(02-22-2015, 09:40 PM)Verranicus Wrote: If you're the only one offended over something 2-3 people are discussing wouldn't it make more sense for you to blist them or leave bing a single person instead of expecting a group of people minding their own business to cater to you?
What if you're not the only one? Silence says a lot more than words at times.
(02-22-2015, 09:31 PM)Graeham Ridgefield Wrote: In all fairness, consideration goes both ways not just one. More often than not you'll see one person branded as confrontational in a heated debate when the reality is multiple people usually get involved and egg it on from both sides.
Besides, quite a lot of people in the community are more than willing to compromise or agree to disagree. The main issue is that they're so rarely given the benefit of the doubt or even approached for dialogue because the common reaction from many is to gossip and brand someone eager for debate as a bit of a prick. Which doesn't help anybody.
Now, I've said this before but I think it's well worth repeating again: just because someone happens to be pretty blunt and direct it doesn't make them a bad person. Some of the more direct posters on this very site have turned out to be incredibly friendly and wonderful people whilst those who desperately lace their every word with sugar and claim to be friendly and approachable are, in fact, some of the most vile and manipulative individuals I've ever had the displeasure of encountering.
Sweeping judgements are rather silly, in other words.
I'm pretty sure consideration for both parties was implied right from the get-go.
For the record, I don't think everyone with a debate-centric mind is a confrontational, self-centered jerk. I will say, however, that my experience has found this to be true more often than not.
