Personal Attacks

Dunno if I'd rate unwillingness to accept humor at one's own expense as humorlessness though Tartarin.

I see what you're saying, Sofia, but I think it all gets tumbled together. To try to separate it out:

1.) A2K has a TOS, which is enforced. The demarcation line has moved a little toward "no blood no foul", which Craven notes and says he has plans to address. I don't think there's any substantial disagreement there. I also don't think anyone's claiming it's entirely from one side.

2.) It would be nice if everyone refrained from rudeness all the time, but it's not realistic (and would be boring.) When a person seems to be uninterested in being part of a community, and is hurling invective, it's harder to keep from hurling invective back. Again, no hurling of invective at all is a nice goal.

3.) When invective is hurled, often it's not just the target that gets splattered. If Righty says "Lefties suck!!" and Lefty posts back, "Righties suck!", the post is directed toward the instigator, Righty, but may well splatter people who agree with Righty and are standing nearby. So the splattered people hurl back. Etc.

4.) "He started it!" stuff is silly and pointless. When a line is crossed, a line is crossed. I think Frank put it nicely in saying how he thinks enforcement of the TOS has been going. And Craven says things will be improved a bit more yet. Which brings us back to #1.

No, Craven. I was thinking more about one of our best citizens, Blatham, who is very funny in general and about himself. I like people who take themselves with several grains of salt!!

I think Blatham is the funniest guy on the boards. But often his humor results in complaints that he has personally attacked someone.

Example: In this thread Blatham used someone for a joke whe he has been accused of "attacking" in the past.

Humor is vastly different when you are on the business end of it and it's altogether too easy to simply ascribe a lack of humor to the butt of one's joke.

Oh, and addressing Sozobe's point 4 -- excellent -- I've always seen "scroll" as a way of indicating that one doesn't want to cross the line...

I would like to take issue with one thing which BLatham has written, to the effect that political discourse has gotten nastier. What i'm going to post is not posted for it's imflamatory content, but simply as some evidence of my contention that political discourse has always had it's feet in the gutter, even when its head were in the clouds:



(From the 1860 Presidential campaign)

Nasty, even viciously insulting political graffitti has been found on the walls of Pompei and Herculaneum, and in more sheltered parts of walls of ruins in Rome. I imagine that were one able to excavate the walls of a city in ancient Akkadia which were as well preserved as those at Pompei, one would find much the same thing.

Political discourse has always been very, very nasty . . . it has only recently benefited from electronic sophistication . . .

Setanta- Which shows that civilization has not come very far since then...............maybe in a couple of thousand years!

I'll go along with that, Boss . . .

I one time wrote an op ed essay in which I observed that, in my opinion, "the American conservative movement" was way too up-tight and had no real sense of humor.

Being a generous person, I avered that I wanted to offer some small lesson in humor -- perhaps as a way of correcting the deficiency for my conservative friends.

So I cited a Cosmo Magazine cover that dealt with a similar, related observation.

The cover pictured two comic book talking heads -- a man and a woman -- with standard comic book balloon text over their heads.

The man was saying: "Do you know the woman's movenment has no sense of humor?"

The female's response was: "No, but if you hum a few bars, I'll try to fake it."

I challenged my conservative readers to determine why that was an excellent joke -- and I offered extra points for anyone who saw hidden humor in the female head's use of the expression "...I'll try to fake it...".

Jeez, you woulda thunk I had insulted someone -- or had engaged in a personal attack with the article. All sorts of angry letters-to-the-editor came in.

So my point is -- sometimes "personal attack" is a state of mind -- and a state of mind that was not intended.

Sometimes, what seems like a personal attack is just someone spreading happiness and joy through the world.

I frequently run into that problem, Boss--i take very little in life seriously, although i admit to liking a good argument just for the entertainment value. In fora such as these, we do not have the cues derived from tone, and facial and body language. It is not to be wondered at that what we mean in fun is taken with deep umbrage.

yeh, we need an emoticon with a huuge tongue in cheek. of course, on second thought, that would only look like we are all chewing Mail Pouch

Personal attacks either in the flesh or on-line are a bit like using expletives. Used for effect, to show power. Those of a weak disposition can be sliced up like a lump of canned spam. The more knowledgable can knock the attacker down with superior knowledge but still get embroiled in a pathetic slanging match. As I said earlier on this thread, I've not been aware of any nastyness at A2K
At Abuzz a few people had a go not so much at me but of my nationality and my country. Two things I'd defend to the hilt. I found that a strong direct responce, in words of one sylable would warn them off. Very often the "attack" is very badly thought out, badly written and authored by a bigot. Or am I mistaken there.

Fargin' bastiches . . .

All I know is that if you have been called anything on this list, you have been personally attacked:

http://www.rsdb.org/?2

Geez, setanta - I wish you'd talk English! Although, in truth, I love what you say; it rolls trippingly off the tongue, once I get my tongue to wrap around it.

One other thing - in passing - occurred to me as I read the sensible, calming posts. The fact that this post was started at all gives pause for thought. Why was it even started? As Craven pointed out, remarks he quoted by the author from other threads are there to read. Most of us who post on political threads are well aware of the give and take - and it is give and take. And most of us are seasoned through exposure to some really nasty types. Tartarin suggests scrolling, which I have found to be very workable - you just go right on by. But sometimes human nature overtakes us. There's a baasic, simple to understand, school yard thing here - don't dish it out if you're not prepared to take it. Or...people in glass houses should be careful of the rocks they throw.

Here ya go, Cav, from Hair, 1968:

I'm a
Colored spade
A nigger
A black nigger
A jungle bunny
Jigaboo coon
Pickaninny mau mau
Uncle Tom
Aunt Jemima
Little Black Sambo
Cotton pickin'
Swamp guinea
Junk man
Shoeshine boy
Elevator operator
Table cleaner at Horn & Hardart
Slave voodoo
Zombie
Ubangi lipped
Flat nose
Tap dancin'
Resident of Harlem
And president of
The United States of Love
President of
The United States of Love
(if you're gonna invite this man to dinner, you're gonna have to feed him)
Watermelon
Hominy grits
An' shortnin' bread
Alligator ribs
Some pig tails
Some black eyed peas
Some chili
Some collard greens
And if you don't watch out
This boogie man will get you
Booooooooo!

I'm so telling beth that mama is wrapping tongues with setanta!

Ya big bully . . .

<Setanta lays claim to the UnPC Sweepstakes award.>

" I love what you say; it rolls trippingly off the tongue, once I get my tongue to wrap around it"

There, now I left evidence in case there is a cleanup. TEE HEE

I'm bad, boss, I'm bad.