kefrank

Honest question: do you find that condescension and sarcasm contribute to a positive atmosphere for dialog?

creekdipper

If you are talking to me, I am trying to be helpful by bringing attention to abusive behavior. I thought the feedback forum was where such issues are supposed to be discussed per moderator instructions.

I personally find it ironic that defending the moderators and the forum from insulting provocation would be labeled "trolling."

I don't remember any "conversation" or even being given the opportunity to have a discussion about "trolling." I remember an illustrative point that was made in rebuttal to accusations (only after attempts to have an objective discussion rebuffed in favor of insults) being falsely characterized as "trolling" based upon "perception" of how something could be taken based upon the complaint of someone who calls people "bigots" and states that the moderators are "okay with white supremacy." Are you saying that those actions (along with other insults) are examples of "being helpful" while mentioning those facts is "trolling?"

Perhaps it would help if you could provide a definition of "trolling." If it's "posting comments solely to be provocative," you have members who do that constantly...as acknowledged here by one of your own team. We have members blatantly libeling other members. We have members constantly ignoring mod instructions to address the posts and not the posters. We have threads being locked and/or retitled with no explanation (and with even mods expressing puzzlement and seemingly unaware of what transpired).

Those are all facts and not perceptions. If we cannot air the dirty laundry in the Feedback Forum...and it seems that plenty of others do so frequently without being accused of "trolling" (even the self-confessed "trolls")...then where can we do so?

Several members in this particular forum have expressed the perception of bias in the way various viewpoints are treated. The issue even generated a thread here. Do you think those sentiments might have some basis in fact?

Some of us would like to have a forum in which ideas could be discussed without resorting to calling other members "morons," "idiots," "liars," "cowards," "bigots," "white supremacists," etc. simply for having a different opinion. One in which people can disagree and still be civil and perhaps even friendly.

And I would offer the suggestion that before publicly accusing people of "trolling," particularly when you yourself admit that the accusation isn't technically correct, the poster be given a chance to explain himself. Isn't that only fair? And even in an instance of admitted good-natured "trolling," the same opportunity be extended to see if it's an unprovoked incident or a response to previous statements from opponents.

Some posters have put up with a lot of direct, personalized insults over the past few years (in addition to numerous thinly-veiled personal insults in addition to many more group insults). And, by and large, those who are targets generally respond with good humor, sarcasm, or the proverbial "soft answer which turns away wrath"...a form of "turning the other cheek." Isn't that the type of response the moderators would prefer over flame wars?

Wouldn't that be considered a helpful attitude vs. "trolling" solely for the purpose of stirring things up?

creekdipper

Honest answer:

Yes, I do. At least, depending upon how they are used and the honesty of the target.

Case in point: Selective correction of "typos." When a poster nastily insults the education and/or intelligence of another member or group, often with hateful epithets, I find it amusing to point out mistakes in the insulting party's own post. If that person is honest, self-deprecating, or self-aware, they might realize their own shortcomings and think twice the next when tempted to insult others.

Same for "condescension." When someone belittles others, they have already diminished themselves by revealing their win insecurities. A little dose of much-needed humility might shame them or at least give them pause if they're not too egotistical to absorb the lesson.

If the person has a good heart, they might reflect upon their name-calling. If not, at least it might amuse others who'd much rather see a humorous exchange over a tit-for-tat, hostile insult-fest.

And it can send the unstated message that the initial attacks didn't achieve the trolling purpose of riling the target(s).

It's a calculated risk and strategy. It's worked on me whenever I was getting
too big for my britches.

kefrank

If I'm understanding what you wrote here, you believe the responsibility for this tactic contributing to positive dialog rests solely on the recipient of the condescension or sarcasm. Is that accurate?

On the whole, have you found this to actually be effective in discussions here? Have people mostly been endeared to your views or desired to continue in discussion when you intentionally choose to be condescending?

creekdipper

Yes, that's accurate. I expect most people to have the ability to recognize the intent to "bring [someone] down a notch" when that person has gone out of his/her way to deliberately misrepresent, insult, slander/libel, or otherwise demean an opponent.

