I don't know what's happened to hatrack but this used to be a place where people could express differences of opinion in a friendly atmosphere.
There was a time when calling people liars and bitches or accusing them of 'killing people for sport'would not have been tolerated except perhaps as joke.
I've noticed that many of the calmer more rational voices have left or reduced their participation dramatically and those left behind are becoming increasingly shrill (including mine).
Sadly, that is what this community has become. Its not fun being here anymore.
Lisa and King of Men are what happened.
Posted by Jamio (Member # 12053) on :
Orson Scott Card has probably been asking himself that question for several years now.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
I feel your pain, Rabbit. Achilles is correct in that a lot of posters have gone to sakeriver over the years - I flirted with it myself, and still might. Mainly I avoid most of the hostile threads, because they're petty and not worth the time. But I do miss many of the folks that have left.
There have been a couple of mass exoduses (e.g. the Leto debacle) but mainly it's been a quiet bleed over, I think.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I've found that the only person whose level of civility you can control is yourself. Getting angry at anyone else doesn't usually help.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
THAT COMMENT MAKES ME SO ANGRY TRES!!!!!!!
Posted by Achilles (Member # 7741) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: I feel your pain, Rabbit. Achilles is correct in that a lot of posters have gone to sakeriver over the years - I flirted with it myself, and still might. Mainly I avoid most of the hostile threads, because they're petty and not worth the time. But I do miss many of the folks that have left.
There have been a couple of mass exoduses (e.g. the Leto debacle) but mainly it's been a quiet bleed over, I think.
And I keep wondering why you aren't there. Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
I agree with Strider! Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
It would hurt me greatly if people couldn't find ways to get along in an online forum. What I love about this place (and I'm relatively new) is that people who are from all different backgrounds can share their ideas.
Attitude, abrasiveness - that stinks. I agree. But doesn't it irk you more to have to leave to find another community centered around people you like better?
I hope you can appreciate that I, someone you disagree with, is making the effort to acknowledge your feelings. I also hope you will not throw out the baby with the bathwater based on one or two people.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
It seems that there are a lot of children trying to flesh out their Locke or Demosthenes resumes. Nearly all of the threads are becoming downright hostile. And if someone disagrees with you, they start swearing, making fun of your education, or stating that you don't have the right to an opinion because you haven't been here long enough.
Jeeze, I've been here since around 2001. People used to have witty, civil discussions.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I found Hatrack approximately this hostile when I first started posting here. It was only hostile to liberals - particularly non-Mormon liberals, though.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
I know I haven't been around as long as others, but it doesn't seem much different to me. This is a site where people debate controversial issues and that is bound to create controversy.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I didn't like Sake, and didn't find it to me any more civil. there are fewer "in your face" rude types there, perhaps, but there was even more ganging up on people than I usually find here. I didn't find it a very nice place, although some of my favorite people post there.
It's a click, far more so than Hatrack has ever been. At least that's how it seemed to me.
And I don't think you can blame all of this on 2 posters....nor do I find the only rude thing here are the people swearing.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
I take all that back. Sakeriver has an American Idol thread. See y'all!
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Armoth, it's not as difficult to find another community as you think. Sakeriver is essentially the Hatrack River ex-patriot forum - I've lurked from time to time, and participated way back during the first big exodus, but I still haven't packed up my things to go.
But it's not because it would be a chore.
And it wouldn't be because of one or two people. One or two people are easy to avoid - a tone-shift for the entire board is not.
I've seen cycles come and go, and unfortunately each "down" cycle erodes away more posters I enjoy and identify with. The tide will at some point sweep me away, too, but not yet.
Posted by BelladonnaOrchid (Member # 188) on :
I have tried to register for Sakeriver before, but it keeps telling me I entered the wrong answer for the security question. Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
The forum software has changed recently, so you should try again. Otherwise, Mike can fix that for you. Posted by Achilles (Member # 7741) on :
Alas, the arial bovine is correct. There will be another cycle to change all this. I'm really sorry Kwea found Sakeriver cliquey.
Still, I hang out there much more than anywhere else.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:Alas, the arial bovine is correct.
I've been eating better, so I might just be the Arial Narrow bovine at this point - some even consider me the Arial Bold bovine... Posted by Achilles (Member # 7741) on :
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I found Hatrack approximately this hostile when I first started posting here. It was only hostile to liberals - particularly non-Mormon liberals, though.
I've thought about this before and find it amusing. I remember when liberal viewpoints were jumped on more readily. It does seem like that's flip flopped over the years.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think that's a direct result of King of Men. No better way to drive out a certain kind of people than to pollute everything thread with how stupid they are.
The lack of diversity is not because of an idealogical change, but because a metric ton of people have been driven away. That's nothing to be proud of.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am not observing a lack of diversity. I am saying it is more diverse.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Only if you define diverse as bending liberal and Mormon voices much more absent or hushed.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
couple of thoughts -
- I USUALLY don't see people getting treated badly who have given the impression of being thoughtful and arguing in good faith. Most of the bad behavior that I notice is in a feedback loop.
- The exceptions to the above are usually about religion. This might be an opportunity for a bit more moderation (meaning moderator action). We have rules against proselytizing on this site, perhaps those rules should be interpreted to be against criticism of each other's religous beliefs. I'm honestly torn here, because I find those discussions among the most interesting and personally useful, but perhaps the rude behavior outweighs the benefit I (we) derive from those discussions. (And at any rate, I don't get much value from rude criticism of others' beliefs.)
- I don't flag posts. I'm sure most of us are similarly reluctant to try to invoke moderator action. Is this a good thing? I have no idea how much flagging does happen...perhaps it's a ton and the moderators don't find most of the complaints actionable. Or maybe the mods don't see the bad behavior. Not sure.
- Maybe we need to call for civility when someone we agree with is being rude. I don't do this often...I'm not a model citizen in the first place so I hesitate to cast stones, but perhaps that shouldn't stop me from clearing my throat when somebody seems to have crossed the line and then some.
---
- It's hard to figure out how to modify the behavior of others; I should probably focus on being polite and pleasant to converse with. Being interesting would be good too, but that seems hard.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
As opposed to being almost all Mormon and other people being told they weren't welcome because they weren't Mormon? Yeah, this is more diverse.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I haven't noticed any lack of LDS member activity or their point of view. Do LDS members really feel hushed? Perhaps that demographic is more heavily represented among Hatrack members than I realized and people are just being quiet about it? I'd have to guess at least ten to twenty percent of frequent posters are openly LDS...I hadn't imagined OSC's total readership is any more LDS than that.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Told they weren't welcome because they weren't Mormon? Total fantasy. Never happened.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I'm really sorry Kwea found Sakeriver cliquey.
I'm not. The reason Sake often feels "better" than Hatrack is directly related to its cliquishness.
quote:I think that's a direct result of King of Men.
No. In fact, I believe that anyone who says this sort of thing doesn't understand forum dynamics. It's no one poster; it's no batch of posters. It has very little to do with individual members at all.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I don't know what's happened to hatrack but this used to be a place where people could express differences of opinion in a friendly atmosphere.
There was a time when calling people liars and bitches or accusing them of 'killing people for sport' would not have been tolerated except perhaps as joke.
(my italics)
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Lisa and King of Men are what happened.
Heh.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
If you deny the effect of calling a certain group of people completely stupid on a regular basis, then you don't understand people.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:Originally posted by BelladonnaOrchid: I have tried to register for Sakeriver before, but it keeps telling me I entered the wrong answer for the security question.
Are you able to find the movies the questions are asking about on IMDb? If so, try copying and pasting the actor's name directly, and leave off any extra spaces at the end. Spelling and punctuation do count, but capitalization doesn't.
For example, one of the challenge questions is "Who played Lt. Sean Lambert in the 2002 TV movie Interceptor Force 2?" As you can see from that movie's IMDb page, the actor's name was Olivier Gruner. So "Olivier Gruner" or "olivier gruner" or "oLiViER GRUNer" should all work.
Give it a couple more tries. If you still can't get it to work, just send me an email at the address in my profile here and I'll set up an account for you with a temporary password.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Here, wanna hear some forum influx theory?
1. A forum's natural state is one of slow decline. Posters atrophy. Regular posters fall into lurking, or vanish from the site. This happens over the course of years. It is a gradual process. It is usually motivated by environmental changes ("I don't feel like I fit in at X anymore") or life changes ("I got a job."). Forums have need of replenishment to maintain activity.
2. Replenishment comes in the form of the forum's 'hook' that turns non-posters into posters. How do users find the site and decide to become posters? What common interests do they share? A forum becomes a demographic representative of the demographics that leech in through this hook. Active posting populations on the site will often transform over the years to mirror changes in the hook.
3. When large changes have occurred in a forum's overall demeanor over time, one usually ought to look at the hook. What has changed in it? In the case of Hatrack's changes, one need only look at which of those changes have been precipitated by changes in Orson Scott Card's demeanor and his notoriety. What kind of curious onlookers would OSC and his site bring in today as opposed to ten years ago?
4. Over the course of the years, the level of moderation in a highly political community, or any community which caters to a sub-population of people who are very zealous about their views, will determine the way in which the population will evolve. It tends to follow a pattern of Shrillness By Default. In any typical hatrack-like community undergoing potential change in tone, you will have a percentage of posters who prefer to (or will fall to) arguing in a 'shrill' fashion. You will also have people who prefer a chill, non-hostile community.
If you do not specifically curtail the 'shrill,' it will win every time.
If you look back at Hatrack when it was less 'hostile,' (I lurked during this point, mostly) you'll see the chill posters posting in droves, and the could-go-either-way posters matching the chill tone. You will always have posters which disrupt this, however. If for whatever reason the site's moderation can not or does not opt to properly curtail the influence of arguers that fall into two general categories.
— a 'Vehement' strongly believes in something to the point that it slowly overrides their cool if anyone disagrees with them. If a soft-spoken or generally pleasant poster consistently disagrees with them, even politely, it will drive the Vehement into progressively more capricious and dismissive argumentation. Result: after a certain point, the Vehement controls the tone of debate. People looking to avoid hostility (the chill posters, pleasant dudes, etc) leech out into the "oh, I generally avoid those discussions" category, and only those looking to pick a fight or invest in a fight will brawl with the Vehement, as the outcome is guaranteed (a fight).
— A 'Ferrous Cranus' (or a 'Slag') absolutely refuses to alter their stance on anything and they typically seem too dumb or too irrational to. They are not ever actually engaging in a dialogue. They have one consistent view and they will constantly 'correct' others and, in turn, avoid any self-correction and defy even the most patient and well-intentioned poster's attempts to provoke critical thought and remain obliquely incapable of understanding even the most well-worded corrections of their obvious mistakes.
— A subgroup of the Slag is the Radioactive Slag, whose default positions are typically ones that are blatantly offensive to the nominal population of the board, so they are constantly provoking ire and responses that are always, ultimately, fruitless.
These folks have the power to transform the argumentative environ of any board to themselves. It will always happen the same way, if they are allowed. It is a well observed phenomenon.
In the case of Hatrack, critical mass was achieved when, on top of other brewing problems (OSC's polemic had changed the forum's poster replenishment draw), there came a season of radioactive slags. Bean Counter and Reshpecobiggle stand out. They helped drive the forum into a much more acrimonious tone as they wear down people's patience and cede ground to an environment of provocative and dismissive argumentation.
Strange as it may seem, elsewhere I have long worked as the primary peacekeeper. I have to nip duders like these in the bud. it's the most important role of a forum's moderation team past preventing the manufacture of drama.
This forum is not moderated in a way which prevents this change from happening. It does not make good use of temps, probation, subject bans, and the regretful but necessary culling of toxic posters who refuse to change their ways. Bean Counter was allowed to post for a long, long time. When he finally got the axe after multiple unnecessary warnings, he came back under an obvious alt and ... was allowed to post again. And he counts only as an extreme example. People half as bad as him have to be curtailed (e.g., "resh, if you want to keep posting here, you need to stay out of abortion debates from now on; you've proven that you're not able to handle them in a respectful way").
In addition, the 'thread lock' system is too much of a clusterbomb. It gives a problem poster the capacity to nuke an entire discussion. It does not extract them from the process and allow the chill posters to continue in a discussion with the problem element controlled. it simply puts everything on hold until the problem poster can go mong up the next thread on that subject.
A forum's moderation team might simply be saying 'we wish for our users to have the freedom to argue that way if they wish.' This is their choice. As long as they understand what that choice is going to result in over time in a sufficiently aged community, they are welcome to make it, but they shouldn't be surprised when a few months of fallout occur from argumentation that frustrates a community at large and tilts the forum's tone to one that is increasingly hostile.
That's my take on it, anyway. Hatrack is having legacy-level problems. This stuff creeps up over the years. I have actually watched it eventually capsize whole other communities.
The Hatracks of the internet actually create the phenomenon of 'refugee' forums, which are absurdly common.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Heck, I'm a chronic outsider. I always feel on the outside of any clique I can identify, even within my immediate family. But I got a warm welcome at Sakeriver, and it's not very hard to participate over there...there's a lot of specific history and memes that I probably don't fully get, but nobody seems to be holding that against me. (They do seem to have a habit of getting together IRL which would be hard for me in various ways but I'm happy to have a place to post a pic of my kid and have people go "cute" even if I still feel on the periphery of the circle.)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If you deny the effect of calling a certain group of people completely stupid on a regular basis, then you don't understand people.
It doesn't matter, though. It's not just KoM doing it; it's not just Lisa doing it. If you think you don't do it, you're not self-aware enough. People insult each other all the time, in lots of ways, and there were plenty of acerbic jerks before the current batch of acerbic jerks showed up.
The difference in dynamic is larger than that. I think Sam, who appears to have had my experiences with various forums, has a pretty good handle on it.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
It's swung back and forth - though I have noticed more vocal Mormons and Jews over the years.
I also have noticed that bitingly satirical wit has often been replaced by scathing invective - mainly because many of those who valued wit over invective have moved on.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Told they weren't welcome because they weren't Mormon? Total fantasy. Never happened.
Several times. Probably in 1997 or early 1998. Do you understand the effect of calling people liars?
Posted by Achilles (Member # 7741) on :
Interesting ideas, Samprimary.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: If you deny the effect of calling a certain group of people completely stupid on a regular basis, then you don't understand people.
Let me parse that: "If you don't agree with me, then you're stupid."
How hard are you trying to be ironic? Seriously, are there mirrors in your house?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Aha, I see the thread is well on its way to being a case study of the macro.
*puffs on bubble pipe*
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Interesting thread....
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Well, at least I got a bit of forum influx theory first.
(Seriously, Sam, pretty interesting stuff - do you have any resources on the topic you could point me to?)
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Interesting analysis, Samprimary.
The biggest "bomb" that I remember on the forum was when Leto/GrenME was finally, ultimately banned from hatrack. There was a huge divide over the issue, with people who disagreed with the banning, people who agreed with it, and people who were just so fed up with the argument over it that they left.
We lost a lot of really great posters, and most went to sakeriver.
We had always been a "self-policing" forum with the "cool heads" calmly and rationally overwhelming the hot heads until they either fell in line or left. All of a sudden, half the cool heads had disappeared. And the hot heads started to gain more footing.
Add to that OSC's "War Watch" starting to color the tone of the board, along with the posters it brought along, and there was a more significant shift away from calm, rational, witty banter and debate.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
I definitely miss many of the regulars who went over to sakeriver and never returned(as well as others who stopped posting for various other reasons). Hatrack is certainly a different place without their voices. I also miss Leto. We had hung out a few times when he was still on the east coast, and he's a great guy, just very vocal about his opinions. His real life persona was much more gentle and laid back.
[ June 12, 2009, 04:05 PM: Message edited by: Strider ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:We had always been a "self-policing" forum with the "cool heads" calmly and rationally overwhelming the hot heads until they either fell in line or left.
It is impossible to overstate the importance of a frequently active moderator in this endeavor. The reason the whole "Leto" flap mattered is that it helped to break the bond between the forum regulars and the mods. In particular, it made the mods of the time dread dropping by, and it made some of the regulars doubt their impartial wisdom.
No public forum can survive that.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:(Seriously, Sam, pretty interesting stuff - do you have any resources on the topic you could point me to?)
It's all collected experiences. I don't know what in the way of resources I could point you to. I have to pretty much generate it all myself and present it for consumption and revision if I want to create these resources. I do have something floating around somewhere from a while back which talks about how a lot of forums default to claiming the text of the board architecture's Terms of Service in the signup process is "the forum's rules" and why this is always a bad idea (it does not create clear standards of posting, and it does not present a 'moderative intent') and it is never true in practice. That might be somewhat pertinent to Hatrack if I could find it.
quote:We had always been a "self-policing" forum with the "cool heads" calmly and rationally overwhelming the hot heads until they either fell in line or left. All of a sudden, half the cool heads had disappeared. And the hot heads started to gain more footing.
A process of cyclical homogenization. This is why Shrill by Default happens. :<
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
For those of you who mentally include me with Lisa and King of Men, I would like to state as a disclaimer that I am also regularly post in Sakeriver. So there's no running away from me ever, I'm like a Stalker with no police department Posted by Philosofickle (Member # 10993) on :
I can't really say much as far as the over all mood of hatrack goes. However I was a very active member of the forum under a different name before I left on my two year mission for the Mormon church. When I got back I couldn't remember the old password to my name and came up with this one. I'ts taken me almost my entire time under this name to rack up the number of posts that I would generate in one or two months before. I've wondered if it was me that changed, or the boards. I've come to think that it's probably both. But I do feel like Hatrack was a little bit more accepting back in the day.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
By the way, Matt, I'm still maintaining the archives of your Segreda game. Just thought you might like to know. Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: ...there's a lot of specific history and memes that I probably don't fully get, but nobody seems to be holding that against me. (They do seem to have a habit of getting together IRL which would be hard for me in various ways but I'm happy to have a place to post a pic of my kid and have people go "cute" even if I still feel on the periphery of the circle.)
Heavens, you are one of the people who slide in so seamlessly that it's hard to remember you haven't been there forever. That's great.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
*loves CT*
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Sam, that was an excellent post; summed up the process that Hatrack has been experiencing very nicely. The only quibble I have with it (which has actually been addressed in subsequent posts) is that Hatrack's moderation has always (at least since I joined in '99, anyway, and with some notable exceptions) been primarily community driven--a combination of leading by example and occasional admonition when a new member posted in ways that were outside of the forum's culture.
quote:Originally posted by saxon75: By the way, Matt, I'm still maintaining the archives of your Segreda game. Just thought you might like to know.
And if you were to ever want to pick back up with it, I'd love to play Buchek again. Man I loved that character.
And scifibum, I'll second what CT said; your presence there feels entirely right. It seems a little weird that you haven't been there for years, honestly (strange as I know that probably sounds).
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I know of at least one regular and well-respected member of the community that essentially stopped posting at Hatrack because Lisa and King of Men made discussions here too unpleasant.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
ya scifi, if I had a clique you'd be in.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:The only quibble I have with it (which has actually been addressed in subsequent posts) is that Hatrack's moderation has always (at least since I joined in '99, anyway, and with some notable exceptions) been primarily community driven--a combination of leading by example and occasional admonition when a new member posted in ways that were outside of the forum's culture.
Really I don't see how that does not fall into my theory of progression. Self-policing, leading by example and admonition, 'works until it does not.' If there's even a gradual change, the example set by the forum will begin to actually encourage what, before, it seemed to keep at bay.
Not to mention the decline caused by posters who are immune to either example or admonition and are allowed to hitch their tendrils to any discussion they choose to dominate.
Imagine if over the course of half a year, just three posters who acted like, say, Malanthrop appeared and remained consistent in their behavior. Greater forummes than Hatrack hath been slay'd by less, sire.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Imagine if over the course of half a year, just three posters who acted like, say, Malanthrop appeared and remained consistent in their behavior.
That's not that far off.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Hatrack has a different problem now than acute Malanthrop types. It can all be changed and course-corrected (easily!) but I have great doubt that it will and I think that you are seeing the emergence of Hatrack's new 'normal' on account of that fact.
I don't know if many people care what I think got you guys here or whether I have any right to make that kind of a lecture, but either way I do think it's a raw deal for all the good posters here. Forums are actually pretty serious business! They're communities. People hate to see their communities sour or break down. They often represent a lot of social investment to people.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Imagine if over the course of half a year, just three posters who acted like, say, Malanthrop appeared and remained consistent in their behavior.
That's not that far off.
Yep, that's about right.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I don't know if many people care what I think got you guys here or whether I have any right to make that kind of a lecture, but either way I do think it's a raw deal for all the good posters here.
Sam, I think we're operating entirely on the same wavelength, here, probably based on very similar theories of forum development. I said my piece on this one a few years ago, though.
