DU members who disagree with another DU member’s post and respond with personal attacks.
There will always be disagreements, regardless of the topic of any post. In a perfect world, a response to a posting with which one disagrees should contain a counter argument to the topic under discussion. It should never include a personal attack.
We’ve all seen it and had it happen to us. Someone will post “The sky is up.” Someone who disagrees might post, “Yes, but, in the absence of gravity there is no up or down. Only an asshole could think otherwise.”
The first sentence in that response is perfectly valid. The second sentence will run a thread off track, and into a war of who is a bigger asshole. Many others will jump in to attack or defend one side or the other.
There are many here on DU who intentionally go out of their way to be disruptive. Putting them on ignore doesn’t help to further a discussion. Personal attacks, more often than not, sabotage a thread.
So here’s my plea to anyone reading this thread. As difficult as it may occasionally be, please try to keep threads on topic and avoid personal attacks. And yes, I know that this plea is just an exercise in shoveling shit against the tide. But maybe, just maybe, it might cut down a little bit on personal attacks.
I think personal attacks in lieu of substantive discussion have more to do with a personality disorder than anything else. I can't imagine why people get their knickers in a twist over anonymous postings on a message board.
someone calls me an asshole, whatver. Someone spends 10 minutes writing some long-winded screed about a grammatical nuance I may or may not have included in my post...that's what chaps my ass.
to the effect that you are stupid because you disagree with them, or you are uneducated and stupid, etc. etc.. Sometimes I ask them to stop attacking and insulting if they expect to continue a discussion with me. Then they go away. It never fails.
I've been called plenty of things here but to me its just some random internet poster, I don't really care. On the other hand, I think the overwhelming majority of people here are really good, even in disagreements.
Both of them kind of involve the person in question being in some kind of bubble separated from the person they're being a jerk to. Online you're behind a monitor, and it's still depressingly difficult to punch someone in the head through the Internet so far. In a car you're in an insulated, semi-soundproofed bubble and still kind of seperated from the rest of the world.
Both cases you've got anonymity - or at least the appearance of anonymity - and enough physical seperation from the other guy (monitor, car body, etc) for folks to think they can get away with being more aggressive.
(As I say this, I notice some asshole in the street outside my window cut off and threaten to brake-job an ambulance. WTF, people?)
Edited on Sat Jan-24-09 10:35 AM by Dyedinthewoolliberal
other thing many of seem not to realize is that communication in this fashion; ie-reading someone elses posts is fraught with danger. We cannot distinguish voice tone, facial expression, context. No matter how many emoticons are invented they will not take the place of face to face communication. We all suffer from 'technology rudeness'to a certain degree. I'm wondering how many posters who seem quick to start name calling (a perfectly normal response...........in the 3rd grade ) would talk like that to someone they were having a conversation with in the gracery store check out line or the library or the stands of the kids little league games?
8. I think we have a collective blind spot about bigotry.
We oppose bigotry, but what that means in practice is that we're expected to apply an equal and opposite form of it somewhere else.
Bias and stereotype are the core of most of the personal attacks here.
I have a contrarian streak. The most reliable form of flame bait is to present yourself as a straight, rural, gun-owning, church-going, pickup-truck driving blue-collar dad of more than two kids. One needn't really express any sort of an opinion... the ad-hominem flames happen all by themselves.
11. I don't like putting anyone on ignore either...
but there are times when I just don't feel like dealing with the childishness and stupidity.
When people devolve into making ad hominem attacks, it's usually because they've lost the capacity to make a rational argument and name-calling (i.e. acting like a spoiled five-year old) is the only weapon they have left.
It's actually pretty depressing to see how quickly some people will degenerate into doing that. They think they're going to make someone else look ridiculous, when in reality, they only make themselves look very very stupid. And the sad thing about it? They either don't realize or they don't care.
