But it continues - the raison d'etre is to make people feel stupid, while showing that you're smart. That's mostly what has guided me too. Isn't this gross? I don't claim to be free of it, but I do claim to reflect on it, and not like it. — csalisbury

That's with the people that cannot rise above the level of seeing a philosophical discussion mainly as a competition between individual people and focus on how they themselves come out to other people.

For me it's the forum is a window where you can share your ideas and see if they make sense to other people. The best thing that can happen is that someone takes their time, reads and understands your idea and shows that you have an error somewhere in your reasoning in such way that you yourself get the point. Or gives more insight to the topic. That improves your thinking and your argumentation. Then you are not making that mistake in real life.

In terms of tactics, I think one puzzle piece is to not alienate roughly half of the US population( of voters.) If you begin with an attack, the person will get defensive. — csalisbury

If we agree that this is about tactics, then not alienating Trump supporters is a contingent goal, right? Something we do in order to change the outcome of the next election. The question then is what the correct tactics are.

This is the same reason leftist attacks on moderate liberals, like Obama, tend to fail. If voting for Obama means knowingly supporting everything he did, then you're in trouble. There are, I'm sure, many people who voted for Trump who are queasy on certain policies. That's the populace you need to sway. If you write off the entirety of active voters who votes for trump, you automatically hand him the win. — csalisbury

I see your point. But, like @Maw, I don't agree with your tactical assessment. I don't think swaying Trump supporters is the goal. I think the goal is mobilizing the already existing majority for a better candidate with better policies. Of course, locally, in swing states, swaying Trump voters may well be important. But as far as the overarching narrative goes, I think you can leverage the "we are the resistance" sentiment.

[the cheeky meta stuff: your post is too bogged down in justificatory nuance. You make these conceptual distinctions between how you actually see things and how you need to argue things from a tactical standpoint. For me, its handier to categorize you as what I, hypothetical responder, already did from the get-go, namely : [Someone who acts as though he thinks all trump voters are actual nazis] ] — csalisbury

Perhaps. I admit it is difficult to order my thoughts on this issue. On the one hand, I agree with treating people fairly and focusing on the actual details of their positions. On the other hand, I have the feeling people hide their racist, sexist, nationalist etc. views behind a pretended nuance. The whole, "I don't have anything against X, but..." method. I think there is a lot more outright "us vs them" thinking guiding people's decisions than most people like to admit.

The US, for as long as I’ve been alive, has voted based on personal popularity not policy. — I like sushi

That isn't really unique to the US though. I also think it isn't necessarily a problem. After all, I am not an expert on every policy question, so focusing on policy doesn't necessarily lead to better outcomes.

And do notice that this is exactly the strategy of Trump too and this isn't anything new. What is new is how headlong Americans fell for this and how the "silly-season" of the election 2016 never went away. This creates the toxic and vitriolic political environment where the US is now in. This is the way you erode social cohesion and divide the people into separate camps, which then you legitimize by saying that they belong to separate 'tribes' and explain that people are tribal. — ssu

The problem I see, from a pragmatic perspective, is that you cannot avoid this unless both sides are playing "by the rules". Trump's divisive rhetoric should already have disqualified him for a second term. The fact that it hasn't indicates there is already a lot of division. You cannot easily overcome that, and you cannot sway the core base anyway. Hoping that positive messages on the campaign trail will somehow bridge the gap strikes me as naïve.

Hillary Clinton's gaffe of speaking about the deplorables was one of the contributing events that helped Trump (apart from the FBI's October suprise). Making accusations about the voters of your competitors is basically a taboo in a democracy. Yet it can be very, very successful strategy and can get divisive politicians elected who have absolutely no desire to keep the country together. — ssu

True, but then the damage has been done. What the opposition needs to do now is figure out how to deal with a divided country.

I wouldn't be so worried if this was only an American phenomenon. Unfortunately this is mimicked in Europe and a similar process is happening here too. — ssu

Difficult times, indeed.

