Discussion and Argument

[Les is more]

David has hit on some points in the American Airlines thread that have been weighing heavily on my mind.

 

this forum was started reluctantly and it was meant as a place "to discuss," not drop ideological sound bites that did little more than polarize positions on the right and the left.

 

Maybe I just need to lower my standards/expectations about this place. I've long felt like you could have a genuine discussion here like few other places on the net. But we're losing ground in some key areas on that front

 

To my mind, a genuine discussion requires open minds and the desire to learn what other views exist out there. Too often, topics are being posted solely because they're controversial and the original poster is already deeply rooted in his position. Not only that but the aim seems to be to verbally knock down anyone who disagrees by attempting to make them look foolish or hit them with thinly veiled personal attacks.

 

The discussion is over before it starts if one starts it with one's mind pre-loaded and ready to shoot down any opposing views. I say discussion has nothing to do with the desire prove yourself right.

 

Argument can breed contempt but discussion can engender an appreciation for, not just the opinions we share, but for the possibility that exists when your purpose is to learn the minds of others, and not just to change them. One widens your world. The other narrows it.

 

That's my take on things and my way of suggesting that perhaps we have the chance to regain and retain the ability to discuss a variety of topics here.

[motorman587]

Isn't this what makes this country free. People have the right to say what they wish. If you do not like it then drive on. It is just an opinion. I had to learn that people on the net communicate differetly then when in person. Had to learn not to take it personal when folks do not like the answer.

[smiller]

I don't think it's so much a matter of being personally offended as personal insult is rarely intended, and we seem to do a pretty good job at de-escalating things when it does get a little warm. While we always have to be mindful of such things I don't think they're the primary issue we're dealing with here.

 

The real challenge is maintaining an open and inclusive discussion and I think that David's and Leslie's comments on that topic are both correct and abundantly clear. It's hard to define the limits and boundaries of a free discussion but most of us know it when we see it, and the same is true with soapboxing.

 

Perhaps most of us have been guilty of crossing the line on occasion but we need to try to maintain a constant vigilance against falling into ideological ruts or else, as David put it, the middle in the arguments will disappear and instead of an illuminating discussion we'll end up with talk radio, just like everywhere else on the Internet. That would be an enormous loss for everyone here.

[Mr_Ed]

Perhaps most of us have been guilty of crossing the line on occasion but we need to try to maintain a constant vigilance against falling into ideological ruts or else, as David put it, the middle in the arguments will disappear and instead of an illuminating discussion we'll end up with talk radio, just like everywhere else on the Internet. That would be an enormous loss for everyone here.

 

I know I crossed the line a time or two and I do regret that. I do however believe that that occasional error by myself and others hasn't gotten too far out of hand. This part of the board has certainly helped me learn a thing or two as well as learn a bit more about our community as a whole. I find value here. Those threads and topics that get tedious I simply ignore. I'm not sure anyone likes a guy on a soapbox.

[dewtwo]

I know I crossed the line a time or two and I do regret that. I do however believe that that occasional error by myself and others hasn't gotten too far out of hand. This part of the board has certainly helped me learn a thing or two as well as learn a bit more about our community as a whole. I find value here. Those threads and topics that get tedious I simply ignore. I'm not sure anyone likes a guy on a soapbox.

 

Very well said! I have the right to ignore any thread or any one, but I don't have a right to not be offended. As far as those on soapboxes, I don't care. If they are bothering me, I just go to the next thread. Besides, many of these topics are boring without a little banter now and then.

[David]

Thanks, Leslie. I hope I didn't step out of line with some of my statements. Reading back through them, I was obviously frustrated. I just think we're capable of so much more than predictable arguments. There are very smart and thoughtful people here, and I"m afraid some of them will just get tired of the sniping and leave.

[Les is more]

I didn't take your statements as out of line at all. It's a frustrating topic.

