On-line aggression. Why is it acceptable?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

nozzferrahhtoo

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

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

As the moderator and the OP said it is best to take that up on the actual thread you left itself rather than derailing this one.

The point on THIS thread was to simply show... by use of the other thread as an example.... that mere disagreement is enough to have people leap to the assumption that they are somehow being aggressively and stridently attacked. Disagreement, to some, is a personal affront.

The point... on topic... that I am trying to make in this is that aggression is likely not only not as acceptable as the thread OP fears... but that in many cases the aggression seen by the user is in fact a misconstrual of the tone and intent of the writer they are reading that aggression into.

Of course this is only speculation as we do not know what particular example of aggression the OP is referring to. Perhaps I have missed it as I have not followed this thread as closely as some... but I did ask for some examples to see specifically what the OP is referring to and I do not think any have as yet been provided. Perhaps if we were shown some specific examples we would be a little clearer on the types of "Aggression" we are talking about here which will allow us all to answer the OPs questions a bit more specifically rather than with generalised speculation about a generalised topic.

Zulu

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Of course this is only speculation as we do not know what particular example of aggression the OP is referring to.

The topic is in general terms for a reason. I'm not talking about a specific example. If you agree that there is actual aggression online, we're discussing that. As I've already stated, I'm not interested in discussing "perceived aggression". Do you not believe aggression can exist, or you are being obtuse?

Perhaps if we were shown some specific examples we would be a little clearer on the types of "Aggression" we are talking about here which will allow us all to answer the OPs questions a bit more specifically rather than with generalised speculation about a generalised topic.

I really can't understand your issue discussing the topic in general.

Why do you need examples of aggression online in order to discuss the topic?

Please note: I do not want to turn this into a thread about Nikita.
Scroll down to the 10/3/2012

Frankly, I'm wary about posting that. ...thats probably more abusive than aggression.

nozzferrahhtoo

Zulu wrote: »

Do you not believe aggression can exist, or you are being obtuse?

That is somewhat disingenuous. Not only did I acknowledge this and answer that very question in post #45 first paragraph but I gave you a whole host of explanation ideas to work with... which I put time into... in post #56 the entirety of which you seemingly have just ignored. I then pushed the thread back on topic for you after the thread kill that left it dead for 2 days.

So responding to me in this fashion is really poor form, disingenuous and quite unappreciative of people who have actually put time and effort into helping you work towards answers.

Zulu wrote: »

Why do you need examples of aggression online in order to discuss the topic?

I never said I did. I just said that with more specific examples I could give more specific answers. That is all. I in no way indicated I was somehow precluded, without examples, from discussing the topic at all. I was merely acknowledging that the answers I give are pretty general and might not be satisfactory. Nothing wrong with acknowledging that.

Duggys Housemate

Zulu, although it pains me to agree with nozzferrahhtoo's point, he is right, you haven't really pointed to acceptable online aggression in boards.

Do you have any examples.

( it is highly regulated here. I was recently infracted for a spelling correction, in response to someone correcting me. In the long run that is good).

Zulu

Duggy the topic is broader than Boards.
I'm not going to repost from boards for the following reasons:

1) it will derail the thread
2) this isn't an excuse to have a pop at another poster
3) this isn't feedback
4) this isn't about a post on boards

Fair enough if you don't believe it exists, however, in this thread, a poster has offered justification of the same.

Duggys Housemate

Ok, fair enough. I take point 1) and 2), particularly as someone linked to my posts, however incorrectly.

However given that I have been infracted for a spelling Nazism ( and fair enough) it would seem that aggression here is not really accepted, and you may have seen posts which went through the cracks. Remember though it is fair game to attack a post, or call the post ill informed, but not the poster. Remember also there are different levels of moderation in different forums, and whats considered trolling in the Atheist forum may be the fully acceptable and expected in the Christianity forum. And vice versa. That is Boards.ie biggest strength, most bulletin boards I frequent have one policy across the site, if any.