-------
People, lest you keep whining about individual bad apples, let me point out that individual bad apples do not matter. Every forum gets them. It's as inevitable as death. In the life of any forum there will be a period where people uninterested in the kind of conversation you want start butting their way in and -- consciously or not -- trying to transform the forum into their own image.
If the apples are of a certain sort, as Sam has noted, the only thing to prevent this is moderation. Note that I am not implying that these apples are necessarily bad enough; rather, even very decent apples can be detrimental to the health of the forum if they are apples of a specific sort. It is a moderator's job to find these people while they're still early blossoms and deal with them (in a variety of constructive ways, hopefully) before they bear fruit.
Calling out individual posters is just a way to slake your own resentments.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
I was thinking about it a little bit, and I just wanted to say, I don't like it much when people compare Hatrack and Sakeriver, especially to talk about how much better Sakeriver is. As gratified as I am that so many people have taken part (and continue to take part) in the community there, Sakeriver is far from perfect. Not that I think anyone is suggesting so, I just felt the need to point out that we have had our problems there in the past, and I'm sure there will be more in the future. There have been a number of people who have left for one reason or another, some on good terms, some not. And a number of people have voiced their disapproval of the way I run things there, both privately and publicly. Some people like it there, some don't.
I also want to take this opportunity to reiterate the enormous personal respect and appreciation I have for Papa Moose.
Posted by Achilles (Member # 7741) on :
Here! Here!
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Tom: There's a reason they are called bad apples. Sometimes - when they are consistent in their nastiness, as pointed in their targets, and as relentless in their posting, they do matter.
Pop is one of the best people in the entire world, and the only reason that's at all qualified is because I haven't met everyone in the world yet.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Keep in mind that while you gesticulate towards the 'bad apples,' you in particular do not have a constructive response to them or even a large quantity of well-meaning posters. You're like a tinderbox. If you feel like flames have nicked you, you flare up and exacerbate everything.
Before lamenting the acts of others, you, of all people here, need to subject your own behavior to criticism. This is the honest truth.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Wow, Samp, what a positive and sensible post. And it carries so much weight coming from you.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Sometimes - when they are consistent in their nastiness, as pointed in their targets, and as relentless in their posting, they do matter.
This is where moderation comes in. If all of those things are true, you do no good whatsoever mentioning it yourself.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Wow, Samp, what a positive and sensible post. And it carries so much weight coming from you.
It is positive and it is sensible, and more importantly, it is true. You have a negative response to many things, including criticism. You often act worse than those you are criticising.
If we're talking about the health of forums, reactionary tinderboxes do not improve things with their criticism, whether or not they think they do or if they are justified in their callous insults because it is in 'response' to other bad apples.
It just makes them a 'bad apple' as well.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
I just want to to mention, in regards to saxon's post, that I brought up sakeriver not to argue that it was better than hatrack, but solely to lament the loss of the posters who went there and never returned. Though I'm guessing you were referencing other posts that were more specifically discussing the merits of your forum. I should also say that since I haven't really been to your forum in a few years, I don't know how many old time posters don't post at either and just dropped off the face of the online world.
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
I've lurked a bit on Sakeriver, but find it intimidating how LONG all the threads are. I don't have time to read dozens and dozens of pages to catch up and there are very few new threads ever posted.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The threads in Sake are not for catching up on. They're for entering at the end.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: The threads in Sake are not for catching up on. They're for entering at the end.
Megathreads are awesome. They act like particulate filters for degrees of posting. Twitterposts in here, essays in there, lost discussions in there, thanks
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I don't like the long threads either. I find the topic too general and most of the time I skip over them. A catchy thread title is a good way to get me to read something. Noticing the Ronoff thread is on page 165 isn't.
However everyone else seems to like it so who am I to complain?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I don't like the long threads either. I find the topic too general and most of the time I skip over them. A catchy thread title is a good way to get me to read something. Noticing the Ronoff thread is on page 165 isn't.
However everyone else seems to like it so who am I to complain?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
It's just a different approach to foruming, and in large part is a reflection of the smaller, more personal nature of sake; the core eternal threads are ongoing conversations about our lives. In a larger forum where there wasn't as much emphasis on knowing each other as people I don't think that they'd work as well.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Another thing newbies on Sake might not notice at first -- especially if they haven't registered -- is the awesome utility of the "New" button. Once you've registered, the "New" button takes you to the first unread post on the associated thread, and only appears if there are new posts. In conjunction with the summary screen that shows the newest posts over the last few minutes, this is a far more efficient way to browse the forum.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:We had always been a "self-policing" forum with the "cool heads" calmly and rationally overwhelming the hot heads until they either fell in line or left.
It is impossible to overstate the importance of a frequently active moderator in this endeavor. The reason the whole "Leto" flap mattered is that it helped to break the bond between the forum regulars and the mods. In particular, it made the mods of the time dread dropping by, and it made some of the regulars doubt their impartial wisdom.
No public forum can survive that.
I had decided to stop posting here, actually, but I would like to hear what this leto incident was. It's starting to sound like a noodle incident, so could you either refresh my memory or clue me in if I missed this entirely?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
:: nods :: Yeah, that is nice.
And if you've read everything you're interested in and want to declutter the screen, clicking the "mark as read" button will remove all remaining "new" indicators.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Only if you define diverse as bending liberal and Mormon voices much more absent or hushed.
Sure. It's all about the lack of Mormon perspective here. LOL
Posted by Achilles (Member # 7741) on :
I don't read the RPG's everyday, so leaving said indicators really helps when I want to catch-up.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I'm really sorry Kwea found Sakeriver cliquey.
I'm not. The reason Sake often feels "better" than Hatrack is directly related to its cliquishness.
quote:I think that's a direct result of King of Men.
No. In fact, I believe that anyone who says this sort of thing doesn't understand forum dynamics. It's no one poster; it's no batch of posters. It has very little to do with individual members at all.
Only if you are part of the clique, Tom. And you don't mind marginilizing those who aren't. It's OK, I haven't missed it much. I had enough of the politics of peer pressure and exclusion in Jr. High.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
I don't know how you people do it. For a bit of time a while back I was posting on hatrack, sakeriver, and grenme, and it was just too much forum to keep track of. Where do you find the time?
It's not that I don't like those other forums, I just realized my mental capacity for foruming is 1.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Kwea: I'm outside the clique and they still tolerate me over there. You don't HAVE to be on the inside. It's an enjoyable forum without hatrack drama.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
I've been on the outside of cliques looking in my whole life. People talk about them as if they're a junior high thing and for a while, I thought they may be right, but then I realized that the cliques were the same, the alienation had simply changed to more subtle snubbing.
Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
I'd appreciate that if someone wishes to tell Orincoro about what he's asking, that they do it off board.
Sorry for my poor attendance over the past few days -- a number of things conspired to give me little to no time. Thank you for the kind comments from those who made them.
Metathreads like this serve a purpose, so I don't want to shut it down. However, it'd be simpler not to have to worry about that if people would avoid personal attacks in their comments, or even mentioning individuals as opposed to trends. Of course, if a demographic mentioned only includes one Hatracker, well, then what can one do. Please be kind.
Things have changed, and things get frustrating. Just because someone says something incorrect does not mean he is a liar. He could be misinformed, or misremembering, or disagreeing with a stated or unstated premise (not an exhaustive list). The word liar implies intent, and I don't think another's intent can be assessed as easily as some others seem to think it can. Of course, some may disagree. Whatever.
I do think the "discuss with passion, listen with respect" has lost most of the second half in most cases. It saddens me.
I've been less active as a poster since I became mod. I don't know if it's avoidable on a forum this size, at least given my personality. I tried to have Moose and Janitor be clearly separate in their actions, but I never got the feeling that people bought into that, so I became reticent to post any opinion lest it seem to have official weight.
I also invariably wait too long to step into situations, because I want people to be able to work through things instead of simply avoiding topics. It's like seeing a cocktail waitress start to lose balance of a tray of drinks -- if you try to save the one that's gonna fall, you risk dunping the entire tray. So sometimes I let the one glass fall.
I continue to think Hatrack is populated with wonderful, well-meaning people, many of whom disagree with me on a number of topics. I've never had a problem with someone disagreeing with me, unless it's as fundamental as someone wishing to hit me and me wishing for him not to. And that goes all the way back to junior high, which hardly counts.
I wish more people could disagree without the levels of animosity they show. But if wishes were horses, we'd all be eating steak.
Anyway, please keep personal attacks elsewhere (off Hatrack, or non-existent might be better).
--PJ
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
It wasn't a clique issue, Pix, although obviously Kwea will disagree. He and Mike have very different posting styles and had a clash that stemmed from a misunderstanding. Some ego got involved and Kwea left. I'm being purposefully vague, because while I do have an interpretation of where the misunderstanding happened there's no real point in hashing through all of it. I bring it up solely because, while I'm not saying Kwea was entirely in the wrong, I think his characterization of what happened is unfair and I want that on the record. He'll say that I think that because I'm part of the clique, of course.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
That's fine if it works for you. It didn't for me, as much for how I saw a few other people treated as for any specific personal reason.
I still hold a large number of specific posters in high regard, and I agree with what Mike said....sake is completely different than Hatrack, despite having a lot of people bleed over from here.
I don't want to post somewhere I am merely tolerated. I am OK if SOME people merely tolerate me (lol) , because that's probably all I do with them too, but if I don;t feel welcome I won't stay.
Listen....I am not bagging on sake, or not trying to, just pointing out that not everyone loved it. I think Mike has created a unique site, and some people love it.
But it's no Hatrack, nor does it try to be. It is it's own thing, one I didn't care for much.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
Is T:man cool?
>.>
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
LOL..I posted my LAST post BEFORE I saw ElJay's post. I won't go into details, and I'd appreciate it if other people won't as well.
I was a lot more open about some personal things there, and it made me feel a little more vunerable when some issues cropped up over there. There were a FEW things that happened to make me feel not welcome over there. It wasn't just the event ElJay referred to, htat was just the final episode.
And I think I am being very fair about sake being a decent place, just not one I felt welcome in.
As far as ego being involved....if someone calls you a liar when you have been completely honest, why bother continuing to engage in conversation with them? I walked away and haven't been back, just as I said I would, and I don't regret it. I don't call that ego, and I consider THAT to be an unfair representation of what happened.
I have nothing further to add, and personally wish even this much had not been brought up.
I think sake is a decent place, although it wasn't for me, and I hope Mike's site continues to prosper. There are a lot of good people over there, and I still correspond with a lot of them one on one.
ElJay, you ARE one of the clique...lol...but you didn't make me feel uncomfortable there. I am sorry if you thought I was trying to be unfair or cast a poor light on people you care about. I wasn't....I was just trying to say that not everyone felt welcome over there.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
BTW, I've been expecting this part of the Hatrack cycle (the self-reflection part) to happen for a while. It gives me hope, as it is one of the more unique things about these forums compared to others I've read.
Kwea, you need to lurk at sakeriver, if only to check out photos of my cute 14-month-old!
-Bok
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
LOL....I should, I guess. Or you could send me a linky. I'd LOVE to see them!
I can't just lurk, I kept wanting to post back. I stopped lurking there right after I left, although Joe tried to drag me back a few times now. Posted by Flying Fish (Member # 12032) on :
I'm very new to Hatrack, and for a very short while was on Ornery under a different name. I'm also very new to internet forums. And, as I've mentioned elsewhere, I am officially a fuddy-duddy (I'm 49).
I have a few rules of thumb I live by. I don't argue for the sake of arguing. If I think someone has a chance of teaching me something, or I have a chance of teaching them something, I like to exchange ideas. If not, don't bother arguing.
I never argue articles of faith. Unfortunately today articles of faith include issues like taxation, global warming, political candidates, etc.
I don't deal with name callers. Any political discussion which devolves into people throwing around terms I started to see in every Ornery thread ("democraps" and "repugnicans" for example). I believe a verse in the Bible says that if a jackass brays at you, don't bray back. I'm officially a type of atheist, but taking that into my heart has certainly saved me an enormous amount of aggravation.
I've also been a restrained by the fact that I've seen numerous people have their internet ramblings come back to haunt them. When I mentioned to my favorite editor that I was posting in an internet forum he grimaced, and recounted some recent cases where editors and publishers and writers have let slip in a forum some term or opinion or careless word which others have seized on to conduct campaigns against them: "He said this! He thinks this! He laughed at this!"
Crud.
I'm not sure exactly what I was looking for when I joined Ornery (I quickly left). I'm not sure what I was looking for here. And I'm not sure exactly how long I'll stay. Sometimes it's a lot of fun, and I sense some very good people out there. Other times.....
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
This isn't the first time hatrack has had a "self-reflection thread", they come in waves, as hatrack flows in waves.
I do hope that general demeanor of posting at Hatrack becomes more agreeable again. Then again, maybe I only find myself opening volatile threads. Fluff is underrated.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I like the middle ground. Things don't HAVE to be either fluff or volcanoes, you know. Posted by Fluff (Member # 4835) on :
I love you too, Greg!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Papa Janitor: I wish more people could disagree without the levels of animosity they show. But if wishes were horses, we'd all be eating steak.
You don't have to wish for much, you know. You can just do. With relatively minor alterations in your moderation style you can end this current animosity peak.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Glad to hear the Segreda campaign is still in an archive somewhere. I've been thinking a lot about it lately. It was supposed to go to a new place, beyond the Tall Grass... and I'm now thinking about writing a novel set entirely beyond the Tall Grass.
Maybe I'll take some folks there... after my wedding, though.
Orincoro, you don't really need details - and quite frankly, they're not even interesting enough for me to remember very clearly. I think my previous post gave all the salient info. It's one of those things where people were really mad, and now it all seems so silly.
But even before then, we had "bad seed" posters... far worse than anything I've seen recently... and they either got banned, or shunned by other posters until they got frustrated/bored and left.
It's not any given person or people, it's the "shrill default" that Sam mentioned - at least in large part.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
quote: But even before then, we had "bad seed" posters... far worse than anything I've seen recently... and they either got banned, or shunned by other posters until they got frustrated/bored and left.
And yet we're always here, lurking in the shadows...
*cue creepy music*
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Papa Janitor: I wish more people could disagree without the levels of animosity they show. But if wishes were horses, we'd all be eating steak.
You don't have to wish for much, you know. You can just do. With relatively minor alterations in your moderation style you can end this current animosity peak.
I don't know; even "relatively minor alterations" can cause a round of "but you didn't step in when she said" and "you're not going to get away with that under the new standard" and what have you.
I know I'm probably not posting as much as I used to. Mostly I'm staying out of threads that get into anything much more contentious than movies, music, video games, computer builds, and the like. A couple of times I've had to take a cue from Lincoln: write the message, take a deep breath, and don't send it.
I'm taking omeprazole (an acid reducer) these days. I'm not saying Hatrack was the cause, but...
It is a pity that there often doesn't seem to be as much to be gained by joining a passionate discussion lately. It frequently seems like rather than coming away with a deeper understanding of all sides you're more likely to come away feeling like many participants are (pick one or more) intractable, hypersensitive, malicious, a short hop away from making issues personal, vindictive, or more interested in provoking a response than actually participating in a discussion.
I think my own head has cooled off a lot in my time with Hatrack, so that's probably for the better. 'Twould be sad if the result was feeling out of place here.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Hi All -- Lurker checking in. It's kinda reassuring to see that some things never change, including the inevitable "what happened to Hatrack?" around this community.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I don't know; even "relatively minor alterations" can cause a round of "but you didn't step in when she said" and "you're not going to get away with that under the new standard" and what have you.
Well, I mean, you can't let worries of non-impartiality paralyze moderation. What moderation is going to be impartial? Moderation is impartial even solely based on what moderators are on at what hours. :/
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
True enough. But it's difficult not to think of it as "Who are we going to lose for the sake of moderation which might make things more civil" vs. "Who are we going to lose if things remain in the status quo".
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: Mostly I'm staying out of threads that get into anything much more contentious than movies, music, video games, computer builds, and the like.
That seems to be a very common sentiment, and I almost wonder whether that is part of the problem. When people avoid sensitive and inflammatory topics, it tends to leave the people who are most passionate and incapable of putting the issue at a distance. When there are others, they can act to keep the discussion at a civil tone, and provide less inflammatory points for everyone to respond to.
I doubt that the posters who have been singled out here as inflammatory are doing it for the fun of things. I know that KoM has tried unsuccessfully several times to abstain from all religious threads. Lisa certainly doesn't seem to be enjoying herself on the heated threads, and given how personally Kat seems to take things at times I'm sure she isn't enjoying it. I'm guessing that they get involved because they are topics that they are passionate about, and if want to make sure that their points are expressed. Then, it's just a matter of creating a feedback loop that spirals until a thread is locked and even more people are turned off of that sort of discussion.
So given this, I wonder whether the best solution to the recent animosity would be for people to make a conscious decision to stop ignoring these threads. If we all made a point of putting aside our aversion and contributing, perhaps it would be possible to bring back the ability to have serious discussions on controversial topics. By avoiding topics that arouse their passions, people are already showing restraint, but to really help out the community I think that we all ought to take it a step further and apply that restraint to making constructive posts on serious topics.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Originally posted by Fluff:
I love you too, Greg!
I always told people they had the wrong impression of you Fluff. That you were not shallow and aimless, just misunderstood...a good guy to have around.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: True enough. But it's difficult not to think of it as "Who are we going to lose for the sake of moderation which might make things more civil" vs. "Who are we going to lose if things remain in the status quo".
You don't even really have to lose anyone. You just have to give them clear guidelines on what they're not allowed to do because it is not productive to the health of the community. You can regret that it comes to confrontation, but part of moderation is confrontation and you have to be prepared to undergo this confrontation in ways that are more productive than 'oops, the thread melted, time for damage control.'
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by ricree101: So given this, I wonder whether the best solution to the recent animosity would be for people to make a conscious decision to stop ignoring these threads. If we all made a point of putting aside our aversion and contributing, perhaps it would be possible to bring back the ability to have serious discussions on controversial topics.
I would say that the critical word here is serious. It's not like I'm the angelic beacon of noble posting here, but seriously, once a thread goes contentious around here people honesty have few compelling reasons to think it is worth trying to work with and bring up. Note how I was down to making laconic jabs at the last locked thread. Because I knew it was going to be locked. Nothing was going to be salvaged. It was soon to be a festering wreck on the front page. It inspires further flippancy. One of the people I used to know on hatrack left pretty much for that reason. They said "Hatrack isn't moderated, they just have damage control. They hose down the flames after the building's been burnt."
It's true, too. The thread lock is a crude, garrulous implement. Using it here the way its used is akin to trying to treat the growth of a tumor by killing the patient.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Excellent analysis of forum dynamics, Samprimary! It makes me wonder if a more heavily moderated forum could actually bring back those halcyon days of yore when we had interesting discussions on sensitive topics with diverse viewpoints expressed in an environment of calm and rational discourse. We really did have that on hatrack in the olden days, at times.
But I think the change in the hook has changed hatrack forever. With the start of Ornery, and the influx from there to here, I saw a downturn that hasn't really ever been reversed. It comes from the tone of OSC's writing in recent times.
So, now that serious threads are made ugly and boring by the many shrill voices, there is the fluff, which is fun sometimes, but one can't live on a diet of marshmallow creme.
One thing I've found that hasn't been mentioned so far in this thread. Forums which have a reason for existing, whose members are joining together to accomplish some good thing, and are sharing information about how to go about it, those forums have a source of life and interest that transcends your analysis. They have a wholesomeness to them for that reason. Lately I hang out at the kiva friends forum a lot. There are some really awesome people there, and we get a huge kick when we join together to accomplish things. It's an amazing feeling!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Note how I was down to making laconic jabs at the last locked thread.
Well, in all fairness, you usually only start posting on threads when they've reached the "laconic jab" stage. So that's hardly a surprise. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Normally I'd apologize for my unfashionable lateness but man I ground floored that one.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I found Hatrack approximately this hostile when I first started posting here. It was only hostile to liberals - particularly non-Mormon liberals, though.
I have never particularly noticed this.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Kate started posting here quite a while before you did, though, Teshi. She's one of the forum's original members.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
I don't think that the more reasonable people ignoring the potentially inflammatory threads is the cause of the situation. I didn't always avoid those threads, and I still occasionally try to participate in them if I think that a certain point of view needs to be expressed. When I participate in those threads (which is rarely these days) I try very hard to be reasonable and polite to people, but I have a temper too, and I can only be told I am stupid, or have words put in my mouth that say something entirely different from what I actually said so many times before I lose my temper. When I reach that point, I leave the conversation because calling people names or yelling isn't going to do any good. I've even made the point of stating in some threads that I am leaving because the conversation has taken a turn where I can no longer keep my temper and participate.
