Blah Blah Blah are doing X TO DIVIDE US....

[sibelian]

hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

So, we're to ditch our opinions because, gasp, their not being the same as yours means we're ...... DIVIDED?

And a creepy weirdo is MAKING our opinions different from yours somehow? Not so clear on that one.

[Buzz Clik]

1. Self analysis: Would you say your posting style encourages diversity of thought?

Or, do you belittle those who embrace ideas that are different from yours?

[sibelian]

4. Diversity of thought is very valuable in discussing issues that are unresolved or unresolvable

Promoting it as a way of obfuscating blatantly apparent facts isn't very valuable at all.

I haven't the least interest in promoting diversity of thought for its own sake as the human species is entirely capable of maintaining a very active and abundantly confrontational level of cognitive diversity without any efforts on my part whatsoever.

If all you're interested in is lots of people arguing all the time about lots and lots of different things, well, I'm sure you have reasons for favouring that but I can't really relate to it as a goal in itself - it seems (how shall I put it) more than a little bit circuitous and self-absorbed. Some things are just true. Pretending that they're debating topics is the oldest trick in the book.

Largely speaking, people who want to think that diversity of thought is to be "preserved" are having some difficulty getting to grips with what thought IS.

Does that answer your question?

[Buzz Clik]

9. I see. In other words: No; you do not promote diversity of thought.

Promoting it as a way of obfuscating blatantly apparent facts isn't very valuable at all.

And that says it all: you feel that you have the ability to sift through complex situations and collect "blatantly apparent facts" when others may have a different opinion.

I haven't the least interest in promoting diversity of thought for its own sake as the human species is entirely capable of maintaining a very active and abundantly confrontational level of cognitive diversity without any efforts on my part whatsoever.

That isn't exactly consistent with your original comment in the OP: "So, we're to ditch our opinions because, gasp, their not being the same as yours means we're ...... DIVIDED?" But, let's move on.

If all you're interested in is lots of people arguing all the time about lots and lots of different things, well, I'm sure you have reasons for favouring that but I can't really relate to it as a goal in itself - it seems (how shall I put it) more than a little bit circuitous and self-absorbed. Some things are just true. Pretending that they're debating topics is the oldest trick in the book.

This is a discussion board. A discussion board exists for the single purpose of "lots of people arguing all the time about lots and lots of different things." If you don't like that, one has to wonder why you are here. Why is it necessary for you to harshly criticize those who enjoy that kind of discourse?

Largely speaking, people who want to think that diversity of thought is to be "preserved" are having some difficulty getting to grips with what thought IS.

Once again -- pronouncing judgment on those who disagree with you.

Please don't take this as criticism. My question asked for a moment of introspection on your part, and you gave generously. Your response does, however, thoroughly explain my interactions with you.

[Bluenorthwest]

14. Diversity of thought? Big term of art that is. DU's terms of service exclude the

notion that fully diversity of thought would even be permitted here, there is an actual list of things members must not promote.
Do you cherish 'diversity of thought' so much that you pine away to hear the thoughts of racists or homophobes? Not me. But perhaps you value the variety more than you oppose the bigotry? Diversity!
Should DU allow 'Birthers' because diverse thought is so great? Do you want to spend time hearing about Kenya and long forms, to honor diversity of thought?
Your contention seems to suggest you'd like to see openly bigoted and hateful materials here just for the sake of variety.

[Buzz Clik]

15. Okay. You took this to the greatest extreme possible to ... what end?

Are you under the impression that progressives/liberals/Democrats are all of one mind? That diversity of thought among those groups is impossible?

[sibelian]

16. ...

Promoting it as a way of obfuscating blatantly apparent facts isn't very valuable at all.

And that says it all: you feel that you have the ability to sift through complex situations and collect "blatantly apparent facts" when others may have a different opinion.

Yes, of course I do, in situations where blatantly apparently facts are being re-cast as matters of opinion for the sake of obfuscating them. If there is a specific issue on which you and I disagree on what does or does not constitute fact, feel free to discuss that issue with me.

I haven't the least interest in promoting diversity of thought for its own sake as the human species is entirely capable of maintaining a very active and abundantly confrontational level of cognitive diversity without any efforts on my part whatsoever.

That isn't exactly consistent with your original comment in the OP: "So, we're to ditch our opinions because, gasp, their not being the same as yours means we're ...... DIVIDED?" But, let's move on.

I have no idea how you arrived at that conclusion. The OP expresses a lack of concern over the phenomenon of divided opinion and my response to you expresses a lack of concern over the phenomenon of divided opinion. If you are reading my OP as a call for diversity of thought, you are misreading it.

