Here’s what pisses me off most about DU

[Cyrano]

DU members who disagree with another DU member’s post and respond with personal attacks.

There will always be disagreements, regardless of the topic of any post. In a perfect world, a response to a posting with which one disagrees should contain a counter argument to the topic under discussion. It should never include a personal attack.

We’ve all seen it and had it happen to us. Someone will post “The sky is up.” Someone who disagrees might post, “Yes, but, in the absence of gravity there is no up or down. Only an asshole could think otherwise.”

The first sentence in that response is perfectly valid. The second sentence will run a thread off track, and into a war of who is a bigger asshole. Many others will jump in to attack or defend one side or the other.

There are many here on DU who intentionally go out of their way to be disruptive. Putting them on ignore doesn’t help to further a discussion. Personal attacks, more often than not, sabotage a thread.

So here’s my plea to anyone reading this thread. As difficult as it may occasionally be, please try to keep threads on topic and avoid personal attacks. And yes, I know that this plea is just an exercise in shoveling shit against the tide. But maybe, just maybe, it might cut down a little bit on personal attacks.

[LearnedHand]

1. k&r

Thanks for posting this. I was hoping the era of nastiness would go when the Nasty-in-Chief went, but alas, no.

[AtomicKitten]

137. seconded

I think personal attacks in lieu of substantive discussion have more to do with a personality disorder than anything else. I can't imagine why people get their knickers in a twist over anonymous postings on a message board.

:shrug:

[mrreowwr_kittty]

2. Personally I'd rather be called names

Than deal with the insufferable pedantic condescension that drips from the posts of a lot of people here.

[Runcible Spoon]

7. hahaha me too

someone calls me an asshole, whatver. Someone spends 10 minutes writing some long-winded screed about a grammatical nuance I may or may not have included in my post...that's what chaps my ass.

[ZombieHorde]

24. Ellipses? Do you really feel like that is the best sentence structure for using ellipses?

You didn't even start your sentence with a capital letter, you are obviously illiterate and have no idea of what is going on around you.


(OK, I don't feel like typing for 10 minutes for a silly joke ;-))

[Fearless]

43. Oh damn! I figured if I took the time to write it you should at least take the time to read it.

:+ :rofl:

[The Doctor.]

88. Ah-ha! Now all your grammar is belong to us!

[pasto76]

134. VERY funny

[rhett o rick]

Agree. The ignore button works for both. nm

[Jackpine Radical]

51. I resent that, you moronic twit.

[kimmerspixelated]

63. Uh-Oh...you forgot the sarcasm thingy...

[DRoseDARs]

128. Fuck you, you fucking fuck...

...and fuck off, fucker. :snarkasm:

:hi:

[kimmerspixelated]

61. I'm so confused.

[Cleita]

3. Yeah, there is a lot of that like a statement

to the effect that you are stupid because you disagree with them, or you are uneducated and stupid, etc. etc.. Sometimes I ask them to stop attacking and insulting if they expect to continue a discussion with me. Then they go away. It never fails.

[pipi_k]

13. Yep, I've done that too

told them straight out that unless they can discuss something in an adult manner, they can just go away.

Usually they do.

[Ohio Joe]

4. ehhh, no big deal to me

I've been called plenty of things here but to me its just some random internet poster, I don't really care. On the other hand, I think the overwhelming majority of people here are really good, even in disagreements.

[malaise]

113. Ding Ding

I don't really care who calls me what and I've never used my ignore button.

[Starry Messenger]

5. I think this simple diagram might help here:

Some posters here are illustrations of the G.I.F.T. All you can do is alert and hope they get enough posts deleted that action is taken.

[Shiver]

10. Ah, the GIFT.

I've long believed that the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory, along with Godwins Law, should be stickied to the top of every single Internet forum. :rofl:

[Starry Messenger]

15. I like your idea!

:D

[AngryOldDem]

158. I would also add, in most cases:

The disclaimer "For Entertainment Purposes Only."

Sometimes it's the only mantra that keeps me from throwing my monitor through the wall.

[pipi_k]

14. hahaaah

OMG that's hilarious.... :7



Actually that same theory probably applies to Road Rage as well... with a few minor changes in situation...

[Starry Messenger]

16. I love it too!

It's from Penny Arcade. http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2009/1/19/

[Posteritatis]

34. They're pretty similar when it counts

Both of them kind of involve the person in question being in some kind of bubble separated from the person they're being a jerk to. Online you're behind a monitor, and it's still depressingly difficult to punch someone in the head through the Internet so far. In a car you're in an insulated, semi-soundproofed bubble and still kind of seperated from the rest of the world.

Both cases you've got anonymity - or at least the appearance of anonymity - and enough physical seperation from the other guy (monitor, car body, etc) for folks to think they can get away with being more aggressive.

