How to disagree without personally attacking other babblers

201 posts / 0 new
Last post
Frustrated Mess Frustrated Mess's picture

Quote:

Hey, sometimes I want to express that so-and-so is a great big fucking asshole, too.

We have so much in common.

Tommy_Paine

 

Tact.

 

Michelle

I'm going to close this for length.  Maybe I'll make it "sticky" for a little while. :)

martin dufresne

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...Wink It's just a matter of not going too far.

 

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Re-opening for this gem:

Conflict Resolution wiki

1.1. Avoid or prevent conflict

  • AssumeGoodFaith. If you assume the best in others, you are less likely to get it wrong. Moreover, if you do, you will limit your own exposure.
  • IgnoreMalice?. Closely related, when you encounter what is clearly malice, ignore it. At least when maliciousness is rare. Don't be intimidated by it, and don't attack it - ignore it.(AssumeStupidityNotMalice)
  • DontLookAtTheFinger. Don't be distracted by irrelevant or unimportant issues, especially those of form.
  • FairProcess. Try to understand and respect other people's interests. Don't be unfair from the start.

 

1.3. Reduce conflict

 

  • BusinessAsUsual. Continue doing what you enjoy while the conflict rages on. Also, don't show that the other party has power over you by changing your behaviour (DissuadeReputation).
  • SmoothItOver?. Play down the differences, while playing up the commonalities at the same time.
  • TimeOut?. Take a deep breath, go for a walk, come back later ... and things may look different.
  • SeekCommonGround?. End turns by stating something that you do genuinely agree with or respect about the person you are in conflict with. This tends to reduce the SaintsOrSinners? polarisation that otherwise maintains conflict. Be careful not to let this morph into the AntiPattern of lipservice of agreement -- having the statement of agreement occur at the end of your turn, without embellishment, helps there.
  • TacticalDistraction? -- distract the participants. Popping a balloon or dropping a tray of glasses can work wonders. This is most useful where the conflict has taken on a life of its own, and works best when a non-involved party does the intervention.
  • TacticalEngagement? -- Engage one of the parties of the conflict in a discussion/debate, drawing away their energies from the conflict. A key point is that this is done not to win the debate, but simply to distract and engage the person. Similar to TacticalDistraction?, but takes more resources to effect, and occurs over a longer timespan.

MegB

Next time all hell breaks loose here, I'll remember to pop a balloon or drop a tray of glasses :P

6079_Smith_W

Rebecca West wrote:

Next time all hell breaks loose here, I'll remember to pop a balloon or drop a tray of glasses :P

Since telling someone to stop being a fucking jerk isn't on that list, that would be the next best option, yes.

MegB

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Rebecca West wrote:

Next time all hell breaks loose here, I'll remember to pop a balloon or drop a tray of glasses :P

Since telling someone to stop being a fucking jerk isn't on that list, that would be the next best option, yes.

Just about snorted tea out my nose ...

NorthReport

Ha! Laughing

Serviam6

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Rebecca West wrote:

Next time all hell breaks loose here, I'll remember to pop a balloon or drop a tray of glasses :P

Since telling someone to stop being a fucking jerk isn't on that list, that would be the next best option, yes.

Why call someone a jerk when you can just accuse them of being a Conservative and ask them why they are even here.

I'm kidding but it doesn't seem like much has changed since 2009.

Caissa

It's sad to see names of those who are no longer with us.

Caissa

Did you wakeup on the wrong side of the bed today, Smith?

6079_Smith_W

Caissa wrote:

It's sad to see names of those who are no longer with us.

Unless you are talking about those who are actually dead, that is just sentimentality, IMO.

Because to be honest, there just as many I am glad to see the backside of.

People make their own choices, and  go where they feel comfortable, or useful.

Not that I have a problem with sentimentality; it  is fine. Wailing mea culpa over someone's coffin, or worse, beating someone else over the head with it (a bit of theatre we get treated to now and then), is not.

I could just as easily blame the dear departed for not having the guts to stick around. That would be just as unfair as thedivination and hand-wringing that seems to get a pass.

 

 

6079_Smith_W

Um. No.

Sorry if that seemed a bit personal. It wasn't meant that way, and I did try to soothe it a bit by saying I don't mind sentimentality.

But really, most of them aren't dead, and if you want to get ahold of them, it's probably not that difficult a task.