I've been ridiculed for leaving, and told that it shows a lack of maturity, rather than staying to further defend my comments. It doesn't make me want to put up with it any more. So I lurk, and I post in some threads that are kind of fluffy, or I ask questions about products I am considering purchasing. But it's not a community where I can participate in topics that I do have opinions on anymore, because the name calling and inflammatory posts defeat the purpose of trying, and they don't go away when other people try to participate, they just get worse.
Posted by Fluff (Member # 4835) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: . . . but one can't live on a diet of marshmallow creme.
Au contraire! Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
The debate style in the more controversial threads is a frustrating one that I have not mastered. When I first started posting here I jumped into some of them blindly and got smacked hard. Not that I'm particularly good at any type of debating (I'm too soft), but I've noticed the following happening a great deal:
1. Strawmen
2. Making it personal -- trying to attack a person's credential rather than their arguments.
3. Taking it personally -- whether it was meant that way or not.
4. Semantic misunderstandings -- I'm not phrasing this right (which is exactly when you get into these types of situations), but basically this happens when someone doesn't use exactly the word you would have used and you end up arguing semantics for a page and a half.
5. Assuming the worst -- This happens when the intent or attitude behind a post is not 100% clear but others in the discussion assume the worst possible motives.
6. Ganging up.
Just a few things I've noticed. It's probably not unique, but these things can and do lead to open hostility.
Of course, there are a few posters who seem to jump straight to open hostility without waiting to see what happens.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I found Hatrack approximately this hostile when I first started posting here. It was only hostile to liberals - particularly non-Mormon liberals, though.
I have never particularly noticed this.
Teshi, it was a long time ago. More than ten years. I wasn't there very long. Years later - after what most people refer to as the "golden age" - I checked Hatrack out on a whim to find it, from my point of view, much improved.
Added: I would also like to add my voice to those thanking Papa for taking care of us. He does a great job at the job he was asked to do.
[ June 13, 2009, 11:39 AM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
I like Papa
Most of you seem really cool-headed. But some topics seem a lot more volatile hmm... I really try to stay away from those threads, my opinions are pretty, uhhh liberal, and I'm not very good at voicing my opinions.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I've been here since about 1996, and I was a liberal non-Mormon for the first 5 years. I didn't notice any bias against liberal non-Mormons, myself, but I might not have noticed. It never felt like a hostile place then as it does now.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:Teshi, it was a long time ago. More than ten years.
Oh, well in that case.
Posted by Sala (Member # 8980) on :
My sign-up date and number of posts may not seem like much, but I've actually lurked here for at least nine years. I've seen the forum go through lots of changes. Some people I really miss who have left. Some people I wouldn't ever miss if they left. I probably wouldn't be missed if I left! But every now and then I still find some interesting threads and sometimes even make my own comments. Just not too often. And never in the "hot" topics. They just get too hot for me to want to participate in them, though I'll read through them for a while until the back-and-forth flames bore me.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: "Who are we going to lose if things remain in the status quo".
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: You don't even really have to lose anyone. You just have to give them clear guidelines on what they're not allowed to do because it is not productive to the health of the community. You can regret that it comes to confrontation, but part of moderation is confrontation and you have to be prepared to undergo this confrontation in ways that are more productive than 'oops, the thread melted, time for damage control.'
I think that clear guidelines would be terrific. I'm a little leary of a readjustment period in which people some people try to come to terms with new guidelines and find ways to express themselves that remain within them, and the possibility that some might try, fail, and get frustrated.
Don't let my saying this sound like I'm against the idea of reform altogether; I'm not. And I like a lot of what you've said. Your overall assessment has been intriguing to read. I just can't observe the ideas without voicing my own concern.
And I caught your comment about JonHecht. Alas.
Frankly- just so it doesn't go unsaid- I wouldn't want to see King of Men or Lisa leave Hatrack. Yes, I've butted heads with them myself on occasion, but they're both bright people with unique insights, and I think their departure would be a loss.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I seriously doubt either would ever voluntarily leave. It's not in their nature.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Pretty sure that Lisa voluntarily left ornery. Maybe I'm wrong... maybe she was banned.
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
quote:With the start of Ornery, and the influx from there to here, I saw a downturn that hasn't really ever been reversed. It comes from the tone of OSC's writing in recent times.
I sort of agree with this.
There seem to be quite a few people now who post primarily to express how very, very much they hate OSC's political opinions, writing, and/or the man himself.
I've never understood why they would want to frequent the forum of a person whose work they despise, but they're here, and I see them as the reason for the change in tone of Hatrack.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yozhik:
quote:With the start of Ornery, and the influx from there to here, I saw a downturn that hasn't really ever been reversed. It comes from the tone of OSC's writing in recent times.
I sort of agree with this.
There seem to be quite a few people now who post primarily to express how very, very much they hate OSC's political opinions, writing, and/or the man himself.
I've never understood why they would want to frequent the forum of a person whose work they despise, but they're here, and I see them as the reason for the change in tone of Hatrack.
There's a difference between despising his work and despising his opinions. A lot of people consider some of his views to border on hatemongering. I'm not saying that they are or aren't, but they seem to be getting a little more inflammatory over the years.
But several of his books have been honest and true and good. And they attract both intelligent people and those trying to validate their "intelligence".
Makes for an odd crowd.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Attempting to pin the problems of hatrack on ornery is an old (and tired) game. Most of the worst posters on hatrack registered here before ornery, and the movement from one site to the other has predominently been from hatrack to ornery, though some have moved from ornery to hatrack (like myself). Its not ornery. Its the change in the host. Prior to fall 2000, OSC hadn't published political opinions much, if at all, outside of his own site. Starting in the fall of 2001, he was putting his political opinions out there on a regular basis for people not already fans of his to read. That shifts the type of person attracted to his forums.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
There hasn't been an increase in "bad apples", however you'd define that. There has always been inflammatory people on the forum. In fact, the worst case I remember was even longer ago than the dispute with Leto.
If there has been a change, the change is in the way Hatrack regulars respond to inflammatory people and controversial discussions.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Whoa, seriously, Yozhik? To me it seems like it's the bitter argumentative style that came to the board along with that influx from Ornery, and has never wholly left it, though it got better for a time. It's the way Ornery was, then it came to Hatrack with the many who came over from Ornery.
But you're right that it's still OSC's board. Yozhik, do you think it's wrong for those of us who disagree with his politics and think he's let his political beliefs negatively impact his writing in recent years to stay here?
Tres, I guess that's what I'm saying about the "hook", as Samprimary terms it. OSC's writings have changed, so the mix of types of new people it brings in have also changed.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Ornery started with a "bitter argument tone," that has never really changed (small swings, but basically argumentative) and most of the early members registered from hatrack. The "way ornery was," was an in large part an import from hatrack... the subset of hatrack posters who were more interested in political discussion brought their tone to ornery, and made that the ornery tone. This was compounded at ornery because the same type of people were attracted to ornery from "outside," as had come from hatrack
Blaming the change in tone here, on ornery, is largely, in my view, simply deflection.
Did you guys start getting more politically oriented posters after ornery started? Probably. But that's a reflection on OSC starting to be more of a political animal.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Paul, yes I don't mean to say it's all Ornery's fault. I just know the tone changed about that time, and there were several notably strident posters who had come here from Ornery. It quite well could all be due to the change in OSC's writings.
Posted by nik (Member # 2114) on :
Very interesting thread, and I thoroughly enjoyed Sam's forum theories. I have been members of many online communities and have seen countless people come and go who "really made the forum what it was".
But it's important to realize that, if at anytime you wish things in an online community were "the way they were" at any other time, you're trying to squeeze milk out of an orange.
I'm a firm believer in the phrase "You can never stand in the same stream twice". Likewise, you can never post in the same forum twice. Give that a second of two of thought and keep in mind that dynamic communities are just that, dynamic.
It's sad to see people go, but that's just what happens. Go with the flow. Reply to things you like, don't give attention to posts that you don't. Do your best to enjoy your time and take things for what they're worth. And when the time comes to move on to someplace new, bid ye farewells!
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
" I just know the tone changed about that time, and there were several notably strident posters who had come here from Ornery."
Sure. But the tone of ornery was in large part set by people like David Bowles, who started at hatrack and went to ornery when that opened in the fall of 2000.
I'm not saying that strident posters didn't come here from ornery. I'm saying that those posters were shaped by, primarily, OSC (the hook) and his style of essay writing. The responses to those essays were in the same tone as they were written, for obvious reasons.
And, of course, the largest group of early posters on ornery were hatrackers.
Basically, what I'm saying is that any change in tone here may correlate to the opening of ornery. But its only a correlation. A cause can be found in the type of essay that OSC was writing and the type of posting style that attracted.
I think I've said that clearly now, so I'll drop it.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Basically, what I'm saying is that any change in tone here may correlate to the opening of ornery. But its only a correlation. A cause can be found in the type of essay that OSC was writing and the type of posting style that attracted.
It took me while to figure out why this distinction needed to be made at all. I assumed that by "Ornery" people were referring to OSC's column in general as well as the forum that went along with it, making the statement "it wasn't Ornery, it was OSC" kinda redundant and/or nonsensical.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Times have changed! Our kids are getting worse they won't obey their parents they just want to fart and curse!
Should we blame the government? Should we blame society?
Or should we blame the images on TV? NO!
Blame Ornery! Blame Ornery!
Posted by Flying Fish (Member # 12032) on :
I think Card doesn't want to wake up some day and see a headline somewhere: "PROMINENT MORMON SF WRITER RUNS INTERNET HATE SITE."
And I think Card is savvy enough to know that if such an accusation ever does get leveled, a lot of people are going to judge that true or false based not on the intentions of the top 10%, but based on the posted words of the bottom 10%.
A friend of mine suggested that internet forums are, by definition, largely peopled by characters who can't have many successful relationships in real life, and that's why the level of discourse is so childish. But I argued that there's more to it than that.
I do think that there is a "frog in boiling water effect" which renders some people blind to what's going on here. I've heard a lot of people speak of how they judge the forum today versus how it was last year or 5 years ago or 10 years ago. What they don't seem to do is compare the level of discourse here compared to the way well-adjusted adults interact, face-to-face, in real life. By that standard Hatrack and Ornery start to look really pathetic and creepy and nasty.
But I mean that in a good way.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shan: Hi All -- Lurker checking in. It's kinda reassuring to see that some things never change, including the inevitable "what happened to Hatrack?" around this community.
( Hi, Shan. )
*
I think the tone of Hatrack is correlated to how often Israel is discussed
--j_k, who knows that this, too, shall pass
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Times have changed! Our kids are getting worse they won't obey their parents they just want to fart and curse!
Should we blame the government? Should we blame society?
There's way less cursin'.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: What they don't seem to do is compare the level of discourse here compared to the way well-adjusted adults interact, face-to-face, in real life.
Egad. I'm trying to imagine holding any part of the Internet to that standard. The mind boggles.
Heck, I'm trying to imagine holding any part of the state of Florida to that standard. It's just not a reasonable yardstick.
----------
BTW, Herblay, your link above notes this: "Only G-, PG- and PG-13-rated films were included because teens aren't supposed to see R-rated movies without a parent or guardian." My reaction to this was "heh." It pretty much invalidates the entire study if you assume that, say, "American Pie" wasn't intended to be watched by teenagers.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
That fairly silly study makes no claim as to whether or not there's actually less kids swearing these days. They just used a loose metric to determine what constitutes a 'teen' movie and counted how many "hells" and "damns" and whatnot are in the limited sample movies from 1980, versus today.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"What they don't seem to do is compare the level of discourse here compared to the way well-adjusted adults interact, face-to-face, in real life. By that standard Hatrack and Ornery start to look really pathetic and creepy and nasty."
My experience is that people who aren't close friends, and disagree on politics, do it far worse than ornery and hatrack. If they talk politics at all. Which is unlikely.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Funny, I think the north is far more rude than any part of FL, and I am speaking as someone who was raised in the north.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
What's funny is that I can just post a silly study from BYU and everyone starts arguing about it. Isn't that kind of ironic considering the original purpose of the post? Oh wait, irony would imply that there was a difference. . . .
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by James Tiberius Kirk: I think the tone of Hatrack is correlated to how often Israel is discussed
Only because the election and proposition votes are over.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Funny, I think the north is far more rude than any part of FL...
Yeah, I know people living in the South think that. But they're wrong. That said, I wasn't talking about rudeness. I was talking about discussing things like well-adjusted adults. *grin*
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: Pretty sure that Lisa voluntarily left ornery. Maybe I'm wrong... maybe she was banned.
You're wrong. I got tired of dealing with morons.
Posted by Fluff (Member # 4835) on :
Wait . . . he's wrong about being wrong? Or was he right about being wrong?
::headasplode::
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:If there has been a change, the change is in the way Hatrack regulars respond to inflammatory people and controversial discussions.
True. Or that the Hatrack regulars responding to the inflammatory people are become less willing to do so (or have left/are leaving), which by necessity means the way they respond will change (i.e. become somehow "less").
There have been firebrands and flare ups for as long as I've been at hatrack, but most were countered by a large group of cooler heads - and several were banned. Cedrios, Baldar, etc.
If Baldar had come to hatrack now, rather than when he did, he'd have fit in a lot more smoothly with the "norm" and would not have stood out as much.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Ooo. Morons. Like the morons who destroyed your views on top-down changes imposed by lincoln in this thread which was one of the last places you posted seriously on ornery?
Yeah. I think by "morons," you mean "people who challenge my views of reality by dealing with facts instead of wishes."
Posted by Jamio (Member # 12053) on :
You'd think that we could be nice to each other in the "Why can't we all be nice to each other" thread.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Paul, chill. Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by nik: I'm a firm believer in the phrase "You can never stand in the same stream twice". Likewise, you can never post in the same forum twice.
Yup.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Funny, I think the north is far more rude than any part of FL...
Yeah, I know people living in the South think that. But they're wrong. That said, I wasn't talking about rudeness. I was talking about discussing things like well-adjusted adults. *grin*
And I see this entire thread as a discussion about rudeness, abruptness, and a general lack of concern for other people's point of view and experiences.
Since you are from the Chicago area I should have realized that you wouldn't get that. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Pretending that what you say isn't rude because you smile when you say it. How Southern. Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
Actually (in my opinion, of course) the issue is thinking that saying things rudely doesn't matter as long as you're right. It's decidedly rare in my experience that those things said rudely couldn't be said quite clearly without the rudeness yet with just as much meaning.
However, I think that's an issue of culture rather than of (reasonably) enforceable rules. And I don't think that culture will change without the buy-in of a decided majority of the people involved -- again, something I see as needing to be encouraged rather than enforced, and that not from the top down.
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
I like the fact that this thread has devolved into good-natured ribbing. Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:And I don't think that culture will change without the buy-in of a decided majority of the people involved
There is truth in this. However, a substantial part of the majority left, leaving those seeking calm, rational discussion without the invective in the minority.
I don't know how it could be controlled from the top down, but the loudest and most persistent will generally win when allowing things to change from the bottom up.
Of course, heavier moderation lead to one of the biggest board schisms that caused a great number of people to leave, so that didn't seem to be answer either.
Perhaps if OSC came on to engage some of the harsher posters, telling them to stop tracking mud around his living room... but he should be focusing his time on writing, not on entertaining perpetually ungracious houseguests.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: Perhaps if OSC came on to engage some of the harsher posters, telling them to stop tracking mud around his living room...
I can think of few things that would be less productive.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
A lot of the people who "left" didn't actually leave, but rather just post a lot less. There only 2 or 3 people on sake (for example) I can think of who don't come here at all unless someone suggests there's something they should check out. I know it's functionally the same, though.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:I can think of few things that would be less productive.
Which is actually a testament to the problem. He used to post (though infrequently), and he did step into some tight situations and calm them down. At the time, there was a lot of respect among the general posting public that we were only allowed to muck around in his living room at his will.
Now, I don't think that would have any effect. Most of the posters that would have altered their behavior in response to that have stopped posting already.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I'm still watching the Hatrack circle jerk. The content has become quite boring, I may as well go buy an Enquirer, pick up a copy of the New York Times or listen to NPR. It was fun for a while but the self proclaimed open minded can be so intolerable of people from the other side.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I'm still watching the Hatrack circle jerk.
Yup, people are definitely agreeing with each other so hard and all the time on this forum. It's why this thread is here.
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
Case in point, mal. There's no reason that couldn't have been said without being rude, and the "content" (assuming you're referring to information rather than style/tone) of your posts was never their problem.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I doubt the degradation has as much to do with "disagreement" rather being disagreable toward people with opposing views. Degrading the argument to personal attacks. I learned a valuable lesson from Hatrack. While people can nicely disagree around the edges when their cores are mostly overlapping the hordes will pile upon someone who takes a completely different stand. My views in here were recieved like an athiest in a Christian blog. People like to be challenged along the fringe while seeking affirmation from others with a similar core belief system.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
mal, I can only give you personal anecdotes, but I've had plenty of non-inflammatory conversations over the past 8 years on this forum with people whom I disagreed with significantly. It's one of the reasons I've always loved this place.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:My views in here were recieved like an athiest in a Christian blog.
And you think this has nothing to do with, say, the way you were disagreeable and immediately degraded your argument to personal attacks? When your stated view is "you are criminally stupid," I think it's a bit disingenuous to complain about how you're received.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
I've learned to stay out of discussions around religion, because the devout get so very testy. And I've learned to stay out of discussions around politics for the same reason. Unfortunately, the "devout" mindset has spread to things like scientific and social discussions as well - with hardliners on both sides of an issue (who often can't seem to escape dragging religion or politics into nearly every discussion they're in, whether those topics have any bearing or not).
Time was we could have discussions without people being called out for having some agenda or other, or without disagreements from other heated threads bleeding over and cannibalizing thread after thread.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
For all our talking about it, the problem does not seem to be resolving, nor it seems can anyone do anything outside of simply being good posters themselves.
FlyingCow: I'm starting to lose my taste for religious threads because the unbelievers can be so coarse and rude. Your statement, "Time was we..." was quite accurate. I wish that trend would stop.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I don't know what the problem is; I know that my attitude toward Hatrack has changed quite a bit. I'm much less likely to trust the community than I was even a year ago.
I'm not inclined to belittle the fluff threads-- they make us human.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I believe that being rude, to a point, CAN be effective. It's just not the MOST effective way to get your point across most of the time.
It only works when you don't really care about the person you claim to be talking to/about, because it is NEVER an effective way to change someones views. It CAN (although often isn't) be used effectively if nothing else has worked and it is more important to make a point to the community at large, or to specific people in a thread. IRL one of the only ways to deal with someone who is not reasonable, after all other approaches have been attempted, is to simply be rude enough back to someone that they leave you alone. In effect to refuse to be bullied.
But rude and vulgar are two different things. There are topics where is is almost impossible to discuss without being what some would call rude, and some of those topics are very much worthwile discussion topics. I say go fo it in those situations. Be clear that you are actually trying for discussion, and that it may offend people, but that your point isn't to offend for the sake of offending....
The problem to me seems that no one is willing to accept that people are arguing/discussing in good faith. I remember some of the very volatile abortion discussions we had about 5-6 years ago, and I can't imagine wanting to participate in any such discussion with someone like Malanthrope. Not because he is smart...I haven't seen that side of him....or because I fear his debate tactics.... they are sophomoric at best, and rudeness seems to be the POINT of a lot of his posts.
Dagonee and I disagreed in those threads, violently, and it would have been easy for me to write off his concerns because of it.Yet I KNEW he wasn't TRYING to be disagreeable, and I knew that I probably was making him feel the same way.
He didn't change my mind, nor I his, but I got a lot of really good insight into his beliefs, and I think he got some really good ones into mine. Same thing whit the right to die threads....I had rehashed those arguments over and over in my mind for years, but discussing it with sndrake and Dags and others here actually DID help shape my current beliefs.
I can't imagine that happening these days....not because I am not willing to listen, but because I rarely see people discuss differing views with any sense of compassion towards each other. It seems that discussions these days are more about points, and vendettas following people though threads, than ever before, and I don't trust most of the people here enough to reveal what I really think about serious issues here anymore.
[ June 15, 2009, 09:24 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I'm much less likely to trust the community than I was even a year ago.
But you were never likely to trust the community. I mean, that was your whole gig, Mr. "I never meet anyone from the Internet." *boggles*
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I don't trust the community as a whole, but how could you unless you knew everybody? However I love meeting hatrackers in person, in safe public places. Such gatherings tend to always be most enjoyable. This will be get together number four for me. I still kick myself for not getting to meet Porter and beverly when the chance was there.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I'm much less likely to trust the community than I was even a year ago.