I'll tell you what really bugs me...when someone posts something that's important to them for some reason and someone else comes along and says, "Why are you posting that shit/garbage/trash/whatever here?????" I mean, these people actually went to the trouble of typing out an insult and clicking on the "Post message" button instead of going on to another topic that meets with their approval.
I'd just like to know what those people are gaining by purposely leaving snotty comments like that...
22. Heh, that's the one that annoys me the most, really
The general attitude of "This does not interest me, therefore it either does or should not interest anyone and is mere spam." There was quite a bit of that during the parliamentary crisis late last year.
The flames I just take for granted these days; when things get to the point where I get directly flamed for saying something like "a tanker isn't worth hundreds of billions of dollars" (which is as objectively true and irrefutable a statement as "the earth orbits the sun" or "Obama is the president now STFU you oath wankers") I pretty much just have to assume that the GIFT rules the site.
At least we're not /b/ or something. Well, yet anyway.
37. I agree with your comment about what bugs you. Me also. I love to get into a good argument
but why attack the person? Even if you think they are a terrible person, what good is an attack? You don't have to respond and that goes both ways. I have found very few needs to "ignore" but have recently.
40. "They think they're going to make someone else look ridiculous, when in reality,
...they only make themselves look very very stupid."
How very, very true. The problem with that though is that there is such a large contingent of people here who absolutely THRIVE on this philosophy, your words will fly right over their idiotic little heads. These are the people who are so convinced that their way of seeing things is the only one that matters, the only CORRECT assessment of a situation, that they will shout anyone else down over the most idiotic technicalities that they alone see.
And I agree with your own personal DU peeve. I've seen that happen in so many threads it's ridiculous.
I find myself writing posts that state an opinion that I am forming just to elicit counter arguments - to see who knows things that might change my mind or can explain how my argument fails. Its good to get a few dozen second opinions but when the responses simply state the obvious - that I'm an asshole - they aren't helpful.
Here is what I got on one of my posts. "A nice thing to do?" No, it's a laughably absurd suggestion. And the funniest part is that you don't understand that.
21. The problem is that a lot of OPs are attacks on large groups of people.
The rich, the poor, the working class, the middle class, gay people, straight people, bisexuals, transsexuals, women, men, "Obamatons," "Clintonistas," and on and on and on.
I have observed that most of the "personal attacks" are defensive in nature, as a response to obnoxious, judgmental, sanctimonious, and/or deliberately agressive/pushy OPs that target a specific group of people. Frankly, I have NO problem with people defending themselves against crap like that. If you expect civility in replies, then you must ALSO lecture the people who post these insulting, deliberately divisive, holier-than-thou screeds that make people feel like they're being targeted.
THAT is a far larger problem than an understandably angry response.
23. You can defend yourself without resorting to attacks, though
Unlike a school playground, on the Internet it actually does take the consent of both parties to fight. If a 'defense' is going to involve simply flaming or even flaming back at someone else, it's worthless as far as regards any meaningful discussion, not least since it's just going to entrench the other guy anyway.
27. I think you're expecting a bit much from mere mortals.
It's a hell of a lot easier to preach about turning the other cheek than it is to actually *do* it. Our natural reaction when we feel threatened or insulted is to lash back--usually in the form of snark and sarcasm, at least here. It's not "immature" to do so, either, regardless of your insinuation about "school playgrounds." I have never met a human being that was capable of ignoring attacks all of the time, and never losing their temper.
A lot of the attacks around here *require* a response, because not responding just leaves their ugly, usually-false point hanging out there unanswered. We are only human; a better goal would be to work toward backing down from confrontations more quickly than expecting everyone to somehow superhumanly avoid them in the first place. Abstinence is a great philosophy, but when dealing with humans, it doesn't translate very well to reality. Learning to step back after a snark and take a deep breath before continuing are more realistic goals and skills to promote.
As is somewhat typical around here the last year or so, your response is to a statement I didn't make. I said it's possible to defend oneself or argue a point without resorting to petty bickering, flames and other personal attacks, and you seem to be responding to the idea that one shouldn't respond at all. I said nothing of the sort.