(edit)

I guess what set me off (and I might be wrong here) is the emotion that generally goes along with that that we are to blame for that. The reality is far more complex.

Caissa

Okay. It did feel personal. I have a beter understanding of what you meant. My apologies for misreading your comments.

6079_Smith_W

And was I being snarky? Yes, and sorry.

I miss some of them too.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

You guys read the thread! The system works!

Ripple

Nevermind.  Not worth it.

ryanw

I know the speaker is a good person, they know they are a good person, other members know they are a good person

the words they use are hurting someone

janfromthebruce

martin dufresne wrote:

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...Wink It's just a matter of not going too far.

 

I just saw this from like 2009. After reading these "quotes" it appeared they were attributed to me but in scrolling up, they are not. Those statements are not things I would have written and realized, in scrolling up, that I didn't write them. Not sure why they appeared attributed to me but for the record, those aren't my words.

HYPERTlGER HYPERTlGER's picture

Disagreement = negative = defeat

 

So it is impossible to not personally attack someone looking for agreement = positive = victory.

 

If someone believes 1+1=3 or some other result other than 2 is positive and 2 is negative...Then it is game over.

 

They will constantly feel like they are being attacked if no one agrees with them...So then it is birds of a feather flock together...

 

Safety in numbers...Where it is ok to personally attack the opposition...Or those that disagree with the agreement of the majority.

 

The total annihilation of all opposition to the total annihilation of all opposition policy.

 

Which is ultimately self destructive.

 

At the most simplistic level the flow of power is from the supply of power to the demand for power.

 

When the demand for power becomes greater than the supply...the demand for yes or victory = agreement = positive...Is supplied with no or defeat = disagreement = negative

 

Negative power...The attempt to obtain agreement has a cost...and when it is supplied with disagreement...That is negative power...that eventually takes it's toll or adds up.

 

The demand upon the supply of power becomes greater than supply.

 

The greatest enemy you face can be found by looking into a mirror...But what do you want to see and what do you need to see.

 

Dogs and cats eat antifreeze because it appears positive.

 

The lifting of the veil on the wedding dress of the abyss to recieve the sweet kiss of the apoclypse of bliss.

cco

HYPERTlGER wrote:

Dogs and cats eat antifreeze because it appears positive.

 

The lifting of the veil on the wedding dress of the abyss to recieve the sweet kiss of the apoclypse of bliss.

Is what you're smoking available to the general public, or has Harper put the kibosh on that?

;)

I was looking back through this thread, and I realized something:

oldgoat wrote:

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."

But you're not quoting Melville there, oldgoat. You're quoting Jean-Luc Picard misquoting Melville in Star Trek: First Contact. The actual quote is:

"He piled upon the whale's white hump the sum of all the general rage and hate felt by his whole race from Adam down; and then, as if his chest had been a mortar, he burst his hot heart's shell upon it."

Are you a closet Trekkie, oldgoat?

lagatta

I'm glad someone else is challenging that gibberish. What a waste of brain cells.

Slumberjack

Binary discussions serve as a models for formal shooting wars.  Humans demonstrate very little capacity for freeing themselves from the trap created by our use of linguistics, as weapons that are accessed from an armoury containing other weapons.  Linguistics excludes no one.

MegB

Don't assume someone posting disconnected statements is doing it intentionally or is high. Regardless, I'm suspending the individual until he/she is able to post coherently.

6079_Smith_W

I'm not taking issue with the suspension, But I'd say this is a bit of insight that makes perfect sense, is on topic, and which we'd all do well to remember:

HYPERTlGER wrote:

The greatest enemy you face can be found by looking into a mirror...But what do you want to see and what do you need to see.

After all, when we're talking about attacks it usually has far less to do with the actual issue than with people's own shit.

 

 

NDPP

Rebecca West wrote:

 

Don't assume someone posting disconnected statements is doing it intentionally or is high. Regardless, I'm suspending the individual until he/she is able to post coherently.

I'm sorry to see suspension used by mods again when so much damage has already been done to Babble by its use. It is itself an 'attack'.  As well, the charge of 'incoherence' is a dodgy and dangerous one. Please lift the suspension. If mods or other Babblers don't understand submissions it wouldn't be the first time.

Slumberjack

Given the entirety of babble history, being stoned while posting can't possibly be considered grounds for suspension, unless this is something new entirely.

