Jump to content

Discussion of upsetting incidents


Guest

Featured Posts

8 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

And I’d go further, one person in this conversation I personally know to be a nasty spiteful hate-filled person in real life.

We have never met. 

 

So perhaps attaching the label of 'virtue signaller' should only apply if you know someone personally? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, rusty69 said:

We have never met. 

 

So perhaps attaching the label of 'virtue signaller' should only apply if you know someone personally? 

How do you know, I could have been in disguise? Funny hat and moustache etc...

 

No, a virtue signaller can be applied to anyone who publicly bangs on about how virtuous they are. Without any evidence that they have ever actually done a kind thing in their life.

 

So for example when Tony Brooks reports that he has driven miles to visit a boater with technical difficulties and fixed their electrics, that is absolutely not virtue signalling. That is genuinely kind. But when folk, from the comfort of their keyboards, crow on about how important it is to say only kind things and aim to point out how others don’t meet their high standards of virtue, that is virtue signalling.

  • Greenie 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

How do you know, I could have been in disguise? Funny hat and moustache etc...

 

No, a virtue signaller can be applied to anyone who publicly bangs on about how virtuous they are. Without any evidence that they have ever actually done a kind thing in their life.

 

So for example when Tony Brooks reports that he has driven miles to visit a boater with technical difficulties and fixed their electrics, that is absolutely not virtue signalling. That is genuinely kind. But when folk, from the comfort of their keyboards, crow on about how important it is to say only kind things and aim to point out how others don’t meet their high standards of virtue, that is virtue signalling.

I agree.

 

My 2p worth, I think it's good to complement people with kind words but it doesn't beat physically helping someone as you say Tony did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I think the last para is a bit over the top

Of course it was, it was designed to garner a response. He’d look very silly standing on his soap box talking to himself.

 

99% of the outrage and the outrage at the outrage on the other thread was nothing more than a wind up, and probably 90% of the outrage on the rest of the forum too at the moment. Every year at this time of year the forum falls into a state of grumbling at something (anything will do).

 

Bored trolls are gonna do what bored trolls do.

 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Tumshie said:

Of course it was, it was designed to garner a response. He’d look very silly standing on his soap box talking to himself.

 

99% of the outrage and the outrage at the outrage on the other thread was nothing more than a wind up, and probably 90% of the outrage on the rest of the forum too at the moment. Every year at this time of year the forum falls into a state of grumbling at something (anything will do).

 

Bored trolls are gonna do what bored trolls do.

 

Yes too true. Soon there will be outrage at the outrage about the outrage.

 

Oh, wait a minute ... we are there already!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, nicknorman said:

Ok yes saying kind things to an individual in distress etc is a good and kind thing. But that isn’t what is happening here. People are not saying kind things, they are saying to someone else “Oooh you mustn’t say xyz just in case you offend some person neither of us actually know and who isn’t in the conversation”. That is not being kind, that is being a bossy control freak.

 

Pot, kettle, black

3 hours ago, nicknorman said:

How do you know, I could have been in disguise? Funny hat and moustache etc...

 

No, a virtue signaller can be applied to anyone who publicly bangs on about how virtuous they are. Without any evidence that they have ever actually done a kind thing in their life.

 

So for example when Tony Brooks reports that he has driven miles to visit a boater with technical difficulties and fixed their electrics, that is absolutely not virtue signalling. That is genuinely kind. But when folk, from the comfort of their keyboards, crow on about how important it is to say only kind things and aim to point out how others don’t meet their high standards of virtue, that is virtue signalling.

Can you point me to a post on here where someone is banging on about how virtuous on here?  One minutes you're ranting about that, the next minute you're admitting is hasn't happened and saying it's about members criticizing each other.  No you're back to your first argument.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

Pot, kettle, black

That wasn’t a very kind post.

 

Funny how your ilk object to saying inappropriate/unkind things about people not present in the conversation, whereas anyone actually present in the conversation is fair game for sniping and hatred.

Edited by nicknorman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, system 4-50 said:

(Taking the general case and not the specific case?

The problem is the sphere of impact.  If I am in the presence of the spouse of the deceased, I will be sympathetic and concerned to avoid distress to himher.  If I am in the room next door I can be a little more blunt about the practicalities of what needs to be done to deal with the situation.  If I am in the local pub I can be clear that I had my doubts about the way he drove but I must phrase it gently as there may be friends of the deceased around who take a different view.  When I am back home I can express the view forcefully that his driving was so bad that it was amazing that he hadn't taken himself and others out earlier. 

Its all about the distance between me and the event.  If the distance is not relevant then the fact that people are suffering and dying all over the world every second would weigh us down and prevent us talking about anything.

