Whatever Happened To True Neutrality?

I am always dismayed and disappointed at the numerous threads/posts that the authors purport to want to discuss a topic, yet can't seem to be able to present the subject without interjecting their own personal bias and opinions as if they were fact.

A certain person of the political forums, as example, is very adept at this and always insinuates his personal disdain for America and it's politics into his presentation as if it constituted the actual situation.
I don't argue with the facts/history they present, just the manner in which it is presented.
There some here who always attempt to take on religion/Christianity in the same manner, yet more often than not only illustrate their lack of knowledge concerning the subject.
Same holds true for discussions concerning race issues.
All such manipulation and propaganda, because that is what it is, really does nothing to further the discussions and just leads it down the path of opinions vying for dominance.

I know I have many times in the past responded in a "trollish" fashion to such tactics, but if looked at closely, I target the motive that is "in-between the lines" so to speak and not necessarily the topic matter itself.
I know that could be considered trollish behavior and such, but I often feel it is important to see past the text and gain an understanding of any personal motivations for a person presenting topics in such a manner.

I try to go out of my way to be as neutral as possible when considering a topic and when I do present my opinion, I try to make it crystal clear what is opinion and what is fact, and such opinions are reached after much consideration and thought on the topic, including a huge dose of self examination as to the why's and wherefore's of my opinions.
Why do I feel/believe that way and how did I arrive at it?
I think that is something that is lacking in many folks considerations of a topic, especially emotionally charged ones.
I also try to be completely honest with myself and others concerning what I don't know.
Can't even begin to count the number of times I have typed "I don't know" in these forums.

My wife gets really pissed at me whenever I don't get sucked into the emotional aspect of a topic but rather consider the actual facts of it.
Some people can only ever see the emotional aspect and thereby never get the real picture.

One of the best compliments I have ever received came from another member here a few years ago when they remarked that I was the most intellectually honest person here.Probably why I tend to play devils advocate from all sides.

I think that my striving for honesty and neutrality in my communications here is why I have been labeled just about every political and religious label that is out there, folks simply don't know how to deal with a person that can't categorized and pigeon-holed into some easily digestible "group".
I have been called a liberal, I've been called a conservative, etc., etc.....
When I have pointed out whenever a person misrepresents Christianity or exhibits a complete lack of knowledge concerning it, I have been labeled an ignorant right wing Christian.

funny how virtual strangers know so much more about me than I know myself......LOL
the irony kills me.

I believe I learned this from being involved in scientific research and learning how to construct and present an experiment.
It needs to be done in a manner that others can reproduce the experiment exactly, and in order to do that there is no room for opinion or emotional consideration.
One other thing that really helped to discern the "between the lines" message is watching many hours of news and broadcast TV while under the influence of psychedelic substances.

Now such things are so second nature that anything and everything comes under my scrutiny for the message behind the message.
I routinely irritate store employees and managers whenever I point out errors in their merchandising or sale tactics.

Take TV for example. If it is understood that the primary purpose is to gain your attention as much as possible to get you to watch the advertising, then the shows, soundtracks etc. take on a whole new flavor. for example, that is why there is always a "cliff-hanger" before a commercial break, it is to gain and heighten your attention so you are more receptive to the advertising which is the reason for the show in the first place.

So to any and all of you out there that I may have offended in some manner, please do not take it personally, I usually am speaking to your tactics of presenting your ideas, not you as a person.
BUT that is not to say that there are not idiots and morons around and I do occasionally make comment.

If anything I hate absolutes and generalizations and will always voice my opinions of such, sometimes not in the most "politically correct" manner.

so in the words of Joe Friday..."just the facts, ma'am, just the facts".

 

Do people come on here to be neutral? I don't think so. It's more about expressing their subjective opinions, and those are rarely neutral.

I agree though that some people's style of presentation can be a pain in the ass. I think I know who you mean BTW in the politics section.

I never thought of you as a troll Noxious - even if we have disagreed on some topics.

 

I guess my approach has always been to try and lay the groundwork/foundation based on facts and then proceed onto opinion based upon that factual foundation.
Far too often people present opinion and then attempt to present fact in a manner they feel supports the opinions expressed.

kind of a horse before the cart process

 

Probably that's about right. But maybe with some people, they work like that anyway - I mean they have an opinion, then collect facts to back it up. And in some areas where the facts are not clear cut, that can be a problem. Things like climate change would fit that category I think. Also some health related issues where experts can't seem to agree.

With topics such as religion, it gets very fuzzy. Generally it seems people have an opinion one way or another and they are not really interested in hearing the other side of the story or considering that their view may not be 100% correct. Same goes for politics.
People have a kind of general slant to their views and tend to cherry pick facts to support that.

 

I dont think anyone here is trying to be a journalist or join a debate team. Mostly people probably come here because people in their real lives get tired of hearing their opinions.

 

I am not sure there can ever be such as thing as true neutrality as all data is subjective to personal opinion and the results we wish to have from that data. Interpretation can be subjective which makes neutrality appear to be a mandate but that does not necessarily make it so. For example even a scientific study can be interpreted differently by the premise of the question. Hence the debates on conclusiveness of any or all data. Having said that I do know what the point is that you are presenting.

As far a for example certain forums, through time I have found that if I want to have a serious discussion or debate I tend to look for "boards" that are more specifically geared to news or any topic that I am interested in. Often times there are less circle conversations on those types of boards and a larger demographic.

 

If the rest of that post hadn't been so well written and interesting, I would have deleted the whole thing. You can't post that you're going to ignore certain rules that you don't like, or don't fit your style.

