quote:I am sorry. If you were more perceptive, perhaps you'd stop with your own passive aggressive insults.
What's passive aggressive about asking you to support your claim? It would be pretty simple to say "here are the downsides" rather than do a petulant "If you can't figure it out I'm not going to tell you" thing.
I mean, it's fine to *think* that, but why make a point of throwing an insult into a conversation and then getting indignant about being asked to explain yourself?
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not interested in talking to you about this, Matt.
Tom, if you really want to turn all the condescension somewhere where it would actually be beleived, try explaining to Lalo, in equal or greater and in convincing detail, why he's wrong.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not interested in talking to you about this, Matt.
Then take it to email. And next time someone says something stupid that you want to take issue with without the annoying possibility of having others question you on it, do the same. Please.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, it's a good thing that it's genuine concern, then. See, I like you a great deal. I also like other people on this site. And you have this tendency to be incredibly, remarkably hostile to other people I like (something that often leads to some really ridiculous, protracted grudges), and I can't believe that's really your intention.
Have you, for example, really determined that you want Eddie to dislike you? To think of you as some angry, dismissive bigot? Because here's the thing: I know that's not true. I think Eddie knows that's not true. But I also believe that the way you've presented yourself here will fix that in his mind, poisoning further interaction -- and I don't think that's what you wanted.
I think what you wanted to say was something like, "Eddie, it frustrates me that you're so willing to smear the entire Republican Party -- many members of which are fine, upstanding, intelligent and principled people -- because some social conservatives whose actions appear completely unrelated to their political affiliation are jerks." My own belief is that you hoped to tell Eddie -- and others who might be reading the thread -- that associating this sort of thing with party membership was unfounded, unproductive, and ultimately insulting. That his response, which dismissed your first criticism through the simple expedient of accusing you of early bigotry, was hurtful and inaccurate.
I think that's a useful thing to say. I agree that it should be said. I don't think, however, that it's what you wound up saying.
All I'm asking, Katie, is that you think about whether the "get offended by a generalization, post an insult, and then refuse to 'condescend' to actual conversation with the insulted party" approach you've taken in several situations over the last few months is really one that's likely to achieve whatever goals you might have. You get brittle when you anticipate challenge, but that doesn't seem to produce in you a corresponding hardness; it just means you break faster, and into sharper pieces.
I understand that you don't appreciate hearing this opinion. And I do regret sharing it with you in direct violation of your stated preferences. I know there's a cost involved -- but I really do hope it's worth it. There's nothing "fake" about that concern, believe me.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rather than saying that in a lecture at me, you should have said that directly to Eddie in a lecture towards him.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:try explaining to Lalo, in equal or greater and in convincing detail, why he's wrong
I think he knows why he's wrong. I'm absolutely confident, in fact, that Eddie knows he was speaking off the cuff and making a wild generalization that is far more untrue than it is true, and I'm equally sure that if you asked him for a retraction and apology that one would be offered. You'll notice that when I directly confronted him on this point -- and I did so pretty directly and pretty early in the thread -- he immediately softened his claim to "Yeah, but Republican policies and marketing strategies deliberately produce and inflame this sort of thing." I think that's a pretty substantial retreat, and there's no doubt in my mind that Eddie would, if asked, freely concede that there are plenty of decent Republicans out there.
For what it's worth, I believe there are some people for whom "saving face" is a major priority -- Blayne springs to mind here, actually -- and for whom I believe being somehow forced into an open admission of wrongdoing would be intensely and valuably therapeutic. Otherwise, I don't necessarily believe that this is always the best way to end an argument.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Rather than saying that in a lecture at me, you should have said that directly to Eddie in a lecture towards him.
He did, quickly, even before your response:
quote:It's got nothing to do with their political party, Eds.
"You're wrong"
vs:
quote:Amazing. Lalo proves himself incapable of critical thinking.
"You're stupid"
Note which response actually forced Lalo to modify or defend his position and which led to an exchange of insults. Now it was by no means a verbose condemnation, but it conveyed the message and Lalo's response indicated that he accepted the criticism.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: For the record, I voted Republican, and I'd hold my nose and vote for Palin if she was the only choice against Obama. So am I a homophobe? Am I trash?
not really. you're just trained well to vote against your interests.