A 30ft metal wall is a minor obstacle? What a dangerous lie. Tell that to the woman who impaled herself n the same wall. Tell that to the man who broke both legs climbing the 30 ft fence in California, or the severed limbs in Arizona. Those kinds of lies will get people hurt, or worse. — NOS4A2

As you are probably aware (and unaffected by due to your conditioning) illegal immigration across the Southern border has been steadily declining for decades, and has been comprised mainly of single men looking for work. This is not the border “crisis.” The crisis is due to central American asylum-seeking, which has increased approximately 900% since 2012. It's fair to say that these asylum-seekers have a lot invested in their journey and they're not going to arrive at an 18' fence (Trump can only take credit for 11 miles of actual new fence currently being constructed and it's 18 feet tall) and say "Ay caramba!" and then turn around and hightail it back to where they came from. The rest of the fence varies in height from 18 to 26 feet, by the way.



Good instinct to hit on liberal sensibilities but lousy execution. Scaling a fence must be a relatively minor potential pitfall that asylum-seekers face on their journey. At least it shows that you know how to play the game.

That isn't really unique to the US though. I also think it isn't necessarily a problem. After all, I am not an expert on every policy question, so focusing on policy doesn't necessarily lead to better outcomes. — Echarmion

Compared to other western countries I’d say it is, and has been, far more extreme than anything you’d see elsewhere. I’m from the UK where we aren’t exactly prone to putting people on a pedestal - all politicians are generally ridiculed and mocked (there is little to no hero worship). In the US the story is very different and the amount of money pumped into rallies and campaigning in the US is nothing like the scale you’d see in the UK.

Seriously, it looks like some horrendous sham fro across the Atlantic. I think the problem is that the US doesn’t have a royal family to fawn over - directly - and given the religious attitudes of some of the population that excess energy is dumped on political leaders (I doubt it’d be too big an issue if the US was more secular-minded).

As an example when people heard that Tony Blair prayed with the president huge numbers of people openly mocked him for his beliefs. In the US not praying and mentioning god is a standard, not something openly met with ridicule.

If you don’t think it’s a problem I’m guessing you’re American. It’s hard to see something from within. Trust me it looks ridiculous to the point where Trump becoming president wasn’t really much of a shock - I’m just shocked someone of his ilk hadn’t come along earlier.

Nevertheless,, this is precisely our situation: it is the formation of different "foreign bodies" within our societies through various gradations of hatred: dehumanization, labeling, delegitimization, and intolerance. Essentially, the true borders are not the outer ones, but the invisible internal barriers, so that the extreme partisanship has been advancing. — Number2018

I am not sure that issues such as labelling and intolerance are particularly 'foreign'. They are part of human nature. However, when they are increasingly manipulated to extremes where individuals are dehumanised by generic labelling this needs to be challenged. Politics is being dominated by negative influences and barriers.

In the UK, we have Johnson who acted unlawfully in the prorogation of parliament. The extreme Tory contingent show no signs of remorse, indeed they doubled down. More to follow, given the Queen's Speech. And that's another story of elite pomp and ceremony increasingly being shown to be irrelevant.
Parliamentary procedures are shown to be tedious, lengthy, ridiculous affairs. This is what should be addressed. However, it will be used in the forthcoming election as a People v Parliament issue. The Tories speaking for the so-called 'will of the people' against an undemocratic parliament.

The 'invisible internal barriers' might just relate to our manipulated mindset. Lack of knowledge amidst the wall of lies creates increasing division. Black and white gut reactions, rather than an objective look at policies and implications. Nothing new here - just a deepening darkness...where the inflated egos of political 'strongmen' are joining up across the world to play wargames with no concern for the human consequences. Case in point - Trump's casual transactional phone call which allowed a war to re-erupt in the Middle East.

you tacitly assume that one side is more responsible for
the current crises than the other. Similarly, when Timothy Snyder in his interview tries to lay out his vision of Trump’s phenomenon - in addition to his academic qualities and analytic resources applied, he involves some rhetorical arguments and personal judgments. So, his attempt should be reduced to a level of another partisan intellectual project. In the current hysteric atmosphere, taking a partisan position prevents a deeper understanding and blocks the conditions of a dialogue. — Number2018

I don't assume anything. There is more going on that I am ignorant of. However, I do see what has been happening with regard to Brexit. It is clear that this is primarily a Tory agenda and they are responsible for pushing it to extremes.
As to Snyder, his project might well be seen as a partisan intellectual project. There will always be an element of subjectivity in any analysis. I don't accept the conclusion that it blocks the conditions of dialogue. Analysis and writing can be reductive in the sense of giving focus to a particular perspective.
Dialogue is blocked when people carelessly dismiss other points of view. Or have had enough of the conversation, for whatever reason...