Nobody's holding a gun to my head, nobody's requiring me to act like an asshole here. If someone wants to pick a fight with me here, one only happens because I choose for it to. My rights are not being violated by posters here, my safety not threatened, my person not insulted by anyone whose opinion I'm interested in, and while all of those are not happening people are usually making themselves look like idiots to an audience of thousands. If I do choose to respond to something, there is no reason I have to do so merely through personal attacks and insults, and if I choose to do so I've contributed nothing to the "discussion" save maybe a bit of amusement to those who'd agree with me anyway.
My OP is in no way a defense of threads that are posted with the intent of attacking others. Rather, it was a complaint against those who feel obliged to disrupt "sane" threads by intentionally hurling insults, accusations and incendiary statements at the "THEMS."
If someone posts a "fuck all whoever" thread, I usually try to avoid it. I know that such threads cannot go unanswered. Nonetheless, the responses, arguments, insults, hatreds, and everything else that results from such threads are predictable, useless and hopeless.
I wish I could wave a magic wand and make such "online pollution" go away forever. But I really do understand the havoc caused by the intolerant, know-nothing, mundane evil turds to whom you are referring.
89. I've actually found myself in the middle of brouhahas
because I've written things like "Some people _______" (fill in the blank) without even mentioning someone's name, and most of the time I was referring to people I know in RL, not anyone on that site.
The paranoid nutfritters would come out of the woodwork to claim that I was actually referring to THEM!!!! The reality was, as I stated, that I was referring to someone else entirely.
I can't even begin to describe the numbers of outraged flounces I saw over that. The "I'm LEAVING this site and I'm NEVER coming back!!!!" crap. Yeah....whatever.
Try to calm ruffled feathers and explain, and it only got worse.
People are so self-centered they think everything is about THEM.
156. It's often the sign of a troll. Much favoured by them. You know.... "I hate Bush
Edited on Sun Jan-25-09 11:12 AM by Joe Chi Minh
and his brood, BUT....", and then far-right nonsense, followed by a "shrug" sign. That sort of thing.
Or better still.... "I know exit polls have been the gold standard for verifying election fraud all over the world, but here in the US in 2000 and 2004, we really needed to make them match the actual figures returned", then a desperate effort to baffle you with twisted psephology, knowing you're not even familiar with the jargon. Then finally, something like, "Sad, but there it is...", followed by a "shrug".
How many people would actually say something obnoxious to someone's face? After all, you may get punched, slapped, spit upon, or shunned/ostracized.
Saying something harsh to someone's face, right or wrong, takes courage.
However, the internet grants all of us anonymity. And obnoxious, disgraceful insults, and even words of hate, can be carelessly thrown around on the net because of that anonymity.
If you are someone who would say something online that you would not say to someone's face, you are a coward.
And to those who reply, "I'll say anything to anyone's face," then, you sir or madam, are in need of psychiatric help (or at the very least, a course in manners, or civilized behavior).
But think about the concept for a moment. Do you post comments online that you would never say to someone's face?
129. Of course, and that's what makes the forum useful
In the first place, I deeply distrust anyone who says, or even implies "You wouldn't dare post that if I knew your name and where you live" or "If we were face to face, I'd respond to having my feelings hurt with physical violence against you". But more importantly, a genuine search for the truth (which is what a discussion thread should be), cannot be held in an environment where people have to constantly worry about tiptoeing around each other's feelings. You may disagree, but I would argue that very important truths can spoken between people who are unconcerned about giving offense, truths that would never be spoken otherwise. How many times in a face-to-face social situation have you had restrain yourself from saying not only what you wanted to say, but what you knew needed to be said, because you feared to poison work or personal relationships that were more important in the long term than the issue at hand? In a discussion which is open and unrestricted enough to allow everything to be said that needs to be said, in the way it needs to be said, it is inevitable that lines will be crossed, but that is the price of truly free speech (not the bogus free speech touted by people who say, "everyone should be free to say what they want, but they shouldn't be allowed to offend people").
