|
Post by Þon Txoteu É. Davinescu on Apr 14, 2019 14:35:02 GMT -6
The issue, V, is not what John did or did not do, not whether other national leaders "attacked" you in some way... it is how you respond to anyone that objects with your worldview and really anyone that doesn't agree with you on a point you're trying to make. It honestly, reminds me of the current President of the US... and I AM NOT saying that as an attack... I just want to put into context how your actions can be perceived by someone who's only dog in this fight is as the current head of our nation's Foreign Ministry. I cringe every time one of these dust ups kicks off and I can only imagine what a national first-timer might see in such behavior. I take pride in my national position and do my best to treat my colleagues with the upmost respect. In any civil society, we can disagree without it turning personal and without turning to profanity & uncivil conduct... especially in a text-based, national forum where there is no way to see facial expressions or hear the tone of someone's voice. For the sake of our country, its people and the image we are trying to present to the world... can we all just try and conduct ourselves (within our national forum) with a little bit more respect?
Thanks, Davinescu
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Apr 14, 2019 14:54:46 GMT -6
The issue, V, is not what John did or did not do, not whether other national leaders "attacked" you in some way... it is how you respond to anyone that objects with your worldview and really anyone that doesn't agree with you on a point you're trying to make. It honestly, reminds me of the current President of the US... and I AM NOT saying that as an attack... I just want to put into context how your actions can be perceived by someone who's only dog in this fight is as the current head of our nation's Foreign Ministry. I cringe every time one of these dust ups kicks off and I can only imagine what a national first-timer might see in such behavior. I take pride in my national position and do my best to treat my colleagues with the upmost respect. In any civil society, we can disagree without it turning personal and without turning to profanity & uncivil conduct... especially in a text-based, national forum where there is no way to see facial expressions or hear the tone of someone's voice. For the sake of our country, its people and the image we are trying to present to the world... can we all just try and conduct ourselves (within our national forum) with a little bit more respect? Thanks, Davinescu I don't really think that is responsive to my post, but I don't see it as a personal attack. That is your position and you are entitled to it. I don't agree that my so-called lack of civility is/was unwarranted. And frankly, I don't really know what world you are all living in when you think politics in the UK, US, and many north-north countries are more civil than this, and I'm talking about going back to the 1990s. You and I won't see eye-to-eye on this. I'm a zealous advocate who detests double standards, and that's how I perceive this entire situation from many people--a double standard imposed on me that they don't apply to others. So yes, it is what John did and did not do, because you won't actually understand my point of view until you examine his conduct. Again, this is the difference between calling someone a liar outright and all but calling them one by innuendo. How is that not germane?
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Apr 14, 2019 15:08:02 GMT -6
Thank you for all of this clarification. Second, it is not my responsibility to make Talossa a fun place. If Talossa were solely a political entity then I would definitely agree. However, we are also a community and that means we have to at least try to get along with each other (of course, "getting along" doesn't mean being friends with everyone or even not disliking anyone; only that feuds shouldn't become so all-encompassing that it distracts others from what they are trying to do). This responsibility extends to all citizens in my opinion and has little to do with politics. Certainly the King has many faults. One of them is not being around nearly enough right now to make any attempt at reconciliation possible. However, I am not convinced the only way forward is his abdication. Now it is time for some semantics which I hope clarifies the difference between statements I don't particularly mind and statements I really don't like. I don't mind the following statements, so long as they are not made in obvious bad faith: I do think John is lying/lied Both of these have to do with disapproval of the person's action (that they lied), not the person themselves. These may seem quite similar to: But in fact they are very different. The final statement levels an accusation against the overall character of the person (that they habitually lie and cannot be trusted in general) and requires significantly more discretion and a higher burden of proof. Regardless of whether you think it is true or not, such a claim should always be well supported and should never be thrown around lightly or vindictively, which I think is why I (and others) were irritated by it.
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Apr 14, 2019 15:18:51 GMT -6
Thank you for your post V. There's a lot to digest that I won't be able to respond to today (and maybe not tomorrow either) but I do think it's quite helpful in shedding some light on the discussion and clarifying a number of issues (even if we don't agree on many of them).
|
|
Istefan Perþonest
Cunstaval to Fiôvâ; Regent of the University of Talossa
Posts: 1,024
Talossan Since: 2-21-1998
|
Post by Istefan Perþonest on Apr 14, 2019 15:22:47 GMT -6
To that end, I will apologize to Glüc for calling him a liar in my response. I could have taken a moment to better explain the nuance of my position. [SNIP] (4) Ian Plätschisch interposes a comment that me calling Gluc a liar is not helpful. I must concede that he is right without reservation. Again, it is on me for not clarifying the nuance of what I consider a lie and what I don't consider a lie. Ian Plätschisch has my apology in that regard. Cool. That's all I was trying to communicate in my previous post on this thread.
|
|
|
Post by Sevastáin Pinátsch on Apr 14, 2019 16:27:42 GMT -6
It is for all points and purposes a form of banishment. Arrest, perhaps?
IRL, I've I overheard my neighbour verbally abusing and berating his spouse and/or children on a regular basis. So loudly and frequently that I can hear it from inside my house.
I call the cops to have him picked up. He cools his heels for a couple of hours while they question him and release him. And then he's back home being the same as before.
This feels a lot like that.
I don't care if my neighbour's a plumber of the Minister of Environment, I'll keep calling so long as the abuse keeps going. He's not going to lose his citizenship, but eventually he'll lose his right to be anywhere near his family (peace bond / restraining order, divorce), or perhaps to engage in free society (two years less a day in jail).
What's to stop people from acting like assbags in here?
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Apr 14, 2019 20:18:09 GMT -6
It is for all points and purposes a form of banishment. Arrest, perhaps?
IRL, I've I overheard my neighbour verbally abusing and berating his spouse and/or children on a regular basis. So loudly and frequently that I can hear it from inside my house.
I call the cops to have him picked up. He cools his heels for a couple of hours while they question him and release him. And then he's back home being the same as before. This feels a lot like that. I don't care if my neighbour's a plumber of the Minister of Environment, I'll keep calling so long as the abuse keeps going. He's not going to lose his citizenship, but eventually he'll lose his right to be anywhere near his family (peace bond / restraining order, divorce), or perhaps to engage in free society (two years less a day in jail). What's to stop people from acting like assbags in here?
Point well taken, however, I think there is a stark difference between the two situations: due process. In your example, the abuser has been arrested under colour of law and was afforded due process until his release. With Witt bans, in the way it happened a few weeks ago, a private individual acting on his own accord made the arrest without a legit legal basis and V was not afforded proper due process. ... Witt does need policing, but it should be carried out in an official manner by an official force under rule of law; not by a private individual enforcing what amounts to nothing more than terms of service.
|
|