• frank
    18.2k
    We have a climate change thread on the front page which tends to degenerate into personal attacks. Maybe it's a topic that would be better suited to the Lounge?

    It's this thread.

    And these are the types of comments that show up:

    "I can’t wait for your usual on-topic, detailed reasoning. Because there’s no way you just wanted to bring the discussion into the realm of naval-gazing bullshit so as to have some shot at participation, knowing next to nothing about the topic as you do, and being unwilling to read or learn and all. I know it couldn’t be that, given your sterling reputation."


    "But I personally don’t care if you raise these questions — it’s just that it’s laughable in its childishness."

    "Good thing you’re not in charge of anything."

    "Why people continue to make such ignorant comments is beyond me."

    "But it’s best to listen to Internet trolls when they tell you not to worry."
  • DingoJones
    2.9k
    When did this forum become so sensitive? Did I miss a memo?
    Thank the person for identifying themselves as someone not to engage with and move to on, the adult way. Tattle tailing, feigning grievance, these are a childs way.
  • AmadeusD
    3.7k
    The point is that this forum is not the place for school-yard (Or X) type nonsense like that. Total ad hominems are the refuge of those who cannot control their emotions. Those who cannot control their emotions are generally refused entry (to anything except therapy).

    The activist class tend to be unable, so what should be a serious and fulfilling thread tends to, as noted, descend into insults. Even when one is not disagreeing with the activist.
  • frank
    18.2k


    Right. I think we put all the other low brow discussions in the Lounge, and I thought that was an improvement. I think they just missed this one.
  • Mikie
    7.2k
    Perhaps if those of you so sensitive to snarky replies cared more about not spreading misinformation instead…

    I also notice no engagement with the arguments. Rather the replies are cherry-picked for their sarcasm or frustration at having to debunk long-refuted claims over and over again, only to hbw them reappear.
  • Mikie
    7.2k
    Or let’s put it this way: I’ll agree to be nicer if you agree not to spam a thread about climate science with denialist talking points. Deal?
  • frank
    18.2k
    Rather the replies are cherry-picked for their sarcasm or frustration at having to debunk long-refuted claims over and over again, only to hbw them reappear.Mikie

    I'm sure there are nothing but noble reasons for the hostility. I'm just asking @Jamal if we might put the Consequences of Climate Change thread in the Lounge.

    It's this one.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.