|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
 Posted - 03/22/2007 : 17:57:30 [Permalink]
|
Not to single anyone out here, I could have gone on looking for examples from other people and I'm sure someone can find something of mine somewhere in this entire forum, but these are just some of the examples of completely un-necessary hostility in this forum:
GeeMack
you're simply being ridiculous...it's difficult to consider your reply anything more than satirical, or perhaps a pretty feeble attempt at trolling...your request demonstrates an obvious willful ignorance
Vegeta
I don't even know why you said that because it makes no sense. I'm not gonna bother responding to you since you basically perverted or evaded all the points I was trying to get across
Dave W.
Really? I am unaware that anyone here is "dedicated to proving that God does not exist."
The above one is borderline. Siberia's just above Dave's said:
"I must've missed that memo. Where did you see that?
I'd say most people think God either doesn't exist, or is a non-issue. It's God's fan club that annoys the collective."
There is a qualitative difference in the snotiness vs literary variety. Dave often comes across with sarcasm and/or condescendingly. It takes getting used to.
This statement of Dave's further down doesn't come across as sarcastic. Using the word "really" did above:
"Actually, to play Devil's Advocate, I'd like to see you prove that love is a "very real" part of anyone's existence."
However, "I'd like to see you" is unnecessary. Substituting, "Can you" would make it a much less hostile statement.
GeeMack
That statement is blatantly false. You either radically misunderstand...or you're flat out lying. Which is it?
Marf and HH both recognized the uncalled for tone of some of the posts:
Marf
There's a great representation of skepticism: telling someone that they're being “ridiculous”, setting up a statement to imply that he is either stupid or dishonest, giving a half-assed accusation of trolling, and then accusing him of being “willfully ignorant”, despite the fact that Indeterminacy seems so far quite open and genuine in his intent here at SFN.
This sort of bullying is IMO why we mostly seem to get hard-nosed rationalists and wack-jobs, and rarely people in between, at least those who stick around. Indeterminacy hasn't written anything that indicates he's being anything other than forthright, open, and honest with us. He very must seems to have both firm beliefs and opinions, but also an open mind...Can't we seasoned regulars at SFN maybe show that we practice more than religious skepticism by not assuming that every person new to rationalism, who starts a polite conversation about belief and skepticism, is an idiot?
HH
Agreed. Personally I'm getting tired of the "liar" card getting played too early and too often, if only because it loses it's sting when someone is clearly manipulating the truth.
To which GeeMack went on to cite what annoyed him in Indeterminacy's post. It was an argument I didn't buy and I don't think Marf and HH did either.
GeeMack
That attempt to support the validity of his belief in magic by trying to demonstrate that the Revolutionary War may be equally as unevidenced as the events depicted in the Bible was ridiculous... without quote marks. Get over it....
And again, that statem |
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 03/22/2007 18:10:30 |
 |
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2007 : 18:13:04 [Permalink]
|
I've lost my temper with other posters on this site before. At times, I've been condescending, rude, curt, and petty. And sometimes I don't really feel all that bad about it afterward, either.
Kil specifically didn't name names in his general call to civility, which was a fact I appreciated. And I think it was absolutely intentional. Far from being a warning to any particular person(s), it was a reminder that we all need to evaluate and regulate our own behavior.
Finger-pointed never accomplishes anything because in reality, the only person you have the power to change is yourself. If you see a trait you dislike in another, then just try never to fall victim to it yourself. If it bothers you when you see someone making rude or derogatory comments, then go out of your way to make kind ones. And if you feel a debate has devolved into an argument, then simply stop participating.
When you feel a burning need to change other people's behavior or win every argument, then in my opinion you're only part of the problem.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2007 : 18:26:39 [Permalink]
|
The OP was initiated after some big blowouts of which I was a part. So I'm not making any attempt here to throw the first stone. What I was hoping to add was the additional issue of being hostile for no reason other than it can become an automatic response. There is so much hostility in many forums in many threads. There was nothing specific here to the people I quoted other than they were included in a recent example of unneeded hostility in a discussion that could have gone fine without it.
I could take the links and names out but then one cannot go back as easily and view the context of the posts. Either option has drawbacks. Just take my word for it the people in the links are no better nor worse than the rest of us. They just happened to have made more recent statements I am talking about.
I have been unnecessarily hostile in the past after reading a post too quickly only to go back and think, now why did I take what they said the way I did. And I have had my posts erroneously interpreted as hostile from time to time. I don't know what was going on in the thread these quotes came from, only that it was striking reading it to see hostile reactions that made little sense.
