Open letter to all Gners

JbF It is an interesting article but it was written by a Lecturer in Philosophy at a university as an introduction to new students. I was surprised JA quoted it as it has nothing to do with people getting upset with personal remarks and all about constructing and defending an argument and to recognising when a belief has become indefensible. As I say interesting to me but I would think only a few (very few ) others.

FFS jinglbellsfrocks give it a rest!!!

It was practical who started the "Out Thread". I don't see any flouncing in her OP, just a desire for some support that might not have been appearing (to her) on other threads with the same referendum theme: what kitty said above.

It also seems to me that, having expressed their argument in favour of an unargumentative referendum thread that those, like me, who lost that argument then continued to contribute to the thread with an complete acceptance that they had lost the argument about having a non-argumentative referendum thread. I certainly did because I don't have a problem with losing a debate.
I can't remember the details, but I think I posted some links and some précis (what's the plural of précis?) of the links' arguments as if it was just another argumentative thread about the EU which, by then, it was.

Exactly!

I'm so glad it's not just me. It might be the sun but I developed brain fog as soon as I tried to read that article.

explain

But don't bother to plain! Please!!!

"Those who think they are entitled to not be offended and are easily 'hurt' had better not read this. Others may enjoy it"

I can't get my head round that bit of ja's post. Doesn't seem to make sense. Genuinely

Is anyone really reading all of this?!

Can't make head or tail of that article. Sounds crackers to me. [shrug] I don't know where people dig all that stuff up from.

This wasn't about the OP kittylester. The posts seemed to have wandered away from the original OP - as they do - and JA posted and linked to

www.iflscience.com/brain/no-youre-not-entitled-your-opinion/

The article was talking about people taking offence because their opinions are not taken seriously. Stokes, the author of the article says "You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to what you can argue for.” (That's the person JA quoted saying that not me)

It seemed to me the whole article that JA had quoted was about people not understanding debate or argument and being affronted when their "opinion" didn't win the argument. It also seemed to me that JA was using this to attack an entirely different group of people, "those who are offended and are easily 'hurt'" because of personal remarks.

I do not think this particular article does back this up.

Now, I can over explain to the nth degree if you keep asking me about it but I do think this has been done to death.

Oh no. Being pounced on and torn to bits by a mob of sarky GNrs isn't a raw deal is it? Lol!

Cba with this anymore.

It's hardly a surprise with all the stress Ana

I do apologise - wrong thread and OP!

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

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...

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.

the belief not to believe

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.

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

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

Or so it would appear from the result.

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).

Bellanonna

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.

jbf

Agreed. Time to call it a day(s)

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