When Shutting Up isn't Cowardice

That post wasn't directed at you . . . but given your paranoia, i'm not surprised that you leapt to the conclusion . . . you really need to take offense, don't you . . . it may now occur to you (but i doubt it, which is why i'm explaining it to you) that the use of "Boy" is not related to race . . . but it is hilarious, in a pathetic kind of way, to see just how obsessed you are with race, and with taking offense at the posts of particular members . . . all we need now to really set you off is for Lash to show up . . .

If so, my mistake.

He's used that word addressing me recently, and I hope I can be forgiven for being a little touchy about that particular word.

I hear ya, Cyc - even if others don't seem to

You don't seem very touchy about the use of the word "bitch," though . . . guess you never learned that sauce for the goose does make sauce for the gander . . .

Well, I forgive you, hehe

I do believe that Ash was rather off base in comparing posters who limit their discussion to those they wish to talk to, and trolls who are quite destructive to the discourse of the site. It isn't surprising to see people react strongly to such a comparison, but I wish that tempers would hold on both sides.

Cycloptichorn

If there were textbooks on online community dynamics, the last five pages of this thread would be a textbook example of what I said in the initial post: "As bitter as it sounds: your chivalry's unintended consequences frequently add more clutter to the thread than the aggression that provoked you." No troll was involved in getting this thread locked. The people who got it locked have little in common except that they are not trolls. It would also be a textbook example of why "don't feed the troll" is good tactics. In fact, it's an example of why it's good to extend the tactic to people who aren't trolls, but that one perceives -- rightly or wrongly -- as being obnoxious.

On page 18, Asherman said something that ticked off Setanta. As it happens, I disagree with Asherman, but that's not the point. My point is that, when Setanta got pissed off by Asherman's post, the right decision for Setanta would have been stop feeding Asherman. It doesn't matter if his opinion was right or wrong. If it was wrong, he simply would have walked away from a conversation that couldn't possibly get anywhere worth getting to. If he was right, the tactic would still have prevented a chain reaction to the detriment of every other reader. The same goes for (in alphabetical order) McGentrix's, Snood's, and Ticomaya's reaction to Setanta, and Setanta's reaction to DrewDad, McGentrix, and Ticomaya. I'm not blaming you guys for what happened. But I'm asking you, pretty please with sugar on top, to stop feeding people when you think they're trolling. There is no point in discussing publically who's being obnoxious and who isn't. Just make your own judgment, and shun your opponents with silence whenever you judge them to be trolling.)

Can we agree on this simple rule?

(PS: Thanks to Cycloptichorn, Drewdad, and ehBeth for trying to make the best of a bad situation. Thanks, also, to the moderator who pulled the plug on this.)

(PPS: The numerous apologies on those pages are all accepted.)

C'mon now - the spaghetti monster did it? What happened there is what happened there, and the folks that made it happen are the folks who took on then energetically and enthusiastically ratchetted up the stupid "gotchya - gotchya back - gotchya back even nastier - etc." game ... happens all too often, with or without the assistance of an acreditted card-carrying troll - the amatures are perfectly capable of doing a fine job of working themselves into mob frenzy left to themselves.

The mods have plenty to do preserving the site from spam and outright illegal stuff - which on a website this size is a constant chore, and one that is done here amazingly effectively with a very small staff . Protecting the website's members from each other is an altogether different matter, but obviously no less a constant chore.

Yes. Sources have told me this. True to my principles, I ain't talking to it anymore.

I honestly believe that a 'Meta' thread such as this one is inherently helpful to the community. It provides a place to discuss the ebb and flow of our conversations themselves; sort of a 'poliography' in the same way I used to study Histiography.

It also provides a place to move conversations when they become overly 'meta-' for the thread in question; it could help reduce the number of threads which are hijacked in the long run as well.

Cheers

Cycloptichorn

one can only hope...

I have no idea what a poliography is, but I think i'll take it as a compliment. Thanks.

Does that make you a poliographer? And is that legal?

I don't know what the correct term is, sorry.

Sort of... the study of the study of Politics.

Cycloptichorn

Reminder to self: whenever feeling like this:



Remember the point of this thread instead.

Actually shutting up isn't cowardice a large part of the time - not just here, but "in vivo".

Wish I could do it more, all those times when it is the better part of valor.

Er... Political Science?

A step removed from that. Political science is in its essence the study of the events in politics, just as History (as a subject) is the study of events in history.

What I am talking about is studying the process of studying politics. In terms of history, we call it Histiography. I don't know what the analgous term is here, but I don't feel that PolySci really describes what I'm thinking of.

Cycloptichorn

On the other hand, I have an argument on the other side too. I was rethinking about what Thomas wrote here:


(emphasis mine)

There's a downside to this, at least when we're talking about being in a third-party role.

Lemme explain. In many cases (as in the case Thomas was describing here), trollness is in the eye of the beholder, for sure. But I'm sure we can also agree that there are also cases - too many cases, even - where there was much less of such ambiguity. I'm sure we can all remember cases where we saw how someone was insulted/yelled at/hurt in just a totally unwarranted way - by a card-carrying troll or just a foul-mooded regular. Just like us regulars are also very likely to have been the suffering object of the really stunning stuff, stuff that really gets to you, ourselves at least once as well.

OK, so - you're the third party in such a case. You see it happen, and you're aghast. What to do in that case? Taking Thomas's advice, you would "make your own opinion", express it in silence, and walk away - because "discussing publically who's being obnoxious and who isn't" is bad.

But there is some cowardice involved in that - or callousness, perhaps. Because if you've ever been the object of this kind of thing (and who hasnt been) - and you're not blessed with the kind of self-conviction/vanity that renders some people untouchable by such events - then you know it can feel pretty lonely being at the receiving end. Personally, in the odd case or two it happened to me, I can tell you I was damn glad with the fellow-poster or two speaking up on what was going on, right when I was being paralysed into this "am I crazy, or..?" feeling, right when I was feeling pretty much abandoned. Vice versa, it's not pleasant seeing bystanders just scuffle away from the scene without a word of support.

Sending a supportive PM is of course a much better alternative, but even that can still leave a feeling like you've been left alone out there, noone speaking up for you, while invisible behind the scenes everyone is happy to whisper in your ear that, really, they think you're right.

I myself in any case do tend to speak up when I feel someone is being attacked unfairly and rudely - especially (but not only) if they're relatively new, or talking from the minority political POV - and people did send grateful messages, saying the equivalent of God, I didnt know what was happening, I'm so glad you came in, I thought I was going crazy.

So I dunno. Mob/pack mentality is bad, yes. Everyone chipping in to join in a "boo bad guy!" match is also bad, I can see that too. But emotions do get involved when you're attacked, and it can be an immense relief if at least someone jumps in for you, or defends you against an unwarranted attack. Mob mentality and mutual escalation bad, but some support and solidarity is good - we're not robots, after all, we are humans, with feelings, and in any real-life community you'd have positive feedback, support, stepping up for friends etc, too, and thats a good thing. So not so clear-cut perhaps, after all.

Triangulation is my middle name.