On-line aggression. Why is it acceptable?

Zulu · 05-04-2012 11:23am #1

Why do we accept overtly aggressive posts?

As a society, we are more active on-line, and this affords us the ability to speak & act anonymously. Born out of this is the keyboard warrior. The user who posts with feckless abandon, safe in the knowledge that they post without having to take responsibility for their utterances. They can spout a caustic bile, a bile they'd never dare mention in public, in the real world for fear of being ostracised, or assaulted!

This phenomenon isn't unique to on-line media: the safety provided by a car can bring out similar characteristics. There is one subtle difference though. If someone in a car cut you up, or cuts you off at a junction, the next 3 or 4 cars don't "thank" the culprit. There's no flashing of lights, to signal - job well done! No, thankfully, there's an acknowledgment that they're being a dick.

Take our boards. Assuming other posters agree with the salient point of a poster, posters (some) are only more than happy to "thank" an aggressive, caustic post. The culprit is de-facto congratulated. Why? Because we're on their side of the argument? That’s good enough now?? Why do we let this happen???

Sure we have trolls, we have people who are looking for a rise, we have argumentative people, and aggressive people. But why do we let the tone of our online lives be mired with wanton aggression? These posts shouldn't be thanked, they should be banned. There should be no warnings for a personal attack, it should be instantaneous time out.

As a society, we need to stamp this out, it's not good enough. We are building constructs where it's acceptable to be a horrible individual. Wouldn't you agree?

moe_sizlak · 05-04-2012 11:50am

Zulu wrote: »

Why do we accept overtly aggressive posts?

As a society, we are more active on-line, and this affords us the ability to speak & act anonymously. Born out of this is the keyboard warrior. The user who posts with feckless abandon, safe in the knowledge that they post without having to take responsibility for their utterances. They can spout a caustic bile, a bile they'd never dare mention in public, in the real world for fear of being ostracised, or assaulted!

This phenomenon isn't unique to on-line media: the safety provided by a car can bring out similar characteristics. There is one subtle difference though. If someone in a car cut you up, or cuts you off at a junction, the next 3 or 4 cars don't "thank" the culprit. There's no flashing of lights, to signal - job well done! No, thankfully, there's an acknowledgment that they're being a dick.

Take our boards. Assuming other posters agree with the salient point of a poster, posters (some) are only more than happy to "thank" an aggressive, caustic post. The culprit is de-facto congratulated. Why? Because we're on their side of the argument? That’s good enough now?? Why do we let this happen???

Sure we have trolls, we have people who are looking for a rise, we have argumentative people, and aggressive people. But why do we let the tone of our online lives be mired with wanton aggression? These posts shouldn't be thanked, they should be banned. There should be no warnings for a personal attack, it should be instantaneous time out.

As a society, we need to stamp this out, it's not good enough. We are building constructs where it's acceptable to be a horrible individual. Wouldn't you agree?

im not a regular poster but i read boards quite a bit , from what ive observed , boards is pretty strict when it comes to overly confrontational posts or posts which stray from broadly speaking , conventional thinking on most subjects , compared to politics.ie , boards is very congenial in discourse

after hours would be the exception to the above of course

Sleepy · 05-04-2012 11:59am

I'd agree to the extent that there are civil ways of doing things and the trolling / "Yore Ma" thanks whoring is simply annoying...

But, there are times when an idiotic idea needs to be treated as such. We are socially conditioned not to ridicule the beliefs of another, no matter how ludicrous they may be. We worry too much in society about offending people imho. To quote Stephen Fry:

It's now very common to hear people say 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights; it's actually nothing more...it's simply a whine. 'I find that offensive,' it has no meaning, it has no purpose, it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I'm offended by that,' well so ****ing what?

In real life, where real relationships are at stake we often put up with other's prejudices, misguided notions and idiosyncrasies for the sake of a quiet life.

We're reluctant to call religion a load of bollocks in real life because it might offend our Granny, Elderly Aunt or parents.

We excuse casual racism or homophobic bull**** on the basis that the person espousing it is "from another age" or simply because we want to have a peaceful cab journey that doesn't involve a row.

We roll our eyes internally when the girl in the office starts recommending the great homoeopath who "cured" her ingrown toenail rather than laughing at her stupidity.

On forums such as boards where we might not know any, or only a handful of posters in real life, we don't have to worry about maintaining a quiet life. We can be brutally honest in our opinions and convictions without fear of it causing hassle in our day to day lives.

You don't find the same level of derision quite so often on the likes of Facebook where one's network mirrors one's real-life social network and there's a chance that you're going to end up in an argument with someone in real life. Confrontation is a lot easier dealt with using the written word. You have time to measure your response, you don't need the glib, quick wit of a comedian or barrister to make your point and, as you alluded to, there's no fear of the person you're arguing with losing the rag and belting you for making them feel stupid or offending them.

Zulu · 05-04-2012 12:01pm

moe_sizlak wrote: »

im not a regular poster but i read boards quite a bit , from what ive observed , boards is pretty strict when it comes to overly confrontational posts or posts which stray from broadly speaking , conventional thinking on most subjects , compared to politics.ie , boards is very congenial in discourse

after hours would be the exception to the above of course

Ok, granted. But as you say afterhours, and take other on-line forums. Why as an on-line community do we accept it?

