Help on how to bring up a topic for discussion.

[Eventhorizon]

I am ridiculed for how I bring up topics for discussion. I am told I should think before I post. In an effort to be more thoughtful I am asking for ideas and thoughts on how to discuss topics.

As an example a recently found that according to a well established and respected medical journal liberals specifically have been proven to be psychotic. If I create a thread to discuss this medical understanding I do not wish to offend anyone. So how can I choose my words better in order to make others feel more at ease? How can this be discussed without offending? What should my thread title be? What should my words be? What should my deminure be?

 

[flufiang]

Hi EH!!!! *waves*

 

[flufiang]

All I would like to say is..... it’s perfectly ok to talk about whatever topic tickles your fancy.... and it’s even ok to disagree with opinions, but just do so in a way that does not invalidate the other individuals’ statement, even if it’s a complete 180 to yours.... from what I can see you enjoy a good debate, but maybe, if someone states a different comment, kindly thank them for the contribution and calmly counter if you feel the need to, I personally love using questions when there are two opposing views, questions help us to see the why behind another person’s view and makes them more open to understanding ours when we take interest in theirs (even if at the end, we agree to disagree)

 

[James]

I am ridiculed for how I bring up topics for discussion. I am told I should think before I post. In an effort to be more thoughtful I am asking for ideas and thoughts on how to discuss topics.

People have different views on politics, religion, science, everything. And it's easy to focus on differences, when often we have a lot in common.

I think you post a lot about politics, when that is not your only interest. Maybe members on the forum, are only seeing one aspect of your personality. I know you're interested in space exploration, science and technology. What else ? I'm sure there's a lot more.

I don't mean you should change or stop posting about politics. Just maybe let people see more of your other interests.

Ps. If you don't help me run @Ren out of town after this, I want my friendship bracelet back.

 

[Deleted member 10171]

@Eventhorizon - I like a lot of what you say and agree with most of your posts but your self inflated and sarcastic ego (it doesn't bother me) can often get in the way of people's *feelings*. So perhaps you could try and think twice before posting (ie think "how does this come off?") and you could try and be a little more sensitive by actually engaging people in a conversation by asking them questions instead of making actual statements ...also, try and be bit a little friendlier too. For example:

@flufiang - Thanks for the waves *waves back*

 

[Pin]

Lol.

 

[Wyote]

As an example a recently found that according to a well established and respected medical journal liberals specifically have been proven to be psychotic.

Weird attempt at subversion

 

[Eventhorizon]

Interesting..

 

[Ginny]

What should my deminure be?

Do you mean "demeanor"? Because what you wrote is closer to "demanure", manure meaning basically feces, which is not good to write about in this context.

I think you post a lot about politics, when that is not your only interest. Maybe members on the forum, are only seeing one aspect of your personality. I know you're interested in space exploration, science and technology. What else ? I'm sure there's a lot more.

I don't mean you should change or stop posting about politics. Just maybe let people see more of your other interests.

I'm trying to stay away from political content here, because I only know part of what is going on. (I also don't want to bring it up at home because my mother is kind of racist.) It does not mean that I don't have an interest in politics or that I don't have an opinion on it, but discussions can get very heated when everyone isn't on the same page, i.e. same information pool. Perhaps, @Eventhorizon, you may also want to share what you saw/read, then we can make up our own minds of whether to trust that source of information, because I for one don't trust everything someone has said just because they said it comes from a reliable source. It's easy to be wrong on those things, not meaning you specifically.

I'd really like to get to know you better, but from a different side.

Ps. If you don't help me run @Ren out of town after this, I want my friendship bracelet back.

Why?

I like a lot of what you say and agree with most of your posts but your self inflated and sarcastic ego (it doesn't bother me) can often get in the way of people's *feelings*.

Feelings? I like sarcasm and self inflated egos are funny, but being anti and disrespectful of others' opinions is another thing. Calling names has brought anything further, other than creating a back and forth of banter it doesn't acheive anything. As I said, share your sources, instead of calling them stupid up front for having a different opinion.

 

[Eventhorizon]

Well that's the thing. If I drop the bomb as I normally do people take offense. I post the information as I did on snowflakes and the next thing I know is that I am being attacked for someone else's information. That is the whole point of this thread.

Also as much as I like to hear from people I don't have an ego. We probably need to stop saying that I have an inflated ego because that simply to not align with the facts.

 

[Ginny]

Well that's the thing. If I drop the bomb as I normally do people take offense. I post the information as I did on snowflakes and the next thing I know is that I am being attacked for someone else's information. That is the whole point of this thread.

Also as much as I like to hear from people I don't have an ego. We probably need to stop saying that I have an inflated ego because that simply to not align with the facts.