Useful dialogue can start when we look at particular real life concerns.
I have been watching Simon Reeve's 'the Americas' where I was struck by this segment:

" In a country with the highest incarceration rate in the world, Simon’s final destination on this leg of the journey is a Colorado town that depends almost entirely on eleven different prisons. Simon witnesses how inmates are put to work for the state, and how virtual reality is being used to prepare long-term prisoners for life on the outside."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m0009dj7/the-americas-with-simon-reeve-series-1-episode-2

It's Big Business.
The Tories seek to emulate this in the UK. It is draconian. And yes, the justiciary can be part of the problem which people can relate to. The injustices of the elite. The system is not perfect but leaders actively ignoring and attacking the law whenever it goes against them is not a good sign. Not recognising the legitimacy of the court when e.g. one is impeached, where does that lead ? To prison ?

Chris Daw QC, a criminal and fraud expert, tweeted: “Make no mistake, the current Tory approach to crime and punishment is just dangerous, populist electioneering. Nowhere in the free world do longer and longer prison sentences do anything good for society.”

The government’s emphasis on ramping up punishments was contrasted by many commentators with its failure to pay for judges to hear backlogs of cases and the protracted underfunding of the justice system.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/oct/14/lynch-mob-politics-experts-denounce-plans-for-longer-jail-terms

one puzzle piece is to not alienate roughly half of the US population( of voters.) If you begin with an attack, the person will get defensive. — csalisbury

This is rather important, but also rather delicate. One says to a supporter, Stop voting for Trump, he's a misogynist; to vote for Trump is to vote for misogyny, and voting for misogyny is mysogynist. But you are not a mysognist, you have been misled into supporting mysogyny.

Perhaps one can emphasise that it is not 63 million mainly poor voters that are deplorable, any more than it was or is smokers or drug addicts that are deplorable. The deplorables are the rich people and their propagandists lawyers, and other apologists who knowingly persuade people to act against their interests. Like these:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/meet-the-money-behind-the-climate-denial-movement-180948204/?fbclid=IwAR2er6o1UcgEO2EIcEKply6PJvu1QmjhgbhP3QbGV23U0ETlDhhd1xLgThc#yhiBukAYcJPDfIUC.01

This is rather important, but also rather delicate. One says to a supporter, Stop voting for Trump, he's a misogynist; to vote for Trump is to vote for misogyny, and voting for misogyny is mysogynist. But you are not a mysognist, you have been misled into supporting mysogyny. — unenlightened

Yeah, delicateness. Yet it typically comes down to a Democrat voter deciding who he or she thinks to be a Trump supporter (if it isn't obvious from the MAGA-hat) and saying: "You're a fucking misogynist if you vote for Trump!"

Brilliant. The landslide victory to the non-Trump democratic candidate is inevitable. :up:

The deplorables are the rich people and their propagandists lawyers, — unenlightened

No, the deplorables are the ones seeking deplorables. What is deplorable is thinking that if a bad president is voted to office, there has to be then deplorable people. These are the ones creating the wedge. And btw it's really working well and these deplorables are very effective in turning citizens against each other.

In fact looking at how this forum has turned out on these issues has changed my view on all of the political parties that I oppose and have never voted. I've started to respect those people, my countrymen, more. They may not think similarly as I and their ideas don't work, but they typically want to improve things...in their own twisted way. Above all, they don't want to kill me, like some predecessors wanted to kill two of my great-grandfathers to make the World a better place. Hence I'm OK with them.

No, the deplorables are the ones seeking deplorables. — ssu

I disagree. Generally, I blame the people with power and money and influence more than the ordinary Joes. But social ills that are not natural disasters are deplorable. When there are mass killings and widespread torture and all sorts of avoidable suffering, one cannot say 'oh no one is to blame.'

As to the mob baying for blood, 'Forgive them for they know not what they do.' But there are those who do know what they do, and for them 'it were better they were cast into the sea with a millstone round their neck.' One needs to be very cautious with one's righteous anger, but even the Nazis wanted to improve things.

Asylum seekers can enter legally through secure points of entry, like everyone else. Either way, only 53% of those who state they have a “credible fear” claim file an asylum application. Out of those asylum applications, more claims are denied than are approved. So most of your asylum seekers are in fact not asylum seekers. The system is being gamed for the purpose of entering the country illegally.

