Open letter to all Gners

I did read it, gg and I also read jas post, which did not construe or misconstrue anything, merely point out an interesting view, and warn those who are inclined to take offence that they might be "hurt". If YOU want to constue or misconstue the article, that is up to you.

The most relevant part is
^"If “Everyone’s entitled to their opinion” just means no-one has the right to stop people thinking and saying whatever they want, then the statement is true, but fairly trivial. No one can stop you saying that vaccines cause autism, no matter how many times that claim has been disproven.

But if ‘entitled to an opinion’ means ‘entitled to have your views treated as serious candidates for the truth’ then it’s pretty clearly false. And this too is a distinction that tends to get blurred."^

There is also a distinction between being hurt by something which directly affects you and being "offended" by something which doesn't. I find dog-dirt in the street offensive, but I am not hurt and upset by it. Builder's bums are another example, they are not the most beautiful sight, but I am not going to take a fit of the vapours at them.

Some of the things that posters have the vapours over are just not worth it!! Note that I say SOME not all. I am all for being annoyed (not offended) for genuine reasons, but being annoyed on behalf of the one person in 10,000 who might, just possibly, if they are feeling a bit fragile, be hurt at the mention of them being perceived as optimistic or pessimistic depending on their opinion on the EU is, frankly, ridiculous.

And now I am off to B&Q (by bus and then tram, it will take me at least 3/4 of an hour each way) to get a 2-way splitter connection for my outside tap, so that I can spray the garden without disconnecting my greenhouse watering system to swap over the hoses and getting a free shower as a bonus. OK in a heat wave but that seems to be almost over.

Have fun being fractious offended at pinpricks.

Actually, thinking about it, the GNr who contacted HQ had a very good point. Anyone skimming the boards and seeing a thread with the title "Bloody immigrants" could well get the wrong impression of Gransnet. Perhaps the OP could have just 'sucked it up' quietly? Even taken the message on board.

Sorry. Just thinking aloud really.

...on the "Gardening" thread?

I'm not posting a great deal these days jenty. And I know I really shouldn't be prolonging this thread. It's just that it's dawning on me that the 'reporting' GNr has had a raw deal. I don't like that.

I'm not sure people always notice which forum a post is on.

Similar to your 'burkha' thread some while ago, eh, jingl?

I can't remember that!!!

This thread is getting absolutely ridiculous as was the complaint about the thread that prompted it.

For goodness sake, anyone skimming GN who gets the wrong impression from that thread title deserves to miss out on our words of wisdom because they are being far too judgmental by half. As are lots of posters on here at the moment. I'm getting really p****d off with all the back biting on here these days. There is hardly a thread without someone having a dig at someone else (with the honourable exception of *Soop's Kitchen*)

There are real things happening in the world. Nebulous sleights on a flipping forum are just plain stupid so people should get over themselves. Whatever happened to kindness, benefit of the doubt etc!

Don't believe it. It was an arresting title and I did do a double take. I then read on and before the denouement I had taken on board it was a joke. Anyone reading thst title would of course have read on but someone decided for some self-righteous reason to report the thread fotr its title. Good on G&T/Pompa for his levity but 12 pages on this is ridiculous frankly. And as we don't know the identity of the Gnetter why worry about how h/she might be feeling.

Kitty, I was replying to jbf at 11.58.

Well, on the whole, I think it was a rubbish title to give a thread, given the current climate in the world today. But perhaps I have begun to overthink it.

Back to the

I'm starting to think that GNHQ should put a time limit on threads, the longer a thread goes on the more bitter it gets

Agreed. Time to call it a day(s)

jbf

GNHQ could do more to calm down some of the threads but it is in their interests to keep debates lively. Lots of newspaper articles can be generated from forums like this.

Bellanonna

jings, just because the 'reporter' of the bloody immigrant title did not get what they wanted (I'm presuming they asked that the title be changed because they thought it offensive, or something like that), does not mean that they got a raw deal. A raw deal would mean that they weren't listened to (they were), and that their point of view wasn't taken into account (it was), it's just that, in the end, after due consideration, HQ decided that it was not necessary to change the thread title because it had not been used in an offensive way (i.e. to intentionally offend people).

Perhaps I should say HQ judged it not to have been used in that way.

Or so it would appear from the result.

I believe that GNHQ listened to the reporter, ask my view, looked at the views online and made a balanced judgement.

Elegran, the conclusion of the article was:

"This response confuses not having your views taken seriously with not being allowed to hold or express those views at all – or to borrow a phrase from Andrew Brown, it “confuses losing an argument with losing the right to argue.” Again, two senses of “entitlement” to an opinion are being conflated here."

When you look back at the "support" thread from which some tried to ban anyone of an opposing view to theirs, it is easy to see that there are those on this forum who do conflate to believe that loosing the argument with losing the right to argue as evidenced by the idea that others disagreeing with their argument elsewhere was not "fair".

Stokes says that “I’m entitled to my opinion” becomes shorthand to “I can say or think whatever I like” – and by extension, continuing to argue is somehow disrespectful. That is exactly what the group wanting that thread and repeating the "unfairness" argument elsewhere are doing. They rarely evidence their opinions but expect them to be treated as fact. It seems from a recent post by "roses" that they also totally dismiss their own personal derogatory remarks but see debating their unsubstantiated opinions to be, as Stokes describes it, disrespectful.

No one on here loses the right to argue but the may lose the argument. Flouncing off to set up a separate thread is, just as Stokes says, a confusion between not having your views taken seriously and not being allowed to hold or express those views.

the belief not to believe

It could also mean GG, that the Op is interested in finding out if there is any support for their opinion which appears to be different from others - sort of testing the water. I think it is important that people have the freedom to think and feel the way they do.

I suspect (though I have no idea!) that the person who reported G&T's thread did do because of a (virtual) personality clash - it is strange that, unless I missed it, no-one has owned up and defended their decision to report - that makes it a malicious post in my view - and very cowardly.

And I don't beieve that obieone 'flounced off to set up a separate thread' as you put it, Gracesgran.

Her motives seem to have been self-explanatory - it was meant to be a helpful move, although it backfired spectacularly in the end of course...

I do apologise - wrong thread and OP!

I have lost the plot entirely, it seems...