Question: is 'ignoring' a post

we consider 'flame-bait' or those which 'bash' groups of people, perspectives, opinions, or any of the many 'hot-button issues' that are so common here on DU especially lately not somehow giving them
tacit approval?

I've realized that my expectation that DU was anything ...?.. other than a microcosm of the larger world, and as such, folks here are just as human and fallible as anyone, anywhere.
It is hard to stop seeking that Magical place, that Brigadoon or Camelot where everyone lives in relative harmony, but it's also unrealistic.

All that being said, do you not think that when a statement is posted, which goes against everything you believe, silence as a way of 'dealing' with it, is actually allowing it to continue, and to grow?

Like ignoring what could be a cancerous lump?

If we aren't willing to expend the energy and time to explain why we believe what we do- and examine our own positions, enough to articulate them, what hope do we have that anyone can ever learn, change, or come to see things from perspectives we may not have considered?

Rudeness, gossip, lies, disinformation, prejudice etc. are not improved by being met with silence. If we ignore our children's behaviors that are unacceptable, we are giving them license to continue practicing them.

As members of a common community do we not desire to help one another, even when that help involves thoughtfully confronting others who behave in ways that are destructive to the individual, as well as our community as a whole?-

I've learned so much from rational, uncomfortable, but invaluable confrontations from others, who took the time to open my eyes and mind, not only the possibility, but the fact, that quite often my perspective is skewed, narrow, or poorly presented-

And I appreciate these lessons-

Can anyone hear the simple message in this mess of words?

Being tolerant, means a willingness to live with differences, but not at the expense of being oppressed by others.. or am I wrong?

If you see a post that you believe is flame bait, hit the alert button. If the moderators agree with you, the post will be locked.

If you see a post that's an attack, hit the alert button. If we agree with you, the post will be removed.

It's that easy! :)

Rather usually when someone posts something offensive; a number of people respond and (depending on how offensive it is) it gets removed.

But I don't know whether you are talking more about outright trolling posts or posts by individuals who's opinions cut against the grain of the majority of DUers?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

Real flamebait or racisist/sexist/homophobic remarks should be condemned and alerted. Starting to talk about posts bashing a certain profession "bigotry," dilute the power of the word. I think you can safely ignore such forms of bashing.

I see lots of things here I don't agree with. Most of them are best ignored.

It can be difficult, letting others have and express opinions that you consider wronger than wrong. Sometimes they are flamebait, in which case ignore them. Sometimes they are someone just wanting to be heard, NOT have a discussion. Ignore them. Let them sink and let them go. Freedom of speech can be difficult, especially when the speech is about hurting others.

Irrationality should be tolerated so long as reason is left free to challenge it. If they won't listen, of course hit the alert button. Some actually are moderates looking for a conversation, but through direct confrontation, you can weed them out from the provocateurs.

but sometimes I just get tired of arguing with people and I can't keep reading what they say. I don't recommend this to anyone else; people have to decide individually how to deal with things, but obviously the function is there for a reason. I use it if I don't want to be further drawn into something that's just unproductive. I don't think we are 'intolerant' if we do so...or else why's the button there?

Put it this way, if I were out walking and somebody came up and said something rude, do I have to put up with it to show how tolerant I am? I don't really think so--I'd walk away and try to keep away from them afterwards.

How does ignoring people encourage them? They were already talking when they were ignored. So they encouraged themselves. I refuse to blame myself for somebody else's rudeness. They are not being 'oppressed,' that is stretching it just a tad! I don't feel sorry for them and I am not depriving them of anything.

You can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theater.

honest response about getting tired of arguing, is too true for me-
that and my inability to know how to be consise, and focused.

As for tolerance, and ignoring a person... I do think walking away gives the person a feeling of having been validated?... or quiet agreement?
I can offer my differing view- (which does take tact and energy- sometimes I'm depleted of both) and then leave the person to do with that what they choose-

Maybe I'm just ...anal... but when someone says or does something I believe to be 'wrong'- and is met with silence- or simply silenced- that gives a kind of ...power?....validation...? to that person.
??

To take the time and explain why someone is wrong or to ignore them..or to cut their nuts off. Its a personal choice I suppose and as far as me it depends on my mood. When Im feeling charitable Ill calmly explain why I differ with the post. When Im feeling aggressive Ill usually say something smartassed or crack a joke about it . I find myself trying to avoid flames and Ill try to keep it light if I post a disagreement, because its simply a disagreement, not the end of the world fergodsake.