I recognize when others do this and see the intent behind it, and I don't think others have any less ability to do so.

It's not the first resort. One can appeal directly to their sense of fairness and decency. But failing that, it's a way of standing up to internet bullies and tribal sorts.

Is it effective. Not usually, especially considering the level of animosity being expressed. But it may amuse others as well who are tired of the antics from the haters.

Ideally, the situation would be corrected as fast as the new member whose recent new account was deleted within hours of being activated. But slaps on the wrist haven't been effective, either. And those are very rare, too.

kefrank

Thanks for continuing to answer my questions. Is it fair to say then that in your own mind you believe that being condescending should be an effective way to promote positive discussion but in actual practice it has not been? If so, what is it that motivates you to continue doing so? You've referenced your own amusement and the potential amusement of others. Is there more than that?

creekdipper

Sure.

It takes some of the joy away from the hater.

It is a humorous version of "sticks and stones...."

It maintains the time-honored tradition of negating a bully's rhetoric through satire.

It may discourage potential imitators, supporters, and/or copycat sycophants by exposing the shallowness of the attacker's ideas.

It sends a message of support to the targets of the bullies.

Down to 4%.

creekdipper

Also, kefrank, thanks for continuing to press the conversation through questioning rather than jumping to conclusions or trying to steer the conversation into a preconceived verdict.

(Switched to computer so as to have unlimited access since I'm up early at 4 AM. Fell asleep with phone in hand while answering your last question).

I like the Socratic method, and without putting words in your mouth, I think I can ascertain your view on the subject. If I am characterizing it correctly, I think you'd say that satire, sarcasm, and condescension only hurt the overall atmosphere. In many ways, I agree. When it's a one-on-one personal level (a true "turn the other cheek" scenario), I think it demonstrates superior character to remain silent. And, without tooting my own horn, I have done that on many, many occasions. I've had other members recognize that (one PM from a long while back said "Don't know how you do it" re: ignoring insults).

And, on a theological level, I understand that challenge. I'm often reminded that if correction is not done "in love," it's not a good work, and I struggle with that. Just read a newspaper column on that very subject Friday. One part sees someone unjustly being maligned and the automatic inclination is to respond; the better part restrains that nature. My mind sees weaknesses in opponents' false accusations and ways to hurt them with savage ridicule, and I generally resist that (particularly the ones that would be most hurtful personally). It's not enough to say, "They asked for it" as justification.

On the other hand, when the falsehoods and slandering (treating these pages as ongoing "conversations") rise to ridiculous levels that go unchallenged, that gets my dander up. I understand that some people actually believe they are doing the right thing by attacking others, and a few may actually even believe what they say is true. It's hard to believe that all do, however. And it's frustrating to see members thumb their noses at forum rules and publicly challenge the mods to do something about their behavior with apparent impugnity.

I've been told to "Chill out...it's just an internet forum." And I get that. But why are we wasting precious time if all we are doing is just playing games (which is the frequent charge from some, although I got in trouble for "trolling" when I posted as though taking them at the word and treating their falsehoods as mere game-playing...at which the "games" and "laughs" suddenly became serious business to the ones who refused to take others seriously. It was an object lesson...trolling in one sense, but trolling with a purpose to demonstrate a truth, not to provoke).

So what's the upshot of this? Does "condescension" increase civility? Probably not for the worst abusers of the forum. Does it increase respect for the "condescender's" views? Probably not that, either, although that is not the goal.

Then what's the point? I suppose the point is to demonstrate to the insult crowd, who tend to run in packs, that they are not as brilliant as they think they are...and that their arguments may go unchallenged in a forum of like-minded individuals but will encounter the meat grinder of intellectual scrutiny in the outside world. For people who like to belittle certain religious, social, or intellectual views, it signals to them that they had better sharpen their wits and arguments if they want to try their routine elsewhere.

And from the aforementioned theological perspective, Jesus could be "condescending" (although, as God, He had that perfect right, and in the best sense of the word, He "condescended" to come to earth in human form in order to be our substitutionary sacrifice. Also to "condescend" to speak to us on our level of understanding, which isn't much.) Paul could be very condescending. So could other apostles, and the prophets, and David, and.... That's not to say that it should always be the preferred method of discourse, just that it has its place.


