Community Chat

[Mominohio]

---

@Plaid Pants2 wrote:

---

@Moonchilde wrote:

---

@GingerPeach wrote:

---

@PenneyT wrote:

. . .

Comments like "I hate bellbottoms but love capris" or "I feel that dogs are better than cats" etc., . . .

---

The highlighted portion illustrates just one of the reasons discussion often fails.  Comparisons could be made without resorting to the black/white or either/or argument, but all too often they are not.

For example, why not just say what you're going to say but leave off the part that explains how much worse you think the "other" is.   

I get that it is tempting, but it is not necessary. 

This is probably irrelevant, but I used to know someone who, whenever I'd say I was in favor of something (whether a type of dog, a shade of color, or almost anything), she would immediately tell me that that she liked the "other" and made the assumption that someone could not appreciate both.  How that makes sense is beyond me.  Is it possible people are that limited?

---

It's entirely possible that people are that self-centered and opinionated. We have to deal with them in real life, as well as on every BBS and discussion forum everywhere.

There are many people for whom there is only ONE ("right") way and it's their way or the highway. They are "honest", they "tell it like it is", etc. They have learned to spout what they feel are acceptable excuses for their communication disabilities.

The fact that such people are everywhere, don't see or feel the need to change and aren't going to stop, is the reason that just about any discussion on just about any topic on all but the most strictly moderated forums has the potential to degenerate into name-calling and insults, and often does. Add in those who do it deliberately, getting the warm fuzzies when they "score" what they think is a clever insult/put-down, and you have instant ugliness.

---

Agreed. Look at some of the more infamous discussions that degraded in to fighting.

Crockpots

Pantyhose

How to drink beer

Canned soup

How often to wash linens

And people think that it would be possible to have a civil discussion about politics?

Never going to happen, my friends.

Never, ever going to happen.

And if one thinks that it's possible to have a civil discussion about politics, then they are incredibly nieve.

---

I beg to differ. I have seen a number of times here where the topic was politically related, and stayed very technical and civil without name calling and bullying. One recent example was the discussion about caucus procedures and practices, vs primaries.

There was a lot of very valuable information given to those of us who have never experienced a caucus, and there was talk about those excluded from the process because of it, what groups were working on changes etc.

So yes, it does happen, even here, that some topics of a political nature do go for a very long time, are informative, and people offer a variety of experiences and opinions, that others learn much from. People who normally 'battle' on any number of subjects were actually more than civil, agreed on a number of things, and took time to answer questions, not slam them.

The sky is not falling in Henny Penny, just because people talk politics, sometimes the mods let it happen, and it is a good thing that comes from it.

[proudlyfromNJ]

If many people feel so strongly about having a political thread, contact the mods and see if anything can be done. State your case and let them know people have been able to do it in the past and remain civil. 

It it looks like the arguing has already started, but maybe it is possible. Only one way to find out.

[Plaid Pants2]

---

@Mominohio wrote:

---

@Plaid Pants2 wrote:

---

@Moonchilde wrote:

---

@GingerPeach wrote:

---

@PenneyT wrote:

. . .

Comments like "I hate bellbottoms but love capris" or "I feel that dogs are better than cats" etc., . . .

---

The highlighted portion illustrates just one of the reasons discussion often fails.  Comparisons could be made without resorting to the black/white or either/or argument, but all too often they are not.

For example, why not just say what you're going to say but leave off the part that explains how much worse you think the "other" is.   

I get that it is tempting, but it is not necessary. 

This is probably irrelevant, but I used to know someone who, whenever I'd say I was in favor of something (whether a type of dog, a shade of color, or almost anything), she would immediately tell me that that she liked the "other" and made the assumption that someone could not appreciate both.  How that makes sense is beyond me.  Is it possible people are that limited?

---

It's entirely possible that people are that self-centered and opinionated. We have to deal with them in real life, as well as on every BBS and discussion forum everywhere.

There are many people for whom there is only ONE ("right") way and it's their way or the highway. They are "honest", they "tell it like it is", etc. They have learned to spout what they feel are acceptable excuses for their communication disabilities.

The fact that such people are everywhere, don't see or feel the need to change and aren't going to stop, is the reason that just about any discussion on just about any topic on all but the most strictly moderated forums has the potential to degenerate into name-calling and insults, and often does. Add in those who do it deliberately, getting the warm fuzzies when they "score" what they think is a clever insult/put-down, and you have instant ugliness.

---

Agreed. Look at some of the more infamous discussions that degraded in to fighting.