(As I say this, I notice some asshole in the street outside my window cut off and threaten to brake-job an ambulance. WTF, people?)

[ZombieHorde]

25. I love penny arcade!

[jhrobbins]

82. This was cleverly illustrated by a segment in the West Wing-the one about

Josh and LemonLimon. Very funny and so true too.

[driver8]

110. Ha Ha!! Ain't that the truth!!

There was one DU'er who was so rude and insulting to me, I couldn't believe it!

When I called him/her on it, the childish responses I received were ridiculous.

I know that if we were having the conversation face to face, there is no way in hell that this person would dare speak to me like that.

[jeff30997]

126. "if we were having the conversation face to face, there is no way in hell that this person would .."

Of course not!You're 200 lbs Kung-Fu Black-belt with a 44 magnum.So go fuck yourself ya moran! :P :sarcasm: :hide:

[Maven]

141. ...

:rofl:

[Starry Messenger]

157. :)

I like your new name Maven! I'm glad people enjoyed the GIFT. I thought DU could find it useful! :D And it deserves wider visibility.

[TheEuclideanOne]

152. That is awesome!

Holy crap, wait a minute, that describes me. :rofl:
- anonymous

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

6. Agreed and one

other thing many of seem not to realize is that communication in this fashion; ie-reading someone elses posts is fraught with danger. We cannot distinguish voice tone, facial expression, context. No matter how many emoticons are invented they will not take the place of face to face communication. We all suffer from 'technology rudeness'to a certain degree.
I'm wondering how many posters who seem quick to start name calling (a perfectly normal response...........in the 3rd grade :) ) would talk like that to someone they were having a conversation with in the gracery store check out line or the library or the stands of the kids little league games?

[lumberjack_jeff]

8. I think we have a collective blind spot about bigotry.

We oppose bigotry, but what that means in practice is that we're expected to apply an equal and opposite form of it somewhere else.

Bias and stereotype are the core of most of the personal attacks here.

I have a contrarian streak. The most reliable form of flame bait is to present yourself as a straight, rural, gun-owning, church-going, pickup-truck driving blue-collar dad of more than two kids. One needn't really express any sort of an opinion... the ad-hominem flames happen all by themselves.

It's completely predictable.

[NBachers]

121. Lumberjack Jeff you forgot to throw "caucasian" in there somewhere

[.... callchet ....]

9. Well you vented

and if it works I'll support you for any office.

[pipi_k]

11. I don't like putting anyone on ignore either...

but there are times when I just don't feel like dealing with the childishness and stupidity.

When people devolve into making ad hominem attacks, it's usually because they've lost the capacity to make a rational argument and name-calling (i.e. acting like a spoiled five-year old) is the only weapon they have left.

It's actually pretty depressing to see how quickly some people will degenerate into doing that. They think they're going to make someone else look ridiculous, when in reality, they only make themselves look very very stupid. And the sad thing about it? They either don't realize or they don't care.

I'll tell you what really bugs me...when someone posts something that's important to them for some reason and someone else comes along and says, "Why are you posting that shit/garbage/trash/whatever here?????" I mean, these people actually went to the trouble of typing out an insult and clicking on the "Post message" button instead of going on to another topic that meets with their approval.

I'd just like to know what those people are gaining by purposely leaving snotty comments like that...

:shrug:

[Posteritatis]

22. Heh, that's the one that annoys me the most, really

The general attitude of "This does not interest me, therefore it either does or should not interest anyone and is mere spam." There was quite a bit of that during the parliamentary crisis late last year.

The flames I just take for granted these days; when things get to the point where I get directly flamed for saying something like "a tanker isn't worth hundreds of billions of dollars" (which is as objectively true and irrefutable a statement as "the earth orbits the sun" or "Obama is the president now STFU you oath wankers") I pretty much just have to assume that the GIFT rules the site.

At least we're not /b/ or something. Well, yet anyway.

[jhrobbins]

84. There were times in the past when I would get really ramped up if someone

made said ad hominem attacks on me - it would ruin several hours for me. I just don't get into it anymore, mostly.

[rhett o rick]

37. I agree with your comment about what bugs you. Me also. I love to get into a good argument

but why attack the person? Even if you think they are a terrible person, what good is an attack? You don't have to respond and that goes both ways. I have found very few needs to "ignore" but have recently.

[Number23]

40. "They think they're going to make someone else look ridiculous, when in reality,

...they only make themselves look very very stupid."

How very, very true. The problem with that though is that there is such a large contingent of people here who absolutely THRIVE on this philosophy, your words will fly right over their idiotic little heads. These are the people who are so convinced that their way of seeing things is the only one that matters, the only CORRECT assessment of a situation, that they will shout anyone else down over the most idiotic technicalities that they alone see.

And I agree with your own personal DU peeve. I've seen that happen in so many threads it's ridiculous.

