How to disagree without personally attacking other babblers
Probably many of us have either taken formal training, or read self-help articles or books, or simply learned through life experience, about interpersonal skills and conflict resolution. I know I have! And yet, this medium, of posting on a discussion forum with people that many of us haven't met in person, sometimes encourages us to ignore or abandon our usual practices and go at the faceless screen names, even though we have gotten to know each other very well.
Sometimes I think we're like a family of siblings - we get to know each other's online personalities so well that we know exactly what buttons to push and exactly where to slide the knife in, and any boundaries that we would normally not cross when talking to other people in our lives disappear, or get pushed way back.
So...I wonder if we can discuss ways we've learned of dealing with conflict without personally attacking the person we're dealing with.
A note: it would be great if we could not drag fights from other threads into this one. Perhaps the first rule of this thread should be: no using negative examples of OTHER people's behaviour - if we must use a negative example, we use a negative example of our OWN behaviour.
Can we do it? Let's see. :)
I'll start. They're oldies but goodies - "I" and "me" statements, and labelling behaviour instead of people.
So, if I get really upset because someone has posted something I consider sexist, instead of saying, "You're so sexist!" or "You're a sexist fuckwad!" I could instead say, "It really upsets me / makes me angry when you say that because it sounds sexist to me. The reason I think it's a sexist thing to say is because xyz."
That way, I am not labeling someone ("You are sexist!") but instead naming my own feelings ("I'm angry"), giving my opinion about the statement/behaviour ("that sounds sexist to me") and explaining why ("because xyz").
It would also require the person on the other end to hear "I am angry because I feel that what you said was sexist" instead of "I hate you because you ARE sexist".
I find that if I pick my nose while posting...I wind up back editing to add in all the missing T's. For the greater good of the board, I vow to work on this behaviour.
Good old active listening. If you disagree with, or just don't fully understand, something someone has written, rephrase it in your own words: "So if I understand you correctly, you're saying....", and then go on to either refute it, or ask for clarification.
Give people the benefit of the doubt. If I say something wrong, or hurtful, or ignorant, or misguided (and I will), it's not because I meant to. Feel free to point out my mistakes, or tell me how it made you feel, or just express a different opinion. But don't assume it was intentional, or personal.
Admit that we all have things to offer, and all have things to learn. Thesis -> antithesis -> synthesis. We are here to improve ourselves and each other. Work from that assumption.
Disclaimer: the views expressed here are mine and mine alone, but you are welcome to them if you like.
Something I've learned from 29 years and 50 weeks and 1 day of being married is that being right is overrated. Too often on a discussion forum being right is what it's all about. People bring more than their ego's to an argument (discussion), they bring their passions. To quote Melville, "And he piled upon the whale's white hump, the sum of all the rage and hate felt by his whole race. If his chest had been a cannon, he would have shot his heart upon it." Look guys, it's an internet discussion forum. It's supposed to be a pleasant interesting and informative pastime. One can just agree that there are more than one point of view sometimes even if what you're really thinking is that the other person is sadly miguided. It won't really affect the course of world events anyway.
I'm reminded of a museum display I saw once, of two locked sets of moose antlers still with fragments of skull attached. That's how they died, locked in combat. There's a metaphore here for behaviour on this board sometimes.
If we could tone down some of the excessive interpretation of remarks and take them at face value, that would be nice.
Yeah, 3 different people just complained about me calling them a moose.
I 's always apprecia ed when complain s are addressed in a
imely manner.
Agreed, Timebandit, and I think that ties into Weltschmertz's suggestion that we step back and ask for clarification before assuming that someone either meant what they said the way we interpreted it, or assuming the worst about people's motives or what they meant by saying xyz.
Yeah, 3 different people just complained about me calling them a moose.
Probably the fathers' rights crowd - because you didn't mention unclers?
If you disagree with, or just don't fully understand, something someone has written, rephrase it in your own words: "So if I understand you correctly, you're saying....", and then go on to either refute it, or ask for clarification.
Careful - that's sometimes met by: "Straw man!! I never said that!! You put words in my mouth!!"
If you really want to be circumspect, you'll say: "Before I reply, I just wanted you to confirm my understanding of what you're saying..." Then, if s/he doesn't answer within 10 seconds, let loose.
Careful - that's sometimes met by: "Straw man!! I never said that!! You put words in my mouth!!"
If you really want to be circumspect, you'll say: "Before I reply, I just wanted you to confirm my understanding of what you're saying..." Then, if s/he doesn't answer within 10 seconds, let loose.
I find the accusation of straw-man gets thrown around a lot when people start feeling they are under attack. Again the term to me implies an intent to either deflect or derail the current discussion. If I've completely misinterpreted your words, then just say "Actually, that's not what I meant at all...". I don't mind. My misunderstanding is completely ignorance-based, not malice
And I don't want to be circumspect, or obtuse, obscure, or whatever. I want to share, and learn, and contribute. The rest of the world has enough competition and animosity in it.
Here's a typical exchange:
B: You'll say anything to discredit (me, the NDP, world peace, the Catholic Church...).
A: I have nothing against you. I'm just saying that I disagree with what (you, Jack Layton, the Dalai Lama, God) said/did in this particular instance. I think it's really dangerous/ill-advised/stupid/unworthy.
B: You're just a [pick your bad name].
A: Why do you have to resort to personal attacks? Why not just debate the issue that is under discussion?
B: That's rich, coming from the most disingenuous passive-aggressive person around here!
Comments?
Here's a typical exchange:
B: You'll say anything to discredit (me, the NDP, world peace, the Catholic Church...).