Of course people will go around, over, and under a wall (especially the old dilapidated ones you pretend are Trump’s). This is especially the case when it comes to human smugglers, who will come up with more sophisticated techniques to smuggle more humans. But it will no less make the job more difficult for them, and the job easier for border patrol.

Speaking of conditioning, before Trump came along a majority of Americans, including Democrats, wanted some sort of barrier along the border, even if it was vastly more expensive than Trump’s proposals. This was the case right up until Trump started running, and anti-Trumpism became the governing ideology. So much for liberal sensibilities.

If you don’t think it’s a problem I’m guessing you’re American. It’s hard to see something from within. Trust me it looks ridiculous to the point where Trump becoming president wasn’t really much of a shock - I’m just shocked someone of his ilk hadn’t come along earlier. — I like sushi

Perhaps my opinion is a bit of an unusual one, but I don't think Trump's election is a result of a cult of personality, because, to wit, his personality is shit. He is neither a charismatic leader nor a strongman. Sure he might have a reputation as a businessman and dealmaker, but that's not usually the kind of personal reputation that vaults you into the presidency.

Trump wasn't elected for what he is, but for what he has claimed not to be - a politician. In a way, Trump's campaign was focused on policy - albeit a populist version of policy. "Drain the Swamp", "lock her up", "Mexiko will pay for the wall". It wasn't really about using a strong personality, which Trump lacks, or a strong oration, which Trump definetly lacks, to pull people in. It was sending a very simple policy message. The personality cult thing, especially on the religious right, is a later phenomenon, I think.

It called politicizing an issue. Educate yourself and google it or something.

This was the case right up until Trump started running, and anti-Trumpism became the governing ideology. So much for liberal sensibilities. — NOS4A2

I can see now that I gave you too much credit for understanding liberal sensibilities. A theory offered in the article you linked to suggests that Trump’s push for a wall (not a fence which feels more neighborly) sensitized Americans to the plight of immigrants. A wall feels harsh compared to a fence, etc.

If Trump actually cared about a wall, actually believed in it, he would have proposed it differently. It seems clear that he could careless and merely politicized the issue to help capture the support of a particular segment of the population.

It wasn't really about using a strong personality, which Trump lacks, or a strong oration, which Trump definetly lacks, to pull people in. It was sending a very simple policy message. The personality cult thing, especially on the religious right, is a later phenomenon, I think. — Echarmion

All his rallies? They love it. It’s unfathomable to me also but a particular American democratic loves his orations.

A wall feels harsh. Well that about explains it. He should have proposed it differently. Let’s quibble about how it was proposed, and not what was proposed.

Your assumptions into Trump’s wants and cares are are just that: assumptions, and poor ones at that. His actions, ie. federal emergency, government shutdown, give evidence to the contrary.

Your assumptions into Trump’s wants and cares are are just that: assumptions, and poor ones at that. — NOS4A2

The alternative is that he fumbled it, due to incompetence, bad council, or whatever.

His actions, ie. federal emergency, government shutdown...

He fumbled that as well. Had to bypass congress by declaring an national emergency.

The alternative is that he fumbled it, due to incompetence, bad council, or whatever.

Another alternative might be that folks are angry that Trump is doing what they could only ever promise for decades.

?? Around 500 miles of fence was built before Trump entered the picture.

Another alternative might be that folks are angry that Trump is doing what they could only ever promise for decades.

Over decades!!

I don’t get what you’re saying. What has Trump delivered that Democrats (I assume) haven’t been able to for decades? A good economy? For one thing, we’re talking about the politicizing of the wall issue, which started before Trump was elected. For another thing, Obama took the nation out of a deep recession less than a decade ago. Just looking at the unemployment rate...

We’ve talked about this in the Trump thread and we should keep it there.

Again you show your arrogance quite well — ssu

Feel free to refute the counterpoints I provided! — Maw

So if there's nothing else I'm going to just continue to be arrogant on this subject.

So you were talking about the economy? Weird.

And whenever someone uses 'true' as an adjective like that, one can be sure that they are bullshitting. The classic case of the bullshitter is Simon Cowell, the world famous transformer of original musical creative talent into bland mediocrity, "...and I genuinely mean that." — unenlightened

Matthew 5:37 - " 'Let your word be "Yes, yes' or 'No, no': anything more that this comes from the evil one.'"