[Shiver]

12. I disagree, dumbass!

Kidding, but c'mon... you had to expect a sarcastic response in that vein. I'm surprised it took this long... kicked and recommended. :hi:

[Cyrano]

17. Yep, right on, Shiver. I too have been wondering how long it

would take before one of DU's more notorious disrupters would jump in. Then again, it's Saturday. Perhaps they:

(a) are sleeping late, or

(b) feel that disrupting this thread would open them to ridicule, or

(c) have had an attack of civility after reading the OP (You think?)

Damn, I just did what I was complaining about. I've attacked other DUers. I guess this makes me a fool, a hypocrite, or a closet Republican.

[ThomWV]

18. ad hominem attacks do harm another way too

I find myself writing posts that state an opinion that I am forming just to elicit counter arguments - to see who knows things that might change my mind or can explain how my argument fails. Its good to get a few dozen second opinions but when the responses simply state the obvious - that I'm an asshole - they aren't helpful.

[.... callchet ....]

19. Intelligent Discussion ?

Here is what I got on one of my posts. "A nice thing to do?" No, it's a laughably absurd suggestion.
And the funniest part is that you don't understand that.

[cynatnite]

20. Only an asshole would post a thread about what pisses them off about DU...

not really, but I had to say it before this thread is locked. :smoke:

[Lyric]

21. The problem is that a lot of OPs are attacks on large groups of people.

The rich, the poor, the working class, the middle class, gay people, straight people, bisexuals, transsexuals, women, men, "Obamatons," "Clintonistas," and on and on and on.

I have observed that most of the "personal attacks" are defensive in nature, as a response to obnoxious, judgmental, sanctimonious, and/or deliberately agressive/pushy OPs that target a specific group of people. Frankly, I have NO problem with people defending themselves against crap like that. If you expect civility in replies, then you must ALSO lecture the people who post these insulting, deliberately divisive, holier-than-thou screeds that make people feel like they're being targeted.

THAT is a far larger problem than an understandably angry response.

[Posteritatis]

23. You can defend yourself without resorting to attacks, though

Unlike a school playground, on the Internet it actually does take the consent of both parties to fight. If a 'defense' is going to involve simply flaming or even flaming back at someone else, it's worthless as far as regards any meaningful discussion, not least since it's just going to entrench the other guy anyway.

[Lyric]

27. I think you're expecting a bit much from mere mortals.

It's a hell of a lot easier to preach about turning the other cheek than it is to actually *do* it. Our natural reaction when we feel threatened or insulted is to lash back--usually in the form of snark and sarcasm, at least here. It's not "immature" to do so, either, regardless of your insinuation about "school playgrounds." I have never met a human being that was capable of ignoring attacks all of the time, and never losing their temper.

A lot of the attacks around here *require* a response, because not responding just leaves their ugly, usually-false point hanging out there unanswered. We are only human; a better goal would be to work toward backing down from confrontations more quickly than expecting everyone to somehow superhumanly avoid them in the first place. Abstinence is a great philosophy, but when dealing with humans, it doesn't translate very well to reality. Learning to step back after a snark and take a deep breath before continuing are more realistic goals and skills to promote.

[Posteritatis]

31. I don't have a problem doing it

As is somewhat typical around here the last year or so, your response is to a statement I didn't make. I said it's possible to defend oneself or argue a point without resorting to petty bickering, flames and other personal attacks, and you seem to be responding to the idea that one shouldn't respond at all. I said nothing of the sort.

Nobody's holding a gun to my head, nobody's requiring me to act like an asshole here. If someone wants to pick a fight with me here, one only happens because I choose for it to. My rights are not being violated by posters here, my safety not threatened, my person not insulted by anyone whose opinion I'm interested in, and while all of those are not happening people are usually making themselves look like idiots to an audience of thousands. If I do choose to respond to something, there is no reason I have to do so merely through personal attacks and insults, and if I choose to do so I've contributed nothing to the "discussion" save maybe a bit of amusement to those who'd agree with me anyway.

[jhrobbins]

87. Yes, but we are in the Age of Obama and we should try and act like it.

I was going to use am emoticon here, but I couldn't really decide which one would enhance my post.

[Cyrano]

29. I must agree with you, Lyric.

My OP is in no way a defense of threads that are posted with the intent of attacking others. Rather, it was a complaint against those who feel obliged to disrupt "sane" threads by intentionally hurling insults, accusations and incendiary statements at the "THEMS."

If someone posts a "fuck all whoever" thread, I usually try to avoid it. I know that such threads cannot go unanswered. Nonetheless, the responses, arguments, insults, hatreds, and everything else that results from such threads are predictable, useless and hopeless.

I wish I could wave a magic wand and make such "online pollution" go away forever. But I really do understand the havoc caused by the intolerant, know-nothing, mundane evil turds to whom you are referring.