But you were never likely to trust the community. I mean, that was your whole gig, Mr. "I never meet anyone from the Internet." *boggles*
It's not like trust is boolean, Tom...
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: For all our talking about it, the problem does not seem to be resolving
This is a bellwether thread. While they're cyclical, the alternative is to not talk about it.
Not talking about it is far less likely to perpetuate change, because these threads get a message out that people don't like where the forum is going or what is happening. While they can be (and tend to be) cyclical events, they do tend to promote change.
One result of bellwether threads is usually a temporary surge of improved behavior.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:I'm starting to lose my taste for religious threads because the unbelievers can be so coarse and rude.
I agree - but it goes both ways. When I said "the devout get so very testy", I meant devoutly religious and devoutly areligious alike.
We have so many hardliners these days (in all subjects) that feel any attempt at honest skepticism, curiousity or doubt is an attack on their sacred cow.
It seems there are fewer open minds, and more closed fists.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:We have so many hardliners these days (in all subjects) that feel any attempt at honest skepticism, curiousity or doubt is an attack on their sacred cow.
I'm trying to think of evidence for this-- specifically, the hardliner part-- and I can only think of maybe one or two people whose views could be considered "hardline."
And only two of those people actually post consistently in threads in which their hardline views get tapped.
When you say "hardline" are you meaning it in terms of POSITION or ATTITUDE?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I think it is true if he meant attitude. It's not just in specific threads/topics...it's a general attitude that it is OK to be dismissive of others and deal in bad faith if you really believe what you are discussing.
That attitude fails to take into consideration that the OTHER person in that discussion might believe HE is right. Honestly, completely, and with as much faith in his views as you have in yours.
It is possible for two intelligent, honest people to disagree, even with provided with the same information on a subject.
Possible, but less and less likely these days. Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:That attitude fails to take into consideration that the OTHER person in that discussion might believe HE is right.
Or fails to admit any possibility that his or her position might be wrong.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
I meant attitude. Those who take a hard line, who are unwilling to entertain notions different than their own.
This most often manifests when posters talk down to others who disagree with them - treating them as though they are somehow stupid, deluded, brainwashed, bigoted, inferior, etc.
It's not enough to say "That's an interesting position. I disagree, and here's why." The standard has become closer to "I'm right, and you're wrong. Your idea is inferior, and therefore so are you."
Of course, not in those words, and often more through tone and inference. There are those that are more blatant, and those that are more subtle, but that attitude becomes so oppressive on both sides of arguments that it's just not worth entering into them.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
It's not Hatrack; it's deliberation. According to the review, Cass Sunstein's new book argues that deliberation is not good for moderation. He discusses evidence that whenever like-minded people enter discussion, they tend to (uniformly) radicalize their opinions. Even when a diversity of opinion exists within the group, the process of deliberation tends to extremize the two sides, dividing them and pushing the two groups to the extreme ends of the seesaw.
My take: moderation requires participation in something other than ideological debate. The things on Hatrack that I think would foster moderation would be support threads (computer or cancer or whatever), Christmas gift exchanges, various meatspace -cons, the Expectant Mothers thread and the like. Community requires (IMO) more than merely a mutual agreement to disagree politely (although I do think that's a necessary condition); it requires love that is built on common experience (not just commonly-held principles). I've enjoyed my time on Hatrack (going on four years, I think), but I often find myself trying to talk myself out of anger with one poster or another by thinking, "I'm sure if I knew them in real life I'd feel differently about what he/she just wrote."
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I often feel the exact same way. I have been rude to a few people here in my time, but never as a first choice, and always with people who consistently were that way with others here, over prolonged periods of time.
That being said, I had varying levels of success with it, and these days I rarely bother with the crazy threads for a couple of reasons.
First, I have already hashed most of these issues out many times over in my 8 years here, and I get tired of the same subjects over and over. Since I can't participate with an open mind, or at least not without being grumpy, I avoid some of them.
Second, I often find I just don't care enough. Enough to fight against the rudeness, to defend other people, or even to attempt to discuss these things with people who just don't seem to want to discuss things in good faith.
Good faith. That phrase pretty much sums up my entire philosophy in debates. I am not interested in points, or gotchas. I use to think that was fun, and I was good at it, but it is pretty much verbal masturbation in the end. If I bother to try and discuss things, I would hope the people who do it with me would do it in good faith, honestly questioning my stance and not my motives.
I know a lot of people used to post here, and left because of a huge lack of good faith in conversations. They got tired of being called nasty things, having their motives constantly called into question, and eventually having almost every discussion turn into personal attacks.
I refuse to leave because of a few people's bad behavior....but even I post here less and less. Part of that is the natural progression fo life, but part of it is that I am not sure I want to try and trust people here again. It hasn't worked out too well the last few times, after all.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Frisco: And yet we're always here, lurking in the shadows...
*cue creepy music*
(yes, I bumped this quote from two pages back!)
Frisco! Ivygirl and I just had a "whatever happened to Frisco" conversation the other day. Good to see you're still popping in occasionally and alive and I'm assuming well. (since I don't check Hatrack much anymore either)
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
stalker! (he loves it)
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote: It's decidedly rare in my experience that those things said rudely couldn't be said quite clearly without the rudeness yet with just as much meaning.
I have long seen CT as an example of this concept. She corrects people and disagrees on factual matters and has a differing opinion on a regular basis-- but is unfailingly polite about it.
I am still working on being as polite as she is. I would suggest if anyone needs an example of this, they look to her, as I have. Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
What a fabulous compliment!
I can say with great pleasure that we are in the same position with respect to one another, then. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: stalker! (he loves it)
It's true. Which is why I'm not going to acknowledge him at all . . .
DRAT!
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
I'm jumping into this late, but I agree with Rabit. Hatrack has gotten to the point where I don't like the conversation. There are still people here that I cherish, but the site as a whole has become snarky. I really hate to say that, because there are still some really good people here.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
What happened to KoM and Lisa, were thay banned?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:My views in here were recieved like an athiest in a Christian blog.
And you think this has nothing to do with, say, the way you were disagreeable and immediately degraded your argument to personal attacks? When your stated view is "you are criminally stupid," I think it's a bit disingenuous to complain about how you're received.
Thanks for making my point. I don't believe I've ever in my life used the phrase, "criminally stupid". This coming from the guy who reverts to accusations of racism when pinned in a corner. Completely making up statements and attributing them to someone, grabbing partial statements completely out of context or degrading the conversation to personal attacks is the reason I've become tired of interacting with many posters on this site. I think it is probably best to discover the Tom's out there and just choose not to interact with their misrepresentations, misquotes and slanders. No one wants to go back days or weeks in old posts to disprove whatever quote you attribute to someone in an attemt to marginalize. Mainly I've backed off because world events are proving my points more than I ever could and realized that if someone can't see what is before them they will never be convinced by written or spoken word.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm going to rest my case here. Thank you for remaining predictable. Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
FWIW, I actually think a big part of the problem is Victimhood. Many of the things that I see flare up are merely old personal vendettas playing over new territory because someone has the chance to say "person x is mean to me!".
I really don't think rudeness is a huge problem except that people make federal cases out of it. The more I see people making much of it, the more I see people try to Judo arguments much the way Malanthrop just has WRT Tom ("he's mistreating me! see everyone? come save me from the mean old curmudgeon!")... and the real problem is there are people here who are just a bit too worked up about being nice and polite to let those things go. Then they feel the need to get involved and what we basically have as a result is a forum where people gain points by playing the victim.
If someone says "you're an idiot" the best thing to do is simply let that comment stand as the last word. If you are an idiot, well, people already know, probably, and if you're not, they definitely know. In that case the person who just called you one is the one with egg on their face.
But what I see, instead, is a number of people waiting for chances to accuse other people of mistreatment so they can play on the mercies of those who are heavily invested in having this place be "nice", "fair", or <insert pleasant adjective here>.
Instead of simply refusing to engage problematic posts, we often give the trolls a double feeding as they begin arguing over who mistreated who first, and people line up behind them for the chance to fight for them (for reasons of loyalty, either to the person or to their side of the argument) and other people line up to jump in between them and say how bad the fighting is.
The best way to kill offensive threads is let them die. You don't have to leave the forum, just, in the titular words of the grammy-nominated instrumental, "Leave That Thing Alone."
My $.02, not that anyone asked for it. And, yes, I'm aware that it's much easier said than done... as anyone who remembers me from my less lurkish days may well attest.
Edited to add: I was typing my post while Tom responded... just to be clear
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I'm going to rest my case here. Thank you for remaining predictable.
Amen. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Jim, you put very well what I was trying to think of a way to say.
Nice to see you, BTW.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Good faith. That phrase pretty much sums up my entire philosophy in debates. I am not interested in points, or gotchas. I use to think that was fun, and I was good at it, but it is pretty much verbal masturbation in the end. If I bother to try and discuss things, I would hope the people who do it with me would do it in good faith, honestly questioning my stance and not my motives.
If my becoming a little cooler and willing to let things go is something I'm glad of in having come to Hatrack, this kind of thing is it's evil twin. I've definitely gotten better at twisting people's own words against them or throwing the same tactics back when massive arguments about semantics crop up, and I'd be lying if I said there was never any pleasure to be had in doing so, but I know it never changes minds or actually proves a point, even if it sometimes leaves spectators with a sense that one side has "won".
(If there was a contact I could sign that meant I'd never have to witness another brawl about not what had been said but the motives behind it (and unspoken motives, and hidden agendas, and, no, that wasn't my intention, yes it was because you said this, and...), where do I sign. I'll sign in blood. I'll sacrifice small woodland creatures. Name it.)
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: You don't have to leave the forum, just, in the titular words of the grammy-nominated instrumental, "Leave That Thing Alone."
<3 Jim
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I'm not looking for support or setting myself up as a victim. If the discussion is about what has happened to Hatrack, Tom made my point quite well. As I said, "I think it is probably best to discover the Tom's out there and just choose not to interact with their misrepresentations, misquotes and slanders". It is difficult not to respond when someone simply makes up a quote and attributes it to you. I'll admit, I need to work on ignoring the lies and slanders. Responding enables the deflection from the the point at hand. In the future I'll simply accept those tactics as a concession. If you revert to that, you've conceded.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
If you engage TomD you let the terrorists win!
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
No, mal, he didn't...you made HIS. LOL
You can claim people are conceding all you want, it's ok. I don't know anyone here who matters to me who cares what you think, about this or anything else.
As a matter of fact, people like you are pretty much why this thread is timely and relevant.
You're pretty much the definition of arguing in bad faith, and according to your comments in this very thread you have no plans to change that.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
It is this thread that interested me to post after being absent for quite a while; the timeliness you speak of is inverted. I wont claim anyone is conceding when they revert to personal attacks or misrepresentations, I will just assume it and do my very best not to waste effort with a response. It indicates the other person has a lack of any logical intelligent rebuttal. Please, go back through this very thread and see who started the personal attacks, it was not me; sorry for failing at my goal of not resonding to them. I'm well aware that my opinions are not in line with the Hatrack group as a whole and am well aware that the opinion of a Libertarian Conservative is very unwelcome here. Hense my point, Hatrack circle jerk.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Thanks for all the input. Its both nice to see I'm not the only one who feels this way and to know that many people would like to raise the level of conversation.
I think one of the problems is that too many of us (myself included) tend to match the tone when we perceive others as being rude. I wonder why we are so much less likely to match the tone or those who strive to be polite?
I also question whether what's happening at hatrack is a reflection of a larger trend in American society away from civility. I think our society has over the past decade become increasingly polarized and a growing number of people seem to accept the maxim "It doesn't matter if you are rude as long as you are right". Could it be that when we routinely see media figures defending rude and insulting behavior (Limbaugh), frothing at the mouth over every perceived offense (Olbermann), or impugning opponents with the vilest of motives (Card) that it influences our own behavior?
That isn't to say I think what's happened here is the fault of Limbaugh, Olbermann or Card, we are responsible for what we do in our community. I simply find it curious that there seems to be a general tend away from civility in American society as a whole and wonder why this is happening in America and to what extent what's happening at hatrack is part of that larger trend.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Limbaugh has been vile for at least 20 years. Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: [QB] Please, go back through this very thread and see who started the personal attacks, it was not me; sorry for failing at my goal of not resonding to them. /QB]
Mal, In your very first post in this thread you said "It was fun for a while but the self proclaimed open minded can be so intolerable of people from the other side."
Perhaps you aren't aware of this, but that was a personal attack.
We have many posters here who are libertarian conservatives who have been accepted members of the community for years. Your perception that you are poorly received because of the content of your posts rather than your rude and inconsiderate posting style is inaccurate.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I think the percieved offences are amplified by the written format. I've had emails misinterpreted on numerous occasions. I truly enjoy a good debate and have socio/political polar opposite freinds I look forward to having conversations with. The impersonal format sterotypes the other person as the US vs Them but sitting at a table we could nicely discuss the issues.
Not to dismiss the rudeness of society. We live in a "gotcha" society. This D was arrested for this or that R is being investigated for that. You call yourself A but your daughter did B. Whatever. Your party did this 50 years ago, your religion did that 200 years ago, etc. No person or group of people are perfect but past offenses do not invalidate the current situation, the individual or the group. We've become a society of tactics over substance.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I'm well aware that my opinions are not in line with the Hatrack group as a whole and am well aware that the opinion of a Libertarian Conservative is very unwelcome here. Hense my point, Hatrack circle jerk.
The use of the term 'circle jerk' has rarely been more pointlessly bandied about than now. A circle jerk is a community that agrees with itself constantly and only bites back against outsiders to the powwow. If hatrack was a circlejerk, you would not have this thread.
Basically, when you came into this thread, you worked very hard (and very unintentionally) to prove several other people's theories, both about the forum and about you.
You do not understand why. This much is a given. You don't understand why acting the way you are and responding the way you did was pretty much a pitch-perfect harmonization of Tom's assessment of you. You could not have proved him more right about you if you had tried.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Limbaugh has been vile for at least 20 years.
And over that 20 years, American civility has been on a steady decline. The impact of someone like Limbaugh isn't instantaneous. Initially rudeness is shocking, but the longer it is tolerated the more it become part of the norm.
You can see a similar pattern with Richard Dawkins and rude athiests. Dawkins has been around for decades as well, but the longer he is around and the more widely read he becomes, the more other athiests embrace the idea that its OK maybe even necessary to be rude to religious people. And like Limbaugh, Dawkins followers tend to be less eloquent, less witty and well just ruder and more spiteful than the original.
And Maybe the trend has nothing to do with the behavior of any famous individuals, perhaps their fame is just a reflection of the trend. Perhaps people listen to Limbaugh or Dawkins because they are tired of being polite and tolerant and crave rudeness.
It seems that to many Americans polite behavior of one form or another is viewed as oppressive. Depending on which side of the cultural divide you sit on, one may find it oppressive to be politically correct or to avoid vile or profane language, or may be oppressed by following some other rule of manners. Its a really pity because polite behavior makes a community so much more livable.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I'm well aware that my opinions are not in line with the Hatrack group as a whole and am well aware that the opinion of a Libertarian Conservative is very unwelcome here. Hense my point, Hatrack circle jerk.
The use of the term 'circle jerk' has rarely been more pointlessly bandied about than now. A circle jerk is a community that agrees with itself constantly and only bites back against outsiders to the powwow. If hatrack was a circlejerk, you would not have this thread.
Basically, when you came into this thread, you worked very hard (and very unintentionally) to prove several other people's theories, both about the forum and about you.
You do not understand why. This much is a given. You don't understand why acting the way you are and responding the way you did was pretty much a pitch-perfect harmonization of Tom's assessment of you. You could not have proved him more right about you if you had tried.
I'm not dismissing that you have disagreements amongst yourselves but you certainly know when to circle the wagons. Not much has changed here, this really isn't a "forum" beyond the usual players. The few of you should maybe start twittering instead or this place will die on the vine. When I was more active here at Hatrack, my posts consistently dominated the pages. "I" didn't dominate but the group knows when to pounce and keep the post at the top, evidence of your group think. If I changed my name, came in here with some touchy feely liberal topic it would be buried at the bottom.
I enjoy the debates. If I was seeking affirmation of my own beliefs I wouldn't be here. Your big tent has an even bigger ring of constantina wire around it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I'm not dismissing that you have disagreements amongst yourselves
Then you don't know what a 'circlejerk' really means. You're just using the term reflexively because you felt like an oppressed outsider and you mistakenly believe that you are a person who did not in any way behave in a hostile or negative manner that would have ever precipitated this response among a 'reasonable' or 'accepting' group.
This here alone proves how much you don't understand how much your own tone matters to how you were received. You're calling the forum a circlejerk. Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
As I said earlier: "While people can nicely disagree around the edges when their cores are mostly overlapping the hordes will pile upon someone who takes a completely different stand"
Civil disagreements on the edges. The rest is a search for self affirmation and an obvious attempt of many to prove how smart they are.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:"While people can nicely disagree around the edges when their cores are mostly overlapping the hordes will pile upon someone who takes a completely different stand"
Mal, You have been a member of hatrack for less than 4 months. You are demonstrating that you know little of this forum or its ways.
The ideas you have posted here are not completely different from stands taken by many long term well accepted members of the community. I'm sure it is much easier to believe that you were piled on because of your ideology rather than because you were rude and abrasive but the later is the actual truth.
I suspect you are accustomed either on other forms or in real life to a community where a rude and abrasive style it the norm and so is more readily accepted. If you want to be accepted here, try modulating your tone and see if you don't get a different response.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Civil disagreements on the edges.
That would be nice.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: As I said earlier: "While people can nicely disagree around the edges when their cores are mostly overlapping the hordes will pile upon someone who takes a completely different stand"
And as I noted earlier, this isn't the case here and your dismissal of the forum as a circlejerk is both unnecessarily abrasive and typifying of someone who earns a hostile response by being hostile and then pawns off the reception of their own behavior as a failing of the "masses."
Repeating bogus interpretations will not grant them sudden and new validity.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Repeating bogus interpretations will not grant them sudden and new validity.
What??? I thought this was an established tried and true method for creating a new reality.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I guess sarcasm isn't really in the spirit of this thread. Please accept my apologies.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Hense my point, Hatrack circle jerk.
Thanks for making it so easy to ignore you.
It has very little to do with your ideas, and everything to do with your attitude towards other people who don't agree with you.
BTW, I'd hardly claim your posts, or threads, dominated anything. After the first 3-4 threads, most of Hatrack simply refused to even enter one of your threads. Not because they were worried that you would sway them, but because they preferred to avoid someone with such an obvious ax to grind.
But I doubt this will change anything for you, so I won;t mention it again.
If you truly liked debate, you would be better at it, less abrasive, and more open to actual discussion with people who disagree with you.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Actually, a "circle jerk" has another, more insluting meaning. Your use of that term pretty much excludes any sort of rational discussion.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I remember a time when using a term like "circle jerk" was clearly understood as an insult. I remember a time when people who used terms like "circle jerk" weren't under the delusion that they were engaging in respectful debate. I remember a time when people who used terms like "circle jerk", weren't welcomed at hatrack.
I guess that last part hasn't changed.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by T:man: What happened to KoM and Lisa, were thay banned?
I'm just waiting for everyone to finish venting.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I remember a time when using a term like "circle jerk" was clearly understood as an insult.
That time is "the present day." Circlejerk is a nonambiguous insult of a forum environment.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by T:man: What happened to KoM and Lisa, were thay banned?
I'm just waiting for everyone to finish venting.
Yay! Even though I disagree with almost everything you post, I still like you Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I remember a time when using a term like "circle jerk" was clearly understood as an insult.
That time is "the present day." Circlejerk is a nonambiguous insult of a forum environment.
Evidently not everyone understands that or mal wouldn't have used in his first post in weeks and then claimed he wasn't the one who started the attacks.
I'm just saying, some people don't seem to understand when they are being rude.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by T:man: What happened to KoM and Lisa, were thay banned?
I'm just waiting for everyone to finish venting.
lol
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I am not venting. I am not engaging in hyperbole in order to blow off steam. My words aren't intended to not be taken seriously - I meant every syllable of it.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Venting doesn't automatically equate to hyperbole, nor does it mean that it doesn't contain truths.
Mind you, I am not saying that your ARE venting. Just that some of this thread is exactly that, and it is not necessarily a bad thing.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think venting is a bad thing, when it is directed against that which you are venting against. If you are going to tell someone and say in their hearing how angry you are with them, then venting - implying that you are "just" venting - is a very selfish way of doing it. It's like saying that you are taking a break from considering the other person and talking for your own benefit. Which would be fine, if you were talking to yourself. It isn't fine when it is in the other person's hearing and they are just supposed to forgive the horrible things being said because you (the generic you) wanted to vent. I think it's very selfish.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Actually, a "circle jerk" has another, more insluting meaning. Your use of that term pretty much excludes any sort of rational discussion.
