quote:Originally posted by nik: I'm a firm believer in the phrase "You can never stand in the same stream twice". Likewise, you can never post in the same forum twice.
quote:Funny, I think the north is far more rude than any part of FL...
Yeah, I know people living in the South think that. But they're wrong. That said, I wasn't talking about rudeness. I was talking about discussing things like well-adjusted adults. *grin*
And I see this entire thread as a discussion about rudeness, abruptness, and a general lack of concern for other people's point of view and experiences.
Since you are from the Chicago area I should have realized that you wouldn't get that. Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually (in my opinion, of course) the issue is thinking that saying things rudely doesn't matter as long as you're right. It's decidedly rare in my experience that those things said rudely couldn't be said quite clearly without the rudeness yet with just as much meaning.
However, I think that's an issue of culture rather than of (reasonably) enforceable rules. And I don't think that culture will change without the buy-in of a decided majority of the people involved -- again, something I see as needing to be encouraged rather than enforced, and that not from the top down.
Posts: 6213 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:And I don't think that culture will change without the buy-in of a decided majority of the people involved
There is truth in this. However, a substantial part of the majority left, leaving those seeking calm, rational discussion without the invective in the minority.
I don't know how it could be controlled from the top down, but the loudest and most persistent will generally win when allowing things to change from the bottom up.
Of course, heavier moderation lead to one of the biggest board schisms that caused a great number of people to leave, so that didn't seem to be answer either.
Perhaps if OSC came on to engage some of the harsher posters, telling them to stop tracking mud around his living room... but he should be focusing his time on writing, not on entertaining perpetually ungracious houseguests.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: Perhaps if OSC came on to engage some of the harsher posters, telling them to stop tracking mud around his living room...
I can think of few things that would be less productive.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
A lot of the people who "left" didn't actually leave, but rather just post a lot less. There only 2 or 3 people on sake (for example) I can think of who don't come here at all unless someone suggests there's something they should check out. I know it's functionally the same, though.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I can think of few things that would be less productive.
Which is actually a testament to the problem. He used to post (though infrequently), and he did step into some tight situations and calm them down. At the time, there was a lot of respect among the general posting public that we were only allowed to muck around in his living room at his will.
Now, I don't think that would have any effect. Most of the posters that would have altered their behavior in response to that have stopped posting already.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm still watching the Hatrack circle jerk. The content has become quite boring, I may as well go buy an Enquirer, pick up a copy of the New York Times or listen to NPR. It was fun for a while but the self proclaimed open minded can be so intolerable of people from the other side.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
Yup, people are definitely agreeing with each other so hard and all the time on this forum. It's why this thread is here.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Case in point, mal. There's no reason that couldn't have been said without being rude, and the "content" (assuming you're referring to information rather than style/tone) of your posts was never their problem.
Posts: 6213 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I doubt the degradation has as much to do with "disagreement" rather being disagreable toward people with opposing views. Degrading the argument to personal attacks. I learned a valuable lesson from Hatrack. While people can nicely disagree around the edges when their cores are mostly overlapping the hordes will pile upon someone who takes a completely different stand. My views in here were recieved like an athiest in a Christian blog. People like to be challenged along the fringe while seeking affirmation from others with a similar core belief system.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
mal, I can only give you personal anecdotes, but I've had plenty of non-inflammatory conversations over the past 8 years on this forum with people whom I disagreed with significantly. It's one of the reasons I've always loved this place.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:My views in here were recieved like an athiest in a Christian blog.
And you think this has nothing to do with, say, the way you were disagreeable and immediately degraded your argument to personal attacks? When your stated view is "you are criminally stupid," I think it's a bit disingenuous to complain about how you're received.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've learned to stay out of discussions around religion, because the devout get so very testy. And I've learned to stay out of discussions around politics for the same reason. Unfortunately, the "devout" mindset has spread to things like scientific and social discussions as well - with hardliners on both sides of an issue (who often can't seem to escape dragging religion or politics into nearly every discussion they're in, whether those topics have any bearing or not).
Time was we could have discussions without people being called out for having some agenda or other, or without disagreements from other heated threads bleeding over and cannibalizing thread after thread.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
For all our talking about it, the problem does not seem to be resolving, nor it seems can anyone do anything outside of simply being good posters themselves.
FlyingCow: I'm starting to lose my taste for religious threads because the unbelievers can be so coarse and rude. Your statement, "Time was we..." was quite accurate. I wish that trend would stop.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know what the problem is; I know that my attitude toward Hatrack has changed quite a bit. I'm much less likely to trust the community than I was even a year ago.
