Well, just to add my .02, civility is a requirement for discussion, imho. Otherwise things just devolve into the equivalent of a second-grade playground. And I'm sorry to say that many threads here have basically devolved from [issue] to [personal issue].

I have absolutely no problem with the mods' attempt to maintain a modicum of decorum. If one's definition of continuing a thread is "sh!t happening" over actually discussing the subject at hand ... well, that's just sad.

I agree that more than a fair share of trolling goes on here. But shouldn't the response be challenging the position rather than "you're just a [insert perceived bigotry here]" and let the rest of the what's sure to be gargantuan thread commence to be about that? A lot of interesting and (I think) important subjects often get subsumed into name-calling and "too -" stupidity that it's not worth even engaging ...

I can't count the number of times I've looked for the most recent post here just to clear the thread. And it most definitely is NOT because of one poster.

So hats off to trying to encourage civil debate. I find nothing negative to the endeavor.

That's right - a constructive contribution requires no profane or defamatory content - John's intervention is about the quality of debate which had been deteriorating badly.

km

Name calling and other ad hominem replies against the person generally to me are a clear impression of the fact that the opponent has nothing in response.

OK, some small jabs and puns are acceptable, as long as the topic is being discussed. Yes, this is my opinion and I also have an arsehole, but I am right. Too many hot topic threads here deteriorate quickly into nothing more than ad hominem* arguments on both sides.

So keymaker has an agenda - whether perceived or real, it doesn't matter, everybody's got one. So what? Steveg has an agenda. Katlpablo has an agenda. I have an agenda. Guess what, we all have arseholes, too.

*I hate using that expression, but this time it fits.

You could say Jeffrey Dahmer had an agenda.. leave him alone and don't call him evil names.
Extreme analogy, but you get the point.

(just playing devils advocate, it's not nice to call names...)

Jeffrey Dahmer crossed the line and caused actual physical harm to people, that's the main difference. And you could probably label him a sociopath, too.

I'm with Matt on this one. The more civil and respectful the dialogue, the more likely each other's viewpoints might penetrate.

Well, it's a thought.

But that stickie up top? Well, it is a bit playskool. But then again, look at the history of this forum! Politics brings out the beasts within.

I don't mind, really. Just glad any kind of political discussion is still possible.

LOL.. I said the analogy was extreme.

Yep, you did. I was just illustrating the extremity of it.

Some members come in here with the agenda to post flame bait and rile everyone up. We shouldn't be surprised when it happens.

To be honest I don't think anyone's surprised... but there's no place in a Mac community for going onto the attack with insulting or disrespectful personal abuse.

km