How to disagree without personally attacking other babblers

Michelle wrote:

  if we must use a negative example, we use a negative example of our OWN behaviour.

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.

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.

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.

oldgoat wrote:

Yeah, 3 different people just complained about me calling them a moose.

Probably the fathers' rights crowd - because you didn't mention unclers?

Unionist wrote:

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.

Unionist wrote:

Here's a typical exchange:

Quote:

A: Your idea is wrong.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Michelle wrote:

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.

Michelle wrote:

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.

Quote:

Or are you posting examples of other people's negative behaviour?

Well, as I said, I'm A, someone else (more than one person) is B.

Quote:

What tools do you think people on either side of that dialogue could use during that exchange?

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?

Virtual group therapy 5 cents

I could not stop myself

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.

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.

[deleted - using IGNORE instead]

Okay I'll take what I hope is a positive suggestion and move it to the other thread.

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.