Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

How to make post without pissing each other off (or, a "code of conduct" meta-thread)

1246710

Posts

  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Drez wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    Let's add "you need to see a psychiatrist" to the list of terrible pieces of rhetoric to sling around in a debate.

    God knows I've done it. I think and hope I've outgrown it, because it's really very obnoxious. Even if the person is arguing in favor of testing for homosexuality in the womb and feeding gay fetuses to the volcano god to appease his anger, it's still not appropriate. He or she may very well need to see a psychiatrist, but it's not for any of us to say.
    This goes hand in hand with pop psychology, too. How often do we see one poster declaring that another poster is obviously suffering from a specific mental or psychological issue and all the opinions generated thereby are thus rendered invalid?

    Sociopathy is a common one around here, it seems. I've seen aspergers a few times, as well.

    Yep. Happens a lot. Won't lie, I've engaged in it too. I think it's a common knee-jerk when someone espouses a point of view so radically different from or directly opposed to your own - and you consider yourself "sane" - that the only "logical" conclusion at that point is that the other person literally isn't sane.
    Yeah, I've done it too.

    Sometimes it's hard to remember that it's really easy to come off as a soulless dickbag on the internet. It's worth giving the other guy a chance to clarify before assuming they're a serial killer or something.

    OptimusZed on
    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • mythagomythago Registered User regular
    edited July 2010

    People are just as apt to be offended for stupid reasons as they are to make stupid statements in the first place.

    [citation needed]

    You're also forgetting that people who make stupid statements in the first place are often the least likely to recognize or care that their statement is stupid; they're more likely to accuse anyone offended by their statement as having no sense of humor, being "pc", hating on the First Amendment, etcetera.

    mythago on
    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    mythago wrote: »

    People are just as apt to be offended for stupid reasons as they are to make stupid statements in the first place.

    [citation needed]

    You're also forgetting that people who make stupid statements in the first place are often the least likely to recognize or care that their statement is stupid; they're more likely to accuse anyone offended by their statement as having no sense of humor, being "pc", hating on the First Amendment, etcetera.

    Hmmm. There can be insensitive statements. There can be uniformed statements. There can be frank statements. There can be mean-spirited statements. But stupid statements? 'Stupid' is a catch-all label to use against statements that conflict with your beliefs, right? A stupid statement is an irredeemable statement, eh?

    "Women should have control over their own bodies and the choice to proceed with an abortion is only their own." You agree with this viewpoint.
    "Abortion should be a tool of last resort, never convenience." You disagree with this viewpoint.
    "Abortion is murder." You disagree with this viewpoint.

    Is there a stupid statement among those three?

    emnmnme on
  • SageinaRageSageinaRage Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Oh hey cool, I'm all for this thread. I have, pretty much from the time I've started posting here, tried to encourage a better style of posting, both by encouraging more productive posting, and by trying to make all of my posts relevant, productive, and uninsulting.

    I always loved reading posts here precisely because so many posters are intelligent, educated, and knowledgable, and the topics are extremely substantial. But far too frequently people assume that everyone else who posts should be just as equally knowledgable as them, and also in complete agreement. I still remember the first thread I posted in here, which was some religious one. I wasn't even making a statement, just asking a question, and I got REAMED just for asking it, because apparently it had been covered before, somewhere in the past of this huge megathread. No one even bothered to answer me, or even ignore me, just insults.

    As has been mentioned, a big thing is just arguing in good faith - both by 1) assuming that the person you're talking to is not an idiot, and 2) being willing to actually consider their points and your own opinions. I have a friend who I pretty much don't talk about important issues with, because he has frequently accused me of not actually having the opinions I argued, that I was just being contrary. He could not conceive of my actual opinion, he thought I was taking it just to insult him. Which, turns out, is extremely insulting to me, because there's an underlying assumption there that I'M an idiot if I actually have those views.

    Another big thing is just remembering that not everyone has perfect information. You might be an expert on religion, politics, global warming, whatever, but you have to keep in mind that by the very nature of your being an expert, most people you talk to will know less about it than you. If you want to actually convince people, you're going to need to educate them. The two go hand in hand, they are inherently intertwined.

    And that touches on the last big thing, the one I harp on the most. You can't convince people by insulting them. Yet I see people trying this constantly. If you're not in a thread to try to convince someone, if you're just here to insult people and proclaim that you're right, you should go somewhere else like SE, where they're not looking for a deep conversation.

    God knows I've fucked up all of these before, but you have to at least acknowledge that these should be strived for, otherwise having this forum at all is pointless.

    SageinaRage on
  • SageinaRageSageinaRage Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Theorem:

    If you call someone's statement 'Stupid', you are not arguing in good faith.

    SageinaRage on
  • MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    I would say the last one.

    "x is murder" is the most empty thing one could try to pass off as an argument, and it does seem quite stupid.