A: I have nothing against you. I'm just saying that I disagree with what (you, Jack Layton, the Dalai Lama, God) said/did in this particular instance. I think it's really dangerous/ill-advised/stupid/unworthy.
B: You're just a [pick your bad name].
A: Why do you have to resort to personal attacks? Why not just debate the issue that is under discussion?
B: That's rich, coming from the most disingenuous passive-aggressive person around here!
Comments?
Both posters are reacting to each other, rather than trying to figure each other out. The implicit assumption in each person's response is that they already know what the other is trying to say or do, and they've gone on the offensive/defensive.
To say something I wrote is "wrong" doesn't tell me anything other than you disagree with me. I would immediately ask for your opinion, and get you to detail what it is you disagreed with in my post. Similarly, saying something is "dangerous/ill-advised/stupid/unworthy" is not of much use without explanation. If you feel that the statement is self-evident ("If you don't already understand why, then it's not worth explaining to you") then you've begun making assumptions about me as a person, and the discussion can only get worse from there.
What if we all just assumed new screen neames?
Quoting Michelle from the other thread so I can respond in another post:
Well, my thoughts are as follows (and I have been talking about this with the other mods too).
I think Infosaturated is correct, that this place is intimidating to newcomers and, frankly, the amount of hostility and anger here lately is unhealthy. babble culture has expanded to include nastiness, snarkiness, rudeness, hostility, anger, and I also agree that the mods (okay, I'll speak for myself - I, as one mod) have given a lot more leeway for this type of behaviour to some longer-term babblers than newbies or people who don't post as frequently. It has resulted in a complete lack of self-control in some, and defensive reactions in others.
I also agree that long-term babblers who engage in this kind of behaviour get a free pass when it is seen by them, or some others, as "righteous anger". All this "righteous anger" that gets a pass - and that even I as a mod engage in occasionally - is making babble a really scary place for all but the most outgoing, most thick-skinned newcomers and occasional posters. Lately, there is so much fighting and anger. Not pleasant.
I think that, even if people have a good reason to be angry with someone else, we should start really focusing on a "no personal attacks on other babblers" policy that really, really means "no personal attacks".
Not "no personal attacks on other babblers unless you get really mad at someone."
Not "no personal attacks on other babblers unless you do it in a really passive-aggressive, snide way."
Not "no personal attacks on other babblers unless you think someone said something really bad/non-progressive/against babble policy."
Because of the really unhealthy dynamic on babble lately, I think that it should be simply, "No personal attacks on other babblers, period." No matter what.
How does it get enforced? I would prefer to enforce it without any bannings or suspensions at all, except for obvious spammers and really, really nasty trolls. Why no bannings or suspensions? Because I think bannings and suspensions reinforce the culture of anger and temper tantrums on babble by regulars. When the mods regularly use "the stick", people will feel they can engage in poor behaviour up to the point where the mods use "the stick". I think it also encourages infantile behaviour - when you treat people like children with the whole "reward/punishment" thing, then they become conditioned to act like children.
I would say it gets enforced by the mods stepping in and naming the behaviour when we see it, and then, if we need to name it again for the same person several times in one thread, asking them to leave the thread (but not others) if the behaviour becomes extreme.
We would also, of course, step in and name it if we could see that someone was baiting people and hoping for a reaction so that the mods would come down on the people who react (and by that, I mean posting stuff against babble policy, as interpreted by the moderators). But that would not absolve babblers of their responsibility to not respond with personal attacks. We are all responsible for our own behaviour, and no one "makes" anyone insult people, no matter what they say "first".
It would also, of course, be the responsibility of the moderators to ensure that when we do step in, we don't take advantage of our privilege as mods to bend the rules and be snarky about it ourselves (something that I know I do on occasion).
Perhaps we could also have threads in rabble reactions that go back to basics when it comes to interpersonal skills - how to disagree without posting personal attacks, things to do other than a knee-jerk flame reaction to offensive posts, etc.
Would this work for people, at least for a while? I know it will probably feel like a constraint, but I think it's possible to have passionate discussions without tearing each other down and intimidating all but the most thick-skinned of participants / potential participants.
Unionist, are these examples of behaviours you yourself engage in and you're asking us for advice about how to handle it? Or are you posting examples of other people's negative behaviour? What tools do you think people on either side of that dialogue could use during that exchange?
Caissa: is assuming a new screen name a way to disagree without attacking other babblers?
Infosaturated, I was kind of hoping this thread could focus on being sort of a group educational tool, a resource for babblers to come up with suggestions about how to interact with each other in ways that do not include personally attacking each other when we disagree.
Would it be okay if we continue the discussion about my post in another thread, like perhaps this one?
Weltschmerz: Both posters are reacting to each other, rather than trying to figure each other out. The implicit assumption in each person's response is that they already know what the other is trying to say or do, and they've gone on the offensive/defensive.
To say something I wrote is "wrong" doesn't tell me anything other than you disagree with me. I would immediately ask for your opinion, and get you to detail what it is you disagreed with in my post.
I disagree with the vignette and W.'s interpretation. No one ever limits him or herself to typing "You are wrong." The quote the statement in question and explain why they feel it is wrong. (Ok sometimes, they'll throw in a little ad hominem and that's wrong.) I do think that most of us react to statements, trying to ferret out their implications, not to people, and that banning personal attacks would help those that don't fall into line.
This ferreting out of implications may be where the rub lies. It takes a fair deal of collaboration and respect to agree to engage in this exercise. Not available between people who would rather focus on where the Other is Wrong than examine the underpinnings of their statements and what they can lead to. Of course, it's a fine line between actual underpinnings and consequences and building a straw man from what someone wrote. But we ought to be able to recognize a trial of intent when we read one and turn it down as not kosher here.
