Jump to content

New Manager


faraway saint

Recommended Posts

54 minutes ago, St.Ricky said:

Re your last sentence, Not at all,  and I think you know that already. 

I do think that common decency seems to be less common online than off it. 

Whatever the reasons, I don't see being on a forum as a place where people gravitate towards the bottom end of human behavior.

Consideration for others is fundemental to any group... As is free speech.  

 

Freedom of speech is considerably more important than consideration for the weak characters of others. People have fought and died for the former and will do so again. Political correctness directly caused the rise of UKIP and landed an apparently mentally unhinged  bonehead in the White House. It should be fought with everywhere it raises its rancid head.

Tiptoeing around people in case their fragile minds can't cope with any form of hardship should be well down the list of priorities in comparison. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Just now, oaksoft said:

Freedom of speech is considerably more important than consideration for the weak characters of others. People have fought and died for the former and will do so again. Political correctness directly caused the rise of UKIP and landed an apparently mentally unhinged  bonehead in the White House. It should be fought with everywhere it raises its rancid head.

Tiptoeing around people in case their fragile minds can't cope with any form of hardship should be well down the list of priorities in comparison. 

I don't see these as incompatible. I do see them both as a sign of a civilized society. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, St.Ricky said:

I don't see these as incompatible. I do see them both as a sign of a civilized society. 

There is no such thing as "civilised society".

The only thing holding  society together is social pressure and societal norms.

Allow the cloak of anonymity and you see people for what they really are: absolute bastards.

When you see online abuse, dog shit and litter all over the streets and arsehole  behaviour in cars, you are not seeing people allowing good behaviour to slip, you are seeing people in their natural state.

For extreme examples, look at Nazi Germany and the behaviours of UK and US soldiers in Iraq and the latter in Vietnam to see what can happen when social norms shift and certain actions are allowed and encouraged.

 

Edited by oaksoft
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, oaksoft said:

There is no such thing as "civilised society".

The only thing holding  society together is social pressure.

Allow the cloak of anonimity and tou see people for what they really are: absolute bastards.

Gosh.. You have a lot in common with the late Margaret Thatcher.

I take a different view,  one more in line with your other stated position,  that things continue to improve as time progresses. 

Are there people who disappoint?  Of course and there will continue to be. 

That's no reason to sink to the lowest common denominator or taste or behaviour,  on or off line. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, St.Ricky said:

Gosh.. You have a lot in common with the late Margaret Thatcher.

I take a different view,  one more in line with your other stated position,  that things continue to improve as time progresses. 

Are there people who disappoint?  Of course and there will continue to be. 

That's no reason to sink to the lowest common denominator or taste or behaviour,  on or off line. 

Yes the behaviours of Hitler and the bulk of the entire German nation were "disappointing". That is EXACTLY the word to use. :lol:

You are welcome to take whatever view you want but you are fighting against millenia of evidence to the contrary.

Is it denial or are you uneducated in human history?

Edited by oaksoft
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, oaksoft said:

You are welco e to take whatever view you want but you are figthing against millenia of evidence to the contrary.

Is it denial or are you uneducated in human history?

I am of course both. 

Actually......The truth is that we take different views.  That's OK. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, St.Ricky said:

I am of course both. 

Actually......The truth is that we take different views.  That's OK. 

You are certainly give the impression of the latter, which is a serious impediment to a decent discussion.

Oh and of course it's OK for us to have different views. Where have I ever said otherwise?

Edited by oaksoft
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, oaksoft said:

You are certainly the latter.

Oh and of course it's OK for us to have different views. Where have I ever said otherwise?

Again... in your opinion.. I feel no need to attempt to rise to your very obvious barbs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, St.Ricky said:

Again... in your opinion.. I feel no need to attempt to rise to your very obvious barbs. 

Well of COURSE it is in my opinion.

What an odd thing to feel the need to say. :blink:

Edited by oaksoft
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are certainly give the impression of the latter, which is a serious impediment to a decent discussion.

Oh and of course it's OK for us to have different views. Where have I ever said otherwise?

How about where someone said that a post, in their opinion, was something and you told that person that they were a simpleton for thinking like that (or lots...and lots...and lots...of words to that effect)? Does that count as somewhere you've said otherwise?

 

Asking for a friend. Look it up, it's nice to have a friend.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, salmonbuddie said:

How about where someone said that a post, in their opinion, was something and you told that person that they were a simpleton for thinking like that (or lots...and lots...and lots...of words to that effect)? Does that count as somewhere you've said otherwise?

 

Asking for a friend. Look it up, it's nice to have a friend.

 

Sorry I fell asleep 3 words into reading your post.

I had a nice dream about unicorns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, oaksoft said:

There is no such thing as "civilised society".

The only thing holding  society together is social pressure and societal norms.

Allow the cloak of anonymity and you see people for what they really are: absolute bastards.

When you see online abuse, dog shit and litter all over the streets and arsehole  behaviour in cars, you are not seeing people allowing good behaviour to slip, you are seeing people in their natural state.

For extreme examples, look at Nazi Germany and the behaviours of UK and US soldiers in Iraq and the latter in Vietnam to see what can happen when social norms shift and certain actions are allowed and encouraged.

Meh, on this point I'm with Ricky. I think people generally have good intentions but flaws in human nature are what causes problems. I don't believe at all that the default position for most is to be an absolute bastard. Even taking the examples you cite, most people in Germany at the time of the rise of the Nazi Party believed that they would bring discipline and order, work and prosperity and a sense of national pride. Propaganda that worked on peoples prejudices and beliefs that Jews in the establishment had lost them the Great War and brought poverty through the reparations turned Germans anti Semitic. Germans weren't, on the whole, intrinsically evil people - that's why that period in history is so important as it shows the power of unchecked propaganda. 

I think your example of soldiers fighting in wars is just incorrect. For a start in both situations the reasons our troops were out there was because our democratically elected government took the opinion that we were the greater good rescuing people who wanted to be rescued from tyranny. The Vietcong committed many atrocities, not just against our soldiers but also against the Vietnamese families we were out there to help. Many of these soldiers would have borne witness to those atrocities  and their instinct and motive would have been for anger and revenge. Unfortunately, as often happens in war zones, it often wasn't targeted at the right people. The same applies to Iraq. Soldiers weren't fighting those battles of their own accord, rather at the direction of our democratically elected governments whose intention, whether right or wrong, was to stop a tyrannical dictator from using weapons of mass destruction, not just against other countries in the world, but also against his own people as he had done many times in the past. Once you put people into war it becomes a story of self preservation - kill or be killed. To expect soldiers to follow societies norms whilst on the battlefield against an enemy who doesn't give a f**k about your rules is quite a bizarre idea.

Edited by StuD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...