I've just realized that I actually meant simply "violence", as for me the term "physical violence" would be redundant and any sort of "non-physical violence" imaginary.

I think the experience of sound when speaking is the physical aspect, and the words themselves are nonexistent until the sounds can be interpreted as words. The sound from spoken words might damage a hearing apparatus. On the World Wide Web on a forum such as this one, the sound for the words can be regulated by the computer's speaker volume, thereby avoiding violence upon the hearing apparatus (ear or mechanical hearing aid).

The words are only imagined to exist from the sounds (assuming a language is known at all), for example, song lyrics. Either spoken, signed, or written, the meaning for the words are also imagined, and as such it seems to me no one thinks exactly the same as anyone else about anything at all. A person's own thoughts are that person's privilege and responsibility reigned in only by that person's own self-discipline.

A civilized discussion?? On the internet???? What??? How??? Where? When... that must've been a first.

Ah yes, good point dear sir. *straightens his monocle and claps his hand*

I thought that started a new thread. Well, live and learn; thanks!
Yes.

Now, did I ever once say I was smart :)

https://i.imgur.com/a4CVG.jpg

Probably not much different from civilized discussions way back. Showing mutual respect, listening to the opinion of others, trying to understand, formulating politely arguing about the topic, not the person.

I guess most of us actually know very well how to discuss civilized. However, I also guess that less people actually want to discuss civilized, especially in the internet with its anonymity. Trolls still have it far too easy.

Having said that, I think that the recipe for a civilized discussion is really not that difficult. It just may be that not every place and time is a good place for civilized discussions.

One thing to consider:

Suppose that (for example), the topic is left-handedness. If you are discussing this topic with a left-handed person, then any discussion about the topic is, in a way, about the person in question.

I can argue about left-handedness in general without looking at the specifics of left-handedness of the one person in question. I could specifically speak about this person's left-handedness though and then indeed it would be personal. This would require a bit of extra tactfulness but would otherwise not prohibit a possible civil discussion about it.

If you take the stance that left-handedness is somehow bad, then what you are saying is essentially a personal attack on the person in question, and personal attacks do not belong in civilized discussion.

I would say, it depends very much on the circumstances. Let's assume you and me are old friends. We know and trust each other. Let's further assume we sit together in a nice environment with some drinks and that we discuss things. Next thing could be that you tell me that you took something valuable from a department store today without payment. I might be surprised and could express my surprise, declaring that stealing, if you really didn't pay, is somehow bad and that I would have expected a different behavior from you. You may want to justify yourself or you might reconsider your action or I might reconsider my judgement upon hearing your motivation or even my friendship with you which may be very unlikely though.

I would still believe we can have a civil discussion about it and that any personal judgement can be posed and received without resorting to uncivil behavior. We probably need to know each other before for that.

And it would not be like an attack, more like a personal controversy.

A bit of controversy and personal involvement is in every good discussion, otherwise discussion topics would probably be very boring. The difference between civil and not civil discussions is how they are handled. The key is mostly respect.

Except ''essentially saying'' is different from ''actually saying''.

If you apply that consistently, you can't have any discussion at all. It would also mean you can't criticize right-wingers like me for their views because that would be a personal attack on them.
I guess you could make a distinction between aspects of identity one can't really change like race, sex, left-handedness etc. and views which one can change...except most of the Left doesn't act like that, and is super-protective of a religious ideology like Islam (which has unequality built into its very core).
Ultimately it's all just about power and who's allowed to spout even the most ridiculous nonsense, and who's forced to shut up.

The word “Triggered” has become a propaganda dog whistle to make people focus on their self-concern, to cloud your mind with the importance of how you feel. And instigate the concept of policing speech, and soon to follow, policing thoughts.

In life, you will see things, and hear things, and meet people that you don't agree with, or will offend you. You can choose to turn away, turn the page, speak out against them, or try to reason with them through debate to further understanding.

Notice how the topics of War Crimes, Massive Criminal Fraud by global financiers, political corruption, rigged economic systems, injustice, and human trafficking crime rings, these things that have a devastating effect on the reality of our daily lives, are so politely kept out of the public mind, whilst all public debate is being reduced to a defense against the phantoms of “hate speech”, to avoid triggering people’s sensibilities through identity politics.

Concerning Trolls. Should you run across them, in Comment sections and Forum communities, you can pet them, just don’t feed them.

Don't forget disability, sexual orientation, and gender identity; those are also aspects of identity one can't really change.

(There are likely other aspects; in fact, I would be very surprised if this list were exhaustive.)

I have the same feelings as OP.

Fables has been on a censorship spree as of recently.

She offers no explanation of what exactly constitutes as offensive and simply locks threads or deletes comments.

She is simply NOT a good moderator for gog forums.

Gog can hire better.


A proper civilized discussion can only occur when people separate their emotions from logic and speak logically in discussions.