[pipi_k]

89. I've actually found myself in the middle of brouhahas

because I've written things like "Some people _______" (fill in the blank) without even mentioning someone's name, and most of the time I was referring to people I know in RL, not anyone on that site.

The paranoid nutfritters would come out of the woodwork to claim that I was actually referring to THEM!!!! The reality was, as I stated, that I was referring to someone else entirely.

I can't even begin to describe the numbers of outraged flounces I saw over that. The "I'm LEAVING this site and I'm NEVER coming back!!!!" crap. Yeah....whatever. :boring:


Try to calm ruffled feathers and explain, and it only got worse.

People are so self-centered they think everything is about THEM.

Self-centered...paranoid...who knows...

It just got real tiresome after a while...

[DarkTirade]

26. I disagree, and you're a big fat doodie-head for saying so!

:P

[Patiod]

28. And please stop using the shruggy thing

It's like a teenager rolling her eyes and saying "whatever" - it's just pure obnoxiousness that doesn't add anything

[libodem]

33. That 'whatever' bit

is sure to raise the blood pressure. It gets the point across. Nasty icon! But effective.

[Cyrano]

36. "... the shruggy thing ..." Sorry, but what we have here is a failure to communicate.

I have no idea what "the shruggy thing" is. Please bring me up to date.

[Posteritatis]

106. This:

:shrug:

[Joe Chi Minh]

156. It's often the sign of a troll. Much favoured by them. You know.... "I hate Bush

and his brood, BUT....", and then far-right nonsense, followed by a "shrug" sign. That sort of thing.

Or better still.... "I know exit polls have been the gold standard for verifying election fraud all over the world, but here in the US in 2000 and 2004, we really needed to make them match the actual figures returned", then a desperate effort to baffle you with twisted psephology, knowing you're not even familiar with the jargon. Then finally, something like, "Sad, but there it is...", followed by a "shrug".

[Hannah Bell]

49. hear, hear. the eye-rolly thingy is obnoxious. esp. in response to substance.

[Vanje]

114. I HATE that shruggy smilie SO MUCH!!

Hate it.

I'm not sure I like the dripping Sarcasm tag either.
If you HAVE to tell someone , its sarcasm, it probably would be better left unposted.

[TahitiNut]

116. ...

:shrug:

[Vanje]

118. !!!!!

:sarcasm:

[Tsiyu]

151. ...

:spank:

Edit to add: ;)

[Renew Deal]

154. ROFL is worse.

I use the shrug when I am making a guess about something. :shrug:

[donco]

30. It would be nice if

people would post as if they were talking face to face.

[Posteritatis]

32. I'm picturing folks talking face to face like they do online

Ugh, Grozny everywhere.

[Cyrano]

35. It just ain't gonna' happen.

How many people would actually say something obnoxious to someone's face? After all, you may get punched, slapped, spit upon, or shunned/ostracized.

Saying something harsh to someone's face, right or wrong, takes courage.

However, the internet grants all of us anonymity. And obnoxious, disgraceful insults, and even words of hate, can be carelessly thrown around on the net because of that anonymity.

If you are someone who would say something online that you would not say to someone's face, you are a coward.

And to those who reply, "I'll say anything to anyone's face," then, you sir or madam, are in need of psychiatric help (or at the very least, a course in manners, or civilized behavior).

But think about the concept for a moment. Do you post comments online that you would never say to someone's face?

[skepticscott]

129. Of course, and that's what makes the forum useful

In the first place, I deeply distrust anyone who says, or even implies "You wouldn't dare post that if I knew your name and where you live" or "If we were face to face, I'd respond to having my feelings hurt with physical violence against you". But more importantly, a genuine search for the truth (which is what a discussion thread should be), cannot be held in an environment where people have to constantly worry about tiptoeing around each other's feelings. You may disagree, but I would argue that very important truths can spoken between people who are unconcerned about giving offense, truths that would never be spoken otherwise. How many times in a face-to-face social situation have you had restrain yourself from saying not only what you wanted to say, but what you knew needed to be said, because you feared to poison work or personal relationships that were more important in the long term than the issue at hand? In a discussion which is open and unrestricted enough to allow everything to be said that needs to be said, in the way it needs to be said, it is inevitable that lines will be crossed, but that is the price of truly free speech (not the bogus free speech touted by people who say, "everyone should be free to say what they want, but they shouldn't be allowed to offend people").

I personally have no problem with people who get snarky and insulting, especially when dealing with lies and the propagation of ignorance (which deserve to be smacked down hard, so that everyone can see), as long as there is intellectual content behind it. If there is something substantial being said, I can put up with almost anything as far as attitude is concerned. It's when a post is all insult and no substance that I tune it out. And the whole business of putting people on Ignore, and acting as if doing that is some sort of badge of honor, is incomprehensible to me.

