Do you think PC FHOP has become too Angry?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Apr 21 2007, 10:18 AM) [snapback]427334[/snapback]</div>

What he said. . .

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Apr 21 2007, 12:18 PM) [snapback]427334[/snapback]</div>

The problem is definitely not reserved to FHOP. And it also is related to the instantaneous written media we communicate with. It is MUCH easier to offend and be offended by e-mail, IMs, and postings than it is by a phone call or in-person discussion. Why? Because our brains are wired to read facial and audial cues to give context to a comment, thereby softening a strong wording or strengthening a poorly-worded statement. Without these cues, we automatically insert our own assumptions of the writer's intent, which means if we disagree with the statement, we are going to take it more personally than if we agree with it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(livelychick @ Apr 21 2007, 06:05 PM) [snapback]427516[/snapback]</div>

They're our centrists, not yours!

How can you write what you did and keep a straight face?

"Bleeding heart" and "neocon" are used as slurs. "Liberal" and "conservative" are not.

All liberals don't consider themselves bleeding hearts, and all conservatives don't consider themselves neocons.
Yet you think it's ok to use "neocon" and "liberal" as equivalents?
Sounds a little biased to me. <_<

 

i think fhop is less angry now than it has been :blink:

you do see the same general trends... nobody can be a moderate, they display one ideal someone doesn't like and POW, they're automatically labeled with a word describing an extreme (left/right/patriot/anti-american/genius/idiot/etc)

we all hold varied views, that mostly come from our own experiences. and as long as people have different experiences in their lives, we're gonna have different opinions. i suggest we learn to look into what brings others to their particular conclusions and then really look at what brings us to our own.

 

Thanks Galaxee! Nicely put. I was almost ready to see about changing my answer from Maybe to Yes.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ZenCruiser @ Apr 21 2007, 07:04 PM) [snapback]427536[/snapback]</div>

No, he didn't say that. He said . . .
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Apr 21 2007, 04:19 PM) [snapback]427465[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ZenCruiser @ Apr 21 2007, 07:04 PM) [snapback]427536[/snapback]</div>

And you don't think daniel is oversimplifiying the subject? :huh:

It's not just about anger, the topic is civility. Anger is just one aspect.
The OP is asking for it to be quantified. 'Is there too much????'
In order to do so, one needs to be able to talk about other/countering aspects. 'Is there joy in FHOP?'

I personally feel FHOP is a great place to learn about others' feelings, thoughts, and expectations.
I don't feel it is too angry.
But granted, the level of consternation in FHOP does flair up at times.

Are there hot-heads in FHOP? Sure.
Are there those who will never learn a thing from from a conflicting viewpoint? Apparently.
Are there those who will lash out at those with differing views? Absolutely!
[said while ducking for cover. -_- ]

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy @ Apr 21 2007, 11:49 PM) [snapback]427608[/snapback]</div>

I don't think it's okay. However, on this forum, I've seen "liberal" (mostly by the angry) thrown as a slur in TONS of threads, usually synonymous with (take your pick): evil, stupid, pansy-nice person, etc. Neocon has been synonymous with (take your pick): evil, stupid, warmongering, etc. They're both all-encompassing; "bleeding heart" is a subset.

I'm not saying it's okay, I was just pointing out on this forum, the neocons use "liberal" as a slur by itself, and vice versa. That's all. Language discussion, not meant to create angst; just my analysis of the word choices of both sides.

 

Angry? My past exp. with this forum is the nastiness comes out when those who disagree with some of my views decide to be jerks. I have always felt that everyone is entitled to his/her opinion. Weather you agree or disagree is OK, but I see no need for nastiness.

It also appears that liberals rule on this forum and anyone who is not a liberal gets anger hurled at him/her. I will continue to post as I really could care less about what others think of my viewpoints. I do enjoy a good argument as long as the name calling and references to so called evil people stays in a closet.

 

There are more liberals than conservatives on this board, simply because the Prius appeals more to liberals than it does to conservatives.

As for the label "neocon," it is short for "neo-conservative," to distinguish the old-style small-government, states-rights, racial-discrimination conservatives, from the new-style deficit-spending, big-debt, Christianity-first conservatives.

An amusing bit of trivia is that in Mexico and much of the rest of the world, neo-conservatives are called neo-liberals, from the usage of the word "liberal" outside the U.S., which is very different from the use of that word here. In Mexico, Benito Juarez was the father of the liberal movement, which wanted to convert Mexico from an essentially feudal economy to a capitalist economy. The neo-liberals are the ones who want to push forward with global capitalism, where corporations become more powerful than national governments. The U.S. neo-conservatives are a bit schitzophrenic in this respect, because on the one hand they want America to be the ruling, dominant military superpower, but on the other hand they want to deprive the American government of the ability to regulate international trade, giving that power instead to corporations.