    "My beliefs tell me that life begins at conception, thus abortion is equal to murder in my view" is still pretty bad (to me), but it's at least reasoned (as much as it can be).

    MKR on
  • JebusUDJebusUD Adventure! Caaba Beankomy XobthroRegistered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Theorem:

    If you call someone's statement 'Stupid', you are not arguing in good faith.

    Not necessarily. Saying that their statement is stupid and then not explaining why isn't right though.

    JebusUD on
    And I won, so you lose,
    Guess it always comes down to.
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    MKR wrote: »
    I would say the last one.

    "x is murder" is the most empty thing one could try to pass off as an argument, and it does seem quite stupid.

    "My beliefs tell me that life begins at conception, thus abortion is equal to murder in my view" is still pretty bad (to me), but it's at least reasoned (as much as it can be).

    And, to me, My Body, My Choice isn't much better. "The woman didn't give the fetus permission to use her womb so it's up to her to decide whether or not to evict it. See? Eviction, not murder." It's not like pro-choice types wish the best of luck to the fetus in all its future endeavors after it's evicted from the woman's body.

    But this isn't an abortion thread.

    emnmnme on
  • SageinaRageSageinaRage Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    MKR wrote: »
    I would say the last one.

    "x is murder" is the most empty thing one could try to pass off as an argument, and it does seem quite stupid.

    "My beliefs tell me that life begins at conception, thus abortion is equal to murder in my view" is still pretty bad (to me), but it's at least reasoned (as much as it can be).

    How is this stupid other than just the fact that you disagree with a premise?

    This is kind of the point here. You need to show that it's stupid above and beyond just disagreeing with it.


    Not necessarily. Saying that their statement is stupid and then not explaining why isn't right though.

    Why can't you just explain why it isn't right without calling it stupid?

    SageinaRage on
  • JebusUDJebusUD Adventure! Caaba Beankomy XobthroRegistered User regular
    edited July 2010
    MKR wrote: »
    I would say the last one.

    "x is murder" is the most empty thing one could try to pass off as an argument, and it does seem quite stupid.

    "My beliefs tell me that life begins at conception, thus abortion is equal to murder in my view" is still pretty bad (to me), but it's at least reasoned (as much as it can be).

    How is this stupid other than just the fact that you disagree with a premise?

    This is kind of the point here. You need to show that it's stupid above and beyond just disagreeing with it.


    Not necessarily. Saying that their statement is stupid and then not explaining why isn't right though.

    Why can't you just explain why it isn't right without calling it stupid?

    Maybe you want to point out that it is egregiously irrational and poorly thought out and that people should think before they speak?

    I mean, we don't all have to have a drum circle and hold hands.

    JebusUD on
    And I won, so you lose,
    Guess it always comes down to.
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    JebusUD wrote: »
    Theorem:

    If you call someone's statement 'Stupid', you are not arguing in good faith.

    Not necessarily. Saying that their statement is stupid and then not explaining why isn't right though.

    I agree, though with the caveat that there are less loaded/offensive words to use than "stupid." There's nothing special about the word "stupid" where the same exact meaning, coupled with an expression, could be conveyed with a less incendiary word.

    Not that "stupid" is terribly severe, but it is trite, and I think more people use it dismissively than to explain why they dislike a particular argument.

    Drez on
  • MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    MKR wrote: »
    I would say the last one.

    "x is murder" is the most empty thing one could try to pass off as an argument, and it does seem quite stupid.

    "My beliefs tell me that life begins at conception, thus abortion is equal to murder in my view" is still pretty bad (to me), but it's at least reasoned (as much as it can be).

    How is this stupid other than just the fact that you disagree with a premise?

    This is kind of the point here. You need to show that it's stupid above and beyond just disagreeing with it.


    Not necessarily. Saying that their statement is stupid and then not explaining why isn't right though.

    Why can't you just explain why it isn't right without calling it stupid?

    It's not stupid because I disagree with the premise. It's stupid because it's empty. It's not much different from dropping in to a discussion to say "I like pie." What does it contribute to state the least developed version of a view on something?

    "Liberal suck"
    "Conservatives suck"
    "Cake is murder"

    MKR on
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    JebusUD wrote: »
    MKR wrote: »
    I would say the last one.

    "x is murder" is the most empty thing one could try to pass off as an argument, and it does seem quite stupid.

    "My beliefs tell me that life begins at conception, thus abortion is equal to murder in my view" is still pretty bad (to me), but it's at least reasoned (as much as it can be).

    How is this stupid other than just the fact that you disagree with a premise?

    This is kind of the point here. You need to show that it's stupid above and beyond just disagreeing with it.


    Not necessarily. Saying that their statement is stupid and then not explaining why isn't right though.

    Why can't you just explain why it isn't right without calling it stupid?

    Maybe you want to point out that it is egregiously irrational and poorly thought out and that people should think before they speak?