[unapatriciated]

145. have to disagree....

I've got this republican co-worker who takes delight in his obnoxious comments to me on various issues. Loves to tell me how "liberals" are ruining his state and he wished we would all move back to California.
Yeah he is in big need of psychiatric help. I just give a few of these it drives him crazy.:wow: :crazy: :wtf: :shrug:

[Fuzz]

38. Great post, Hitler

;)

[4 t 4]

39. I agree with you 100%

but I have come to think the Root of the problem here now is because So many people state things that really are nothing more than opion but they state them as if it is a fact thus tons of bickering and fights. It really did Not use to be like this I just posted a short time ago I want Links back big time or if called on links provided. I would never repeat what I read on du anymore unless I research it myself didn't use to be anything like that.

[Fire1]

120. I thought that was supposed to be remedied by including, 'imo.'

[man4allcats]

41. Re: "...in the absence of gravity there is no up or down."

In the absence of gravity we wouldn't exist and neither would the universe as we know it, so in that context the existence of up or down is moot. Only an asshole could think otherwise.

:sarcasm:

Sorry. It was just too good to resist. }(

[4 t 4]

42. thank you ...I think

?

[Number23]

44. So much to love about DU, so much to laugh at...

:)

[Greyhound]

45. Agreed. But I have a question

is the reply, "but in the absence of gravity there can be no no sky" an attack? Further, if I provide no link proving that gravity is necessary for any sky to exist, does that invalidate it as a fact?

[Jackpine Radical]

52. Link?

[4 t 4]

60. you have been here since 2001

and you don't see a difference?

[Jackpine Radical]

102. In all those years since 2001, there have been a few times--maybe 2 or 3--

when I wasn't dead serious about what I was posting.

[4 t 4]

79. sorry I want a link to all the shit that is now on du

[Greyhound]

98. LOL!

:rofl:

[Highway61]

46. One thing you will maybe notice...

A lot of the "old timers" here will not respond to this post. I have posted and many times get a zero response...other times...well...ya have to be "thick skinned", as I was told in the beginning. There are a LOT of good people here on DU and I mean a LOT.
Take the good and leave the rest behind. People are people. It's just the way it is. However, that being said, I know what your trying to say.
Thanks for posting.

[Fire1]

47. Yeah, I certainly notice. It's as if you post something, be ready

for a fight. I think some people just like to argue.

[4 t 4]

81. No, no not at all I just want the facts

just the facts is that to much to ask again when I first came here I would Never hesitate to tout something I on read or learned on du, now-no way.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Fire1]

54. Nope, life long democrat. Never used to browse or blog. Then,

when the illustrious (former) mayor of Detroit got busted for perjury and obstruction of justice (among other things)I found a blog site related to his scandel and I took off from there. I actually stumbled upon this site after the Fox news site became over run with freepers and I couldn't take it anymore.

[Fire1]

55. Nope, life long democrat. Never used to browse or blog. Then,

when the illustrious (former) mayor of Detroit got busted for perjury and obstruction of justice (among other things)I found a blog site related to his scandel and I took off from there. I actually stumbled upon this site after the Fox news site became over run with freepers and I couldn't take it anymore.

[uppityperson]

96. FYI, here are rules you might like to read...

Do not publicly accuse another member of this message board of being a disruptor, conservative, Republican, FReeper, or troll, or do not otherwise imply they are not welcome on Democratic Underground. If you think someone is a disruptor, click the "Alert" link below their post to let the moderators know.

Do not draw negative attention to the fact that someone is new, has a low post count, or recently became a member of Democratic Underground. Do not insinuate that because someone is new, they are a troll or disruptor.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

[samsingh]

48. DU got me through a lot of tough times in the past 8 years

thank you DU.

[UTUSN]

53. Bottom filthy flamer attacks

1- "Turn it (t.v., radio) off."

2- "Why are you (watching/listening to/reading) (O'LOOFAH/LIMBOsevic/NY Post gossip page)?"

3- "You have a reading comprehension problem."

4- "You need a psychological evaluation."

5- "You are creepy."

6- "You must be off your medications."

7- "You are a DLC/centrist (= "pig")."

8- "Too much caffeine?"

9- "Too much booze?"


What bugs me more is why they click into a thread they detest, usually in the very first post to threadkill/crap the whole thing from the start.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[uppityperson]

59. I hope you realize the irony of what you write. search is instructive.

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[uppityperson]

77. This is not your forum but thank you for your concern.

I see no proof of what you allege. Where do you see this?

[4 t 4]

62. this thread is so confusing to me

are you talking about me or them ?

[uppityperson]

72. Indeed. Edited to add, poof! Thanks mods.

My theory is it is busy writing profane and mocking posts to get enough to post an OP and go out in a flame of glory. Albeit a very slight, brief flame.

