Critiquing and Policing

[La Sagna]

My mind is up to its old tricks of needing to analyse why people react the way they do (including myself) and why things go off the rails when they don't need to.

I thought there might be room for an interesting discussion on forum dynamics and reactivity.

I don't know if this is the general pattern of why threads can go off topic and sometimes totally off the rails, because I generally don't participate in that or pay attention to it; but I noticed that in the latest thread derailment of which I was a participant, the main reason (in my opinion) that it seems to have gone off track is over-policing and members defending other members who really don't need defending. I'm not wanting to point fingers or single out people as I think we can all fall into that pattern and it is usually well-intentioned. I just realized after analysis (I can't help it, my mind has a mind of it's own) that if the original critique of the poster and general critique of the posters had been left as is, that a point would have been made and there would not have been a major issue between the posters. I know for me, as soon as I got called out (I believe unfairly) that I felt the need to defend myself. I believe the same thing happened to the other poster who then was put in a position of feeling he needed to defend himself. That caused the thread derailment and some needless back and forth that didn't amount to anything of any value.

The point that I'm trying to make is that perhaps it would be better to let posters quickly hash out things between themselves and call each other out and not have others be too quick to 'defend' people or try to stifle criticism between posters. As I stated, I know that people do it because they have good intentions, and of course I appreciate people who come to the defence of my side , but really it ends up creating a problem that was not necessarily there in the first place.

That's just my two cents on the matter. You can comment if you like, or debate on the issue. Personally, I think that open, unpoliced, debate flows better and should just let be, unless people get really nasty, which is very rarely the case.

 

[invisible]

I sort of try not to get involved all that much in the debates because generally not a lot of listening seems to happen, it's all just like "You're out of touch with reality!" etc. It's nothing remotely resembling like say for example a university seminar where students are cooperating to construct a range of coherent understandings of the material, it's more of an "I'm right" type competition. Which is just unfortunate - I don't mean to say that people shouldn't engage in discussions, I'm just saying what it looks like to me. But like what I mean is, in a formal face-to-face situation like a classroom, things like name-calling or accusing proponents of arguments of having some intentional agenda or of being out of touch with reality would never be remotely acceptable - it would be expected to stick to the material. There wouldn't ever be any question about expectations of sticking to the material... it would be considered totally inappropriate to mention things extraneous from the material, such as personal judgments or feelings about other people. That's just how it works out there... obviously not on an internet forum though.

In this case, I got involved in the criticism because feedback of the nature I provided was explicitly requested. It became abundantly apparent that what I contributed was actually not what was wanted, and I even got a thumbs down over it from a separate member, which seemed to me to represent some sort of protest tantrum?? Honestly I couldn't care less anyway and I don't know what the point of me was bothering to type that stuff out. I definitely wouldn't do it again, my days of wasting effort on that sort of thing are over.

For what it's worth. As part of my research for my degree program, I did affinity diagramming on a large number of posts from an online discussion forum. The biggest category was a sort of "miscellaneous" category that I was not able to place as advancing the topic of discussion in a meaningful way. These responses included for example a lot of humorous type posts... and also a lot of posts of rhetorical criticism. Those posts, both the humorous posts and the rhetorical posts, were both entirely valid in their ways, and operated to lubricate the discussion very usefully... but they did not actually express legitimate contributions to the discussion material of a sort that I could use for my research.

 

[Xroads]

One thing I have observed from being mostly a lurker is that cliques exist even here. People are separated into different groups, much like with school-age children. When someone dislikes something, the entire clique follows suit. It's a bully effect whether people admit to it or not. Was it wrong of me to defend someone I felt was being attacked? Maybe, but it didn't feel wrong to me. And yes I'll admit that my response in that particular thread was because I felt that this member is often and usually singled out by a clique for stating an opinion not many agree with. If we're so free to state our opinions, why would we need to police the tone or language of our posts? Is this a free forum or is it not? This is a forum of feelers, I being one of them. So perhaps my fault is that I perceived and interpreted information differently, as we all are guilty of doing now and again. So if we're all trying to be decent towards each other, wouldn't being decent also be standing up for someone else? Though I usually try to stay out of things all together, I don't think it's right to just wander on by and let these things happen. There is always a place for proper etiquette, I can agree to that. But I can also agree and hope that some people have enough initiative to stand up for those being picked at. The only problem I see regarding posts being policed or becoming reactive to critiques is people jumping on bandwagons. Which is, ironically, a very popular thing to do on any forum.