As for the rest of the internet that is a whole other discussion, certainly people hide behind usernames and anonymity. Is it acceptable? I think it is accepted grudgingly - for reasons of free speech and the reality of anonymity - but I don't think that people are happy with it. As we have seen from some twitter trials, the courts aren't.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Zulu

Thanks Permabear.

looksee

So, to go off at a slightly different angle. Whatever about adults having differences and the way they deal with them, over a very few years younger people will grow up with these threads and very gradually come to see aggression as an appropriate - cool - way to deal with opposition.

There will always be people who choose to solve problems with their fists, and defend their right to do so, but this is not a solution that will lead to a better society.

Boards does pretty well at finding the balance between letting people have their say and not allowing blatant aggression, but there are lots of sites on the internet that do not care and even encourage it.

Some people's reading material does not go much beyond the rag newspapers and their entertainment is the more violent levels of computer games. Their right to remain at this level of engagement with society would be defended - probably aggressively - if it was put forward in AH, and yet in the same forum you can read people's views that demand a greater level of involvement with their societal responsibilities by people, regardless of their education or exposure to reason and reasoning.

'Why is it acceptable?' Who are you addressing? I don't think it is - or should be - acceptable, but maybe you are not asking me. If a majority of people feel that it should be acceptable, at what stage do we then say that fist fights are acceptable, bullying is acceptable, road rage is acceptable. Where does society put the cut-off?

mariaalice

I have noticed a very small change for the good on boards, I call it the power of ridicule sometimes when you have a very racist, misogynist, kill every one on social welfare etc thread..... instead of being tanked or getting a down with that sort of thing response they will be ridiculed for their opinions.

Although I have to say I agree with Zulu,some of the Threads/posts about public sector worker or those on welfare are disturbing in there nastiness.

Piste

It's something that's more apparent on media where there's a greater degree of anonymity, like YouTube. Some of the comments posted there are just vile. I think the best way to deal with it is not just for comments like that to be deleted and users banned, although censorship and banning do have a role to play; the best way to challenge this growing culture head-on is to tackle it at a grassroots level- have other users call out posters when they're acting out of line. If a poster is banned or admonished by a moderator, they just see it as an "authority figure" spoiling their fun because they're on a "power trip". If someone posts a downright offensive post, or even a good point phrased aggressively and other posters call them on it by saying things like "I agree with your point, but that was a bit harsh" or "no need to be so aggressive", then this sends the message that that kind of behaviour is not acceptable- not only by the website itself, but by the users of that website. It's all about the optics.

Waking-Dreams

Piste, would that not be more effective when it comes from people the user actually cares about? For instance, having other anonymous strangers telling someone they’re “a bit harsh” may be met with nothing more than a loud yawn if that person doesn’t actually care what someone else whom they don’t know really thinks.

Lots of people have no qualms about social disapproval (when it comes from a group whom they don’t identify with) and, in fact, often get a kick out stirring up a reaction.

It’s a bit like trying to tackle bullying by coming in (as an outsider) and saying “it’s a bit harsh”, when research indicates that the message is much more effective when it comes from within the peer group, or from someone whom the bully respects on some level.

The Online Disinhibition Effect is a great eye-opening read into the myriad problems we face when it comes to online communication. Most humans interact socially offline and feel constrained from saying and doing what they really want to because of social norms, consequences, etc. In fact, think about why shows such as Curb Your Enthusiasm are so funny. Because the main character says and does things many of us would like to but don’t because of the trouble you would get into.

Anyways, online aggression will continue but I think it’s a matter of monitoring offline behaviour to see whether people are actually much more rude, hostile, etc., in person. I suppose living anonymously in big cities where you’re not known to everyone makes it easier to not have to always worry about your public reputation.

I have yet to read Steven Pinker’s ‘The Better Angels of Our Nature’, but my understating of it is that violence has decreased in the last few hundred years and although people still appear rude and hostile (but not as physically aggressive) it’s a step in the right direction compared to times past.