This is orthogonal to the main flow of the conversation, but I've seen you make this point before and it's one I agree with.. Multiplying qualifiers like 'genuine' and 'sincerely' is the equivalent of printing reams of hundred dollar bills in order to deal with inflation. Or creating an auxillary currency during a counterfeiting crisis, whose purpose to is to guarantee the authenticity of the primary currency, but which is just as easy to counterfeit. So then you need a tertiary currency, and so forth.

This is basically what happens with racism and misogyny by the way. Racists and Misogynists, in a world where racism and misogyny earn severe social penalties, rapidly learn to fake being non-racist and non-misogynist. But, being misogynists and racists, they eventually do misogynist and racist things, and we collectively realize how easily the old social currency is faked. For example : Even if we value nice guys who are feminist allies, we learn very rapidly not to trust people who identify as 'nice guys who are feminist allies'.

And now the same misogynists who were able to fake the first currency, just as easily learn to fake the second. They, too, are disturbed by these 'nice guys' who, they'll say, almost always conceal bad intentions behind a good facade. (imagine a parallel example with racism.) And this works for a while but, being racists and misogynists, they eventually do racist and misogynist things, which means ---

But how far can you progress in this direction? How many turns of the screw? "' Great job, and I genuinely mean that. And I know a lot of times people say they genuinely mean something, when they don't, but I -- I just don't know how else to say it. It sucks. We've become so cynical about direct appreciation, that I *would* just say it directly, only I knew you wouldn't believe me, and rightfully so.'

Anyway, that's a character I've been working on - I mean it's just how I feel like everyone talks these days, you know? It's insane. By the way, you did great tonight ' "

I think any worldview that focuses on identifying an inherent core of badness, rather than recognizing the inevitability of human fear, anger, weakness and insecurity will keep putting out fires, supressing symptoms. And it'll lead to a never-ending oscillation between devaluation and new mints. Racism is a horrible thing, but you won't fix it unless you provide some way of addressing the underlying causes that feed it. If someone is irredeemable, they have no reason to try to rehabilitate themselves. They'll either go into hiding, or become more brazen. (On the other hand, if social recognition of having-been-rehabilitated is easy to obtain, they'll also have no reason to become actually rehabilitated.)

And again, Trump supporters belittle and shame liberals in their own ways as well, and yet....crickets. Why isn't this a "bad approach"? — Maw

It is, of course, a bad approach. But if we're on more or less the same side, I can think of nothing less productive than devoting a huge portion of our intellectual effort to denunciating our political opponents, and then agreeing with one another about it, with congratulatory emojis.

Isn't that what it boils down to? Well maybe not, because you're arguing against trump supporters here as well. But why is that? You've just explained why you believe there's no reason to try to sway that population. So. If we're not performatively demonstrating our opposition for each other, and we're not trying to sway trump voters - what are these intense denunciatory posts about? My theory is that they're just an expulsion of anger and contempt. & sometimes, they're just a rush of bolstering our identity, through unloading on an Other. I think that expressions of solidarity are a good means but too quickly become an end. All that angry energy thrown into a void is pure creative capability, thwarted, and wasted.

That's with the people that cannot rise above the level of seeing a philosophical discussion mainly as a competition between individual people and focus on how they themselves come out to other people.

For me it's the forum is a window where you can share your ideas and see if they make sense to other people. The best thing that can happen is that someone takes their time, reads and understands your idea and shows that you have an error somewhere in your reasoning in such way that you yourself get the point. Or gives more insight to the topic. That improves your thinking and your argumentation. Then you are not making that mistake in real life. — ssu

I agree, ideally. And I also find that, more often or not, I'm competing or preening. Not only not living up to the ideal, but roundly ignoring it. I often have trouble figuring out how to get out of this way of acting - it feels like an addiction or compulsion. The quickest and easiest way to dispel guilt and cognitive dissonance is to call out others for doing what you suspect yourself of doing. I find myself doing that again and again. The post you were responding to, which I edited out, was essentially that sort of thing.