I also get my feelings hurt when I post and it gets no replies since I do spend so much of my time replying to others and I guess I feel I deserve at least a few words in kind. They dont owe me anything. But it would be nice if some came down from their perches and lived with the lowlife crowd occasionally.


Some of the big shots make it a point to ignore posts if youre not "in with the in crowd"

I left that shit back in high school.

really resonate with the and also, how many times I answered the post in my head- but not in reality- which is no help to the person who has just spoken.
Also, sometimes - often times- I find my thoughts so hard to articulate- and speak FAR too much-

so I'll shut up-
but thanks-

my labor day thread about how long it has been since the minimum wage has been increased - it dropped like a Phil Collins song on the charts - no reply at all.

That is not about being ignored by big shots, whoever they are because a couple dozen little shots could also kick a thread like it was a soccer ball.

But everyone here probably has posters that they pay more attention to and are more likely to respond to, and also, most of the responses, in a GD thread, are likely to be disagreements. Mine usually are, and often a discussion ensues with the person with whom I disagreed. Whether any friendships, or mutual respect, is created in those discussions is another question. Oftentimes, I am afraid, the result is quite the opposite - enmity and mutual disrespect. I guess I cannot win them all.

Everyone here has one, and most often someone will confront you if they disagree. DU has a set of rules by which we are supposed to operate and when we don't, a moderator will catch it or be alerted to it and handle the situation. Other than those rules, I don't believe there is a right or wrong way to participate, only opinions of such. Sure, not everyone will agree with you, and at least one will likely argue with you about how wrong you are, but that's just their position, their opinion. Are we morally obliged to confront posts we disagree with? No, but chances are someone will. Not everyone is here to learn. Not everything said here has meaning. As with any other learning experience, you get out of it what you make an effort to get out of it.

And, I admit, there ARE posts that I've seen which clearly serve no purpose other than to just tick people off- where it is likely even the original poster doesn't believe what they post-

The 'alert' and 'tomb stoning' of posts though, .... how can I say this- ?? is like the way *W* has ALWAYS 'staged' his discussions, and appearances- (I know thats an exaggeration- DU doesn't do that) BUT-
I've often read posts that reveal alot about the way people think, and the common ..flaws... that we humans share, things I though were 'republican' attitudes, or traits- (yep, I've learned I'm bigoted and prejudiced in MANY ways) But in the reading- and in the 'stepping back' and looking at the 'fight'- there is much we can learn about ourselves, and the reasons why the world is in the mess it is.

As for the tolerance issue- what I mean is even when an issue doesn't impact me personally- if I ignore it- then I am empowering the person who claims that their position is the "right" one- even when I can see the flaws, and opposing perspectives.

Like the German Pastor- first they came for the .... then they came for...

Or Audre Lourde- "Your silence will not protect you".

There is a person in my life who has done much harm- our way of dealing with him was to always say "Well, ya know that's ______"
Which I've come to learn has done us all a disservice- most especially the person we never took the effort to confront in a meaningful, time consuming way.

sorry for my verbosity-

Sometimes, there is no choice but to ignore a post.
If the poster has not broken any rules, there is nothing
else to DU in my mind.
Some posts are simply in bad taste and
a waste of space and there is nothing to DU
BUT ignore them.
Why waste your breath on fools?
BHN

point- and I'm HONESTLY not talking just to hear my self speak-

But, I guess what i'm saying is I'm someone who others bothered to 'waste their time on'- and still am a fool in many ways-

I'm glad people confront me- especially when I learn how wrong I am?
Which is more often than I like admitting.

thanks-

When they leap to conclusions and then refuse to speak any further, they are doing DU a disservice as well, imo. I've only had that happen twice now to me, but in both cases it was by a person whom I believe was so biased in one direction, that they were unable to see that what I was advocating was a middle ground on the particular issue. As I am not rude in any way, and clearly if the person were to look at what it was I was really saying, and not read tons into it, they would not have been so reactive. I hope that anyone else who actually reads the thread will see the truth. Political issues are by definition controversial, and unless a person is being hateful, it seems to me that the best approach is to attempt to determine what the person actually means. Why are they saying what they are saying? Are you sure you have heard them correctly?

It also can be a question of words being re-defined. A poster who uses words that for ages have meant one thing, can get sideswiped by someone who, unbeknownst to the original poster, is using some new definition. I've seen that too. But again, this is pretty rare.

That said, generally presume when a particular thread of mine has few responses, it is merely because there happens to be some hotter issue being discussed at the same time, so nobody happens to notice the one I've posted. It's just a question of timing.