I've been thinking about it lately since there seems to be specific patterns. Certain emotions are aroused in forum debates you wouldn't expect to encounter as commonly elsewhere. I was thinking about collecting some data on the patterns to develop some ways to avoid getting caught up in it.
|
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 03/22/2007 18:30:32 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2007 : 18:32:58 [Permalink]
|
| B, to be honest, I think that post from Indeterminancy was quite condescending, if not downright aggressive, on its own - I certainly felt that way when I replied to it. It wasn't just a wrong remark - it was a confrontational wrong remark (to my view). Especially because he said before he lurked around and read the posts, so it's not like he's saying that out of ignorance. |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2007 : 18:56:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Siberia
B, to be honest, I think that post from Indeterminancy was quite condescending, if not downright aggressive, on its own - I certainly felt that way when I replied to it. It wasn't just a wrong remark - it was a confrontational wrong remark (to my view). Especially because he said before he lurked around and read the posts, so it's not like he's saying that out of ignorance.
Well, that's the thing. Everyone can reach a different opinion on the message or tone of a post, or even of what's "acceptable" behavior. Which is why I say that unless you're a mod, the only person you need to concern yourself with is you.
But honestly, I don't want to insert myself into this debate. I intend on taking my own advice and not saying another word on this topic.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2007 : 19:34:29 [Permalink]
|
The only thing about the name calling that bothers me is that we chase some people away that could add something to the discussion. It seems that too often a thread will be started by a nonskeptic and we will be exceedingly rude (I've been guilty of it) to them and when they take off, we are left say, "gee I hope the come back". Why the hell should they? I'm sure they can get that kind of abuse at work or from their spouse.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2007 : 19:37:37 [Permalink]
|
I'd spent quite a bit of time, beskeptigal, attempting to "just let it drop" with respect to our earlier head-butting, because it seemed to me that you weren't listening, and you didn't appear to be interested in listening, to what I had to say. And so frankly, I find a post from you that criticizes people for not listening to others, in which you also advise people to "Avoid claims you know the person's integrity and motives" (when you did exactly that and defended doing it), to be little more than needlessly confrontational and hypocritically rude. But seeing that you've assured me of your self-confidence in the things you post, I don't expect this reply of mine will change your attitude, anyway.
You are absolutely correct that communications is a "two way event."
...Oh, dammit, this is incredibly frustrating!
But I think I'm beginning to understand. After reading and mostly agreeing with perhaps thousands of posts by someone, you begin to assume that they think much like you do. But then you find that one "simple" point upon which agreement cannot be reached, and it's so flabbergastingly shocking that it simply breaks your brain. It seems so obvious now. I mean, I never once had an "expectation of rationality" in my dealings with Mozina, but I certainly did have such an expectation when trying to discuss several things with you, beskeptigal. You behaved contrary to my expectations, and I found it utterly unbelievable.
Like it or not, people do have expectations of other people, especially people they've communicated with a lot. We tell each other here that we're making mistakes because we expect those mistakes to be corrected or logically defended, and that's because we think we're dealing with other rational people. You may think it's manipulative, beskeptigal, but I think it is necessary in order to actually form a "community" as in our mission statement. Otherwise, if nobody has any expectations of anyone else here, then what's the point? The SFN would simply be a bunch of independent soapboxes with absolutely no communications at all. Why communicate if you don't expect to affect another person in some way? Even a "me too" post is a demonstration of solidarity.
But back to the frustrations. I think the "expectation of rationality" is the reason that Dude is getting so obviously frustrated, and why others are so obviously frustrated with him. It's why I once thought Gorgo was a complete ass, and why I have absolutely no patience for Snake. Deep down, it's why Slater left, and before him a whole slew of people over 9/11. And I have little doubt that it's why some people have probably gotten fed up with the lot of us over the last few weeks.
I apologize. To everyone. I'll try to do better in the future with not allowing the occassional conflict between my expectations and reality to get the better of me. And to begin that I'll start over on trying to let these things drop... |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 03/22/2007 : 20:15:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal...
To which GeeMack went on to cite what annoyed him in Indeterminacy's post. It was an argument I didn't buy and I don't think Marf and HH did either.
From your comments here, beskeptigal, you apparently still misunderstand my comments from that other thread. It seems the appropriate way to resolve that problem is to ask me, in the same thread where I made the comments please, to clarify. Dragging this stuff over here and turning your misunderstanding into what appears to be a complaint doesn't seem like a very productive way to straighten it out.
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 03/23/2007 : 01:18:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Siberia
B, to be honest, I think that post from Indeterminancy was quite condescending, if not downright aggressive, on its own - I certainly felt that way when I replied to it. It wasn't just a wrong remark - it was a confrontational wrong remark (to my view). Especially because he said before he lurked around and read the posts, so it's not like he's saying that out of ignorance.
I'll go re-read it and see if I can see this point of view.
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 03/23/2007 : 02:01:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal...
To which GeeMack went on to cite what annoyed him in Indeterminacy's post. It was an argument I didn't buy and I don't think Marf and HH did either.