<snort> Sure. Do I strike you as even remotely trainable?
Absolutely. Mention any one of five or six hot-button issues and you jump like a dog.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Katherina, as a random person not particularly involved in the current argument, I would like to note that I have a vague recollection of considering you a respectable person when I first came here. But for the past year or so, whatever productive things you've said have been vastly outweighed by short, pointless insults and now whenever I see you entering a discussion I cringe because that discussion will usually end up less productive due to your participation. (Yes, the quality also goes down due to other people, but those other people are undeniably enflamed by your posts and you absolutely share in the responsibility)
At this point you've responded identically to lengthy, serious attempts to address this problem as well as short, sarcastic comebacks and everything in between. The list of people you "have no interest in speaking to" seems to grow each month, and I don't know if there's anyone in the forum you respect enough to change your behavior for. I don't imagine you have any particular respect for me. But please, please, if you don't have something constructive to add to a debate, if you have "no interest in speaking" to multiple people in that debate, just don't participate. Please.
[ April 07, 2010, 11:43 AM: Message edited by: Raymond Arnold ]
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
How many people need to share the "opinion" that you are contributing to the downfall of the forum before it becomes, by definition, true?
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
The downfall? You think it's falling now? It has fallen. It has crashed and burned and this is the shattered, rotting corpse.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Which again, begs the question, why are you even here?!
Plenty of us still find something valuable here, even in the political/religious debate sections. If you consider that area so rotten as to not be worth your time, just don't participate.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you don't like my contributions, then don't respond to me.
Insulting people isn't contribution. Telling people that you don't want to talk to them rather than just, you know, not talking to them, is also not contribution.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you don't like my contributions, then don't respond to me.
No. Sorry. Doesn't work like that. I was enjoying a productive discussion in this thread before you began launching pointless insults and then acting smug when people called you on them, refusing to answer a single question about WHY you are doing what you are doing, and derailing the entire thread. You've stated explicitly that you find the forum to be a "rotting corpse." You have given no explanation as to why you are feasting on that rotting corpse. Which, essentially, is admitting that you are deliberately trolling. I've given you the benefit of the doubt for a while because I do remember you being a respectable member in the past. Clive and Mal, however poisonous, at least put effort into their posts. You are not fostering discussion in the slightest, you are purely derailing threads for your own amusement and whatever good you might have brought the forum in the past, at this point I think you should be banned.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you don't like my contributions, then don't respond to me.
I typically don't, but as long as the topic of thread has now become this I figured I'd go ahead and say my piece.
"Don't feed the troll" is excellent advice, but it's idealistic. In practice it's hard to get everyone to ignore trollish behavior. This means that the disruptive individual has disproportionate control over the direction a thread may take. One person hurling insults or sardonic one-liners can easily derail a thread even if most others are making a point of ignoring such comments.
A preferable solution is for the person engaging in this sort of behavior to exercise some self-restraint. Then only one individual needs to alter their actions in order for the quality to go up for everyone. This is what PJ has requested as well.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
I'm done discussing it. I'll bother listening again when I see the same zeal in silencing people like Lalo.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The same zeal was unnecessary because a few people said "Hey Lalo, your post is rather insulting" and he backed off. The end.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
I can, usually. Everyone can, usually. But to get everyone to do it, all the time, well that's a statistical unlikelihood.
quote:I'll bother listening again when I see the same zeal in silencing people like Lalo.
The zeal was in response to indifference, dismissiveness, and an unwillingness to communicate. Lalo has not exhibited these traits. He's said some possibly offensive, misguided things and has shown some willingness to recognize the fault in his original statement.
People, in general, don't mind bad ideas being expressed. Bad ideas can be countered, discussed, changed. "You're incapable of critical thinking." or "*shrug* Whatever." are not ideas though. They are insults and evasion.
The fact that you think we're trying to silence you is telling. No one wants you to be quiet. They just want you to contribute productively. As I heard someone say in Conference this weekend: "You can disagree without being disagreeable."
