Sign Up | Log In
REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS
Troll Threshold
Tuesday, March 20, 2007 2:35 PM
SERGEANTX
Quote:Originally posted by Causal: I guess what really disturbs me is that we've divided ourselves into camps: left and right. The two cannot get along, not around any subject because it's essential to the nature of each to oppose the other. So no real meaningful dialogue can take place, just flame and ugliness. And I just don't see any real way to fix it. None at all. And that scares the shit out of me, when it comes to the future of the West.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007 2:43 PM
SIGNYM
I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007 2:47 PM
CAUSAL
Quote:Originally posted by SergeantX: I agree. It's one of the most frustrating problems I have with political discourse these days. But for me, the problem isn't people with strong convictions. The problem is people who argue from affiliation and political identity rather than ideological conviction. It seems like most folks are just 'sports fans' - in the sense that they pick a side and cheer for their team. Scoring a 'victory' for your side is more important than persuasion or * gasp * actually learning something from the conversation. But I do see a slender thread of hope in the situation. The right and the left, in their desperate attempts to beat each other at all costs, are showing just how empty and self-serving their convictions really are. Maybe the whole mess will encourage people to think for themselves a little more.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007 2:54 PM
RUE
I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!
Tuesday, March 20, 2007 2:56 PM
Tuesday, March 20, 2007 2:58 PM
Tuesday, March 20, 2007 3:02 PM
Quote:Inaccuracy of ANY kind bugs the shit out of me. When people purposefully post (how's that for alliteration) downright lies over and over, someone needs to respond or they become accepted.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007 3:26 PM
Tuesday, March 20, 2007 3:48 PM
CITIZEN
Tuesday, March 20, 2007 4:35 PM
FREMDFIRMA
Tuesday, March 20, 2007 5:00 PM
Quote:And I think very few here are trolls - people intentionally, maliciously baiting and derailing - but there are a few.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007 5:39 PM
Tuesday, March 20, 2007 5:47 PM
Tuesday, March 20, 2007 6:48 PM
SOUPCATCHER
Quote:Originally posted by citizen: I do wonder though if that is what the contention is, not merely that Liberals are in the majority here, but that because this board is mostly of American stock many of the conservatives simply cannot handle not being in the majority as they are IRL.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007 9:11 PM
Tuesday, March 20, 2007 10:45 PM
Wednesday, March 21, 2007 2:26 AM
Wednesday, March 21, 2007 3:00 AM
Quote:Originally posted by SoupCatcher: Quote:Originally posted by citizen: I do wonder though if that is what the contention is, not merely that Liberals are in the majority here, but that because this board is mostly of American stock many of the conservatives simply cannot handle not being in the majority as they are IRL. I've been starting to wonder about that my own self. Hundreds of millions of dollars has been spent over the past three decades in the United States in an attempt to make the word liberal a slur. And, for the most part, it has been successful. I have friends in red parts of the country that keep very very quiet about their liberal beliefs. I guess it's sorta similar to being an atheist. The vast majority of Americans consider themselves Christian. That is the cultural norm in this country. Atheists are zero threat to Christians. But they consistently poll at the bottom in terms of trustworthiness. And it goes beyond that. Some Christians seem to loathe atheists with the same fervor usually reserved for mass murderers. Sometimes, when you're a member of the dominant culture, any viewpoint from a member of a minority culture can seem threatening. Or just wrong. You know that's not the way the world works. The world works the way it works for your group. I've seen valid criticisms dismissed out of hand by people who have never been in the position of a minority. They just can't grok. But to get back to the negative product branding that has been done on the word liberal. One of my goals, on this site, is to put a human behind the slur. So you think that liberals are traitors and deserve to be shot? Then you think I'm a traitor and that I deserve to be shot. So you think liberals love Osama bin Laden and want millions of Americans to die. Then you think I love Osama bin Laden and want millions of Americans to die. Both statements are absurdly wrong. But easy to believe and utter in the abstract. Just listen to talk radio for a while. And it's especially easy if you don't think you know any liberals. Well, you know them. I could go on further about my suspicions regarding enforced homogeniety of towns and suburbs wrt race and how that seriously stunts the development of many Americans. But that got little traction before...
Wednesday, March 21, 2007 3:11 AM
Quote:Originally posted by citizen: Strangely enough I've never had this problem when debating politics with anyone but Americans, I've gone over all the same things with British (even Australian and Canadian, but never French) conservatives, half the people I drink with and most of the people I work with are conservative, without problem. Although I'm sure that's just proof that I hate Americans or something I find it's much harder to discuss things with Americans sometimes because things have to be polarised (you're liberal, I'm conservative we have to disagree on everything) and it so often has to be about whose saying what rather than what is being said. I find American approach to politics to be somewhat different to British, more about the cult of personality rather than anything approaching issues.
