In conclusion.

Nov 30, 2007 11:04

Been a lot of discussion hereabouts lately, and I'm glad to see it. We don't all agree, but then who ever thought we would? It's been fascinating and enlightening, all of it ( Read more... )

meta

Leave a comment

Comments 52

intheyear2004 November 30 2007, 17:54:57 UTC
I don't care which side of the argument -- whichever argument it is -- you personally are on. I do care that NO side of an issue goes without representation. How can we achieve that if we frown so strongly on discussion AT ALL?

As someone who's regularly on the bottom of a dogpile because I rarely agree with the majority or at least often think another POV might be possible, I can only say, "Thank you!"

Reply

janissa11 November 30 2007, 18:18:18 UTC
It only seems reasonable to me. Maybe discussions DO degenerate into wank at times, but to say ALL discussion is wank is -- huh. Nonsensical to me.

Reply


pheebs1 November 30 2007, 18:08:46 UTC
. How can we achieve that if we frown so strongly on discussion AT ALL?This is an interesting point. I think discussion is interesting - often necessary and valid. We should be able to discuss things in an adult way without people's feelings getting hurt ( ... )

Reply

janissa11 November 30 2007, 18:22:22 UTC
No, I agree that sometimes it does degenerate into name-calling and wank. But ALL discussion doesn't do that. And to avoid discussion because it MIGHT do that is to essentially throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I wish we could all shake hands, agree to disagree, and go our separate ways.

Maybe that would be good -- but who learns anything by always doing that? We perpetuate misunderstanding if we NEVER talk about issues. We never see the other side, you know?

Beyond a certain point, yes, sometimes you just have to shake hands and walk away. But sometimes if we just discuss things, explain our feelings and thoughts, we might actually learn and understand more. And that positive outcome will never happen if we avoid discussion simply out of fear that it might turn into wank. You know what I'm saying?

Reply

pheebs1 November 30 2007, 18:27:35 UTC
Beyond a certain point, yes, sometimes you just have to shake hands and walk away

Ah that is what I meant. I didn't mean, straight off do that! LOL! Of course you never learn if you never discuss things.

But...Sometimes I feel like people are out to convert - to have everybody think the way they do! That's when it turns tiring - cause sometimes you have to say: well, thank you, interesting, and goodbye.

I guess it is the difference between wanting to win an argument (which is how some discussions are approached, i strongly fear) and wanting to have an interesting even if heated debate. Does that make sense? The latter is good and should be encouraged.

And I get totally what you are saying. We shouldn't avoid discussion. I wish we could all behave ourselves during it, but perhaps that is a distant dream ;)

Reply

janissa11 November 30 2007, 18:38:48 UTC
Sometimes I feel like people are out to convert - to have everybody think the way they do!There's a fine line here, I think. When I make an argument, I make it as solid an argument as I can. That doesn't mean it always IS solid and air-tight, but only that I've sought to make it so ( ... )

Reply


(The comment has been removed)

janissa11 November 30 2007, 18:41:03 UTC
Your icon is AWESOME. Heeee! and *hugs*

Reply


fleshflutter November 30 2007, 18:38:08 UTC
Basically a big fat word from me. I forget what the issue at hand was, but someone recently said about there being a difference between a discussion and an argument, and too many people felt that when there was a difference of opinion they either had to 'win' the debate or go on the defensive. I try to remind myself of that whenever I find myself disagreeing with people! :)

Reply

janissa11 November 30 2007, 18:47:03 UTC
You know, in philosophy circles it really is called an argument -- which is not a disagreement per se, but a stance -- it is my *argument* that X is Y, for example.

So in that sense a discussion of two (let's say) differing points of view IS two arguments -- one with one point of view, the other with a differing one. But "argue" has a distinctly negative connotation these days, rightly or wrongly, and so I agree -- a discussion is not an ARGUMENT, it's not automatically a fight to the death, duking it out over who is right and who is wrong. I don't know that I feel folks who love pudgy!Jensen ARE wrong; in fact I think some very convincing points have been made in support of the phenomenon. Enough to sway my thinking on the subject somewhat, absolutely no doubt.

Anyway. *HUGS*

Reply


mangokulfi November 30 2007, 18:42:46 UTC
The wankiest stuff to me has always been the wank about the wank.

For every post like yours that tries to promote thoughtful discussion of an issue that some people may find troubling, here are five posts declaring "Our fandom is ruined, ruined I tell you. Why can't we all just get a long?" That's the stuff I find counter-productive and stifling.

Anyway thanks once again for allowing your LJ space to become a place where thought-provoking discussion is once again welcome.

Reply

janissa11 November 30 2007, 18:55:47 UTC
I had a reply all typed out, and then my browser tanked. ::facepalm::

More when I can remember what it all was. In the meantime, HUGS.

Reply

mangokulfi November 30 2007, 19:06:37 UTC
No worries. *hugs back*

Reply


Leave a comment

Up