    I mean, we don't all have to have a drum circle and hold hands.

    So say it is "egregiously irrational" instead of "stupid". They may mean the same thing when you remove connotation, but the former is nowhere near as dismissive or offensive as the latter.

    And frankly I think stupid is a, well, stupid word. It's not all that offensive, really. What I find most offensive about it is how quickly it comes to peoples fingertips. Really, pick a different word. There's no reason to call a person or an argument "stupid" when a word that won't dig the argument into a ditch will suffice for the same meaning.

    Drez on
  • MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Let's use "undeveloped" rather than "stupid."

    MKR on
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Drez wrote: »
    JebusUD wrote: »
    Theorem:

    If you call someone's statement 'Stupid', you are not arguing in good faith.

    Not necessarily. Saying that their statement is stupid and then not explaining why isn't right though.

    I agree, though with the caveat that there are less loaded/offensive words to use than "stupid." There's nothing special about the word "stupid" where the same exact meaning, coupled with an expression, could be conveyed with a less incendiary word.

    Not that "stupid" is terribly severe, but it is trite, and I think more people use it dismissively than to explain why they dislike a particular argument.

    "Mentally handicapped" would be a good substitute. It has more syllables, which makes it a posh term, and sounds much more pc.

    :P

    emnmnme on
  • JebusUDJebusUD Adventure! Caaba Beankomy XobthroRegistered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Drez wrote: »
    JebusUD wrote: »
    MKR wrote: »
    I would say the last one.

    "x is murder" is the most empty thing one could try to pass off as an argument, and it does seem quite stupid.

    "My beliefs tell me that life begins at conception, thus abortion is equal to murder in my view" is still pretty bad (to me), but it's at least reasoned (as much as it can be).

    How is this stupid other than just the fact that you disagree with a premise?

    This is kind of the point here. You need to show that it's stupid above and beyond just disagreeing with it.


    Not necessarily. Saying that their statement is stupid and then not explaining why isn't right though.

    Why can't you just explain why it isn't right without calling it stupid?

    Maybe you want to point out that it is egregiously irrational and poorly thought out and that people should think before they speak?

    I mean, we don't all have to have a drum circle and hold hands.

    So say it is "egregiously irrational" instead of "stupid". They may mean the same thing when you remove connotation, but the former is nowhere near as dismissive or offensive as the latter.

    And frankly I think stupid is a, well, stupid word. It's not all that offensive, really. What I find most offensive about it is how quickly it comes to peoples fingertips. Really, pick a different word. There's no reason to call a person or an argument "stupid" when a word that won't dig the argument into a ditch will suffice for the same meaning.

    Seems a bit nitpicky to me.

    JebusUD on
    And I won, so you lose,
    Guess it always comes down to.
  • RentRent I'm always right Fuckin' deal with itRegistered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Then there's a fact that arguing a specific point tends to lead to both sides debating an entire issue. Take, for example, the way some militarists on this forum decided I hated the troops because I said one of the arguments they were using to oppose a policy change was stupid (specifically, the argument that soldiers smoking must be good because it's part of the culture).

    To clear this up, the militarists think you hate the troops because you went into every military thread and voiced a grossly uninformed counteropinion usually referencing some literally hundreds of years old shameful portion of the military's history- for instance, in the smoking thread you compared that to the military's treatment of native americans from the 1850s as if that were in any way relevant or rational

    Rent on
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    JebusUD wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    JebusUD wrote: »
    MKR wrote: »
    I would say the last one.

    "x is murder" is the most empty thing one could try to pass off as an argument, and it does seem quite stupid.

    "My beliefs tell me that life begins at conception, thus abortion is equal to murder in my view" is still pretty bad (to me), but it's at least reasoned (as much as it can be).

    How is this stupid other than just the fact that you disagree with a premise?

    This is kind of the point here. You need to show that it's stupid above and beyond just disagreeing with it.


    Not necessarily. Saying that their statement is stupid and then not explaining why isn't right though.

    Why can't you just explain why it isn't right without calling it stupid?

    Maybe you want to point out that it is egregiously irrational and poorly thought out and that people should think before they speak?

    I mean, we don't all have to have a drum circle and hold hands.

    So say it is "egregiously irrational" instead of "stupid". They may mean the same thing when you remove connotation, but the former is nowhere near as dismissive or offensive as the latter.

    And frankly I think stupid is a, well, stupid word. It's not all that offensive, really. What I find most offensive about it is how quickly it comes to peoples fingertips. Really, pick a different word. There's no reason to call a person or an argument "stupid" when a word that won't dig the argument into a ditch will suffice for the same meaning.

    Seems a bit nitpicky to me.

    People seem to have in their mind what will or at least what they believe may offend the other person they are conversing with when they are posting.