Quote:What's most frustrating is that so often you can predict someone's opinions based on whether they vote Democrat or Republican (actually what is most frustrating is how a country like the US with such a huge right wing slant to both it's politics and media has so many talking about the liberal bias of the media which is simply not there). I do wonder though if that is what the contention is, not merely that Liberals are in the majority here, but that because this board is mostly of American stock many of the conservatives simply cannot handle not being in the majority as they are IRL.
Quote:It's certainly true that this board is mostly full of thick skinned posters that attack each other, I'm certainly aware that I am not blameless there. I'm also aware that in many posters those quickest to talk about how 'everyone is attacking them' are the first to attack, I'm also aware that I post on other boards with little or no problem, so find the many accusations that it is 'all down to me' to be somewhat baseless.
Quote:I'd also like to point out that there are a number of Trolls who frequent this board, and that they have chosen a right wing persona, doubtlessly because they realise that there is a strong liberal presence here, I also find it frustrating that some of the real conservative posters here give some of the Trolls a free pass, seemingly because of this.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007 3:17 AM
Quote:Originally posted by rue: Sorry Soup, but this little voice is going through my head in an imagined self-conversation - Well, I have nothing personal against liberals. Even some of my best friends are liberals. And besides, you might be a liberal but you're not like those other liberals. You're a regular person just like me. I'm sure, push come to shove, we'd agree on the same things. So we can get along fine and be friends. End result, it's possible for people to get along with you just fine and still rant about 'liberals'.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007 3:37 AM
Wednesday, March 21, 2007 3:43 AM
Wednesday, March 21, 2007 4:57 AM
SHINYED
Wednesday, March 21, 2007 6:44 AM
Wednesday, March 21, 2007 6:54 AM
FUTUREMRSFILLION
Quote:Originally posted by SignyM: Rue called Geezer "Slick" and then Geezer "responded in kind" (escalated, actually) by calling Rue obssessed, unfunny. Then in response Rue said Geezer was delusional to which Geezer replied that Rue was snarky and created an implied threat as well as insult Meet me outside Spagos, Rue, and I'll show you Uber-man." The humor-challenged liberal commentator and sometimes stalker has not yet issued a reply. More as it occurs....stuck-up killjoys. In that exchange, I think Geezer was being a name-calling jerk, and claiming it was all a "joke" is the oldest trick in the book (one that Ann Coulter knows well ). Causal- your support for that kind of behavior Hear, Hear! was less than what I would expect from you. So how SHOULD that thread have gone? Well, I don't support name-calling, starting with "Slick". It's hard to call "foul" on name-calling if its part of your repertoire. But assuming that Rue had not started with "Slick" and the thread had gone on exactly as before, where you you be in that exchange, and why? --------------------------------- Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
Quote:Originally posted by SignyM: Holding a place for you Causal. I'm going to try a say something, but I'm having a hard time making myself clear even to myself. For some, what they say and how they act flows directly from their ideology. I ran into that in another bbx in which politics and religion were both banned. When I pointed out that “God bless America” was both political AND religious, I was accused of “bringing politics into everything”. (And for my pains I was turned in to the FBI. But that’s another story. ) I can’t say much about other cultures, but I do know that as an atheist I run into this with my fellow Americans quite often. The reason why this is so, I think, is because many Americans are culturally and intellectually sheltered. A fundamentally different POV offends and even frightens them. If we intend to have honest and meaningful discussion - and I realize that’s not some people’s intent- then we have to moderate our behavior even when emotions are running high. That means no name-calling, no sniping, no rhetorical dirty tricks. But certain people violate conversational etiquette all the time. They call names, they change the topic, they mischaracterize others’ positions. For most this is simply an unconscious response to feeling threatened. There is ONE person who seems to do this deliberately. I can imagine this person looking into the bag of dirty rhetorical tricks and thinking… what shall I use now? Sarcasm? Innuendo? Name-calling? Re-direction? Occasionally this person just dumps a whole trash-bin into a thread. What to do? Ignore. Ignore. Ignore. --------------------------------- Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007 6:59 AM
Wednesday, March 21, 2007 7:12 AM
NEWOLDBROWNCOAT
Wednesday, March 21, 2007 7:25 AM
Wednesday, March 21, 2007 8:04 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Causal: Enjoyed the post; I think it's a good project to put some humanity behind the word liberal. I hope that the opposite works, too, of course. Because the reverse also happens: all social conservatives are evil morons, therefore I'm an evil moron. Well, come now, can it really be that easy? The kind of thing you describe really works both ways. You said how some atheists feel persecuted when the majority is theist--well on this board republicans, conservatives and Christians sometimes feel persecuted because they are in the minority. Maybe your project of humanization can be pushed out to everybody such that we all see each other primarily as people, and only then liberals, conservatives, or what have you.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007 8:49 AM
Quote:Originally posted by SignyM: that person goes into internet timeout. It works for K-garten, it should work here!