Caissa

I think there may be a health issue at play.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

cco wrote:
But you're not quoting Melville there, oldgoat. You're quoting Jean-Luc Picard misquoting Melville inStar Trek: First Contact. The actual quote is:

"He piled upon the whale's white hump the sum of all the general rage and hate felt by his whole race from Adam down; and then, as if his chest had been a mortar, he burst his hot heart's shell upon it."

Are you a closet Trekkie, oldgoat?

Haha nice catch cco. I have actually had this quoted to me in an English class on Melville (not Moby Dick).  I was all: good work, ensign.

Red Winnipeg

Rebecca West wrote:

I'm suspending the individual until he/she is able to post coherently.

Isn't that like putting a debtor in jail for unpaid debts and then keeping him there until his debts are paid?

MegB

I'm not going to speculate on mental health issues, but in my years as a mod I've seen where this kind of posting behavior goes, several times, and it's nowhere good. So rather than wait until the eventual pile up of complaints (above and beyond those I've already received), I'm doing a pre-emotive suspension.

But of course, all of you who have never moderated a day in babble, never mind three years, would know better than me. Why yes, NDPP, I am personally responsible, through my jack-booted fascist oppression of babblers, for the "decline" of babble. I am also responsible for global warming, the collapse of the manufacturing sector and the crippling debts of developing countries. Oh, and the Harper majority? That was me.

ETA, for those of you who don't have the pleasure of moderating this entire site, the individual in question posted similarly incoherent ramblings in several other threads, resulting in complaints. The post above is probably the least incoherent of the lot.

Unionist

Would it be possible to stop piling on Rebecca for just doing her job - please?

When someone signs on to babble and starts posting what lagatta accurately describes as "gibberish" in multiple threads, it's time for a time-out.

We don't require people to be in agreement with each other here (Lord knows), but we do require a minimum of communication.

No one need speculate on what this poster's problem is, nor whether there's any intent to disrupt. The issue is to protect this place so that dialogue can continue, and incidentally so that the Active Topics page can minimally reflect which topics are, er, active.

That's what we count on our mods to do for us. Thank you, Rebecca.

cco

Thank you, Rebecca, for doing an exceedingly thankless job.

oldgoat, I'm still waiting on your answer. Are you now, or have you ever been, a Star Trek fan? And if so, why haven't we seen you in this thread?

MegB

Thank you Unionist, and cco. Sorry about the rant.

cco

Don't sweat it. Having been in a similar position myself (I administer a mid-sized IRC network, and I spent a few years moderating in-person discussion groups down south), I can imagine what it must be like to herd this particular group of cats. On IRC, I just summarily ban anyone who irritates me. You don't have that luxury. I think you've earned the right to vent some steam now and again.

lagatta

I agree with Rebecca. I'm not a mental-health specialist either; I was simply referring to a behaviour that is detrimental to boards such as babble.

bagkitty bagkitty's picture

Rebecca West wrote:

 

[...]

But of course, all of you who have never moderated a day in babble, never mind three years, would know better than me. Why yes, NDPP, I am personally responsible, through my jack-booted fascist oppression of babblers, for the "decline" of babble. I am also responsible for global warming, the collapse of the manufacturing sector and the crippling debts of developing countries. Oh, and the Harper majority? That was me.

 

[...]

Glad to see you taking responsibility for all that. Just remember, the villians responsible for immoderate weather have already been identified.

MegB

Why isn't divine retribution leveled against people who take an unhealthy interest in what people do in their bedrooms and whether they get married.

6079_Smith_W

Rebecca West wrote:
Why isn't divine retribution leveled against people who take an unhealthy interest in what people do in their bedrooms and whether they get married.

It is. They're the ones who don't get to have any fun and enjoy themselves.

Not to mention that its a whole different ballgame when one of those hypocrites gets busted doing something they don't want anyone to know about.

 

 

6079_Smith_W

Not here too, SJ....

As for the real world, why do you think those people lap up  The Prayer of Jabez (not go be confused with The Prayer of Kevin O'Leary)? Because they want to believe that them being rich means that god loves them, and that bad things happen to bad people.

