A problem with the vs community

[Ali-Sama 5]

Are we worst then the athiest/theists who debate on whether religion/god etc exist?

 

We know that none of the fiction exists and that there are tons of scientific errors in any given show.

 

an example. I got banned by sd.net for a silly argument over Jauggernaut and 2 siths. I had to block people from aim due to this. they would add me/im me. Make fun of my religion, sexuality and other aspects. they would post my replies on forums for LULZ why? Cause I believed that a fictitious character would beat their beloved fictious character.

 

We harm people for fiction, yet a large group of us critique others of doing the same for god. While god existing is a bit of faith, and cannot really be proven nor disproven. still it is a valid analogy.

 

Have we become fanatical bullies?

Do we use this mentality?

Edited May 31, 2012 by Ali-Sama
Added Image

[scvn2812 504]

Not knowing the circumstances, I won't comment on the banning. However, there never is any excuse for cyber stalking / bullying no matter how much you think a person might have it coming. That's my biggest issue with boards like SD.net who encourage "the mockery of stupid people." In the context of these types of communities, stupid is very subjective. It seems to be a label used to tar and feather people who take unpopular positions or argue poorly. For that matter, once you sanction ANY amount of personal attacks, it then becomes necessary to figure out where the line is and at this point, you've created a shades of gray system that people are going to interpret according to their own personal feelings. In your case, some individuals felt cyber bullying was "fair game," which is the inevitable result when you permit personal attacks.

 

There are thoughtful, intelligent people on that board and Spacebattles who are able to make rational, well argued cases for their beliefs and then there's a lot of swaggering trolls who like to play at being geniuses. I've learned a lot about various scifi universes and science from both boards but elect not to participate because I don't like their standards of conduct.

 

However, not everyone sees things in black and white and automatically makes this personal. I'm here because I respect Brian Young's tone and approach to versus debate and I choose to put in a modest amount of effort in trying to help him "reboot" the debate community. So in that light, I keep it impersonal and while I might get frustrated when I feel like I'm spinning my wheels in an argument, I pride myself on trying to keep a filter between the annoyance I might feel and what I allow my fingers to type. If I feel my temper rising, then I walk away. Either from the discussion entirely or I go do something else until I'm able to compose the kind of response I expect out of myself.

 

To dislike someone for disagreeing with me, let alone take the effort to insult them or cyber bully them is a waste of energy better spent in more pleasurable pursuits.

Edited June 8, 2012 by scvn2812

[Millenniumfalsehood 11]

SD.net is chock full of people like that. I consider myself lucky for not experiencing 3rd degree burns dealing with that site. Once I posted a comment about how, despite how crazy Glenn Beck is, he does have some fair points, such as the idea that you do not just take someone's word that they have your best interests at heart in government circles. This led to people out and out calling me a facist Republican and a complete moron (I'm a moderate-conservative and a mechanical engineering major). I'm sorry you experienced such behavior, but this is to be expected from any site which encourages its members to actively deride people based on perceived intelligence levels.

[scvn2812 504]

In scifi debating as in politics, taking a position or association with a particular prominent figure automatically seems to lead people to make assumptions about unrelated matters or assume poorly in general. For example in the lead up to the RNC I was rather shocked to discover there are gay Republican groups. Obviously they don't want to criminalize themselves so obviously the term Republican is a much broader label than I'd assumed. if you make sweeping generalizations about people, you can often be wrong.

 

On the scifi side, if you argue that ICS is a fair representative of the Star Wars universe, you automatically must hate Star Trek. Alternatively, if you argue that Star Trek is superior, clearly you must hate Star Wars and if you oppose ICS you must be scientifically illiterate.

 

Good examples of the old expression about what assume does to u and me....

[Brian Young 11,994]

Remember that I told you this, if you don't remember anything else. The argument is made by the evidence, not the man.

Attacking the man is a fallacy called Ad Hominem.

[Brian Young 11,994]

And you are welcome here.

[Ali-Sama 5]

And you are welcome here.

 

I loves you brian like zathras loves the one! *big hug*

[Khas 12,158]

Bump.

 

Another problem is polarization. The thought of someone enjoying both and wanting there to be balance between ST and SW is almost seen as abhorrent by many people in the Versus Debate. It's the whole black-and-white mentality, as scvn2812 pointed out. What was it Obi-Wan said? "Only a Sith deals in absolutes."

 

Another problem is one caused by, believe it or not, Mike Wong himself. I swear I once read that Wong once said that the truth doesn't matter, all that matters is victory. This ideology permeates the Versus Debate.

 

I entered the Versus Debate in 2010. I discovered it in 2006. For four years, I'd had these ideas pounded into me by well, everyone I saw online. Think of it as pre-admittance indoctrination. Indoctrination that is very hard to forget.