Effectivity, results, turf

[Gurdur]

Again and again I see people on the net making the elementary mistake of thinking that a Twitter flamefest or a blog shitfest or a thread on a board where competing POV's go silent is a way of winning something. I also see - and this is from a recent Twitter flamefest - that many attack those who are basically on the same side, only the attackers don't think the others are whatever enough. Really bloody stupid, counter-productive, a great way to lose allies, friends and campaigns. Someone on Twitter lost me as a friend forever the other week, just for some momentary crass idiocy which the offender couldn't let go of. What did the offender actually accomplish in terms of realworld results, which the offender thought they were pursuing? Nothing, absolutely nothing, beyond shooting themselves in the foot very badly.

Very bluntly, you have to both actually look at with whom you are talking, IOW you have to actually regard the person behind the words, as well as remember what effect your words will have on any onlooker audience.

Breitbart died yesterday; Breitbart was a twit who hated civility, believed in flaming (his very last tweet is a flame), and who accomplished zero with all his flaming. He accomplished a tiny little with his nasty little stabjobs of undercover pseudo-reporting; but even that will go west with no permanent results. Yet he's celebrated as a hero by the whackjob right, since they loved to live vicariously through his empty flaming. Might be a lesson there. The wide wide abyss between the image and any concrete results that last.

[Wet Walnuts]

Fuck Brietbart. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

[Gurdur]

Originally Posted by Wet Walnuts

Fuck Brietbart. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

*shrug* You know, I already said that via implication in my OP. It isn't the point, however.

[Dawn]

It does seem that the trend for online communication is for aggressive rhetoric, inviting people to pile on and validate opinions, instead of people wanting actual dialogue. Narcissistic expression is valued by these people instead of true communication. It does get very old.

[Wet Walnuts]

Originally Posted by Gurdur

*shrug* You know, I already said that via implication in my OP. It isn't the point, however.

OK, you want people who are on the same side of an issue to unite. Fine, but that hasn't historically been the case, especially with left-wing organizations. Remember the nasty split between the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks? Remember how many times the IRA split into competing factions?

I admit that these aren't great examples in terms of relevance, but I use them to illustrate a point. I could have just as easily used religious schisms as examples.

And anyway, I stand by what I said about Andrew Breitbart. The man was not a "muckraker". He was a slanderer and professional smear-merchant masquerading as an "independent journalist".

[Gurdur]

Originally Posted by Wet Walnuts

OK, you want people who are on the same side of an issue to unite.

No, what I want are two things.

One, I want to get people thinking about what is actually effective in the long run. Not just venting.

Two, I want Hangout members to think about what we're all here for. Supporting each other as persons, as people.

... And anyway, I stand by what I said about Andrew Breitbart. The man was not a "muckraker". He was a slanderer and professional smear-merchant masquerading as an "independent journalist".

Look. I agree with you. I despise Andrew Breitbart. I basically said so in my OP. I think you've really not got my OP.

[Gurdur]

Originally Posted by Dawn

It does seem that the trend for online communication is for aggressive rhetoric, inviting people to pile on and validate opinions, instead of people wanting actual dialogue. Narcissistic expression is valued by these people instead of true communication. It does get very old.

Yes. And I'm acting on this one.

[homo hirsutus]

Originally Posted by Gurdur

...Very bluntly, you have to both actually look at with whom you are talking, IOW you have to actually regard the person behind the words, as well as remember what effect your words will have on any onlooker audience...

One trend I've noticed over the last five or so years is decreased anonymity on the internet. It seems to me that that would increase the civility, but I may be wrong.

Originally Posted by Dawn

It does seem that the trend for online communication is for aggressive rhetoric, inviting people to pile on and validate opinions, instead of people wanting actual dialogue. Narcissistic expression is valued by these people instead of true communication. It does get very old.

I would go broader than that. Even in the "civil" parts of the internet seem to serve the purpose of validating opinions, Wikipedia in particular. Nothing squashes minority viewpoints faster than web 2.0 style editing. Then of course, you also have Conservapedia, where by law only one opinion is acceptable. As a history major that was made blindingly clear. You could dig through journal articles and books in the library and find a dozen opinions on any particular historical event. Look up the same event in Wikipedia and you get two, three opinions tops. That's not good for any of us. The folks in the majority groups get their opinions heard, everyone else can eat shit.

This reminds me that I need to read You Are Not a Gadget.

[Wet Walnuts]

Look, I'm not here to validate my own opinion or crush the opinions of others, if that's what this is about. But I get pretty fucking tired of the hypocritical, bourgeois, limousine-liberal bullshit that passes for "educated opinion" on much of the Internet, and I'm not afraid to point out falsehoods and nonsense when I see them.

I don't mind anyone who has a different opinion than I do, so long as they have thought it through and can defend it. Most people have not done the former and are nigh-incapable of the latter. And if I happen to be better at gathering evidence and arguing a point than someone else (because that's what I'm trained to do), well that's the other guy's problem, not mine.

Most of the people on HH are pretty intelligent, educated people, so we don't see the sort of ridiculousness here that is prevalent on larger, less-exclusive fora like FRDB or 4chan. This makes it easier for us to get along. But when I think someone is completely off the mark, like in the sweatshop thread, I'm going to stand up and say "hey man, that's fucking wrong, and here's why". Lpetrich, FSM bless him, is often better at this sort of thing than I am, and there are times when I don't agree with him either!