[PeaceNikki]

68. You're "not going down like a bitch", huh?

How exactly does a "bitch" go down?

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Sandrine for you]

57. "The Fucking asshole Forum"

May be we should have a forum just for personal attacks...like the "Fucking asshole Forum", where we will have the right to really fight at each other, letting off stream, and after we become polite to each other in other forum.

[HughMoran]

58. One defense to this is to say something NICE that is OFF-PUTTING to the offender

Kind of hard for someone to be angry with you if you refuse to accept it.

Maybe someone should write a book on the Zen and the Art of Internet Forum Interaction. I bet it would be a best seller!

[4 t 4]

65. Huh ?

[HughMoran]

73. What part of "turn the other cheek" don't you understand bozo?

:rofl:

I kid, I kid!!!

[kimmerspixelated]

66. Great idea!

[HughMoran]

67. No more Fitzmas?

lol - your name was dated without a doubt!!

:)

[kimmerspixelated]

159. Yeah,...I HAD to change it!

Oh, well, a new ERA, instead of ERROR!

[undeterred]

64. That's exactly what pisses me off about DU.

There are a lot of verbally aggressive people here who are always on the attack.

[kentuck]

70. Why, everyone is always nice to me...

:-)

[4 t 4]

71. Please who are you addressing

because all I did was defend myself when I was mocked and even then I did it kindly so I hope your not talking about me

[undeterred]

78. No not you.

I am just generalizing about my experience at DU.

[4 t 4]

85. thank you

[kimmerspixelated]

69. I know what you mean, Cyrano.

I have noticed nastiness really comes out in the health/sciences and especially resides in the skeptic forum. There are some really toxic folks that live there, they seem to feed on the misery of others. But it is good to try to disarm them with kindness. Really, I feel sorry for those that seem to be so miserable.

[geckosfeet]

75. Oh. I'm sorry. This is abuse. You want 12A next door.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppK6sxz6epk

Stupid git.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

76. What a great OP

There is one person who posts here CONSTANTLY. I mean, seven to twelve OPs a day is not unusual. This poster is exactly, EXACTLY what you describe. I try to just stay away from said posters OPs due to how vicious this person is. He/she believes that it is their right to name call and the word "stupid" must be a one key operation on their computer.

I have been guilty of doing this on several occasions but I will make a much more diligent effort to never do it again. :)

Thank you!

QOC

[TahitiNut]

83. Yes ... and at the same time, I'm convinced that many cannot distinguish between ...

... attacking the message and attacking the messenger -- particularly when the 'message' being attacked is their own. To some degree, I think all of us attach our egos to WHAT we post/say. That does NOT mean that vigorous disagreement and a zealous attack on WHAT we say is the same as a personal attack. I am NOT talking about an attack of the message that includes "only a ___ would say that." That's not a logically valid form of argument, and is a thinly-veiled personal attack.

Another failing is the use of the word "you" in the ambiguous sense of "one" ... rather than "you" personally. I avoid that use of the word "you" and employ "one" or "someone" or "anyone." I think we'd all be better off if we very carefully restrict our use of the words "you" and "yours" ONLY when we mean to refer to the DUer personally.

[HughMoran]

111. That "you plural" thing is a tough habit to break!

I had many misunderstandings over the years using the plural form of 'you'. I think I've improved in this area, though it hasn't been easy.

[TahitiNut]

115. I've found a VERY high correlation between incivility/insult and the use of "you" or "your."

One class of posts employs the bullying rhetoric of "you" vs. "us" or "we" -- the language of a gang. Virtually without exception, such a post is hostile and fallaciously personal. Another class of posts, makes personal inquiries or observations regarding gender, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or activities such as smoking or drinking or owning a gun. The inference being that the individual is biased/bigoted due to self-interest and is, therefore, incapable of engaging in logical and rational discussion and seeing alternative viewpoints. In fact, it's even been stated quite often (stunningly) on DU that (all) persons of a certain gender or ethnicity are not qualified to express a rational opinion on some topics. I'd find it difficult to cite a more illiberal or close-minded attitude that seems 'acceptable' to so many on DU -- an attitude that's inherently a personal insult. Invariably, replies from folks possessed of such an attitude will contain "you" or "your" in relative abundance.

[HughMoran]

119. I know it causes confusion

In my case, I speak like that and have had to retrain myself to not use 'you' plural as people think I'm talking about them versus speaking generally. I can't say that I'm a study on who uses this 'you/your' thing & their propensity to be insulting, though I am very aware of the general tendency of some to put others down in a 'personal' way. I've had to learn this technique otherwise I always felt like I was at a disadvantage in certain situations. With the latest bout of rampant attack-speak, I've actually decided to try not take the bait. Unfortunately, I've not been able to resist wacking back at some of those who seem to want to smash all dissent/alternate views on certain topics - that's not fair to anybody and sometimes I get personal (then feel bad about it.)