 

I'm hoping that we can come to a point of thoughtful discussion. It's not that there isn't any to be found. People do try. I just find that it's becoming the exception. I don't say that people shouldn't have opinions. I just don't think we should have such a death grip on those opinions that we forget to listen. This may be clumsily stated but I'm trying to get at the idea that we may have to suspend the insistence on being right in order to invite discussion. It seems to me that we stop growing when we cement our ideas about things into place and put the blinders on to the possibility of learning something new or at least considering that there are alternatives which may also have merit.

[SteveB]

I’m glad winter is over. Maybe we can move forward and just ride.

[hANNAbONE]

uH..wINTER ain't over...not 'round these parts, soldier.

[BeamieToo]

I once got a fortune cookie that said...

 

Learning is noble but teaching is devine !

 

There is a lot of talent on this forum with the opportunity to share tremendous insights among ourselves. I support Leslie in her well stated post that it's good to keep in mind that teaching and preaching are sometimes separated by a thin and fragile line. We don't always have to agree, it simply comes back to having a decent measure of respect.

[eddd]

Thanks Leslie for bring this into proper focus.

 

I think an occassional reminder of this type is a good thing. I also think it would be a good idea to post a link to this post when things get "heated".

[Francois_Dumas]

[Ken H.]

Isn't a rebuttal a valid type, element of, a discussion though?

[Marty Hill]

[StuGotz]

Les:

 

I need a (((((((((((((hug))))))))))))!!

 

 

[Matts_12GS]

Isn't a rebuttal a valid type, element of, a discussion though?

 

+2

[ashleybiker]

Nice post!

 

I read much more than I post and I have noticed many unfortunate exchanges.

 

It's hard to argue with a smile on a DB... true argument is much like an art form concerned with validity and soundness. Oratorical slugfests are rarely productive and almost never result in positive persuasion.

 

There is no need to avoid sensitive subjects (within the intended scope of this DB). It would be nice if the arguments included premises with a clearly presented standard (moral or other) followed by defensible facts and then reasonably deduced conclusion. Challenge the premises and not the person. We don't have to like a person or the argument... but we don't have to let them know we don't like it. Why the compulsion to express flamers? It is quite awkward.

[steveknapp]

Isn't a rebuttal a valid type, element of, a discussion though?

 

Ken, right now you're #1! "Posts: 11111" Congrats!

 

I'd agree with you that a rebuttal is key to a discussion.

 

But where I see the discussions failing is when people aren't opening ones minds to an alternate perspective.

 

It's not a discussion if you come to the table with your mind already made up.

[smiller]

It's not a discussion if you come to the table with your mind already made up.

Yes, particularly when a thread is initiated. If one starts a thread with a genuine interest in hearing various opinions on a topic then that constitutes a discussion. If one has a resolute and immutable opinion prior to starting a thread then that constitutes a soapbox.

[Couchrocket]

Yes, it is. But I think the thrust of Les' and David's comments goes more toward tone and civility. On the net we lack the gifts of body language, tone of voice, and other visual and auditory cues that put context to discussion.

 

In a place like this one, having our mental frame of reference be one that defaults to an attitude of kindness and and assuming the "best intent" of posters and responders is a good way to proceed. It helps make up for the gaps in context that more traditional forms of communication provide.

 

I also think that one doesn't need to be completely open minded (in the modern use of that word) to enter into, learn from, and contribute successfully to a discussion. I often come into discussions with a position that is firm, based on 60+ years of living, experiencing, study, etc. and know in my "gut" that my mind will not be changed. But that doesn't mean that there's nothing I can learn from the discussion, or that there's nothing I can contribute. I think it was Ogden Nash who warned against having such an open mind that one's brains are in danger of falling out. It is always interesting and instructive to know why someone holds a position, even if we know that we could never hold that position. There's learning in that -- unless of course, our original intent is to "win" and not to "discuss."

 

I also believe that there can be lively discussion and even debate that is civil, fun, and stimulating -- both for those who directly participate, and those observing the discussion.

 

It really is about kindness, and open-ness of spirit (more even perhaps than of openness of mind), that makes the difference between a discussion and a contest.