    A lot of people post in a way that they know will offend the other person. The easiest way to offend someone is to figure out exactly what they get offended by, and then employ that exact rhetorical gambit, or use that word. Why is it so wrong to ask people to do the same thing - consider the sensibilities of others while posting - but then choose to do the opposite of being as offensive as possible (in other words, be as inoffensive as possible)?

    I don't see how a culture of people slinging offenses and then saying "whoa, why should I give a shit what offends him?" is a positive one.

    I don't see how it is "nitpicky" to discuss the connotations of words and ask people to consider them in a positive way while posting. Words have connotations. That's fact, not nitpicking. People absolutely consider the connotations of words when they are trying to get someone's goat in a discussion, even if it's subconscious and automatic (especially when you've been here for a long time and you get to know people fairly well). Using the word "stupid" may not be the best example due to its saturation in debate and discourse, but I feel the point stands regardless.

    Can you please tell me what positives using the word "stupid" brings to to a conversation and why a different word with a less dismissive connotation wouldn't be better? And can you tell me why being "nitpicky" here is wrong?

    Drez on
  • adytumadytum Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Rational and irrational are two words that get thrown out waaaaay too much.

    adytum on
    etxvv5.jpg
  • RentRent I'm always right Fuckin' deal with itRegistered User regular
    edited July 2010
    In any case to actually add to the thread I've basically left d and d due to the generally negative sentiment of a vast majority of threads and their inclination to delve into unnecessary minutiae and pedantry in people's counterarguements

    If I could say one thing that really needs to change in d and d is people's tone. There's a general need it seems to be 'right' by making others feel bad and to seriouspost all the time.... if people could be fucking nicer to each other and joke around more it'd help a lot I think

    Also jesus christ people need to stop being so goddamn snarky. Like seriously

    Rent on
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    adytum wrote: »
    Rational and irrational are two words that get thrown out waaaaay too much.

    Maybe, but if someone uses supporting arguments to back them up, I don't think there's much validity to getting defensive about those terms. Rationalization and logic are the crux of argumentation. Even if "irrational" (in particular) has a strong negative connotation, well...that's sad but there's not much we can do about it. Calling an argument irrational (and explaining why) isn't a terrible thing.

    What JebusUD said about calling someone "stupid" and not explaining why, though, wholly applies here (and to everything). Throwing out a word - irrational, illogical, stupid, ridiculous, and so on - without ANY accompanying explanation is silly goosery.

    Drez on
  • adytumadytum Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Drez wrote: »
    adytum wrote: »
    Rational and irrational are two words that get thrown out waaaaay too much.

    Maybe, but if someone uses supporting arguments to back them up, I don't think there's much validity to getting defensive about those terms. Rationalization and logic are the crux of argumentation. Even if "irrational" (in particular) has a strong negative connotation, well...that's sad but there's not much we can do about it. Calling an argument irrational (and explaining why) isn't a terrible thing.

    What JebusUD said about calling someone "stupid" and not explaining why, though, wholly applies here (and to everything). Throwing out a word - irrational, illogical, stupid, ridiculous, and so on - without ANY accompanying explanation is silly goosery.

    My favorite response to calling someone out on a train of logic that made absolutely no sense was "I'm not irrational, you're irrational!"

    Oh, the internet.

    adytum on
    etxvv5.jpg
  • JebusUDJebusUD Adventure! Caaba Beankomy XobthroRegistered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Drez wrote: »

    I don't see how it is "nitpicky" to discuss the connotations of words and ask people to consider them in a positive way while posting. Words have connotations. That's fact, not nitpicking. People absolutely consider the connotations of words when they are trying to get someone's goat in a discussion, even if it's subconscious and automatic (especially when you've been here for a long time and you get to know people fairly well). Using the word "stupid" may not be the best example due to its saturation in debate and discourse, but I feel the point stands regardless.

    Can you please tell me what positives using the word "stupid" brings to to a conversation and why a different word with a less dismissive connotation wouldn't be better? And can you tell me why being "nitpicky" here is wrong?

    Pft, that is stupid.

    It saves me time typing out "less offensive" words.

    I think the real problem here isn't being slightly offensive, it is people being so offensive it disallows any kind of real conversation. That and people being so dismissive of arguments or trying to drive people out that they disagree with that nobody can talk about anything. It is the complete shutting down of argument.

    I don't think we all need to have a love-in to be able to have a reasonable discussion.

    JebusUD on
    And I won, so you lose,
    Guess it always comes down to.
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    adytum wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    adytum wrote: »
    Rational and irrational are two words that get thrown out waaaaay too much.

    Maybe, but if someone uses supporting arguments to back them up, I don't think there's much validity to getting defensive about those terms. Rationalization and logic are the crux of argumentation. Even if "irrational" (in particular) has a strong negative connotation, well...that's sad but there's not much we can do about it. Calling an argument irrational (and explaining why) isn't a terrible thing.