You've raised some interesting questions, and I wanted you to know that I've thought about them many times before. If you can trust this, know that I've passed up many opportunities to go after posters here with a blistering response and have just shaken my head and refused to go there. But when I've seen people I thought were decent human beings ganging up on other members (not me) in order to mock and ridicule viciously, I tend to go into attack mode. There's nothing anyone can say to me that will make my blood pressure rise, but I feel differently when I see it happen to others. And, as a member of an online community, I feel offended by the calculated intent by some to ruin the very nature of the forum.

You can see that in their messaging. When they can't run off posters, their next step is to constantly complain about nothing in order to wear out the moderators, who just want some peace. When they can't make those charges stick, their next solution is to bluster and threaten to leave the forum. When that doesn't work, they suggest that the forum be "nuked" since it's not what they want it to be.

And when others try to post civil conversations, they malign those efforts as "falsely patting themselves on the back." Personally, I think a response that says, "I object to that accusation...I very sincerely pat myself on the back" is a way to the abusers in a way that might make someone smile rather than picking up the dirt clods and flinging them back.

That's a long-winded (but sincere!) answer, but that's what I do.

hdnmickey

Appears to be time to try again.

It's great to have rules regarding personal attacks and enforcing them when they are broken. But there are also rules about trolling, and short of a few "new" members, they don't appear to get very little attention. Given the level of trolling that often occurs here I feel it's all but impossible for the members here to address it within the rules if the mods don't step in. So if that's the plan, as it appears to be, then it seems were getting exactly what one would expect. And it's driving people away that are tired of the trolling.

kefrank

I appreciate you taking the time to answer sincerely. I've been thinking more about communication styles lately and your answers were interesting. In general, yes I think satire, sarcasm, and condescension are more likely to hurt than to help the overall atmosphere. That's not to say there's never a place for them, but I tend to believe they are constructive only in very rare cases. This view was mainly formed through my own lens of experience, having been in the past one who was very quick to turn to sarcasm (more in real life conversation than online though). I still have a tendency to come off as condescending in my verbal communication, though it's almost never intentional now. Nevertheless, I still observe the effects and lament them, even when pride tells me the other party "deserves" it.

I mainly was curious how you view all of this, because my general observation of your interactions here has been consistent with your answers: you seem to use these tactics fairly regularly and the result generally seems to be others only digging in further in opposition, to the point of being completely dismissive of you. So I was honestly curious what would keep you going that direction vs. trying another approach if your goal is really to have productive dialog. My conclusion from what you've shared is that you and I probably have differing ideas about what constitutes productive dialog, so I at least better understand the means you are employing. Thanks for being open and sticking with my string of questions.

VinVega

This thread had pretty much fizzled out until you came and and started pointing fingers and making it about a poster. If that's your definition of help or defending the mods, I don't want it or need it.

You are not a mod here. It's not your job to get the rest of the posters to behave in a certain way.

And since you don't report posts, but prefer to condescend to the people you feel have slighted yourself or others in thread, it makes my job that much harder. "Geez, VinVega, you scolded me on my post (that 10 people reported), but didn't look 20 posts back to see where someone said something nasty about something else."

At this point I would have to say I'm the only thing keeping you from being banned from the site. And I've played devil's advocate for a long time with your situation, but frankly I'm getting tired and given your posts above you're not capable of changing your ways. So there will be another incident of trolling, I'm almost certain of it and that will be that.

creekdipper

Thanks and you're welcome. I would ask you to PM with examples of what you are talking about since I am genuinely puzzled. The usual reaction to asking is either silence or something so benign and non-offensive (not even relatively speaking when compared to the provocations) but just...harmless. When unfounded complaints are made against anyone, I find that they're generated by a negative reaction to the other person's views rather than any genuine overstepping of boundaries.

Anyway, enjoyed the conversation and always willing to listen to honestly-proffered, objective advice.

(And I am serious about the PMs, even if it's just to point out specific post numbers in specific threads to keep it simple. The general observations are appreciated but it's hard to know what to change without specific examples of unproductive dialogue. Thanks).