I personally have no problem with people who get snarky and insulting, especially when dealing with lies and the propagation of ignorance (which deserve to be smacked down hard, so that everyone can see), as long as there is intellectual content behind it. If there is something substantial being said, I can put up with almost anything as far as attitude is concerned. It's when a post is all insult and no substance that I tune it out. And the whole business of putting people on Ignore, and acting as if doing that is some sort of badge of honor, is incomprehensible to me.
I've got this republican co-worker who takes delight in his obnoxious comments to me on various issues. Loves to tell me how "liberals" are ruining his state and he wished we would all move back to California. Yeah he is in big need of psychiatric help. I just give a few of these it drives him crazy.
but I have come to think the Root of the problem here now is because So many people state things that really are nothing more than opion but they state them as if it is a fact thus tons of bickering and fights. It really did Not use to be like this I just posted a short time ago I want Links back big time or if called on links provided. I would never repeat what I read on du anymore unless I research it myself didn't use to be anything like that.
41. Re: "...in the absence of gravity there is no up or down."
In the absence of gravity we wouldn't exist and neither would the universe as we know it, so in that context the existence of up or down is moot. Only an asshole could think otherwise.
is the reply, "but in the absence of gravity there can be no no sky" an attack? Further, if I provide no link proving that gravity is necessary for any sky to exist, does that invalidate it as a fact?
A lot of the "old timers" here will not respond to this post. I have posted and many times get a zero response...other times...well...ya have to be "thick skinned", as I was told in the beginning. There are a LOT of good people here on DU and I mean a LOT. Take the good and leave the rest behind. People are people. It's just the way it is. However, that being said, I know what your trying to say. Thanks for posting.
54. Nope, life long democrat. Never used to browse or blog. Then,
when the illustrious (former) mayor of Detroit got busted for perjury and obstruction of justice (among other things)I found a blog site related to his scandel and I took off from there. I actually stumbled upon this site after the Fox news site became over run with freepers and I couldn't take it anymore.
55. Nope, life long democrat. Never used to browse or blog. Then,
when the illustrious (former) mayor of Detroit got busted for perjury and obstruction of justice (among other things)I found a blog site related to his scandel and I took off from there. I actually stumbled upon this site after the Fox news site became over run with freepers and I couldn't take it anymore.
Do not publicly accuse another member of this message board of being a disruptor, conservative, Republican, FReeper, or troll, or do not otherwise imply they are not welcome on Democratic Underground. If you think someone is a disruptor, click the "Alert" link below their post to let the moderators know.
Do not draw negative attention to the fact that someone is new, has a low post count, or recently became a member of Democratic Underground. Do not insinuate that because someone is new, they are a troll or disruptor.
My theory is it is busy writing profane and mocking posts to get enough to post an OP and go out in a flame of glory. Albeit a very slight, brief flame.
May be we should have a forum just for personal attacks...like the "Fucking asshole Forum", where we will have the right to really fight at each other, letting off stream, and after we become polite to each other in other forum.
I have noticed nastiness really comes out in the health/sciences and especially resides in the skeptic forum. There are some really toxic folks that live there, they seem to feed on the misery of others. But it is good to try to disarm them with kindness. Really, I feel sorry for those that seem to be so miserable.
There is one person who posts here CONSTANTLY. I mean, seven to twelve OPs a day is not unusual. This poster is exactly, EXACTLY what you describe. I try to just stay away from said posters OPs due to how vicious this person is. He/she believes that it is their right to name call and the word "stupid" must be a one key operation on their computer.
I have been guilty of doing this on several occasions but I will make a much more diligent effort to never do it again.
