Here's a well-spoken and well-crafted argument:
I don't think that everyone involved in this chat is interested in repairing things or making things better, but instead doing damage or attacking others under the guise of well-crafted responses that are designed to fly under the radar of "board rules" but directed enough to allow for going to another forum that does allow for personal insults to high five each other "Hah! GOOD ONE!"
Here's my explanation.
Say one were interested in CREATING AN ENVIRONMENT WHERE VICTIMS AREN'T BLAMED. How can that be achieved while saying that other people are trying to create an environment where bad guys can roam free, how a desire to make sure innocents aren't wrongly accused, while those people are trying to simply come up with a solution that makes sense? Accusations and these "theories about super agendas" are, in fact, victimizing others. So by attacking people for having a civil discussion...it would be victimizing people in the name of...ending victimization?
There's a logic that doesn't flow in some of these behaviors.
- Personal attacks are bad, so I'm going to make personal attacks because I interpreted your statement as an indirect attack
- I don't like people theorizing things about me, but that's because your agenda is to...
- I'm not okay with you talking about trying to be civil and respectful now because back in March of 2004 you said....
The reason why no one is shifting or yielding on these points (myself included) is because some of the counter-arguments have been proposed alongside accusations of extreme things like "trying to bring Cullen back!" or "fascist!" or "I bet you're probably someone banned for the forum trying to trick everyone into letting you back in!" Sure, these things make for great headlines, but these arguments aren't designed in any way to be civil. They're designed to throw hate. I myself have even been referred to as "one of the most vile personalities on the forum EVAR", not that anyone has an actual problem with me hunting them down to belittle them publicly in front of others. Again, looks great on headlines but isn't productive at all.
But that's kind of the point, isn't it? These accusations and clever wordings aren't dealt in private because having the audience to "OOOOO" and "OHHHH" like a rap battle IS kind of the point at play, and it's NOT normal, it's NOT civil, it's NOT respectful, and it's not designed to...make anything better. There is little point other than to throw shots and jabs to come over to "teach people a lesson" when they're trying to "discuss a concept with civility" other than to crash that party, pour gasoline on it, and laugh with your friends.
Worse yet, there's a lot of stretching in the community ethics-wise in terms of "This person is so horrible that my horrible behavior in response is both fun and justified"...thus completely dismantling the importance of "not being horrible" to begin with. In the end, it's really about "Who gets to hold the lash." So, with the topic in mind, I think that people need to take a good, long look into WHY they're involving themselves in this conversation. If it's not to DISCUSS WHAT IT WOULD TAKE TO REPAIR THE COMMUNITY WITH RESPECT AND CIVILITY then please do everyone a favor and create a topic on your forum that -does- allow people to be fucking punks towards each other, invite people to discuss it how you want to there, and call it a day. You can act like that with the people who show up for that.
There are people that are trying to enjoy an environment where they can discuss things without having to dodge bullets constantly, and the fact that these discussions (intended to be civil) continually involve people popping in to shoot bullets is probably key in terms of what the major hurdles are to actually establish some form of mature civility in the community.
I think people should meditate on that. There's a lot to think on, there. Clearly there are open wounds that have festered, but in concept I think people need to consider things like: "If someone were to BEG for civility and a cease-fire, would you honor that?"
I just think there's a lot of value in stepping back and taking a look at the big picture and asking the following question:
"There are 2 forums, and it appears that most of the people who dislike each other are on separate forums. So why so much reaching across the aisle to ensure that you're continuing to interact with people you don't like?"
And, I say this respectfully, I skimmed past a lot of the personal insults and whatnot on BMD, and it doesn't appear that BMD has a problem with people from here coming over there to insult them, sooo....what's the point of this? Is it okay if people try to discuss this topic without being attacked, or what?