ozarque ([info]ozarque) wrote,
@ 2007-12-13 13:07:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Linguistics; rudeness in e-language; note...
I just wanted to let you know that I haven't lost interest in our discussion of (a) what criteria you use to identify a posted comment in your own LJ as rude, and (b) whether deleting such a comment rewards the commenter or is the appropriate strategy. I've just been so busy the past few days that I haven't had time to put together a proper post on the topic. I'll get that done as quickly as I can.

(Post a new comment)


[info]foomf
2007-12-13 09:19 pm UTC (link)
I use these criteria:
(1) it's spam of any kind - delete with spam flag;
(2) it's a violation of a long-stated request not to post a particular kind of response on a small subset of topics (religion, politics);
(3) it's a deliberate attempt to incite a fight, or to troll, whether to me or another person, and it continues past a warning;
(4) it's a complete misunderstanding.

For me, the latter three may end up causing me to archive the comments and then moderate the thread. Moderation may take the form of locking further comment or marking the thread as no-updates-allowed.
I do not throw away information in these kinds of situation because that information is sometimes necessary for dispute resolution. Further, I feel that it's improper to destroy someone else's commentary, even though I might not want to read it, or have it continue on my forum.

That said, the ability to STOP the escalation/retaliation in my forum (either my personal online diary, or in a community which I might moderate or participate) is something I consider too valuable to discard.

On the other side of 'manners and rudeness' in comments on LJ:
There is someone who used to be somewhere between acquaintance and friend, who had posted something rather outrageous about the nature of Christianity in America (with specifics about her own church), based on the works of a person who was a member of my congregation some years ago. I commented that, while clearly it was useful for her to make this realization, the guy's scholarship was in this case "highly disputable" and that his presentation was completely oversimplified, and rather insulting to the large number of churches, including his own, which did not meet that pattern. She took this as an attack (she has some issues that I should have remembered, which made it seem that way to her, and I do have a knack for pushing buttons inadvertently) and after a profoundly nasty retort, deleted my comment and her response and locked the thread.

What did this mean to me? Clearly, my understanding of the degree of friendship there was mistaken, but I had already known that and just didn't realize how 'off' I was. And, also clearly, my understanding of the boundaries involved was broken. However, I was hurt to some degree by her insults to other members of my congregation, and more by the abrupt closure of the communication, to the point where I determined that this redrawing of boundaries was such that I had to face the fact that my wife had faced some years ago: This person is not actually my friend, but simply a once-amicable acquaintance, and that I cannot give, or expect, the degree of trust and acceptance that I would to a friend. And since she blocked off a discussion that I would have had no qualms having with a stranger, I stopped reading her journal, since that would entice me to make further comments, as I have been 'told' that I'm not allowed to make such communication.

So, I was, by her understanding, 'rude' to her, by saying something unsupportive of her meta-religious epiphany, and doing so in a fashion which did not protect her feelings. This justified, to her, deleting the comment. To me, deleting the comment prevented coming to any kind of restored peace between us, and I no longer consider her a friend, and do not read or comment on her journal. Whether that's an appropriate strategy depends on her goals and what she considers a worthwhile outcome.
For me, it's an unsatisfactory outcome, but the best I can get out of the situation, and I will not use it on others.

(Reply to this)
Three (Not So) Quick Epiphanies
[info]chalain
2007-12-14 12:30 am UTC (link)
I have been cleaning out a bunch of dusty boxes in the attic of my mind, and I recently came across a whole box of epiphanies. One of the biggest was about rudeness and the whole notion of attempting to invoke a sense of outrage in others as a replacement for making a successful argument--or as punishment against the winner of an argument for winning. (See any political discussion for examples.)

But first, let me ask you a question, Ozarque: Do you feel an obligation to let a comment stand in your journal? If I am nice, and rational, and above all reasonable... do I have a right to say anything I want in your journal?

The epiphany for me was that, until last week, I would have answered that question "yes". It is so hard sometimes to delete a comment. I anxiet¹ over whether my response will be seen as unfair and heavy-handed, even as an even-handed response in the face of brutal attack.

But you know what I just learned to say? MY journal. MINE. I welcome friends and I actively invite stimulating debate from people with differing viewpoints. But once I ejected one troll by force, all of a sudden all of the other people who came to debate with me respected me. Not just showed respect to me, but felt it for me. They started showing value for my opinions, and respect in the ways in which they disagreed with me. And I in turned listened appreciatively to their viewpoints. And many of us have grown closer since; become friends even though we still hold wildly different opinions. We value each other. We take our hats off to speak in each other's journals.

Two other points, which I will attempt to summarize because I'm novelizing in your LJ again, and you have been gracious to me in the past but I don't want to keep pushing my luck... :-)

1. Some people have learned to prey upon your and my graciousness. If they can't win their point through logic or force of argument, they will try to paralyze further discussion by making outrageously hurtful emotional attacks. I read a recent discussion between biologists about some openly fraudulent behavior by one biologist who happened to be of a different nationality than the biologists having the discussion. In two expertly crafted (and palpably evil) posts, a visitor to the forum paralyzed the entire discussion by successfully accusing everyone there of racism.

2. Another epiphany from that same box: Delete it and move on and let that be the end of it. Trolls aren't playing to win through logic, they're playing for as much attention as they can get you to give them. You may not have much control of how much their words hurt you, but you CAN control how much you let it show... AND how much you'll let that kind of attack stand. Delete it, and move on, let that be the end of it. Remember that if they're not trying to paralyze your entire discussion, they are at least trying to punish you personally for your views.

¹ Anxiet. vi. I know, I know. Verbing weirds language.

(Reply to this)

Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…