On-line aggression. Why is it acceptable?

The Corinthian

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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.

We can all be guilty of this. Certainly I have been in the past, and I seem to remember a discussion on abortion a while back when we ended up at loggerheads and you seemed to move the goalposts about a fair bit.

Just because some of us are more rational than some of these soapboxers, doesn't mean that we're not as guilty of them upon occasion.

nozzferrahhtoo

Perhaps, but I am not really interested in derailing this thread with personal digs at each other about past threads. Nor am I aware of any goalposts moving, I only recall being told that my entire position was a caveat to itself which made no sense and was perhaps a sign people did not know where the goal posts were in the first place so they appeared to move as my position became clearer. This happens in discourse all the time as the first step in any discussion is always to understand what the other person is actually saying. If you do not, then come to later, then it is yourself and your perspective that has changed, not the point(s) being espoused by the other person.

Suffice to say however my points on that thread stand unchanged by any input I was given there or since there on other threads and other forums. If you want to bring them up again and re-challange them I am all ears but thus far I see nothing in error in anything I espoused. See you over there if and when you resurrect the thread. As I said the goal is to find out where one is wrong and change ones opinions if and when someone is shown one is wrong. This did not occur so no changes were made.

The Corinthian

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Perhaps, but I am not really interested in derailing this thread with personal digs at each other about past threads.

Com'on, that wasn't a personal dig and I even conceded that I'm prone to doing the same thing. My point was that we are all guilty from time to time of doing the same thing, and getting defensive about it apparently

nozzferrahhtoo

Nothing defensive here, again I would rather stay on topic. I am espousing what I think forums should be for ideally. If you think I personally do not achieve that ideal, fair enough, but that’s probably best taken up in a PM conversation rather than here. If you think there is a thread in particular, then by all means resurrect the thread.

On the topic of this thread I merely feel that the ideal for a forum would be to use it to find out where ones opinions are wrong… a proving ground I guess… and to help others do the same. What I think the OP is describing or experiencing is the phenomenon that people come here to “be right” and prove to others how “right” they think they are. As such when they are disagreed with they misconstrue such disagreement for aggression, being strident or worse.

Put another way, some people react negatively to being disagreed with and they project these negative feelings onto the person doing the disagreeing and label it with words like aggression, strident, arrogance and more. I myself endeavor to write my posts entirely dispassionately and without emotion. Which of course gives me a wry smile when people impute emotions that are not there to my posts, such as “being defensive” or the one I get a lot is that I am "angry".

In short therefore, something I clearly am not often, I think most of the "aggression" seen on fora such as these by people like the OP is more imagined than real, or is projected onto the speaker from emotions actually being felt by the listener.

Zulu

The Corinthian wrote: »

Of course, although inevitably it will sound condensing, especially if the rebuttal involves pointing out that they are expressing an opinion from a position of ignorance and so that will often escalate things.

True. But it's the wanton aggression that bugs me frankly, not a curt but frank post.

ntlbell

because a forum were everyone's sitting around blowing each others basstuba is going to be boring as hell for a start. As a "society" we accept the unacceptable mostly when it's not on our own doorstep.

You personally are not forced to accept anything, you can simply click x online and it's gone. Open a new url with a few key strokes etc etc. One of the great things about the tinternet is choice. If you feel x board is too aggressive for one's sensitive soul you can try the other naturebirdwatchingfolks.com where they'll pamper the tush while having a discussion with you.

It's like walking into a dominatrix brothel and complaining because you got spanked too hard. Get yourself over to the Taiwan massage parlor, you're in the wrong one

Zulu

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

. I think most of the "aggression" seen on fora such as these by people like the OP is more imagined than real, or is projected onto the speaker from emotions actually being felt by the listener.

For the purposes of this conversation, perhaps focus on the posts which are aggressive (and not the imagined ones) & in existance.

I take it you can accept that there are aggressive posts online, which aren't imagined?

Zulu

ntlbell wrote: »

If you feel x board is too aggressive for one's sensitive soul you can try the other naturebirdwatchingfolks.com where they'll pamper the tush while having a discussion with you.

I'll reiterate my response to TC who covered this earlier:

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?

I'll take it you feel the citizen should just forget about it.

I'm beginning to think that we need to take a little be more responsibility for the environment we live in. We should actively help to mould our society, as opposed to passively letting others do it for us.

The Corinthian

Zulu wrote: »

True. But it's the wanton aggression that bugs me frankly, not a curt but frank post.