[omega minimo]

86. .. like every personal/lock attack on every thread on women's issues that keeps them buried

[Posteritatis]

109. Every forum does seem to have one of those, no?

I was an administrator on a fairly big all-things-pagan type forum for a year or so. About 25,000 users, maybe a fifth of those regulars. Generally a decent place, except when the subject of interracial dating/marriage came up. Every time that subject came up, a few people who were still living in the thirties and most of the Asatruar on the site came out of the woodwork with all the old pseudoscience about diluting cultures, about how blacks taint the genome of whites (even without pregnancy!), etc., etc., etc. It got to the point where if the subject came up at all in any thread, we more or less had to lock it preemptively.

[Mike 03]

90. Yeah. I have made mistakes in my postings, but it's so much more depressing to be

addressed thus: "OMFG how can you be so stupid?", than some sort of reasonable argument.

That's just how DU has become over the seven years. Things change.

One reason I even come here is to become more educated about my views.

My mind has been changed many times by conversations I've had here.

But I agree that lately it's almost painful to express a contrary opinion about anything. It is no longer a learning experience, just a hurting experience.

[tclambert]

130. The proper response to "how can you be so stupid?" is:

"I napped a lot in high school."

[Cetacea]

91. It's indicative of nearly all web forums.

It's just more disappointing to see it here.

[lostnotforgotten]

92. SO Let's Use The Israeli / Palestinian Issue - The Two Sides Are Entrenched

eom

[Mike 03]

93. Hell, you don't have to go there to find two sides that are entrenched. NT

[smiley]

94. Ever been to the DU dungeon?

It runs rampant down there! In my opinion there is a concerted effort to try and keep the discussion off of the OP's original intent. Those that continually do this should be banned from DU.

[Cetacea]

95. Agreed. It does run rampant there.

And the personal insults are constant and over the top.

[Mike 03]

97. DU dungeon? Not sure which one? Is that the 9-11 Conspiracy Forum? NT

[inna]

99. DU Dungeon?

is there really such a thing as "the DU dungeon"??

[Posteritatis]

105. I've heard the 9/11 forum and the guns forum both called that

The latter'd be a flamefest for obvious reasons. The former's where all the conspiracy threads (regardless of topic) tend to wind up ever since the more tin-hatted crazies around here actually made it onto the New York Times a few years ago. (a bunch of them'd claimed Bush caused the southeast Asian tsunami a few years ago.)

[WilliamPitt]

100. Your candidate sucks.

:P

[BelgianMadCow]

101. Well, the discussions centered on facts and their merits are few and far between (+ proposal)

but if you can discern the wheat from the chaff, there are (still) treasures here.

So you OP is valid - ad hominems detract from honest debate. I don't think reposting that part of the rules will change much in itself though.

I would propose the readers of this thread respond to every ad hominem they encounter with a canned sentence like "DU is about honest fact-based debate, let's not lower the bar" or something better :-) On edit - best if a third person does so, seeing a discussion between two others derail. If that third had no prior stake in the discussion, it would carry even more weight.

Of course, a number of issues are automatically centered more on belief than on facts, and there are valuable issues like that. In such threads, one can only ask for civil discourse and a progressive big tent attitude.

[Bucky]

103. You want me to be reasonable & respectful? That just shows what a fuckwit you are!!

hmmm, maybe I need to have my irony nodes worked on

[dickthegrouch]

104. In almost every case you can view the OP as an attack

When faced with OPs such as the current H1-b hate fest and the casual suggestion that all visa and Green-card holders should just be sent home, I feel like I'm under attack.

If you can't see that thread as an attack, you need to travel the world more.

This planet belongs to all of us. Arbitrary boundaries such as countries are major anachronisms in the 21st century. Tiny minds cling to them because they are too puny to dream up and implement anything better.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

107. And, another thing--an inability to apologize for wrongful accusations

Not everyone is guilty of this, but it's fairly standard for some....

oh, like, for example, the screeds about the failures of the President, before he even took office.

I've always thought an ability to admit one's wrongs shows courage and ethics. but that's just me.

[arcadian]

108. It's funny that there so many deleted messages in this thread.

Funny Ha-Ha, not funny strange

[HughMoran]

112. Ironic funny? Actually, I think they were all from the same person

Maybe 2.

[uppityperson]

123. potty mouth has been ts'd which is good.

[wildbilln864]

117. "DU members who disagree with another DU member’s post and respond with personal attacks."

Just like in the DU dungeon! :smoke:

[Synicus Maximus]

122. I would prefer to be called names instead

of having someone discuss facts that may not fit with my preconceived ideas.

[Harry Monroe]

124. Will do

BTW, you're a dumb poopy head!! (OK, I keed!)