[Edit: For what it's worth, the "different approaches" you reference were attempted many times...all unilaterally and expressing willingness to bend over backwards twice in order to keep the peace. Those attempts were unsuccessful. Even total silence did not stop unprovoked attacks with even greater intensity, so not sure what other approach could be taken. I'd be interested in hearing your views.)

kefrank

I can appreciate your request, but I don't have the time or inclination to go back through posts I've already read to find things I believe you are capable of discerning yourself, if you really desire to do so. I would humbly offer that your phrasing here about "the usual reaction to asking" is not very motivating. It suggests you've been challenged on this kind of thing before, and have summarily dismissed it. It also implies a preemptive dismissal of any future attempts. This, in and of itself, is an example of a condescending attitude that does not invite genuine engagement.

I'm going to be blunt now: I think you have a significant blind spot here. I get the impression that you are either unwilling or unable to understand how condescending you tend to come across here and how often that tends to cause others to put up walls rather than be drawn into any meaningful dialog. I think you sometimes fail to see how the "provocations" you have referred to are at least partially the eventual result of escalation contributed to by your own combative tone. I do genuinely believe you when you say you have many times remained silent or ignored things that are insulting/offensive/vitriolic and that is admirable. On the other hand, I suspect you don't realize how often others here have chosen to remain silent or ignore your own harmful condescension and sarcasm. I say all of these things as someone who has struggled with it all myself, so I'm not trying to point a finger from a seat a judgment. I would only ask that you step back and genuinely consider whether maybe you have a blind spot that could use some illumination. If you decide I'm way off base, so be it. I can only go on what I've observed in your interactions here.

hdnmickey

It's as simple as the recent posts essentially accusing people of being cowards, afraid of having their posts challenged, rather than it simply choosing to no longer engage the few that have proven over and over than not engaging them is the best option.

Kurt D

Exactly. If you don't like the way someone speaks to you, express it, and explain it. If nothing changes, don't speak with that person anymore.

Life's too short to let people you don't even know IRL get you down.

creekdipper

I appreciate your taking the time to express yourself, but I think it only fair to ask for specifics. If behavior is so egregious, there should be many specific examples that stand out. When those examples aren't forthcoming, it's hard to address what needs changing, if anything. If there's a blind spot, maybe you can help if you're willing.

I have a few other points and sincere questions re: your obviously sincere remarks that I feel can only be expressed through PMs for obvious reasons. If you don't mind, I'll shoot you a PM since I have nothing to prove here and you can decide if it's worth your time to respond at your leisure. Does that sound fair to you? Thanks.

kefrank

Sure, you can PM and I'll respond as I can. For what it's worth, regarding specific examples, this whole conversation started with a specific instance that I quoted. I also pointed out a specific case of perceived condescension in this very conversation in my previous post. You can, if you're inclined, use those as a template for considering other instances in which you've done something similar in other threads.

jjcool

Yes. The hypocrisy amongst some of the members and mods on this board is truly staggering.

creekdipper

Thanks and thanks for responses to PMs.

New PMs sent this morning.

VinVega

You haven't even been back 24 hours from a suspension for telling a poster "Why don't you go fuck yourself."

Do you have something constructive to add to the discussion here?

jjcool

Thought we weren't supposed to talk about members disciplinary actions in public. Anyway, according to the email that I finally got from a mod, I was not suspended for the "Go Fuck Yourself" comment, so you may want to check on that. The comment that I was suspended for that was supposedly "stirring the pot" is still up by the way. So inflammatory enough to suspend for, yet not inflammatory enough to remove. Sounds pretty hypocritical. Being suspended for "stirring the pot" by talking about something the mods didnt want talked about, yet coming back to a childish "joke" by some mod/admin that directly references something that we were previously instructed not to talk about, sure sounds like hypocrisy to me as well. Are we now allowed to talk about these things that were previously forbidden?

Is replying to the original post and poster no longer allowed here?

jjcool

Unfortunately it seems like the mods/admins do not respond to questions or emails.

VinVega

I guess the answer is no.

The OP's question has been answered and since this thread is basically now just trying to bait people it is going to be closed.