Piste

I can see why YouTube users wouldn't take too kindly to it as it's not as much of a community, but I can see it being an effective way of takling online aggression in online communities like Boards where users post to interact with other people and generally want their opinion to be taken seriously.

SuperInfinity

Personally I think the OP is completely nuts and has an extreme arrogance that is part of what is wrong with the world today. Acceptable for who? Acceptable for the majority of people? Acceptable for a minority in power or "know best"?

"why do we accept" and "why do we tolerate" assumes such an arrogance. Like that you have the power and ability to physically shut someone else up. I believe that is what is a really chilling and depraved arrogance and psychological problem. Whether the police or anyone else lays a hand on someone, that is an act of physical violence perpetrated by them. They better have a damn good reason for doing that to someone they're supposed to protect.

Why can't you just relax and see what other people are saying? They are speaking what they're thinking, that's information for you. And most of the time it makes sense. You may not agree with it or find it worth listening to. It is like a "read only" thing. You should be so lucky that they are allowing you to see how they think. Do not try and physically hurt them in any way for it.

Would you like it if someone wanted to say something horrible to you but felt too afraid to? I know I would hate that. I would like people to say whatever they want to me.

I'm amazed someone who has so many posts is still thinking back still has such stone age views on what people should be allowed to say online.

And you know there's nothing wrong with aggression. You need to be aggressive if you're defending your family against someone or something attacking them. The opposite of aggression would be submission, right? What you need is a balance, between aggressive and submissive behaviour. It takes a little aggression to have the motivation to play and win a game, too much aggression and you will lose all sensible behaviour and lose the game. Someone starts hurting a dog in a horrible way, the dog can start to show aggression, that's perfectly legitimate. If anything we've become too emasculated as a society.

MaxSteele

What makes you think we all agree with online aggression ??
People can get confrontational online as well as in real life. If someone insulted your dead relative to your face, you would probably change into a more aggressive mood or manner (like a lot of us would) and rightly so.

Sometimes posters and their opinions/beliefs can be so idiotic, nonsensical and ignorant, that a good blunt, "you have to have been dropped on your head as a child etc" response is needed to show some people how stupid and idiotic their drivel really is. I'm guilty of it myself.

Most of the time, online aggression is directed by people who are

A. A troll looking to get a rise from someone
B. A genuine simpleton losing an argument who then resorts to personal attacks and tantrums
C. Frustrated scumbags or low lifes who have been put in their place by an intelligent reply for posting illiterate, ignorant ****e, who can't use intimidation or threats like they would in real life.
D. Someone appalled by a vicious or nasty post.

There's plenty of people off and on line who need to be made examples of for their ignorance and stupidity. Well that's how I see it anyway OP.

Priori

SuperInfinity wrote: »

Personally I think the OP is completely nuts and has an extreme arrogance that is part of what is wrong with the world today.

Christ that's harsh!

SuperInfinity wrote: »

Would you like it if someone wanted to say something horrible to you but felt too afraid to? I know I would hate that. I would like people to say whatever they want to me.

Sure you would. Try placing yourself in the shoes of a bullied teenager, sick to the stomach every morning on approaching the school gates.

SuperInfinity

Priori wrote: »

Sure you would. Try placing yourself in the shoes of a bullied teenager, sick to the stomach every morning on approaching the school gates.

You appear to have forgotten what we were talking about. The context was obviously if someone had some criticism or grievance about someone else that you appear to want to censor, not an example of harassment in order to get a reaction.

What you have said would be like if I were arguing against making it a jailable offence to accidentally brush against someone in public, and you said "derp, try putting yourself in the shoes of someone who was half-beaten to death".

Priori

SuperInfinity wrote: »

Priori wrote: »

Sure you would. Try placing yourself in the shoes of a bullied teenager, sick to the stomach every morning on approaching the school gates.

You appear to have forgotten what we were talking about. The context was obviously if someone had some criticism or grievance about someone else that you appear to want to censor, not an example of harassment in order to get a reaction.

