You say a problem rates a 10. I say it rates a 7. You react as if I said the problem doesn't exist.

yep.

And then there's my favorite...understanding/having compassion for a possibly mentally ill person = supporting the person or whatever horrible thing the person said.

And what that shows me is that people who don't support the person or whatever the person said really don't understand what's going on. Either because they can't, or they don't want to.

I guess a lot of people are just too uncomfortable with conflicting ideas or something. They can't handle shades of gray. It all has to be either black or white.

You can leave any time.

...I'm talking about, or embodying it.

that it was a meta, meant ironically.

Then he would be forced to use the internet until the day he does leave it, likely taking the form of a death ray-shooting death robot.

and imagine what your life would be like if that were actually true. This is what you're being implicitly asked to do.

It is great material for learning not to care about people's opinion of you and to think idependently.

There are plenty enough people to cover all the problems. Except for the problem of over population, that is.
What you may rate an 11, may not concern me, or even affect me in any possible way.
On the other hand that problem that I rate as an 11+, over population, may be a yawner for you because you came from a large family, grew up and still live in the boonies, or whatever.

Yeah, you have a good point.
Some people just can't seem to wrap their heads around stuff like that. How dare someone have a different opinion? That is why DU has "Safe Havens".

"How dare someone NOT feel the same outrage over XXX issue as I do!!???"

I honestly don't understand how some people manage to be in a nearly constant state of outrage, day after day. Seems they always need something to be offended/outraged over.

Especially offended.

I dunno...maybe it's me. I just don't see stuff around every corner to get all offended about/by.

We can moderate our sensory input. For some people it is an ON/OFF switch.

for whom one particular issue is the only issue they consider to be really important. They can't believe that everyone doesn't see that particular issue in the same way they do. There's no cure for this. Everyone has different priorities, and everyone can post about the things that are the highest priority for them.

There's no point in arguing that someone's priority issue may not be the most important issue on the planet. You just have to keep your own priorities straight and not let the priorities of others make you crazy. If something's a 7 for you, then that's just fine, even if it is a 10 for someone else. Just leave each person to his or her own set of priorities. It doesn't really matter, in the long run.

That's another problem in internet discussions. That somehow by merely commenting on what someone says with any degree of disagreement, or arguing for a different perspective, that you aren't "letting" that person have their own viewpoint -- confusing freedom of speech and freedom of conscience with a non-existent right live in a protective bubble free from dissenting views.

Either rally around the same flag, say "thank you for sharing", or be quiet. All else is apparently oppression and repression in too many people's minds.

You can do whatever you please. If you don't share someone's priorities or viewpoint, you can:

1. Tell them so and tell them why.
2. Ignore that person.
3. Start a thread about your own priorities and viewpoint.

Why worry about people disagreeing with you? They have no impact on your real life. Just think what you wish, believe what you wish, and post as you wish. It's just an internet forum, after all.

It's just an internet forum, after all.

I hope you enjoy your Sunday.

...like "let" and "leave" can be. One person's "stating an opinion" is easily diminished, dismissed, or discounted by conveniently labeling it "worrying".

arguments are TOO weak to do so.

When will the internet get this straight!!

...with their own unfortunately too black-and-white views of on a particular subject. They are honestly angry with someone for "denying" their issue, for doing what they see as supporting the enemy, or for promoting apathy about the issue -- where "apathy" is defined as anything less than DEFCON 5.

or was it just a 7? I don't recall. It is not important to me.

and it predates the internet.

And yes, all of this predates the internet, but the internet really amplifies the effect.

There's general impatience with shades of gray (related to straw men, but not always the same thing).

There's the matter of trying to interpret why someone is saying what they're saying, often making that interpretation badly, and putting that interpretation of motive way, way ahead of the actual content of what's being said. For example:

A: Drug X has KILLED 100,000 people so far!
B: Drug X is bad, but I've heard that it was more like 20,000.
A: (Thinking to him/herself: "Isn't 20,000 bad enough! What's B's agenda? Why is B even bothering to argue with me unless he/she is trying to hush me up, diminish the importance of fighting drug X?) So, B, how much is Big Pharma paying you to troll here!?

A 10 can cause a hundred foot tall tsunami. A 7 is one thousandth of a 10, or not even a one foot tsunami. Not even close to a tsunami and even indeterminable from a normal wave.

So, yes, it could be that the counter argument of there being no argument, like no tsunami, might be properly cogent.

is a direct result of fundie religion and its MSM support. OTOH, it's tough being a delicate flower, too.

It's a way for some people to convince themselves that an unpersuasive argument is actually persuasive. One who employs this fallacy attempts to shift the blame from their own flawed argument to the other person's flawed morality.

Such tactics are commonly used by people unable to convince others.

Priorities. Most people look at me blankly when I try to introduce them.

Next year I resolve to stop getting sucked into Outrage Society.
I don't care what Sarah Palin or Doctor Duck has to say any more.
I'm finished with the daily Two Minutes Hate.
And I'm sorry to say it, but that's what DU has become.