With all due respect, it is the welcoming of the obvious yet pseudo-polite trollery that I find most frustrating here. They come in regular waves, and completely disrupt all intelligent conversation for weeks at a time, usually during elections and crises, the time when I'm seeking and appreciate the input and viewpoints of respected babblers most of all.
Then why not ignore them? That could be one way of dealing with people who aren't breaking babble policy but that you find you just don't agree with - ignore them.
Or, if you feel they're being pseudo-polite (e.g. being passive-aggressive and insulting people in "pretend polite" ways), then perhaps another way of dealing with it is by just flagging it for the moderator and bypassing it. Or, if you feel the need to really respond, then just state (without personally attacking them) why you disagree with what they posted.
Would that work?
Having new screen names or maybe rotating screen names might cause some people to read less into posts and try to understand more of the actual meaning. I think also that asking for clarification is a good idea. I remember when I first started posting I did not put in as many qualifiers and tried to have a discussion the same way as I would with real people who know me and know my background and real life views and advocacy. The nuance of ones views gets lost in a short post where people do not know you and therefore feel free to read in whatever the worst interpretation might be.
So read carefully and don't presume the negative would be the first thing for me and then secondly if one is posting about a difficult issue then take the time to put in the nuances that show that you are not a right wing knuckle dragger but are tying to have a thoughtful discussion on a difficult issue.
Michelle asked: Caissa: is assuming a new screen name a way to disagree without attacking other babblers?
My light-hearted point was Michelle, that if the environment has become incredibly personalized, possibly not knowing who each other was might help us to focus on arguments rather than past encounters.
Actually, we practically DON'T know who most people are already, which leads to frenzied speculation about who are folks and how bad they "really" are under their cute monikker. Multiplying these would just multiply the problem. It seems so much simpler to keep focussed on the arguments and avoid the paraphrasing-to-better-skewer pattern.
Unionist, are these examples of behaviours you yourself engage in and you're asking us for advice about how to handle it? Or are you posting examples of other people's negative behaviour? What tools do you think people on either side of that dialogue could use during that exchange?
Perhaps we need to all stick to the issues instead of speculating on each other's motives. I've probably been on the dishing out end of this a few times, and have often been on the receiving end. But I think this is also difficult because we tend to see issues from a broad perspective.
And, maybe we need to tone down the passion a little (this is something I am definitely guilty of). I think we are all passionate people - if we weren't, we wouldn't be trying to advance leftie politics and we wouldn't spend our spare time talking about it on the internet. And we put a lot of time into these issues, and have some expectation of solidarity with other leftie activists. So, we get very frustrated when people either don't support or oppose us on our issues. As a student activist, I often get frustrated when people try to tell me that my issues don't matter or that my position is wrong. And maybe some of my real world experiences have caused me to be a little on the paranoid side, especially when dealing with members of a certain political party.
And as we are all passionate lefties, I think one of our responses when we don't get the support of people is to challenge their left cred and say they aren't as progressive, etc.
Although, I also think excessive partisanship is a problem here as well.
But, I don't have a quick fix, so maybe the above was pointless.
Another thing to try is not to assume the worst about another person. If somebody posts something that is ambiguous enough to be interpreted in a couple of different ways, assuming that the poster had the worst possible intentions before labelling them sexist/racist/homophobic/whatever doesn't advance the discussion in a helpful way.
Example: typical of the folks here, I'm extremely opinionated. And when it comes to health care, my bread and butter, I'm arrogant as hell. So when I opined that all alternative medicine is one big steaming load of crap (or words to that effect), another babbler told me I was racist, because I was disrespecting Chinese traditional medicine, First Nations healing, etc (even though I said nothing about folk medicines).
Basically, this other babbler disagreed with me, and found a particularly creative way to launch a personal attack. What's more useful is to say you disagree, and here's why, and here's how you're wrong; to actually argue rather than just name-call. Like what Michelle said in post #2.
I'm not sure I agree about the excessive partisanship - I think that we can be as partisan as we want (it IS a political discussion forum, after all) or as non-partisan as we want, as long as we don't attack people who are the opposite.
Other than that, I agree with your post, genstrike.
Caissa, I agree that when we get to know each other (and perhaps feud with each other for a while) it seems to become less about each individual point of disagreement and more about keeping up the feud.
Unionist, are these examples of behaviours you yourself engage in and you're asking us for advice about how to handle it?
Yes, Michelle. I thought you would recognize me as "A" in that exchange. And Weltschmertz, your response missed the point. I was giving a very abbreviated version of a dialogue. When A says, "your idea is wrong", it's just shorthand for A disagreeing with someone's viewpoint, with or without lengthy explanation, perhaps after a long string of posts. Likewise with saying, "What the Dalai Lama said is stupid", for example - pretend it was surrounded by reasons, examples, etc. I hope you understand what I'm asking.
Well, as I said, I'm A, someone else (more than one person) is B.
I think neither one should characterize the other. I've been saying so for years. But it seems that when I (for example) say some things, like: "I think the Dalai Lama is an ass", or "I think the NDP support for Harper's omnibus crime bill was a betrayal of every progressive idea about dealing with crime", then attacks begin. So, I'm asking you - should I stop saying those things? And if that's the price of peace, is it worth paying?
I'm not sure I agree about the excessive partisanship - I think that we can be as partisan as we want (it IS a political discussion forum, after all) or as non-partisan as we want, as long as we don't attack people who are the opposite.