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
To be fair, I've officially switched my stance to "wanting to silence her," but that's only because she has stated, explicitly, that she has no interest in being productive.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:"Don't feed the troll" is excellent advice, but it's idealistic. In practice it's hard to get everyone to ignore trollish behavior.
I don't see why that is. I think that people holding this attitude is one of the major reasons why it is true. People don't want to take responsibility for their immature behavior and this seems to say "Well, it's bound to happen anyway." I think if people held the mostly non-trolling posters (and honestly, we're talking about like 7 people who really feed the trolls here, all of whom have shown impulse control problems in other contexts) to some pretty obvious standards, it would greatly reduce the problems with them
It's also, absent heavy handed moderation, the only way of making changes. You can't change the trolls behavior by appealing to them, insulting them, getting into detailed engagements with them, etc. That's feeding them; giving them exactly what they came here for. The effect this has, if any, is to make their behavior more frequent.
You stop feeding them, they go away. It's really pretty simple. They like to feel important and feel that sense of control they get from provoking reactions. You take that away from them, there's not much point to what they are doing.
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: To be fair, I've officially switched my stance to "wanting to silence her," but that's only because she has stated, explicitly, that she has no interest in being productive.
I'd still prefer that she changed her interest rather than simply left. She has made good contributions in the past and I'm sure she could do so again. Heck, I'm confident that she will again once whatever this is gets resolved.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd agree, except "this" has been going on for at least a year. If she is going through rough spot in real life, I do hope things work out for the better and she eventually returns as a positive force in the forum. But I'm wary of leaping to conclusions there and it's not something we have the capability nor responsibility of helping with. It's also not something I expect be over any time in the near future.
quote: I think that people holding this attitude is one of the major reasons why it is true.
You are right, in that it is one of the major reasons why the attitude is true. The other one of the major reasons is that the attitude is true to begin with. Half of the people who end up encouraging trolls may have that attitude, but the other half are genuinely sucked in by them, either because they don't recognize it as trolling or they're just having a bad day and want a target to vent at.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:but the other half are genuinely sucked in by them, either because they don't recognize it as trolling or they're just having a bad day and want a target to vent at.
And that's where the forum can productively address this issue. Yes, there are people who genuinely get sucked in. There are others that have impulse control problems. We can address those people and effect changes in their behavior. When they start feeding the trolls, we can intervene. If this is something that people recognize as valuable and don't take the line that "This is bound to happen. Nothing we can do about it.", we could greatly reduce the problems with trolling we've been having. Change the social expectations and educate people about these expectations and you can change behavior.
This seems like a much more workable potential solution than actively giving the trolls exactly what they are coming here and trolling for.
---
And again, the majority of the forum doesn't really feed the trolls. Most of it is done by like 7 posters, all of whom have maturity issues.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:...and I'm equally sure that if you asked him for a retraction and apology that one would be offered.
Well, that certainly hasn't been my experience. Almost the opposite, in fact: the most that can be hoped for is a modification, not a retraction. In fact, looking back, the closest I see to the kind of behavior people are attributing to Eddie - responding correctly when being called on ridiculous over-the-top political rhetoric - is to say, "... Maybe not all Republicans are trash, but trash overwhelmingly votes Republican."
So, just because katharina is behaving quite badly - and you are, katharina, and your lack of concern over my opinion is matched by my apathy as to whether you care or not right now, because of how you're behaving - there's no need to whitewash Lalo, either. Because civil discussion with him on politics is only possible through agreement.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:We can address those people and effect changes in their behavior. When they start feeding the trolls, we can intervene.
Your proposed solution is to dogpile the people who talk to trolls? Squicky, believe me, that doesn't work either. In fact, what you're going to get in that situation will be meta-trolling.
And either way, it wouldn't apply to this case. Katie's not a troll. She's someone I esteem quite highly. So, for that matter, is Eddie; heck, I've practically watched him grow up. The problem here isn't random trolling for lulz; the problem here is that we have people who simply aren't willing to talk to each other as people anymore.
I think the biggest problem certain types of trolling has caused for Hatrack is that it's made it possible that not everyone here is in fact a "real" person, speaking in good faith. And that makes it easier for all of us to forget that most -- darn near all -- of the people posting here still are.