From your comments here, beskeptigal, you apparently still misunderstand my comments from that other thread. It seems the appropriate way to resolve that problem is to ask me, in the same thread where I made the comments please, to clarify. Dragging this stuff over here and turning your misunderstanding into what appears to be a complaint doesn't seem like a very productive way to straighten it out.
I drug it over here because Dude's post I wanted to reply to was off topic over there.
I can see so far the posts here imply people are not ready to be objective about the issue. No amount of mea culpa along with everyone else is sufficient to get everyone past the personal affronts and to the basic issue of rude posts which serve no purpose other than to cut meaningful discussion off.
What is the purpose of sarcasm and rude posts? Are they to get back at the other person? Are they just posting how you feel without the usual social rules which intervene in face to face communication?
Is it to brush off someone you don't feel like debating?
Read Kil's OP. "The level of hostility on our boards seems to be on the rise." I don't dislike any of you. I have no motive here of blaming anyone. You don't have to agree with the way I view what I posted. Siberia made a reasonable statement she disagreed with my perception. There was no ensuing 'screw you for having a different opinion'.
Look how people are responding here. GeeMack thinks it's about his post personally. Actually, GeeMack, I did address your comments in that thread. And so did Marf and HH. And while I thought your reply was rationalizing instead of considering three people thought you were unnecessarily annoyed, the only reason for putting the comments here was I wanted to post some examples. I will say it again, I could have posted the examples without links but then people could not see the context. The people behind the examples are not the issue. There are probably examples from all of us somewhere.
The kind of things in the examples are frequent in posts, here and elsewhere. I can't tell you how sick I am getting of people claiming I am "dishonest" or "willfully" misinterpreting them. It's become the fad du joir. And it is absolutely absurd. No one knows another's motive here. Maybe one could assess motive on a rare occasion, but the idea people are willfully dishonest, willfully changing arguments to one that can be attacked, and things like that, when someone is misunderstood, or isn't a skilled critical thinker, or just has bad debate habits doesn't mean they sit around plotting how they can change the argument and attack it.
I sincerely doubt the vast majority of people in all these forums is as clever as Karl Rove in planning their talking points to willfully discredit someone else. Chances are if someone raises a straw man argument, they do so out of ignorance, or they are repeating what someone else argued or they do it out of bad debating habits. I've seen a number of such tactics. Usually it is a function of self preservation of one's ego and isn't done with malice aforethought.
Why is the reader the one responsible for a misinterpretation of a post? Maybe there were a number of ways the post could have been interpreted. Maybe it was poorly articulated.
I know it isn't just me who thinks defensiveness and insults are often really uncalled for and certainly unnecessary. I'm beginning to wonder why it is so hard for people to just say they disagree or don't see something the way the other person does. I am not used to this much negativity in the real world. And it is becoming quite a downer in these forum discussions.
So instead of taking this as a bunch of personal affronts, my point is, why is there so much more hostility in a thread that you would be very unlikely to see in an actual face to face discussion? How can we lessen it? How would you respond if you wanted to cut it off and still have the debate or discussion? Is it only bothering me and no one else? (Apparently not since I didn't start this thread.)
And can't we discuss this without turning the discussion into one about individuals?
|
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 03/23/2007 02:05:31 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 03/23/2007 : 02:30:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
Actually, GeeMack, I did address your comments in that thread. And so did Marf and HH.
I know I said I wasn't going to say anything more, but this is an error that needs correction.
I absolutely did not aim my comment in that other thread at GeeMack specifically. If you actually look at the portion of Marf's post which I quoted and agreed with, it was only the bit about general behavior. I also said that I think the label "liar" is too often overused, but stopped short of mentioning any specific instance.
Beskep, please refrain from assuming to know my position in regards to this issue or of other individuals who post on this webesite.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 03/23/2007 02:32:05 |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 03/23/2007 : 02:56:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
I'd spent quite a bit of time, beskeptigal, attempting to "just let it drop" with respect to our earlier head-butting, because it seemed to me that you weren't listening, and you didn't appear to be interested in listening, to what I had to say. And so frankly, I find a post from you that criticizes people for not listening to others, in which you also advise people to "Avoid claims you know the person's integrity and motives" (when you did exactly that and defended doing it), to be little more than needlessly confrontational and hypocritically rude. But seeing that you've assured me of your self-confidence in the things you post, I don't expect this reply of mine will change your attitude, anyway.
You are absolutely correct that communications is a "two way event."
...Oh, dammit, this is incredibly frustrating!