    What JebusUD said about calling someone "stupid" and not explaining why, though, wholly applies here (and to everything). Throwing out a word - irrational, illogical, stupid, ridiculous, and so on - without ANY accompanying explanation is silly goosery.

    My favorite response to calling someone out on a train of logic that made absolutely no sense was "I'm not irrational, you're irrational!"

    Oh, the internet.

    I once told Ken Levine he makes irrational games, but you know...

    Drez on
  • SageinaRageSageinaRage Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    JebusUD wrote: »
    Not necessarily. Saying that their statement is stupid and then not explaining why isn't right though.

    Why can't you just explain why it isn't right without calling it stupid?

    Maybe you want to point out that it is egregiously irrational and poorly thought out and that people should think before they speak?

    I mean, we don't all have to have a drum circle and hold hands.

    Why can't you just say that then? This is what I mean about arguing in good faith. Your drum circle is making light of it, but going into an argument with the assumption that you can actually get along with the person you're arguing with goes a long way to actually making it a productive discussion.

    No, we don't HAVE to. But I'm saying we SHOULD. And you're not really showing me why not.

    SageinaRage on
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Drez wrote: »
    adytum wrote: »
    My favorite response to calling someone out on a train of logic that made absolutely no sense was "I'm not irrational, you're irrational!"

    Oh, the internet.

    I once told Ken Levine he makes irrational games, but you know...

    http://instantrimshot.com/

    emnmnme on
  • RentRent I'm always right Fuckin' deal with itRegistered User regular
    edited July 2010
    adytum wrote: »

    My favorite response to calling someone out on a train of logic that made absolutely no sense was "I'm not irrational, you're irrational!"

    Oh, the internet.

    1/9 is .10, I'll have you know

    Rent on
  • JebusUDJebusUD Adventure! Caaba Beankomy XobthroRegistered User regular
    edited July 2010
    JebusUD wrote: »
    Not necessarily. Saying that their statement is stupid and then not explaining why isn't right though.

    Why can't you just explain why it isn't right without calling it stupid?

    Maybe you want to point out that it is egregiously irrational and poorly thought out and that people should think before they speak?

    I mean, we don't all have to have a drum circle and hold hands.

    Why can't you just say that then? This is what I mean about arguing in good faith. Your drum circle is making light of it, but going into an argument with the assumption that you can actually get along with the person you're arguing with goes a long way to actually making it a productive discussion.

    No, we don't HAVE to. But I'm saying we SHOULD. And you're not really showing me why not.

    I don't understand. I can say something someone said stupid and still get along with them.

    JebusUD on
    And I won, so you lose,
    Guess it always comes down to.
  • SageinaRageSageinaRage Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    JebusUD wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »

    I don't see how it is "nitpicky" to discuss the connotations of words and ask people to consider them in a positive way while posting. Words have connotations. That's fact, not nitpicking. People absolutely consider the connotations of words when they are trying to get someone's goat in a discussion, even if it's subconscious and automatic (especially when you've been here for a long time and you get to know people fairly well). Using the word "stupid" may not be the best example due to its saturation in debate and discourse, but I feel the point stands regardless.

    Can you please tell me what positives using the word "stupid" brings to to a conversation and why a different word with a less dismissive connotation wouldn't be better? And can you tell me why being "nitpicky" here is wrong?

    Pft, that is stupid.

    It saves me time typing out "less offensive" words.

    I think the real problem here isn't being slightly offensive, it is people being so offensive it disallows any kind of real conversation. That and people being so dismissive of arguments or trying to drive people out that they disagree with that nobody can talk about anything. It is the complete shutting down of argument.

    I don't think we all need to have a love-in to be able to have a reasonable discussion.

    This also highlights my other issue with using stupid - it's lazy. It's the other part of arguing in good faith, it shows that you're not really putting any effort into it. It weakens the position of whoever uses it, like it does here, your sarcasm notwithstanding.

    SageinaRage on
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    JebusUD wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »

    I don't see how it is "nitpicky" to discuss the connotations of words and ask people to consider them in a positive way while posting. Words have connotations. That's fact, not nitpicking. People absolutely consider the connotations of words when they are trying to get someone's goat in a discussion, even if it's subconscious and automatic (especially when you've been here for a long time and you get to know people fairly well). Using the word "stupid" may not be the best example due to its saturation in debate and discourse, but I feel the point stands regardless.

    Can you please tell me what positives using the word "stupid" brings to to a conversation and why a different word with a less dismissive connotation wouldn't be better? And can you tell me why being "nitpicky" here is wrong?

    Pft, that is stupid.

    It saves me time typing out "less offensive" words.

    I think the real problem here isn't being slightly offensive, it is people being so offensive it disallows any kind of real conversation. That and people being so dismissive of arguments or trying to drive people out that they disagree with that nobody can talk about anything. It is the complete shutting down of argument.

    I don't think we all need to have a love-in to be able to have a reasonable discussion.

    Except people use "more offensive" words on purpose.

