Nope to the first and kind of yes the second.

Tolerance is like talking nicely about the things you agree despite disagreeing over other very important ones.

There are people in this thread I have deep and even personal disagreements. I dislike them even. But I choose to tolerate them.

If there is any sort of external imposition it would be by definition intolerant. Voluntary imposition of civility however is a part of being tolerant.

Ignoring others on what you disagree can be tolerant. Maybe... it's better than attacking them certainly. Talking to others respetfuly about things you disagree is tolerant. Always.

Ignoring others even in what you agree because of other disagreements is intolerant. But not as much as being a jerk.

So some kinds of ignoring are worse than others. Intent comes into it.

For example, the kind of ignoring I think you live by, is not harmful to others, maybe by accident it could be though - you are not intolerant. But I think it is harmful to yourself.

I don't want any kind of community, I'm here to buy games. Seriously some people take life too seriously (and have too much free time).

Also its obvious GOG shares my view too, or these boards would look a lot different - with multiple sub-forums for books/movies/politics/fashion etc instead of a single mashup for all things plus another one for wanted games. Like I said in another thread probably like 80% of people who buy games here rarely visit or post anything in the boards.If you want to build and develop community this is not the place.

Now excuse me while I turn to more important matters aka the weekend promo.

And yet, by your own logic, the fact GOG has the general forum at all proves they want some kind of community... no?

Thanks for providing an example on how to be dismissive of others.

Do enjoy your new games. :)

Nope, it doesn't. They need some way of backwards communication with their customers that's accessible by the other members too - for example when you click on Support its much easier to link all the forum threads about a certain game issue than to quote various emails of how the players around the world have the issue solved.

This site is here for how long now, 5 years? If they really wanted to build a community as you say they would have given more thoughts to the forums - the face of this community - years ago. As you can see, they have not.

The way it is these forums provide little more than a simple customer - service provider connection, and apparently this suits GOG just fine.

So does me, in fact your tone reminded me why I prefer things to stay the way they are.

Don't take this personally but you've only been here a few weeks. Could you please give it a little more time before you start psychoanalyzing the forum? :P

Sorry, I should have put an emoticon behind, that was more of a joke as I'm still fresh off that other thread where some guy started with a long petition too.

All these seem funny and out of place for me given that the place is a single mashup board.

Yeah I know that thread. :P Pissed my pants laughing at it. XD

As long as he doesn't try to psychoanalyze you he'll be fine.

Short version

There are too many intolerant card played before that I smarten up.
What you describe is your own definition of tolerance.
I can say everything you speak is out of the line. Does that make it true?

I fail to see proof that ignoring is harming me. I don't lose anything I don't have.
As for my ignoring others may accidentally harm others, what kind of weird logic is that, how can I harm others by doing nothing?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Long version

What you describe is your own definition of tolerance.

My definition of tolerance does not need anyone to speak at all. Even if X disagree with Y, after a heated argument, one of them decide to ignore the other is a form of tolerance. If X and Y continue using colorful language and ad hominem, then that is intolerance.

Ignoring others even in what you agree because of other disagreements is not intolerant for me. That is your definition. Why do I need to speak every time I agree with something? Do I need to speak yes every time someone say the sun rise in the east?

Some other people definition of tolerance may be something else. So the definition of tolerance is decided less on you or me (to fit our political agenda) but what the majority agree on.

We can go on and on about tolerance, but you and mine definition may not apply to all.

We cannot mind read, so bring intent to the discussion is more or less useless other then speculating in theory.

As for ignoring others will harm myself, proof it. I cannot lose something I don't have.

As for my ignoring others may accidentally harm others, what kind of weird logic is that, how can I harm others by doing nothing?

My tone? :)

You're reading stuff that I did not say. For example, I haven't said GOG wants to build a community. They're very neutral towards it, just as you mentioned.

What I replied was that your approach about "not wanting a community at all" is too extreme in the other direction. If GOG did not want some community the general forum would not exist? I mean, look at the top of the page. What's the word between Support and Movies? :)

I don't want this to be too personal mate.

In terms of defining tolerance, consider this as a simpler answer than the one I gave you. You asked "So you still define tolerance as everyone must talk to each other even on things they don't agree on. Am I right?"

I told you no. Because of the implication about imposition carried by the "must" you used. I assume you chose the words carefully and wanted the must to be there. But let's take the must away.

Tolerance is everyone talking to each other even on the things they don't agree on.

Does that really seem not to fit? To me that fits. It's not all of tolerance, but it is part of it. Ignoring someone can be tolerance, especially as an alternative to punching them - but ignoring does not define tolerance.

What do you think?


PS: Some years ago a girl called Jane was in love with me. I did not reciprocate because I liked someone else called Judy. I did nothing to Jane. I did nothing with Jane. I ignored Jane. Jane was hurt by that.

Inaction can cause harm. Causing harm may not imply responsibility. I am not responsible for Jane hurting. But I caused it. And yet, I did nothing.

See what I mean? It's not illogical. It's logical. Also tragic, but that's a separate point.

I must have misread this as the usual "thanks for missing the point / thanks for proving my point" internet crap, generally used when people don't have anything to counter your arguments with. Sorry if your intent was not to belittle anyone.

What I meant by "GOG obviously shares my view" is that I joined this site mainly to buy games, and they view it as a tool to sell their games, that's it.

No matter what they call their single mashup board ("community" sounds much nicer than "board" and in my previous post I've already explained why they created it) , 5 years later it's still that - a single mashup board. ;-)

Well now... I have no problem admitting to you that I wrote that condescendingly. You did not misread it.

That's because your first post seemed clearly intending to belittle me - or rather to belittle anyone interested in building a better community - which so happens to include me.

I meanwhile saw your other post saying you were kind of joking on your first reply. I'm not sure I believe that 100%... but I'm a fan of second chances. So I'll have faith in you and move on.

Peace

Damnit.

I removed the +.

Bastard.

Ok then... I admit TinyE's tentacles are somehow charming... so maybe him?

There. I said it.