Not all that different than the types that are fooled by The Secret and that law of attraction nonsense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Secret_%28book%29

 

Slumberjack

I know 'the secret' only too well from knowing people that swear by it.  I've sworn on and about it on occasion.  Someone hereabouts once described it as ranking fairly high among the most evil books ever written.  I don't think the assessment was far off the mark.

Slumberjack

Doesn’t it follow, at least in the interest of fairness, that divine retribution presumably entails some form of judgment as a prerequisite?  From my reading into the various Christian accounts pertaining to divine judgment, it remains unclear as to when this is supposed to occur.  Apparently as it's been prescribed, judgment normally occurs upon death before the pearly gates, whereupon the soul is granted access, or otherwise depending on the outcome.  But then down in the fine print of the associated documents we can read certain details pertaining to a second coming, wherein both the living and the dead are to be judged; hence the name given to this day of return, ie: 'judgment day.'  And if the living and the dead alike are to be judged on that day, which is yet to come, where precisely have they been keeping all the souls-in-waiting in the meantime.  More to the point, if the dead and the living are to be judged on that day - for those who have preceded the living - does judgment upon arrival at the pearly gates constitute a precursory glance toward assessing one’s status in the afterlife?  Anyone?

cco

Dave Chappelle destroyed it pretty well.

fortunate

Slumberjack wrote:

I know 'the secret' only too well from knowing people that swear by it.  I've sworn on and about it on occasion.  Someone hereabouts once described it as ranking fairly high among the most evil books ever written.  I don't think the assessment was far off the mark.

 

I am never surprised by how gullible so many people can be.    I don't remember hearing about this book, but then i tend to ignore all hype about all self help books as total BS anyway.    If they are truthful and helpful, they are simply written down lists of what any reasonable person would already know and be doing (or conscious of the fact they have chosen to NOT do those things lol)

 

fwiw, Hypertiger Wisdoms is a blog where similar types of posts appear, I won't link here because it alerted my malware program.    

if you google it, it is Apocalyptic type stuff, and there are a couple of other sites discussing it and it's contents, so you can avoid looking directly into the tiger's eyes.  :)

Slumberjack

fortunate wrote:
I am never surprised by how gullible so many people can be.

We're all gullible in one fashion or another.  That's the surprise! Smile

Quote:
fwiw, Hypertiger Wisdoms is a blog where similar types of posts appear, I won't link here because it alerted my malware program.  if you google it, it is Apocalyptic type stuff, and there are a couple of other sites discussing it and it's contents, so you can avoid looking directly into the tiger's eyes.  :)

Thanks, but what does Apocalyptic type stuff have to do with me?

MegB

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Not here too, SJ....

As for the real world, why do you think those people lap up  The Prayer of Jabez (not go be confused with The Prayer of Kevin O'Leary)? Because they want to believe that them being rich means that god loves them, and that bad things happen to bad people.

Not all that different than the types that are fooled by The Secret and that law of attraction nonsense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Secret_%28book%29

 

I literally laughed out loud when I read your post.

6079_Smith_W

Glad I could provide some yuks. We can all use some.

Seriously... after his latest 3.8 billion comment I am absolutely convinced he knows he's just paid to be an evil troll clown . If you're not sure, you should read the back cover of his latest book on advice for choosing a partner and starting a family (Ha!). I couldn't resist taking taking a peek at it when I saw it at the drug store last week.

 

 

oldgoat

cco wrote:

Thank you, Rebecca, for doing an exceedingly thankless job.

oldgoat, I'm still waiting on your answer. Are you now, or have you ever been, a Star Trek fan? And if so, why haven't we seen you in this thread?

There's a futuristically designed theater at the intersection of hwy's 400/407.  I give directions by describing it as looking like the saucer section of a Constellation class starship.

In the DS 9 episode "Far Beyond The Stars", the Armin Shimerman's character in this back to the 1950's episode has a Hugo award sitting on his desk in the background.

In the original series D. C. Fontana is the 3rd most prolific writer, though became even more prolific in future incarnations.  The episode referred to above gives a nod to her in describing the difficulties of female SF wriers in what Azimov referred to as the golden age.

Jimmy Doohan was originally cast to do Chekov's role.

My son, nephew and I caught the final 2NG episode at the Skydome.

I'm a fucking Aspie.  Of course I'm a Trekkie.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unionist

oldgoat wrote:

 

I'm a fucking Aspie.  Of course I'm a Trekkie.

LIKE!! <3

Pages