    Why is it okay for you to specifically (or subconsciously) pick out more offensive words to use in a conversation, but suddenly it's asking too much, or hippie-ism, to ask people to step back and use more innocuous language while posting?

    And maybe you in particular don't do this, either specifically or subconsciously, but for every person that doesn't, there are plenty that do.

    Using less offensive, less dismissive language isn't akin to having a "love-in." It's akin to having conversation. The whole point I'm trying to make in this thread is that dissmissivism is the antithesis to conversation. It breeds an unwelcome culture. And even the littlest things - like the word "stupid" - feed into that culture. Maybe not a significant amount, but it can't really be that controversial to ask people to consider skewing their words in a less negative manner can it?

    Drez on
  • SageinaRageSageinaRage Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    JebusUD wrote: »
    JebusUD wrote: »
    Not necessarily. Saying that their statement is stupid and then not explaining why isn't right though.

    Why can't you just explain why it isn't right without calling it stupid?

    Maybe you want to point out that it is egregiously irrational and poorly thought out and that people should think before they speak?

    I mean, we don't all have to have a drum circle and hold hands.

    Why can't you just say that then? This is what I mean about arguing in good faith. Your drum circle is making light of it, but going into an argument with the assumption that you can actually get along with the person you're arguing with goes a long way to actually making it a productive discussion.

    No, we don't HAVE to. But I'm saying we SHOULD. And you're not really showing me why not.

    I don't understand. I can say something someone said stupid and still get along with them.

    It's possible, but it makes it harder. Even harder when it's over the internet, with someone you don't necessarily know, who doesn't know that you don't take it that seriously.

    SageinaRage on
  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    I agree it's not the specific words we use so much as the attitude.

    Whether you say someone's post is "stupid" or "not well-thought out," it's annoying and dismissive if you don't at least attempt to explain why.

    You can say that some posts are just so dumb that it's not worth responding in depth. Unless the post in question is actually trolling, though, I don't think this makes sense. It's never wrong to try to elevate the discourse.

    Qingu on
  • JebusUDJebusUD Adventure! Caaba Beankomy XobthroRegistered User regular
    edited July 2010
    I don't think saying something someone said is stupid is wrong or overly negative. It is negative, but it must be in order to convey the meaning you want. It doesn't mean that we aren't having a civil discussion. I'll tell my friends, in person, that they said something stupid if they did. We still get along, and we still have great discussions. I think that if a person can't handle the word stupid then maybe they should move to the kiddy pool. The internet is probably not for them.

    Nor do I find it lazy. It provides meaning in a short and succinct manner. I don't feel like something being efficient is the same as lowering the value of your argument.

    JebusUD on
    And I won, so you lose,
    Guess it always comes down to.
  • SageinaRageSageinaRage Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Saying something in real life is very different than saying it on the internet, especially with people you don't know. Comparing the two things is disingenuous.

    And saying that calling something stupid provides 'meaning in a short and succint manner' is just kidding yourself. It doesn't provide any useful meaning. The consensus so far is that it's really only good when provided with additional context, in which case the usage of the word itself is superfluous and unnecessary.
    You can say that some posts are just so dumb that it's not worth responding in depth. Unless the post in question is actually trolling, though, I don't think this makes sense. It's never wrong to try to elevate the discourse.

    I agree completely with this. Being insulting and/or dismissive can only hurt you, the person doing it, by either making you look bad to other people, or assuring that the person you're talking to isn't going to take you seriously. The only time it works in your favor is when you have a large contingent behind you already, and you're not arguing in good faith anyway.

    SageinaRage on
  • JebusUDJebusUD Adventure! Caaba Beankomy XobthroRegistered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Saying something in real life is very different than saying it on the internet, especially with people you don't know. Comparing the two things is disingenuous.

    And saying that calling something stupid provides 'meaning in a short and succint manner' is just kidding yourself. It doesn't provide any useful meaning. The consensus so far is that it's really only good when provided with additional context, in which case the usage of the word itself is superfluous and unnecessary.
    You can say that some posts are just so dumb that it's not worth responding in depth. Unless the post in question is actually trolling, though, I don't think this makes sense. It's never wrong to try to elevate the discourse.

    I agree completely with this. Being insulting and/or dismissive can only hurt you, the person doing it, by either making you look bad to other people, or assuring that the person you're talking to isn't going to take you seriously. The only time it works in your favor is when you have a large contingent behind you already, and you're not arguing in good faith anyway.

    I don't see how the internet and real life are all that different. I expect you people to treat me like you treat people in real life, same as I do. What makes the internet so wildly different?

    Disingenuous: Not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does

    Are you implying that I am lying or being insincere? Ironic that you used that word against me in this thread in an attempt to dismiss me.

    The use of saying something someone said was stupid is not part of the argument, indeed, however it is useful to point out that next time they ought to think before they speak. Being wrong isn't the same as being stupid, and I would never say that someone who is wrong is stupid, except as a joke.