What Kwea wrote.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If you are going to tell someone and say in their hearing how angry you are with them, then venting - implying that you are "just" venting - is a very selfish way of doing it.
Katie, isn't that exactly what you were doing, though? Did you expect KoM or Lisa to change their behavior to something you'd consider appropriate because you specifically cited them as posters whose behavior you considered problematic? What would be the point of those posts, if not to vent?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
No. I wasn't venting at all. My words were not meant to be forgiven or dismissed.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Ah. That's not my definition of venting. Venting has nothing to do with the reaction you think you should expect from the other party, and rather about your own motivations. If you're complaining because the act of complaining makes you feel better, and not because you expect a change to result from the complaint, that's my definition of "venting."
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That's exactly why I think venting is by nature selfish. Since there ARE consequences to it when it is done where the other person can hear, doing it anyway without regard to the consequences is a big "I don't care about anyone but me." sign. Which I suppose in some cases is true, and I suppose knowing that makes it easier to avoid them.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm not sure I understand the distinction, then, between what you were doing and what you're calling venting. Were there consequences here that you were prepared to accept that someone else might not have been?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Actually, a "circle jerk" has another, more insluting meaning.
Was that intentional? If not, best. freudian slip. ever.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I think venting is a bad thing, when it is directed against that which you are venting against. If you are going to tell someone and say in their hearing how angry you are with them, then venting - implying that you are "just" venting - is a very selfish way of doing it. It's like saying that you are taking a break from considering the other person and talking for your own benefit. Which would be fine, if you were talking to yourself. It isn't fine when it is in the other person's hearing and they are just supposed to forgive the horrible things being said because you (the generic you) wanted to vent. I think it's very selfish.
Ahhhh....I understand now. The way I was looking at it was as a release of pent up emotions, not just as venting for venting's sake.
I think, just like anything else, sometimes it can be a good thing....but a lot of people act like idiots then claim it's "only because I needed to vent".
That is a poor excuse to me. You can vent in a constructive way, and get both the emotional release needed AND a positive result, at least some of the time.
I see this thread as venting, but when I say that I don't mean to belittle anyone or imply that they are just being overly dramatic. It has a lot of emotion, because people care about this place, and a lot of these feelings have been pent up inside some posters, mostly because of a lack of a mode of expression.
These types of threads CAN be great for clearing the air. if it WILL be remains to be seen.....but I have hopes.
It was a matter of definition, I think. Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon:
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Actually, a "circle jerk" has another, more insluting meaning.
Was that intentional? If not, best. freudian slip. ever.
Not intentional (I am sorry to say.) Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Glad to see semantic arguments even creep into meta-threads.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I apologize for the use of the term circle jerk and you are correct, I haven't been here for long. Let me clarify. It doesn't take very long to realize the dominant group of common players and their fairly unified views. It seems to me, many of the transients or infrequent posters are the most polite and less defensive. The most abrasive and hostile posters are the ones in the most common group who seem to have laid claim to Hatrack. I doubt I'm the only one who gets the impression he sat at the wrong table in high school. Beleagured and Shinob had views mostly in line with mine and they received similar treatment from the dominant Hatrack cool guys club. As I recall, you were all convinced we were the same person posing as multiples. As if there could only be one person in the world with Malanthrop's viewpoint. You were quite good at driving them out of your big tent of openminded discussion.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: ... And over that 20 years, American civility has been on a steady decline. The impact of someone like Limbaugh isn't instantaneous. Initially rudeness is shocking, but the longer it is tolerated the more it become part of the norm. ...
I don't know, I think it has much to do with your perspective.
Anecdotally, it has been my perception that Canadian society over the last twenty years has gotten a lot *more* polite, even annoyingly so if you compare to a society that is more static. Due in part due to the spread of political correctness, people are a lot more careful about what they say and it has been a lot easier to be a Chinese person in Canada today than it was 20 years ago and a hell of a lot easier than in the 70s when my parents first came over.
If anything, I would say that we've traded truly rude and accepted offensiveness on both a systemic and casual level for a more superficial rudeness based upon the higher use of four-letter words and the like.
I think the situation is not entirely different for non-religious people and in general, I think I like it here now (as opposed to 20 years ago or more).
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Malanthrop, the "same person" fear is something that is born of prior experience on this forum, with one person creating multiple personas that defended one another.
As to the content of your posts, I really can't speak to them as I haven't really noticed you (until your somewhat harsh entrance into this thread). As I've said, I've been mostly avoiding the "heavier" threads these days because they've become more about confrontation than discourse.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote: It doesn't take very long to realize the dominant group of common players and their fairly unified views.
The thing is, while there are certainly dominant posters, they really don't have fairly unified views. There is a wide range of political opinions among the regular posters here, including ones that are quite similar to yours. You may not have noticed because 1) like you said, you haven't been here long, and 2) the way you came in, your posts quickly dominated the threads. That wasn't because they were so different from other people's, but because your style was grating. Even people who agreed with you disagreed with how you presented your viewpoints.
You enjoy debate, so you just jumped right in. Which is fine, but that doesn't make you the best judge of what the other opinions on the forum are like, because you mostly encountered them reacting to you.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Can we all agree that being right isn't important? That understanding and being understood are much more important? And that if our actions change for the better, that's the most important of all?
Hatrack has changed me a lot through the years. Mainly in that it's now possible for someone to be wrong on the internet, and me not feel responsible for setting them right. I still laugh when I think of that XKCD comic when the girl says "Are you coming to bed?" and the guy answers "I can't now. Someone is WRONG on the internet."
But more than that, I've been moved by many of the passionate people on the board through the years. sndrake's postings, to cite one example, caused me to completely rethink my ideas about assisted suicide and realize the double-standard we have for estimating the value of disabled people's lives. Going back further than that, I converted to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, something I never dreamed was possible, because of some of the awesome people I met on this board, and noticing that it seemed more than coincidence that so many great people were Mormon. I decided the church must be doing something right, so I started wanting to learn more about it. That, in turn, led to my whole life being transformed for the better, when I learned about the restored gospel.
I've been exposed to a lot of funny, interesting books and ideas here over the years, as well. And I've made some absolutely amazing friends.
I do deplore the rudeness and invective that seem so prevalent now in all the serious threads. I tried my best to make things better. I wasn't able to help much, I'm afraid. Eventually I decided to just stay out of those threads. They're just too unpleasant to follow, and there are so many more important things I can accomplish with that time.
It's certainly true that people don't realize how rude they're being. I don't know if this is just the new way our society has to be, or if it's a phase that will pass (I hope). I think President Obama is setting a higher standard, and hopefully that will help.
I hope that everyone will continue to strive to lift the tenor of our conversation upward. It's something that we have to keep working on. It doesn't just happen of its own accord. Hatrack has so much that's worthwhile. It's worth saving, I think.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: It doesn't take very long to realize the dominant group of common players and their fairly unified views.
...unified views? There are several strong factions here, but I really can't think of any that holds hegemonic sway over the forum at large.
Over individual threads, yes.
There's an interesting Balkanizing phenomenon at Hatrack which I haven't experienced in quite the same way anywhere else, where adherents to one ideology will hold sway in Thread A and adherents to an opposing ideology will play in Thread B. That actually tends to work pretty well, so long as a firebrand from the second group doesn't start flaming people in the first thread.
If you think there's one particular approach dominating here... maybe try reading some more threads.
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
Malanthrop,
As FlyingCow stated, there was a fairly major issue in the forums many many years back regarding a single person espousing supporting views through many distinct screennames, and since that time I don't think trust has been granted to new members as quickly. When one sees the rather similar views that you, beleaguered, and Oshki all had, and notices that you all joined within just over a week, suspicion did indeed rear its head for many. I posted this thread long before you arrived, due to a similar situation. My point is that because of past hurts (fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me) it takes longer for some to extend that trust, not necessarily because of anything you may or may not do.
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: Can we all agree that being right isn't important? That understanding and being understood are much more important?
I don't know that I can agree with the first half of that, Tatiana; I have less problem with the second half, but I'd still probably need caveats to agree, and I'm not even sure what those would be. I think I'd take out the word "much" first. Maybe even replace "much more" with "also" (considering "just as," but I'm really not sure where the two would balance -- depends on how one defines "being right" I guess).
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I agree with everyone on everything. That's why I'm so damn popular here.
Right guys?
Right?
*crickets*
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: Can we all agree that being right isn't important?
For me the answer is an unequivocal no. Maybe it's not always important to prove that you're right, but I think it's absolutely essential to be right.
Posted by Pat (Member # 879) on :
quote: As FlyingCow stated, there was a fairly major issue in the forums many many years back regarding a single person espousing supporting views through many distinct screennames, and since that time I don't think trust has been granted to new members as quickly.
The nerve of some people. Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Can we all agree that being right isn't important?
Absolutely not. But perhaps I can rephrase: It's not so important to correct other people's errors. Which is just as well, since it's very rarely possible to do so short of demographics.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: ... And over that 20 years, American civility has been on a steady decline. The impact of someone like Limbaugh isn't instantaneous. Initially rudeness is shocking, but the longer it is tolerated the more it become part of the norm. ...
I think people like Howard Stern, Opie and Anthony, Kidd Chris are an AU ruder and cruder than Limbaugh.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: I agree with everyone on everything. That's why I'm so damn popular here.
Right guys?
Right?
*crickets*
YES!!!
Everyone loves you! <3
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
Am I still a n00b?
I'd like to think I'm not...
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
How dare you say that about Opie! He is a nice boy. Andy and Aunt Bea would never let him be rude.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote: ... And over that 20 years, American civility has been on a steady decline. The impact of someone like Limbaugh isn't instantaneous. Initially rudeness is shocking, but the longer it is tolerated the more it become part of the norm. ...
I think people like Howard Stern, Opie and Anthony, Kidd Chris are an AU ruder and cruder than Limbaugh.
That's debatable...but the real difference is that those people are entertainment personalities. That's it. People like Limbaugh try to pass themselves off as political commentators. People listen to them and trust them for their political news and world events coverage. Don't you see the problem when you compare Rush Limbaugh to a guy that has porn stars on his show and convinces them to stick various objects in their private places?
Posted by graywolfe (Member # 3852) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow:
quote:I'm starting to lose my taste for religious threads because the unbelievers can be so coarse and rude.
I agree - but it goes both ways. When I said "the devout get so very testy", I meant devoutly religious and devoutly areligious alike.
We have so many hardliners these days (in all subjects) that feel any attempt at honest skepticism, curiousity or doubt is an attack on their sacred cow.
It seems there are fewer open minds, and more closed fists.
The last time I posted was probably around a year ago. I decided to exit for somewhat similar reasons. I simply realized that in my disagreement with someone, there was no common ground to reach, when one tries to argue with logic, and another tries to paint articles faith as fact, nobodies happy, and its very easy to get angry. I simply didn't have the ability other posters had to argue my points w/o distinctly upsetting a poster, and figured it was more adviseable to simply let it go and move on, before it had the potential to turn incendiary or just unpleasant.
I find this topic deeply interesting as I've been a forum addict since I first entered the net in '96. Probably been in 20 or 30 over the years, though there is usually only about five or six that I focus on, most I post on, hatrack and ornery were largely lurker forums because I found it difficult to interact without risking deeply upsetting certain posters on certain topics that mean a great deal to me or that I feel deeply and strongly about on a very visceral level.
Posted by graywolfe (Member # 3852) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon:
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Actually, a "circle jerk" has another, more insluting meaning.
Was that intentional? If not, best. freudian slip. ever.
I'm so glad I wasn't drinking anything when I read this.Laughter can be too expensive when in front of a lap top.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Hatrack, like any "forum" where people can remain anonymous, will at times suffer from a lack of sufficient care for our fellow man. It is the ultimate 30,000 foot view, where people can treat each other like unidimensional charicatures instead of real people who might have nuanced opinions.
At the same time, there are now, and always have been a few posters who take on the unidimensionality as a pose, or perhaps fall into it because they fail to invest themselves entirely in the things they say.
(NOTE: There are other types of users of the forum too, these are just the types that bear primary responsibility for things getting overheated on a somewhat regular basis.)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: How dare you say that about Opie! He is a nice boy. Andy and Aunt Bea would never let him be rude.
I had the same thought.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by graywolfe:
quote:Originally posted by Noemon:
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Actually, a "circle jerk" has another, more insluting meaning.
Was that intentional? If not, best. freudian slip. ever.
I'm so glad I wasn't drinking anything when I read this.Laughter can be too expensive when in front of a lap top.
I always aim to please. I just miss often. Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: [QB] Please, go back through this very thread and see who started the personal attacks, it was not me; sorry for failing at my goal of not resonding to them. /QB]
Mal, In your very first post in this thread you said "It was fun for a while but the self proclaimed open minded can be so intolerable of people from the other side."
Perhaps you aren't aware of this, but that was a personal attack.
We have many posters here who are libertarian conservatives who have been accepted members of the community for years. Your perception that you are poorly received because of the content of your posts rather than your rude and inconsiderate posting style is inaccurate.
I truly am not aware that was a personal attack. That statement was not pointed at any particular individual. The personal attacks I'm talking about usually contain names and words like "you" and "he".
I am not only new to Hatrack, this is the first place I've ever bothered to post. If there is some kind of post etiquette that I'm missing, please educate me. No sarcasm there, I've seen people get angry at new golfers for stepping on their lie.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Etiquette/random advice (not all of which should be construed as reacting to YOU in particular, just what comes to mind in general):
- Well,you've already been told about terms like 'circlejerk'
- Broad characterizations of other members with whom you disagree are generally not appropriate. While two people might agree that you're wrong, they might not have the same reasons for thinking so, and they're likely to be very different otherwise.
- If someone points out a perceived logical fallacy, it's a good idea to take it seriously, and consider whether you can correct logical flaws in your argument or simply change your mind if the reasoning was indeed fallacious. If you weren't guilty of the fallacy mentioned, explain why.
- try not to use insulting or dismissive terms about other members. Examples: idiot, parrot, just a kid, sheeple, true believer, etc.
- Don't get upset if posts are coming too fast for you to respond to all of them. Dogpiling rarely indicates conspiracy to overwhelm, it's just a lot of individuals having individual reactions. Take your time and don't worry about keeping up with the pace of the conversation as much as you worry about providing thoughtful responses. If you don't have the time to respond to everything, silence won't generally be construed as defeat. (Aside from the occasional childish *crickets chirping* snark, which can be safely ignored, people understand that not responding immediately doesn't mean your brain sploded. If you're worried about it you can indicate that you'll respond later when you have time, but it's really not even needed.)
- Judiciously ignore trollish or overly rude posts. People can see those for what they are; feeding trolls rarely does any good.
- When you're making a controversial claim, it's often helpful to provide references to information that helped convince you. Know that people will not always be similarly convinced, but discussion about the meaning of the data can really be illuminating.
- Don't act like winning is the only thing that can make discussion worthwhile. Stating and defending your views can have value even if no one concedes you are right. It's taken me years to change certain opinions due to online discussions, but those discussions definitely persuaded me in a very gradual, incremental way.
- Read the "The Art of Practicing Polite Disagreement" thread.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I truly am not aware that was a personal attack. That statement was not pointed at any particular individual. The personal attacks I'm talking about usually contain names and words like "you" and "he".
Singling out an specific individual is not the hallmark of a personal attack. A personal attack can just as easily be made against a group of persons as an individual. Launching personal attacks on a group of people (hatrackers, Christians, Jews, Liberals, or even self-proclaimed open minded people) will often provoke more hostility than insulting one individual, which ought to be so obvious it does need to be stated.
If you had said, 'The Rabbit is so intolerant of anyone she disagrees with', I would likely be the only one offended but when you say "the self proclaimed open minded can be so intolerable of people from the other side." you have very likely offended a good fraction of those who consider themselves open minded.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: That's debatable...but the real difference is that those people are entertainment personalities.
it's debatable whether Howard Stern is ruder and cruder than Rush Limbaugh? So as long as someone says they are an entertainer they get a free pass on everything they do?
quote: People like Limbaugh try to pass themselves off as political commentators. People listen to them and trust them for their political news and world events coverage.
Lumbaugh isn't trying to pass himself off as a political commentator. He is a political commentator.
quote: Don't you see the problem when you compare Rush Limbaugh to a guy that has porn stars on his show and convinces them to stick various objects in their private places?
The problem I see is the claim of Limbaugh being responsible for rudeness, or at least the cause of the modern rude problem in politics. Politics has always been, and will always be, rude. Limbaugh is nowhere near as shrill as many others have been. Limbaugh is nowhere near as rude as Michael Moore.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Wow, DK. If not for the sentence "Limbaugh is nowhere near as shrill as many others have been," I would have disagreed with every sentence in your post.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:it's debatable whether Howard Stern is ruder and cruder than Rush Limbaugh?
I might concede that those personalities are "ruder and cruder", well, at least cruder, but Rush and his ilk are certainly more vitriolic...which, in my opinion, is worse.
also, for all his crudeness, I think Howard Stern is a pretty ethical human being. I can't say the same thing about Rush. Though that's not really relevant to this conversation.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Thanks for the tips. I never considered but now understand a quick flood of responses is not really a piling on and I'll remember that point in the future. Often though when you have multiple replies to a statement and you respond to one, one of the others accuses you of avoidance. Similarly, responding to multiple statements in one combined statement seems to induce a similar negative response.
I like controversial subjects and I believe the avoidance of controversy contributes to the problems in society. Bringing up and taking a position on a controversial topic is often percieved as being insensitive and indicative of prejudice in itself.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
It's tough sometimes when you get a lot of interest/responses to a post. It isn't always possible to respond to everyone.
Personally, I'm a fan of responding to multiple people in one post. Others will post multiple times, responding to each person in kind.
My biggest problem is all the time it takes out of my life to read, understand, and respond to all of the posts - and I generally apologize in my posts to those I did not get to.
It's not always easy.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: [QUOTE] Limbaugh is nowhere near as shrill as many others have been. Limbaugh is nowhere near as rude as Michael Moore.
I would surmise from this opinion that you do not listen to Limbaugh much? Maybe you do, but then I would like to know what you consider rude that Moore does, and Limbaugh does not (or more importantly to this particular point, *would not*) do.
For my part, I find them both obnoxious. I agree more often with Moore, but that's rather like thinking Coke is better than Pepsi if you're a diabetic.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: [QB] Please, go back through this very thread and see who started the personal attacks, it was not me; sorry for failing at my goal of not resonding to them. /QB]
Mal, In your very first post in this thread you said "It was fun for a while but the self proclaimed open minded can be so intolerable of people from the other side."
Perhaps you aren't aware of this, but that was a personal attack.
We have many posters here who are libertarian conservatives who have been accepted members of the community for years. Your perception that you are poorly received because of the content of your posts rather than your rude and inconsiderate posting style is inaccurate.
I truly am not aware that was a personal attack. That statement was not pointed at any particular individual. The personal attacks I'm talking about usually contain names and words like "you" and "he".
I am not only new to Hatrack, this is the first place I've ever bothered to post. If there is some kind of post etiquette that I'm missing, please educate me. No sarcasm there, I've seen people get angry at new golfers for stepping on their lie.
You know, knowing that DOES make a difference. Thank you for telling us.
I don't agree with most of your posts to date, although I rarely post in your threads. However, if you are genuine, respectful, and understand that not everyone who disagrees with you is either an idiot or a liar, then I'd be glad to interact with you. If we all always agreed with each other the world would be a boring place.
I'd second (or third) the idea that a lot of what people see as "piling on" can just be that there are a lot of people on, and a lot of people are interested in what you had to day. That doesn't mean that they agree, mind you....but a lot of times the post times are within 2-3 min of each other, so people were writing concurrently and don't realize that 10 posters are hitting send at the same time.
Honestly, people here are usually objecting to HOW you are saying things, man, because your posting style seems very confrontational. Just tone it down a bit, and realize that it's OK for people to disagree with each other, and I bet you'd see a HUGE difference in how you are perceived.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: [QUOTE] Limbaugh is nowhere near as shrill as many others have been. Limbaugh is nowhere near as rude as Michael Moore.
I would surmise from this opinion that you do not listen to Limbaugh much? Maybe you do, but then I would like to know what you consider rude that Moore does, and Limbaugh does not (or more importantly to this particular point, *would not*) do.
For my part, I find them both obnoxious. I agree more often with Moore, but that's rather like thinking Coke is better than Pepsi if you're a diabetic.
This is almost exactly what I would have said, if you had not said it first. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: Limbaugh is nowhere near as rude as Michael Moore.
"He is exaggerating the effects of the disease. He's moving all around and shaking and it's purely an act. ... This is really shameless of Michael J. Fox. Either he didn't take his medication or he's acting."
