I'm starting more and more to question the purpose of the discussions 'upstairs'. Personally, I think the negativity of the vessel of adversarial debate is very unhealthy for me, and I'm more and more inclined to decide to stay away from those discussions.
Any thoughts?
BTW> Howard has some ideas on 'adversarial debate':
What I'm observing really (and I could be mistaken) is that from where I'm sitting you have a choice:
You can either stay away from those discussions upstairs and remain in this mode of 'the negativity of the vessel of adversarial debate' (nice wordplay btw) and how unhealthy it is for you, or, you can face yourself and investigate the unhealthy negative vessel that drives *you* in *your* debating style.
You cannot change what you do not acknowledge. You cannot change others, you can only show them who *you* are.
Up until now *you* were someone who allowed the 'negativity of the vessel of adversarial debate' to be this much of an unhealthy factor in your life. Is this what you will continue to create Wobbe, or will you thankfully grasp the reflection that the people in those discussions are (unknowingly) mirroring to you?
Will you be defeated and disappear with your tail between your legs or will you remember and grow as an individual and *truly* rise above, instead of just pretending to?
If I'm wrong I'm happy to admit it but this is the truth as I see it... if it's not what you wanted to hear then I'm sorry
Posts: 1927 | Location: pending | Registered: 18 December 2004
Miles, if I were you I wouldn't back away from these discussions. You always have something to add to them.
I agree with Howard too on the fultility of the adversarial debating style. It's really like the conversational equivalent of the peace movement. You can't articulate peace if you are red in the face and shouting No one will take you seriously nomatter how valid and important the point you are trying to make.
Still ... debating with some folks here is a challenging experience and not always pleasant and there are times when I feel like throwing in the odd expletive laden tirade .
I find it a constant excercise to measure my responses to minimise hurt or anger and I'm sure I fail on many occasions. Still .... nobody's perfect and I think the constant 'reviewing' of yourself isn't a bad dicipline to maintain
When the world is run by fools it is the duty of intelligence to disobey
Posts: 1723 | Location: Perth, Australia | Registered: 02 August 2001
Kenny, I posted the following on the Abortion Thread, I think it sums up nicely why I feel I DON'T add to that particular debate.
quote:
GG,
Please forgive my sometimes rather confrontational style. I'm merely trying to get a point across I believe in dearly, and it's difficult for me to see you don't get it, nor WANT to get it.
I think what you need to understand is that this is not working. You're not accomplishing anything, and that's because of the nature of adversarial debate. You try to put forth your beliefs in opposition of the beliefs of others. That will never work.
This is why you are not in fact defending unborn life, or fighting for the rights of hte unborn, or whatever else you think you are doing here. You THINK you are doing good things, and you WANT to, but you're not. All you're doing is affirm, with each word, the bipartition between YOUR beliefs and those of the people you choose to oppose. In that sense, you in fact help to strengthen a situation you claim to oppose.
You probably don't understand what I just said, nor do I expect you to try to. That's fine too, no matter how sad (and believe me when I tell you that sadness is all I can fell about this).
MY problem with this is that I desperately want to make this clear to you, and I can't. That leads us into an impasse, neither of us is willing to walk away from (hence the obscene length of this thread).
I guess, though, in order to break the vicious cycle, someone has to ... in a way my retreat is your redemption. Not that you would understand any of this. On how many levels is that ironic?
Godspeed, GG.
<Miles>
Posted
I've been contemplating this some more, and I dug up this:
quote:
[...] I operate several Forums for the Internet which provide an income for me and those who help run them, and a meeting place and community for tens of thousends of people around the world. The "place" of these communities is totally virtual: the ADD Forum and the New Age Living Forum, for example, exist only as electronic impulses on the Internet, yet we have members on six continents. We know each other intimately, share our joys and failures, mourn our members who are lost to misfortune or disease, and celebrate those who experience successes in their lives. We've had several people marry after meeting on-line, and one of our closest friends and fellow Sysops, J.B. Whitwell, recently died of lung cancer, causing a globe-spanning spasm of grief in our cyber-world.
(taken from my 1999 copy of The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight, which by the way, I have labelled 'Review Copy' and placed one the reading table in the institute where I work; it has since disappeared.)
I feel I need to move towards helping strengthen the community (!), and I feel that whatever way I choose to communicate on this forum should be in service of that goal. And so far, this has NOT been my primary interest.
In many ways, we all must admit that adversarial debating serves only the purpose of confirming our own beliefs.
No one (or very few anyway) comes to these forums to alter their own views. Rather, they come to feel powerful about their own views (and if they convince others, all the better).
I really came to terms with this when I attempted the book exchange. Only two of us volunteered for it, and neither of us approached the other any differently after reading each other's suggestions. I wasn't hoping to change anyone's mind, but I was hoping that more understanding and respect for other would result. It didn't.
The real problem I have now is not that people have differing views that can't be changed, but that too often actual facts and reality are ignored by those too committed to certain opinions. And make no mistake about it, every single one of us is guilty of that.
There is also the issue of control. I believe this is where GG sits. She has perfected the art of response elicitation. Anyone still on that thread is a sucker; is puddy in her hands. She doesn't care if anyone agrees with her, she just cares if enough people keep reacting to give her soap box validity and thus create a channel for propaganda.
by "other side" I meant other side of the screen. That is, the other people posting are humans.
It really wasn't a jab at you in particular, and I'm sorry if it came off that way. And in fact this serves to demonstrate my point. We don't get the full experience of the other people posting, just their written word. Without hearing the voice, or seeing facial expressions and body movement, etc., it's not only easy to misunderstand the communication, it's easy to respond to it as if there aren't feelings to be hurt.
Individuals are legally responsible for their views. Messages or parts of messages may be quoted or read on the radio, or reprinted in Thom's books and other materials.