:hi:

And of course, I completely agree with your assesment!!

[Brucie Kibbutz]

125. I guess I should be more observant.

For a forum that has so many participants, it seems pretty laid back around here, to me. :shrug:

[tclambert]

131. "Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son." - Dean Wormer

I've seen some flame wars here and there. The moderators are pretty quick to remove the messages that get them started. And I have complained about that because then it's like hearing the punch line without the setup. I feel like I missed out. "To get to the other side." See, it's not as funny if you don't hear, "Why did Dick Cheney shoot that chicken in the face?"

[bliss_eternal]

127. Just my opinion

...but when it becomes clear that someone is more intent on

1. attacking...
2. hurling insults
3. being condescending and rude
4. arguing for the sake of arguing, or a need to be right (as opposed to attempting to communicate respectfully in an exchange of ideas and learn).

Or all of the above ...

...I don't feel obligated to participate in the discussion. As far as I'm concerned, at that point it is less a discussion and more a personal verbal assault.

People are entitled to disagree with whatever is shared. But one's right to disagree, doesn't guarantee that the other party is going to be a willing paricipant in abuse (when it comes to that).

An unfortunate aspect of on-line communication is the fact that many feel emboldened by the anonymity to behave in ways they wouldn't, in face to face interaction. Knowing this, I tend to opt out of a lot. There are a lot of people on line that use "their right to disagree" as some sort of permission slip to be obnnoxious jerks, in general.

[HardWorkingDem]

132. Amen, brother....

I whole heartedly agree.

Wish I could even be better and not participate in the back and forth, but my personality is when someone tosses an insult bomb at me, I toss one right back.

Couldn't agree more.

[Time for change]

133. There are a minority of DUers who do that kind of thing

But you're right, it is terriby annoying when they do. There are DU rules against doing that, but I don't think they're enforced enough.

[shugah]

135. what pisses me off about DU is the same thing that makes it home

it is predictable, no different than it has ever been, and i just love it with all it's quirks, foibles, and neuroses

[Lithos]

136. K&R

K&R

Very well put!

[Tarc]

138. Well, for some there are simply certain core issues that they will not compromise on

I will freely and gladly call anyone who did not come out against Prop 8 or anyone who did not condemn that asshole Warren's speaking at the inauguration a bigot, for example. If they don't like it, then tough. Get on the right side of a basic issue of civil rights.

Not saying that you are one way or another, but this is one issue in particular that people seem to whine about lately.

[jennied]

139. Yeah, people on here are SO angry sometimes... calm down.

[dbt]

140. So. How's the appeal for civility going?

aka "Nice post, Gandhi. Good luck with it."

:evilgrin:

[Connonym]

142. Just like the rest of the internet

I don't mean to sound glib but it's not just DU.

[Fumesucker]

143. I like it when people engage in personal attacks against me..

It means they have no heavier ammunition so they are throwing spitballs.

[Le Taz Hot]

144. Orrrrr....

we can celebrate our differences in that not everyone has to be milquetoast. Stated with the utmost respect, of course. :evilgrin:

[RoccoR5955]

146. You know, opinions are like assholes, everyone has at least one!

So keep it civil!

[mmonk]

147. These times, unfortunately, are frought with great emotion.

It's reflective of what has been done to us.

[meowomon]

148. There's always an asshole somewhere

And they don't have a valid argument so they attack personally.

[TWiley]

149. There are more logical fallacies in play around here than personal attack

My estimate:

1) personal attack
2) Strawman
3) False Dilemma
4) Red Herring
5) ALL the rest in no particular order

I have resorted to all of the above tactics but not simply due to ignorance. I / We tried the "political correct" angle during the Gore and Kerry campaigns. IT DID NOT WORK. Our arrogance caused immense hardship to befall the globe via Bush. There are republi-KKKlan trolls on this board, and I happen to feel they need to be challenged. It is tempting to offend someone who is being offensive.

The difficult part is the communication medium we use. As there are no facial gesture to use as "intensity indicators" it is easy to misunderstand a persons meaning, or at least "how much" they mean it.

[GeorgeGist]

150. pissing off, and shoveling shit against the tide

is unnecessary to your argument.

[Renew Deal]

153. I blame this on the moderation of DU.

I don't think the mods are allowed to do enough in this area. Personal attacks have been outlawed for a long time, but that rule has been scarcely enforced since 2004-2005. I guess Skinner doesn't want the mods deleting message after message. I disagree with this. I think they should go to the prior enforcement policy where any personal attack is deleted. It would go a long way towards sending the message. I doubt things will get better until that happens.

[Montauk6]

155. AHH!! YER GRAN'MUDDA WEAHS AHMY BOOTS!

I hear ya, Cyrano. The flames tend to get WAAAAAY too high in here. And most of the time over the most picayune nonsense.

K&R