    JebusUD on
    And I won, so you lose,
    Guess it always comes down to.
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Qingu wrote: »
    I agree it's not the specific words we use so much as the attitude.

    Whether you say someone's post is "stupid" or "not well-thought out," it's annoying and dismissive if you don't at least attempt to explain why.

    You can say that some posts are just so dumb that it's not worth responding in depth. Unless the post in question is actually trolling, though, I don't think this makes sense. It's never wrong to try to elevate the discourse.

    I think it's more productive to show where the missing or conflicting parts are in an argument, and ask for them to be filled in or clarified. One doesn't even need to make it about the other guy. "I don't get how you get from [point a] to [point b]. Could you fill me in a little bit?" works just fine.

    Loren Michael on
    2ezikn6.jpg
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    JebusUD wrote: »
    Saying something in real life is very different than saying it on the internet, especially with people you don't know. Comparing the two things is disingenuous.

    And saying that calling something stupid provides 'meaning in a short and succint manner' is just kidding yourself. It doesn't provide any useful meaning. The consensus so far is that it's really only good when provided with additional context, in which case the usage of the word itself is superfluous and unnecessary.
    You can say that some posts are just so dumb that it's not worth responding in depth. Unless the post in question is actually trolling, though, I don't think this makes sense. It's never wrong to try to elevate the discourse.

    I agree completely with this. Being insulting and/or dismissive can only hurt you, the person doing it, by either making you look bad to other people, or assuring that the person you're talking to isn't going to take you seriously. The only time it works in your favor is when you have a large contingent behind you already, and you're not arguing in good faith anyway.

    I don't see how the internet and real life are all that different. I expect you people to treat me like you treat people in real life, same as I do. What makes the internet so wildly different?

    Disingenuous: Not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does

    Are you implying that I am lying or being insincere? Ironic that you used that word against me in this thread in an attempt to dismiss me.

    The use of saying something someone said was stupid is not part of the argument, indeed, however it is useful to point out that next time they ought to think before they speak. Being wrong isn't the same as being stupid, and I would never say that someone who is wrong is stupid, except as a joke.

    Except that calling someone "stupid" or their argument "stupid" doesn't necessarily urge them to think before they speak. It usually either makes them defensive, or maybe makes them think twice about posting at all the next time.

    People are allowed to be a little ignorant. If we just marginalize all people of average intelligence and ignorance, then they'll never learn. "Stupid people" speaking up and making "stupid arguments" is a GOOD thing because (a) they'll have a chance to learn why their arguments are not rational or logical and (b) the people who are well-informed on the subject and have a valid train of rational thought on the subject have a chance to express it and maybe even strengthen their thought process on the subject.

    The best way to reinforce your own train of thought is to explain it to someone else. So I welcome those people and their arguments.

    Drez on
  • SageinaRageSageinaRage Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    JebusUD wrote: »
    Saying something in real life is very different than saying it on the internet, especially with people you don't know. Comparing the two things is disingenuous.

    And saying that calling something stupid provides 'meaning in a short and succint manner' is just kidding yourself. It doesn't provide any useful meaning. The consensus so far is that it's really only good when provided with additional context, in which case the usage of the word itself is superfluous and unnecessary.
    You can say that some posts are just so dumb that it's not worth responding in depth. Unless the post in question is actually trolling, though, I don't think this makes sense. It's never wrong to try to elevate the discourse.

    I agree completely with this. Being insulting and/or dismissive can only hurt you, the person doing it, by either making you look bad to other people, or assuring that the person you're talking to isn't going to take you seriously. The only time it works in your favor is when you have a large contingent behind you already, and you're not arguing in good faith anyway.

    I don't see how the internet and real life are all that different. I expect you people to treat me like you treat people in real life, same as I do. What makes the internet so wildly different?

    Disingenuous: Not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does

    Are you implying that I am lying or being insincere? Ironic that you used that word against me in this thread in an attempt to dismiss me.

    The use of saying something someone said was stupid is not part of the argument, indeed, however it is useful to point out that next time they ought to think before they speak. Being wrong isn't the same as being stupid, and I would never say that someone who is wrong is stupid, except as a joke.

    Yes, I do think you're lying or being insincere, if you are unaware that your exact purposes and intentions in using a particular word choice are more difficult to discern online than in a real life conversation, especially compared to a conversation with someone who is a friend of yours. Have you never seen a 'broken sarcasm detector' online? We're also talking very specifically about discussions on this forum, so whatever conversations you have with people in real life aren't pertinent anyway. I have lots of stupid discussions in real life I don't hold to this standard, because from the purpose of this forum, I expect more.

