Oh, facebook.

While writing the last post, I was having this discussion on facebook, which is turning out to be quite the undertaking. Names have been removed for confidentiality. Irrelevant posts have not been included. All posts have been reproduced as written.

Poster1 Status:

Can we quit making excuses for the G20 police force. Anyone who looks at the videos can clearly see they were way out of line charging a group sitting and singing the National Anthem, and kettling inoccent Torontonians in the rain for hours.

We have every right to be at a major intersection in our city.

Me:

Uhhh, you mean the videos where people were unlawfully obstructing traffic?

Poster2:

Pseudosociophy... i can't believe you're serious.... The police in riot gear were completely obstructing spadina avenue, every intersection south of queen, and also were set up to the west and east of spadina on queen in full formation, as you can see. You obviously weren't there, which is why you don't know what you're talking about, but the police had traffic at a standstill for the entire weekend south of queen and anywhere people chose to congregate.

[At this point the Poster1 commented that he thought I was joking.]

Me:

I wasn't joking.

I have no intention of defending or condemning the actions of police or protesters, and definitely not via comments on facebook.

Sufficed to say, I've not heard a compelling criticism of police conduct during the protests, nor a rational justification of protesters who choose to break the law. So, for now, I'll reserve judgment and apply the same scrutiny to *both* sides of the conflict.

If anyone is really interested in discussing the behaviour of protesters and police during the summit, let's have a group meet and talk it through, I'm sure it would be an enlightening event.

Poster1:

Pseudosociophy you were honestly upset that people were unlawfully, obstructing traffic flow at Queen and Spadina? Honest?

I hear college street was a mess today due to Brasil winning their soccer game. Why don't we send in the riot officers? I guess you're never in Kensington on a Pedestrian Sunday or involved in a critical mass.

The videos speak for themselves about police conduct, nothing needs to be said.

Me:

I never said I was upset about people obstructing traffic flow.

You're oversimplifying the scenario by comparing it to farmer's markets, soccer fans and church services.

I'm sorry if your mind is closed on this issue, I think it would be a great opportunity to explore social conflict and activism from opposing viewpoints.

Poster3:

Interesting Pseudosociophy...."A sitter on the fencer."

There have been many a valid and compelling criticism around the conduct of both protesters and Police. It is often those that take no stand and claim to be neutral on a subject, that add to the never ending injustice that is oh so EVIDENT.

I guess we are just closed minded, and slightly off kilter for taking notice of what is ACTUALLY OBVIOUSLY happening. Oh, and of course posting such thoughts here ion facebook for all to see.

Suggesting that you are sorry for somebody for having a closed mind(or really just having a strong opinion) is really arrogant.

Me:

@Poster3 I'm not really a "sitter on the fencer" as such. I'm contesting the validity of the criticism. I never claimed to be neutral, just undecided pending compelling evidence coming in - there's a huge difference. I'm not staying undecided as an ideology, I just find the criticisms of police conduct and statements of protester righteousness weak and unconvincing. What I'm disputing are people's interpretations of, as you put it, what is actually obviously happening - I disagree that it's obvious. If I hear a solid argument or see good evidence I assure you, I will be swayed by it.

I've purposely not expressed my opinions on the subject because I'm genuinely interested in hearing others opinions. However, instead of presenting rationale for their beliefs, people have chosen to attack my unwillingness to conform to their personal opinions instead. Being closed minded and having a strong opinion are not synonymous. Either one can exist without the other. I never said I was sorry for Poster1 having a strong opinion - that *would* be terribly arrogant of me. What I actually meant, even if it was ill phrased, was that I was sorry, not for Poster1, but for the missed chance. I see the opportunity to exchange controversial ideas with intelligent peers as being highly beneficial no matter what the outcome, especially on a topic as heated as this one.

Finally, I apologize, mostly to Poster1, if my comment came across as arrogant. (The miscommunication is precisely why I avoid online debates in public forums.) I'm friends with Poster1, (not just on facebook) and know him to be a intelligent guy who seeks out new information and opinions to improve his understanding of things. I guess I was surprised that this topic was not available for discussion is his mind. In any case, I offer this whole-hearted public apology to Poster1:

I'm sorry if I offended you, I meant no personal disrespect.

[I have to admit - I fixed a typo in this response. I couldn't bare posting again.]

Poster1:

No one's upset, I realize lots of what I said has came from an angry perspective and I value your input Pseudosociophy

[Poster1 is really a stand up guy!]

Poster3:

Fair enough Pseudosociophy....It seems by your comments that you were not in the thick of things....I just found your comments to be making light of very serious injustices that are happening. The comments were too cut and dry. True, you did not state an opinion and yes,being closed minded and having a strong opinion are obviously not synonymous.

"instead of presenting rationale for their beliefs, people have chosen to attack my unwillingness to conform to their personal opinions instead."

Some need not state an opinion to be making a statement. Based on the way you presented originally and based on some of the other comments here, I was not alone in the way I internalized your comment.I really don't think I need to present any rationale...as I was under the assumption that most observing the news, walking the streets and some of those including myself who were forced by cops to stand in the rain for over an hour against common will should speak for itself( and I was not even protesting, I was just passing by an area where there were peaceful protesters). You can also read in the paper or watch the news to hear the hundreds of eye whitness' and those that came forth to speak of the brutality. I guess I should have included that in my opinion.

I am not attacking based on any unwillingness to conform, and really did not see my comment as an attack. I apologise if that is the feeling it gave you. As a person that was directly affected by the miss conduct...I was sad to read about your indifference as it seemed to me at the time. Maybe I was wrong in my assessment.

I do admire the fact that you are open to hearing others, and that you were interested in what others opinions were over your own. I guess you are not arrogant...but with the way you worded things, I will admit that I jumped to my own conclusions...I aplogise for that, and for offending you if in fact I did.

TO END: We all love Poster1 right?? Can't we all just get along....lol

Best to you Pseudosociophy!

I briefly responded, reiterating my un-desire to discuss further over facebook. I was more polite than I'd like to have been. Essentially, Poster3 admitted to having misrepresented my argument and assuming I held an opposing viewpoint. This is the problem with argumentative dialog - unless both sides are versed in logic and have a genuine desire to seek out the bare facts, nothing is accomplished.

In conclusion, the whole thread ended up fizzling on the topic at hand - I don't think anyone is actually interested in meeting up in an environment where their ideas are open to scrutiny. Shame. I still learned something about how to deal with arguers who aren't willing to objectively evaluate their own ideas though, so it wasn't a complete loss.