The problem is then, what is the sphere of impact where the internet is concerned?  When we are having a cozy discussion then it can feel quite close and intimate.  When we have a new brusque arrival to a discusion it can feel more market place. It can even feel a different distance for each person in a discussion at the same time, which doesn't happen (so much) in a face-to-face encounter.

I suggest that the forum adopts the view that it, the forum,  is relatively "distant", unless any forum member indicates that there is a specific known connection which makes it closer.  Such a connection would be the known frequent and regular presence of an affected member on the forum.  The chance of an accidental chance visit of an affected visitor would not count.

This would leave the forum able to discuss most disasters freely.

I don't see any sign of any members being intrinsicaly heartless and uncaring.

I don't object to people speculating about whether a body found in the canal is the result of a murder just because someone they know might read it.  It's a thoroughly unpleasant and objectionable thing to do in its own right.  Now if there was a report of foul play, that would change things.  Mindless speculation is not the same thing.

1 minute ago, nicknorman said:

That wasn’t a very kind post.

It wasn't intended to be either kind or unkind, but then I have a feeling that you didn't drown in the canal last week and are now haunting this forum from the netherworld.  I could be wrong though.

2 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

That wasn’t a very kind post.

 

Funny how your ilk object to saying inappropriate/unkind things about people not present in the conversation, whereas anyone actually present in the conversation is fair game for sniping and hatred.

And there's the difference that you seem to find it hard to grasp.  Surely being forthright to someone face is acceptable at times.  Whereas behind their back....

 

Why would I hate you?  AFAIK we've never met.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

That wasn’t a very kind post.

 

Funny how your ilk object to saying inappropriate/unkind things about people not present in the conversation, whereas anyone actually present in the conversation is fair game for sniping and hatred.

Errr.

"And I’d go further, one person in this conversation I personally know to be a nasty spiteful hate-filled person in real life."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

 

Can you point me to a post on here where someone is banging on about how virtuous on here?

Which one of your many such posts would you like me to pick on? How about this one.


“I don't object to people speculating about whether a body found in the canal is the result of a murder just because someone they know might read it.  It's a thoroughly unpleasant and objectionable thing to do in its own right.”

 

What you are saying is that such people are horrible specimens of society, whereas you of course, being so virtuous, would never dream of saying such a thing. Well except to anyone who has the temerity to disagree with you, of course.

2 minutes ago, tree monkey said:

Errr.

"And I’d go further, one person in this conversation I personally know to be a nasty spiteful hate-filled person in real life."

Yes but I didn’t say who it was... Anyway, it wasn’t just a casual insult, it had a purpose which was to point out that those who seem virtuous and kind from the distance of an internet linked keyboard, can be nasty spiteful and judgmental people in real life. Certainly in any situation where the other party has a different opinion - for that of course would be unthinkable for any nice person!

Edited by nicknorman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

 

Yes but I didn’t say who it was... Anyway, it wasn’t just a casual insult, it had a purpose which was to point out that those who seem virtuous and kind from the distance of an internet linked keyboard, can be nasty spiteful and judgmental people in real life. Certainly in any situation where the other party has a different opinion - for that of course would be unthinkable for any nice person!

Come on Nick, you enjoy the ruckus and play devils advocate to stir the pot.

 

I actually have some sympathy to some degree with your general point but the argument you use is trying to close down opposing opinions itself.

 

 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

Which one of your many such posts would you like me to pick on? How about this one.


“I don't object to people speculating about whether a body found in the canal is the result of a murder just because someone they know might read it.  It's a thoroughly unpleasant and objectionable thing to do in its own right.”

 

What you are saying is that such people are horrible specimens of society, whereas you of course, being so virtuous, would never dream of saying such a thing. Well except to anyone who has the temerity to disagree with you, of course.

 

I can't help how you interpret what I said, but that isn't virtue signalling.  Your ludicrous extrapolations simply reinforce my point.  I never accused or implied anyone was a horrible specimen, I never said or implied I was virtuous.  You can disagree all you like, with or without temerity as you please.

 

I expressed an opinion that something was unpleasant.  Are we not allowed to do that any more?  Perhaps it's you who's being the snowflake?

Edited by doratheexplorer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, nicknorman said:

Yes too true. Soon there will be outrage at the outrage about the outrage.

 

Oh, wait a minute ... we are there already!

I am thinking about becoming outraged (I know.....I'm often behind the trend) but Nick's "And I’d go further, one person in this conversation I personally know to be a nasty spiteful hate-filled person in real life." is worrying me.