83. Yes ... and at the same time, I'm convinced that many cannot distinguish between ...
... attacking the message and attacking the messenger -- particularly when the 'message' being attacked is their own. To some degree, I think all of us attach our egos to WHAT we post/say. That does NOT mean that vigorous disagreement and a zealous attack on WHAT we say is the same as a personal attack. I am NOT talking about an attack of the message that includes "only a ___ would say that." That's not a logically valid form of argument, and is a thinly-veiled personal attack.
Another failing is the use of the word "you" in the ambiguous sense of "one" ... rather than "you" personally. I avoid that use of the word "you" and employ "one" or "someone" or "anyone." I think we'd all be better off if we very carefully restrict our use of the words "you" and "yours" ONLY when we mean to refer to the DUer personally.
115. I've found a VERY high correlation between incivility/insult and the use of "you" or "your."
One class of posts employs the bullying rhetoric of "you" vs. "us" or "we" -- the language of a gang. Virtually without exception, such a post is hostile and fallaciously personal. Another class of posts, makes personal inquiries or observations regarding gender, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or activities such as smoking or drinking or owning a gun. The inference being that the individual is biased/bigoted due to self-interest and is, therefore, incapable of engaging in logical and rational discussion and seeing alternative viewpoints. In fact, it's even been stated quite often (stunningly) on DU that (all) persons of a certain gender or ethnicity are not qualified to express a rational opinion on some topics. I'd find it difficult to cite a more illiberal or close-minded attitude that seems 'acceptable' to so many on DU -- an attitude that's inherently a personal insult. Invariably, replies from folks possessed of such an attitude will contain "you" or "your" in relative abundance.
In my case, I speak like that and have had to retrain myself to not use 'you' plural as people think I'm talking about them versus speaking generally. I can't say that I'm a study on who uses this 'you/your' thing & their propensity to be insulting, though I am very aware of the general tendency of some to put others down in a 'personal' way. I've had to learn this technique otherwise I always felt like I was at a disadvantage in certain situations. With the latest bout of rampant attack-speak, I've actually decided to try not take the bait. Unfortunately, I've not been able to resist wacking back at some of those who seem to want to smash all dissent/alternate views on certain topics - that's not fair to anybody and sometimes I get personal (then feel bad about it.)
109. Every forum does seem to have one of those, no?
I was an administrator on a fairly big all-things-pagan type forum for a year or so. About 25,000 users, maybe a fifth of those regulars. Generally a decent place, except when the subject of interracial dating/marriage came up. Every time that subject came up, a few people who were still living in the thirties and most of the Asatruar on the site came out of the woodwork with all the old pseudoscience about diluting cultures, about how blacks taint the genome of whites (even without pregnancy!), etc., etc., etc. It got to the point where if the subject came up at all in any thread, we more or less had to lock it preemptively.
90. Yeah. I have made mistakes in my postings, but it's so much more depressing to be
Edited on Sat Jan-24-09 05:45 PM by Mike 03
addressed thus: "OMFG how can you be so stupid?", than some sort of reasonable argument.
That's just how DU has become over the seven years. Things change.
One reason I even come here is to become more educated about my views.
My mind has been changed many times by conversations I've had here.
But I agree that lately it's almost painful to express a contrary opinion about anything. It is no longer a learning experience, just a hurting experience.
It runs rampant down there! In my opinion there is a concerted effort to try and keep the discussion off of the OP's original intent. Those that continually do this should be banned from DU.
105. I've heard the 9/11 forum and the guns forum both called that
The latter'd be a flamefest for obvious reasons. The former's where all the conspiracy threads (regardless of topic) tend to wind up ever since the more tin-hatted crazies around here actually made it onto the New York Times a few years ago. (a bunch of them'd claimed Bush caused the southeast Asian tsunami a few years ago.)
101. Well, the discussions centered on facts and their merits are few and far between (+ proposal)
Edited on Sat Jan-24-09 06:52 PM by BelgianMadCow
but if you can discern the wheat from the chaff, there are (still) treasures here.
