Can threads exist where people don't get hostile?

Great Debates
21

I would have to say that it is fairly inevitable.

First, discussion usually just winds up as a two-sided disagreement. People don’t walk into most threads or most discussions wanting to question their outlook on the world, and challange their convictions. So, the discussion escalates (deteriorates?) until it becomes a gestalt. Apples or Oranges? A or B? No grey area whatsoever.

Plus, the internet is a perfect for tool for anonymously taking out frustration and hostility. There are no repercussions, and there is very little threat of being physically harmed as a result for your actions.

As somene else mentioned, we are all on the same footing, here, as well. No one’s taller, or stronger, or has more facial hair. We can’t see if anyone’s scared, or intimidated. So, essentially, there’s no reason to back down.

As someone else mentioned above, it’s pretty much inevitable that if you start up a political discussion, there is going to be at least one doper out there who completely disagrees with you, and who had a bad day at work, so their just going to lay into you.

A real challange would be starting a thread, and asking people not to be intentionally sarcastic or mocking. Impossible, because truth, and the beholder, and all that. But, interesting.

All in all, though. I wouldn’t expect people to treat anyone oline any nice than they would treat someone in person. I would assume that all of you would rather nice people in person, and wouldn’t be half as disagreeable or argumentative as you on the the SDMB.

22

I don’t think it’s inevitable; it seems to run in cycles here at the SDMB; I’ve seen the most contentious issues discussed in a civil and courteous way by both sides (and the middle), then at other times, we get people snarling and spitting over anything, even some petty semantics, ho hum.

23

I concur. You have seniority. Not inevitable, yet very, very likely.

And yes, the semantic debates seem trite. It’s frustating when someone completely shifts the mood of a thread by focusing on a small, terribly unrelaed to the matter at hand.

24

That should read

“It’s frustating when someone completely shifts the mood of a thread by focusing on a small detail, terribly unrelated to the matter at hand.”

25

>> Ok so I should learn to expect hostility. But not downright belittlement.

If you walk into a place pretending you know what you are talking about and ready to make a convincing argument and it turns out you haven’t the faintest clue and cannot make the least excuse for a coherent argument then downright belittlement seems like a likely response.

>> I will except “this is wrong and that it wrong and the other is wrong” not stuck-up things like “A series of half-assed notions trying to form an idea might be, but this is just sad.”

It is also useful if you have a reasonable command of the language. You might want to look up “accept” and “except” in the dictionary.

>> There’s just no need for it! It is a crap thing to say to another human-being.

Welcome to the real world and learn to listen when you have nothing intelligent to say.

BTW, what exactly are we debating here?

26

I’m assuming that the OP is asking about threads in Great Debates, as opposed to threads in the other fora. I see very little hostility in GQ, CS, IMHO, or MPSIMS. At worst there is heartfelt but relatively mild disagreement about someone’s opinion… something along the lines of “how can you possibly still like the band Titanium Nipples?.. ever since the lead singer left to pursue stand-up comedy their music has been flat and uninteresting.”

And The Pit of course, is by definition intended as a repository for hostility, so we can exclude it from this discussion.

So the question comes down to something like this… “if the intent of the Straight Dope is fighting ignorance, why do people argue their beliefs to the point of hostility?” Four things come to mind…

a) Someone is dogmatically clinging to an opinion that they believe as fact, but has clearly been demonstrated to be false, with cites and everything. After a while, the effort to educate that poster is recognized as a lost cause and the Teeming Millions become hostile to the poster’s stubbornness.

b) As mentioned numerous times already, when someone runs out of cogent points, they fall victim to the temptation to use ad hominem attacks. Much hostility ensues.

c) The forum is called Great Debates. This implies argument. Arguing is often emotional. Emotion often results in hostility. I greatly admire the few-and-far-between dispassionate posters for their ability to remain calm and rational in the face of opposing passion.

d) People are generally unskilled in “fighting ignorance”. We are very good at advocating our position. (“I’m right and you’re wrong, and I’m going to bludgeon you with my wit and intelligence until you see that you are wrong,” which is a win-lose scenario.) We are not very good at inquiry. (“Hmmm. I see that we have come to different conclusions. That’s interesting. How did you arrive at that conclusion?” This is a win-win scenario.)

As long as it’s a Debate rather than, say, a Search For Understanding, then I’d say that it is common, but not inevitable, that threads end up becoming hostile.

27

I usually notice that posters take offense personally at disdain expressed towards a topic, or more often the way the topic is introduced, whereas it is more or less the convention here to attack a topic, not a poster, and to have the unwritten but oftspoke rule that a person is not their posts, and so we attack stands, posts, and topics but leave the people out of it. When topics are close to one’s heart, though, the distinction between “my posts” and “me” can be hard to find. Such is life in great debates.

It is one thing, for example, to desire to discuss whether or not Jesus should be as large of an influence as he clearly is; it is another to simply pipe up with: “Jesus: I’m not impressed”. One will get more reasoned responses than the other, and—shall I say—understandably so.

Also, something I might mention, the intent of reasoned debate is often to challenge one’s justifications (and repair them as necessary), not necessarily to actually dissuade one’s opinion on a matter. Furthermore, one must always be open to the possibility that one cannot change others’ minds because one is simply wrong or misinformed on factual matters, or has a different view of metaphysics in the philosophical realm. Consensus is not always possible on all topics.

As ever, there are special circumstances, which is why we have the Pit. :slight_smile:

I’m sorry, but on an internet message board semantic distinction is abso-fucking-lutely necessary. Though some of us more or less have a handle on other posters and can understand them based on a history of reading their stands on varied topics, posting blind to an area like Great Debates is going to be difficult without attempting to speak in the most precise manner one can. I cannot read your mind, I cannot examine your tone, I have no way of seeing your gestures, all I have are your words. Please do not be sloppy with them if you desire me to understand your position.

28

Second that, erislover. In debate competitions, one of the first matters presented is definition of words. If people deisagree on definitions, at least we understand more about where people are coming from. Disagreeing with somebody’s definition is OK, but it’s also important to respect others’ opinions if it seems that they themselves are taking the discussion seriously. Likewise, it’s important to present details or else people might not make the same connections you did yourself.

29

Lobley, you seem to be off to a rough start here. But you have some potential, so I’m going to relate to you an old proverb.

Once upon a time a traveling Rabbi was sitting by the side of the road, resting his feet. As he rested, a man came walking along the path.
“Greetings, Rabbi. I am going to the next village along this road, but I’ve never been there before. Can you tell me what the people in the village are like?”
“Well,” said the Rabbi, “Before I do that, why don’t you tell me how you found the people in your home village?”
“Oh, they were wonderful! I had many friends there, everyone was generous, the people were learned, it was a great community. Those people hold a special place in my heart.”
“Ah, you are in luck. For the people in the village down the road are also kind and generous…you will find them just as wonderful as the people from your home village.”
And the man continued on his way, happily looking forward to his visit.
Some time later, another man came along the road. “Greetings Rabbi,” he called. “I am a traveler…could you tell me what the people in the next village are like?”
“First tell me what the people from your home village were like.”
“Those ungrateful people! They were cruel, selfish, slanderous and ignorant. I hope I never meet another group as awful as those louts.”
“Ah, my friend, then I have some terrible news for you. You see, the people in the next village are just as bad.”
You see? Now, go forth and sin no more.

30

The 'hostility" you speak of…it’s nothing near the hostility I’ve seen on other boards.

This place is a virtual love-fest.

31

Love you Lola