Comments on: When Discourse Gets Too Serious

By: POSM #2: Give me another viewpoint please | Engage in PR

POSM #2: Give me another viewpoint please | Engage in PR — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 14:40:42 +0000

[...] put it this way; Geoff often says what I’m thinking and is not afraid to call bullshit on ’social media experts’ that are creating [...]

By: Lewis Green

Lewis Green — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 13:59:42 +0000

Geoff,

Wonderful commentary and right on with the messaging. What has happened to civil discourse? If we always agreed with each other that could only mean that we are mind dead. Disagreements lead to growth; throwing mud leads to stupidity.

By: Geoff Livingston

Geoff Livingston — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 17:50:38 +0000

@trula Thank you.

@Chip Agreed, I think we get pretty granular in our discussions. But I admire your willingness to saty on point in the heat of the moment, and that’s what makes for great discourse. I have great respect for you!

Jen: Very insightful on the defensive reaction. Well said.

By: Chip Griffin

Chip Griffin — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 16:31:43 +0000

Ike, Sarah is welcome to call it “twee.” And it may even be. But I’m stubborn enough that it won’t stop me from doing it again! :)

By: Ike

Ike — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 16:11:04 +0000

Hey Chip, be careful using that “No harm, no foul” analogy. Sarah might call it “twee.”

;)

By: Jen Zingsheim

Jen Zingsheim — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 15:14:33 +0000

An insightful post–I agree. I’ve never understood how people can get so downright nasty about some things, including politics. I’ve lived by the adage that you can disagree without being disagreeable.

I also remember someone in my past–I can’t remember if it was a college professor or a boss–say that resorting to expletives and harsh language demonstrates a limited vocabulary. People who head for the quick, nasty kill in many cases are going for a defensive reaction instead of thinking.

Cooler heads prevail. :-)

By: Chip Griffin

Chip Griffin — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 15:01:23 +0000

Geoff, I think we actually agree on more than we disagree about, so I personally don’t consider you an opponent. Most of our recent discussions have centered simply on the “requirements” of social media activities, and I think it would be fair to say that we do disagree about that. Ultimately, though, I embrace most of the tactics that you say are necessary for social media participants to adopt, I just think they should be guidance rather than requirements.

But at least from my perspective, no harm, no foul. Vigorous debate is valuable.

By: Trula

Trula — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 13:29:30 +0000

‘Should we be punished for believing in a possible greater good? For optimism that we can progress as a society? And for doing our part to make those dreams come true?’

WELL said. I agree with this post, wholeheartedly!