| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tim Courtney writes:
> > Fair enough, but you can't dismiss the argument itself because of one
> > goofball's spew, nor can you hold anyone else responsible for his drivel.
> > I find his "discourse" objectionable not only because of its limited
> > content but also because of its counterproductive effect on the
> > discussion.
>
> Yup. But I also feel that this doesn't have a terribly big place on
> Lugnet
But it's an issue which comes up (naturally) from time to time -- and came
up in RTL several times -- and it *IS* related to LEGO. Anything related to
LEGO has a place here.
On the one hand, I agree that it doesn't have a terribly big place in the
.starwars group, since it's a themed discussion group to talk about toys
and not a debate group to talk about politics and racial issues. But on
the other hand, of all the themed discussion groups, no group comes closer
than .starwars, because of Lando, Mace Windu, etc.
> - I think its counterproductive to the group.
Even though this hobby is "just" about toys, these are real-life issues.
> We've seen one person taking one side of the issue go too far, and it
> would be a shame to see amything more heated come out of this.
I disagree, partially. I don't think that any resolution (acknowledging
opposite viewpoints, etc.) is going to come of this until it becomes even
a little more heated. As long as that happens in .off-topic.debate rather
than .starwars, things ought to be fine. It's too much pressure to stay
on-topic in the middle of a heated deabte in a themed discussion group, and
that's why .off-topic.debate exists -- people can tune out if debates upset
them too much. And if they're only upset mildly, at least they know that
the debate is taking place somewhere where debates are expected to occur.
> Lugnet is for being constructive,
Well, not all of it, no. There are areas specifically created for letting
off steam. Even the most constructive person needs to let off steam from
time to time, and rather than asking someone not to do it, we provide a
place to do it. Without that place -- that vent -- the regular groups would
be much more tense. For example, look back on the .robotics group archives
from 1-1/2 years ago -- there were several debates happening there through
the gatewayed external mailing list (lego-robotics@crynwr.com) and people on
that list weren't aware that lugnet.off-topic.debate existed. As more and
more people have migrated from the external list to lugnet.robotics, they've
become more aware of the other grous, and the robotics area has far fewer
arguments.
> and for providing constructive suggestions which hopefully TLC is reading.
I'm only aware of one or two groups specifically for that. 99% of the groups
are really for the community's sake and not for TLC's sake.
> Damien has provided suggestions, but they have been motivated by an agenda
> and are not constructive in the least.
I'm not sure meta-debate is helpful here. Just to echo that back, for
example, it almost seems that your sentence above was motivated by some
agenda...and was it really constructive?
Really, sometimes the best thing to in a debate is to step away. I stepped
away a copule weeks ago because it got beyond the level that I was willing
to participate in. Only stepping back in now (briefly) because some of it
seeped into .admin.general.
This is a small mess compared to some of the other debates that have happened
here in the past 2 years but, going forward, as long the icky stuff stays
contained to .off-topic.debate and remains calm and principled, how can
anyone complain? If you don't like it, don't read the group.
> [...]
> But I don't see a way to dismiss the rather offensive babbling that Damien
> has put forth recently. It was way out of line.
Well, try to remember that everything in life is relative. What you might
perceive as babbling or out-of-line is not necessarily babbling of out-of-
line to everyone else...especially not in .off-topic.debate.
> So, I'm here to listen,
Why? (Seriously!) I don't mean that in a disrespecful way. I just can't
understand why someone who's upset by a dead-horse debate would want to stay
and listen when they could be spending their time building, and I'd like to
understand that philosophy.
> but serioulsy, his comments really cheapen this debate, and add to my
> negative opinion of it. Its not something that I can really help - it
> just happens.
What I do in cases like this is walk away. There are plenty of other groups
here where people are talking about fun things.
--Todd
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Concerns with Racial Attitudes and Lego
|
| "Dave Schuler" <orrex@excite.com> wrote in message news:Fz54Kp.E62@lugnet.com... (...) broader (...) still (...) two (...) minifigs (...) do (...) Alright, I'm beginning to understand you now. (...) be (...) what (...) Yup. The issue of 'political (...) (24 years ago, 11-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
37 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