---------
quote:Because civil discussion with him on politics is only possible through agreement.
That's not entirely true. But I'll freely admit that Eddie ramps up pretty quickly when challenged, and I wish that weren't the case. I've found, myself, it's fairly possible to make a convincing argument that he'll eventually come around to agreeing with on his own time -- but I don't think it's necessarily likely that you'd hear it from him. I think you do need to be willing to look past the layers of hyperbole, absolutely, because it'd get exhausting (and sort of pointless) to try to pierce each one individually.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I want to believe Katie is still capable of posting in good faith. But anyone (I've counted 6 so far) who suggests her behavior is unproductive and needs to change seems to get written off as yet another "non-person" in her mind. Again, I've seen her acting responsible and respectful. I hope there is someone here who she still respects enough to care if they tell her "please, change your behavior because it's harming the forum."
But at some point, the only way to deal with behavior that is identical to trollish behavior is to treat it as trollish behavior.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: But it's a far less workable solution than simply banning the trolls.
In our situation, I disagree. I've added the caveat "Absent more heavy handed moderation" in what I've said. I very much doubt that we're going to get a change in moderation where PJ starts banning the trolls, especially, as I've noted before, many of the trolls don't break any forum rules, while the people who respond to them routinely do so.
And honestly, I think that establishing an expectation that people behave like adults is a better solution than having a nanny forum where we appeal to authority figures to deal with problems that wouldn't really exist if people were grown up enough to respond appropriately. I think that the benefits of this would expand beyond this particular area into other ones as well.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I've found, myself, it's fairly possible to make a convincing argument that he'll eventually come around to agreeing with on his own time -- but I don't think it's necessarily likely that you'd hear it from him.
Well, it's certainly easier when your own politics already start out much closer to his from the beginning. And the funny thing is, usually my own personal politics do line up pretty closely with his-but then he'll make some ludicrous, over-the-top demagogue statement about the opposition (usually Republicans and/or Christians), and you can't even say, "Y'know, they don't actually all think that..." and move on from there.
You either have to ignore the issue - not just the hyperbole - or stop talking. Anyway, Tom, the things you're describing...it sounds very much like you're saying to me you agree, that you can't have a civil discussion with him without agreement. The conditions you're talking about, those aren't components of a civil discussion. Refusing to acknowledge a convincing argument, ramping up quickly, not telling you if he does agree, hyperbole...when I hear these things I don't think, "Civil discussion." Maybe productive, but that's a different matter.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Your proposed solution is to dogpile the people who talk to trolls? Squicky, believe me, that doesn't work either. In fact, what you're going to get in that situation will be meta-trolling.
No, but I'm not surprised that you would see it that way. My solution is not dog piling with simplistic comments, but people engaging and defusing the people feeding the trolls, hopefully in such a way that the troll feeder learns not to do it in the future. One of the big changes I'd love to see is that people acknowledge and accept the responsibility for their actions in feeding the trolls. As part of this and the wider issue, I've tried to create a culturally recognized touchstone to deal with situations like this.
---
Not that this will surprise you, but I disagree with you about kat. I don't think she's a traditional troll, but, from my perspective, she's always been the Sarah Palin of Hatrack. She wants to be considered smarter and more important that she really is and has always used passive aggressiveness and insults when she reaches the gap between her ability and what she would like to be considered as.
Here, I very much doubt that she's acting as she is because she doesn't want to contribute. Instead, I believe she is unable to do so. If you get her to a point where she can't substantiate what she has says, as happened quickly here, she has always behaved this way.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, that's likely. And I do realize it's subjective, so I'll get more specific: it's very difficult to have a conversation with Lalo about politics, religion, or social issues and not experience hyperbole, misinterpretation, and insults either general or specific, if you disagree.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
What the homosexuals and their allies want above all else is the normalization of homosexuality. If states stopped recognizing marriage altogether, homosexuals and their allies would be sad, because the government wouldn't have acquiesced to homosexuals' demand that they be equated with normal people. I am so happy that those kids in that community will have their own PRIVATE prom and keep that sniveling pervert out.