 

 

Isn't a rebuttal a valid type, element of, a discussion though?

[Twisties]

Thanks Leslie for addressing the issue.

 

I think there are several keys one should ask oneself before posting in controversial thread:

 

1. Signal, or noise? Will my post bring up a new point of view, or are am I piling on? If it's to be a true discussion, you should strive to at least add nuance to that already said. Better if you break new ground.

 

2. Perspective? Do I have a complete view of the thread? Often when a thread goes on for days and you've viewed bits and pieces at a time, or has been read quickly, things seem stronger than if you reread the whole thread carefully. A corollary to this is the idea that it pays to wait and post after you've completely caught up on a thread, rather than to respond the moment you see something that catches your eye. I take notes of points I want to respond to so I don't lose my thoughts, but most often by the time I get to the end, I find I have something different to say.

 

3. Consideration? Have I fully considered the issue, or is this my first, and heated response? Sometimes I write and erase for days before I post. Sometimes I write in Word, and save, and edit, for days before I post. It may be that the result of this is more powerful than what I would have originally said, maybe it has whole different point of view, or maybe I don't post at all. Sometimes I go ahead and post my first thought, but not typically when the issue is complex.

 

4. Complexity. Personally, this is my greatest downfall. I need to ask myself if my response is focussed and brief. Long complex responses with involved analysis may be thorough, enlightening and accurate, but all that is of no use what-so-ever if the reader doesn't read it all, misses several points, or simply can't respond to all that has been brought up. Keep it short and sweet.

 

That reminds me, this post is already way too long, I told you, it's my downfall. Well that's my advice, or opinion, or whatever. It's what I had been trying to do on controversial topics, before I decided to give up on them altogether for the time being.

 

Jan

[Couchrocket]

Very well said (if a bit long )!

 

Thanks Leslie for addressing the issue.

 

I think there are several keys one should ask oneself before posting in controversial thread:

 

1. Signal, or noise? Will my post bring up a new point of view, or are am I piling on? If it's to be a true discussion, you should strive to at least add nuance to that already said. Better if you break new ground.

 

2. Perspective? Do I have a complete view of the thread? Often when a thread goes on for days and you've viewed bits and pieces at a time, or has been read quickly, things seem stronger than if you reread the whole thread carefully. A corollary to this is the idea that it pays to wait and post after you've completely caught up on a thread, rather than to respond the moment you see something that catches your eye. I take notes of points I want to respond to so I don't lose my thoughts, but most often by the time I get to the end, I find I have something different to say.

 

3. Consideration? Have I fully considered the issue, or is this my first, and heated response? Sometimes I write and erase for days before I post. Sometimes I write in Word, and save, and edit, for days before I post. It may be that the result of this is more powerful than what I would have originally said, maybe it has whole different point of view, or maybe I don't post at all. Sometimes I go ahead and post my first thought, but not typically when the issue is complex.

 

4. Complexity. Personally, this is my greatest downfall. I need to ask myself if my response is focussed and brief. Long complex responses with involved analysis may be thorough, enlightening and accurate, but all that is of no use what-so-ever if the reader doesn't read it all, misses several points, or simply can't respond to all that has been brought up. Keep it short and sweet.

 

That reminds me, this post is already way too long, I told you, it's my downfall. Well that's my advice, or opinion, or whatever. It's what I had been trying to do on controversial topics, before I decided to give up on them altogether for the time being.

 

Jan

[steveknapp]

I also think that one doesn't need to be completely open minded (in the modern use of that word) to enter into, learn from, and contribute successfully to a discussion. I often come into discussions with a position that is firm, based on 60+ years of living, experiencing, study, etc. and know in my "gut" that my mind will not be changed. But that doesn't mean that there's nothing I can learn from the discussion, or that there's nothing I can contribute. I think it was Ogden Nash who warned against having such an open mind that one's brains are in danger of falling out. It is always interesting and instructive to know why someone holds a position, even if we know that we could never hold that position. There's learning in that -- unless of course, our original intent is to "win" and not to "discuss."

