Life In 19x19

jts wrote:...
When you come down to it, the people who make religious or political debates on the internet unpleasant are stupid cretins, and/or tone-deaf, and/or found obnoxious by the other participants...

I disagree. It is not the people, it is the subject matter. Take a person who will looks like a cretin when politics is mentioned, and start discussing chocolate, and he looks ok. You can say "I like milk chocolate" and he is not offended even though he likes dark chocolate. But if you say "I like Obama", he may feel attacked and behave like a cretin.

Some subjects easily allow for multiple positions in social environments, some do not. I can say "I like milk chocolate" and it does not suggest that you should too, or that there is anything wrong with dark chocolate or with people who like it.
But if someone says that "Christ died for your souls", or "Allah akbar", it is commonly understood that the speaker suggests that the listener should agree with him, and that the speaker thinks that the listener may be misguided, wrong, stupid, or even downright evil if he does not. ( There may be people who can discuss religion impartially, but the common understanding is that they are not impartial. )

Politics and religion are the two subjects about which it is hard to express an opinion without implicitly suggesting that the listener should agree. So we can discuss chocolate on KGS, but not religion or politics.


I find eggplant disgusting. If you like it, I have no problem with that. But if you hold political opinions substantially different from mine, I'll probably think that you are an idiot and/or dangerous.

It is not the people, it is the subject.

Mmm, you're right to an extent. Yes, people get more emotional about politics/religion, less curious and more interested in convincing others that they're right. They tend to feel challenged if contradicted and insulted if judged unqualified to comment.

But there's more to it than that. You can find plenty of heated debates on the internet, but nothing that approaches the slime that you'll find in popular forums which have areas where you can debate religion and politics. The reason seems to me to be that there are people who are, to coin a phrase, idiots, who are not particularly prone by nature to discuss or debate or converse, but who have one single issue on which they fixate. There is probably, somewhere in the world, an idiot who loves eggplants, and it may be that some day he will make the rest of your plane ride very unpleasant after you inadvertently reveal your dislike to him. There are other idiots who are fascinated by the gold standard or the literary merits of the Harry Potter. But out of all the spheres of human endeavor, the interests of idiots tend to coalesce on politics and religion.

I could be wrong. But the people who create the slime seem to be neither the same people as, nor even the more emotional sockpuppets of, the regular users of non-politics/religion parts of forums.

jts wrote:You can find plenty of heated debates on the internet, but nothing that approaches the slime that you'll find in popular forums which have areas where you can debate religion and politics.

I can't remember who, but someone I read went to a real estate forum, and found threads where 15 comments in, people were making death threats. In a debate about real estate.

No point, I just love the example.

Joaz Banbeck wrote:

jts wrote:...
When you come down to it, the people who make religious or political debates on the internet unpleasant are stupid cretins, and/or tone-deaf, and/or found obnoxious by the other participants...

I disagree. It is not the people, it is the subject matter. Take a person who will looks like a cretin when politics is mentioned, and start discussing chocolate, and he looks ok. You can say "I like milk chocolate" and he is not offended even though he likes dark chocolate. But if you say "I like Obama", he may feel attacked and behave like a cretin.

Some subjects easily allow for multiple positions in social environments, some do not. I can say "I like milk chocolate" and it does not suggest that you should too, or that there is anything wrong with dark chocolate or with people who like it.
But if someone says that "Christ died for your souls", or "Allah akbar", it is commonly understood that the speaker suggests that the listener should agree with him, and that the speaker thinks that the listener may be misguided, wrong, stupid, or even downright evil if he does not. ( There may be people who can discuss religion impartially, but the common understanding is that they are not impartial. )

Politics and religion are the two subjects about which it is hard to express an opinion without implicitly suggesting that the listener should agree. So we can discuss chocolate on KGS, but not religion or politics.


I find eggplant disgusting. If you like it, I have no problem with that. But if you hold political opinions substantially different from mine, I'll probably think that you are an idiot and/or dangerous.

It is not the people, it is the subject.

I agree that this is the reality. But...

On the bottom of what you say lies this conclusion: people do not care enough about chocolate or eggplant to take a discussion personally. People care about religion and politics. All that it means is that people are intolerant about what they care about and see anybody who expresses different opinion as an aggressor. This is a very narrow minded and very shallow position. It takes its strength from dogma - I am right and whoever things differently is stupid and wrong. Because my church says so, because my party says so... Lets not think too much, lets just follow!

When you tell a person that he is intolerant and closed minded - he will be offended. But when he takes it as a personal affront when you say 'I like Obama' or 'God sure exists' - then what conclusion is there to draw? Is the inability to listen to and accept a different pinion not intolerance?

