I don’t know if it’s still the case, but at one time there was a rule against posts consisting of only thanking or agreeing with another. That culture persists.
If someone “state[s] that certain people’s opinions are not worth reacting to” then flag the post for moderation, because doing so is borderline insulting or being a jerk. If you don’t want to reply to someone, then don’t reply. No need to state that you’re not replying.
And “put[ing] words in your mouth” is a hazard of communication. No one writes perfectly and no one reads perfectly. Better to be gracious, assume its unintentional, and write more clearly. Of course, some people do this maliciously–pit them.
I’ve had a few instances of posters literally altering or creatively editing quotes to make it seem as though I said something or expressed an opinion that was actually the opposite of what was expressed in the post. The response from moderators is uniformly, “If you disagree start a Pit thread”, and while I understand that moderators don’t want to get into a situation where they are having to interpret an argument, when it is an issue of deliberately and clearly misrepresenting a poster’s claim in order to create a false narrative or belittle them, that should be sufficient for at least a note if not a warning.
I personally think there should be a rule that when quoting to respond to a poster’s claim you need to include enough to have context of the argument without going back to the original post, or at least quote whole sentences instead of taking a sentence fragment out of context so as to alter the meaning. It’s fucking infuriating, passive-aggressive dishonesty on the part of posters who do this, and frankly when it becomes a clear pattern of behavior there should be consequences for it because it is essentially trolling.
Granted, the modnote was eventually rescinded because it was determined the rule wasn’t violated. But the rule exists and has been enforced before.
ETA: To clarify, here is where selective quoting is disallowed:
Do not modify another poster’s words inside the quote box. For SDMB posters, the quote must be accurate, whether displayed using [QUOTE] tags or ordinary quotation marks. Normal editorial rules apply: that is, you may indicate omitted portions of a quote by the use of ellipses “…” or devices such as [snip]. You may add text to clarify a word using square brackets (e.g., “her [the sister’s] friend”), but you may not add editorial comments or edit a quote so as to change the substantive meaning; nor may you substitute text such as “some blather” or “more nonsense” inside the [QUOTE] tags or quotation marks.
The part I bolded says you can’t “edit a quote so as to change its substantive meaning”. Removing content is a form of editing, and if you remove enough that the quote implies something the author didn’t mean, you’ve violated the rule.
If you think posting here is a waste of time, imagine how much of a waste of time it would be to acknowledge or thank every reply to a post/topic. I wouldn’t mind a like/reaction button since that is low effort/time, but expecting a comment to every comment? C’mon. Substantive discussion… or not.
Even with the weather getting better, I’m spending WAY too much time on here. Most of it just reading, rather than posting, but still a ton of time. So I’ll give you the advice I give myself all the time, but don’t follow:
I personally find it difficult some times to tell the difference between posters putting words in my mouth and genuine misunderstanding.
My strategy is to be more verbose, covering every angle I can think of that people might misunderstand. Unfortunately, it seems sometimes this just leads to people skimming my posts and making assumptions anyways.
Still, I think it’s better than snarky one liners. No one ever seems to understand me when I use those.
It’s not always that posters are arrogant, ill-mannered and intellectually dishonest. Sometimes they live in entirely different worlds and react adversely to things I consider inconsequential.
For instance, a poster in the Interesting Facts thread (I assume they were European) wondered why the US didn’t have better mass transit. I and several others replied it wasn’t practical to use mass transit to get to work, because it took longer than driving. I also pointed out the US may have its share of large cities, but we have more flat area to develop roads so city development tends to sprawl. This incensed the Europeans to no end, who couldn’t understand why roads took up more area than trains. I thought it’d be obvious that one car lane is roughly the same width as a train track, and highways can have as many as 12-16 lanes. I don’t understand what triggered such hostility. Maybe the Europeans have an entirely different environment that’s more conducive to mass transit and they thought Americans were rejecting their ideals out of spite.
Another time I opened a thread about Rick Beato, a music producer who has a video series called “What Makes This Song Great.” A few posters said they enjoyed that serie, but a few others downright hated it. They thought Beato didn’t really identify what made a song great, that he just played the parts he liked. I replied it’s more of an analysis. There’s no way you can take what makes one song great and apply it to another song to make it great. They’d just wind up sounding alike, which means lawsuits. They objected to the semantics and were offended that Beato dared impose his preferences. I replied that he had analyzed plenty of music that he didn’t like, and he can appreciate the skill it takes to pull off any kind of musical performance, but it was like talking to a wall. /shrug
How appropriate for this thread, because I think that’s a mischaracterization of that thread. I thought Acsenray’s posts were quite clear in their opinion of the videos. There was a wall, all right, but it wasn’t them.
There’s almost always at least one of these comments in these threads.
To me they illustrate the arrogance that the OP bemoans.
You don’t want to read what those who are less than thrilled think, and why they are if not leaving taking more and longer breaks from participation? Fine don’t open the thread. No one is forcing you to read their post. No need for YOU to announce it. IMHO that is being a jerk. Not mod notable sort of jerkdom, but the sort of jerk that pushes many of the rest of us to return to other activities as our time wasters. For every one who shares that they are leaving there are ten often quality contributing posters who quietly stop bothering. The board dies a slow but accelerating death.
I have enough jerks to deal with in my professional life. As do many of the rest of us. Some here is unavoidable but there is a critical mass that will be suffered on an activity of choice.
As someone who (no announcement made) took a bit of a break and only recently began to do more than occasionally foray into CS again (after many years of very regular participation) I think we all can benefit from knowing why so many of us having left for lengths of time or forever.
You don’t care. Again the thread’s door is over there. Feel free to use it.