I understand, sometimes it cannot be avoided though because some people simply cannot accept any kind of dissension. As ntlbell pointed out though, the only solution is to build up a thick skin and press the close button if needs be rather than waste your time.

It's only the Interweb FFS.

ntlbell

Zulu wrote: »

I'll reiterate my response to TC who covered this earlier:

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?

I'll take it you feel the citizen should just forget about it.

What do you suggest the citizen should do in this case? write a pettion to tom? and other forum admins? have the tubes monitored?

Zulu wrote: »

I'm beginning to think that we need to take a little be more responsibility for the environment we live in. We should actively help to mould our society, as opposed to passively letting others do it for us.

We don't "live" in the Internet. It's a public network. If there is a section of that network that doesn't follow your ethos well find a section that does and move on.

As someone else said. Life is too short.

Zulu

The Corinthian wrote: »

It's only the Interweb FFS.

It's going to be more and more of what shapes life, & social interaction. It's incredible how it's changed our society in 10 years. Think of 3 generations time...

When do we stop looking at it as a place for gamers to convene & browse porn? And start recognising it as a (potential) new way of life?

The Corinthian

Zulu wrote: »

It's going to be more and more of what shapes life, & social interaction. It's incredible how it's changed our society in 10 years. Think of 3 generations time...

When do we stop looking at it as a place for gamers to convene & browse porn? And start recognising it as a (potential) new way of life?

Let's not exaggerate. The printing press revolutionized the World, but the World continued to turn regardless.

As for interaction on the Interweb; these are likely to mirror those in the Real World over time where people voluntarily choose to associate with specific groups and effectively lock out undesirables.

You already get this in places like Boards; look at AH and Humanities, many of the posters who will post in one will never post in the other and what is tolerated in the former is not in the latter.

Zulu

ntlbell wrote: »

What do you suggest the citizen should do in this case?

...well, as I already stated, they could not "thank" the aggressive post, for one. Or they could post to condemn the behaviour.

Why is it acceptable though?

nozzferrahhtoo

Zulu wrote: »

I take it you can accept that there are aggressive posts online, which aren't imagined?

Some, of course, yes. You create any forum with enough people on it and there will be bad eggs. For some people forums such as this are less for discourse, and more to enter into a pissing contest... usually only with oneself though such people do not tend to notice that. However anything I would call aggression is usually dealt with by the mods. If you feel it is not then there is a report button which you can use to highlight a post to the mods.

I just do not think THAT type of aggression is common enough to worry about and when it comes it is usually dealt with. So the only other aggression I can think of is that of people misconstruing the tone and intent of others when they are being disagreed with.

Simply disagreeing with someone is often enough to make them think you are being strident, angry, arrogant and totalitarian. I was recently, in fact, called totalitarian for simply saying I make a point of highlighting unsubstantiated claims, though when I replied to this the user promptly exited the conversation.

As for what to DO about it? Well I simply ignore it and address the content (if any) of the users post regardless of the tone in which he or she appears to be writing it. If I, for example, read the following two things:

1) I think there is a god and here is why...
2) Are you stupid, your ignorance is showing here, there of course is a god and here is why...

(Again a religious example but that is what I post more about here so forgive me for that) I essentially reply to both posts in near exactly the same way. Usually the only difference is... if the user included some childish insult or invective.... I include my phrase "Insults demean only the insulter, never the insulted, ever" and continue as normal. It is useful to think of one as a representative of ones points rather than as a person with points when writing on a forum. How you choose to represent yourself becomes important when you think in that fashion. If your points are important to you, then how you choose to represent yourself while making them directly affects how people will view them.

Again from my own experience on the religious threads: when someone represents the theistic worldview immaturely, with invective or worse then I am happy to be polite, calm and keep them talking and let them hang themselves. In the battle against theism such people do half our work for us and keeping them talking often serves such ends better than anything one could write oneself. When I find someone on my "side" doing the same I try to take them aside quietly and give them a "letting the side down" speech.

Zulu

eh ok, you seem intent on discussing misconstrued aggression. Which is fair enough, but can I politely ask that you take it to another thread?
I wanted to discuss aggressive posts, and why they are deemed acceptable by some of the on-line society, & I'd be eager not to muddy the waters. Cheers.

ntlbell

Zulu wrote: »

...well, as I already stated, they could not "thank" the aggressive post, for one. Or they could post to condemn the behaviour.

Why is it acceptable though?

They can condemn it by reporting the post which many do.