 

With just over half the years in my brain I've not found any absolutes. There are some things I'm pretty sure of, but I *try* to always re validate my opinions when they come into question.

 

It's like broccoli. Hate the stuff. I'm told it is good for me. So I try it now and then. I try cooking it different ways. I never really like it. I keep trying, but never plan on it being a huge part of my meal. Never broccoli, but other foods have come off the "do not eat" list this way.

 

Does that make sense?

 

In a place like this one, having our mental frame of reference be one that defaults to an attitude of kindness and and assuming the "best intent" of posters and responders is a good way to proceed.

 

Agreed. Tho there are some discussions here that I really don't think would happen face to face.

[Lawman]

Steve,

You really need to open up and realize all that broccoli has to offer..

[steveknapp]

Steve,

You really need to open up and realize all that broccoli has to offer..

 

Or I could try to convince myself that bacon has all the same health benefits.

[Couchrocket]

Does that make sense?

 

 

Sure does. And assists in making an important point. I do like broccoli and cannot imagine someone who doesn't -- continuing to eat something they don't like when there are alternatives available that they do like. And, I believe that there are some absolutes, but that doesn't mean we cannot have a meaningful discussion. Even if neither of us changes positions. My learning more about why you would keep eating broccoli might teach me something that I might be able to apply in other areas of my life, even if I continue in my position of not understanding someone who would eat something they don't like when alternatives they do like are available. And in your case, listening to someone who could intelligently articulate why they've come to hold something as absolute certainly wouldn't necessarily change your mind on "that issue" but it might help you to be open to the possibility that something might be an absolute.

 

The problem would arise if you thought that my embracing somethings as absolute was in some way inferior to your position of not holding any absolutes -- or -- in my holding your penchant for continuing to eat broccoli as inferior to my position of not understanding why you would.

 

What is wrong with the paragraph above is that we do assign value to our positions. Otherwise, why bother to sort, evaluate, (dare I say judge?) the relative merits of anything? So, respect, kindness, and open-spiritedness can bridge the gap, especially on the net. That was the reason for my post.

 

The reason I mentioned that I do hold some absolutes was done intentionally -- a statement like mine is often a lightning rod that surfaces a new kind of intolerance that is common today. In the name of worshiping at the altar of open mindedness, there is often a condescending and ugly (and often unrecognized) intolerance of those who hold some absolutes.

 

So, "presumtive" kindness and open spiritedness, IMO are the things that can bridge the gaps in internet conversation. What I hope most is that the intent of Les' original post not get lost in the details.

[MotorinLA]

I recently found myself apologizing to another member for one of my postings on this board. The issue boiled down to me forgetting that the other member was simply stating his opinion. As many have commented on in this thread (and in some other recent threads) it is sometimes hard to infer tone and inflection when communicating in writing. I'm certain that I have come across to others in some topics as insistent on pushing my opinion on them. This is generally not my intention, but it has made me more aware of trying to include phrases such as "in my opinion" or "based on my experience" when I offer a reply, to hopefully clarify that I am simply giving my own personal point of view.

 

In my experience (), it have found that people often respond with anger when they feel that their personal beliefs are being threatened. I think this is a very normal human reaction. It can be hard to step back, take a deep breath and let go of that anger before entering a non-constructive reply.

 

Despite the fact that the tone of certain recent threads may have left something to be desired, I think this board is still a special place to meet and discuss topics with other motorcycle riders.

 

Just my opinion, of course .

[Ken H.]

Tho there are some discussions here that I really don't think would happen face to face.

True, those here who have gotten together have seen it; these more controversial conversations rarely go on. Or at least not to the intensity that happens on-line.

 

But that's both a pro & a con IMHO. This particular medium of back and forth communication lowers some barriers to open expression that are up when face-to-face, and as long as it doesn't deteriorate to personal attacks, which might end up being fist fights in person, I don't think that's all a bad thing.