"Why should Blacks be heard? They're 12% of the population. Who the hell cares."
"If we are going to start rewarding no skills and stupid people-- I'm serious, let the unskilled jobs that take absolutely no knowledge whatsoever to do--let the stupid and unskilled Mexicans do that work."
"The NAACP should have riot rehearsal. They should get a liquor store and practice robberies"
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Then there was the incident early in the Clinton administration, Limbaugh put up a picture of Socks, the White House cat, and asked, "Did you know there's a White House dog?" Then he put up a picture of Chelsea Clinton, who was 13 years old at the time.
I can't think of anything Michael Moore has done that is remotely that rude and to someone whose only crime was to be the teenage daughter of one of his political opponents.
I'm not a particular fan of Michael Moore and don't follow everything he says. If he is doing and saying things that are that rude, please provide us some quotes.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Rabbit, THIS WEEK David Letterman made jokes about the 14-year-old daughter of Sarah Palin having sex with adult men.
Are you as outraged about that as you are about (tacky, tasteless, over-the-line) Chelsea joke.
If not, what makes it okay to trash the children of only Republican politicians?
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
first off, I really think it's debatable whether Letterman was talking about the 14 year old. Why don't you believe him when he said he was talking about Bristol Palin? It was the obvious joke to make.
third, again, is there, and should there be, a difference between the standards we hold to comedians and entertainers vs political commentators?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:THIS WEEK David Letterman made jokes about the 14-year-old daughter of Sarah Palin having sex with adult men.
Well, no. To clarify, David Letterman made a joke about Sarah Palin and her daughter going to a baseball game and being impregnated. As Letterman has clarified, he did not know that the daughter in question was Palin's younger daughter; rather, his writing staff apparently assumed it was the older -- and famously fertile -- one.
Whether or not it's fairer to make fun of an adult daughter who'd already had one child out of wedlock (and made that pregnancy the subject of speaking tours) than it is to insult the looks of a middle-schooler is a matter of taste, I'd imagine.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
fourth, what Tom said about the difference between the two jokes.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
*shrug*
quote: Through mid-March, Leno had made 15 jokes about the Palin daughter's pregnancy, Stewart had told four on "The Daily Show," and Letterman checked in with eight, according to an analysis of late-night humor by the Center for Media and Public Affairs, a nonpartisan research organization affiliated with George Mason University.
The comedian most likely to bash Bristol Palin? O'Brien, with 20 jokes at her expense.
"Saturday Night Live" has also parodied the Palin family in questionable ways. In a skit last September, a mock reporter joked about incest in the vice presidential candidate's family, saying, "I mean, come on. It's Alaska!"
Palin not only didn't protest, she appeared as a guest on the program a few weeks later.
I actually think the different responses to the two jokes exposes a bigger problem. Limbaugh called a young teenager ugly. Letterman called a young teenager promiscuous.
Looks like it is worse for a young lady to be considered ugly rather than promiscuous.
Even if the joke was supposedly about Bristol, it was still tacky. All sexual partners are not made alike, and there is a world of difference between a high school boyfriend and an adulterous stranger 20 years older.
It looks like excuses get made for only one side. What a non-surprise.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
I for one wasn't making excuses...I made 4 points:
1) that the joke wasn't about who you said it was about
2) that much of Palin's anger regarding the joke was not out of true anger, but a political move
3) That posters keep bringing up entertainers and comedians as examples of people who are rude and over the top, to contrast with the rudeness of some right wing political commentators.
4) that whether you think one joke is worse than the other is probably a matter of taste.
I'm most curious to hear a reply to number 3.
[ June 19, 2009, 01:10 PM: Message edited by: Strider ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:All sexual partners are not made alike, and there is a world of difference between a high school boyfriend and an adulterous stranger 20 years older.
Side comment: I'm wondering, looking at a high school boyfriend versus a sports superstar like A-Rod, I think I'd expect a girl in her late teens to be more likely to have sex, especially unprotected sex, with the sports superstar if she could.
edit: Because I realized I left this out. The thing I'm wondering is if other people see it this way too?
[ June 19, 2009, 01:13 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Looks like it is worse for a young lady to be considered ugly rather than promiscuous.
Well, for one thing, Chelsea Clinton did nothing to be considered ugly. Bristol Palin, on the other hand, was considered promiscuous specifically as a result of previous promiscuity. Note also that Bristol is 18, and has made her former promiscuity a matter of public interest by choosing to make it a central element of her media tour.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That says more about your frame of mind than it does about teenage girls.
Tom: You consider a girl having any sex at all to be promiscuous?
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:I for one wasn't making excuses...I made 4 points:
1) that the joke wasn't about who you said it was about
2) that much of Palin's anger regarding the joke was not out of true anger, but a political move
3) That posters keep bringing up entertainers and comedians as examples of people who are rude and over the top, to contrast with the rudeness of some right wing political commentators.
3) that whether you think one joke is worse than the other is probably a matter of taste.
I'm most curious to hear a reply to number 3.
Which number 3 would that be?
Though it is fun to watch the thread drift in action....
What happened to hatrack... Hatrackers have been harsher recently... This might be influenced by outside environment... OSC has grown more political... Political commentators can be very rude... Entertainers can be very rude... Should we hold entertainers and commentators to the same standard... Excuses are being made by "only one side. what a non-surprise"...
Now, if this were a BASIC program, I'd just put "Go To Line 1" and we'd be set.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Bristol herself does.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Do you?
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow:
quote:I for one wasn't making excuses...I made 4 points:
1) that the joke wasn't about who you said it was about
2) that much of Palin's anger regarding the joke was not out of true anger, but a political move
3) That posters keep bringing up entertainers and comedians as examples of people who are rude and over the top, to contrast with the rudeness of some right wing political commentators.
3) that whether you think one joke is worse than the other is probably a matter of taste.
I'm most curious to hear a reply to number 3.
Which number 3 would that be?
fixed
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
kat, It seems like you've got your nasty witch hat on again. Especially in this thread, I think you might want to reconsider that.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Rabbit, THIS WEEK David Letterman made jokes about the 14-year-old daughter of Sarah Palin having sex with adult men.
Are you as outraged about that as you are about (tacky, tasteless, over-the-line) Chelsea joke.
If not, what makes it okay to trash the children of only Republican politicians?
I hadn't heard of it until now so no I wasn't outraged about it. Now that you mention it, it does seem quite rude.
As other's have pointed out already, the two situations aren't analogous. There are many differences between the two besides republican/democrat or ugly/promiscuous so trying to pin peoples different reactions on one of those isn't reasonable or charitable.
Beyond that. I've already stated I thought there was a decline in civility and increasing acceptance of rude behavior on all sides of political spectrum. I was only questioning whether Michael Moore (specifically) had said things as rude as Rush Limbaugh (specifically). I'm not sure how your comment that Letterman made rude jokes about Bristol Palin relates to that discussion
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
You know, this thread really begs the question: what's happened to Hatrack?
Hobbes Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I do not wish to converse with you, Squick.
_______
Tom, I really am interested in your answer. Bristol had sex with her high school boyfriend and is now preaching against doing that. I wonder at your inclination to call her promiscuous - it looks like you consider that any teenage girl having sex is promiscuous. Is that true? If not, why are you calling her that? It is definitely a pejorative.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
It doesn't actually support my thesis that politics hasn't really got more rude over the years. But I looked up and especially liked this incident: http://archives.cbc.ca/politics/prime_ministers/clip/2955/ Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Not sure how this became a Palin/Letterman, Republican/Democrat issue.
There was some talk about OSC's tone changing, and then a tie in to the tone of America changing, with Limbaugh as an example.
There was some tangential discussion about the degree of severity between Limbaugh and Moore...
And then all of a sudden Letterman/Palin get tossed in the mix, with a zinger of "what makes it okay to trash the children of only Republican politicians" coming out of left field...
And then entered the comfortable, hostile polarization that hatrack has grown accustomed to recently... in a thread expressing concern over that very same hostile polarization.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: It doesn't actually support my thesis that politics hasn't really got more rude over the years. But I looked up and especially liked this incident: http://archives.cbc.ca/politics/prime_ministers/clip/2955/
That's hilarious. Especially if it happened the first time they met.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Kat, I'm honestly interested in what you have to say on the point of entertainers vs. political commentators. I understand the line gets real blurry these days. Any time your livelihood depends on the amount of people that listen to you, then to a certain degree you're a de facto entertainer. But how people see you is important. Sure, many comedians these days comment/joke about politics, but they at the same time acknowledge they are comedians and I doubt many people listen to someone like Howard Stern for serious analyzation of world affairs(Bill Maher is one that comes to mind that skirts that gray area). Rush Limbaugh doesn't view himself this way(at least not publically), and much of his audience doesn't view him that way either. Given the nature of his business, it'd be foolish to say that Rush Limbaugh doesn't say things at times(maybe often) specifically to rile people up and ruffle feathers. And yet if his audience views him as a trustworthy commentator about the facts of the world, then this creates a problem.
I have the same problem with Michael Moore. I find his films interesting, but you have to watch them with a discerning eye, he certainly isn't fair and balanced.
But the bigger point is, if you(or others) are bringing up comedians and entertains as examples to contrast the vitriolic nature of Rush Limbaugh's discourse, then what exactly is Rush Limbaugh. How can DK state:
quote:Lumbaugh isn't trying to pass himself off as a political commentator. He is a political commentator.
And then compare him to people like Howard Stern or David Letterman. If these are accurate comparisons, then why should I give Rush Limbaugh any more clout when he talks politics then say when Chris Rock talks politics. And isn't it a problem then that people give Rush Limbaugh much more credit than Chris Rock?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
My personal opinion? I do have a definite personal opinion, but I recognize this is MY personal opinion. It is not meant, even by me, to be a template or starting point around which to form public policy.
But my personal opinions of the above topics are as follows:
1. Public figures are up for jokes, as long as the jokes are not racist or sexist.
2. A lot of comedy derives from making people the butt of jokes, so an ironclad rule is hard to draw. In those cases, if there are jokes about someone's gender, then there should be an equal amount between the genders, aggregate, over time, for each comedian. In other words, you can't just pick on women.
3. Jokes against the people in power are essential for free speech. Totally fine. It does mean, however, against whomever is in power, even if you voted for them.
4. Children of public figures are off limits, no matter who the public figure is. Minor children of public figures are definitely, definitely off limits. Find someone else to pick on - it isn't right or fair or moral to use a national soapbox to pick on kids who didn't offer themselves up for judgment, no matter who their parents are.
5. Accurate news and astute political commentary are essential.
6. Neither is found over the air. (I told you this is my opinion.) In fact, due to the format and the financial pressures, all television and radio news is suspect and should not be trusted on its own. A possible exception most of the time, depending on the topic, is NPR.
7. Everyone on the air is an entertainer. Some have a more political flavor, but they are all entertainers first.
I don't think how people view someone makes a difference as to what they are. People follow medical advice on Oprah - that doesn't make her a doctor. Lots and lots of people get their political news and views from Jon Stewart - that doesn't stop him from being an entertainer first. If you are on the air, you are an entertainer.
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
Squick, you know that doesn't help.
Kat, you have of late seemed more confrontational, which when combined with the history you and Mr. Squicky have here makes the response less surprising. That's not an accusation -- just an observation.
In regard to your question of Tom, he's made note in the past that he prefers to answer the question he thinks you want the answer to rather than the question you're asking. I suspect he would have been less likely to refer to her as "promiscuous" had it not been the term she herself used (presumably -- I really don't know), or at least the "pejorative" she seems to have claimed it is. True, a less charged way might have been to say "sexually active."
I wonder if I were to sit down and figure out a list of "acceptable approaches to humor in the public realm" if it would be similar to yours. The only one I can remember from my ComedySportz days is "cancer is never funny." And that got broken on occasion anyway, or at least someone attempted to break it.
While I don't think the rules should be the same for "political commentators" and "entertainers" inasmuch as those terms may not be well-defined, I do think that both positions contribute to the steady decline of "American civility."
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
If she's ever called herself promiscuous, I've never seen it. She's publicly regeretted having sex, but hasn't ever, that I've seen, applied the word to herself.
If she has, I'd love to see a link to it. I don't believe that she has.
If you google the terms, there are piles and piles are articles and blogs where people call her that, but I can't find a single instance where she calls herself that.
Pop, I would prefer that Squick never, ever speak to me. [Removed remainder of paragraph. --PJ]
[ June 23, 2009, 03:35 PM: Message edited by: Papa Janitor ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:4. Children of public figures are off limits, no matter who the public figure is. Minor children of public figures are definitely, definitely off limits. Find someone else to pick on - it isn't right or fair or moral to use a national soapbox to pick on kids who didn't offer themselves up for judgment, no matter who their parents are.
I hate to say it, because normally I'd agree with you, but when a public figure makes family values a lynch pin of her tirades against large sections of the country, then has something like what happened to her daughter, and then instead of dropping the matter uses her daughter as political ammunition, then I think the children aren't off limits. If political parents want to shield their children from the outside world, they need to recognize the messages they are preaching, and not use their own children to score political points. Once they do, they've broken the seal, and, within reason, and one would hope not aimed at the children, they become fair game with certain restraints.
quote:7. Everyone on the air is an entertainer. Some have a more political flavor, but they are all entertainers first.
Why does it matter if they're on the air? If someone writes for the Wall Street Journal for 10 years and then goes on the air and becomes an entertainer, they lose their political commenting credentials? Wouldn't that make everything they did and said before also just for entertainment value? Saying that everyone on the air is an entertainer is so nebulous as to make the title of 'political commentator' totally useless, unless you're suggesting that only print media hold the keys to neutral commentary and analysis, which I can't imagine you are.
There are lines, and there is crossover, but the two have become so blurred that labeling everyone an entertainer like that almost removes a lot of meaning.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:If someone writes for the Wall Street Journal for 10 years and then goes on the air and becomes an entertainer, they lose their political commenting credentials?
Yep.
quote:Wouldn't that make everything they did and said before also just for entertainment value?
Nope.
There are different kinds of entertainers, but if you are on the air, you are an entertainer at your soul. Politics is just your material.
As for the kids thing - the entire point is that it doesn't matter if the parent is Michael Jackson or those odious people who put their children on a reality show. If you are a minor kid, you are off limits. There is a nothing a parent can do that makes attacking a child okay.
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
Kat, I think it may not be that she's calling herself promiscuous, but may have called the activity promiscuity, and (either before or after that, I don't know) taken part in it. There's a transitive property at work. But again, I really don't know. I don't watch Letterman, didn't really follow the Bristol Palin stories back during the presidential campaign (or before or after), and so any/all information I have on it is at least third or fourth hand. I'm just throwing out possible interpretations.
[Edit -- wow, I almost didn't see the edit. I thought your post was sufficient before that. You really think that helps? Don't answer that -- or do, if you want, but don't expect a response from me again.]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Nothing - no variation on the word anywhere in any of the articles or transcripts. If someone has a link, I'd love to see it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I would judge the news commentator/entertainer by things like content and intended audience rather than medium.
Walter Cronkite is a news person
Dear Abby is an entertainer.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: ... then instead of dropping the matter uses her daughter as political ammunition, then I think the children aren't off limits.
More to the point, Bristol Palin is a public figure in her own right who uses her own profile for a cause.
quote: In 2009 she worked with the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy to ask teens to abstain from having sex. Bill Alpert, the Campaign's spokesman, said working with Palin made sense because "she's had the highest-profile teen pregnancy of the year."[7] In May 2009 Palin was named a Teen Abstinence Ambassador for the Candie's Foundation,[8][9] a teen pregnancy prevention organization.[10] Her duties as a spokeswoman involved attending town hall meetings and giving interviews on morning talk shows. Palin said "Regardless of what I did personally, abstinence is the only ... 100% foolproof way you can prevent pregnancy."[11] Before becoming an abstinence spokeswoman Palin told Fox News that abstinence for teens is "not realistic at all".
Television: all entertainers, including the people on 60 minutes. Some better than others, but entertainers at the core.
Radio: Mostly entertainers, with the possible exception of NPR.
Newspapers and magazines: Depends on the section and the quality of the writing and reporting.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Yes, Bristol Palin is now a public figure, but she became one only when she launched her own round of interviews, not when her mother did.
Her younger siblings definitely are not.
I know Letterman said he didn't realize it was Willow. I do doubt that - even I know it was Willow on the tour with her mom in New York City, before the joke. I have a hard time believing that the writers didn't. It is dimly possible that Dave didn't and just repeated the joke from his writers, but then, that was pretty lazy of him. If he says it, he's responsible for it.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Pop, I would prefer that Squick never, ever speak to me. [Removed remainder of quote. --PJ]
Gosh. I wonder how that feels.
[ June 23, 2009, 03:36 PM: Message edited by: Papa Janitor ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that we lost a lot when network news departments started to have to generate income rather than being a service that a network provided in exchange for using the airwaves.
I think that is one reason that non-profit news (NPR, PBS, BBC, even al Jazeera) is often more reliable than for profit "news" whatever the medium.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I cannot find any evidence of Bristol Palin having referred to herself as promiscuous or her behavior as promiscuity, either. It appears she is urging teenagers not to have sex at all, and saying she regrets doing it herself. (But loves and values her baby, which some have uncharitably made fun of, claiming it is a contradiction.)
It bears repeating, though, that Bristol is now seeking publicity on her own; she's making herself a public figure. That is a significant difference between the Limbaugh joke about Chelsea and the Letterman joke about Bristol.*
(I still think the Letterman joke was in poor taste.)
*It was about Bristol. The writers and Letterman are not stupid enough to broadcast the idea that Palin's younger daughter would have sex with an MLB player. The idea that they would think this is a good idea is far more implausible to me than the idea that they heard Palin was in town with a daughter and assumed it was Bristol. The joke only works for Bristol anyway; she's the one who got pregnant before.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That's it exactly, k. Once the measurement is ratings of the news itself, rather than the quality of the news since that part is supported financially by other things, that's the tipping point into becoming entertainment.
The other one is personality. If a person is hired for their personality and their ability to get people hyped up - like Limbaugh, Oprah, and Stewart are - they are definitely entertainers.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I would say that print media is less dominated by personality, but they still have to sell ad space and garner an "audience" so they are not free from the rating problem. Hence tabloid newspapers.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
When the primary product delivered is audience (to the advertisers) rather than the information (to the audience), there is an inherent problem.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Entertainment of the "providing information and serious commentary on issues," is different from entertainment of the "trying to make you laugh"variety.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It seems that in regular newspapers, it was a given that the entire paper was paid for by the ads in the Style section. Since the front page wasn't the money generator anyway, editors could focus on the quality of the story and then make sure there was a big spread on Your Spring Garden and Movies We Love in the Style section to pay for it all. A tiny change in the Funnies section would bring more mail than any front page story.
I've read that the downfall of the papers is happening not because people are getting better serious news online (they aren't), but that they are getting better fluff online (they are).
quote:Entertainment of the "providing information and serious commentary on issues," is different from entertainment of the "trying to make you laugh"variety.
Unless you're Jon Stewart.
Both are still entertainment, though.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: When the primary product delivered is audience (to the advertisers) rather than the information (to the audience), there is an inherent problem.
Exactly.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Unless you're Jon Stewart."
Even then.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Close enough.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It would be interesting if news were handled the same way that the National Weather Service handles information about the weather.
Of course then we would have the government involved with new which pretty much goes against the freedom of the press thing. On the other hand, the BBC doesn't strike me as having a lot of government interference in what it broadcasts. Nor does RTE. In fact, they are frequently more hard hitting and critical than the news here. Could they stay that way if the government decided otherwise?
Interesting to contemplate the differences between news that is dependent on government support and news that is dependent on ratings and corporate support.
Another interesting thing to contemplate is why being nasty seems to be an effective way of gaining an audience. Clearly that is what we (a general rather than a specific "we") are looking for. Which goes back to the whole civility of discourse question.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The joke only works for Bristol anyway; she's the one who got pregnant before.
Allow me to point out that this is the relevant part. The joke is absolutely dependent on the assumption that a given individual is "likely" to get pregnant. Bristol got famously pregnant thanks to a random dude, and there's cognitive dissonance there thanks to her family's stated moral codes. That's the only reason it's funny.
To test this, try making the exact same joke about, say, Angelina Jolie's children. It doesn't work, because they don't have the attribute "gets pregnant easily."
From the media's famously reductive POV, Bristol has four attributes: 1) Youthfully attractive and of legal age 2) Had a baby before getting married 3) Had a socially-conservative upbringing 4) Willing to be in the public eye
Taken together, these are what make jokes about her pregnancy not only fair game but pretty much irresistible.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Pop, I would prefer that Squick never, ever speak to me. [Removed remainder of quote. --PJ]
Kat, what has happened to you? I really hate to say this, but I think you've contributed a lot to the general nastiness of the place in the last few years.