    You are, however, very wrong in thinking that it's an attempt to dismiss you. I picked disingenous because it had exactly the meaning I meant to convey. I have also explained my reasoning before I used it. You're attempting to turn my argument back around on me, but it doesn't make sense that way, because I am providing full explanations for each of my points, and also no out and out insults. You may not like being called disingenous, but it has a very particular meaning, and is not just a slur.

    Your final paragraph is somewhat confusing to me. Why would it point out to someone that they ought to think before they speak? If you don't explain what's stupid about it, they're just going to think you're insulting them, regardless of how swell a guy you are. You don't seem to get that uncontextualized insults don't really get people considering their own arguments and choices. If you tell an pro-lifer that saying 'abortion is murder' is stupid, you're not really getting them to think about their statement - you just make yourself look dismissive and insulting, and not worth their time to talk to.

    Basically, all you're doing is arguing that the negative reasons for using it aren't as bad as I'm saying. That might be true, but there's still not POSITIVE reasons to use it. So why do it?

    SageinaRage on
  • Raybies666Raybies666 A bedroom in IrelandRegistered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Drez wrote: »
    Let's add "you need to see a psychiatrist" to the list of terrible pieces of rhetoric to sling around in a debate.

    God knows I've done it. I think and hope I've outgrown it, because it's really very obnoxious. Even if the person is arguing in favor of testing for homosexuality in the womb and feeding gay fetuses to the volcano god to appease his anger, it's still not appropriate. He or she may very well need to see a psychiatrist, but it's not for any of us to say.

    And people calling others sociopaths. That also needs to stop. You know when someone gets a wee smack on the back of the head for being a dumbass? Not a beating or anything like that, just a wee clip that guys do to each other in no real violent way?

    Saying that people sometimes need that, and then saying that I can't physically do it myself (due to being a bit of a bull of a man who would inadvertantly hurt people if I did, etc) , made a few pages of me being called a sociopath. Thats right, being afraid to do something not inherently physically harmful in itself, for fear of accidentally hurting someone, makes me a sociopath.

    I have seen psychiatrists, therapists, analysts and counsellers. Most definitely not a sociopath (or anything bad at all, i'm the walking definition of a big pussycat), but I just had to leave the thread in question. Just so bad, I'm just lucky I didn't actually write anything that could be twisted to support the accusations and end up being sigged or anything. It was really a case of just because we are speaking english doesn't mean we're speaking the same language, as someone has already noted in the thread.

    Man, you should have seen the hateful stuff being thrown my way. I think it's the hypocracy of it that got to me the most.

    Forgetful edit: Some people did step in to try and help me out, but it was too late. Much like the time [someone who will remain nameless] stopped reading something I wrote at a comma, quoted me as such and intigated several pages of getting me called a mysogynist for several pages. Again a couple of other posters tried to help, but to no avail. Boo.

    So yeah, I'm all for other posters trying to step in to help or just start calling for mods.

    Raybies666 on
    Beat me on Wii U: Raybies
    Beat me on 360: Raybies666

    I remember when I had time to be good at games.
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Qingu wrote: »
    I agree it's not the specific words we use so much as the attitude.

    Whether you say someone's post is "stupid" or "not well-thought out," it's annoying and dismissive if you don't at least attempt to explain why.

    You can say that some posts are just so dumb that it's not worth responding in depth. Unless the post in question is actually trolling, though, I don't think this makes sense. It's never wrong to try to elevate the discourse.

    I think it's more productive to show where the missing or conflicting parts are in an argument, and ask for them to be filled in or clarified. One doesn't even need to make it about the other guy. "I don't get how you get from [point a] to [point b]. Could you fill me in a little bit?" works just fine.

    Let's do it. Let's put it into practice, Loren. I'm going to risk shooting myself in the foot to see how you'll respond.

    The context: More than a few posters are offended by the idea that straight servicemen may possibly refuse to shower with openly gay servicemen if DADT is repealed. The general feelings are, "Let them resign, don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out! Why should we have any sympathy for their discomfort?"

    My response:
    The celibate pedophile babysitter is going to look after your kids tonight. The celibate pedophile babysitter can't choose who he is attracted to - he was born that way - but he has made a vow to never molest children and is attending therapy sessions for good measure. The celibate pedophile babysitter wants to know whether or not he should give your kids a bath before they put on their pajamas and are tucked in bed. A 'normal' babysitter would give the kids a bath so you can't think of any reason to tell the celibate pedophile babysitter to skip the bath.

    With the babysitter's vow of celibacy in mind, are you going to worry about your kids' safety while you're away from home? If you say yes, how can you not sympathize on some level with the homophobic serviceman who is uncomfortable with showering with gay men?
    My situation: I am prejudiced against celibate pedophiles. I would deny them a job teaching teenage students or babysitting young children based on their sexual orientation. I can see how this would be unfair discrimination, an opinion formed out of mistrust.

    What's your response, LM? Is my post too dumb to bother with or do you need clarification or do you see my point of view?

    emnmnme on
Sign In or Register to comment.