Ugh, the tactic of implying that opposing viewpoints in a thread are a “hijack” is really lame, and one that seems to be happening with more frequency for some reason.
If you post a thread pitting a group of people, there are other Dopers who are going to disagree with you, guaranteed. In this case, the OP was pitting abortion protestors. Fine. But there are also Dopers who might agree with the abortion protestors, or if not with their actions, than at least with their arguments and/or underlying beliefs. Shouldn’t those members be allowed to post their views, as well?
Just because your Pit Thread isn’t going the exactly the way you like, why start whining about “hijacking”, or telling other members where they should post?
FWIW, that thread is a pretty good example of what I am talking about. It wasn’t vitriolic, or full of nasty name-calling and gratuitous swearing. It was Dopers posting differing views on a controversial subject. Well, it was, until the OP came back with the whole “I didn’t intend for this thread to go this way, why don’t you post elsewhere” shtick.
Is there any way we could get a Mod or Admin to clarify the posting guidelines on this? Can an OP legitimately ask that posts in “their” Pit thread be limited to one side of an argument or another? Or even “ask” other Dopers not to post in “their” thread?
FTR, I am only referring to Pit Threads in my comments, if somebody wants to post happy-sunny-bunny-everyone agree with me-posts in MPSIMS, let 'em have at it, Og help them.
Really? Have you asked the vet about that?
My cat’s smells like dog food!
RE: the OP–get over yourself! FWIW, IMO, Jeep was more flummoxed by the direction the thread took–I see precious little whining there. I thought it one of the better Pit threads–very little name calling and a paucity of “fucks”…
In fact, at one point Jeep basically says–have at it, this is the topic, now.
I agree with you that with a topic such as abortion, there is no way a thread will stick with one issue/aspect. But I think that Jeep sees that too.
Who needs a mod to decide how to talk here? Why would that even be neccessary? What good would a mod do?
I think hijacking is inevitable. The normal flow of conversation will lead to other aspects other than the original intent. I do think there is entirely too much whining about conversations getting hijacked.
Maud’Dib, this was in your first posting in that thread. If you didn’t want to start a hijack and explore abortion pro-choice vs. anti-choice, why would you make such a hateful statement and not expect someone to respond? Don’t play like you had NO hand in starting this or else you would have just left this polarizing statement out of the conversation and stuck to the facts of the case. You are NOT innocent in this.
We all contributed to the hijack, but for you to sit back and REPEATEDLY claim that you did not start it shows a guilty conscience.
I dunno, Pink --I think it augurs a tortous thought process–which is reinforced by his**(Muad’s)** posts in the other thread.
He casually bitch slapped people with his “killing of children” comment–and I was one of the first ones to respond.
So, I am also to blame–and I have apologized to Jeep for it.
but then, I am willing to stand by my actions and not “persuade” others to do the heavy lifting while I get to feel noble for the persuasion.
I see no inconsistency in his stance here either. The sidestepping is no surprise to me–the sanctimoniousness of that thread, and that poster, is repeated here.
No, I acknowledged in my last post that we all contributed to it, but for him to claim “it was not my fault that the other posters were merely *responding * to my comment” is contradictory. I’m not saying he changed his approach (he was a sanctimonious jackass from the beginning), I just think for him to start crying “mommy, they started it!” is a little disingenuous.
Maybe he should run for office with that kind of language.
I agree that hijacking is inevitable. Happens all the time, in nearly all the fora. So I guess my OP should have been should have been framed more clearly.
When does “hijacking” constitute being a “jerk” and possibly deserving of Mod warnings?
When it’s a “sensitive” subject? Does the forum matter? The number of posts in a particular thread the “hijacker” makes? When the alleged “hijacker” is posting an opinion that is unpopular with the majority of the board, unpoplular with the majority of posters in the specific thread, or just unpopular with the OP?
My take: a MPSIMS thread about a personal tragedy where someone jumps in with “Well, since s/he didn’t do X, Y, or Z, it’s their own fault” IS a hijack, and being a jerk. If you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything all, comes to mind.
OTOH, in a thread in the Pit on a political topic, such as abortion, or animal rights, or what have you, I think there should be a lot more leeway in the diversity of viewpoints tolerated. Just because Maud’Dib’s posts are apparently disagreeable or contrary to most of the rest of the posters in that thread, and/or to the OP, does not mean he is “hijacking”, let alone being a “jerk”.
NB: Not trying to single out Maud’Dib in one way or another, nor am I pitting Jeep’s Phoenix (sorry Jeep ); the referenced thread was just the lastest one I read where this whole issue of “hijacking” has popped up.
So we have about fifteen replies and not a serious answer to milroyj’s question. I just read through the thread and find the accusations of ‘hijacking’ to be ludicrous. If you start a thread on abortion you should probably expect a discussion that includes the moral and legal implications of abortion. Muad Dib’s responses were completely on target and in response to the OP.
It was his opinion some posters had a problem with, but neither he, nor anyone else hijacked the thread away from its inevitable track. Frankly there was some rampant fucktardery by the pro-choice crowd (of which I am a member) who didn’t want to hear anything but a self contragulatory cluster fuck about how much they hate abortion protestors.
See, but the way I read it, the OP in that thread wasn’t about abortion. It was about the tactics being used to protest, namely putting up huge, gory-ass posters right in front of an area where people are trying to buy and eat their lunches. It was a complaint about form rather than substance, so discussions of the substance of the matter really is rather a hijack. It’s like me remarking on how incredibly fugly and unflattering someone’s outfit is and being met with a lecture on why humans should wear clothes. A valid discussion, but something of a non sequiter.
Because I’m new around here, I’ll start by saying that I’m firmly pro-choice.
I agree that the OP was about the tactics being used in the protest. But it does seem logical that someone of Muad’Dib’s views (no matter how misguided and objectionable I may find them) would justify the extreme tactics by the heinousness of what was being protested.