I'm not inclined to belittle the fluff threads-- they make us human.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe that being rude, to a point, CAN be effective. It's just not the MOST effective way to get your point across most of the time.
It only works when you don't really care about the person you claim to be talking to/about, because it is NEVER an effective way to change someones views. It CAN (although often isn't) be used effectively if nothing else has worked and it is more important to make a point to the community at large, or to specific people in a thread. IRL one of the only ways to deal with someone who is not reasonable, after all other approaches have been attempted, is to simply be rude enough back to someone that they leave you alone. In effect to refuse to be bullied.
But rude and vulgar are two different things. There are topics where is is almost impossible to discuss without being what some would call rude, and some of those topics are very much worthwile discussion topics. I say go fo it in those situations. Be clear that you are actually trying for discussion, and that it may offend people, but that your point isn't to offend for the sake of offending....
The problem to me seems that no one is willing to accept that people are arguing/discussing in good faith. I remember some of the very volatile abortion discussions we had about 5-6 years ago, and I can't imagine wanting to participate in any such discussion with someone like Malanthrope. Not because he is smart...I haven't seen that side of him....or because I fear his debate tactics.... they are sophomoric at best, and rudeness seems to be the POINT of a lot of his posts.
Dagonee and I disagreed in those threads, violently, and it would have been easy for me to write off his concerns because of it.Yet I KNEW he wasn't TRYING to be disagreeable, and I knew that I probably was making him feel the same way.
He didn't change my mind, nor I his, but I got a lot of really good insight into his beliefs, and I think he got some really good ones into mine. Same thing whit the right to die threads....I had rehashed those arguments over and over in my mind for years, but discussing it with sndrake and Dags and others here actually DID help shape my current beliefs.
I can't imagine that happening these days....not because I am not willing to listen, but because I rarely see people discuss differing views with any sense of compassion towards each other. It seems that discussions these days are more about points, and vendettas following people though threads, than ever before, and I don't trust most of the people here enough to reveal what I really think about serious issues here anymore.
quote:I'm much less likely to trust the community than I was even a year ago.
But you were never likely to trust the community. I mean, that was your whole gig, Mr. "I never meet anyone from the Internet." *boggles*
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't trust the community as a whole, but how could you unless you knew everybody? However I love meeting hatrackers in person, in safe public places. Such gatherings tend to always be most enjoyable. This will be get together number four for me. I still kick myself for not getting to meet Porter and beverly when the chance was there.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: For all our talking about it, the problem does not seem to be resolving
This is a bellwether thread. While they're cyclical, the alternative is to not talk about it.
Not talking about it is far less likely to perpetuate change, because these threads get a message out that people don't like where the forum is going or what is happening. While they can be (and tend to be) cyclical events, they do tend to promote change.
One result of bellwether threads is usually a temporary surge of improved behavior.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm starting to lose my taste for religious threads because the unbelievers can be so coarse and rude.
I agree - but it goes both ways. When I said "the devout get so very testy", I meant devoutly religious and devoutly areligious alike.
We have so many hardliners these days (in all subjects) that feel any attempt at honest skepticism, curiousity or doubt is an attack on their sacred cow.
It seems there are fewer open minds, and more closed fists.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:We have so many hardliners these days (in all subjects) that feel any attempt at honest skepticism, curiousity or doubt is an attack on their sacred cow.
I'm trying to think of evidence for this-- specifically, the hardliner part-- and I can only think of maybe one or two people whose views could be considered "hardline."
And only two of those people actually post consistently in threads in which their hardline views get tapped.
When you say "hardline" are you meaning it in terms of POSITION or ATTITUDE?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it is true if he meant attitude. It's not just in specific threads/topics...it's a general attitude that it is OK to be dismissive of others and deal in bad faith if you really believe what you are discussing.
That attitude fails to take into consideration that the OTHER person in that discussion might believe HE is right. Honestly, completely, and with as much faith in his views as you have in yours.
It is possible for two intelligent, honest people to disagree, even with provided with the same information on a subject.
Possible, but less and less likely these days. Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I meant attitude. Those who take a hard line, who are unwilling to entertain notions different than their own.
This most often manifests when posters talk down to others who disagree with them - treating them as though they are somehow stupid, deluded, brainwashed, bigoted, inferior, etc.
It's not enough to say "That's an interesting position. I disagree, and here's why." The standard has become closer to "I'm right, and you're wrong. Your idea is inferior, and therefore so are you."
