- Joined
- Apr 30, 2005
- Messages
- 34,375
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2012
- Messages
- 7,329
In very general terms, I agree with the principle of ignoring online content that you don't like. If I find a website unpleasant, I don't go to it. But Hangout is meant to be for everyone, I really like it, and it was flooded with politics and all the attendant nastiness, which you mostly didn't realize was there until you were reading it in a given thread. You'd be innocently reading along, interested in the content, and then it would all blow up.
Considering that this was the case almost across the board for those threads, and that those threads dominated, I think saying "just ignore" is not a reasonable solution. A previously balanced place had become completely unbalanced.
Imagine if Hangout was completely taken over by, say, discussions about religion. Imagine that the home page of Hangout was almost nothing but religious discussion, and every time you tried to take an interest, in case you could learn something, you got a load of unpleasantness across the eyeballs. And that the atmosphere was so toxic that Hangout became almost nothing but toxic religious fighting. You wouldn't like it! I bet the people who are saying "oh, just ignore it" wouldn't have ignored that!
(You in the sentence above means anyone who felt that the amount of politics and unpleasantness taking over Hangout was just fine and that others should just ignore the dominant toxicity.)
So. Let me ask posters this: If it's OK for Hangout to be dominated by political threads which often turned toxic, and those who didn't like it were welcome to just ignore it, presumably you would be OK with religious discussions flooding the place and being mostly toxic? To log on and see 80% religious threads? That should be fine, right? After all, you can just ignore all of it.
Since you'd be fine with that, I see no reason why religious discussion shouldn't be allowed. Politics has had its turn, after all. Just ignore if it you don't like it. You wouldn't have to look at it. You can start your own threads on different topics. The religious threads would be easy to identify. And ignoring things you don't like is good for you. If they take over 80% of Hangout, so much the better. It will build your ability to deal with the internet.
Of course, I don't really think we should have religious discussion. I was illustrating a point: That those saying the rest of us should have just ignored the nightmare that Hangout had become are operating from a self-serving viewpoint, the motive being that they want the political discussions back and don't like it that they were banned. And I can understand that - it's a disappointment. But those same people would be screaming blue murder if the exact same thing had happened with religion. Total double standard.
Hangout had become a complete bonfire. I think that saying "just ignore it" is unreasonable and disingenuous. I would really love to see Hangout absolutely flooded with toxic religious discussions and see certain posters here be all "Oh, I don't mind. I can just ignore it. Zen." Like hell that would be the reaction!
But I'm going to assume that the "just ignore it" opinion is 100% sincere, and is not coming from the self-serving viewpoint that I mentioned above. If that's the case, then atheists and non-religious folk here should be A-OK with Hangout being flooded with religious threads. Because you can just ignore it, right?
Because you're good at ignoring it, as @missy and @OboeGal gal have claimed. You will ignore it and start your own threads and never look at the religious ones, like @Matata suggested, and any resultant toxicity will not interfere with your Hangout experience, even if it becomes 80% fighting over religion.
Right?
ETA: Why can't posters who are very disappointed about politics being discontinued just admit that, instead of telling others that they should ignore something that they themselves would find unacceptable if the tables were turned? My point is that it's dishonest, dominating, rude, and unfair to say "just ignore it" when you know you would never have put up with the same thing with religion. Why is it OK for me, and posters like me, to be expected to put up with something that you (politicos) would never have put up with?
I am sorry for people who are passionate about politics that one of their favorite things got banned. I really am. They were probably enjoying it, and it must be very disappointing not to be able to have those discussions with people they know and are used to conversing with. It's probably not the same doing so with strangers on other sites. I'm sorry that a source of pleasure was taken away.
But I think we can all agree that it got out of hand, and as Kenny said, this is why we can't have nice things. But I would appreciate the honesty of people admitting their terrible disappointment, instead of essentially being told that I and other non-political posters should have just put up with what Hangout had become.
Sorry for the essay.