Other than that, I agree with your post, genstrike.
Well, that is pretty much what I meant - the problem with the excessive partisanship is when it leads to us vs. them attitudes and turns babble into a battleground instead of a place for discussion, debate and learning.
Not that I want us to sit around agreeing with each other (it's no fun!) but this battleground often descends into personal attacks, speculation about other posters, and occaisionally conscious attempts to derail the thread.
Unionist, I was saying that if we find ourselves feeling angry over someone's post, angry enough to personally attack them, then there are ways of expressing our disagreement, or even our anger, without personally attacking the other person.
This is why I asked you whether the negative behaviour you were posting in that example was your own or other people's. Because, as I said in bold in the opening post, I was thinking it would be more constructive to, instead of posting examples of other people's poor behaviour, to discuss ways that we can improve our own skills at avoiding personally attacking other babblers. If you feel that you do not ever personally attack anyone (and that's legitimate) then perhaps you might want to share with us some of the discussion tools you find helpful when you are tempted to post a personal attack and then don't actually do so - without using examples of poor behaviour on the part of other babblers.
In answer to your question about whether you should stop saying things like those two examples you gave about the Dalai Lama or the NDP - no, I don't think there is anything wrong with either of those sentences. You have expressed an opinion and that is legitimate. That is not the sort of thing that this thread is addressing. We're addressing ways to express disagreement without personally attacking people.
This is a good discussion. I have learned much. I do find that when it comes to any threads dealing with the Middle East all civility goes out the window. Even progressive leftists who are Zionists have been personally attacked at times. In fact it has led to personal back and forth that can get very ugly. Im hoping this thread helps us all.
Prophit, are you naming negative behaviour you have personally engaged in (personally attacking leftist Zionists), or are you using negative examples of other people's behaviour?
Let's keep this thread for discussing ways that we personally can learn how to disagree without personally attacking each other, and if we must use examples of negative behaviour, use examples of our own negative behaviour instead of that of other people.
I'm going to try to explain why I used the term Great Unread (note the past tense, it's now Great Misled) by posting a book review of Susan Jacoby's The Age of American Unreason. Jacoby's position (and Al Gore in The Assault on Reason) I'll use to explain why I use either term.
The average American (and Canadian) has become damned vulnerable to the propaganda handed them by the media, as Jacoby so very well outlines in a short history of communications.
I'm explaining this because a prominent poster has sworn not to exchange ideas with me directly while I use such "elitist" language.I've managed to bear up while in Coventry, but I hope to present another perspective in which one can talk about the changes taking place in "understanding" our world - the "objective" description of a public that is not a putdown of a "class".
Virtual group therapy 5 cents
As long as you're not referring to other babblers as "Great Unread" (which would be a personal attack and not allowed) then I don't see why you shouldn't use such a term to describe society in general, or the "average Canadian" or "average American".
People who disagree with you on that description of our society may also say so, and say why, without personally attacking you.
I could not stop myself
[deleted - continuing to IGNORE]
This is the problem with bringing in arguments from other threads and examples of issues we have with other people, George and Unionist. Could we not do that, please? I'd really like this to be a productive thread rather than just a rehashing of the same arguments and fights. Thanks!
As an infrequent poster, turned off by the excessive nastiness on both sides I have to say it is beyond hilarity to see one of the worst offenders acting like the poster boy for innocent, constructive discussion. Too funny. You only need to look at the thread linked to in the OP to see how that babbler operates by using tools to attack others, but in such a nice, innocent way. Or by announcing they are ignoring someone, instead of just ignoring them, and then encouraging others to do it. Or look at his attempts to merely get a rise out of other posters in this thread http://www.rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/liberal-mp-defection-pool
My two cents would be to ban both sides in those disputes because rarely is their an innocent party and that until one particular poster, who always brings the tone down in threads and is always in the middle of these things is dealt with with something stronger than kid gloves it will continue because it sets an obvious double standard that gives people a feeling of license to respond in kind.
[deleted - using IGNORE instead]
Life, the universe and everything, did you read the opening post? Particularly the bolded part?
Once again, I would ask you not to use this thread to continue fights from other threads. This thread is for people to discuss constructive ways to disagree without personally attacking other babblers.
If you want to discuss how you think personal attacks should be moderated once they occur, this would be a good thread for that - but do not attack other babblers when doing so. It's not helpful or constructive.
So you have followed every single post I have made since joining babble - and every single one of them is an attack is that it? Or is it more that you can't resist yourself by actually just ignoring and have to point out to the world you are ignoring so that you can get you digs in just shy of the line of bannable behaviour. My guess would be that latter because you sure seem unwilling to be called out for bad behaviour, but are more than willing to do it for others.
Yep the double standard continues
Okay, Unionist, once again, I'm going to ask you to stop discussing specific issues you've had with other posters. The whole point of my suggestion that we not post examples of other people's poor behaviour or fights from other threads is to avoid continuing fights from elsewhere in this thread.
And reposting someone else's attack on you in this thread by quoting it is also not helpful.
Please stop. I would really like this thread to be reserved for people who would like to discuss constructive ways of avoiding personal attacks on other babblers instead of simply carrying old fights forward.
Thanks.
Life, the universe and everything, once again, I'm going to ask you to stop fighting in this thread. That is not what this thread is for, and your posts continue to be off-topic. Please stop.
Okay I'll take what I hope is a positive suggestion and move it to the other thread.
(In response to the thread tile) It's often a fine line, and one for the mods to arbitrate, I think, rather than have people veer off into oneup meta-debate.
One can merely take on a statement but with all rhetorical stops pulled, making a rant appear like a personal attack or opening it up to be discredited as such.