If I tell you what I really think of you're attitude to this discussion, I'll be banned. So it's not "acceptable" on boards for example. other forums may accept it or may not accept it. you need to find places that suit you and meet your needs. not try and get everyone to behave in the same manner as you.

I'm sure many people see things on boards and close their browser in digust/protest whatever, but what do you want as a solution. do you have any real ideas of how it could be done? or you just wondering why people in general don't give a f*ck?

Zulu

ntlbell wrote: »

...or you just wondering why people in general don't give a f*ck?

I thought that bit was obvious?

nozzferrahhtoo

Zulu wrote: »

I wanted to discuss aggressive posts, and why they are deemed acceptable by some of the on-line society, & I'd be eager not to muddy the waters. Cheers.

It is not as muddy as you appear to think. My point is directly answering yours. Maybe if I make it more explicit how it will be clearer:

Essentially what I am saying is that it is not as acceptable as you might think but in fact what is happening is that posts you might consider aggressive might not actually be, you are just construing it as aggressive. The reason therefore others seem to you to be "accepting" it is because they do not see them as aggressive like you do.

In other words I am offering you an explanation as to why it appears aggression is acceptable when it in fact is not.

I doubt you will get much disagreement or even discussion if you focus solely on posts that are clearly outright punctuated with insult, invective and personal physical threats. However the mods deal with those, do they not? And where they do not there is a report button and an appeals process too. In which case you may have been entirely correct in your last line of post 17.

Perhaps some example and links to specific cases might make it clearer exactly what you mean with the thread and exactly what it is you are taking issue with though. It is starting to sound like this is less of a humanities thread and more of a thread for the parts of the forum where one requests rule changes, or moderator behavior changes and the like?

Unfortunately us the common user do not get to see the reports. So if an aggressive post gets a handful of "thanks" it might make you feel like that means the behaviour is acceptable. How do we know however that in the back ground it did not get 10 reports and complaints for every 1 thank?

ntlbell

Zulu wrote: »

I thought that bit was obvious?

I thought the answer would be obvious?

some people will some people won't it's not unique to online.

Watch a junkie snatch a handbag, if you're lucky one person will get involved while everyone else continues to get on with their life.

Life been too short doesn't seem to an easy concept for you to understand?

Zulu

ntlbell wrote: »

Life been too short doesn't seem to an easy concept for you to understand?

I understand it, I just don't buy (into) it. Personally, I wouldn't stand back as a junkie swiped a handbag. Maybe that's my problem.

nozzferrahhtoo

Zulu wrote: »

I understand it, I just don't buy it. Personally, I wouldn't stand back as a junkie swiped a handbag. Maybe that's my problem.

An interesting aspect of human psychology there, a subject I can not get enough of learning about.

Studies on the bystander effect show that most people when asked on paper if they would do something in such a case nearly always claim they would. You say you would. I say I would too. Both of us likely believe it too. When the actual situation presents itself very few people actually do and alas I have never been in the situation myself to find out if my own certainty about my own altruism would bear out in reality.

More interesting in fact is that it has been found that the more people there are, the less likely it is that one of them will do anything about it. So much for safety in numbers huh?

ntlbell

On the bystander effect I wouldg imagine.

I ask Zulu would he chase the junkie.
What does he imagine? a little skinny twenty something? does he imagine the aggression in which the bag was taken? Is he carrying a syringe? does he have aids? or hiv?

It's surprising that at a time like this were you can think about it very clearly he will say yes.
But at a time were you just have to act and no time to think that the fears kick in. it must be a visual aspect.

Zulu

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Studies on the bystander effect show that most people when asked on paper if they would do something in such a case nearly always claim they would...

ntlbell wrote: »

...But at a time were you just have to act and no time to think that the fears kick in. it must be a visual aspect.

So, in terms of this topic, I have condemned posts in the past for being openly aggressive.

Why do others not? Is it this bystander effect? How does that explain others "thanking" an agressive post? Do we see strangers "thanking" a junkie for swiping a bag? (No)

ntlbell

Zulu wrote: »

So, in terms of this topic, I have condemned posts in the past for being openly aggressive.


Why do others not? Is it this bystander effect? How does that explain others "thanking" an agressive post? Do we see strangers "thanking" a junkie for swiping a bag? (No)

Maybe they don't have the same view as you? Maybe they don't see the post as aggressive? Maybe they agree with the point made and the aggressive tone as it would be how they would have delivered their point also?

