[ThePassionOfTheChryst]

[quote author=TreesAndBirds link=topic=15102.msg163590#msg163590 date=1464134479]
But this shouldnt fall on Yvonne to police us.

Or anyone else for that matter. Do we really need to be protected from divergent, even obnoxious and distasteful, opinions. If you don't like what's being said, respond or move along. Doesn't seem that difficult to me...at least for grownups.
[/quote]

This is my take on it.  Politically, while I am to the left of ferrari (who became perhaps the most outspoken conservative on the board), I likely fall to the right of much of this community.  Every day I read opinions here that I disagree with, and some that even frustrate me.  I simply weigh the pros and cons of getting involved in the discussion, and most of the time the latter outweigh the former.  I can't tell you the number of times I've typed up a response to something I've read here, walked away from the computer for ten minutes, and then upon returning decided not to post it.  I don't know that my method is the most productive, but it works for me, and I would suggest that others (particularly those who often find themselves in pissing matches) give it a try.

I'm watching the Warriors game so I apologize if the above wasn't entirely coherent.  My main point is that we as adults -- most of whom were educated at one of the world's elite universities -- shouldn't need to be shielded from from divergent opinions.  We should be able to treat each other with respect.  I surmise that it's a bit easier for those of us who are a bit farther to the right to be "tolerant" -- ferrari notwithstanding -- simply because we are used to being in the ideological minority.  We've had no choice but to develop a thick skin.  When I enter a thread, I already know that I am probably going to disagree with the prevailing opinion.  I imagine it's the same for some of the other, less liberal members of the community.  Perhaps that makes it easier to just roll our eyes at posts we find particularly egregious.

That said, I understand that this is a Stanford sports board and political discussion typically isn't germane.  With that in mind, I wouldn't consider it a great loss if off topic political threads were banned as a matter of policy.  However, I find it disheartening that we would collectively behave in such a way as to force Yvonne's hand in the matter.  Why can't we, as intellectuals, disagree respectfully?  Perhaps that's more of a rhetorical question.

[ThePassionOfTheChryst]

[quote author=TreesAndBirds link=topic=15102.msg163590#msg163590 date=1464134479]
But this shouldnt fall on Yvonne to police us.

Or anyone else for that matter. Do we really need to be protected from divergent, even obnoxious and distasteful, opinions. If you don't like what's being said, respond or move along. Doesn't seem that difficult to me...at least for grownups.
[/quote]

This is my take on it.  Politically, while I am to the left of ferrari (who became perhaps the most outspoken conservative on the board), I likely fall to the right of much of this community.  Every day I read opinions here that I disagree with, and some that even frustrate me.  I simply weigh the pros and cons of getting involved in the discussion, and most of the time the latter outweigh the former.  I can't tell you the number of times I've typed up a response to something I've read here, walked away from the computer for ten minutes, and then upon returning decided not to post it.  I don't know that my method is the most productive, but it works for me, and I would suggest that others (particularly those who often find themselves in pissing matches) give it a try.

I'm watching the Warriors game so I apologize if the above wasn't entirely coherent.  My main point is that we as adults -- most of whom were educated at one of the world's elite universities -- shouldn't need to be shielded from from divergent opinions.  We should be able to treat each other with respect.  I surmise that it's a bit easier for those of us who are a bit farther to the right to be "tolerant" -- ferrari notwithstanding -- simply because we are used to being in the ideological minority.  We've had no choice but to develop a thick skin.  When I enter a thread, I already know that I am probably going to disagree with the prevailing opinion.  I imagine it's the same for some of the other, less liberal members of the community.  Perhaps that makes it easier to just roll our eyes at posts we find particularly egregious.

That said, I understand that this is a Stanford sports board and political discussion typically isn't germane.  With that in mind, I wouldn't consider it a great loss if off topic political threads were banned as a matter of policy.  However, I find it disheartening that we would collectively behave in such a way as to force Yvonne's hand in the matter.  Why can't we, as intellectuals, disagree respectfully?  Perhaps that's more of a rhetorical question.