babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
You put it very well. The thing is that this is not done from a position of Truth. If my position is significantly different form yours, I will very often dispute the "pattern" you see, though I know very well that you see it and, indeed, that you are going to see it. In other words, very often we disagree about "tropes" and "patterns". (I often - well, all the time - see patterns in the arguments of others that worry me but almost never say so because of my awareness of this fundamental disagreement.)
Interesting thread, despite the fact that it has absolutely nothing to do with anything related to my posting history.
That poor harmless sock puppet seems to have been bumped off by mean old Catchfire.
Just as well I suppose.
There is so much baiting around here that you would think "How hard can that be?" But My Sock Puppet couldnt seem to pull it off- all he got for his efforts was would be targets playing with him.
Which led me to wondering, you know I've never seen, or seen reference to a Babble guide on How to Bait People. But maybe there is one somewhere.
Baiting happens with a number of different methods, or artifices.
One very commonly used around here is to twist someones words into a charicature.
This is very effective. Its easy for the perpetrator, and inflicts a no win situation on the 'baitee'. Because calling the baiter will at best get the baitee tied up in a no-win meta discussion, removing her from the substance of the discussion. And if the baitee does not take the bait, that sounds better than it really is in practice. Because this particular method of baiting is done by people who are very good with words, so the charicature left unchallenged is very likely going to leave the baitee's substantive position not looking good.
And, for the icing on the cake- I don't remember the mods ever calling someone for this kind of baiting. It seems more than just tolerated- it seems to be hands off completely. Which means: open season.
Actually, Ken, Maysie did in the Mandatory Unionization thread.
PS - Thanks, Maysie.
Maysie did what?
Call folks on twisting the words of others as a form of baiting? in that thread?
Tommy B was twisting what I said six ways to Sunday, and yes, she did call him on it.
Good that it happened.
But I dont think that once, or a few times, changes my point that it is done with impugnity.
I really disagree that it's the mods responsibility to stop people from "twisting words around into a caricature". Of course that's annoying but it's sufficient to offer clarification if needed and really there's no point in discussion if you don't have a little faith in those reading to sort out what's distortion and what's substantial.
And sometimes whether it's "twisting" or not is completely subjective. There have been no shortage of propagandists and apologists throughout history who have claimed the nuance of their arguments is unappreciated and that their arguments' congruity with offensive power structures and political realities are merely coincidental(see Ignatieff). That's a big part of what propaganda is about and putting moderated limitations on challenging the implications of certain arguments is dangerous. No one wants to see babble devolve into purely semantic arguments about intended and unintended meanings. It gets dangerous when it gets personal but taking any of this too personally is a mistake in the first place. I think the mods here have done a really good job of letting things flow, stepping in when the posters are clearly just here to sabotage progressive discussion. There will always be those who want more and more moderation intervention but I've seen that ruin discussion boards and I really appreciate the relatively light touch here.
Well said, melovesproles.
Easy for you to say U. ;)
Its a rhetorical flourish to call it a "mods responsibility". I suggested that twisting words into a charicature is a form of baiting. We're discussing wheter its a harmful practice, and then whether it would be good for the mods to come down on it.
And you are being very idealist that it is merely 'annoying' and all you have to do is 'clarify' to counter it. I outlined above how its a no-win proposition for the baited person, while entailing no costs for the baiter. Like I said, if you try to dispute when someone has twisted your words, then at best you'll be tied up debating the meaning of words. And if because of that you ignore the bait, given that people who practice this are good with words, the misrepresentations are not always even close to transparent. IE, most people are not going to see the misrepresentation if you don't say something. But if you do that, you'll be debating the meaning of words, not the substance.
And what about mod judgements is not subjective. We give them the job of making thse subjective judgements. And when a mod makes that judgement, there is no devloving into debating meanings. You won't find anything of that sort in the rare example pointed out above where a mod stepped into that. Maysie simply said "stop twisting _________'s words."
That was it.
And is it more personal to object to being baited? Its 'personal' when you dont want to just let it happen?
And I don't really care about the personal part. I care about the overall distortion of discussions because the practice is tolerated.
"Stepping in when the posters are clearly just here to sabotage progressive discussion" is only one of the needs, and the more straightforward one. The tone of the discussion among people who it is agreed belong here is another matter. Or what kind of or whether we can have a discussion. And its certainly agreed that there is only so much that can be done about that. I'm not looking for the unlikely, let alone the impossible. My suggestion would be that what gets deemed baiting is very limited, that is more tolerated than needs to be.