I'm not sure why I'm even bothering to post this—I'm pretty sure you're just going to ignore or rudely dismiss this post just like you've done all the other times.
[ June 23, 2009, 03:37 PM: Message edited by: Papa Janitor ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Taken together, these are what make jokes about her pregnancy not only fair game but pretty much irresistible.
There's also (or "it is catalyzed by") her official marketing of the event and the way in which it changed.
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
I think any board changes as the years go by. It has been years since I was really a regular poster...but I still lurk quite frequently.
When I first started posting, I do think things were a bit more civil. I never felt like an outsider because I was not LDS. Certainly I noticed that there were many LDS posters...there was frequently talks about beliefs, missions, and such...but those of us who had other religions were not left out (at least in my opinion).
I think over time things did become a little more confrontational. It was people on BOTH sides of issues that let to the problems I think. But of course, life also gets in the way of posting. It was easier to post more when I was in college...even in grad school. Once I had a full time job, it got a little bit more difficult.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I did say this is my personal opinion.
Television: all entertainers, including the people on 60 minutes. Some better than others, but entertainers at the core.
Radio: Mostly entertainers, with the possible exception of NPR.
Newspapers and magazines: Depends on the section and the quality of the writing and reporting.
I absolutely disagree. It's not even close to being that cut and dry. I agree that people on the air, regardless of whether it's television or radio, do have an added element of entertainment value. But material should be treated for what it is, and with respect for the credentials or value of the person saying it.
According to your theory, if a person says something on the air, it should be treated differently than if the same person said the same thing in print. That's ridiculous. It means what it means.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: Kat, what has happened to you? I really hate to say this, but I think you've contributed a lot to the general nastiness of the place in the last few years.
I'm not sure if I agree with the latter part of this statement, but definitely the former. I always saw katharina a gentle member of the forum. Granted, I've been in and out of the last 6+ years and missed a lot, but I always remembered her being rational and kind. Something has changed her, whether it was Hatrack or other outside influences.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: Can we all agree that being right isn't important?
First, Tatiana, I want to say that what you wrote was clearly from the heart, probably wasn't easy to let loose into a volatile discussion, and doesn't deserve to be minimized to this one statement that everyone's quoting, so, no irony or sarcasm implied, thanks for sharing.
That said, what comes to mind for me with regard to this particular sentence is an aunt of mine who casually insisted that the college I was attending at the time wasn't geographically in the part of Portland I said it was. (Um, I do send mail there, not to mention take buses there, give people directions for how to get there... Is it possible I have a better grasp of the geography of Portland than you do, living in northern Washington...)
In other words, yes, it is important to be right. But I think what you may actually be trying to say (not to put words in your mouth) is a) we shouldn't cling to our desire to believe ourselves right in our own minds to the exclusion of new ideas, information, and opinions, and b) we should resist the temptation to "correct" people, especially on minor points, when there is little to be gained in doing so and much animosity and hurt to be incurred in the doing.
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: Limbaugh is nowhere near as rude as Michael Moore.
In a sense, I agree, but not in a positive one. Limbaugh prefers to cast disdain on his targets in absentia- calling Chelsea a dog, his "interview" with Hillary with an edited recording, and so on. He rarely, if ever, appears in any forum where someone he'd like to insult would get equal airtime; little wonder, most reasonably intelligent and well-researched politicians, reporters, and the like would take him apart like a roast chicken.
Moore, by contrast, tends to either confront his targets directly or trick them into admissions that support his point (or, admittedly, edit footage to make it appear that they have done so.) In the sense that he is more directly confrontational, he is certainly more "rude". But it would be equally accurate to say that Limbaugh is a coward.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:That said, what comes to mind for me with regard to this particular sentence is an aunt of mine who casually insisted that the college I was attending at the time wasn't geographically in the part of Portland I said it was. (Um, I do send mail there, not to mention take buses there, give people directions for how to get there... Is it possible I have a better grasp of the geography of Portland than you do, living in northern Washington...)
In other words, yes, it is important to be right.
But more importantly, WHY is it important to be right? Is it important to be right for the sake of being right? Is that what ultimately matters, or is it something else?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I don't think that makes him MORE rude than Rush.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Once you get into the lowest tier of political "entertainment" that Moore and Limbaugh inhabit, does it really matter to talk about degrees of rudeness?
They're both awful, but neither is an excuse for the other.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Amen. Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Well, listen, I like Michael Moore, and I haven't heard anything substantive about him using trickery or deceit in his editing. I've definitely heard it -- but not in a substantive way. I've never heard it presented with facts or evidence.
I'm not saying there aren't facts and evidence, it's just that I haven't fallen across them on my travels. Would anyone care to link me?
[I feel like I should clarify: I'm not under any delusion that he has no agenda. I know he has a point of view and his films are strongly editorial. I often disagree with his conclusions. But I admire his passion and courage and, in general, his point of view.]
[I don't think the man is a saint or anything, and I'm still unhappy with how he threw Nader under the bus....]
Edited to add:
It always makes me cringe when I see him compared to Limbaugh, who I think is truly despicable in a really rare, special kind of way.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You don't hate it to say it, Jon Boy. You love it.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote: But more importantly, WHY is it important to be right? Is it important to be right for the sake of being right? Is that what ultimately matters, or is it something else?
I used to have a boss that I referred to as speaking for emphasis instead of factual accuracy. I never believed she was deliberatly lying so much as unconciously making up facts to support her view of reality.
However, her personal view of reality frequently matched no one else's. She once spoke to me about my slacking and how she shouldn't be doing more transactions than me every day. (I liked to write story ideas down in a notebook when it was quiet and it drove her batty. Apparently, I was supposed to make up work to look busy.) When I checked the log, I saw I'd forgotten to write down my numbers for the last three days.
So I flipped through a couple pieces of paper and wrote them down. I'd had more than twice her numbers all three days. Needless to say, I felt free to dismiss her from then on as being reactionary and full of it. She ruined her credibility with me because she was flat out wrong and didn't even care enough to know it.
My problem wasn't so much with her being wrong as with the lack of interest it showed on her part. She had made up her mind how things worked, and she was sticking to it come hell or high water. I didn't matter at all in that scenario.
Sometimes being right really comes down to respect for other people. If I can't consider your point of view if you tell me where in Portland you live, how can trust me to consider your point of view on anything meaningful? Sometimes being wrong is just a symptom of a deeper problem.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I think what I was saying, and may not have phrased that well, is that many people who become vituperative while posting are motivated primarily by the desire to prove they're the one who is right. They want to win. They're not as concerned with correcting someone's error on a subject for some substantive reason. They just want to be the one who won the argument. I think perhaps almost all of us have felt this way at some point. And what I'm saying is that it's pointless because it doesn't matter who wins.
That's what arguing on ten-thousand hatrack threads about creationism, gay marriage, reproductive rights, religious worldviews, etc. has taught me in the 12 years or so that I've been here. Being the one who wins the argument isn't important.
In the example of someone's grandmother who is mistaken about the location of their college. Does it mean her yummy packages full of cookies and other baked goods will go awry in the mails? If so, convince her for the sake of her cookies. Does it mean that her desire to visit will be thwarted because she's looking in the wrong place for the dorm? If so, correct her so that you won't miss the visit of your dear abuelita. However, if there's no such reason she needs to know, if nothing bad will happen because she's got the wrong idea of where your college is, then why correct her?
What's important about the fact that you're sure she's wrong? There are thousands of things about which we each are wrong all the time. The human mind works like that. Why make her all angry and upset and disinclined to send you baked goods unless there are important consequences to her not knowing the truth?
If indeed it's the joy of her company, or her baked goods, that you don't want to miss out on, then you'll definitely want to correct her in a kind and diplomatic way so as not to upset your dear grandmother and subtract from that joy, right?
That's what I meant by my post.
I don't mean to pick on whoever gave the example of the grandmother. In no way should they feel singled out. I'm deliberately forgetting who it was, so they will know it's not personal. I just picked up one example given and used it to illustrate what I meant about being right not being important. I hope the poster of the example doesn't take offense at my using it. For all I know, it could have been of life-or-death importance in the actual fact.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I understood you the first time Tatiana, it was clear from the context that you didn't really mean that the truth doesn't matter but something more like winning the argument doesn't matter.
I think many of the problems here arise because people take others words too exactly and don't carefully read for context that buffers meaning.
In a polished essay, we should expect that words and phrases are very carefully chosen and that each word has meaning. But most of us don't post polished essays at hatrack. This is a conversation and in conversation people generally don't carefully pick and revise every word and phrase before they speak. We expect that in polite conversation people will consider context and personalities and ask for clarification if a particular wording doesn't fit with context or can be understood in different ways.
I think too many of us read hatrack as though each post was a carefully polished essay and yet post ourselves as though this were a casual conversation.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by TL: Well, listen, I like Michael Moore, and I haven't heard anything substantive about him using trickery or deceit in his editing. I've definitely heard it -- but not in a substantive way. I've never heard it presented with facts or evidence.
I'm not saying there aren't facts and evidence, it's just that I haven't fallen across them on my travels. Would anyone care to link me?
[I feel like I should clarify: I'm not under any delusion that he has no agenda. I know he has a point of view and his films are strongly editorial. I often disagree with his conclusions. But I admire his passion and courage and, in general, his point of view.]
[I don't think the man is a saint or anything, and I'm still unhappy with how he threw Nader under the bus....]
Edited to add:
It always makes me cringe when I see him compared to Limbaugh, who I think is truly despicable in a really rare, special kind of way.
Love or hate either of them, it's hard for me to ignore the very substantive difference in the quality of thought, organization and research they each respectively bring to their projects.
Now, I don't care what your political views are, I think you will probably agree that Moore does significantly more careful organization of his agenda and material, and is more highly skilled in the direction of its presentation. He does at times (often in fact) slant the delivery of the research he has done, but his research is also undeniably thorough and often thoughtful. I constantly find myself wishing he had as much taste as he does passion and compassion for others. It's obvious to me that he respects the power of information.
Limbaugh (again, love or hate him), and I have listened to his show many times, simply doesn't do the kind of research that could make anyone a respectable authority on much of anything. I hate Bill O'Reilly for being an arrogant ass, but the guy knows how to read and do his homework. It becomes incredibly clear upon listening to Limbaugh that he is really ludicrously under-informed, and often misinformed on his key topics and the people he often talks about. Just listen to his program, and notice that time and again, consistently from day to day, he cites and quotes from newspapers and political blogs, and does so in a way that suggests, at least to me, that he has not actually read many of them. His basic knowledge of economics and economic theory is worse even than mine- and that's saying something. His grasp of scientific topics is embarrassing. And on top of all that, I get the distinct impression from his overall attitude toward the use of information on his show, that he is just simply lazy- that he believes himself so superior, that the actual muckraking and gritty personal fact finding and perspective gleaning that gets done in so many other places in the media is beneath him.
And I mean, that's weird isn't it? For years he called the mainstream media (of which is IS a part), the "drive-by" media... but listen to his show! He drives by topics with a surface spin so quick and dirty, most commentators would be embarrassed by its flimsiness. His actual harping on specific topics doesn't constitute in-depth anything, it just forms a surface level mantra that he seems to believe is a substitute for an actual argument.
Say what you will about Moore, but he at least does some justice to his topics by choosing the production-side delivery over the on-air live delivery. I think it says something about conservative radio that it has become so ubiquitous, while more liberal media sources, like NPR for instance, are more heavily produced and often more thoroughly researched, and less centered on individual personalities. Moore has the personality thing as bad as Limbaugh does, but at least it's only for a concentrated 30 minutes to 2 hours at a time, once every couple of years.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
To clarify:
I think Moore is "ruder" only in the sense that he's assaulting (in a figurative sense) people's beliefs and actions face-to-face. To say malicious things about someone when they aren't there can be catty, slanderous, mean-spirited, ugly, deceitful... But to be rude, they really need to be there. Or at least, someone who will take offense at their being slighted has to be there.
To my mind, anyway. I realize that's a shade of meaning, and not one everyone may agree with.
And regarding my aunt: I didn't correct her at the time, but I fumed about it a bit; I was in the right on the matter, but trying to stand in the way of her need to think she was right was likely to cause more unease to us both than satisfaction to me or edification to her. It was one of those small things that makes you recognize uncomfortable truths about people you've been around your whole life, things that make you realize perhaps you won't spend as much time in their company in adulthood as you did in childhood.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Oxford American Sayeth:
quote: adjective 1 offensively impolite or ill-mannered : she had been rude to her boss | [with infinitive ] it's rude to ask a lady her age. • referring to a taboo subject such as sex in a way considered improper and offensive : he made a rude gesture. • [ attrib. ] having a startling abruptness : the war came as a very rude awakening. 2 roughly made or done; lacking subtlety or sophistication : a rude coffin. • archaic ignorant and uneducated : the new religion was first promulgated by rude men. 3 [ attrib. ] chiefly Brit. vigorous or hearty : Isabel had always been in rude health.
While as you can see from the example in definition 1, rude is most often collocated with "to," which would indicate that it is often used to describe direct interaction, that usage is not the only one available. While the second definition is familiar from its more literary uses: "oh rude fate," "rude awakening," it is also clearly permissible under the archaic usage, which is also the current usage in Spanish, iirc.
That doesn't precisely describe the behavior as much as the character, however it's not a large stretch to make, and few words that come to mind fit the usage better when talking about the behavior in question, ie: speaking about (or to) another person with disregard for the expectation of civility and common courtesy that one would reasonably expect.
If you can think of a better word to describe the class of behavior we're talking about, I'd stick with "rude" - there's no evidence that the limitation you have placed on it (that of it being limited to personal interaction), is common or accepted.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: You don't hate it to say it, Jon Boy. You love it.
I really don't know why I even try with you anymore. Why on earth do you think I love it? What do you think I get out of this?
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Oxford American Sayeth:
quote: adjective 1 offensively impolite or ill-mannered : she had been rude to her boss | [with infinitive ] it's rude to ask a lady her age. • referring to a taboo subject such as sex in a way considered improper and offensive : he made a rude gesture. • [ attrib. ] having a startling abruptness : the war came as a very rude awakening. 2 roughly made or done; lacking subtlety or sophistication : a rude coffin. • archaic ignorant and uneducated : the new religion was first promulgated by rude men. 3 [ attrib. ] chiefly Brit. vigorous or hearty : Isabel had always been in rude health.
While as you can see from the example in definition 1, rude is most often collocated with "to," which would indicate that it is often used to describe direct interaction, that usage is not the only one available. While the second definition is familiar from its more literary uses: "oh rude fate," "rude awakening," it is also clearly permissible under the archaic usage, which is also the current usage in Spanish, iirc.
That doesn't precisely describe the behavior as much as the character, however it's not a large stretch to make, and few words that come to mind fit the usage better when talking about the behavior in question, ie: speaking about (or to) another person with disregard for the expectation of civility and common courtesy that one would reasonably expect.
If you can think of a better word to describe the class of behavior we're talking about, I'd stick with "rude" - there's no evidence that the limitation you have placed on it (that of it being limited to personal interaction), is common or accepted.
Bit of a problem with archaic uses vs. modern media and means of communication; previously, most definitions of "rude" would require direct observation by those who would make such a judgement to be considered so. Can, for example, a political ad be considered "rude" in the same sense as slamming a door in someone's face? Rude in the sense of "crude", perhaps. Most things that would be considered rude in person would receive a different adjective when used in the media.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: Bit of a problem with archaic uses vs. modern media and means of communication; previously, most definitions of "rude" would require direct observation by those who would make such a judgement to be considered so. Can, for example, a political ad be considered "rude" in the same sense as slamming a door in someone's face? Rude in the sense of "crude", perhaps. Most things that would be considered rude in person would receive a different adjective when used in the media.
Well, print media has existed for millenia- I think the word when applied to behavior or types of speech can still apply in mostly the same way. But yes, point taken of course, rudeness is most often associated with interpersonal interaction. Nevertheless, it's clear to me that the word can easily extend to one's behavior towards others (present or not) in the public eye. Again, I challenge you to find a better word- "crude" doesn't really cut it for me, it implies a different class of behavior entirely, don't you think?
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy:
quote:Originally posted by katharina: You don't hate it to say it, Jon Boy. You love it.
I really don't know why I even try with you anymore. Why on earth do you think I love it? What do you think I get out of this?
I'm with Jon on this one katharina. He joined about the same time I did, and we always seemed to get along well, even when I acted like a jerk. I can't say I know him really well, but I tend to believe him when he doesn't say that for enjoyment.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by TL: Well, listen, I like Michael Moore, and I haven't heard anything substantive about him using trickery or deceit in his editing. I've definitely heard it -- but not in a substantive way. I've never heard it presented with facts or evidence.
I'm not saying there aren't facts and evidence, it's just that I haven't fallen across them on my travels. Would anyone care to link me?
[I feel like I should clarify: I'm not under any delusion that he has no agenda. I know he has a point of view and his films are strongly editorial. I often disagree with his conclusions. But I admire his passion and courage and, in general, his point of view.]
[I don't think the man is a saint or anything, and I'm still unhappy with how he threw Nader under the bus....]
Edited to add:
It always makes me cringe when I see him compared to Limbaugh, who I think is truly despicable in a really rare, special kind of way.
His 9/11 movies was FILLED with inaccuracies, false statements, and lying by implication.
Bowling For Columbine wasn't much better, and got a lot of the facts completely wrong.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Okay. Source?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
A simple Google search could give you probably dozens of them.
My problem with Moore is that he takes perfectly good points, drenches them in populist rage, wraps them up in really, really poorly researched or poorly placed "facts" and then runs amok. And then at the end of the day, you have a movie with a great core, but so surrounded by crap that the initial good point is tainted and easily dismissed because the supporting evidence is often so bad.
If you can't win your argument on the merits, at least step aside and let someone else try rather than provide a straw man for the opposition to very easily beat down.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The only thing I've seen by Moore that did not very swiftly make me want to beat up Moore was "sicko," and that's more or less because he sat back, got out of the way of the controversy, and let it grow on you.
Of course later he pulled a Moore Stunt and caused sighs and groans all around, but still. Sicko. His 'best' movie.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
On Googling for the information...
What search terms would you suggest? Why is everyone so convinced of this Michael Moore lying and trickery I keep hearing about if no one will provide a source or any evidence for it?*
*I'm not saying he hasn't been deceitful. I don't know.
Googling "Michael Moore deceit" doesn't seem to result in anything very helpful.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Well, print media has existed for millenia- I think the word when applied to behavior or types of speech can still apply in mostly the same way. But yes, point taken of course, rudeness is most often associated with interpersonal interaction. Nevertheless, it's clear to me that the word can easily extend to one's behavior towards others (present or not) in the public eye. Again, I challenge you to find a better word- "crude" doesn't really cut it for me, it implies a different class of behavior entirely, don't you think?
If I come up with one, I'll let you know. I did and do concede my use and interpretation of the word contains certain personal shadings that others may not share.
Language is inexact, and English, with all its cribbing from other languages and its rapid evolution, is an odder duck than many. I was considering recently that "lewd", "lusty" and "lascivious" are all essentially synonyms, but most would get very different images in their head depending on whether one said "a lusty youth", "a lewd youth" or "a lascivious youth."
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
TL -
Not all of these are great, and I don't have time to put the information together or I would, but browse around here. There are probably different ways to frame the Google search that would yield different results, like directly looking for "inaccuracies" or "misrepresentations" or something along those lines only directly tied to his film titles in your search.
I'd stay away from Googling "deceits" and "lies" and things of that nature, as they're more likely to take you to politically motivated sites that are out to discredit Moore for reasons beside his factual errors. I'm not against Moore's purpose, just his methodology.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I think too many of us read hatrack as though each post was a carefully polished essay and yet post ourselves as though this were a casual conversation.
This drives me up the wall!
A long time ago, when I was newer, I noticed this tendency and complained about it. In response, I was told to choose my words more carefully.
The thing is that it doesn't even matter if you do post a carefully polished essay, because when writing anything at all the words are a separate entity from what is in the author's head. They take on a life of their own and are mixed with the biases of those who would read them. Check out any literary review of, well, anything...there are people who love it and people who hate it and lots of people in between. But even the people in between have different impressions of it.
For a while after that conversation I would spend thirty minutes pouring over my posts before I submitted them and you know what? It made absolutely no difference.
We each see the world through our own filters and very, very few of us are able to even recognize that other people have different filters, let alone see through them.
It's been a long time since I read it, but "To Kill a Mockingbird" made a point about seeing the world through other people's perspectives -- you have to "Walk a mile in their shoes."
