hubski is an echo chamber which (de facto) heavily moderates conservative opinions, libertarian economics, that sort of thing people like being agreed with, or at least only being disagreed with on a certain level
I'd welcome more libertarian/conservative voices here. I think it's a bummer that more conservative voices from Hubski's past, like cliffelam no longer actively comment. We have plenty of people that challenge conventional liberal thinking though. I'd say that kleinbl00, cgod and you, among others, all do this.
From my perspective, Hubski is a dynamic hotbed of provocative discussion. But for several months, this has happened almost entirely in personal correspondence and not in public. I would prefer to be more open, but a tiny number of vocal users tend to spice their intellectual disagreement with doses of condescension, mockery, and name-calling. While I recognize that these aspects do not diminish the strength of their ideas, it is sufficiently annoying that I prefer to keep out of public discussions. Among the thousands of words I have excreted into public dialog, I hope very few of them were antagonistic toward another person, unsparing as I may have been in criticizing their ideas. I keep in touch with a couple of other former users, both scrupulously polite, who have quit the site after encountering needless hostility toward their non-Hubski-mainstream views. And I find myself always wishing that my favorite non-conforming users would expand more, rather than keeping to short, throwaway comments. I don't think moderation can fix this, though I am still partial to my proposal. There is a kind of Gresham's Law in any open forum by which the bad (vitriol) drives out the good (civility). Nevertheless, Hubski is the best public discussion forum ever conceived.
I don't think I've ever seen you be antagonistic towards a person, however you're pretty good at being a provocateur. Which, by the way, is something I admire about you. Please, do it out in the open. I promise, I won't make fun of you. I'll leave that for PM.Among the thousands of words I have excreted into public dialog, I hope very few of them were antagonistic toward another person, unsparing as I may have been in criticizing their ideas.
I have a dream that we could live in a version of America where we all believed different things about each other, but agreed that it was most important to be good and kind to each other first, and keep our opinions about the state of other peoples souls/bedrooms/genitals to ourselves. A fairy tale where a true capital C Conservative Christian can think that his gay neighbors are doomed to eternal hellfire and damnation when they die, but treats them with respect when they are forced to see each other getting the mail or mowing the lawn. Dan Carlin calls this the '1950's textbook vision of America' and it's the one I like the best.
I would prefer to be more open, but a tiny number of vocal users tend to spice their intellectual disagreement with doses of condescension, mockery, and name-calling. While I recognize that these aspects do not diminish the strength of their ideas, it is sufficiently annoying that I prefer to keep out of public discussions.I don't think moderation can fix this, though I am still partial to my proposal. There is a kind of Gresham's Law in any open forum by which the bad (vitriol) drives out the good (civility). Nevertheless, Hubski is the best public discussion forum ever conceived.
I know sometimes I tend to get frustrated in some of the deeper conversations because I have a hard time clearly expressing my point and/or I'm more emotionally invested in a concept than I really have cause to. I very much try to keep it in check, sometimes fail, and always feel bad about it in retrospect. In fact, I remember a particular conversation between the two of us and the quality of Mustangs where I let things get to me. So what I'm trying to say is, if I'm one of the users being referenced, I am aware, I'm sorry, and I'm sincerely trying to work on it.
Nah I've already called out the user in question. He was pissed but I think he got over it. But really it could be any one of us, myself included. Sometimes we just need to get called out for straying off topic and attacking the author and not the topic