Zulu · 05-04-2012 12:08pm

But Sleepy, why is it acceptable?

The reason we don't ridicule in real life applies to the on line community all the same, however we don't apply it. It doesn't benefit me to belittle or mock someone's personal beliefs in an outright aggressive way. I could just as easily & succinctly, point out a blatant gap in their logic in a polite way.

You wouldn't berate and belittle a child in the physical world, but posters don't hesitate to consider they could be doing just that on-line.

And I get and accept your point - you are of course correct, but why do we allow it. Do we all secretly what to live in a society, where all things being equal, is quick to ridicule those that don't agree with us? Is there no room for civility in the on-line arena?

...and as for Stephen Fry, he's a gent! I don't see him posting aggressive, or caustic posts. He'll post something witty & though provoking, sure but I don't see him aggressively berating the Archbishop of Canterbury. I suspect Stephen would proffer the man civil & courteous respect.

DeVore · 05-04-2012 12:17pm

It isn't acceptable.

Zombrex · 05-04-2012 12:25pm

Zulu wrote: »

Why do we accept overtly aggressive posts?

As a society, we are more active on-line, and this affords us the ability to speak & act anonymously. Born out of this is the keyboard warrior. The user who posts with feckless abandon, safe in the knowledge that they post without having to take responsibility for their utterances. They can spout a caustic bile, a bile they'd never dare mention in public, in the real world for fear of being ostracised, or assaulted!

This phenomenon isn't unique to on-line media: the safety provided by a car can bring out similar characteristics. There is one subtle difference though. If someone in a car cut you up, or cuts you off at a junction, the next 3 or 4 cars don't "thank" the culprit. There's no flashing of lights, to signal - job well done! No, thankfully, there's an acknowledgment that they're being a dick.

Take our boards. Assuming other posters agree with the salient point of a poster, posters (some) are only more than happy to "thank" an aggressive, caustic post. The culprit is de-facto congratulated. Why? Because we're on their side of the argument? That’s good enough now?? Why do we let this happen???

Sure we have trolls, we have people who are looking for a rise, we have argumentative people, and aggressive people. But why do we let the tone of our online lives be mired with wanton aggression? These posts shouldn't be thanked, they should be banned. There should be no warnings for a personal attack, it should be instantaneous time out.

As a society, we need to stamp this out, it's not good enough. We are building constructs where it's acceptable to be a horrible individual. Wouldn't you agree?

I think the premise of your argument, that it is acceptable, is flawed. Boards.ie is a good example, aggressive posts that attack a poster are in breach of pretty much every charter on these forums, and will be met with disciplinary action by the mods.

Zulu · 05-04-2012 12:34pm

DeVore wrote: »

It isn't acceptable.

Isn't it? To you perhaps it isn't, but sadly DeVore that doesn't cut it. It exists. It's a growing problem online. As a society we are responding too slowly. I genuinely feel sorry for adolescents growing up in todays online community.
Teenage insecurity, sexting & cyberbullying...

Zombrex wrote: »

I think the premise of your argument, that it is acceptable, is flawed. Boards.ie is a good example, aggressive posts that attack a poster are in breach of pretty much every charter on these forums, and will be met with disciplinary action by the mods.

Bahhh, look, I didn't post this in "feedback" for a reason. I really want to keep this bigger than boards.

But on that, and all you need to do is take a look at one thread on abortion or religion to see that's not true. There's plenty of overtly aggressive posts, some go checked, some get infractions, some even get bans... but loads are let slide.

aidan24326 · 05-04-2012 1:36pm

You're setting up a strawman argument really. Making out this is some kind of serious societal problem. It isn't. In the list of problems facing the world right now this would probably come, in terms of importance, at about number 5 million. And as others have said boards is heavily moderated. If other sites aren't then don't frequent them.

And I fully agree with Stephen Fry that there's far too much of this 'offended' crap these days. If you don't like what somebody has to say just ignore them. Other than that I say tough sh1t, get over it. People take offence, or at least claim to, far too easily, and it's driving a lot of this political-correctness plague.

Zulu · 05-04-2012 1:48pm

aidan24326 wrote: »

You're setting up a strawman argument really.

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

Making out this is some kind of serious societal problem. It isn't. In the list of problems facing the world right now this would probably come, in terms of importance, at about number 5 million.

Well thats true, but because there are greater problems, doesn't mean we can't discuss or explore lesser ones. The "first world problems" meme isn't conducive to a discussion in Humanities.

And as others have said boards is heavily moderated. If other sites aren't then don't frequent them.

But that's a strawman; it's tantamount to saying: well if you don't like thieving, don't do it. It appears that your solution to the problem is: ignore it.