Or one can ever so snidely impugn an opponent's person rather than what he or she has posted.
Maybe we should have a wider range of emoticons and trust the little yellow critter to make certain points for us.
So is this a thread for posting about what strategies work for people to keep their hostility in check, or is this thread for posting about how much other people are unnecessarily hostile towards us when we're being 100% reasonable and fair? I can't really tell from the responses.
Anyway...i am a rare poster, because of a how emotionally intense things can get in posting exchanges here. BUT, i think that what helps me keep emotional responses in check is that often when reading or posting on babble i indulge in herbal relaxants.
Also, i tend to think that if it's pretty clear to me that someone has their head up their ass on a particular issue, or a particular heated exchange, then it's probably pretty clear to everybody else. So if someone is being a complete ass then probably everybody else is already aware of it, and since calling out the ass rarely has much effect (often escalating things) at dealing with the assness, why bother?
Where i think this is difficult for some people is in situations where they feel that oppressive language needs to be punished. Not simply censoring or blocking, but full on retaliating and vanquishing. Usually this passionate (although at times ugly) retaliatory behaviour is rationalized as being necessary for changing people minds. I'm not so sure myself.
removing my post because Michelle requested it be discussed elsewhere.
We were having these discussions about poster etiquette six years ago when I joined.
They haven't helped.
The problem with banning regulars is that they are, well, regulars. They keep the site going. If we banned every regular who made an ass out of himself/herself, the board would be empty and it would be impossible to attract new participants.I think this place is toxic, but I honestly can't see a way to solve the problem. Even when Babble was a thriving concern, people still gave newcomers a pretty hard time.
The problem with banning regulars is that they are, well, regulars. They keep the site going. If we banned every regular who made an ass out of himself/herself, the board would be empty and it would be impossible to attract new participants.
Actually it wouldn't be empty; what would be left is all the occasional posters and lurkers who might finally get up the courage to post.
You're actually right but it would certainly take a while to pick up again.
Is this discussion over, then? "How to disagree without personally attacking other babblers?" Are we talking about banning a bunch of people and hoping the next crop will be better?
You're actually right but it would certainly take a while to pick up again.
If there was some mass banning of all regulars, yes. But you were here for the Great Schism. We lost a lot of people then, and the board survived. And we continue to this day to either lose or drive away regulars, and things carry on. I just don't like the assumption that some people are too important to the life of the board to ever be banned.
I supppose the question is, do we want a board that's active, while at the same time being savage insular and boring, or do we want one with slightly slower pace where leftists with new opinions aren't forced out of discussions?
Is this discussion over, then? "How to disagree without personally attacking other babblers?" Are we talking about banning a bunch of people and hoping the next crop will be better?
I just don't like the assumption that some people are too important to the life of the board to ever be banned.
I'm sorry, that was elitist of me. I should really keep my inner trudeau under control.Is this discussion over, then? "How to disagree without personally attacking other babblers?" Are we talking about banning a bunch of people and hoping the next crop will be better?
Everyone seems to be assuming that the regulars are all incapable of self-control so hould end up banned and there would be hardly anyone left.
If that's true then it needs to happen as quickly as possible. A board that is dependent on a hostile clique is a lost cause and needs to be cleared and rebuilt with regular posters that will stay even if they aren't allowed to flame others indiscriminately.
Great, now people are calling for the banning of regular posters. Guess what? All you lurkers and occassional posters will eventually become regulars too, and you will have some fighting moments with others, it's human nature. Then you're all banned for a new crop. Repeat the same all over again?
I came to this board when it was chock full of regulars debating and yes, getting peeved at each other, because that is how life works sometimes. If we all want some squeaky clean board where we all agree, and there are never, ever any words that may rile someone up, I think we're living in fairy tale land.
What we can do is attempty to control our behaviour. Period. I don't think calls for mass bannings of regulars is really the way to go, and it is quite a nasty thing to do.
My point was simply that that discussion doesn't belong in this thread. Remember?
I was just trying to remind the last few posters that this thread was about how to express disagreement without personal attacks.
Great, now people are calling for the banning of regular posters. Guess what? All you lurkers and occassional posters will eventually become regulars too, and you will have some fighting moments with others, it's human nature. Then you're all banned for a new crop. Repeat the same all over again?
I came to this board when it was chock full of regulars debating and yes, getting peeved at each other, because that is how life works sometimes. If we all want some squeaky clean board where we all agree, and there are never, ever any words that may rile someone up, I think we're living in fairy tale land.
What we can do is attempty to control our behaviour. Period. I don't think calls for mass bannings of regulars is really the way to go, and it is quite a nasty thing to do.
This sounds for all the world to me like something Don Cherry would say in a different context. Real hockey is about fighting and all those damn wishy-washy liberals want to ruin the game. All anyone is suggesting is that the use of a the penalty box from time to time should be done and the refs should stop putting away the whistle for select babblers that seem to get a different set of rules. It isn't about disagreeing- or even being tough in the corners it is about all the cheap shots and butt ends to the gut.
I came to this board when it was chock full of regulars debating and yes, getting peeved at each other, because that is how life works sometimes. If we all want some squeaky clean board where we all agree, and there are never, ever any words that may rile someone up, I think we're living in fairy tale land.
What we can do is attempty to control our behaviour. Period. I don't think calls for mass bannings of regulars is really the way to go, and it is quite a nasty thing to do.