 

[Scientia]

I have to admit that I stay out of most drama around here. I completely avoid certain forums and threads because the discussion, if it can be called that, tends to devolve. There are certain people who are just plain nasty and they have followers. I think they look elsewhere for people to attack when those areas are slow.

 

[Free]

I have to admit that I stay out of most drama around here. I completely avoid certain forums and threads because the discussion, if it can be called that, tends to devolve. There are certain people who are just plain nasty and they have followers. I think they look elsewhere for people to attack when those areas are slow.

I completely agree. I also tend to avoid discussion of certain topics just because I know what it will incite in certain individuals. It's this type of person that seeks validation for themselves at any cost and can really offer nothing more than a very pigeon-holed perspective with a refusal to actually want to discuss or debate anything. It's sad really, because I think it greatly limits our communication with each other as well as opportunities to have true discussions about an array of topics that we have only either barely touched upon, or have just given up on entirely.

The only problem I see regarding posts being policed or becoming reactive to critiques is people jumping on bandwagons. Which is, ironically, a very popular thing to do on any forum.

This.

 

[Xroads]

I have to admit that I stay out of most drama around here. I completely avoid certain forums and threads because the discussion, if it can be called that, tends to devolve. There are certain people who are just plain nasty and they have followers. I think they look elsewhere for people to attack when those areas are slow.

I completely agree. I also tend to avoid discussion of certain topics just because I know what it will incite in certain individuals. It's this type of person that seeks validation for themselves at any cost and can really offer nothing more than a very pigeon-holed perspective with a refusal to actual want to discuss or debate anything. It's sad really, because I think it greatly limits our communication with each other as well as opportunities to have true discussions about an array of topics that we have only either barely touched upon, or have just given up on entirely.

I entirely agree with both of your statements. It is ridiculously sad that topics of interest are avoided by two very intelligent forum members such as yourselves that would no doubt offer some great discussion and perspectives. And why? Because of the reaction of others. *shakes head* Is this not "policing" of a different sort?

 

[Free]

...Is this not "policing" of a different sort?

Good observation. I think it is indeed. Though, self-policing, to be precise.

 

[Xroads]

Good observation. I think it is indeed. Though, self-policing, to be precise.

You're too kind, for one. I can see a need to self-police to avoid a certain amount of predictable backlash. But avoiding topics because certain cliques will attempt to dominate them and possibly resort to personal attacks in defense of their own opinions without allowing different opinions? This smacks more of censorship to me. They may as well nail a sign to the thread "No girls allowed" or some other such nonsense.

 

[JJJA]

It strikes me as somewhat an Orwellian nature to certain members of this forum that throw critical thinking and rationalism out the window and replace it with an attempt to police my opinion based on the absurd claim that it may 'insult' certain people. I honestly do not give a toss if my opinion insults someone. The purpose of expressing my opinion is for the benefit of the person listening: it is their right not only to be heard, but to listen to others. If you make statements personal and reply in passive-aggressiveness, you are not only attempting to censor, you are denying yourself the opportunity to listen to an opinion that you may not like, but may give you a new perspective on the specified topic. There is indeed an issue with cliques on this forum; attempts to make personal attack whilst hypocritically whinging about a supposedly 'insulting' opinion and making brash claims about the person that posted the 'controversial' opinion strikes me as a very authoritarian and childish attitude toward general discussion. It is not my responsibility to tend to your wounds if my opinions hurt you; it is a problem that you must deal with yourself. It is extremely narcissistic to wish to censor an opinion which you may not agree with, because other people will agree and they will want to continue the discussion based on the opinion which you wish to censor so harshly. No matter how hard you cry or how loudly you scream, you are not going to succeed in the policing of my language or the censorship of my opinions. This is a free forum created in a free country and there is no rule governing what kind of language you use to express your opinion; bringing everything that offends you down to a personal level is automatically bringing the discussion down to its most narrow perspective and limits the extent to which people will wish to express variety of perspectives.

 

[invisible]

Yes it sometimes seems that I will drift away, because it is difficult if I say something that differs for its validity to be acknowledged. Although I attempt to clarify what I have said, it seems not to matter what I have said. So I don't know why to discuss it, because there seems to be no listening. Certainly my ideas about treating ideas as separately from the personal qualities of people who express them would not be treated dismissively in places where I work and study. But then those are probably the places where I should be focusing my thoughts. All of this talk, talk, talk doesn't seem to do much for me.