 

(PS: we need a "IMHO" Graemlin!)

[Ken H.]

...we do assign value to our positions. Otherwise, why bother to sort, evaluate, (dare I say judge?) the relative merits of anything?

That's kind of the key point isn't it? A lot of these subjects DO have a strong emotional element, belief elements, that each of us puts a lot of merit, value in our own position on the subject at hand. It's easy to say, or hope, that we should all make only rational, well documented arguments for our particular side, but it ain't that easy. The more controversial subjects have nuances that are both extremely easy to quantify, and also those that are impossible to.

 

I think I hear Leslie and David (Baker) saying, 'Make your point, but make it logically.' Easy to say, hard to do when some of these topics by there very nature have a strong emotional element.

 

Baker said in the thread that I think was sort of the straw that broke the camels back, “...it's that this crap in "Riders Discuss Other Topics" is no more discussion than what you find on a radio talk show (thus the earlier reference). It's ideological blather that is so expected that I could actually sign in as you and espouse things so predictably that no one would know the difference. Ken's interaction is largely in that category too, but at least he doesn't start these threads much.” OK, guilty as charged, but when we’re dealing with ideology subjects, one makes ideological arguments for one’s ideological positions.

 

But alas, I’m probably doing it again right now. I’m going to try to make an effort to stick more to the technical forums. I think it will keep everyone happier. I’ve got a bunch of other personal challenges I need to be focusing more on right now anyway. But I do think this site will be a bit weaker for it. Not that my positions matter that much, they don’t, but as interactions (of any type) between members here on more controversial subjects is discouraged, the site ‘shallows’ out, becomes more superficial, and that’s kind of a shame IMHO. But then if I want something different I can go open my own damn web site, right Leslie?

[Big_Gray]

I am not a frequent poster but I check the "Active Topics" almost every day. BMWSportTouring is the most helpful site I have found on the web, for questions regarding my 1150 RT specifically, and motorcycling in general.

 

I sometimes feel a little guilty (ok maybe a lot guilty)that I don't contribute more substance to the motorcycle related threads but usually someone has already said what I would have said, and probably said it better. I am reluctant to have all my posts read "+1 ", so I just jump to the next thread.

 

It is easy to recognize threads that are not the reason I am a member of this forum and it is easy to jump over them. There are probably a dozen members whose posts I always read, no matter the topic, because they are consistently knowledgable, articulate and provoke thought rather than controversy. There are lots of folks here that I feel I know and like as a friend even though I have never met them.

 

I hope the non-motorcycling discussions that others enjoy and are entitled to, do not harm the valuable information exchange and camaraderie that prompted the development of this forum in the first place.

[Les is more]

Ken says,

 

Not that my positions matter that much, they don’t, but as interactions (of any type) between members here on more controversial subjects is discouraged, the site ‘shallows’ out, becomes more superficial, and that’s kind of a shame IMHO. But then if I want something different I can go open my own damn web site, right Leslie?

 

Well, in a word, yes.

 

It's a balance that we're trying to strike. If you'll recall, there was a period when these controversial topics were not allowed at all. I'm not convinced that the site got shallowed out by their absence. It is a motorcycle site, after all. But I wouldn't describe it as superficial, even in that guise. There are friendships and relationships being built here--without the controversy. We've decided to entertain these topics again because there is a goodly number of people who want to get into these "deeper" discussions. The balancing act that ensues is that of allowing these topics while still being true to the quest for civility and community that exists in our vision and its description in our User Agreement. To that end, you can be sure that we will continue to discourage interactions of just "any type," while trying to allow for intelligent discussions on a wide variety of topics.

 

Big_Gray says,

 

It is easy to recognize threads that are not the reason I am a member of this forum and it is easy to jump over them. There are probably a dozen members whose posts I always read, no matter the topic, because they are consistently knowledgable, articulate and provoke thought rather than controversy. There are lots of folks here that I feel I know and like as a friend even though I have never met them.