IMO, it's not about the emotion, it's about how we deal with it. I know I don't want a board where everyone must agree on everything and not say anything to upset anyone. There are a lot of issues discussed here about which some people are very passionate. Being passionate, getting angry, getting hurt, is not the issue; I'm hoping to help create a space where we can express those emotions creatively and constructively and feel that we are being heard and supported, even if we're not being agreed with.
Oh, and just to clarify; I don't support mass bannings of regulars either. You guys are too much fun.
Actually info, people were suggesting banning long time regulars, and I don't appreciate being likened to Don Cherry and the right. I take that as a personal attack, of which this thread is not supposed to be about.
I agree with you Weltschnerz, it is about emotion and trying to control it. Most people try very hard to do just that, but being that there are so many of us whose pasts are riddled with bad things, it is sometimes hard not to get emotional. But yes, totally agreee with you. Now putting that to practice may be a bit hard.
Really Infosaturated?
ETA this in response to the quote below and again for clarity of meaning.
Seems to me this sort of thing, "needs to be cleared and rebuilt with regular posters that will stay even if they aren't allowed to flame others indiscriminately", was advocated to happen at 50plus, and it did happen. No new posters though, just the small group that had been agitating at getting the alleged agitators out, and the site took a decided and singular right wing flavour, to which it remains to this day.
In fact, there is a lot of similarities going on here recently, that occured there, which lead up to some advocating for mass bannings of long time members.
There were the same huge, and never ending threads about how bad the behaviour was, even though in large part, it was because buttons were being pushed, deliberately, and of course people got edgy and out of sorts, and eventually a brouhaha would ensue.
The threads themselves, bashing the alleged wrong doers, became very grating, and debilitating, as they were a means of manufacturing consent, and/or wearing people down, in order to cause infighting, for the eventual desired outcome of shutting down left voices. Indeed progressive voices there were labelled non-progressive reactionaries, that were enemies to the good-will and "progress" of the board.
Amazing the similarities actually. Not saying that this is what is happening here, only that it is very similar.
And do not get me wrong, things really do need to improve, but I believe it is up to the individual posters, and yes, including myself, to action what we believe we are individually doing to allow, buttons to be pushed, and a general breakdown happening.
Along with the moderators help, of course, by way of what Michelle has outlined, most helpfully, about what we should be doing, to help ourselves get out of this rut.
Also, I want to take this time to apologize to Stargazer, Timebandit, unionist, catchfire, and pogo, for coming across, as if I was being part of the "tough on crime crowd" towards you. As upon reflection back, I am sure it did come across that way, and I had no right to impose that feeling upon you, and I am very sorry that I did so.
Ha, remind, I was going to say this was a great post. Then you apologized. You know I still *heart* you.
Thanks.
Wow, remind, thank you so much. For everything you said.
Thank you stargazer, had a bit of an epiphany, and backatcha, as always.
Thanks Pogo.
Thank you Unionist.
I think that this speaks to why regulars have a little more leash. Because we can figure out a way to finish a fight with a group hug.
And nothing feels better than that!!
Ohhh...a teletubbies moment. ;)
ok, I have been lurking and thinking about the things written. Sometimes it helps me when I think I'm in a "heated debate" with another poster(s), and perhaps there was a miscommunication, is to "correct" my initial communication. Sometimes, I say something and it does not come across right.
In other instances, when I perceive someone is baiting, I will ignore the "bait". Remember, as others have suggested, it takes two to be in a "power struggle" and when one disengages the struggle ends.
If I don't feel like I want to get into something, for whatever reason, it might be time, lost interest, I just will say that I am not interested. I get to decide what I post and no, one does not have to respond.
Also, I have personally emailed posters here when I feel that our online relationship has gone off the rail.
Finally, I recognize that for the most part, most babblers have alot more in common than is different even if politically, socially we might have our differences.
Oh, and I walk away from the computer. There is life happening out there but I also like my online friends.
Ya know in terms of the perception that babblers get more leeway, what that to me means is that if a new person comes across right away behaving badly, I'm assuming that that's who they are and respond accordingly. If someone who's been around for awhile acts badly I have a larger context by which to assess the whole situation. It is not in my own mind favouritism, but the fact I have a sense of what's in their heart. There have been longstanding regulars who have been banned from here. I've felt bad about it but it's happened.
In talking about mass banning of regulars which I believe was alluded to somewhere above, really, that's getting a bit ahead of things. In a word, no. The whole idea here is to use less suspensions and bannings, but it will require a buy in by all posters here. This is something Michelle and I are suggesting, it's not really something we can do on our own.
Bannings and suspensions are still going to happen because we'll still get the usual trolls registering here, commercial spammers etc.
Here's my concern though. Politeness can be really passive aggressive. In the hands of a clever person it can be intentionally galling and infuriating. There is still room for abuse here. Also, any set of rules structure or expectations can be gamed by skilled people who have an agenda, be it personal or part of an organized lobby. Not pointing fingers, just sayin'. Something we'll have to watch for and respond to as a community.
Also, something I've tried to be aware of, and not always successfully, is that some people are what I might describe as competitive and robust debaters. Maybe I've sort of let them go at eachother a bit more as long as there was no collateral damage. Maybe I shouldn't do that, as it's a bit exclusionary, but I don't know. A good parliamentary jab and thrust can be fun, 'til someone puts an eye out. Like I say though, this will require a buy in by the community, so we'll give it our best try and see how it goes.
I don't think babblers are even in agreement as to what a "personal attack" really means.
There are some babblers who characterize any disagreement with them as a personal attack; they then feel free to respond by making actual personal attacks, and the situation escalates.
I have even seen moderators scold people for personal attacks that are not in fact attacks on the character, intelligence, general knowledge, or motives of another babbler, but merely strongly negative characterizations of their arguments or their methods of argument.