As you yourself point out, we should "get real and precise about what policies help people", which, as we both agree, are leftist policies, in order to organize and stimulate a voting block that is not only above Trump's voting block, but beyond Hillary's as well (which had about 4 million fewer voters than Obama did in 2008). There is simply no need to appease Trump supporters or moderate our condemnation of the policies they advocate, thereby normalizing them. — Maw

I see your point. But, like Maw, I don't agree with your tactical assessment. I don't think swaying Trump supporters is the goal. I think the goal is mobilizing the already existing majority for a better candidate with better policies. Of course, locally, in swing states, swaying Trump voters may well be important. But as far as the overarching narrative goes, I think you can leverage the "we are the resistance" sentiment. — Echarmion

Reflecting, I think you guys are largely correct in terms of tactics for getting a democrat elected, and I was incorrect to argue in those terms. That said, this whole divide is a really profound divide. Even if a democrat carves out a narrow victory, it'll hardly be a return to normalcy. If a democrat's elected, and a triumphal technocracy retakes the reins, the passionate discontent of trump-voters is not going to go away. It will probably get worse. I think Streetlight has drawn this out very well in his posts around impeachment.

what are these intense denunciatory posts about? My theory is that they're just an expulsion of anger and contempt. & sometimes, they're just a rush of bolstering our identity, through unloading on an Other. I think that expressions of solidarity are a good means but too quickly become an end. All that angry energy thrown into a void is pure creative capability, thwarted, and wasted. — csalisbury

I was going to post that the act of condemning ‘otherness’ is meaningful because it helps to define us, in a form larger than our individual selves, and enhances group solidarity, but your edit covers it. Maybe the polarizing downside can be minimized by trying to be mindful while in the activity.

I was going to post that the act of condemning ‘otherness’ is meaningful because it helps to define us, in a form larger than our individual selves, and enhances group solidarity, but your edit covers it. Maybe the polarizing downside can be minimized by trying to be mindful while in the activity. — praxis

Yeah, I realized after the post I'd left something important out and tried to sneak a patch in. I do think that stuff is important, in moderation.Somewhere on the spectrum between addiction to clap emojis on one end and angelic dedication to neutrality on the other.

The problem I see, from a pragmatic perspective, is that you cannot avoid this unless both sides are playing "by the rules". Trump's divisive rhetoric should already have disqualified him for a second term. The fact that it hasn't indicates there is already a lot of division. — Echarmion

This is why basically the US is going on path of divisive political discourse like in Venezuela. And Venezuela, even if under totally different path and different conditions, shows how divisive political discourse can be effective and result with willing supporters clinging on even when disaster turns into a catastrophy.

What ought to be noted is that both Hugo Chávez and Donald Trump share the same strategy of divisive rhetoric and getting the support from their followers by making a divide in the people. There is absolutely no effort in "reaching over the isle" or consensus in any way. Chávez not only took disasterous socialism from Cuba, but from the start promoted traditional class warfare painting him as the only defender and only hope for the poor against the evil rich, the evil imperialists. And the supporters of Chávez were indeed first ecstatic and afterwards lukewarm, but they wouldn't let their hero down later when the economy was collapsing. (Under Maduro things are of course worse)

With Trump the same strategy is used. And the first target is political consensus, or as Americans call it, bipartisanship: it is portrayed to be dead, something only naive idiots and suckers would try. Something that would only play into the hands of the sinister adversary.

I agree, ideally. And I also find that, more often or not, I'm competing or preening. Not only not living up to the ideal, but roundly ignoring it. I often have trouble figuring out how to get out of this way of acting - it feels like an addiction or compulsion. The quickest and easiest way to dispel guilt and cognitive dissonance is to call out others for doing what you suspect yourself of doing. I find myself doing that again and again. The post you were responding to, which I edited out, was essentially that sort of thing. — csalisbury

Well, one way to think about philosophical debate is the way some people, especially men, approach these issues: it's just about the matter in hand in the discussion, the issue at stake, nothing else. One doesn't approach the discussion as social interaction between other people at all. After all, extremely few people here actually know the people here (apart from the mods and admins) and even fewer have met each other, at large we are anonymous to each other. Thus if you upset someone or look foolish in some discussion, it doesn't matter. In fact there are so few of us that if one would by accident stumble to another that participates here in the discussion, the meeting would be very likely a happy event (what would be the odds) even if in the forum the persons are bitter rivals. The cordiality is only defined by the rules of the forum, which are simple. The worst thing what can happen is that the Forum NKVD can take you to the virtual forest and use the ban gun on your head. Afterwards, no more PF for you. Some haven't cared much about that either.