What's wrong with a "poisonous" debate climate?

thejester · **Post subject:** **Posted:** 2007-10-02 01:21am

General Zod wrote:

thejester wrote:

While I strongly agree that being blunt is a hell of a lot better than the false civility practiced on most forums, the only thing wrong with a 'poisonous' debate atmosphere would be that people hesitate to post a dissenting opinion for fear they're going to be drowned in invective for doing so - which eventually leads to me-tooing and the death of any real debate.

If they're so afraid of getting flamed that they won't post their opinion, then perhaps their opinion simply wasn't well thought out enough and they can't defend it properly?

Yeah, sure - but as Pick pointed out, that kills of any real exploration of a topic. And maybe someone can't defend their opinions that well - but I'd rather see them given the opportunity then simply 'You stupid cocksucking motherfucking donkeyraping cunt! Conceed!' etc.

Darth Wong · **Post subject:** **Posted:** 2007-10-02 01:24am

If only there were a place where you could go to enjoy flame-free discussions. Oh wait, there are thousands of fucking places like that.

One thing I'm beginning to realize about Miss Manners advocates is that they think diversity of cultures is a bad thing. They want every forum on the Internet to follow the same rules: their rules.

General Zod · **Post subject:** **Posted:** 2007-10-02 01:25am

thejester wrote:

Yeah, sure - but as Pick pointed out, that kills of any real exploration of a topic. And maybe someone can't defend their opinions that well - but I'd rather see them given the opportunity then simply 'You stupid cocksucking motherfucking donkeyraping cunt! Conceed!' etc.

Most people are given the opportunity. The moment they prove themselves to be lying cocksuckers, posting flame-bait or otherwise being dishonest cunt rags then there's no reason to continue to play nice.

Lord Revan · **Post subject:** **Posted:** 2007-10-02 01:25am

I wouldn't called the debating here poisonous, harsh yes (sometimes maybe even a bit too harsh).

what I'd call poisonous debating climate would where you'd have to constanly look more on how you say things then what's actually said.

sometimes I've liked here is that I don't have put a fasade of fake politeness so I wouldn't "offend" anyone.

ray245 · **Joined:** 2005-06-10 11:30pm **Posts:** 4155

Darth Wong wrote:

If only there were a place where you could go to enjoy flame-free discussions. Oh wait, there are thousands of fucking places like that.

One thing I'm beginning to realize about Miss Manners advocates is that they think diversity of cultures is a bad thing. They want every forum on the Internet to follow the same rules: their rules.

Perception Mike. Just because most people here dislike a 'polite' debate does not mean everyone else dislike it.

The problem I find is...say in the other thread I have created in SLAM? You want to know why I have a hard time trying accept some well constructed answers?

I will gladly accept a well constructed answer and say I'm wrong. What I dislike is the last few phrase that will make the mind...a little bit to emotional and illogical. The name yelling and labelling will make one feel one aggressive towards the other person and more defensive of your view.

Then again, this is just my personal view.

When people put a more 'civil' post, it will be easier for people to accept it. But, it is hard to find a well constructed 'civil' post.

Darth Wong · **Post subject:** **Posted:** 2007-10-02 01:53am

ray245 wrote:

Perception Mike. Just because most people here dislike a 'polite' debate does not mean everyone else dislike it.

So? If you don't like it, get the fuck out. As I said, there are plenty of other forums where you can get your fill of flame-free discussion. I created this place in part because I'm sick of those places. If you prefer them, either GO THERE or stay here and quit your fucking whining.

thejester · **Post subject:** **Posted:** 2007-10-02 01:58am

Darth Wong wrote:

If only there were a place where you could go to enjoy flame-free discussions. Oh wait, there are thousands of fucking places like that.

One thing I'm beginning to realize about Miss Manners advocates is that they think diversity of cultures is a bad thing. They want every forum on the Internet to follow the same rules: their rules.

thejester wrote:

While I strongly agree that being blunt is a hell of a lot better than the false civility practiced on most forums, the only thing wrong with a 'poisonous' debate atmosphere would be that people hesitate to post a dissenting opinion for fear they're going to be drowned in invective for doing so - which eventually leads to me-tooing and the death of any real debate.

I don't object to flaming, and find false civility to be the absolute pits - I'd love to unload on this guy because he's full of shit, but I can't because I'll get banned. And here, he'd cop it and fair enough - over 9 pages he showed he's a lying, ignorant fool. But the only thing wrong I can see with a 'poisonous' debate culture is that that kind of treatment would get handed out straight away, and simply scares away any kind of dissenting opinion until you end up with not much debate at all.