Seriously, I said something about DU to a fine, aware, liberal friend of mine recently and he said "Oh, you mean the Two Minutes Hate?" There's still plenty of good information to be found here, but the discussions have largely devolved into hatefests. It's really gotten kind of embarrassing. Particularly when we pile on each other. My goddess, but for a bunch of really smart people here, we are amazingly stupid!

The really sad part is that WE MAKE THOSE PEOPLE RELEVANT by talking about them, over and over, incessantly, day after day after day. If you google "Sarah Palin," half the hits on the first few pages are from liberal sources, bitching about her. You don't see a Fox News mention until the 3rd page. Anti-Palinism has become a cash cow. Rachel and Jon and others wouldn't exist if it weren't for Palin and Fox. Come on, smart people, stop falling for this crap. We think Sarah's "fans" are the rubes. But we are rubes too. It's time to stop it, because we've got BIG problems to solve.

And the problem is Palin's paymasters. Not the rubes. The paymasters have figured out how to distract us from the fact that they have stolen all the money. And we fall for the distractions time and time again. If we were to spend 2014 never once talking about the distractions and the rubes, we could get some amazing things done together.

So, that's what I think rates a 10. Your mileage may vary.

...but some things that are actually substantive issues that we need to be talking about, but which still get polarized into cartoonish extremes.

I'd state some specific examples, but that's a good way to stoke the flames I'm tired of seeing all of the time.

An assumption was made that 10 on your scale is the most important, not the least. I also don't know how many items you have on any part of your scale.
I have 1 at #10 and about 6 at #9 and a dozen at #8.
Then I know that 10 (most important) on my scale (my unemployment) may not intersect with any of your priorities. Unless you tell me your list in ranked order, I can't possibly know whether we have the same list. Therefore, yes, I'll act as though your list is irrelevant to mine.

I would hope that most dems have unemployment, or, at the very least, the continuation of unemployment benefits as their #9 or #10.

I think it's downright disingenuous of the GOP to have stopped all unemployment benefit extensions. I have only been out of work for 6 months and my benefits have expired. Some have been out of work for much longer before theirs expired. There's all sorts of ways this could be remedied, which we can debate. But cutting all of us off without equal treatment is unconstitutional. Given this happens with monotonous regularity it could/should have been recognized and fixed decades ago.

I might have an opinion on a topic but I don't feel like getting into an argument about it because I don't have enough "passion" about the subject

I see that and FUD running amok here on DU. So who pissed you off to cause the thread? I need something to read.

...and, while I may get around to it later, I decided to post about this much more generic issue instead, because I knew the ration of shit that I'd get from people who would know, JUST KNOW, DAMN IT!, that I'm blind to the "problem", an apologist for The Powers That Be, that I'm advising complacency, even that I'm a paid shill for those who cause the problem.

It's so damned annoyingly predictable.

You don't seem to worship the Man. Then again you don't seem to be a social revolutionary either. I figured it was just like the multitude of threads I've read this year in GD...they do make for a good read...as to the premise behind other threads.

I've been called an Obama hater, and Obama bot, and NSA hater, and NSA apologist, a Professional Lefty, a Black Hawk Helicopter Liberal, stupid, no nothing and worthless for having an opinion on JFK or hell just about anything. It is as predictable as the sun and the moon. I am stupid and someone is smart. Er.

Like others have said, this is a problem that predates modern times. I handle it now by getting to an ignoring point and moving on to something productive. I go with averages, if you and I are at least 5 points away ideologically on the 'scale of all things' then we can probably find something to have a positive discussion about.

A classic from a New Yorker cartoon, pre-Internet...

Some threads take the form of:
* "I hope the victim sues the malefactor and cleans him out." or
* "I hope he goes to jail for a long time." or
* "I hope a court promptly overturns this."

The problem in the real world is that not every wrong can be righted by litigation. The problem on DU is that the hair-on-fire brigade won't recognize the difference between "His act wasn't illegal" and "His act was meritorious."

There've been threads where I could contribute something, based on my knowledge of the law, but I don't bother. If feelings about a topic are running high, then a post noting the strength of the malefactor's legal position will probably draw flak. It's not that I mind being criticized. It's just that I don't want to let silly criticism go unanswered, and I don't want to take the time to try to explain something to someone who has an emotional stake in not believing it. Instead, I just shake my head at the error and move on to the next thread.

...even on a liberal forum, where people should know better.

The worse the offense a person is accused of, the MORE important that it is that evidence for conviction is solid, and that we err on the side of freeing the guilty rather than punishing the innocent. Yet too often here on DU, where a particular type of offense inflames the passions, the less patience there is for due process and reserving judgement.

When someone has a different opinion from you about the importance or degree of impact of a particular problem, and that person dares to argue with you about it, has that person, in your mind "decided" what the right level of concern is?

Do you react as if, by the mere act of stating a differing opinion with any more force than an obsequious apology for daring to differ with you, that the differing opinion is being imposed on you like a decree, a final decision that the speaker is telling you that you dare not disagree with?

very passionate about (education), and occasionally I moan and groan about how democrats don't seem to care about it, but I would never berate people the way some people do. I post on DU about issues I'm passionate about so that I can connect with others who share my view point. My objective is never to proselytize, bully, or berate anyone. For one it does not work and for another it is just damn rude.