Wednesday, March 21, 2007 8:51 AM
GEEZER
Keep the Shiny side up
Quote:Originally posted by SignyM: Rue called Geezer "Slick" and then Geezer "responded in kind"...
Wednesday, March 21, 2007 9:03 AM
Wednesday, March 21, 2007 9:13 AM
Wednesday, March 21, 2007 9:16 AM
Wednesday, March 21, 2007 9:20 AM
Quote:Originally posted by SoupCatcher: The first step to changing a group from the other - to be feared and defended against - begins when you personally know someone from that group. I think it's a pretty safe bet that if you asked an American, "Do you know any Christians personally?" they would answer in the affirmative since about eighty percent of Americans self-identify as Christian. I would expect an alternative question, "Do you know any atheists personally?" to elicit a much smaller affirmative response for a variety of reasons. If the first conversation you've ever had with an atheist occurs on a message board then I'd argue atheists are still the other. If the first conversation you've ever had with a Christian occurs on a message board then I'd really like to know where you grew up, because I'd put the odds on that at slim to none. When someone from a strong majority, a majority that is a cultural norm, tells a member of a non-cultural norm minority that they need to be able to see things from his/her perspective it highlights a lack of awareness. Everyone in this country is exposed to the perspective of the cultural norm on a daily basis. You can't escape from it. That is what it means to be the cultural norm.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007 9:29 AM
Wednesday, March 21, 2007 9:38 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Causal: But that doesn't mean that those in the majority aren't viewed as The Other by those in the minority. Has every atheist had a conversation with a theist? Almost certainly. But that's not sufficient for knowing a theist, let alone being friends with someone. I think both the majority and the minority see the other group as The Other. It's not just that one side is guilty and the other isn't.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007 9:55 AM
Quote:Originally posted by SignyM: Rue- tsk tsk tsk. Yeah, I get it. Geezer is a troll so what? "He started it!" It never worked before and it ain't gonna work now. Take the high road. --------------------------------- Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007 10:05 AM
Wednesday, March 21, 2007 10:06 AM
Wednesday, March 21, 2007 10:10 AM
Quote:Originally posted by SignyM: Geezer, may I politely point out that you're mischaracterizing my position as a "double standard"? I said that I didn't think name-calling was acceptable, starting with "Slick". So- time out for YOU, old buddy! I'll not bother to respond to any more of your posts in this thread.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007 10:11 AM
MALBADINLATIN
Quote:Originally posted by SignyM: One of our problems "righteous anger". Dang it, we see so much of it in the movies that it seems like it's the answer to everything. Just be right enough and mad enough to beat the crap out of the "bad guy" and everything wil work out. Negotiating is for wusses, right?
Wednesday, March 21, 2007 10:20 AM
Wednesday, March 21, 2007 10:44 AM
Wednesday, March 21, 2007 11:27 AM
Quote:Originally posted by SignyM: Geezer, I apologize for name-calling. --------------------------------- Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007 12:09 PM
Quote:Originally posted by SignyM: In fact, to continue the thought on understanding versus responding to. In some cases, our responses actually prevent understanding because we may be so intent on responding as we see ourselves (a homosexual, a woman, a white guy) that we simply reinforce stereotypes in our own head. Perhaps we may even precipitate the reaction that we fear. For example, my stroll through the barrio. I can take the "potential victim" view... I'm so white. I stand out. These places are dangerous. This view is not conducive to understanding. --------------------------------- Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007 12:20 PM
Quote:Originally posted by SoupCatcher: I disagree. And I think it's on a pretty fundamental level that relates to privilege. I think that you are basing your statements off the assumption of a level playing field between members of a minority group and members of a majority group. Which, in my opinion, does not exist. It's not even that the field isn't level, it's that the teams are playing with different equipment to different rules in different leagues of a different sport. Try the following statement on for size and let me know if you agree or disagree: I, as a heterosexual man, have to think about things from a homosexual perspective in order to successfully navigate my daily life. I disagree with that statement. I can live my entire life never once having to think about things from the perspective of a homosexual man in order to successfully navigate situations. Because I am a member of the norm. I can always operate from a heterosexual perspective without being accused of rocking the boat. I can openly acknowledge my sexuality without causing a stir. Etc.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007 12:22 PM
Quote:Originally posted by rue: Causal, If you want to feel what being in the minority feels like, take a stroll through a barrio some day. Just you by yourself. Now imagine living your life there are being dependent on that society for your job, your housing and everything else that keeps you alive. Which is not to say that people of the barrio would do the things white folk have done to them. But it's a thought experiment to help you understand how alienated and helpless you might feel if you even thought the society was stacked against you - as a minority.
YOUR OPTIONS
NEW POSTS TODAY
OTHER TOPICS
FFF.NET SOCIAL