What Do We Think So Far?

[swansonj]

I would rather posters played the ball, not the man, but as I've said many times if someone insults me they will likely receive a return of serve.

That aside, the forum has proceeded smoothly enough, and better than a lot of people predicted.

What's happened so far makes all the noise made by the CC mods about the previous place look like a big fuss about nothing.

Presumably they are now chuffed, having not much else to do other than sit around the CC office playing cards and watching YouTube vids.

As regards content on here, it seems to me 'news' is still often allowed in Cafe in the other place which is holding this place back - the Baldwin shooting being the latest example.

More members of any persuasion would be good, but it appears a few of the more active posters in the old NACA are determined not to come across - they did the same with the previous separate news board.

Unless the mods over there religiously shunt all news over here, I cannot see this place getting a great deal busier than it is now.

I agree with you about news still being allowed in CC.

As several of us pointed out in the thread discussing it over there, the distinction that Shaun and the mods want to make was never really "politics" v "not politics", it was "controversy" v "not controversy". They seem happy to let threads run over there that are clearly NACA as long as no one starts expressing challenging opinions.

 

[mudsticks]

Why should people need to 'defend' their voting choices to some stranger on a cycling forum?

I wouldn't expect you to 'defend ' your decision as it would make me appear superior in some way and think I know better.

Ok not defend, but maybe explain, if asked..

Not even necessarily voting.

I'm happy to explain my position / views / angle on things if anyone wants to know.

I don't see the point of a 'discussion' where someone says "This is my view, end of"

"Take it or leave it.."

It doesn't really merit the title of 'discussion'.

It's just a statement of view, with no background, or context.

We all already know there are people in favour, or not in favour of all kinds of things..

And we are all aware there are multiple views held across the spectrum.

Finding out why is the interesting part .

What's the point if being here, if we're not prepared to discuss the background, or thinking behind our beliefs.??

And to offer them up in good faith.

Know your place @shep

What happened to playing 'the ball' not the man* .

The above just looks like a personal side swipe at me.

*Or is that principal selectively observed, depending on who is offering a perspective??

 

[mudsticks]

I agree with you about news still being allowed in CC.

As several of us pointed out in the thread discussing it over there, the distinction that Shaun and the mods want to make was never really "politics" v "not politics", it was "controversy" v "not controversy". They seem happy to let threads run over there that are clearly NACA as long as no one starts expressing challenging opinions.

I would also say the 'challenging opinions' allowed are rather selective.

You can come up with big biffer 'challenging opinions'

( But then only be joking if challenged..Hur Hur Hur)

But 'challenges' from elsewhere .??

"Oh no suddenly it's all far too controversial, political, and trouble making by 'the usual suspects"

 

[BoldonLad]

........
What happened to playing 'the ball' not the man* .

The above just looks like a personal side swipe at me.

*Or is that principal selectively observed, depending on who is offering a perspective??

Well, it does rather appear that the bolded bit is the case....

It wasn't directed at you personally. The "know your place" was directed at @shep , who, I am sure you must agree is in a minority here!, even I don't agree with him, most of the time, although, I do find many of his replies amusing.

 

[Xipe Totec]

I've said in the past I get the impression people on here think Leave voters regret their decision and we're all feeling sorry for ourselves so I try to address the balance.

That seems to be a view held by some, and as a remainer I can understand why others might feel more comfortable/vindicated by that. Fair enough, but there's no discussion to be had with the disappointed/disillusioned. So - people who are OK with it, or think it's a success, or that the benefits outweigh the downsides are the ones I at least want to understand, if not agree with.

So far we don't seem to be able to get beyond chucking "Go on - name just one Brexit Benefit!" and "Shaddap - you lost, get over it"! back & forth at each other & while it can be mildly amusing, it ain't getting us nowhere!

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Are there only two types of view? ie those based on evidence and those based on prejudice?

I was giving an example of a benefit, not an exhaustive list. You can add others but we’ll never know which we’re dealing with if posters won’t support their stance.