Perhaps it is a PC plague, but all I'm talking about is civility.

aidan24326 · 05-04-2012 2:01pm

Zulu wrote: »

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

But what does it really mean to say somebody is being aggressive in an online forum? At the end of the day all they're doing is typing words on a keyboard, which are easily ignored or can be dismissed as the rantings of an ignorant fool, of which I'm well aware there's plenty around. Those words can only be offensive if you choose to let them be. And btw, I do agree that some forums could do a with bit more boards-style modding, but the internet being the big beast it has become it's inevitable that you'll get all shades of everything.

But that's a strawman; it's tantamount to saying: well if you don't like thieving, don't do it. It appears that your solution to the problem is: ignore it.

I wasn't saying ignore the problem, I was saying that I don't see as that big a problem in the first place. Taking offence to what some eejit says on an internet forum is only a problem if you personally allow it to bother you. I do agree however that it's a different issue with kids where cyber-bulling and the like actually has become a problem (but I'm assuming you're an adult).

Zulu · 05-04-2012 2:25pm

aidan24326 wrote: »

But what does it really mean to say somebody is being aggressive in an online forum? At the end of the day all they're doing is typing words on a keyboard, which are easily ignored or can be dismissed as the rantings of an ignorant fool, of which I'm well aware there's plenty around.

But Aidan, that is easily applied to speech. All it is is words, which can easily be ignored... ...yet as a society we don't accept that. It's acceptable for you to talk to me in a certain manner in a social interaction. It's not cool for you to openly belittle and ridicule me on the street, even if I can choose to ignore you - seeing as they are only spoken words...

Those words can only be offensive if you choose to let them be.

Ok, I think you might be missing my point a little. While what you are posting is true, I'm not talking about the person getting offended: leave them aside.
I'm talking about us, the greater community who watch, and sometimes congratulate a poster for being aggressive. Leave the receiving poster aside. Why isn't there a flood of posts along the line of "woooh there, easy up Zulu, he's only making a point. No need to be so aggressive. The man's allowed to voice his opinion/make a mistake - it's not cool being rude"? Why don't we do that??

And btw, I do agree that some forums could do a with bit more boards-style modding, but the internet being the big beast it has become it's inevitable that you'll get all shades of everything.

Yup, you will indeed, but a society will be as bad as it's allowed to be.

I do agree however that it's a different issue with kids where cyber-bulling and the like actually has become a problem (but I'm assuming you're an adult).

You see it's not a different issue at all, I feel. We learn from our peers. We have manners because they were taught to us. If we let on-line communities be abrasive, or aggressive, then younger posters will take from that. I think part of the reason it's so hard for kids could be because adults are being asshats to each other! Just like in society, if a child grows up in an environment with no respect or manners, they're very unlikely to lick it off a stone! No?

aidan24326 · 05-04-2012 2:50pm

I'm talking about us, the greater community who watch, and sometimes congratulate a poster for being aggressive. Leave the receiving poster aside. Why isn't there a flood of posts along the line of "woooh there, easy up Zulu, he's only making a point. No need to be so aggressive

There does tend to be posts like that though, where people get called out on saying something overtly abusive. And if people are sometimes assholes on internet forums I guess that only mirrors what we see in the real world (see the thread on 'should I report racist abuse', for a good example of the morons that are out there).

Zulu · 05-04-2012 2:57pm

aidan24326 wrote: »

There does tend to be posts like that though,..

Yeah but... ...no but... ...yeah but...
In fairness, sadly, they are the exception rather than the rule (considering the larger on-line community), wouldn't you agree?

Wibbs · 06-04-2012 4:21pm

moe_sizlak wrote: »

im not a regular poster but i read boards quite a bit , from what ive observed , boards is pretty strict when it comes to overly confrontational posts or posts which stray from broadly speaking , conventional thinking on most subjects , compared to politics.ie , boards is very congenial in discourse

+1. It's about the strictest and least aggressive broad spectrum forums there is. That's what I've found anyway.

after hours would be the exception to the above of course

I dunno AH gets a real bad rap from some quarters IMH. People get banned damn near hourly for aggressive posting and other asshattery in AH. We're also back to what's considered acceptable. Some people are more thick skinned than others and vice versa, but overall, indeed IMHO in the vast amount of examples the middle ground is covered pretty well around here.

Zombrex · 06-04-2012 6:38pm

Zulu wrote: »

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 · 07-04-2012 10:34am

Zombrex wrote: »

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 · 08-04-2012 3:33pm

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 · 08-04-2012 10:24pm

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 · 08-04-2012 11:38pm

Zulu wrote: »

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 · 08-04-2012 11:41pm

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 · 09-04-2012 12:21am

Zombrex wrote: »

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.

The Corinthian wrote:

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 · 09-04-2012 11:52am

Zulu wrote: »

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 · 09-04-2012 12:25pm

Zombrex wrote: »

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 · 09-04-2012 12:31pm

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 · 09-04-2012 12:49pm

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 · 11-04-2012 4:19pm

Dudess wrote: »

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 · 12-04-2012 12:29pm

Wibbs wrote: »

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 · 12-04-2012 12:46pm

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

nozzferrahhtoo · 12-04-2012 12:54pm

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.

The Corinthian · 12-04-2012 12:57pm

Zulu wrote: »

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

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.

On-line aggression. Why is it acceptable?

Comments