@ Ken S
Actually I think the "twisting words" ploy isn't necessarily lose-lose for the victim. Simply point out why the person's is mistaken - or ignore it, and assume that other people are critical enough to see things for themselves.
But I think I have misunderstood the definition of baiting here. I always thought of it exactly like it sounds - being drawn into a trap (usually a version of twisted words, or false logic) with the sole purpose of ambush. If you don't take the bait, it doesn't work.
I have always thought inflamatory posts, stalking, and other shit-disturbing was just plain old trolling or obstruction.
Well I've done quite a bit of answering to having my words twisted on Babble. And I have certainly not had the feeling that it works any better than just letting the misrepresentation go by. Its just a big time waster.
@ KenS
Absolutely agreed on how counterproductive it is, but if I feel I am being really misrepresented, there times when I think it is worth it so state things clearly - othertimes there is no point. I think the main thing is just to realise when you are at an impasse with a person, and trust that someone who is reading understands what you are trying to say.
Really, I don't think we discuss important matters in order to win an arm-wrestling match or a popularity contest. We do so in order to put our ideas out there and hopefully help change things in the world for the better
After all, two or more people jumping around hitting each other with socks full of manure is only productive when someone is smart enough to sell tickets.
Ok, folks, I've just spotted a perfect example of baiting in the wild. Posts such as this one do not reflect any real intent on the part of the baiter. They are merely intended to poke sticks, offend, enrage, and derail. The best medicine is to ignore - and occasionally to hurl mocking insults - but never to reply to the "content" of the bait, because there is no content.
Do you mean SSC's post, Unionist? I dunno: some people really believe that stuff. I'm tempted to reply to him, just to clarify for him the difference between being a citizen and being a public servant (in the military). He needs to learn that; a lot of peeps do.
SSC is an unabashed unregenerate defender of Israel and of the Israel lobby in North America. We tolerate his presence on babble, though many have said that we shouldn't. That's why he surfaced in that thread - because the anti-Human Rights museum is being built by the Israel lobby, and because Harper is as you well know the latest God in their pantheon. Rather than deal with this brave youth's stand of principle, the master baiter focuses on the social propriety of handshakes - and everyone chimes in. Baiting and derailing accomplished.
@ Unionist
To add to skdadl's point, I think the fact that SSC is an American (where the president is the head of state, and hence one IS obliged to honour the office, if not the person) might explain part of that perspective.
Not to drag another thread into this duscussion, but I can see SSC's point, under some circumstances, and the bottom line is intent. I don't see that SSC was necessarily bringing that up to obstruct
(edit) that said, I think there was good reason to refuse to shake his hand in this case.
SSC's first words in that thread were:
And you "see his point"? You think this was SSC's true feeling and evaluation, a legitimate contribution to the discussion - and not just a pathetic (and obviously successful) attempt to get well-meaning people to start nonsensical debates about whether to shake Hitler's hand!?
All I can say is that if you don't see that as baiting, you will never be able to defend against it.
@ Unionist
I see his point about respecting the office, which is probably why he sees the action as arrogance (but no, I don't think his judgment about Dyer was fair).
But there is a difference between a harsh opinion , which you, me and a few other people here have on certain issues, and an attempt to screw up debate and bait other people. If harsh words automatically equalled baiting we would all be guilty of it.
Again, I think it is all in the intent, which is sometimes hard to read.
Yes, rather than continuing on topic, you have to switch to defense mode where you spend all your time debunking the things you didn't say/stuff you don't acutally think or believe. It's a tactic meant to discredit a poster you disagree with rather than deal with the substance of the discussion. Sometimes it's worthwhile, but usually it isn't. And if it goes on long enough, people give up and move on - not just on the board, but away from it altogether, which is why I think baiting is a fairly large concern.
Penultimate bait and not a word said.
...and frankly it really tees me off, as using the plight of a woman to bait babblers for political extortion purposes is reprehensible, on many levels.
Unionist. Your post #46 is, in fact, baiting. You're deliberately drawing another babbler into this discussion who hasn't even posted here. Sheesh.
And Unionist regarding your post at #48. This kind of characterization of another babbler, Star Spangled Canadian, is not okay. You know this. Cut it out.
Oh all right. I retract. Geez, can't you be wrong once in a while? Sheesh.
Penultimate means "second to last." Does this mean we're purt'near finished with this topic?
Don't be such a pendant, al-Q. It's tortuous.
We haven't even gotten to preference for minnows or nightcrawlers yet.
so not worth it.... seriously....so not worth it all....
Psst -- remind: ask them if they know what the antepenultimate rule is. I'll send you a PM.