As far as Sufferin's insistence that the topic of this thread is not anger, that's okay. He just has it in for me, and has had for a very long time. I don't remember where it started.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Apr 22 2007, 04:26 PM) [snapback]427978[/snapback]</div>

No, I don't personally "have it in" for daniel . . . just countering some of the massive amounts of his one sided ultra-liberal drivel.

When one stretches the truth [politically correct doublespeak ] enough times, they tend to believe themselves and forget what they have said.
Here daniel, let me refresh your memory . . .

"Entering the US without permission is not against the law. You can be deported for it, and you can be "detained" pending hearings or deportation. But you cannot be sentenced to jail or prison for it. The undocumented people so often refered to as "illegals" have not broken any law by coming here without permission."
http://priuschat.com/index.php?s=&show...st&p=248538

Proof daniel was wrong . . . . (um, full of 'it' ] . . .
http://priuschat.com/index.php?s=&show...st&p=249591

Did he respond to the substantiative part of my reply? No!
He complained of third-grade potty humor and then disappeared. <_<

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy @ Apr 22 2007, 06:12 PM) [snapback]428044[/snapback]</div>

What we have above is called "thread-stalking." Long long ago, I posted the statement Sufferin' quotes, based on what I had been told by the lawyers in the legal aid office where I did volunteer work as a translator. Sufferin' challenged me on my statement, and I wrote to two of the people at the office to ask for clarification. By this time I no longer lived in Fargo, so I could not go in to speak with them dirtectly.

They never replied to me, which was disappointing, because I had thought of them as my friends. Finally, after waiting a long time, I posted that apparently they were not going to reply, and I could offer nothing more.

Ever since then, Sufferin' has been stalking me from thread to thread, quoting the above statement.

Give it a break, Sufferin'. I've said what I had to say. I thought I could provide documentation for my assertion. I have been unable to do so. You've had your say, and anybody who read the thread in question can decide what to think.

Your insistence on thread-stalking me is why I say you apparently have it in for me. Not that I really care. I merely note it. If I were to say that the Earth is round, you'd say it was flat and quote my comments on the legality of immigration as proof.

And I don't specifically remember complaining about your potty humor, but if I did it was probably because you were engaging in potty humor. And if I "disappeared" it would have been because I was on vacation. I typically take 2 or 3 extended trips a year. Either that, or I stopped opening that thread. But I've always been available when not travelling.

"One-sided ultra-liberal drivel"??? Ha. I like that one. Some people hereabouts use that term for any political viewpoint to the left of Rush Limbaugh. The accusation is so over-used that it has become meaningless. Anything you disagree with is "one-sided ultra-liberal drivel." *Yawn*

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Apr 22 2007, 06:26 PM) [snapback]427978[/snapback]</div>

I think that is a generalization that can't be supported. The Prius appeals to anyone that wants to reduce their fuel costs and have a reliable vehicle. As the service time for the car increases and the reliablity is proven its appeal broadens to more of the buying public. Just because they post here doesn't mean it appeals more to one side or the other.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Apr 22 2007, 08:08 PM) [snapback]428118[/snapback]</div>

It was just one of the more egregious examples of your long string of unsubstantiated ultra-liberal drivel.
Typical MOA, spew it then run . . . leaving it there for the cool-aid drinkers to salivate over.

If I have been "thread stalking" you . . . how could you have forgot? If you would have just manned-up and admitted your mistake, we wouldn't be talking about it now.

So there is that thread . . . sitting there like a festering wound . . . without you having corrected your misstatement of fact.

Here's your chance . . .
http://priuschat.com/index.php?showtopic=1...mp;#entry248538
. . . that weekend has been over for about a year now.

Anything I disagree with is "one-sided ultra-liberal drivel? I'm pro choice and an environmentalist . . . what conservative things are you? :huh:

Yep, FHOP is a great place to learn about people . . . and be mislead on facts.
Too much anger? Nah.
Too much of the stuff which leads to anger? Probably.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy @ Apr 22 2007, 01:56 AM) [snapback]427680[/snapback]</div>

No, I don't think Daniel oversimplified the subject, nor do I agree that the topic is "civility" - the topic is anger, it's very clearly spelled out. I also think it's presumptuous of you (or anyone) to declare with such certainty what the OP was asking - that is your interpretation (it MAY very well be what the OP was asking, but until the OP clarifies it, it's your perception only). The OP also did not ask "Is there too much????" - the OP asked if FHOP had BECOME too angry - two completely different questions - one asks for quantification (yours, I agree with you if that's what the OP is looking for), the other I believe is simply asking if it has become too angry (no quantification necessary - it's an opinion the OP is seeking). This is my interpretation.

