When you posted this, you quoted a post I made. However you seem to be replying to a different post as what you have written does not seem pertinent to what you quoted. I do have cognitive difficulties and it is difficult to follow an argument when there is this kind of disconnect. Such things make it difficult for me to participate at times.
My initial post in this thread was a response to
@Barry53 asking a question after
@Silencio said that the thread had become very aggressive. Barry thought that it was simply assertive and I responded to him that it was the repetition that changed what was assertive in a single reply to aggressive in multiple replies.
There is a major difference between being aggressive and assertive. If people always went about saying people were being aggressive, when in fact they were being justifiably assertive ... where would we be? (Answers on a postcard please).
Although I would not perhaps agree directly with Silencio that it was "very aggressive", I did find that the repetition made it somewhat aggressive and beyond simply assertive by virtue of the way it seemed like ganging up. Seeing the same thing "asserted" repeatedly had for me the effect of a baying crowd. I found that the thread had lost value for me when it ceased to feel like reasonable debate.
My reference to bullying was a part of a divergent conversation regarding Barry's discussion of workplace "enthusiasm".
I still think that people should consider whether the point they want to disagree with has already been covered. I think they should consider whether it has already been covered adequately and repetition is making the thread shouty, with the element of aggression that Silencio recognised earlier.
I think part of rational debate is that a dissenting voice should be allowed to heard. It is hard to follow a thread when it has become shouty like that. It had made me uncomfortable and I had not posted anything to the thread at that point.
So I repeat my other point from earlier, that I feel there is an element of group think in the forum and it is often difficult to see a balanced debate when the same assertions are being made repeatedly by a crowd.
In a rational debate one should not just be able to say something but one should also be allowed to be heard. Disagreement should be expected but we should not be suppressing a voice by drowning it out. If we feel the need to support that disagreement, we can add our likes to that post. [edit - "not" added before "be suppressing"]
My reference to bullying was a part of a divergent conversation regarding Barry's discussion of workplace "enthusiasm". I never suggested that disagreement with another poster was bullying. My primary point is about the effect of many people making a similar response. I made it clear that I regard that as aggressive. I think it unreasonable for people to keep repeating that response. That adds heat rather then light.
I am expressing this view not simply about this thread, but because I have seen similar crowd behaviour on other threads. I want PR to be a safe space for people with limited physical and mental energy to express their views, and I want to be able to hear dissenting views too.
Just because I want to hear these views it does not mean I agree with them, but I want the option of knowing these views, so I do not want people discouraged from expressing them. I am not against free speech. I am in favour of free speech. I am also in favour of being able to hear that free speech. and that won't happen if the vulnerable member of this forum feel discouraged from speaking out.
I think this is why we have moderation on the site. The key here is one of perception. As long as people stick to the rules of avoiding personal attacks etc then I don't see what the problem is.
Many people seek comfort and social interaction but don't want to get involved in scientific debate which is fine, there are threads for this. On some days I just don't have the energy or time to participate so I choose not to make comment lest I get drawn into a draining debate.
However to participate in controversial topics does mean you run the risk of people not agreeing with you occasionally and challenging you to back up your claims etc, which you can choose to reply to or not.
This is not bullying.
The main reason it's not is that you can choose to participate or not. You become bullied when you have no choice in the matter or the person in question has an influence over you. This is not the same as losing a debate on a forum such as this. It would be bullying if someone or a group of people started a repeated campaign of put downs, name calling, demeaning or insulting remarks etc. We all have a choice to participate or not.
I think we all need to be sensitive in the wording of replies, but crying bullying when it doesn't exist, diminishes real cases of bullying in my opinion.
I've written this in a deliberately direct style to illustrate (no softening of words etc). We have freedom of speech in most countries participating on this forum. I don't think debates should be stifled unnecessarily because of fear of upsetting people. I also thoroughly disagree that people should somehow screen what they feel they want to say because it's already been said.
It's just debate and people shouldn't be suppressed in stating their opinion. Just keep it clean and don't be mean.