Considering that this was the case almost across the board for those threads, and that those threads dominated, I think saying "just ignore" is not a reasonable solution. A previously balanced place had become completely unbalanced.
Imagine if Hangout was completely taken over by, say, discussions about religion. Imagine that the home page of Hangout was almost nothing but religious discussion, and every time you tried to take an interest, in case you could learn something, you got a load of unpleasantness across the eyeballs. And that the atmosphere was so toxic that Hangout became almost nothing but toxic religious fighting. You wouldn't like it! I bet the people who are saying "oh, just ignore it" wouldn't have ignored that!
(You in the sentence above means anyone who felt that the amount of politics and unpleasantness taking over Hangout was just fine and that others should just ignore the dominant toxicity.)
So. Let me ask posters this: If it's OK for Hangout to be dominated by political threads which often turned toxic, and those who didn't like it were welcome to just ignore it, presumably you would be OK with religious discussions flooding the place and being mostly toxic? To log on and see 80% religious threads? That should be fine, right? After all, you can just ignore all of it.
Since you'd be fine with that, I see no reason why religious discussion shouldn't be allowed. Politics has had its turn, after all. Just ignore if it you don't like it. You wouldn't have to look at it. You can start your own threads on different topics. The religious threads would be easy to identify. And ignoring things you don't like is good for you. If they take over 80% of Hangout, so much the better. It will build your ability to deal with the internet.
Of course, I don't really think we should have religious discussion. I was illustrating a point: That those saying the rest of us should have just ignored the nightmare that Hangout had become are operating from a self-serving viewpoint, the motive being that they want the political discussions back and don't like it that they were banned. And I can understand that - it's a disappointment. But those same people would be screaming blue murder if the exact same thing had happened with religion. Total double standard.
Hangout had become a complete bonfire. I think that saying "just ignore it" is unreasonable and disingenuous. I would really love to see Hangout absolutely flooded with toxic religious discussions and see certain posters here be all "Oh, I don't mind. I can just ignore it. Zen." Like hell that would be the reaction!
But I'm going to assume that the "just ignore it" opinion is 100% sincere, and is not coming from the self-serving viewpoint that I mentioned above. If that's the case, then atheists and non-religious folk here should be A-OK with Hangout being flooded with religious threads. Because you can just ignore it, right?
Because you're good at ignoring it, as @missy and @OboeGal gal have claimed. You will ignore it and start your own threads and never look at the religious ones, like @Matata suggested, and any resultant toxicity will not interfere with your Hangout experience, even if it becomes 80% fighting over religion.
Right?
ETA: Why can't posters who are very disappointed about politics being discontinued just admit that, instead of telling others that they should ignore something that they themselves would find unacceptable if the tables were turned? My point is that it's dishonest, dominating, rude, and unfair to say "just ignore it" when you know you would never have put up with the same thing with religion. Why is it OK for me, and posters like me, to be expected to put up with something that you (politicos) would never have put up with?
I am sorry for people who are passionate about politics that one of their favorite things got banned. I really am. They were probably enjoying it, and it must be very disappointing not to be able to have those discussions with people they know and are used to conversing with. It's probably not the same doing so with strangers on other sites. I'm sorry that a source of pleasure was taken away.
But I think we can all agree that it got out of hand, and as Kenny said, this is why we can't have nice things. But I would appreciate the honesty of people admitting their terrible disappointment, instead of essentially being told that I and other non-political posters should have just put up with what Hangout had become.
Sorry for the essay.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2005
- Messages
- 34,375
I'd be fine with that.
I love discussing religion.
I'm curious though, why do you pick religion to make your point?
Do you think religion is somehow sacred, taboo, or something?
IMO when it comes to controversial topics on Hangout (and there are many) all topics are the equal.
Controversial topics are inherently interesting topics to discuss.
I say, let's increase the traffic on PS, increase the eyeball count, increase PS's advertising revenue and diamond sales.
A Win Win for everyone.