I'm in agreement with most of the latter part of your post.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SAPrius @ Apr 20 2007, 03:00 PM) [snapback]426899[/snapback]</div>

Hmmmm, You do not visit Prius Chat, or you dont visit FHOP ? Which is only a small part of Prius Chat..? :huh: Or are you lumping them both into the same pot?. :mellow:

SPE, very well put!

Another well put quote.. B)

 

The whole world has become too angry. I feel like everything is polarizing into a bimodal distribution. There is no gray, just black and white, and I'm going to kill you if you're not just like me.

Tom

PS: The first SOB who disagrees with me is gonna get it!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(qbee42 @ Apr 23 2007, 10:57 AM) [snapback]428364[/snapback]</div>

You're just saying that CAUSE YOUR A NAZI!!!!!!1!!!111!!!!!!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(05_SilverPri @ Apr 22 2007, 08:50 PM) [snapback]428170[/snapback]</div>

When this board first appeared the gen 2 prius was new. The posts about why one bought a new technology were varied, but one theme ran through many posts. Early adopters bought the car because they wanted to support a new technology which could eventually lead us in a direction away from the oil cartels, and also because they were ecological minded and wanted to reduce pollution.

Over the years, as the car became more mainstream more and more posters claimed they purchased the car strictly for the gas/money savings, and later, for the HOV privileges. In the early incarnation of this board there was not too much political discussion because, indeed, those who first bought the car were by and large, of the same mind politically. Early adopters riding a new wave of technology were, indeed, mostly liberals not afraid to put their money into a new unproven technology. Over the years that new technology was proven enough for more conservative people to buy into more of a sure thing. In my opinion, that second wave of more conservative purchasers bought the car more for the cost savings than ecological or an attempt to move us in a new direction away from the oil cartels.

So, from what I have witnessed as a general rule is that liberals with a few extra dollars bought the first cars for one reason, then as time progressed more conservatives purchased for a different reason. The first group bought for reasons bigger than their own personal benefit, while later buyers bought for reasons more related to their own personal benefit. (remember these are generalizations and naturally there are crossovers). The first group were what are often labeled progressives or liberals. The second group were more conservative, some holding a more neocon thought process.

There wasn't so much political discussion at first since many thought alike, and there was respect for those few of differing viewpoints. As reasons for purchasing became more vaired so did political persuasions widen thereby widening political discussions. With widening political persuasions came more claiming of certain ground or what the OP sees as angry postings.

Do I think FHOP has become too angry? No. More strident postings? Yes.

 

Sufferin': You certainly come off as a very angry person. I have admitted that I could not substantiate my view on the legality of immigration. I do not "admit to being wrong" because I have not changed my view. But I lack the resources to offer substantiation, so I dropped out of the discussion.

Dropping out of a thread is not "running away." I let you have the last word on that thread. You should be pleased. Instead, you come running after me on multiple threads, insisting I "man up" to being wrong, when I do not consider that I was wrong.

What kind of mental disturbance runs all over the place, insisting that someone continue in an argument in which he has nothing further to say? What kind of mental disturbance keeps shouting "Admit you're wrong," for an entire year?

If your desire was to convince people of your view, you have posted your arguments, and that should satisfy you. Civilized people say what they have to say, and then move on. You have not convinced me and I have not convinced you, and others have read both sides and made up their minds. Since you clearly have no respect for me or my views, why should you care that I do not bow down to your authority? Why is this so important to you? It seems to have gone beyond this one topic and become personal with you: You are so angry at me for my views, that you just cannot rest. It's not enough for you to be satisfied with your arguments: You insist that I accept them. Well, I don't.

I can live with your hatred of me without reciprocating. I learned long ago that speaking my views would earn me enemies, and I accept that. Because it's more important for me to speak what I believe than to fit in with the majority view. You only hurt yourself by maintaining this vendetta. And you certainly add to the anger on FHOP. (BTW, I reserve my anger and hatred for people who hurt other people. People like the shrub. I do not include you in this category. I wish you all the best, though I do find your pestering a bit tiring.)

Note that the topic title of this thread is "Do you think PC FHOP has become too Angry?" And the full text of the OP is "I think it has."