Darth Wong · **Post subject:** **Posted:** 2007-10-02 02:01am

thejester wrote:

But the only thing wrong I can see with a 'poisonous' debate culture is that that kind of treatment would get handed out straight away, and simply scares away any kind of dissenting opinion until you end up with not much debate at all.

It actually does bother me when people go after someone full-bore without really seeing enough of him for an assessment, but I still consider that much less of an evil than "Miss Manners" rules. The only solution would be to pass a rule against flaming someone until you're sure he deserves flaming, but how the fuck would you word such a rule? How would you assess it? That seems pretty much impossible.

thejester · **Post subject:** **Posted:** 2007-10-02 02:05am

*shrug* I'm not sure you'd have to make it a rule, more a culture thing. Mods could simply step in and say 'Easy tiger', and that would be that.

And in the end, SDN is SDN and there are other places peeps can go (hell, I do) if they don't like it.

Connor MacLeod · **Joined:** 2002-08-01 05:03pm **Posts:** 10172

If the harshness were really crippling the board, I doubt we'd still have any long-time debators still (we still have a fairly large number of peopel here that have been here since the inception of the board.) and we wouldn't have new people cropping up (IE we'd look like starfleet Jedi.)

The fact is, as I said, the place is darwinian. You either learn to adapt somehow to how the board is or you don't last long. I'd have to say someone is really really stupid if they think that anything they say might not come under attack from someone,

Edit: And calling Mike an Asshole or calling the forum inherently "poisonous" is not even remotely accurate. Again, the "we believe in Stofsk" bit should be a prime indicator of that. But things like politeness, sympathy, ,or respect are not automatic here. You have to "prove" yourself and keep "proving" that you are deserving of it. And there are very few "protections". That's simply the way the forum is. You can't have a place of such diverse opinions and freedom to speak how you wish and have it be inhnerently "polite" or "nice" in the way some forums are.

Darth Wong · **Post subject:** **Posted:** 2007-10-02 02:15am

The fact is that if (for some damned reason) we wanted an influx of raging debate, that would be easy to do: simply suspend our strict sign-up policies. One of the reasons we put those policies in place was because we got tired of dealing with idiots and trolls (you know, the kind of people that SB seems to keep around for reasons no one can explain). It was a deliberate decision to create an environment where people might think twice before flapping their gums; it seems that some people here are under the impression that this was an unfortunate accident and we would not want it if we knew about it.

Connor MacLeod · **Joined:** 2002-08-01 05:03pm **Posts:** 10172

Darth Wong wrote:

It was a deliberate decision to create an environment where people might think twice before flapping their gums; it seems that some people here are under the impression that this was an unfortunate accident and we would not want it if we knew about it.

That;'s precisely why I called SD.net "Darwinian", in fact. To use myself as an example, I've learned that if you don't want to risk someone calling you out or criticizing you for a statement or opinion you make, you shouldn't express it here. Everyone has a freedom to express their opinions however they wish, (even unpopular ones) but other people are completely free to express their own opinions however they want.

Every time I see a complaint about how the board operates, I cannot undertsand why people do not grasp this fact. Some people seem determined to have their opinions and yet get frustrated when it turns ugly. Though some (like Shep) seem to revel in it.

Darth Wong · **Post subject:** **Posted:** 2007-10-02 02:50am

I think someone earlier hit the nail on the head. Some people put too much weight on their Internet egos, so they take an online insult exactly the same way they'd take a real-life insult. They often even reveal this bizarre equivalence, asking questions like "do you talk to people in real-life like that". As if anyone would actually talk to friends or coworkers the same way he talks to some stranger who's arguing politics or religion with him on a webboard. Can you imagine someone yelling "asshole" at a driver on the road and then having somebody in the backseat pipe up "Do you talk to your wife that way?" It's a stupid question.

I don't really know what these people expect to get from Internet forums like this. I use this place as a diversion from normal life; what do they see it as?

fgalkin · **Post subject:** **Posted:** 2007-10-02 02:57am

Darth Wong wrote:

I think someone earlier hit the nail on the head. Some people put too much weight on their Internet egos, so they take an online insult exactly the same way they'd take a real-life insult. They often even reveal this bizarre equivalence, asking questions like "do you talk to people in real-life like that". As if anyone would actually talk to friends or coworkers the same way he talks to some stranger who's arguing politics or religion with him on a webboard. Can you imagine someone yelling "asshole" at a driver on the road and then having somebody in the backseat pipe up "Do you talk to your wife that way?" It's a stupid question.