But I think I'm beginning to understand. After reading and mostly agreeing with perhaps thousands of posts by someone, you begin to assume that they think much like you do. But then you find that one "simple" point upon which agreement cannot be reached, and it's so flabbergastingly shocking that it simply breaks your brain. It seems so obvious now. I mean, I never once had an "expectation of rationality" in my dealings with Mozina, but I certainly did have such an expectation when trying to discuss several things with you, beskeptigal. You behaved contrary to my expectations, and I found it utterly unbelievable.
Like it or not, people do have expectations of other people, especially people they've communicated with a lot. We tell each other here that we're making mistakes because we expect those mistakes to be corrected or logically defended, and that's because we think we're dealing with other rational people. You may think it's manipulative, beskeptigal, but I think it is necessary in order to actually form a "community" as in our mission statement. Otherwise, if nobody has any expectations of anyone else here, then what's the point? The SFN would simply be a bunch of independent soapboxes with absolutely no communications at all. Why communicate if you don't expect to affect another person in some way? Even a "me too" post is a demonstration of solidarity.
But back to the frustrations. I think the "expectation of rationality" is the reason that Dude is getting so obviously frustrated, and why others are so obviously frustrated with him. It's why I once thought Gorgo was a complete ass, and why I have absolutely no patience for Snake. Deep down, it's why Slater left, and before him a whole slew of people over 9/11. And I have little doubt that it's why some people have probably gotten fed up with the lot of us over the last few weeks.
I apologize. To everyone. I'll try to do better in the future with not allowing the occassional conflict between my expectations and reality to get the better of me. And to begin that I'll start over on trying to let these things drop...
Hey, not bad, Dave. I thought from the first paragraph you were not going to say anything I could actually discuss. But this is something I can.
If you have an expectation of a person, does that mean you need to respond with anger and frustration when they don't meet that expectation? Isn't there another option of just accepting the fact they didn't meet your expectation and not be upset about it?
And how about recognizing a single incident doesn't change the previous 5 years you've known a person? Maybe if your spouse cheats on you you can say you didn't know them all those years, but on a forum I think it's safe to say one thread among 3,500+ posts does not mean the person is someone you no longer know.
I'm not bothered by Dude's posts. And I agree with your assessment he is frustrated. He's not being objective. So I just quit repeating myself in replies. If I have something new to say, I will. If I thought I should apologize I would. But that's hard to do in this case if I can't accompany the apology with some acknowledgment that my assessment was wrong. I've already said it was based on tentative data but enough data in my opinion to draw a conclusion. There should not be anger over drawing different conclusions or having the opinion one is looking at sufficient data while another opinion is there isn't sufficient data.
This is one of the things I am talking about here. We have no reason to be angry at another person for such a disagreement.
So about the first paragraph...
I have some education and experience in personal communication when it comes to family arguments and dynamics. There are certain dysfunctional things in interpersonal dynamics which are common. I tried to be specific. I am confident that I was drawing conclusions based on elements I actually observed and could articulate or define. That differs from making claims about someone's motive or intent. So, no, I have not seen anything that changes the observations I made in our interaction. But I am content I voiced my objections and I don't have any hard feelings about the matter or about you. And I will apologize for labeling the specifics as immature because that wasn't helpful.
I don't think I am saying people are not listening to the other person. I'm saying people are reacting with unnecessary hostility. I'm saying I have done it myself. But I'm also saying we should be able to discuss it and eliminate at least some of it. Since I am not claiming to be any different here I don't see how I am being hypocritical. Perhaps you might reconsider that one?
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 03/23/2007 : 02:58:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
Actually, GeeMack, I did address your comments in that thread. And so did Marf and HH.
I know I said I wasn't going to say anything more, but this is an error that needs correction.
I absolutely did not aim my comment in that other thread at GeeMack specifically. If you actually look at the portion of Marf's post which I quoted and agreed with, it was only the bit about general behavior. I also said that I think the label "liar" is too often overused, but stopped short of mentioning any specific instance.
Beskep, please refrain from assuming to know my position in regards to this issue or of other individuals who post on this webesite.
Sure, and I'll go re-read that post too to see where I misunderstood it.
|
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 03/23/2007 02:59:33 |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 03/23/2007 : 03:22:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Siberia
B, to be honest, I think that post from Indeterminancy was quite condescending, if not downright aggressive, on its own - I certainly felt that way when I replied to it. It wasn't just a wrong remark - it was a confrontational wrong remark (to my view). Especially because he said before he lurked around and read the posts, so it's not like he's saying that out of ignorance.
I re-read it Siberia and through the first couple pages there is nothing rude or hostile in Indeterminancy's posts. He did make one comment, "You can't prove I exist, so why are you countering my statements?" but it was in the context of describing his thoughts and beliefs and it didn't seem hostile at all. That was the most negative thing I could find before there were negative posts directed his way.
All this guy said was what his view of the world was.
Could you point to what you perceived as confrontational?
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
A little more civility, please…