 

I hope the non-motorcycling discussions that others enjoy and are entitled to, do not harm the valuable information exchange and camaraderie that prompted the development of this forum in the first place.

 

Ay, there's the rub and the reason for trying to generate some thought/thoughtfulness about how these interactions are conducted.

[Mister Tee]

It's probably a bit late to chime in on this subject, but as a moderator on two sportbike boards, I can appreciate the challenge of maintaining civil dialog and keeping personalities in check.

 

That said, I find the taboo on controversial and/or political discussions to be somewhat amusing and unique. On my boards, there are no specific restrictions on general topic discussions, and we as moderators would not close one down unless the topic was patently offensive (e.g. someone was trying to promote child porn, ritualistic genocide, interracial beastiality or something else along those lines.) Heated political discussions tend to be a relatively neutral and mild venue compared to some of the topics that are brought up.

 

How do we keep things under control? Simple - we don't tolerate personal attacks, and we'll clamp a thread down, restrict a member, or do what we need to do to maintain order. As a result, people have learned to be constructive and tactful in their posts and responses - more so than you would typically expect from groups largely composed of marginally literate, tattooed hooligans. And you would think that it would be a constant battle for us to keep control of the forums, but it isn't really.

 

I'm not maintaining that this board should alter its policy on controversial subjects, just offering another perspective from the "inside."

[David]

What boards are these? I'd like to see for myself.

[ghaverkamp]

What boards are these? I'd like to see for myself.

 

We always knew you sucked.

[David]

Easy, there. <--just for you

 

I just have a feeling that it's not true.

[ghaverkamp]

I just have a feeling that it's not true.

 

I have a hard time believing it, too. Things definitely got heated here. Real name calling, as I recall (unlike the name calling canard people trot out these days to try to divert the discussion.)

[David]

Plus, I want to see if I can figure out who he is.

 

And quit using big words like Canard. Just because you have time to browse Reader's Digest on the throne doesn't mean you have to show off.

[Mister Tee]

What boards are these? I'd like to see for myself.

 

I'm mainly on gsxr.com, but I'm also on gixxernation.com, gixxer.com, sportbikes.ws, and sportbikes.com. I mod as the Tee on gsxr.com, and mod under a different name on gixxernation.com.

[ghaverkamp]

I'm mainly on gsxr.com, but I'm also on gixxernation.com, gixxer.com, sportbikes.ws, and sportbikes.com. I mod as the Tee on gsxr.com, and mod under a different name on gixxernation.com.

 

Do people post anything other than sigs?

[Mister Tee]

It's annoying. I turn them off.

[steveknapp]

Easy, there. <--just for you

 

I just have a feeling that it's not true.

 

Boards that don't foster thinking like "An RT ... has tons of power for its designed purpose."

 

Maybe he's on to something there...

[Bud]

During a break at the MOA board meeting in St. Louis Saturday, I explained I was a member of MRN. This came up during a discussion over how to moderate the MOA forum where there have been a small number of folks who post only to stir up the pot. And they always succeed in getting people to take the bait.

 

So I've given some thought to Momma Hoon's original post. To me it boils down to tone. You can discuss, debate, argue, talk about and just kick the bull over almost any topic in a respectful manner. It is just polite and the mature thing to do. You won't find better people anywhere than here. I know, they have been to my table, we have ridden together, rafted together, raised a glass or two together and sat around a campfire solving world problems.

 

So if you post, with the purpose of looking for a fight, perhaps this is not the place for you.

 

I enjoy listening to the opinion of others (except for when Ken talks about Fram oil filters ) and sometimes find my beliefs about certain subjects challenged. Ask Nurse Nancy, I'm often wrong (and sometimes admit it).

 

I would miss having the Other Topics forum. We are not just defined by being riders. We have many other facets of our being and I think we would be poorer if they were not allowed to be shown.

 

My .02 Your mileage will vary.

 

PS I can not ride for a while, I hope the rest of you are making up for my lack of mileage.

 

 

And of course, if you disagree with any of the above, it is only a reflection on you.