[Zombrex]

Originally Posted by Zulu

How? You don't think aggression exists in on-line media?

Saying something exists and saying it is acceptable are two different things.

Do you have anything demonstrating that this type behavior is considered acceptable other than simply that you have seen it happen? Setting dogs on fire just to watch them burn exists, but it is certainly not acceptable in our society.

[Zulu]

Originally Posted by Zombrex

Saying something exists and saying it is acceptable are two different things.

That's true, but they're not entirely mutually exclusive either.
Jay-walking exists in Ireland. Officially (as in legally) it's not acceptable. It's clearly acceptable by society at large.

So I accept your point, but it doesn't change the landscape.

Do you have anything demonstrating that this type behavior is considered acceptable other than simply that you have seen it happen?

No, nothing other that 9 odd years of posting online. But have you ever read a thread on, say, 4chan?

Perhaps can we short circuit this though - am I to take it you are suggesting that this type of behaviour is not acceptable on-line, and thus this topic isn't worthy of discussion?

[The Corinthian]

If by aggressive you mean verbally abusive (or in some cases threatening) posters, then Boards is quite well moderated in that regard as it tends not to be tolerated (apart from AH to an extent).

Of course, aggressive and abusive is in the eye of the beholder and you'll also get some simply whining that they are being subjected to abuse when in reality they just don't like what they're reading - you get that on Personal Issues all the time when people don't get the advice they were hoping for.

When I went from being a day school pupil to a boarder, my demographic experience expanded. As a day school pupil, you go in, sit in classes of your academic peers and socialize with them. As a border, once the school-day was done, you mixed with a subset that academically came from all areas and not just your peers. It was at this point that I finally came to understand that stupidity was more than just an insult.

Much of our lives is like that; college, university, work, we end up channeled to mix with only those like us, so we don't get to see how the other half lives. It's not even a social class thing - it really is largely an intellect-sanity thing. Think of the internet as like my boarding school experience; you probably get a far wider cross section of mental capacity and health here than you would in your real life, and the one's who get emotional, abusive and even threaten violence are likely those who we would never meet in life. Unless we work for a health board, that is.

[Zulu]

Interesting point TC, but even in boarding school (7 year vet myself) wasn't sanity maintained (in the end) by reaching unwritten acceptances? Indeed, in my experience, aggression in the later years wasn't tolerated at all.
Sadly for some this wasn't the case in the earlier years.

[Zombrex]

Originally Posted by Zulu

No, nothing other that 9 odd years of posting online. But have you ever read a thread on, say, 4chan?

Perhaps can we short circuit this though - am I to take it you are suggesting that this type of behaviour is not acceptable on-line, and thus this topic isn't worthy of discussion?

In my view the topic is based on a false premise. Most people in society I think would be horrified by the average thread on 4chan.

If you want to perhaps restate the premise of the question to why do some online communities tolerate this sort of behavior more than others (rather than wider society which I don't believe does), that seems more of a grounded discussion.

[The Corinthian]

Well, the boarding school was not meant really as an analogy of the Internet. All I meant to say is the World is full of stupid and screwed up people that we would never come across were it not for the Internet.

Consider it an education in anthropology, close down the browser window and forget about it.

[Zulu]

Originally Posted by Zombrex

Most people in society I think would be horrified by the average thread on 4chan.

but that's my point. what's tolerated on-line is something that isn't tolerated in society at large offline.

Originally Posted by The Corinthian

Consider it an education in anthropology, close down the browser window and forget about it.

I guess my point boils down to : should the citizen close down the browser forgetting about it, or should the citizen condemn what they see as inappropriate?
Shouldn't the on-line society make more of an effort?

[Zombrex]

Originally Posted by Zulu

but that's my point. what's tolerated on-line is something that isn't tolerated in society at large offline.

Again I don't think you can say that society tolerates the behavior you would find on something like 4chan. Sites like that have specific communities that are a very small sub-set of wider society. Most of society never goes near sites like that and would probably be horrified if they did.

Perhaps the question is why do wider society not show more of an interest in regulating such sites?

[Zulu]

Originally Posted by Zombrex

Again I don't think you can say that society tolerates the behavior you would find on something like 4chan.

On-line or off-line society? If you are talking about offline society not accepting that behaviour, then I'd politely direct you back to the last sentence in the second paragraph of my first post.