 

[Xroads]

What I don't understand is why attempt to give opinions to people we don't value.

Good point. Maybe in hopes that they can see an alternate perspective? Or simply to just throw it out there to the universe because we have a need to say it? I'm sure everyone's reason for doing so is unique to themselves.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

I missed the whole last segment of what is sometimes called "forum drama" - I get the impression that one of my posts might have been a bit of a flash-point... but that's just guessing??

Anyhow, as for critiquing and censoring issues....

I often have my own thoughts on various topics, which would be outside what is the automatic "correct opinion." By "correct opinion" I mean what is the commonly assumed right/kind/progressive/etc. attitude towards a particular event/decision/etc. I understand that having a sometimes non-consensus view needs to be explained/justified, so that people don't take automatic offense. I often give my reasoning for my non-consensus view(s) and if someone has a differing view, I am interested in the reasoning they have for it.

What happens regularly enough to get tiring is that some (not all, nor most) people bypass the reasoning for a view, and just take the automatic-offended position and throw out labels and other chastisements, without engaging the reasons for a particular view; and in a few cases one's reasons are engaged simply at the level of simple negation and ridicule. That's all fair enough if that's how someone sees things. However, if throwing labels around and negating move into people trying to shut one up - well that seems unreasonable to me.

Attempts to "shut someone up", or to impose "you can't say that", or "you shouldn't say that", or "that's not a valid thing to say", etc. can't help but to move off topic, because the point is no longer to discuss the topic, but rather to prevent discussion on the topic.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

Just had it cleared up for me. The reason for this thread is starting to make sense.

(I'll stop stirring now.... well, for now).

 

[Free]

Also certain people seem to like me, but I believe that person you like isn't me. It's what you believe I am.

Moreover I see a tendency for people to take the bits of me they agree with which makes me feel picked apart. I'm not comfortable with that. I'm not here for your convenience.

You're right. And I'm sorry that you feel picked apart as well. We are only known for a few facets of our personality that our online presence shares here, and only that. We have close and personal relationships with only a few here and in our everyday lives. I think we all can relate to this with some degree. And yes, I like the you that you share here, regardless if it's only a tiny aspect of who you really are. Bite me. <3

All of you suck.

Edit:
And by that I mean you're all wrong in different ways.

I do agree that we're all wrong in different ways, but I think we're also right if we stay true to ourselves and our thoughts. That may be a little self-righteous of me perhaps, but meh.

 

[Free]

Well yeah but people are all like "well it's them doing this and that"

This place is petty as fuck and we're all responsible. Nothing is going to change unless EVERYBODY takes their self down a peg.

Couldn't agree more.

Here. *hands everyone a lollipop*

They're good for helping everyone to suck it up.

Including me

 

[La Sagna]

One thing I have observed from being mostly a lurker is that cliques exist even here. People are separated into different groups, much like with school-age children. When someone dislikes something, the entire clique follows suit. It's a bully effect whether people admit to it or not. Was it wrong of me to defend someone I felt was being attacked? Maybe, but it didn't feel wrong to me. And yes I'll admit that my response in that particular thread was because I felt that this member is often and usually singled out by a clique for stating an opinion not many agree with. If we're so free to state our opinions, why would we need to police the tone or language of our posts? Is this a free forum or is it not? This is a forum of feelers, I being one of them. So perhaps my fault is that I perceived and interpreted information differently, as we all are guilty of doing now and again. So if we're all trying to be decent towards each other, wouldn't being decent also be standing up for someone else? Though I usually try to stay out of things all together, I don't think it's right to just wander on by and let these things happen. There is always a place for proper etiquette, I can agree to that. But I can also agree and hope that some people have enough initiative to stand up for those being picked at. The only problem I see regarding posts being policed or becoming reactive to critiques is people jumping on bandwagons. Which is, ironically, a very popular thing to do on any forum.