Hopefully we can get away from those responses that are designed to shut down, avoid or derail debate.

 

[swansonj]

I would also say the 'challenging opinions' allowed are rather selective.

You can come up with big biffer 'challenging opinions'

( But then only be joking if challenged..Hur Hur Hur)

But 'challenges' from elsewhere .??

"Oh no suddenly it's all far too controversial, political, and trouble making by 'the usual suspects"

Well, yes, I agree with that too. As was said in that discussion thread: on the whole, right-wing views are conservative - they want to preserve the status quo. Whereas on the whole, left-wing views are radical - they want to change the status quo. So, given two equally extreme, equally forceful viewpoints, one left-wing and one right-wing, it is highly likely that the right-wing view will come over as not particularly controversial, not political just common sense, or the like, whereas the left-wing view will come over as controversial and political. So Shaun and the mod's edict against "politics" is inevitably politically slanted: faced with a given issue, it's fine to stay in CC-proper as long as all that's being said about is just accepting the status quo, but as soon as someone wants to challenge the status quo, it becomes "political" and gets shunted over here.

Needless to say, that right-wing opinion is in fact just as political and just as challenging, it's just, quite often, not recognised as "politics" by people who are themselves leaning rightwards.

 

[mudsticks]

Well, it does rather appear that the bolded bit is the case....

It wasn't directed at you personally. The "know your place" was directed at @shep , who, I am sure you must agree is in a minority here!, even I don't agree with him, most of the time, although, I do find many of his replies amusing.

Yes but you referred to his remark, which was directed at me, so it doesn't take a genius to work out what, or who you were referring to.

Despite your protestations otherwards.

I may be many things.

But stupid isn't one of them .

Personally I find rather spurious, or even disingenuous, these claims, that posters make for themselves about 'playing the ball rather than the man.

The execution always seems somewhat selective

I don't claim to do that, myself.

Online personality, previous posting history, and previous posting style , will inform my ongoing view, and even colour my reception of a posters contribution.

Certainly what sort of credibility I will give to that posters, good or bad faith record.

To claim that we are , or even should be 'poster blind' is a bit of nonsense , I don't in reality see that happening with anyone.

At least no one who's been here for six weeks.

But funnily enough, it often seems to be the very same people who espouse, or make claim of that 'play the ball not the man ' principal for themselves, are the very same ones who will metaphorically roll their eyes, or make asides about a poster, if say for example they think that poster is on 'their pet subject'.

The truth is, that we all have 'pet subjects' biases , experiences, particular positions that we bring here.

To pretend we are posting automotons with no history, no relationship, no already held views , is, to use the vernacular, total bollix.

And isn't that mix of views , and known positions, in some ways part of the point of being a group of people who post regularly, anyway.??

 

[BoldonLad]

Yes but you referred to his remark, which was directed at me, so it doesn't take a genius to work out what, or who you were referring to.

Despite your protestations otherwards.

.......

Personally I find rather spurious, or even disingenuous, these claims, that posters make for themselves about 'playing the ball rather than the man.
.................

Certainly what sort of credibility I will give to that posters, good or bad faith record.

To claim that we are , or even should be 'poster blind' is a bit of nonsense , I don't in reality see that happening with anyone.

At least no one who's been here for six weeks.

But funnily enough, it often seems to be the very same people who espouse, or make claim of that 'play the ball not the man ' principal for themselves, are the very same ones who will metaphorically roll their eyes, or make asides about a poster, if say for example they think that poster is on 'their pet subject'.

The truth is, that we all have 'pet subjects' biases , experiences, particular positions that we bring here.

To pretend we are posting automotons with no history, no relationship, no already held views , is, to use the vernacular, total bollix.

And isn't that mix of views , and known positions, in some ways part of the point of being a group of people who post regularly, anyway.??

1. I said it was not directed at you. You choose not to believe me, not much I can do about that.

2. I wouldn't claim to be perfect, I may have erred, but, I would be very interested to see more than one or two examples where I have resorted to abuse. or insult, rather than playing the ball. As for other posters, I am not them, so, sorry, I am not willing to be held responsible for their actions.