Sites like that have specific communities that are a very small sub-set of wider society. Most of society never goes near sites like that and would probably be horrified if they did.

Youtube would have a wider sub-set of both the off-line & on-line society, but in keeping with what I'm talking about (the on-line society), displays much greater aggression than one would find in the off-line society. I wouldn't accept that we can or should dismiss YouTube as a very small subset.

Irregardless, dismissing very small subsets of society is a dangerous game.

Perhaps the question is why do wider society not show more of an interest in regulating such sites?

Almost, but not quite. I'm not asking why doesn't society at large regulate such sites, but rather: why doesn't the active community within such sites show more of an interest.

[Dudess]

Nothing wrong with reactive/provoked hostility IMO - if someone says single mothers are all scroungers and living a life of luxury, they deserve ridicule/aggression IMO. AH is full of that crap obviously, hence all the narky posting. Blame the people who make the idiotic claims rather than those who fight with them.

[Zulu]

I find it hard to justify that someone "deserves ridicule or aggression" tbh. In the real world, it would take a lot before I'd treat someone that way, so why should the on-line world be any different?

[Wibbs]

Originally Posted by Dudess

Nothing wrong with reactive/provoked hostility IMO - if someone says single mothers are all scroungers and living a life of luxury, they deserve ridicule/aggression IMO. AH is full of that crap obviously, hence all the narky posting. Blame the people who make the idiotic claims rather than those who fight with them.

It can be damned hard not to rip into some people. I've certainly had to really back off myself more than once, but one man's or woman's idiotic claim is anothers deeply held belief and sometimes the latter may well have some validity. Depends on viewpoint. I would certainly have no problem dissecting the belief by pointing out the flaws in it, but aggression towards them nope. Few are the people I've met who don't have at least one or two daft beliefs/views rattling about in their heads. Myself very much included.

TL;DR attack the post, not the poster.

[The Corinthian]

Originally Posted by Wibbs

It can be damned hard not to rip into some people. I've certainly had to really back off myself more than once, but one man's or woman's idiotic claim is anothers deeply held belief and sometimes the latter may well have some validity.

Sometimes. A lot of the time there is objectively absolutely no merit in some points of view. Most recently I was told that everyone in Ireland could have secured their savings if they all went and emptied their bank accounts.

If you can shoot down such nonsense quickly, fine. Otherwise you have to be careful not to get sucked in. Life's too short.

[Zulu]

Do you accept that you can shoot something down without being aggressive about it though?

[nozzferrahhtoo]

I am not sure I see that much aggression around here either, and when I do see it then more often than not the Mods deal with it.

Perhaps part of the problem is for some that they are simply too sensitive. I have noticed, especially with new users over the years, that people seem to expect this to be a happy go lucky place where you can advertise and sell your own opinions unchallenged.

What I have seen is someone coming on who espouses a heap of things… I disagree with them and explain exactly how and why I disagree… and they reply ignores everything I just wrote but instead goes on a screed about how they have a “right to their opinion”. Yet I never once indicated otherwise.

I honestly wish I had, for example, a euro for every conversation in the religion forums I have had that went along the lines of:

1) User: I believe in god because X Y Z
2) Me: Here are the arguments against X Y and Z
3) User: I have a right to my opinion!!!

Yet I never once in my life suggested people have not got a right to their opinion. Ever. I simply exercise my own right to disagree with their opinion and present my own. Comically this means their out burst is rather directed at a dislike for my right to hold one in the face of theirs.

It would seem to me that these forums are not that aggressive at all but people here seem to think any disagreement is a personal affront or attack, or that anyone disagreeing with them is being aggressive, strident or arrogant.

Perhaps if less people saw these fora as being a pedestal to shout ones opinions at everyone else, and instead saw it as a shared enterprise of discussing our opinions together in order to highlight the problems within each others and… more importantly to me… finding the problems in ones own… then people would be a little less worried about whether people are being aggressive.

Alas too many people are more interested in proving to everyone else how “right” they themselves think they are rather than doing the one thing we all should be doing for ourselves… using the input of others to help ourselves find out where we are wrong. And… unless one thinks one is perfect… we are all wrong somewhere. The game is to find out where and correct it.

Pursuing the truth is something I, for one, do passionately. If one were to mistake my passion for aggression then so be it. Their error not mine.