Last edited:
Demon
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2009
- Messages
- 1,830
My memory could be faulty, but I don't remember Hangout ever having been completely dominated by political threads. Two or three (maybe even 4) threads at a time is what I remember. But honestly, it would not bother me one bit to have religious threads here. I'm an atheist with 0 interest in religion, and I would just pass those threads by and find something I was interested in. And if for some reason I did open one of those threads and found it toxic, I would just close the thread.
Kenny. When I first joined Pricescope, someone was having a difficult time with something outside of their control, and I wrote, "Blah blah blah., this isn't your fault...you are being tested." It was late and I was tired. Had I not been, I would have finished the sentence, which was meant to be, "You are being tested by circumstance." It literally never occurred to me that "test" could have been taken in a religious sense. In my religion, there is no sense that any higher being tests us.
So imagine my utter surprise, Kenny, when you started a furious thread that same night, under my thread, entitled "Don't tell me it's a test!" and proceeded to go off on a massive rant about people who post religious things.
Are you really sure that you can discuss religion and stay cool?
To answer your question, I picked religion because a) it's the other topic that's banned here and b) it's about equal to religion in its ability to get people raging. It seemed an appropriate comparison, given the well-known social maxim that politics and religion should be avoided at certain social gatherings.
Anyway, at least political enthusiasts were given a chance to take their favorite topic out of the garage for a spin. It's more than members who might have liked to discuss religion have had.
So imagine my utter surprise, Kenny, when you started a furious thread that same night, under my thread, entitled "Don't tell me it's a test!" and proceeded to go off on a massive rant about people who post religious things.
Are you really sure that you can discuss religion and stay cool?
To answer your question, I picked religion because a) it's the other topic that's banned here and b) it's about equal to religion in its ability to get people raging. It seemed an appropriate comparison, given the well-known social maxim that politics and religion should be avoided at certain social gatherings.
Anyway, at least political enthusiasts were given a chance to take their favorite topic out of the garage for a spin. It's more than members who might have liked to discuss religion have had.
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2005
- Messages
- 34,375
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2003
- Messages
- 9,648
Here's one thread where folks expressed their disappointment https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/political-and-contentious-discussion-ban.259351/. There are others whose titles I can't remember where the same occurred. Feel better?
You have painted a swath of posters with the broad brush of your assumptions about who would and wouldn't appreciate religious discussion here and what they would or wouldn't do in that scenario to fit the parameters of your opinion.
It's obviously a huge stick in your craw that some posters have the self-control to avoid stuff that causes them distress or that they can read stuff that causes them distress and move on without having a meltdown. You can keep beating a dead horse (hint: politics is gone), accept that some don't agree with you (and maybe take comfort that there are those who do agree with you even if they aren't participating in this discussion) or you can, oh, I dunno, just ignore the conversation because if you're looking for total agreement with your position or complete sympathy because you were adversely affected by discussions on this forum, I doubt you're going to be satisfied.
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2016
- Messages
- 12,160
I guess I just don’t understand why someone would give so much weight to what someone online thinks or says about them. If someone wants to say I am some crazy conspiracy theorist lunatic for some views I’ve shared, great….it’s not going to change who I am or what people close to me think about me.
Maybe it’s hard for some to not take things to heart or not take things personally and in a contentious topic like politics, the emotions run high at times, so those prone to being easily offended would have trouble there. Bottom line is you have to know when to walk away, if someone is spewing some nasty untruths, really at the end of the day it is an online forum, hit the sign out button and go take a walk.
Maybe it’s hard for some to not take things to heart or not take things personally and in a contentious topic like politics, the emotions run high at times, so those prone to being easily offended would have trouble there. Bottom line is you have to know when to walk away, if someone is spewing some nasty untruths, really at the end of the day it is an online forum, hit the sign out button and go take a walk.
Demon
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2009
- Messages
- 1,830
I just don't remember it that way. One of us could be wrong, or likely our perceptions of it may be skewed - yours because you didn't like the threads, or mine because I did like them. Without screenshots, we'll never be sure.