Perhaps having several posters expressing a differing opinion from one specific poster is not so much a clique or bullying, but more of a consensus on a position that is opposite of that poster. Why wouldn't people be allowed to offer a differing opinion to any post on here? If the specific poster has unpopular opinions he shouldn't be silenced but neither should the people who have a different opinion, no matter how many there are. It's not about having a 'balanced debate', it's about having an open forum where everyone can state their opinion and if several people have a similar opinion that is different to one specific poster than so be it. Everyone's opinion should be allowed to be expressed and if one opinion is more popular then I don't think it's fair to make it out as bullying. I for one don't like being told that I shouldn't express my opinion, either because it is not popular or because it's too popular.

 

[La Sagna]

I completely agree. I also tend to avoid discussion of certain topics just because I know what it will incite in certain individuals. It's this type of person that seeks validation for themselves at any cost and can really offer nothing more than a very pigeon-holed perspective with a refusal to actually want to discuss or debate anything. It's sad really, because I think it greatly limits our communication with each other as well as opportunities to have true discussions about an array of topics that we have only either barely touched upon, or have just given up on entirely.

That is my biggest pet peeve on this forum: when people make statements and then are unwilling to back it up or to discuss it in a way that actually considers other perspectives. There are a few people on here who's opinions differ greatly from mine but who are capable of discussing ideas and debating their position in a logical manner, and even if I still disagree with them I appreciate that they are able to express their opinion in a reasonable manner. Others just make big statements and can't even discuss their opinions in a logical manner but instead start making defensive and derogatory statements. That's just annoying because it shows a lack of respect for intellectual curiosity and open discussions.

 

[La Sagna]

It strikes me as somewhat an Orwellian nature to certain members of this forum that throw critical thinking and rationalism out the window and replace it with an attempt to police my opinion based on the absurd claim that it may 'insult' certain people. I honestly do not give a toss if my opinion insults someone. The purpose of expressing my opinion is for the benefit of the person listening: it is their right not only to be heard, but to listen to others. If you make statements personal and reply in passive-aggressiveness, you are not only attempting to censor, you are denying yourself the opportunity to listen to an opinion that you may not like, but may give you a new perspective on the specified topic. There is indeed an issue with cliques on this forum; attempts to make personal attack whilst hypocritically whinging about a supposedly 'insulting' opinion and making brash claims about the person that posted the 'controversial' opinion strikes me as a very authoritarian and childish attitude toward general discussion. It is not my responsibility to tend to your wounds if my opinions hurt you; it is a problem that you must deal with yourself. It is extremely narcissistic to wish to censor an opinion which you may not agree with, because other people will agree and they will want to continue the discussion based on the opinion which you wish to censor so harshly. No matter how hard you cry or how loudly you scream, you are not going to succeed in the policing of my language or the censorship of my opinions. This is a free forum created in a free country and there is no rule governing what kind of language you use to express your opinion; bringing everything that offends you down to a personal level is automatically bringing the discussion down to its most narrow perspective and limits the extent to which people will wish to express variety of perspectives.

For argument's sake: what would be the difference between you expressing your opinions in whichever way you want and not feeling the need to pussyfoot to make sure that others are not insulted by your opinions, and the opposing opinions of other people who also don't feel the need to pussyfoot around and worry about whether your feelings are hurt?

I would agree that you are right that you should offer your opinion without worrying how others 'feel' about them, but I would argue that the same right should be extended to those who disagree with you and want to point out why they disagree with you and not worry about how you 'feel' about their opinion.

You don't care if others are insulted by your language, so why should others care if you are insulted by their language? I think that's only fair.

 

[La Sagna]

Attempts to "shut someone up", or to impose "you can't say that", or "you shouldn't say that", or "that's not a valid thing to say", etc. can't help but to move off topic, because the point is no longer to discuss the topic, but rather to prevent discussion on the topic.

That's exactly what I'm trying to say.

 

[JJJA]

For argument's sake: what would be the difference between you expressing your opinions in whichever way you want and not feeling the need to pussyfoot to make sure that others are not insulted by your opinions, and the opposing opinions of other people who also don't feel the need to pussyfoot around and worry about whether your feelings are hurt?

I would agree that you are right that you should offer your opinion without worrying how others 'feel' about them, but I would argue that the same right should be extended to those who disagree with you and want to point out why they disagree with you and not worry about how you 'feel' about their opinion.

You don't care if others are insulted by your language, so why should others care if you are insulted by their language? I think that's only fair.

I am not insulted by anyone's language. I am, however, put off by people that wish to attack my language and imply that I shouldn't be using such language. That's censorship.