Maybe junkies/strokers/other forms of "scum" are rooting for the junkie? what do you expect them to carry pom poms just in-case?

Why in school if a fight broke out would a large group gather round and cheer on the fight and some idiot do gooder would break it up?

or more relative in a pub or night club you would have similar behaviour a fight breaks out, some cheer it on or join and others want it to stop.

nozzferrahhtoo

Zulu wrote: »

Why do others not? Is it this bystander effect?

Well I gave you one possible answer which you did not like, which is that perhaps what is coming across as aggressive to you is not doing so to others. One such reason for that, but far from the only one, is that you are misconstruing the tone and intent of other posters. Which would leave you with the impression that it is acceptable.

I also gave you another answer which is that it is not acceptable to most others too, but in fact many people are hitting the REPORT button on the posts. You and I do not know how much a given post gets reported. We only see the "thanks". Perhaps when you see 5 thanks you think that shows people think the behavior "acceptable". For all you know it got 20 reports however.

Another answer is that maybe people simply do not care as much as you do, or have developed that "thick skin" I have seen other users in the thread suggest you grow. So they see no reason to post condemnation of certain behaviors, despite them agreeing with you that said behavior is undesirable and not acceptable.

Yet another possible answer for you is that the thing about... for example.... trolls is that they WANT a reaction. Even if you righteously condemn their behavior in a follow up post you STILL loose because you have given them a reaction... which was all they wanted so they "win" straight away. With many such posts therefore the best thing to do is not to rush in condemning their behavior, but to simply play the "ignore the troll and it always goes away" card. Again this means that behavior that is unacceptable to you will not be confronted by posts that you will see.

All of the above are likely true in parallel, and I am sure I could give many more such generalized answers to add to the pile. All of them together I can see would give you the illusion that certain behaviors are treated as being more acceptable than they actually are.

Again however without specific examples of what you are talking about, links and the like, I am just talking in general terms here.

I generally tend to ignore the THANKS feature entirely. I rarely use it, and I never check what posts have received any. There is too much sock puppetry goes on on forums like this to consider such a system as useful and I wonder why forums like this have such systems at all.

Zulu

ntlbell wrote: »

Maybe they don't have the same view as you?

Perhaps, or maybe it's a form of rage, similar to road-rage, where people loose the run of themselves. (And possibly regret it afterwards)

they don't see the post as aggressive?

Well we've already established in this thread that some people do it deliberately. And I'm eager to stay away from perceived aggression, as that's purely speculative & individual.

Maybe they agree with the point made and the aggressive tone as it would be how they would have delivered their point also?

That would certainly explain the "thanks" aspect, but not the condemnation.

Waking-Dreams

Zulu, have you read about the Online Disinhibition Effect?

http://users.rider.edu/~suler/psycyber/disinhibit.html

It certainly illuminates why some people behave the way they do (online).

Duggys Housemate

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Simply disagreeing with someone is often enough to make them think you are being strident, angry, arrogant and totalitarian. I was recently, in fact, called totalitarian for simply saying I make a point of highlighting unsubstantiated claims, though when I replied to this the user promptly exited the conversation.

Well I am back here now, presumably I unsubscribed there. ( Thanks to a private PM from a poster on this thread).

Firstly there was no "abuse" there, I said "totalitarian much". Which was pretty much tongue in cheek. I said that because you said....

The target, for me, would be a world/society where being a theist is not even something relevant enough to even have an anti-pole term....
There simply is no arguments, evidence, data or reasons on offer to any of us, by anyone, that lend even a modicum of credence to the idea there is a god.

Effectively you want theists to disappear. That is you want Catholics, Protestants, Evangelicals, Mormons, Spiritualists, Buddhists, Hindus, Shiites, Sunni, religious Jews, Quakers, Latter day Adventists, Bahai, Rastarfarians, Jainism, and more, to disappear because their beliefs don't conform with your world-view. I went on to say that I was a non-believer, but I don't want, or expect religion to disappear. If it were going to, it would have disappeared by now. The latter opinion - secular but pluralist - is less totalitarian than the former opinion ( yours) that a world view, or in fact many world views, you are in conflict with should disappear.

This is, lets be clear, an attack on the belief not the poster, and I am surprised - to say the least - that I am this thread.

Zulu

Lads, no one here on this thread cares. Can you please leave it in the other thread?

al28283

Zulu wrote: »

When do we stop looking at it as a place for gamers to convene & browse porn?

about 14 years ago