3. As for "pet subjects", biases, etc etc, and the mix of views, I think that is pretty much what. I have posted on several occasions, both in this forum, and old NACA.

I obviously irritate you, why not just use the ignore feature?

 

[Deleted member 28]

That seems to be a view held by some, and as a remainer I can understand why others might feel more comfortable/vindicated by that. Fair enough, but there's no discussion to be had with the disappointed/disillusioned. So - people who are OK with it, or think it's a success, or that the benefits outweigh the downsides are the ones I at least want to understand, if not agree with.

So far we don't seem to be able to get beyond chucking "Go on - name just one Brexit Benefit!" and "Shaddap - you lost, get over it"! back & forth at each other & while it can be mildly amusing, it ain't getting us nowhere!

I'll probably leave it after this but just so I understand correctly, you don't want to converse with people who are happy with their decision because you see them as disilusioned?
You really are a self righteous little p***k aren't you?

I couldn't give toss whether there are no benefits and I certainly don't need to explain myself to you so I would imagine you're not going to get very far in your search for enlightenment.

 

[Ian H]

I'll probably leave it after this but just so I understand correctly, you don't want to converse with people who are happy with their decision because you see them as disilusioned?
You really are a self righteous little p***k aren't you?

Er... no, you just misread his post.

 

[Deleted member 28]

I was giving an example of a benefit, not an exhaustive list. You can add others but we’ll never know which we’re dealing with if posters won’t support their stance.

Hopefully we can get away from those responses that are designed to shut down, avoid or derail debate.

How about the obvious?

Less immigration.
Jobs for local people.
Not giving money to Brussels.
Border control.

You know full well what many people voted leave for and whether the reasons are justified or not we don't care!

Pick holes in the reasons all you like, it doesn't matter we're still out!

 

[Deleted member 28]

Er... no, you just misread his post.

Did I?

 

[Xipe Totec]

I'll probably leave it after this but just so I understand correctly, you don't want to converse with people who are happy with their decision because you see them as disilusioned?
You really are a self righteous little p***k aren't you?

I couldn't give toss whether there are no benefits and I certainly don't need to explain myself to you so I would imagine you're not going to get very far in your search for enlightenment.

What? I didn't say, or mean, anything of the sort! You might want to read what I said again. I'll ignore the insults (although I'm sure you'll keep trying!) & try and explain.

I don't see much point in discussing it with people who are by their own admission disillusioned, because they are now in the same boat & probably feel much the same as those of us who never wanted it in the first place. What I would value is some calm, measured discussion with those who still think it was the right choice, and feel they have good reasons for that.

I was probably naive in wondering if you might be willing to engage on a more rational level, since all you've offered so far to vindicate your own position is sneering and gloating - I was hoping to drag the discussion a little bit beyond that, but I'm finding it really hard not to get the impression you're just an angry little man looking for a scrap. I offered you an olive branch and you just wiped your fat arse with it.

 

[Deleted member 28]

What? I didn't say, or mean, anything of the sort! You might want to read what I said again. I'll ignore the insults (although I'm sure you'll keep trying!) & try and explain.

I don't see much point in discussing it with people who are by their own admission disillusioned, because they are now in the same boat & probably feel much the same as those of us who never wanted it in the first place. What I would value is some calm, measured discussion with those who still think it was the right choice, and feel they have good reasons for that.

I was probably naive in wondering if you might be willing to engage on a more rational level, since all you've offered so far to vindicate your own position is sneering and gloating - I was hoping to drag the discussion a little bit beyond that, but I'm finding it really hard not to get the impression you're just an angry little man looking for a scrap. I offered you an olive branch and you just wiped your fat arse with it.

Apologies then, you certainly didn't make it clear the people were self confessed disilusionaries.

There really is no debate to be had from my point of view really, things may improve or they may not.

Why do feel you need to be told the reason's, which people have given already, and have to debate it?

My Arse isn't fat by the way 😉