What you have said would be like if I were arguing against making it a jailable offence to accidentally brush against someone in public, and you said "derp, try putting yourself in the shoes of someone who was half-beaten to death".

Don't agree with you there, sorry.

Zulu

SuperInfinity wrote: »

Do not try and physically hurt them in any way for it.
...And you know there's nothing wrong with aggression.

I get the distinct impression you've misinterpreted my original post. Entirely.

SuperInfinity

Fine I'll recant and admit my post above was a bit inaccurate, but due to the nature of your post, advocating people being afraid to speak out of "fear" of reprimand, I stand by the sentiments of it if not the execution.

Zulu

SuperInfinity wrote: »

...but due to the nature of your post, advocating people being afraid to speak out of "fear" of reprimand,...

Eh, again, I think you miss my point. If anything, it's the overtly agressive posts that silence people into not speaking out. Which is something I condemn - not condone.

SuperInfinity

Zulu wrote: »

Eh, again, I think you miss my point. If anything, it's the overtly agressive posts that silence people into not speaking out. Which is something I condemn - not condone.

I couldn't care less. I tried to see where you were coming from, tried to give you the benefit of the doubt and so wrote my last post... I don't like being inaccurate or hyperbolic in posts. But it seems my initial impressions were right... you're a draconian kook.

Zulu

Well thanks, I appreciate your benefit of doubt, however brief it may have been.


Ok then, moving along...

Eliot Rosewater

SuperInfinity banned for a week for sustained personal abuse over a two week period illustrating a complete lack of respect for the forum charter.

/mod

Qualitymark

I completely agree with OP @Zulu. In the last couple of weeks I've had posters suggest they'd like to ram my car, and would like to see a tyre iron wrapped around my head; I've seen posters write approvingly of someone who allegedly broke a glass and threatened a journalist with it; I've seen very nasty anti-women posts; I've seen posters referring to others as 'arsehole', etc, etc.

All of these were on boards.ie, where a very nasty type of aggression appears to be almost the norm. If I were running this site, I'd be extremely worried about what I was running.

P. Breathnach

I don't think boards.ie enjoys any special immunity from the attentions of keyboard warriors. What it does have, however, is posting guidelines and forum charters that indicate fairly clearly what is not acceptable, and a generally active team of people to deal with problem posts. Most (perhaps all, but we don't have the particulars here) of what Qualitymark has described would seem to be unacceptable here. If such posts were reported, they should have been dealt with, and some of the more egregious posters might also be dealt with.

SuperInfinity

yeah I bet all of what he is saying is blown out of all context and proportion.

That's another thing about many of these censoring types, they take something someone said or did that may be perfectly reasonable at the time and in the context it was said/done, and try to make it look as bad as it possibly can. There's no sense of fairness, just trying to make things other people said seem as bad as possible. Almost like a twisted sort of game to them.

There's nobody (or very few people) out there who is "just plain evil", and why would they just go around a message board being like that? No, it's a fantasy of these individuals.

Qualitymark

Nice use of the logical fallacy Personal Incredulity, @superinfinity

https://s3.amazonaws.com/yourlogicalfallacyis/pdf/LogicalFallaciesInfographic_A1.pdf

Here's an article from the New York Times about aggression among the online gaming community - the community (perhaps boards.ie is a little behind the curve in this) is beginning to turn away from the acceptance of boorish and threatening behaviour especially towards female gamers:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/02/us/sexual-harassment-in-online-gaming-stirs-anger.html?_r=3&ref=technology

SuperInfinity

Qualitymark wrote: »

Nice use of the logical fallacy Personal Incredulity, @superinfinity

https://s3.amazonaws.com/yourlogicalfallacyis/pdf/LogicalFallaciesInfographic_A1.pdf[/url]

I'm not going to that site and I'm not interested in your "formal logics" class. If you can't make an adult argument yourself and instead refer to a site where you allege I'm committing one of what they call a fallacy, then I suggest you not bother at all.

Not believing someone or some account is now a "fallacy". Good god, why can't some people think.