too as to how just words can be the thin end of the wedge.

No one is saying taking offence in all situations is correct either but certain opinions don't deserve to be debated they need to be shouted down. I think you think I'm talking about people being offended at a joke when that is not at all what is being discussed.

I've never said I'm an amazing speller btw!

But in conclusion are you saying people should be able to say whatever they want at all times with no reprucussion?

oh FFS sake.

[Feedback]

Have you not seen what Godwin himself about his law recently? I was using an extreme example there too as to how just words can be the thin end of the wedge.

No one is saying taking offence in all situations is correct either but certain opinions don't deserve to be debated they need to be shouted down. I think you think I'm talking about people being offended at a joke when that is not at all what is being discussed.

I've never said I'm an amazing speller btw!

But in conclusion are you saying people should be able to say whatever they want at all times with no reprucussion?

if they want to hold that opinion then who cares what it is. If they wish to promote intolerance beyond themselves then that's why we have laws.

[Croesy Blue]

if they want to hold that opinion then who cares what it is. If they wish to promote intolerance beyond themselves then that's why we have laws.

If we took this attitude we wouldn't get to a place where these laws became a thing.

[Feedback]

I don't understand how your first point is relevant at all. Surely it backs up what I'm saying we should be shouting down poeple who are wrongly persecuting a people. The church in your example are the intollerant ones.

you've misunderstood. Back in the 16th century, Galileo was the one with the extreme viewpoint, yet here we are, 500 years later, understanding he was correct. Society ebbs and flows and we cannot say for sure who should be the arbiter of what is and is not socially correct.

Your second point is wrong because he wasn't made to stand down from his position for using the word coloured. He was forced to stand down from a powerful position because the mistakes he kept making showed he was not fit to do the role.

mistakes?

you place too much emphasis on words, not deeds. What if he was the best person for the job? what if the FA made great strides in diversity under his stewardship? Is it better to have someone who wants to make real change for the better, but isn't up to date with the current terminology, or is it better to have someone who is woke but hasn't a clue about how to make change happen?

I've said it before, we're in danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater if we get upset over every single thing.

[Feedback]

If we took this attitude we wouldn't get to a place where these laws became a thing.

I don't believe you. The laws have been in place for quite a while yet its only recently that we've encountered the triggered lot.

[Croesy Blue]

I don't believe you. The laws have been in place for quite a while yet its only recently that we've encountered the triggered lot.

No it isn't it's just they've only just been started to be called this by the disingenous lot who are trying to undermine progress.

You don't need to believe me, that's why these things became laws, it's all written down in black and white.

[Croesy Blue]

you've misunderstood. Back in the 16th century, Galileo was the one with the extreme viewpoint, yet here we are, 500 years later, understanding he was correct. Society ebbs and flows and we cannot say for sure who should be the arbiter of what is and is not socially correct.

mistakes?

you place too much emphasis on words, not deeds. What if he was the best person for the job? what if the FA made great strides in diversity under his stewardship? Is it better to have someone who wants to make real change for the better, but isn't up to date with the current terminology, or is it better to have someone who is woke but hasn't a clue about how to make change happen?

I've said it before, we're in danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater if we get upset over every single thing.

I can accept your point on him tbh, I can also understand why he thought it was necessary to step down.

I don't think the people I'm talking about needing to shout down are in the same league, I'm talking about genuine racists/sexists/homophobes etc.

He was just a bit a berk , I can understand both points of view on his resignation.