Of course, not in those words, and often more through tone and inference. There are those that are more blatant, and those that are more subtle, but that attitude becomes so oppressive on both sides of arguments that it's just not worth entering into them.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not Hatrack; it's deliberation. According to the review, Cass Sunstein's new book argues that deliberation is not good for moderation. He discusses evidence that whenever like-minded people enter discussion, they tend to (uniformly) radicalize their opinions. Even when a diversity of opinion exists within the group, the process of deliberation tends to extremize the two sides, dividing them and pushing the two groups to the extreme ends of the seesaw.
My take: moderation requires participation in something other than ideological debate. The things on Hatrack that I think would foster moderation would be support threads (computer or cancer or whatever), Christmas gift exchanges, various meatspace -cons, the Expectant Mothers thread and the like. Community requires (IMO) more than merely a mutual agreement to disagree politely (although I do think that's a necessary condition); it requires love that is built on common experience (not just commonly-held principles). I've enjoyed my time on Hatrack (going on four years, I think), but I often find myself trying to talk myself out of anger with one poster or another by thinking, "I'm sure if I knew them in real life I'd feel differently about what he/she just wrote."
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I often feel the exact same way. I have been rude to a few people here in my time, but never as a first choice, and always with people who consistently were that way with others here, over prolonged periods of time.
That being said, I had varying levels of success with it, and these days I rarely bother with the crazy threads for a couple of reasons.
First, I have already hashed most of these issues out many times over in my 8 years here, and I get tired of the same subjects over and over. Since I can't participate with an open mind, or at least not without being grumpy, I avoid some of them.
Second, I often find I just don't care enough. Enough to fight against the rudeness, to defend other people, or even to attempt to discuss these things with people who just don't seem to want to discuss things in good faith.
Good faith. That phrase pretty much sums up my entire philosophy in debates. I am not interested in points, or gotchas. I use to think that was fun, and I was good at it, but it is pretty much verbal masturbation in the end. If I bother to try and discuss things, I would hope the people who do it with me would do it in good faith, honestly questioning my stance and not my motives.
I know a lot of people used to post here, and left because of a huge lack of good faith in conversations. They got tired of being called nasty things, having their motives constantly called into question, and eventually having almost every discussion turn into personal attacks.
I refuse to leave because of a few people's bad behavior....but even I post here less and less. Part of that is the natural progression fo life, but part of it is that I am not sure I want to try and trust people here again. It hasn't worked out too well the last few times, after all.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Frisco: And yet we're always here, lurking in the shadows...
*cue creepy music*
(yes, I bumped this quote from two pages back!)
Frisco! Ivygirl and I just had a "whatever happened to Frisco" conversation the other day. Good to see you're still popping in occasionally and alive and I'm assuming well. (since I don't check Hatrack much anymore either)
Posts: 9538 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: It's decidedly rare in my experience that those things said rudely couldn't be said quite clearly without the rudeness yet with just as much meaning.
I have long seen CT as an example of this concept. She corrects people and disagrees on factual matters and has a differing opinion on a regular basis-- but is unfailingly polite about it.
I am still working on being as polite as she is. I would suggest if anyone needs an example of this, they look to her, as I have. Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm jumping into this late, but I agree with Rabit. Hatrack has gotten to the point where I don't like the conversation. There are still people here that I cherish, but the site as a whole has become snarky. I really hate to say that, because there are still some really good people here.
Posts: 1766 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:My views in here were recieved like an athiest in a Christian blog.
And you think this has nothing to do with, say, the way you were disagreeable and immediately degraded your argument to personal attacks? When your stated view is "you are criminally stupid," I think it's a bit disingenuous to complain about how you're received.
Thanks for making my point. I don't believe I've ever in my life used the phrase, "criminally stupid". This coming from the guy who reverts to accusations of racism when pinned in a corner. Completely making up statements and attributing them to someone, grabbing partial statements completely out of context or degrading the conversation to personal attacks is the reason I've become tired of interacting with many posters on this site. I think it is probably best to discover the Tom's out there and just choose not to interact with their misrepresentations, misquotes and slanders. No one wants to go back days or weeks in old posts to disprove whatever quote you attribute to someone in an attemt to marginalize. Mainly I've backed off because world events are proving my points more than I ever could and realized that if someone can't see what is before them they will never be convinced by written or spoken word.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
FWIW, I actually think a big part of the problem is Victimhood. Many of the things that I see flare up are merely old personal vendettas playing over new territory because someone has the chance to say "person x is mean to me!".
I really don't think rudeness is a huge problem except that people make federal cases out of it. The more I see people making much of it, the more I see people try to Judo arguments much the way Malanthrop just has WRT Tom ("he's mistreating me! see everyone? come save me from the mean old curmudgeon!")... and the real problem is there are people here who are just a bit too worked up about being nice and polite to let those things go. Then they feel the need to get involved and what we basically have as a result is a forum where people gain points by playing the victim.