Posts: 83 | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. Squicky knows absolutely nothing about me and is eager and delighted to imagine the very worst. He's a bad source.
If you listen to him on the topic of me, you will get the same level of credibility as a "Here There Be Dragons" map. If you want to know why Hatrack is place where it isn't worth it to share actual opinions, he's a good example of why. Prejudiced from the beginning and bent with hatred.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
contents, are you willing to discuss the issue and give other points of view some consideration?
"above all else" is patently false. Any time you are claiming that someone wants something "above all else" you better be talking about not dying or something along those lines.
"normalization" to the extent of ending persecution, definitely. Likewise harmful discrimination. Opinions vary on what constitutes harm.
quote:If states stopped recognizing marriage altogether, homosexuals and their allies would be sad, because the government wouldn't have acquiesced to homosexuals' demand that they be equated with normal people.
Some homosexuals and "allies" of homosexuals advocate for exactly the solution that you say would make them "sad." I'm one. It's a neat solution. Unfortunately this option is not much more attractive to many of the opponents of civil same sex marriage. (I will concede that some same sex marriage advocates are not happy with that solution, because it is a compromise and they don't think it's necessary - but I believe almost all of them would find it preferable to the status quo.)
quote:I am so happy that those kids in that community will have their own PRIVATE prom and keep that sniveling pervert out.
I'd like for you to think about why it makes you happy for someone to feel excluded and demeaned by the community. Why is that preferable to allowing some relatively small discomfort to intrude on the majority by tolerating the minority? Even if you conclude it is preferable, is it really cause for joy?
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Some homosexuals and "allies" of homosexuals advocate for exactly the solution that you say would make them "sad." I'm one. It's a neat solution. Unfortunately this option is not much more attractive to many of the opponents of civil same sex marriage. (I will concede that some same sex marriage advocates are not happy with that solution, because it is a compromise and they don't think it's necessary - but I believe almost all of them would find it preferable to the status quo.)
It would make me sad. I think marriage is a wonderful thing when done well. A major source of my support of SSM is that I think it's so undeniably good that I can't see any reason not to extend its benefits to same sex couples.
One of the criticisms that the anti-SSM crowd makes of the pro-SSM crowd is that they (and here I don't mean all, but a significant section thereof) don't really value marriage and, honestly, I think this is one that has some validity. Now, if only many in the anti-SSM crowd didn't also not really value marriage, it would stick more.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
In addition to the fact that homosexuals are same-gendered, they're also profoundly different from heterosexuals in that homosexuals don't have a similar concept of fidelity:
Thus gay "marriage" is nothing but an attempt to legitimize homosexuality as "normal," despite its abnormalities and pathological qualities.
Posts: 83 | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, Contents Under Pressure, it would be horrible if we treated gay people like people.
Thank you to whoever made the new troll forum name to illustrate the trolling discussion we're having. Very meta.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Still trying to prove me wrong, aren’t you?” “You are wrong.” “Am I? They come. They fight. They destroy. They corrupt. It always ends the same.” “It only ends once. Anything that happens before that - is just progress.”
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Because civil discussion with him on politics is only possible through agreement.
That's not entirely true. But I'll freely admit that Eddie ramps up pretty quickly when challenged, and I wish that weren't the case. I've found, myself, it's fairly possible to make a convincing argument that he'll eventually come around to agreeing with on his own time -- but I don't think it's necessarily likely that you'd hear it from him. I think you do need to be willing to look past the layers of hyperbole, absolutely, because it'd get exhausting (and sort of pointless) to try to pierce each one individually.
Really? Maybe I'm blinded by my own experience, but I think I've been pretty open to correction. And if others disagree, I try to respond promptly with a counter-argument or an admission of error.
In this thread alone, I scaled back a generalization within an hour of posting it. I realize Rakeesh says negative things about me, but please don't drink his Kool-Aid -- if he has an unpleasant experience arguing with me, it's because his arguments invariably reduce to pointless semanticism or theatrical displays of offense. I'm still very fond of Jeff, at least as much as one can be with an Internet personality, but I have no illusions that the man can competently assess me. I hope you don't, either.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