So you OP is valid - ad hominems detract from honest debate. I don't think reposting that part of the rules will change much in itself though.
I would propose the readers of this thread respond to every ad hominem they encounter with a canned sentence like "DU is about honest fact-based debate, let's not lower the bar" or something better On edit - best if a third person does so, seeing a discussion between two others derail. If that third had no prior stake in the discussion, it would carry even more weight.
Of course, a number of issues are automatically centered more on belief than on facts, and there are valuable issues like that. In such threads, one can only ask for civil discourse and a progressive big tent attitude.
104. In almost every case you can view the OP as an attack
When faced with OPs such as the current H1-b hate fest and the casual suggestion that all visa and Green-card holders should just be sent home, I feel like I'm under attack.
If you can't see that thread as an attack, you need to travel the world more.
This planet belongs to all of us. Arbitrary boundaries such as countries are major anachronisms in the 21st century. Tiny minds cling to them because they are too puny to dream up and implement anything better.
131. "Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son." - Dean Wormer
I've seen some flame wars here and there. The moderators are pretty quick to remove the messages that get them started. And I have complained about that because then it's like hearing the punch line without the setup. I feel like I missed out. "To get to the other side." See, it's not as funny if you don't hear, "Why did Dick Cheney shoot that chicken in the face?"
...but when it becomes clear that someone is more intent on
1. attacking... 2. hurling insults 3. being condescending and rude 4. arguing for the sake of arguing, or a need to be right (as opposed to attempting to communicate respectfully in an exchange of ideas and learn).
Or all of the above ...
...I don't feel obligated to participate in the discussion. As far as I'm concerned, at that point it is less a discussion and more a personal verbal assault.
People are entitled to disagree with whatever is shared. But one's right to disagree, doesn't guarantee that the other party is going to be a willing paricipant in abuse (when it comes to that).
An unfortunate aspect of on-line communication is the fact that many feel emboldened by the anonymity to behave in ways they wouldn't, in face to face interaction. Knowing this, I tend to opt out of a lot. There are a lot of people on line that use "their right to disagree" as some sort of permission slip to be obnnoxious jerks, in general.
Wish I could even be better and not participate in the back and forth, but my personality is when someone tosses an insult bomb at me, I toss one right back.
138. Well, for some there are simply certain core issues that they will not compromise on
I will freely and gladly call anyone who did not come out against Prop 8 or anyone who did not condemn that asshole Warren's speaking at the inauguration a bigot, for example. If they don't like it, then tough. Get on the right side of a basic issue of civil rights.
Not saying that you are one way or another, but this is one issue in particular that people seem to whine about lately.
149. There are more logical fallacies in play around here than personal attack
Edited on Sun Jan-25-09 07:05 AM by TWiley
My estimate:
1) personal attack 2) Strawman 3) False Dilemma 4) Red Herring 5) ALL the rest in no particular order
I have resorted to all of the above tactics but not simply due to ignorance. I / We tried the "political correct" angle during the Gore and Kerry campaigns. IT DID NOT WORK. Our arrogance caused immense hardship to befall the globe via Bush. There are republi-KKKlan trolls on this board, and I happen to feel they need to be challenged. It is tempting to offend someone who is being offensive.
The difficult part is the communication medium we use. As there are no facial gesture to use as "intensity indicators" it is easy to misunderstand a persons meaning, or at least "how much" they mean it.
I don't think the mods are allowed to do enough in this area. Personal attacks have been outlawed for a long time, but that rule has been scarcely enforced since 2004-2005. I guess Skinner doesn't want the mods deleting message after message. I disagree with this. I think they should go to the prior enforcement policy where any personal attack is deleted. It would go a long way towards sending the message. I doubt things will get better until that happens.
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
Replies to this thread
)
) would talk like that to someone they were having a conversation with in the gracery store check out line or the library or the stands of the kids little league games?
-
-