I don't really know what these people expect to get from Internet forums like this. I use this place as a diversion from normal life; what do they see it as?

The problem is, this creates an atmosphere where no one ever backs down, without being hammered into submission. Every statement can be challenged, and in such case, one must be prepared to defend it at all costs. It's like one of those deer dominance rituals, you butt heads until one side submits. Personally, I think it's because most of the population here are men, so the fight for the status of alpha male, and the need to maintain one's standing in the pack is a by-product of that.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Darth Wong · **Post subject:** **Posted:** 2007-10-02 03:23am

Yes, but even if you refuse to back down and you're wrong, you're still better for the experience because you know you made a mistake, even if you tried to pretend otherwise. If you find yourself arguing the same thing with other people, your arguments will be better prepared, your position better-defined, etc.

In a more polite debate, people don't even bother defending every point. Their arguments don't get any better (and you see this on some of the forums where I've gone on safari before; the exact same arguments get recycled over and over and over, because they were refuted before but painlessly so, and the person is not at all embarrassed to just trot them out again, having learned nothing).

Edi · **Post subject:** **Posted:** 2007-10-02 03:31am

One of the things I've noticed here that many of the debates focis on factual, independently verifiable things and in those debates, there's no need whatsoever to take prisoners. If some jackass keeps wailing like a broken record when he is demonstrated to be factually wrong, nothing wrong with bringing out the big guns and kicking him when he's down. He asked for it.

Discussions of other, more subjective things see much less of this behavior, even though the tone is far more blunt than in other places.

As far as broken record dbetaing, it's one of the troll tactics I most hate and why I detest Miss Manners rules. Some of my old haunts have become worse wrt level of discussion than what they were precisely because there is greater enforcement of Miss Manners bullshit and less crackdown on broken record debating than there used to be.

Connor MacLeod · **Joined:** 2002-08-01 05:03pm **Posts:** 10172

fgalkin wrote:

The problem is, this creates an atmosphere where no one ever backs down, without being hammered into submission.

Er, it does? If I can be shown I'm wrong (and I have), I have no problem conceding a point. If someone has trouble backing down, that smacks of egotism being involved, which is a bad thing.

Quote:

Every statement can be challenged, and in such case, one must be prepared to defend it at all costs.

That's a bad thing? I'm alot more cautious about what I say knowing that I COULD be challenged on it by anyone. It forces me to evaluate everything I say before I say it.

Quote:

It's like one of those deer dominance rituals, you butt heads until one side submits. Personally, I think it's because most of the population here are men, so the fight for the status of alpha male, and the need to maintain one's standing in the pack is a by-product of that.

Again, this seems to smack of egotism being involved. It may be that there are a number of people here who are that way ( I won't venture to say how much) but I would kind of object to thinking everyone is. I know Mike certianly isn't. Despite people having a problem with how he "trashes" others, it's rarely personal. I've seen him trash close acquaintances (like Wayne or Brian) over issues here and elsewhere, yet they don't suddenly stop being acquaintances of his.

Connor MacLeod · **Joined:** 2002-08-01 05:03pm **Posts:** 10172

Edi wrote:

One of the things I've noticed here that many of the debates focis on factual, independently verifiable things and in those debates, there's no need whatsoever to take prisoners. If some jackass keeps wailing like a broken record when he is demonstrated to be factually wrong, nothing wrong with bringing out the big guns and kicking him when he's down. He asked for it.

In most cases, like the sci fi forums, or SLAM, I think you have a point. In terms of N&P (or religion) I think it tends to get a bit murkier (I'm not saying you CAN'T have cases where news or political discussions can't be proven, though. I'm just saying its alot less clear cut than, say, a discussion over chemistry or physics.)

It also probably doesn't help that politics and religion will be those areas that people will have beliefs or values most deeply held, and thus react most negatively to when they are challenged or even ridicules. But again, that's how this forum is, ,and people need to realize that.

I'm not going to say all political or religious discussions are subjective or that the evidence is ambiguous: I rarely participate in them so I can't make that clal for sure. I've just noticed that it tends to be the source of most of the conflict on this board, ,especially between "long time" members.