From the perspective of a social environment - we can cater to this kind of thinking. Its very easy to cater - this is what most environments do - they just forbid and have zero tolerance policies. Its easier this way - you just remove the problem and pretend its not there! Just forbid anything, until KGS will be like IGS - no talking at all since any statement can offend somebody and lead to trouble.

Or we can try to educate and influence. Which is right?

For KGS - I dunno... it is a go server, and I think it should be above such things... a rule of being civil is a good rule, and I think this is what should be enforced, not a rule to forbid certain topics - because where do we stop? People who like to argue will argue about chocolate if all else is forbidden.

Then again - can the admins be counted to apply common sense, or is zero-tolerance the only rule they can be counted to be consistent with?

Joaz Banbeck wrote:

jts wrote:...
When you come down to it, the people who make religious or political debates on the internet unpleasant are stupid cretins, and/or tone-deaf, and/or found obnoxious by the other participants...

I disagree. It is not the people, it is the subject matter. Take a person who will looks like a cretin when politics is mentioned, and start discussing chocolate, and he looks ok. You can say "I like milk chocolate" and he is not offended even though he likes dark chocolate. But if you say "I like Obama", he may feel attacked and behave like a cretin.

Some subjects easily allow for multiple positions in social environments, some do not. I can say "I like milk chocolate" and it does not suggest that you should too, or that there is anything wrong with dark chocolate or with people who like it.
But if someone says that "Christ died for your souls", or "Allah akbar", it is commonly understood that the speaker suggests that the listener should agree with him, and that the speaker thinks that the listener may be misguided, wrong, stupid, or even downright evil if he does not. ( There may be people who can discuss religion impartially, but the common understanding is that they are not impartial. )

Politics and religion are the two subjects about which it is hard to express an opinion without implicitly suggesting that the listener should agree. So we can discuss chocolate on KGS, but not religion or politics.


I find eggplant disgusting. If you like it, I have no problem with that. But if you hold political opinions substantially different from mine, I'll probably think that you are an idiot and/or dangerous.

It is not the people, it is the subject.

My opinions on this:
1.) Nobody is impartial, even if they say they are.
2.) My feeling of the difference in the subjects has to do with their implied importance. Religion may talk about eternal damnation, for example, which is much more unpleasant than tasting a non-optimal flavor of milk.

Congratulations, Bantari. You got me to do something I swore I would never do; use the "like" button.

I can't express just how much it sickens me when a community (or even just individuals) thinks it's ok to censor a discussion "because it might offend somebody."

If everything everybody did was simultaneously broadcast to everybody else, I think it would literally be impossible to do anything without offending somebody, or some group.

Of course, there is always the argument "there are other communities that allow that kind of discussion." What a great "fair weather friend" (or, rather, the community equivalent thereof).

How about censoring a discussion because it's going to be a worthless discussion? Pardon me if I don't respect people's deep need to repeat their ideology over and over in a pseudonymous chatroom (and that's what political "discussion" boils down to, because rarely do you see anyone bringing any facts to the table, nor anyone changing their mind.)

I don't see any value to encouraging people to go on about subjects where they have very little to contribute and which are liable to result in a flamewar. Nobody is improving the atmosphere or building a community by arguing about politics or religion in the EGR.

Think profanity drives away useful people? If you really want to drive away everyone else, there's nothing more reliable than prolonged, shitty arguments about politics.

Nothing here

What is your opinion about the [Admin]'s orders to [B]?

Perfectly valid and probably even too soft. B is clearly a troll

Tryss wrote:... B is clearly a troll

I agree. Worse that that, he was an incoherent troll. ( Every artist should at least learn the fundamentals of his craft. )

And as an admin, I might have even taken exception to A's first comment. In his first post, Admin was apparently trying to help someone.

Nothing here

I don't see why you think that admins should be comedians.

In a PM to an admin,

[User]: Our local club has lost ownership of our room, can you add me?
[Admin]: Do you have a picture on this account?
[User]: It's [a character from a popular television series].
[Admin]: [That portrayal of the character] was trash.

DanielTom, explain the harm if two hours is a bit arbitrary. Most things of this sort are. And 47 hours could be a typo, btw...)

Redundant: that seems unwise, since admins should avoid provoking arguments, since they have the power to ban people. But it also was in a PM, so it's not quite as bad, imho.

Joaz Banbeck wrote:

Tryss wrote:... B is clearly a troll

I agree. Worse that that, he was an incoherent troll. ( Every artist should at least learn the fundamentals of his craft. )

How can you actually know whether B is a troll or not if exactly the vital part of information is missing: The talk between A,D and E that B referred to?