Perhaps you just come off as having an ego for being facticious (is that a word?) and at times dismissive.

I looked at that first post in the snowflake thread and I noticed that there is something missing, namely your personal stance on what you posted. If you don't do that, then someone can easily interpret this as you being 100% of that same opinion. And if they don't agree with that opinion, because it may be offensive or something (to generalise this a bit more), then you'll obviously run into closed doors.

 

[Ginny]

You could wrap it up differently, post your opinion of it first, carefully worded, and link your source, instead of having that other opinion take up the whole space of your post.

 

[Tin Man]

I think there's some excellent advice posted here.

One thing I can suggest is to take a step back when someone posts something you disagree with, rather than go on the offensive. If you post that piece on liberals and psychosis, most likely there will be other articles posted that contradict these claims. Spend some time reading these opposing articles, don't simply assume them to be invalid because you don't agree.

We're all guilty of confirmation bias, and there's no escaping that initial impulse to reject that which you disagree with. But if you don't at least try to override it, and look at things some bit objectively, your credibility goes out the window .

At the end of the day, your focus shouldn't be on appearing to be reasonable. If you're still rejecting ideas without appraisal, you're losing a possible advantage to learn something interesting and new. So you might earn a better reputation, but to me, that's a empty victory.

 

[Stu]

As an example a recently found that according to a well established and respected medical journal liberals specifically have been proven to be psychotic.

Suggested thread titles: "Are liberals predisposed to Psychoticism?" "Liberal bias in Academia leads to erroneous results" "Social Science Reveals it Liberal Bias"
OP: https://nypost.com/2016/06/09/science-says-liberal-beliefs-are-linked-to-pyschotic-traits/
http://freebeacon.com/issues/resear...nking-conservatives-psychoticism-quite-minor/

 

[Icedream]

You go up to someone, and ask your question.

 

[Eventhorizon]

You could wrap it up differently, post your opinion of it first, carefully worded, and link your source, instead of having that other opinion take up the whole space of your post.

I could but I am starkly aware that my opinion is not liked or wanted. At least not in a way that won't draw ire from people.
The goal, however small chance there may be is to solve problems. Many people don't like to hear they are part of the problem (go figure). So the best hope is to get these people.to listen.
I know how funny and futile that sounds. Yet it has been my focus since I could think for myself. Still convinced there is a right combination of words to get everyone (or at least most people) on the same page so that we can all move forward in a same direction to accomplish an end result that benefits everyone.

I come off as short and dismissive because I don't see a reason to spend time on thoughts or ideas that can't work or have been proven not to work to accomplish that end goal. I do feel as if the argument and statements I make are well beyond many of the responses I get. Meaning, I have already contemplated them, there is no new relevant information in them to consider or that is relevant to the end goal. HOWEVER i understand how someone who cannot see beyond one of their own thoughts like this may feel as if it's being dismissed. I'm not sure I can do anything about that. There is just so much time and information that would have to be spent getting them to see how it doesn't work. All the while fighting their denial in the process.

We ( humanity) are on a precipice. If half our population dies, we've basically resolved ourselves to the slow death of the human species. Well never get off this planet. Which is not to say that assures our survival but at least it gives us a chance where none was before.

 

[Icedream]

I could but

okay stop

 

[Ginny]

I come off as short and dismissive because I don't see a reason to spend time on thoughts or ideas that can't work or have been proven not to work to accomplish that end goal. I do feel as if the argument and statements I make are well beyond many of the responses I get. Meaning, I have already contemplated them, there is no new relevant information in them to consider or that is relevant to the end goal. HOWEVER i understand how someone who cannot see beyond one of their own thoughts like this may feel as if it's being dismissed. I'm not sure I can do anything about that. There is just so much time and information that would have to be spent getting them to see how it doesn't work. All the while fighting their denial in the process.

How will you know that it's wasted if you won't engage with them? Sure, a few people may dismiss what you have to say from the start, but there are some that, when you bring your point across fully and argumentatively, and most of all without bias, then you'll get responses in kind.

If you don't see any point in arguing with us, what makes you stay and fight?

 

[Eventhorizon]

How will you know that it's wasted if you won't engage with them? Sure, a few people may dismiss what you have to say from the start, but there are some that, when you bring your point across fully and argumentatively, and most of all without bias, then you'll get responses in kind.

If you don't see any point in arguing with us, what makes you stay and fight?

I suppose the idea that if people at least begin to consider they are wrong they may persue looking past their own initial stance or thoughts.

 

[Ginny]

I suppose the idea that if people at least begin to consider they are wrong they may persue looking past their own initial stance or thoughts.

Do you also apply this to yourself? If they do not see it in you, then why should they do it themselves?

I believe there's something missing in that statement syntaxwise, so I don't know if I got you right.