If someone says "you're an idiot" the best thing to do is simply let that comment stand as the last word. If you are an idiot, well, people already know, probably, and if you're not, they definitely know. In that case the person who just called you one is the one with egg on their face.
But what I see, instead, is a number of people waiting for chances to accuse other people of mistreatment so they can play on the mercies of those who are heavily invested in having this place be "nice", "fair", or <insert pleasant adjective here>.
Instead of simply refusing to engage problematic posts, we often give the trolls a double feeding as they begin arguing over who mistreated who first, and people line up behind them for the chance to fight for them (for reasons of loyalty, either to the person or to their side of the argument) and other people line up to jump in between them and say how bad the fighting is.
The best way to kill offensive threads is let them die. You don't have to leave the forum, just, in the titular words of the grammy-nominated instrumental, "Leave That Thing Alone."
My $.02, not that anyone asked for it. And, yes, I'm aware that it's much easier said than done... as anyone who remembers me from my less lurkish days may well attest.
Edited to add: I was typing my post while Tom responded... just to be clear
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Good faith. That phrase pretty much sums up my entire philosophy in debates. I am not interested in points, or gotchas. I use to think that was fun, and I was good at it, but it is pretty much verbal masturbation in the end. If I bother to try and discuss things, I would hope the people who do it with me would do it in good faith, honestly questioning my stance and not my motives.
If my becoming a little cooler and willing to let things go is something I'm glad of in having come to Hatrack, this kind of thing is it's evil twin. I've definitely gotten better at twisting people's own words against them or throwing the same tactics back when massive arguments about semantics crop up, and I'd be lying if I said there was never any pleasure to be had in doing so, but I know it never changes minds or actually proves a point, even if it sometimes leaves spectators with a sense that one side has "won".
(If there was a contact I could sign that meant I'd never have to witness another brawl about not what had been said but the motives behind it (and unspoken motives, and hidden agendas, and, no, that wasn't my intention, yes it was because you said this, and...), where do I sign. I'll sign in blood. I'll sacrifice small woodland creatures. Name it.)
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: You don't have to leave the forum, just, in the titular words of the grammy-nominated instrumental, "Leave That Thing Alone."
posted
I'm not looking for support or setting myself up as a victim. If the discussion is about what has happened to Hatrack, Tom made my point quite well. As I said, "I think it is probably best to discover the Tom's out there and just choose not to interact with their misrepresentations, misquotes and slanders". It is difficult not to respond when someone simply makes up a quote and attributes it to you. I'll admit, I need to work on ignoring the lies and slanders. Responding enables the deflection from the the point at hand. In the future I'll simply accept those tactics as a concession. If you revert to that, you've conceded.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
You can claim people are conceding all you want, it's ok. I don't know anyone here who matters to me who cares what you think, about this or anything else.
As a matter of fact, people like you are pretty much why this thread is timely and relevant.
You're pretty much the definition of arguing in bad faith, and according to your comments in this very thread you have no plans to change that.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is this thread that interested me to post after being absent for quite a while; the timeliness you speak of is inverted. I wont claim anyone is conceding when they revert to personal attacks or misrepresentations, I will just assume it and do my very best not to waste effort with a response. It indicates the other person has a lack of any logical intelligent rebuttal. Please, go back through this very thread and see who started the personal attacks, it was not me; sorry for failing at my goal of not resonding to them. I'm well aware that my opinions are not in line with the Hatrack group as a whole and am well aware that the opinion of a Libertarian Conservative is very unwelcome here. Hense my point, Hatrack circle jerk.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks for all the input. Its both nice to see I'm not the only one who feels this way and to know that many people would like to raise the level of conversation.
I think one of the problems is that too many of us (myself included) tend to match the tone when we perceive others as being rude. I wonder why we are so much less likely to match the tone or those who strive to be polite?
I also question whether what's happening at hatrack is a reflection of a larger trend in American society away from civility. I think our society has over the past decade become increasingly polarized and a growing number of people seem to accept the maxim "It doesn't matter if you are rude as long as you are right". Could it be that when we routinely see media figures defending rude and insulting behavior (Limbaugh), frothing at the mouth over every perceived offense (Olbermann), or impugning opponents with the vilest of motives (Card) that it influences our own behavior?
That isn't to say I think what's happened here is the fault of Limbaugh, Olbermann or Card, we are responsible for what we do in our community. I simply find it curious that there seems to be a general tend away from civility in American society as a whole and wonder why this is happening in America and to what extent what's happening at hatrack is part of that larger trend.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
That said, I wasn't talking about rudeness. I was talking about discussing things like well-adjusted adults. *grin* ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