 

The more frequent posters in that thread were Athy, myself and Nick (in that order). So statistically the person described is likely to be one of us. This is what potentially outrages me. It's outrageous that Nick should be meeting me in disguise....worse than outrageous  ....don't know how to describe it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Sir Nibble said:

I once reported a racist term that I found offensive and was told that I shouldn't be offended. That's someone (me) who read it and was offended, not a hypothetical person who might be offended.

You chose to be offended. You could have chosen not to be. Whether that should entitle you to silence the person who wrote it is debatable, as in fact anyone could use “I’m offended” to shut anyone else down. And it happens a lot. Which is bad.
Would you have you suddenly been less offended if the post had been deleted on request, even though you had already read it? Perhaps the warm glow of virtue would have acted as an antidote?

14 minutes ago, frahkn said:

I am thinking about becoming outraged (I know.....I'm often behind the trend) but Nick's "And I’d go further, one person in this conversation I personally know to be a nasty spiteful hate-filled person in real life." is worrying me.

 

The more frequent posters in that thread were Athy, myself and Nick (in that order). So statistically the person described is likely to be one of us. This is what potentially outrages me. It's outrageous that Nick should be meeting me in disguise....worse than outrageous  ....don't know how to describe it!

The person I have met the most is of course myself, therefore by your logic I was talking about myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, nicknorman said:

You chose to be offended. You could have chosen not to be. Whether that should entitle you to silence the person who wrote it is debatable, as in fact anyone could use “I’m offended” to shut anyone else down. And it happens a lot. Which is bad.
Would you have you suddenly been less offended if the post had been deleted on request, even though you had already read it? Perhaps the warm glow of virtue would have acted as an antidote?

Does that make "darkie" an acceptable term?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

I can't help how you interpret what I said, but that isn't virtue signalling.  Your ludicrous extrapolations simply reinforce my point.  I never accused or implied anyone was a horrible specimen, I never said or implied I was virtuous.  You can disagree all you like, with or without temerity as you please.

 

I expressed an opinion that something was unpleasant.  Are we not allowed to do that any more?  Perhaps it's you who's being the snowflake?

No you are absolutely allowed to express your opinion, as am I. It may transpire that I then think you are a virtue signaller and you think I am callous and nasty. Others might take different views of both of us. So be it.

 

But where I think it goes wrong is where one party seeks to have the other party’s view shut down by getting the mods to delete it.


If we all agreed with each other things would be really boring, though it does happen a lot on Facebook closed groups where anyone with a different view is expunged, leading people to believe that it is normal for everyone around them to agree with them. The “group-think” syndrome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, frahkn said:

Nick's "And I’d go further, one person in this conversation I personally know to be a nasty spiteful hate-filled person in real life." is worrying me.

 

5 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

I was talking about myself.

 

If the cap fits ...  

 

:giggles:

  • Greenie 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know about anyone else, but upon reading something, I've never thought to myself "hmm, that a bit strong, maybe I should be offiended?".  Offence doesn't work like that for me, I don't choose to be offended. 

 

I had to explain something similar to someone recently when they were insisting that people choose to be gay.

2 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

No you are absolutely allowed to express your opinion, as am I. It may transpire that I then think you are a virtue signaller and you think I am callous and nasty. Others might take different views of both of us. So be it.

 

But where I think it goes wrong is where one party seeks to have the other party’s view shut down by getting the mods to delete it.


If we all agreed with each other things would be really boring, though it does happen a lot on Facebook closed groups where anyone with a different view is expunged, leading people to believe that it is normal for everyone around them to agree with them. The “group-think” syndrome.

I don't think you're callous or nasty.  I think you're a wind-up merchant.  You may think I'm easily wound up, but I'm not, I'm just a bit bored today.  Maybe that makes me a wind up merchant too, but I definitely mean everything I say.

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

 

The person I have met the most is of course myself, therefore by your logic I was talking about myself.

I congratulate you on your ability to find any logic in my post!

 

I discount it being yourself and doubt that you would make such a remark about a venerated moderator so, statistically, I think I have little choice but to join the ranks of the outraged. A pity because I am not a "joiner" by instinct.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

No you are absolutely allowed to express your opinion, as am I. It may transpire that I then think you are a virtue signaller and you think I am callous and nasty. Others might take different views of both of us. So be it.

 

But where I think it goes wrong is where one party seeks to have the other party’s view shut down by getting the mods to delete it.


If we all agreed with each other things would be really boring, though it does happen a lot on Facebook closed groups where anyone with a different view is expunged, leading people to believe that it is normal for everyone around them to agree with them. The “group-think” syndrome.

Where it goes 'wronger' is where the moderator shuts down the other party's view on their own behalf.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.