Crockpots

Pantyhose

How to drink beer

Canned soup

How often to wash linens

And people think that it would be possible to have a civil discussion about politics?

Never going to happen, my friends.

Never, ever going to happen.

And if one thinks that it's possible to have a civil discussion about politics, then they are incredibly nieve.

---

I beg to differ. I have seen a number of times here where the topic was politically related, and stayed very technical and civil without name calling and bullying. One recent example was the discussion about caucus procedures and practices, vs primaries.

There was a lot of very valuable information given to those of us who have never experienced a caucus, and there was talk about those excluded from the process because of it, what groups were working on changes etc.

So yes, it does happen, even here, that some topics of a political nature do go for a very long time, are informative, and people offer a variety of experiences and opinions, that others learn much from. People who normally 'battle' on any number of subjects were actually more than civil, agreed on a number of things, and took time to answer questions, not slam them.

The sky is not falling in Henny Penny, just because people talk politics, sometimes the mods let it happen, and it is a good thing that comes from it.

That was a rarity. Talking politics is like talking about abortion. People are firmly entrenched in what they believe, and will feel that they have to have the last word, and it would quickly degrade in to name calling and put downs.

The FACT is, political discussions are NOT allowed here.

It is their site, and they get to make the rules.

What part of that do you not understand?

All the foot stomping, pouting, sulking, whining and wishing that it was otherwise, is EVER going to change that fact.

And the sooner that they accept that FACT, the better off they will be.

There is NO need to discuss politics on  SHOPPING website.

If one is that h... bent on discussing politics, then search the web for the plethora of political websites, and choose one of those to discuss politics, otherwise one can create their very own political website, and run it exactly as they see fit.

There is no exception that this place will ever be all things to all people.

If one thinks that, then they must be smoking one of those "funny" cigarettes.

[Burnsite]

Plaid, You are the only poster on this thread who has chosen to be pouty. 

[Plaid Pants2]

The ones who are pouty, are the ones who keep insisting and demanding that this place MUST allow all political discussions.

Are the people who agree with me also "pouty", or do you just not like me specifically?

Because if it is the second, then that is your problem sweetheart, not mine.

[Burnsite]

Not one person who posted here, except for Plaid Pants, has insisted on or demanded anything.  They have expressed an opinion. 

[Plaid Pants2]

---

@Burnsite wrote:

Not one person who posted here has insisted on anything.  They have expressed an opinion. 

---

You keep tellin' yourself that.

[dooBdoo]

         I can understand @faeriemoon's feelings, since there have been some interesting political discussions now and then, and I've learned a great deal from some of the bright, knowledgeable posters here.  I can understand why some do miss it, and others don't.

         As @Mominohio said, sometimes the moderators do allow a political thread (the caucus example).   Yes, they have policies in place -- but the standards have to be subjective because nothing is really that cut and dried. 

        Also, in my opinion, the few posters who aren't classic "trolls" but who become abrasive, who attack the other posters instead of attacking the issue, don't seem to be self-aware.   As a result, they don't realize they are the problem instead of QVC's policies or moderators being the problem.

        As an example, if someone posts their opinion and then says "if others were 'adults' they'd understand or agree..."  "what part of that don't you understand..."  or uses sarcasm, stereotypes, personal insults, uses unattractive characterizations toward those with different views...  the thread takes a turn away from the issue and becomes a personal fight.   Just take a step back from any threads which take on a contentious tone -- and notice who's respectful of others.   Notice which posts take personal pokes, put other posters down for even expressing their position, or who try to demean others.   That's the key, right there.

        And then, as all of us have seen, some people take the hard feelings away from that thread, carry them like a torch, and continue the personal fight on other thread.   Grudges develop and they seem to take on a life of their own and live forever.

        I says a lot that we can't hold civil discussions about any topic, no matter how simple or uncontroversial it starts out.   That's something we should think about, in my opinion.

       At least on social media such as Facebook we know each other's name, we likely know the person in our real life, and no one is creating alternate nicknames to dive bomb threads and go after those they don't like.   This is one place moderation is to blame:  on professionally-managed forums, the patterns of flamers are noted and alternate nicknames are also noted.  Warnings are given, and those who repeat the problematic activity are banned.  

        Since IP addresses aren't always static, it's not as easy as it used to be, but it can be (and is) done when owners and moderators make the time to do this.   (As a side note, we really should ignore the flamers and report them when we see them instead of allowing them to ruin discussions.   I know it's hard, but it's possible.   So all of us bear some of the blame in that respect, too, and I include myself in that.)