There's no walking anywhere on a message board. We don't even know one another real names. All we have are flawed expectations, stereotypes, and prejudices to fuel us and some members of this board are worse about letting those things rule them than others. Some people on this message board are also younger than others.
We have no control over what others will do and say, and they are likely to say some offensive, uninformed, and downright stupid things. Sometimes, it's ok to correct them or inform them, but when the things they say are offensive...
Offensive to whom? Is it possible that we could give the person the benefit of the doubt and assume nobler motives than "troll?" Even if we can't see through their eyes, even if we can't understand what would make them say some really uncouth thing, could we at least entertain the possibility that there's a reason we are incapable of seeing and that maybe on the other end of that post is a human being?
And the bottom line is we don't have to respond to every dumb*** comment that gets put up on this board.
It takes two people to have an argument.
Posted by hobsen (Member # 11808) on :
Well, I always preview before making any post, unless I am just correcting a spelling error in an edit. And I reword anything the censor has rendered as ******, as sometimes half a forum reads the wrong meaning and gets angry.
This has been a great thread, with a really outstanding post by Samprimary on the first page.
Posted by Pat (Member # 879) on :
What happened to this place?
Man... this thread is so... sad. The hatred is just oozing out the members around here.
I haven't been a regular poster around here for years, although not for a lack of trying. Every time I pop my head in to see what new with this place -- I find that a place I used to see as a sanctuary for level-headed conversation has diminished into just another lame conservative vs. democrat forum.
This place was fun. We had our disagreements, but we still liked each other at the end of the day. We forgave each other. If necessary, we would change our Points of View when warranted.
I seriously wonder why Scott even bothers with this forum anymore. So vitriolic. So hateful. So completely intolerant.
Posted by DaisyMae (Member # 9722) on :
quote: I think many of the problems here arise because people take others words too exactly and don't carefully read for context that buffers meaning.
I REALLY don't post much even though I check in quite frequently.
I just had to quote Rabbit to say this is exactly why I don't post.
I came to this site as an OSC fan about 3(?) years ago and when I lurked on the forums before signing up I was so impressed with all the information that could be garnered from the various posters. It was fun to read and I wanted to be a part of it.
Of course at that time I was unfamiliar with attitudes and temperments of specific posters and had no idea that some were to be avoided and that others just loved being sarcastic.
I jumped into a few hot topic conversations at first and learned that almost no matter what I said the point of my post was over-looked while someone got nit-picky on my choice of words, which I then felt I had to defend or re-explain.
Still, most people were fair enough. Then.
I've definitely noticed a shift.
Within the last year I've posted just a few times just to test the waters and sure enough, every single thing I said was POUNCED upon.
I have no problem with differences of opinion. It's one of the things that attracted me to the site. But the complete divisiveness that has pervaded the site and just plain rudeness has definitely pushed me away.
I originally came here to share myself and to learn. The response I get is "We don't want you and if you don't already know everything about this topic you have no right posting."
I've found myself thinking several times, "For a bunch of smart people, they sure are dumb." (This thought, of course, is not all-inclusive toward all posters.)
Yet I still come back and lurk cuz some of y'all actually have something to say sometimes.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I want a puff on Samp's bubble pipe every once in a while. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy:
quote:Originally posted by katharina: You don't hate it to say it, Jon Boy. You love it.
I really don't know why I even try with you anymore. Why on earth do you think I love it? What do you think I get out of this?
Why endless revilement, and unrelenting rancor of course!
I wish you posted more often Jon Boy TBH, this place is less fun with you posting so infrequently.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I remember Pat, BTW. Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Well, you know, according to some people, I am Pat. Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
I thought you were Thor and Pat was cedrios? Or are you all David Bowles? I forget.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don't know Jon Boy's motivations, but it must be something personally rewarding, because it is doing nothing good or effective over here and it never has.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Pat sucks.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pat: I seriously wonder why Scott even bothers with this forum anymore. So vitriolic. So hateful. So completely intolerant.
quote:Originally posted by DaisyMae: I originally came here to share myself and to learn. The response I get is "We don't want you and if you don't already know everything about this topic you have no right posting."
I've found myself thinking several times, "For a bunch of smart people, they sure are dumb." (This thought, of course, is not all-inclusive toward all posters.)
Are we on the same message board? Several people here seem to be getting seriously worked up over what, from my perspective, are pretty limited problems.
If you know you have a problem with someone, don't interact with them. Don't insult them and refuse to discuss with them on an adult level, while pretending to be taking the higher ground, just ignore them. If you can do that, most of the annoyance goes away. If you can't, then you're part of the problem too.
Sure, there are a few people who have a tendency to get hot under the collar very quickly. Other than that, everyone has a bad day now and again, but I certainly don't see the whole place on a downward spiral into becoming a wretched hive of scum and villainy.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:I don't know Jon Boy's motivations, but it must be something personally rewarding, because it is doing nothing good or effective over here and it never has.
So because JonBoy's advice to be less nasty has no effect on you, he must enjoy giving it?
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Mighty, I've been ignoring more and more people lately - basically to the point that I'm ignoring entire threads, because I know a certain group of people will gravitate toward them.
Threads on abortion? Forget it. Religion? No way. Israel? Right out. Politics? Not worth the headache.
And these are threads that I would regularly frequent in years past - that I now wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole, based on the philosophy you outlined.
What ends up happening if everyone does this is that the calm heads become quiet, and the vitriolic ones continue on their merry way. In this way, the rational voices become marginalized and the tone of the board becomes more polarized.
It's why we have ended up with a metathread discussing it.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
[Removed personal attack. Take it elsewhere. --PJ]
[ June 23, 2009, 03:30 PM: Message edited by: Papa Janitor ]
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:Mighty, I've been ignoring more and more people lately
In fact, I'm ignoring people as we speak...
Posted by Pat (Member # 879) on :
Wow kat... Wow.
Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
*sigh*
Kat, you're out of line. Both to MrSquicky and to Jon Boy. I hope you don't think I get any sort of joy saying that.
[Not just to kat:] As has been mentioned many a time over the years, we are, to a degree, a self-policing/moderating forum. Therefore, while there may be some disagreement as to effectiveness of various methods, calling into question someone's behavior on the forum isn't in all cases out of place. More people are affected than just those posing the question and those to whom it is made. There is an entire culture here that can be swayed one way or another both through seeing what actions are considered inappropriate at least by some, and which may be (often erroneously, IMO, but YMMV) assumed acceptable because they go without comment.
Again, in many/most cases I don't think this is something that needs to be handled specifically through moderation, but rather through people simply acting/interacting more moderately. As has been mentioned by many, there seems to be (in general) more and more a gap between sides of any given issue, and more moderate voices often get lost in the shuffle.
I made a mistake in another thread (far from my only mistake, but this one was recent). I posted as Papa Moose in a thread because I hoped moderator action wasn't necessary, but wanted the person who whistled to know I wasn't unaware. I'm sorry for that. If I want to keep Moose and Janitor separate, I need to do it. I'll try to do better at that.
I don't want to be heavy-handed. It's not really me. But maybe for a while I'm going to have to be, because the community at Hatrack has gotten off course somewhere. I'm not talking saccharine-sweetness, as has been intimated in other places -- I'm talking simple civility.
Nobody else is responsible for your actions. Stop blaming them.
You don't know what someone else's motivation is. Go ahead and think you do, but maybe refrain from accusing them of things you don't know.
If someone else goes "over the line," that's not license for you to do the same.
To quote someone from long ago, who may remember saying it: "No personal attacks at Hatrack."
I think I'm also going to be more willing at this point to delete rather than lock threads. I know people don't like having their words erased, especially when they don't consider themselves part of the reason for the deletion. I will try to remember to save a copy of any given thread before I delete it, and I apologize in advance for those who feel unfairly treated if/when it happens.
I won't lock or delete this thread, at least not yet. But please dial it back down.
--PJ
Posted by Pat (Member # 879) on :
Ummm... Moose... you forgot to mention Scott R in your post. He consistently says I 'suck.' I think you should ban him.
No offense, Scott R.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Papa, if I may ask, you used to edit people's posts when there was only one or two inappropriate posts in a thread. I understand that's not feisable when the entire thread has gone off track, but I hope you still consider that part of your moderator toolbox. I think removing personal attacks from a thread really helps both with keeping things civil and showing people that they are not allowed, much more so than locking the whole thread does.
</meddlingkids>
Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
Yeah -- gets tougher after it's been quoted a couple/few times, but if I'm around early enough I can probably still do that. Thanks for the reminder.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
You're welcome.
Also, everyone please note the above and remember not to quote personal attacks. Whistle them instead.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
LOL (at the end of ElJay's post, not at anything else)
Papa, I think you do a decent job of it, and I hope things don't get so nasty here that you walk away from it. I k now that I would be tempted to if I were you sometimes (not that you implied anything of the sort).
If anyone wants to see what has happened to Hatrack over the past 2 years, read this thread from beginning to end. It is a perfect example.
Not that I am saying anyone IN this thread CAUSED the last few years, mind you.
Some of the best people on Hatrack don't post here often, or at all, because of bulls**** like this, and that is a shame.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: In fact, I'm ignoring people as we speak...
Same here
I suppose you do have a point. I tend to ignore a lot of the high-drama thread topics, or at least often end up is sort of a meta-thread within the main thread, discussing with one or two people while trying real hard to ignore several people who are simply tossing insults or behaving quite badly.
I do wish they'd mellow out, but I don't see it happening. The policy of ignoring bad behavior and whistling it ought to work, if we all stood by it, but of course, it's very tempting to tell people off when they insult you.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Thanks for looking out for us, PJ.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: Thanks for looking out for us, PJ.
Amen. You do great work, Pop. Sorry you're having to do so much of it lately.
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: [Removed personal attack. Take it elsewhere. --PJ]
To tell you the truth, this seems more odd than out of line.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Thanks Papa!!
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:I do wish they'd mellow out, but I don't see it happening. The policy of ignoring bad behavior and whistling it ought to work, if we all stood by it, but of course, it's very tempting to tell people off when they insult you.
I find it even harder when they insult people I care about.
quote:Thanks for looking out for us, PJ.
quote: You do great work, Pop. Sorry you're having to do so much of it lately
quote: Thanks Papa!!!
Add me to the list, consider the sentiment fourthed. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Sorry, Pop. I'll put it in an email.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Not that I am saying anyone IN this thread CAUSED the last few years, mind you.
Some of the best people on Hatrack don't post here often, or at all, because of bulls**** like this, and that is a shame.
Everyone in this thread has caused the last few years - including those of us who have posted frequently and those who haven't.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:Everyone in this thread has caused the last few years - including those of us who have posted frequently and those who haven't.
Yes... but some to a greater degree than others.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Are we on the same message board? Several people here seem to be getting seriously worked up over what, from my perspective, are pretty limited problems.
Well-- we're reading the same words, maybe, but obviously the interpretation is different.
The rest of your advice is sound, MC, and it's something I need to be reminded of.
That said, the atmosphere at Hatrack has gotten more hostile than I remember from a couple years ago. It's not just a couple problem posters, I don't think; it's a general attitude that is perhaps exacerbated by a small minority of hard nosed individuals.
The effect, for me, is to be less inclined to engage the community in the way I was used to. I'm not talking about touchy-feely, warm fuzzies threads; I'm talking about being willing to engage in ANY dialog at all.
Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
I'm just not interested in conversations that devolve into petulance and hurtful attacks.
I am terribly interested in intelligent exchanges in which people "speak with passion and listen with respect". I consider many people I met on Hatrack to be friends, mentors, and personal heroes. Even if I disagree with particular opinions, I cannot help respecting the people who share them with integrity, insight, and intelligence. That's what I remember of Hatrack, and it's truly a sad day when most of those people don't feel good about participating in the life of this community.
Mighty Cow has mentioned the means by which annoying or unacceptable behavior used to be dealt with...by private whistling and an absolute refusal to engage in rude or disrespectful exchanges. In this fashion, I saw many an initially obnoxious poster grow into someone I could respect and enjoy. It's like dealing with a naughty child...if the bad behaviors aren't getting attention, he'll have to try something else to get what he wants. And what is rewarded is what the child learns is acceptable to do.
Why not show your appreciation for those posters you enjoy interacting with, even when you disagree with them? Give credit for what you agree with before making your points. Build on what you appreciate someone saying. It makes for a stronger and better community. And my thanks and love to those of you who already do these things!
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:Not that I am saying anyone IN this thread CAUSED the last few years, mind you.
Some of the best people on Hatrack don't post here often, or at all, because of bulls**** like this, and that is a shame.
Everyone in this thread has caused the last few years - including those of us who have posted frequently and those who haven't.
I disagree. I refuse to be responsible for other people's comments, attitudes or beliefs. You want to make a case for ME being rude, fine, but I don't think that is where you are going with that comment.
Plus, I behave myself much better these days.
[ June 24, 2009, 05:06 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Pat (Member # 879) on :
quote: Why not show your appreciation for those posters you enjoy interacting with, even when you disagree with them? Give credit for what you agree with before making your points. Build on what you appreciate someone saying. It makes for a stronger and better community. And my thanks and love to those of you who already do these things!
Remember, it's thanks at Hatrack, but I love you at home.
Some things never change. Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Pat doesn't kill threads. I do.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
No, it this thread can't be dead. Please. It was such a fine thread and it was only eight pages long. I can't believe it's really dead.
I weep for the death of this fine thread. Why, why, why did you have to kill it.
MURDERERS!! Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I weep for the death of this fine thread. Why, why, why did you have to kill it.
MURDERERS!!
The only sure way to bring it back to life is more drama.
I dislike the emoticons you post with, and I suspect you smell strongly of cheese and pickles! Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
The emoticons I use are infinitely superior to the emoticons you use, without any possible exception. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I tend to smell of pickles. I have a secondhand dresser and I swear somebody at some time spilled pickle juice in one of the drawers and I cannot get the smell out.
I eat a lot of cheese. I may smell of that, too.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Stop! There are several things wrong with me wanting to take an actual bite out of kmbboots.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Hehe. Today I am not wearing anything from the pickly drawer and have not had any cheese.
I probably smell like vanilla and lime and coconut.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
*cries*
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
The emoticons I use are infinitely superior to the emoticons you use, without any possible exception.
I take exception to that! Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
The emoticons I use are infinitely superior to the emoticons you use, without any possible exception.
I take exception to that!
I'm sorry but that is not possible. Please read more carefully in the future.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
The emoticons I use are infinitely superior to the emoticons you use, without any possible exception.
I take exception to that!
I'm sorry but that is not possible. Please read more carefully in the future.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
I will say this, though. As bad as the tone gets here at times, the 200 years of..." thread does illustrate how much better the worst of Hatrack is compared to many other places online.
[ June 26, 2009, 03:08 AM: Message edited by: ricree101 ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Too true.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
We just need to play an endless loop of "Everyday People" on the site.
Would make it really hard to be disagreeable without at least feeling a little guilty about it. Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Actually, the 200 years thread is giving a good "outsider" illustration of what so many posters on hatrack have started to sound like, to me.
"Vaccines are teh bad" is his religion, just like certain political ideologies or positions have become the religion of many posters here (not to mention actual religious arguments). It stops being about debate and discourse, but more about belief and a fight against unbelievers.
No matter how much evidence is brought to bear, I don't think the poster on the 200 years thread will ever even consider re-analyzing his position, let alone changing it. And hatrack posters are often more content to poke fun and mock rather than engage to begin with.
It only seems bad because most (nearly all) posters on hatrack can see that his position is untenable. But there are many positions taken at hatrack where *both sides* feel the same about their opponent, and devolve to mocking or attacking because they feel their own arguments are sacrosanct.
You say it shows how much better we are compared to other places, and I say it illustrates very clearly problems we have within our own community. Remove the plank from our own eye, and whatnot.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The way spambuster handled himself was such that it is nearly impossible to expect a 'better' response to someone when they introduce themselves to a forum the way they did. This is exactly when things like eye-rolling are warranted.
If a completely hostile, ill-mannered fly-by-night subject nuker shows up on a forum and opens his act with a salvo of hostilities and hypocritical accusations, what is wrong with some posters saying stuff like "ugh, go away?"
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
The problem is the same treatment has been given to members of the hatrack community in many threads... and that many members of the community behave as spambuster does when their own belief system is questioned.
I don't see anything in spambuster's reactions that I haven't seen from other posters on this very forum, and I didn't see anything in the hatracker reactions to spambuster that I haven't seen directed toward other hatrackers.
The concept that he somehow "was asking for it" isn't really defensible... as the same rationale can be applied between members of the community.
The "better" response is the one advocated repeatedly in this very thread - to ignore the trollish behavior entirely and not respond.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
So? If someone behaves like spambuster does, ever, they don't get to pawn responsibility for it off on 'the community.'
And it is pretty much impossible to expect people to not respond. People should be allowed to respond and they shouldn't be berated for taking someone like spambuster up on his claims and accusations. There is nothing wrong with it.
(which is thankful, because no forum can be realistically expected to respond to someone like spambuster with complete silence, and anyone who advocates it is expecting the nigh-impossible)
Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
Let facts and manners speak for themselves, if you feel you must respond. If you cannot reply in a respectful, mannerly, and fact-based way, then kindly refrain. Don't allow yourself to be provoked. I thought Tom's approach was a healthy way to deal with spambuster's posts.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:So? If someone behaves like spambuster does, ever, they don't get to pawn responsibility for it off on 'the community.'
Not sure why you feel like that's happening. First, no one is pawning responsibility for his behavior off on the community - not sure why you feel like they have. Second, I'm a third party commentator in this situtation, so the "If someone does X, they don't get to Y" doesn't apply.
quote:And it is pretty much impossible to expect people to not respond. People should be allowed to respond and they shouldn't be berated for taking someone like spambuster up on his claims and accusations. There is nothing wrong with it.
I apologize that you feel berated by my drawing parallels between reactions to an invading troll and reactions between members of the community.
Too often on this board, conversation starts much like that thread did. I don't think anyone here really would jump to spambuster's defense (note that I am not), but there are many examples where someone comes into a thread with a serious topic about which they feel very strongly and are met with the same reaction.
quote:(which is thankful, because no forum can be realistically expected to respond to someone like spambuster with complete silence, and anyone who advocates it is expecting the nigh-impossible)
Spambuster isn't the issue. This thread was started (and contributed to by several people) under the premise that members of the hatrack community are treating each other in much the same way as that invading troll. Hostility, mockery, etc.
I honestly don't care about spambuster. But I've seen just as hostile and reactionary behavior in threads about global warming, atheism, abortion, gay marriage, Israel, etc.
In the so-called "Golden Age" of hatrack, spambuster would have been made a joke of similary (much like UniversePeople was). That's not my point. My point is that jatraqueros frequently get the same treatment nowadays, which I don't feel was the case in the past.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Not sure why you feel like that's happening. First, no one is pawning responsibility for his behavior off on the community - not sure why you feel like they have
What? That's exactly what spambuster spent over a page and a half unambiguously doing. Every time he was asked why he was being so insulting, his response was to say, essentially, that it was 'our' doing.
that's what I'm talking about.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Ah... see, I started skimming that thread after the first half of the first page, and abandoned it entirely shortly after. It just wasn't worth the energy.
I had assumed your comments were about this thread, where I don't feel as though anyone is doing that.
Posted by Achilles (Member # 7741) on :
Hey. Skimming and assumption is my realm! Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Well, skimming and abandoning threads has started to become the norm for me lately, since most threads on serious topics devolve into the same level of hostility that the 200 years thread did.
As for assumption, I was only really going on what has been said in this thread, though I understand I opened the door to the other thread so comments made there were fair game.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Achilles: Hey. Skimming and assumption is my realm!
*skims and assumes Achilles*
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
^----- Jon Borg
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
We are assimilating you into this high quality collective
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: ^----- Jon Borg
I don't know why I never thought of that one before. If these were the old days of registering superfluous screen names, I'd be sorely tempted right now.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"Let facts and manners speak for themselves, if you feel you must respond. If you cannot reply in a respectful, mannerly, and fact-based way, then kindly refrain. Don't allow yourself to be provoked."
[ June 28, 2009, 08:25 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Wow, this thread got historical all of a sudden.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Hmmm... if a quote belongs in this thread, how about this one:
"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster." — Friedrich Nietzsche
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
"P.S. god is dead lol"
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Monkeys]](graemlins/monkeys.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
![[The Wave]](graemlins/thewave.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
Hi, Shan. )![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
No, it this thread can't be dead. Please. It was such a fine thread and it was only eight pages long. I can't believe it's really dead.![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
I weep for the death of this fine thread. Why, why, why did you have to kill it. ![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Sleep]](graemlins/sleep.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
I'm sorry but that is not possible. ![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)