These are personal attacks:
You have reading comprehension problems.
His comments are aimed at protecting oppressive behaviour.
I see the habitual defenders of white male privilege are hard at work in this thread.
Your only purpose in this thread is to smear the NDP.
Your comments demonstrate once again that there are as many assholes on the left of the political spectrum as there are on the right.
There are many aspects of the anti-racism and oppression realm to which you are totally tone deaf.
You are a liar.
These are not personal attacks:
It should be obvious to anyone who can read English that....
I find it bizarre that someone who claims to be a feminist would profess such a viewpoint.
Your comment is completely illogical.
That comment is unworthy of you.
I refuse to take your bait.
Instead of rhetorical grandstanding, why don't you address the topic of this thread?
Your position is rank hypocrisy.
Your position only gives aid and comfort to the imperialists.
That comment is bullshit.
Do you ever listen to yourself when you make comments like that?
Why do you keep telling lies?
Stop trolling.
That's my opinion, anyway. But I'm sure there's hardly anyone who agrees with it completely.
Which actually proves my point.
I did not advocate mass bannings. I actually gave "regulars" the courtesy of assuming they would be capable of following the rules.
Oldgoat, I agreed with most of your post, but it's in the wrong thread. Why not let's follow what Michelle asked, and leave the issue of bannings, discipline, sanctions, etc. to the other thread. This one is supposed to be about... well, exactly what the title says. The discussion gets very diffuse otherwise.
Thanks for the list MSpector: I was thinking of assembling something like this to help differrentiate personal attacks from claims thereof but didn't have the time today.
Where would "You are killing us" fit though?
I'm pretty much in agreement, M. Spector.
That's my opinion, anyway. But I'm sure there's hardly anyone who agrees with it completely.
Which actually proves my point.
I agree with it (almost) completely.
Which actually (almost) disproves your point.
Oldgoat, I agreed with most of your post, but it's in the wrong thread. Why not let's follow what Michelle asked, and leave the issue of bannings, discipline, sanctions, etc. to the other thread. This one is supposed to be about... well, exactly what the title says. The discussion gets very diffuse otherwise.
Oh poop! I was back and forth between the two and thought I was putting it there.
Mea culpa, though not mea maxima culpa
#Well if we are registering a yea or nay to the lists, I say nay.
test test test
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#hominem
At the bottom of this page, there's a list of fallacious arguments, including ad hominem. I used to review it from time to time. There hasn't ever been a time where I have not recognized myself using one of these. At least one.
I haven't reviewed it in some time, and a quick read tells me I should have been.
Another guide I should be reviewing from time to time is Carl Sagan's "Baloney Detection Kit".
http://users.tpg.com.au/users/tps-seti/baloney.html
Not that these are tools designed for avoiding nasty arguments, but, the more I keep them in mind, the more I find myself to the idea, and not the person.
#Well if we are registering a yea or nay to the lists, I say nay.
Well, I would have to agree that:
... sounds more like a personal attack (possibly very well founded) than a simple request for information. The same would apply to a couple of the others on that list B.
#Well if we are registering a yea or nay to the lists, I say nay.
Me too
M. Spector, when I saw the list provided this is some of my random thoughts that they evoked in my head.
These are not personal attacks:
It should be obvious to anyone who can read English that.... (arrogant)
I find it bizarre that someone who claims to be a feminist would profess such a viewpoint. (arrogant & righteous)
Your comment is completely illogical. (righteous & all knowing)
That comment is unworthy of you. (opinionated & paternizing)
I refuse to take your bait. (ok)
Instead of rhetorical grandstanding, why don't you address the topic of this thread? (confrontational)
Your position is rank hypocrisy. (opinionated & shutting down)
Your position only gives aid and comfort to the imperialists. (opinionated as evoking the collective "we")
That comment is bullshit. (opinion)
Do you ever listen to yourself when you make comments like that? (do you?)
Why do you keep telling lies? (confrontation and again, opinionated)
Stop trolling. (ok)
To me, it is often statements like some of the above that get posters going - get someone else's heckles up - I believe it's ok to disagree with another position, and is what one thinks. As a heads up, as soon as one evokes "you" rather than "I" one is making a value judgment. Thus it works to make the "other" feel defensive or go to the defensive which may or may not be what the "challenger" is after.
Me three. I see many of the remarks in the second list as implicit insults and derogatory assumptions about other babblers and their motives, and I would feel attacked if those remarks were aimed at me.
I also think that the spirit of this thread (a helpful resource for people to discuss ways of improving tone) isn't really being maintained right now. The reason I asked at the beginning that people not post examples of other people's transgressions is because I didn't want this to be a thread about putting people on the defensive, or a continuation of fights from other threads.
And yet, it seems that people are finding it really difficult to talk about constructive ways of communicating without using it as an opportunity to highlight other people's faults. Isn't that interesting?
So, when faced with a truly illogical post, how do you recommend one respond?
"That's a truly illogical post", combined with an explanation.
" Your delightfully eccentric relationship with conventional reality is refreshing, but a more practical though admittedly pedestrian approach might be......."
LOL.
But still. There are times when it's difficult to directly express something or point out a flaw in an argument in a way that isn't going to cause fussing in the other party. And I'd argue the less grounded in "conventional reality" the more fuss is going to ensue when called on it. (To be clear: I'm not talking about calling out posters in a personal sense!) So what do we do? Just say okay and go away? Not going to foster much discussion that way.
So... then is a course in logic going to be recomended, before joining and participating? ;)
And what is logical to some, is not logical to others.