If all you're interested in is lots of people arguing all the time about lots and lots of different things, well, I'm sure you have reasons for favouring that but I can't really relate to it as a goal in itself - it seems (how shall I put it) more than a little bit circuitous and self-absorbed. Some things are just true. Pretending that they're debating topics is the oldest trick in the book.

This is a discussion board. A discussion board exists for the single purpose of "lots of people arguing all the time about lots and lots of different things." If you don't like that, one has to wonder why you are here. Why is it necessary for you to harshly criticize those who enjoy that kind of discourse?

Thank you for informing me that DU is a discussion board. That is in fact what I thought it was and it seems that you believe that that is the case also. In this instance, it appears that there is no division of opinion at all.

You are quite correct in your observation that DU is very VERY argumentative. That is not a problem for me, but in indicating that that is a quality of DU you shift the subject from the generic case to the specific, my original point pertained to a generic signification of "diversity of thought" for its own sake, which I have no interest in. I have no problem with lots of people arguing all the time about lots and lots of different things per se, but, at the same time, I see no particular need to promote such a structure. It happens all by itself.

I am here to express MY opinion, as you are to express yours. I do not harshly criticise "those who enjoy that kind of discourse" ON THOSE GROUNDS - that would be deeply hypocritical as I am an argumentative bastard myself - I harshly criticise their discourse, in instances where I feel that such harsh criticism is merited. On occasion someone says something so ludicrous that I respond BLUNTLY. Some might say I can be ACERBIC. Similar jabs are regularly aimed at me.

I'll live. I'm not made of glass.

Largely speaking, people who want to think that diversity of thought is to be "preserved" are having some difficulty getting to grips with what thought IS.

Once again -- pronouncing judgment on those who disagree with you.

I hear that statement so often.

The idea that people should not be "judged" is IDIOTIC. People judge and are judged constantly, without the necessity for assuming there is something wrong with the idea, all the time. "Judging" is the basic function of the human brain and it cannot be switched off.

I'm assuming that what you want me not to do is judge *erroneously*. I don't want that either. But if you want me to judge things differently, you have to tell me why and it has to make sense to me. Expecting me to change my position because maintaining my current one ends up with other people feeling judged leaves out the obvious fact that that's a judgement of ME. It's no use allowing the question of who does or doesn't feel "judged" to guide your opinions!

I judge what people believe, and, if it becomes clear that what they believe is sufficiently poorly thought through that their character comes into question, yes, I judge them. They have to try pretty hard, but sooner or later they get PLONKED.

Anyway if you have some reason to suppose why diversity of thought must be promoted, tell me. Expecting me to avoid judgement of those who seek such things would require a reason why I shouldn't. Clearly it's a silly idea, diversity of thought happens all by itself. Presenting "What about diversity of thought" as a counterargument is nothing more than a sneaky way of saying "I don't have an argument, but... you know, you're bad".

Please don't take this as criticism. My question asked for a moment of introspection on your part, and you gave generously. Your response does, however, thoroughly explain my interactions with you.

I don't mind being criticised. If I am not criticised and spend my life in a cocoon of cuddly validation, I would become an opinionless schlub that prefers things that make me feel good for things that are TRUE.

[quinnox]

2. And what is so wrong about "being divided"?

Are we all supposed to be unquestioning sheep, and think the same way? It makes no sense to begin with. We aren't the Borg collective.

[sibelian]

6. I think it's an inevitable consequence of being human.

When has it ever been any different, I wonder?

[Cirque du So-What]

3. Absolutely right

so get with the program and change *your* opinion to the *right* one!

I realize that you're referring to specific examples currently in the news, but, historically, the 1% has very successfully used divisions within society to their advantage.

[sibelian]

7. It seems to me that the management of such division is usually quite careful

NEVER should such divide and conquer tactics result in narratives that actually threaten extant power structures favouring the string-pullers.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

5. Splitter!

[sibelian]

8. OMG

I'm THAT GUY

[JaneyVee]

10. Talk about authoritarian. Everyone in lockstep!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

11. Not to presume to speak for the OP but

I think he's just asking for people to encourage debate, not silence it.

If that is his sentiment then I agree with him -- which is kind of ironic, really.

[JaneyVee]

13. Seems like the opposite sentiment. Any opinion other than his is mocked or

Given a "blah blah blah". Doesn't seem too open for discussion.

[sibelian]

17. My position is that division of opinion is *inevitable*.

It can be neither truly quashed nor truly promoted.

I hope that clarifies things.

[Bluenorthwest]

12. You seem to have fully missed the point.

Intentionally? Only the Shadow knows....