        That's my soapbox novel for the day.   And it's just my opinion and, clearly, others' mileage may vary.

[MomCat]

I actually do go to the political sites and duke it out.  I enjoy it, but I agree, this is a shopping site so let's keep our arguments about clothing and makeup.  LOL 

[Mominohio]

---

@Plaid Pants2 wrote:

---

@Mominohio wrote:

---

@Plaid Pants2 wrote:

---

@Moonchilde wrote:

---

@GingerPeach wrote:

---

@PenneyT wrote:

. . .

Comments like "I hate bellbottoms but love capris" or "I feel that dogs are better than cats" etc., . . .

---

The highlighted portion illustrates just one of the reasons discussion often fails.  Comparisons could be made without resorting to the black/white or either/or argument, but all too often they are not.

For example, why not just say what you're going to say but leave off the part that explains how much worse you think the "other" is.   

I get that it is tempting, but it is not necessary. 

This is probably irrelevant, but I used to know someone who, whenever I'd say I was in favor of something (whether a type of dog, a shade of color, or almost anything), she would immediately tell me that that she liked the "other" and made the assumption that someone could not appreciate both.  How that makes sense is beyond me.  Is it possible people are that limited?

---

It's entirely possible that people are that self-centered and opinionated. We have to deal with them in real life, as well as on every BBS and discussion forum everywhere.

There are many people for whom there is only ONE ("right") way and it's their way or the highway. They are "honest", they "tell it like it is", etc. They have learned to spout what they feel are acceptable excuses for their communication disabilities.

The fact that such people are everywhere, don't see or feel the need to change and aren't going to stop, is the reason that just about any discussion on just about any topic on all but the most strictly moderated forums has the potential to degenerate into name-calling and insults, and often does. Add in those who do it deliberately, getting the warm fuzzies when they "score" what they think is a clever insult/put-down, and you have instant ugliness.

---

Agreed. Look at some of the more infamous discussions that degraded in to fighting.

Crockpots

Pantyhose

How to drink beer

Canned soup

How often to wash linens

And people think that it would be possible to have a civil discussion about politics?

Never going to happen, my friends.

Never, ever going to happen.

And if one thinks that it's possible to have a civil discussion about politics, then they are incredibly nieve.

---

I beg to differ. I have seen a number of times here where the topic was politically related, and stayed very technical and civil without name calling and bullying. One recent example was the discussion about caucus procedures and practices, vs primaries.

There was a lot of very valuable information given to those of us who have never experienced a caucus, and there was talk about those excluded from the process because of it, what groups were working on changes etc.

So yes, it does happen, even here, that some topics of a political nature do go for a very long time, are informative, and people offer a variety of experiences and opinions, that others learn much from. People who normally 'battle' on any number of subjects were actually more than civil, agreed on a number of things, and took time to answer questions, not slam them.

The sky is not falling in Henny Penny, just because people talk politics, sometimes the mods let it happen, and it is a good thing that comes from it.

That was a rarity. Talking politics is like talking about abortion. People are firmly entrenched in what they believe, and will feel that they have to have the last word, and it would quickly degrade in to name calling and put downs.

The FACT is, political discussions are NOT allowed here.

It is their site, and they get to make the rules.

What part of that do you not understand?

All the foot stomping, pouting, sulking, whining and wishing that it was otherwise, is EVER going to change that fact.

And the sooner that they accept that FACT, the better off they will be.

There is NO need to discuss politics on  SHOPPING website.

If one is that h... bent on discussing politics, then search the web for the plethora of political websites, and choose one of those to discuss politics, otherwise one can create their very own political website, and run it exactly as they see fit.

There is no exception that this place will ever be all things to all people.

If one thinks that, then they must be smoking one of those "funny" cigarettes.

---

You do realize, don't you, that we are discussing politics right now. 

You do realize, don't you, that the foot stomping, pouting, sulking and whining is coming from the side that is using lots of capitalized words like never, no, not and fact.

You do realize, don't you, that political discussions come up in Community Chat every day, some last, some don't, so even those making and enforcing the rules play it by ear, see how it goes, and as long as people act like adults and stick to the technicalities let some of the threads stand.

Your "NO need" is not the "NO need" of others. I don't think there is any need to discuss lipstick colors and choices, ever, anywhere, for any reason. But you don't see me over in beauty moaning about that, do you?

Let people bring up what they will, and then let the Q mods do what they will. Don't need others telling folks what they can/should/shouldn't/need to discuss. We'll leave that to Q to leave up or take down.