[R_H] · **Post subject:** **Posted:** 2007-10-02 03:39am

From what I've seen, heard and experienced the environment here isn't poisonous but for me it can be and is intimidating. I was lurking here for a year or two before signing up here, so I had a pretty good idea what to expect. That being said, knowing what to expect isn't enough, as seen in the Halo 3 Opinions thread. I didn't extensively think out what I said, or how I said it and I got called on it. That being said, I'm glad it happened already, better now than a few months down the line.

Zablorg · **Joined:** 2007-09-27 05:16am **Posts:** 1637

I've come to the conclusion that if you know you're going to be flamed for putting forward a certain point, it's probably wrong anyway.

The trick is probably trying to figure out why it's wrong before putting down for display.

Dooey Jo · **Post subject:** **Posted:** 2007-10-02 06:48am

Darth Wong wrote:

I often hear people describe the debating climate here as "poisonous", because people jump all over you the minute you make a mistake. It is often assumed that this is a bad, undesirable, nasty, and possibly even shameful thing.

But is it? One of the ways that I know an argument is strong is if it's been tested with fire. If people are all playing "kid gloves" and "let's all get along", then one's arguments will not be put to the test. Therefore, when one goes out into the rest of the world and tries to use these arguments, there is a high probability that someone's going to come along and completely blind-side you with an attack that you never saw coming, because you're a hot-house flower. I want people to attack my arguments in a hostile fashion. Even if I don't change their minds or they don't change mine, I am strengthened by it.

I don't think it's necessarily bad that people jump all over you when you make a mistake. What's bad is when people jump over you when you didn't make a mistake; they thought you did and don't want to admit that they were in fact mistaken. Wasn't there a case where a Trek author came here, asked some questions and the peanut gallery immediately flamed him to a crisp, thinking that he was in some way a vs-debater, and scared him away. Now we have rules against vulturing like that, but similar things still happen occasionally with newbies. If you make a few stupid, or even perceived stupid posts during your first time here it's all too easy to be informally labelled a dumbass (even though the Senate, if bothered, will usually rule that no formal action is warranted) and people will jump at you just because of that. Well that's actually bullying, it's not productive for anyone (except perhaps for the big bad non-mods that like to show what bad-assed flamers they are, or whatever) and I don't like it at all.

Quote:

Science is actually a lot like that: if you propose a new theory, the first thing everyone does is try to prove that you're wrong. The same thing goes for engineering, which also has a fairly negative atmosphere. Sure, in a professional environment people tend to avoid things like foul language and outright insults, but the same basic attitude is there: the minute you open your mouth, you know you will have to defend yourself against hostile criticism. It's not genial, warm or comforting.

No, but at least the criticism will almost always be, well, professional. You will be criticised for what you say, not what they think you say, or who they think you are.

Quote:

So what's so bad about a "poisonous" debate atmosphere?

There's nothing particularly wrong with the atmosphere you describe. It's just that it isn't always like that here. I know that you personally are very good at just looking at what someone says, but some others aren't, and prefer to pull out the guns if they somehow get the idea that he's stupid. Do note that I'm not in any way saying that it's always like this (it's probably not even common), or that I prefer some net-nanny site with rules against flaming. It's not the flames that are the problem, it's the trigger-happy nature of some people, and that they rather keep flaming than changing their first opinion about someone, or what someone said.

And yes, if people can't take things like that without getting upset, maybe they have too thin skin and their opinions aren't worth anything, but then again, what is the fucking point of flaming them like that? Sometimes it almost feels like it's one of those fucked-up initiation rites they have in some schools...

Edi · **Post subject:** **Posted:** 2007-10-02 07:33am

Connor MacLeod wrote:

Edi wrote:

One of the things I've noticed here that many of the debates focis on factual, independently verifiable things and in those debates, there's no need whatsoever to take prisoners. If some jackass keeps wailing like a broken record when he is demonstrated to be factually wrong, nothing wrong with bringing out the big guns and kicking him when he's down. He asked for it.

In most cases, like the sci fi forums, or SLAM, I think you have a point. In terms of N&P (or religion) I think it tends to get a bit murkier (I'm not saying you CAN'T have cases where news or political discussions can't be proven, though. I'm just saying its alot less clear cut than, say, a discussion over chemistry or physics.)