But my point was really that I have no problem scrolling past threads that I have no interest in, or shutting the thread if it bothers me in some way. Or putting people I find toxic on ignore.
That's probably got a lot to do with it!
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2003
- Messages
- 9,648
To you and those who agree with you. It doesn't mean that Hangout was unpleasant for everyone. See how that works? Two sides to a story, infinite layers to opinions.
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2005
- Messages
- 34,375
Thanks for mentioning that.
I call it taking responsibility for my views on X, as opposed to stating X is fact.
Well, I didn't say it was superior. Given that we can get time-outs, and that you've had some lengthy ones, the ability to stay cool while discussing hot topics confers an advantage here, no?
Well, yeah. I write my views and others write theirs. We could all start with a disclaimer that "The below is my opinion not fact," I guess. However, when writing opinions, it seems to me that the clue is in phrases like "I think" and "I don't really think" and "My point is..."
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2005
- Messages
- 34,375
Yes and no.
I do want to obey PS rules, mostly to minimize the hassle for Ella.
However I intend to always censor myself as little as possible.
I can't stand forums where everyone holds out their pinkies as they post nothing more upsetting than pics of puppies and kittens.
Stay cool?
Kenny?
No way.
I wish more people really spoke their minds here.
This place would be jumpin!
@kenny - further opinions about the "superiority" of staying cool - which, just to be clear, are my opinions and not fact and for which I take responsibility - I certainly wouldn't ever think that the ability to stay cool is a superior quality. I really, really don't like dividing people into inferior and superior. We all of us have our good and bad stripes. But I think that staying cool is a good plan because it encourages others to state their viewpoint, and then you have a greater chance of learning something. If you lose that cool - which would, to me, mean getting angry or sarcastic or what have you - then you risk sending the other person scuttling into their shell, and then you've lost the opportunity to hear a different viewpoint. In other words, it's more likely that others will feel relaxed enough to open up if you don't lose their cool with them. ETA: In my opinion, that is.
Last edited:
I wish more people really spoke their minds here.
This place would be jumpin!
I think you're in fantasyland there! I wish it were possible to really speak minds without the nastiness/sarcasm/baiting/complaints coming into play, but I think the experience of allowing political discussion here shows that that's a pipe dream. Like you said, we can't have nice things.
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2009
- Messages
- 27,486
@Queenie60 I don't know you personally but I've long thought that you, I, and @the_mother_thing are kindred spirits of a sort. I also suspect that we are of different ages, are different races, are from different cultures, and have very different backgrounds... Which makes our much-too-often-to-be-only-coincidence shared opinions on any number of topics that much more interesting.
You are welcome here.
And @the_mother_thing - who has also been absent for a long time, I hope things are well with her! She's been missed too.
@smitcompton Annette - Thank you for starting this thread. Lots of food for thought here.
You are welcome here.
And @the_mother_thing - who has also been absent for a long time, I hope things are well with her! She's been missed too.
@smitcompton Annette - Thank you for starting this thread. Lots of food for thought here.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2013
- Messages
- 13,463
You can blame all the snowflakes who ran to Ella, being rude and causing her extra work, for the fact that politics is no longer here. It certainly wasn't me - I stayed out of it all. I did mostly ignore it, although it was disappointing and unpleasant to read an interesting-sounding thread and then see it devolve, ruining a good discussion and a learning opportunity. Many of the people in this thread who really liked the politics are saying that they were cool with the whole shebang and that they just ignore what they don't like. Makes me wonder who did cause all the fuss. Maybe there's a silent majority.
MjK1
Shiny_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2021
- Messages
- 391
Please no! I love your opinions Daisy....no one should jump or pile on to any other member...not ever!
MjK1
Shiny_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2021
- Messages
- 391
Demon...please tell me is that a demantoid in your profile pic?
Past, Present, Future: The Meaning of Three-Stone Engagement Rings
Past, Present, Future: The Meaning of Three-Stone Engagement Rings - 04/14
300x240.png)