Is SC&P worth it?

[Roadhump]

There does seem to be an issue with SC&P; this is the 4th thread of this type I can recall in the past 12 months. In response, several people seem to see no problem and consider it a well mannered place where everyone’s views and contributions are equally valued. Reading this thread, however, others obviously disagree and talk of rudeness, bickering, name calling and bullying. Personally, I am more with the latter group than those who say it is all hunky dory. I doubt very much whether many people would talk to each other face to face in the impolite and often insulting manner that quite a few people do in SC&P.

However, perhaps it isn’t as bad as some like myself perceive, or rather it is more of an internet thing than the fault of SC&P contributors. One of the problems with communicating on the internet is that other than what people type, NVCs are totally absent and it seems that people take, or perceive, offence much more quickly than they would if the same words were delivered face to face in the flow of a fuller conversation, accompanied by those absent NVCs. Then again, it does also seem that some people are far bolder and prepared to throw insults around when protected by online anonymity. Even considering the caveats around online communication, they would end up either ostracised or injured (post assault) if they spoke to drinking acquaintances, for example, like they speak to people in here.

The irony for me is that I tend to agree with many (but not all) of the arguments of those who I feel are the worst offenders, who tend to be on the left of the political divide. Their arguments are generally more cogent than some of the often more shallow arguments from the right, but some seem unable to resist putting people down in various impolite, condescending and often downright insulting ways, and some seem to hang round just looking for any opportunity to rattle anyone from outside their own "in group". To be fair, though, I am sure some of those from the right are deliberately flippant, shallow or extreme just to wind up their left wing adversaries. Perhaps they all see it as good sporting fun, but it doesn’t really encourage people to join in, and surely that is not the purpose of the (sub) forum and, as some people above have said, they don't participate because of that.

 

[Milkfloat]

The irony for me is that I tend to agree with many (but not all) of the arguments of those who I feel are the worst offenders, who tend to be on the left of the political divide. Their arguments are generally more cogent than some of the often more shallow arguments from the right, but some seem unable to resist putting people down in various impolite, condescending and often downright insulting ways, and some seem to hang round just looking for any opportunity to rattle anyone from outside their own "in group". To be fair, though, I am sure some of those from the right are deliberately flippant, shallow or extreme just to wind up their left wing adversaries. Perhaps they all see it as good sporting fun, but it doesn’t really encourage people to join in, and surely that is not the purpose of the (sub) forum and, as some people above have said, they don't participate because of that.

Some might see it as the complete opposite - the left winding up the right. I think it depends on what perspective you have. Personally, I see a mixture of incredible knowledge, total bullshoot, personal battles and a bit of humour.

 

[jonny jeez]

The irony for me is that I tend to agree with many (but not all) of the arguments of those who I feel are the worst offenders, who tend to be on the left of the political divide. Their arguments are generally more cogent than some of the often more shallow arguments from the right, but some seem unable to resist putting people down in various impolite, condescending and often downright insulting ways, and some seem to hang round just looking for any opportunity to rattle anyone from outside their own "in group". To be fair, though, I am sure some of those from the right are deliberately flippant, shallow or extreme just to wind up their left wing adversaries. Perhaps they all see it as good sporting fun, but it doesn’t really encourage people to join in, and surely that is not the purpose of the (sub) forum and, as some people above have said, they don't participate because of that.

Very true.

 

[Roadhump]

All started by the same person?

Before posting above, I checked quickly and found that of 3 recent threads that I found, 2 (this and one other) were started by the same person and a third by another person. I recall another from several months ago, which I didn't try to find, and I don't know who started it, so not all by one author, but granted not multiple authors.

I guess your response is intended to suggest that this could be a case of a single individual having a bee in their bonnet that others don't and I would understand that point - I think someone actually suggested it earlier on in the thread. However, each of those threads has generated quite a number of responses, many (but not all) of which support the OP's view that the behaviour of some posters is not always conducive to constructive, meaningful debate, and in fact actually hinders it; rather than this being a case of the OP being in a small minority, that might alternatively suggest that once the OP has started the thread, several others who see SC&P in a similar way to him, but have watched in silence think, "So it's not only me" and speak up on the thread. Personally, from my own observations and rare participation, I feel it is the latter rather than the OP being too sensitive or having an unjustified bee in his bonnet.

 

[welsh dragon]

My response was intended to suggest that you do what you did and check. The fact of the matter is that Jonny does have a bee in his bonnet about this sub-board, coupled with a controlling nature.
People often go on about how unfriendly or aggressive SC&P is but the only place I can recall seeing anyone post about the idea of killing another forum member is in the Tea thread. Perhaps a bit of perspective here?

 

[coffeejo]

SC&P isn't for those who don't like conflict but as others have said, it's not compulsory.

 

[Colin_P]

Of course it is worth it, it is a national treasure, a jewel.

It acts like a lense magnifying the lunacy of the world we live in.

I've not read all ten pages but I'd imagine that there are probably accusations about "usual suspects" and the like. The thing is those that are vocal in SC&P will just as quickly turn on each other; ergo; there are no "usual suspects", just those who are vocal and post a lot in there.

Personally, I think it is all quite well balanced except for one or two blindspots that many share but that is the case in real life also. The beauty of SC&P is that matters that would never be discussed or you get exposed to in real life get discussed.

And taking the real life analogy further, it is likely that anyone in their own circle of friends will by and large all share the same or very similar views, otherwise they wouldn't be friends. In SC&P you are exposed to those that hold very different world views and as a result it can be very informative.

 

[hopless500]

Goodness you were feeling sensitive.

Sorry Adrian, but I think WD's post is a more than reasonable response to your statement of "People often go on about how unfriendly or aggressive SC&P is but the only place I can recall seeing anyone post about the idea of killing another forum member is in the Tea thread".
Not sure why you think she's feeling sensitive?

 

[hopless500]

Because she was the person who suggested that she might shoot another forum member with her shotgun, as I recall.

You said 'Tea' was the only place you could recall someone threatening to kill someone else. WD has shown that on Tuesday this week there was a similar type of post, but it wasn't in the Tea thread.

 

[nickyboy]

Goodness you were feeling sensitive.

Come on Adrian. First you suggest that all the anti-SC&P threads are started by one person (I don't accept that you were suggesting that someone should check. You were seeking to imply they were). Then you were "SC&P'd" yourself when it was shown to not be correct

Then you hold up the Tea thread as some aggressive subforum but when someone shows that someone in SC&P was equally aggressive you accuse them of being over sensitive.

On the matter of aggression, SC&P is the only place in CC where I have been out and out insulted. Not knockabout stuff....personal insults

 

[nickyboy]

One was a specific suggestion by a forum member that they might kill another. The other is a non specific suggestion, not that they wanted actually to do it. Significant difference.

You're funny

 

[jonny jeez]

assume what you like

And I have a controlling nature?

 

[hopless500]

One was a specific suggestion by a forum member that they might kill another. The other is a non specific suggestion, not that they wanted actually to do it. Significant difference.

Semantics.

 

[Mugshot]

On the matter of aggression, SC&P is the only place in CC where I have been out and out insulted. Not knockabout stuff....personal insults

The first time I posted in SC&P I was told to fark off to Bike Radar, mind, I was only a few posts in on CC when I managed to get my sig line and that was no where near SC&P.

 

[Pale Rider]

@User13710's remark sums up SC&P well.

@RoubaixCube posted a reasoned argument for "hang and flog 'em", thereby going against the soft left orthodoxy of the board.

The almost instant one line response of shooting him is what passes for reasoned debate over there.

QED.