Good. I went back and read it.
As you say humility is a strength. Civility too, and common decency. It seems to me your posts reflect a good amount of all three. In my view that gives them a degree of credibility that those who rush to attack and belittle others simply do not have … or deserve.
As complex and as emotional as some issues are today, the Golden Rule would still work if we gave it a chance.
2 Likes
Amen and Amen.
Why bring this up in a paddling site? Might as well discuss Presidrntial candidates and religion too.
I hate that guy that wants to bring up politics on a peaceful group paddle.
This is the reason I suggest a form for “All things non-paddling” and those that hate such things can simply never go there, leaving those that want to discuss them the freedom to do so.
I think there may be some legitimacy to a feeling of "getting ambushed’ by such topics if it were in a thread that had nothing to do with it, but in the case of this thread it was clearly marked in it’s title.
So why is it that some want to prevent all others from such discussions because they personally don’t like the topic or subject?
Why are such “feelings” of more value and merit then the feeling and interests of EVERYONE ELSE who clearly wanted to discuss it ------------ as if 100% evident by the fact they did so 83 times so far?
1 Like
That has existed in the past, it was called “bicker and banter”, but when ownership of the site changed, and due to apparent complaints from advertisers the forum ended. The regulars for a while went to another site and continued the jousting.
Bicker and Banter was often an ugly place with some pretty serious name-calling and even some threatening language, and frankly even though I was a frequent participant in the forum there were posters whom I avoided and ignored because they seemed incapable of civil conversation. Sadly, considering the current climate in the US I think it would be worse if it was brought back. Civil disagreement and conversation in America seems to be dead.
1 Like
OK, I can see those points quite clearly.
But to give up on civility and open discussion is to surrender what makes good people good.
In a forum open to differing points of view there is no reason to throw insults or entertain threats, but because there are some bad folks that do so is NOT a reason to close it off to the majority of others who have an IQ high enough to not slip into the area of insult.
So although I do see the points you made and I can’t disagree with them i totally disagree on how that problem is dealt with.
Punishing and depriving the many that are innocent instead of the few that are guilty is NOT a good way to improve any situation.
Doing so means the evil and small minded win.
2 Likes
I love a good argument even a heated one, and I totally agree with the value of open discussion. I just don’t look for it here, so I participate in other social media and a good spirited coffee group that allows it and everyone knows what’s coming.
I will also agree with you that there is a certain hypocrisy here concerning this topic when looking at how some on here react to climate change discussion. Even though I can see how it is tangentially related to paddling, it does become heated and politically charged, and nobody complains that it shouldn’t be here. I guess some would consider that “righteous anger” and therefore appropriate. Along those lines, I think if everyone had responded anti-gun some who are complaining would have applauded it.
If you believe in the 2nd amendment, your a putz. If you dont believe that the world will end in 2022, you’re a putz. At least now everybody knows I’m a putz. That has to be of some value to new members. The only difference I see is that other members don’t want to hear an opposing view from a putz.
I figured out two years ago that those roller launches destroy composite and fiberglass boats, but they work fine for a putz like me who has a platic washtub kayak, yet we still belabor that simple topic. I wish I could find one. I might be a putz, but I got that message two years ago.
I’m also good on the topic of rudder vs skegs so could we ban that discussion.
What to do in bear country is overworked. If you don’t know how to negotiate with bear, don’t go around them or they’ll bite your face off. I like bears, so I don’t want to hear anybody talking about shooting bears. Bears are people too. Thanks!
Ah, but in my life, I have to keep my mouth shut about my beliefs, because I get jumped all over. Or I did before I retired. It works both ways. Both sides are guilty of it (I’m talking about life in general, no comment about the people here) - don’t think you’re alone 
I’ll go out on a fairly safe limb and say that no one on this forum has changed their position on the second amendment or climate change or Ford vs Chevy or any other contentious issue as a result of someone else’s post here. What’s the point, then?
I’m good with a place for “all things non-paddling” but I fear @davbart is correct … that it will quickly turn ugly. Sadly, bad behavior seems to have been normalized in recent years and the anonymity of the internet allows cowards to be jerks (or worse!) without consequence. It’s far easier to lash out angrily than it is to offer a persuasive, well-reasoned argument.
I don’t favor of censoring non-paddling comments on this site. I understand that they will continue to appear from time to time, and that’s OK. After all, one-off comments can be interesting, and they can help us get to know each other. But when it comes to highly politicized matters (with no relation to paddling), a little self-discipline would go a long way.
Much good information is shared in most of the paddling-focused discussions, and interesting experiences are shared in others. But when culture war combatants raise their flags and charge, they talk - or yell - past each other, make no effort to listen, and even less to understand.
It makes no sense to me. The return on investment is zero.
Perception is reality.
That’s how discussions typically end: I’m right, youre wrong, just admit it. Everybody is always right, or we can agree to disagree. Duh!
Yep. If people would just keep it civil, it’s fine.
1 Like
I only get uncivil when a right is challenged. Too often a person who accused another of incivility doesn’t realize they are the one stepping over a line. It’s one thing to discuss a preference for a skeg or a rudder, but its crossing a line when challenging a right. The same is true of the discussion about the cause of global warming. I feel I’ve spend more time than I’ll ever be able to recover on that revolving door. It’s one of those bottomless pit topics that starts with, "If you don’t believe ESTABLISHED SCIENCE . . . " ha!
1 Like
It’s really at odds with liberal democracy and Enlightenment values.
Sometimes people change their mind incrementally and just never admit it in the conversation.
I’ll admit that maybe everyone shouldn’t own a gun because so many are mentally ill but I don’t know who gets to enforce that.
I’ve changed my mind quite a bit since the Iraq invasion, I was wrong. 
And if someone simply disagrees with you, and has a different viewpoint, stated non-confrontationally? Or believes even rights have some limits, somewhere? Is it okay to be uncivil then? Because I do not believe so.
1 Like
You’re right, l’m wrong. Sorry for being so amimated and contrary.
I wasn’t accusing you of anything. Just asking about your thinking on this.