It also probably doesn't help that politics and religion will be those areas that people will have beliefs or values most deeply held, and thus react most negatively to when they are challenged or even ridicules. But again, that's how this forum is, ,and people need to realize that.

I'm not going to say all political or religious discussions are subjective or that the evidence is ambiguous: I rarely participate in them so I can't make that clal for sure. I've just noticed that it tends to be the source of most of the conflict on this board, ,especially between "long time" members.

You are quite correct in that things are not quite as cut and dried in N&P and religious debates as they are in the ones where you can use the numbers to build a bludgeon and use it to beat the opposition to a pulp. You are also correct that often those subjects do involve the deeply held values and beliefs. However, most of the N&P debates have followed the same patterns as the sci-fi debates (which I do not read so much). Quite often those discussions are sparked by some news article which makes a false claim (those have been plentiful due to the Iraq war) and the numbers and independently verifiable stuff has been easy to find. The topics where such verifiable things have not been found tend to taper off quickly. It helps that we do not have the kind of lunatic left-wingers or rabidly-foaming-at-the-mouth right-wingers here that you tend to find on most boards. When you look at the political side of SDnet, most people are closer to the center and have fairly moderate views on most things. There are the usual suspects on some issues, but one generally doesn't need to wade through quite as much bullshit as in many other places.

Whether religions, news and politics or science fiction, the types of debaters also vary little and the same with the tactics used. We've also seen some rather major changes in viewpoint and sides during the history of the subforum. I don't see the different types of debates as too fundamentally different.

As far as vendettas and feuds among long time board members, you would get them over something sooner or later. Most such vendettas here are based on politics, but not all.

Counciler · **Post subject:** **Posted:** 2007-10-02 07:37am

I like this place the way it is. It is rough here, and one of the few places left on the internet that I know of where people can really get torn a new one for being a dumbass. If I am looking for my "fill of sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid people", this certainly is the first place on my list. If I want to see a point thoroughly debated to the point where it hurts to sit for a week, I come here.

If ever there was a place where argumentative dumbshits are weeded out and strong-skinned debaters flourish, this is that place. And yes, it is thanks to the atmosphere here.

(As a side note, no, I do not consider myself a strong debater. In fact, I am a poor debater because there are few to no subjects that I am schooled enough in to a level where I can debate it here.)

Norseman · **Joined:** 2004-07-02 10:20am **Posts:** 1541

fgalkin wrote:

The problem is, this creates an atmosphere where no one ever backs down, without being hammered into submission. Every statement can be challenged, and in such case, one must be prepared to defend it at all costs. It's like one of those deer dominance rituals, you butt heads until one side submits. Personally, I think it's because most of the population here are men, so the fight for the status of alpha male, and the need to maintain one's standing in the pack is a by-product of that.

There is that, there is definately that. For me there's also the problem that I hate leaving if I know I'm right, and that I have the facts to back me up. Normally I know better before going in, I know that if I argue this subject I'll have to fight, but... I just can't stand still if a guy is arguing what I know to be BS.

It's just incredibly tedious to keep on swinging that hammer time, and time again, until the other side stops arguing, or backs down. The funny thing is that often the more convinced they are that they are right, that they have all the facts, the more pig ignorant they are.

Some people just can't accept defeat. First they'll try to browbeat you, then they'll try appeals to authority, appeal to belief, etc. When you finally, finally corner them, tear their pitiful arguments to pieces, and show them that they're basically ignoramuses what do they do?

Well that's where the "poisonous atmosphere," the ad hominems, and the wholesale manufacture of arguments come up. Next thing you know someone tells you that they're talking about you, and the discussion, on a different website. The funny thing is that they often report a conversation 180 degrees removed from reality!

I sometimes wonder why they think they can get away with such obvious lies, since the debate is available to the public. Then again most people rarely bother to do research, and just accept what a respected authority tells them.

salm · **Post subject:** **Posted:** 2007-10-02 08:09am

What i find bothering is when debates end in flame fests over misunderstandings. Sometimes it will happen that someone uses a word that has either more than one definition or uses a word wrongly. Both debaters then get in a huge flame fest over the definition of the word when they could just say: Ok, this was a misunderstanding, we were talking about different things, lets define this word for the time of this debate and move on with carrying out the actual debate. Instead a sub-debate over the definition of a word starts and the main debate moves into the background.

Flaming people because of stupid arguments on the other hand is a good thing.

What's wrong with a "poisonous" debate climate?

Who is online