So, when faced with a truly illogical post, how do you recommend one respond?
Well, how about back to "I" statements? Instead of saying something like, "Your comment is completely illogical," how about, "I don't see the logic in that remark...x contradicts y," or "I don't understand your reasoning...the way I see it, if x, then y can't be so..."
And it leaves the door open to the possibility that a) maybe you might be wrong, b) maybe they expressed their point poorly or skipped a word by accident or something, or c) maybe you're right, but you don't need to completely demolish and write off the other person for having made an error - you can leave them a bit of face-saving room to back down from the comment.
In the spirit of the thread. My early employment background was working with often violent individuals that often had trouble misconstruing the normal signals we all unconsciously pick up to tell us what someone means.
In that work environment I found it very necessary to try and see things from others point of view. I think little of that happens on babble, and when it does it is usually done to score some cheap debating point, not to try to actually understand the point the other person is trying to understand.
I don't absolve myself of anything, but I think a little more humility from all of us would be a good thing.
And oldgoat, I love a good heckle, and am prone to them myself, but I think that parlimentary jab is both a way too male thing, and goes a long way to explaining a great part of the problem of babble and how it chases away some and just turns others away before they really get a feel for the place.
Let's take "That comment is bullshit" - is this really a constructive way to disagree with something someone has posted? We can't think of a way of saying this that does not come across so much as an attack?
How about, "I disagree with your comment." Or even, "I really disagree with your comment." Or, "That comment really upsets me because x". Or even, "I felt furious when I read that comment because x."
I'm kind of chuckling Michelle - as I remember trying to teach my pre-teen and young teen girls to fight fairly. Yes, I am falling off the thread a bit - humour me, please.
Anyway, I suggested all the I feel statements - and at the end - they mostly looked at me and rolled their eyes, and matter of factly stated, if they did that - the kids would laugh at them. Anyway, you were just evoking that not-too-long-ago era where I was trying to get them to fight with their words rather than....
now back to the scheduled thread of close listening and reflective dialogue.
Michelle -how about- didn't I read something similar in a press relase from the Conservatives the other day. Or CS for short?
These are not personal attacks:
It should be obvious to anyone who can read English that....
I find it bizarre that someone who claims to be a feminist would profess such a viewpoint.
Your comment is completely illogical.
That comment is unworthy of you.
I refuse to take your bait.
Instead of rhetorical grandstanding, why don't you address the topic of this thread?
Your position is rank hypocrisy.
Your position only gives aid and comfort to the imperialists.
That comment is bullshit.
Do you ever listen to yourself when you make comments like that?
Why do you keep telling lies?
Stop trolling.
IMHO, these are exactly the types of comments that shutdown any sort of civil conversation and turn threads into flame wars.
If you make me hold hands and sing "Kum Bay Yah", I swear to gawd I'll hit somebody. (Please note: This is a joke. I don't actually mean it. And I can't hit through the internets, anyway.)
On a more serious note, I'm not sure how workable the "I" statements are. I understand what you're getting at, I do. But the comments you're suggesting don't actually mean the same thing as "That comment is bullshit" or "that comment is nonsense". And let's face it, at some point, that's what you're going to want to express.
Hey, sometimes I want to express that so-and-so is a great big fucking asshole, too. But that doesn't make it constructive. Perhaps there are some places where it's just not appropriate to let loose with all barrels. Perhaps babble should be one of those places.
I mean, how workable is "Your comment is bullshit"? Does anything good come of posting that, beyond the temporary gratification you might feel at having vented your anger at someone? (I say this because I've done it so many times so I know that feeling. :D )
But is it really constructive discussion? Perhaps it's not exactly a personal attack (in that you're attacking the comment and not the person), but it's still an attack as opposed to a reasonable, civil remark. And when people are on the receiving end of such an attack, it shuts down any reasonable discussion from that point forward.
I mean, what is someone supposed to say to that? "Why, yes, you're right, my remarks ARE bullshit, thanks for pointing that out."
Hey, sometimes I want to express that so-and-so is a great big fucking asshole, too.
We have so much in common.
Tact.
janfromthebruce, when you labeled each of M.Spector's cheeky not-personal attacks as no-nos for various reasons...
It should be obvious to anyone who can read English that.... (arrogant)
I find it bizarre that someone who claims to be a feminist would profess such a viewpoint. (arrogant & righteous)
Your comment is completely illogical. (righteous & all knowing)
That comment is unworthy of you. (opinionated & paternizing)
I refuse to take your bait. (ok)
Instead of rhetorical grandstanding, why don't you address the topic of this thread? (confrontational)
Your position is rank hypocrisy. (opinionated & shutting down)
Your position only gives aid and comfort to the imperialists. (opinionated as evoking the collective "we")
That comment is bullshit. (opinion)
Do you ever listen to yourself when you make comments like that? (do you?)
Why do you keep telling lies? (confrontation and again, opinionated)
Stop trolling. (ok)
would you agree that each of your pithy labels replicated the same dynamic?
I am fine with drawing the line at actual personal attacks, e.g. "you are a liar" and even "Why do you always tell lies?", but I would support "That's a lie" and would especially detest seeing comments nixed as "opinionated" (damn right I am!) or even "confrontation" or "opinion" (so...?).
Interestingly, the only two comments that passed muster with you have been specifically forbidden by a mod (Michelle, I think) some time ago - a babbler labeling a comment as "bait" or another babbler as a "troll".
So, cut us some slack, eh? A little attitude does wonders for the soul...
It's just a matter of not going too far.
I'm going to close this for length. Maybe I'll make it "sticky" for a little while. :)