My point is, I try to be as civil as possible, but I don't think that should preclude me--or any of us, really--from calling shenanigans on someone when the need arises.

[Gurdur]

Originally Posted by Wet Walnuts

.... My point is, I try to be as civil as possible, but I don't think that should preclude me--or any of us, really--from calling shenanigans on someone when the need arises.

Several share your opinion, Wet Walnuts. You have called out some, some have called out you. You yourself want to be treated as a person, others want to be treated as persons too. This is what the Hangout is all about, this is how the Hangout is modded and will be modded. Treating other members as persons. Learning how to get along even with different opinions.

Two things, again, and this is addressed to everyone, not just Wet Walnuts:

1) Just because another Hangout member is of a different opinion to you does not make them committing shenanigans. They are simply of a different opinion. You've all had enough time to get to know the other members as persons, treat them as such. The Hangout is for fellowship of nontheists, not for using people to act out upon. It's quite possible to discuss or debate out a subject without getting nasty about the other member - and all of you are very longterm members.

2) Effectivity: trying to in effect silence other opinions on particular turf doesn't actually change much anything real in the end.

Which was what my Breitbart example was all about. For all his own calling out of people, for all his rubbishing of people, he did not change anything much in the end.

[grumpy]

And if in a group debate, someone with whom you agree makes a good point, I don't think saying, "Hear, hear" is necessarily 'piling on'.

[Gurdur]

Originally Posted by grumpy

And if in a group debate, someone with whom you agree makes a good point, I don't think saying, "Hear, hear" is necessarily 'piling on'.

I don't think "piling on" is an issue here. The issue is simply recognising all present longterm Hangout members are valued members, valued by other members, and shaping how one speaks to each other in recognition of that. This is what the Hangout is all about.

[grumpy]

Originally Posted by Gurdur

I don't think "piling on" is an issue here. The issue is simply recognising all present longterm Hangout members are valued members, valued by other members, and shaping how one speaks to each other in recognition of that. This is what the Hangout is all about.

QFT. I don't know how often I think about how valuable to me this board is, and how valued are its members to me. That's not hyperbole, I really do think about this.

However, it shouldn't be a religion. We can't be made afraid to disagree with one another.

On the 'Sweatshop' thread I had my thoughts about some remarks, but kept them to myself in fear of starting a discussion just like this one. But when the other fellow spoke what I was thinking, I couldn't help voicing agreement.

I don't recall seeing anything on that thread that looked like a flame to me. You may have done. Perhaps a mild intervention was in order. But none of us had earned a lecture.


P.S. I still love you. I'm not trying to pick a fight.

[Gurdur]

Originally Posted by grumpy

.... However, it shouldn't be a religion. We can't be made afraid to disagree with one another.

Grumpy, no-one is being told not to disagree. That point's been made already several times. Again: when all of you disagree with a fellow Hangout member, talk to them and disagree with themm but like they're a person, not a target.

I don't recall seeing anything on that thread that looked like a flame to me. You may have done.

I'm thinking of two very recent threads, one referred to here, one already split and in the Garbage Bin. And I'm making sure problems don't get worse, and that people are alerted to exactly what the problem is.

P.S. I still love you.

I bet you say that to everyone.

[Dawn]

BTW, my comments were not directed at anyone here. I was referring to the internet in general. We are very civilized in comparison! I was referring to the hard core people who rant constantly, do not tolerate any differences of opinion and shut down communication.

[Shadowfox]

In my short time here, and I'm still in the public area, I've found HH to be on the civil side. I'm not on many other sites, and not FB or Twitter or those wide open places though I did try FB once - got off fast.

Turf: my home is my turf. Since it is all mine, while I do share with friends, it is mine alone and what I say goes. Period. But that and my lifeway are the only places my opinion is supreme, where I don't have to defend. Everywhere else is open to discussion IMO. Unless it's someone else's lifeway and home. Then I accept their way, unless they ask for my opinion of some aspect.

Whenever someone challenges some statement I've made that I thought was obvious or common knowledge, I try my best to offer proof as well as considering that other's position. I might even change my mind!

As a writer I've learned that words on paper or on screen do not have the benefit of an individual physical presence to indicate full meaning, nor the opportunity to note another's reaction. There's no nuance visible to indicate sarcasm, or humor, or serious intent.

Remember all those lit classes in school? Was the interpretation of a poem that of the teacher, your classmates, or you? Were any of them the same, did some agree?

The web does guarantee some amount of anonymity. Am I really who I say I am? Do all my posts truly reveal me and my character?

[Terry]

Originally Posted by Shadowfox

The web does guarantee some amount of anonymity. Am I really who I say I am? Do all my posts truly reveal me and my character?

Well, you're Andrew Breitbart then, aren't you? ...

[Shadowfox]

If I knew more about this guy I could play with an answer; but from what was said above, I won't. Of course, I suspect you're kidding around but if you're not, I'll assure you I'm not. Even reincarnation wouldn't work - probably a lot older IRL, and have been known as SF for a long time, such as on FRDB.