One point in the other thread that I found compelling is that it appears that what was being called negative is mere disagreement. So if someone says in a music forum "Taylor Swift's 1989 was the best album of 2014!" the only appropriate response is "yes, you are right, Taylor Swift is super." Saying "no, I don't agree, the best album was St Vincent's" (or whatever -- albums chosen randomly) or even "oh, I don't think Taylor Swift is good at all, because [insert argument here]" would be considered negative, inappropriate, and offensive.

I think that's really a strange approach to discussion -- an effort to silence any real discussion, in fact, and to limit conversation only to those who already agree with each other, and I do think it's a worthy topic to talk about. Indeed, given that this isn't a music forum and we are talking about facts and science, not just subjective opinions, it's even more important to be able to point out incorrect facts that are presented as true (such as that it's somehow unhealthy to eat any processed food or more than 2 pieces of fruit). Yes, it should be done nicely, but it's quite clear it's the action of presenting disagreeing facts or information and not any actual rudeness that seems to be being challenged.

Off line (and on line) people disagree with stuff I say all the time--I can't imagine interpreting that as meanness. It's part of what makes discussions interesting.

I think, whether the answer to this is two-fold. Firstly, it's never helpful to allow someone to continue to labor under a misconception. Secondly, threads are conversations, conversations are two-way, and opinions are shared. Sometimes they will be negative.

If someone isn't prepared for someone else to disagree with them? Well, that's on them.

The manner of the disagreement is where things cross the line from civil discourse to rude mean-people land. The act of disagreement itself is not cause to make such claims.

I know technically, I'm a "new" MFPer, just thought I'd throw in my two cents. I'm new to MFP, but a veteran of all things internet opinion/forum based. The aforementioned is the same anywhere you go...

lemurcat12 wrote: »

clgaram720 wrote: »

I know technically, I'm a "new" MFPer, just thought I'd throw in my two cents. I'm new to MFP, but a veteran of all things internet opinion/forum based. The aforementioned is the same anywhere you go...

Yeah, I think this is a good point, and part of how I'm forming my opinions too.

I used to actively post on a book forum and you'd get people thinking it was negative to disagree with them when they posted positively or negatively about a book (more often the former), but there the culture of the site was strongly in favor of free (though respectful) discussion so that someone initially surprised and upset that a post about Dan Brown was met with many comments about how awful his books are (which I understand can feel like a pile-on in a way in person conversations do not, as usually there are fewer participants), would quickly get it that it wasn't personal or an attack, but part of discussing ideas.

The problem here is that threads get derailed by others jumping in to say it's mean to disagree and the like and then that becomes the discussion and OP digs in with the idea that it was mean to challenge the ideas expressed at all. Or, perhaps, claims that it was just an opinion so in some way should be immune from disagreement.

IMO, if there was a clearer understanding that rudeness is not okay, but disagreement of course is, and should be encouraged as part of the free discussion of ideas, we'd be better off.

Dude......babycenter. Talk about a bunch of Drama Llamas. If ever there was a place to learn what not to do it's babycenter. People start sh** on there literally for fun. It's almost as bad as a youtube comments section. Here shouldn't be like that, and frankly, I don't think it is, I think people are just oversensitive/understudied in forum-world.

problem with MFP is that there is so much traffic, you can't really "police" all this derp. And when you hit it hard and fast, and succinctly and move on, you're looked at as just being an asshole.

And the inherent problem with food/nutrition is all the confliction in the actual literature. You can make a case using actual sources for all kinds of nonsense.

also, it's hard to get certain people to let go of fears of "chemicals" that are found in foods at orders of magnitude below NOELS.

suggestion would be to correct the op and if they fail to listen leave them to their own devices. We have a saying, if you dont hear you will feel.
the posts sometimes gets messy because people get annoyed that the op will not back down.