 

I fixed it......

 

people forgot the utility of accuracy, and bought the lie of equating freedom with thoughtlessness,
then wonder why things go down hill, and think the universe, or god, or something, is picking on them.

actually it isn't data that is subjective, its the process of extracting meaning from it. data, by the very definition of the term, IS neutral.
in and of itself, just numbers, until it is given context and interpretation.

the problem is introduced by filtering observation through pre-conceived assumptions.
a process often motivated by ideology or belief.

(journalism isn't data, and that of course, is another part of the problem)

 

Trouble with scientific method is at some stage what is being analyzed is compared to established facts, which we later find out were not true....as we have found out especially over the last few decades and everything gets rewritten, revised

Logically, why cant a virtual stranger know at least some aspect about you better than you do? You are saying you are the best person on the planet to be neutral or objective about yourself. Thats pretty much never the case.

As for generalizations, they do ring true a lot of the time, not all the time, sometimes not even the majority of the time, but a sizeable enough minority of the time, for enough people to notice...why they become generalizations in the first place

 

well for starters, you folks here only know about me what I have allowed you to know.
How often have you ever seen my posting about my personal situations and problems?

I'm no dummy, I control completely what information is made available for you to form your opinions concerning me.....
MUUUHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

 

Yeah, that 'll make you a genius for sure.

 

Spoken like a person who has no experience with psychedelics.


“LSD is a psychedelic drug which occasionally causes psychotic behavior in people who have NOT taken it.”
Timothy Leary

 

Even if you're presenting the facts concerning the lack of neutrality here accurately, you're still presenting them in a non-neutral fashion. You're biased and you don't bother to hide that fact. You're less convincing to someone uncertain on the issue because of your non-neutrality.

But, let's explore your bias on the issue. It's one thing to understand that non-neutrality in posting is a negative trait, and to be of the opinion that you'd prefer to be among those who don't share that negative trait. But, I don't know that you'd actually prefer that. Obviously it would be easier to find such people already disposed towards such neutrality than to change those who aren't. And it's one thing to try to help a few change themselves, but you're not doing that. You're venting because you set your expectations too high, and being mentally unprepared to deal with such high expectations being met you're flailing uselessly rather than dealing with the situation pragmatically.

Let me explain to you a more true form of neutrality. Take this issue itself, one who has such neutrality wouldn't expect those here to be neutral, nor would like to make most of them be more neutral or would even assume his life would be better if they were. One deals with rain, insects, illness and hunger, and yet is not convinced he'd rather do without them. Regardless of his preference concerning them he tries to expect them and so isn't caught completely off guard when they come.

 

If that's supposed to make me feel bad, it doesn't.

 

uhmmm, no.

I can be neutral in my consideration of a topic, but I am not necessarily neutral in my communications about a topic. That much has been made abundantly clear.
what my "rant" as you so call is really about is folks who surreptitiously interject their personal bias into the presentation of a topic.
you know, those subtle little nuances that flavor the discussion in a certain manner.
I could give clear examples, but that would require naming names and I have already gotten my quota of warning points for the week.

Nor am I setting my expectations too high, nor am I "mentally unprepared" in dealing with responses or others opinions or ideas.

I will admit to a certain bias though and that is a bias against absolutes and generalizations and those that cling to them.
Honestly, I just have little patience for stupidity and self imposed ignorance, especially in this time when we have more information readily available then any other time in history.
there is no excuse for ignorance of a topic if a person is actually interested in it, and such willful ignorance does seem to run rampant here in regards to some topics, religion being the foremost one.
Very often topics come up that I know little of, if curious I make a very concerted effort to educate myself prior to making any comments on a subject. A lot of folks just shoot from the hip with little to no actual knowledge to support their opinions.

I am not "caught off guard" but as I clearly stated, I am dismayed and disappointed not because they do not meet my expectations, but rather disappointed at the ruse of wanting to discuss a
topic, but the motive is really just bashing something/someone and not an honest appraisal or inquiry.
I am dismayed that folks can be so easily swayed by such subterfuge.

your last paragraph makes little to no sense except you are ascribing to me bullshit that I never claimed, such as my happiness being dependent on the "neutrality" of other members....LOL
I get the impression you may be one of those folks who likes to string together a bunch of words and ideas into what you believe is an insightful message, but is little more than word salad that actually conveys very little.
I think you have completely missed my entire point as it relates to this place.

frankly, I personally don't think you have been around here long enough, nor have we interacted enough for you to make any of the assertions you are concerning me, certainly not to the extent that others commenting here have as I have been communicating with lots of these folks for almost ten years now, and they all still only have the impression of me that I have delivered.

I will say I do appreciate your arrogance as being yet another stranger telling me what is what about me.......LOL

 

Why would I want to make you feel bad?
It is simply an observation and it brought to mind that Leary quote.
If you ever spent any time watching broadcast news while adventuring on LSD, then you know what I meant.
"she can tell you about the plane crash with a gleam in her eye"

although I will say I wouldn't watch FAUX news while trippin', it would result in uncontrollable hysterical laughter, a broken TV or suicide

I apologize if you thought I was implying you are psychotic...a little neurotic perhaps, but not psychotic...

 

Have you posted those words somewhere else, recently?

If not, I'm having some heavy deja vu!

 

no I haven't.......


spooky.......

 

I have a little experience with psychedelics; not much and not recently.

I listened to The Police and Pink Floyd; and watched Rat Patrol.